SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Future’ Category

URGENT: Tell Newsom to veto these costly bills

Saturday, September 2, 2023, 9:39 pm | Randy Thomasson

On September 1, the Democrat leaders of the California State Legislature, by their actions, challenged Newsom to sign their most radical, unconstitutional, anti-family bills.

By passing hundreds of bad bills in the appropriations committees, your leftist Democrat “rulers” are saying they don’t care what you think, and they actually believe they can “make” Newsom sign their devilish agenda, like he has before.

But this year is different, since California’s uberliberal Democrat governor IS running for president, with a self-induced $31.5 BILLION state budget deficit hanging over his head. And if Newsom doesn’t balance it, his claim he’s a “fiscal conservative” will disintegrate.
Among the hundreds of bad Democrat bills removed from the “suspense file” and passed in the Senate and Assembly appropriations committees Friday are:

AB 659 pushing harmful Gardasil jabs upon junior highers and college students

AB 5 forcing public-school employees into “LGBTQ cultural competency training”

AB 443 discriminating against moral/religious police officers and office candidates

AB 1078 taking away local control of school boards to make curriculum decisions

AB 576 funding all Medi-Cal chemical abortions. at taxpayer expense

SB 58 promoting a raft of “hallucinogenic substances” as “recreational drugs”

SB 274 eliminating suspensions/expulsions of willfully defiant teens (grades 9-12)

SB 345 forcing new costs on cities/counties for abortion/”LGBTQIA+” agenda

SB 407 punishing religious foster parents who don’t support “LGBTQIA+”

SB 541 requiring “internal and external condoms” be available in grades 9-12

SB 596 empowering school boards to arrest “disorderly” parents at meetings

SB 729 requiring insurance to pay for artificial insemination of gays and trans

SB 760 forcing government schools, grades 1-12, to have an “all-gender restroom”

With immoral Democrats controlling three-fourths of each house of the State Legislature, which of these bills might Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom veto?

There have been signs for months that Newsom is sharpening his veto pen.

In the media, he’s repeatedly mimicked his predecessor, Jerry Brown, saying it would not be “prudent” for the state budget to “imbalanced.”

And on September 1, Newsom’s Department of Finance representative was noticeably absent from the front table of the “suspense file” meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee, where “Finance” is regularly represented. Was this a boycott by the Newsom Administration after being told to get ready for lots of costly bills on his desk? It’s plausible.

So, this is now a “donkey fight,” where the blatantly bad Democrat legislators are challenging another evil Democrat, Governor Gavin Newsom, who, as long as his presidential hopes are alive, wants to put the brakes on additional spending.

NEW ACTION: Urge Newsom to veto these bad bills. Put on the pressure to remind him these radical bills are unpopular.

1. Call Newsom’s constituent services office, Monday-Friday, 9-5 at 916-445-2841. When a staffer answers, they are a person paid to take your simple message of bills you are supporting or opposing. List all the bills in one phone call, but keep it brief.

2. Use Newsom’s web form to oppose all these bad bills at once.

On this page, here are the steps:
1. Under “What is your request or comment about?”, scroll to and select “Legislation Issues/Concerns”
2. Under “What is the purpose of your message?”, select “Leave a Comment”
3. Click “Next” to go to the next page
4. Under “If applicable, what is your stance on this topic?, click “Con”
5. In the message field, simply write in all caps: VETO THESE COSTLY BILLS, then copy and paste in SaveCalifornia.com one-sentence bill descriptions (from the above list)
6. Click “Next” to go to the next page
7. Enter your first and last name and email address (but not your phone number)
8. Click “Submit”

The California State Legislature will adjourn its 2023 session on September 14; the governor will have until October 14 to sign or veto bills.

It is apparent that, those who appear to wield unparalleled power – and, have a disturbing tendency of abusing this, as a means of sadistically and savagely subjugating their fellow countrymen and women, with abundant impunity – can not stand the heat when the tables are turned against them, and will swiftly head for the hills, whenever they perceive any substantial threat.
Zimbabwean Christian journalist Tendai Ruben Mbofana

A screaming child is an untrained child

Thursday, August 3, 2023, 1:27 pm | Randy Thomasson

Are you tired of hearing squalling, screaming kids throwing tantrums?

Temper tantrums that happen more than once are not “natural” or a “phase.” Now, temper tantrums persist because of parents who refuse to take authority and discipline their children for rebellion.

The Word of God in Proverbs 13:24 tells us: He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly.

