Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Follow the science on Covid

Saturday, February 20, 2021, 9:37 am | Randy Thomasson

You keep hearing from the “authorities” that they’re following the “science” and the “data.” But are they?

Then why continue with any lockdowns at all? As California’s honest Covid expert, Dr. Scott Atlas, explains:

Even after almost a year, the pandemic still paralyzes our country. Despite all efforts, there has been an undeniable failure to stop cases from rapidly escalating and preventing hospitalizations and death. Here’s the reality — almost all states and major cities, with a handful of exceptions, have implemented severe restrictions for many months, including closures of businesses and in-person school, mobility restrictions and curfews, quarantines, limits on group gatherings, and mask mandates dating back to at least the summer. These measures did not significantly change the typical pattern or damage from the SARS2 virus. President Biden openly admitted as much in his speech to the nation on Jan. 22, when he said “there is nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.” Instead of rethinking the results of implemented policies, many want to blame those who opposed lockdowns and mandates for the failure of the very lockdowns and mandates that were widely implemented. 

And why trust in masks when they don’t “protect” you? Follow the science with Dr. Paul Alexander:

The question on whether to wear a face mask or not during the Covid-19 pandemic remains emotional and contentious. Why? This question about the utility of face coverings (which has taken on a talisman-like life) is now overwrought with steep politicization regardless of political affiliation (e.g. republican or liberal/democrat). 

Importantly, the evidence just is and was not there to support mask use for asymptomatic people to stop viral spread during a pandemic. While the evidence may seem conflicted, the evidence (including the peer-reviewed evidence) actually does not support its use and leans heavily toward masks having no significant impact in stopping spread of the Covid virus. 

In fact, it is not unreasonable at this time to conclude that surgical and cloth masks, used as they currently are, have absolutely no impact on controlling the transmission of Covid-19 virus, and current evidence implies that face masks can be actually harmful. All this to say and as so comprehensively documented by Dr. Roger W. Koops in a recent American Institute of Economic Research (AIER) publication, there is no clear scientific evidence that masks (surgical or cloth) work to mitigate risk to the wearer or to those coming into contact with the wearer, as they are currently worn in everyday life and specifically as we refer to Covid-19.

In 2020, SaveCalifornia.com honored the “science” and “data,” including that from October 2020 demonstrating face masks didn’t work and should not be mandated. But those who consume Big Media lies never learned this fact, so they’re ignorantly covering their faces every day.

And why keep school classrooms closed? The science and data prove hardly any children are threatened by Covid, and commonly have no symptoms, and rarely spread it to adults.

Infected children carry an extremely low viral load, have a 99.997% survivability rate, and don’t easily spread Covid. In early November, a very large study in Great Britain found no school should have ever been closed.

California researcher Victor Davis Hanson knew in July 2020 that all school classrooms should be fully reopened without Covid restrictions, something the regular media ignored.

During the presidential campaign, Hanson said: “[Biden is saying] ‘I reject the scientific consensus of child psychologists, sociologists and education experts who all unanimously want kids to go back to school and I reject the science that says that children are neither likely to be infected nor to spread the infection,’ … The science is clear. The science says kids can go back without a lot of threat and people who are in the education professions, they can stay home and do things by tele-learning,” he said. “What Joe Biden is talking about is a political — not a scientific or rational statement.”

Yet the CDC is substituting biased teacher-union agendas for the hard science:
CDC admits it catered to teachers unions with political school reopening guidelines
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky publicly admitted that the agency’s new school reopening guidelines were informed by the opinions of anti-in-person-learning teachers unions.

ACTION: Follow the science: Fully reopen your small business, your church building, and every school classroom. And consider not wearing a mask, because they don’t protect you, hurt your immune system, and teach children what’s abnormal and unnecessary is somehow “normal” and “necessary.”

After the acquittal: Fight like heaven

Saturday, February 13, 2021, 9:43 pm | Randy Thomasson

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

The second acquittal of President Donald Trump on Feb. 13 isn’t merely a just verdict, but the whole sick charade exposes the unfair, unjust, unconstitutional, anti-American Democrat politicians.

President Donald Trump has been acquitted — because he was innocent of the false charge. All 50 unfair, unjust, unconstitutional, tyrannical Democrat U.S. senators (including California’s Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla) and 7 RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) voted to let Congress “impeach” any private citizen and criminalize free speech.

Fortunately, there weren’t the 67 votes the Constitution requires to convict. The 7 unconstitutional RINOs: Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Stop and realize Trump had to be acquitted. Because our 5th and 14th Amendments require due process. Yet the Democrat prosecutors manufactured and manipulated evidence, and hid exculpatory evidence favorable to the defendant. What’s more, they relied on hearsay and speculation as they feverishly tried to create an unjust precedent of guilt by association.

