Oct 24, 2014
Tulelake Irrigation District public meeting November 6, 6 p.m., Firehall, regarding mandatory water quality permits. Also to be discussed will be redistricting and voting for TID board members based on how many acres you farm.
Reasons for voting NO on Prop. 1 Water Bond on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot, sent by manager of pienpolitics.com Liz Bowen. “The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (AB1471), the Water Bond, is on the ballot this November for voter approval. Proponents want us to believe that it will ‘save’ water by building dams and reservoirs. It won’t. It is designed to remove dams, not create them. It supports wetlands restoration, not water storage.”
NRDC: Prop 1 is not earmarked for new dams, libusters 10/23/14
Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors voted to oppose Prop 1
VIDEO – Mark Baird from Siskiyou County, representing several Northern California counties, explains why this region needs to become the 51st state. He speaks of the Constitution, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, defending the freedom our parents and ancestors fought for, and having a state government that represents the people rather than dictates to the people. A well-spent 13 minutes filmed and edited by Robert Exter. Posted to KBC 10/23/14.
Oct 23, 2014
PNP Comment: More biased judging creating more tyranny. This is not abiding by the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Yep, pretty sad state of affairs! — Editor Liz Bowen
World Net Daily.com
Bush-appointed judge says ‘no harm done’
A federal judge has sided with the Internal Revenue Service and dismissed lawsuits by tea-party groups seeking redress for the secret targeting of their applications for tax-exempt status, which the groups argued were intentionally delayed for political purposes.
The tea party organizations immediately announced they would appeal the decision by Washington, D.C., District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush.
Walton ruled that two lawsuits by Texas-based True the Vote and Linchpins of Liberty, along with 41 other conservative groups, were moot because the IRS took steps to address the scandal and “publicly suspended its targeting scheme.”
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the tea party groups, said he plans to appeal the case.
“The decision by the court is disappointing. However, it does not deter our efforts to seek justice for our clients. We are reviewing the decision and plan to appeal,” Sekulow said in an emailed statement.
In its federal lawsuit, the ACLJ represents 41 organizations in 22 states. Of the 41 groups, 28 organizations received tax-exempt status after lengthy delays, seven are still pending, five withdrew applications because of frustration with the IRS process, and one had its file closed by the IRS after refusing to answer the unconstitutional requests for more information, Sekulow said.
“It’s a disappointing ruling because it basically leaves targets of bad behavior by the IRS without a remedy,” Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.
Walton decided that because the organizations eventually won tax-exempt status, any wrongdoing they suffered had been remedied.
“We are stunned by today’s judgment,” said Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote. “The notion that the IRS can target Americans for years because of their political beliefs is reprehensible.”
Although the tea party groups argued there is no guarantee the IRS would not target conservative groups again, Walton ruled that the “prospect of future harm is speculative.”
Von Spakovsky, the Heritage legal fellow, told the Daily Signal that given the unapologetic behavior of Lois Lerner and other Obama cronies at the IRS, “and their total lack of remorse, I don’t think it’s ‘speculative’ that this could happen again in the future.”
Sekulow said previously that the IRS violated the groups’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection with its secret targeting of their applications. The lawsuit was initially filed on May 20, 2013, with 25 plaintiffs. But more have come forward.
“The floodgates opened after we filed our initial lawsuit,” Sekulow said after the complaint was amended in June 2013 to reflect the additional groups. “We have been contacted by many additional organizations that have been unlawfully targeted by the IRS — revealing that this unconstitutional scheme was pervasive and damaging.”
Oct 23, 2014
NO on Proposition 1 – The Water Bond
The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (AB1471), the Water Bond, is on the ballot this November for voter approval. Proponents want us to believe that it will ‘save’ water by building dams and reservoirs. It won’t. It is designed to remove dams, not create them. It supports wetlands restoration, not water storage.
In the beginning, this bill called for the removal of four Klamath River dams. The language has been changed to make its intent less obvious, and the intent stands.
79732. (a) In protecting and restoring California rivers, lakes, streams, and watersheds, the purposes of this chapter are to:
(4) Protect and restore aquatic, wetland, and migratory bird ecosystems, including fish and wildlife corridors and the acquisition of water rights for instream flow.
(6) Remove barriers to fish passage.
That’s dam removal.
79736. Of the funds authorized by Section 79730, four hundred seventy-five million dollars ($475,000,000) shall be available to the Natural Resources Agency to support projects that fulfill the obligations of the State of California in complying with the terms of any of the following:
(e) Any intrastate or multiparty settlement agreement related to water acted upon or before December 31, 2013.
Those agreements include the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement that calls for the removal of four dams that today provide not only water storage and flood control, but clean hydroelectric power to over 70,000 homes. The dams also sustain a crucial fish hatchery.
Here is the text of Jerry Brown’s California Water Action Plan, which is where that $475,000,000 will be directed:
Page 11 Bullet 2:
4. PROTECT AND RESTORE IMPORTANT ECOSYSTEMS
Continue Restoration Efforts in the Klamath Basin
The Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Natural Resources Agency will continue to work with diverse stakeholders to implement the Klamath Basin restoration and settlement agreements. … The administration will work with Congress to secure the necessary federal authorizations for the agreements and secure the necessary funding for removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River and funding for the necessary basin restoration.
Between the years 2000 and 2006 voters approved Propositions 12, 13, 40, 50 and 84 which all promised water protection of some sort. Each of those cost taxpayers double what they voted for, and they got nothing in return. The billions of dollars attached to those bonds were redirected to carry out various environmental groups’ objectives, as well as those of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Taxpayer monies have been used to help conservation organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy, acquire ranches and conservation easements to establish CDFW control over the rural economy. The results have been putting ranchers out of business and closing down access roads into mountainous areas.
In Chapter 6 of the Water Bond we learn that three hundred twenty-seven million five hundred thousand dollars ($327,500,000) will go to such conservancies. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy alone. The word ‘acquisition’ is used several times
Who has contributed to Prop 1? Corporate agriculture businesses are on the list.
One contributor in particular is Beverly Hills billionaire Stewart Resnick who owns Paramount Farms. He turned a dry-farm ranch into an irrigated property to grow pomegranates, pistachios, almonds and oranges.
He also controls the Kern Water Bank.
The Kern Water Bank, which is the nation’s largest underground water banking system, was once owned by the people of California. Now it’s a private company run by Resnick. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) built canals and pumps to connect the water bank to the state’s aqueduct system in order to move water from storage sites to farms and cities. It prioritized urban water supplies during droughts. In 1994 the state’s water plan was changed to serve the interests of agribusiness and developers.
The Resnicks are only one contributor in support of Prop 1, but they alone have plenty of practice in taking and selling resources. They own Fiji Water.
To read more about Resnick’s potential to make a lot of money controlling our water, and to find a record of other contributions he’s made, please see the article entitled: Water, Money, Taxes, Campaigns, and the Bond: The Resnick Farming Story.
It would be good for us to learn from our past mistakes.
Vote NO on Proposition 1.
– Thank you to Jean Gerard for sending this to us. — Editor Liz Bowen