Thursday, August 5, 2010

If you don’t like the outcome, go to court…

Seriously… Californians have voted TWICE to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Yet one liberal judge (who happens to be gay, a coincidence, I think not) said that it’s unconstitutional.

We’ve gone round and round about civil rights, equal rights, blah blah blah… we’ve heard all the arguments. I won’t go into that here. But I will voice my frustration about voting. And I’m not the only one… here’s a copy of a status update from a friend on facebook:

“Lol I've seen SO many fb statuses about this whole Prop 8 thing... the only thing I have to say is that this is the EXACT reason I stay away from politics and the voting scene... it doesn't matter what we vote for, things get overruled/overturned anyway... why bother?”

I have these exact same feelings. So how are we supposed to get people out to vote and change things when it doesn’t matter because if someone with a lot of money doesn’t like the outcome, they’ll sue and it’ll go to court… and keep going to court until they find a judge who will rule in their favor.

So… any ideas????

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

You don’t agree with me, therefore, you are a bigot…

The issue of people who are illegally in America has obviously been a hot topic issue lately. There are differing opinions obviously, but what bothers me is the intolerance for the opinions of others. I fall on the side of Arizona, that people need to be in this country legally, or they shouldn't be here. For this, I am apparently a bigot. Because I believe in sustaining and upholding U.S. laws that were created for our freedom and safety, I am now a racist - at least according to the protests around the land and friends on social media sites. The same thing happened with gay marriage - I have gay friends who called people against gay marriage bigots. I think there are better ways to deal with issues. Obviously both sides have feelings on the issue, but is calling names really the best way to deal with that?

I think not. Many of us are adults. Many people who read this are members of the same religious tradition, and can find religious justification for their side of the argument (whichever side they fall on), calling the morality and ethics of others into question when others disagree with their viewpoint. I understand that facebook, twitter, and others are social networking sites, where people are free to express their opinions. However, I do not think it justification for calling people bigots or questioning their morality and ethics for daring to express their opinion. Have a problem with the way someone views something? Call them, talk to them about it, try to make sure you understand their viewpoint before you go off on them. Don't just assume you know everything about "them" and "their group", further polarizing the issues and preventing yourself from understanding your friends' rationale. Especially on facebook, where you usually know and like the people on your friends list. Focus on the positive, and if you disagree with something someone says/feels/believes, talk to them about it.

I feel frustrated when people call me a bigot for feeling like Arizona is right to try to prevent illegal immigration. I DO NOT agree with racial profiling, and I do not think that all Latino/a people are here illegally, are going to screw the system, are lazy, etc. I know a lot of Latino/a people who are here to make a better life for themselves, and I respect that. But, and this is a big but, I think they need to be here legally. They're being hurt by the drug runners and gang members who are bringing drugs and violence into the U.S. through border states, and those people are making it harder for honest, hard-working people to get here. However, that does not change my opinion that people need to come here legally. And that does not make me a racist. That makes me a person who supports our current law. If the law changes, I will support that also. Not because it's the law, but because I don't believe in lawlessness. And I think we need some controls at the border for people who are trying to bring the culture of drugs and violence here.

I personally know very few people who want to live in most parts of Mexico due to the violence and drug problems. An article on CNN tonight discussed members of a bridal party who had been kidnapped and murdered in Ciudad Juarez, and also said that 4,300 people have been murdered in that province since the war on drugs began in 2006. Hopefully they will be able to bring that under control, but I am concerned that will (and is) already spreading to the U.S. And for this, I am a bigot. For being concerned for the safety of officers who protect us, for the children who live there who are in danger, and the safety and future of our country, I am a bigot. That is one label I have no problem rejecting. There are many other labels I will accept, even if they do not describe me, but I will fight against this. Everyone has the right to their opinion, and everyone has the right to be respected.

Written by Sara 05/11/2010

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

The Ant and The Grasshopper – Two Stories

Two Different Versions....Two Different Morals


The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. 

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.  The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!


The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.  How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'

stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.  

President Obama
condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid
exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.  The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous
and once peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THESTORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.

I believe that you are an ant - not a grasshopper

Make sure that you pass this on to other ants.  Don't bother sending
it on to any
grasshoppers because they wouldn't understand it, anyway

Friday, January 29, 2010

Freedom of Speech being threatened yet again…

Radical pro-abortion groups want to sack a life-affirming ad from Focus on the Family from appearing in the Super Bowl.

The ad focuses on football star Tim Tebow and the courage of his mother who was told by doctors to abort a child that would become a Heisman Trophy winner.

