I have had a request to change the color scheme of my blog to make it easier on the eyes. As I have had some discomfort myself since getting our new flat screen monitor, (I much preferred the old one for the sharpness of the display) I thought perhaps it is time for a change. I did like the black background, but with this new monitor it is almost impossible to avoid the strobing affect while maintaining readability. I don't know what I think about this yet. There may be further experimentation to come.
If you've got comments or suggestions, make them now.
"Let, I pray thee, thy merciful kindness be for my comfort, according to thy word unto thy servant."~Psalm 119:76
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Entitlement Question to Rep. King
This is one of the questions from the call referenced in the previous post.
One question to Mr. King was '...You say reducing capital gains taxes is the right way to rebuild the economy. David Walker and the Peter G Peterson Foundation say that the upcoming unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs are the bigger threat.' "Do you propose to cut spending in the area of entitlement programs and how are you going to address that?"
Mr. King's answer was to say that Mr. Bush had expended his political capital in attempting to remove some entitlement spending during his administration to no avail. He said he would be supportive of what could be brought to reform Medicare, social security and others, but he's turned his focus more on real tax reform. He then went on to say that we are in a crisis and leaping off the brink of the abyss into a socialist economy. He wants to know how we can get this thing to the point where we can make some positive changes.
He believes two "transformational" changes would put us back on the road to fiscal responsibility: a fair tax, and giving parents school choice.
First, I don't believe a fair tax (by which I think he may be referring to a flat tax or the consumer based sales tax model - but he didn't say really, so perhaps he, or someone in his office will correct this if I am mistaken) will ever be passed because the tax code as it stands is such an excellent tool in the hands of government/law enforcement. If we cannot stop some criminal in any other way, we have the get-them-through-their-taxes option. The current tax code is longer than the Bible. I believe that it is now, nearly impossible for anyone to file their taxes in a way that is above reproach. It's a catch - 22 in the system, a sword of Damocles, if you will. It does need to be changed, but I don't think anyone who currently holds an ounce of power in the government will really vote to change it to a simple and easily understood system. I sincerely hope to be proved wrong at Congress' earliest possible convenience.
Second, school choice is a wonderful thing. I am currently utilizing a school choice program for my own son. Yay to school choice. So what? Federal funding of education is an entitlement program. One does not get rid of entitlement programs by continuing to fund adapted forms of them.
Put the states in charge of their educational systems and have a federal competency test. Education is important, but from all that I've seen and read, the two most important factors in a child's education are parental involvement and good teachers. Not extracurriculars, not fancy facilities, not athletic programs, not the many bureaucratic layers necessary to ensure compliance with state and federal guidelines, not even community support - parental involvement and good teachers.
Putting the states in charge of their own educational systems brings the choices closer to home and begets parental involvement. Here's a really revolutionary and transformational idea for Mr. King, let schools fire teachers when they need to be fired. The NEA has been holding this country hostage long enough. Teaching is not any more noble than any other job which serves it's community.
A national competency test would assure us that when a student has obtained a high school diploma he/she will be able to read, write and do math with a certain level of competence whether they were taught in Maine or Hawaii. That would be transformational and reduce a large entitlement program.
Thirdly, yes, I agree we, as a nation, appear to be ecstatically leaping off the edge of fiscal irresponsibility and into the abyss of socialism. However, refusing to address the entitlement programs we have on the basis of pointing out the fiscally and philosophically perilous entitlement programs we are about to be adding is illogical. Don't vote to add the new ones and tackle the old ones head on. Yes, that means you risk being labeled as heartless and voted out of office in the next election. That's what character is, doing the right thing regardless of popular opinion and personal risk. We are a republic, not a democracy, for just that reason. Because popular opinion is not always right. While a congressman/woman does need to be responsive to their constituency, they also need to be aware that their constituencies do not have all the information they need to make good decisions in all matters legislative-that's why they hired you-to do the right thing for them and the country, to oppose their wishes when your information is better.
