Saturday, October 1, 2022, 2:47 pm | Randy Thomasson
By the end of his September 30 signing deadline, tyrannical Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom had signed hundreds of foolish, unconstitutional, and downright evil bills.
I’m reporting this not to depress you, but so you become so concerned that you’ll share this information with your friends and reasonable acquaintances, so they’ll become energized to vote this election.
While the final week of bill signings saw Newsom’s vetoes of two big, anti-parent bills — SB 70 and AB 1940 (he vetoed them because of their huge, ongoing costs), he signed the rest of the anti-parent bills, and many unconstitutional bills.
Here are the big ones that could and should be struck down:
AB 587pressures social media companies to censor speech the Democrat-controlled government doesn’t like, such as, the truth about “Covid vaccines,” the harm of the “LGBTQIA+” agenda, the reality of election fraud, and the facts about life in the womb. AB 587 actually forces online platforms to report to the government whether they are blocking “Hate speech or racism,” “Extremism or radicalization,” “Disinformation or misinformation,” and, if so, how. These subjective terms are designed to censor your free speech, but the supporters of AB 587 think they can avoid constitutional scrutiny by forcing social media platforms to do their dirty work. Yet their fingerprints are all over this attack on the First Amendment. The larger conservative or free-speech-supporting platforms, such as Gab, Telegram, Truth Social, Rumble, Gettr, and Frank Speech should sue in federal court to repel this unconstitutional attack upon them and us.
AB 1797 will create a statewide vaccine registry, mandating most Californians’ vaccine status and “race and ethnicity” be reported to the government by “health care providers and other agencies, including schools, childcare facilities, family childcare homes, and county human services agencies.” AB 1797 is ripe for both a state and federal lawsuit, because it violates the California State Constitution’s explicit right to privacy. There’s even a California Supreme Court ruling from 1975 prohibiting any surveillance of Californians when there’s no suspected illegal activity. In addition, there’s California’s voter-approved prohibition of racial preferences (Proposition 209 from 1996). There are also federal medical privacy laws.
AB 2098 will punish doctors who have studied and tell their patients the facts about Covid (the non-threat of the “variants,”) the efficacy of natural and traditional therapeutics, and the risk of injury and death from the unsafe “Covid vaccines.” Because AB 2098 tramples medical ethics, informed consent, and the doctor-patient relationship, it must be sued and struck down in federal court. Specifically, AB 2098 infringes on the fundamental guarantee of freedom of speech in the U.S. and California constitutions. And professionally, it destroys the ethic of a second opinion — when a doctor disagrees with another doctor or even differs from so-called “consensus.”
AB 2223 permitting the killing of already-born infants and toddlers by prohibiting and punishing investigations by authorities of deaths occurring during the “perinatal period” (which a world-renowned child development authority said extends “18 to 24 months after the birth of the child.” This infanticide bill AB 2223 deserves a federal lawsuit based on the 14th Amendment‘s guarantee that States cannot “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Who are the constitutional California district attorneys and sheriff-coroners who will sue AB 2223 on its face?
AB 2229 will discriminate against law enforcement officer candidates (police officers, sheriff’s deputies, California Highway Patrol officers) who are practicing Christians, Catholics, Muslims, and conservative Jews. As the Legislative Counsel describes AB 2229: “Existing law requires peace officers in this state to meet specified minimum standards, including, among other requirements, that peace officers be evaluated by a physician and surgeon or psychologist and found to be free from any physical, emotional, or mental condition that might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer. This bill would require that evaluation to include bias against race or ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, disability, or sexual orientation.” According to current California law: “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality …“Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” AB 2229 needs to be sued in federal court by law enforcement candidates who will be, or have been, discriminated against because of their religious values, on the strength of the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act.
SB 107 empowers “LGBTQIA+” activists to legally kidnap and mutilate kids. If parents in other states want to help their boys or girls overcome sexual confusion, “LGBTQIA+” groups will scheme to bring these children to California, then their attorneys will go to court and use SB 107 to give California “jurisdiction” over the children, and then California tax-funded hormone injections and “sex change” surgeries will follow. “Counseling” is part of this process, during which SB 107 will convince biological girls they’re “boys” and biological boys they’re “girls” (SB 107 calls this “gender-affirming mental health care”), then the hormone injections and irreversible “sex change” operations (which SB 107 calls “gender-affirming health care”) will follow. Federal lawsuits should be filed by state attorney generals in Republican states for this blatant violation of parental consent laws and other laws in their states. And it might require the U.S. Supreme Court to deliver a clarifying parental rights decision.
Other anti-parent bills that were signed — SB 1184, SB 1419, and SB 1479 — probably have no lawsuit potential (unless SCOTUS delivers a crystal-clear parental decision that California parents can use to regain their rights).
Religious hospitals might become exempt from SB 923‘s tyrannical transsexual indoctrination of health care providers if they sue and win in federal court on religious-freedom grounds. But pro-abortion bills, such as SB 1375 permitting nurses to kill pre-born babies and the 11 other pro-abortion bills Newsom signed, will survive all legal challenges because pro-abortion Democrat and RINO governors have built an unconstitutional, pro-abortion California Supreme Court, which callously guards “abortion rights.”
