Sunday, February 5, 2017

Exit CALIFORNIA ! & Trump's UN exit review .

During the next four years of hard-line agenda during the Trump administration . California will probably face a few challenges . Already the California legislature { Democrats} putting up a fight against Trump. Recently, California governor <<<Jerry Brown is not taking a back seat to the radical Trump agenda. In his State of the State message to the California legislature this week, governor Jerry Brown said (1)>>"California is not turning back. Not now, not ever.” Gov. Brown was talking about climate change, Brown reaffirmed the state’s plan to cut carbon emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030.It's a lot more than to challenge the notion of climate . Its every Liberal notion California has had. Sanctuary cities are on President Trump's  ash-can list .Democrats in the California Senate ramped up their fight Tuesday against President Donald Trump, advancing bills that would create a statewide sanctuary for people in the country illegally, provide money to pay lawyers for immigrants facing deportation and hamper any attempt to create a (2)>>Muslim registry. The moves in the nation's largest state — home to an estimated 2.3 million immigrants without legal authorization — came days after Trump launched his crackdown on immigration and sanctuary cities across the nation. If the nation is divided we must look at California . (3)>>It's political spectrum is divided right down the middle much as like Trump's own wall . Some Democratic lawmakers spent their weekend at major airports, joining protests against the president's executive action. With Congress back in session today, the minority party is trying to keep momentum up by holding more rallies and introducing bills to halt the order. At the same time, a significant number of Republicans have also voiced concerns although most GOP leaders appear to be onboard with what President Trump is doing.But in recent days, Brown moved more urgently. In a letter to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) this month, the 78-year-old governor said repealing the Affordable Care Act would be “a very cynical way to prop up the federal budget — and devastating to millions of Americans.” Then, minutes after Trump’s inauguration on Friday, California air regulators released a proposed plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. On Tuesday, Brown contrasted Trump’s inauguration with protest marches over the weekend he said reflected a “vast and inspiring fervor that is stirring in the land.”     Yes that "stirring" is  in the land is California . There is a movement for the state of California to leave the United States as a Independent country. The group behind the proposal, known as (4)>>Yes California, now has six months to collect and submit the signatures, according to California's Secretary of State Alex Padilla. Yes California started back in 2015 but exploded with a groundswell of support— and the catchy #Calexit hashtag — in the days following President Donald Trump’s election.
California's exit plan .
The last time a state seceded from the US, it was the 1860s and a civil war broke out. Since the election, the "Calexit" movement has grown from a hashtag trending on social media to a legitimate campaign for California's independence. Secession backers are now collecting voter signatures to get a measure on the 2019 state ballot which, if passed, would help clear a path for legal secession. Are they CRAZY ? REALLY . I was wondering about the consequences of such a "plan" . Britain’s vote to leave the European Union rattled international markets and the political world, sending the British pound plunging to its lowest level in decades and U.S. stocks sharply down. In California – by recent figures the world’s sixth-largest economy – the exit threatened to hurt exports to the United Kingdom. The significance of the exit to the state economy was unclear. But before the vote, the Brown administration had classified the possibility as a risk.  First is that a state leaving the Union would be an incredibly complex legal issue, and who knows what people and companies will do if a Caliexit happens. So to simplify the scenario, this is looking at what would happen if nothing changed in California. The only difference is that California is now its own separate country. The second thing we want to mention is that we also believe that if California left the United States, the US government may put tariffs in place in retaliation, or they are following vows that they made when trying to threaten California into staying with the union. The rest of the states will probably miss California (5)>>the most at tax time, because if a Caliexit were to happen, Americans will have to pay higher federal taxes. In the United States, not all states contribute equally. In fact, some states get more thanthey put in. This includes New Mexico, West Virginia, DC, and Hawaii. However, California is the biggest contributor to federal taxes, contributing 13.3 percent of all federal taxes collected. Now, imagine if you lost 13.3 percent of your income. Many of us would