California County Votes to Secede from the State

Tehama County California

Residents of a northern California county on Tuesday voted in favor of a measure that will now force local officials to consider a plan to secede from the state and form a new entity named Jefferson.

That decision — one of three related matters being considered by voters across the Golden State on Tuesday this week — passed by 55.74 percent in Tehama County, with nearly 1,000 more ballots cast towards seceding from California compared to staying.

POLL: Would you vote for a candidate who supported amnesty for illegal aliens?

Elsewhere in the state, however, secessionist efforts in northern California largely failed this week when voters in two of three counties where the issue was up for debate voted against formally beginning the process to separate and start a new state.

Voters in Del Norte County voted Tuesday to reject a secessionist measure on ballots there that would have required local officials to begin examining the prospect of separating from California and forming a new state with the residents of other nearby counties. The measure was rejected by 59 percent.

In Tehama County, however, voters there cast their ballots in favor of an identical measure, passing the initiative by nearly 56 percent. Should the decision still stand after the final votes are tallied, then the Tehama County Board of Supervisors will have to adopt a Declaration of Support — purely an advisory measure — concerning the creation of a proposed State of Jefferson and separation from California.

read more:

Views: 1270

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well said Pamela, thank you !!

The problem is that all they care about is control. They do not care about the constitution at all except to show contempt for it. They want to make us their servants, simply said
They have to be killed off to stop it

Is there any other option that can guarantee success? Like Islam, they were smart and decided to take America and have control of the most powerful military and weapons on earth. Now they are able to destroy every other of their enemies overnight in control of the USA. They went directly at a throat and seem to have won.

You make some good points Archie but I have hope because I have heard there are groups called "The Cowboys" or "White Hats" that are disassembling their control structure as we speak.

Otherwise I think we would all be done by now. God bless them for their efforts.

Who are the Cowboys or White Hats?  I'd love to know more about them as well.

I would be glad to tell you.

I don't think Kalifornicate needs to be split up.  We should give it back to Mexico and let them deal with the fruits and nuts.

I never give money to idiots! I would donate to this county after they dump California, just to help support their cause.
Tom w
American Patriot
Atlanta, Ga

I have seen a plan that would break up California into 6 states. That would give us 55. However we have recently seen similar efforts to divide Colorado & Maryland into two each. That could make the total 57 (where have we heard that number before) then there is the matter of Texas being able to subdivide into 5 states, which would give us a total of 61 states. Assuming that all these efforts were successful, what would congress look like? Especially the senate that would increase by 22 new members. The house is a little more problematic because while it would grow, some delegations would shrink to make room for some of the new districts. However for real fun think of what the Elector College would look like.




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service