Monday, February 4, 2008

Recommendations for CA's Feb 5 Propositions

California’s Propositions: Just say NO

California’s propositions for this election on Feb. 5 present a some easy choices for California. Here are my recommendations.

Prop. 92 – Community College Funding - NO

We are facing a budget crisis because we have so many mandatory obligations. We simply cannot afford to take on another. We have other priorities and we can’t handcuff ourselves for this.

Prop. 93 - Term Limits - NO THE FACTS

When the politicians who are backing this proposition can’t be honest, we vote NO. Forty-five politicians, including under-FBI investigation Don Perata, and campaign-fund-spending-on-other-stuff Fabian Nunez will get grandfathered in with this propostion. Funny, Don and Fabian don’t mention that in the commercials. Now, a sudden change in direction for the Governor and all of a sudden he want to work with “experienced” legislators? Smells fishy. Looks fishy, must be fishy. Vote No.

Props. 94-97 Expanded Gaming - No

If there is uncertainty about HOW the state gets paid, we should vote NO.
If we don’t believe the tribes suddenly care about our state budget, vote NO.
If all of 108 tribes in California haven’t received their compact yet, vote NO.
If you believe that 83% is a good tax rate for the lottery, but 15% isn’t for a gaming monopoly, vote NO.
If you believe in civil rights and understand that Pechanga has violated their members civil rights, vote NO
If you know that Indian Gaming will not go away with these flawed compacts, vote NO.
If you think that the tribes don’t deserve $36 billion while we get $9 billion, vote NO.
If you think Pechanga should NOT be rewarded for cheating their people, vote NO.
The LAO says we WILL NOT get $9 Billion, therefore, the compact doesn’t live up to expectations and thus, will not deliver on the Big four tribes promise, so vote NO.
The aforementioned Perata and Nunez are for these compacts, leaving unions out, so that is reason enough to vote NO.
If you think something was "unusual" about how the BIA handled the compacts, VOTE NO.
If you think suing to keep us from voting as the tribes did is wrong, VOTE NO.
If you think we really need the money, but a tribe shouldn't benefit from hurting their people, then vote NO on 94.
If you don't think that 48,000 more car trips PER DAY, Per Casino is a good idea, vote NO
If
you think that Pechanga destroying 25% of their tribe is a bad thing: Vote no on 94
If you are NOT clear as to how we will get the money the tribes say we'll get: VOTE NO on all



Please Vote on Feb. 5 and Just say NO to all the propositions.

Original Pechanga
http://originalpechanga.blogspot.com

5 comments:

Creeper said...

ONE MORE THING TO ADD TO THE ABOVE LIST...IF YOU THINK AND KNOW THAT THE PECHANGA CHAIRMAN MARK MACARRO IS LYING AGAIN [ as he has done so many times before ] THEN YOU MUST VOTE NO ON 94.........

sosumi said...

Hi Pechanga

Keep up the good work on spreading the word on 94 - 97. We at TribalWatch have been busy doing the same. We also put up your information on the protest this Saturday, with links back to your blog. A member of the TW staff hopes to be there on Saturday to support the event.

Anonymous said...

More info about the corrupt Gov.. Another reason to vote No on 94-97.
Is that Schwarzenegger has still failed to disclose details of his reported holdings in IGT, the Reno, Nevada-headquartered slot manufacturer that supplies most of the state’s machines. In 2004, CityBeat reported that Schwarzenegger received a settlement on his $20 million lawsuit against IGT, which manufactured Terminator slots without first obtaining Schwarzenegger’s permission. This was confirmed by Schwarzenegger spokesperson Vince Sollitto. “My understanding is that those holdings are in a blind trust,” Sollitto told CityBeat.

This time, Schwarzenegger’s office repeatedly refused to answer questions about IGT, stating that the governor’s finances are his “private affair.” In 2004, IGT spokesperson Rick Sorensen confirmed for CityBeat that there was a settlement, and that IGT was bound by “a confidentiality agreement,” with the court documents sealed. Therefore, it’s impossible to determine whether Schwarzenegger’s holdings in IGT are in company stock or Terminator machine royalties, or if he, as University of Las Vegas Professor William N. Thompson advised, “gave it all to charity.” Also, according to an unnamed source, Schwarzenegger applied “nonstop pressure” on IGT attempting to get the company to contribute to the proposition campaign.

Anonymous said...

Where is Original??? This is it!! Where are you!! Don't give up.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

PECHANGA NATIVES,

Welcome to the world of...

Dirty California Politics, with S.F. Nancy Pelosi, and the Mayor of Berkeley, California.

Be Alert, Stay Aware...they speak
with a forked tongue! reb
__________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com