Gavin Newsom, Fiscal Conservative? (Vetoes Mandatory Kindergarten)

Gavin Newsom fiscal conservative?

No, just desperate to show a little moderation in his bid for the Presidency in 2024.

Hi Arthur, Democrat Gavin Newsom, while basically saying he supports kids being put into strangers' hands ASAP, has vetoed SB 70, which would have eliminated a big parental right by making kindergarten mandatory for 5-year-olds (he said it would cost too much). THANK YOU for calling or emailing against against this bad bill, or supporting SaveCalifornia.com's efforts against it. If you did, you're part of this pro-family victory! Now please call and email against the 4 other tyrannical bills that can be vetoed. Newsom's constitutional deadline to sign or veto hundreds more bills is Friday, Sept. 30. Make your impact today with SaveCalifornia.com Right now, SaveCalifornia.com must ramp up our opposition to the anti-family leftists. We're pushing for vetoes this month and for conservative victories this important election. Will you participate in our Fall campaign to fight for you and your family? Your special gift of $10 or more is confidential and tax-deductible. Thank you for your consideration!

Then he said, “Take the arrows”; so he took them. And he said to the king of Israel, “Strike the ground”; so he struck three times, and stopped. And the man of God was angry with him, and said, “You should have struck five or six times; then you would have struck Syria till you had destroyed it! But now you will strike Syria only three times.” The Bible, 2 Kings 13:18-19

SaveCalifornia.com is part of Campaign for Children and Families, a statewide 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization working, leading, and fighting for your rock-solid values and hard-won liberties since 1999. Your confidential, tax-deductible gift of any size empowers our work for your family and other families, and reaches Californians with important facts the Big Media won’t report. Thank you for standing with us!

DONATE | SUBSCRIBE | ABOUT

If a friend forwarded you this, and you don’t want it, ask them to remove you from their list. If you received this email directly from us, but don't want it, scroll to the end to unsubscribe. If you forward this to your friends, someone might unsubscribe you (re-subscribe here).

More Winning: Newsom Vetoes More Bad Bills to Build Up His Bad Presidential Bid

Governor Newson wants to be President Newsom.

So, he's pretending to be prudent and he's vetoeing bills because they would "cost too much."

Yeah, right ...

Hi Arthur, Surprise! Tyrannical Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom (who wants to run for president) has vetoed 3 awful bills passed by Democrat legislators: AB 2663 to fund a pilot program to "support" "LGBTQIA+ children with a new government "service" (Newsom wrote on Sept. 19 that he supported the "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, plus (LGBTQ+) and gender-expansive youth" agenda of the bill, but was vetoing it because it "would require millions of dollars to successfully implement the proposed pilot program and these ongoing resources are not accounted for in the budget." AB 2320 to massively fund Planned Parenthood abortuaries in 5 counties (Newsom wrote on Sept. 22 that he was equally pro-abortion, but that the costs were duplicative and wasteful) SB 834 to yank the tax-exempt status of California nonprofits deemed to have engaged in "treason, insurrection, conspiracy, government overthrow" (Newsom wrote on Sept. 22 that this should be a matter for courts to decide). The veto of SB 834 is a relief to nonprofits like ours that support election integrity -- essential for the democratic republic that is the United States of America. Why these surprising vetoes? Newsom is unofficially running for president in 2024, with his latest "advertisement" this week at the "Clinton Global Initiative" in New York. As such, he's trying to craft a somewhat less liberal image for himself for less "woke" Democrats in other states. This explains his veto of the radical, tyrannical, anti-free-speech bill SB 834. It also explains nearly 20 veto messages this month, in which he repeated the line: "With our state facing lower-than-expected revenues over the first few months of this fiscal year, it is important to remain disciplined." Some secular media pundits have observed that "with the income tax revenue coming in 11% below expectations so far this year, it appears that Newsom is starting to channel his inner Jerry Brown." Additional bill to oppose: AB 1940 Therefore, based on Newsom's string of "fiscally prudent" veto messages, SaveCalifornia.com is adding AB 1940 to the other four anti-family bills we believe can be vetoed by this tyrannical, unconstitutional, left-wing (Democrat) governor.  Because AB 1940, which SaveCalifornia.com fought against this summer, would spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars annually on "school-based clinics," pushing all types of garbage upon children behind parents' backs. Fiscal facts making AB 1940 ripe for a veto include this from the Democrat-run Senate Appropriations Committee: "CDPH estimates General Fund costs of $1,047,000 in 2023-24, $14,797,000 in 2024-25 and 2025-26, and $28,279,985 ongoing thereafter." As such, it's plausible AB 1940 could be vetoed for the same public reason as other fiscal-bill vetoes we're seeing from Newsom: "With our state facing lower-than-expected revenues over the first few months of this fiscal year, it is important to remain disciplined when it comes to spending, particularly spending that is ongoing." PLEASE ACT NOW Phone 916-445-2841 (M-F 9a-5p) | Webform (in the drop-down menu, look for AB01940 -- see instructions below). Leave a brief message for Newsom, such as, "AB 1940 is against parents -- veto this bad bill." (Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto.) Have a couple more minutes? Urge vetoes of these 4 other bills (one message per bill, or combine all 5 bills in 1 call to the governor's constituent services office). Make your impact today with SaveCalifornia.com Right now, SaveCalifornia.com must ramp up our opposition to the anti-family leftists. We're pushing for vetoes this month and for conservative victories this important election. Will you participate in our Fall campaign to fight for you and your family? Your special gift of $10 or more is confidential and tax-deductible. Thank you for your consideration! I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 2 Timothy 4:7

