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 February, 2013.

Controversy on Fire Protection Fee grows

Fire Fees, State gov

As your taxpayer advocate and elected member of the California State Board of Equalization, I’m fighting to protect your rights and bring about fair tax policies that help grow our economy and jobs. As always, I welcome your ideas about how we can work together to solve the problems facing our state.

– GEORGE RUNNER

Fire Fee Controversy Grows

In recent weeks, CAL FIRE has drawn significant media attention and public scrutiny.

                        First, in response to questions from the Los Angeles Times, CAL FIRE was forced to admit the existence of a secret $3.66 million slush fund. These dollars, which came from legal settlements, were supposed to go into the state’s general fund. Instead, CAL FIRE diverted these funds to a private non-profit and used them to pay for a number of questionable expenditures.

This unfolding scandal has drawn scathing editorials from a number of newspapers, including the Fresno Bee, Modesto Bee, Orange County Register, Record Searchlight, Sacramento Bee, Stockton Record and U-T San Diego. Senate Republicans have called for an independent investigation.

Second, as reported by the Sacramento Bee, CAL FIRE has been illegally diverting fire fee funds to pay for wildfire investigations. The Office of Legislative Counsel, which drafted the fire fee law, says CAL FIRE’s actions are unconstitutional because they do not provide a direct benefit to fee payers.

Last but not least, Governor Jerry Brown is proposing legislation that would redefine the fire fee as a tax. His proposal is aimed at allowing the administration to continue spending fire fee revenues in a manner that does not directly benefit fee payers. The proposal would require a 2/3rds votes. It’s unclear whether rural Democrats will support the Governor’s effort.

We’ve known all along that the fire “fee” is really an illegal tax. These latest developments only serve to underscore this truth.

And although the Governor may find these matters “boring,” I don’t. I doubt California taxpayers do either.

It’s time for greater accountability and transparency at CAL FIRE. It’s also time for the Legislature to repeal the fire “fee” by approving any or all of the pending legislative repeal measures: AB 23, AB 124 or SB 17.

Keep up with all the latest fire fee news by following Calfirefee.com on Facebook or Twitter.

 

No Comments

Watch Klamath Co Commissioners decide on KBRA 2-26-13

KBRA or KHSA, Klamath County, Tom Mallams-Klamath Co Commissioner

Click on this page and then the Feb. 26, 2013 box:

http://www.klamathcounty.org/commissioners/weekly_meetings.asp

No Comments

Klamath Co. Commissioners voted to withdraw from KBRA/KHSA

Uncategorized

Klamath County Commissioners

305 Main Street, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601 Phone: (541) 883-5100

Fax: (541) 883-5163

Email: bocc@co.klamath.or.us

Tom Mallams Commissioner; Dennis Linthicum Commissioner Jim Bellet; Commissioner Position One; Position Two; Position Three

February 27, 2013 2:30 p.m.

PRESS RELEASE

KLAMATH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VOTE TO WITHDRAW FROM KBRA/KHSA

Contacts: Commissioner Dennis Linthicum, 541-883-5100

Commissioner Jim Bellet, 541-883-5100

Commissioner Tom Mallams, 541-892-2626

The Klamath County Board of Commissioners’ voted unanimously yesterday to discontinue support of the Klamath Hydro Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA).

We believe a comprehensive settlement of water related issues is still critical to our economic and social benefit.

Each of us, as individual commissioners elected to represent the citizens of Klamath County, have our own views about the weaknesses and strengths of the KBRA/KHSA process. Likewise, every stakeholder is free to have its views on the process.

However, as a Board, we do not believe Klamath County should continue to participate as a signatory to the KBRA/KHSA.

No Comments

Klamath Basin Crisis.org 2-17-13

KBRA or KHSA, Klamath Basin Crisis.org, Klamath County, Klamath River & Dams

PRESS RELEASE: Klamath County Commissioners vote to withdraw from KBRA/KHSA, KCC 2/27/13

2/27/13 – VIDEO of Klamath County Commissioners weekly meetings. February 12 was the meeting where 70 people spoke for and against county support of the KBRA. February 26 the commissioners voted against supporting the KBRA and explained their reasons. The audio on the Feb. 26 meeting should be working tomorrow.

