Kayla Nicole Brown, Guest Editorial
Posted December 4, 2013 at midnight
In 1879, fewer than 1 million people inhabited the State of California. But
that is the same year in which our cap of 120 representatives in the house and
senate were set.
Today, California has close to 38 million people.
This change from the rural way of life to city centers has created a lack of
equal representation and led to the obliteration of livelihoods.
The city of Los Angeles alone boasts more than 3,500,000 people, greater than the entire population of the proposed State of Jefferson which is approximately 1,850,000 residents.
To simplify these numbers, in 1879 the ratio was one representative for every
7,206 people. In 2013, the ratio is one representative for every 317,012
This leap in population is a testament to the fact that California stood as the
beacon of prosperity, but today unemployment as well as underemployment,
unsustainable debt and skyrocketing taxes are forcing Californians to flee the
state en masse.
John Avlon of the Daily Beast raised fundamental questions regarding deficit
verse debt as well as California’s tax policies in January of this year. But
what price is a balanced budget if the wealthy and businesses leave and the tax base erodes?
For many Californians in the north state, the fight or flight instinct has led
to the renewal of the State of Jefferson movement as a means of survival. But
the argument for splitting the state in half or even in thirds is not a new one
in California history.
The Compromise of 1850 kept the state whole.
In 1854, the State Assembly proposed the State of Shasta, which held nearly the same parameters that the proposed State of Jefferson is today.
In 1941, the most influential of the movements took hold and it was with this
movement that the Jefferson State moniker was implemented. Despite the 159 years that have passed since the State of Shasta, the idea of multiple states
is still strong.
For the people of Northern California, the argument is not whether the State of Jefferson could succeed. The argument is how long will the State of California drag us down with them and us not being able to do anything about it?
How many more taxes or fees will California impose on us in order to pay off a debt that as of 2:45 pm on Nov. 6, 2013, was at a staggering $418,860,675,107?
Northern California is roughly the size of Kentucky with a population nearly
identical to West Virginia or Idaho, but the latter two states have the same
say on the national stage as NorCal does in California.
To the people of Northern California, the State of Jefferson is a way to level
the playing field. They want to be heard. They want their plight to be eased
and their livelihoods to be spared.
Many of those living in the north state are third, fourth and fifth generations
of people who worked the land.
They want what any other American takes for granted. They want what the people of southern California already enjoy.
Why does one city in California make decisions for a third of the state’s land
Something is broken.
On, Dec. 3, 2013, the Tehama Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 1 to place the Declaration and Petition to withdraw from the State of California on the June Ballot. These courageous Supervisors deserve our thanks for the stand they have taken. One Supervisor, choose not to vote for the ballot method of approval because he wanted to affirm the Declaration to Withdraw right on the spot in order to save time and get the process under way sooner. Tehama County voted for a state split in 1992 by a margin of over 75 percent. The committee welcomes the Great County of Tehama to the movement to create the first Article 4 Section 3 State Split in 150 years.
The State of California continues to give us more and more reason to leave. The State Water Board has written a letter to the USFS and copied all of its radical environmental front groups, suggesting the Public Trust Doctrine be used to reopen the Scott River Water Adjudication. This is an overt attempt to subvert or set precedence for a Constitutional Take of property in Siskiyou County.
Water rights are real property in California but that never stops the existing government in its quest to gain control of all surface and subsurface water in California. If successful, this precedence will be taken south to other counties. Once again Siskiyou County is being used as a test case. We have seen this many times in the past.
The government of California is the enemy of freedom and Liberty and will stop at nothing to set precedence in order to take this program to the rest of California. The Public Trust is a doctrine based in English Common law in order to protect the ability of people to travel on navigable water ways.
California and the radical environmental groups have used judicial activism, sue and settle, junk science and other methods to change the Public Trust Doctrine deprive people of their ability to earn a living from the land which they pay for and pay taxes on.
The Time Has Come For 51
Mark Baird Jefferson Declaration Committee
In September, Glenn interviewed Mark Levin about the options afforded to the states under Article V of the Constitution as outlined in his book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Public. On radio this morning, Glenn shared the news that South Carolina and Virginia have formally called for an Article V Convention of State (COS), and Florida is expected to lend its support to the cause later this week.
