Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Democrats’ Category

On abortion, California is as bad, and even worse, than New York

Sunday, February 10, 2019, 1:35 pm | Randy Thomasson

  baby in womb 15 weeks gestation                   same baby at 20 weeks

People with an intact conscience are rightly horrified with the State of New York passing a new law guaranteeing death to unwanted preborn babies, up to the moment before birth.

Life News reports: “It goes beyond Roe v. Wade, allowing unborn babies to be aborted even when the U.S. Supreme Court has said states may restrict abortions. Late-term abortions, which once were illegal in New York, will be allowed, and non-doctors will be allowed to perform them. The law also redefines a ‘person’ as ‘a human being who has been born and is alive,’ and describes abortion as a ‘fundamental right.’

Yet California is as bad — and even worse. In California, taxpayers are forced to pay for abortions of preborn babies at any stage of pregnancy, without any regard for the girl or mother’s age, number of prior abortions, ability to pay, or immigration status.

And in California, there’s no regulation of or reporting of abortions. The Democrat politicians who have virtually controlled the California Legislature for 60 years now have created a situation where even babies born alive can be killed, because we officially look away.

Now, some might point to “good” California abortion laws that:

1. Prohibit abortion of a “viable” fetus “when, in the good faith medical judgment of a physician, on the particular facts of the case before that physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.”

But this is no protection at all for preborn babies who could survive if given care. Because the very next deceptive section of the state law overrides any concern for the “viable fetus” by allowing an abortionist to justify any abortion for any reason, due to the mother’s “health” (under 1973’s Doe v. Bolton, “health” means abortion for any reason):

123466. The state may not deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

So you see it’s a word game. Insert the word “health,” and you effectively permit abortion for any reason until birth.

2. Require aborted babies born alive to be given life-saving medical treatment: 123435. The rights to medical treatment of an infant prematurely born alive in the course of an abortion shall be the same as the rights of an infant of similar medical status prematurely born spontaneously.

Sounds good, right? Yet babies surviving abortions in California are frequently murdered at the abortion clinic. Since state law does not require regulation or inspection of abortion clinics, or even reporting of the number and type of abortions, there’s no real enforcement to protect babies born alive when an abortion has “failed.”

No reporting of abortions in California
No inspections to ensure women’s health and safety in California
Baby’s heart beating, still killed in San Jose, California
In 2013, a new law permitted abortions by non-physicians
In 2013, all state regulation of abortion services were eliminated

So the next time you talk to a person who’s concerned about New York or babies being killed, remind them that Democrat politicians have made California “The Abortion State,” with more babies killed here than in any other state, even if they survive an abortion.

For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.
Psalm 139:13-16

Gavin Newsom’s pretend religion

Thursday, January 10, 2019, 5:41 am | Randy Thomasson


Who does California’s new governor, Gavin Newsom, worship — the God of the Bible or himself?

In these perilous days, I urge you to stand up for what’s good, right, and true, according to what the God of the Bible calls good, right, and true. You’ve got to fight for your standard of truth; otherwise “truth” is up for grabs.

Think with me about California’s new governor. What do you say about someone who…

on national TV calls himself a “practicing Catholic,” saying he believes in the God of the Bible and also believes that the Bible is the Word of God…

…but is also California’s inventor of homosexual “marriages,” and while he recognizes the humanity of babies in the womb, he still wants taxpayers to kill children in the womb?

You call him a deceiver.

Gavin Newsom’s semi-quotation of the Bible in his January 7, 2019 inaugural speech got my attention. California’s uber-liberal governor said these words:

When Jerry last took the oath of office, he reflected on a parable from the Sermon on the Mount. It tells of a foolish man who built his house on sand. A storm washed it away. But a wise man sought a sounder foundation. And when the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on the house he built, it did not fall. “For it was founded upon a rock.” For eight years, California has built a foundation of rock. Our job now is not to rest on that foundation. It is to build our house upon it.

Did you notice that Gavin Newsom never mentioned Jesus Christ as the author of the parable? This is despite Jesus jealously affirming that His sermons were “sayings of Mine” in Matthew 7:24-26. And to claim that this sermon of the Savior of the world applies to California’s “rock” is quite a stretch. If California’s so stable as Newsom implies, why are longtime Californians leaving the state?

What’s really going on is Newsom has rejected God’s Word but pretends that he hasn’t. Perhaps he hopes this “religious speech” will win the hearts of religious Californians. It didn’t for me.

Wikipedia claims and reports the following:

Newsom was baptized and reared in his father’s Roman Catholic faith. He describes himself as an “Irish Catholic rebel […] in some respects, but one that still has tremendous admiration for the Church and very strong faith”. When asked about the current state of the Catholic Church, he said the church was in crisis.[17] Newsom said he stays with the Church because of his “strong connection to a greater purpose, and […] higher being […]” Newsom identifies himself as a practicing Catholic,[92] stating that he has a “strong sense of faith that is perennial: day in and day out”.[17]

So there you have it. Gavin Newsom’s public policies violate God’s word. And Newsom won’t publicly say Jesus or God. Perhaps he doesn’t want to attract the scrutiny of heaven.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'”
Jesus Christ in Matthew 21-23, right before His Parable of the Two Builders

Is it time to replace the California Republican Party?