What’s it really all about? Democrats want to ban speech and candidates they don’t like. They’re part of the oligarch (rule by the few) of corrupt tyrants who say, “Free speech for me, but not for thee.”

Remember, falsehoods are harmful, but false accusations in law enforcement and our judicial system are exceedingly dangerous. Ever heard of a false conviction? It’s a big sin, which is why Creator God repeatedly commands in the Bible“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

Apply this to the Democrat majority in Congress, which has publicly blamed President Trump for the deaths of seven people in January. But that’s being a false witness.

Here are the facts we know about the seven who died:

1. Ashli Babbitt (shot dead by yet-to-be-named Capitol police officer)
2. Ben Philips (stroke)
3. Kevin Greeson (heart attack)
4. Rosanne Boyland (unknown/”collapsed”) Source 1 | Source 2
5. Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick (unknown/autopsy not released/no evidence of blunt force trauma/cause of death might have been pepper spray from other police officer or preexisting medical condition)
Source 1 | Source 2 | Source 3
6. Capitol police officer Howard Liebengood (committed suicide Jan. 9)
7. Washington, D.C. police officer Jeffrey Smith (committed suicide Jan. 15)

The evidence shows that one Trump supporter was killed by a pistol-waving Capitol police officer; three Trump supporters and another Capitol police officer collapsed from stroke, heart attack, or unknown causes; and two other police officers committed suicide days later. President Trump did not murder, kill, or cause the deaths of any of these people. If he had, he would have already been charged by law enforcement authorities, but they can’t because there’s no reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Exemplifying the hypocrisy of the Democrats in their unconstitutional attack on the free speech of Donald Trump is former California U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, who publicly joked about her desire to kill Donald Trump, strongly supported BLM riots, and even helped violent rioters get out of jail to return to the streets.

What can we conclude? Because of the godless government schools, which dumb-down children, the USA is no longer a republic based on written laws. The domestic enemies of the written Constitution are the communist-type Democrat politicians plus RINO “Republicans” that fear man, so they betray their oaths to “support and defend” and “bear true faith and allegiance to” the Constitution.

Let 2021 be the year for professing Christians and pastors and patriotic conservatives to stop making excuses why they won’t love Jesus or people all the time and everywhere, and get out of their comfort zones and prioritize pursuing moral, constitutional government in our land for the benefit of all.

Remember, neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion come from Creator God, but from good government that actually protects it. Yet our bad government has dramatically trampled your basic freedoms, not just the last 11 months, but incrementally, since 1932 when FDR was elected U.S. president, and since 1959 in California when Democrats captured both houses of the State Legislature.

So, instead of “fighting like hell,” I implore you to fight like heaven, with the peaceful values of Jesus Christ, who hates political corruption and false witness and all sins, and loves to forgive those who truly repent.

Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
Jesus Christ in Matthew 6:10

SCOTUS: California churches can meet indoors

Saturday, February 6, 2021, 8:25 am | Randy Thomasson

If you know your Constitution, you already know the First Amendment can’t be canceled by “health concerns.” And now the U.S. Supreme Court agrees California churches can’t be prohibited from meeting indoors!

Here’s the news and my brief analysis:

Friday, February 5, just before 8 p.m. PST, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in response to cases from two California churches (South Bay Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista and Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena).

The bottom line is six of the nine justices agreed that nowhere in California can government authorities prohibit houses of faith from holding indoor services.

As Politico reported: “The court blocked the prohibition on indoor worship services in the most hardly hit areas, but allowed some limitations based on capacity percentages to stay in place as well as a prohibition on singing and chanting during indoor services.”

Highlighting the positive, this means throughout California (from Purple Zone or “better”), no longer can cities and counties fine pastors or churches for holding indoor meetings. This decision provides real relief for oppressed pastors, such as Rob McCoy in Ventura County, Ché Ahn in Los Angeles County, Mike McClure in Santa Clara County, and other bold pastors, who have suffered tyrannical fines and lawsuits just for obeying the New Testament exhortation about “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.”

In response to this ruling, I urge every pastor who’s been reluctant to hold indoor meetings — go with the Bible, the First Amendment, and now the U.S. Supreme Court, and open your doors for meetings!

The U.S. Supreme Court split three ways — basically three constitutionalists on this issue (Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito), three in the mushy middle (Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts), and three non-constitutionalists (Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor). But the Republican president’s nominees on the high court agreed there’s no justification for government’s zero tolerance for indoor church meetings. And more arguments about singing and full capacity will continued to be argued in federal court in California.

