PREVIOUSLY

• [UPDATED: Torn Down] New Pro-Israel Billboard Proves Controversial

Another pro-Zionist billboard has been erected along Highway 101 south of Arcata only 16 days after the last one was torn down. 

This one reads “Israel, the Eternal Jewish Nation. Fighting Terrorism. Seeking Peace” with the same background of a woman standing in front of the flags of the United States and Israel.

Like the previous sign, it was paid for by Code Blue and White, a pro-Israel advocacy group.

The last pro-Zionism billboard, located in the same spot, generated huge amounts of controversy. Almost immediately there were dozens of people online who advocated for its destruction. 

Tamar Krigel, an Israel-born Arcata resident who helped design the last one, claimed in a statement sent to the Outpost that the online comments were reported to the California Civil Rights Division, the FBI, and the U.S. Department of Justice, and also claimed they were investigating the incident. 

Krigel said several weeks ago there were plans to set up another billboard.

As of publication, the Arcata Police Department has not yet responded to a request for comment. Code Blue and White declined to comment for this article. 

Press release from the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office:

On Feb. 25 at about 8:30 a.m., a Humboldt County Sheriff’s deputy was dispatched to the area of Hatchery Rd. near Blue Lake for the report of potential drug activity involving two SUVs parked near a bridge.

The deputy observed Jesse Adams, 42, of Eureka, standing near one of the vehicles. The deputy contacted him after confirming with the Emergency Communications Center that Adams had out-of-county warrants. When the deputy informed Adams that he had warrants, Adams turned and ran in the direction of the river. The deputy pursued Adams on foot and both ended up in the river. The deputy recovered Adams from the river, swam to shore, and placed Adams in handcuffs. Adams was then transported to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility for obstructing/resisting a peace offer (PC 148(a)(1)) and violation of probation (PC 1203.2(a)), in addition to his out-of-county arrest warrant.

Anyone with information about this case or related criminal activity is encouraged to call the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office at (707) 445-7251 or the Sheriff’s Office Crime Tip line at (707) 268-2539.

(AUDIO) Florence Parks on KHUM

As executive director of North Coast Big Brothers Big Sisters, Florence Parks is intimately aware of the struggles youth face daily here in Humboldt. Currently, there are currently 38 local kids on her organization’s waitlist — including one who has been waiting for over 1,000 days — who are in desperate need of mentorship that could positively alter their life path forever. If you’re a person that’s wondered whether or not you have time to make a difference, Parks wants to encourage you: You do. 

“It takes little to be big,” she said in an interview this week with KHUM’s Toby Tullis. “It’s like having lunch with a young person once a week. We have a program called Lunch Buddies, where you can spend one lunch time with a young person every single week. That’s 20 minutes! … And it changes their environment!”

NCBBBS: Let’s roll

It’s the work of connecting kids to positive influences they might otherwise never encounter that make Bowl for Kids’ Sake so important. Every year, community members pack Harbor Lanes to raise funds for North Coast Big Brothers Big Sisters by throwing a few strikes and gutters. 

Is this event worth your time? Well, we’ll mention that this year’s edition is mushroom-themed — clearly wonderful — but also, we encourage you to listen to Parks’ KHUM interview by clicking the player above so you can experience how passionate she is about improving the lives of at-risk youth in Humboldt. 

For more information about North Coast Big Brothers Big Sisters and/or the 2025 edition of Bowl For Kids’ Sake, head to NCBBBS.org.

# # #

PREVIOUS TOBY TULLIS:

• Local Author Dave Holper Drops by KHUM to Chat About His New Novel ‘The Church of the Very Last Chance’

(AUDIO) Joyful Raven and Kelly McCaughan on KSLG

What do basket-weaving, burlesque dancing, psychic readings, Indigenous land stewardship techniques, gay liberation and Catholic guilt have in common? They’re all a part of the upcoming Zero to Fierce Festival, a 10-day performing arts event surrounding International Women’s Day that celebrates women’s voices and creativity through storytelling and theater. This year’s event is said to be “fiercer than ever!”

The festival kicks off at the end of this week, and to give us a little taste of what’s to come, KSLG’s very own Rhi Marie caught up with two of the women helping to curate and produce the event, Joyful Raven and Kelly McCaughan. (Listen to their interview at the link above.)

