A Rogue Rebellion In California
The beginning of this narrative is tailor-made for the opening crawl of a Hollywood blockbuster.
Cue the music:
“Turmoil has engulfed the Great State of CALIFORNIA.
Outrageous taxation and a lack of equal representation has led to single-party domination under the rule of the sinister Governor MOONBEAM.
Voting from a small town in Orange County, a group of brave REPUBLICAN leaders have won their first victory in a battle against the powerful STATE Bureaucracy.
The STATE fears that another defeat could cause more cities and counties to join this fledgling local backlash, and DEMOCRAT control over CALIFORNIA might be lost forever. To crush the REPUBLICANS once and for all, the DEMOCRATS are constructing sinister new voting blocs and willfully ignoring the laws of the country to achieve total BLUE control.
Powerful enough to destroy an entire State, its implementation spells certain doom for the champions of freedom.”
Return of the O.C. Conservatives
Los Alamitos leaders on Monday approved an ordinance that exempts their Orange County municipality from Senate Bill 54, a law that took effect Jan. 1 and restricts local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities. It marks a rare effort by a city to challenge the sanctuary movement, which has wide support among elected officials in left-leaning California.
About 160 people showed up to Monday’s regular City Council meeting, a monthly event that rarely draws enough people to fill the 40-seat chamber. Speakers lined up late into the evening to address elected officials, who eventually voted 4 to 1 to approve the ordinance.
“Sometimes things are bigger than we are,” said Mayor Troy D. Edgar.
Cheers erupted inside the chamber after the vote, with some shouting “Patriots!” and “This is a win for America!” as others waved pro-Trump flags.
Councilman Mark A. Chirco was the sole dissenter, suggesting the initiative could expose the city to litigation.
“We disagree with Sacramento on a lot of things. Are we not going to follow state law every time we disagree with them?” he said. “I don’t think that would be prudent.”
It’s unclear how the ordinance will be implemented, and Mayor Pro Tem Warren Kusumoto, who proposed the initiative, said it may end up being largely symbolic.
But similar efforts to denounce sanctuary policies have failed, including efforts in Costa Mesa to publicly oppose SB 54 and in Kern County, where the governing board did oppose the bill but stopped short of calling its jurisdiction a non-sanctuary county.
Some immigration enforcement hawks hope Los Alamitos will be a bellwether.
Orange County has followed its local community’s example and is looking to be the first county in California to balk the sanctuary state statute. The Los Angeles Times reveals:
On Tuesday, Orange County supervisors may consider whether to take up a resolution to condemn and possibly take legal action against the state’s “sanctuary” laws.
“These state laws are preempted by federal law,” Orange County Supervisor Shawn Nelson said. “Our officers actually face penalties under state law if they so much as talk to federal agents for the wrong thing. That’s just unacceptable and it’s contrary to federal law.”
Nelson said he’ll broach in closed session whether to join a federal lawsuit against the state or launch its own litigation.
Other cities in the county, including Yorba Linda, Buena Park, Huntington Beach and Mission Viejo, are also starting to take action to voice their grievances against the state’s sanctuary laws aimed at protecting immigrants from President Trump’s immigration crackdown.
On Monday, Texas and more than a dozen other states led by Republican governors got behind the Trump administration and filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit against California’s sanctuary laws.
Orange County votes on sanctuary cities
Posted by The Red Elephants on Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Activists in support and against the OC‘s move to consider an anti-sanctuary resolution to condemn the state’s sanctuary laws are out in force. OC Supes are likely to vote to take legal action against the state’s sanctuary laws #immigration @latimes pic.twitter.com/KnANyaMlvA
— Cindy Carcamo (@theCindyCarcamo) March 27, 2018
The Orange County Board of Supervisors has voted 3-0 to fight California’s sanctuary city laws. Likewise in San Diego County, the County’s Board of Supervisors and the Escondido City Council are also considering joining the revolt.
The Progressives Strike Back!
To no one’s surprise, the ACLU was on standby to tout the Progressive-Liberal line, promising to swoop in and enforce conformity.
BREAKING: Despite warning from the @ACLU_SoCal, the City of Los Alamitos passed 4-1 a proposed ordinance that violates their legal obligation to uphold the #CAValuesAct. They also added an amendment to file an amicus brief w/ Sessions' lawsuit against the state of CA. https://t.co/rfLEBYInTX
— ACLU SoCal (@ACLU_SoCal) March 20, 2018
The ACLU had already scored a big victory in the conservative Central Valley as the Fresno Bee explains:
The county and the ACLU reached a settlement last month following allegations that Madera County’s board of supervisors violated open meeting laws last year by taking action in closed session to increase law enforcement’s cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The settlement cost taxpayers $32,500 in attorney fees, according to a Madera County spokeswoman .
