Saturday, August 5, 2023, 10:03 am | Randy Thomasson
If you’ve ever wondered what’s ruining California, stop feeding the beast.
Do you know why people are moving out of California? Do you know what’s causing all the big problems? Democrat Party politicians have been in control of the California Legislature for more than sixty years, and in control of the governor’s office for more than 12 years now.
Don’t believe it? Democrat Party legislators have controlled the 40-member State Senate since 1957 (except for 1969-1970) and the 80-member State Assembly since 1959 (except for 1969-1970 and, for all practical purposes, in 1996).
What’s keeping these unloving, problem-causing, pain-increasing Democrats in power? Multi-millions in campaign spending by unions – both government and private unions – that’s what’s fueling Democrat victories year after year.
As reported in 2021 after Gavin Newsom “won” his recall election, “Organized labor donated at least $25.7 million — or more than one-third of the total the governor raised to keep his job. Unions, of course, have deep ties to the Democratic Party and a stake in nearly every aspect of state government.”
But fortunately, the First Amendment still stands, and there are U.S. Supreme Court rulings in favor of every union members who wants to stop paying for bad candidates and bad bills.
In the 1988 Beck decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled all union members can opt out of paying for a union’s partisan political activities.
And in the 2018 Janus decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, under the First Amendment, government employees are entitled to work without paying union dues or agency fees.
You have strong, fundamental free-speech rights to not be coerced into supporting union politics. And your rights prevail despite the deceitful, domestic terrorism of union bosses trying to circumvent Janus.
Now that you’ve unpeeled the onion and found the rotten core, will you stop “feeding” and funding the beast?
See how to keep your job and resign from the union:
In 2011, Andy Stern, former president of the Services Employees International Union (SEIU), admitted that unions have Marxist roots. “In the ’30s,” he said, “people didn’t want us to exist. We had to do sit-down strikes . . . we had socialist and communist tendencies. We grew up, to speak in Marxist terms, in a world with a lot more class struggle.” Modern Marxists, for their part, feel a similar warmth towards unions—they say that unions are useful to their goals, but not radical enough. The Real History of Unions: Violent Communist Agitation, March 28, 2022
Monday, January 30, 2023, 7:01 am | Randy Thomasson
Here’s a much-needed constitutional victory, with more work to be done!
On January 25, U.S. Judge William Shubb of Sacramento issued a strongly-worded preliminary injunction against AB 2098, a Democrat law permitting the state’s medical board to yank the licenses of physicians who “disseminate” information regarding COVID-19 that departs from the “contemporary scientific consensus.”
So, for the time being, California doctors and surgeons who study science won’t be punished for telling the truth. A needed win!
Judge Shubb is an 84-year-old Republican who seems to still remember and respect the First Amendment. He was nominated in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, and before that clerked for a Republican federal judge of President Dwight Eisenhower.
There are still enough constitutional judges on the federal courts — either at the district level or in the appellate courts and, depending on the issue, at the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, now is the time to file lawsuits against other unconstitutional laws passed by the Democrat-controlled California Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
2. Think about people you know who will be victimized by these bad laws (see the slides below) and help them contact attorneys who can help (see last slide).
Saturday, October 1, 2022, 2:47 pm | Randy Thomasson
By the end of his September 30 signing deadline, tyrannical Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom had signed hundreds of foolish, unconstitutional, and downright evil bills.
I’m reporting this not to depress you, but so you become so concerned that you’ll share this information with your friends and reasonable acquaintances, so they’ll become energized to vote this election.
While the final week of bill signings saw Newsom’s vetoes of two big, anti-parent bills — SB 70 and AB 1940 (he vetoed them because of their huge, ongoing costs), he signed the rest of the anti-parent bills, and many unconstitutional bills.
Here are the big ones that could and should be struck down:
AB 587pressures social media companies to censor speech the Democrat-controlled government doesn’t like, such as, the truth about “Covid vaccines,” the harm of the “LGBTQIA+” agenda, the reality of election fraud, and the facts about life in the womb. AB 587 actually forces online platforms to report to the government whether they are blocking “Hate speech or racism,” “Extremism or radicalization,” “Disinformation or misinformation,” and, if so, how. These subjective terms are designed to censor your free speech, but the supporters of AB 587 think they can avoid constitutional scrutiny by forcing social media platforms to do their dirty work. Yet their fingerprints are all over this attack on the First Amendment. The larger conservative or free-speech-supporting platforms, such as Gab, Telegram, Truth Social, Rumble, Gettr, and Frank Speech should sue in federal court to repel this unconstitutional attack upon them and us.
