This is the one show that needs to go viral!!!

AB 2098 Silence Doctors, AB 2547 Silence Law Enforcement
Auburn hosting first gun buyback program in August
https://fox40.com/news/local-news/auburn-hosting-first-gun-buyback-program-in-august/
Crime Victims United
https://www.crimevictimsunited.com/
Legislature returns to the capitol on Monday to take up some of these bills:Show more

"AB 2098" Punish Doctors with unpopular views on COVID 19 treatment: This is great testimony against the bill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI8wkMLn7kY
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2098/2021

AB 2547. Bill Going after Police Bias: Here is part of a legal analysis done by Pacific Justice Institute:
https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/AB2547/
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2547

AB 2547 in its current form is relatively short. It proposes to add Section 13510.6 to the Penal Code, to read in its
entirety:

(a) (1) The commission shall establish a definition of “biased conduct” that, at a minimum, includes
all of the following:
(A) Biased conduct includes conduct resulting from implicit and explicit biases.
(B) Conduct is biased if a reasonable person would conclude so using the facts at hand.
(C) An officer need not admit biased or prejudiced intent for conduct to reasonably appear biased.
(D) Biased conduct may occur in an encounter with the public, with other officers, or online, such
as conduct on social media.
(2) Law enforcement agencies shall use the commission’s definition of biased conduct in any
investigation into a bias-related complaint or an incident that involves possible indications of officer
bias.
(b) The commission shall develop guidance for local law enforcement departments on performing
effective Internet and social media screenings of officer applicants. The guidance shall include, at
minimum, strategies for identifying applicant social media profiles and for searching for, and
identifying, content indicative of potential biases, such as affiliation with hate groups.

For most freedom-loving Americans, to simply read the foregoing is to repudiate it. Indeed, one can hardly imagine
a more unconstitutional manner of punishing law enforcement officers and applicants based on their expression of
viewpoints, their “potential” or “possible indications” of bias, and their associations with expressive groups.

Greg Burt
Director of Capitol Engagement
California Family Council (CFC)

gregb@californiafamily.org
www.californiafamily.org
(949) 244-2080

PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE – Center for Public Policy P.O. Box 276600 Sacramento, CA 95827 Telephone: (916) 857-6900

SENT TO ALL LEGISLATIVE OFFICES VIA EMAIL
July 21, 2022
CALIFORNIA SENATORS AND ASSEMBLYMEMBERS
State Capitol and Legislative Office Buildings
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Assembly Bill 2547– Oppose
Dear Honorable Senators and Assemblymembers:
Please accept this as the formal statement in opposition to Assembly Bill 2547, as most recently amended, on behalf of Pacific Justice Institute – Center for Public Policy. We are writing to you during the July recess because AB 2547 is extraordinarily unconstitutional and poses an immediate threat to core First Amendment freedoms. It will worsen the already acute shortage of peace officers and applicants in this state, by putting out the unwelcome mat to those who dare to express their independent, libertarian, conservative, or religious views in ways progressives feel demonstrate bias.
Overview
According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
This bill would require POST [Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training]to establish a definition of “biased conduct,” as specified, and would require law enforcement agencies to use that definition in any investigation into a bias-related complaint or an incident that involves possible indications of officer bias. The bill would also require POST to develop guidance for local law enforcement departments on performing effective Internet and social media screenings of officer applicants.
Summary of Arguments in Opposition
California is in the throes of a public safety crisis. Mass shootings, mass release of criminals back onto the streets, and brazen smash-and-grab robberies have residents living in fear. Meanwhile, the level of disrespect for law enforcement has never been higher. As a result, many peace officers and would-be police academy applicants are abandoning the Golden State for safer, more economically viable jurisdictions where their service is still respected. Incredibly, AB 2547 proposes to exacerbate this crisis by exposing all but the most ideologically pure officers to discipline, dismissal, or rejection for expressing their views. AB 2547 is inane and unconstitutional.
Legal Analysis
Last year, PJI-CPP raised concerns about a vague provision in SB 2 that purported to subject peace officers to discipline for acts demonstrating bias. AB 2547 expands on that constitutionally flawed concept and is even less defensible. 2

