After delaying a few days so that Newsom & Co.’s fake “crime bill” could get on the ballot (it didn’t), California’s Secretary of State late on July 3 assigned proposition numbers to the 10 measures officially on the November 2024 ballot.
Here’s your first look at them with SaveCalifornia.com’s draft descriptions (you’re going to really want to vote NO on Prop. 3 and really want to vote YES on Prop. 36):
NO Prop. 2 wasting more taxpayer money on the wasteful, dumbing down, politically-correct K-12 government schools and community colleges. This $10 BILLION bond would cost much more than that with high interest, and is more expensive than a direct tax.
NO Prop. 3 permitting polygamy, bigamy, child marriages, incestuous marriages (and even people-animal and people-object marriages) by superseding all marriage statutes with a very broad and subjective state constitutional amendment claiming a “fundamental right..to marry” whomever and whatever (the sky’s the limit). Prop. 3 won’t make any practical difference on same-sex “marriage,” yet by superseding all existing marriage definitions, standards, and limits, this radical constitutional amendment would open up “Pandora’s Box.”
NOProp. 4 funding another lie-based, subsidization of environmental wacko groups via a $10 BILLION bond, costing even more with interest, more expensive than a direct tax.
NOProp. 5 permitting higher property taxes (attacking Prop. 13 from 1978) by lowering the “vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for local special taxes and bond measures to fund housing projects and public infrastructure.”
NO Prop. 6 calling it “slavery” to make prisoners do work they don’t wish to do.
NOProp. 32 increasing the state minimum wage to $18/hr. for all California employees (killing even more jobs and businesses).
NOProp. 33 permitting local governments to enact rent control (resulting in less available rental housing, as landlords seeking income sell their rental houses and duplexes).
YES Prop. 34 requiring the ultra-left-wing, politically-active AIDS Healthcare Foundation of Los Angeles “to spend 98% of revenues from the federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care.”
NOProp. 35 taxing health care providers to pay for government the California state government’s “Medi-Cal” program (further increasing insurance rates for the rest of us).
YES Prop. 36 increasing penalties for theft and fentanyl possession, and repealing the worst parts of Prop. 47 from 2014.
This Independence Day, SaveCalifornia.com urges every Californian and American to stand against today’s tyrants (Democrat & RINO politicians) by:
Living out your constitutional freedoms and God-given liberties (especially when tyrants tell you not to)
Actively fighting against tyrants on the upcoming ballot with your time, your voice, and your votes
Because this is a historic election year, in California and nationwide! Be part of it, and do your part for Truth and Freedom!
One of the ways you can take your stand is by giving a gift of any size to help SaveCalifornia.com fight for your values. You can donate and learn more by clicking the donate button. Thank you for your kind consideration!
Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity? The Bible, Psalm 94:16
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.”
RSS 2.0 Feed