by Jack Lee
Being involved with the State of Jefferson movement has been both a privilege and an eye opener. This is democracy at its best. But first, let me make it clear who the supporters for Statehood are. They are not radicals, revoutionaries, they’re for the most part not wealthy, they also are not self-serving opportunist and they sure aren’t socialist! These are patriots of the highest order. They’re a collection mostly working class people who understand and believe in the principles that founded this country.
This does not mean they want a return to the all the values of the 18th century, and I’ve heard a number of liberals on the far left try to convince people that is their mission. Nothing could be further from the truth. The values embraced by the Statehood movement are lower taxation, responsible representation and more freedom. How bad could that be?
You have the right to ask, alright, then what do these things really mean? They are all pretty broad subjects. Yes, they are and I’ll try to explain to the best of my ability…
Limited government means a government that has reasonable restrictions on those that are in power. The broad limits are found in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The limits, as the people of the new State see fit, will be enforced by laws or other practices, including free, regularly scheduled elections.
With the ratification of the United States Constitution, the Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances to protect the states and their citizens from an overreaching government and that’s what these modern day patriots want too. It is hoped that in a new State the citizens would be in favor of a part-time legislature, but, that is one of the a thousand things yet to be determined by the will of the people. And it’s right that it be this way, that is to work things out in the order they need to be…by the people!
The United States was begun with one resolution that only had three points. For those who appreciate history here’s a summary of that story, “The resolution authored by Richard H. Lee was presented on June 7th, 1776 and finally approved on July 2, 1776. The text of the document formally announcing this action, was the United States Declaration of Independence written by Lee’s young friend, Thomas Jefferson, and it was approved on July 4.
Lower taxation – it was an issue in 1776 and it is today. For the new State it means having a tax rate that is substantially less than what we have in the State of California right now. That shouldn’t be too hard to accomplish when you consider that CA holds the record for highest taxation. The exact tax rate and the form it will take is something for the people to decide upon Statehood.
Responsible representation – means those who are elected to represent the people actually understand and respect the US Constitution, and pledge to abide by it. They will take an oath to be good stewards of our tax money and our freedom. And upon any evidence of abuse of their high office, they will be swiftly removed by the people. So it ultimately falls upon the [people] to insure responsible representation and that too is exactly as it should be. This is a concept that has been lost on too many Californians who have acclimated to the seductions and demands of big government. (We must separate ourselves from them or suffer their fate.)
More freedom is said in context with the, restrictive and sometimes oppressive, plethora of laws and regulations we’ve come to expect in the State of California with their 379 State Agencies dedicated to telling us how to live our lives. Freedom is our most precious and our most fragile right.
Freedom inspires the inventor as well as the artist. It fosters entrepreneurs, is the ally of farmers and small businesses and it encourages people to grow in their endeavors. However, with our checks and balances freedom has it’s limits, epsecially when it comes to encroaching on the rights of others. An example of that encroachment would be, damaging our natural resources, the air, the land and the water. We recognize those as critical to our survival and we should strive to protect and preserve for ourselves and our future generations.
Lastly, freedom does not guarantee success, it only guarantees that individual will have a right to pursue success. This is why we call it the Statue of Liberty and not the Statue of Equality. If you want to take from the labors of other, using government to shift the wealth, then this is not the state for you.
It’s difficult for me to comprehend there would be people opposed to the idealism behind the State of Jefferson movement, but there are and they have voted in
the extremists that have bankrupted the State of California. This reality won’t make our job for a free state any easier, but it won’t make it impossible either. The only thing you should concern yourself with right now, is this the right thing to do? If the answer is yes, then the odds shouldn’t matter and neither should the complexities of forming a new State. We’ll get there and it will be tough going, but it will be worth it.
“I would rather be beaten and be a man than to be elected and be a little puppy dog. I have always supported measures and principles and not men. I have acted fearless[ly] and independent and I never will regret my course. I would rather be politically buried than to be hypocritically immortalized.” Davey Crockett
I was born in California and will die in California
Re: #1 dewey : I was born in California and will die in California
That, of course, can be arranged. State of Jefferson or no State of Jefferson. (joking)
Jack this is a great article and the things you have put forth can’t be said enough.
Worry warts should keep in mind we are suggesting (forming!) a new state, not a new country. The state of Jefferson will still be subject to the same federal laws on the environment and other issues that affect all states.
Excellently written.
Don’t worry about distractors. There always have been and always will be men who take comfort in their shackles.
Jefferson will be for everybody, but we can’t expect everybody to look forward to living a little freer.
You want another reason to split the state….well, Janet Nacrapatano just promised $5 million to illegal aliens…and that’s just a “down payment.”
That ought to make Chris and Dewey Decimal happy campers…maybe not…they probably want more
http://www.chicoer.com/breakingnews/ci_24426484/new-university-california-president-pledges-5m-aid-students
“I was born in California and will die in California.”
Maybe Jack can have you deported when he becomes governor of the new state. 🙂
Bill I’ll second it if you’ll make the motion!
(I am reposting this from the article about submitting letters to supervisors, because I think it’s a really good article about why a new state would succeed and thought most would have missed seeing it.)
Here is why separating northern California’s counties will be economically successful as a new state.
