Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Taxes’ Category

2.1 million signatures filed

Saturday, March 20, 2021, 9:28 am | Randy Thomasson

SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes
and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.

When the final signatures for the recall of Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom were turned in with California county registrars of voters on March 17, the Recall Gavin Newsom campaign reported 2,117,730 total signatures were filed. What a historic civic achievement.

Hypothetically, if there’s a 75% validity rate, this means 1,588,297 valid signatures, which would be 92,588 valid signatures above the minimum number needed, which is 1,495,709 valid signatures. So I’ll bet money this will be on the ballot this fall.

I want to remind you how important it is to vote your values. Remember the 2003 California recall election when many conservatives chose social-liberal Arnold Schwarzenegger over rock-solid conservative Tom McClintock? Don’t vote for personality or non-policy issues, but vote for someone who’ll consistently veto every bad bill (most all of them) passed by the Democrat-controlled State Legislature.

At this time, your main “Republican” choices are (there are other minor candidates), according to the public-policy records of “On the Issues” are: Ric Grenell, a homosexual “married to a man” (no legislative record); two half-conservatives: “Moderate” Kevin Faulconer, and Doug Ose, a “Moderate” who leans conservative; and “Hard-Core Conservative” John Cox. Will moral conservatives rally around one candidate to replace Newsom to represents their values? If so, the math says that candidate can win the necessary plurality on the second question on the recall ballot, even with 30-35% support.

“‘Choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men from among your tribes, and I will make them heads over you.’ … Then I commanded your judges at that time, saying, ‘Hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the stranger who is with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man’s presence, for the judgment is God’s.”
Deuteronomy 1:13,16-17

The unscientific ‘health officer’ of Los Angeles County

Saturday, March 13, 2021, 11:35 am | Randy Thomasson

Here’s why you must not blindly follow human “authorities,” but must stubbornly follow the evidence as a free thinker.

Barbara Ferrer, the tyrannical “health officer” of Los Angeles County, who for months has “ordered” the shutting down and masking up of nearly everything and everyone, is now quoting junk science as her justification.

As reported March 9, 2021 in the Los Angeles Times (which is also pushing junk science):

“As we plan to move into the red tier, where additional reopenings will be permitted, we’re looking closely at the science to understand what practices can help reduce community transmission of COVID-19,” Los Angeles County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said. She pointed to a study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which found that the rate of COVID-19 deaths slowed in counties where states required masks, and sped up in counties where states allowed on-site restaurant dining. That’s something that we’ll need to take into account as we begin more reopenings in our restaurants,” she said.

Note how Ferrer calls private businesses that she (and L.A.’s ruling Democrat county supervisors) are greatly harming “our restaurants”? Does she think the government owns these restaurants and other small businesses, like big-government socialists who are growing into full-fledged communists?

But the main deception here is that Ferrer and the Los Angeles County’s Democrat supervisors, along with the misnamed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are all pushing a sham study to try to justify their mask mandates.

On March 4, 2021, the careful researchers of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) published a scathing review of the CDC’s mask-promoting agenda, entitled “The CDC’s Mask Mandate Study: Debunked.” The article analyzed CDC’s late February report, which served as a basis for CDC’s early March “study,” which then became Ferrer’s public claim.

In addition to providing numerous recent high-quality case-controlled studies demonstrating that face masks either don’t stop the spread of Covid or that general-public masks might actually increase its transmission, the AIER article explains the “snow job” that CDC is doing on the unsuspecting public:

En face, CDC’s conclusion on mandates might appear to make sense unless one is familiar with the scientific data pertaining to the ineffectiveness of masking for prevention of the spread of Covid-19 (e.g. references 123456789101112131415) in which case the findings in fact contradict most of what is now known. The CDC’s conclusion might have made more sense if the real-world evidence we have about mandates did not actually exist (e.g. references 1234). 