It’s time to take a stand and stop anti-life and anti-Christian radicals from taking control of our airwaves.

Last year, NBC sacked a Super Bowl ad by  Let’s not let this happen again. Urge CBS to stand behind its decision and allow Focus on the Family to tell this inspirational story about a football star.

Sign the petition at

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

If I’m Not Happy, No One Can Be Happy

A very interesting account from today:
"Several times Judge Walker interrupted the plaintiffs to question whether the state should be “in the marriage business” at all, asking if the plaintiffs would be happy with eliminating marriage altogether—and allowing only domestic partnerships for both man/woman and same-sex couples. Amazingly the plaintiffs testified that would be acceptable to them.  They actually said: if same-sex couples can’t have marriage, then no one should.  Obviously, the elimination of marriage for everybody is certainly not what the people of California, or the nation, have in mind as an appropriate solution to this debate."

I think this sums up the opposition’s feelings very well… “If I’m not happy, then no one can be happy.” So what the opposition is calling “equal rights” (which they already have in California) really means they want everyone to be the same. What happened to celebrating diversity? My high school class motto was “Diverse yet Unified”. We are all different, we are going to have different challenges placed in front of us. But with those differences we can still work together and become the strong nation that we once were.

Here are a couple of websites that have updates and you can follow the Supreme Court proceedings on:

General Counsel Andy Pugno Comments On Opening Day Of Trial;

The Perry Case: What’s At Stake;

U.S. Supreme Court Stays Order Allowing Streaming Video of Prop 8 Case;

Sunday, August 23, 2009

As California Goes, So Goes the Rest of the Country…

I don’t know if I have many readers left as I have been negligent in my blog posting after the passing of proposition 8. My attention is needed in so many areas that it is difficult to find time to do everything and please everyone. While my blog posting has been pushed aside for little league baseball, AYSO soccer, work, and other adventures, I have been keeping an eye on political news. It’s scary. I received an email the other day that I want to post. It’s long, but worth every word. PLEASE read this and share with your friends… if the few readers I have left share with the few readers they have who share with their friends, etc, etc… you know the outcome.

July 13th, 2009

Congressman Tom McClintock offered remarks in Washington, D. C., on Friday to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pacific Research Institute that clearly illustrate why California is facing such a large fiscal mess. His beginning joke is so funny because it is so true:

"I know that everybody likes to poke fun at California - but I can tell you right now that despite all of its problems, California remains one of the best places in the world to build a successful small business. All you have to do is start with a successful large business."

Here is the rest of the speech:

Laugh if you will, but let me remind you that when these policies finish wrecking California, there are still 49 other states we can all move to - and yours is one of them.

I should also warn you of the strange sense of déja-vu that I have every day on the House floor as I watch the same folly and blunders that wrecked California now being passed with reckless abandon in this Congress.

We passed a "Cash-for-Clunkers" bill the other day - we did that years ago in California.

Doubling the entire debt every five years? Been there.

Increasing spending at unsustainable rates? Done that.

Save-the-Planet-Carbon-Dioxide restrictions? Got the T-Shirt.

To understand how these policies can utterly destroy an economy and bankrupt a government, you have to remember the Golden State in its Golden Age. A generation ago, California spent about half what it does today AFTER adjusting for both inflation and population growth.

And yet, we had the finest highway system in the world and the finest public school system in the country. California offered a FREE university education to every Californian who wanted one. We produced water and electricity so cheaply that many communities didn't bother to measure the stuff. Our unemployment rate consistently ran well below the national rate and its diversified economy was nearly recession-proof.

One thing - and one thing only - has changed in those years: public policy. The political Left gradually gained dominance over California's government and has imposed a disastrous agenda of radical and retrograde policies that have destroyed the quality of life that Californians once took for granted.

The Census Bureau reports that in the last two years 2/3 of a million more people have moved out of California than have moved into it. Many are leaving for the garden spots of Nevada, Arizona and Texas. Think about that. California is blessed with the most equitable climate in the entire Western Hemisphere; it has the most bountiful resources anywhere in the continental United States; it is poised on the Pacific Rim in a position to dominate world trade for the next century, and yet people are finding a better place to live and work and raise their families in the middle of the Nevada and Arizona and Texas deserts.

I submit to you that no conceivable act of God could wreak such devastation as to turn California into a less desirable place to live than the middle of the Nevada Nuclear Test Range. Only Acts of Government can do that. And they have.

You can trace the collapse of California's economy to several critical events: the rise of environmental Ludditism beginning in 1974; the abandonment of constitutional checks and balances that once constrained spending and borrowing; and the rise of rule by public employee unions. There are other factors as well: litigation, taxation, illegal immigration - but for the sake of time let me concentrate on the big three.

