MY MAJOR LEGISLATIVE GOALS IF ELECTED

By Peter J. Mancus

I state in this document what would be 19 of my major legislative goals if elected. The "cut and paste" of the original version of this document to put it here ruined the original formatting in this presentation of it. To read the original version with a more pleasing visible presentation, please go to my campaign Internet site which is at http://www.petermancus.com

I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.
-- Thomas Jefferson

• * *

This presentation gives voters, plus the print and electronic media, an itemization of subjects I will pursue in the California Legislature if I am elected.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FIGHT AND ERADICATE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CORRUPTION IN CALIFORNIA.

A. PUBLIC CORRUPTION. I intend to fight basic threats to our constitutional rights and liberties in the courts and in law enforcement. We do not have to tolerate corruption. All corrupt officials must be held accountable. I do not believe in "too big to jail". I believe in, "No man is above the law."

This state is plagued with almost two thousand corrupt judges and with a Legislature and state wide officers, namely the California Attorney General and the California Governor, who provide illegal "legal" cover for these crooks. As a result, there has been a total breakdown of constitutional government in California. There is no longer a meaningful "checks and balances", and there is no longer any meaningful, respectable, real American Constitutional Rule of Law. The crooks and their protectors are getting away with shuffling laws like a card shark shuffles a deck, and they are all hiding behind a concept that the judges invented that has no foundation in the U.S. Constitution: immunity for officials who violate law. The crooks and their buddies are in control.

Our courtrooms, which should be Temples of Justice, presided over by professional judges of the highest integrity, beyond reproach, are, for the most part, presided over by un-charged felons who are guilty of the felony crime of accepting bribes. This egregious behavior is on-going.

Is there anyone in the Tenth Assembly District who wants to appear as a litigant before a crooked judge if they aren't the one who paid the bribe?

The law in this state either means something or it is a farce.

Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty for their roles in this terrible breakdown of constitutional government in California. "We the People" must reassert our civic duty of oversight control over our public serpents, hold them accountable, and demand that California's agents obey the law and stop substituting their opinions and their political arguments for the law. Our Constitutions are not an opinion. They are the bedrock law, worthy of respect and compliance.

I will also fight deliberate overspending at every level of government where there are constant raids made on the public treasury, which is a major reason why this state is broke. Deliberate, sustained, reckless, overspending, under color of law, is a form of corruption.

B. PRIVATE CORRUPTION. Large parts of the U.S. financial sector of the economy have seriously harmed Californians, especially in terms of the California housing market and stock market investments. These hefty economic hits appear to have been triggered by "bansksters".

I define "banksters" to mean any person substantially involved with any form of a taxpayer bailout of any business or bank, within or outside of California, with ties to California or an impact on California, who cannot account for the money trail or "chain of title" to assets and appears to be tainted, broadly construed, with some form of fraud.

I find it difficult to believe that with hundreds of billions of dollars involved that there has been no fraud amounting to a violation of civil law or criminal law or both. This is especially true when there have been public acknowledgements that huge amounts of public and private money cannot be accounted for. I am stunned that there does not appear to be an adequate number of serious investigations by government agencies charged with holding white collar criminals, if any, accountable. This situation reeks. It suggests that government officials, wall street officials, and many senior bankers have reached some kind of a deal, e.g., if government will let Wall Street and/or banks engage in corruption with impunity, the financial sector will prop up the federal government, which is broke.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

We can't thrive or survive as long as "progressive" Democrats irresponsibly rack up massive annual deficits, pander to public sector employee unions who have a lock on California's politics and are consuming too big a percentage of the state budget, make this state attractive to "non-producers", and drive out "producers". "Progressive" Democrats must come to terms with a reality check: There is a finite amount of how much of other folks' money they can give away to vent their need to show "compassion". No one has found an orchard with trees that grow money. "Compassion fatigue" has set in. The state is broke. California government is as busted as a bum riding the rails.

WE FACE "A PERFECT STORM" OF MAJOR PROBLEMS THAT MUST BE FIXED. These problems include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) We must move beyond debilitating political partisanship, stop fighting, and start solving problems with fidelity to our constitutions' commands--federal and state; 2) We must stop deferring maintenance of our infrastructure and transportation systems; we must invest in infrastructure, transportation, energy independence, and the future; and 3) We must create an atmosphere that is pro-business, pro-economic growth, pro-good jobs, and pro-union--yes, unions, too, and promote the interests of business owners and union members in a mutual "win-win" manner.

For those who want more information about the above three "bullet points", I offer what is stated below . . . and in other op-eds on this campaign Internet site.

I consider my major legislative goals to be of approximate equal importance. The numbering convention below is more for organization and identification and less for prioritization as to importance.

In discussing, below, what will be my major legislative goals if I am elected, I have done my best to reason competently from and to the U.S. Constitution, to support that Constitution, and to be 100% candid. I refuse to "fudge" my analysis or my opinions to appeal to anyone. I also refuse to present myself to the voters in disguise. For example, below, I championed one vital right that is extremely disfavored in the Tenth District, especially among many "progressive" Democrats, namely, the individual right to firearms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Second is part of the U.S. Constitution which I have a sworn duty to support. I shall do my duty.

I hope and trust that my candor, my transparency, my integrity, my logic, and my knowledge will be appreciated.

MAJOR LEGISLATIVE GOALS IF ELECTED

1. Support and Defend the U.S. Constitution and California's Constitution

My first goal--and most sacred duty as a legislator--will be to support and to defend the U.S. Constitution and California's Constitutions against all foreign and all domestic enemies of either or both. This duty includes my duty to oppose and to hold accountable all California judges who have taken bribes and everyone who has bribed one or more of our judges.

. . . [Text removed to comply with League of Women Voters' rules]

I am serious about holding corrupt officials accountable. No official is "too big to jail".

"We the People" must force California and its agents to obey California's laws and the U.S. Constitution.

When it comes to integrity, honesty, and transparency in government, California is functioning as a "Banana Republic". We need to restore constitutionalism--obeying our Constitutions' commands.

As a licensed member of the State Bar of California, as a former criminal prosecutor, and as a qualified candidate, government required me to take an oath to support, defend, and uphold our Constitutions. I will do that to the best of my ability, even against strong opposition.

I shall champion all constitutional rights of all citizens, including rights disfavored by a local majority, such as the Second Amendment's guarantee of individual firearm rights.

2. Fight to Hold the Corrupt Accountable and Implement Systemic Legal Barriers Designed to Deter and Reduce Corruption

Reforms Regarding Judges

Judicial Reform No. 1

Crooked judges who have accepted bribes in violation of California's Constitution, Penal Code, and federal law must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, forthwith. REASONS: A) Crooked judges undermine confidence in the criminal justice system and the civil justice system; B) It is insufferable that a crooked judge, who accepted bribes and is thereby guilty of a felony, is allowed to preside in criminal trials and sit in judgment of others accused of a crime when the judge himself/herself is an un-charged felon with political connections; C) It is imperative that citizens have confidence in all judges; C) Our courtrooms must be perceived as "Temples of Justice" were everyone can get a fair shake, and not the shaft, if they don't bribe the judge; and D) it is intolerable to have first class hypocrites presiding in our courtrooms. NOTE: Proving who the crooked judges are should be simple. This is because there are official government records as to who was paid what and who accepted what. The evidence of the crooked judges' guilt is indisputably objectively verifiable, and it is overwhelming.

Judicial Reform No. 2

Crooked judges must return all bribe money that they accepted plus 20% as required by law. If they fail to do that, their pensions and their assets should be levied against until the public is reimbursed and the judges are denied all gain from their wrongdoing.

Judicial Reform No. 3

An unconstitutional law that was passed in 2009 that purported to give crooked judges retroactive immunity must be repealed by the California Legislature, forthwith.

Judicial Reform No. 4

Any judge guilty of accepting a bribe must be barred from holding any state office as required by existing law.

Judicial Reform No. 5

The Doctrine of Absolute Judicial Supremacy must be repealed, forthwith. Since the U.S. Supreme Court invented this judicial doctrine without benefit of any actual text in the U.S. Constitution, the Legislature can repeal it.

REASONS: A) Per this doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the judiciary is the ultimate final arbiter as to what the law is, means, and how it must be applied, the President, Congress, all inferior federal and state judges, all state governors and legislatures, and all inferior state officers must obey the U.S. Supreme Court; B) This result destroys the Constitution's structure for built-in "checks and balances"; C) This result makes the judiciary the dominant branch of government, above and against the U.S. Constitution and "We the People"; D) This result makes judges the functional equivalent of judicial despots, which is intolerable, no matter how benign they might be; and E) the Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy has not eliminated chaos in court decisions.

Judicial Reform No. 6

The Doctrine of Absolute Judicial Immunity must be repealed, forthwith. Since the U.S. Supreme Court invented this judicial doctrine without benefit of any actual text in the U.S. Constitution, the Legislature can repeal it.

REASONS: A) Per this doctrine, even a judge who is malicious and/or corrupt is 100% immune for anything the judge does within the judicial function, but it is asinine for taxpayers to hire a judge and pay a judge to do a job, but, when the judge violates the Constitution the judge was hired to uphold and enforce, even when the judge is malicious or a crook or both, the judge is 100% immune!; B) This doctrine encourages judges to be incompetent, negligent, grossly negligent, malicious, corrupt or a combination of same, none of which inspires confidence; C) This doctrine appeals to psychopaths: it gives psychopaths a perfect refuge to spread their version of a legal bubonic plague while they get to hide behind a shield of absolute immunity that protects them even if they are malicious or corrupt or both; D) This doctrine, coupled with the Doctrine of Absolute Judicial Supremacy, empowers bad judges to wreck havoc on the United States and California that can last for decades, centuries, or longer; E) This doctrine makes a sham out of the idea of "No man is above the law." This doctrine grants judges a license, a free pass, to violate the law with absolute legal impunity so they can never be held personally, financially, or legally liable for the damage they cause.

Judicial Reform No. 7

The "Political Question Doctrine" must be repealed, forthwith.

REASONS: Activist judges, conservative and liberal, use this doctrine, which the judiciary invented, as a "gate" to let in, or to keep out, legal issues that citizen-litigants have pressed in court that need to be resolved, but many judges use this doctrine to avoid rendering a decision. When judges invoke this doctrine, they end up making what amounts to a political question decision--theirs, as a fig leaf pretense to duck making a difficult decision. When judges resort to this device, they deny citizens justice, suppress legal issues, and almost almost always side with big government. All of this is highly improper and insufferable.