Here is the court’s opinion and its summary paragraph, which is a bit technical. The point is the first sentence, stating that the respondents (Gavin Newsom, Xavier Becerra, etc.) are enjoined (stopped) from prohibiting “indoor worship services”:

“Respondents are enjoined from enforcing the Blueprint’s Tier 1 prohibition on indoor worship services against the applicants pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. The application is denied with respect to the percentage capacity limitations, and respondents are not enjoined from imposing a 25% capacity limitation on indoor worship services in Tier 1. The application is denied with respect to the prohibition on singing and chanting during indoor services. This order is without prejudice to the applicants presenting new evidence to the District Court that the State is not applying the percentage capacity limitations or the prohibition on singing and chanting in a generally applicable manner.”

Here are reports on the court’s ruling by Liberty Counsel and SCOTUSblog.

It’s worth reading the opinion of Neil Gorsuch:

Statement of JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join.

Often, courts addressing First Amendment free exercise challenges face difficult questions about whether a law reflects “‘subtle departures from neutrality,’” “‘religious gerrymander[ing],’” or “impermissible targeting” of religion. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534–535 (1993). But not here. Since the arrival of COVID–19, California has openly imposed more stringent regulations on religious institutions than on many businesses. The State’s spreadsheet summarizing its pandemic rules even assigns places of worship their own row. See App. to Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction, App. G–3. At “Tier 1,” applicable today in most of the State, California forbids any kind of indoor worship. Meanwhile, the State allows most retail operations to proceed indoors with 25% occupancy, and other businesses to operate at 50% occupancy or more. See ibid; see also _ F. 3d _, 2021 WL 222814, App. A (CA9, Jan. 22, 2021). Apparently, California is the only State in the country that has gone so far as to ban all indoor religious services. See Brief for Becket Fund for Religious Liberty as Amicus Curiae, 5–6.

When a State so obviously targets religion for differential treatment, our job becomes that much clearer. As the Ninth Circuit recognized, regulations like these violate the First Amendment unless the State can show they are the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest. _ F. 3d, at _, 2021 WL 222814, *9.

In cases implicating this form of “strict scrutiny,” courts nearly always face an individual’s claim of constitutional right pitted against the government’s claim of special expertise in a matter of high importance involving public health or safety. It has never been enough for the State to insist on deference or demand that individual rights give way to collective interests. Of course we are not scientists, but neither may we abandon the field when government officials with experts in tow seek to infringe a constitutionally protected liberty. The whole point of strict scrutiny is to test the government’s assertions, and our precedents make plain that it has always been a demanding and rarely satisfied standard. See Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 546. Even in times of crisis—perhaps especially in times of crisis—we have a duty to hold governments to the Constitution.

Still, California says it can thread the needle. It insists that religious worship is so different that it demands especially onerous regulation. The State offers essentially four reasons why: It says that religious exercises involve (1) large numbers of people mixing from different households; (2) in close physical proximity; (3) for extended periods; (4) with singing.

No one before us disputes that factors like these may increase the risk of transmitting COVID–19. And no one need doubt that the State has a compelling interest in reducing that risk. This Court certainly is not downplaying the suffering many have experienced in this pandemic. But California errs to the extent it suggests its four factors are always present in worship, or always absent from the other secular activities its regulations allow. Nor has California sought to explain why it cannot address its legitimate concerns with rules short of a total ban. Each of the State’s shortcomings are telltale signs this Court has long used to identify laws that fail strict scrutiny. See, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 793 (1978) (The State’s proffered “purpose is belied, however, by the provisions of the statute, which are both underinclusive and overinclusive.”).

Consider California’s arguments in turn. The State presumes that worship inherently involves a large number of people. Never mind that scores might pack into train stations or wait in long checkout lines in the businesses the State allows to remain open. Never mind, too, that some worshippers may seek only to pray in solitude, go to confession, or study in small groups. See Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, App. to Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction, No. 20A137, Exh. A, No. 20–56357, p. 4, n. 1 (CA9, Jan. 25, 2021) (O’Scannlain, J., specially concurring). Nor does California explain why the less restrictive option of limiting the number of people who may gather at one time is insufficient for houses of worship, even though it has found that answer adequate for so many stores and businesses.

Next, the State tells us that worshippers are sure to seek close physical interactions. It touts its mild climate, too, suggesting that worshippers might enjoy more space outdoors. Yet, California is not as concerned with the close physical proximity of hairstylists or manicurists to their customers, whom they touch and remain near for extended periods. The State does not force them or retailers to do all their business in parking lots and parks. And California allows people to sit in relatively close proximity inside buses too. Nor, again, does California explain why the narrower options it thinks adequate in many secular settings—such as social distancing requirements, masks, cleaning, plexiglass barriers, and the like—cannot suffice here. Especially when those measures are in routine use in religious services across the country today.

