California has a rich history as a progressive dreamer’s laboratory. One that consistently functions at the expense of minorities, whether of race or opinion. But succession is anti-America
WASHINGTON, December 5, 2016 — Mary Brunner was a lost soul in search of meaning. An assistant librarian at the University of California at Berkeley, Mary met a man she felt would open her mind to new ways of thinking in a state famous for offering dreamers and eccentrics a fresh start.
The man in question was a guitar-strumming, singer song-writing, drug-using pop philosopher who was looking to start a large extended family at an abandoned western movie set located in California’s Santa Susana Mountains.
Mary became the first member of that man’s abnormal brood and bore him a child – adding to the numbers of what the world would later come to know as the “Manson Family.”
You may recall that Charlie Manson believed the brutal Tate-Labianca murders, ferociously executed by members of his family, would help trigger a global race war, leaving him and his devoted followers to rule those who survived.
At least that is what he learned while listening to the Beatle’s White Album.
Decades before, during the early years of the progressive movement, the Golden State led the nation in forced sterilizations for those considered “unfit.” And the United States Supreme Court’s 1927 Buck vs. Bell ruling upheld the practice (called eugenics) as constitutional “for the protection and health of the state,” wrote progressive justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
As a 2003 article in the San Francisco Chronicle acknowledged, “[Adolf] Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti-Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific façade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side.”
Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times notes that in keeping with his state’s tradition of using pseudoscience to impose draconian measures on its teaming masses, “California has been among the national leaders in reducing greenhouse gas emissions… mandating the reduction of climatologically harmful emissions.”
According to the nonpartisan Independent Voter Project, California’s measures to fight global warming or climate change have dramatically increased energy costs for minority communities “because the poorest households spend a much larger percentage of their income on energy costs… estimated at nearly $1,000 per year initially, rising to almost $3,000 when the program is fully operational.”
In short, California has a rich history as a progressive dreamer’s laboratory. One that consistently functions at the expense of minorities, whether of race or opinion.
That is why the L.A. Times story mentioned above bears the headline, “Should California secede? How the state is politically out-of-step with the rest of the country.”
As Times’ reporter Hiltzik notes, “California voters tightened gun control, extended taxes on the rich, hiked cigarette taxes, legalized marijuana, boosted multilingual education – and of course provided Hillary Clinton with all of her winning margin of 2 million popular votes, and then some, in her losing campaign for president.”
Lucky for the rest of the country, the U.S. Constitution recognizes a higher principle than democracy’s “popular votes” – individual liberty. That’s why the Bill of Rights denies the people and their elected representatives in Congress the right to infringe upon the individual’s right to free speech and to bear arms, to name but a few.
A majority of Californians believe their will to power supersedes such protections.
But our Constitution recently prevented the populations of Los Angeles and New York City from imposing their progressive presidential candidate on the rest of America.
When it really counted, the mechanism of the Electoral College stopped the candidate with the Manson Family-ish campaign slogan, “Stronger Together,” in her progressive tracks.
Concerning the question of secession, one of Abraham Lincoln’s arguments against it was that such a move violated THE contract – our Electoral-College-loving Constitution.
“If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of a contract merely, can it… be peacefully unmade by less than all the parties who made it?” asked Lincoln.
Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and the Grand Army of the Republic enforced the terms of that contract with those states whose citizens thought they had a right to steal the liberty and labor of those considered beneath them. Those states in rebellion against the self-evident truth that all men are created equal – and not just a privileged and select few.
A state of rebellion similar to that of Charlie Manson and his murderous family, early 20th century racist eugenicists and the silly secessionist progressives of California.Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Communities Digital News
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.