Retiree health care, financed by most California cities on a pay-as-you-go basis, and pension payments based on union agreements pushed Stockton, along with several other California cities into bankruptcy.

New Stockton mayor, Anthony Silva brought with him armor and a helmet (which he donned) during his unique State of the City address this week. The mayor plead with city residents to join him in helping clean up the city both literally and figuratively. The mayor believes raising taxes is the only way the city will be able to improve safety in the crime ridden city. At over 14% unemployment it is expected that Silva will meet opposition among both the council and residents to his plan.

Evan Westrup, a spokesman Governor Brown said that the bill “makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals.”

The state has always had laws allowing them to take weapons from those who obtained them legally but have since committed a crime or been diagnosed with a psychological condition. This new legislation puts $24 million behind the law so that confiscations can happen faster.

The first of many gun restriction bills to head to the governor, this measure hires dozens of new agents specifically for the task of firearms confiscation.

The money does not come from the state’s general fund. Instead, the $24 million will be taken from a fund intended to strengthen California’s background check system.

The fees are known as DROS fees or “Dealer’s Record of Sale”. While other states collect no additional fees from dealer’s, California set up the DROS fee telling constituents that the fees would go to enhance the background check system. Instead, it appears that the fees will be used to confiscate firearms.

No good fee goes unpilfered.

The firearms background check system has been the focus of gun debate for the past few months. Supposedly, 90% of Americans wanted to see improved background checks. Now California believes that funds intended for such actions should be used to collect firearms that were legally bought instead.

Many ask where the money will come from to improve the background check system? How else will the large community of retail firearms-purchasing criminals be caught when they buy “assault rifles” at a gun store?

The good news is that California already has a registry of its gun owners which makes finding the current gun owners easier. The state has a database containing all those owning guns that the NRA and gun rights activists have long said would lead to confiscation.

Now, Governor Brown has proven that those registries are used to find gun owners for the purpose of taking their firearms. While the reasons may or may not make sense to different groups, the purpose of the database is now obvious.

What happens when the gun ownership bar is lowered next time? Will traffic tickets be enough? Spitting on the sidewalk? Shooting a double-barreled shotgun out the back door for home defense? Hey, don’t blame me, that was the Vice-President’s idea. Or what if the local law decides that your attitude on government is troubling? The Palm Beach Post reports that Palm Beach, Florida Sheriff Ric Bradshaw has been given the power to investigate people that disagree with their government.

The Florida state legislature gave the Sheriff $1 million dollars which he intends to use to fund an intervention unit.

The Sheriff says the new unit is important and that he wants ”

people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government.”

Sheriff Bradshaw replied to concerns saying “We know how to sift through frivolous complaints.”, but many are not convinced.

“We don’t want to take away people’s civil liberties just because people aren’t behaving the way we think they should be,” said Liz Downey of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

It appears that the California legislature is ignoring their constituents, the will of the people, public sentiment or all those other words Obama uses to tell us that Congress is doing it wrong.

When asked if this program should be a model for the nation, a Los Angeles Times poll had these results as of 9:00pm on Thursday (you can vote in it HERE):

Additional information provided indicates the child has had a known heart murmur and the family has been under regular pediatric cardiologist care with the understanding that heart surgery would be necessary but had not been considered an emergent basis.

//

As mom to a special needs child our family is well acquainted with social workers and state agents. In these tough financial times many state workers are being paid less and working more.  For the most part the workers want to do what is best for the family. But what happens when an accusation appears to be made without merit? Can a child be removed from its parents simply because an accuser thinks he might know best?

In the case below parents of an ill baby take the child to the hospital. Following, by the parents’ accounts, what appears to be errors on the part of hospital staff and talk of extreme open heart surgery the parents remove their child and take it to a neighboring hospital for a second opinion. At the second hospital doctors release the child to be taken home with the parents for continued health care.

At one point, Anna says, a nurse came in and started giving the baby, named Sammy, medicine.

When she asked what it was, the nurse allegedly replied, “I don’t know.”

