“New California” moves to split off from Golden State

Legal Insurrection

High taxes, poor services, and misplaced priorities inspire the attempt to unite the rural areas into new state.

"Shortly after the New Year opened, I noted that President Donald Trump had begun mounting a #CounterResistance to California’s political war against his administration.

"I recommended 5 strategies for continuing the battle, including assistance in helping the “State of Jefferson” break free to dilute the Golden State’s electoral power.

"It appears that someone may have followed-up with this suggestion, as a group of unhappy state residents has launched a quite public declaration to create “New California“.

With the reading of their own version of a Declaration of Independence, founders of the state of New California took the first steps to what they hope will eventually lead to statehood. CBS Sacramento reports they don’t want to leave the United States, just California.

“Well, it’s been ungovernable for a long time. High taxes, education, you name it, and we’re rated around 48th or 50th from a business climate and standpoint in California,” said founder Robert Paul Preston.

The state of New California would incorporate most of the state’s rural counties, leaving the urban coastal counties to the current state of California.

"This movement is different than the “State of Jefferson” because all of the non-coastal-elite portions of California would become part of the new state (not just the northern section). That works out well for me, as San Diego County would be included with the break-away sections.

"The plan to separate the rural areas from the coastal regions also makes abundant sense. The fiscal and cultural priority differences are vast, as the one part of the state has held on to its freedom-embracing Western heritage while the other portion is trying to channel New York City." . . . 

One year in: How Obama gave us Trump

Timothy P. Carney

"There are plenty of people to blame for the rise of President Trump. But because he was the most powerful person in the world, Barack Obama deserves special mention. "

. . . "How did Obama give us Trump? Many ways. But let’s focus on three.

"First off, Obama gave the country Trump by first giving the country the least likable Democratic nominee in modern history. Picking her as secretary of state put her in line as his successor. His refusal to pre-endorse Vice President Joe Biden in 2016 basically cleared old Uncle Joe out of the field. Also, Obama left behind a party so impoverished and indebted that party powerbrokers had no choice but to tilt the nominating process toward the corporatist fundraising behemoth that is Hillary. The fact that her campaign was sustaining the party's finances speaks to that.

"Biden would have won, and others like Martin O’Malley or Bernie Sanders might have done better than Hillary. But Obama helped give us Hillary, and thus Trump.

"Secondly, Obama helped Trump win during the campaign by lumping Trump in with all other Republicans. The intention was to make all Republicans seem icky and abnormal; the unintended consequence was to make Trump seem much more normal. In October 2016, when Clinton started posting double-digit leads in Michigan and finally pulled ahead in Ohio, Obama shifted from his tack of saying Trump “sure wasn't conservative,” to the tack of lumping Trump in with all Republicans. In Ohio in mid-October, Obama tried to lump Trump with Rob Portman, a staid and sensible establishment Republican senator. The aftermath: Portman maintained his huge leads, and Trump pulled ahead in Ohio, which he won in a blowout.

"Third, and most importantly, Obama’s administration helped Trump beat Hillary, because it scared conservatives into voting for Trump." . . .

Cory Booker completely loses it at DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen

M. Catharine Evans  "A crazed, bug-eyed Cory Booker, junior senator from New Jersey, blasted Department of Homeland Security secretary Kristjen Nielsen during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday on immigration. 

"Booker became so unhinged in his staged outrage that he repeatedly threatened Nielsen, with clenched fists pointed in her direction.

"Equal to Booker's overt violation of Nielsen's right to be treated without hostility and intimidation was the deranged content of his tirade.

"Nielsen had stated earlier she did not hear the president say the "s-hole" word at last week's White House meeting on DACA. " . . .

"Booker went ballistic and accused Nielsen of covering up for the real target of his outburst: President Trump."

. . . 

"The senator then proclaimed that "tens of millions" of Americans are "hurting" over the word.  Booker said he himself experienced "tears of rage" when Durbin called him to report the president's alleged vulgarity.

"Booker's feigned emotional breakdown over a word he has heard many times as mayor of Newark was laughable.

"Booker then rolled out the "white supremacy" charge, with examples of white criminals and their crimes, as if Nielsen, by the fact of her skin color, had committed them.

"The senator's fake outrage and predictable race-baiting do not lessen the seriousness of threatening and harassing a female Cabinet member."

"Booker's lunatic bellowing requires a mental health examination."

Speaking of fake news

Lucianne

UK Daily Mail

• President Trump announced his delayed so-called 'Fake News Awards' would be held January 17
• Trump noted that the awards would be doled out to Mainstream Media 'losers' responsible for 'the most corrupt & biased' coverage 
• 'The interest in, and importance of, these awards is far greater than anyone could have anticipated!' Trump wrote
• While the president may participate, staff may be prohibited say ethics experts
• Bar on using taxpayer-funded time to benefit certain businesses 
• Awards for 'dishonesty and bad reporting 
• There must be 'official' reasons for staff to criticize a company
• Visual aids could be problematic 
• Trump has recently gone after CNN, the Wall Street Journal, NBC and other media 

 Read More.

Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy

Anomalous media

Another Look At The Democrat Sob-Phrase “You Didn’t Build That”
. . . "What is the logic behind these uneducated and impoverished immigrants insisting on coming here and benefiting from our nation’s wealth if they did nothing to help build our nation and improve it? The only logic is that liberal Democrats want more Democrat-voting, dependent, poor people here to keep them in office. But Obama and Elizabeth themselves stated it best: “they didn’t build that”, so they should not enter.

"Similarly, socialists, like today’s Democrat politicians, take advantage of America’s wealth and political stability, which is assured by our constitution, even though they did nothing to build our great nation, and do very little to protect and preserve our constitution once they are in office. Per the Democrats’ own argument, they didn’t build the constitution and do precious little to protect it, so why should they be allowed to serve in responsible governmental positions when all they do is trash the constitution when they do take office?"

Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy  "Who deserves credit for the booming economy? This is not a petty argument. How voters answer the question could well determine whether Democrats retake the House of Representatives come November." . . .

. . . "Happily for President Trump, the pros agree with him. A recent survey of economists suggest it is President Trump, and not Obama, who should be taking a bow.

"The Wall Street Journal asked 68 business, financial and academic economists who was responsible for the strengthening of the economy, and most “suggested Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least some credit” for the upturn. 

"A majority said the president had been “somewhat” or “strongly” positive for job creation, gross domestic product growth and the rising stock market." . . .

How to beat the cis-culture by making up prog-words

The People's Blog

"Technological innovations have brought us many new words. We need new words not only to identify new things, but also to rename some of the old things in order to avoid confusion. For example, people have been playing the guitar for centuries without calling it "acoustic" until the electric guitar entered the stage; that's when the old guitar was retroactively renamed into acoustic. Traditional clocks with a face and rotating hands were retroactively renamed "analog" to distinguish them from "digital," along with displays, signals, recordings, and so on. The new words for such retro-naming are called retronyms.

"Innovations in social engineering affect our language in much the same way. 

"When Karl Marx laid out his blueprint for communism and socialist ideas began to engulf Europe, the normal way of doing business was retroactively renamed "capitalism." Rational behavior became "oppressive" and people who preferred normalcy to "isms" became apologists for a reactionary socio-economic ideology. The advent of communist propaganda caused any non-communist discourse (e.g., Adam Smith) to be retroactively known as "capitalist propaganda."

"In the U.S., the advent of progressivism in the 1930s caused a retroactive renaming of mainstream believers in the American Revolution into "conservatives." When the progressives decided to call themselves "liberals," the real liberals renamed themselves "classical liberals." 

"The general rule is that when new things become mainstream, the existing things have to give way and move to the margins, sometimes under new names. This is a natural order of things. But here's the kicker: what if this change can be induced artificially, with a trick of the eye, by pretending there is a vibrant new mainstream when there really isn't? Can we retro-name and marginalize the undesirable people and things ahead of time, pending a viable alternative? Can we popularize a futuristic media illusion that there is a better progressive reality, and retro-name the existing reality into something old-fashioned and not worth saving? Yes we can! " . . .

The list of Democratic lawmakers boycotting the upcoming State of the Union is growing

Circa

"Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal of Washington has added her name to the growing list of Democratic lawmakers boycotting President Trump's State of the Union address on Jan. 30.

" 'Instead, we'll focus on the State of OUR Union, our opposition to his agenda, and we will lift up a progressive and inclusive vision of our country," U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal said on Twitter.

"She accused the president of "fueling the flames of divisiveness" and said it was "absolutely unacceptable to see the racism and hatred coming out of the White House." . . .

White Supremacist, KKK Member Running for Office as Democrat

But Abarr going Democrat is yet another opportunity to remind us of the long and intimate history between the Ku Klux Klan and the Democratic Party, which the Dems keep trying to deny.

"In fairness, Abarr did run as a Republican, famously chalking up his decision to run as an attempt to "save the white race" following the election of Barack Obama. But he lost.

So now he's back as a Democrat, which bothers Democrats -- but it shouldn't. After all, the ties between Democrats and the Klan are well-known historical fact. For example, the last Klan member elected to Congress was Sen. Robert Byrd, a Democrat with close ties to the Clintons.

"Abarr has apparently learned that an outright racist message won't work anymore, so he has apologized "for promoting bigotry and hate against minorities." He also claimed that his attempt to recruit minorities into the Klan was a stunt he pulled in conjunction with a company that owns several newspapers in the state. Maybe, maybe not."

Before We Go To War With North Korea, The President Owes Americans A Public Debate

The Federalist

While Article II of the Constitution makes the president the commander-in-chief, and later laws give him the authority to repel sudden attacks, it does not afford him the power to declare war.

"The Trump administration’s rhetoric about North Korea is sounding “eerily and increasingly” like the rhetoric that the George W. Bush administration used in the run-up to the Iraq war.

"The U.S. Army has begun training thousands of soldiers in how to engage in tunnel warfare, in preparation for the honeycomb of tunnels and bunkers that dot the North Korean countryside. In October, the Pentagon sent a letter to Congress outlining what would be at stake for U.S. forces in the event of a ground invasion on the Korean peninsula.

