Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the blog archives for October, 2011.

NEW: Cap & Trade ‘Tax Farmers’ Infesting CA




OCT. 31, 2011


Tax farming was a system used in ancient Persia, Egypt, Rome and Greece of outsourcing taxation to “tax farmers,” who bid at auction for the contract rights to collect a particular tax and make money doing so.

In postmodern California, Cap and Trade is a program to create an auction market for trading pollution permits that not only will be imposed on private industry but on public water and municipal electric utilities who will become tax farmers for the state.

The similarities between tax farming and cap and trade are striking, although the justification for California’s cap and trade policy is cloaked in environmental ideology. Cap and Trade is a sophisticated end-run around the supermajority vote requirement of Proposition 13 and Proposition 26 on taxes, fees, and charges.

Under Cap and Trade, California will require industries and utilities, including municipal and government utilities, to sell pollution permits to financiers who will be allowed to arbitrage — buying low and sell high — the permits for their own profit. Wholesale public water agencies will be made into “tax farms,” just as all retail establishments are already required to be tax collectors for the state. Cap and Trade is a ruse for tax farming, just as redevelopment was a way to get around Proposition 13 and plant larger tax farms.

READ MORE   http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/10/31/cap-trade-‘tax-farmers’-infesting-ca/

No Comments

Siskiyou Sheriff Jon Lopey speaks at Defend Rural America 10-22-11

Enjoy, Siskiyou County



This is well worth watching as our Siskiyou Co Sheriff Jon Lopey spoke supported by 7 county sheriffs and Wyoming attorney Karen Budd-Falen; and 500 law-abiding citizens.

Check back this week on Pie N Politcis.com for more youtubes of County Sheriffs:

Grant Co. Oregon Sheriff Glenn E. Palmer

Trinity Co. Sheriff Bruce Haney

Del Norte Co. Sheriff Dean Wilson

Tehama Co. Sheriff Dave Hencratt

Lassen Co. Sheriff Dean Growden

Plumas Co. Sheriff Greg Hagwood

Shasta Co. Sheriff Tom Bosenko


Thanks to Redding TEA Party Patriots for making these youtubes available.

No Comments

DFG’s newest proposal

Dept. Fish & Game, Op-ed

This is not the Kings forest — this is our water.

Title 42 Sect 1983 of US code – Prohibits anyone from using regulation, ordinance, statute or custom to deprive the people of their Constitutional Rights.

 Sect 105 of California Water Code states the highest use of Water in the State is domestic; and 2nd highest use is agriculture.

California Dept. of Fish and Game is engaged in an active conspiracy, along with other agencies of the government and NGOs, to deprive the citizens of Scott and Shasta Valleys of Constitutional rights to their property.

California Dept. of Fish and Game has no right to act as a DICTATOR in our lives to engage in illegal regulations without properly gathered historical data; and consent of the people.

 Article 4 Sec 4 of US Constitution guarantees the people of the United States the right of a republican form of government.

California Dept. of Fish and Game is engaged in an active conspiracy, along with other agencies of the government and NGOs, to deprive the citizens of Scott and Shasta Valleys of Constitutional rights to their property.

This is a crime.

Who is a party to this crime?

The people of this watershed will not allow you to deprive us of our lives, liberty or our property.  Rights to the Water predate the agency of DFG.

What DFG officials are proposing is illegal – immoral — and we won’t allow it.

The above statements are in response to CA. Dept of Fish and Game’s project to spend $1 million a year to study the Scott River in-stream flow of water.

They will also spend $1 million a year to study the Shasta River in-stream flow of water.

The reason: To spin the data and demand water from agriculture for the rivers.

This is a CONSPIRACY to deprive landowners of their Water Rights and property.

A conspiracy is a crime!!!!


Attend the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and tell DFG officials NO. 

Tell the County Supervisors to say NO to the DFG.

We demand protection of our property and its value.

Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey said at the Defend Rural America event on Oct. 22 that there must be a BALANCE between humans and wildlife. We agree!

