Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Gavin Newsom’ Category

URGENT: Demand Newsom veto anti-parent AB 1955

Friday, July 5, 2024, 11:32 am | Randy Thomasson

To whom do children belong – parents or the State?

On a fast track, AB 1955 forcing government schools to hide from parents the sexual confusion of their own child is on the desk of Democrat Party Governor Gavin Newsom. It’s an “LGBTQIA+” groomer’s dream!

AB 1955 would hide from parents their own child’s sexual confusion. It would prohibit K through 12 “public” schools from informing parents of (quote) “a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression…without the pupil’s consent.”

PLEASE TAKE ACTION: Because Big Democrat Gavin Newsom has more motivation to keep running for president, and because he hasn’t promised to sign AB 1955, please email and call Newsom TODAY to demand he veto this radical anti-parent bill.

Newsom received this horrible bill on July 3 at 3 p.m. He has 12 days — until July 15 — to sign or veto this anti-parent, anti-local-control bill harming children inwardly and outwardly.

STEP 1: Call Newsom’s office at 916-445-2841 (M-F 9a-5p). Tell the staffer who answers (who’s paid to take your message) that you want Newsom to veto AB 1955.

STEP 2: Send Newsom an email message. Here’s how:

1. Go to this page: https://www.gov.ca.gov/contact
2. Under “What is your request or comment about?” select “An Active Bill”
3. Under that is “What specific bill?” select “Select a bill” and click it
4. Scroll down to AB 1955.
5. Under “What is the purpose of your message” click “Leave a Comment” and click “Next”
6. Under “If applicable, what is your stance on this topic?” click “Con”
7. Under “What is your message for the Governor?” change “An Active Bill” to “Veto anti-parent AB 1955”
8. Type your message, type your message, such as “Veto AB 1955. This bill is anti-parent, anti-child, and anti-local-control. Parents deserve to know, so they can love their child!”

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
Jesus Christ, Savior of the world and God in the flesh, in Matthew 18:6

URGENT: Demand Newsom veto anti-parent bill AB 1955

Saturday, June 29, 2024, 11:33 am | Randy Thomasson

Because Gavin Newsom now has more motivation to keep running for president, and since he hasn’t promised to sign AB 1955, please email and call to demand he veto this radical anti-parent, anti-local-schools bill.

Here’s Newsom’s web form, with SaveCalifornia.com’s easy instructions:

AB 1955 by homosexual activist Chris Ward of San Diego and 11 other homosexual activists, plus two other Democrat Party legislators, was “gutted and amended” in late May to legally prohibit any government-school employee or contractor from disclosing “any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent.”

This outrageous bill is against parents, children, science, and health. It is being pushed because anti-parental-rights Democrat Party Attorney General of California Rob Bonta has no legal basis in current state law to sue pro-family school boards that have parental rights policies for sexually-confused children.

AB 1955, as amended May 22, according to the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel:

1. Would provide “resources” promoting “LGBTQ” as natural and beneficial to “LGBTQ” children and their parents and guardians:

“This bill would require the State Department of Education to develop resources or, as appropriate, update existing resources, for supports and community resources for the support of parents, guardians, and families of LGBTQ pupils and strategies to increase support for LGBTQ pupils, as specified.”

2. Would ban any school within California’s K-12 “public” school system from informing parents of “a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression…without the pupil’s consent” and would prohibit K-12 government schools from punishing an employee who “supported a pupil” by grooming children via pro-“LGBQT” “rights,” “work activities,” or “certain instruction”:

“This bill would prohibit school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and the state special schools, and a member of the governing board or body of those educational entities, from enacting or enforcing any policy, rule, or administrative regulation that requires an employee or a contractor to disclose any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent unless otherwise required by law, as provided. The bill would prohibit employees or contractors of those educational entities from being required to make such a disclosure unless otherwise required by law, as provided. The bill would prohibit employees or contractors of school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, or the state special schools, or members of the governing boards or bodies of those educational entities, from retaliating or taking adverse action against an employee on the basis that the employee supported a pupil in the exercise of specified rights, work activities, or providing certain instruction, as provided.”

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.”
Jesus Christ, Savior of the world and God in the flesh, in Mark 9:42

The immoral tyranny of Democrats & RINOs

Friday, June 21, 2024, 9:10 am | Randy Thomasson

The California Supreme Court has unconstitutionally called something they don’t like a “revision,” removing it from the ballot, and preventing California voters from even voting for protection against more money grabs. More

In the face of this tyrannical attack and significant loss, don’t collapse in cynicism. Instead, fight back by sharing this post. Tell others, “If you vote for Democrat Party politicians, you’re voting for tyranny and higher taxes.”

