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
Thursday, June 16, 2022, 4:48 pm | Randy Thomasson
Above is a screenshot of the June 16 Assembly floor vote to amend SB 866 by raising minimum age of “consent” from 12 to 15. Thirty-three Democrats initially voted “aye” (yes) to amend SB 866 to make it easier to pass (then five more Democrats added on, bringing the “ayes” to 38). Eighteen out of 19 Republicans voted “no” (but Republican Jordan Cunningham added his “no” vote later) and 3 Democrats voted “no” (Sharon Quirk-Silva, James Ramos, Carlos Villapudua). Abstaining were independent Chad Mayes and 22 Democrats (of these, five ultimately voted “aye” (yes) to amend SB 866: Wendy Carrillo, Sabrina Cervantes, Eduardo Garcia, Adrin Nazarian, Robert Rivas).
UPDATE, JULY 12: 2022: The alert on this page is replaced by our July 12 alert opposing all 4 anti-parent bills, SB 866, SB 1184, SB 1419, and SB 1479.
UPDATE JUNE 30, 2022: The Democrat-controlled California Assembly has adjourned for a whole month without taking a vote today on the radical anti-parent SB 866. Thank you to everyone who’s called to oppose this terrible bill. You are winning on this pro-family/medical-freedom issue!
UPDATE JUNE 20, 2022: Despite gaining another Democrat member (there are now 60 Democrats in the 80-member California State Assembly), the amended SB 866 was skipped over in Monday’s floor session. BIG THANKS to all who KEPT CALLING. The amended bill has failed its 1st test, but please keep calling below:
TAKE QUICK ACTION. Seize this momentum to kill the radical anti-parent bill SB 866. Realize that SB 866’s unconstitutional, immoral, anti-family Democrat author, Scott Wiener of San Francisco, only amended his bill because he DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES to pass it. This means your phone calls and more have worked!
Scroll down for your new action steps (effective June 16, 2022)
Understand: The amended bill is still bad, because raising the age of “consent” to any and every vaccine from 12 years old in the original bill to 15 years old in the amended SB 866 still obliterates parental consent and informed consent. A minor is still a minor!
SB 866 is wrong because it pretends minors can give “informed consent” to vaccines without a parent’s consent. But children do not have the wisdom, maturity, and brain development to accurately determine risks, including whether they could suffer an adverse reaction from an injection.
Realize this: SB 866 flies in the face of numerous adults-only laws. For example, in California, you have to be 18 years or older to vote, to buy a shotgun or rifle, to buy “medical marijuana,” to enter into a binding contract, to buy or sell property, to marry without parental consent, to sue or be sued, to make a will, to inherit property outright, to consent to most types of medical treatment, to join the military without parental consent, to get a job without a special work permit, to serve on a jury, to donate blood without parental consent, to become an organ donor without parental consent, to apply for credit in your own name, to get a permanent tattoo on your skin, to get your skin pierced without parental consent, to legally change your name, to play the lottery, or to gamble. To claim a child can make adult decisions endangers children.
What’s next: Officially amended on Thursday, June 16, SB 866 can be heard as soon as the Thursday, June 23 1pm Assembly floor session.
3 NEW EASY STEPS = 3 CATEGORIES OF EFFECTIVENESS
1) Call or email your own state assemblymember 2) Call deciding votes (nearly all Democrats) 3) Call Republicans and demand they speak on the floor
SCROLL DOWN FOR STEPS 1, 2, and 3 + CALL LISTS
STEP #1.Call or email YOUR OWN state assemblymember. Tell him or her “You need to oppose the amended SB 866. Children are still children and this is still a radical anti-parent bill. The law recognizes dozens of important things you can’t decide until you’re 18 or 21. SB 866 eliminates parental consent and informed consent. Stand and speak AGAINST this bad bill on the floor, and vote NO!” Click here to find your California assemblymember’s phone numbers and web form
STEP #2:Call the 31 DECIDING VOTES BELOW that we’ve identified by leaving after-hours anonymous voicemail messages(this means calling (no emailing) 7pm to 8am, and weekends).
Tell them, “Oppose the amended SB 866. Children are still children and this is still a radical anti-parent bill. The law recognizes dozens of important things you can’t decide until you’re 18 or 21. SB 866 eliminates parental consent and informed consent — vote NO.”
If your own state assemblymember is one of the 19 Assembly Republicans, demand they “Stand and speak against SB 866. Don’t ask questions of the floor jockey, but stand and speak to expose the harms of SB 866.”
Tina McKinnor 916-319-2062 and 310-412-6400: The newest assemblywoman and Democrat from the Inglewood/Venice/Hawthorne/LAX area of Los Angeles County was sworn into office on June 20. She needs a flood of phone calls against SB 866 (especially from her constituents, so she fears them more than her Democrat “bosses”).
David Alvarez 916-319-2020 and 619-338-8090: The newest assemblyman and a Democrat from San Diego, he was sworn into office on June 15 and voted with his Democrat “leaders” on June 16 to amend SB 866. However, being new, he’s probably never received a flood of opposition calls on a foundational family issue like this, so please call him.
Lisa Calderon (running for the new AD56) 916-319-2057 and 562-692-5858. She is running for a new district covering South El Monte, Pico Rivera, Rose Hills, Whittier, La Puente, Walnut, and Diamond Bar. Some local activists are targeting her, and with enough calls, might be moved to abstain.