–POW President Liz Bowen and POW Vice President Mark Baird

No Comments

California’s rural residents ready to step up against government overreach

California water, Klamath River & Dams

By: Steven Greenhut | 10/29/11 1:10 PM
Special to The Examiner

Resource: The Copco I Dam on the Klamath River, outside Hornbrook, is one of four dams proposed to be removed. (AP file photo)
Resource: The Copco I Dam on the Klamath River, outside Hornbrook, is one of four dams proposed to be removed. (AP file photo)

The nearly five-hour drive from the Sacramento area to Yreka, in Siskiyou County by the Oregon border, was a reminder not just of the immense size and beauty of California, but of the vast regional and cultural differences one finds within our 37-million-population state. Sacramento is Government Central, a land of overpensioned bureaucrats and restaurant discounts for state workers. But way up in the North State, one finds a small but hard-edged rural populace that views state and federal officials as the main obstacles to their quality of life.

Their latest battle is to stop destruction of four hydro-electric dams along the Klamath River. Most locals say the dam-busting will undermine their property rights and ruin the local farming and ranch economy, which is all that’s left since regulators destroyed the logging and mining industries. These used to be wealthy resource-based economies, but now many of the towns are drying up, with revenues to local governments evaporating. Unemployment rates are in the 20 percent and higher range. Nearly 79 percent of the county’s voters opposed the dam removal in a recent advisory initiative, but that isn’t stopping the authorities from blasting the dams anyhow.

These rural folks, living in the shadow of the majestic Mount Shasta, believe that they are being driven away so that their communities can essentially go back to the wild, to conform to an extremist preference for wildlands above humanity. As the locals told it during the Defend Rural America conference at the Siskiyou Golden Fairgrounds a week ago Saturday night, pushy officials are treading on their liberties, traipsing unannounced on their properties, confronting local ranchers with guns drawn to enforce arcane regulatory rules and destroying their livelihoods in the process.

The evening’s main event: A panel featuring eight county sheriffs (seven from California and one from Oregon) who billed themselves as “Constitution Sheriffs.” They vowed to stand up for the residents of their communities against what they say is an unconstitutional onslaught from regulators in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. In particular, they took issue with the federal government’s misnamed Travel Management Plan, which actually is designed to shut down public travel in the forests. Plumas County Sheriff Greg Hagwood related the stir he caused when he said that he “will not criminalize citizens for just accessing public lands.” Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey reminded the crowd that county sheriffs are sworn to uphold the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

As someone who has covered law-enforcement issues in urban Southern California, it’s refreshing to hear peace officers enunciate the proper relationship between themselves and the people. I could pick nits. For all the complaining about the feds, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko had just been quoted in the newspaper praising the Obama administrations for its crackdown on medical marijuana clinics, even though state law clearly allows such clinics. One’s either for state control or not.

I hadn’t been in Yreka long before someone handed me a popular joke. A federal agent shows up at a farm and demands to check out the property. The farmer says OK, but tells him not to go over to one pasture. Then the agent arrogantly tells him he has a federal badge and can go wherever he darn well pleases. The farmer says OK. A few minutes later, the agent is running for his life from a bull. The agent calls for help, so the farmer goes to the fence and yells: “Show him your badge.”

It’s funny but anger-inducing. We’ve got a real sagebrush rebellion brewing in rural California. Urban legislators can ignore it at their own peril.
Steven Greenhut is editor of www.calwatchdog.com; write to him at sgreenhut@calwatchdog.com.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/10/californias-rural-residents-ready-step-against-government-overreach#ixzz1cNYaJ5E9

No Comments

GUEST OPINION: Dam survey is fraudulent


by Eric Harms Siskiyou Daily News October 28, 2011

Klamath River, Calif. — I am a longtime resident of Siskiyou County. The federal government has apparently decided to “restore” the Klamath River Basin by implementing a project that, among other things, would remove four dams from the Klamath River.

A Yreka friend was recently the recipient of a survey, commissioned and funded by the U.S. Department of Interior entitled “Restoring a U.S. River Basin: What is Your Opinion?”

My friend shared the survey with me. Since this survey was purportedly sent to 11,000 randomly selected households in the entire country, statistically it is somewhat remarkable that my friend, or for that matter anyone in Siskiyou County, received the survey.

Recipients of the survey are asked to participate regardless of whether they have any knowledge of the Klamath River Basin or the proposed project. The survey states: “Even if you have never heard of the Klamath River, your opinions are very important to us and this research project.” It goes on to state: “The information from the survey will help the U.S. Department of the Interior decide what to do and how much to spend, if anything, on improving conditions in the Klamath River Basin. This is an opportunity for you to provide government decision makers with your opinion about whether and how tax dollars should be spent on this issue.”

