Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Someone needs to be fired over California wildfires

Wednesday, August 1, 2018, 7:54 am | Randy Thomasson


SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes

and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.

See the CBN News story, “How California Fuels Its Own Fires: ‘Families Suffering Trauma and Harm Because of Bad State Government'” (this story includes California Congressman Tom McClintock’s expert explanation of how wildfires quickly spread because “our forests are catastrophically overgrown.”

The Carr Fire in Shasta County is the 7th most destructive fire in California history, killing at least 6 people and destroying 2,546 structures, including homes and businesses.

And that’s just 1 of 17 “uncontained” wildfires up and down California right now.

In 2017, there were 9,133 separate wildfires in California; so far in 2018, there have been 4,457 separate wildfires in the formerly Golden State (now the “Burning Up State”). Do you accept this? If not, why do “environmentalist” politicians (known mostly as Democrats)?

It used to be that responsible politicians believed Smokey Bear’s reality-based message, “Only you can prevent forest fires.” But now, too many “progressive” politicians silently excuse evil pyromaniacs and negligent transients, and publicly blame “climate change” instead. They’re feigning sympathy while people’s lives and property are going up in smoke.

This is totally unacceptable. California families are suffering trauma and harm because of a bad state government. If 2017’s fires weren’t enough, will you demand that California’s Democrat politicians stop claiming that year-round wildfires are “the new normal”? Don’t let them deceive you. What if politicians claimed there was nothing they could do to prevent violent crime?

Candidates running for state office in California need to answer this question: “What will you do to prevent wildfires?” If they blame “climate change” or just say more funding is needed, this election year is your opportunity to fire them or replace them due to their lackluster attitude about wildfires that are directly harming California families.

There ought to be new fire-prevention laws, like these:

1. Publicize and impose new stiff penalties, including prison time, for people who cause wildfires either through neglect or pyromania. Since uncaring transients and evil boys and young men are likely perpetrators of most of the California wildfires, every government “homeless” agency needs to hand pamphlets to every transient they see and every government school must drum into the heads of children why we need to “love our neighbor” and why setting fires is wrong. Church schools can and should add fear of God and that God is watching.

2. Clear out dead trees, bushes and brush from all “public” lands in California. Get rid of this dry wood and grass that easily spread fires, because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Do it despite the opposition of “environmental groups,” which apparently value dead plants more than live people.

3. Pass a new law requiring a wide-enough barrier between hillside homes and wild brush to stop the spread of flames and sparks. Since wind-borne sparks can jump freeways, the barrier needs to be at least that wide. A wide-enough width must be studied, because people and their property matter more than weeds and wildbrush. Any Democrat politician who bows to opposition environmental groups on this is not a “public servant.”

4. Purchase many more planes and helicopters that can fight wildfires better and faster. This can be done using existing funds, but liberals are loathe to cut government waste, aren’t they? Republican state legislators should introduce bills cutting waste, fraud, and abuse and spend the saved money on a new quick-response, wildfire “air force” for California. Even if the ruling Democrats kill these Republican bills, the Republicans could publicly pressure the Democrats to come up with their own bill to buy more planes and copters and station them in high-risk areas of the state.

Bottom line, Californians of all political stripes need to demand that our elected officials PREVENT wildfires in the future, and stop irresponsibly excusing themselves because the official fire report reads “cause unknown.” It’s like a corrupt and lazy police force that never names or arrests suspected criminals!

As many as 90 percent of wildland fires in the United States are caused by humans. Human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, negligently discarded cigarettes, and intentional acts of arson.
Wildfire Causes, U.S Dept. of the Interior

Unconstitutional State Supreme Court kills ‘3 Californias’

Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 4:32 pm | Randy Thomasson

It’s in-your-face tyranny from judicial activists on the California Supreme Court. They’ve again abused their limited power by REMOVING the “3 Californias” initiative (Proposition 9) from the November 6 ballot. This is despite the California State Constitution’s foundational declaration that:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

There is NOTHING in California state law permitting the California Supreme Court to remove an initiative for any reason. And there is no law in the California Constitution or California statutes that gives any court carte blanche to strike propositions it doesn’t like from the ballot.

Consider that:

  • “3 Californias” has not failed to meet the procedural requirements to qualify for the ballot
  • “3 Californias” does not conflict with the federal or state constitution, or a federal statute
  • “3 Californias” does not violate any constitutional provision or statute, such as the rule requiring initiatives to encompass a single subject

Here’s the California Supreme Court’s lame, make-it-up-as-you-go explanation, posted on their site:

Because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity, and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election, respondent Alex Padilla, as Secretary of State of the State of California, is directed to refrain from placing Proposition 9 on the November 6, 2018, ballot.

