Posted on 10/17/2013 8:45:51 AM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
My country is nearly gone. Just sit back and take it I guess, eh?
You don’t know Simi as well as I do. Your statements are ridiculous and incorrect.
Simi is to be distinguished from Simi Valley.
Who do you want to shoot?
You know, you are right.
I was trying to describe the notion for the San Fernando Valley area to separate from Los Angeles, and got it conflated with Simi Valley.
It was the San Fernando valley that tried to separate from LA and offered money to be set free.
The Valley attempted to secede in the 1970s, but the state passed a law barring city formation without the approval of the City Council. In 1997, Assemblymen Bob Hertzberg and Tom McClintock helped pass a bill that would make it easier for the Valley to secede by removing the City Council veto. AB 62 was signed into law by Governor Pete Wilson. Meanwhile, a grassroots movement to split the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and create new San Fernando Valley-based school districts became the focal point of the desire to leave the city. Though the state rejected the idea of Valley-based districts, it remained an important rallying point for Hertzberg’s mayoral campaign, which proved unsuccessful.
Measure F
In 2002, the San Fernando Valley portion of Los Angeles again seriously campaigned to secede from the rest of the city and become its own new independent and incorporated city. The movement gained some momentum, as many San Fernando Valley residents within city limits felt they were not receiving Los Angeles city services on par with the rest of the city and their tax contributions.
Before secession could come out for a vote, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) studied the fiscal viability of the new city and decided that the new city must mitigate any fiscal loss incurred by the rest of Los Angeles. LAFCO concluded that a new San Fernando Valley city would be financially viable, but would need to mitigate the $60.8 million that the remaining portion of Los Angeles would lose in revenues. Secessionists took this figure as evidence that the Valley gave more money to Los Angeles than it received back in services. This triggered a petition drive led by Valley VOTE[25] to put secession on the ballot. Measures F (the proposed new SFV city) and H (the proposed new Hollywood City, which was on the same ballot) not only decided whether the valley became a city, but voters also got to pick a new name for it. The proposed names on the ballot were San Fernando Valley, Rancho San Fernando, Mission Valley, Valley City, and Camelot. (There was already a separate City of San Fernando in the San Fernando Valley, so that option was not available.) Along with Measures F and H, elections were held for fourteen council members and a mayor.
Valley politicians such as State Senator Richard Alarcón and City Council President Alex Padilla opposed the initiatives. The leader of the LAUSD breakup and former congresswoman and busing opponent Bobbi Fiedler also campaigned against secession. Supporters pointed out that the Valley suffered from many of the same problems of poverty, crime, drug and gang activity as the rest of the city.
Measure F did not receive the necessary votes to pass for the Valley to secede. The proposal passed with a slight majority in the Valley, but was defeated by the rest of Los Angeles due to a heavily-funded campaign against it led by then-Los Angeles mayor James Hahn. Republican Assemblyman Keith Richman of Northridge was voted in as mayor of the stillborn city, which according to vote returns would have been named San Fernando Valley. Richman and other activists behind the secession movement attempted to redirect their civic energies toward influencing Los Angeles city politics, but their efforts largely fizzled. Hertzberg’s 2005 mayoral campaign, which received heavy support in the Valley, nonetheless finished in third place (only a few percentage points behind incumbent Mayor Hahn), and no secession supporters were elected to positions on the Los Angeles City Council.
Had the measure passed, the southern portion of the city would have remained as the city of Los Angeles, with about 2.1 million people. The northern Valley portion would have created a new municipality of 211 square miles (546 km2) with about 1.3 million residents. If secession had passed, the new City of San Fernando Valley would have been the seventh most populous city in the United States, after New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia, and Phoenix.
All true, but Simi isn’t in the Valley. Chatsworth, Reseda, etc., are essentially named neighborhoods in the city of LA (with some political autonomy), but Simi Valley is a separate city (incorporated in 1969) in a different county. It can’t ever have been part of the city of LA.
Sorry, I missed this post, and responded to the one following it, assuming you still believed Simi had seceded from LA. I remember the secession fight you refer to, now that you mention it. I lived in Simi for about 8 years ending in 97.
That is right. I was trying to come up with Fernando Valley, but could only tickle the brain cell that said “Simi Valley”.
I might be because I used to drive through San Fernando Valley on the Simi Valley Freeway, on my way to Camarillo Airport.
but you are right, it wasn’t Simi Valley, but San Fernando Valley.
I moved from working at Pt Mugu to Edwards AFB in 1984, and left Edwards in 1989.
I left Antelope Valley for Texas in 1998, and came back in 2002.
No, I’m not asserting that about the Civil War, per se (though I’m far more ambivalent about the morality involved and the resulting damage than you appear to be). Rather, I referred to what appears to me to be the attitude in the federal government and among liberals in general that Constitutional patriots are the enemy and the danger, and those who FReepers would consider such are actually misunderstood and to be coddled and mollified.
I am certain that there are those in and out of government to whom the Constitution is a danger, and adherence to the Constitution is a threat.
They should be educated, and if they work for the government, fired.
You are talking about conventional warfare, line ‘em up and shoot it out. I doubt we would ever see that unless large parts of the military defected- like entire military facilities, I cannot imagine that ever happening but would make a good book/movie theme. Unconventional war is a whole different thing, and has been quite successful in the past against large well armed forces. We might see something like that at some point.
No one, of course. Though I didn’t really want to shoot anyone in Vietnam either. And they were commies too.
Unconfentional war has been successful, but at tremendous cost.
The Geneva Convention requires combatants to wear a uniform recognizable at a distance, and to separate themselves from noncombatants and avoid targeting civilians, hospitals, churches, schools.
Only through the violation of the Geneva Conventions have unconventional combatants been successful.
The Geneva convention specifies that when illegal combatants do not separate themselves from noncombatants, they do not thereby gain protection, but rather protection is removed from the noncombatants. The rules are written that way so that combatants have no incentive to put noncombatants at risk. Damage to noncombatants when combatants illegally colocate with and hide behind noncombatants is the responsibility of the illegal combatants.
Combatants have a choice with the US military: (1)Surrender, (2) Be destroyed, or (3) Try to hide behind noncombatants. Option 3 leads to massive casualties among the noncombatants, casualties that are legally the responsibility of the unconventional warrior.
"Legally"? That's not how that game is played.
If you don’t fight legally, then you are a war criminal.
OK.
Are you an FBI or other alphabet agent? You make about enough sense to be something like that baiting people on the internet. I am just a country girl with really no dog in “this” fight but you are unreal. If it comes to the point where people in numbers large enough to matter are going to war with other people or the government I would imagine their priority would be to win. I don’t think they will fight the nice neat fight that we think of as war now. Otherwise why bother? Would there be large losses of life? Most likely, I can’t imagine otherwise. The thing is when people, not as any part of an organized military decide to take up arms and fight for whatever reason they have been pushed to the point of no return. At that point winning is all that will matter. Lord help us if it comes to that, but I won’t be betting on the outcome. Small numbers have overcome overwhelming forces many times in history so there is no predicting the outcome.
What Perry is realizing now is that the economic hit Texas would pay for succession would be almost too much to bear...
Although, privately, I’m betting we could endure as a separate Republic AGAIN, if the boat we are in now sinks a little more...
The economic hit we will take may pale in comparison to remaining in the Union...Once those numbers are crunched, I see some people making some more noises about this...
For those wishing to stay, fine...Be prepared for ANYTHING...
For those wishing to leave...Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.