be scrambling. In the short term, taxes will have to go up to cover the costs. And yes, California does get some money back from the federal government, but they are one of the least dependent on the federal government. So California leaving America won’t save much; definitely not compared to what they put in.Yes, tariffs will cover some of the costs, but not all of them. The first reason is that California may not trade in the same quantity, and may choose to find countries that have fewer tariffs. The second is that administrative costs of shipping between California and America will also rise, so those costs have to be accounted for. The other 49 states will not consent to California seceding unless California assumes its proportionate share of the national debt. Are Californians up for assuming roughly $2.5 trillion in sovereign debt? And just how would that debt be transferred? Will the foreign holders of U.S. sovereign debt accept a swap for California’s obligation? Which leads to the next question.Will California have its own currency and central bank? Or will it use the dollar? Or peg the California Peso to the dollar somehow? (By the way, if you’ve ever driven into California, you know that it has border inspection stations for agriculture in place, so the infrastructure for trade and border control is already in place! Will California maintain its own army, navy and air force? If so, I imagine the other 49 states will want California to pay for the federal military bases and equipment that it wants to keep for itself—add another $1 trillion to the secession tab. They could skip this expense by having a mutual defense treaty with the U.S. Or perhaps they’ll enter into a mutual defense treaty with Mexico ? .
My Solution , a two state solution .
I Have a better plan . Rather giving a thumbs up to a CALEXIT . I believe that that if there were any powers that be , we should have to divide up California into two separate states , each with their respected capitals , legislatures . Just think with such a idea it could save the "government" issues of fiscal insolvencies . I 'm all in favor of splitting California up into two different states because I'm a Independent . Right now, California gets two Senators. Both of these Senators figure to be Democrats far into the forseeable future. If California was split into two states then that would mean an additional two Senators would be added to Congress and both of these Senators would be Democrats far into the forseeable future. This is also the reason California would never be split into two states. There is NO possible way that Republicans would accept another two Democratic Senators being added to Congress. Even if the people of California wanted to split their state in half, such a measure would be fought tooth and nail by those who wish to keep the balance of power as it stands now. To not do such is to say the votes of dissenters shouldn't be counted and that any who disagree with the will of a majority should be silenced in not only a state election but also a national. The population of California is too great and too much of a giveaway of free delegates and the power California has needs to be reassessed to a standard of reasonableness. Most Californians will acknowledge (with some amusement) the informal, usually friendly antagonism that exists between the northern and southern halves of the state. Southern residents tend to scoff at northern cities like San Francisco and Berkeley, historically beacons of progressive politics, and northerners often cringe at the thought of the mostly conservative suburban sprawl of southern enclaves like La Jolla, Riverside and Orange County. In the midst of such vastly different cultures and political divides, jokes about splitting the state in two have always abounded.Now,  (6)>>a Republican county official wants to make such a split happen.Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone has proposed a plan for 13 southern California counties to secede from the rest of the state to form “South California,” a mostly inland area dominated by conservatives. Stone called California in its current state an “ungovernable” place suffering from economic mismanagement by Sacramento, with too much state spending on prisons and too lax a policy toward undocumented immigrants. Politically, the two states would provide an escape from the current political conformity of California, which is dominated by public-sector unions and progressive activists. Take the last governor’s race in 2014. Democrat Jerry Brown won reelection over Republican Neel Kashkari by 60 percent to 40 percent statewide. But in Inland California, they were separated by just a few thousand votes. The two Californias would include a progressive stronghold able to experiment (even more than the state already does) with new “small is beautiful” ideas; next to it would be a politically competitive state with many constituencies that would favor pro-growth policies. Tensions and gridlock under a two-state model would probably be reduced. Split the state in the middle or add proportional representation

Trump's UN "EXIT" Review .