“I’m like, you’re working as a nurse, and you don’t even know what to give to my baby…?” Anna said in an ABC10 Action News interview. They later found out that medicine was antibiotics, which Anna claims the doctor told her Sammy shouldn’t have received. After doctors started discussing heart surgery, the Nikolayevs decided they wanted a second opinion.  They weren’t categorically opposed to the procedure, but they wanted a different doctor. “If we got the one mistake after another, I don’t want to have my baby have surgery in the hospital where I don’t feel safe,” Anna explained.

We all want our children to be safe, to be protected. Child abuse is horrendous and should be treated seriously. Everyone believes that it is better to be safe than sorry.

But when is the accusation the only proof necessary to take a child from its parents?

HRC symbol appearing on Facebook promoting gay marriage issue

Have you noticed a strange symbol showing up on the Internet, especially Facebook? There is a red block with two pink horizontal and parallel bars showing up on FB to replace people’s profile pics. This symbol is an alteration of the more commonly seen emblem of the Human Rights Commission, an organization that supports gay rights, (normally seen as two gold parallel horizontal bars on a purple field). There is an article today in HuffPo that explains this very thing.

The reason for the promotion of this symbol is to show support for gay marriage nationwide as the controversial Proposition 8 is being discussed in the Nation’s Supreme Court. This California Law is the legally binding law, approved of by the voting public of California defining marriage as the relationship between one man and one woman, effectively banning the relationship of any other type.

Now, let’s get this straight, I am not in favor of gay marriage of any type, as I am a Christian and I believe in what the Bible has to say on this issue. I will never be in favor of gay rights per say. Whenever homosexuality or any sexual perversion is mentioned in the Bible, bad things happen, (regardless of straight or gay). But from a purely intellectual standpoint, I understand and respect what the gay lobby is trying to do.

Currently, no one is being treated substantially different under the current law of California. Gay people have the same rights as straight couples; they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Of course, that’s not what they want. What they want is special treatment to marry someone of the same sex, which is a special status not currently allowed.

HRC’s normal symbol often seen as a bumper sticker.

Now from a strictly libertarian viewpoint, I don’t really care if gay people are allowed to get married or not. I don’t approve of that type of relationship, but who am I to judge my neighbor, as long as he is not picking my pocket or breaking my leg. I understand that the gay couple wants the same benefits from the government that I would get as a straight person, which include but are not limited to: a) passing on of employment benefits to a domestic partner, b) the privilege to adopt a child, c) the right to visit a sick domestic partner in the hospital without interference from other blood relatives.

These are admirable goals, which I think can be achieved outside of declaring sanction of gay marriage. Why shouldn’t gay couples have these benefits along with any straight couple? Clearly the states can enact specific laws regarding these very complex social issues.

Here is the slippery slop now. I work at the Mayo Clinic. Under current policy the Clinic accepts living wills or powers of attorney for patients diagnosed with terminal illnesses, and it tries to honor those. However, the Clinic will usurp that power of attorney or living will if a blood relative of the patient objects, negating the will of the patient. This is unacceptable whether we’re talking about straight or gay patients, this should not be. If I have gone through the effort to make my will known, why should anyone else, relative or not, be able to simply usurp my will while I lay helpless my deathbed? If you’re gay or straight, it doesn’t matter. Everyone should have their close friends by their side when dealing with a life-threatening or terminal disease. The right of the suffering patients should be considered above that of any other, period!

Obviously we should strengthen the force of powers of attorney and medical directives.

As for the adoption issue, I am fully in favor of letting gay couples adopt so long as social services is being involved. There is no evidence that I have seen that shows that a gay couple is any more or less prone to abuse a child than a straight family. I would rather see a child get a good home than remain wards of the state. Social service involvements can oversee parents, regardless of sexuality, to determine that the child is indeed being received by a safe and stable home.

Then there is the issue of employee and social services benefits. I am all in favor of employers extending benefits to same sex couples, but here again there is a slippery slope. Should the employer have to extend benefits to Muslim or Mormon families where there are multiple wives, multiplying the cost to the employer per the number of beneficiaries? Isn’t that discrimination? Is it fair to the employer?

I think that if we are going to recognize one type of relationship, then we are excluding the others. If we open up the definition of marriage, then we open a barrel of monkeys that will be hard to close. I believe that the employers should extend benefits to one spouse only, to the exclusion of relationships of multiple beneficiaries. But here is where the state can enact laws, with the consent of their citizens, to determine the details.

