Tuesday, October 22, 2024, 6:12 pm | Randy Thomasson
Because election fraud is real, I urge you to vote early, in person, and with a paper ballot.
Stop and realize the overall benefit is having the least number of strangers’ hands on your ballot.
As we know, nationwide, “discrepancies” have occurred with “election-day ballots” and “ballots counted after election day” (ballots in envelopes) and wherever computerized machines do the counting (and adding and subtracting).
Yes, because of human sin and domestic enemies (New Communist Democrats), there’s a real problem with election integrity, not just in California, but nationwide.
So it behooves you to avoid computers, avoid election-day voting, and avoid submitting your ballot in an envelope. This gives your ballot its best chance to count — unmolested.
To help honest voters on the “Left Coast,” Election Integrity Project, California is recommending, based on a new law in effect here in 2024, for “voters to cast their marked vote by mail ballot at the polls without the security envelope.”
Again, this method means having the least number of strangers’ hands on your ballot, avoiding manipulatable computers, and avoiding the election fraud done on election-day ballots and ballots in sealed envelopes opened after the polls close on election day.
Californians’ ability to vote this way is based on AB 626, which went into effect this year, reading: “A voter may vote their vote by mail ballot, without the identification envelope, in person at the polling place designated for the voter’s home precinct or at a vote center.”
However, this option might not be available in all of California’s 58 counties. Because AB 626 is conditional on the county elections office being set up to handle it.
What we know is that the 29 California counties participating in the Voter’s Choice Act of 2016 — a pre-Covid tyranny bill that exchanged neighborhood polling places for several “vote centers” in a county, where you can vote in person — have already agreed per the Act’s provisions to accept voters casting their already-marked vote-by-mail ballots, in person, without the “security envelope.”
As EIP California explains, “Voter’s Choice Act and Electronic Poll Book counties … must now allow voters to cast their marked vote by mail ballot at the polls without the security envelope.”
The 29 California counties participating in the Voter’s Choice Act (VCA), which includes several physical voting centers and letting voters cast paper ballots, are Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, El Dorado, Fresno, Humboldt, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Merced, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Diego, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Ventura, Yolo.
We don’t know how many counties, in addition to this, are Electronic Poll Book counties that will also accept marked vote-by-mail ballots without the envelope. Your best bet is to call your own county elections office, and tell them you want to vote in person using a paper ballot and how to do it.
Where election fraud and New Communist Democrat thievery exist, you must do what you can to secure your ballot. Yes, liberals like fraud-inviting mail-in ballots. Yet you can be glad you can now cast your marked vote-by-mail ballot in person without the envelope.
Regarding Step 4 (above), some election integrity activists refuse to use a Ballot Marking Device (BMD) and also report not all vote centers have paper ballot scanners. They say instead of using a BMD (which, nowadays, is mostly for people with disabilities), they’ll leave for another vote center that will serve them.
Your best bet in your county is to go to your election headquarters to vote in person — and early — and by casting your already-marked vote-by-mail ballot as your paper ballot, you’ll create a “verified paper record” and avoid your ballot being “trucked” from one place to another, thus making it harder for domestic enemies to manipulate your ballot.
Please don’t regard this as too complex. Because when election fraud is real and you want your vote to count, it’s going to take a little more effort. Join me in being glad 2024 has ushered in a new law, where half or more of California’s counties will let you cast the most secure ballot you can.
Sunday, October 6, 2024, 3:23 pm | Randy Thomasson
Do you realize the POWER of a state constitutional amendment?
If Prop. 3 passes, lawsuits can claim its eight very broad, subjective words — “The right to marry is a fundamental right” — award the constitutional right to marry whomever and whatever.
Such a lawsuit or lawsuits would result in all the marriage standards, definitions, and limits in the Family Code, the Penal Code, and other statutes being ruled “unconstitutional.”
Because when lower laws (state statutes or local government ordinances) conflict with the words in a state constitution, the constitution supersedes and eliminates all rivals.
Therefore, if you care about children and don’t want boys and girls to be groomed for underage marriages by predator adults, you’ll want to vote NO on Prop. 3.
Because, under this deceptive state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the anti-family California Legislature, all it takes is a state court lawsuit to eliminate parental consent for child marriages. Under Prop. 3, children will be confused, used, and abused.
