28 votes

Plan To Split California Into Six States Gets OK To Gather Signatures

Plan To Split California Into Six States Gets OK To Gather Signatures

February 19, 2014 10:23 AM

SACRAMENTO (CBS SF) – Supporters of a plan to divide California into six sates can begin collecting signatures to get the proposal on the ballot.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced that the proposed ballot initiative – known as Six Californias – could move forward Tuesday.
Under the plan, from venture capitalist Tim Draper, most of the Bay Area would be considered “Silicon Valley.” Napa, Sonoma and Marin Counties would become part of “North California.”

Valid voter signatures are needed from 800,000 to put the measure on the ballot statewide.

Read more: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/02/19/plan-to-split-ca...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Cali could split....

but you will still have the heavy hand of the Federal Gvt. in every nook and cranny of your life.

Debbie's picture

Thanks for this post! This is very fascinating. Whether they

could get approval from the state legislature and Congress is another matter, but the fact that this is happening is really great.

Debbie

Update bump:

http://libertycrier.com/proposal-split-california-hits-major...

for some reason their link is disfunctional.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Awesome! I'd really like to

Awesome! I'd really like to split from St. Paul Minneapolis.

Im happy about this,

Im happy about this, especially since then maybe they will stop moving to Utah with their Liberal ideology and coming up with bullshit stories to get our public shooting grounds closed.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

I don't think I like this

I would be stuck in probably the most liberal of these new 6 states. The state legislature would no doubt have a permanent Democratic super majority, which means higher taxes, less rights, and more government. No thank you.

Sorry if you don't like it

but the answer is take advantage of the freedom of movement and re-locate. I took a massive loss to get out of a struggling urban environment after the banksters destroyed the equity in my house. I hated the city's politics and the changing demographics of crime and education in my neighborhood. So I plopped a sign in the yard, took the hit, and got out of dodge to a place that aligned closer to by beliefs.

Vote with your feet and wallet. Liberty shouldn't be stopped because "you don't like it".

YES PLEASE!!!

YES PLEASE!!!

Then maybe I'd not have to move :)

"You only live free if your willing to die free."

Right!

I couldn't agree more! The only reason I want to move is cause of all the damn regulations, taxes, and lack of freedoms.

Republic of California is a Republic. But I repeat myself.

California Republic (1920 flag)

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848

With the capture of Mexico City and the defeat of its army, Mexico surrendered to the United States and began negotiations to end the war. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed on Feb. 2, 1848. The terms of the negotiation ceded the land in what is present-day California, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas, Arizona and Texas.

Defiant Peacemaker: Nicholas Trist, in the Mexican War , author Wallace Ohrt described Trist [US Negotiator for the treaty ending the Mexican War] as uncompromising in his belief that justice could be served only by Mexico's full surrender, including surrender of territory. Ignoring the president's recall command with the full knowledge that his defiance would cost him his career, Trist chose to adhere to his own principles and negotiate a treaty in violation of his instructions [from US President Polk]. His stand made him briefly a very controversial figure in the United States.

Under the terms of the treaty negotiated by Trist, Mexico ceded to the United States Upper California and New Mexico. This was known as the Mexican Cession and included present-day Arizona and New Mexico and parts of Utah, Nevada, and Colorado (see Article V of the treaty). Mexico relinquished all claims to Texas and recognized the Rio Grande [river] as the southern boundary between the United States [& Mexico](see Article V).

The United States paid Mexico $15,000,000 "in consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States" (see Article XII of the treaty) and agreed to pay American citizens debts owed to them by the Mexican government (see Article XV). Other provisions included protection of property and civil rights of Mexican nationals living within the new boundaries of the United States (see Articles VIII and IX), the promise of the United States to police its boundaries (see Article XI), and compulsory arbitration of future disputes between the two countries (see Article XXI).

Trist sent a copy to Washington by the fastest means available, forcing Polk to decide whether or not to repudiate the highly satisfactory handiwork of [Trist] his discredited subordinate. Polk chose to forward the treaty to the Senate. When the Senate reluctantly ratified the treaty (by a vote of 34 to 14) on March 10, 1848, it deleted Article X guaranteeing the protection of Mexican land grants. Following the ratification, U.S. troops were removed from the Mexican capital. [The California Republic did honor Mexican land grants in California.]

