California Rural counties for equal representation

Jefferson - California Rural counties for equal representation

History made by Jefferson State Committee

Published in Trinity Gazette

September 2014

Edition No. 10

By Liz Bowen
Jefferson News

SACRAMENTO — They did it! On August 28th, the Jefferson Declaration Committee held a rally with over 200 State of Jefferson supporters showing up on the West steps of the California Capitol waving Jefferson flags and wearing the state double-crossed logo.
The goal was to deliver Siskiyou and Modoc County’s Declarations, which included legal petitions, to withdraw from the State of California. They were hand delivered to the Secretary of State and the parliamentarians of Assembly and Senate.
Citing Article 1 Section 3 (a) of the California Constitution which states: “The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good,” Jefferson leader Mark Baird and Siskiyou County Supervisor Dist. 1 Brandon Criss delivered the Declarations signing the legal “Proof of Service” forms in the Capitol offices.
“We are taxed without representation,” said Baird, during the rally, explaining that each county should elect a state senator – providing a correct Constitutional representation. Currently, Northern California counties are afforded only two senators and the rest of the state elects 38. “We are here to gain representation for each and every county in the State of Jefferson,” he explained.
Baird said he was met with reluctance, when a receptionist for the Senate Parliamentarian said she didn’t think she could accept the Declaration. But after a discussion behind closed doors, she did accept the Declaration and provided proof of receipt.
“It’s more than symbolic. This is a step in the legal process to split California into two entities,” said Baird.
Meanwhile out on the West Capitol steps, Assemblyman Tim Donnelley, walked out to address the Jefferson Rally. He was the only elected legislative official in Sacramento willing to speak in support of the State of Jefferson and he did so with gusto.
Four additional County Board of Supervisors have signed a Declaration for withdrawal from California. It is expected that Yuba, Sutter, Glenn and Tehama Jefferson Committees will be submitting their declarations to the State Legislature and Secretary of State within the next two months.
Siskiyou Supervisor Criss said he was proud Siskiyou County Supervisors were the first to approve the Declaration to split from California, saying it showed how well the county supervisors and the public can work together on a common cause as a team. In answer to nay-sayers, Supervisor Criss explained creating the State of Jefferson, “would re-awaken the rural economy if it were unleashed from urban control. California has over 500 government agencies micromanaging the people.”
It was September 3rd of 2013, when the Siskiyou Supervisors started the ball rolling by approving the Declaration during its board meeting with a crowd of over 100 applauding. Since then, the Jefferson Declaration Committee has grown from obscurity to setting an historical precedence. The 51st State of Jefferson movement is no longer a laughing matter as some media and California legislators assumed.
Indeed the submission of the Declarations was a solemn event as they were accompanied by a legal petition expecting a response and remedy from the state secretary and legislature. This is something that has never been done before.
“We did what we said we would do one year ago,” said Baird. “We have petitioned the state, because we have no representation — and for redress of grievances. The time has come for 51.”
Recently, the Sacramento Bee sponsored an on-line poll and 73 percent voted in favor of splitting the State of California creating the 51st State of Jefferson.
“Seventy-three percent is incredible,” said Baird. “We’ve made a tremendous amount of progress – covered a great deal of ground in just one year.”
The Jefferson Declaration grassroots group is on fire, now boasting committees in 20 Northern California Counties. Check out the group’s website at: Jefferson for more information.
Candidates running for office are also taking notice. Soon after the Aug. 28th submission of the Declarations, Matt Heath, candidate for California State Assembly Dist. 2 gave more than a nod for the State of Jefferson.
“If a county presented me with a petition to form a new state, I would call for a hearing and listen to their concerns, as per my duty to support the people of my district. Those are the broader principles of liberty that our state and our nation were founded on,” said Heath.
# # #


Tehama County: Shooters are invited !!!

Tehama County will be hosting a Sporting Clay Tournament as a fundraising event for the State of Jefferson on November 15th at the Rolling Hills Casino.  Each county is invited to send their delegates to shoot for a great cause.  

Lunch and awards ceremony will take place after the shooting and non-shooters are welcome.  Please find attached the information flyer and registration forms, due back by October 30th.  

All proceeds will go to the State of Jefferson, earmarked for education and advertising.  

See you there!

Fundraiser for State of Jefferson

1st Annual State of Jefferson Sporting Clay Tournament

Sponsored by Tehama County for State of Jefferson

Sat. Nov. 15, 2014

8 a.m. is sign up

9 a.m. starts

1 p.m. lunch and awards


Clear Creek Sports Club

Rolling Hills Casino

I-5 and Liberal Ave.

Corning, CA.

$100 per shooter, includes sporting clays and tri-tip lunch at Rolling Hills Casino

$20 for non-shooter and lunch

Represent your county!!!!!