Judicial Reform No. 8

Judges should be required to post a bond to help insure their good performance, and they should also be personally responsible for paying the premium on this bond.

REASONS: Judges need an incentive to be careful, competent, conscientious, and honest when they function as judges. They need an exposure to some type of personal liability to motivate them to perform properly so they do not perform in a sub-standard manner. Stripping them of absolute immunity will not guarantee their good performance. Making them post a bond for which they have to pay the premium will create an incentive to help insure their good performance.

I am also inclined to explore the following reforms: A disgruntled litigant will have the right to sue a judge and recover against the bond. If a judge looses, the premium should triple each time he loses. The tripling of the bond premium would make it too expensive for bad judges to remain in office, which would result in bad judges tending to remove themselves because they would lose a financial incentive to stay in office.

I am also inclined to explore the idea that if a judge looses X number of suits over Y number of years, the judge will automatically be barred from continuing to serve.

Reforms along these lines are desirable also because the Council on Judicial Performance has a terrible record for disciplining judges. This Council does not appear to be serious about doing anything to get the retroactive immunity law for crooked judges repealed. This Council also did not do much to discipline bad judges before that law was passed. Until there is a major shake up in the leadership and membership of that Council, I have no confidence in the Council's willingness to discipline bad judges. It seems that most judges would rather eat off their arms than do anything against a judge. Could it be they fear that if they get serious about policing themselves the backlash fall out would be too severe for most to stomach because all--almost all--are tainted?

Judicial Reform No. 9

I am inclined to think that the Legislature should pass a law requiring all California state judges to write their case decisions in a manner that complies with a well thought out, standardized, thorough, logical, formula, with sub-headings.

REASONS: This standardized formula would make it easier and quicker for laypersons and legal professionals to comprehend case decisions, to find important things about the decision, and it would be calculated to force the judges to render decisions that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution and California's Constitution.

Judicial Reform No. 10

I will champion a law that requires judges, in their rulings from the bench, in their court orders, and in their published decisions, to limit their reasoning and the "authority" that they consider, rely on, and/or base their holdings on, to be limited, strictly, to only the U.S. Constitution, California's Constitution, and laws faithful to those constitutions. Hence, it would be improper for them to consider, apply, factor in, or uphold any non-US law, including, but not limited to, sharia law. Also, I would support a law that declares that any judge who violates this law is automatically removed from office.

REASONS: We hire these judges to uphold American law and to limit themselves to considerations of only American law. They each took a sworn oath to do that; however, we now have even U.S. Supreme Court judges who are openly admitting, in published decisions, that they considered, weighed, and factored in non-US law in making their decisions. I have also read articles to the effect that non-Californian inferior judges are now beginning to do the same thing, including upholding, in the U.S., sharia law.

Judicial Reform No. 11

I am inclined to think that it would be a good idea for the Legislature to pass a law that takes advantages of computer technology to accomplish this effect: When the judges issue their decision, each paragraph in the decision would have a consecutive number assigned to it, starting with the number one.

REASONS: This consecutive paragraph number system would make it easier to pin point a citation to anything in a case decision. A paragraph number system would be more precise than the current page number system.

Judicial Reform No. 12

I am inclined to think that a master public Internet data base should be made available of the names, titles, and jurisdictions of all judges who have accepted illegal bribes.

REASONS: The public, attorneys, and litigants have a right to know which judges are crooks--are uncharged felons still on the bench. There is no good reason for anyone in government to provide crooked judges any form of anonymity or privacy to help them cover up the fact that they are crooks and un-charged felons who should be pulled down from the bench.

Judicial Reform No. 13

I am inclined that a law should be passed that would empower any adult California citizen, acting in the capacity of a "Private Attorney General", to sue a crooked judge to remove a crooked judge from the bench.

REASONS: So far, California's Attorney General, California's Governor, and this state's District Attorneys, all of whom, individually and collectively, are charged with formal legal duty to enforce the law or to see to it that the law is enforced, have manifested no inclination to enforce the law against crooked judges. It is, however, worse than that: The California Legislature and two consecutive California Governors, Schwarzenegger and Brown, via their acts of commission and omission, have provided crooked judges legal cover. That is intolerable and insufferable.

Judicial Reform No. 14

I am also extremely receptive to passing a law that would impose specific, stringent limits on a judge's ability to impose sanctions against an attorney or a litigant. The current practice of passing a statute that empowers a judge, in the judge's "discretion", to impose sanctions is ripe with the potential for massive abuse. Fear of a judge abusing the judge's "discretionary" power to impose sanctions has a powerful chilling effect which deters many lawyers and litigants from zealously presenting their claims, defenses, and evidence to the court.

Judicial Reform No. 15

I am also extremely receptive to passing a law that would impose sanctions against a judge who declares that a voluntary standard of conduct in the judge's courtroom is deemed by the judge to be a mandatory standard, per the judge's unilateral declaration. No judge has actual authority to declare a voluntary standard to be mandatory, but I know of two judges who have done that. When judges do that they exceed their authority, they create a hostile work environment, they chill zealous representation, they impair the administration of justice, and they function as judicial despots. Reforms Regarding Prosecutors Prosecutor Reform No. 1 The Doctrine of Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity must be repealed, forthwith. Since the U.S. Supreme Court invented this judicial doctrine without benefit of any actual text in the U.S. Constitution, the Legislature can repeal it. REASONS: A) The rationale for this doctrine is this: Without absolute immunity, prosecutors would not be fearless in deciding who to charge, with what crime(s), and how to prosecute who they charge. I disagree.; B) This doctrine encourages prosecutors to be mean, reckless, vindictive, ruthless, careless, negligent, grossly negligent, malicious, and corrupt; C) "Absolute immunity" means "no accountability", not just "independence". "Absolute immunity" means prosecutors, like judges, have a license to function, with impunity, above and against the real rule of law; D) Those charged with upholding and enforcing the rule of law should never enjoy a license to be 100% unaccountable. That result is absurd and asinine; E) This doctrine appeals to psychopaths: it gives psychopaths a perfect refuge to spread their version of a legal bubonic plague while they get to hide behind a shield of absolute immunity that protects them even if they are malicious or corrupt or both; and F) This doctrine makes a sham out of the idea of "No man is above the law." Prosecutor Reform No. 2 Prosecutors should be required to post a bond to help insure good performance by them, and they should also be personally responsible for paying the premium on this bond. REASONS: Prosecutors need an incentive to be careful, competent, conscientious, and honest when they function as prosecutors. They need exposure to some type of personal liability to motivate them to perform properly so they do not perform in a sub-standard manner. Stripping them of absolute immunity will not guarantee their good performance. Making them post a bond for which they have to pay the premium will create an incentive to help insure their good performance. I am also inclined to explore the following reforms: A disgruntled criminal defendant should have the right to sue a prosecutor and recover against the bond. If a prosecutor looses, the premium should triple each time he/she loses. The tripling of the bond premium would make it too expensive for bad prosecutors to remain in office, which would result in bad prosecutors tending to remove themselves because they would lose a financial incentive to stay in office. I am also inclined to explore the idea that if a prosecutor looses X number of suits over Y number of years, the prosecutor will automatically be barred from continuing to serve.

Prosecutor Reform No. 3

I am inclined to be receptive to passing a law that states something along these lines: If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or conclusively, that a prosecutor was instrumental in framing an innocent person of a crime, that prosecutor shall automatically be liable for the maximum penalty provided by law for the crime for which the prosecutor framed the innocent person.

REASONS: I think there are bad prosecutors who knowing help to frame innocent persons; thus, the public needs a law like this one to deter egregious prosecutorial misconduct.

Reforms Regarding Sworn Peace Officers

Sworn Peace Officer Reform No. 1

The Doctrine of Absolute Immunity for Sworn Peace Officers must be repealed, forthwith. Since the U.S. Supreme Court invented this judicial doctrine without benefit of any actual text in the U.S. Constitution, the Legislature can repeal it.

REASONS: A) Per this doctrine, an overzealous, badge heavy, under-trained, mis-trained, under-supervised, mislead, mean, cruel, brute, government goon type sworn police officer, enjoys extremely good odds of being granted absolute immunity for extremely bad conduct committed by the officer under color of law, and this outcome is insufferable; B) This doctrine encourages officers to be incompetent, negligent, grossly negligent, malicious, corrupt or a combination of same, none of which inspires confidence; C) This doctrine appeals to psychopaths: it gives psychopaths a perfect refuge to ruin lives while they get to hide behind a shield of absolute immunity that protects them even if they are malicious or corrupt or both; D) This doctrine makes a sham out of the idea of "No man is above the law." This doctrine grants bad officers a license, a free pass, to violate the law with absolute legal impunity so they can never be held personally, financially, or legally liable for the damage they cause.

Sworn Peace Officer Reform No. 2

Sworn peace officers should be required to post a bond to help insure good performance by them, and they should also be personally responsible for paying the premium on this bond.

REASONS: Peace officers need an incentive to be careful, competent, conscientious, and honest when they function as peace officers. They need exposure to some type of personal liability to motivate them to perform properly so they do not perform in a sub-standard manner. Stripping them of absolute immunity will not guarantee their good performance. Making them post a bond for which they have to pay the premium will create an incentive to help insure their good performance.

Under the current system, if a bad officer is sued, taxpayers pay for his defense, and if the officer loses, taxpayers also pay the judgment.

I presume that some law enforcement agencies have on staff one or more officers who who have been sued numerous times and have lost numerous times, with taxpayers always paying the bill, even though the taxpayers did nothing wrong. Taxpayers should not be the insurer of last result for bad peace officers.

I am inclined to explore the following reforms: A disgruntled criminal defendant should have the right to sue a peace officer who is charged with violating a person's rights and recover against the bond. If the officer looses, the premium should triple each time he/she loses. The tripling of the bond premium would make it too expensive for bad officers to remain in office, which would result in bad officers tending to remove themselves because they would lose a financial incentive to remain officers.

I am also inclined to explore the idea that if a police officer looses X number of suits over Y number of years, the officer will automatically be barred from continuing to serve.