CALL NOW: Tell Newsom to Veto Four Bad Bills

 

SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office. Hi Arthur, Here are your latest action steps in the war for moral values and against the unconstitutional New Communist Democrats and RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). But first, some good news: Our attorney friends at Liberty Counsel have won relief for everyone in the U.S. Air Force who wrote a letter requesting religious accommodation to exempt themselves from forced "Covid vaccines." Like the August court victory for similarly-situated U.S. Marines, Air Force personnel have won their constitutional religious freedom to exercise their God-given medical freedom! Call Newsom to veto 4 awful bills Gavin Newsom idolizes abortion, "LGBTQIA+,” and environmental wackoism. But there are 4 awful bills he could veto, with your help. Providing a chance for vetoes is Newsom's dream of running for U.S. president. Does he want the reputation of keeping Covid restrictions going longer than any other Democrat governor? He could veto 3 Covid tyranny bills and proclaim himself the "solution." Newsom might also veto an anti-parental rights bill, SB 70, which eliminates parents' choices to either send their child to kindergarten or keep them home until first grade. Remember, in 2014, Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the same, very expensive mandatory kindergarten bill, saying: "..let parents determine what is best for their children, rather than mandate an entirely new grade level." So please call or email Newsom today! Ban gasoline-powered vehicles? Not so fast Gavin Newsom's announcement that, come 2035, no new gasoline-powered cars, trucks, or SUVs can be sold in California is not only illegal (and can be stopped by the right lawsuit), it's un-American (and can be stopped with the right bill in Congress). Please add your voice of support to the Revoking Engine and Vehicle (REV) Requirements Act, in which Congress would repeal California’s Clean Air Act waiver that the Newsom administration uses to set its own emissions standards, including trying to ban gasoline-powered vehicles. Advancing this good bill now will at least expose who is for or against the People. And either this year or next year, it could pass and be signed by a scared White House occupant. And if not then, with a Republican president in 2025 it could be signed and effectively stop Newsom's and other war-on-oil Democrats' nefarious plans for 2035.  TAKE ACTION: Simply call 202-225-3121 (Capitol switchboard) and email (find your U.S. representative) to demand "Don't jack up my costs of driving and don't tell me what vehicle to drive. Support the REV Act." The REV Act is authored by Republican U.S. Representative Doug LaMalfa, a strong Christian whose congressional district stretches from Grass Valley to the Oregon border. “Woe to those who decree unrighteous decrees, Who write misfortune, Which they have prescribed" The Bible, Isaiah 10:1

President Grover Cleveland Vetoes Texas Seed Bill (February 16, 1887)

To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill No. 10203, entitled "An act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in the drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor."

