California Rural counties for equal representation

Jefferson - California Rural counties for equal representation

Jerry Brown using campaign funds on Props. 1 and 2

Published 3:12 pm, Friday, October 24, 2014


Gov. Jerry Brown has found a use for the $23 million that’s been gathering dust in his campaign treasury this year. He’s decided to give it away.

Of the $3.42 million Brown spent between Oct.1 and 18, the closing date for the latest state campaign finance report, only about $62,000 went toward his effort to win an unprecedented fourth term as governor. The rest of the money, more than $3.36 million, was used to boost Propositions 1 and 2, the state water bond and the proposed state rainy day fund.

Here’s another indication about how worried the governor is about his race against Orange County Republican Neel Kashkari. With election day less than two weeks away, the governor left California Thursday to fly back east for the 50th reunion of his Yale Law School class. He’s not expected back in California until Sunday.

Brown’s campaign, including the fundraising, remains on cruise control. He collected almost $750,000 in the first part of the month, leaving him with more than $20 million in the bank.

Although a Public Policy Institute of California poll released this week shows Brown with a 52 percent to 36 percent lead over Kashkari, the Orange County resident put another $1 million of his own money into his campaign last week, bringing his total contribution to $3.1 million.

Even after that contribution, Kashkari had only $841,000 left in the bank for the final weeks of the campaign, along with $140,000 in unpaid bills.

It’s not only the candidates who have come up with cash for the last push to Nov. 4. In what’s expected to be a tight race for state superintendent of public instruction, incumbent Tom Torlakson has about $100,000 in his account, after subtracting unpaid bills, while challenger Marshall Tuck had a net balance of around $87,000.

But an independent expenditure committee financed mostly by the California Teachers Association has put up more than $3.3 million to back Torlakson, while another committee calling for changes in the way schools are run has spent $4.4 million on Tuck’s behalf.

In the race for state controller, both Democrat Betty Yee and Republican Ashley Swearengin have less than $55,000 in unencumbered cash, but in the past week a labor group has spent more than $400,000 on a series of mailers attacking Swearengin.

Democratic state Sen. Alex Padilla of Pacoima (Los Angeles County) has a big cash advantage over Republican businessman Pete Peterson in the contest for secretary of state. Padilla has about $220,000 in the bank, while Peterson’s campaign is in the red with $57,576 in the bank and $64,351 in unpaid bills.

The other statewide races have Democrats with comfortable leads in both in the polls and at the bank. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Kamala Harris, Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones and termed-out Controller John Chiang, who’s running for state treasurer, all have better than $2.3 million in their campaign accounts and are running against Republicans who are struggling to stay in the black.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t a Plan B for at least one of those threatened Republicans. State Sen. Ted Gaines of Rocklin (Placer County) may be $28,000 in the red in his run for state insurance commissioner, but he already has $184,000 in the bank for his state Senate re-election campaign in 2016.

John Wildermuth is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: Twitter: @jfwildermuth


Court sides with IRS in tea-party targeting scandal

Comment: More biased judging creating more tyranny. This is not abiding by the Constitution or Bill of Rights. — Admin Liz Bowen

World Net

Bush-appointed judge says ‘no harm done’


A federal judge has sided with the Internal Revenue Service and dismissed lawsuits by tea-party groups seeking redress for the secret targeting of their applications for tax-exempt status, which the groups argued were intentionally delayed for political purposes.

The tea party organizations immediately announced they would appeal the decision by Washington, D.C., District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

Walton ruled that two lawsuits by Texas-based True the Vote and Linchpins of Liberty, along with 41 other conservative groups, were moot because the IRS took steps to address the scandal and “publicly suspended its targeting scheme.”

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the tea party groups, said he plans to appeal the case.

“The decision by the court is disappointing. However, it does not deter our efforts to seek justice for our clients. We are reviewing the decision and plan to appeal,” Sekulow said in an emailed statement.

In its federal lawsuit, the ACLJ represents 41 organizations in 22 states. Of the 41 groups, 28 organizations received tax-exempt status after lengthy delays, seven are still pending, five withdrew applications because of frustration with the IRS process, and one had its file closed by the IRS after refusing to answer the unconstitutional requests for more information, Sekulow said.

“It’s a disappointing ruling because it basically leaves targets of bad behavior by the IRS without a remedy,” Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

Walton decided that because the organizations eventually won tax-exempt status, any wrongdoing they suffered had been remedied.

“We are stunned by today’s judgment,” said Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote. “The notion that the IRS can target Americans for years because of their political beliefs is reprehensible.”

Although the tea party groups argued there is no guarantee the IRS would not target conservative groups again, Walton ruled that the “prospect of future harm is speculative.”