Does the CDC really think that masks prevent the wearer from getting Covid, or from spreading it to others? The CDC admits that the scientific evidence is mixed, as their most recent report glosses over many unanswered scientific questions. But even if it were clear – or clear enough – as a scientific matter that masks properly used could reduce transmission, it is a leap to conclude that a governmental mandate to wear masks will do more good than harm, even as a strictly biological or epidemiological matter. Mask mandates may not be followed; masks worn as a result of a mandate may not be used properly; some mask practices like double masking can do harm, particularly to children; and even if a mask mandate results in some increased number of masks being worn and worn properly, the mandate and the associated publicity may reduce the public’s attention to other more effective safeguards, such as meticulous hygiene practices. 

Thus, it is not surprising that the CDC’s own recent conclusion on the use of nonpharmaceutical measures such as face masks in pandemic influenza, warned that scientific “evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission…” Moreover, in the WHO’s 2019 guidance document on nonpharmaceutical public health measures in a pandemic, they reported as to face masks that “there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission…” Similarly, in the fine print to a recent double-blind, double-masking simulation the CDC stated that “The findings of these simulations [supporting mask usage] should neither be generalized to the effectiveness …nor interpreted as being representative of the effectiveness of these masks when worn in real-world settings.”

AIER summarized six “main scientific shortcomings or analytical ambiguities” in the CDC report:

1. The study does not factor in contributing factors of a seasonal increase in sunlight (when people soak up healthy Vitamin D) or school closures or social distancing practices.

2. It does not compare infection, sickness, or death rates between states with or without mask mandates.

3. It uses an unreliable formula to calculate conclusions.

4. It’s based on limited locations within a state and does not use statewide data.

5. It ignores the bulk of high-qualify case-controlled analyses on masks, which have “found no statistically or clinically significant impact of mask-use in regard to the rate of infection.”

6. It ignores real-world experience showing mask mandates accompanying a higher transmission rate.

So now you know. “Public health authorities,” from Tony Fauci on down, who claim wearing a face mask will prevent Covid transmission, are either ignorantly misleading you or blatantly lying to you. Yet when you follow the evidence and do your own critical thinking, you’ll logically conclude that wearing a mask doesn’t help you, but instead hurts and dehumanizes you.

If you’re still not convinced, why did the World Health Organization (WHO), the CDC, Tony Fauci, and even the U.S. Surgeon General all publicly state in February or March of 2020 that face masks for the general public will not prevent transmission of Covid? Because that was before face masks became politically-correct as a useful agenda for the Radical Left to “reset society” — and in the process, destroy free enterprise (capitalism), people’s God-given natural rights, and your American constitutional rights.

During a recent United Nations video conference, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau became the latest world leader to call for an economic “reset” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Great Reset is a proposal by the World Economic Forum (WEF) to “reset” the global capitalist economy by replacing it with one that embraces socialist principles and policies. The plan, supported by a number of prominent political, business, and civil leaders, includes collective property ownership, overhauling the energy sector, and massive wealth redistribution on a global scale. Echoing other advocates of “The Great Reset,” Trudeau explains how the COVID-19 pandemic has “laid bare fundamental gaps and inequities within our societies.” “This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset,” Trudeau said. “This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.” “Justin Trudeau Latest World Leader to Call for The Great Reset,” Nov. 16, 2020

March 17 recall petition deadline

Monday, March 8, 2021, 8:49 pm | Randy Thomasson

Great news — the Recall Gavin Newsom campaign believes it has enough raw signatures to produce the required 1,495,709 valid signatures. I believe it too.

But to be extra safe in this cheating and stealing era of loose vote-by-mail ballots, why not keep getting new signatures until the March 17 deadline?

Thank you for how you’ve signed and circulated petitions! There’s a recall leader in every county in California. Please ask your county coordinator what is the final day you can hand in signatures. Because wouldn’t 2.1 or 2.2 million total signatures be good “insurance”?