RSVP and deposit deadline is Oct. 30th

Call Karin Knorr at 530-824-4035

Judge rules Stockton can sever CalPERS pensions; Wall Street approves

Judge rules Stockton can sever CalPERS pensions; Wall Street approves


What if you could boot other states out of the union?

Which state would be the first voted out? California. Of the voters willing to ditch a state or two, 53 percent pick the Golden State.

Fox News Poll: Voters reveal which state they want kicked out of the union
There’s lots of talk about it.

Vote NO on Water Bond Prop. 1 — Nov. 4th Election

Dear Siskiyou Water Users Association Members,

Siskiyou Water Users Association board members are opposed to proposition #1 which is the CA water bond issue on the November Statewide ballot. A full explanation of Proposition #1 is below as an “Urgent Bulletin” written by your board.

Our legislators voted for this bill because it was “not as bad” as the alternative water bond bill passed in 2010 which did not make it to the ballot due to the $11 billion dollars price tag. If this present bill was not passed then the prior bill would go on the ballot with little chance of passing.

We don’t know about you but we are tired of having to vote for the” lesser of two evils” which often results in unintended, damaging consequences.

See Urgent bulletin below and attached 4 minute YouTube by Americans for Prosperity.

In Liberty,
Louise Gliatto
Siskiyou Water Users Association

Water Bond Drowning in Pork Spending

From Americans For Prosperity California – David Spady



A thorough review of the proposed Proposition 1, “California Water Bond”, for the November ballot shows a punchbowl full of giveaways to numerous conservation groups and pork for various favorite programs of some legislators.
This proposition contrary to its billing as creating new and improved water supplies actually does very little to develop additional storage facilities which California desperately needs. The nominal cost of the bond is advertised at approximately $7.12 Billion dollars yet in actual fact the bill together with interest amounts to a total cost to taxpayers of nearly $14,500,000,000 dollars further damaging the state’s financial structure. This limits the future opportunity for California to correct its water needs.

The drought problems we are experiencing now would not be taking place if adequate efforts had been followed through by the State of California on carrying out the original California Water Plan developed in the 60”s. Instead the various water bond issues Californians have previously approved Sixteen Billion Dollars which have been redirected to carry out various environmental groups’ objectives and particularly the private goals of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Department previously known as California Fish and Game.

Under the guise of providing clean water and wildlife habitat the CDFW has been fronting public monies to assist conservation organizations such as Nature Conservancy to acquire ranches and conservation easements to establish CDFW control over the rural economy putting ranchers out of business and in some cases closing down access roads into mountainous areas. In addition they have purposely set out to utilize environmental organizations to shut down ranching and farming utilizing the endangered species act to assist together with environmental lawsuits to destroy large rural farming and ranching areas most notably in the Northern part of the State.

This bill originally specifically called for the largest dam removal project in the United States by the removal of four perfectly sound Klamath River Dams. These dams not only provide water storage, recreation, and flood control but also significant hydropower to over 70,000 homes and sustain a vital fish hatchery needed to replenish fish stocks. These dams produce clean non- polluting power for our Northern neighbors producing cattle, grain crops, and a significant amount of feed for the dairy industry. The plan to destroy these dams has been based on faulty and manipulated scientific reports prepared by State and Federal Agencies to serve a political end for a few politicians and the enviros who feed them money.

This bond issue is not going to help alleviate the water storage problems of the state as the stated amount of $7.12 billion will only utilize approximately 2.7 Billion less than half of the bond issue amount to water storage projects. The balance of the bond funds go primarily to pay off numerous conservation organizations and provide a bankroll for California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

There is language in this bill under section 79736 (e) which has $475,000,000 available to the Natural Resources Agency for multiparty settlement agreement (such as the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, Dam removal) acted upon or before December 31, 2013.

Please get the word out to your members and other organizations that they should not vote for this bond issue and send a message to the legislature and Governor to go back to the drawing board and produce a bond issue that really will add water storage capability for the State and leave the Klamath Dams in place.

We urge a NO vote on the water bond on this November ballot

Siskiyou County Republican Women Federated
Siskiyou County Republican Central Committee
Siskiyou  Water Users Association
Scott Valley  Protect Our Water
Yreka Tea Party Patriots
Democrats Against Agenda 21
Americans for Prosperity
CA Tea Party Coalition
California Republican Assembly
Siskiyou County Granges
Craig Huey Report
CA Assemblyman Tim Donnelly
California Eagle Forum

Editorial: Stockton bankruptcy case should be a loud warning to cities

Sacramento Bee

Published: Friday, Oct. 3, 2014 – 12:00 am

A judge’s potentially groundbreaking ruling in the Stockton bankruptcy case should send messages loud and clear.