Von Spakovsky, the Heritage legal fellow, told the Daily Signal that given the unapologetic behavior of Lois Lerner and other Obama cronies at the IRS, “and their total lack of remorse, I don’t think it’s ‘speculative’ that this could happen again in the future.”

Sekulow said previously that the IRS violated the groups’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection with its secret targeting of their applications. The lawsuit was initially filed on May 20, 2013, with 25 plaintiffs. But more have come forward.

“The floodgates opened after we filed our initial lawsuit,” Sekulow said after the complaint was amended in June 2013 to reflect the additional groups. “We have been contacted by many additional organizations that have been unlawfully targeted by the IRS — revealing that this unconstitutional scheme was pervasive and damaging.”

Mark Baird explains bad 1964 U.S. Supreme Court Decision “Reynolds v Sims”

Liberty will find the light of day!

Reynolds v Sims set us on this course of action.

The Supreme Court invented and conferred upon itself the power to change the States election process.

This power is not within the Court’s jurisdiction, under Article three nor is it found under article one, section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Justice Warren invented the principle of one man, one vote for both houses of a States legislature. The Federal model of government gave each County one State representative, just as each State has two Federal Senators. The result of the Reynolds opinion is a lack of representation.

We have six Counties already petitioning California for withdraw from the State. We are talking to ten more. We will restore representation to Jefferson. We will restore Liberty through Constitutional government.

Without Liberty and representation, nothing else matters. What will you do to secure Liberty for your posterity, as your fathers did for you?

The Time Has Come For 51.

Reasons for voting NO on Prop. 1 Water Bond

NO on Proposition 1 – The Water Bond

The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (AB1471), the Water Bond, is on the ballot this November for voter approval. Proponents want us to believe that it will ‘save’ water by building dams and reservoirs. It won’t. It is designed to remove dams, not create them. It supports wetlands restoration, not water storage.

In the beginning, this bill called for the removal of four Klamath River dams. The language has been changed to make its intent less obvious, and the intent stands.

79732. (a) In protecting and restoring California rivers, lakes, streams, and watersheds, the purposes of this chapter are to:

(4) Protect and restore aquatic, wetland, and migratory bird ecosystems, including fish and wildlife corridors and the acquisition of water rights for instream flow.

(6) Remove barriers to fish passage.

That’s dam removal.

79736. Of the funds authorized by Section 79730, four hundred seventy-five million dollars ($475,000,000) shall be available to the Natural Resources Agency to support projects that fulfill the obligations of the State of California in complying with the terms of any of the following:

(e) Any intrastate or multiparty settlement agreement related to water acted upon or before December 31, 2013.

Those agreements include the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement that calls for the removal of four dams that today provide not only water storage and flood control, but clean hydroelectric power to over 70,000 homes. The dams also sustain a crucial fish hatchery.

Here is the text of Jerry Brown’s California Water Action Plan, which is where that $475,000,000 will be directed:

Page 11 Bullet 2:


Continue Restoration Efforts in the Klamath Basin

The Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Natural Resources Agency will continue to work with diverse stakeholders to implement the Klamath Basin restoration and settlement agreements. … The administration will work with Congress to secure the necessary federal authorizations for the agreements and secure the necessary funding for removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River and funding for the necessary basin restoration.

Between the years 2000 and 2006 voters approved Propositions 12, 13, 40, 50 and 84 which all promised water protection of some sort. Each of those cost taxpayers double what they voted for, and they got nothing in return. The billions of dollars attached to those bonds were redirected to carry out various environmental groups’ objectives, as well as those of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Taxpayer monies have been used to help conservation organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy, acquire ranches and conservation easements to establish CDFW control over the rural economy. The results have been putting ranchers out of business and closing down access roads into mountainous areas.

In Chapter 6 of the Water Bond we learn that three hundred twenty-seven million five hundred thousand dollars ($327,500,000) will go to such conservancies. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy alone. The word ‘acquisition’ is used several times

Who has contributed to Prop 1? Corporate agriculture businesses are on the list.

One contributor in particular is Beverly Hills billionaire Stewart Resnick who owns Paramount Farms. He turned a dry-farm ranch into an irrigated property to grow pomegranates, pistachios, almonds and oranges.

He also controls the Kern Water Bank.

The Kern Water Bank, which is the nation’s largest underground water banking system, was once owned by the people of California. Now it’s a private company run by Resnick. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) built canals and pumps to connect the water bank to the state’s aqueduct system in order to move water from storage sites to farms and cities. It prioritized urban water supplies during droughts. In 1994 the state’s water plan was changed to serve the interests of agribusiness and developers.

The Resnicks are only one contributor in support of Prop 1, but they alone have plenty of practice in taking and selling resources. They own Fiji Water.

