Thursday, December 8, 2022, 6:18 pm | Randy Thomasson
SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
If, like me, you’re grieving about the Democrats’ and RINOs’ attack upon God’s beautiful design of marriage and family, there’s hope that H.R. 8404 and more will be overturned.
Thank you if you called Republican representatives in response to SaveCalifornia.com’s alerts. We had to try, because Republicans were receiving pro-family “heat” in other states. And indeed, despite voting anti-family this summer when H.R. 8404 first passed the U.S. House of Representatives, several of these Republicans did NOT vote for it today.
First, the bad news: Among California’s 11 Republican U.S. representatives, 5 are either secret sexual anarchists or they’re so afraid of “LGBTQIA+” activists, they’ve joined them.
Demonstrating they are truly tone-deaf to pro-family citizens’ telephone calls, voting for the tyrannical, sexual anarchy bill H.R. 8404 TWICE (both December 8 and July 19) are “Republicans” Darrell Issa, Jay Obernolte, Ken Calvert, Mike Garcia, and David Valadao.
Like the New Communist Democrats, these “Republicans” are now confirmed domestic enemies of real marriage, children’s innocence, state’s rights, and constitutional religious freedom. They don’t care that H.R. 8404 forces “child bride” and “transgender” marriages upon all 50 states. See the Dec. 8, 2022 roll-call vote
But now, the good news: You can bet this will be challenged and go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where there’s actually a good chance to overturn H.R. 8404 because it violates 3 things the Constitution protects: religious freedom, states’ rights, and marriage jurisdiction.
As the constitutional attorneys at Liberty Counsel explain: “Although the House passed the ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ with a 258-169 vote that included 39 House Republicans, this action is a strategic blunder by advocates of same-sex marriage. Rather than a victory, the ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ will make easier the argument to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 5-4 opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges regarding same-sex marriage.”
Patience is needed as plaintiffs are either found or volunteer. As a case or cases wind through the federal courts, perseverance is especially required by religious small business owners. If you have a religious faith and are in the wedding business, please contact Liberty Counsel to explore joining a pro-bono lawsuit.
Bottom line, the House Democrats are against what’s right in God’s sight, the House Republicans hardly fought to protect us, yet the written Constitution still stands, and there might be 5 or even 6 Supreme Court justices willing to defend it. So, please stay in the battle!
“Put simply, no adult has a right to someone else’s child or another adult’s reproductive capacity. If they did, it would create obligations on the part of individuals and governments to supply sperm, eggs, and wombs to hopeful parents. But every child has a right to love and support from the mother and father who created him. … The prevailing wisdom today — rarely stated in explicit terms — is that children should be willing to sacrifice for our desires. This is exactly what happens when a child is deprived of maternal or paternal love so that adults can build the families of their dreams. Our national priority should be promoting a culture where men and women commit to one another and the families they build together, not creating fatherless (or motherless) children for the sake of adult fulfillment.” Misnamed ‘Respect For Marriage Act’ Doesn’t Just Gut Religious Liberties, It Puts Selfish Adult Wants Over Kids’ Needs, The Federalist, Dec. 8, 2022
This is unprecedented resistance to the CDC “scheduling” any vaccine to inject into children. And it could also pressure Gavin Newsom to abandon his plans to jab all schoolchildren with the “Covid shot.”
Remember, Newsom has already backed away from his initial threat. As the medical establishment National Academy for State Health Policyreports, in California:
There is a pending statewide student COVID-19 vaccine mandate that has not yet been implemented. This requirement will take effect no sooner than July 2023 and will only apply to students in age groups for which a COVID-19 vaccine has received full FDA approval.
October 1, 2021: Gov. Gavin Newsom directed the California Department of Public Health to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the list of immunizations required for in-person school attendance. Only students in an age group for which a COVID-19 vaccine has received full FDA approval will be required to be vaccinated.
April 14, 2022: The California Department of Public Health shared that they will not initiate the regulatory process for this requirement until after July 1, 2023.
So right now, regarding mandatory “Covid shots” for kids,California is in “the twilight zone.” If Newsom is reelected, he could relent and announce “the epidemic is over.” Or he could impose a “scorched-earth” policy of mandatory “Covid shots” upon children in both government-run and private schools.
ACT NOW TO PROTECT YOUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS
Here are steps for Californians living under tyrannical Democrat politicians:
1. CALL AND EMAIL: Tell Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom, and call and email your own state assemblymember and state senator (no matter whether they’re Democrats or Republicans). Tell them, “No mandatory Covid shots for children. Kids don’t need it and parents don’t want it!”
2. RESCUE: Decide now to rescue your children and grandchildren from the government-controlled schools. In California, homeschooling is exempt from ALL vaccination requirements. See our special site, RescueYourChild.com, and take loving action.
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.
RSS 2.0 Feed