We’re living in historic, even revolutionary, times. As the U.S. Supreme Court acts for the sake of constitutional justice, here’s some perspective to help you make sense of it all.
No more Roe won’t help California babies
Finally, after 49 years of Roe v. Wade’s unconstitutional, murderous agenda, it’s gone and abortion policies revert to 50 states.
Yet the demise of Roe won’t help California or other states ruled by abortion-loving Democrats. This is all the more reason to stand up for life. Especially since Newsom & Co. want to force California taxpayers to subsidize out-of-state abortions.
A top need of California pro-lifers this fall is to defeat SCA 10, which would go on the ballot to “codify” abortion on-demand in the California State Constitution. By proclaiming “The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion,” SCA 10 would continue the California carnage of taxpayer-funded abortion procedures or pills for any girl or woman, regardless of a girl’s age, the number of abortions she’s already had, or her ability to pay. To be placed on the November ballot, SCA 10 requires a two-thirds vote of both the Assembly and the Senate (it already passed the Senate), followed by an affirmative majority vote of the People.
Today’s SCOTUS ruling striking down the unconstitutional, unscientific 1973 Roe v. Wade and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey opinions was 6 to 3 (Republican-president-nominated judges for the Constitution and life vs. Democrat-president-nominated judges for unconstitutional murder of pre-born babies). Read the history-making decision yourself
Get ready for more gun-owner freedoms
Unlike abortion, the “sacred cow” idol of Democrat politicians, and which is again a question of states’ rights, the fundamental rights of safety-conscious, constitutional gun owners will likely increase in California now that the U.S. Supreme Court has majorly upheld the Second Amendment in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The June 23 ruling portends a new era of constitutional equity for gun owners in America. Relying on the God-given liberties preceding our Constitution, it concludes:
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The practical effect in California is this much-needed, admirable ruling will be used in both state and local lawsuits against the unconstitutional laws of the Democrat politicians. It might take a couple of years, but gun-owner rights organizations are planning to use the New York State decision against California’s unconstitutional ban on “assault weapons,” California’s unconstitutional ban on magazines over 10 rounds, California’s unconstitutional background checks, and the unconstitutional ban of concealed weapon permits in Democrat-controlled counties, such as Los Angeles. So have hope!
Just the facts: Why gas prices are so high
Why isn’t there a second Revolutionary War over oppressive gas prices? Because the godless government schools have been very successful at avoiding teaching children the Bible, the Constitution, real history, principles of logic, evidence-based research, and truisms such as the commerce law of Supply and Demand.
This week, SaveCalifornia.com produced and posted these three slides to help people realize who to blame for robbing them of their God-given resources and raising gas prices. Please enjoy and share!
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.” Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813, Scottish advocate, judge, writer and historian
UPDATE — Thursday, June 16: This morning, radical anti-parent bill SB 866 was amended (replacing age 12 with 15) on the Assembly floor. Eighteen of 19 Republicans voted no, as did 3 Democrats., and there 19 Democrats that we believer purposefully abstained because they’re uncomfortable with the bill. The amended SB 866 — still eliminating parental consent and inform consent on teenage injections — still might not pass the next Assembly session on June 20 @ 1pm. So tell assemblymembers the amended bill is still anti-parent!
UPDATE — Wednesday, June 15: SB 866 doesn’t have the votes to pass, so the author, “LGBTQIA+” Democrat State Senator Scott Weiner of San Francisco is reportedly amending his bill to say children aged 15 and up (not 12 and up, as the bill currently reads). This would mean amending the bill on the Assembly on Thursday, June 16, but not voting on the amended bill itself until the next scheduled floor session. And SB 866 can only be amended if a “majority…of Members present and voting” vote yes to do so.
From the Assembly Rules: 69. (a) Any Member may move to amend a bill during its second or third reading, and that motion to amend may be adopted by a majority vote of the Members present and voting.
69. (d) Any bill amended on the second or third reading fi le shall be ordered reprinted and returned to the third reading fi le, and may not be acted on by the Assembly until the bill, as amended, has been on the Daily File for one calendar day.