To read more about Resnick’s potential to make a lot of money controlling our water, and to find a record of other contributions he’s made, please see the article entitled: Water, Money, Taxes, Campaigns, and the Bond: The Resnick Farming Story.

It would be good for us to learn from our past mistakes.

Vote NO on Proposition 1.

– Thank you to Jean Gerard for sending this to us. — Admin Liz Bowen

Jean Gerard
Nevada City

Union demands send Japanese firm, jobs packing from California town

The California city of Palmdale was ready to roll out the red carpet this summer when a Japanese company agreed to build a $60 million factory on a city-owned, vacant parcel on the southwest side of town — but now the company is taking its project out of state and critics say union greed is to blame. 

As many as 300 people were slated to work at the 400,000-square-foot plant, painting and wiring light rail cars under a huge contract with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority. It was a coup for Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford, and a plan that seemed to suit Kinkisharyo International, which last year moved its U.S. headquarters from Boston to El Segundo, Calif. 

“I believe this is just the beginning of a manufacturing renaissance here in the Antelope Valley,” crowed Ledford in June.

“The company is disappointed. They would have liked to stayed in Palmdale.”

- Kinkisharyo spokesman Coby King

“We’ve been waiting for this day for a long time,” added Palmdale Economic Development Director Dave Walter. “So many people and organizations played huge roles in making this a reality.”

But a newly formed environmental group — which critics say is a front for a local union — had other ideas.

Japanese rail company Kinkisharyo agreed to build a $60 million factory on a city-owned, vacant parcel in Palmdale, Calif. It would have been similar to this facility operated by the company in Phoenix, Arizona. (Kinkisharyo) (KINKISHARYO)


The “Antelope Valley Residents for Responsible Development,” a group backed by the International Brotherhood Workers Union Local 11, produced a 588-page appeal claiming that construction of the proposed factory would violate state environmental laws, by, among other things, kicking up spores. What the union really wanted, according to Kinkisharyo officials, was clearance to organize the plant without any interference from the company. When Kinkisharyo officials balked, the project suddenly became a potential environmental hazard.

“They are using California’s environmental laws as a pretense to put leverage on the company to get what they want,” Kinkisharyo spokesman Coby King told “It’s unfortunate when groups that don’t care about the well-being of the environment use the laws to delay, and even kill, good business development.”

Kinkisharyo, the El Segundo-based U.S. subsidiary of Kinki Sharyo Co., is currently assembling 78 light rail cars for Metro, with delivery of the first car expected this month. The company has exercised an option to build an additional 97 cars under a 10-year, $891 million contract with the MTA. For now, the company is doing the work from a hangar in Palmdale. But after delays the company has said have cost it $2 million, Kinkisharyo is looking out of state for a site to build its plant.

“The company is disappointed,” King said. “They would have liked to stay in Palmdale.”

The standoff began shortly after the June announcement, when Local 11 officials sought a so-called card check agreement, where a company accepts the union if a majority of workers sign authorization cards. Absent such an agreement, the National Labor Relations Board would authorize a secret ballot during an organizing campaign the company would be free to oppose. The company said no thanks.


Support Del Norte County Sheriff Dean Wilson

Comment: I know Del Norte County Sheriff Dean Wilson. He is a strong Constitutional Sheriff. Please go to the the newspaper and vote for Sheriff Wilson. He and Siskiyou  Co. Sheriff Jon Lopey stand together on many issues. Thank you. — Admin Liz Bowen

PLEASE help!

Sheriff Dean Wilson is in a close race against his far-left backed opponent Eric Apperson.
In a very unusual move, the left-leaning local newspaper is conducting a poll of potential voters to determine the election results one week ahead of the election. Apperson’s supporters have mounted a massive social media [Face Book, twitter, etc.] to skew the results of the poll.

Please go to

and support Dean Wilson for reelection. Click on the first selection, “Satisfied, want to keep Wilson”.

All 12 Northern California county sheriffs have endorsed Sheriff Wilson for reelection They have voiced their fears of what might happen if the liberal-leftist-progressive-socialist forces elect “their” candidate. If the “choose Apperson” crowd can overwhelm the poll, they will publish ads creating a herd mentality bandwagon and disheartening Wilson supporters so they will not go to the polls.

PLEASE take the few moments necessary to cast your vote!
Thank you.
Aaron Funk, a Dean Wilson supporter

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
—Edmund Burke

Aaron Funk
Kamp Klamath RV Park and Campground
P.O. Box 99/1661 West Klamath Beach Blvd.
Klamath, California 95548
TEL 707-482-0227
FAX 707-482-0147

Officials want South Florida to break off into its own state

South vs. North: Should Florida become two states?

