Tag Archives: Election 2008

Misguided Consultants Spotlight Something Supported In SD 20

Yes, my opponent went thru the Inland Utopia archives back in 2007 and used something I written to write a flyer about me that expressed my pro-life support. However, in 2008 Senate District 20 did support parental notification for abortion.

Proposition 4 in Senate District 20

Parental notification was supported in all the cities of the district.
This ballot measure was even supported when Obama was the main draw on the ballot.

City Yes No
Chino 13259 8842
Colon 7339 4850
Fontana 26908 16467
Grand Terrace 2587 2110
Montclair 5147 3198
Ontario 23242 15054
Pomona 18922 14955
Rialto 14225 8762
San Bernardino 26578 19079

My Ballot – The Initiatives

Proposition My Vote Reason
1A Yes Infrastructure, good way to create jobs.
2 Yes Compassion to animals, safe food for our consumption.
3 No Hundreds of millions on past children’s hospital bond has not been spent, use money up then ask us later.
4 No / video It is going to harm young women, more than it is going to protect them.
5 No / column Lets non-casual drug users get off free. Read the column to better get an explanation on what this proposition does.
6 No Costs too much money at a time when we are having severe money problems. Pass a measure with items that do not drain the budget.
7 No Risky endeavor that will make it more difficult to provide clean energy for Californians. Republicans, Democrats, business and environmental groups say No.
8 No Eliminates marriage equality. Does much more than the 14 words written.
9 No Creates redundant laws, costs billions of dollars,  Another billionaire buying his way to the ballot.
10 No Bond issue that does little more than subsidizing a billionaire.
11 Yes Reapportionment with a neutral board to design legislative seats.
12 Yes Helps veterans and helps the housing market.

Links to columns that deal with the respective measure are also linked to particular issues.

Inland Utopia on the issues: Prop 4

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.

The Inland Utopia Interview: Michael Mendez for Assembly District 61

As a public service I decided to contact the Libertarian Party’s nominee and ask him several questions that are relevant to the campaign for State Assembly in California’s 61st Assembly District of Chino, Montclair, Ontario and Pomona.

I am covering this race completely so the voters would have an informed choice. Thank You Michael for participating.

1.       How can we live within our means as Californians?

If you mean as Californian citizens, then merely live below your means. Make a plan and stick to it even if you become something of a thrifty pariah. Cell phones and the internet are not necessities. Subscription television is not required to live. New cars are not necessary. Owning a car may not even be necessary. Don’t have children if you can’t support them without a job for at least two years. Don’t wait for any particular housing market, just try to set aside the money you need to buy a home. Save whatever money you have left and invest it in something that makes saving worthwhile. Sack lunches are a great way to save money over even a year versus buying fast food take-out.

2.       Would you support efforts to deport illegals who commit violent crimes? Yes, but for justice sake, hopefully, after they serve the required time for the corresponding crime.

3.       What led you to choose the Libertarian Party? I was born into a slightly conservative Democratic family-moderate boll weevils. At the age of twenty-one, around 1985, I investigated the different parties. Now, most of my friends were Republican and that added to my curiosity for the different political parties. When I studied the Libertarian outlook of government and being a responsible citizen, it did and continues to me to be the most logical party.

4.       With Proposition 8 how do you balance religious versus personal liberty? Or is there a way to balance both. I do not believe prop 8 to be a fulcrum between religious liberty and personal liberty. In regards to marriage, I believe that government should not make an opinion for or against marriage. So, my vote for prop 8 will be “no.” And in that same spirit to the fairly recent decision for the state to recognize gay marriage, if it were for me to vote, I would have also voted “no.”

5.       What inspired you to run for office? In the last days of October, 2007, I was thinking what it would take to run for office. Two days later, without my prompting, the southern California chairman of the Libertarian party gave me a call and asked if I would like to run for office as a Libertarian. I did not give it much thought and just said, “Yes.” It was in October, 2006 that I first became active with the San Bernardino county element of the California Libertarian party. I started my involvement by first attending the San Bernardino convention, which is coming up soon again in October, 2008. We have had it at Biacci’s in Upland, but it will most likely be moved to a different venue in San Bernardino county.

