Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday March 28 2017, @11:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the five-easy-pieces dept.

This weekend comes word that two of the masterminds behind the United Kingdom’s ongoing divorce from the European Union, Nigel Farage and Arron Banks. The duo just returned from the United States, where they reportedly helped raise a million bucks for one of the Calexit campaigns floating around — a scheme that would split the state into two eastern and western regions.

Farage and Banks are known as the Bad Boys of Brexit, and for good reason. As the controversial leader of the UK Independence Party, or Ukip for short, the one-time broadcaster Farage stirred up the anti-immigration pot in England among the white British working class. Banks, who co-founded the Leave.EU group, angered many when he claimed that Britain’s UK membership is “like having a first class ticket on the Titanic.’’ He also got into hot water with his controversial move to commission a poll after the murder of British politician Jo Cox, asking respondents whether the crime would have an impact on public opinion.

Now the Bad Boys have brought their shtick to California, according to a report in the Daily Mail which says the pair are helping exit backers trying to pit the eastern, more rural side of California against the western ‘coastal elite’ liberals in Los Angeles and San Francisco. The plan would be to create a Republican stronghold in the new state cleaved off California’s eastern flank, thus giving the GOP two more senators and electoral college votes for a 2020 presidential election.

Mercury News continues:

Meanwhile, a second Calexit campaign is underway. It’s called Yes California and it would see the state seceding from America entirely. If that initiative successfully finds a place on the ballot, a Yes vote would repeal clauses in the California Constitution stating “California is an inseparable part of the United States and that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, ‘’ according to a statement from California’s Secretary of State Alex Padilla’s office said.

[Ed note: corrected typo in this story's last paragraph and expanded same to include the entire paragraph from which it was extracted. --martyb]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @04:36AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @04:36AM (#485679)

    The first one, constitutional carry, is just following the Constitution.

  • (Score: 2) by G-forze on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:41AM (3 children)

    by G-forze (1276) on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:41AM (#485691)

    It's funny how gun nutters always seem to forget the part that talks about "a well regulated militia". The regulation part is right there in the second amendment!

    --
    If I run into the term "SJW", I stop reading.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @12:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @12:05PM (#485827)

      Someone doesn't know the context of the word regulate within the Constitution! But glad you tried!

      Hint: every other time a variation of the verb to regulate is used in the document, it tells exactly who does the regulating. Not in that pesky second amendment though! That section uses an older definition where regulated is synonymous with the modern term, trained. And how does a mikitia become well trained? Certainly never in a situation where the government owns monopoly on self defense.

      Your third grade interpretation or the constitution is appalling.

      Would you like government monopoly on self defense? Why not government monopoly on encryption as well? Backdoor for everyone who hasn't completed a polygraph!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @04:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @04:59PM (#486015)

      you're a dumb fuck or a liar. the "militia" part was an explanation/example not a requirement and you probably know it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @09:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @09:11PM (#486183)

      Funny how anti-gun nutters forget "well regulated militia" did not mean "well restricted" or "lots of rules". At the time of writing, it meant "well supplied and trained". Remember, at the time the founding fathers did not believe in a standing army. They believed the people would stand up in militias to defend themselves. Militias supplied their own firearms and supplies. The end result is that in order to have a good militia, people should be able to supply themselves with arms and munitions.