California worries that worship brings people together for too much time. Yet, California does not limit its citizens to running in and out of other establishments; no one is barred from lingering in shopping malls, salons, or bus terminals. Nor, yet again, has California explained why more narrowly tailored options, like a reasonable limit on the length of indoor religious gatherings, would fail to meet its concerns.

When it comes to each of the first three factors, California singles out religion for worse treatment than many secular activities. At the same time, the State fails to explain why narrower options it finds sufficient in secular contexts do not satisfy its legitimate interests. Recently, this Court made it abundantly clear that edicts like California’s fail strict scrutiny and violate the Constitution. See Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, ante, at _ (per curiam). Today’s order should have been needless; the lower
courts in these cases should have followed the extensive guidance this Court already gave.1

1 While today’s case concerns the total ban on indoor worship found in “Tier 1,” nothing in our order precludes future challenges to the other disparate occupancy caps applicable to places of worship, particularly in “Tiers” 2 through 4. See App. to Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction, App. G–3.

If I have a quibble with the Court’s order, it is with how it addresses California’s final factor, singing. While the Court’s order requires California to allow churches to open, it also permits California to enforce, for now, a categorical ban on singing during services. This much might seem understandable. California has sensibly expressed concern that singing may be a particularly potent way to transmit the disease, and it has banned singing not just at indoor worship services, but at indoor private gatherings, schools, and restaurants too.

But, on further inspection, the singing ban may not be what it first appears. It seems California’s powerful entertainment industry has won an exemption.2 So, once more, we appear to have a State playing favorites during a pandemic, expending considerable effort to protect lucrative industries (casinos in Nevada; movie studios in California) while denying similar largesse to its faithful. See, e.g., Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. , 2020) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting from denial of application for injunction relief).

2 There is some confusion over what rules actually apply to Hollywood but I would not allow the government officials who created California’s complex regime to benefit from its confusing nature. The district court did not address the singing ban, and the Ninth Circuit applied rational basis review because it was not convinced that anyone is permitted to sing indoors in California. _ F. 3d., _, 2021 WL 222814, *18 (CA9, Jan. 22, 2021). But the record suggests that music, film, and television studios are permitted to sing indoors. See Record in No. 20–56358, Doc. 18–4, p. 124 (CA9) (decl. of Screen Actors Guild General Counsel) (“Singing in larger groups [inside the studio] is permitted but only . . . with additional protections.”). California’s most recent edict prohibits singing at “private” “social situations” as well as “activities protected by the First Amendment to the extent they are not already permitted by other guidance.” California Dept. of Public Health, Guidance for the Prevention of COVID–19 Transmission for Gatherings (updated Nov. 13, 2020). No one seems to know exactly how far this language stretches, but it seems unlikely to apply to the entertainment industry, which has its own governing guidance. And California does not squarely deny as much here. See Brief in Opposition 51–52, and n. 52. As the Court recognizes, though, nothing in today’s order precludes future relief on this claim either.

Once more, too, the State has not explained how a total ban on religious singing is narrowly tailored to its legitimate public health concerns. Even if a full congregation singing hymns is too risky, California does not explain why even a single masked cantor cannot lead worship behind a mask and a plexiglass shield. Or why even a lone muezzin may not sing the call to prayer from a remote location inside a mosque as worshippers file in. The Ninth Circuit sought to defend California’s uneven regime by observing that the entertainment industry has adopted COVID–19 testing protocols. See _ F. 3d., at _, 2021 WL 222814, *13. But, if that’s true, it is unclear why California’s religious institutions might be denied a similar opportunity. Rather than assume such testing is infeasible, California might have at least offered the option, or sought to adapt it to churches. In my view, the State must do more to tailor the requirements of public health to the rights of its people. The Court’s order today at least allows the applicants to press
these points on remand.

No doubt, California will argue on remand, as it has before, that its prohibitions are merely temporary because vaccinations are underway. But the State’s “temporary” ban on indoor worship has been in place since August 2020, and applied routinely since March. California no longer asks its movie studios, malls, and manicurists to wait. And one could be forgiven for doubting its asserted timeline. Government actors have been moving the goalposts on pandemic-related sacrifices for months, adopting new benchmarks that always seem to put restoration of liberty just around the corner. As this crisis enters its second year— and hovers over a second Lent, a second Passover, and a second Ramadan—it is too late for the State to defend extreme measures with claims of temporary exigency, if it ever could. Drafting narrowly tailored regulations can be difficult. But if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.

The framers of our Constitution meant we were to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
U.S. Christian evangelist Billy Graham