The “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” would have amended the California Constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes. The initiative would have also required new or increased taxes to be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters. It would also have increased the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate.

How would you rule on keeping or removing ballot measures already qualified by hundreds of thousands of signatures of registered voters?

See these facts:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE II (regarding ballot initiatives)

Section 1: All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

Section 8(a): The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.

Section 8(d): An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.

Did you catch that? This is freedom for the People to qualify one-subject initiatives!

So where did a prohibition of a “revision” of the California Constitution come from?From the California Supreme Court itself, beginning in 1978. Yet now, the state high court has abandoned its respect for legal definitions and is grabbing more power.

Specifically, this Democrat-Party-dominated, 7-judge court is broadly defining “revision” to be any tough, single-subject reform, such as no money-grabs (tax increases, tax extensions, fee increases, etc.) without a majority vote of the People.

But Newsom’s activist judges are wrong. A “revision” makes changes throughout a written constitution, covering multiple subjects — which is vastly different from a single-subject initiative such as tax relief:

From the introduction of “The Revision of California’s Constitution” by Eugene C. Lee in 1991 (Lee was “a leading scholar of California state and local government and former Director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley”):

By explicit language in the constitution concerning initiatives and by court interpretation with respect to measures arising in the legislature, amendments are required to be limited in scope. As far back as 1894, the California supreme court distinguished between a “revision” of the constitution and a mere” amendment” thereof (Livermore v. Waite 102 Cal. 113). As reiterated in 1978, the court held that a “revision” referred to a “substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions” (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization 22 Cal. 3d 208).

Even a grammar expert with no political reputation knows the broad difference between a revision and an amendment:

“A revision…is a more significant alteration to a document that involves a complete review and reworking of its content. It is a process of making extensive changes to a document, often with the goal of improving its overall quality or effectiveness.”

Under these definitions, The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act was not a “revision,” but a bona fide amendment that should have been allowed on the ballot in respect for our Constitution and for jealously guarding voter rights.

For the current state constitution has hundreds of sections within 35 articles. Yet The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would have only amended the California Constitution in 6 sections of 4 articles (Article XIII): Section 3 of Article XIII A, Section 1 of Article XIII C, Section 2 of Article XIII C, Section 3 of Article XIII D, Sections 1 and 14 of Article XIII.

So it wasn’t a “revision” that was a “substantially alteration of the entire constitution,” but an amendment to the state constitution that only changed “one or more of its provisions.” What’s more, the Act satisfied the long-standing state high court standard of having a single-subject — taxes.

Bottom line, the California Supreme Court, comprised of 6 Democrats and 1 RINO, is unconstitutional for placing itself above the written State Constitution and yanking this constitutionally-valid taxpayer protection initiative from the ballot. They are anti-People tyrants!

The 7-member California Supreme Court has 3 nominees of Democrat Party Gov. Gavin Newsom and 3 nominees of Democrat Party Gov. Jerry Brown. Two of Newsom’s three picks were confirmed by current, corrupt, unconstitutional Attorney General Rob Bonta and two other members of the “Commission on Judicial Appointments,” so those are Bonta’s “picks” too. The sole “Republican” on the state high court is 75-year-old Carol Corrigan, a former Democrat, a self-proclaimed “moderate,” and a likely homosexual.

From the Los Angeles Times 2005Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Court of Appeal Justice Carol A. Corrigan, a moderate Republican, to the California Supreme Court on Friday in a move that is likely to shift the conservative-leaning court toward the center. In an interview before her appointment, Corrigan repeatedly described herself as a moderate and a centrist. She switched her party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in 1995 after then-Gov. Pete Wilson appointed her to the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. “I think I would probably be a centrist anyplace I found myself,” she said. “I was a moderate Democrat, and now I am a moderate Republican…. I am moderate on virtually all things.”

Can this be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court? A federal lawsuit can be tried, but it is unlikely to succeed. But what each of us can do is tell others that voting for Democrrats = tyranny and higher taxes. Because everything about this is state jurisdiction. The only exceptions might be Article IV, Section 4 “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”) or the Fourteenth Amendment (“nor shall any State deprive any person of…property, without due process of law“). But winning at the U.S. Supreme Court is a bad bet, due to cowardly Republicans on the bench and too much “state jurisdiction” precedent to the contrary.

* * *

So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others, and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the honours of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.
Greek historian Polybius (203 BC – 120 BC) in The Histories