AB 1797 will create a statewide vaccine registry, mandating most Californians’ vaccine status and “race and ethnicity” be reported to the government by “health care providers and other agencies, including schools, childcare facilities, family childcare homes, and county human services agencies.” AB 1797 is ripe for both a state and federal lawsuit, because it violates the California State Constitution’s explicit right to privacy. There’s even a California Supreme Court ruling from 1975 prohibiting any surveillance of Californians when there’s no suspected illegal activity. In addition, there’s California’s voter-approved prohibition of racial preferences (Proposition 209 from 1996). There are also federal medical privacy laws.
AB 2098 will punish doctors who have studied and tell their patients the facts about Covid (the non-threat of the “variants,”) the efficacy of natural and traditional therapeutics, and the risk of injury and death from the unsafe “Covid vaccines.” Because AB 2098 tramples medical ethics, informed consent, and the doctor-patient relationship, it must be sued and struck down in federal court. Specifically, AB 2098 infringes on the fundamental guarantee of freedom of speech in the U.S. and California constitutions. And professionally, it destroys the ethic of a second opinion — when a doctor disagrees with another doctor or even differs from so-called “consensus.”
AB 2223 permitting the killing of already-born infants and toddlers by prohibiting and punishing investigations by authorities of deaths occurring during the “perinatal period” (which a world-renowned child development authority said extends “18 to 24 months after the birth of the child.” This infanticide bill AB 2223 deserves a federal lawsuit based on the 14th Amendment‘s guarantee that States cannot “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Who are the constitutional California district attorneys and sheriff-coroners who will sue AB 2223 on its face?
AB 2229 will discriminate against law enforcement officer candidates (police officers, sheriff’s deputies, California Highway Patrol officers) who are practicing Christians, Catholics, Muslims, and conservative Jews. As the Legislative Counsel describes AB 2229: “Existing law requires peace officers in this state to meet specified minimum standards, including, among other requirements, that peace officers be evaluated by a physician and surgeon or psychologist and found to be free from any physical, emotional, or mental condition that might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer. This bill would require that evaluation to include bias against race or ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, disability, or sexual orientation.” According to current California law: “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality …“Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” AB 2229 needs to be sued in federal court by law enforcement candidates who will be, or have been, discriminated against because of their religious values, on the strength of the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act.
SB 107 empowers “LGBTQIA+” activists to legally kidnap and mutilate kids. If parents in other states want to help their boys or girls overcome sexual confusion, “LGBTQIA+” groups will scheme to bring these children to California, then their attorneys will go to court and use SB 107 to give California “jurisdiction” over the children, and then California tax-funded hormone injections and “sex change” surgeries will follow. “Counseling” is part of this process, during which SB 107 will convince biological girls they’re “boys” and biological boys they’re “girls” (SB 107 calls this “gender-affirming mental health care”), then the hormone injections and irreversible “sex change” operations (which SB 107 calls “gender-affirming health care”) will follow. Federal lawsuits should be filed by state attorney generals in Republican states for this blatant violation of parental consent laws and other laws in their states. And it might require the U.S. Supreme Court to deliver a clarifying parental rights decision.
Other anti-parent bills that were signed — SB 1184, SB 1419, and SB 1479 — probably have no lawsuit potential (unless SCOTUS delivers a crystal-clear parental decision that California parents can use to regain their rights).
Religious hospitals might become exempt from SB 923‘s tyrannical transsexual indoctrination of health care providers if they sue and win in federal court on religious-freedom grounds. But pro-abortion bills, such as SB 1375 permitting nurses to kill pre-born babies and the 11 other pro-abortion bills Newsom signed, will survive all legal challenges because pro-abortion Democrat and RINO governors have built an unconstitutional, pro-abortion California Supreme Court, which callously guards “abortion rights.”
Overall, Newsom signed 997 bills this year, which were from Democrat authors or Democrat committees around 90% of the time.
RSS 2.0 Feed