Saturday, November 21, 2020, 1:51 pm | Randy Thomasson
Nov. 19, 2020 news conference detailing election fraud in the presidential election
SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
Has your vote been stolen?
If dishonest, biased, liberal activists disguised as government employees subtracted valid votes from one candidate and added invalid votes to another, then yes — your vote and the votes of millions of Americans has been abused.
You deserve to see what the Big Media doesn’t want you to know — that there is probable cause — enough to justify subpoenas and criminal investigations — that coordinated voter fraud via computer programs, government employees, and Democrat activists occurred in the 2020 presidential election.
Disturbing “irregularities” were detailed November 19 by the Trump for President legal team at a Washington, D.C. news conference. What they describe is alarming and eye-opening. Watch it now.
Watch the Nov. 19 news conference, and you’ll be glad that the Trump campaign is gathering evidence and aiming for the U.S. Supreme Court to remedy this election-law crime spree, committed in the widespread vote-by-mail scheme of Democrat politicians exploiting the China virus scare.
Friday, November 20, 2020, 11:06 am | Randy Thomasson
Do lockdowns and mask mandates prevent transmission of Covid?
In July, the Lancet medical journal, after examining Covid data from fifty countries, concluded, “lockdowns…were not associated with a statistically significant reduction in … overall mortality.” Get it? The novel idea of a “lockdown” doesn’t save lives, despite doing a superb job of destroying people’s livelihoods.
And earlier this month, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found lockdowns and masks do not prevent Covid transmission. Military recruits locking down, wearing masks, and social distancing experienced a 1.9% infection rate, while military recruits not doing any of this had a 1.7% infection rate. Therefore, not locking down, not masking up, and not social distancing is as “safe” (and even safer) than performing these establishment-ordered acts.
And a large study of more than 6,000 adults in the small nation of Denmark found there was no statistically significant infection difference between people who wear masks and those who don’t. After one month, 1.8% of the people wearing masks had been infected and 2.1% in the unmasked group had also tested positive. This hardly-any-difference result explodes the myth of masks protecting you.
Remember, back in February and March, the medical establishment agreed that masks for the general public were ineffective in stopping the flu or Covid. But now, the opinion of these “authorities” has flipped, not based on science, but based on political correctness.
Let these facts stir you to rebel against the destructive, dehumanizing tyranny of lockdowns and mask mandates!
Tuesday, November 3, 2020, 10:50 am | Randy Thomasson
“Sutter County Superior Court Judge Sarah Heckman smiles during an investiture ceremony Monday, December 31, 2012 at the Sutter County Courthouse in Yuba City. At left is her husband Greg Heckman.” (Yuba-Sutter Appeal-Democrat newspaper)
It’s unusually good that a state judge in Sutter County (north of Sacramento) has called Gavin Newsom unconstitutional.
On November 2, Sutter County Judge Sarah Heckman issued a 9-page ruling that a) found Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom violated the California State Constitution when he signed his June 3 “executive order” trying to decrease in-person voting, and b) “prohibited” him from doing anything that “amends, alters, or changes existing statutory law or makes new statutory law or legislative policy.”
This helpful ruling provides a witness that Newsom has been operating as a law unto himself. In her opinion, Judge Heckman noticed the outrageous, unconstitutional deeds and predilections of Newsom:
The Governor takes the position the CESA’s grant of authority to exercise “all police power vested in the state,” allowing him to “promulgate, issue, and enforce such orders and regulations as he deems necessary” authorizes him to legislate by unilaterally amending existing statutory law. Not only is this an active and ongoing controversy between the parties, but it is a critically important one for the Judicial Branch to resolve. The State of Emergency brought about by the COVID-l9 pandemic which was proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020 continues in effect, indefinitely, and the Govemor continues to have authority to act under the CESA. The Governor has issued three executive orders during the current state of emergency specifically regarding the November 3,2020 general election (Def. Exs. 4 and 5; Pl. Ex. D) and has issued more than 50 different executive orders changing numerous California statutes since the state of emergency was declared. (Pl. Ex. F)
The Governor continues to issue executive orders which create legislative policy (Pl. Ex. G.) The evidence persuades the Court it is reasonably probable the Governor will continue issuing executive orders which amend statutory law and create legislative policy under the purported authority of the CESA, violating the California Constitution and the rights of plaintiffs thereunder and giving rise to a multiplicity of judicial proceedings, unless restrained by a permanent injunction.
What’s the practical effect of this good ruling? Unknown at this point. On the one hand, it might not mean much. First, because the June 3 election-related order no longer has any practical purpose; second, because Newsom since late June has been having his Department of Public Health issue most of the Covid-related “orders.” Newsom has been literally hiding behind the state public health officer, who purportedly has unlimited order-making abilities (this is clearly unconstitutional and begs for a lawsuit).
On the other hand, this ruling has the potential to add to the foundations of other lawsuits. Whether currently filed or yet to be filed, liberty-based lawsuits can become “weightier” by quoting the Sutter County ruling. As Republican Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (who, along with Republican Assemblyman James Gallagher, sued Newsom) said, a permanent injunction (which the judge indeed ordered) means “a number of his previous orders would immediately be exposed as unlawful, while others may become newly vulnerable.”
Ultimately, despite Newsom, despite his Department of Public Health, and despite local “public health officers,” elected county supervisors can and should quickly end this destructive, unscientific, anti-people lockdown by terminating their county’s “emergency order” and prohibiting any county monies to enforce any state “epidemic” order (i.e. limits on businesses, face masks, and the like).
It’s all up to county supervisors, as Placer County’s successful reopening has demonstrated. Bottom line, it’s time for county residents get tough. To hold pro-lockdown “Republican” county supervisors to account, pro-liberty county residents must threaten them with defeat at the polls next year unless they fully reopen without any restrictions this month.
Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, Have fellowship with You? They gather together against the life of the righteous, And condemn innocent blood. But the Lord has been my defense, And my God the rock of my refuge. Psalm 94:20
RSS 2.0 Feed