The lawsuit was prompted by an order by Madera County District Attorney David Linn to Chief of Corrections Manuel Perez to fully comply with all ICE requests and to inform agents when the county jail is holding undocumented immigrants, according to the lawsuit. Until then, like many jails across the state, the Madera jail had not proactively informed ICE about undocumented inmates, the suit said.
At a Madera County Board of Supervisors meeting last week, Perez assured the public that it is not working closely with ICE and has no communication with the agency unless fingerprinted inmates are identified by a federal database.
Minerva Mendoza, an associate with the Pan Valley Institute in Fresno, said when local law enforcement works with ICE, it hurts community trust of police and prevents immigrants from reporting crimes.
This is a growing position on the left, and I imagine 2020 Democratic presidential aspirants will have to grapple with it https://t.co/GOuoLnBHWG
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) March 9, 2018
Jerry Brown’s ‘big bully’ enforcer has threatened to arrest, charge, and fine any California citizen found to be violating state law by ‘obeying’ Federal law and/or ‘cooperating’Federal law enforcement.
According to the Sacramento Bee:
The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.
“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.”
Becerra’s warning comes as fears spread of mass workplace raids following reports that immigration agents plan to target Northern California communities for deportations due in part to the state’s “sanctuary” law, which seeks to restrict local law enforcement agencies’ ability to cooperate with immigration authorities.
Becerra said the state Department of Justice and the state Labor Commissioner’s Office plan to issue formal guidance to all California employers, public and private, notifying them of their responsibilities under a new state law called the “Immigrant Worker Protection Act,” signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last year that took effect Jan. 1. It seeks to prevent all workers, regardless of immigration status, from being detained at workplaces.
By writing and attempting to enforce their own immigration policies, California is in direct Constitutional violation of the Supremacy Clause.
Revenge of the (substitute) AG!
Becerra has not stopped there.
The substitute AG took a recent victory lap during a press conference showing off several confiscated guns “to highlight seven gun-seizure operations by the CA Dept of Justice that help keep families safe, in contrast to the Trump Administration.” The Washington Post writes:
As Trump toured the state Tuesday, Becerra brought out the guns — literally. At a news conference, he laid out an array of guns that had been seized by agents from the state’s Bureau of Firearms. He touted California’s system of tracking and removing firearms from people prohibited from possessing them under state law.
He compared Trump’s promised border wall to “medieval walls” that deter “knights on horses.” And he criticized the president and inaction in Washington in remarks he delivered in both Spanish and English.
“While President Trump talks about what he wants to do, he accomplishes little,” Becerra said in Spanish. “Ya basta la plática.” Enough of the chatter. “Here in California, we act.”
California Attorney General Becerra holds a news conference "to highlight seven gun-seizure operations by the CA Dept of Justice that help keep families safe, in contrast to the Trump Administration."
Posted by Fox Business on Tuesday, March 13, 2018
This man uses his state office to violate the 2nd Amendment. He uses his state office to openly violate several articles of the Constitution. Finally, he uses his State Office to violate the McCulloch v. Maryland ruling.
Becerra bullies and intimidates California residents to follow his unconstitutional policies. He uses his position as a launchpad to push a political agenda, vice enforcing the rule of law. He grandstands in open defiance to the federal government.
If roles were reversed as they were in 2010 with Texas, the mainstream political establishment wouldn’t tolerate this. Texas represents proof, as the media then lectured America about the importance about the “Supremacy Clause”.
Attack of the Sheriffs
CBS News-Bay Area details the story:
California sheriffs said Tuesday they remain opposed to legislation that would put new restrictions on their interactions with federal immigration authorities despite changes demanded by Gov. Jerry Brown that significantly scaled back the bill’s reach.
California police chiefs, meanwhile, dropped their opposition saying their concerns were addressed. Sheriffs, who oversee jails, said the updated bill will preserve many important powers for them but could still endanger the public by limiting their ability to cooperate with immigration agents looking to deport people being released from custody.
