If you live in the new districts in which these five pro-homosexual “marriage” Republicans are running, it’s your decision whether to keep supporting them. But consider this:
2. These five Republicans’ pro-perversity votes are symptomatic of slavish fear of the Tyrannical Left, instead of respectful fear of God or love for impressionable children. To flip from being pro-man-woman-marriage and pro-traditional-family in an election year, in the general election cycle where they might be beaten, is indicative of fear, not moral principle (for how can a principle be moral if it violates the commands of Holy God?). Don’t we need constitutional fighters, who will do what’s right under pressure, not cave and sell-out?
3. Homosexual “marriage” is a harmful role model for impressionable children. Because not only are most male homosexual relationships “open,” their behavior has very high rates of sexually-transmitted diseases. And children are being roped into this, by the government schools or other strangers. What’s more, state schools aim to “groom” children not just into homosexual behavior, but also into cross-dressing and “sex changes.” Most of all, promoting homosexual “marriage” all the more rapidly erodes the difference between Right and Wrong on every moral issue. With fewer and fewer moral absolutes, our culture becomes exponentially more confused, divided, and dangerous.
4. This is not the first time three of these five Republicans have voted very wrong:
Also in 2017, David Valadao abstained on this pro-family amendment that would have banned taxpayer-funded, military “sex changes.” And in January 2021, Valadao was the only California U.S. House Republican to vote “yes” to impeach former president Donald Trump (for the second time).
In 2018, as a California state assemblyman, Jay Obernolte voted “yes” on AB 2439 to establish an “official” State of California “LGBTQ Veterans Memorial.” Then, in 2019, Obernolte voted “yes” on AB 711 to force schools to retroactively falsify a student’s “sex” on former student records. That same year, Obernolte abstained on ACR 99, a Democrat resolution blaming pastors and religious leaders for “LGBTQIA+” suicides. In 2020, Obernolte’s liberal positions were exposed by his conservative opponent, Tim Donnelly.
Back in 1994, Ken Calvert was publicly exposed for having sex in his car with a known prostitute. Still, in light of Calvert’s strong pro-family record since then, I was surprised he caved to the “homosexual marriage” agenda this month.
I am most surprised by Mike Garcia’s capitulation to darkness. Garcia votes pro-life on abortion and calls himself a Christian. And in 2021, he admirably voted against putting homosexuality and transsexuality into federal employment and housing law, stating “equality that comes at the expense of or as a detriment to other free citizens is contrary to American ideals.” Yet now, succumbing in fear to “LGBTQIA+” activists is Garcia’s inexplicable, head-shaking act.
So whether you live in the new District 22 from Hanford to Bakersfield (where David Valadao is running), or in the new District 48 from Murrieta to Santee, then south to the Mexican border (where Darrell Issa is running), or in the new District 23 which includes Ridgecrest, California City, Barstow, Baker, Victorville, Big Bear City, and Twentynine Palms (where Jay Obernolte is running), or in the new District 41 from Corona to Indio (where Ken Calvert is running), or in the new District 27 which includes Santa Clara, Palmdale, and Lancaster (where Mike Garcia is running), now you are more informed and the decision is yours. See the new California congressional district map
“Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them…” Moses’ father-in-law Jethro in Exodus 18:21
“When Christians face two clearly immoral options, we cannot rationalize a vote for immorality or injustice just because we deem the alternative to be worse,” Moore said. “The Bible tells us we will be held accountable not only for the evil deeds we do but also when we ‘give approval to those who practice them,’ (Romans 1:32). “Russell Moore, “Should Christians Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?”
If you haven’t heard yet, on May 26, the Democrats that rule the California State Assembly powered through Covid medical tyranny bills AB 2098 and AB 1797 and the infanticide legalization bill AB 2223.
AB 2098 revokes licenses of doctors that counsel patients against the “Covid vaccine”
AB 1797 puts Californians into a database, segregating them by “Covid vaccine” status
AB 2223 prohibits law enforcement from investigating infant deaths
That was the worst thing of all. But the second worst was zero Republicans spoke against any of these bad bills. All 19 of them refused to speak to expose these bills’ great harms.
And I have to tell you, based on other times this week that Assembly Republicans vigorously spoke out (such as on protecting Central Valley water), I believe these medical tyranny bills and infanticide bill could have been defeated if exposed in a verbal floor fight.
If you were in this fight, you have my sincere thanks and admiration for calling Sacramento in an effort to stop these horrific bills. We had to try, because last year a vaccine passport bill and a forced jab bill were pulled for lack of support. And this year, several Covid tyranny bills have already been dropped by their authors.