Sworn Peace Officer Reform No. 3

Sworn peace officers personal records should be made substantially available to the public, especially complaints against the officer, resolution of those complaints, and job performance evaluation.

REASONS: Officers have the power of arrest, which can terminate a person's liberty and trigger a legal, economic, financial nightmare, and they have the power to use lethal force, which can maim and kill. Any public employee with that kind of power needs to be subjected to greater public scrutiny. I lack confidence in senior commanders disciplining their subordinates adequately. I find it easy to believe that senior commanders experience awesome pressure from their subordinates to provide cover for bad subordinates.

Sworn Peace Officer Reform No. 4

I know of at least one police department in California that has what they call a "Continuation of Force" policy. Per this policy, if an officer tells a person to do X, if the person refuses to do X, that department instructs the officer to continue to escalate force until the person does X. I, personally and professionally, hate that policy. It is simplistic. It ignores a person's rights. It assumes the officer is always correct. Officers are not always correct. They are often wrong. This simplistic policy gives an officer a green light to function as a brute. It increases the odds that an officer will manhandle a person recovering from surgery, which can grossly interfere with a person's recovery, possibly seriously, and possibly permanently ruining a person's chances of getting a good surgical result. Consequently, I am inclined to pass a law that would make this kind of an official police department policy illegal.

Sworn Peace Officer Reform No. 5

I have personal knowledge that there is a retired LASO [Los Angeles Sheriff Office] SWAT Team officer who now earns a living serving as an instructor for new peace officer candidates and new officer rookies and as an expert witness for municipalities in police misconduct cases. This man, under oath, in his deposition, said he trains these folks as follows: Per court decisions, every officer has a right to presume that every person they approach is armed and dangerous; therefore, every officer has a right to demand that a person close to them, upon their command, go down to the ground or pavement, face first, and allow themselves to be handcuffed so the officer can search them and satisfy himself that they are unarmed, and, if a person refuses to comply with that order, every officer has a right to force them to the ground.

This "expert's" opinion is not the law.

I am inclined to champion passage of a law that would clarify, accurately and succinctly, when an officer can order a person to the ground to be searched.

I am also inclined to champion passage of a law that would require a person to pass a rigorous written test before they would be allowed to serve as an "expert" witness in police misconduct cases, and, if an alleged "expert" testifies contrary to accepted constitutional norms, they would forfeit their "expert witness accreditation". Litigation should not be a game or a forum where "expert" witnesses, especially retired sworn peace officers hired by municipalities, are free to swear to their dangerous nonsense and pass off their opinions as binding law.

Sworn Peace Officer Reform No. 6

I am inclined to be receptive to passing a law that states something along these lines: If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or conclusively, that a sworn peace officer was instrumental in framing an innocent person of a crime, that officer shall automatically be liable for the maximum penalty provided by law for the crime for which he framed the innocent person.

REASONS: There are bad cops who do frame innocent persons. We need a law like this one deter their egregious conduct.

Sworn Peace Officer Reform No. 7

All CCW [concealed carry weapon permit] laws should be repealed, forthwith.

REASONS: A) The Legislature exceeded its actual authority when it granted Police Chiefs and Sheriffs discretion to grant or to deny CCW permits; B) All forms of CCW permit applications, required fees, waiver of privacy, waiting periods, passing tests, and getting an official's approval are an unconstitutional violation of the the Second Amendment's codified " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Even God, if limited to human qualities, cannot regulate a right without infringing upon it; C) "Discretion" has always been the refuge and the source of a tyrant's power. No Police Chief and no Sheriff should ever be given discretion to decide whose hide is worthy of being protected with a gun and whose isn't.

A number of years ago my local police chief [not the current one] took this odd position: Since he couldn't decide who was the best person to get a CCW permit he refused to even stock the application forms because he decided he would never issue a CCW permit to anyone! His attitude was seriously flawed. He refused to exercise his discretion on an individual basis. His refusal to exercise his discretion was an abuse of his discretion, not the exercise of it.

Also, the Second Amendment was never intended to be limited to only "the best" person as determined by any government official. This Police Chief's unilateral idea that the Second guarantees a right to only "the best" is asinine.

This Police Chief's asinine reasoning is a classic example as to why the Framers ended the Second with "shall not be infringed.", namely, to prevent infringements by this absurd Police Chief.

The Second Amendment is every good citizen's nation wide gun permit. It is part of the supreme law binding on the states and every state's political sub-divisions. It is axiomatic that no state law that conflicts with anything in the U.S. Constitution trumps the U.S. Constitution, but California's CCW laws conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

"Shall not be infringed" is a clear, obligatory command. There is no ambiguity. Since there is no ambiguity there is no need for any citizen to wait for a judge or a panel of judges to resolve the ambiguity. "Shall not be infringed" is as clear a legal command as any learned person can communicate with words. Hence, the Legislature, Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, law enforcement lobbyists, the National Rifle Association, the judiciary, media elites, law school professors, and the public, need to get real, need to step up to home plate and bite the proverbial bullet and openly admit, finally, and unequivocally, that California's entire CCW laws are 100% unconstitutional.

There is also documented evidence in this state that corrupt police chiefs and sheriffs have been exploiting their "discretion" to grant or to deny CCW permits by charging fees which they use for their political campaigns, for their office budget, or for their personal use. No citizen should have to pay a fee to exercise a constitutional right.

3. Investigate and Hold "Banksters" Accountable

I define "bansksters" to mean any person substantially involved with any form of a taxpayer bailout of any business or bank, within or outside of California, with ties to California or an impact on California, who cannot account for the money trail or "chain of title" and appears to be tainted, broadly construed, with some form of fraud. I find it difficult to believe that with hundreds of billions of dollars involved that there has been no fraud amounting to a violation of civil law or criminal law or both. This is especially true when there have been public acknowledgements that huge amount of this money cannot be accounted for. I am stunned that there does not appear to be an adequate number of serious investigations by government agencies charged with holding white collar criminals accountable. This situation reeks. It suggests that government officials, Wall Street officials, and many senior bankers have reached some kind of a deal, e.g., if government will let Wall Street and/or the banks engage in corruption with impunity, the financial sector will continue to prop up the broke federal government with money.

I do not know how well founded my suspicions are. I do know this, however, if elected, I will use my skills as a former criminal prosecutor and as a civil litigator to conduct a Herculean investigation into this subject to try to determine who, if anyone, is guilty of wrong doing, and, if there has been wrong doing, do my best to recover funds stolen from Californians, via fraud or otherwise, under color of law.

The fallout from Wall Street, government home loan lending agencies, and bank loans, etc., has had an extremely damaging impact on California's housing market, home values, and folks' equity value, plus the job market. If there is a way to recover for Californians money stolen under color of law via fraud or whatever, I want to investigate and do my best to recover as much of that money as possible.

4. Repeal All California Laws Violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The First Law of Nature is self-preservation. This unwritten but universally understood law is as old as mankind. The most pragmatic means to enforce your right to self-preservation, to lawful self-defense, to life, to liberty, and to pursue happiness, is to be armed and proficient with a firearm. If you disagree, I hope you never become a crime victim.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual personal right to firearms that is 100% independent of membership in any form of a militia or any government organization that requires a person to be armed, and this right is binding on the states and its political subdivisions. These holdings are binding on California--all of it, and all of its officials and citizens.

The Second Amendment ends with "shall not be infringed." Those four words are an unambiguous, clear, mandatory, affirmative, command that admits of no wiggle room, no exceptions. Since there is no ambiguity there is no ambiguity for any judge to resolve via interpretation. Hence, Californians simply need to get serious about obeying our Constitution's commands and should start to treat the U.S. Constitution for what it is: this nation's "supreme law of the land."

When it comes to this subject, many Californians need to travel the scariest, longest, distance, namely, the 5-6 inches between their ears--they need to wrap their minds around and embrace as 100% valid my principled, legal argument in support of the Second Amendment.

Along the way, affluent liberal, "progressive", Democrat,Yuppies in left learning Sonoma County and Marin County need to get realistic about taking personal responsibility for defending their own life, the lives of their loved ones, their community, and their nation. Each of you are the persons most responsible for your own safety, and the most pragmatic means to enforce your Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is to have a loaded firearm, and be proficient with it, to deter and to defeat a criminal. You successful "progressive" Yuppies have things criminals want to steal . . . and thieves [robbers and muggers] typically don't like to leave behind eye witnesses who can identify them and be instrumental in having them arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated.

Anyone who champions the alleged right of the LGBT [Lesbians, Gays, Bisexual, Transgender] community members to "same sex marriage", which is not expressly granted by the U.S. Constitution's text, should come to terms with this reality: It is odd that champions of "same sex marriage" can "find" that alleged right in the U.S. Constitution, when there is no actual text that declares its existence, yet "progressive" Democrat Yuppies, simultaneously, as a group, are steadfastly unwilling to embrace a right that is expressly stated in the U.S. Constitution, namely, " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I am not making a political argument. I am making a legal argument in favor of the Second Amendment, which I am duty bound to do. I am also making a meritorious political observation about what I experience to be an odd quality about many people in the Tenth Assembly District, namely, they support "same sex marriage" as a right, which is not clearly stated in the U.S. Constitution, while they oppose an individual right to firearms, which is clearly stated in that constitution.

Constitutionalism [obeying our Constitution's commands] is not a game or a matter of mere opinion or options. Everyone who supports the LGBT community's alleged right to "same sex marriage" but opposes Second Amendment individual firearm rights lacks a principled, cohesive, defensible, consistency in their approach to governance. Their "pick and choose" approach is ill-advised, counter-productive, and dangerous.

The second paragraph of the July 4th, 1776 Declaration of Independence declared that the purpose of government is to "secure" unalienable rights, among which are the Right to Life/Liberty/Pursue Happiness. It is difficult, if not impossible, to enjoy any of these rights after a criminal has killed you or inflicted a devastating injury.

Any government official who tells you you must beg them for their permission to defend your life, that they have discretion to withhold that permission, that they can withhold that permission with impunity, you must circulate in public unarmed and vulnerable to the criminal element, set up by them [your officials], to be easily plundered, harmed, and killed by the criminal element, is an ally of the criminal element, is your enemy, and is cavalierly, ruthlessly, and callously indifferent about your life, your welfare, and anyone dependent on you or who loves you.

