Posted on 03/12/2018 8:15:25 AM PDT by Liberty7732
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States
– Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
California ignores federal laws. Openly defies the federal government and US Constitution.
How do they think this will end?
1. Will they get “mad” if California counties or towns openly defy California State Law? Why? Isn’t that the “process” now?
2. One day, when a democrat wins the White House, will they get mad when other states openly defy abortion, gun, environmental. affirmative action, LGBT, etc. laws? Why? Isn’t that the “process” now?
Either we are a nation of laws or we are not.
And if not - the gun will make the law.
That is what is coming to California.
California is in open rebellion, assisting foreign nationals colonizing America.
We either put down the rebellion or surrender our sovereignty, the rule of law and our country.
Horse spit.
The issue is the elected representatives and the Democratic Party apparatchik. They have no support in law enforcement and front line rank and file.
If you really want to make the civil war analogy today’s progressives will not pick up arms to protect illegals. They don’t even own guns.
When people start getting frog marched and put in orange for their actions this goes away.
The Marines and Army maybe coming to California and other states practicing this “sanctuary” nonsense.
I continue to hope and pray for a Federal occupation of CA and the establishment of the Rule of Law.
The military (both active duty and NG) are 99.9% behind Trump and the rule of the law.
There would be no “armed insurrection” - who would fight on the liberal/progressive side? Hell, who even knows how to handle a gun. Maybe some MS-13 members.
The liberals/progressives would fold like a cheap suit and complain all day on social media.
++++++
Would California National Guard units actually fire on U.S. Army units? Probably not. Very few radicals of this stripe are militarily inclined. But would there be armed insurrection? Probably so. And exactly what role might Mexico play? That they have harbored desires for the dissolution of the United States and return of regions to Mexico is hardly a secret.
Arrest Jerry and the mayor of Oakland, end of problems. Sessions will do nothing. No one holding an elected office will be locked up.
The California politician’s would fold like a cheap house of cards.
If we moved troops in.
They don’t have the balls to own guns let alone think about useing them.
Gitmo would be a good place for the traitors.
Didn’t somebody try this around 160 years ago?
Cut off ALL federal monies to California.................
Eisenhower and Kennedy used Federal regulars and Federalized National Guard units to enforce desegregation decisions of the Federal courts. The Southern governors blustered but backed away from confronting the Federal forces. Jerry Brown would probably do the same if confronted by similar force and Presidential determination.
But I though all these liberals, who for years have been telling us that the South was traitorous in 1861-1865, were against secession?
Quebec had a much stronger rationale for seceding (it's historically been the only French province in a British country). They also had a much more secession-friendly legal and political climate throughout Canada's history (Canada has a weak central government and vests a lot of power in the provincial governments). The separatist movement in Quebec has been so much a part of their history that they even have a dominant political party (the Bloc Quebecois) that would win elections and have members serve in Parliament even though its platform was built around promoting secession from Canada.
And yet the secessionist movement turned out to be nothing more than a political tool to promote Quebec's interests without actually seceding. The last time they had a referendum on secession in 1995, the measure was defeated by such a close vote (about 50.5% to 49.5%) that even avowed separatists were alarmed about the prospect of leaving Canada. That's when a lot of Canadians finally figured out that a successful secession vote in Quebec would be challenged and undermined even more strongly in Quebec than anywhere else.
Today, the only talk you hear about "secession" in Canada is the growing sense among many Canadians that they'd be much better off if they just threw Quebec out of the country.
I suspect we're going to get to the same point here in the U.S. with California.
This is nullification and interposition reborn.
It cannot end well.
And the sad part is everything that Wallace, Barnett and Maddox said would happen, has.
I know that that would seem intuitively correct - but at least here at overseas postings, the overwhelming majority of military persons I've met (mostly officers) are strident Libs - the kind of people whom you might have been acquainted with because your kids attend the same school, because you do your grocery shopping at the same store, etc., but who - the day after the 2016 Presidential Election - have the presumption to ask you openly: "Isn't this just terrible!?" Or who (without an iota of irony) give your 16-year-old daughter a "pussy hat" as a going-away present.
Regards,
If America is forced to subdue of rebellious California I propose that we prosecute and hopefully convict every leading Democrat that voted for this crazy crap and seize Baja California from Mexico along with 1/4 strip of territory along the US-Mexican border and turn it into a fortified no-man’s land to teach Mexico City a lesson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.