It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution.

Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

It is within my personal knowledge that individual aid has to some extent already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill. The failure of the proposed appropriation of $10,000 additional to meet their remaining wants will not necessarily result in continued distress if the emergency is fully made known to the people of the country.

It is here suggested that the Commissioner of Agriculture is annually directed to expend a large sum of money for the purchase, propagation, and distribution of seeds and other things of this description, two-thirds of which are, upon the request of Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in Congress, supplied to them for distribution among their constituents.

The appropriation of the current year for this purpose is $100,000, and it will probably be no less in the appropriation for the ensuing year. I understand that a large quantity of grain is furnished for such distribution, and it is supposed that this free apportionment among their neighbors is a privilege which may be waived by our Senators and Representatives.

If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops, the constituents for whom in theory this grain is intended could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity.

President James Madison Rejects Infrastructure Bill (March 3, 1817)

 

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such a commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and a reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

JAMES MADISON.

Keep Calling Governor Brown: Veto SB 174 and SB 946

KEEP CONTACTING JERRY BROWN! Senator Ricardo Lara's Bills SB 174 and SB 946 Passed Out Of The Legislature & Will Be Heading to  Brown's Desk Senator Ricardo Lara is the author of SB 174, California legislation that would grant illegal aliens the right to be appointed to boards & commissions.  SB 174 reads: (b) A person, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, is eligible to hold an appointed civil office if the person is 18 years of age and a resident of the state. Senator Ricardo Lara is the author of SB 946 that would legalize street vending on California public sidewalks.   READ THE BILLS  BELOW. CALL   Governor Jerry Brown and demand that he VETO SB 174 and SB 946. Tell him to only sign bills that put American Citizens first! Both of these bills take jobs that should go to American citizens and will encourage more federal immigration lawbreaking.  SICKENINGLY ENOUGH, you have to first press 1 FOR ENGLISH and then press 6 to speak to a staff member. (916) 445-2841  EMAIL https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov39mail/index.php?h=1 https://twitter.com/JerryBrownGov https://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown/   READ SB 174 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB174 READ SB 946 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB946   FILE REPORTS CALL COMMITTEE Senator Ricardo Lara's Bill To Allow Illegal Aliens On Boards https://mailchi.mp/999867c1560e/senator-ricardo-laras-bill-street-vendors-on-public-sidewalks-passes-senate-vote-fight-back-227157

Maine Gov. Paul LePage Tells Big LGBT Hate Machine "Kiss My Butt", Successfully Vetoes Therapy Ban Bill

Maine Governor Paul LePage has been a Godsend for New England and the conservative movement as a whole. He was never supposed to be governor, since Maine has been a center-left state for over thirty years. The last time the state went Republican was in 1988, and since then the state has gone Democratic.

President Trump helped break down the Big Blue Wall holding the Pine Tree State captive. The state has a Congressional apportionment system for its Electoral College members, and Donald Trump won the majority of the vote in Congressional District Two.

Beyond that, LePage's conservative legacy has helped protect religious liberties, ensure economic growth, enforce all borders, pass comprehensive welfare reforms, and even constitutional carry was enacted. It's been nothing short of a conservative miracle in a state which no Republican had been competitive.

LePage has stood strong against the spendthrift legislature, and even though they have successfully overridden a number of his vetoes, his rejection of LD 912, which would have banned reparative therapy for minors, did not get overridden.

This is a huge victory for the pro-family movement.

There are currently 13 states which have banned conversion therapy for minors:

What's worse, in many of these states, Republican governors signed off on this legislation!

And the LGBT Movement is looking to make Maine and Massachusetts the next two states to carry on with this perversion.

But Maine's Governor Paul LePage was not just the First Republican, but the first governor period to slam this policy and veto the legislation.

This is a big deal. We are finally seeing some leadership in the country which is standing up for truth, morality, and biology.

