Saturday, September 14, 2024, 11:18 am | Randy Thomasson
On behalf of your values and telling the truth that the Big Media doesn’t report, SaveCalifornia.com has been posting on our social media WHY “monster” fires spread so rapidly, HOW the Democrat Party politicians’ “crime” bills are deceptive, and WHERE anti-parental-rights and pro-transsexuality judges come from:
P.S. Our post was about the rapid, even explosive, spread of wildfires, not the initial spark or flame. Because anybody can set a fire, but only the government can manage “public lands” to prevent little fires from becoming “monster” fires. Here’s a sample of the many evidences backing up our post:
“California’s Record Wildfires Spurred by Millions of Hidden Dead Trees,” Newsweek, June 12, 2024: California’s record wildfires may have been spurred on by millions of hidden dead trees, according to a new study … Stéphanie Horion from the University of Copenhagen’s Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management who worked on the study, said, “An abundance of combustible materials” is necessary for “a wildfire to erupt” … “and dead trees burn well.”
“Environmentalists Destroyed California’s Forests,” Edward Ring, California Policy Center, September 10, 2020: “And since 1990, when the environmentalist assault on California’s timber industry began in earnest, its timber industry has shrunk to half its former size. Reviving California’s timber industry, so the collective rate of harvest equals the collective rate of growth, would go a long way towards solving the problem of catastrophic fires. Instead, California’s environmentalists only redouble their nonsense arguments. Expect these fires to justify even more “climate change” legislation that does nothing to clear the forests of overgrown tinder, and everything to clear the forests, and the chaparral, of people and towns.”
P.S. The detail of the above post is the Democrat Party legislator’s bill that was signed, AB 1960, while being described as imposing “harsh penalties” against retail thieves, don’t impose any additional prison time except “If the loss or property value exceeds fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), the court shall impose an additional term of one year,” followed by higher tiers.
In contrast, Prop. 36 on the California ballot would make theft, regardless of the value, a felony offense if the offender has two or more past theft convictions, and would increase penalties for offenders who steal, damage or destroy property with two or more offenders (stealing or destroying $50,000 of property is not necessary to be sentenced to more prison time).
P.S. The above post is a reminder that, in addition to unconstitutional Democrat Party judges, RINO governors are a mixed bag, appointing a slew of bad judges who believe neither in constitutional rights, nor natural/God-given/pre-constitutional rights.
Saturday, September 7, 2024, 10:18 am | Randy Thomasson
Sept. 26, 2009: Bridegroom Milton Mbhele, with his four brides at their western wedding in South Africa, which recognizes polygamous marriages.
Get ready to vote NO on unrestricted child marriages, incestuous marriages, polygamy (multiple spouses), bigamy (multiple marriages at the same time), and even people-animal and people-object marriages.
Because that’s what Proposition 3 would functionally legalize.
Prop. 3, placed on the ballot by the California State Legislature, would insert into the California Constitution these 8 words: “The right to marry is a fundamental right.” Now, do you see a limit on number of spouses, an age prerequisite, or a requirement that a spouse be human? And do you see any prohibition of incestuous marriages or multiple simultaneous marriages? They’re not there.
This extremely broad and subjective phrase would legalize much more than if Prop. 3’s proponents had written definitive words, such as, “Marriage is limited to two persons at any one time, who are not close blood relatives, with the written permission of a parent or legal guardian for a minor to marry.” But they didn’t, opting instead to radically permit any and all types of “marriages” in California.
If Prop. 3 passes, and “The right to marry is a fundamental right” is inserted into the State Constitution, all it would take is a California court striking down as “unconstitutional” any existing statutory marriage definition, standard, or limit in the Family Code, Penal Code, and other Codes. Because the State Constitution is the supreme law of California, with the power to preempt conflicting statutes. The legal result of Prop. 3 would be permitting “marriages” with whomever and whatever.
Please help others vote NO on Prop. 3. Here’s an excellent website that’s convincing reasonable people to oppose it. Visit LearnAboutProp3.com.
Realize that the most vulnerable persons who would be caught up in Prop. 3’s marital chaos would be children. Let’s care about kids and vote no on Prop. 3’s marriage anarchy!
States that have codified constitutions normally give the constitution supremacy over ordinary statute law. That is, if there is any conflict between a legal statute and the codified constitution, all or part of the statute can be declared ultra vires by a court, and struck down as unconstitutional. “Codified constitution,” Constitution article, Wikipedia
Could Newsom have cleaned up homeless encampments? And will
he?
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 28 that banning homeless encampments is NOT cruel and unusual punishment, some Democrat Party big-city mayors – who’ve coddled transients for years – have finally said, “OK, the homeless encampments have got to go!”
One of them is San Francisco’s Democrat Party Mayor London Breed, who, on July 18, announced her “very aggressive” sweep of San Francisco homeless encampments will begin in August.
But will they? Earlier this year in Florida, Ron DeSantis and his Republican state legislature prohibited local governments from permitting camping or sleeping on public property.
The State of Florida will oversee local governments that set up new homeless encampments where transients can camp “up to a year.”
This is how to do it: Ban encampments on public property (streets, sidewalks, parks, etc.) and provide temporary group shelters where no alcohol or illegal drugs are permitted, but counseling and drug abuse treatment are required. (Yet Bible-based counseling and salvation would be the ultimate healer.)
Will Big Democrat Gavin Newsom do what Florida’s done, by calling a special legislative session or invoking his “emergency powers” he’s so fond of?
Nope — which is why banning homeless encampments statewide just won’t happen. We’ll have to see which cities actually do it. Because the Democrat Party mayor of Los Angeles won’t, and the Democrat Party mayor of Sacramento probably won’t either.
All Newsom did on July 25 was “order” his administration to clean away homeless encampments on state-owned property (state buildings, state freeways and highways, forests and wilderness areas, along waterways, etc.), which is just a drop in the bucket.
And this isn’t just my opinion. Liberal UCLA professor Chris Herring, who the Big Media likes quoting, said, “Newsom could have issued this order before the (Supreme Court) decision. The only difference now is that states and localities are free to confine and arrest people even when there is no shelter available.”
Bottom line, you can expect most Democrat Party politicians to continue allowing homeless encampments, because it fits their philosophy that people aren’t responsible for their behavior, and advances their New Communist agenda to burden the middle class.
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. The Bible, 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12
RSS 2.0 Feed