This so-called “survey” really got to me. The survey is outrageous, biased, a sham and improper use of tax money! The survey questions assume to be true “scientific” facts that have been strongly challenged by other experts and people with direct knowledge. These “facts” inform the survey recipient that the dams have caused declining fish populations including Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. These “facts” suggest to the survey recipient that the dams have threatened and endangered the Shortnose Sucker, Lost River Sucker and coho salmon populations. These “facts” inform the survey recipient that the dam removals and other aspects of the project will reduce the chances of extinction of certain fish populations and improve water quality. These “facts” suggest that removal of the dams will somehow increase water deliveries to farms.

The survey minimizes the potential real cost and detriment resulting from dam removal. The survey conceals from the survey recipient that a substantial number of informed, knowledgeable people vehemently disagree with many of the “facts” assumed in the survey questions.

The survey then asks the recipient to vote on various options to mitigate the issues presented in the survey as “facts.” The options include “No Action,” “Action Plan A” (which includes dam removal), and “Action Plan B” (which also includes dam removal).

Nowhere does the survey inform the recipient that proposals have been presented by informed and knowledgeable people that would mitigate issues short of dam removal.

Assuming it to be true that the survey was sent to 11,000 random households throughout the entire United States, it is likely that only a very small fraction of the survey takers would have any information that there really is another side of the story.

It comes through loud and clear to anyone who does know something about the Klamath River Basin issues that the survey is not designed to honestly assess the true public opinion, but rather to elicit only the responses that the government wants, for political purposes.

Given the way the survey is presented, the vast majority of the survey takers, not being given the information that there is another side of the story, will be convinced to respond in favor of dam removal. Responding in any other manner would be like voting against mother and apple pie.

This is fraudulent, and a wantonly improper use of the taxpayers’ money. Everyone, regardless of whether they sincerely favor or disfavor dam removal, should be outraged.


No Comments

Truth about Dam Removal (Submitted to Dept of Interior @ Last Weeks meeting)


The Truth About Dam Removal

The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, Confidential and Privileged Settlement Communication with the exclusion of the General Public’s participation causes injury to the general public and the Shasta Nation.

This Agreement will force the Shasta’s out of existence by the Karok Tribe down river and the Klamath Tribe up river establishing fishing rights below Iron Gate Dam. The Federal Government and several states are willing to destroy the Shasta Nation by creating artificial low fish numbers for absolute control of surface and ground water and our lives through the KBRA. Charter

The Klamath Tribe never had an identified village site on the Klamath River.

The Shasta’s possess prehistoric village sites, as identified in Gibbs Journal, while traveling up river in 1851. Mr. Gibbs documented the Shasta language encountered upon leaving Clear Creek on the Klamath River. The formost up river Shasta village site on the Klamath is near Lake Ewana, headwaters of the Klamath River.

The Shasta’s aboriginal recognized land base on the Klamath river is identified at least 70 miles more or less below Iron Gate Dam, near Clear Creek. Upstream the Shasta’s aboriginal land base on the Klamath River from Iron Gate Dam includes more or less 50 miles of the Klamath River, to the lake now known as Lake Ewana. The removal of four dams in the heart of the Shasta Nation Requires that the Shasta Nation and the General Public be allowed due process to file exceptions to the Agreement.

Which has been denied.

Each Party to the KBRA has an “Obligation” to Support this “Confidential Agreement,” no exceptions. Parties were selected that “Shall support and defend this Agreement in each applicable venue or forum, including any administrative or judicial action in which it participates, and which concerns the validity of any Regulatory Approval or Authorizing Legislation.”

To remain “Confidential” the Agreement utilized a Conspiracy of Silence; a secret Agreement to keep silent about an occurrence, situation or subject in order to promote or protect interests among selective groups that promoted the same selfish interests. Conspire; to join in a secret Agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end. Webster’s dictionary.

The Karok Tribe is now attempting to use the stolen Shasta Treaty R as their own to control Shasta Nation Aboriginal lands and water rights, which is where the dam removal currently lies.