Officials in the City of South Miami have passed a resolution in favor of splitting the state in half so South Florida would become the 51st state.

Vice Mayor Walter Harris proposed the resolution and it passed with a 3-2 vote at the city commission meeting on Oct. 7.

Harris told the commission that Tallahassee isn’t providing South Florida with proper representation or addressing its concerns when it comes to sea-level rising.

“We have to be able to deal directly with this environmental concern and we can’t really get it done in Tallahassee,” Harris said. “I don’t care what people think — it’s not a matter of electing the right people.” 

Mayor Philip Stoddard agreed with Harris’ reasoning, saying during the meeting that he’s advocated for secession for the past 15 years but never penned a resolution. 

“It’s very apparent that the attitude of the northern part of the state is that they would just love to saw the state in half and just let us float off into the Caribbean,” Stoddard said. “They’ve made that abundantly clear every possible opportunity and I would love to give them the opportunity to do that.”

But the vote wasn’t unanimous. Commissioners Gabriel Edmond and Josh Liebman voted against the resolution with Edmond, a history teacher, being the most vocal about it.

“I just want you guys to be careful because if you vote for this you’re setting a precedent that if other people in this city don’t like our representation or feel we’re not responsive to them they might say ‘we want to break away from the city of South Miami’.”

The resolution lists the northern border of what would be the state of South Florida as being Brevard, Orange, Polk, Hillsborough and Pinellas counties.

Orange County is particularly important because that’s where the South Florida Water Management District begins, Harris said. It was even suggested that a Central Florida city could possibly be the state of South Florida’s capitol.

In total, the proposed 51st state would include 24 counties.

The resolution’s 3-2 approval paved the way for it to be sent to the governing bodies of the proposed South Florida counties for consideration. In order for secession to be enacted, however, the measure would require electorate approval from the entire state and Congressional approval.

Click here to read a copy of the resolution.

Copyright © 2014, Orlando Sentinel

Siskiyou supervisors weigh in on water bond

Comment: Hooray for the Siskiyou Co. Supervisors for taking a stand against Prop. 1! — Admin  Liz Bowen

Siskiyou Daily News

  • At the urging of constituents, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday joined the opposition to the water bond measure on this year’s ballot, Proposition 1.

By David Smith

Posted Oct. 16, 2014 @ 9:36 am

At the urging of constituents, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday joined the opposition to the water bond measure on this year’s ballot, Proposition 1.

If approved by voters in November, the measure would allow the state to sell $7.1 billion in general obligation bonds to pay for water projects around California. It would also allow the sale of approximately $425 million in unsold bonds previously approved by voters. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the state would have to pay $360 million per year until the bonds are paid off.

Members of the public spoke in opposition to the ballot measure, calling it – among other things – a way for water rights to be taken away from agricultural water users and a way to lose local control over groundwater resources.

Representatives from Scott Valley Protect Our Water, the local granges and the Siskiyou County Central Republican Committee urged the board to author a resolution in opposition to the proposition.

Speakers alleged that the measure would increase the power of environmental groups and state agencies to purchase agricultural land, hurting local economies. Speakers also decried the potential for bond funds to be used to remove dams on the Klamath River.

County Counsel Brian Morris provided the board with a brief overview of the measure, focusing on the evolution of its language regarding the Klamath dams.

Under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, the state is obligated to provide up to $250 million to help pay for the cost of decommissioning and removing four dams operating on the Klamath River.

According to Morris, previous iterations of the water bond had specific earmarks for the dams, but successive changes have led to the complete removal of references to the Klamath.

He noted that more general language in the measure can be construed to allow for funds to be expended on dam removal projects.

Specifically, section 79732 (a) 6 says one of the actions that can be funded to improve watersheds is the removal of barriers to fish passage.

In addition, section 79736 states that $475 million will be set aside to fulfill obligations of the state for complying with, among other things, “Any intrastate or multiparty settlement agreement related to water acted upon or before December 31, 2013.”

Settlements that might qualify include those that restore natural aquatic or riparian functions or wetlands habitat for birds and aquatic species, and those that restore endangered or threatened species and enhance the reliability of water supplies.

Discussion at the board level indicated that the state may not be relying on the bonds to fulfill its KHSA obligations, and District 5 Supervisor Marcia Armstrong said the county has been assured that there would be too much competition for the funds for any to be allocated to dam removal.

Read more:



Congressman Doug LaMalfa will be discussing the water issues in the North State, the EPA, and what can be accomplished by the US Congress to reign in their radical agenda. Tune in to hear this important conversation.

The show will be for one hour, and will feature Mark Baird promoting the State of Jefferson, and exposing Heidi Hall (who is running for U.S. Congress) and her campaign violations.

This is the basis of politics – local issues. Listen and be informed.