UPDATE — Monday, June 13: Good news, 3 Democrats were absent today, and radical anti-parent bill SB 866 was skipped over a 3rd straight Assembly session. It can be heard on the next floor session, which is Thursday, June 16 at 9 a.m. Keep your strategic calls coming!
For Republican assemblymembers say: “Stand and speak against SB 866 on the floor. Raise your voice to expose the harm of this anti-parent, anti-child bill!”
For Democrat assemblymembers, deliver the message: “Don’t attack parents — don’t eliminate parental rights for teen and pre-teens. Children cannot give informed consent or be responsible for knowing their risks beforehand or dealing with problems after a shot — that’s what parents are for. Oppose SB 866!”
2. Call the deciding-vote state assemblymembers. (Scroll down for names and phone numbers.)
– – –
Thank you for being pro-family — for caring for what’s best for children and for supporting God-given parental rights for yourself and others, which SB 866 would utterly trample. Here’s the latest good news and new action steps. Please participate — let’s kill SB 866!
Today (Thursday, June 9, 2022), in another abbreviated floor session that lasted just a half hour, the Democrat-controlled California Assembly again skipped over SB 866, which would eliminate parental consent and informed consent for controversial, even risky injections, into children’s bodies as young as age 12.
This second delay of a floor vote on SB 866 is thanks to you and thousands of other concerned Californians who have been calling the deciding votes we’ve identified. And, because SB 866 so blatantly pushes parents out of the picture, enough Democrat state assemblymembers seem to “get it” that voting for it would hurt them politically.
Is SB 866 all but dead? Let’s count the votes. In the California State Assembly, to pass bills requires 41 yes votes, a majority in the 80-seat lower house. There are currently two Democrat vacancies, leaving 78 members, of whom there are 19 Republicans and 1 independent. If these 20 don’t support SB 866, we’re left with 58 Democrats who could.
But if at least 19 Democrats don’t support SB 866, it will fail for lack of a majority, receiving 40, not 41, votes. Here’s our “SB 866 vote countdown” — counting from 58 Democrats minus at least 19 Democrats who won’t support this radical, anti-parent bill:
They won’t vote for SB 866 — but call them anyway to “shore them up” 58. Brian Maienschein: Voted no in committee 916-319-2077 and 858-675-0077 57.Patrick O’Donnell: Issued public statement promising to vote no 916-319-2070 and 562-429-0470 and 310-548-6420 56.Rudy Salas (running for Congress): “Confirmed no on SB 866” 916-319-2032 and 661-335-0302 and 559-585-7170 55.Carlos Villapudua: “Confirmed he will be voting no” 916-319-2013 and 209-948-7479 54.Adam Gray (running for Congress): “Publicly confirmed no or abstain” 916-319-2021 and 209-726-5465 and 209-521-2111 53.Luz Rivas: “Publicly confirmed no or abstain” 916-319-2039 and 818-504-3911 52. James Ramos: “Publicly confirmed no or abstain” 916-319-2040 and 909-476-5023 51. Cottie Petrie-Norris: “Publicly confirmed no or abstain” 916-319-2074 and 949-251-0074 50.Sharon Quirk-Silva: “Publicly confirmed no or abstain” 916-319-2065 and 714-525-6515 49.Chris Holden: “Publicly confirmed no or abstain” 916-319-2041 and 626-351-1917 and 909-624-7876 48.Ken Cooley voted no on medical tyranny bills AB 1797 and AB 2098 916-319-2008 and 916-464-1910 47.Adrin Nazarian abstained on medical tyranny bills AB 1797 and AB 2098 916-319-2046 and 818-376-4246
CALL THEM — Might not vote for it; Republican voices on floor could motivate SB 866 abstentions 46. Timothy Grayson 916-319-2014 and 925-521-1511: He abstained on AB 2098, punishing good doctors against the “Covid vaccines” 45. Jim Cooper 916-319-2009 and 916-670-7888: He abstained on AB 1797 creating a state “Covid vaccine” database 44. Tom Daly 916-319-2069 and 714-939-846: Abstained on AB 2223 permitting infanticide, and initially abstained on AB 2098 before later changing his vote to yes. Has abstained on other bills over the years. 43. Sabrina Cervantes 916-319-2060 and 951-371-6860: Initially abstained on AB 2098 punishing good doctors and 2223 permitting infanticide, but then later changed her votes to yes after both bills passed 42. Blanca Rubio 916-319-2048 and 626-960-4457: Her sister, Susan Rubio, abstained on SB 866 on the Senate floor 41. (#41 is the deciding vote) Kevin McCarty 916-319-2007 and 916-324-4676: Abstained on AB 2223 permitting infanticide 40. Al Muratsuchi 916-319-2066 and 310-375-0691: He initially abstained on AB 2098 before later changing his vote to yes