"The North Korean question is very much on the minds of the Trump administration. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are reportedly “particularly focused” on the North Korean threat, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has highlighted the need to “ensure that we have military options that our president can employ if needed.” Trump’s national security advisor, H.R. McMaster, went one step further, telling the nation that “preventative war” against North Korea may indeed be in the offing.

"That a war with North Korea would be horrific is without question. War is hell, as William Tecumseh Sherman was fond of saying, and modern warfare is certainly no exception, particularly given the threat of a nuclear attack. It is partially for this reason that America’s founders made extra attempts to ensure the president could not wage war on his own, without the consent of Congress." . . .

Veteran Asks if He Can Take Maxine Waters's Empty Seat at the State of the Union

"Fox & Friends" noticed the veteran's tweet and featured it on their program Tuesday morning. He confirmed he'd be making an appearance on the show Wednesday.

Cortney O'Brien

"Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is one of four Democrats in Congress to announce she'd be boycotting President Trump's first State of the Union address. 

"Why? Because Trump is "the most despicable human being that could possibly ever walk the earth," she told MSNBC last week. If Martin Luther King, Jr. was still alive, he'd be marching against the current president, Waters has also declared.

"Well, if she doesn't want a seat in the room during Trump's historic address, this appreciative veteran certainly does.

Deplorable Vet @Elucifer23

@FoxNews Everyone please help and retweet. I would like to take Maxine Waters seats at The State Of The Union Address. If they don't want to go this Military Veteran would gladly go. I'd tell the President how much he means to myself, family, Military, and all of his supporters!

Twitter Ads info and privacy

"As you can see by the retweets, people were eager to contribute to his campaign." . . .

Linda Sarsour endorses Chelsea Manning for US Senate

So who's Linda Sarsour?  . . . "The Brooklyn-born Sarsour, daughter of Palestinian immigrants, shared the dais Sunday with another darling of the feminist “resistance,” Rasmea Odeh — convicted in Israel of killing two Hebrew University students in a 1969 terrorist attack and of planning an attack on the British Consulate. After her release, Odeh was able to immigrate to the United States by hiding her crime. She’s now being deported to Jordan.

"Odeh has become a leftist hero. Sunday night, she and Sarsour embraced, and Sarsour gushed to the audience about feeling “honored and privileged to be here in this space, and honored to be on this stage with Rasmea." . . .

Washington Times  "She’s with [Insert your preferred pronoun here]! 

"The traitor formerly known as “Bradley Manning” announced their candidacy for United States Senate in Maryland Monday and the former Army private has already lined up a key endorsement of sorts, none other than anti-Israel activist and pink-hat-wearing-angry-woman-march organizer Linda Sarsour: 

Linda Sarsour

✔@lsarsour

If you are cool with Sheriff Arpaio running for Senate in Arizona but up in arms that Chelsea Manning is running in Maryland - you my friend are a HYPOCRITE. #GoChelsea

9:29 PM - Jan 13, 2018

Twitter Ads info and privacy

"Manning served a little over seven years (including time served during investigation and trial) of a 35-year sentence in Leavenworth for espionage and theft of over 700,000 military including battlefield videos and diplomatic cables from classified computer accounts. (This was back when the The Swamp took classified diplomatic documents seriously and didn’t reward the breach of these state secrets with a nomination for president.) 

"During the trial Manning came out as a transgender individual and proclaimed himself to be “Chelsea.” In his final days as president, Barack Obama commuted Manning’s remaining sentence. " . . .

This is CNN . . . in 1945

Anderson Cooper might continue: “Another high-ranking general expressed disgust at the president’s hidden agendas. Although CNN was unable to confirm his charges, he insisted that there is a ‘big boom’ on the way. He would not elaborate but claimed that a new super bomb may soon be dropped—and that Vice President Harry Truman hasn’t a clue about it, despite $1 billion already spent off-budget and missing from the public record.

Victor Davis Hanson

"What if something like CNN and modern communications were around in early 1945? What if the rules of presidential news coverage were then as they are now? And what if such a mythical CNN hated Franklin Delano Roosevelt as much as it despises Donald Trump, then as right-wing as it is now hard left? How would the daily news in a mythical 1945 treat a now-iconic FDR? What would the country have thought of its president?

"In the manner that we’ve learned that Donald Trump supposedly eats double servings of fast food and gulps down a dozen diet sodas a day, we instead might hear similar CNN “exclusives” about presidential diet and health, either from “unknown” sources in the White House or “fake news” exaggerations of rumor and innuendo.

"Wolf Blitzer might give us a news bulletin something like this: “CNN in an exclusive report has learned that President Roosevelt is a sick, maybe dying, man. But the true nature of his health has long been covered up, most notably in last year’s election and is even now more dishonesty hidden. CNN has learned that the conspiracy of silence among the president’s family, his staff, and his doctors is long-standing, scandalous—and, in this reporter’s view, dangerous.”

“ 'Sources tell me that the president’s blood pressure routinely hits 240 over 140. He has lost 40 pounds. Some sources tell CNN that the president suffers from chronic sinus and urinary infections. He may be battling skin cancer. CNN is now learning that the president could never walk or even stand up on his own.” . . .