After paying government trillions upon trillions in annual tax tribute, it is axiomatic that, at a minimum, government, and all of its agents, owe citizens, at a minimum, the duty to honor our right to take responsibility for enforcing our right to live, with the most pragmatic means, a loaded firearm.

5. Get the State Budget and Fiances Under Control

A Fundamental Reality Check

When an individual's outgo exceeds his income his upkeep will be his downfall. The same is true of California's government and the U.S. government. Most Democrats in this state, however, have lousy business sense. They also persist with trying to defy reality, which never works.

Public Sector Employee Unions

California, for decades, has been politically controlled by irresponsible, big spending, left leaning, "progressive" Democrats who have racked up annual huge deficits. These "progressive" Democrats have driven us into a big financial ditch. We're stuck. The Democrats are incapable of getting us out. One of their major "Principles of Governance" has been to make irresponsible promises to one constituency after another, promising each a new "entitlement", which they would pay for by making another raid on the public treasury. These massive, repeated, cumulative raids on the public treasury have brought us to not just zero [0] but a negative zero [-0] balance. California is broke. California is as busted as a bum riding the rails.

Another major "progressive" Democrat "Principle of Governance" has been to repeatedly offer public sector employees overly generous compensation, to keep them happy, so those increasingly powerful unions would endorse "progressive" Democrat candidates. About two years ago, a LAX police officer told me he was paid almost $100,000 per year, not including fringe benefits or overtime, and a Sonoma County Deputy Sheriff courtroom bailiff told me he was paid almost $200,000 per year. [I don't recall if that amount was with or without fringe benefits or overtime.] This level of compensation seems excessive.

The TV news recently reported that California has recently built twenty new state prisons, private industry manages these twenty new prisons, and the prison guard union for California's prison industry has a deep hook in the backs of most of California's elected lawmakers who keep voting to give the prison guards bigger paychecks. Simultaneously, California built only one new state university during the time it built twenty new prisons.

Members of public sector unions are important. They provide a vital service. They deserve fair compensation and a retirement with dignity. However, there are finite limits as to what taxpayers can afford to pay.

This lopsided arrangement has gotten so bad that municipalities can't provide vital, or desirable, services to other components of the community because the public sector employees [especially law enforcement, fire fighters, and prison guards] are consuming a growing percentage of the budget, leaving an insufficient amount of money to maintain public roads, public parks, water supply, public pools, and courtrooms open five days a week. When the roads are not timely maintained, their deterioration accelerates and it becomes even more expensive to repair them. I recently went to a public presentation by one of Sonoma County's leading experts on road maintenance, a county employee, and he warned that if he continues to lose budget share for road maintenance because the public sector unions are getting an increased share, if present trends are not reversed, a substantial number of major roads in this county in about ten years will be reduced to gravel and a maximum practical speed on such roads will be approximately 25 MPH!

The Golden Mean of "balance" is in effect. Yes, it is true that sworn peace officers and fire fighters are true local assets, worth many times their weight in gold, but, if they are truly motivated by the spirit of "public service" they will be reasonable, they will appreciate where their self-interest lies, and they will come to terms with this reality check: A successful parasite sooner or later kills its host or jumps to another. To put it another way, if public sector union members are unwilling to compromise, they will force the "host" to "kill" the "parasite" by filing for bankruptcy protection and wiping out those union contracts and accumulated pension benefits. [Note: I do not intend to imply that public sector employees are "parasites". They are not. I simply reference an imperfect analogy to illustrate the dynamics.]

Tax Base in Jeopardy

California's "progressive" Democrats have manifested another disturbing "Principle of Governance": They have passed laws that make California attractive to "non-producers" and less attractive to "producers" who are fleeing the state or who refuse to locate here. The stark danger here is this: "Non-producers" are essentially tax proof, namely, they lack income or assets to tax, and, worse, they drain down the public treasurey via their "entitlements" that the "progressive" Democrats gave them to motivate them to vote for Democrats.

Compassion Fatigue

It is easy for "progressive" Democrats to show compassion by giving away money until they run out of other folks' money. Current trends, however, are not sustainable. As Ayn Rand opined, one can try to escape reality but no one can escape the consequences of reality.

6. Energy Independence

General Discussion

The last 5-7 consecutive U.S. Presidents, at times, harped about the imperative need for the U.S. to wean itself of its growing dependence on foreign oil, but that still has not occurred. Our civilization will collapse if we don't maintain adequate energy to fuel commerce.

As a photographer who loves nature, beauty, wildlife, animals, landscapes, the land, the ocean, waterfalls, forests, and a pollution free clear sky, etc., I appreciate--deeply--the conservationists' sustained efforts to preserve nature and our environment. I also remember well the awful atmospherics in communist China before the Olympics were held there. There is a definite legitimate place for conservation, but, not for extreme environmental protectionism. "Extreme environmental protectionism" needs to be balanced--intelligently--against Mankind's compelling needs; otherwise, we risk serious collapse of major industries, food supply, jobs, and commerce. Human beings, after all, are now also part of the environment.

Alternative Sources of Clean Renewable Energy

It is my understanding that promising or technically feasible alternative sources of clean, renewable energy include the following: 1) installing below the water line salt water corrosion resistant or impregnable turbines to be powered by the action of waves and the tidal flow. If this is feasible, since California has hundreds of miles of coastline, this option might be feasible; 2) erect massive solar power generation plants in the south eastern deserts of California [and states like South Dakota (but that is a federal issue)]; 3) distill hydrogen from H2O [water], liquefy the hydrogen, and burn the hydrogen; 4) massive above ground algae farms; and 5) synthetic oil. These options should be aggressively and intelligently explored and the promising ones should be developed, forthwith.

Thoughts About "Dirty" Coal and Oil Under American Control

Americans, including environmentalists, need to make a wise decision about how they want to live. If they don't, or if procrastination continues, $8-$12 per gallon gas, and climbing, will force a decision. That's reality. No one escapes reality--not even environmentalists.

7. Federal and California Income Tax Code Reforms

The United States and California share big problems regarding how they spend money, pay bills, and collect taxes. Both waste colossal amounts of money and don't spend money wisely.

While Congress has authority to impose and collect an income tax, the way Congress does that is unconstitutional. To learn more, read Phil Hart's Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?

A selective incomplete itemization of major problems arising from how the United States and California collect taxes is stated below.

Problem No. 1: The Nature and Scope of the Income Tax was Misrepresented

When a proposed federal income tax was debated in the early 1900's, those who championed a federal income tax, at that time, defined "income" to be limited to the return on one's investments. That definition excluded all forms of compensation for labor [e.g., salary, commissions, and bonuses], which were then deemed not to be "income", subject to a tax. It was also claimed that the maximum tax would be 3% and it would be levied against only the extremely wealthy's investment returns above a certain level. Today, however, government taxes, as "income" almost every conceivable form of compensation for labor. This is a radical enlargement in the scope of what is taxed. This enlargement makes the income tax much more oppressive. In this sense, the government pulled a "switcheroo" against the public by misrepresenting how "income" would be defined and who would have to pay it.

Problem No. 2: The Tax Code Has Become a Cover for Bribes Made and Accepted Under Color of Law

In most nations, a bribe is committed by one person directly giving money to another, illegally, with the intent to motivate the recipient to do something for them in return. In this nation, and in this California, lobbyists give campaign donations [the legal "bribe"] to lawmakers to motivate the lawmakers to pass a law to give the person(s) or companies who hired the lobbyists something in return [the pay-off for the person who is the source of the money for the legalized "bribe"]. Thus, what would be a bribe if paid directly is laundered and made acceptable by being channeled through a lobbyists to influence a change in the law. If there was no income tax code this problem would be eliminated.

Problem No. 3: Tax Law Has Made American Goods Non-Competitive in World Markets

As governments in this nation require employers to take more money out of American workers' paychecks, American workers want and need to be paid more to compensate for what government takes. As employers pay employees more, employers have to increase their prices to cover their costs and higher prices make American products or services less competitive.

If government abandoned the income tax and shifted to a tariff on imports, American workers wouldn't need as much money because they wouldn't have to pay federal/state income tax. Instead, they would be paying, via higher prices, indirectly, part of the tariff on imported goods, if they bought imported goods, which would encourage Americans to "buy American", which would pump prime the American economy more than government bailouts of "too big to fail" companies and extended unemployment benefits.

Problem No. 4: The United States and California Spend Too Much

If the U.S. and California became fiscally responsible they would need less tax revenue.

Problem No. 5: The Internal Revenue Code is Plagued With Major Problems

The Internal Revenue Code is a dense pack of approximately 1,100 pages of small font text. There are approximately 10,000 pages of IRS regs interpreting those 1,100 pages. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the nature and the scope of the "income tax" is highly debatable.

Problem No. 6: As Government Becomes Strapped for Money Tax Collectors Become More Aggressive

If elected, I would champion major income tax reforms to address these problems.

8. Public Employees' Pension Reform

Public employees pension reform has become a serious public policy issue. It is also now a true crisis. A huge amount of public money is hemorrhaging. All forms of ideological rhetoric [for or against public employees] will not solve anything, and, therefore, is best avoided.

The existence of many different types of public employee pensions for different types of employees makes it difficult to discuss intelligent reforms for a specific pension; however, since the key factors for all public employee pensions are the same, one can make intelligent general comments.

The issues, the variables, and the competing vested interests make public employee pension reform complex. To fix this problem intelligently, and, as amicably as possible, everything needs to be on the table, including currently employed and retired public employees being willing, in earnest, to agree, voluntarily, to reduce their total compensation package substantially, or, in the alternative, face being laid off, if employed, or having their right to a pension wiped out in federal bankruptcy court if their employer seeks federal bankruptcy protection.

Good public employees deserve fair compensation [salary, fringe benefits, and pension] so they can live and retire with dignity, but they are not entitled to an overly generous compensation so they can retire and be relatively wealthy compared to the taxpayers who fund their pensions or are obligated to be the insurer of last resort for under-funded pensions.

A good public employee is a competent, faithful, reliable, and realistic, public servant, truly motivated by a spirit of public service, who, among other things, is realistic and considerate of taxpayers, namely, refrains from over reaching regarding compensation and does not expect or demand that taxpayers be the insurer of last resort for public employees' unsustainable pension programs.