When California seceded from Mexico it became for a short while... 26 days... an independent republic.>

This was proclaimed by ceremoniously running up a newly made bear flag of California up a pole in the city of Sonoma, California (north of San Francisco bay). Page by Dan Russell - The Bear Flag Revolt ends ceremoniously when the United States flag is run up that flagpole in Sonoma.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Oh Great Twain.....

What's with the "red star?"

I learn-ed sumthing about it years ago, but forgot why it's there. So why iz it thar?

Also see:
http://www.dailypaul.com/304557/i-said-pear-not-bear

.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

If at first you don't secede, grin & bear it. - Bear Flag Revolt



1836 California Lone Star Flag

1846 California Bear Flag

In 1836, Juan Alvarado and Isaac Graham led a revolution against Mexican rule. During this revolt, rebels captured Monterey, California. They declared California "a free and sovereign state". Most ignored the revolters; in 1846, some remembered tht flag. Folklore has it that the Bear Flag Revolt included a small red star in memorial. To wit, "If at first you don't secede, grin & bear it."

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

That's pretty interestin.....

Question iz, "When we succeed"

What should the "new flag" look like?.....

I purpose we put a 'pear' on it along with the bear & XX (still not so sure about that 'red star' thing though).

A pear in rememberance to Bartlett.....

(to those that don't get it, oh well)

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

Another GREAT STATE OF JEFFERSON link:

https://www.jeffersonrepublic.org/home.html

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

5 more Senators from California :-O

Maybe if they were elected by the State Legislatures.

Free includes debt-free!

USA: 57, 59 or More States? Mr O weighs in on his recollection.

Visited 57 states... One more to go. - Mr O, out on the dusty memory trail... Oregon Territories, 2007 (one minute filmed speech clip; no supporting land survey).

Twain notebook: When I was cub being schooled in Missouri, I heard tell Florida was the 27th state to join our union. Fixed a date in 1845. It was during during President John Tyler's term.

Don't believe the Injuns ever surrendered. They might still be the rightful heirs to the land. I have no proof. About that time, my schooling was of little interest to me.

General Andrew Jackson

Eviction of Indians and Taking of Florida

Circa 1817. Andrew Jackson, Major General of the Southeast, with a salary of $2,400 a year and $1,652 in expenses. His staff lived with him, including Sam Houston, the future hero of Texas... The main military activity at that time was the driving of Indians out of [their]lands... Sometimes there was the justification of Indian raids and massacres; sometimes not.

One such affair, the First Seminole War, resulted in U.S. acquisition of Florida. Spain was fighting... against revolutions in South America. Florida was mostly a vast swampland... Being separated from the [other] Spanish territory, it just caused a dispersal of military manpower. Added to the U.S. however, it would make borders tidier and more defensible, largely preventing, for example, the sort of north-south pincer movement the British tried in 1814....

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

You mean 10 more

even worse

Eeeek!

-

Free includes debt-free!

California should be it's own country, secede from the US

and tell the FED to go pound sand. Our economy is larger than most nations.

beephree

This would be great!

More people in cali are up for this. People in orange County and San Diego can't stand the governments of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento, but have more in common with people in northern Cali and southern Oregon. The people in Jefferson (Northern Cali and Southern Oregon) are the most libertarian, compared to the rest of California. Are state is just too big and can't help everyone, when everyone has such different needs and cultures and beliefs.

Why not break it up into 126 states?

You all know why, because it's rediculas to do so.

I think this 6 thing is subterfuge. I think it's to throw The State of Jefferson movement.

For right now, just stick to one, The State of Jefferson. Then, later, if need be, split again.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

Where Do I Sign?

I'm not happy being called a resident of Silicon Valley, but we could change that.

Having less government would be an improvement. Maybe we can put a stop to Agenda 21, with 2 or 3 of the new states being rural, they might vote against eminent domain and high speed rail.

My brother wouldn't have to move his business so far away to avoid the air quality control standards.

I imagine several of the states would immediately lower the sales tax and income taxes. Their roads might actually get paved.

The only good thing about a huge state as it is, now, is when they oppose the Feds, but they've become just as bad, in general.

