Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Good Government’ Category

Recall math: How to get a good governor

Saturday, May 1, 2021, 11:38 am | Randy Thomasson

SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes
and does not support or oppose candidates for public office

Do you want a good governor again?

Given the qualification of Gavin Newsom Recall petition signatures, the evidence of tremendous harm done by this governor to California families, and the fact that Newsom is a true Democrat reflecting the unconstitutional insanity of his party, a constitutional, good governor will be the opposite of Newsom.

In the expected Fall 2021 recall election, Ballot 1 will be yes or no on firing Newsom, and Ballot 2 will be all the candidates who want to replace him as governor. And on the second ballot, the candidate receiving the most votes (a plurality) will win.

Which presents a challenge for California conservatives, since there is a leading liberal “Republican,” who’s a former big-city mayor, on Ballot 2. This “socially liberal” man, who’s marched in “LGBTQIA+” parades and supported awarding U.S. citizenship to illegal aliens, has already received the most endorsements of Republican state legislators. Did they know what they were endorsing?

Therefore, the only way to elect a true conservative is for California conservatives to rally behind the strongest conservative. Remember, a constitutional, good governor is someone you can trust to veto ALL the bad bills the Democrat-controlled State Legislature puts on his desk.

The problem is real, because with multiple “conservatives” running, they’re apt to split the conservative vote, which would propel the liberal “Republican” to victory. Consider the 2003 recall election, when liberal “Republican” Arnold Schwarzenegger deceived many conservatives (he signed bills imposing school sexual indoctrination and gave Californians a big tax hike and the elimination of party primaries).

Let’s do the math. Consider a scenario where two conservative candidates receive 30% and 25%. But the split conservative vote (totaling 55%) hands the victory to the liberal “Republican,” who wins with 35%. So, if you don’t want kick yourself later, calculate correctly now. If you want a constitutional, good governor, you can’t split conservative voters, and you must only support the leading conservative candidate (so he can be the top vote-getter). Because the hard math tells us minor conservative candidates will only help the liberal “Republican” win, by draining votes from the leading conservative.

Some of you want to know how I’ll vote. Well, I can tell you my standards for voting on the second ballot, which will contain many candidates who want to replace Newsom. I will vote for a candidate who:

  1. Has reliable moral, social, fiscal, conservative, constitutional values
  2. Is not a homosexual or transsexual (which is antithetical to the above values)
  3. Can win (acknowledged this September to be one of the three leading candidates)

To help you start your own research, here’s information on the top three declared candidates, in alphabetical order:

Ontheissues.org database reports John Cox is a “Hard-Core Conservative”
Unreliable Wikipedia describes Kevin Faulconer’s liberal social issues
Ontheissues.org database reports Doug Ose is a “Moderate Libertarian Conservative” 

Quite practically, a constitutional, good governor is somebody you trust to veto ALL the bad bills that the Democrat-controlled Legislature sends to his desk.

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan…
The king establishes the land by justice,
But he who receives bribes overthrows it.
Proverbs 29: 2 and 4

Newsom recall decisively qualifies

Monday, April 26, 2021, 9:07 pm | Randy Thomasson

SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes
and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.

Finally!

The California Secretary of State has officially recognized the reports of California’s 58 county registrars of voters that they’ve received 2,162,774 signatures on petitions to recall Gavin Newsom, and that 1,626,042 of these signatures are valid. And that’s the April 19 count, with another report due April 29.

This means success for the petition drive to qualify for the ballot the recall of Governor Gavin Newsom, assuming there aren’t 131,000 valid signers who change their minds and get their signatures removed by June 8. After that, it’s a steady march toward a special statewide election in November. Yet the hard part now is having the good, moral character to replace Newsom with a constitutional, good governor.

And I have to tell you, I’m concerned that otherwise conservative Californians will go with their emotions, with hearsay, and not their principles, and not with facts. That’s what happened in the 2003 recall of Democrat Gray Davis, when too many conservatives preferred social liberal Arnold Schwarzenegger over the mostly conservative Tom McClintock. Then, as governor, Schwarzenegger signed awful, sexual indoctrination bills, and placed tax hikes and the elimination of party primaries on the statewide ballot.