When pondering what are the qualities of "a good public employee" I remember a relevant conversation I had with a U.S. Air Force Lt Col who was the commanding officer of an Air Force attack jet squadron. When I asked him if he was satisfied with how much he was paid he said yes. He also said he wants compensation to be adequate enough to attract people who are motivated to accomplish the mission, but he did not want the compensation to be overly generous. This officer opined that if the Armed Forces were paid too much the quality of the people who volunteer would go down, namely, the overly generous pay would attract people who are more motivated by the money--mercenary types--as opposed to people who are motivated by love of country--patriot types. What this Lt Col said is meritorious, relevant, insightful, and are applicable.

Different types of public employment compensation packages can attract different kinds of applicants. As a citizen-taxpayer, I am like that Lt Col: Public employees should be paid well enough to attract those motivated by a genuine spirit of public service, but, to avoid attracting those who care more about money than they do about providing genuine, faithful, long term, public spirited, public service, that total package should not be overly generous

Government is a service provider. It is not a job program. It is also not a method for one group to "milk", manipulate, or suck financial "blood" out of another group or government itself.

It is axiomatic that public employees should be paid the right amount, namely, enough to attract and retain qualified people. Any amount above that is too much, is a gift to the employee(s), and is a waste of taxpayer money.

One major reason public employee pensions are as high as they are, and, out of control, is this: Historically, when these pensions were negotiated, the taxpayer's interests were not well represented. Instead, public employee union spokespersons, supported by powerful public employee sector unions, sat down with elected officials, to determine total compensation packages. Elected officials knew they were not negotiating away their own personal money and wealth but were negotiating taxpayers' money. Thus, elected officials never had a real personal stake in the outcome--their own money was not at risk. During those negotiations, elected officials coveted getting endorsements from powerful public safety unions[police, fire fighter, and prison guard] so they could look "tough on crime" and have uniform peace officers standing behind them in photos for their campaign pictures.

Government officials, as a group, have proven to be lousy negotiators vis-a-vis public employees' total compensation packages. These officials have inexplicably agreed to retroactive benefit increases, overly generous salaries, overly generous pension guarantees with too little required employees' contributions, automatic COLA [cost of living adjustments], and permissible "double dipping" [earning retirement from two or more jobs after retiring from the first one]. Such poor financial management has destroyed many governments' budgets and finances, forcing them to resort to one or more drastic measures to cope with these problems. These drastic measures include: 1) cut way back on provided services, 2) increase taxes, 3) borrow money to pay for unsustainable pension obligations, or 4) a combination of 1-3, inclusive.

The core problem is structural. The structure needs to be changed to make stock market investment cycles irrelevant to how public employee pensions are paid. To make these structural changes public employees must become realistic, and they must contribute more to their own pensions and embrace less generous total compensation.

Taxpayers cannot afford to pay for employees who retire at age 50 years old and, when they retire, draw a guaranteed pension of 90% to 130% of their highest annual salary, for life, especially since life expectancy is increasing. Taxpayers' funds are finite.

Currently, in many jurisdictions, there are more retirees than there are active employees paying into the system, and many retirees did not contribute anywhere near enough to make their pensions, on their own, sustainable, especially when they retire earlier and live longer.

Public employee pensions require prompt attention and a perspective calculated to protect the legitimate interests of taxpayers, which has been substantially ignored for too long. As a result, the pending consequences of unsustainable, overly generous, public employee pensions, for taxpayers is dire. This is because we are now at a literal crisis stage, and there still does not appear to be a serious enough commitment on the part of the major players in this problem to solve this problem.

These major players are government officials, powerful public sector employee unions, currently employed public sector employees, retired public sector employees, and taxpayers.

This problem involves legal restrictions, contractual obligations, financial realities, and opposing political pressure from public sector employee unions and their members on one side and a growing number of alarmed, disgusted, or angry taxpayers on the opposite side, with government officials caught in the middle. To exacerbate matters, most of these officials are probably too closely aligned with powerful public sector employee unions that wield excessive political influence over them.

Many public employees' pension programs are on an unsustainable course. For those programs, this means that we [public employees, governments, government officials, and citizen taxpayer voters] are in a crisis. That is not an exaggeration. The direction most of these programs is going requires decisive, intelligent, immediate, substantial changes or the outcome for the public employees, their employers, and for taxpayers dependent on government services, will be dire. So far, in my judgment, the reforms that many government officials are willing to make to reduce overly generous salaries and total compensation packages will prove to be woefully inadequate.

Public pension reforms should be calculated to promote three goals or values: 1) Fairness to the employee/retiree, government employer, and the taxpayer citizen voter; 2) Equitable for all concerned in every respect; and 3) Sustainable, namely, pension obligations need to be met without degrading government services rendered to the community, without raising taxes, and without government borrowing money to pay pension obligations.

To be fair, a pension program reform must refrain from doing harm and must be calculated to do good, perhaps in an utilitarian manner, namely, the greatest good for the greatest number. To be equitable, the benefits and the pain should be equitably distributed and shared by all concerned. To be sustainable, there must be an irrevocable, firm commitment that funding pensions must not take priority over government delivering vital or even desirable public services to the community so that all services are continued.

To accomplish these three goals, current public employees and retirees are well advised to embrace this point of view: They need to voluntarily agree to substantial reductions in their total compensation package, namely, salary, fringe benefits, and pension benefits, including accrued, if retired, or what they will receive when they retire.

One can deny reality but no one can successfully escape the consequences of denying reality. The reality is this: Many public employees and retirees, via the influence of their powerful public employee unions, negotiated overly generous total compensation packages which are unsustainable, and, if they do not agree to substantial reductions, they increasingly risk being laid off, furloughed, terminated, receiving no pension, and, if retired, having their pension wiped out when their former employer files for bankruptcy protection to wipe out contract obligations.

Some necessary reforms should include 1) a major new retirement formula for new hires, e.g., an older retirement ages, much higher employee contributions [fully funded, namely, retirees get out what they put in], the elimination of "spiking" [adding to base salary additional sources of income to increase the amount of the final year's salary], and less of a guaranteed fixed dollar amount so that the employee shares some risks arising from market investment losses and the employer's total risk is capped at a fixed amount.

As a generalization, I am inclined to believe this: 1) Far too many elected officials have catered to certain public employees, especially law enforcement officers, prison guards, and fire fighters, with an ulterior motive, namely, so the officials can look tough on crime and to motivate the unions for those types of employees to endorse the elected official; 2) many government agencies are paying law enforcement officers, prison guards, and fire fighters a total compensation package and a guaranteed pension fringe benefit at a relatively young age that amounts to over compensation. which was imprudent in the beginning and is now counter-productive, ill-advised, and unsustainable; 3) all public employees should be paid a reasonable amount and there should be in place for them a decent, fair, pension upon retirement; 4) however, certain employees are now being paid too much, and governments' unfunded pension obligations owed to government retirees is now so high, that governments are now facing a stark choice: raise taxes to get more money to pay these salaries and pension benefits, go into debt to borrow money to pay these salaries and pension benefits, or cut back on government provided services to taxpayers.

One major problem with many public employee pension programs is they are based on what is called "a Defined Benefit program". A Defined Benefit program is designed to provide retirees with a guaranteed predictable benefit for life, and the amount received is typically a function of years of service and pay, with the public employer and the public employee both making contributions to the pension program. If the amount contributed proves to be inadequate to fund the program, the retiree is still legally entitled to receive the entire defined benefit, for life, even if the former employer has to raise taxes or borrow money or both to pay the benefit. Unfortunately, when the stock market does not do well, weaknesses in these pension programs are revealed because the rate of return on investments are less than anticipated and, along the way, the retiree or the employer or both did not contribute enough to sustain the program.

Currently, unfunded public employee/retiree pension obligations are growing at approximately 16.5 to 19% per year, cumulative. This is approximately 400% more than the recent and current inflation rate. If left unchecked, many of these pension obligations within 1-2 years will increase to approximately 21%, almost one quarter of most government's budgets. When 16.5 to 21% of a government's budget is going to retirees who no longer provide any socially beneficial service, something is seriously out of whack.

If these pension obligations are somehow paid, they will be paid only at the expense of the current generation of taxpayers accepting far less government services, paying more for less, and the current crop of retirees, in effect, under color of law, regardless of their intent, will be committing a form of generational theft, burdening future generations with the duty to pay off pension debt incurred before future generations were born, even though they received no benefit from what they are obligated to pay.

I am aware of an analogy which is somewhat relevant even though a bit offensive. I apologize in advance for the offensive part of this imperfect analogy. I recommend that public employees who enjoy particularly generous total compensation packages ponder carefully this analogy: "Pigs get feed; hogs get slaughtered." That statement is fairly common among litigators who handle personal injury lawsuits. The point of that statement is that a plaintiff who sues for money damages should be reasonable, should not be greedy, and should avoid overreaching, for fear of being awarded what is referred to as "the golden goose egg", namely, zero [0], and, in that sense, instead of being "a pig" who is "fed" or receives a reasonable amount of money via a settlement, risks being "a hog" that is "slaughtered" when the jury awards nothing.

By analogy, generously paid public employees are well advised to voluntarily negotiate downward, substantially, their total compensation package [salary, fringe benefits, retirement age, and pension] because governments have the power, in bankruptcy, to "slaughter" them, e.g., have their pension obligations discharged [wiped out, cancelled, forgiven], via the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution and federal bankruptcy law.

Generously paid public employees, or retirees, are also well advised to ponder carefully this fact: If they refuse to re-negotiate, downward, substantially, their total compensation package, many taxpayers will increasingly think of them not as public servants but as public serpents or parasites or leeches who function as blood suckers who are killing off the host, namely, their government employer or former government employer. Taxpayers who are struggling, making far less in salary and do not have guaranteed generous pensions, will push back, politically, hard, against politicians who continue to raise taxes to pay public employees, while reducing government services and borrowing money to pay employees who are, arguably, already overly generously paid.

A few years ago, members of the Santa Rosa Police Department sued their employer, and, via their employer, the City of Santa Rosa, taxpayers, for, guess what?, the right to be paid for putting on and for taking off their police uniform, badge, firearm, baton, and handcuffs, etc.! The police won that suit. After that, the City of Santa Rosa had to pay every officer who reported for duty an extra 1/2 hour of pay [15 minutes each to put on and take-off] the police uniform or, in the alternative, allow officers to do that, "on the clock", and, to keep costs under control, take them off patrol duty for thirty minutes for each shift, to, in effect, pay them to get dress/un-dress, instead of pay them to patrol, to deter crime or to investigate, to solve crimes.

