Connect with us

Activism

San Bernardino County Voting to Leave California; Establish 51st State

According to real estate developer Jeff Burum, a member of the group, San Bernardino County is not getting its fair share from the state of California. The movement is supported by some local mayors such as Acquanetta Warren, mayor of Fontana, and Bill Velto, mayor of Upland.

Published

on

Over the years, there have been several efforts led by various groups to partition California — or secede from the state. So far, none of them have succeeded.
Over the years, there have been several efforts led by various groups to partition California — or secede from the state. So far, none of them have succeeded.

Manny Otiko | California Black Media

On Nov. 8, San Bernardino County voters will be presented with a choice on their ballot — leave the state of California and create the 51st state or remain the largest county in the nation.

A consortium in San Bernardino is the latest group of people proposing to alter the boundaries of the state of California. The group wants the county to secede from California and create a 51st state that would be called Empire.

According to real estate developer Jeff Burum, a member of the group, San Bernardino County is not getting its fair share from the state of California. The movement is supported by some local mayors such as Acquanetta Warren, mayor of Fontana, and Bill Velto, mayor of Upland.

“We cannot continue to beg, and crawl … to get resources for our county … Let’s step out and be bold about it and let the people decide what they want to do.” Fontana Mayor Acquanetta Warren told the San Bernardino Board of Supervisors.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Curt Hagman said, “I’m frustrated, too. I’m frustrated with the state of California. It’s becoming, more and more, ‘one size fits all’ for the greatest state in the nation.”

Burum claimed the move has “overwhelming” support. But he is basing his assessment on a survey of 400 San Bernardino County residents by Wallin Opinion Research.

There are more than 2.1 million people living in the county. San Bernardino is the fifth-most populous county in California and the largest in the nation by area. Geographically, it is larger than Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey and Rhode Island combined.

The issue was first brought up at a meeting of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. And it has continued to be discussed at Board of Supervisors meetings over the past few months.

While Board Chair Hagman supports the move, Supervisor Joe Baca Jr., said he disagrees with the effort.

During public comment at a recent Board of Supervisors meeting, Jane Hunt-Ruble, a San Bernardino County resident, said she opposed the move. But she said it would be popular with people who held anti-government feelings.

“It’s never going to happen,” she said.

A group of Inland Empire-area legislators blasted the move in a joint letter.

“We are shocked with the reasoning behind this initiative, concerned about the cost to taxpayers to essentially ask local officials to do their jobs, and disappointed in the narrative being created regarding our community,” according to a letter signed by Assembly Majority Leader Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-Colton,) State Sen. Connie Leyva (D-Chino,) and Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez (D-Pomona.)

The Inland Empire legislators also pointed out that in 2020, one-third of the county’s revenue came from state dollars.

However, the San Bernardino Board of Supervisors agreed to put the issue on the ballot. The county’s Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 to put the secession measure on the 2022 ballot. One supervisor was absent.

According to a press statement, the question will be put on the November ballot.

It asks, “Do the people of San Bernardino County want San Bernardino County elected representatives to study and advocate for all options to obtain the county’s fair share of State funding up to and including secession from the State of California?”

Over the years, there have been several efforts led by various groups to partition California — or secede from the state. So far, none of them have succeeded.

The San Bernardino group’s move isn’t the only recent secession movement. In 2020, a group in northern California lobbied to leave the state and merge with parts of Oregon and Idaho. That group was motivated by dissatisfaction with California’s “liberal policies.”

Also, in 2017, there was gathering momentum for a movement calling for California to leave the Union and create its own country. That movement, labeled Calexit, was headed by Louis Marinelli, an American citizen who lived in Russia. According to Bloomberg, the campaign received financial backing from the Russian government. Marinelli later returned to America, renounced Calexit, and ran for a State Assembly seat. He received 6.4% of the vote.

Creating a new state is a complicated process. For example, secession from California would require approval from state legislatures, Congress and a signature from the president of the United States.

The last states to join the union were Hawaii and Alaska, which were admitted in 1959. And the last state to be formed by splitting away from another state was West Virginia, which was created in 1863.

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

Published

on

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare. 

Published

on

Rhonda M. Smith.
Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

on

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.
Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values. 

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.