Overall, Newsom signed 997 bills this year, which were from Democrat authors or Democrat committees around 90% of the time.
Saturday, August 6, 2022, 9:50 am | Randy Thomasson
SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
Will you join me in trying to kill a bad bill? This time, we’re going to demand the author DROP his own bill!
AB 1940 is the center of a package of medical-tyranny bills advancing in the Democrat-controlled California State Legislature. SB 866’s coercive injections, SB 1419 hiding “health” records from parents, SB 1479’s perpetual “Covid tests” — they all hinge on the powerful presence of AB 1940’s immoral, anti-parent, school-based “health clinics.”
School-based clinics in California already push upon children fornication, abortion, injections, mind-altering drugs, and “sex changes,” all behind parents’ backs.
And consider there is no state law preventing immorality being pushed on children in government schools. In fact, there are Democrat-authored laws encouraging it.
One of the worst California laws permitting mental molestation of children is SB 543 signed by “Republican” Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010, which permits school staff to remove children — aged 12 and up — from classrooms and take them off-campus for immoral “counseling” sessions (which includes grooming kids to become “LGBTQIA+”), without parental permission or involvement.
Or, as devilish Democrat State Senator Scott Weiner of San Francisco explains, “Young people age 12 and 17 can also get birth control and abortions, as well as medical treatment for sexually transmitted infections, drug and alcohol-related disorders, injuries resulting from sexual assaults and intimate partner violence, and mental health disorders – all without parental consent.”
AB 1940 takes advantage of existing bad laws and medical-tyranny bills this year to group all these “services” to children (as young as kindergarten) and fund them at as many “public schools” as possible. Children will be targeted with this garbage, and parents won’t know about it until it’s too late.
With AB 1940, there’s practically no “service” these school-based clinics can’t provide. And yes, Planned Parenthood can be paid to run them, as a “health provider relationship.”
As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s office says, “This bill would rename the program as the School-Based Health Center Support Program and would redefine a school-based health center to mean a student-focused health center or clinic that is located at or near a school or schools, is organized through school, community, and health provider relationships, and provides age-appropriate, clinical health care services onsite by qualified health professionals. The bill would authorize a school-based health center to provide primary medical care, behavioral health services, or dental care services onsite or through mobile health or telehealth.”
Again, “clinical health care services,” “primary medical care,” and “behavioral health services” are very broad phrases. Of course, they can include pushing upon and providing children with birth control, abortions, risky vaccinations, mind-altering drugs, and “sex change” treatments, all behind parents’ backs.
Salas lied, said AB 1940 is about ‘eyeglasses’
On May 25, 2022 on the Assembly floor, Democrat Rudy Salas of Bakersfield spent only a half-minute describing his AB 1940, and he brashly lied about it, saying:
“Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members, I present AB 1940, which updates and modernizes the existing school-based health centers. Members, this will allow kids that need eyeglasses to get eyeglasses and health checks. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.”— Source: Official Assembly video, May 25, 2022 floor session, 09:46:19 to 09:47:15
Without any Republicans rising to speak in opposition, AB 1940 passed the Assembly floor with the “aye” votes of 54 Democrats and the two most liberal Republicans, Jordan Cunningham and Suzette Valladares.
AB 1940 has been gliding through Democrat-controlled Senate committees. Unless the bill is pulled by the author, it will pass the Senate Appropriations Committee by August 12 and go to the Senate floor for a final vote, then to Gavin Newsom for his signature.
Rudy Salas can be pressured to drop his anti-family bill
Over the years, I’ve seen enough “heat” upon San Francisco Bay area Democrat legislators that they’ve shelved their bad bills — bills promoting communism, mandating the “Covid vaccine,” banning spanking, and banning Biblical counseling for struggling homosexuals.
Therefore, Rudy Salas, who’s from one of the most pro-family (but often Democrat-voting due to a large Hispanic population) parts of California — the southern San Joaquin Valley — can be pressured to drop AB 1940. People in his district are strongly for parental rights, and will be offended by Salas and his bill if they hear about it. Help the people there know they can call to say “Drop AB 1940!”
With enough calls, it can happen. Especially since Salas is running for Congress against incumbent “Republican” David Valadao (in the June primary, voters supported GOP candidates more than they did Salas). He wants to leave Sacramento behind for Washington, D.C. If Salas thinks AB 1940 will kill his chances, he’ll kill his own bill.
But time is of the essence. AB 1940 is scheduled to “escape” the “suspense file” of the Senate Appropriations Committee by August 12. That means today and this weekend and early next week are key days to urge Rudy Salas to drop this anti-parent bill, AB 1940.
ALERT: Please call Rudy Salas at 661-335-0302, 559-585-7170, and 916-319-2032
Leave a message such as, “Drop AB 1940. Your bill tramples parents and parental rights!”
You can leave voicemails at 661-335-0302 (his Bakersfield district office), 559-585-7170 (his Hanford “satellite” office) and 916-319-2032 (his State Capitol office).