                        Klamath County Commissioners decided Tuesday to withdraw from the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

” type=”#_x0000_t75″ href=”http://www.heraldandnews.com/members/news/frontpage/article_dc8e185e-80a5-11e2-a311-0019bb2963f4.html” o:button=”t” o:allowoverlap=”f”> County withdraws from KBRA; Commissioners voice concerns over impact on Klamath’s economy,H&N 2/27/13 NOTE: H&N has repeatedly stated that they support the KBRA

Oregon U.S. Representative Greg Walden District 2, 2/27/13

TID Public Meeting on Groundwater Management Plan 2/27/13 HERE for PLAN   20 people came to the TID meeting today. The final public comment meeting will be in April sometime. It will be the last chance to ask questions or give input, and if you have a letter it much be submitted at the April meeting. TID says this is not the same as the OPP On Project Plan mandated by the KBRA that will withhold your groundwater if they decide there is an adverse impact. TID said they do not plan to control or fee private wells. However, apparently other entities like the state or KBRA rulers can use this data to manage our groundwater.

www.klamathbasincrisis.org

No Comments

Turtle Bay says it can’t afford prevailing wage rate to build hotel

Uncategorized

PNP comment: Unions are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Unfortunately, it is the many workers and local business that will be hurt. — Editor Liz Bowen

Redding.com

  • Posted February 27, 2013 at 10 p.m.

Chances appear slim Turtle Bay will reach a compromise with unions over a ruling requiring the park pay prevailing wages to construction workers —  a stalemate likely to kill its $20 million Sheraton Hotel project.

Turtle Bay Exploration Park CEO Mike Warren said using prevailing wage labor will tack $3.2 million to building costs, a price tag the park can’t afford.

“We are regrouping and seeing how or if we can continue with the project,” Warren said Wednesday.

Read it:

http://www.redding.com/news/2013/feb/27/turtle-bay-says-it-cant-afford-prevailing-wage/?partner=newsletter_headlines

No Comments

Group continues to fight Shasta County, CA. over Permit regulations

Constitution, Over-regulations

Group rallies at vineyard in support of Anselmo and government reforms

Redding.com

  • Posted February 27, 2013 at 6:42 p.m.

More than 100 people pushing for reform in Shasta County government rallied for the second time Wednesday at vintner Reverge Anselmo’s chapel near Shingletown.

They shared familiar local complaints over permitting issues,  but also more far-reaching concerns triggered by an unexpected drone that suddenly appeared over the picturesque winery.

A newly formed Shasta County group — The Integrity Project — sponsored the rally.

“You’re here because you care about what’s happening to our county,” emcee Carl Bott told the audience, standing before the towering, pale aqua chapel that’s sparked so much controversy.

A MUST READ:

http://www.redding.com/news/2013/feb/27/group-rallies-at-vineyard-in-support-of-anselmo/?partner=newsletter_headlines

No Comments

Dick Act of 1902 – Amazing. We must voice this to everyone!

2nd Amendment rights, Constitution

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG RECORD: LINK: http://lccn.loc.gov/96190993

DICK ACT of 1902
… CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government


CAN NOT BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable. The Dick Act of 1902
also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45.  All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy. The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders. The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution ( to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).  These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard. Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached. During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.  The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.  Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold. Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.

In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.

This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.  Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.

The Honorable William Gordon More Info With over 300 Million guns in the United States, the federal CORPORATE government (federal gov’t defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation, 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (10), cannot ban arms or stop people from defending themselves against a tyrannical government.  I read somewhere that just the State of North Carolina can call up 20-30 divisions of unorganized militia (would be about 200,000-300,000 armed North Carolinians) on a moment’s notice.

Imagine the State of Texas or Oklahoma if that’s the case? Amazingly, even if the US tries to ban all arms through backdoor measures like domestic violence laws ( Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 922 (g)) or through an unconstitutional U.N. declaration adopted by our current Marxist unconstitutional Congress, no treaty can supersede the Constitution:”This [ Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.”  – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.  This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution?