The Washington Blade lamented:

Maine Gov. Paul LePage vetoed legislation on Friday that would’ve banned widely discredited “ex-gay” conversion therapy for youth in his state, making him the first governor ever in the United States — Democratic or Republican — to veto such a measure.

LGBT rights supporters resoundingly criticized the veto of LD 912 by LePage, a Tea Party politician who was once dubbed by Politico as “American craziest governor.” Fourteen states and D.C. have enacted similar measures.

Not fourteen. Where's the evidence for this? It's 13 as of press time. Perhaps the Blade thinks that Marx-achusetts will go along with this corrupt policy, too. Time will tell.

Here's part of Governor LePage's veto:

"I am vetoing LD 912 because it is bad public policy," he explained bluntly. Among other things, he rejects the idea that professionals like counselors need to be regulated beyond what they already are through their licensing requirements. Like people on both sides, he agrees that people shouldn't be abused in any way if they've "experienced sexual or romantic attraction toward an individual of the same gender." But, he goes on, as this bill is written, even a simple conversation with a therapist could be called into question.

"This so broad that licensed would be prohibited from counseling an individual even at the individual's own request. We should not prohibit professionals from counseling an individual even at the individual's own request. We should not prohibit professionals from providing their expertise to those who seek it for their own personal and basic questions such as, 'How do I deal with these feelings I am experiencing?'"

BAM!

This is the kind of courage we need to see in all levels of Government.

This is a huge setback for the LGBT Hate machine and another victory for life and the well-being of children.

Governor Brown on Muratsuchi's "Teacher Pervert Bill": "More Harm Than Good"

In 2012, Torrance resident--and former Los Angeles Unified teacher--Mark Berndt was arrested for very disturbing photographs showing students tied up and in bondage.

This teacher would end up opening a floodgate of corrupt practices and a history of abuse in Los Angeles Unified.

Berndt had had a disorderly history at Miramonte Elementary School. He had dropped his pants in public in front of students.

He was accused of exposing his genitals, masturbating in public.

Students complained that he had fondled them.

Parents also reported their fair share of complaints to the school.

The tenure laws were so tight, and the unions so strong,

So, getting rid of bad teachers should be a top priority.

But that was never former Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi's priority.

Never.

Here's what Muratsuchi's bill would have ended up doing:

1. Limit the testimony of pervert teachers' victims.

2. Limit the time for depositions.

3. Put pressure on witnesses while protecting the suspect.

VoteSmart.org provided the following analysis:

Highlights:

Requires the governing board of a school district to immediately place a school employee on a mandatory leave of absence for certain allegations including, but not limited to, the following indictments (Sec. 6):

     The school employee is charged with any sex offense; or

     The school employee is charged with the unlawful sale, use, or exchange of controlled      

     substances with minors.

OK. So far so good.

Authorizes a governing board to issue a notice of suspension or dismissal at any time of the year, except for charges of unsatisfactory performance (Sec. 4).

Nothing wrong here.

Now it gets troublesome:

Limits the number of witnesses of whom an employee may take depositions to 5, whereas existing law does not limit the number of witnesses (Sec. 9).

Only a small number of witnesses can now speak out against a teacher's misconduct.

If this law was in place, how many of the young wrestlers would have been able to come forward to tell school authorities what former Torrance High wrestling coach Thomas Snider had done to them.

Notice that existing law does not place a limit on the number of witnesses.

Limits the amount of time allowed for each witness deposition to 7 hours (Sec. 9).

This bill would also limit testimony!!!

Requires a dismissal hearing requested by a school employee charged with violations to commence within 6 months of the request and end within 7 months of the request (Sec. 8).

The employee  gets a speedy hearing, but the potential victims face limits on what they can say?

Now, don't take my word for how bad this bill was, this Muratsuchi bill which was intended to protect students and hold bad teachers accountable.

What did Governor Brown say?

"I am particularly concerned that limiting the number of depositions to five per side, regardless of the circumstances, and restricting a district's ability to amend charges even if new evidence comes to light, may do more harm than good."

Al Muratsuchi: Doing More Harm Than Good.

Say no to union puppets in Sacramento!

Re-Elect David Hadley For State Assembly!