This is taken from a set of notes I Posted on a YouTube video titledU.S Congress Works to KILL the Wild Beast...A.K.A the U.N"

Sorry it took me a while to reply back to you . A bill proposing that the U.S. leaves the United Nations has caused some panicked reactions on social media. But it isn't the first time we've seen a bill like this, and isn't connected to the new Donald Trump administration. The "American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017", sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), is indeed about ending U.S. membership, participation and funding in the UN: This bill repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws. The bill requires: (1) the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body; and (2) closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.The bill prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N. officers or employees. But this bill was introduced Jan. 3, before Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20. While Snopes ( ) calls the story FALSE . I am quoting Snopes : " Although the existence of this bill was viewed by many with dismay as being a harbinger of newly inaugurated President Donald Trump's assumed belligerent approach to foreign policy, H.R. 193 is neither new in content nor related to a change in presidential administrations. "Get us out of the UN!" has been a rallying cry of some political groups ever since that global organization was established in 1945, and many efforts (of varying degrees of seriousness) have been undertaken to bring about that result in the last several decades. Accordingly, an identical "American Sovereignty  Restoration Act," intended to "terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations," has been introduced to the House of Representatives at the beginning of each Congress for the last twenty years since 1997. The 2017 and 2015 versions were sponsored by Rep. Rogers, the 2013 version by Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, and the 1997 through 2011 versions were sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas (all Republicans). In each case, the most recently submitted "American Sovereignty Restoration Act" bill has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (also known as the House Committee on International Relations) and languished there without ever being passed or brought to a vote. Whatever the intent of the new administration might be in the foreign policy arena, the notion of American withdrawal from the U.N. is one that has been floated in
congressional bills for decades now." SO IF AMERICA WITHDREW FROM THE UN? It might seem strange that America cutting ties with the UN is good to some "persons" . IN REALITY its a vary bad move that could usher in chaos , world war. Trumps stance against the UN stems from their vote against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank which by "treaty" is Palestinian territory , Never mind that the vote by the UN is in alignment with decades of US foreign policy in the region, which supports a two-state solution. By building settlements on occupied territories in violation of treaty, Israel had earned the reprimand. Though the White House refused to comment, Reuters reported that “U.S. officials have voiced growing fears that a “two-state” solution is imperiled by Israeli settlement building and have been more willing to voice open criticism, including, the two Western officials said, via Thursday’s planned vote.” Trump, naturally, drew the wrong conclusion, tweeting that it is not the illegal settlements that are a threat to peace but censuring Israel for building illegal settlements: “The big loss yesterday for Israel in the United Nations will make it much harder to negotiate peace.Too bad, but we will get it done anyway!” Cruz is no doubt right: cutting funding to the UN will be the least of Trump’s responses. After all, Israel has already cut funding, which all but obligates Trump to do the same. Israel has also summoned home its ambassadors from each of the countries that voted for the resolution.The bigger threat is not the delegitimization of the UN, but the delegitimization of the United States in the eyes of much of that world. It remains to be seen whether Trump’s business interests will offer a breaker on his reactions against the UN. His thirst for profits might be the only consistent thing in an already erratic but highly reactive foreign policy. The United States became a pariah nation under the last Republican president. Donald Trump seems intent on following in the footsteps, not of our most successful modern president, Barack H. Obama, but rather the least, George W. Bush. (see ) FROM QUORA : Diplomatic and Political Chaos Firstly, there is no official way to leave the United Nations. There is simple no clause or article in the UN charter, no resolution and no public statements or procedures regarding withdrawal from the UN. The U.N. Charter deliberately made no provision for the withdrawal of member governments, largely to prevent the threat of withdrawal from being used as a form of political blackmail, or to evade