“I have been talking to several people that I trust – and are not radicals at all – that know the Constitution. And I have been asking them all, ‘Have you read Mark Levin’s book? What do you think of a Constitutional Convention,’” Glenn explained. “Constitutional Convention scares the crap out of me because it opens everything else up, however, that’s only if the states are out-of-control. And there are a lot of people now fighting it on the conservative side… I believe this is the only way back. There’s a massive reset coming, and the Constitutional Convention is the way [the founders imagined] it.”
For those unfamiliar with Article V of the Constitution, it is a mechanism put in place by the founders to enforce a checks-and-balances system for the federal and state governments. While amendments to the Constitution can be proposed and passed in Congress, Article V also allows for the states themselves to propose amendments. If two-thirds of the states submit an application to Congress, Congress must then call a Convention of States to propose amendments to the Constitution.
The South Carolina COS Project and state legislator Bill Taylor (R-Aiken) are leading the charge. Rep. Taylor explained the American people are simply not happy with the Washington D.C.
“Fortunately, our founders knew the federal government might one day become too large and too powerful and they specifically inserted a mechanism that gives states a lawful and orderly mechanism to restrain a runaway federal government; it’s Article V of the Constitution,” he said.
Constitutional law professor and state director of the South Carolina COS Project Bob Menges is also calling for a convention: “When the framers agreed on Sept. 15, 1787, to add a provision in Article V for the states to amend the Constitution, they in effect were telegraphing a message to us in 2013, a message to us showing us the way back inside the fence of the Constitution.”
“We won a great victory in Tehama County, when the Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to let ”the people” vote for the Declaration to withdraw from the State of California,” said Jefferson Declaration Committee Spokesman Mark Baird.
After several hours of public comment with every seat in the board room filled, the Tehama County Supervisors approved a ballot measure that will be on the June Ballot.
“Everyone in county government was very gracious,” added Mark, “and the people are energized ready to vote in June to approve moving forward towards creating a new state. This is an exciting time.”
The Supervisors took up the agenda item at 1:30 p.m. on Dec. 3, 2013 at their Red Bluff chambers providing an opportunity for the public to speak on the subject.
After Mark Baird spoke for 18 minutes giving grievances against the State of California and offering solutions in the creation of a new state, he was told his time was up. But soon five individuals went to speak and said they would like to yield their time to Baird, who then spoke on finances and the PLAN to fund a new state.
Let it be remembered:
In 1992, more than 75 percent of the people in Tehama County voted to split off from the State of California.
Hum, possibly, an additional 21 years of continued over-regulation by a tyrannical state government, including lack of equal representation, may only add to the resolve of “the people.”
A new state can function appropriately:
A new state will operate under a Constitution. Yes, a Constitutional Convention will be held. Counties will be the foundation of government.
A new state will function with elected officials and basic agencies needed for health and safety.
Property rights, individual rights, all civil rights will be respected providing liberties and freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
Businesses will be encouraged to grow. Favorable tax rates will encourage business.
The State of California is over $400 BILLION in debt. It is a sinking ship. Only nay-sayers and non or mis-informed people can possibly believe California will survive under the current leadership and nanny-state attitude. For 30 years, economies and communities have spiraled downward.
A new state is our only hope!
You bet your bottom dollar, the race is on. “The people” are energized.
2014 will be a great year for creating the State of Jefferson.
– Administrator Liz Bowen
There are 3 “mistakes” in this article:
1) Obviously using the word secession! Even the language in the proposed ballot measure uses the word “Separation” 2) Oregon is NOT involved with California separating from California. Oregon counties can only separate from OREGON.
3) Mr. Bundy voted NO because he was willing to sign onto the Declaration NOW. He didn’t want the expense of putting to to a vote. He said he knew his constituents were FOR the separation.
Posted December 3, 2013 at 4:50 p.m.
The Tehama County Board of Supervisors voted today to put a ballot measure in front of its electorate about whether to leave the state of California.