The first was the rise of environmental Ludditism with the election of a radical new-age leftist named Jerry Brown as governor of the state - an election that also produced overwhelming liberal majorities in both legislative houses.

Like Obama today, Brown lost little time in pursuing his vision of California - an incoherent combination of pastoral simplicity, European socialism and centralized planning. At the center of this world view was a backward ideology that he called his "era of limits" - the naive notion that public works were growth inducing and polluting and that stopping the expansion of infrastructure somehow excused government from meeting the needs of an expanding population. Conservation replaced abundance as the chief aim of California's public works, and public policy was redirected to developing irresistible incentives for the population to concentrate in dense urban cores rather than to settle in suburban communities. Brown infused his vision into every aspect of public policy, and it is a testament to his thoroughness and tenacity that its basic tenets have dominated the direction of California through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

He canceled the state's highway construction program, abandoning many routes in mid-construction. He canceled long-planned water projects, conveyance facilities and dams. He established the California Energy Commission that blocked approval of any significant new generating capacity. He enacted volumes of environmental regulations that created severe impediments to home and commercial construction, empowering an incipient no-growth movement that began on the most extreme fringe of the environmental cause and quickly spread. This movement reached its zenith with Arnold Schwarzenegger and the enactment of AB 32 and companion legislation in 2006. This measure gives virtually unchecked authority to the California Air Resources Board to force Draconian reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. [this is what Kulongoski is trying to do with climate control in Oregon, tks]

This has dire implications to entire segments of California's economy: agriculture, baking, distilling, cargo and passenger transportation, cement production, manufacturing, construction and energy production, to name a few.

We, too, were promised an explosion of "green jobs," but exactly the opposite has happened.

Up until that bill took effect, California's unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But since then, California's unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today, California's unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941.

The second problem is structural: the collapse of the checks and balances and other constitutional and traditional constraints on government spending and borrowing.

Let me mention a few of them.

The State Supreme Court decision in Serrano v. Priest severed the use of local revenue for local schools and invited the state take-over of public education. [ sounds like equalization in Oregon, tks] AB 8 of 1979 - the legislature's response to Proposition 13 - essentially did the same thing to local governments generally.

This means that vast bureaucracies have grown up over the service delivery level, wasting more and more resources while hamstringing teachers in their classrooms, wardens in their prisons and city councils in their towns.

Next, constitutional constraints on fiscal excesses began to fall. In 1983, Gov. George Deukmejian approved legislation to remove the governor's ability to make mid-year budget corrections without having to return to the legislature. The loss of this provision exposed the state to chronic deficit spending by removing any ability of the governor to rapidly respond to changing economic conditions. In 1989, Deukmejian sponsored Proposition 111 that destroyed the Gann Spending Limit that had held increases in state spending to inflation and population growth. If that limit had remained intact, California would be enjoying a budget surplus today.

The disastrous tax increases by Pete Wilson in 1991 and Arnold Schwarzenegger this year were made possible by this tragic blunder. Finally, we've watched the constitutional budget process that had produced relatively punctual and relatively balanced budgets for nearly 150 years collapse in favor of an extra-constitutional abomination called the big five.

That new process, that began under Pete Wilson and has culminated under Arnold Schwarzenegger bypasses the entire legislative deliberative process in favor of an annual deal struck between the governor and legislative leaders behind closed doors and handed to the legislature as a fait accompli.

This short-circuits the separation of powers that is designed to discipline fiscal excess and it literally bargains away the line-item veto authority of the governor. It is a process that allows legislative leaders to extract concessions from the executive that would not be possible if the separation of powers were maintained. With the checks against excessive spending broken down, borrowing became the preferred method of public finance. The Constitutional requirement that all taxpayer-supported debt be approved by voters began to erode in the 1930's, when a depression-era Supreme Court decision allowed the state to run a temporary deficit in the event of an economic down-turn - as long as the shortfall was addressed in the following fiscal year. This practice was narrowly construed until the Wilson administration began using it to justify spreading out a single year's budget deficit over several years.

During the 1980's, Gov. Deukmejian began employing a legal fiction called a "lease revenue bond," to circumvent constitutionally required voter approval.

Although Proposition 13 still protects property owners from unsustainable increases in their property taxes, most of the other fiscal constraints are now gone, and California has entered a period of unprecedented public debt to finance an unprecedented expansion of state government.

The third factor that also can be traced back to the 1970's was the radical transformation that took place in the nature and power of the state's public employee unions. Until that time, state law prohibited public employee strikes against the public and prohibited collective bargaining or closed shops.