I was stunned when I read of that lawsuit and the court decision in favor of the "public servants". To me, every officer who willingly participated in that lawsuit manifested an over reach and a lack of true public servant public spirit mentality. Instead, they acted more like what that Air Force Lt Col was referring to when he said he did not want "mercenary types" joining the U.S. Air Force. To me, police officers who participated in that lawsuit manifested an anti-public service spirit, selfish, self-serving, "mercenary", let's push to see what we can get away with, type mentality.

To me, any sworn "public servant" who demands full wages to get dress and un-dress to do the job, one for which he/she is already well paid and can retire at age 50 at 90-130% of annual salary, with "spiking" and COLA built-in, is over reaching, is obnoxious, and, perhaps, is even asinine. Getting ready to do the job is not the job and is not doing the job.

Police officers who pushed this issue [demanding payment to get dress/un-dress] pushed the envelope way too far. Since they got away with that, I anticipate they if some clever legal beagle advised them the odds were pretty good they could also get away with X, Y, and Z, they would try to get away with X, Y, and Z.

About two years ago a local deputy sheriff bailiff told me that he earned almost $200,000 per year. I don't remember if he said that was with or without fringe benefits. Either way, I'm sorry, but the man is over paid.

Insurance companies report that men who fish for tuna on the open oceans have a higher death rate than peace officers on the job.

A good, competent, honest, ethical, courageous, well trained, well lead, well supervised, non-badge heavy, constitutionally sensitive, peace officer who refuses to commit perjury, who refuses to lie for a bad cop, is a true national and local asset worth more than his or her weight in gold, literally, but, even that kind of excellent officer should not get paid more that a Lt Col who flies a strategic bomber or fighter or attack jet in combat, or who leads a brigade in combat or a Navy captain who commands enough fire power to reduce many nations to the stone age.

I suspect that many elected officials are still not yet serious enough about doing what is necessary to solve this problem, probably because they do not want to invoke the wrath of powerful public employee sector unions. I read a rather long "2011 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Committee on Pension Reform" report. This report is informative; however, certain examples as factual illustrations of what certain employees are paid and certain statements did not inspire my confidence in this Ad Hoc Committee. For example, this report states that "a Safety County employee who retired in 2010" at age 50 years old typically has a "final earnings" of "$83,000 annually". I do not know what they mean by "a Safety County employee". I tentatively assume that means a sworn peace officer or a fire fighter. If that is what they mean, I am skeptical that the average annual "final earning" for one of them in ""$83,000". This is because a Sonoma County Deputy Sheriff courtroom bailiff a few years ago told me the county paid him almost $200,000 annually. [That might have been with or without fringe benefits or overtime. Either way, that figure seems unreasonably high]. I point this out because the $83,000 figure seems exceptionally low, and misleading, based on what this bailiff told me. I suspect that this Ad Hoc Committee has intentionally suppressed the truth as to how much sworn peace officers and fire fighters are paid, for fear of a severe public outcry and political backlash.

Government that does not work is in no one's interests, except anarchists and criminals. So far, however, most government officials does not appear to be serious enough about securing meaningful pension reform fast enough.

Getting public employees to agree to a new "second tier" lesser compensation package for new hires while maintaining the current compensation package for current employees and retirees will not yield any immediate relief, which is needed.

This crisis is getting bigger because 1) about 50% of government employees are "baby boomers" who will retire within the next five years, exacerbating the already huge unsustainable public employees' pension problem; 2) Democrat Governor Gerry Brown has proposed a broad 12-plan for pension reform, leaving it to the California Legislature to fix this problem, but, the California Legislature, dominated by Democrats, have shown no support for their own elected head of the party because the powerful public employee sector unions have their hooks deep into most Democrat lawmakers who place campaign donations from such unions above the public's need for pension reform; and 3) many retirees are unwilling to voluntarily reduce their legal claims against the public treasury. These three stark facts are a recipe for taxpayers to react via public outcry and an initiative on the ballot to solve this problem.

Every dollar spent on pension cost is one less dollar spent on government services.

For many governments, high salaries and bigger pensions for certain employees [typically, "public safety", e.g., peace officer, fire fighter, and prison guard], have been financed by holding firm or reducing compensation for non-"public safety" employees or reducing maintenance on public roads, to the point of allowing roads to deteriorate so badly many are in advanced stages of becoming gravel roads. That allocation of budget resources is unfair to non-public safety public employees and unfair to taxpayers.

At a recent public meeting, an official Sonoma County spokesperson for the road maintenance department said that 1) as the Sonoma County Board of Supervisor have increased that percentage of the total budget set aside to finance public pensions, his budget for maintaining roads has gone down and 2) without a lot more money for road maintenance, extremely expensive roads will continue to deteriorate and, within ten years, many once expensive roads will be reduced to gravel and the maximum pleasant driving speed on those roads will be no more than 25 MPH.

Per such stark facts, a compelling argument can be made that regardless of their intent, whatever that might be--past or present--public employees have a lot at stake, and they are well advised to avoid being, or appearing to be, "selfish".

Some of my major bottom line opinions regarding this issue are:

Prudent public employees and retirees will cooperate to reduce pension costs downward to a sustainable level or risk having their pensions wiped out when their employer [current or former] files for bankruptcy protection to wipe out the obligation;
Employees need to fund their own retirement, be content to get out what they put in, and stop expecting or demanding that taxpayers guarantee them overly generous pensions for life, especially when many public employees can now retire as young as 50-55 years of age with 90-130% of their highest annual total compensation package, for life!;
Automatic COLA [cost of living adjustments] for retirees need to be eliminated;
The practice of "spiking" needs to be eliminated;
The practice of "double dipping" needs to be eliminated;
Taxes should not be raised to pay for unsustainable pensions. Increasing taxes promotes inefficiency and encourages inefficiency because it protects inefficiency and, therefore, is bad public policy. A better approach is for employees and retirees to negotiate a solution, agreeing to reduce their total compensation. There should be no tax increase without major pension reform. Raising taxes does not solve the problem. Raising taxes masks the underlying problem, makes it worse, and drives a wedge among taxpayers, public employees and public retirees;
Government should not borrow money to pay for unsustainable pensions;
Many government officials have grossly mismanaged this problem and they should never have created a compensation package that makes taxpayers the ultimate insurer of public employees' pensions;
Before government officials can, with a straight face, ask taxpayers to pay more they have to first earn taxpayers' trust and prove they have a good, equitable plan, for major pension reform;
The current generation of public employees and retirees cannot prudently, pragmatically, ethically, or morally ignore what is owed to future generations that don't deserve to be burdened with paying for someone else's underfunded pension;

. . . [Text deleted to comply with League of Women Voters' rules]

The Democratic majority in the California Legislature has manifested no desire and no intent to support Governor Brown's broad 12-point pension reform proposal. The union controlled Democrats in the Legislature have no interest in passing any form of serious public pension reform, even though this growing crisis is having a bigger adverse impact on government roads, parks, schools, swimming pools, and other services of important to taxpayers.
The electorate needs a candidate willing to challenge the powerful public sector employee unions. I, in addition to taking on corrupt judges, am willing, if elected, to take on those unions to protect the taxpayers' legitimate interests.

9. Promote An Environment Excellent for Private Enterprise

The senior elected officials of this state should do the following:

Stop making this state attractive to "non-producers" [people dependent on welfare] and make this state attractive to "producers" [people from a wide variety of occupations, skills, and trades who are employed in a good paying private enterprise job who provide a vital or desirable product or service]. If current trends continue ["producers" flee this state and refuse to locate here], the "non-producers" will find themselves here with no means of support, not even from Sacramento, because everyone Sacramento taxes will have moved out or shut down.];
Make it as easy as possible for start up businesses to get started and for established enterprises to continue to do business and remain competitive and profitable, and for builders to build, e.g., purge law books and administrate regulation codes of unnecessary or counter-productive laws and regs that impede business, thwart the creation of good new jobs, and needlessly frustrate entrepreneurs and reduce as much as possible the time to get building permits approved;
Help the construction industry and trade schools do their vital part in building America, building California, and making California "golden" again. [Everyone is not well suited to go to or to graduate from college. We do citizens, society, and ourselves a grave disservice when we insist that everyone graduate from college and fail to promote trade schools, union shops, and, for lack of a better term, "the builders", the blue collar types who break ground, erect buildings, provide for running water, energy at the flip of a switch, and repair everything from engines to heaters to vacuum cleaners.] A society biased too heavily in favor of college educated white collar types with insufficient technical skilled blue collar types is dysfunctional and out of shape, like a muscle man with a muscular chest and arms standing on tooth pick under developed legs;
Invest in infrastructure, transportation, and the future;
As an incentive to promote creative problem solving in the private sector, offer a significant cash prize or something of real value to any person, group, or company that is the first to come up with proven solution to a wide variety of major problems facing this state subject to the condition that the prize will be paid only after the alleged new idea or solution is demonstrated to be feasible and economical. [This approach would eliminate the risk of taxpayer money being wasted on start-up companies that fail while still creating a powerful incentive to stimulate a wide variety of creative new thinking.]
Promote two of California's biggest industries: agriculture and tourism.
Create non-monetary awards reserved for recognition of citizens who manifest an outstanding contribution to society. [As in the military, it is amazing what some people will do to gain formal favorable recognition and the award of a medal, a certificate, or a ribbon.]
Enlighten business owners and union bosses to the idea that their long term mutual best interests are best served when they work amicably with each other;
Reduce taxes as much as possible and get extremely serious about cutting out government waste.

10. Create a "Department of Bill of Rights Enforcement"

California will never be "golden" as long as there is a wide spread atmosphere in this state, among government's agents, that encourages them to believe they can usurp [abuse] power with impunity. We need a major new department in the California Attorney General's Office called the "Department of Bill of Rights Enforcement". This department must be well staff and rigorously kept 100% independent of politics. This department's primary mission would be to diligently police, investigate, and prosecute all government agents for violations of Mankind's greatest achievement, the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.