The board voted 4-1 in favor of the proposal, which county employees will hammer out and bring back to the board for approval at a later meeting.
“I pretty much assume it would pass county-wide,” said Dennis Garton, chair of the board. “(It would) tell California x number of people in the county are in favor of it… not just the five people here.”
Two weeks ago, the board held a public meeting seeking comment from constituents on the proposed 51st state of Jefferson, which would include northern California and southwest Oregon.
The ballot measure would be scheduled for June 2014. Its language would likely resemble the wording of the agenda item, which says, “whether the Board should adopt a Declaration of Support for the proposed separation from the State of California and formation of a 51st state, for possible placement on the June 2014 ballot.”
© 2013 Record Searchlight. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Comment: The only thing we disagree with is the map that can be found at the link to the San Diego Union Tribune. — Admin Liz Bowen
By U-T San Diego Editorial Board 10 a.m.Nov. 30, 2013
It may not be necessary to destroy California in order to fix it. But it may be necessary to cut it in two, carving out a 51st state of New California where taxes are low, regulations are few and where politicians are not the lap dogs of the public-employee labor unions.
To be sure, splitting the state would be a monstrous political task. It hasn’t been done in the United States since Virginia broke in two during the Civil War, with West Virginia admitted to the Union in 1863.
But it is possible. Political difficulties aside, procedurally all it would take under Section 3 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution is for the California Legislature and the Congress to approve.
It is anything but a new idea.
Since California became a state — part of the Compromise of 1850 that blocked the spread of slavery to the West Coast — there have been more than 220 recorded proposals to split it into two, three or even four separate states. Most of those efforts were nothing more than symbolic acts of protest. But a handful or so were deemed serious proposals, though none have gone so far as to be approved by both houses of the Legislature and sent to Congress.
In 2011, Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone proposed that 13 counties, mostly inland but including San Diego and Orange counties, break off to form the state of South California. Leaders in the Capitol dismissed it out of hand, with an aide to Gov. Jerry Brown calling it “a supremely ridiculous waste of everybody’s time.” Stone’s office says the effort is still alive, with a committee studying the many issues involved.
In the far northern reaches of the state, counties along the border with Oregon have been in various degrees of secessionist activism since 1941, clamoring for the new state of Jefferson. As recently as September, the Modoc County Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 in support of the new state. That followed a 4-1 vote in August by the Board of Supervisors in neighboring Siskiyou County to do the same. Officials have said that if they can get 10 more counties to join the effort, they will formally appeal to the Legislature for statehood.
Another idea floated among secessionist proponents is for a smaller 51st state that would only take in the counties of San Diego, Riverside, Imperial and San Bernardino.
Regardless of which counties might ultimately be included, The U-T San Diego ownership thinks secessionist proponents are onto something. In the end, New California ought to include any counties seeking a new beginning without the tax and regulatory burdens and the Nanny State mentality of the existing California — and that could end up being just about the entire state other than the coastal strip from Los Angeles through Mendocino or Humboldt counties, along with Sacramento.
Since early June, the U-T’s Fixing California project has published nearly three dozen commentaries and staff editorials exploring the many problems burdening California. Together, they make a mockery of the head-in-the-sand claims by the state’s dominant leadership that California has turned the corner on the Great Recession and is now an economic model for the rest of the nation.
We believe that virtually all of those problems stem from a state tax structure that is horribly out of whack, a regulatory culture that is anti-business and a strong impediment to economic growth, and the chokehold over state government and politics by organized labor.
We believe that a state unshackled from those burdens would flourish, with existing business and industry encouraged to expand and new businesses encouraged to start up. Jobs and tax revenues would grow as never before, benefiting the new state government as well as all local governments.
Indeed, there is a fix for the problems of California.
New California. It could happen.
A Constitution for New California
• A part-time legislature with strict term limits.
• Governor required to propose, and the legislature required to approve, a budget certified as balanced by an independent state auditor.
• Prohibition on traditional pensions for all government workers, instead providing 401(k)-style retirement plans and Social Security.
• No state tax on personal income.
• Low tax rates on business.