I thank you Mr. King for taking that question. My observations are not those of a republican, just a conservative. I thank you for making yourself available for the conference and for your service to the country as an elected Representative.
I'll get to more of the questions from this call in another post.
"And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle."~1 Sam 17:28
One question to Mr. King was '...You say reducing capital gains taxes is the right way to rebuild the economy. David Walker and the Peter G Peterson Foundation say that the upcoming unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs are the bigger threat.' "Do you propose to cut spending in the area of entitlement programs and how are you going to address that?"
Mr. King's answer was to say that Mr. Bush had expended his political capital in attempting to remove some entitlement spending during his administration to no avail. He said he would be supportive of what could be brought to reform Medicare, social security and others, but he's turned his focus more on real tax reform. He then went on to say that we are in a crisis and leaping off the brink of the abyss into a socialist economy. He wants to know how we can get this thing to the point where we can make some positive changes.
He believes two "transformational" changes would put us back on the road to fiscal responsibility: a fair tax, and giving parents school choice.
First, I don't believe a fair tax (by which I think he may be referring to a flat tax or the consumer based sales tax model - but he didn't say really, so perhaps he, or someone in his office will correct this if I am mistaken) will ever be passed because the tax code as it stands is such an excellent tool in the hands of government/law enforcement. If we cannot stop some criminal in any other way, we have the get-them-through-their-taxes option. The current tax code is longer than the Bible. I believe that it is now, nearly impossible for anyone to file their taxes in a way that is above reproach. It's a catch - 22 in the system, a sword of Damocles, if you will. It does need to be changed, but I don't think anyone who currently holds an ounce of power in the government will really vote to change it to a simple and easily understood system. I sincerely hope to be proved wrong at Congress' earliest possible convenience.
Second, school choice is a wonderful thing. I am currently utilizing a school choice program for my own son. Yay to school choice. So what? Federal funding of education is an entitlement program. One does not get rid of entitlement programs by continuing to fund adapted forms of them.
Put the states in charge of their educational systems and have a federal competency test. Education is important, but from all that I've seen and read, the two most important factors in a child's education are parental involvement and good teachers. Not extracurriculars, not fancy facilities, not athletic programs, not the many bureaucratic layers necessary to ensure compliance with state and federal guidelines, not even community support - parental involvement and good teachers.
Putting the states in charge of their own educational systems brings the choices closer to home and begets parental involvement. Here's a really revolutionary and transformational idea for Mr. King, let schools fire teachers when they need to be fired. The NEA has been holding this country hostage long enough. Teaching is not any more noble than any other job which serves it's community.
A national competency test would assure us that when a student has obtained a high school diploma he/she will be able to read, write and do math with a certain level of competence whether they were taught in Maine or Hawaii. That would be transformational and reduce a large entitlement program.
Thirdly, yes, I agree we, as a nation, appear to be ecstatically leaping off the edge of fiscal irresponsibility and into the abyss of socialism. However, refusing to address the entitlement programs we have on the basis of pointing out the fiscally and philosophically perilous entitlement programs we are about to be adding is illogical. Don't vote to add the new ones and tackle the old ones head on. Yes, that means you risk being labeled as heartless and voted out of office in the next election. That's what character is, doing the right thing regardless of popular opinion and personal risk. We are a republic, not a democracy, for just that reason. Because popular opinion is not always right. While a congressman/woman does need to be responsive to their constituency, they also need to be aware that their constituencies do not have all the information they need to make good decisions in all matters legislative-that's why they hired you-to do the right thing for them and the country, to oppose their wishes when your information is better.
I thank you Mr. King for taking that question. My observations are not those of a republican, just a conservative. I thank you for making yourself available for the conference and for your service to the country as an elected Representative.
I'll get to more of the questions from this call in another post.
