Proposition 1A - NO

I support the idea of a statewide "Bullet Train", but this proposition is short on promises. First, there is no guarantee that the train will be built on time, or within cost projections. The possibility that it becomes a 'boondoggle' for those involved, as well as a huge burden upon the taxpayers of California is a great concern. Let's build a statewide "Bullet Train", but let's do it with built in promises and 'government accountability' as it relates to the tax dollars raised and being protected. Better yet, what about a "private sector company" building and operating the train? Nice idea and a great need; one that may be better suited for better economic times.

Proposition 2 - NO

This Proposition is ridiculous and risky. We don't need to create "housing flats and penthouses" so to provide more "wing space" for hens at the risk of importing our 'eggs' from Mexico (out of state), not to forget a lack of 'disease control' that could lead to outbreaks of Salmonella and Bird Flu for Californians. Why do we want to add expense to the production of eggs for California when we are experiencing terrible economic growth and times? Bad idea, bad legislation; refuse it.

Proposition 3 - NO

Same old ploy, "It's for the Children". This proposition diverts $2 Billion of "your" tax dollars to medical special interests promoting this bond. We have millions from a 2004 initiative that have been unspent. If we really want to be concerned about the children, then let's pay attention to the debt we will be passing them as they become adults living in California. No more debt, we have great medical care for children that has been supported by an initiative in 2004. It's not our fault that the politicians have pillaged from this account.

Proposition 4 - YES

This is called "Sarah's Law". Notification laws in thirty other states are lowering teenage pregnancy and birth rates. The way to lower 'unwanted pregnancies" is to change behavior, not aborting human lives in the womb. Getting parents and guardians involved in the process will also save lives from immature, manipulated decisions by Planned Parenthood operatives. The concern about incest and informed consent has been dealt with, read the new additions to the initiative. This is a better proposal than the previous two attempts - support it.

Proposition 5 - NO

I'm in support of 'non-violent drug offenders' getting treatment, currently only 30% of the drug offenders who chose this avenue complete the current program successfully. Proposition 36 passed in 2001; while there is some success for 'some' offenders, it has not improved our plight in California. This initiative will shorten parole (from 6 months, to 3 months) for Meth abusers, it also establishes a new bureaucracy for oversight and determining who can, and cannot, enter the program. Nice idea, but we are not financially prepared for this growth in budget expense. I'd rather use the money in additional police protection. My other concern is the message; this removes consequences and punishment for non-violent drug crimes. We are getting close to legalizing drugs in California.

Proposition 6 - YES

This is tax money for law enforcement at the local level. Yes, it has a concern - it would allow the legislature and the governor to have authority over local level spending as it relates to law enforcement - but we need the increase for the "conservative ideal" of law enforcement, tax dollars and protection. Yes, I could (and many conservatives are) say "NO" here; due to concerns over the merits of local budgets with only local control. I'm saying "YES" because of our need to deal with violent crimes, gang activity and increasing criminal behavior due to population, economic hardships and a stressed police force.

Proposition 7 - NO

This is a poorly crafted proposition. It would result in 'less' renewable power, 'higher' electric rates, and potentially another California energy crisis similar to the rolling blackouts we experienced in 2002 and 2003. Another concern is forcing business out of California. Proposition 7 would force small renewable companies out of the state. I like the idea, but once again this is a poorly crafted concept. We need to find renewable energy sources for California, but it would be better to protect the consumers from utilities companies simply charging 10-15% more to cover their costs and loss of energy production.

Proposition 8 - YES

This is an easy explanation; marriage is 'one man' and 'one woman' at 'one time'. The citizens of California have already voted on this measure with 61% of the vote stating that marriage is an institution that government respects in its traditional form. Anything other than its traditional form is 'not' marriage, but a 'union' or a 'partnership' inside of our liberty. Four judges reversed your vote in Proposition 22; Proposition fixes this problem by reaffirming your vote and traditional marriage. At the same time it does not take away any 'rights' for those who are Gay or Lesbian residents of California.

Proposition 9 - YES

This measure means; Crime victims would have additional constitutionally guaranteed rights such as the right to participate in any public criminal proceedings. Payments of restitution to crime victims would be required without exception, and any funds collected from offenders ordered to pay restitution would go to pay that obligation before any other. Simply said, you make money while being incarcerated, your money will be offered to the victim, their survivors or relatives.

Proposition 10 - NO

Nothing like creating a 'boondoggle' for specific companies; special interest legislation which gives away $10 Billion in taxpayer money to primarily benefit one company over another - with very little accountability and no guarantees of environmental benefit for the state and her citizens. Don't hurt our schools and services with a give-a-way like this. We are all hungry for alternative fuels, let's reward those who invest their own money to discover the 'widget' rather than rob the taxpayers for specific companies to experiment with tax dollars without results.

Proposition 11 - YES

End the "Gerrymandered" districts in California. No more "controlled" statewide elections, time for real campaigning, with real issues. Supporting Proposition 11 ends the conflict of politicians drawing their own lines and districts after each census year. The majority party controls the crayons, while the minority party plays willing participant for deals and protection to stay relevant. Prop 11 means fair districts drawn by a citizens commission following clear rules and an open process to the public. It holds politicians accountable for solving problems like gas prices (additional taxes), budget reform, health-care costs and our educational system.

Proposition 12 - YES

Support our military; The Cal-Vet Home Loan Program helps veterans to purchase homes in California at no expense to taxpayers. Your approval of bonds finance the program and are repaid, along with all program costs, by the loan holders. This measure will replenish the program's funding. It is self-supportive, and it is the least we can do for those who defend our families, liberty and country. Count me in on Proposition 12.