Tribes and Government agencies have erroneously disregarded the reserved Shasta Nation Treaty rights including hunting, fishing, and water rights which are Guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. A Tribe need not be Federally Recognized to establish that it is the beneficiary of a Treaty. United States v Suquamish Tribe 901 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1990); It is enough that a group or tribe establish that it has preserved an organized tribal structure that it can trace back to a Federal Treaty. United States v Oregon, 29 F 3d 481, amended 43 F. 3d 1284 (9th Cir. 1994).

Terms of Agreement:

The term of the Agreement as to contractual obligations shall be 50 years from the effective date.

The KBRA will need a Charter, foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws and altering fundamentally the forms of our government. A Charter as defined to make this Agreement effective will abdicate Government and declare us out of the protection of the United States Constitution.

As defined by Webster 2. A grant or guarantee of rights, franchises or privileges from the sovereign power of a state or country. 4. A special privilege, “IMMUNITY,” or exemption arising from legislation. The citizens of Klamath, Jackson and Siskiyou Counties will have their right to representation destroyed in an Unconstitutional Dictatorial Charter for 50 years.

Force Majeure shall mean: For the purpose of performing Contractual Obligations under this Agreement. There is no freedom of speech or right to representation by the Public in the creation of this Agreement, and Irrevocable Charter will mandate this. To become a Party to this “Obligated Contractual Agreement” means Government agencies have violated their trusts as public servants by violating the authority of the Constitution of the United States and the will of the People.

Indian Treaties stand essentially on the same footing as Treaties with Foreign Nations, as they are made pursuant to the Constitution, Treaties take precedence over any conflicting state laws by reason of the Supremacy Clause. U.S. Constitution., Art. VI, $ 2; Worcester v Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).

Reserved treaty rights are not Dependant on Trust Status. The Supreme Courts case of Johnson v McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) Indian tribes were incapable of conveying their land directly to individuals even before the passage of the Trade and Intercourse Act

The first Trade and Intercourse Act 1 stat. 137 (1790), forbade the transfer of Indian lands to individuals or States except by Treaty, “Under the authority of the United States.” Shasta land transferred to the State of California by Federal Government officials, with the un-ratified Treaty R sealed for fifty years, violates the First Trade and Intercourse Act 1 stat. 137 (1790) of the Constitution of the United States. Indian tribes that occupied and used the land to the exclusion of others had an interest denoted as a right of occupancy, known today as Aboriginal Title. That title cannot be compromised by anyone except by Congress. Only the United States, could extinguish the Indian right of occupancy by purchase, “a treaty.”

The creation and acceptance of an Indian Reservation by Treaty with boundaries constitutes a relinquishment and extinguishment of Aboriginal Title outside of the Reservation. Menominee Indian Tribe v Thompson, 161 F3d 449 462 (7 Cir.1998). Treaty R of the Shasta and Upper Klamath has remained un-ratified by the US. Senate therefore legal interest is retained by the Shasta Nation.

A Tribes Treaty Right to exclusive use and occupancy of it’s FORMER Reservation has been held to protect it from attempts of the BIA to place land within that Reservation in trust for a competing tribe.

Citizen band of Pottawatomie Indian Tribe v Collier, 142 F. 3d 1325 (10th Cir.1998).

The Karok Tribe and the B.I.A. has stolen title of Treaty R of the Shasta and Upper Klamath Indian tribe speaking the same language, now the Shasta Nation. The Karok Tribe are not of the land described in Treaty R nor are they descendants of the treaty signers of Treaty R.

The Shasta and Upper Klamath Indians are listed in the Federal Register, also, the Shasta are listed on the California Tribal Consultation List maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).


Roy V. Hall Jr.

