The secession movement in California seems to be gathering momentum. It might be funny, all these granola types (nuts and flakes) on the Left Coast having a whiny tantrum over the election of President Trump. But, some Californians seem to be serious about this.

I’ve read many arguments against secession. For me, they come down to what has become “received opinion.” As in, all the right people agree, so it must be true that secession is illegal, against the Constitution. The least convincing is the oft-repeated mantra that the Civil War decided this question once and forever.

All the Civil War truly decided was that the Confederate States were defeated in war. That they had seceded and failed to prevail on the battlefield did not change the legal argument.

As fun as it would be to contemplate, California should not secede Bad for the remaining United States; worse for what would quickly become an impoverished socialist state.

Lastly, our Declaration of Independence states “That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…” Did this only apply to the original 13 colonies? Or, by logical extension, to all the other 37 states added since the Revolution? And, bigger question, are the words in the Declaration binding? If these are not, what other words may be considered as non-binding?

Hard questions, hard times.



As reported here, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee that “Trump better pick a mainstream Supreme Court nominee, or else.” “Or else” what is unspecified, of course.  “Mainstream,” in Dem-Speak, is interchangeable with “reasonable.”

This is another misuse of English by Democrats. “Mainstream” or “reasonable” only means someone who is (at the least) center-left and who agrees with them at least half of the time. Likewise, “bi-partisan” means “do it the way we Democrats want.”

Schumer, the “reasonable” Democrat, who is such good friends with The Donald, may soon find out the limits of that friendship. Yes, when Trump needed Congressional friends as part of his real estate wheelings and dealings, he likely toadied up to people like Schumer. And the Clintons, for all of that.

Now that Trump will be president, he does not need them in the same way. More to the point, they need him, although they’ll never admit that publicly.

Time for the nuclear option, Sen. McConnell. Nuke it from orbit; it’s the only way to be sure…

Manners, Even in the Age of Trump

This article by Kevin Williamson at National Review Online is well worth your time.  Especially given the liberal meltdown at the impending Apocalypse.  Or, by its actual name, Inauguration Day 2017

We live in an urban area that went for She Who Must Not Be Named by at least 70-30%. And, among other things, we are simply awash with Subarus, many with that stupid “Coexist” bumper sticker. Others with “I’m with Her,” and the occasional Bernie Sanders sticker. Gah. But don’t blame the car.

Confession: I own a Subaru, and love it for utilitarian reasons. Drives well, is not expensive, has good cargo space, and has all-wheel drive. Highly recommended, regardless of one’s politics.

For what it’s worth, I consider myself a Tea Party Republican. Except for my wife, who (mostly) shares my politics, it’s a lonely political life where I live in Northern Virginia. As for shopping at Whole Foods? My Smug Liberal Detecto-Meter might not survive the encounter. Besides, I don’t even like gluten- and GMO-free kale, or whatever foods are trendy this minute.

Democracy uber alles

As I write this, the Electors who comprise the Electoral College are casting the only votes that will actually be counted to choose the next president.  If history is any judge, there is a certain outcome:  Donald J. Trump will be the 45th President of the United States come next January 20th.

Their votes will, despite all the sturm und drang exhibited by Democrat crybabies, demonstrate that Trump won in the state-by-state popular vote, for a total of 306 electoral votes.  Hillary Clinton won 232.  What is needed for election by the Electors?  A simple majority of the total, or 270.  That’s all.  That’s the way it’s been since our founding.  It’s worked out fairly well, so far.

But wait, say the losers:  Trump lost the popular vote (add as many exclamation marks as you can stand here).  By almost three million votes.  She should be president (sob, sob, pass the tissues and the therapy dogs).

Well, don’t you worry, little snowflakes.  Help may be on the way.  In the form of something called the National Popular Vote.  Sounds fair, to use a favorite liberal misdirection.   The premise is simple.  From the NPV website:

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

So, what’s the catch?  Just this:  all voters who voted for the candidate who loses the national popular vote would be disenfranchised.  This year, all those voters in all those pesky fly-over states, even though they voted by large majorities for Trump would see their votes nullified.

The nation over the states may sound great.  Until it’s your vote that’s been negated.  Aside from hurt feelings, what is trampled in the dirt is the entire notion, enshrined in our Constitution,  that the United States is a federal republic comprised of individual, sovereign states.   Our way of voting for president is laid out, clear as a bell, for all to read and know, in Article II of the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote initiative, regardless of how many “progressives” yell and holler, will ultimately fail.  Why?  Because the first time it is used, it would be challenged in court as violating the voting rights of all those whose vote was changed by their states’ Electors.  There would be quite a few million of them.  And they will be very unhappy campers.

In theory, such a challenge could survive by the “faithless” Electors claiming that each state that signed up for this undemocratic method had used “due process” of law to deprive its citizens of their votes.

Great theory.  In practice?  Hell hath no fury like a few million disenfranchised citizens, majorities in their respective states.  So, those who insist that we have a pure democracy, good luck with the project.

Better yet, you’ve no need to wait  Why not move to a socialist paradise like Cuba or Venezuela.  They hold elections where El Lider Maximo gets at least 90 percent of the votes.  Ahh, pure democracy in action.


