SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
Now that the March 6 filing deadline for California candidates has come and gone, have the chances increased or decreased to get a mostly-conservative Republican governor? With even imbalanced, liberal polls showing Republicans Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton in the “top two” (in California’s “jungle” primary election, only the top two vote-getters go on to the November runoff). And with the big egos of Democrats tempting them stay in the race (likely to get statewide recognition for their future campaigns), it’s looking more plausible that Republicans could “shut out” the Democrats by winning the “top two.”
Only Democrat Ian Calderon of East Los Angeles, not a statewide “name,” dropped out on Thursday, one day before the March 6 candidate filing deadline. And while he endorsed Eric Swalwell, I suspect Calderon’s racist Hispanic Democrat Party followers will prefer another Hispanic, either Antonio Villaraigosa or Xavier Becerra.
More Democrat Party leaders are worrying, and more Republican Party activists are noticing, that if California conservatives are energized to vote and propel Bianco and Hilton to “top two” positions in the June 2 “jungle” primary, that would “lock in” a mostly-conservative Republican governor in the November runoff, which would be truly historic.
Here’s our new hypothetical scenario of the governor’s race in California’s “jungle” primary. Based on the voter turnout in California’s 2024 presidential general election, SaveCalifornia.com gives 40% of the electorate to conservatives, including Republicans, and 60% of the vote to liberals, including Democrats:
21% Steve Hilton (R) 19% Chad Bianco (R) – – – – – 15% Eric Swalwell (D) 12% Katie Porter (D) 9% Tom Steyer (D) 5% Xavier Becerra (D) 5% Antonio Villaraigosa (D) 3% Betty Yee (D) 3% Tony Thurmond (D) 3% Matt Mahan (D) 5% other
So, if you’re conservative, now is not the time to debate whether Bianco or Hilton is better. For a mostly-Republican governor is only assured if both Republicans get enough support to be the top two vote-getters who go on to the November election, where only their names will be on ballot for governor, and then one of them will be elected governor.
Heavily Democratic California could elect a Republican governor for the first time in two decades as a result of its primary voting system, recent polling suggests. The Golden State has for over a decade mandated “top-two” primaries for state and congressional elections. Candidates in those races compete in the same primary, with the first- and second-place finishers, regardless of party affiliation, advancing to the general election. In California’s 2026 gubernatorial election, however, the presence of many Democrats with no clear frontrunner could possibly lead to the two well-known Republicans taking both spots on the general election ballot, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News host Steve Hilton. Anthony Iafrate, Daily Caller News Foundation, Dec. 6, 2025
Tuesday, March 3, 2026, 10:05 am | Randy Thomasson
If you’re glad about the U.S. Supreme Court’s action defeating part of the Democrat Party politicians’ transsexuality agenda, I’m happy about it too, without being Pollyannish.
The good news, of course, is that six judges on the U.S. Supreme Court are getting more supportive of God-given parental rights, and that California’s evil law AB 1955 is back where it belongs, under a permanent injunction.
If Newsom & Co. don’t appeal this latest court action, AB 1955, which prohibited parents from being told their own children were acting out as “trans” at school, will “die on the vine” instead of being directly struck down.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s action to “vacate the stay” of a liberal three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals means that constitutional and pro-family Judge Roger Benitez’s permanent injunction against AB 1955 stands.
In December, District Judge Roger Benitez ruled in favor of the Mirabelli plaintiffs, who now also include several parents who oppose such school policies.
Benitez issued a court order prohibiting California school employees from “misleading” parents about their child’s gender status, such as by using different pronouns or names with a parent than the student uses at school. His ruling also prohibited employees from using pronouns or names that differ from the student’s legal ones if the parents object.
The state promptly appealed Benitez’ decision, and in early January, the Ninth Circuit granted the state’s request to stay his ruling pending that appeal.
* * *
The Supreme Court lifted the stay based in part on its assessment of how likely it believes the parent plaintiffs are to succeed on the merits of their case.
“These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children,” its ruling said.
Contrary to the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court majority found that Mahmoud does apply to Mirabelli. It said it considers California’s policies to be an even greater intrusion on parents’ exercise rights than the introduction of LGBTQ+ storybooks in schools it analyzed in the Mahmoud case, and that it doesn’t believe California’s policies are likely to survive the strict scrutiny standard it set in that case.
But the bad news is that AB 1955 is just the tip of the iceberg. Because there are 15 sexual indoctrination laws still requiring the brainwashing of every child in every California “public school.”
See 13 laws here, plus two more at our 2025 legislation archive, which details AB 727 (requires a pro-“LGBTQIA+” group’s phone number on student ID cards) and AB 715 (orders K-12 government schools to purge any scientific teaching about only two sexes and the natural family).
So, as I’ve been urging California parents for 17 years now — if you love your children, get them out of the godless government schools. See how at our special site for parents, Rescue Your Child. Children grow up fast, so please act now!
3. Categorically unfair: Rather than a “progressive” tax (which means the more you earn, the more you’re punished), a flat tax is the only FAIR tax, where everybody pays the SAME RATE (and yes, this means “the rich” will still pay a great amount of tax).
From A Biblical case for Proportional (flat) taxation by Jeff Hammond In a proportional (or flat) tax system, every dollar of income earned that is taxable* is taxed at the same rate. Thus every individual is treated identically by the tax code. There is strong Biblical support for treating people impartially, and in an opposite way, strong condemnation for showing partiality or favoritism. This is because we are supposed to image God, and God is impartial.
Romans 2:11 states clearly that God shows no partiality with respect to salvation, (see also Deut. 10:17, Acts 10:34, Job 34:19, and Eph. 6:9). I agree that this is not conclusive, since it isn’t directly talking about taxation, but it does give us an idea of where God’s heart is for how we treat one another. There is a reason why Lady Justice is blindfolded.
However, there are other passages which take us closer to the heart of the matter. Lev 19:15 says “‘You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.” In this verse, we are told that not only should we not favor the rich, but surprisingly, we should also not favor the poor (see also Ex. 23:3). But why should we think this has applicability to taxation?
A main purpose of Leviticus is to show how the Israelites can live a holy life. Chapter 19 is the pinnacle of how we live holy lives in relation to others, and the commands are given a solid reason—“I am the LORD”–which is repeated throughout the section.
Interestingly, Ch 19 is widely viewed as repeating the Decalogue; clearly Leviticus is summarizing the essence of what Holy Living looks like under God’s moral law. In the middle of this section on Holy Living, comes verse 15, which describes what justice looks like. Do we treat each other according to their just due?
Lev 19:15 helps us understand that a standard for personal holiness will be reflected in a standard for corporate holiness. As John Hartley says in the Word Biblical Commentary, “Since God is just, his people must establish justice in their courts as the foundation of their covenant relationship with him. The inner strength of a nation resides in the integrity of its judicial system.”
While, this is not dealing with taxation, it is dealing with justice in the social setting of the courts—it seems reasonable to conclude that if impartiality is required for the courts, it would be required of government action in general. At least the burden of proof should be on those advocating for a system of partiality, given the extensive Biblical support of impartiality.
RSS 2.0 Feed