I have no objection to the individual states enacting laws that make sense to their voters. What I do object to is robed elites at the appellate and Supreme Court levels usurping the will of the voter. Let the people decide what’s best for them and let the courts mind their own business.

The only reason for the court involvement is that this loud and vocal minority cannot be satisfied and must usurp the will of the majority by going over their heads to the appellate and supreme courts. In my view, these courts have no authority to usurp these laws; their only jurisdiction is to determine whether the laws enacted are constitutional. I’ve read the constitution; I don’t think there is any reference there to marriage, gay or otherwise. The only logical decision the courts can do is kick back these lawsuits and let the legislatures do their jobs. But they won’t because there is a certain power and prestige that comes with the judge’s robe and they like to use it to their benefit. The minority concerns like the gay lobby make use of this fact. As long as judges are allowed to legislate from the bench, the will of the majority will be meaningless.

And why should the state be involved in endorsing marriage in the first place? Have we had enough of the nanny state as it is? Why should I as a single person be punished for remaining single while married people get tax breaks (or penalties in some states)? Isn’t this the federal government picking winners and losers? I have an idea, let’s treat everyone the same, with a flat income tax, starting at incomes of $20k or more that taxes everyone at the same rate. Wouldn’t that be fair? No winners or losers, everyone treated the same. Perhaps that’s an issue for another column.

All in all I believe this is a 10th Amendment issue. States have the right, with the consent of their citizens, to determine what laws to enact in their state, and as long as those laws don’t break the constitutional standard, they should remain issues of the state. Where the constitution is silent on an issue, so too should be the court.

Jimmy LaSilvia of GOProud.

I recognize there will be debate even among conservatives and libertarians in regard to this issue. I welcome polite interface with people of differing opinions. My friends at GOProud for instance might have a different take. I respect their opinion. It annoys me that my friend Jimmy LaSilvia and his organization were barred from attending CPAC. As a conservative, I think there is room for debate on these very controversial issues. What there isn’t room for in the Republican and Conservative circles is hatred and name calling. That is reserved for the lockstep Liberals and Progressives. It suits their narrow-mindedness and low tolerance.

If this doesn’t go viral……

Well, all I can say is that I hope this California Councilwoman doesn’t have any aspirations to move up in the political world. Here’s hoping she can continue to afford her botox bills without moving up, shall we?

H/T ConservativeVideos

“The city won’t let me fix my house because of FEMA regulations,” Jennifer Taylor said in an interview to Fox News in November. “This is so wrong.”

“We bought this home in 1998 because FEMA had certified the levees as 100-year flood protection,” Taylor told FoxNews.com. “Homes are just not being fixed here. … There’s at least a handful of us in this situation.”

In 2008 FEMA revisited flood prone areas and decertified the levee.

Watch their documentary and understand their frustration with the government.

Follow the Taylor’s challenge on Facebook: BurnedOutInNatomas

The following video channels Occupy Wall Street protestors by claiming the rich got rich through tax cuts and tax loopholes and even tax evasion. When the “people” fight back the “rich”  urinated on the “poor,” at least according to the video. (At about 2:50 into the video.)

CFT Communications Director Fred Glass, who wrote and directed the video, told TheBlaze the cartoon is not intended for children.

“I love animation and I believe it is an effective way of communicating ideas that is a little different,” he said, adding that there are no plans to show the video in California classrooms.

The teachers union is proud of their work. What do you think?

Watch it and ask yourself: Is it educational? Is it based on facts? Is it appropriate?

FOUR years ago, as America faced serious trouble at home and abroad, this news organization embraced the need for bold change to a different brand of leadership and endorsed Barack Obama for president.

That assessment of the depth of the nation’s problems and the most promising solution was correct in 2008. Regrettably, it applies no less in 2012, after nearly a full term of Obama’s administration. This is why the editorial board urges voters to choose Mitt Romney for president in the Nov. 6 election. He is the leader this country needs for the future. . .

Sad to say, the reservations our editorial board expressed about Obama in 2008 have been borne out. His inexperience in an executive position has been exposed. His naivete about his chances of getting much of his program through a deeply partisan Congress has been cured the hard way.