obligations under the Charter. So, there’s that. This means that if the USA wanted to abandon the UN it would have to do so completely through unconventional terms undefined by international law. The most likely way of doing this would be- Stop sending representatives to the UN. If America stops being represented at the UN and issues a public statement regarding the same, it would have done this to express their discontent with the way the UN works. Countries like the Soviet Union and Syria have done this before. However, this would be a slow process. Stop funding the UN. USA contributes around 22% of the UN’s budget. Apparently, that’s more than 185 other countries combined. Not contributing anything would send definite clear signals. According to the official UN website- Every Member State is legally obligated to pay their respective share towards peacekeeping. This is in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the Charter of the United Nations. Stop hosting the UN. Currently, the United Nations is headquartered in New York. USA could choose to close the UN building, however, this would be full of legal disputes which complicate the situation. Still, this would be the fastest way to exit the institution. After USA does all that, the chaos would begin. Firstly, all diplomats and permanent representatives would have to be taken back home immediately. Economies around the world would immediately destabilize and the USA would be the worst hit. Stocks markets are likely to be in complete chaos over the weeks to come. The UN would come up with an official statement in a day or so. Most likely, the UN headquarters would be shifted temporarily to a neutral country. Austria and Switzerland would be favorable choices. The implications for the world after this look devastating. The action would be more or less unprecedented and would shake up its diplomatic relations with all other nations. It seems that if this were to happen under Trump, it would be part of a grand scheme of protectionism and political isolation. Hence, USA would face immediate counter actions from relatively hostile countries (maybe Russia) who are likely to subject USA to harsh sanctions. These will affect USA drastically. Many countries may even suspend diplomatic relations with USA and use another neutral country to protect its interests in America. Overall, the event would be disastrous for USA’s foreign policy. Europe would respond by distancing itself from American influence. NATO is likely to be in intense scrutiny. There are good chances it may even be dissolved. Also with it, America’s nuclear umbrella over Europe is likely to fade away. This may result in aggression from Russia as it would view it as a rare opportunity where America is distanced from Europe and the latter is vulnerable. States which came under USA’s nuclear sharing program before, would now start developing their own nuclear arsenals which would greatly heighten the chances of a world war. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea and various other countries in the EU would launch their own nuclear programs as there would be no international pressures stopping them, especially due to the absence of treaties like the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of the UN. Existing nuclear powers would greatly strengthen their own arsenals and work to make better technologies capable of inflicting worse damages on enemy states. China’s reaction would be the hardest to define but it can be said for certain that they wouldn’t be happy. After this, USA’s permanent seat on the UNSC would be dissolved after the other four amend the UN charter. The United Nations would then stay as a much weaker political entity with almost no influence or real power. It is very likely that it would be ultimately dissolved. The European Union would strive to become much more stronger both militarily and politically and would reject all influence the USA casts on it. American free trade with any and all nations is likely to come at an abrupt end. If this were to happen soon, one can expect victories of all far-right wing parties in Europe. Thus, the world would plunge into a nationalist, anti-globalist and authoritarian stance which is likely to be long lasting. This ideology would reverse decades of diplomacy and international stability. The UN’s collapse combined with the League of Nation’s failure would mean that any future international institutions are likely not to form and there would be no global framework to abide by. The absence of the UN and distrust between countries would mean More bloody conflicts which would be difficult. to resolve Greater leverage of terrorist groups like ISIS over territory Almost no humanitarian aid to places in distress including war-torn countries and regions struck with deadly natural calamities. A far greater risk of another world war due to hostile nations and nuclear proliferation. No checks and balances over authoritarian regimes like that of Syria or North Korea No development of infrastructure in developing nations Vulnerable economies which are largely unstable and prone to recessions Increased fatalities due to diseases which could have been prevented by the World Health Organization A huge disaster in the field of human rights which have protected authoritarian regimes from inflicting cruel and unethical treatment on their citizens And so on. The unfortunate reality is that as much as we’d like to think the UN is obsolete, it serves a vital purpose in today’s global arena, without which the world would’ve been in absolute turmoil. ANSWER to this would BE the JEHOVAH WITNESS ARMAGEDDON !