The final version prohibits law enforcement officials from asking about a person’s immigration status or participating in immigration enforcement efforts. The bill prohibits law enforcement officials from being deputized as immigration agents or arresting people on civil immigration warrants. It would allow immigration agents to interview people in custody, though they can no longer have permanent office space in jails.
In its statement, the sheriffs association said law-enforcement agencies don’t do most of that anyway.
Orange County Sheriff’s Department is taking things a step further! The Sheriff’s Office will be releasing a statement of WHO they will be releasing, from WHICH County jails, and WHEN those inmates are going to be released. The Orange County Register explains:
The Orange County Sheriff’s Department, whose leadership opposes the new California sanctuary law that limits cooperation with federal immigration officials, announced Monday that it is now providing public information on when inmates are released from custody.
As of Monday, March 26, an existing “Who’s in Jail” online database includes the date and time of inmates’ release – a move agency officials say will enhance communication with its law enforcement partners.
The release date information applies to all inmates, not just those who are suspected of being in the country illegally. But the goal is to assist agents with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
“This is in response to SB-54 limiting our ability to communicate with federal authorities and our concern that criminals are being released to the street when there’s another avenue to safeguard the community by handing them over (to ICE for potential deportation),” Orange County Undersheriff Don Barnes said.
In an display of arrogant hypocrisy, the ‘substitute AG’ threatened to have the Orange County Board of Supervisors, any local City Councils, and the Orange County Sheriff arrested for not bending to his ‘authority’. Fox News reports:
Officials in California’s Orange County voted Tuesday to join a lawsuit from the Trump administration fighting the state’s “sanctuary city” laws, hours after the county sheriff’s department announced its own methods of pushing back against the legislation aimed at protecting illegal immigrants.
Meanwhile, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra would not rule out taking action of his own against officials who fight the laws, including the sheriff.
“State law is state law. It’s my job to enforce state law and I will do so. We want to make sure that every jurisdiction, including Orange County, understands what state law requires of the people and the subdivisions of the state of California,” Becerra said at a news conference. When asked if that meant an arrest or lawsuit against the sheriff, Becerra responded, “I think I just answered that.”
A New ‘California’ Hope
A year ago there was the laughable CalExit to secede California from the United States, which most of the country would have liked to have seen happen anyways.
A new effort has arisen to separate the Liberal “Left Coast” of Bay Area to Los Angeles from the rest of the state calling it “New California”. Fox News reports:
But there is another secession movement in California, and elsewhere in America, that is getting genuine attention from political pundits. While it may be unlikely to succeed, the idea of intra-state secession—a section of a state splitting off to form its own state—has been growing in popularity. And there’s even a Constitutional procedure for doing it.
In recent decades, the political differences between rural areas and metropolitan areas seem to have become more severe. This has caused political splits in certain states, where, often, those rural areas, with lower populations, feel stifled by their city brethren.
As Joel Kotkin, a fellow at Chapman University in Orange, Calif. and author of The Human City: Urbanism ForThe Rest Of Us, tells Fox News, “The worst thing in the world to be is the red part of a blue state.”
He notes that Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution allows for new states to be admitted into the union, though no new state can be formed within an old state without the consent of the state legislature as well as Congress. That’s a pretty high hurdle. But, as Reynolds told Fox News, not insurmountable.
It’s been done before, but long ago. For example, Vermont split from New York in 1791, Maine split from Massachusetts in 1820, and West Virginia broke away from Virginia during the Civil War in 1863. There haven’t been any states formed by secession in modern U.S. history.
The Jeffersonians Awaken
From a recent New York Daily News expose:
Four and a half hours after leaving San Francisco, a hay barn comes into sight, STATE OF JEFFERSON painted in simple black lettering on its corrugated tin roof. The next exit is the faded gold-rush town of Yreka, Jefferson’s unofficial capital. The Oregon border is only 30 miles further up the road. You are far from the California you thought you knew.
The chairs are full at the Palace Barber Shop on Miner Street in downtown Yreka (the town’s unusual name, pronounced Why-REE-ka, is a rough approximation of the Native American word for nearby Mount Shasta). Since the 1880s, people have been coming here for a haircut and the latest town news, in a building straight out of a Hollywood gunslinger movie. If you squint a little, it’s hard to tell just what year it is. The men waiting for a turn under the clippers are immune to trend or fashion, dressed to get things done outdoors and without fuss.