Born into a family of radical theater artists in Petrolia, Raven has honed her skills as a storyteller and performer since she was just a kid, having spent lots of time with the San Francisco Mime Troupe and the good folks at Dell’ Arte International. Raven will debut her new solo show, “The Silver Fox,” a story about aging, abusive clairvoyants and the consequences of psychic readings. McCaughan, a self-described “multi-hyphenate artist of the stage and screen” will perform her award-winning solo act “Catholic Guilt,” an exploration of all things surrounding sin and the impossible standards of the Catholic Church.

Click the link up top for the full interview and catch both performers at the 9th annual Zero to Fierce Festival. The 10-day festival kicks off on Friday, Feb 28 in Arcata. Find the full schedule of events here.

###

PREVIOUS RHI MARIE:

• (AUDIO) Humboldt Rockers Marble Jar Are the First Band to Sign the Ceiling of the New KSLG Studio (And You Can Too)

In 2017, faced with President Donald Trump’s threat to crack down on illegal immigration, Gavin Newsom urged his fellow Democrats to fight back with “sanctuary policies” aimed to shield immigrants in the country without authorization from deportations.

“You are looking at the poster child for sanctuary policy,” Newsom, then California’s lieutenant governor, said on one of his gubernatorial campaign stops that year. He touted his record as former mayor of San Francisco, which has for decades limited local law enforcement’s participation in federal immigration operations.

“What the heck is wrong with the Democratic Party that we don’t have the courage to stand up for it?” Newsom said. “…It’s about people. And it’s about a fundamental principle about trust.”

But the once-vocal Trump critic has now grown quieter: As Trump again promises sweeping deportations, Newsom has avoided the word “sanctuary” after frequently evoking it during Trump’s first term. He’s had vetoed before — and now promised to veto again — legislation that would expand “sanctuary” protections to immigrants in state custody.

Newsom is among many prominent California Democrats taking a more muted tone on immigration while working to preserve existing protections for immigrants in the state without legal authorization, instead of expanding them to include more people in state prison.

Their reluctance comes as Trump returns to the White House more determined and experienced to fulfill his campaign promises: He has pledged to carry out the “largest deportation operation in American history.” He has also threatened to prosecute local officials who decline to help federal authorities carry out deportations and withhold federal funding from “sanctuary” cities and states — at a time when the January wildfires made California more dependent on federal aid for disaster recovery.

This week California Republicans introduced legislation to preempt local ordinances from going beyond the state’s 2017 “sanctuary law” protections, and to require local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities for those convicted of violent crimes and certain other misdemeanors. Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones of San Diego told KQED that he’s spoken to some Democratic colleagues and the reaction has been “more positive than I expected.”

The hesitance among Democrats to speak up as boldly about immigration could also reflect shifting voter sentiment, experts say. Last year, a Gallup poll found that more than half of Americans said they wanted to see immigration to the United States decrease — the first time since 2005 that a majority of its survey respondents held that view. More recent polls find that how people feel about deporting unauthorized immigrants often hinges on how the deportations are carried out and who are targeted. Most polls do show a majority of Americans want such immigrants deported if they’re convicted of violent crimes.

Democrats nationwide — who have for more than a decade taken a “staunchly pro-immigration” stance “without any recognition of possible compromise” — may be pivoting on the issue, said Mindy Romero, founder and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at the University of Southern California.

“The discussion of the day, immediately post the 2024 election, was this focus about Democrats getting it wrong on the economy and on immigration,” Romero said. “…I think they are hedging their bets by staying quiet on an issue that they are … seeing how it plays out and people’s reactions to it.”

But it’s a balancing act for those California Democrats: While there may be political benefits in staying put, the lack of a forceful response to Trump’s immigration policies may risk alienating base voters and drawing primary challenges from the left.

“By not speaking out, these local officials are potentially risking not getting re-elected,” said Loren Collingwood, a professor at the University of New Mexico who specializes in sanctuary city laws.

The lack of more vocal resistance among Democratic leaders has already drawn criticism from some progressives.

“I think it’s disgusting, everything that’s going on, and it’s also sad to hear that a lot of our elected officials are hesitant,” said San Jose City Councilmember Peter Ortiz, who championed a resolution earlier this month to reaffirm the city’s “sanctuary” ordinance protecting undocumented immigrants.

“Now is not the time for Democratic leadership to second guess what’s right,” he said. “Abraham Lincoln didn’t do a poll to see if it was popular to free the slaves. We’ve got to have individuals stand for what’s right, and not for what’s popular.”