The problem is worldly parents not taking authority over their children. You can’t reason with a young child. But temporarily pain for blatant rebellion trains younger children to have self-control and respect for authority.

As renowned Christian child psychology expert Dr. James Dobson has written in his 1978 classic, The Strong-Willed Child, from which his child disciplining tips have been adapted into the 1986 pocketbook, Temper Your Child’s Tantrums:

“Corporal punishment in the hands of a loving parent…is a teaching tool by which harmful behavior is inhibited.”

“A spanking is to be reserved for use in response to willful defiance, whenever it occurs.”

“If punishment doesn’t influence human behavior, then why is the issuance of speeding tickets by police so effective in controlling traffic on a busy street? Why, then, do homeowners rush to get their tax payments in the mail to avoid a penalty for being late? If punishment has no power, why does a well-deserved spanking often turn a sullen little troublemaker into a sweet and loving angel?”

“A child is fully capable of discerning whether his parent is conveying love or hatred. This is why the youngster who knows he deserves a spanking appears almost relieved when it finally comes. Rather than being insulted by the discipline, he understands its purpose and appreciates the control it gives him over his own impulses.”

Want to stop the tantrums, or learn how to raise your kids right, or both? Get these eye-opening books by Dr. James Dobson:

The New Dare to Discipline Ebay | Abebooks
The New Strong-Willed Child Ebay | Abebooks
The New Strong-Willed Child Workbook Ebay | Abebooks
Temper Your Child’s Tantrums pocket guides Ebay | Abebooks

If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
The Bible, Hebrews 12:7-11

URGENT: Urge California state senators to oppose marriage anarchy (ACA 5)

Wednesday, July 5, 2023, 2:28 pm | Randy Thomasson

We’ve provided the eye-opening, horrible facts about ACA 5. And we’re empowering the calls you will make. Please call Sacramento now!

Our facts delivered to state senators about ACA 5 means there’s a greater chance to prevent it from passing. Because proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote (27 in the 40-member State Senate). And with 32 Democrats, ACA 5 can be defeated by the July 14 “summer recess” deadline if 6 Democrats don’t vote for it and neither do any of the 8 Republican senators.

Now that state senators know that ACA 5 would open up Pandora’s Box, they’ll know you know it’s bad too when you call. We need to a flood of calls right now exposing and opposing the radical ACA 5!


STEP #1: Call your own California state senator anytime (find yours here). In your live phone call or recorded voicemail message, state your name, say you live in the district, give your voting address, and say, “Don’t you dare vote for the marriage anarchy of ACA 5. This radical measure opens the door to polygamy, child marriages, incestuous marriages, and more. ACA 5 is not about same-sex marriage, but about blowing up marriage boundaries. Vote NO.”

Step #2: Say the same when you leave anonymous voicemail messages 7pm to 8am for the following 8 Republicans and 21 deciding-vote Democrats:

8 Republicans:

Brian Dahle 916-651-4001 and 530-294-5000
Shannon Grove 916-651-4012 and 661-323-0443
Brian Jones 916-651-4040 and 619-596-3136
Janet Nguyen 916-651-4036 and 714-374-4000
Roger Niello 916-651-4006 and 916-464-3980 (ignorantly supported ACA 5 in committee)
Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh 916-651-4023 and 909-335-0271
Kelly Seyarto 916-651-4032 and 951-280-1260
Scott Wilk 916-651-4021 and 661-729-6232 (ignorantly supported ACA 5 in committee)

21 deciding-vote Democrats:

Benjamin Allen 916-651-4024 and 310-318-6994
Marie Alvarado-Gil 916-651-4004 and 916-933-8680
Bob Archuleta 916-651-4030 and 562-406-1001
Angelique Ashby 916-651-4008 and 916-651-1529
Catherine Blakespear 916-651-4038 and 760-642-0809
Anna Caballero 916-651-4014 and 559-264-3070
Bill Dodd 916-651-4003 and 707-224-1990
María Elena Durazo 916-651-4026 and 213-483-9300
Steve Glazer 916-651-4007 and 925-754-1461
Lena Gonzalez 916-651-4033 and 323-277-4560
Melissa Hurtado 916-651-4016 and 661-395-2620
Monique Limón 916-651-4019 and 805-988-1940
Dave Min 916-651-4037 and 949-223-5472
Steve Padilla 916-651-4018 and 760-335-3442
Anthony Portantino 916-651-4025 and 818-409-0400
Richard Roth 916-651-4031 and 951-680-6750
Susan Rubio 916-651-4022 and 909-469-1110
Lola Smallwood-Cuevas 916-651-4028 and 213-745-6656
Henry Stern 916-651-4027 and 818-876-3352
Tom Umberg 916-651-4034 and 714-558-3785
Aisha Wahab 916-651-4410 and 510-794-3900


Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 would place a proposition on the California ballot to insert these operative words into the California State Constitution: “The right to marry is a fundamental right.”