Some of you want to know how I’ll vote. Well, I can tell you my standards for voting on the second ballot, which will contain many candidates who want to replace Newsom. I will vote for a candidate who:

1. Has reliable moral, social, fiscal, conservative, constitutional values
2. Is not a homosexual or transsexual (which is antithetical to the above values)
3. Can win (acknowledged this September to be one of the three leading candidates)

To help you start researching, here’s information on the top four declared candidates to replace Newsom:

Ontheissues.org database reports John Cox is a “Right Conservative”
Unreliable Wikipedia describes Kevin Faulconer’s social issues
Ontheissues.org database reports Doug Ose is a “Moderate Libertarian Conservative”
Campaign website policy page of Major Williams

Quite practically, a constitutional, good governor is somebody you trust to veto ALL the bad bills that the Democrat-controlled Legislature sends to his desk.

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan…
The king establishes the land by justice,
But he who receives bribes overthrows it.
Proverbs 29: 2 and 4

Stanford doc: Masks don’t block Covid

Saturday, April 24, 2021, 4:47 pm | Randy Thomasson
Note: The tyrannical, lying, politically-correct Big Pharma has shut down the study, despite not being able to refute the facts in it. You can still understand the significance of this helpful and truthful study here. And see this analysis of this unscientific censorship from Retraction Watch.

Here’s our original SaveCalifornia.com blog:

As you know, Big Pharma, Big Government, Big Media, and Big Tech are hiding the truth about mask effectiveness, telling you to just obey and mask up whenever they order you to do so.

Yet published on the website of the National Center for Biotechnological Information (NCBI), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is evidence that destroys claims that face masks for the general public are effective at blocking Covid (or other viruses).

The study, authored by Dr. Baruch Vainshelboim of Stanford University and published by the medical journal Medical Hypothesis, is carefully documented. For example, it explains what people who smell smoke through masks already know:

According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25].

This honest study reports what the establishment won’t — that face masks are both useless and harmful:

The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such as SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemasks can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize proper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

The American Institute of Economic Research (AIER) commends this courageous study, writing:

The paper appears in the midst of an ongoing effort on the part of Anthony Fauci, Joe Biden, and others to normalize and universalize mask wearing, even as many states are repealing their mask mandates with public support. The evidence that doing so has had any effect on the trajectory of the virus is scant at best. The most commonly cited study from the CDC barely finds a 0.5% difference in transmission rate over 20 days and 1.8% after 100 days. The longer the time the more variables are a concern; a simply and extremely weak correlation between two data points stretches credulity, especially when used to push a radical masking of the population. 

In addition, many aspects of our emergent mask culture are implausible, such as the idea that you don’t catch or spread Covid while seated and eating and can thereby be unmasked but standing and walking are too risky and therefore require masks. As to wearing them outdoors or even alone on a hike in the woods, does one even need to comment? 

Given that masking of healthy populations for long periods of time is a new policy, it is astounding that the media and scientific journals decided within a matter of months that the efficacy of the practice could not be questioned or studied, nor its adverse effects discussed.

Anyone who thinks that “science” is settled after a year of implementation of a mechanism that ostensibly reduces disease spread does not understand the meaning of the word. Science is a process, by which new information and evidence are incorporated as they are discovered. Anthony Fauci and Andrew Cuomo are exploiting the term “science” to convey to the public that certain beliefs cannot be questioned, and they are being assisted by big tech platforms like YouTube, which obviously seek to control the parameters of the discussion. 

No matter how many times these people repeat the word “science,” they are promoting precisely the opposite of science: dogma. By contrast, Dr. Baruch Vainshelboim is pushing us to think more broadly and fundamentally, in a way that connects with pre-2020 intuition, and for this he deserves immense credit, as does Medical Hypothesis for having published this paper. Both make a courageous attempt to analyze the costs of adopting universal masking, which is to say advancing real science.

ACTION: Please copy and paste this face mask information into emails and flyers and give to as many people as you can (you can’t post this on leading social media platforms without being suspended).

“It’s time to say enough is enough … I urge everyone in America to throw away their masks, demand their schools be open, and burn your vaccine passport if they try to give it to you.”
Republican U.S. Senator Rand Paul, M.D., of Kentucky