Please grasp these legal facts:
Same-sex marriages are completely legal in California; therefore, Prop. 3 is unnecessary even for supporters of same-sex marriage.
What would Prop. 3 do? It would insert eight extremely broad and subjective words, “The right to marry is a fundamental right,” into the California Constitution.
Remember, a state constitutional amendment supersedes any statute (regular law) in conflict with it.
Therefore, if this proposed state constitutional amendment is approved by voters, lawsuits can be filed, claiming a constitutional “right to marry” whomever and whatever, thus superseding and rendering “unconstitutional” all the marriage standards, definitions, and limits in the Family Code, the Penal Code, and other statutes.
As a legal outcome, Prop. 3 would usher in unrestricted child marriages, incestuous marriages, polygamy (multiple spouses), bigamy (multiple marriages at the same time), and even “marriages” with animals and things (Prop. 3 does not require human spouses) – the sky’s the limit.
Please share this with others, including those who support same-sex marriages. Invite them to see the facts for themselves at LearnAboutProp3.com. Let the majority of Californians UNITE AGAINST marriage anarchy, which hurts kids.
You know Prop. 3 is awful, but don’t know how to stop it? Here’s how:
Tell 3 friends Prop. 3 would usher in unrestricted child marriages, incestuous marriages, polygamy (multiple spouses), bigamy (multiple marriages at the same time), even “marriage” with animals and things (it doesn’t require human spouses).
And you don’t have to convince or argue. Just email 3 friends the above list and simply recommend they visit LearnAboutProp3.com for documentation.
Please take a couple minutes today to do this easy task. And if you know a pastor, email him too. You can help open the eyes of millions of California voters!
“Early voting” can begin as soon as Monday, October 7 for those who’ve already received their ballots. So please act now — tell 3 friends you oppose Prop. 3’s marriage anarchy!
If Prop. 3 passes, and “The right to marry is a fundamental right” is inserted into the State Constitution, all it would take is a California court striking down as “unconstitutional” any existing statutory marriage definition, standard, or limit in the Family Code, Penal Code, and other Codes. The result would be permitting “marriages” with whomever and whatever. One of the many facts found at LearnAboutProp3.com
Saturday, September 7, 2024, 10:18 am | Randy Thomasson
Sept. 26, 2009: Bridegroom Milton Mbhele, with his four brides at their western wedding in South Africa, which recognizes polygamous marriages.
Get ready to vote NO on unrestricted child marriages, incestuous marriages, polygamy (multiple spouses), bigamy (multiple marriages at the same time), and even people-animal and people-object marriages.
Because that’s what Proposition 3 would functionally legalize.
Prop. 3, placed on the ballot by the California State Legislature, would insert into the California Constitution these 8 words: “The right to marry is a fundamental right.” Now, do you see a limit on number of spouses, an age prerequisite, or a requirement that a spouse be human? And do you see any prohibition of incestuous marriages or multiple simultaneous marriages? They’re not there.
This extremely broad and subjective phrase would legalize much more than if Prop. 3’s proponents had written definitive words, such as, “Marriage is limited to two persons at any one time, who are not close blood relatives, with the written permission of a parent or legal guardian for a minor to marry.” But they didn’t, opting instead to radically permit any and all types of “marriages” in California.
If Prop. 3 passes, and “The right to marry is a fundamental right” is inserted into the State Constitution, all it would take is a California court striking down as “unconstitutional” any existing statutory marriage definition, standard, or limit in the Family Code, Penal Code, and other Codes. Because the State Constitution is the supreme law of California, with the power to preempt conflicting statutes. The legal result of Prop. 3 would be permitting “marriages” with whomever and whatever.
Please help others vote NO on Prop. 3. Here’s an excellent website that’s convincing reasonable people to oppose it. Visit LearnAboutProp3.com.
Realize that the most vulnerable persons who would be caught up in Prop. 3’s marital chaos would be children. Let’s care about kids and vote no on Prop. 3’s marriage anarchy!
States that have codified constitutions normally give the constitution supremacy over ordinary statute law. That is, if there is any conflict between a legal statute and the codified constitution, all or part of the statute can be declared ultra vires by a court, and struck down as unconstitutional. “Codified constitution,” Constitution article, Wikipedia
RSS 2.0 Feed