To the Legislature – that it can’t rewrite federal bankruptcy law. To the city of Stockton, Franklin Templeton Investments and CalPERS – that they need to make a deal. And to local officials across California – that they need to get more serious about pension reform.

In his verbal ruling, Judge Christopher Klein declared Wednesday that public employee pensions are not off-limits in bankruptcies. He suggested that insolvent California cities could choose to reduce already-promised pension payments and even walk away from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.

The city of Stockton does not plan to do that. Under its reorganization plan, it pledges to keep making its $29 million annual payment to CalPERS. Because the settlement calls for Franklin Templeton to get back only $4 million of the $36 million it loaned the city, the San Mateo-based firm went to court to get more, even if the money comes out of pensions. By delaying a decision on the reorganization plan until Oct. 30, Klein left an opening for a compromise.

This entire ugly spectacle ought to refocus local officials on their financial reality: If they don’t control long-term retirement costs, those obligations will consume tax dollars at the expense of services to residents and jobs for current employees.

Many cities and counties have started trying to dial back pensions, reducing benefits for new hires and requiring employees to pay their full share of CalPERS contributions.

Because these changes are being made through negotiations with unions, local governments are often having to hand out pay raises and other sweeteners in return. And because they were far too generous for much too long, it is going to take years for significant savings from pension reform.

Some 2,000 local agencies are facing higher payments to CalPERS now and for the foreseeable future. Yet at the same time, a majority of the CalPERS board is enabling local governments to hand out even more benefits. In August, the board voted 7-5 to count more than 100 kinds of supplemental and temporary pay in calculating pensions for employees hired after Jan. 1, 2013. The majority ignored pleas from Gov. Jerry Brown, who correctly warned that the move undermined pension reform passed two years ago.

That’s the broader context for the Stockton case. While there’s a lot of uncertainty, and there’s always the possibility that the ruling could be overturned on appeal, some basics ought to be beyond dispute.

The city of Stockton overpromised and overspent, and buried itself in more than $200 million in debt. Franklin Templeton and other creditors made bad bets. And the biggest losers are the working people of Stockton, who will be paying for these mistakes for years to come. About 2,400 retirees have lost their city-paid health insurance, while residents are getting slammed by $90 million in budget cuts and by higher sales taxes to shore up public safety.

If other cities don’t learn the right lessons, they could put their citizens in similar straits, even if they don’t flounder all the way into bankruptcy court.

Read more articles by the Editorial Board

Read more here:

California Governor Jerry Brown Vetoes “Ghost Gun” Ban, Signs Three Other Gun Control Bills

News from California Association for Federal Firearms Licensees

Gun rights group CAL-FFL applauds today’s veto of SB 808 but calls Brown’s actions a “mixed bag”

Sacramento, CA (September 30, 2014) – In what is being hailed as a significant victory for common sense, California Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed Senate Bill 808. The measure, authored by Senator Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), would have required firearms to have a permanent, Department of Justice-issued serial number. Additionally, the proposal would have banned the sale or transfer of all home-built firearms.

“Governor Brown was absolutely right to veto SB 808,” said Brandon Combs, president of California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees (CAL-FFL). “Senator de León’s bill would have created a nightmare for law enforcement and law-abiding gun owners alike.”

In his veto message for SB 808, Brown said that he “can’t see how adding a serial number to a homemade gun would significantly advance public safety.”

“Today’s veto of SB 808 means that law-abiding Californians won’t face a loss of their personal property under Senator de León’s incredibly misguided campaign against Second Amendment civil rights,” Combs said. “For the second time this year, the people of our great state won a decisive victory against de León’s radical anti-gun agenda.”

All of Senator de León’s major gun control bills in the 2013-2014 legislative session failed to become law. SB 53, a proposal to severely restrict ammunition purchases and create a new state ammunition bureaucracy within the DOJ, was rejected by the Assembly on August 30.

In 2013, de León co-authored SB 47 with now-suspended Senator Leland Yee, who is charged with violating federal arms trafficking and corruption laws. The bill would have banned semi-automatic firearms with magazine locking devices sometimes referred to as “Bullet Buttons.” SB 755, a bill he co-authored with Senator Lois Wolk to expand the categories of “prohibited persons” ineligible to possess firearms, was vetoed by Brown last October.

Calling today’s actions by Governor Brown “a bit of a mixed bag,” Combs noted that AB 1014 (Skinner), AB 1609 (Alejo), and SB 199 (de León) were signed into law.

“AB 1014 trades our Constitutional right of due process for reactionary legislative sensationalism,” he explained. “While the restraining order bill that was signed today is a far cry from the insanity Assemblymember Skinner introduced in May, you can bet that we will be keeping a close eye on how the Gun Violence Restraining Order system is applied by the courts.”