AB 2547 in its current form is relatively short. It proposes to add Section 13510.6 to the Penal Code, to read in its entirety:
(a) (1) The commission shall establish a definition of “biased conduct” that, at a minimum, includes all of the following:
(A) Biased conduct includes conduct resulting from implicit and explicit biases.
(B) Conduct is biased if a reasonable person would conclude so using the facts at hand.
(C) An officer need not admit biased or prejudiced intent for conduct to reasonably appear biased.
(D) Biased conduct may occur in an encounter with the public, with other officers, or online, such as conduct on social media.
(2) Law enforcement agencies shall use the commission’s definition of biased conduct in any investigation into a bias-related complaint or an incident that involves possible indications of officer bias.
(b) The commission shall develop guidance for local law enforcement departments on performing effective Internet and social media screenings of officer applicants. The guidance shall include, at minimum, strategies for identifying applicant social media profiles and for searching for, and identifying, content indicative of potential biases, such as affiliation with hate groups.
For most freedom-loving Americans, to simply read the foregoing is to repudiate it. Indeed, one can hardly imagine a more unconstitutional manner of punishing law enforcement officers and applicants based on their expression of viewpoints, their “potential” or “possible indications” of bias, and their associations with expressive groups.
More than half a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court articulated the free speech rights of public employees in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). In the intervening years, the Pickering framework has been routinely applied in the law enforcement context. See, e.g., Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1986); Roe v. City of San Diego, 543 U.S. 77 (2004). And while First Amendment precedent permits limited inquiry into officers’ speech or conduct to ensure civil rights violations were not committed, actually punishing an officer for politically incorrect speech—or turning away an applicant for the same reason—may itself be a constitutional and federal civil rights violation. Vernon v. City of L.A., 27 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1994).
Most recently, the Ninth Circuit addressed this careful balancing act in Moser v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dept., 984 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2021). There, the Department had disciplined a SWAT officer for a Facebook post. The Ninth Circuit reversed a judgment in the Department’s favor, remanding for further factual findings and warning against undue suppression of officers’ online, off-duty speech on matters of public concern. AB 2547 takes no account of these controlling precedents, which will almost certainly lead to its invalidation.
AB 2547 ushers in a new era of unknowable and ungovernable standards where possible, potential, implicit bias—whatever that may mean—becomes the ultimate censor’s tool to exact retribution on one’s enemies and the unwary. The proponents of AB 2547 further conflate speech and conduct, on the apparent assumption that re-categorizing expression as action gives cover to the censorship. Not so. The foil of conduct is betrayed by the Bill’s obsession with online and social media content, which is of course almost entirely expressive. The Supreme Court exposed a similar fallacy put forward by the federal government in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010). The notion that speech can simply be relabeled as conduct has been long buried, and AB 2547 cannot resuscitate it.
Adding to its other flaws, AB 2547 ends by invoking a new, undefined category of punishable associations—
“hate groups.” We fought this battle last year over AB 655, misguided legislation that initially attempted to define such groups and to punish officers for ever having associated with them. The problem was that AB 655 cast such a broad net that it threatened to ensnare officers who had ever been associated with the Catholic Church, most other evangelical churches, or even the Republican Party. AB 2547 tries to avoid this morass by leaving the loaded term completely undefined. This approach fares little better. Leaving officers and censors to guess which religious, 3

conservative, or even charitable groups might be so labeled is the prototypical vagueness that causes such legislation to be struck down. One obvious question raised by this provision is whether the authors intend censors to rely on the discredited, defamatory (but still favored in left-leaning circles) hate group list promulgated by the Southern Poverty Law Center. If this body does not wish to promote or rely on the SPLC list, which led to a domestic terrorist shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, it should unequivocally say so.
The arbitrary “hate group” label as a basis for exclusion from law enforcement also threatens a new era of McCarthyism, this time directed against religious and conservative law enforcement officers and applicants. Yet public employment cannot be conditioned on divulgence of organizational memberships in a misguided search for subversive activities. Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960). Mere membership in an allegedly nefarious organization is not enough to deny public employment. Keyishian v. Bd. Of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967).
Likewise, attempts to silence advocacy for workers’ rights—seen as allied with Communism—were long ago rejected. See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945). It is noteworthy that investigation of alleged Communists has also been impermissibly used as an attempted backdoor to intimidate civil rights organizations. Gibson v. Fla. Legislative Investigative Comm’n, 372 U.S. 539 (1963) (rejecting demand for NAACP membership lists as part of investigation into alleged Communists). In similar fashion, the hate group label has been misused by the SPLC and its allies in a futile attempt to undermine the civil rights work being done by our sister organization, Pacific Justice Institute. This latest campaign launched by AB 2547 to purge suspected red-staters from deep-blue California cannot have any better outcome than did the Red Scare of the 1950s and 60s.
Conclusion
The last thing California needs is to drive even more qualified peace officers to states with lower taxes, lower costs of living, and more freedom and more respect for men and women in uniform. Your constituents urgently need to be protected from out-of-control crime in this State. They do not need to be protected from politically incorrect Facebook posts. We urge you to reject this out-of-touch, irredeemably unconstitutional Bill.
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew McReynolds
SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY
PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE – CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY
Sacramento, CA 95827
Tel: (916) 857-6900

https://loomisflooringusa.com/
Foretold: The Covid-19 Effect - Trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNufKQZX34A
https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/foretold-the-covid-19-effect-1682353184
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57973617-foretold

Help contribute to a growing channel Fund Raising: https://givesendgo.com/G3F3W
Also, we have shirts... Custom Ink... For a good cause... Keep us going :-)
https://www.customink.com/fundraising/do-not-talk-is-a-christian-conservative-media-platform-reporting-on-political-and-religious-events?pc=TXN-167780&utm_campaign=fr_organizer_email&utm_content=do-not-talk-is-a-christian-conservative-media-platform-reporting-on-political-and-religious-events&utm_medium=social&utm_source=copy-link
https://www.facebook.com/groups/donottalk/