During the Jerry Brown era, a series of collective bargaining acts handed to public sector unions all the rights and powers of private sector unions - but without any of the natural constraints on private sector unions. The unions soon brought these newly-won powers to bear to elect hand-picked officials to state and local office.

Today, political expenditures by public employee unions exceed all other special interest groups, while they hold compliant majorities in the state legislature and most local agencies.

The result has been radically escalating personnel costs and radically deteriorating performance.

The impact on governmental services has been devastating. Despite exploding budgets, service delivery is collapsing. Firing incompetent teachers has become a virtual impossibility, adding to the deterioration of educational quality. Essential services can no longer be performed because labor costs have made it impossible to sustain those services.

Today, California is like the shopkeeper who leased out too much space, ordered too much inventory, hired too many people and paid them too much. Every month the shopkeeper covers his shortfalls with borrowing and bookkeeping tricks. Ultimately, he will reach a tipping point where anything he does makes his situation worse. Borrowing costs are eating him alive and he's running out of credit. Raising prices causes his sales to decline. And there's only so much discretionary spending he can cut.

That's the state's predicament in a nutshell. California's borrowing costs now exceed the budget of the entire University of California and it is increasingly likely that it will fail to find lenders when it must borrow billions to pay its bills at the end of this month. Ignoring dire warnings, Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislators from both parties earlier this year imposed the biggest state tax increase in American history.

And I can assure you that the Laffer curve is alive and well. In the first two months after the tax increase took effect, state revenues have plunged 33 percent.

Although there are many obsolete, duplicative or low priority programs and expenditures that the state can - and should - do without, there aren't enough of them to come anywhere close to closing California's deficit.

Sadly, California has reached the terminal stage of a bureaucratic state, where government has become so large and so tangled that it can no longer perform even basic functions.

Fortunately, we have a model that we know works. A generation ago, it produced a high quality of public service at a much lower cost. It maximized management flexibility and it required accountability at the service delivery level. It recognized that only when commerce and enterprise flourish can we finance the basic responsibilities of government.

Restoring this efficiency will require a governor and a legislature with the political will to wrestle control from the public employee unions, dismantle the enormous bureaucracies that have grown up over the service delivery level, decentralize administration and decision making, contract out services that the private sector can provide more efficiently, rescind the recent tax increases that are costing the state money and roll back the regulatory obstacles to productive enterprise.

Alas, we don't have such leaders and even if we did, the systemic reorganization of the state government can't be accomplished overnight. Restructuring the public schools would take at least a year; prisons at least two; and health and welfare three to five years before serious savings could be realized.

This brings us to the fine point of the matter. What Churchill called history's "terrible, chilling words" are about to be pronounced on California's failed leadership: "too late."

A federal loan guarantee or bailout may be the only way to buy time for the restructuring of California's bureaucracies to take effect, but the discussion remains academic until and unless the state actually adopts the replacement structures, unburdens its shrinking productive sector and presents a credible plan to redeem the state's crushing debt and looming obligations.

Without these actions, federal intervention will only make California's problems worse by postponing reform, continuing unsustainable spending and piling up still more debt.

In short, if California won't help itself, the federal government cannot, should not and must not..

And before anyone gets too smug at California's agony, remember this: Congress is now enacting the same policies at the national level that have caused the collapse of California. So whistle past this cemetery if you must, but remember the medieval epitaph: "Remember man as you walk by, as you are now so once was I; as I am now so you will be." The good news is there is still time for the nation to avoid California's fate. If anything, the collapse of California can at least serve as a morality play for the rest of the nation - unfortunately in the form of a Greek tragedy.


Thursday, July 16, 2009

Words of Wisdom

You cannot help the poor
by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak
by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity
by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up
by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man
by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage
by taking away people's initiative and independence.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them
what they could and should do for themselves.

-Abraham Lincoln

Monday, July 13, 2009

The Truth Behind Signing Petitions

It has come to my attention that professional signature gatherers will begin standing outside stores and other venues to gather the necessary signatures to put the gay marriage issue back on the ballot for November. 

The best and most effective way to defeat this measure, and the least costly, is to make sure it just doesn't get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.  In order to do this we need to inform people to not sign the petitions at store fronts, unless they are very aware of the issue and indeed want it on the ballot.  A phrase used by professional signature gatherers, "it doesn't matter if you sign it, this is on only so the people can vote on it," is rhetoric of those who profit from each signature.  It does matter, and we need to assure that we do our part to keep this off the ballot.

It is important that we save millions of dollars in campaign costs and stop this issue from getting back on the ballot.