As usual, the big media is singing the same song and reporting it wrong. At issue is Article 18 of the California Constitution, concerning “Amending and Revising the Constitution.” In 1970, this article was changed from ONLY THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE having power to place such initiatives on the ballot, to ALSO RECOGNIZING THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO DO SO, inserting the words, “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” (See Prop. 16 on the 1970 ballot: https://bit.ly/2JMLmqX).

Therefore, it was unconstitutional for the California Supreme Court to suggest that the People’s initiative to revise (or nullify) the California Constitution (Prop. 9 on the November 2018 ballot, known as “3 Californias”) somehow lacked “validity” — especially in light of the California State Constitution’s Article 2 (REAFFIRMED IN 1976), which declares “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”

What’s more, former Supreme Court Judge Marvin Baxter (one of the last constitutional ones), wrote in 1993: “Although the legislative power under our state Constitution is vested in the Legislature, ‘the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.’ (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.) Accordingly, the initiative power must be liberally construed to promote the democratic process. (Raven v. Deukmejian [(1990) 52 Cal. 3d 336,] 341 [276 [6 Cal. 4th 721] Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077].)

“Indeed, it is our solemn duty to jealously guard the precious initiative power, and to resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of its exercise. (Ibid., and cases cited.) As with statutes adopted by the Legislature, all presumptions favor the validity of initiative measures and mere doubts as to validity are insufficient; such measures must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears.” (https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/6/707.html)

So why did the California Supreme Court go against the People? Was it to satisfy the environmental activists who had sued to protect their statewide laws burdening businesses and jobs from being “non-applicable” in three “Californias”? This ruling by the state high court’s 6 current judges is a severe miscarriage of justice.

ACTION: Please expose this tyrannical act against the People on news sites and your social networking.

Ruling on pro-life centers could also stop AB 2943

Thursday, June 28, 2018, 6:27 pm | Randy Thomasson

If you’re sick and tired of the Democrat rulers of California trying to ban or punish any moral values they disagree with, here’s some real hope for you.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s big decision recognizing the First Amendment right of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to NOT be forced to promote values that they oppose (e.g., killing preborn babies via abortion) has set a key precedent for the protected speech of other organizations and business owners with moral values.

As the pro-family legal organization Liberty Counsel notes (quoting from the June 26 opinion in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra):

This case will also have an impact on laws that seek to ban counsel for unwanted same-sex attractions, behavior, or identity (SOCE). The opinion explicitly adopts the arguments Liberty Counsel has made all along in SOCE cases, which is that “professional speech” cannot be exempted as some “new category of speech.”

The opinion states: “The dangers associated with content-based regulations of speech are also present in the context of professional speech. As with other kinds of speech, regulating the content of professionals’ speech pose[s] the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information… Take medicine, for example. ‘Doctors help patients make deeply personal decisions, and their candor is crucial.’ Throughout history, governments have ‘manipulat[ed] the content of doctor-patient discourse’ to increase state power and suppress minorities.'”Justice Thomas notes that professional disagreements about the efficacy of professional services cannot be used to suppress speech.

Therefore, have hope! As you know, AB 2943 banning the free speech of counselors, ministries, churches that help people overcome unwanted homosexual or transsexual desires is advancing through the Democrat-controlled California State Legislature. These Democrat politicians don’t care about your basic liberties — they just do the bidding of their tyrannical special-interest supporters (“LGBT’ groups, Planned Parenthood abortionists, etc.)

So even though it’s probable that the Democrat rulers of California will pass AB 2943, it’s also highly probable that the right lawsuit or lawsuits could use National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra to win a future U.S. Supreme Court victory that broadly protects moral speech in America. A success here would not only strike down AB 2943, thus protecting counselors who help adults overcome homosexuality or transsexuality, but would also affirm the right of counselors to help minors who struggle with homosexuality or transsexuality (which Governor Jerry Brown and the Democrats banned in 2012).

This is why I’m asking you to use the White House web form to send a strong message to President Donald Trump. Urge him to “Nominate a strict constructionist and originalist like Neil Gorsuch who will be loyal to the written Constitution, not loyal to their feelings or liberal revisionism like the four leftists currently on the high court. And please don’t nominate William Pryor, who has been inconsistent and even unconstitutional in his rulings.”

“..on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past.”