• Strict limits on the power of state and local regulatory agencies. All regulations must be justified through an accounting of costs and benefits and all regulations would sunset after five years.
• Prohibition on mandatory membership of state and local government employees in public-employee unions. Prohibition on automatic payroll deduction of union dues from members’ paychecks. And a prohibition on unions using members’ dues for political purposes without members’ expressed consent.
• Encourage the development of all energy resources — nuclear, renewables such as wind and solar, and fossil fuels, including “fracking” of oil and gas reserves.
• Prohibition on tenure for public school teachers in the K-12 system. Teacher pay based in part on student performance, which would be based in part on standardized testing.
• Encourage educational choice, including expanded public charter schools and voucher programs for private and parochial schools.
© Copyright 2013 The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC. An MLIM LLC Company. All rights reserved.
Just to let everyone know, the Board of Supervisors will be meeting at 10am tomorrow in Red Bluff 727 Oak St.to discuss putting the separation movement to vote by June of 2014. Mark Baird will be speaking at the open comment period. Come show your support and help us have proper representation!
– Terry and Sally Rapoza
By RICH GREENE-DN Staff Writer
Updated: 11/30/2013 07:42:19 AM PST
Red Bluff Daily News
Tehama County voters may sooner than later get to voice their opinions on whether the county should join the State of Jefferson movement.
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to discuss adding an advisory measure on the June 2014 ballot when it meets at 10 a.m. Tuesday, at the Board Chambers, 727 Oak St.
Should the Tehama County Board of Supervisors adopt a Declaration of Support for the proposed separation from the State of California and formation of a 51st state, the advisory measure would ask voters.
The ballot measure would allow the board to hear from the public regarding the withdrawal movement
before proceeding with extensive analysis that county staff has said could be lengthy and expensive.
State of Jefferson supporters presented their case at a special board meeting Nov. 13, asking the supervisors to pass a Declaration of Support.
Withdrawal proponents said they were looking to have the Declaration passed by at least 10 counties before proceeding with the extensive analysis.
The advisory ballot measure in Tehama County would cost about $12,360.
Proponents point to a similar June 1992 advisory vote when 31 counties considered a measure asking whether California should be split into separate states.
Twenty-six counties supported the measure, with 75.6 percent of voters in California voting yes.
Rich Greene can be reached at 527-2151, Ext. 109 or by email at firstname.lastname@example.org om.
Assembly committee plans water-bond hearing in Redding
By Damon Arthur
Posted November 30, 2013 at 6 p.m.
North State residents will get the chance to comment on a proposed statewide water bond when the state Assembly holds a hearing in Redding next week.
The Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife is holding a hearing on a proposed $6.5 billion water bond at the Shasta County Board of Supervisors chambers on Wednesday.
Tina Cannon Leahy, principal consultant for the committee, said the committee is holding four hearings around the state in Indio, Seaside, Eureka and Redding to hear from residents and local official about area water issues.
She said Assemblyman Brian Dahle, R-Bieber, who is a member of the committee, requested one of the hearings be held in Redding.
The proposed water bond is the most recent attempt to have a measure put before voters that would sell bonds to pay for water projects statewide. A bond proposal was first introduced in 2009, but state officials delayed voting on the bill because of the recession.
AB1331 would place a $6.5 billion proposition on the November 2014 ballot that would include $1 billion for projects that would maintain and improve drinking water. Another $1.5 billion would be available for projects to protect rivers and watersheds.
Another $1.5 billion would be for integrated regional water management to improve water delivery and reduce the impact of climate change on water supplies; $1 billion would be for protecting the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta; and $1.5 billion would be used for projects that reduce the impact of climate change on “clean, reliable and affordable” water supplies, according to a committee report on the proposed bond.
In addition to the Assembly bill, there are two other, similar water bond bills in the state Senate SB40 and SB42.
If you go
What: State Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife hearing on a proposed state water bond.
When: 1:30 p.m. Wednesday.
Where: Shasta County Board of Supervisors chambers, 1450 Court St., Room 263 in Redding.
Information: For more information, call 916-319-2001.