6.       How can we get a budget approved on time? I have no well thought ideas on this, just my personal experiences of different committees I have belonged. It was always the exclaimation, “Oh, if we don’t use the money allotted us we won’t get it next year.” I have always been disgusted at using money just so you can have it and possibly more the next year. If there is need for the money then plead that case. Perhaps, the legislative bodies can start thinking about the budget when the January term starts, then for February agree to complete ¼ of the budget items by the end of that month, then for subsequent months additional quarters of the budget until completed at the end of May. Any defaults to agree on a particular quarter of the budget should mean forfeiture of your salary for that month.

7.       Any ideas to simplify our state government to make it efficient? We need to wretch out the idea that government is the solution and safety net to everyday existence. We need to stop passing legislation that deals with cell phones, helmet uses and trans fat. We need to make eminent domain less viable than is currently. We should not be using our law enforcement for issues of vice or the drug war. Non-citizens and corporations should not have any undue access to the government. We should not berate any choice parents make for their children’s education and make that possibility easier with the lifting of taxes. We should immediately remove all vice taxes and so as not to encourage further bureaucratic bloating.

8.       Why should we vote Libertarian for State Assembly? The Democratic party and Republican party have become to many Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum. The Libertarian party offers citizens of these mainstream parties an interesting compromise. It offers the political soul of social conscience and financial responsibility.

Why Obama will not get my vote.

I am most likely a McCain voter, if McCain moves too far to the right it may be the Libertarian Party, but if Obama is the nominee he will NOT get my vote.

Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever (Obama Believes in Infanticide.)
CNSNews ^ | January 09, 2008 | Terence P. Jeffrey

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede — as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor — that these babies, fully outside their mothers’ wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact “persons.”

“Persons,” of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

In 2004, U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill.

State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of “induced labor abortion.” This is usually performed on a baby with Down’s Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how “induced labor abortions” were handled at her hospital.

“One night,” she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, “a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn’t bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived.”

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O’Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby’s rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a “homo sapiens” wholly emerged from his mother with a “beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles” should be treated as a “‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child’ and ‘individual.'”

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was “unfazed” by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted “present” on each, effectively the same as a “no.”

“Number one,” said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, “whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

(more at the link)

Huckabee is a mistake

Supporting former Governor Huckabee is a mistake for the Republican Party. We need a Republican that demonstrates the total package of the party. The only thing Governor Huckabee is good for his social values on ending abortion and limiting marriage to heterosexuals.

If you want someone who is closer to former President Reagan it would be more prudent for Republican voters to consider former Senator Fred Thompson. Social values alone do not make a Republican nominee. It also takes a strong position on the illegal immigration issue, someone who would resist tax increases and someone who would be continuing the course on the war in Iraq.

A consistent conservative would unify the party and provide success against the Democratic Party in November.

As printed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

Presidential Sweepstakes

I am skeptical about supporting Giuliani in the California primary for president. Even though I agree with him on equality of the GLBT population, his position on immigration makes me want to vote for someone else as a protest vote for the next election. Yes we do need immigration reform, but more reform in line with the 1986 reforms will only cause more problems. We are a generous nation, but in the Border States the cost of providing public services to these undocumented (illegal) residents is busting budgets, increasing the strain in our public schools, hospitals and jails.

I would not mind sacrificing the presidency to prove to all Republican nominees for president that you need to be tough as nails on immigration. I may not care for Duncan Hunter’s views on queer issues, but immigration reform is an issue about national security and our national finances. If a conservative such as Duncan Hunter became our nominee he will likely lose in the general election because his views are not as pragmatic.

It seems that we take an opportunity cost for each individual running for president in either political party. I supported Bush for President in 2004 because of his views on national security, but he was weak on equality issues, energy policy and immigration. However If I supported Senator Kerry he would of probably would have been weaker on more issues than President Bush.

We have until February 5th to make our final decisions for who the 43rd congressional district will choose for their presidential choice.