Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘California Constitution’ Category

Families won most of the war against more taxes and fees

Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 8:05 pm |

It’s a victory worth celebrating. In the last 15 years, I don’t remember a Republican not selling out to a bad budget. This time the stakes were higher — new taxes and fees or a vote to place them on the ballot. But because this was one of the few issues that require a two-thirds vote — and thus conservatives could win — SaveCalifornia.com and many pro-family Californians went to war several months ago with the goal to “hold the Republicans.” And with the help of people who care, we achieved our goal.

Because no Republican state legislators ended up voting for a so-called “tax bridge” or taxes on the ballot, there are no direct tax increases in the just-approved Democrat state budget. Be glad that the 2009 tax increases will expire. This Friday, July 1, your California sales tax will drop a full percentage point and your car tax (Vehicle License Fee) will be nearly cut in half. Combined with the Dec. 31, 2010 expiration of the two other 2009 tax hikes (0.25% state income tax hike and slashing $200 per child or adult from the state dependent tax credit), this package of four expired tax hikes could save you nearly $1,000 per year.

So be glad! These expiring tax hikes are tax cuts that will help families and the economy. Thank you to everyone who participated with SaveCalifornia.com to help lobby Republicans to not provide bad votes to achieve a 2/3rds supermajority to raise taxes. And tell your local retailers, because some don’t know and may charge you the old, higher sales tax (which the Democrat politicians won’t mind at all). Here’s what you should be paying on Friday.

The new state budget is a bad government doing bad to the economy

This so-called “austerity budget,” signifying drastic cuts to public services, was quickly passed by the Democrat politicians Tuesday night on a majority vote. They like it because passing a budget means state legislators start getting paid again. But we get bad government from the Democrats because they refused to cut the structural waste and are cutting services instead.

For example, 70 parks will be closed. This “public punishment” demonstrates the vise grip that the government unions and the resulting entrenched bureaucracy have on California state government. Instead of demanding efficiency and frugality and wisdom and an end to disgusting waste, fraud, inefficiency, duplication, and harmful social programs, the Democrat politicians have loyally refused to bite the hand that feeds them and gets them reelected each year. (Most of the campaign contributions to Democrat politicians are from wealthy government unions).

So instead, services will be cut. This is a spirit of stealing and taking away what you already paid for. Cutting legitimate services will hurt the economy too. Lesson: In order to slash the structural waste, you need conservative Republicans to be in control of both houses of the Legislature and the Governor’s office. They haven’t been in charge of all three “houses” for more than 40 years!

This pro-abortion budget also contains fee hikes (hidden taxes)

Containing nearly $100 million in abortion funding and funding for abortion-related procedures, the Democrats’ new budget imposes three kinds of fee (hidden tax) hikes: $150 per household fee in CalFire-served areas (which is already covered by property taxes); a $12 vehicle license fee (car tax) hike; and imposing for the first time ever a sales tax on all online purchases, the so-called “Amazon tax.” As a result of Jerry Brown already signing the “Amazon tax,” Amazon.com is cutting their 10,000+ California affiliates. So Brown and the Democrats have hurt or eliminated some 10,000 businesses already.

I hope there are lawsuits to strike down the unjust CalFire fee and vehicle license fee under Prop. 26, which passed last year. There might be and should be. Prop. 26 requires a 2/3rds vote on general fees, which is what they two fee hikes are. The Democrat politicians are trying to skirt Prop. 26 by turning as many general fees as they can into specific “user fees,” which are exempt from Prop. 26. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this thievery and deceptively violating the California Constitution.

Look at the issue of fire protection, which you are already paying for through your property taxes and state taxes. If the Democrats can impose a $150 per year surcharge if you live in a CalFire zone, what’s to stop them or local governments from deciding that every Californian’s city or county fire or police protection is a “user fee,” no longer regarded a general public service?

And what about the vehicle license fee hike? All the legislative history reveals the Democrats did this to soak up more revenues for the general budget. This is in no way a “user fee” exempt from Prop. 26.