Sanctuary: A highly politicized word

While there’s no legal definition of “sanctuary” policies, they generally mean policies prohibiting the use of local or state government resources to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

In 1971, Berkeley became the first sanctuary city to provide refuge for sailors who protested the Vietnam War. And in the 1980s, churches declared themselves sanctuaries for Central American refugees when then-President Ronald Reagan attempted to deny them asylum.

But the term has been highly politicized in recent years, especially as Trump began targeting sanctuary cities during his first term. In resistance to Trump’s threats, the state passed a “sanctuary state” law in 2017 to prohibit cooperation with federal immigration authorities in most cases, except when the immigrants here illegally are convicted of certain crimes, mostly felonies and violent offenses.

“It became politicized because it has become the linchpin here, the bulwark against threats of mass deportation,” said Angela Chan, an assistant chief attorney at the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office who co-authored the city’s “sanctuary” ordinance as well as California’s “sanctuary state” law, which took effect in 2018 in resistance to Trump’s immigration policies.

“Under Trump, he has taken the politicization to a new level,” Chan said.

“Now is not the time for Democratic leadership to second guess what’s right. Abraham Lincoln didn’t do a poll to see if it was popular to free the slaves.”
— San Jose City Councilmember Peter Ortiz

During Trump’s first term, Newsom was a keen advocate for sanctuary policies. Soon after Trump was elected, Newsom urged California’s state universities to declare themselves “sanctuary campuses” for undocumented immigrant students. He called Trump a “bully” and praised the state for passing its sanctuary state law “in the face of the Trump administration.” He touted San Francisco’s sanctuary city ordinances, saying that he had made a mistake in his mayoral tenure to ignore the policies and order local law enforcement to turn over young in-custody immigrants without legal authorization to federal immigration agents.

In his inaugural speech in 2019, the new governor urged California to become “a house that provides shelter to all who need it and sanctuary to all who seek it.”

This year, Newsom has all but distanced himself from the rhetoric. At his request, the state Legislature approved $50 million in spending to “Trump-proof” California, including $25 million to provide immigrants with legal services. But even in promoting that, Newsom stressed that the funding was not meant to shield those convicted of felonies, urging state lawmakers to clarify it if needed.

“His record speaks for itself,” said Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo in an email, after CalMatters asked Newsom’s office about the governor’s tonal shift.

The California Democratic Party has not said much either. Party spokesperson Robin Swanson said the party has “uplifted voices from our elected leaders” and pointed to posts from Democratic officials it has reposted to promote educational training and statements about mass deportations.

The only public comment the party made online was from Yvette Martinez, its executive director, who stressed the party’s general support for immigrants, in a way that left ambiguous whether the party was referring to those who immigrated illegally.

“The California Democratic Party remains committed to protecting and uplifting all communities, recognizing that our state’s strength and prosperity are deeply rooted in the contributions of immigrants,” Martinez said in a Feb. 3 social media post.

In 2017, however, then party-chair Eric Bauman was loud in his support for the sanctuary state law. He deemed the use of state resources to deport undocumented immigrants “unconscionable and dangerously corrosive to the trust law enforcement needs from the community to keep Californians safe.”

“Californians welcome our undocumented brothers and sisters,” he said.

When asked why the party has been less vocal this year on sanctuary policies, party chair Rusty Hicks did not answer the question but said in a statement instead: “California Democrats stand with our hardworking immigrant Californians who help move the Golden State forward.”

Mayors of some of the most liberal cities have also backed away from talk of sanctuary ordinances.

In San Francisco, Mayor Daniel Lurie declined to sign a non-binding resolution to reaffirm the city’s sanctuary ordinance, arguing it’s his policy not to “comment or act on urging resolutions.”

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who deemed San Jose a “welcoming city,” told CalMatters in a statement “the term ‘sanctuary’ doesn’t have a clear legal definition and has become politicized by both ends of the ideological spectrum.”

But he stood by the city’s policies to not assist in federal immigration sweeps. “That’s because whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican or anything in between, the fundamental responsibility of government is keeping people safe,” he said. “And our police department can’t do that if people are scared to call 911 or bear witness to a crime.”

‘Hedging their bets’ on immigration

Efforts to expand protections for unauthorized immigrants in California have been non-starters.