Keep reading.  The Reid Court ( U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that, “… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…”

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…”It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions.  (See: Elliots Debates 1836 ed. pgs 500-519).”In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.

The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined. Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here?  No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution.   FACT.   No question!

At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; 7 Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 26 7 where the Court held at that time that, “The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States.  It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”

Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.  The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:

“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null.  It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”

The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT!!!   CASE CLOSED.

No Comments

Gun Owners of America on Obama gun control

2nd Amendment rights, Federal gov & land grabs

From: Gun Owners of America

Smoke a Joint, Get an ObamaPass

Sell a gun to someone who smokes a joint, get 20 years in jail

It’s Looney Toons on Capitol Hill.

Everyone’s heard about the “red herring” Feinstein Gun Ban, which “red state Democrats” will vote down in order to pretend they’re “pro-gun.”

But the bigger danger is that Obama will sign “non-controversial” gun control which is just as dangerous, but no one but us is talking about.

Take the gun licensure bill which anti-gunners are trying to dub the “gun trafficking bill.”  In the Senate, the bill is S. 54, and was introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) — although it appears that it could have been drafted by an intern.

GOOFBALL PROVISION #1:  The bill would impose a 20-year prison term if you planned (“conspired”) to purchase a firearm in order to give or raffle it to a person who, unbeknownst to you, is a “prohibited person.”

Who is a prohibited person?

Well, there are the 150,000 law-abiding veterans who are “prohibited persons” –- for no other reason than that a psychiatrist appointed a fiduciary to oversee their financial affairs.

But probably the biggest category of “prohibited persons” is persons who smoke marijuana.  Under 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3) and (g)(3), you cannot possess a firearm in America if you are “an unlawful user of … any controlled substance…”

In over a dozen states, marijuana has been wholly or partly legalized under STATE law.

It doesn’t matter … if you even think about selling or raffling a gun to this expanding class of persons, you can go to prison for 20 years under S. 54.

GOOFBALL PROVISION #2:  The bill would make you a federal “prohibited person” if you are prohibited from owning a gun under “State or local law.”

What does that even mean?

In places like New York and Chicago, everyone is prohibited from owning a firearm without a license.  Does that mean that everyone in these jurisdictions is a federal “prohibited person” under S. 54?

What if someone applies for a license and is found not to have a need to possess one?  Under the slip-shod language of the Leahy bill, these individuals would probably become federal “prohibited persons” because the bill denies any person from owning a firearm if they are “prohibited by STATE OR LOCAL LAW from possessing, receiving, selling, shipping, transporting, transferring, or otherwise disposing of the firearm or ammunition.” (S. 54, Section 5.)

Oh, incidentally, under the Veterans Disarmament Act, states are required to send the names of 95% of their prohibited persons to the FBI’s NICS system -– or lose federal funding.

So now you will have millions of law-abiding citizens — living in places like New York City and Chicago — who have their names placed in the NICS system.  And the Leahy bill doesn’t address some very important questions related to their status as gun owners.

How will these banned citizens get their names cleared? The federal government has for years continued enforcing the Schumer amendment which defunds the ability of the ATF to restore the rights of non-violent prohibited persons. Will New Yorkers and Chicagoans get their gun rights restored after they move away from the localities that banned them from owning guns and which turned them into prohibited persons?

Again, the bill doesn’t say.  But we could expect that a few years from now, a future anti-gun President could use the language in S. 54 to impose a federal licensure requirement on these persons — as part of a new 23-point Executive Action memo — and make non-licensees federal prohibited persons (with all that that implies).

Maybe –- just maybe -– the courts would save us from the implications of Leahy’s goofball language.

But answer us this:  Why do anti-gun senators and representatives continue to push language which they know is fatally flawed –- just so they can say they “broke the back of the gun lobby”?

The solution is clear:  Senators –- if they are pro-gun -– MUST vote against a “motion to proceed” to any of this goofball legislation.  That is, they must vote to keep ALL gun control from even being considered on the Senate floor.