The votes Despite no Assembly floor fight exposing how bad these 3 bills are, the initial votes were still close. With our goal of denying these bills a majority vote (41 yes votes), we successfully pulled off more than a dozen Democrats; so AB 2098 was declared “passed” by just 5 votes, AB 1797 by only 2 votes, and AB 2223 by 4 votes). However, by the end of the session, votes had changed, both sides coalesced, and vote disparities increased.
See the final votes (members are allowed to change their votes by the end of the session as long as they don’t change whether the bill passed or not): AB 2098 | AB 1797 | AB 2223
The future At this point, the only way I see to defeat these 3 awful bills is IF they’re amended in the State Senate, are sent back to the Assembly floor for concurrence votes — but this time, Republicans lovingly raise their microphones to shockingly expose and defeat these bills.
However, if AB 2098, AB 1797, and AB 2223 pass the entire California Legislature in August, and are signed by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom, what then? I strongly believe there should be constitutional lawsuits filed against them all. Here’s why:
AB 2098 squashing medical independence on the “Covid vaccine” is an unconstitutional regulation of speech. By targeting doctors for Covid-related “misinformation or disinformation,” AB 2098 unconstitutionally targets professional speech. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Pickup v. Brown (2013), “…doctor-patient communications about medical treatment receive substantial First Amendment protection.”
The appellate court also stated, “where a professional is engaged in a public dialogue, First Amendment protection is at its greatest. Thus, for example, a doctor who publicly advocates a treatment that the medical establishment considers outside the mainstream, or even dangerous, is entitled to robust protection under the First Amendment—just as any person is.”
The author of AB 2098 knows his bill might be unconstitutional: On April 20, he amended AB 2098 to make its provisions “severable … if any provision of this act or its application is held invalid.”
AB 1797 segregating Californians by vaccine status, race and ethnicity, violates Californians’ privacy rights by eliminating confidentiality. By requiring, as the Legislative Counsel’s Digest of AB 1797 describes, “health care providers and other agencies, including schools, childcare facilities, family childcare homes, and county human services agencies to disclose the specified immunization information,” this bill violates the constitutional privacy rights of many Californians.
In 1972, California voters overwhelmingly added “privacy” to the list of “inalienable rights” guaranteed by Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution. In 1975, the California Supreme Court, in White v. Davis, relied on California’s newly-affirmed constitutional right of privacy to prevent police officers from posing as college students and gathering intelligence on what is said in the classroom when the intelligence gathered bore no relation to any suspected illegal activity.
As the court wrote: Moreover, the surveillance alleged in the complaint also constitutes a prima facie violation of the explicit “right of privacy” recently added to our state Constitution. As we point out, a principal aim of the constitutional provision is to limit the infringement upon personal privacy arising from the government’s increasing collection and retention of data relating to all facets of an individual’s life.
By violating Californians’ medical privacy – in the classroom and otherwise – AB 1797 is in direct conflict with the California Constitution.
AB 2223 robs already-born babies of their constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Since this isn’t about abortion, but infanticide — which is murder — we can foresee a federal constitutional lawsuit demanding the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that “nor shall any state 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.” If should be tried, if there’s indeed a pro-life majority at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thank you again for fighting these awful bills through your phone calls or by donating to SaveCalifornia.com. We had to try, and I’m grateful you did your part. But most Assembly Democrats shirked their constitutional pledges and all the Republicans went mute.
Open your mouth for the speechless, In the cause of all who are appointed to die. Proverbs 31:8
If you faint in the day of adversity, Your strength is small. Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. Proverbs 24:10-11
Thursday, November 4, 2021, 9:32 am | Randy Thomasson
SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
Simply put, the conservative victories in Virginia mean practical hope. Hope for constitutional Californians and those in other states that liberal lies can be exposed and overcome.
Because that’s what happened in Virginia. A biological boy’s rape of a girl in a girl’s bathroom had enraged parents. And while the pro-“LGBTQIA+” Biden Administration and the union-dominated school board stood against parents, Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin stood with fathers and mothers, and both conservatives and “moderates” rewarded him on election day. This was the vital spark that turned Youngkin’s campaign into a movement, with rallies all over the state.
The wins in Virginia should inspire us all to stay involved and continue fighting for values that are right for people and right in God’s sight. It also shows how opposing anti-parent, anti-family values can win decisively when harnessed effectively and specifically connected to an understandable issue of high public concern.
Remember, Virginia’s had a Democrat governor for the last 8 years as well as a Democrat-controlled State Legislature. But now, the incoming governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general are constitutional Republicans, and the 100-member House of Delegates is getting a Republican majority too.
Yes, our culture is in a dynamic! And there’s great hope to show the detriment of liberal Democrat ideas and the benefit of constitutional, pro-family ideas.
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29:2
RSS 2.0 Feed