"And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle."~1 Sam 17:28
Thursday, March 26, 2009
GOP Conference Calls
My apologies for the lengthy break between posts. I have been distracted by my non-blogging life of late. I hope that is settling and I will be able to post more consistently for this next bit. I would like your help to decide about a new opportunity that has been presented to me recently.
On March 16th, I received an e-mail from the House Republican Conference. It said that they are reaching out to blogs who do not currently receive their Congressional updates and videos.
They also extend invitations to exclusive blogger conference calls with House members on hot topics being discussed in Washington. I participated in my first such conference call with Reps. King, McCotter and McMorris Rodgers on the 25th.
Some of the topics addressed were the strategy of the current administration, the debt, increases in spending, entitlement spending, AIG, and etc.
To hear the call click here. This call lasted about 30 minutes. Mr. McCotter's remarks starting at 27 minutes, 45 seconds are refreshing.
"Our truths are self-evident, not relative"
I'm not quite sure why I was invited to participate in these calls as I am not a republican, but rather a conservative.
Let me know what you think. Is this sort of conference call valuable?
If so, and I decide to continue to participate and post on them, Would you prefer that I write a transcript of the call, post a link to the call itself, as I've done here, or just excerpt bits that I find relevant?
"The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame. "~Zeph 3:5
On March 16th, I received an e-mail from the House Republican Conference. It said that they are reaching out to blogs who do not currently receive their Congressional updates and videos.
They also extend invitations to exclusive blogger conference calls with House members on hot topics being discussed in Washington. I participated in my first such conference call with Reps. King, McCotter and McMorris Rodgers on the 25th.
Some of the topics addressed were the strategy of the current administration, the debt, increases in spending, entitlement spending, AIG, and etc.
To hear the call click here. This call lasted about 30 minutes. Mr. McCotter's remarks starting at 27 minutes, 45 seconds are refreshing.
"Our truths are self-evident, not relative"
I'm not quite sure why I was invited to participate in these calls as I am not a republican, but rather a conservative.
Let me know what you think. Is this sort of conference call valuable?
If so, and I decide to continue to participate and post on them, Would you prefer that I write a transcript of the call, post a link to the call itself, as I've done here, or just excerpt bits that I find relevant?
"The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame. "~Zeph 3:5
Friday, February 20, 2009
Wisconsin's 10th Amendment Resolution
Senator Liebham has kindly provided me with the text of his proposed resolution regarding the 10th amendment for Wisconsin and his aid, Mr. Werwie has assured me that I may publish it here. Without further ado, here is the text of the resolution.
2009 − 2010 Legislature SRM:wlj:phLRB−0927/1
"2009 − 2010 LEGISLATURE2009 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION
Relating to: state sovereignty.
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads,“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the U.S. Constitution and no more; and
Whereas, as the scope of power is defined by the Tenth Amendment, the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
Whereas, today the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
Whereas, the legislature has forwarded to the federal government numerous resolutions opposing federal encroachment on state powers but has received no response or result from Congress or the federal government; and
Whereas, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
Whereas, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112S. Ct. 2408 (1992) that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
Whereas, a number of federal proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the U.S. Constitution; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring, That the state of Wisconsin hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution; and, be it further
Resolved, That adoption of this resolution does not constitute an application by the legislature of the state of Wisconsin for the calling of a federal Constitutional Convention within the meaning of Article V of the U.S. Constitution; and, be it further
Resolved, That this resolution shall serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further
Resolved, That the senate chief clerk shall provide copies of this joint resolution to the president of the United States, to the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to the presiding officer of each house of each state legislature of the United States, and to each member of this state’s congressional delegation.(END)" (Emphasis in bold is mine)
"Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no." ~Exodus 16:4
2009 − 2010 Legislature SRM:wlj:phLRB−0927/1
"2009 − 2010 LEGISLATURE2009 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION
Relating to: state sovereignty.
