by Jack Lee
After what proponents said was probably more effort than should have been necessary they finally convinced the Butte County Supervisors to hold their second hearing on the State of Jefferson in the past 4 months. The supervisor’s chamber was filled to capacity with Jefferson supporters until the overflow left no more standing room. The SoJ spokesperson, Mark Baird from Siskiyou County presented a plethora of compelling evidence why Californian’s would be better served by separating into two states. Outside the chambers the lobby was filled with supporters and beyond that, sympathizers milled about on the sidewalk. Baird spoke softly, but eloquently as he explained North State voters effectively have no representation with our 4 or 5 representatives (depending on where the borders are drawn) compared the 31 representatives allowed for just the City of Los Angeles. This means Los Angeles has more clout than all of Northern California and the favorable legislation for the L. A. area reflects that inequity. “We lack the authority, we lack ability, we lack the power, to govern our own lives the way we want. The politics of Northern California is irrelevant,” said Baird.
“We have precedence on our side, this not something somebody just cooked, Maine was a part of Massachusetts, Vermont was a part of New York, Tennessee and West Virginia was part of Virginia.” Baird said, Article 4, Section 3 of the US Constitution provides the authority for a State to change it’s border. Paraphrasing Baird, the State government we imagine is where counties have the lions share of the power and the people of the county instruct their representatives how they want them to behave in their government. And if we don’t like something we’re very close to our representatives and they are going to hear about! This means you now have a State government with the backbone to stand up for the counties right to demand good behavior by the Federal government and all the agencies of the State and the State government by statute will be required to uphold those wishes.
Baird noted: “The regulatory nature of California cost us 31,000 jobs in March while Texas gained 30,000 jobs in the same period, why? Because Texas has a tax framework that is friendly to business, they have a regulatory framework that doesn’t make it a horrible, unimaginable nightmare to start a small business.”
Following Baird’s presentation the Supervisors heard from members of the audience. 100% of the speakers were in favor of creating a new State for self rule. Here are a few of the talking points in no particular order:
- “The right of free people to seek redress for grievances through fair representation should not be denied. That’s why we redraw voting districts. But, when a State finds itself ruled exclusively by one party because no amount of redrawing voting districts can compensate for the lopsided demographics then it’s time to think about reconstructing the State.”
- “I support the State of Jefferson because the politics of Sacramento are dominated by liberal representatives of the crime riddled, polluted, water starved, big cities of Southern California! I’m sick of Sacramento forcing one size fits all legislation on us and taking our money and resources to pay for their foolish mistakes.”
- “The State of California is already two states. We divided between those who think government is the answer and those who think government is the problem. It is divided by people who embrace socialism and safety nets over more freedom and an opportunity.
- I see no reason to oppose a State of Jefferson; this is the kind of State our founders would have embraced.
- “The State of California has the highest paid representatives in the nation who rule over a bankrupt state with a failing school system, prison overcrowding, high crime and one third of the nation’s welfare takers. We feel the corruption and incompetence in Sacramento deserves to fail and the business friendly, free, State of Jefferson deserves to succeed. That’s why I support the State of Jefferson and so should you!
At the conclusion of the hearing it was obvious they were moved by the impassioned common sense reasoning by the State of Jefferson supporters. 4 of the 5 county supervisors voted to place it back on the agenda to determine if they should endorse this idea for a new State or should they put it on the ballet for November? The lone dissenting vote came from Supervisor Steve Lambert who noted how his family had purchased cattle land in the bay area when it was still rural and now it takes them 40 minutes to get from one part of their ranch to the other. He explained he has property in Siskiyou County and here in Butte County for his cattle and he doesn’t want to see all sorts of businesses, houses and commerce move in and change things. He wants to keep things they way they are because it’s serving his purposes just fine. Baird commented later that Supervisor Lambert seems to want to do what is best for himself, and not the people he represents.
Supervisors Connelly, Wahl (made the motion) and Teeter seemed very supportive and quickly voted aye to bring it back on the agenda. Supervisor Kirk hesitated and then changed her vote to hear it to an aye.
Here’s a link for a lot information and material on Jefferson…
http://jeffersondeclaration.net/new-video/
This movement is only a few months old in Butte County and has really caught fire. So many folks, young and old, have had it with California’s government -and- They know that it’s only going to get worse. If you want more information or want to help create a new, free state, the website for the local Butte County group is: http://www.JeffersonButte.com with contact information.
“This movement is only a few months old in Butte County and has really caught fire.”
But it hasn’t. In none of these counties has it been put to a vote of the populace. When that happens … we will see about “fire”.
Fizzle … is probably more like it. Folk like Lambert, and there are lots of them, who realize how economically dependent they are on their relationships with the rest of the state, are going to make their views known. I think they will be persuasive.
Libby: ” Folk like Lambert, and there are lots of them, who realize how economically dependent they are on their relationships with the rest of the state…”
Go back and read it again! He’s not dependent on California; he’s dependent on Northern California and selfishly doesn’t want anyone up here to have an opportunity that might alter his self-interested duel advantage.
So typical of left thinking. The greens want everyone’s energy use restricted but they run all over the planet in big fuel guzzling jets to shake their fingers at us and to protest.
I am very impressed by the spokesmen for the state of Jefferson. If Libby is right and the idea “fizzles” it won’t be because these good folks are wrong and I think we have a better shot than she thinks we do.
These types of movements are happening all over the nation. The horrible effects of left policies on the economy and oppressive left leadership is the common theme.
“If Libby is right and the idea “fizzles”
Tina , when has Libby been anything but “right”, she is as left as any 60’s era bay area resident, her world and her words are all bottled up together.
Mark Baird gave the Supervisors one impressive outline of what California is today and why the need to separate from it or Move(Move are my words) I like Jack do understand and believe Lambert’s position to be one of self serving, and 4 to 1 vote (Exception being Maureen Kirk, who just woke up from her dosing off in time to follow the majority vote) confirms to me at least the other three supervisors were paying attention.
There really is a need for the State of Jefferson to be put before the voters, if not then ALL of California will continue the loss of good hard working people and eventually just become a cesspool of special interest liberal failures.