As for requiring you to pay sales tax on all online purchases, that’s a tax hike. But Prop. 13 in 1978 put in the California Constitution a prohibition of tax hikes without a 2/3rds vote of the Legislature. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association needs to sue. The good news is they’re considering doing that for two of these three hidden taxes.

Stay in the battle

So please, stay in the battle to fight for financial freedom and against anti-family socialism in California. We have two strong constitutional amendments, Prop. 13 and Prop. 26, on our side, as well as the two-thirds vote threshold for direct tax increases. When things get tough, may those who are faithful and courageous reveal their character and perseverance, for the love of God and the love of their children and grandchildren.

If you know how to spend less than you get, you have the philosopher’s stone.
Benjamin Franklin, American founding father, statesman, inventor, author (1706-1790)

Not by God, but by George

Friday, July 16, 2010, 10:47 am |

An analysis of the retirement of California Chief Justice Ron George
by SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson

Morally-liberal and a judicial activist at heart and in practice, Ron George, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, has announced he won’t run for reelection in November.

George’s bowing out means the only Supreme Court justice on the November ballot is Carlos Moreno, a Gray Davis appointee who is even more to the left. Moreno officiated at homosexual weddings and was the only judge who voted to overturn Prop. 8 after it became part of the California Constitution. (SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates.)

How will Ron George be remembered? Pro-family conservatives cannot forget that Ron George is a judicial activist who doesn’t care much about the written California Constitution.

In May 2008, George authored the infamous 4 to 3 decision inventing homosexual “marriages.” George based his ruling on the “equal protection” clause of Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, which mirrors the post-Civil War 14th Amendment guaranteeing to black former slaves all the legal rights afforded white freemen.

But “equal protection” mean the laws must give equal opportunity to individuals no matter their race, not their behavior. Yet Ron George broke his pledge to defend the written California Constitution when he opined that couples (different from individuals) who are “gay or lesbian” (not in the  Constitution) have the right to marriage licenses (which were not in the Constitution until Prop. 8 passed in Nov. 2008).

You see, Ron George lets his own beliefs trump his boss, which is the California Constitution. He invented homosexual “marriages” because he personally believes some people are born homosexuals (there is zero scientific evidence for this) just like some people are born black:

But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left “quite an indelible impression on me,” he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday. “I think,” he concluded, “there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”
(Source: Los Angeles Times, May 18, 2008)

But that’s not all. Don’t forget 1997, when Ron George authored the 4 to 3 ruling striking down California state law requiring parental consent for a  minor’s abortion. This was scandalous. After a pro-life justice retired, George led the charge to vacate the court’s earlier 4 to 3 ruling that had actually upheld the parental consent law. Gov. Pete Wilson had appointed the pro-abortion Ming Chin, and George took full opportunity to kill more babies.

In his horrible ruling, George hearkened back to his predecessor, Rose Bird, who had redefined the paperwork privacy clause in the California  Constitution to somehow mean a teenager’s right to a tax-funded abortion. George expanded this unconstitutional “case law” to say that parents have absolutely no right to know about or to stop an abortion on their pre-teen and teen daughters.

Wait, there’s more. Ron George participated in several other bad rulings that violated the strict reading of the California Constitution or rulings that had nothing to do with the Constitution: requiring rental property owners to kill off their religious values and rent their own property to unmarried, fornicating couples (1996); inventing homosexual “second parent” adoptions (2003); forcing businesses that offer marriage benefits to the public to offer the same to homosexual couples (2005); and squashing the religious freedom of doctors who don’t want to artificially inseminate homosexuals (2008).

Who will replace Ron George on the Supreme Court? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will nominate a replacement for George, whose final day on  the bench will be Jan. 2, 2011. That nomination will go on this year’s November ballot.

