Children are the most important things in this world, but we have another bond issue on our sights. And my recommended vote is NO. It is obvious that people will vote Yes on this bond because it deals with children. However in these challenging economic times, just as what John and Ken are advocating this election day. We should vote NO on even this bond too.

It is a fiscally irresponsible method to raise money for these institutions. $1 billion for funding, and 980 million for the interest payment over thirty years.

The funds from this initiative do not exclusively go to children’s hospitals, it may go to the local hospital across the street because they may also serve children as our patients.

We already pay enough for bonds right now, we should not add more to the state tab now.

Hundreds of millions of dollars from the previous children’s hospital bond have not been spent. (Prop 61)

Should we use up existing money before trying to obtain more money?

Here is Obama stories for kids. Hey! lets find out about Obama and Ayres!

Another story is about Obama and the leader of Kenya.

CHECK IT OUT IN TUESDAY’S NEWSPAPER (Inland Valley Daily Bulletin)

Political ads are not checked for being factual. Take for example the Yes on 8 ads. They are trying to spread lies and fear so you would vote yes.

Churches would still have the right to refuse who they want to marry just like the Catholics would not marry Jewish couples at their church or vice versa. Churches will still have their tax-exempt status no matter if they are affirming to same-sex couples or not. The ruling from the state Supreme Court provided religious exemptions where religious officiants would not be mandated to marry people they do not want.

California law also protects families already about health and family issues. If you do not want Johnny to hear about marriage with Jimmy you can refuse lectures on this topic. The cited court case in the Yes on 8 video was about Massachusetts not California.

Four judges did not violate the will of four million voters. The previous ballot measure violated the California state constitution and it was a good example of tyranny of the majority just as how voters legalized housing discrimination in 1964.

Proposition 8 eliminates the right of lesbian and gay couples to marry. Consider the facts and make your vote.

This is an advertisement that drives home the point that would resonate with many people.

California voters said no twice, and we have parental notification ballot measure part three now.

Since the state supreme court rejected a parental notification process ten years ago, anti-abortion activists  have been encouraging voters to get a notification measure on the ballot.

I would find it reasonable that parents should be notified about a major medical procedure happening with their daughters. However the measure this year is still a scary proposition that makes me reconsider supporting this. The example Thomas Elias wrote about in his column in the Appeal Democrat, about a 16 year old girl getting knocked up after a dance with a guy and she finds out she got pregnant and since Proposition 4 got passed she is required to notify her parents within 48 hours. That does sound reasonable, but what about dealing with an enraged father. If the daughter is worried about reprisal she would not want to notify her parents and that is understandable. Since there is no formal record of abuse then she can not get a waiver for the abortion.

Most parents are understanding about the welfare of their daughters. But there is a danger towards parental notification where either the girl will be beaten up by a family member or relative, or sterile or dead due to a botched abortion or a self abortion.

Then what about incest or rape from a relative or close family friend, the girl would be required under Prop 4 to notify family members who knocked her up which would be ironic and dangerous too. Studies from medical experts have stated that girls notify their families just as equally with or without parental notification regulations.

Sorry parental notification supporters, the third strike is on you. I am voting No. If a forth time happens due to wealthy traditionalists, focus on promoting the culture of life, and protecting both the mother and the unborn, instead of just the unborn. Offer a one time payment of ten thousand, where half would be reimbursed by the adoption agency to cover the expenses of pregnancy and some pocket change so the girl would keep the baby in most cases, and maybe the girl who gets knocked up at the dance will keep her baby.

Marriage has been defined differently throughout time, the proponents are advocating they want to simply maintain the traditional definition of marriage of one man and one woman. However marriage used to be about dealing with protection and acquisition of property and used to deal with women as property or chattel as what it used to be called. Marriage used to be restricted based on what ethnicity you belonged to. Our state supreme court also said the argument for marriage is for procreation was irrelevant, because you do not need to be able to make children to have a successful marriage.