Assemblymember Mike Gipson, a Los Angeles Democrat, has unsuccessfully pushed for a bill to prevent state correctional officers from helping federal immigration authorities deport immigrants here illegally in custody — legislation Newsom previously vetoed.

The city of Los Angeles adopted a sanctuary city ordinance in December, but within two weeks, the city council revised the policy to exempt unauthorized immigrants convicted of serious felonies from the protections — largely in line with the state law.

City officials and state lawmakers are holding the line against Trump’s immigration policies as they face more aggressive threats from his administration.

The president tried to withhold federal grants from sanctuary cities during his first term. While a federal court initially blocked it, a higher court reversed the decision in 2019, arguing it was legal to give applicants who cooperated with immigration authorities preferential treatment.

Cutting federal funding to sanctuary cities could take away billions of dollars from California’s biggest cities, whose budgets rely in part on federal money. San Francisco, for example, stands to lose as much as $3 billion in federal funding, according to a lawsuit the city filed against the Trump administration, challenging Trump’s threat to withhold dollars from sanctuary cities.

“(Trump) has Republican control of the House and the Senate, and he has said and already shown that he’s serious about enacting many of the policies that he pledged during his campaign,” Romero said. “And he’s doing it aggressively.”

“The Democrats got dominated, got drenched during the past election, so I think everyone’s still licking the wounds and recovering from the defeat.”
— San Francisco political consultant David Ho

But the largely muted response to Trump among Democrats may also be a signal that they are recalibrating their messaging on immigration after seeing its base moving rightward during the presidential election, partly fueled by the aggressive Republican outreach on immigration, experts say.

“The Democrats got dominated, got drenched during the past election, so I think everyone’s still licking the wounds and recovering from the defeat,” said David Ho, a longtime San Francisco political consultant.

During the election, Trump and his loyalists dialed up fears over illegal immigration by making it “about life and death,” Romero said.

“The narrative that was pushed wasn’t just ‘We shouldn’t have immigrants breaking the law by coming into our country illegally.’ It wasn’t about hurting your economy,” she said. “It was ‘they are going to hurt your family and maybe kill your daughter.’”

Democrats, however, did not put on much of an effective defense to counter that narrative, Collingwood said. “All (voters) are hearing is this negative information about the border. …And that’s all basically saying ‘immigrants are dangerous, immigrants are scary.’ We don’t know who they are, and you don’t have the flip-side narrative.”

While there isn’t enough post-election polling to show how much immigration swung voters toward Trump, it’s not a chance Democrats want to take, Romero said.

“We are in a shifting environment,” she said. “And on top of that, the Democrats … are conscious of not sounding like they are just against everything. If you are against everything, you lose the ability for people sometimes to listen.”

But by not speaking up more forcefully for immigrant protections, some Democrats may risk frustrating their base.

“It’s puzzling for local officials in particular blue cities and urban cores … to shy away from a core Democratic issue around immigrant rights,” Ho said. “To be the mayor of a major city like San Francisco, where we have a long history of civil rights struggle and gains, I do expect our leaders to be much more vocal and intentional.”

Drawing a line with ‘the bad guys’

Democratic leaders nationwide — including former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris — also shifted toward a more forceful tone on illegal immigration, with Biden and Harris advocating for more executive power to shut down the southern border.

In California, Democrats have long debated where to draw the line on protecting immigrants from deportations. In 2017, the bill to establish “sanctuary state” policies split Democratic lawmakers, with some supporting the exclusion of people convicted of certain crimes from the state’s protection. Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance Democrat and a former prosecutor, said at the time the state shouldn’t shield immigrants if they assaulted a peace officer.

“I’ve been a champion of immigrants,” he said in 2017. “I’ve supported legal and undocumented immigrants, but I draw the line with the bad guys.”

When asked this week whether he continues to distinguish law-abiding immigrants from those with a criminal background, Muratsuchi told CalMatters “I don’t have any problem with deporting serious and violent criminals.”

Muratsuchi declined to elaborate further or comment on how the state or cities should react to Trump’s immigration policies. But this year, he did introduce Assembly Bill 49, which would limit federal immigration authorities from accessing schools and daycare centers without a warrant.

Some city officials have also stressed that they do not wish to shield criminals from federal law enforcement.

“My general view is if you are in our city or country and you’re undocumented, and you’re committing serious or violent crimes, you should be deported and I don’t think that’s very controversial,” Mahan, the San Jose mayor, said in a CNN interview. And following an immigration raid last month, Mahan said he hopes federal immigration authorities target “violent and serious criminals” instead of “law-abiding” residents.

