Newsom, who was the former mayor of San Francisco from 2004 to 2011, spent millions on armed security, which came from taxpayers via city funds.
NBC Bay Area reports:
How much does it cost to protect the mayor of a major metropolitan city? In Los Angeles, about $450,000 a year. In Houston, about $339,00 [sic] a year. In San Francisco, anywhere between $1 and $72 million.
SF Appeal revealed today the budget for Newsom's personal police bodyguards comes out of the San Francisco Police Department's Investigations Detail, which boasts a $72.9 million budget.
…
SFPD officials have pushed back, saying that publicizing the costs could jeopardize [sic] the Newsom's security. Assistant Chief Jim Lynch went as far as to allude to past City Hall security breaches, such as the assassinations of Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone in 1978, as reasons for the secrecy. Meantime, Newsom's office insists SFPD makes all the decisions on his security detail.
The question should be asked, is there someone that wants to kill Newsom? If he believes himself to be in danger, then why not arm himself and have a few private security detail instead of hitting taxpayers with the bill? If one is truly serving the public, would he not have their best interest at heart and not his own? Perhaps he could learn something from former Connecticut gubernatorial candidate Joe Visconti, who fully supports the Second Amendment and said that due to him carrying his own weapon with him it would allow him to save tax payer money, as he would not need near the size of security that the current governor does.
Yet, in 2010, Newsom was elected at Lt. Governor and stepped into office in 2011. The next year, it was reported that the cost to provide security for Newsom was up nearly $30,000 from the previous Lt. Governor, Abel Maldonado. The final year of Maldonado's term $65,954 was spent to cover security, but in 2012 it was discovered that Newsom spent $93,379 for security.
Now, he wants to go after gun owners. In fact, appearing on HBO's Real Time, he told Bill Maher that the jihad attacks in Paris would have been even worse if citizens there had been armed, claiming that the mantra of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun is "mythology."
"I just simply, this sort of mythology, the guy with the gun that's going to come save the day, I mean, so right out of the movies, sort of this gun-slinging fantasy," he told Maher. "The reality is, it's most likely to create more harm, more damage, more lost lives in those circumstances."
Right, and you have armed security why Mr. Newsom? I mean, according to his own logic, if a jihad attack happened in California, wouldn't his owned armed guards put more people in danger and make things worse? Nope, doesn't work like that, does it?
It is time for these people who twist the law to infringe on the rights of the people they serve, in order to "save them," to abandon their hypocrisy and live what they profess. Let's take Saul Alinsky's tactic of making "the enemy live up to its own book of rules" and force it on those who are the domestic enemies of America from now on. Let's start with men like Gavin Newsom!
Please contact us for more information.