The mere existence of a scrupulously professional, above politics, taint free, well staffed, vigorous, dedicated, "Department of Bill of Rights Enhancement" would function as a major deterrence to would-be usurpers. This Department would be encouraged to make examples out of all public employees who violated their sacred oath of public service, usurped power, and violated a citizen's rights. As a result of deterring Bill of Rights violations this department would also encourage Bill of Rights compliance, which should make promote the public's respect for the law, government, and its agents and increase the public's confidence in government.

11. Protect Our Borders

We need to protect our borders. Any viable nation, let alone an alleged true super power, cannot long survive when it is unable to enforce its borders and control who enters, when, where, and how.

This call to get serious about enforcing our borders is not intended to be anti-legal immigrants from Mexico. Americans who immigrated here from Mexico, as a group, tend to be very patriotic, very family oriented, hard working, creative, talented, productive, and entrepreneurial. Many also join and serve well in the U.S. Armed Forces.

The noun "Mexican" contains two words and one concept that should appeal to every Republican, every Democrat, and every bonafide American, namely, " I can". "I can" is 100% consistent with the American pioneer settlers' mind set and the U.S. Armed Forces' "Can do!" or 'Mission Accomplished!" mindset.

The border to be enforced should be not just the one with Mexico but also the one with Canada.

12. Promote a Strong Bond Among Civilian Law Enforcement, U.S. Armed Forces, and Ordinary Citizens

Unknown to many citizens, there is, among many citizens, a massive distrust among three of this nation's greatest communities: civilian law enforcement, the U.S. Armed Forces, and ordinary citizens. A huge amount of this distrust arises from far too many government officials railing against privately owned firearms, maligning the Second Amendment, demonizing guns, marginalizing peaceful and responsible gun owners, and clamoring for more anti-gun, anti-gun right laws. At times, the distrust arising from such rhetoric has approached real dangerous, especially when certain officials publicly talked about confiscating banned firearms or declared that the Second Amendment did not guarantee an individual right to firearms, and, therefore, all privately owned firearms may be banned and confiscated.

Believe it or not, that type of railing against firearms and the Second Amendment increasingly risked armed rebellion or civil war. This is not hyperbole.

If you talk to any gun store owner who has been in business for the last 20-30 years they will tell you that the folks who been their best gun salespersons have been, guess what? . . . President Bill Clinton, U.S. Senator Hilary Clinton, U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, President Barack Obama, and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. One gun store owner a few years ago told me that he loves politicians like that, even though he disagrees with them, but he loves them because when they pipe off with more anti-gun rhetoric he often enjoys a rush of new customers, sometimes selling approximately one thousand "thousand yard rigs" [scoped, accurate, long range rifles] in one month!

The United Stats and California would be much better served if the senior leadership of civilian law enforcement in this state told the California Legislature the time is long overdue for the California Legislature to repeat all California laws that impose any kind of a prior restraint against individual gun rights. I can't think of anything that would be more effective in producing an irrevocable strong bond among civilian law enforcement, the U.S. Armed Forces, and ordinary citizens.

13. Promoting Constitutional Homeland Security

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the U.S. Constitution states that, "The Congress shall: . . . 15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;".

In Clause 13, the Framers also used the word "navy" and in Clause 14 they also used the term "the land and naval forces". Clauses 13 and 14 immediately preceded Clause 15. The Framers, therefore, purposefully made a distinction among the navy, land forces, and the militia. With that distinction in mind, they assigned to "the militia"--and only to "the militia"--the duty "to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions."

Clause 16 states that, "The Congress shall have power: . . . 16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, . . . ."

Congress, however, has refused to exercise any of its powers regarding "the militia". Instead, it has given strong preference to a standing, professional, peace time U.S. Armed Forces to "repel invasions". This is a major deviation from the Constitution's exact, clear, undisputed text. Sworn federal agents continue to knowingly and deliberately violate this text.

The situation in California is not any better. Article V, Section 7 of California's Constitution states, "The Governor is commander in chief of a militia that shall be provided by statute. The Governor may call it forth to execute the law."

That provision was amended on November 5, 1974, after California had a California Army National Guard and a California Air National Guard. Thus, the California Legislature knew the difference between "the militia" and "the Guard", yet California's Constitution empowers the Governor to, permissively, "may call it [the militia] forth to execute the law." I suppose this language is there because there is a federal law that makes it illegal to use the U.S. Armed Forces to enforce civilian law.

Per these provisions in the U.S. Constitution and in California's Constitution, do we have "constitutional homeland security"? Answer: No!

For an extremely intelligent, detailed discussion of this subject, read attorney Edwin Vieira, Jr's Constitutional "Homeland Security" Volume 1: The Nation in Arms.

14. Enforce the Law Against Rogue Municipalities' "Home Rule" De Facto Secession From the Union

There is an alarming trend in this nation: Politically entrenched "progressive" Democrats in certain dense pack areas, such as Denver, Colorado and San Francisco, California, have boldly proclaimed that their municipalities are "home rule", namely, per their own audacious will, they are hell bent on governing their municipalities per their view of what the law should be, in open defiance of what is required by the U.S. Constitution and the state's Constitution.

Officials who function this way violate their sworn oath of office. They are engaged in their arbitrary ad hoc decision making. They function as a gang that hijacked government. In context, these politicians are 100% insincere when they take their oath of office. They are frauds and liars. They are puffed, up self-anointed, condescending, loose canon, elitists who are begging for a well deserved comeuppance. I would not tolerate their mockery of "the supreme law of the land". Their principles of governance, their open defiance of the real American constitutional rule of law is exceedingly dangerous.

15. Oppose Ill-Advised "Tort Reform"

I am an endorsed California Republican candidate for the California Assembly who is staunchly opposed to what I will describe as knee jerk tort reform, which is typically championed by conservative Republicans who virulently hate and despise lawyers and lawsuits.

I understand that, unfortunately, some lawyers file, and press, ill-conceived lawsuits which are expensive to defend. On the other hand, there are already ample laws on the books to cope with that type of a litigator and those types of lawsuits.

From 1972 to 1976 I was a Deputy District Attorney criminal prosecutor and from 1976 to date a civil litigator. I have attended so many legal seminars regarding how to handle a civil lawsuit for personal injuries, representing the plaintiff, I long ago lost count. I know for a fact that, based on my experience, as a sweeping generalization, almost every attorney panel member presenter at these seminars, at some point, tells the attorneys in attendance something to this effect: Screen your cases exceedingly well. Do not take "dog" cases. It is in your best interest to make certain you can prove "liability", "causation", and that proveable "damages" are enough to justify your time and litigation costs. If and when the case turns to "dog doo", stop. Don't continue to litigate. "Dog" [bad] cases don't belong in court. They belong on a leash, staked deeply in the ground, in the "dog house", namely, the attorney's self-policing prudent depository for non-meritorious cases.

I embrace that advice because it is excellent. I can't prove it but I believe the odds are high that approximately 98%--or more--of the lawyers in this state also embrace this advice. Despite the bad rap that the public, as a whole, has imposed on attorneys, most are ethical, and most do not want to waste their time on non-meritorious cases. Pursuing non-meritorious cases is fraught with peril: A dark, time consuming hole with no fiancial pay-off, the risk of severe court ordered sanctions, and the risk of getting a horrible reputation among the Bar and judicial officers.

Most calls for "tort reform" seek to impose, in advance, some form of pre-judgement about the merits of a case. Realistically, however, this is extremely difficult to do, especially if you are not professionally legally trained and are not exceedingly familiar with the intricate details of the case's facts and the controlling law.

Ill-advised "tort reform" can easily throw up ill-advised obstacales to cases that are indeed meritorious. No one in this nation or state with a meritorious case should fall victim to ill-advised "tort reform".

Personal injury lawyers are exceedingly socially beneficial for society, short term and long term. Realistically, they function as "sharks" in the best sense of the word. Just as real sharks in the sea are, among other things, scavengers that keep the sea clean of decaying carcasses, and keep the other fish alert, personal injury lawyers, via their lawsuits, are an excellent socially beneficial stimulus to promote others in society to function safely and without violating the rights of others or duties owed to others. It is impossible to put a dollar value on this exceedingly positive, highly desireeable benefit that arises from personal injury lawsuits. Such lawsuits, for example, encourage A) people serving food to avoid food poisoning, B) people who build airplanes to build safe ones, and C) people who sell creams or medicine to maintain excellent quality control.

Most wrongdoers who function below the standard of care and cause injury to others would love to not have to worry about being sued and held accountable and, if sued, would love to have their maximum exposure to liability cap at a low amount--the lower the better. If, however, you are the wrongdoer's victim, I am certain you would disagree.

I am convinced that those who champion ill-advised "tort reform" have not thought through these pragmatic problems and they, if victimized, would would to be able to sue and to recover the full measure of their damages.

How would you like it if you believed X victimized you causing you Y damages and, as a result of ill-advised "tort reform", you couldn't sue X or, if you could, instead of being able to collect 100% of Y damages, the law capped your recovery at Y-Z? You wouldn't like it.

I have a friend, a British national, who had a contract to work for the Japanese in Japan. He told me that when he concluded his Japanese employer violated their contract, he talked to numerous Japanese lawyers with the intent to hire one to sue his Japanese employer and the Japanese government. Every Japanese lawyer he talked to made it clear to him that the odds that he, a Brit, an outsider, would find a Japanese lawyer who would take him on as a client to sue a major Japanese corporation and the Japanese government was zero. My British friend, in a way, crashed into a form of Japanese "tort reform" and experienced "no remedy".

I am staunchly opposed to any and all forms of knew jerk, ill-advised, "tort reform" calculated to provide wrongdoers' victims with "no remedy" or an unreasonably low fixed cap on recoverable damages.

The lower the cap on recoverable damages, the more the callous bean counters and CEOs of business can simply factor that low cap into the cost of doing business. "Tort reform", when done imprudently, can easily become a green light, or a free pass, for wrongdoers to throw caution to the wind, to function below the standard of care, and to make society and our civilization much less safe.

16. Substantially Reduce the Cost of Higher Public Education

Our children represent a large part of our future. Society is well served when our children can afford to get an excellent education beyond high school, marketable skills, and a good paying job. For those who were not born rich or who did not inherit wealth, higher education is the traditional pathway for upward social-economic mobility. Every California state budget should be crafted in a way that gives much higher priority to supporting California's public colleges and the University of California so that tuition costs are kept to a minimum.