While these words may sound positive and innocuous, we must remind ourselves that what a bill does is more important than what a bill says. Consider how experienced attorneys defending their clients in civil court try to find definitions, lack of definitions, and “holes” in the law. How would they analyze the very broad, non-specific language of ACA 5?

1. Undefined text: The eight, key words of ACA 5, “The right to marry is a fundamental right,” do not define “marry.” What is “marry”? California’s Family Code does not contain the word “marry.” If ACA 5 proponents were to argue that it’s so obvious, that it doesn’t need definition, challenge them to amend their proposal to define “marry” or amend it to instead use “marriage,” which is replete throughout the Family Code. As sharp attorneys know, undefined words in the Constitution or statutes make the text of laws vulnerable to re-interpretation, altering, and abuse. Yet, in addition to the word “marry,” there are other serious problems with ACA 5.

2. Undefined number of spouses: ACA 5 does not define or limit the number of people who can “marry” each other. While the current language of Proposition 8 (nullified by Perry v. Schwarzenegger in 2010) defines both legal marriage, spouse, and number of spouses — “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” — ACA 5 does not mention “a” or “one” or provide any other terminology, definition, or limit to the number of persons who can “marry” each other. While ACA 5 proponents might point to Family Code §300 (“Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons”) both the constitutional power of ACA 5 and its “fundamental right” declaration supersede any “limiting” statutes. If ACA 5 goes into the State Constitution, could three or four or more people all “marry” each other because it’s their “fundamental right,” with nothing prohibiting their “constitutional” arrangement? Similarly, could one person marry multiple people, thus legalizing polygamy through the authority of “The right to marry is a fundamental right”? These are valid questions due to the lack of definition and the myriad legal “holes” of this measure.

3. Undefined age prerequisite: Similar to its missing number of persons who “marry,” ACA 5 lacks age prerequisites for marriage. Because if “the right to marry is a fundamental right” is in the California Constitution, providing strict scrutiny instructions to both the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, it would supplant age limits. Could “child marriages” become more commonplace under ACA 5? Without age standards, it’s legally plausible.

4. No prohibition of incestuous “marriages”: Following the above reasoning, under ACA 5, could fathers or mothers or children or siblings “marry” each other? This proposal doesn’t prohibit it. Even if ACA 5 proponents cite Penal Code §285 prohibiting and punishing incest, or other laws regulating relations of consanguinity, if the California Constitution contains “The right to marry is a fundamental right,” neither the Penal Code or the Family Code can usurp this higher legal standard. Therefore, ACA 5 could produce unexpected, unpopular consequences.

5. No definition of spouse: If ACA 5 pushes aside the Penal Code, the Family Code, and other statutes due to its powerful, hierarchical position in the California Constitution and its declared “fundamental right” status in both the state and federal courts, unimaginable results may become manifest. For example, since ACA 5 does not mention or define “spouse,” could one argue a “fundamental right” to “marry” an animal, an object, or even “themself”? Since ACA 5 never defines the persons (or objects) that can “marry,” the sky’s the limit, with the “right to marry” unassailable as part of the State’s supreme law of the land, amended by the People and expressing the will of the People. By being overly-broad and non-specific, is ACA 5 “opening Pandora’s Box”? This proposal challenges our common expectations of jurisprudence.

6. Constitutional “fundamental rights” trump other laws: Here is the legal impact of a “fundamental right,” as explained by the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right): Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights) or have been implied through interpretation of clauses, such as under Due Process. These laws are said to be “fundamental” because they were found to be so important for individual liberty that they should be beyond the reach of the political process, and therefore, they are enshrined in the Constitution. Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.

7. Unnecessary: Many supporters of same-sex marriage view ACA 5 as unnecessary, since the California State Constitution, Article 7.5 (Proposition 8 from 2008, stating, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”) was nullified by both Perry v. Schwarzenegger in 2010 and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. Same-sex marriage is already legal, with gay and lesbian couples enjoying full legal status in all of California’s 58 counties.

Avoid unforeseen consequences – oppose ACA 5’s overly-broad, non-specific text