Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Election’ Category

Union membership = worse government

Monday, September 2, 2024, 10:55 am | Randy Thomasson

Have you considered why California has such bad government? There are powerful forces supporting the New Communist Democrats, who are now three-fourths of both houses of the State Legislature, and who control all the statewide constitutional offices.

Yet the evil forces leading here aren’t the “useful idiots” (foolish voters dumbed down by the “public” schools, illegal aliens, self-centered government employees, etc.).

No, the wealthy, influential entities sustaining the iron-fisted rule of New Communist Democrats in California are both government unions and private unions. Don’t believe it? See how unions fund the Democrat Party Machine:

  • As reported in late 2023: “Democrats and their causes receive 95.7% of the cash from unions’ political action committees. In 2021-22 the Big Four gave more than $29 million to the SEIU’s United We Can super PAC and the NEA Advocacy Fund super PAC which support federal candidates for office. Another $16 million went to wealthy climate crusader Tom Steyer’s leftwing For Our Future Pac. Some $3 million went to Fair Share Massachusetts which supports a state wealth tax.

“Big money also flows at the state level, where public unions all but run many state capitals. In 2021-2022, the four largest government unions spent $27.9 million in Illinois, $24.9 million in California, $13.2 million in Minnesota and $12.1 million in Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 60% of unions’ annual political spending, or some $400 million, came from membership dues and about 40% came from unions’ political action committees for which workers make voluntary contributions for politics. While unions can’t send dues money directly to candidates, workers might be surprised to see their paycheck deductions funneled to outside groups that spend money on politics (including those that deploy the money out of state).”

  • As reported in 2021 after Gavin Newsom “won” his recall election, “Organized labor donated at least $25.7 million — or more than one-third of the total the governor raised to keep his job. Unions, of course, have deep ties to the Democratic Party and a stake in nearly every aspect of state government.”

Because of how unions and their “owned politicians” put deceptive tax hikes on the ballot, and since union bosses regularly spend union dues to elect and re-elect corrupt Democrat Party politicians, if you’re a union member, please resign from your union.

You have the legal right to do so, while keeping your job, benefits, and more of your own money. Here’s how government employees can get out and how private sector employees can stop funding the beast.

Remember, you have strong, fundamental free-speech rights to not be coerced into supporting objectionable union politics. Now that you’ve unpeeled the onion and found the rotten core, will you stop “feeding” the beast?

See how to resign from the union and still keep your job and benefits:

Sample union resignation letter for private sector employees
Sample union resignation letter
How to resign your union membership in California

The biblical view of man is work-oriented. It affirms that man was placed on the earth to subdue it to the glory of God (Gen. 1:28; 9:1-7). It is not each man’s right to work. It is his duty to work. What is his lawful right is his right to compete for the job he wants, his right to compete for the labor services he wishes to pur­chase. No one has a right to my job, including me. Anyone should have the right to compete for my job, including me. And I have the right to compete for his.
“A Christian view of labor unions,” Gary North, July 1, 1978

When Kamala Harris sided with alleged child sexual abusers

Tuesday, July 23, 2024, 7:39 pm | Randy Thomasson
A woman claiming she was sexual abused by a Catholic priest points to his photo among other accused abusers at Dec. 6, 2018 news conference in Orange County

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

Yes, Kamala Harris sided with alleged sex abusers.

In 2004, when Harris became San Francisco’s district attorney, she inherited a collection of personnel files involving allegations of child sexual abuse by priests and employees of the San Francisco Archdiocese. And despite the cries of purported victims, Harris refused to share these files with those wanting to file civil lawsuits.

As reported in 2019 by The Intercept:

In her seven years as district attorney, Harris’s office did not proactively assist in civil cases against clergy sex abuse and ignored requests by activists and survivors to access the cache of investigative files that could have helped them secure justice, according to several victims of clergy sex abuse living in California who spoke to The Intercept.

“It went from Terence Hallinan going hundred miles an hour, full speed ahead, after the Catholic Church to Kamala Harris doing absolutely nothing and taking it backwards hundred miles an hour,” said Joey Piscitelli, a assault survivor, who a jury found had been molested as a student while attending Salesian College Preparatory, a Catholic high school in Richmond, California.