No Comments

Teeming with salmon: 24,409 Chinook counted at Battle Creek

Salmon and fish

Redding Record Searchlight reports huge increase in salmon numbers. And shockingly blames ocean conditions for the previous decline in salmon numbers.  — Editor Liz Bowen

READ it:


1 Comment

From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People


The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite

The United Nations has officially designated October 31st as 7 Billion Day.  On that day, the United Nations estimates that the population of the earth will hit 7 billion for the very first time.  But instead of celebrating what a milestone 7 billion people represents, the UNPF is focusing instead on using October 31st to raise awareness about “sustainability” and “sustainable development”.  In other words, the United Nations is once again declaring that there are way too many people on the planet and that we need to take more direct measures to reduce fertility.  In recent years, the UN and other international organizations have become bolder about trying to push the sick population control agenda of the global elite.  Most of the time organizations such as the UN will simply talk about “stabilizing” the global population, but as you will see in this article, there are many among the global elite that are not afraid to openly talk about a goal of reducing the population of the world to 500 million (or less).  To you and I it may seem like insanity to want to get rid of more than 90 percent of the global population, but there is a growing consensus among the global elite that this is absolutely necessary for the good of the planet.

READ MORE  http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/from-7-billion-people-to-500-million-people-the-sick-population-control-agenda-of-the-global-elite

No Comments

Happy Anniversary, Federalist No. 1! « Hot Air



These days, especially among Tea Partiers, it’s a marker of immense credibility to be called a “constitutional conservative.” But, as with any label, the term is easily coopted, applied as a veneer atop entrenched pro-growth-of-government ideas. Fortunately, we have in The Federalist an eloquent exposition of the intent of the Framers and a sure interpretation of the Constitution.

As it happens, Alexander Hamilton penned the first of the Federalist papers 224 years ago today. Surely that anniversary is worth commemorating, especially as Hamilton’s first-paragraph encapsulation of just what was at stake in the American experiment remains one of the briefest illuminations of the import of that experiment in history and around the world.

First, let’s recall that first paragraph:

[I]t seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

David Azerrad explains the significance for us today:

At stake in the debate to ratify the Constitution was more than “your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness”—important as they were and remain: Americans were embarking on an experiment in self-government that would, if successful, vindicate man before all the princes, kings, and assorted thinkers who had firmly denied that men could govern themselves.

At the heart of the Founding, as James Madison would later explain in Federalist No. 39, was “that honorable determination, which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all of our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.”

Too often, “the American Dream” is conflated with the car, the house, the spouse, the kids, the trips to Disneyland or to the ski slopes. But to reduce the American Dream to the mere material is to miss that the American Founders, rather uniquely in all of history, made a statement to the world that they wanted to be free to govern themselves even more than they wanted to be rich and prosperous. As it happens, freedom leads to prosperity — but, incredibly, prosperity was even less the point than self-government and freedom.

Government regulation — the arguments for and against — has become a hot topic, thanks to the Occupy Wall Street movement. But, all too often, the debate hinges on whether the regulations do what they’re intended to do or on what the costs of the regulations are in terms of dollars and jobs. Those are meaningful discussions to have — but so, too, is the question of whether we really want to cede that privilege of regulating ourselves — so bravely entrusted to us by the Founders — to the government. We betray the trust of the Founders when we act in such a way as to trample the rights of others and to invite increased government intervention in our lives. But we uphold it when we do discipline ourselves to respect others’ equal rights.

Azerrad reminds us that today is an anniversary of another important moment in American rhetoric. Nearly 50 years ago (47, to be exact), Ronald Reagan delivered his “A Time for Choosing” speech. The question he posed then must be answered by every generation, for, as Reagan once put it, “Freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction.”

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

No Comments

Wild turkeys – do NOT shoot!


Wild life is abundant in Scott Valley.

First, I went to pick up muffins and a table from Betty Adkins and this buck had just jumped the fence, well both of them did.

Not a big set of horns, but a nice body on this one. Started thinking about some nice venison steaks or smoked jerky.  Oh, that’s right Buck Season is over. Dang it.

Then I turned onto Peach Orchard Lane to go up Moffett Creek, where the Turkey Shoot will be held on Saturday, Oct. 29, and a herd of wild turkeys were crossing the road at the Santos Ranch.

These were in the drive way.

These were crossing the fence.

DO NOT shoot the wild turkeys !!!!!

The Turkey Shoot is up Moffett Creek and you will be shooting for

frozen turkeys





New York Steaks

Pauline’s signs point the way.  Turn left at the 2nd cattle guard up East Moffett Creek Road at the bottom of Forest Mt.

Starts at 9 a.m.

 EVENTS  all day

Food is available for purchase.

Oct. 29, 2011

Sponsored by Scott Valley Protect Our Water


No Comments
« Older Posts