17. Promote Excellent Trade School Educational Opportunities For Blue Collar Type Students

Many children are, by nature, better suited for a trade school education and not a four year college degree, which is perfectly fine. Society needs both types of children and adults: college educated white collar types and trade school educated blue collar types. It is imprudent to pressure blue collar type students to go to and to graduate from college. Students who are not well suited for an academic or white collar career typically excel if and when their other talents, e.g., artistic or trade [e.g., maintenance or building] are developed. Society, as a whole, and white collar professionals, need, desperately, a variety of well trained blue collar maintenance and building type adults. All [white/blue collar] are vital to society. A society that lacks adequate numbers of both types is dysfunctional. The legitimate needs of blue collar type students should not be ignored. The Legislature should do what it can to promote excellent trade school educational opportunities for blue collar type students.

18. The California Legislature Needs to Care for California's Veterans

A veteran is a person who, at the beginning of their military career, wrote a blank check, made payable to "The People of the United States of America", that they were willing to pay for, including, if necessary, with their own life. When these veterans are elderly and ill, when they can't care for themselves, we, as a society, need to be decent and do what we can to take care of them.

19. Catch-All: Promote An Enlightened Approach to Governance

I vow that, if elected, I will do my best to promote an atmosphere calculated to do the following: A) rebuke and deter racism in all of its forms, including Black racism against Caucasians. We should be long pass tolerating debilitating racism; B) promote respect for constitutionalism [obeying our Constitutions' actual text] and stop trying to substitute "progressive" values that are not "constitutional" values; C) curtail a "sense of entitlement" and encourage citizens to be self-sufficient. We are plagued with too many people sitting at home demanding one or more monthly state and federal government "entitlement" checks, plus, we are plagued with too many politicians who are eager to pass out these checks, in defiance of reality, even when they are clueless as to how government can continue to pay for these entitlements; D) make a Herculean effort to push beyond entrenched partisanship and be willing to embrace good contradictory ideas, regardless of political party affiliation; E) focus on pragmatically solving problems, taking care of infrastructure, improving transportation, and putting the legitimate interests of voters and taxpayers above that of unions, corporations, and lobbyists of all kinds; and F) make government and its agents responsive to citizens and take seriously the imperative need to respect and to uphold all citizens rights, including all disfavored rights.

• * *

There are three "hot button" issues that I have no intent of pursuing. These three are stated below.

Birth control via contraception pills.

I have no intent of doing anything about this subject if elected. I am comfortable with females using contraception pills. The only exception that I can think of is this: I am strongly inclined to be opposed to any law that allows an under age female to get contraception pills without the informed consent of the parents. I think the parents should be actively involved in that process and should retain oversight control over their child.

Birth control via abortion.

Is there anyone in the Tenth District who would support aborting millions of puppies each year? Would PETA support puppy abortion mills? How do you think you would react if you saw color movie film of 7-9 healthy Golden Retriever puppies, for example, or any dog breed of your choice, being aborted? Ponder that image.

I do not like aborting a puppy, let alone a human fetus. I prefer adoption to abortion.

I do not agree that a pregnant female has an absolute right to decide what to do with her body, her life, and her unborn child. When a female is sexually active, she engages in adult conduct with adult responsibility and she assumes the risk of pregnancy. Once a female becomes pregnant, if she was not raped, she owes responsibilities to the unborn child, to the father, to society, and to government. On the other hand, I am not a control freak. The law is best served when the lawmaker refrains from passing laws that the lawmaker is unwilling to enforce or can't enforce. Laws should accurately reflect human nature. Laws that are calculated to be consistent with human nature are the best kind. No one is well served by laws are are impossible to obey or that can't be enforced within acceptable limits of various trade-offs. Thus, as much as I personally don't like abortion, abortion is an exceedingly complex issue that is best left to the conscience of the mother. Government's role in this area is best kept to a minimum. I do not want to be instrumental in indirectly forcing pregnant females to seek medically unsafe abortions. While an abortion kills a fetus unsafe abortions risk the death of the fetus and the mother.

For these reasons, I have no intent to do anything to change current laws regarding abortion rights.

Same Sex Marriage.

I support for homosexual couples legal recognition, for them, of "civil union" status that is the equivalent of all the rights and duties conveyed to a heterosexual couple via formal legal recognition of a heterosexual marriage, in all respects, except one--the word "marriage".

My objection to "same sex marriage" exists 100% independently of a religious consideration. My objection is three-fold.

My first objection is based on how I reason from and to the U.S. Constitution. I do not believe that homsosexual couples' alleged right to "same sex marriage" can be found in the Equal Protection Clause [EPC] of the U.S. Constitution. This is because Equal Protection jurisprudence has been strictly limited to people or things that are substantially similar and fundamentally equal. Homosexual couples, however, are the exact opposite of heterosexual couples in two respects: sexual preference and anatomy. The purpose of the EPC clause is to protect and to treat things and people that are fundamentally the same similarly. It is imperative that "equal protection" protection not be stretched beyond the breaking point; otherwise, that clause, when misapplied, becomes silly, unworkable, and illogical.

While human beings are fundamentally the same, dissimilar gender and dissimilar sexual preference are material distinguishing qualities that cannot be logically ignored or convincingly argued to be equal enough to be properly within the scope of the "Equal Protection Clause". To claim that gender is no longer important or that sexual preference is irrelevant begs the issue and dodges the requirement that, for EPC protection to apply, whomever seeks EPC protection must prove that they come within the EPC's scope. This is because it is illogical to apply "equal protection" protection to two or more things or persons that are opposites. The LGBT [lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender] community's claim that they come within the scope of "equal protection" is non-meritorious because their sexual preference is the opposite of heterosexual couples'. Being the opposite of each other, it is axiomatic that homosexual couples do not quality for "equal protection" protection. This is a a matter of straightforward, indisputable, fact and logic.

My second objection to "same sex marriage" is based on my rejection of the LGBT community's perception that heterosexuals discriminate against them by granting them "civil union" status but not "marriage" status. That claim is unproven and, therefore, is non-meritorious. Meritorious discernment, based on facts and logic, is not unlawful discrimination. Heterosexuals have a legitimate, lawful right to insist that words be used consistent with established, long standing, definitions, which have consequences. Their insistence on the correct use of established words, without something more, does not prove unlawful discrimination against homosexuals that would bring homosexual couples withing the scope of the "Equal Protection Clause".

These facts and this logic should not be misconstrued as hostility toward, or discrimination against, the LGBT community. If I were hostile to that community I would not support a "civil union" legal status for them fully equal to heterosexual marriage in all respect but for the word "marriage."

My third objection to "same sex marriage" is based on my objection to the LGBT community demanding that they, too, get to use the word "marriage" for their unions. I disagree. Heterosexual couples have a centuries old, well established, exclusive right to insist that that term be reserved for traditional heterosexual marriages. This is because words have established definitions. Definitions have meanings. Meanings have consequences. The established definition for "marriage" as a legal union between one man and one woman should remain intact. One word, "marriage", should not be applied to fundamentally different types of relationships: heterosexual and homosexual.

I have heard married gay men refer to their spouse as "my husband" and I have heard married lesbians refer to their spouse as "my wife". I'm sorry, but the LGBT is insistince upon hijacking the words "marriage", "husband", and "wife" is misusing these words in an illegitimate or corrupt form. Husband's don't have husbands. Wives don't have wives. Our language has not yet caught up with where the LGBT community wants to take us, legally and conceptually. If our language, if our society, if our culture were ready to embrace the idea of "same sex marriage" we would be using new nouns and new pronouns for the concept of a married gay man's husband or for the concept of a married lesbian's wife.

I am hard pressed to entertain or think of what would currently be the best word for a married bisexual's "husband" or "wife" or a married transgender's "husband" or "wife".

The LBGT community is proud of their alternative life style. Many even flaunt it. Paradoxically, however, instead of coming up with their own new word, unique for them, to distinguish "same sex" couples who profess their life long commitment to each other, they insist upon piggy backing on, hijacking, and corrupting, the word "marriage", which has been, for centuries, reserved exclusively for heterosexual couples. Since homosexual couples are factually different in their sexual preference, and, in that sense, they are the opposite of heterosexuals, since they are proud of their alternative life style, and since they don't like the term "civil union", they are well advised to stop trying to hijack "marriage" and come up with a new term for their committed relationships other than "marriage".

The LGBT community's' insistence on hijacking and using such terms in an inappropriate, illegitimate, way, contrary to Webster's definitions, is ill-advised. The attempted use is a corrupt use. The insistence upon this corrupt use underscores how fundamentally different heterosexual and homosexual couples are and why "equal protection" does not apply

I anticipate that my logical and principled position on this issue will probably cost me tens of thousands of votes. If so, so be it. My duty requires me to function with fidelity to the U.S. Constitution. I refuse to try to thread a needle with a bull elephant. The elephant is simply too big to pass through the eye of the needle. My duty denies me the luxury of pandering to any community. My duty denies me the luxury of trying to avoid a "hot button" issue. My duty prevents me from saying things I do not believe.

I hope the LGBT community gives me full credit for being serious about championing their right to a robust "civil union" status that is the functional legal equivalent of heterosexual marriage in all respects except for the use of the word "marriage".

Concluding Comments

I have been 100% candid.

Each of these 19 major legislative goals is important. Many cut across political party registration and affect all of us.

I cannot please everyone because everyone does not agree with everyone else.

The most I can do is be honest with you, to reason competently from and to the U.S. Constitution, to support the U.S. Constitution, and to do my best for you and for California, to the best of my ability and judgment. This, to me, means that when I agree with you I should follow you but when I think you want me to violate how I interpret the U.S.'s or California's Constitutions, I have a duty to point that out to you and try to lead you, hoping you will follow.

If you believe you can support 10 or more of my major 19 legislative goals, upon mature reflection, you should probably vote for me. This is because all of my major goals are important and all would help improve society if accomplished.

In closing, with tongue in cheek, if you embrace all 19 of my major legislative goals, you might be well advised to see a mental health care provider. [Smile!]

by Peter J. Mancus Attorney at Law, Photojournalist, and Small Business Owner 2012 California Republican Party Endorsed Candidate for the California Assembly's Tenth District Copyright Peter J. Mancus 2012 [Permission to copy in its entirety without change is granted.] I took all pictures used to illustrate this op-ed, Similar pictures can be found at www.cloud9photography.us