Efforts to make that distinction have upset some immigrant advocacy groups and progressive Democrats.

An earlier draft of San Jose’s sanctuary city resolution — adopted earlier this month — emphasized the city’s intent to protect “law-abiding” residents. Ortiz, the councilmember, proposed to scratch that during a Feb. 4 city council meeting.

“I … worry that this language plays on a false premise debunked time and time again that immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than native-born citizens despite (the) opposite being proven true,” he said.

Rhetoric distinguishing “criminals” from “law-abiding” residents could risk stigmatizing the already vulnerable undocumented immigrant community, said Andrea Guerrero, executive director of advocacy group Alliance San Diego. Regardless of their criminal records, she argued, they enjoy Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from the government.

“It’s divisive politics. It’s feeding into stereotypes,” Guerrero said. “More than anything, it’s creating this idea that there are people worthy of constitutional protections and there are people who are not worthy. And the second we go down the road … we are weakening the strength of (the constitution) and the strength of our democracy.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

California’s K-12 schools are getting some clarity on how to handle the Trump administration’s sweeping orders to abolish diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

The answer is: Do nothing. Not yet, anyway.

“Time to take a breath. Just because Trump ordered it, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen,” Noelle Ellerson Ng, a legislative advocate for the School Superintendents Association, told California school administrators last week. “Executive orders on their own can’t really accomplish much … There’s a distinct difference between activity and productivity.”

Last week, the U.S. Department of Education announced it may withhold funding for any school that has programs focused on race. That could include clubs, activities, prizes, graduation ceremonies “and all other aspects of student, academic and campus life,” according to the directive.

“With this guidance, the Trump Administration is directing schools to end the use of racial preferences and race stereotypes in their programs and activities — a victory for justice, civil rights laws, and the Constitution,” Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights for the education department, said in a statement.

Schools have until Feb. 28 to end the programs.

On Friday, a judge temporarily blocked some of Trump’s orders related to diversity, equity and inclusion. The ruling prevents the federal government from cutting funding, but it doesn’t stop it from investigating schools’ race-related programs – at least for now.

Nearly every high school in California has at least some programs focused on students’ race. Black, Latino and Asian student clubs are common, as are celebrations like Chinese New Year or Cinco de Mayo. In recent years, more students — particularly Native American students — have worn ethnic regalia to graduation ceremonies, or even held separate ceremonies.

About 8% of California’s K-12 funding comes from the federal government, mostly as payments for special education and Title I grants for schools where at least 40% of the student population is low-income. If the federal money disappears, those schools and students will be most affected.

Attorney General Rob Bonta said he was reviewing the Department of Education’s directive, but in general, he said that DEI programs are legal and schools have a right to promote them.

“This is not the time to run. The governor is going to fight, the attorney general is going to fight, and we’re going to fight, too.”
— Angie Barfield, executive director of Black Students of California United

In a joint announcement in January with 12 other state attorneys general, Bonta called Trump’s anti-DEI efforts “unnecessary and disingenuous.”

“The administration is targeting lawful policies and programs that are beneficial to all Americans,” they wrote. “These policies and programs are not only consistent with state and federal anti-discrimination laws, they foster environments where everyone has an opportunity to succeed.”

Attorney General weighs in

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment, but earlier in February he urged schools to “stay focused” and not get distracted by Trump’s orders.

“Now is not the time to be distracted by external efforts to demean and divide,” Thurmond wrote to school authorities. “Please continue to stay the course with local programs that are producing results. Now is the time when our students need consistency, support, and community more than ever.”

Some parents were dismayed at the directive, saying it would limit their children’s exposure to other cultures. Katie Walton, a mother of three Native American children, said she worried how it would impact Native American programs and curriculum, particularly a recently passed state law requiring schools to teach about the genocide of Native Californians during the Spanish and Gold Rush eras.

“Me and my husband will teach our kids what they need to know, but I’m worried about all the other kids who might not get this information,” said Walton, who lives in Madera County and whose children are part of the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians. “It makes me sad.”

Angie Barfield, executive director of Black Students of California United, said she’s received calls from school administrators throughout the state who are unsure whether to disband their campus Black student clubs.

She tells them to “stand firm.”

“This is not the time to run,” Barield said. “The governor is going to fight, the attorney general is going to fight, and we’re going to fight, too.”