Blanca Rubio 916-319-2048 and 626-960-4457: She voted yes on the SB 866 amendments; her sister, Susan Rubio, abstained on SB 866 on the Senate floor
Luz Rivas 916-319-2039 and 818-504-3911: She voted yes to amend SB 866; however, she “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
Mike Gipson 916-319-2064 and 310-324-6408: Voted yes on the SB 866 amendments, but thinks he’s a Christian and might support clear-cut parental rights
Miguel Santiago 916-319-2053 and 213-620-4646: Voted yes on the SB 866 amendments, but used to abstain more, and represents mostly pro-parental-rights Hispanic families
Wendy Carrillo 916-319-2051 and 213-483-5151: She initially abstained on the SB 866 amendments, then changed to voting yes before the end of the June 16 floor session
Robert Rivas 916-319-2030 and 831-759-8676: He initially abstained on the SB 866 amendments, then changed to voting yes before the end of the June 16 floor session. His district overlaps that of Democrat State Senator Anna Caballero, who abstained on SB 866.
Eduardo Garcia 916-319-2056 and 760-347-2360: He initially abstained on the SB 866 amendments, then changed to voting yes before the end of the June 16 floor session. From the sprawling Imperial Valley region with many Hispanic families and running in a new Assembly district.
Sabrina Cervantes 916-319-2060 and 951-371-6860: She initially abstained on the SB 866 amendments, then changed to voting yes before the end of the June 16 floor session. Also initially abstained on AB 2098 punishing good doctors and 2223 permitting infanticide, but then later changed her votes to yes after both bills passed
Adrin Nazarian 916-319-2046 and 818-376-4246: He initially abstained on the SB 866 amendments, then changed to voting yes before the end of the June 16 floor session; he also abstained on medical tyranny bills AB 1797 and AB 2098 on May 26
Isaac Bryan 916-319-2054 and 310-641-5410: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments
Joaquin Arambula 916-319-2031 and 559-445-5532: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments, personally believes in traditional parental rights, and represents mostly Hispanics
Kevin McCarty 916-319-2007 and 916-324-4676: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments, and also abstained on AB 2223 permitting infanticide
Freddie Rodriguez 916-319-2052 and 909-902-9606: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments. Used to abstain on controversial bills.
Jacqui Irwin 916-319-2044 and 805-482-1904: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments. Represents part of state senator Henry Stern’s district, who twice abstained on the Senate side
Tasha Boerner Horvath 916-319-2076 and 760-434-7605: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments, and represents a formerly Republican district with pro-family constituents
Cottie Petrie-Norris 916-319-2074 and 949-251-0074: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments and “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
Jim Cooper 916-319-2009 and 916-670-7888: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments; he also abstained on AB 1797 creating a state “Covid vaccine” database
Tom Daly 916-319-2069 and 714-939-846: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments. He also 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.
Al Muratsuchi 916-319-2066 and 310-375-0691: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments, and also initially abstained on AB 2098 before later changing his vote to yes
Brian Maienschein (running in a more conservative district) 916-319-2077 and 858-675-0077: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments and voted no on the original SB 866 in committee
Chad Mayes (former Republican, now “independent”) 916-319-2042 and 760-346-6342: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments; on May 26, he also voted no on AB 2223 and abstained on AB 2098
Chris Holden 916-319-2041 and 626-351-1917 and 909-624-7876: Earlier he “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866; however, he voted yes on the SB 866 amendments
Adam Gray (running for Congress) 916-319-2021 and 209-726-5465 and 209-521-2111: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments and earlier “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
Timothy Grayson 916-319-2014 and 925-521-1511: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments; he also abstained on AB 2098, punishing good doctors against the “Covid vaccines”
Ken Cooley 916-319-2008 and 916-464-1910: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments; he also voted no on medical tyranny bills AB 1797 and AB 2098
Jordan Cunningham 916-319-2035 and 805-549-3381: He initially was the only Republican to abstain on the SB 866 amendments, however he changed to voting “no” before the end of the June 16 Assembly floor session. He also voted no on the original SB 866 in committee
Rudy Salas (running for Congress) 916-319-2032 and 661-335-0302 and 559-585-7170: Abstained on SB 866 amendments, but earlier he “confirmed no on SB 866”
Patrick O’Donnell 916-319-2070 and 562-429-0470 and 310-548-6420: Abstained on SB 866 amendments, and previous issued public statement promising to vote no on the original SB 866
Sharon Quirk-Silva 916-319-2065 and 714-525-6515: Voted no on amending SB 866 and has “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
James Ramos 916-319-2040 and 909-476-5023: Voted no on amending SB 866 and has “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
Carlos Villapudua 916-319-2013 and 209-948-7479. Voted no amending SB 866 and earlier “confirmed he will be voting no” on the original SB 866; he also issued public statement promising to vote no on the original SB 866
STEP #3: Please call up to 19 Assembly Republicans. Tell them, “I expect you to stand and speak to expose the amended SB 866. A minor is still a minor, and this bill still eliminates parental consent and informed consent. You need to fight for us by raising your microphone and speaking up for parental rights and protecting children!”
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