—–
Americans keep moving to states with low taxes and housing costs:
“Where are Americans moving, and why? Timothy Noah, writing in the Washington Monthly, professes to be puzzled. He points out that people have been moving out of states with high per capita incomes — Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland — to states with lower income levels.
Between 1970 and 2010 the population of New York state increased from 18 million to 19 million. In that same period, the population of Texas increased from 11 million to 25 million.
The picture is even starker if you look at major metro areas. The New York metropolitan area, including counties in New Jersey and Connecticut, increased from 17.8 million in 1970 to 19.2 million in 2010 — up 8 percent. During that time the nation grew 52 percent.
In the same period, the four big metro areas in Texas — Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin — grew from 6 million to 15.6 million, a 160 percent increase.
Opportunity does exist in the Northeastern states and in California — for people with very high skill levels. And for low-skill immigrants, without whom those metro areas would have lost rather than gained population over the last three decades.
But there’s not much opportunity there for people with midlevel skills who want to raise families. Housing costs are exceedingly high, partly, as Noah notes, because of restrictive land use and zoning regulations.
And central city public schools, with a few exceptions, repel most middle-class parents.
High taxes produce revenues to finance handsome benefits and pensions for public employee union members in the high-cost states. It’s hard to see how this benefits middle-class people making their livings in the private sector.
Liberals like Noah often decry income inequality. But the states with the most unequal incomes and highest poverty levels these days are California and New York. That’s what happens when high taxes and housing costs squeeze out the middle class.
As Noah notes, “Few working-class people earn enough money to live anywhere near San Francisco.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/americans-keep-moving-to-states-with-low-taxes-and-housing-costs/article/2538200
Conservatives grab a Kleenex, liberals grab a pompom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0azojPPRhw#t=144
So, I went off to peruse the works of the great man, and the first thing that strikes me is … things ain’t really changed all that much. From one of his 1790 letters:
“Congress has been long embarrassed by two of the most irritating questions that ever can be raised among them, 1. the funding the public debt, and 2. the fixing on a more central residence [for the federal capital]. After exhausting their arguments & patience on these subjects, they have for some time been resting on their oars, unable to get along as to these businesses, and indisposed to attend to anything else till they are settled. And in fine it has become probable that unless they can be reconciled by some plan of compromise, there will be no funding bill agreed to, our credit (raised by late prospects to be the first on the exchange at Amsterdam, where our paper is above par) will burst and vanish, and the states separate to take care every one of itself. This prospect appears probable to some well informed and well-disposed minds. Endeavours are therefore using to bring about a disposition to some mutual sacrifices.”
Cute, uh?
But I still think that you are evading and extremely important point. You collect fewer taxes from fewer people and your State of Jefferson is gonna be stony broke and completely incapable of defending itself against all manner of corporate depredation.
Libby: ” You collect fewer taxes from fewer people…”
And we pay for fewer people and the services they require. This will be particularly true if we don’t make Jefferson a welfare magnate like California.
I’m certain that you will be pleased to accept all of the people now on services up here who will make a bee line for the Bay Area. I know you’ll be excited to pay for even more of those people who agree with your Marxist ideals and have chosen welfare as a lifestyle.
A “gated” state, huh? Very evolved … but I just don’t think you’re going to get a majority’s consensus for such a thing. We’ll have to see.
Re: #1 dewey : I was born in California and will die in California
That, of course, can be arranged. State of Jefferson or no State of Jefferson. (joking)
This statement allows us a peak into the state of jefferson
Editor’s note: Dewey, this comment came from one of our readers and you were pretty much asking for it by the weird things you say.
If getting our own state fails we can always go after getting our country back. Mark Levin’s book “Liberty Amendments” lays out a plan to do just that.
I read his book last month and heard today there are states already acting on it.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/08/13/mark-levins-liberty-amendments/
Here is an update on what is going on in Colorado with their separation movement. Note the map and the new counties showing interest and the water issue that is similar to California’s.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/massive-push-for-north-colorado-as-51st-state/
If the state of Jefferson is established Dewey’s juvenile death wish can easily be fulfilled. I’ll be happy to buy him a bus ticket to the boarder of the State of Jefferson.
Re: Editor’s note: Dewey, this comment came from one of our readers and you were pretty much asking for it by the weird things you say.
Dewey’s set up was so wonderfully perfect I simply could not resist. Maybe I should have added a *Bada-bing* and *Rimshot*.
Too bad the sad little fellow actually took it seriously.
Editor’s note: Not sure how he could have taken it seriously as it was labeled: (Joking)
Now I was asking for a death threat? the weird things? like real facts?
Like real world real facts? Death threats are never OK.
Death Threats are abnormal behavior at best.
How about we use facts and discuss instead of this stuff?
hate is not OK. What is the real problem? A Black guy is in Office?
There we go, I knew it would happen! Sooner or later every crazy liberal we’ve ever had the displeasure of indulging on this site has got around to saying we’re just mad because there is a black guy in the white house! Oh, never mind the number of black candidates we’ve supported in the past or the one many of us support now for president. Nah, in your little lefty brain we’re all racist and it’s all about a black guy in the white house. How boring. Dewey, let me give you a clue since you don’t have one, try to be more original with your insults…this one is so old and tired nobody uses it anymore. I’m sure you can do better.
yea like the “abort our white babies” comment in here? There was the clue. I also live here and I know what is going on. i am not a liberal or a conservative LOL. I am an Independent American.