(1)>>"California is not turning back. Not now, not ever.”It's almost as if the man who once ran for the White House himself were taking a stand as a kind of alternative president. In his annual State of the State address on Tuesday, California Gov. Jerry Brown reiterated a vision for the nation's most populous state that was thoroughly at odds with the Trump administration. He pledged to continue inking California's own climate agreements with other states and countries, to fight for the Affordable Care Act, and to "defend everybody—every man, woman, and child—who has come here for a better life and has contributed to the well-being of our state."Expanding upon recent vows to counter Trump's agenda, Brown took aim at the administration's "bald assertion of 'alternative facts'" and "blatant attacks on science." He lamented that the "familiar signposts of our democracy—truth, civility, working together—have been swept aside." But he maintained that California could serve as a powerful bulwark: "We must prepare for uncertain times and reaffirm the basic principles that have made California the Great Exception that it is.""When we defend California," Brown said, "we defend America." Many  seem blissfully unaware that California effectively subsidizes the rest of the US. The most recent published figures show for every $1 paid into the federal government in taxes, the state receives barely 75 cents back. Meanwhile residents salivating over a potential California secessuion --do you live in a red state? Then yours is one of the biggest recipients of California's largesse. . (2)>>Muslim registryA surrogate of President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday invoked Japanese internment camps as precedent for creating a registry for Muslim immigrants. This comes less than a week after the Kansas secretary of state told Reuters that Trump's team might reprise a post-Sept. 11 national registry of immigrants from countries regarded as havens for "extremist activity."Such conversations in the president-elect's circles have raised new concerns about civil rights among advocates for American Muslims. (3)>>It's political spectrum. Only a few of the  California state's 14 Republican representatives have publicly commented on an executive order signed by President Trump on Friday that barred refugees and green card holders from seven countries from entering the U.S. (4)>>Yes California.  California exit seemed to be some kind of Russian plan ?A Calexit, as the hypothetical separation has been called, would require two-thirds approval of both houses of Congress, and permission from 38 state legislatures.Leaders of the group have made some questionable statements as they pursue this seemingly implausible feat.They claim to draw inspiration from Gov. Jerry Brown, who they allege has already declared California "a separate nation.""Two years ago, the longest serving leader of the California republic, Jerry Brown, boldly declared in China that California is a separate nation," Louis Marinelli, president of Yes California, told a conference in Moscow on Sept. 26, 2016. Volunteers from the Russian-linked "Yes California" movement are collecting signatures to begin the process of secession from the United States. Supporters say California is better off without the United States -- it has a huge economy and simply does not need the rest of the country. Critics say there are few upsides to seceding, but many downsides. It's better to stay in the U.S. and fight for what you believe in than to isolate yourself.  Russian-linked "Yes California" movement, argues California would be better off going alone. California leads the United States in many areas, and has one of the biggest economies in the world. If the United States wants to go in a different direction than California than so be it, but the Golden State should have the option to leave. (5)>>the most at tax time.  California certainly is out of step with the rest of the nation (especially the fact that, with about 13 percent of the nation’s population, it has over 20 percent of the nation’s total welfare caseload.  (6)>>a Republican county official wants . What the wealthy, not just the Republicans, in Southern California really want is to split from Northern California for political reasons, and Los Angeles County for economic reasons. The trouble with splitting is that aside from an industry that makes mostly bad movies, the southern half of the state doesn't have much of an economy. They also have to import most of their power and water. How will they pay for that? The proponents of the split probably don't notice that because they have plenty of it. And the funny thing is that people in Northern California would be thrilled to dump the southern half of the state. Neither half likes spending tax dollars on the welfare state of L.A. That city over the last twenty years or more has become "New Mexico City" with its high numbers of legal and illegal Mexican immigrants that suck money out of the state budget like an F5 tornado. If the Republicans in Southern California want to disassociate themselves from those nasty left wingers in the North, they should have to take L.A. too.

No comments:

Post a Comment