CALL THEM — Wild-cards who need the most pressure 39. Tasha Boerner Horvath 916-319-2076 and 760-434-7605: Represents a formerly Republican district with pro-family constituents 38. Mike Gipson 916-319-2064 and 310-324-6408: Thinks he’s a Christian and might support clear-cut parental rights 37. Mike Fong 916-319-2049 and 323-264-4949: Represents mostly Asian families, as well as Hispanic families 36. Miguel Santiago 916-319-2053 and 213-620-4646: Represents mostly pro-parental-rights Hispanic families 35. Eduardo Garcia 916-319-2056 and 760-347-2360: From the sprawling Imperial Valley region with many Hispanic families 34. Jacqui Irwin 916-319-2044 and 805-482-1904: Represents part of state senator Henry Stern’s district, who abstained 33. Joaquin Arambula 916-319-2031 and 559-445-5532: Personally believes in traditional parental rights and represents mostly Hispanics 32. Freddie Rodriguez 916-319-2052 and 909-902-9606: Used to abstain more — might abstain here 31. Eloise Reyes 916-319-2047 and 909-381-3238: Said in committee she supports parental rights but wants to “go with the science” so she voted yes on SB 866. Might be brought out of confusion with phone calls. Her district also overlaps the state senate districts of Democrats Connie Leyva and Richard Roth, both who abstained on SB 866. 30. Robert Rivas 916-319-2030 and 831-759-8676: His district overlaps that of Democrat State Senator Anna Caballero, who abstained on SB 866. 29. Lori Wilson 916-319-2011 and 707-399-3011: Is new, might be influenced by Republican voices on floor, might mimic abstention of adjacent district assemblyman Timothy Grayson. 28. Cecelia Aguiar-Curry 916-319-2004 and 530-757-1034 and 707-224-0440: Although she’s an SB 866 co-author, she has an independent streak and might abstain if she realizes it might hurt both her and the Democrat brand
Q: So, if they’ve skipped over SB 866 multiple times on the assembly floor, is SB 866 is dead? A: We say “No, not yet.” Because our side needs more commitments from deciding-vote Democrats that they’ll oppose SB 866. And we need that pressure and assurance before the Assembly meets again (Monday, June 13 at 1 p.m.).
TAKE RENEWED ACTION Please go for the win by calling anew to the phone numbers above Thursday and Friday 7pm to 8am and anytime this weekend. Also please call “independent” Chad Mayes at 916-319-2042 and 760-346-6342. Leave anonymous voicemails (because Democrat offices will “trash” your messages if they confirm you live out of their districts, so don’t reveal your identity or location, and just “mix in” with the flood of voicemails the member is receiving).
Tell them something like: “Don’t attack parents — don’t eliminate parental rights on teen and pre-teen vaccinations. Children cannot give informed consent or be responsible for knowing their risks beforehand or dealing with problems after an injection — that’s what parents are for. Oppose SB 866!”
Also, please call your own state assemblymember Monday through Friday during business hours (9am to 5pm) and identify yourself. Find your own assemblymember
Wednesday, June 8, 2022, 2:18 pm | Randy Thomasson
SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
It’s the day after, and the dust is settling in California’s just-concluded “jungle primary” election.
And while the numbers will change each day until the primary election results are “certified” on July 15, I’m seeing evidence that Californians against government tyranny are more motivated than liberal voters. And I believe there’s the potential for some statewide offices to be captured by constitutional Republicans (or in the state schools chief contest, an in-reality reformer).
Are Californians voting more Republican?