Instead of taking charge in Washington, Obama has shown unwillingness to take even the most basic step in presidential leadership: picking up the Oval Office phone to bring his influence to bear on reluctant representatives and senators.

Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act, is symbolic of his term for another reason: It passed entirely because of Democratic support.

The economy is making an all-too-slow recovery. The nation’s budget problems remain unsolved, portending a new financial crisis ahead. In the ending of the Iraq War and the killing of Osama bin Laden, there is a sense that we’ve already seen the high points of an Obama administration.

And Americans hoping for better from a prospective second term are frustrated by Obama’s failure to explain how four more years would be different. . .

Instead of following through on his hope-and-change message, Obama keeps telling us the limits of hope and change.
We are all for hope and we champion change. Many of this organization’s editorial positions are guided by the belief that change in government is to be sought, not feared. We embrace new leaders, independent thinking, and shaking up the status quo; this philosophy is evident in several other endorsements this fall.

Four years ago, the editorial board’s willingness to change horses in the middle of a churning river led us to call for voters to break the Republican hold on the White House and try a Democrat with a fresh spark.

Today, it leads the editorial board to urge voters to say “enough” to a Democratic administration whose sincere best has turned out disappointing, and install a seasoned leader with a record of fixing problems.

Mitt Romney is that seasoned leader.

This endorsement comes on the heels of a recent poll which showed that the most solid blue state in the union isn’t as supportive of the President this go around.

In light of the suspicious but positive jobs numbers today a gas shortage in any state doesn’t seem to jibe with the idea of a recovery.

Always the model of awareness and concern, Governor Jerry Brown has been tweeting about…the Oakland A’s and new tax hikes on the November ballot…two days ago!

Way to go A’s!

— Jerry Brown (@JerryBrownGov) October 4, 2012

The San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News and now the Los Angeles Times recommend a YES on Prop 30 bit.ly/SAn7JS

— Jerry Brown (@JerryBrownGov) October 2, 2012

The sky is falling, but don’t worry! The recovery is booming and Jerry’s going to make sure Californians don’t have to worry about those few remaining dollars in those pesky, cumbersome savings accounts.

crossposted at kiradavis.net

Brown also signed SB-1172, billed as Sexual Change Efforts. This bill “prohibits a mental health provider, as defined, from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts, as defined, with a patient under 18 years of age. The bill would provide that any sexual orientation change efforts attempted on a patient under 18 years of age by a mental health provider shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall subject the provider to discipline by the provider’s licensing entity.” Although the bill specifically addresses mental health providers, a more in depth reading of the bill reveals language that basically makes the concept of reparative therapy for same sex attraction illegal under any circumstances, including in the religious sphere. The bill claims reparative therapies add to an air of intolerance, causing those who identify as homosexual to suffer rejection from family and society and adding to suicide rates. The Pacific Justice Institute has already launched a challenge to the bill, claiming it violates parental rights, freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Cathy is a California mother who’s son Jack (names have been changed to protect privacy) has struggled with same sex attraction. Cathy and Jack sought out therapy to help him deal with his feelings and the arising consequences. Although Cathy says her son’s therapy was not focused on “conversion” it did lead to better understanding of his feelings and seemingly healthy opposite-sex relationships. Though Cathy’s son identifies as a bisexual she says, “if one assumes sexuality is on a scale and not binary then many bisexuals can choose. Some may choose straight, some may choose gay.” She goes on to say parents know what is best for their children and any anti-reparitive legislation isn’t going to change how a family accepts their gay child. In the end, Cathy echoes what many Americans believe: it should be up the individual whether or not they want to partake in such therapies, not the state.

I contacted Exodus International, which is a Christian ex-gay ministry. A representative told me they “are not a therapy organization” but declined further comment, saying an official response would be posted on their website shortly.

These bills are indicative of California’s downward slide: restricting the freedom of law-abiding citizens while granting more freedoms to those here illegally. Regardless of your feelings about homosexuality the idea of the state limiting how any one individual chooses to deal with the issue is a direct violation of our freedoms of speech and religion; and issuing valid state i.d. to illegal immigrants (essentially making them legal residents) is an insult to every immigrant waiting in line to gain the privileges of American citizenship the right way.