Black student clubs began decades ago

At least 3,000 high school students in California belong to Black student clubs, although the number is probably much higher, Barfield said. The groups date from the late 1960s, when students at San Francisco State started the first Black student union, and have spread to high schools and colleges nationwide.

Traditionally open to everyone, the clubs give students a chance to socialize, discuss issues and advocate for the needs of Black students. The students in Barfield’s organization also go on college tours, run a youth senate and advocate for student health.

“These clubs have a long track record of supporting not just Black students, but all students,” Barfield said. “This order is taking us backwards.”

Ng and her colleagues are advising school administrators to consult with school boards, lawyers and community members to see what their options are, and how to respond. But, she said, it’s important to stay calm until there’s more specific information from Washington, D.C., such as a Congressional order.

“Regardless of what the Trump administration does, public school doors are still open and kids still show up,” Ng said. “So quitting is not an option, and we have to figure out how to respond.”

Since taking office in January, Trump has made a series of other steps to reshape public schools, some of which are already moving forward. He vowed to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, legalize vouchers for parents to use public money to send their children to private school, and overhaul Title IX, which bans discrimination based on gender.

Earlier this month, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency canceled $900 million in education contracts, which paid for reviews of teaching strategies, literacy programs and special education support, among other services.

Trump also eliminated a law enforcement provision that protected schools, hospitals and other “sensitive locations” from immigration enforcement. That move has thrown immigrant communities into panic, with parents in some areas afraid to send their children to school.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Glynafay (Davis) Teasley of Fortuna passed away Saturday, February 22, 2025, at Redwood Memorial Hospital at 10:33 pm at the age of 85 years old. She was born on April 4, 1939 in Elsie’s McDonalds Home in Okanogan, Washington to Frank and Pauline Davis. She is one of twelve children.

Her older siblings who went before her were John, Charles, Mary Frances, Ruthie, and Marylee. Her living siblings are Melvin, William, Shirley, Ronald “Ronnie”, Thelma, and Fenton.

Glynafay grew up in the state of Washington.

She went to school clear up to 9th grade.

During the summer, Glynafay spent time picking apples and she also spent time painting store front windows.

She got married at fifteen to Gordan Leroy Weight. They had four children: Martin “Marty,” Glynamarie “Glyna,” Connan Leann and Deborah “Debbie.” They were married for six years before they got a divorce.

She got married to Hubert Harold Teasley on 24 Jun 1961 in Reno, Nevada. They had five children: Brenda Gail, Rocky Harold, Parnellie, Rodney Wayne, and Holly Ann. They were married for 38 years until Hubert’s death.

Two years later Glynafay got married to Justo Maldonado. They were married for six years when he passed away from Alzheimers.

She then married Robert “Bob” until his death from Alzheimer.

Glynafay worked for Saint Luke Manor for 20 years until she had a heart attack at the age of 60.

She loved roses and as a kid I remember the back yard being surrounded with roses. She had a collection of angels, cookie jars, salt and pepper shakers, and Disney character dolls.

She had an old red King James Bible that she read all of the time of where it was literally falling apart from her reading it and marking passages of verses.

She could draw a picture of anything and taught us kids how, but only a few of us had the talent to draw.

She taught all of us girls how to cook, bake, clean, sew, embroidery, etc.

She did not believe in saying you could not do something. She pushed us to accomplish our goals. Whenever I told her I did not want to something, she would tell me suck it up buttercup and do it. I was pushed along with others to do what we felt was impossible. One funny story was when my mom decided to have a sit-down strike from cleaning and cooking to let the family know how much she needed our help. We were asking our dad what was wrong with mom, because she never sat down. She leaves behind her children & their spouses: Martin & Elanore Weight, Redding; Glynamarie of Reno, Nevada; Connan & Bob of Fortuna; Deborah & Gerry Valdovinos of Galt, California; Brenda & Ronald Mason of Elk Grove, California; Rocky & Sherry Teasley of Maine; Parnellie & Manuel Meras of Fortuna; Holly & Christian of Fortuna; and numerous grandchildren, great- and great-great-grandchildren.

The funeral service will take place at Goble’s Fortuna Mortuary in Fortuna, California on Saturday, March 1, at 3 p.m. Reception to follow. All friends and family are invited. Arrangements are under the direction of Goble’s Fortuna Mortuary, Fortuna.