Is California experiencing a conservative resurgence? With all the pain of the last two years, there’s evidence of Californians’ growing support for Republican candidates (especially Republicans who will fight for them) over Democrat candidates:
First, as I watched vote changes late into the night, in most statewide contests, the leading Republican’s lead kept increasing, while the leading Democrat’s numbers (usually the incumbent) kept decreasing.
Second, the initial election-night report of voter turnout showed reliably Republican counties with the highest voter turnout. If we consider recall-energized San Francisco the Democrats’ “high watermark” at 25% turnout, and exclude very-low-population Alpine County, the highest voter turnout was in the Republican strongholds of Mariposa County (42%), Amador County (41%), Sierra County (40%), Plumas County (37%), Modoc County (32%), Calaveras County (30%), El Dorado County (26%), and Del Norte County (26%).
Third, a Northern California congressional shows voters preferring a Republican fighter over his more-establishment Republican opponent. As I write this, Assemblyman Kevin Kiley has more than twice the votes of Sacramento Sheriff Scott Jones.
Because of the harmful manifestations of anti-people policies by the New Communist Democrats in California and Washington, D.C., I’m not surprised if votes for Republican candidates are indeed higher. And, ideally, imagine the surge in the upcoming general election if biblical pastors promoted voting as a clear, practical application of Jesus Christ’s command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” How transformative that would be!
5 statewide seats that could flip
California has eight state constitutional offices that are held by one person. Seven are partisan (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, and Insurance Commissioner) and one is non-partisan (Superintendent of Public Instruction).
And while there’s just over a month to count the remaining votes, I see five statewide seats that could be taken from the ruling Democrats:
1. Controller: This is an open seat (incumbent Democrat Betty Yee is termed-out), and the first-place lead of 37% for taxpayer advocate Lanhee Chen. Veteran fiscal watchdog and current U.S. Representative Tom McClintock observed, “The controller’s office is the ideal office from which to wage a crusade in which to eliminate government waste.”
2. Insurance Commissioner: The incumbent Democrat, radical homosexual activist Ricardo Lara, only garnered 37%, which makes him politically vulnerable. I mean, has anyone’s insurance premiums gone down lately? “Reagan Republican” Robert Howell has a chance take this seat if California has a “conservative wave” in the November election.
3. State Superintendent of Public Instruction: The incumbent Democrat, Tony Thurmond of Oakland, received only 45.7% of the vote. With government unions running government schools, which made even liberal parents angry when schools were closed last year, this might be a perfect storm for pro-parent reformer George Yang.
4. Attorney General: The appointed incumbent Democrat, Rob Bonta, along with Governor Gavin Newsom, is incurring statewide blame for the current crime wave. Receiving 54.5% of the vote, Bonta might be deposed by hard-hitting, tough-on-crime messaging by Republican challenger Nathan Hochman.
5. U.S. Senator: Appointed incumbent Democrat Alex Padilla received only 53-54% of the vote for “partial term” and “full term.” Will he be negatively associated with Biden & Co. in November? In contrast, Republican Mark Meuser is a constitutional fighter.
You will have mostly real choices in the November election
Thank you if you voted! I appreciate you visiting our Pro-Family Election Center to equip you. And thank you big-time if you helped others to vote!
As I write this, if the “top two” vote-getters don’t change, nearly all California statewide offices will be a contest in November between a liberal Democrat and Republican, ranging from mostly conservative to constitutionalist.
Below is a snapshot of this morning’s statewide primary election results and the websites of the current “top two” in each contest. Please note that Republicans with percentages in the “teens” expect their Republican rivals’ supporters to vote for them in November. So assume them as practically having, post-primary-election, somewhere between 25% and 40% of the voters’ support.
For example, in the just-concluded primary election for governor, voting for 13 Republican candidates were 35.5% of the voters. These candidates attracted 1,208,643 voters, which is .6315861256658043% of Newsom’s 1,193,663 votes (Newsom “won” 56.3% of the electorate). Do the math: Newsom’s 56.3% x 0.6315861256658043 = 35.55829887498478% or 35.5% of the electorate for Republican candidates in the governor’s race. You can therefore expect Brian Dahle to attract at least this percentage in the general election.
RSS 2.0 Feed