Although Proposition 8 is short yet sweet with under 20 words in its language, it will be used to fuel more fire for the agents of inequality. If the Mormons, the Knights of Columbus and other groups succeed, then they will throw money to remove stuff such as anti-discrimination laws, and public accommodation rules.

The proponents have used their money to distort the issue and the No on 8 campaign would like to refute the misconceptions that Protect Marriage have brought forwards.

Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.
Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage. Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status. Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

Fiction: Same-sex marriage would be taught in public schools.
Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it. A Sacramento Superior Court judge has already ruled that this claim by the proponents of Prop 8 is "false and misleading." In fact, the "case" that is cited in the ad is from Massachusetts…the proponents knew what California law said, so they used another state, again to mislead voters.

Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…
Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Proponents of Prop use an outdated and stale argument that we’ve already voted on this, that judges should not protect rights and freedoms, and that somehow what happened in the past should be the guide to our future. This campaign is not about what happened nearly nine years ago. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to eliminate a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

Marriage is secular and religious. However there is a good number of people who would support equality for all couples, but they take offense that gay and lesbian relationships are brought into the marriage brand. Perhaps a statewide law for civil unions, and add language if the federal defense of marriage act gets repealed then it would be convertible into a full on marriage would be a good idea if 8 fails.

I encourage readers to vote No on 8 to protect freedom for all Californians.

Our local school board member is pulling all the stops this year for the race for a seat on the Ontario city council. Her mailer is flashy, simple and well done. Her advertisement has her education, qualifications, her goals and her 2004 endorsement from the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

If you take the time to read her advertisement, you will be impressed by her.

I will have her flyer available for download.

And make sure to pick up the updated sample ballot because the registrar of voters in San Bernardino County forgot to put her candidate statement in the first batch.

No on 8 is starved for cash, being 9 million behind the proponents. Yes, she is promoting the No on 8 side on her talk show and that is very much appreciated. However imagine what the money she raised for Yes on 2, the animal welfare initiative could of done for the No on 8 cause. I know animal welfare is just as vital of a cause, but Prop 2 could be repeated easily compared to losing the right of marriage equality if Prop 2 did fail.

I know Ellen does not want to return her gifts if the people reject marriage equality. But some monetary contribution would be appreciated.

We are all hurting as Americans and particularly as Californians. This challenging economy is going to make it very difficult for us to pay for the services to run the state of California. I do not envy the position of our governor and our legislators right now. Tough choices will have to be made in particular the mandate that U.S District Judge Thelton Henderson has made on our state. This judge has demanded our governor and state controller to pony up $8 billion to improve our prison health system.

Yes, we do have the responsibility to prevent unneeded death in our prisons and to make sure our prison health system does not violate the rule against cruel and unusual punishment. However Judge Henderson is going to end up giving the law abiding citizens cruel hardship as well if he requires the state to begin paying this $8 billion now. I do agree with our state Attorney General that the judge is robbing from the children, the elderly and the mentally ill. And will we need to start committing crimes to take advantage of this new improvement in prison health, since the judge is robbing money from law abiding citizens?

Since Obama is 13.3 percent ahead of McCain in California, I have nothing to lose in giving Senator McCain my vote. I may find Governor Palin scary due to her fundamentalism, but the Democratic Party helped to escalate this mortgage crisis when McCain and company begged for reforms and the Democrats just simply ignored him.

There may be several issues I may find McCain repugnant such as asking to tax health insurance benefits as income, and his health insurance program will also lead to employers to remove health benefits from the benefits package in their businesses.

However Obama does not lead a good image for the people of our nation when he blabbers in foreign countries about how our troops kill civilians and carpet bomb villages when that is further from the truth.

President Bush basically destroyed the good name of the Republican Party, it will be difficult for McCain to win. However if McCain loses, then maybe we could reform the party to make it electable like how David Cameron restored the British Conservatives to prominence.