But if you’re a gay illegal alien, your life just got a whole lot easier.

Joining Senator Yee in his effort to take away hundreds of millions of dollars of currently-legal guns are co-authors Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), Senator Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), Senator Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley), Senator Ted Lieu (D-Torrence), Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge), and Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles).

Explaining his support for the gun ban, Senator Steinberg told the Sacramento Bee that “no one will convince me it’s anything other than a joke to say that having multiple clips and semi-automatic weapons that can shoot 100 or more bullets at a time is necessary in this state or in this country. It’s ridiculous.”

Also on record as supporting SB 249, the Los Angeles Times reports Attorney General Kamala Harris as saying, “I applaud the Legislature’s interest in addressing this problem and support efforts to pass legislation needed to” [ban Bullet Button firearms].

SB 249, if it were to become law, would categorically ban all “maglocked” semi-automatic firearms that are in common use, such as those which use the Bullet Button device. SB 249 does not provide for any grandfathering of existing firearms nor does it have a method of compensating gun owners for the firearms the proposed law would require to be destroyed or removed from California. The net effect would be what is perhaps the single largest unconstitutional government taking in California history.

More, SB 249 would subject gun owners to criminal liability as of July 1, 2013, for the mere possession of firearms that Senator Yee and Attorney General Harris have both said are legal under current law. Ex post facto laws, such as SB 249 would create if passed, are expressly unconstitutional.

Interestingly, however, SB 249 would create a de facto requirement that gun owners , hunters, and competitors in California use only “featureless” firearms, such as AR and AK-style guns employing compliance parts like the Solar Tactical KYDEX Grip Wraps, MonsterMan Grips, or Exile Machine’s Hammerhead Grip, which not only allow for the lawful use of factory magazine releases but large-capacity magazines as well. California does not ban the possession of large-capacity magazines. Wes Morris, owner of Ten Percent Firearms, demonstrates this is an excellent YouTube video you can view at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhC8LpHPbRQ.

Senator Yee’s bill is currently before the Assembly Appropriations Committee and is expected to be heard on August 15, though it could be heard as soon as August 8. The bill must pass both the Assembly and the Senate by August 31.

When: Thursday, July 12th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: 33 votes to repeal Obamacare, the NAACP Shootout between Biden and Romney, and guest Brandon Combs (@combs_brandon on Twitter) of CAL-FFL(http://www.calffl.org/), Calguns Foundation (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/) and CRPA ( https://twitter.com/CRPAnews) joins me to discuss campus concealed carry.

You don’t need to be a smoker to be concerned about an individual’s rights inside his home.

While many businesses have gone down the drain because of pensions and retiree benefits draining their assets, it is not as common as it once was. That probably has something to do with the fact that there aren’t as many unions in the private sector anymore. What we are seeing in Stockton is the future for many cities across the country, primarily because of contracts negotiated by public sector unions. While this is a very basic statement about the impending problem, it isn’t extremely difficult to understand. It is yet another economic issue that is at least an indirect result of the Baby Boomer generation reaching retirement age. But, unlike Social Security, this problem is theoretically negotiable, especially when cities make the decision to declare bankruptcy.

At that point, all contracts with the unions are nullified, and cities are in a position to re-negotiate terms with public sector unions. But, would we have been in this situation in the first place if city leaders had started thinking like business owners years ago? Probably not. Conservatives have been saying for years that spending money without serious plans to repay debts in the future is a mistake. In Stockton, even the leaders have admitted that they spent too much when times were good, and failed to “save for a rainy day.” But, they’re politicians, not business people.

Matt Edelstein, otherwise known as Shoq on Twitter, decided to weigh in on this. Well, he decided it was a good idea to pose what he obviously thought was a difficult question for me. I didn’t respond via Twitter, so maybe he’s deluded into thinking that he stumped me.

If municipalities were run more like big businesses, it is less likely that they would end up like Stockton. As for businesses making the laws of the land, gieven our current economic woes, that is exactly what we need. It has been made abundantly obvious that every level of government in this country is either ill-equipped, or unwilling to do what needs to be done to kick start our economy. More often than not, the fact is that government doesn’t need to do a damn thing – it needs to stop what it’s doing, and get the hell out of the way.