State secession is not a zero-sum game

As Leftist rage continues against the latest election outcome, more often the idea of California secession rears its ugly head, but consequences aren’t so comforting.

While our Constitution does not address a state wishing to separate from the Union it’s not as if such separation would be consequence-free, or as easy as it sounds.

Here’s just a few…questions…such an idea raises. (There’s sure to be more)

We doubt the issue would ever be accomplished, and wonder at the naive thought process that thinks debt-riddled, water-hungry California could stand on its own.

There are some who cite its economy as being the 6th largest in the world, as if that debatable fact could continue without the federal government supports it receives?

Think about it. 31% of its citizens were living in poverty in California in 2012-2013.

California is 12% of the U.S. population, but has a back-breaking 34% of the U.S. welfare recipients, and billions of that cost are partially funded with federal dollars.

What fool thinks the American taxpayers would agree to continue sending their hard-earned tax dollars to the newly-seceded nation of California?

For that matter, how much federal money supports their education system?

Would the Colorado River flow into California as cheaply as it does now? What about California’s connection (and reliance) to the U.S. electrical grid?

And, think of the pension liabilities California presently staggers under?

Would they use Mexican cartels for border and coastal security?

What fool thinks California could possibly be a stand-alone nation?

Evidently, that would be the ‘one’ in…1 in 3 Californians.

We would disagree, and invite economists to share their thoughts on such idiocy.

(We’re sure we’ve just barely touched the surface.)

How was Hillary Clinton not seen as violating the ‘Emolument Clause’?

A group associated to Democrats is bringing suit against President Trump, alleging he violates the constitutional Emoluments Clause (Art.1, Sec 9).

One could argue that business agreements in place before achieving office may not be seen as an emolument if its perpetuation falls within standard rates and terms, therefore not seen as a benefit of the office, just a simple business transaction.

Gifts, on the other hand, are very definitely an emolument, begging the question.

While the debate ensues, one wonders how Hillary, as Secretary of State, failed to be held to the standard, while foreign money flowed into the Clinton Foundation?

(Knowing Pres. Trump, it may not take long for this one to get hit out of the park.)

The Clintonista bringing the suit may yet regret opening up this can of worms.

Pro-abortionists re-define the term ‘split second’

No sooner did we scoff at the Trump-Inaugural protester carrying a sign that demands “Respect Existence…”, than abortion lovers come out of the woodwork.

Why is it so hard for them to acknowledge the schizophrenic nature of a legal system that, on the one hand, refuses to acknowledge an unborn’s right to life…

…yet, criminalizes the taking of an unborn life during commission of a crime?

Here’s a paradox for the Pro-Choice crowd (you especially, Sara C)…

Imagine you’re a pregnant young woman on the way to her abortion center who is hurt and loses her baby as a result of a crime on the way to Planned Parenthood…

…do you sue for the loss, or pay the criminal for the abortion?

How about ‘new rules for viewers’, tired of fake news?

The snakepit Buzzfeed suggests ‘new rules’ for journalists in the Trump era.

Basically, anything and everything that’s written about President Trump should be published, with a ‘disclaimer’ that says ‘hey, it isn’t verified, but you decide…’

We suggest you, the news consumer, should adopt new viewership rules…

…assume any ‘news’ from the Left is a LIE.

‘Existence’ is a VERY relative term to Liberals

Some President Trump protesters in DC sported what can only be described as a very hypocritical message: “Respect Existence, or Expect Resistance”

We assume the ‘existence’ they’re making reference to is only respected when it doesn’t involve the unborn…because Liberals sure do love pushing abortion.

(Wonder what happened when that sign-bearer ran up against abortion-lovers?)

Yeah, yeah…that’s the ticket…

Hey, NARAL…Respect Existence, or Expect Resistance!!!

Protecting elites and status quo is what the LA Times and their ilk is all about

Editorial headline: “Trump’s recycled campaign speech made no effort to bring Americans together”

That headline would be accurate…if the Times sees itself as a part of the small group of elite working to maintain their death grip over everyday Americans.

Because it only took a few sentences for President Trump to promise “..transferring power from Washington DC, and giving it back to…the American people.”

Only the Sham-stream media would call the President’s remarks dark, divisive.

Because his remarks started with the word ‘We‘, and ended with it in 5 sentences…

  1. We Will Make America Strong Again.”
  2. We Will Make America Wealthy Again.”
  3. We Will Make America Proud Again.”
  4. We Will Make America Safe Again.”
  5. “And, Yes, Together, We Will Make America Great Again.”

Yeah…that’s the Sham-stream media definition of ‘divisive’.

The only way to deal with Fake News is attack it…every time

Niggling over the Inauguration Day crowd size is not the point.

Fighting back EVERY TIME against fake news is the point.

Decades of ‘taking the high road’ did nothing for Republicans. President Trump will be well advised and encouraged to beat down efforts to diminish his presidency.

History shows the ‘high road’ just leads to a political wilderness. Fight back.

EVERY.TIME.

Schumer (typically) mischaracterizes the booing during his ‘unity’ remarks

Message to Chuck Schumer…

…that booing during your Inauguration remarks, when you brought up the need for ‘unity’, was about how rarely you Democrats have worked toward that principle.

What the crowd was voicing had more to do with the phenomenon displayed by a typical rock-throwing Democrat who screams for fairness when he’s in the minority.

Your problem is that the crowd KNOWS what unity looks like, when you’re in charge.

But, typical with your crowd, you accuse the crowd as being of bad faith, when all along it’s been Democrats who despise ‘unity’…until the shoe’s on the other foot.

They weren’t booing unity…they were booing your Democrat hypocrisy.