Here’s another article, from 2020, blowing the whistle on Kamala Harris ignoring victims of Catholic Church sexual abuse:

Years ago, a man named Joey Piscitelli wrote to Kamala Harris, who was then San Francisco’s District Attorney, about the plight of the catholic clergy sex abuse survivors. However, it fell on deaf ears. 

According to Piscitelli,  Kamala Harris never responded to him when he wrote to her about the abuse he had suffered at the hands of a local Catholic priest. Five years later, he wrote to her again urging her to release records on clergymen accused of sexual abuse to not only get justice for himself but also to help other survivors who were filing lawsuits, but Harris never responded. 

“She did nothing”, said Piscitelli, who is now the Northern California spokesperson for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). 

These facts should inform any Californian or American who is considering the character of Kamala Harris.

Vote no on Prop. 3 marriage anarchy on the California ballot

Tuesday, July 9, 2024, 10:37 am | Randy Thomasson

It’s a fact that federal courts — in California and nationwide — have legalized same-sex marriage.

Another fact is, that if someday in the future, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled states can decide on same-sex marriages, California’s 2010 Perry v. Schwarzenegger U.S. district court decision would contribute to still considering same-sex marriages valid and recognized in California.

Likewise, other rulings from the California Supreme Court — In re Marriage Cases in 2008 decided that the Prop. 22 statutory initiative passed by the voters in 2000 (which banned same-sex marriage) violated the California State Constitution, and 2009’s Strauss v. Horton ruling declaring same-sex marriages already licensed have perpetual, legal validity — mean same-sex marriage isn’t going away in California.

So why is Proposition 3 on California’s November 2024 ballot? Legislators who voted last year (78 Democrats and 10 Republicans) to place it on the ballot claim it’s only about same-sex marriage. But is that how it reads or, more importantly, what it would do?

Prop. 3’s eight very subjective and broadly-applicable words to be inserted into the State Constitution are “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.

Why wasn’t Prop. 3 written to say marriages of “any two adults” is valid or recognized in California? Because they know same-sex marriage is secure in California, but wanted to deceptively create marriage anarchy, including polygamy, bigamy, child marriages, incestuous marriages — even marriages with animals and objects. Because leftists didn’t want limits!

If Prop. 3 passes, the California Constitution would declare “a fundamental right…to marry,” with no definitions, standards, or limits. And whatever’s part of the state constitution that conflicts with California statutes (such as the Family Code or Penal Code) supersedes these regular laws.

Stop and realize all it takes is a lawsuit in state court claiming a constitutional right to “marry” whomever or whatever. If and when those lawsuits using Prop. 3 begin, very quickly, all the marital definitions, standards, and limits you’re used to would be eliminated — all because Prop. 3 renders them unconstitutional.

Once you understand the power of a state constitutional amendment and the Prop. 3’s deceptive language, what’s the real agenda of this purposefully deceptive legislative ballot measure?

Prop. 3’s eight subjective words would permit:

• Polygamy, where a few or several people all marry each other.
• Bigamy, where a person has two or more spouses simultaneously.
• “Child marriages” — where an adult and a child marry — when the courts rule PROP 3 eliminates the age of consent in the California Family Code.
• Incestuous marriages (between parents and children, between grandparents and children or grandchildren, between siblings, and between uncles or aunts and nieces or nephews).
• Marriages with animals or objects, because PROP 3 doesn’t require a spouse to be human.

What’s more, multiple spouses and spousal exemptions will greatly undermine the concept of fairness, a child’s best interest, and law and order:

• Who’s responsible for paying child support could be very confusing.
• Who’s covered by insurance and who are insurance beneficiaries could be very messy.
• With many “spouses,” who would make decisions for a comatose or otherwise incapacitated person?
• Financial manipulation could occur, as wealthy, elderly persons “marry” their children in order to avoid payment of inheritance taxes.
• Gang members — in and out of jail or prison — could all “marry” each other in order to avoid having to testify against their “spouses.”

These are just some of the problems Prop. 3 would usher in. If you dislike the thought of child brides, incest, polygamy, and animal abuse…if you oppose deceptive legislators…if you reject chaos-causing proposals…you’ll want to vote NO on Prop. 3’s marriage anarchy. And please tell everyone you know why they should vote NO.

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights) or have been implied through interpretation of clauses, such as under Due Process. These laws are said to be “fundamental” because they were found to be so important for individual liberty that they should be beyond the reach of the political process, and therefore, they are enshrined in the Constitution. Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.
“Fundamental Right,” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School