Under the rules of the state constitution, today was the last day that bills could be signed or vetoed.

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL) is California’s most tenacious and complete advocacy group for Second Amendment and related rights, with over 100,000 individual supporters and members including firearm dealers, training professionals, shooting ranges, collectors, gun owners, and others who participate in the firearms ecosystem.  CAL-FFL advances the interests of its members and the general public through direct lobbying, legal actions, education, and public outreach.


Media Contact:
Brandon Combs, President

, , , , ,

Assemblyman Brian Dahle bill cuts red tape for small retailers

AB 2031 exempts mom-and-pop stores from collecting lumber tax

A measure sponsored by Assemblyman Brian Dahle to relieve small stores from the burden of collecting a new tax on retail lumber sales has been signed into law by the Governor.
Assembly Bill 2031 waives the obligation of retailers that sell less than $25,000 per year worth of lumber to collect the 1 percent assessment on wood products. The Legislature enacted that tax in 2012, before Assemblyman Dahle took office. Dahle argued and the Legislature agreed that the record-keeping and reporting requirements were a senseless burden compared with the revenue involved.
“California’s rural areas are full of mom-and-pop stores where you can buy a gallon of milk, a fishing license, and a 2-by-4 or sheet of plywood,” Dahle said. “The cost of paperwork for collecting this tax outweighed any benefit to the state. I appreciate the Legislature’s willingness to see reason and make life easier for small businesses.”
AB 2031 passed both houses of the Legislature with broad bipartisan support.

Assemblyman Brian Dahle, R-Bieber, represents the 1st Assembly District, which includes Shasta, Lassen, Nevada, Siskiyou, Modoc, Plumas and Sierra counties, and portions of Butte and Placer counties.

Ron Paul Thinks There Should Be More Secessionist Movements in the U.S.

National Journal

The former U.S. congressman and perennial presidential candidate tells National Journal that he’s “real pleased” with American secessionist groups.

By Rebecca Nelson
September 30, 2014

Secessionists across the world were inspired by Scotland’s energetic attempt at independence from the United Kingdom earlier this month. Ron Paul, as it turns out, joined them.
In an essay on his eponymous institution’s website [Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity] Sunday, the former U.S. congressman from Texas wrote that any supporters of freedom should cheer secessionism because it allows for smaller government—a constant mantra for the libertarian and perennial presidential candidate, who didn’t previously realize there were more than a handful of secessionist groups in the United States.
“I was real pleased with that, and a bit surprised,” Paul told National Journal. “But then, on second thought, you think, ‘Why not? Why not more?’ “
Fringe groups calling for states and regions to secede from the U.S., such as the Second Vermont Republic and the Alaskan Independence Party, gained more publicity in the weeks leading up to the Scottish referendum. As the outsized federal government continues to encroach on individual rights, Paul said, he thinks there will be a groundswell of these movements.
“It’s something that I think is going to grow, because the failure of the federal government is going to get much worse,” he said. “When the bankruptcy evolves, and maybe some of these pension funds are confiscated, and the wars never end, and bankruptcy comes forth, people [will say], ‘Hey, we’re getting a bad deal from this. Why don’t we leave?’ “
He added: “I think it’s inevitable people wanting to leave will be there, and the numbers will grow.”
Realistically, though, Paul said he doesn’t think any of these groups could actually succeed. Despite the founders’ own deep belief in secession—they gained America’s independence from Europe, after all—he said the Civil War set the precedent that secession would carry “very, very bad” results.
“By our history, the heavy hand of the federal government would come down,” Paul told National Journal. “They’d probably shoot ‘em.”
In typical fashion, Paul argued that the principle of secession was more important than what could actually happen in reality. It’s the threat, he said, that’s important to keep the federal government in check.
“I think what is most important is we have a concrete right to secede,” Paul said. “Even if we never had any secession, or any state declare independence, we would be so much better off, because there would always be this threat. Once the threat of a state leaving was removed, it was just open-door policy for the federal government to expand itself and run roughshod out over the states because the states couldn’t do much.”
Given that his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., will likely run for president in 2016 with a much better chance of winning than his father ever had, the elder Paul’s willingness to share his reasonably radical views seem imprudent, if not unexpected. In an election cycle that has often equated the politics of Ron and Rand, this latest remark is sure to annoy the potential 2016-er’s supporters.
For Rand’s sake, it’s fortunate that Ron didn’t express his support for the Texas Nationalist Movement or any other secessionist groups in the U.S. Before he’d back Texan independence, he joked, “I better check out and see who’s running Austin before we decide about that.”

[Also posted here:]