Secretary for ExxonMobil?

The coming nomination of ExxonMobil chief Rex Tillerson has created a bit of a firestorm.  Obviously, the Democrats have a visceral hatred for anyone who is a fossil fuels guy.  And one doesn’t get much more fossil fuelsy than the CEO of the largest oil company on the planet.  Clearly a bad, bad, bad man.

But Mr. Tillerson has the backing of the only man necessary for the nomination:  Donald J. Trump, president-elect.  But soon after Trump’s inauguration comes the drama:  will Tillerson be confirmed by the Senate?

The Left, and their usual mouthpieces (e.g. the Washington Post) are strewing seeds of scorn and doubt, in equal measure.  The WaPo had a lengthy hit piece article the other day, which featured an endorsement of Tillerson by Darth Vader himself, “Richard B. Cheney.”  Yes, that’s Dick Cheney, who I worked for when he was SecDef.   Yes, that’s still Dick Cheney, when he was George W. Bush’s VP.

The “Richard B.” is just a sly way of heaping scorn on Mr. Cheney.  But, hey, that’s why those WaPo writers and editors get to go to those fancy Georgetown cocktail parties…

The serious point of the article is the clear attempt to sow discontent with Sen. Marco Rubio, a key player on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The money paragraph:

Republicans hold a 10-to-nine advantage on the foreign relations panel. If just one Republican and all Democrats band together against him, they could sink Tillerson’s nomination before it even reaches the Senate floor.

Take that, you fossil fuel loving monster, you.  That said, Tillerson does face some serious questioning about his business and personal relations with Vladimir Putin.  My sense is that, barring a major surprise, the incoming president ought to be able to get who he wants in his cabinet.

Hey, if Obama could have Hillary Clinton, bag lady for the Clinton Foundation, and John Kerry, traitor to his fellow Navy vets as his Secretaries of State, then Rex Tillerson should be a shoo-in.

Nuke it from orbit

“It” being the U.S. Senate’s “tradition” of needing 60 votes to defeat a presidential nominee brought before the Senate for confirmation (or not).

Background, in case you’ve been away from a news source these past few months: Antonin Scalia passed earlier this year, and, shock of shocks, Donald J. Trump will be our next president.  And, to judge from the scowls and howls from lefties, the President Elect’s cabinet choices are a sign of the coming zombie apocalypse.

And now begins the struggle to replace Justice Scalia and confirm President Trump’s cabinet nominations.   My favorites so far are Rep. Tom Price for HHS, Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt for EPA, Gen.James Mattis (USMC, ret.) for Defense, and Rep. Mike Pompeo for CIA. Not that any of the nominees are not impressive, in a good way.

Democrats in 2016 have seemingly lost any semblance of bipartisanship.  With rare exception, they will vote in lock-step with their left-most members.  The so-called Blue Dog caucus has shriveled and is no longer a player on their side of the aisle.  The bottom line?  Democrat senators will likely all vote against many of Trump’s nominees.  Regardless of the merits.

Since Republicans will have only a slender 52-48 majority (counting socialist Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, since that’s how he almost always votes), under normal Senate rules, it will be easy for Dems to deny Republicans the necessary 60 votes.

My advice to the Republicans in the Senate comes down to two words: Nuclear Option.  No, not nuking the site from orbit. It’s going to simple majority rules in the U.S. Senate if that’s what it takes to defeat obstructionism from the Left.

It’s what you do if you need to secure the greater good for the nation. The benefits?  It will give the incoming president the benefit of the doubt on his cabinet choices.  Which had been the norm for most incoming presidents.  It’s simple:  if Democrats, having in the past used the nuclear option (big thanks and shout-out to Harry Reid; don’t let the Senate door slam you in the butt on you way out), will now see what it’s like when the shoe is on the other foot.

Against this very real benefit, what is lost is a bit of non-constitutional Senate “tradition.” Boo-hoo. The Dems showed no restraint when it suited them.  They abandoned the 60-vote “tradition” when it suited them to confirm appellate judges.

Politics ain’t beanbag; let’s give it back to them in spades.  Seems a fair trade to me.


Russian intervention on the side of Trump has been a lefty bugaboo since Trump made foolish bromance comments about Putin during the campaign.

Doesn’t mean the Russians haven’t been trying to hack our government’s networks, or the DNC, or the RNC for that matter. But the Democrats have been reaching to find any reason that Trump won. Besides the obvious one: Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate.  Perhaps the only one who would have lost to virtually any Republican.

Did Trump win because of Russian hackery? It’s possible. Anything is possible. But hacking thousands of air-gapped (not connected to any network) voting systems at the county level? Not credible.

Two points: first, is it not rich that the party that is dead set against voter ID laws and other means to ensure clean elections is now howling that, somehow, the past election was somehow fraudulent?

Second, I’m all for investigating the extent of Russian hackery. But, if this is a bi-partisan cause, why does it need to be completed before Obama leaves office? Well, before he makes it formal. These past few weeks, Obama has seemed more and more like a wan echo of the community organizer who play-acted as our president.