Article 6, Section 16 of the California Constitution says if a justice does not seek reelection, “the governor, before September 16, shall nominate a candidate.” That candidate will then stand for election “at the next general election,” i.e., Nov. 2, 2010. So if you like Schwarzenegger’s pick, you can vote yes; if you don’t like the nominee, you can vote no, and the next governor will do the nominating.

My take? Since Republican governors Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson all nominated or elevated Ron George at one time or another, you can’t trust anyone to put judges on courts unless both the appointer and the appointee both swear to abide solely by the WRITTEN Constitution and its original intent, not what governors or judges think it should say.

“…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
Alexander Hamilton, leading author of The Federalist Papers, first
Secretary of the Treasury

Will Prop. 8 be overturned by California voters?

Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 5:21 pm |

There’s a new, large poll out on homosexual “marriages” from the Public Policy Institute of California.

It’s got some things that pro-family citizens won’t like. But keep reading, because it’s a shot in the arm that should get you talking to others about the natural and beautiful institution of marriage between a man and a woman, the very foundation of family.

The March 9-16 PPIC poll found that support for homosexual “marriage” legalization is edging up in California. Among all adults, more say they favor (50%) same-sex “marriage” than oppose it (45%). This is a five percent increase from similar polls between 2004 and 2009, when support for the notion of homosexual “marriages” hovered around 45%.

Sadly, majorities of Democrats (64%) and independents (55%) support destroying the natural definition of marriage. However, most Republicans (67%) oppose redefining marriage. Most whites (55%) express support for homosexual “marriages,” while Latinos are more opposed (51%) than in favor (43%) of altering the foundation of familia.

How accurate is the poll? Telephone polls are less accurate than they used to be, because a lot of conservatives won’t talk to pollsters who ring their home or cell phone.

Ultimately, the only poll that matters is on Election Day. The PPIC poll claims that likely voters supported homosexual “marriage” legalization 49% to 45%. But that’s not very reliable since the poll identified “likely voters” based on what people said about themselves, not on their actual voter records.

WHAT SAVECALIFORNIA.COM IS SAYING

I had the privilege of telling the truth about this issue to millions of Latinos that read La Opinion, California’s largest Spanish-language newspaper.

From the March 30 newspaper article, entitled “Gays seek Latino support”:

Randy Thomasson of the organization SaveCalifornia.com said the PPIC survey had spoken with people who are not necessarily voters.

“This poll is a wake-up call to start talking about the importance of nature, morality, marital oneness, and children. Caring about the most important things in life means supporting marriage for only a man and a woman.”

The Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman does not support gay marriage but civil unions and same-sex couples to adopt children.

Steve Poizner, Republican candidate for governor is also in favor of civil unions but not gay marriage. As the only Democratic candidate for governor Jerry Brown is sympathetic to the marriage of same-sex couples, calling it a fundamental right.

HOW TO RESPOND

Don’t be complacent. Let this horse-race poll be your wake-up call that marriage licenses are up for grabs. If you don’t know it yet, hear it now: Homosexual activists want to qualify a constitutional amendment to override Prop. 8 in 2012 or 2014. This would be a war for marriage licenses all over again.

So take action today. Talk to children and young adults and, as appropriate, sensitize them to the importance of protecting the natural institution of man-woman marriage. Tell them the facts:

• CHILDREN: An extensive body of research proves that children do best with a married father and mother. Yet children raised in homosexual environments experiment homosexually themselves and develop gender identity problems.

• LONGEVITY: Marriage between a man and a woman lasts, on average, 10 times longer than homosexual relationships.

• HEALTH: Monogamous sex between a faithfully married husband and wife is the only true “safe sex” around, while homosexual “sex” is inherently unhealthy.

• BIOLOGY: It’s a lie to promote same-sex “marriages” because men and women are biologically created for each other, not men for men or women for women.

• SPIRITUAL TRUTH: In the Bible, God consistently says that marriage is only for a man and a woman. To disagree with this exclusive, sacred definition is to go against God Himself.

“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”
U.S. Founding Father Samuel Adams, 1775