ACTIONClick here to contact your Senators.  Urge him to vote against any motion to proceed to goofball anti-gun bills like S. 54.

No Comments

$24.5 million deal to protect 20,000-acre Sonoma County forest

Federal gov & land grabs

PNP comment: Boy does this article make my eyebrows go up. Between the lies and obscene amount of cash exchanging hands, I tend to believe that this 20,000 acres is NOT that big of a deal and should have been left as private property. OH, there is still plenty of OPEN space in this area. I just can’t swallow any more of this. Yep, there is big money in carbon credits. — Editor Liz Bowen

   

The Wheatfield Fork of the Gualala River reflects a portion of the newly acquired open space of Preservation Ranch on Tuesday.

                                                           Kent Porter / Press Democrat

By
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 7:24 p.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 2:47 p.m.

A national conservation group has reached an agreement to buy nearly 20,000 acres of timberland in northwestern Sonoma County, a move that derails the long-disputed, forest-to-vineyards conversion project pushed by CalPERS, the giant state workers pension fund.

The $24.5 million purchase of the so-called Preservation Ranch, to be completed by the end of May, is led by The Conservation Fund, based in Virginia. It would contribute up to $6 million toward the purchase.

Funding partners include the California Coastal Conservancy, which could contribute up to $10 million, Sonoma County’s Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, which could add up to $4 million to the deal, and the Sonoma Land Trust.

It would be the largest conservation purchase by acreage in county history and one of the largest along the North Coast in years.

“It’s a big, big, big deal,” said Bill Keene, general manager of the county’s Open Space District. The property, located near Annapolis, spans a vast and rugged landscape of second- and third-growth redwood and Douglas fir, oak woodlands and salmon and steelhead streams.

Keene called it “a critical piece of land for us to protect.”

Public access could result from the deal, but the property would remain in private ownership and on the tax roll.

The Conservation Fund owns and manages 55,000 acres of forest in Mendocino County and would use the new property for sustainable timber production and possibly for the sale of carbon credits.

The purchase would eliminate the threat of subdivision for rural estates and commercial vineyard development. It also would put greater focus on forest health and wildlife habitat restoration, said Chris Kelly, California program director for The Conservation Fund.

   Facts

THE PROPERTY

-19,652 acres in northwestern Sonoma County, near Annapolis
-Purchased in 2004 for $28.4 million by a vineyard development firm backed by CalPERS, the state pension fund
-Controversial CalPERS-backed proposal called for 1,769-acre forest-to-vineyard conversion
-New conservation deal: $24.5 million purchase led by The Conservation Fund set to be final May 31

READ more:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130226/ARTICLES/130229626/1350?Title=-24-5-million-deal-reached-to-save-Preservation-Ranch

No Comments

Man found dead at north end of Scott Valley on 2-27-13

Sheriff Jon Lopey, Siskiyou Sheriff's report

SISKIYOU COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE

**02/27/2013**

            On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at about 8:00 a.m., the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) received a report of a body on Soap Creek Road west of State Route 3 in a remote portion of Forest Mountain.  This is a wooded, mountainous area situated roughly half-way between Yreka and Fort Jones.

Responding SCSO Deputies and Detectives located the man, later identified as Mr. David Perry, 69 years-old, of Klamath River, CA lying in a supine position in the middle of the road about 1.6 miles west of SR 3.

Mr. Perry was deceased and it is believed that he had been at the location for a matter of days.   Although there was no sign of trauma on the body and no apparent signs of foul play at the scene, the case is still under investigation.

According to Sheriff Jon Lopey, “Although there were no obvious signs of foul play or evidence of a crime at the scene, these investigations are typically handled as possible homicides until an autopsy is performed to determine a manner and cause of death.  On behalf of the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office, I would like to extend our condolences, thoughts and prayers to the family of Mr. Perry.”

Anyone with information about Mr. Perry’s whereabouts or activities in the days prior to February 27, 2013, are urged to contact the Department at the 24-hour dispatch number (530) 841-2900.

No Comments
« Older Posts