The best thing about it would be the discussion about which laws to keep and which to jettison.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Strange times

indeed, not sure how breaking up a state cures what ails them? Seems it would just be the creation of a lot more governments, this doesn't make any sense.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

States-Within-a-State Proposition

...it would just be the creation of a lot more governments....

You're right.

And, on course (woefully), it makes nothing but sense.

QS, the USA probably will be splintered. Politics of course will cause it and privatization will be its result. Always politicians and businesses are together, which raises this question: Will the California government cease to exist after the proposed governments are made, and if not then in what capacity will it be?

One thing I observe to gauge the future is the promotion of things. Something I tune myself to is the push for libertarianism. There's a certain behavior among many of its promoters, who often are sources of attention, a relationship I look for to detect whether a gathering of people is authentic.

Promoters cheer causes extreme to where the United States is economically and socially. They also oppose the path that leads to what they promote. That path: repealing, causing the untethering of State and business. That path, however, probably is off limits to them probably because they are controlled which makes sense because of their omission about what's obvious to anyone only half awake about politics: that Rothschilds and members of other longstanding famed families must be captured and put on trial if mankind is to return to being itself.

Who knows if Rothschild is at the apex of control. I don't. Someone does. There's plenty of information from common sources spanning at least 100 years that point to that family as a reason why the world is how it is. Try your average National Geographic map showing Rothschild Island on the Antarctic. Try Rothschild Boulevard, Rothschild Cemetery and the funding of many places and buildings in Israel. Try photos of former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger walking with a Rothschild. Try books about that family, particularly the two volumes set The House of Rothschild by Naill Furgeson (a name Rand Paul dropped in an interview I recall on CNN early this year). Why not Alonzo Rothschild's approximately 100-year-old book on President Lincoln and other old books about that family on the website of old book publisher Kessinger Books. Or the unforgettable front covered, high selling Bantam Classic edition of The Wealth of Nations whose introduction by Princeton University economics professor Alan B. Krueger includes citation of Emma Rothschild.

That family, the Rothschilds, is a place to start. Our court system awaits those people, but despite that it does, still centralization occurs.

Its occurrence is in false decentralization, where the composition of things attached to the centrality change in appearance (and feel, if need be), hence the introduction of intangible currency, digital currency. This currency is one of many appendages attached to the body, to the system, that spans the world whose "leaders" (rather, managers) move to the individual. That movement is the corrupt version of individualization, where the individual's private affairs will be accessible to businesses working with the State and of course to their hub, the State. [Individual + -ize (to make).]

Again, moving to the individual: The breaking up of nations and implementing the products of fascism to the individual's life, placing him on dependency in every facet of his life. A chief product will be automation, whose number one characteristic is: tracking.

I wish I could agree with you that more governments makes no sense, but they do make sense -- when they act as one. So, as for my take on centralization far away from me rather than close to me, I'm with you. I prefer it in D.C. rather than in my back yard, a preference sensible to anyone concerned about freedom.

Why do the promoters -- especially those who are DPers -- of the multi portioned state proposition miss this preference? Either they're ignorant or they know what's going on and have reasons for their promotion.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Do you hear yourself speak

Of course it would create a lot more governments. That's the point, and that's a good thing; when they are SMALL governments that are geographically close to those being governed.

Of course, the opposite of "a lot more governments" is one large, centralized government. Now THAT doesn't make any sense.

Communists had

several satellite countries all controlled with their people.

One big government or several small doesn't mean bat shit if they are all run by yes men. We have state governments, county government, city governments how is that working out for us?

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

It's a good idea because the people in the rural areas are

outvoted by the super freaky control freak libtards in the huge population centers of LA, San Fran, etc.. Smaller government is always better and this is what these people want, to not be ruled by dictators in Sacramento who take their orders from idiot liberal voters in the big cities.

Oregon should be broken up too. Portland controls the rest of the state.

I'd like to see my great state of Arizona broken up too. Tucson is mostly liberal while the rest of the state isn't as much. I could see an Eastern Arizona, a Western Arizona, and the North and South split up too. Right now we are ruled by the state of Maricopa, the County that covers Phoenix.

Strange times indeed, about to get stranger. Welcome it!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

It would be nice

if this really took off. There are a lot of states that would like to get split.

A Big California Boom!

lol..