John Lisle, who has owned the shop for about a decade, is quick to respond when asked whether he thinks splitting from California is a good idea. “It’s a pretty hot topic here,” Lisle says. “It would be great to have some representation. The way it is, we’re governed by Los Angeles and San Francisco.”
The man in the chair next to Lisle, whose gray hair is falling to the floor with each snip of the scissors, is Michael Adams. Until a few years ago, he made his money mining gold from the area’s rivers, a way of life that got shut down when the state banned the suction-dredge techniques used by local prospectors on the grounds that they were endangering the Coho salmon.
Ray Haupt, a member of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and a strong Jefferson supporter, enters the barber shop. He was a forester with the U.S. Forest Service for 33 years, and he thinks the way the region’s timber stands are being managed is based on politics rather than science.
It’s hard to argue with that view from the Palace, especially when the seats of power and influence are several hours in your own rear-view mirror. Of the 120 state representatives and senators in the California State Legislature, only seven hail from the 25 counties north of Sacramento, which have a combined population of about 2 million.
Then there’s the famous case of the spotted owl. Federal and state protections for the bird led to severe restrictions on logging starting in the 1990s, and the timber industry has since collapsed in the region, although there is significant dispute between environmentalists and logging interests about how much of the decline is due to market forces and how much is the result of environmental protections. The unemployment rate, though, is hard to deny: in November 2015, it was 9.2 percent in Siskiyou County. In San Francisco County, it was 3.4 percent. With almost 70 percent of Siskiyou owned and controlled by the federal and state authorities, it’s easy for people to lay blame at the government’s door.
The Last Republican
California Republican Assemblyman Travis Allen has stepped up to challenge the Democrat juggernaut of the Gavin Newsom campaign, which many view as a coronation rather than an election. Allen has amassed strong grassroots following across the State, with his well attended barnstorming rallies. As KSEE-TV learned:
Allen said he’s ready to help Californian’s take back their state.
“The Californian Democrats have controlled the state legislature giving us the highest in the nation poverty and the highest in the nation homelessness rate and a host of other problems,” Allen said.
He said he supports projects like Temperance Flat and the raising of Shasta Dam.
Allen said he plans on completing the California State Water Project.
“We need to make sure the Central Valley gets all of the water is could ever possibly use, we have it in California, we just need to make sure it’s not wasted and gone into the ocean,” Allen said.
For the boots on the ground, water, is a hot topic.
Some of the farmers at the rally said they’ve spoken with Allen about the grassroots issues.
“One of the biggest problems that we have is the state water board hasn’t had any oversight and I think Travis in that position will be able to provide quite a bit more oversight over what they’re doing that affects our communities here,” said Eric Bream, a Visalia resident and citrus farmer.
Allen’s five-point plan also includes cutting taxes, getting tough on crime and fixing our roads and education system.
However, Allen must first overcome another Republican challenger, a Chicago carpetbagger who has ran in previous elections in Illinois, losing every time. While living in Chicago, he hosted a radio program called “The Progressive Conservative”, will not support President Trump and did not vote for the President in 2016. He is so notorious for refusing to answering voters’ questions, his campaign will block voters on social media.
But nevertheless, he could still torpedo GOP hopes due to California’s zany election laws brought forth in 2010’s Proposition 14.
Before Prop. 14, each political party held its own primary, with the winner going on to the general-election ballot. But in the top-two system, the candidates in every race except the one for president all run on a single primary ballot, with only the two leading vote-getters, regardless of party, advancing to November.
In a strongly Democratic state like California, that can be bad news for Republicans. Last November, for example, Attorney General Kamala Harris and Orange County Rep. Loretta Sanchez, both Democrats, finished on top in the June primary and faced each other in the high-profile race to replace retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer, which Harris won.
If there’s no Republican in the top-of-the-ticket governor’s race, “it could have a tremendous impact on Republican turnout, because a lot of their voters will ask themselves, ‘Why should we show up?’” said Tony Quinn, a former GOP consultant who is now senior editor of the nonpartisan California Target Book, which analyzes state elections.
A dismal GOP turnout could have repercussions down the ballot, making it harder to re-elect Republican legislators and members of Congress.
The Warring Clones.
Sadly, in the end, it all may go nowhere.
The Jefferson and New California movements, instead of pooling together as kindred groups, spend more time fighting eachother than opposing the Sacramento bureaucracy. The California Republican Party apparatus remains weak and ineffective statewide going into the 2018 election.
HELP US RONALD REAGAN…YOU’RE OUR ONLY HOPE!