And no matter where you live in California, you can leave an anonymous voicemail message weekdays (7pm to 8am). Don’t identify yourself or where you live, so that Salas’ staff won’t “trash” your message.
However, if you live in Kern, Kings, or Tulare counties, please call anytime and say where you live. Also please spread the word to all your friends in these three counties. That’s the new congressional district in which Salas is running. He will become very nervous if he receives many phone calls from people in the district he wants to represent.
You can see a detailed map of the new 22nd Congressional district near the bottom right of this page (look for map entitled “California District 22 after 2020 redistricting cycle”).
Here is the area of the congressional district Salas wants to reprepresent:
Tulare County: From Lindsay in the north and south along on 65 and everything east Kings County: Nearly all of the county except Lemoore and north Hanford Kern County: Delano, McFarland, Wasco, Shafter, Buttonwillow, Los Hills and westward; Bakersfield east of Chester Avenue and southeast Bakersfield, south of California Avenue, south of Ming Avenue, east of Ashe Road, south of Panama Lane, east of Gosford Road, north of Taft Highway (119), east of Wible Road, north of Houghton Road, east of 99 Freeway all the way so to the 5 Freeway interchange
IMPORTANT: If you live in or near this congressional district, please call and urge your friends to call. Salas needs to receive hundreds of calls urging him to drop AB 1940, from people he either knows (or thinks) are from Kern, Kings, and Tulare counties.
But everyone seeing this emergency alert can call, at least anonymously at night and on weekends, to “mix in” with the other calls Salas is receiving. Yet please send this alert to friends in the southern San Joaquin Valley, whose calls to Salas “will count” all the more!
If you live in the new districts in which these five pro-homosexual “marriage” Republicans are running, it’s your decision whether to keep supporting them. But consider this:
2. These five Republicans’ pro-perversity votes are symptomatic of slavish fear of the Tyrannical Left, instead of respectful fear of God or love for impressionable children. To flip from being pro-man-woman-marriage and pro-traditional-family in an election year, in the general election cycle where they might be beaten, is indicative of fear, not moral principle (for how can a principle be moral if it violates the commands of Holy God?). Don’t we need constitutional fighters, who will do what’s right under pressure, not cave and sell-out?
3. Homosexual “marriage” is a harmful role model for impressionable children. Because not only are most male homosexual relationships “open,” their behavior has very high rates of sexually-transmitted diseases. And children are being roped into this, by the government schools or other strangers. What’s more, state schools aim to “groom” children not just into homosexual behavior, but also into cross-dressing and “sex changes.” Most of all, promoting homosexual “marriage” all the more rapidly erodes the difference between Right and Wrong on every moral issue. With fewer and fewer moral absolutes, our culture becomes exponentially more confused, divided, and dangerous.
4. This is not the first time three of these five Republicans have voted very wrong:
Also in 2017, David Valadao abstained on this pro-family amendment that would have banned taxpayer-funded, military “sex changes.” And in January 2021, Valadao was the only California U.S. House Republican to vote “yes” to impeach former president Donald Trump (for the second time).
In 2018, as a California state assemblyman, Jay Obernolte voted “yes” on AB 2439 to establish an “official” State of California “LGBTQ Veterans Memorial.” Then, in 2019, Obernolte voted “yes” on AB 711 to force schools to retroactively falsify a student’s “sex” on former student records. That same year, Obernolte abstained on ACR 99, a Democrat resolution blaming pastors and religious leaders for “LGBTQIA+” suicides. In 2020, Obernolte’s liberal positions were exposed by his conservative opponent, Tim Donnelly.
Back in 1994, Ken Calvert was publicly exposed for having sex in his car with a known prostitute. Still, in light of Calvert’s strong pro-family record since then, I was surprised he caved to the “homosexual marriage” agenda this month.
I am most surprised by Mike Garcia’s capitulation to darkness. Garcia votes pro-life on abortion and calls himself a Christian. And in 2021, he admirably voted against putting homosexuality and transsexuality into federal employment and housing law, stating “equality that comes at the expense of or as a detriment to other free citizens is contrary to American ideals.” Yet now, succumbing in fear to “LGBTQIA+” activists is Garcia’s inexplicable, head-shaking act.
So whether you live in the new District 22 from Hanford to Bakersfield (where David Valadao is running), or in the new District 48 from Murrieta to Santee, then south to the Mexican border (where Darrell Issa is running), or in the new District 23 which includes Ridgecrest, California City, Barstow, Baker, Victorville, Big Bear City, and Twentynine Palms (where Jay Obernolte is running), or in the new District 41 from Corona to Indio (where Ken Calvert is running), or in the new District 27 which includes Santa Clara, Palmdale, and Lancaster (where Mike Garcia is running), now you are more informed and the decision is yours. See the new California congressional district map
“Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them…” Moses’ father-in-law Jethro in Exodus 18:21
“When Christians face two clearly immoral options, we cannot rationalize a vote for immorality or injustice just because we deem the alternative to be worse,” Moore said. “The Bible tells us we will be held accountable not only for the evil deeds we do but also when we ‘give approval to those who practice them,’ (Romans 1:32). “Russell Moore, “Should Christians Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?”
RSS 2.0 Feed