Friday, November 30, 2018, 11:12 am | Randy Thomasson


It’s a radical question and I’m “just asking.” But is it time for moral Californians to consider replacing the California Republican Party?

Please understand that I am NOT calling for an immoral political party that is devoid of moral values and socially conservative values. That’s what I’m afraid liberal Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chad Mayes — and Mayes’ good friend Kristin Olsen — want.

To be clear, I want a political party to belong to that is constitutional and pro-family, and does two new things: 1) expose the chronic problems of California created by the Democrat politicians, 2) articulately explain evidence-based, practical solutions that help responsible Californians and their families.

Over the past few decades, a growing number of California conservatives have already personally left the Republican Party, by registering with the American Independent Party, the Libertarian Party, or as “No Party Preference” or “NPP.”

I’m one of them, since I’m much more constitutional and conservative than the current California Republican Party. You see, many of their elected legislators don’t speak out for, but increasingly vote against, family values.

For example, a growing number of Republicans in Sacramento are voting for (and none are speaking out against) the transsexual, cross-dressing agenda to “advance the cause of [LGBT] equality,” and labeling pro-family opposition as “prejudice and discrimination”:

State Senate: SR 111 text | 6 Republicans voted yes, including Republican Leader Pat Bates

State Assembly: HR 109 text with 5 Republicans coauthoring | 2 Republicans voted yes in committee

The last Republican presidential candidate to win California’s winner-take-all electoral votes was George H.W. Bush in 1988.

The last time that Republicans gained seats in the California State Legislature was 1994, on the coattails of Newt Gingrich’s well-articulated “Contract with America.”

But since then, it’s been downhill for Republicans in Sacramento due to lack of messages that hit home with voters.

Fast forward to 2018. Before Election Day, there were only 25 Republicans in the 80-member State Assembly and 14 Republicans in the 40-member State Senate.

But today, California Republicans are weaker than ever. The November 2018 election handed Republicans losses of 4 Assembly seats, 3 state Senate seats, and 7 U.S. House seats. It’s a new low for the Republican Party in California.

Yes, there was a “blue wave” in California, powered by pro-Democrat unions and bureaucracies, and helped by politically-irrelevant pastors who can’t seem to even remind their congregations to “remember to vote.”

This is a problem that’s motivating me to think deeply, and I hope you’re thinking too.

Not just about “Republican” or “Democrat”

Because, as you know, it’s not just about “Republican” versus “Democrat” seats. It’s about what our elected representatives actually stand for, which determines how they vote, which determines the laws we have to live under. Because values matter.

As a family values leader in California since 1994, I’m grieved about the growing number of Republican officeholders that vote against The Natural Family.

Indeed, several of the California Republicans who were booted out of office in November had voted in favor of the unnatural, unhealthy, unbiblical, tyrannical homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda once or more:

Assemblywoman Catharine Baker of Contra Costa County*
State Senator Andy Vidak of Hanford*
Former assemblywoman Young Kim of Fullerton*
State Senator Janet Nguyen of Garden Grove**
Congressman Jeff Denham of Modesto***
Congressman Steve Knight of Palmdale***

These types of Republicans are a turn-off to principled, pro-family voters.

* Do these California Republicans deserve to win or lose?
5 pro-‘LGBTIQ’ Republicans join Democrats to further brainwash schoolchildren

** Nguyen at least twice voted in favor of transsexuality, to “advance the cause of [LGBT] equality,” and saying pro-family opposition was “prejudice and discrimination”
SR 46 text | votes / SB 111 text | votes

*** These are the 24 Republicans who think the Pentagon should pay for transgender surgeries

Republican numbers — and values — are down

In light of the painful reality of Republicans losing seats in California (and abandoning tried-and-true family values), some are calling for a brand-new party to replace the Republican Party in California. I’m open to it as well.

On the one hand, a new conservative party could win on issues without the Republican label. If, for example, it were the “People’s Party” or the “Family Party,” moral or common-sense or conservative voters who’ve been trained to hate “Republican” might just vote for it. I’m thinking about Latinos and blacks who are either Catholic or Protestant churchgoers.

On the other hand, given the likely excesses of Gavin Newsom and the 2/3rds majority Democrats, could the California Republican Party return with strength in 2020? It would require aggressive voter registration efforts and a strong, articulate message from both the Republican Party and from individual Republican candidates.

But the question about the California Republican Party’s viability is a valid one. Before the election, California voter registration numbers had Democrats at 44%, Republicans at 25%, and “No Party Preference” at 27%.

Can Republicans get better and stronger and win in 2020? Or it is time to tip over the game board and “get a new game with a new name”? As I’ve written earlier, California is in a dynamic, the Democrat-union grip can indeed weaken, and liberal policies are ripe for taking down.

Who will rise up for me against the evildoers?
Who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?
Psalm 94:16