UPDATE: Clarification of the federal law to accept the proposed states into the union included at the end.
The onslaught of America continues unabated. California, once threatening secession, has introduced a far more insidious plan on the federal republic. They want to break up into three states.
On the surface, this would normally be a good idea. Governance at the local level is usually more conducive to fairer outcomes, in addition to limiting actual government oppression over a wide swath of people. However, progressives are adapt at gaming the system, and this new attempt at subverting American federalism that champions individuals is sickening.
Here is the basic plan. The state plans to break into three meticulously-planned areas, of which would guarantee two near-100% Democrat control states, with a third state approximating Arizona or New Mexico in moderation. The states would be broken using existing county borders as edges, as follows (image link of map):
- The (new) State of California: The coastal area that runs from Los Angeles up through Monterrey Bay, including Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo, and other liberal coastal regions.
- The State of Northern California: The entire Bay area, Silicon Valley, Sacramento, Lake Tahoe, all the way up to the Oregon border.
- The State of Southern California: Orange County, San Diego, the Inland Empire (Riverside, San Bernardino, Palm Springs, Bakersfield, Fresno.
The population of the three states are as follows:
- Southern California, with 13.9 million people, would become the fourth-most populated state, ranking behind (1) Texas, (2) New York, and (3) Florida
- Northern California, with 13.3 million people, would become the fifth-most populated state
- (New) California, with 12.3 million people, would become the eighth-most populated state, ranking behind (6) Illinois and (7) Pennsylvania
The insidious part of this plan is the creation of two fully-progressive states even more progressive than the current state of California. Northern California and (new) California would remain highly progressive, with no possibility of Republican involvement at any state level. Please note I didn’t say “virtually no possibility;” this is a cut-and-dried political fiat.
Meanwhile, the new state of Southern California is no panacea of potential conservativism. San Diego, though reliably Republican for years, is currently being inundated with illegal alien presence. In addition, the new configuration hurts water rights, as Northern California will more than likely have a pact with (new) California to control the passage, negating Southern California’s vital access to water emanating from the high Sierra’s and northern California water tables. With border states Arizona and Nevada not providing much relief. In fact, they have greater leverage over Southern California without backing of Northern California and (new) California. With that, Southern California will more than likely be forced to adopt protectionist policies, which will increase corruption and facilitate (and complete) its movement to the left.
From a federal level, the nightmare continues. When California secession was first bandied about as an option, I, along with most freedom lovers, said “Do it…PLEASE!!” I even broke down the federal ramifications of such an action, in which the rest of the country would move significantly to the right with the ensuing Congressional shifts precipitated by reapportionment of the House seats, as well as the elimination of two progressive senators from the mix. For more details, refer to the article I wrote here (Calexit would result in the US becoming America again).
But this configuration does the opposite. First, 50 states become 52 states, so there would be 104 senators. The cumulative number of senators from the three new states is six. Of those six senators, the four senators from Northern California and (new) California would be uber-progressive communists in perpetuity. In addition, it is not guaranteed that Southern California would have even one conservative senator, and most probably have two RINO’s along the same lines of Arizona or Mississippi, or even split like Florida. And with the current balance in the Senate, adding 2 more progressive senators to the mix, along with the worst-case scenario of one conservative + one RINO, would present a chill on the current structure that would make it near-impossible to get anything done from even a moderate right stance, and help propel the anti-American legislation that would nail the coffin into any legislative relief.
Correspondingly, the House will also shift to the left. Currently, the current state of California has 53 representatives, of whom currently 40 are progressive communists, with maybe three conservatives and ten establishment Republicans. But with reapportionment, the three states get a total of 56 representatives, broken up as follows:
- Southern California, 20 representatives
- Northern California, 19 representatives
- (New) California, 17 representatives
The three states that lose one seat, after reapportionment, are Minnesota, Texas, and Washington. And when those states redistrict, it is likely that the cumulative seat makeup of those three states will also favor Democrats, as Minnesota and Washington’s legislatures will ensure the two seats they lose are on the (R) side.
(New) California is made up of districts that are currently near-100% Democrat-controlled districts, while Northern California currently has about 70% Democrat-controlled districts. However, with the new states able to control their district configuration, it would make it more likely that Northern California are going to gerrymander the sprawling conservative population into fewer districts, ensuring that progressives control 16 or 17 of the 19 seats; added to the virtually guaranteed 17 progressive (new) California seats, that guarantees 36 progressive seats in perpetuity. Finally, as said before, Southern California is at best a moderate state, which currently holds 7 progressive congressional districts. With moderate or center-right governance, however, initial districting will not entail any gerrymandering efforts like the Northern California counterparts. (I’m not even going to mention how the Jefferson contingent of the breakup is reacting to this; suffice to say they are PEEVED.)
The biggest problem I’ve faced, so far, is the attitudes of some Republicans and even conservatives about my antagonism to this scheme. They are usually in areas of California that would fall in Southern California, but they fail to note that the state split is designed to negate even THEIR voices. While living in a state where one may have a “reasonable” state government structure, they are swayed by the “compromise” arguments currently being beta-tested in media markets around LA and Orange County. And make no mistake that the Left is playing the Republicans and even the conservatives like a well-tuned fiddle, of which the ramifications won’t be felt until a few years, if not months, after such a split has implemented its destruction described above.
In all probability, the initiative will pass. Progressives will market this like they are marketing the anti-NRA campaign to remove protections from individuals against an increasingly-oppressive regime of globalists, and it is up to us to sound the alarm. It will take Congressional approval to pass (2/3 in each branch), so I foresee RINO’s being peppered by the Left to pass this.
Alert is on. Stop this California breakup at all costs.
UPDATE: I’ve been asked if this process is even legal at the federal level. For California, it must follow Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states the following:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
If the Congress approves a measure to create a new state, the measure would be presented to the President of the United States for approval or veto. In the event of a veto, the measure may be approved over the President’s objections with a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives.
In short, this is a relatively easy process to conduct, no more difficult than passing Obamacare, for instance. With a Democrat president and a Democrat-controlled Congress, this is a done deal. Very scary.