Thursday, July 9, 2009

Making Sure Our Vote Counts…

This is from our friends at

As if the Legislature doesn’t have enough issues to deal with given the chronic $26 billion state budget deficit, some legislators are advancing a new bill in Sacramento designed to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8 and further undercut traditional marriage in California.

We need your help immediately to contact legislators and the Governor to oppose Senate Bill 54, which seeks to undermine Proposition 8, and further attempts to sneak this change by the people of California through a legislative maneuver known as the “gut and amend.”

Last week, Senator Mark Leno stripped out the contents of SB 54 – dealing with health care coverage -- and inserted language that would legalize gay marriages performed in other states and nations prior to the passage of Proposition 8. This proposal is in direct conflict with California’s constitution – as amended by the passage of Proposition 8 – that provides only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California. Further, it goes well beyond the California Supreme Court’s decision that allowed to remain valid a limited number of same-sex marriages performed in California last summer before Proposition 8 passed.
It is simply wrong and undemocratic for liberal gay activists like Senator Mark Leno to attempt to circumvent the decision of voters and rewrite our constitution behind our backs with this sneaky “gut and amend” maneuver. That’s why we’re asking you to take action TODAY and urge the legislature, and if it gets to him, the Governor, to oppose this effort to undermine Proposition 8.

Please become an active supporter by opposing SB 54.

Senator Leno’s SB 54 is such a direct assault, and your action will make a difference.

SB 54 will be heard THURSDAY in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. While the odds of stopping the bill here are low, we think that applying pressure now will drive up more no votes on this bill, which helps increase the odds of the Governor vetoing the bill. If the bill makes it to his desk, we are ultimately looking at an effort designed to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to veto this legislation.

But for now, the fight is in the State Assembly.

Write your state Assembly representative expressing your opposition to SB 54. Ask him or her to vote against SB 54 if it makes it to the Assembly floor.

In particular, if any of the following members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee represent your home area, please call or email them immediately to urge them to oppose SB 54. Your immediate action will send a clear message that Californians are watching and will not sit idly by while liberal legislators attempt to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8.

Assembly Member Mike Feuer (D – West LA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood)
(310) 285-5490

Assembly Member Van Tran (R – Costa Mesa, Garden Grove)
(714) 668-2100

Assembly Member Julia Brownley (D - Calabasas, Oxnard)
(818) 596-4141

Assembly Member Noreen Evans (D – Santa Rose, Napa)
(707) 546-4500

Assembly Member Dave Jones (D – Sacramento)
(916) 324-4676

Assembly Member Steve Knight (R – Palmdale, Victorville)
(661) 267-7636

Assembly Member Paul Krekorian (D – Burbank)
(818) 558-3043

Assembly Member Ted Lieu (D – El Segundo)
(310) 615-3515

Assembly Member William Monning (D – Santa Cruz, Monterey, Carmel)
(831) 425-1503

Assemblyman Jim Nielsen (R – Redding, Yuba City)


Saturday, June 20, 2009

Harvey Milk Day

News from our friends at “

The good news is "Harvey Milk Gay Day" for public schools might be vetoed.

The bad news is SB 572 also could be signed -- unless you pick up the phone today and ask your friends to do the same.

You see, while Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the same bill last year, it was because of a large outpouring of public opposition.

That opposition remains strong among the "silent majority." A recent poll found only 1 out of 5 Californians want a statewide "day of significance" honoring Harvey Milk.

But homosexual-agenda advocates are turning up the heat. Sean Penn, who starred in the movie "Milk" about the late San Francisco homosexual activist, has talked to Schwarzengger to ask him to sign SB 572. So has Milk's homosexual activist nephew.

Of course, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual activist groups are working hard to pass "Harvey Milk Gay Day" into law. They're generating calls and emails to Schwarzenegger urging him to sign this horrible bill. You had better be doing the same, only to demand a VETO instead, especially right now, since SB 572 has just passed another committee.

As you can see, this is a dynamic situation that could go either way. But one thing's for sure. If Arnold Schwarzenegger receives more calls, emails and faxes supporting "Harvey Milk Gay Day," he will be tempted to sign it. Don't let this happen!


    • Call Schwarzeneggers' State Capitol office at 916-445-2841 right now. Listen to the recorded message and push the buttons to get to a live constituent services representative.

    • Kindly but firmly tell him or her, "I'm calling to urge the Governor to veto SB 572, "Harvey Milk Gay Day," like he did last year.

        • Parents don't want this, and children don't need this. Schools should teach children academics, not the 'lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender' values of Harvey Milk."