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads,“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the U.S. Constitution and no more; and
Whereas, as the scope of power is defined by the Tenth Amendment, the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
Whereas, today the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
Whereas, the legislature has forwarded to the federal government numerous resolutions opposing federal encroachment on state powers but has received no response or result from Congress or the federal government; and
Whereas, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
Whereas, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112S. Ct. 2408 (1992) that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
Whereas, a number of federal proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the U.S. Constitution; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring, That the state of Wisconsin hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution; and, be it further
Resolved, That adoption of this resolution does not constitute an application by the legislature of the state of Wisconsin for the calling of a federal Constitutional Convention within the meaning of Article V of the U.S. Constitution; and, be it further
Resolved, That this resolution shall serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further
Resolved, That the senate chief clerk shall provide copies of this joint resolution to the president of the United States, to the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to the presiding officer of each house of each state legislature of the United States, and to each member of this state’s congressional delegation.(END)" (Emphasis in bold is mine)
"Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no." ~Exodus 16:4
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Kudos To Sheriff Lott
After returning from SD, I decided to catch up on the news and this caught my eye.(Yes, women do occasionally read the Sports page.)
There was an article by AP columnist Jim Litke making fun of Richland County, SC Sheriff, Leon Lott for doing his job.
Apparently Sheriff Lott is attempting to build a case against Olympic champion Michael Phelps for smoking marijuana at a party and Mr. Litke feels this is ridiculous and over the top. In his words: "If Lott genuinely believes that Phelps is a danger to Richland County, somebody needs to sit him down and explain the meaning of prioritizing. "
Mr. Phelps' attorney also makes light of the matter , saying:"It seems to me that Richland County has a host of it's own crime problems much more serious than a kid featured in a photograph with a bong in his hand."
I beg to differ.
First, Mr. Phelps is not a kid. He is an adult. Twenty three years old = adult.
Second, he is a role model. The Saturday Night Live joke quoted in the article where a parent should answer a child's queries about why they can't smoke pot when Michael Phelps does may be funny, but it is inappropriate. (The answer was "right after you win 12 gold medals")
Third, this sort of moral relativity is at the heart of our country's troubles today. We have a standard of behavior here. It is called the law. It is the duty of citizens to uphold the law and to condemn those who break it.
Mr. Litke says"While there's no condoning what Phelps did, " and then goes on to explain why he does condone what Mr. Phelps did. "..if anybody has the right to blow off some steam, it's him. Phelps has been in the pool nearly every day since age 7." Then he cites some of the consequences Mr. Phelps has already suffered for his lapse in judgment as further reasons why he shouldn't be subject to Sheriff Lott's persecution.
This article disturbed me. I have spent a bit of time volunteering with children and one of the things I teach them is the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance. When we get to the lines "with liberty and justice for all" I have a little exercise I do with them. I say that phrase means that the law applies to everyone equally.
Then I set up a scenario for them:"We have a law against littering here. If Thomas(my son-who served as my den chief) and I are walking down the street and we both litter and a police officer sees us both, to whom should he give a ticket?" They usually get that one right. Both of us. Then I say what if the mayor and I were walking down the street and we both litter? Sometimes they have trouble with that one. They almost always have trouble with it when I name a celebrity or if I say the other person is a big businessman with lots of money. The point is, that I reassure them that the law applies to everybody equally in this country-or at least it's supposed to.
Now I would like to ask Mr. Litke, "At exactly what point did Michael Phelps transcend his subjection to the laws of the USA in your opinion?"
I'd like to know. Was it when he reached a certain number of hours of hard work? There are guys out there working 60-80 hour weeks to pay their bills who have been doing so for longer than Mr. Phelps has been alive. Should they get a free pass too?
Does this law transcendent status result from the winning of a gold medal? Does everyone with a gold medal get to consider themselves above the law or do they have to win more than one? Just what would that magic-the-law-no-longer-applies-to-me number be?
Is it celebrity perhaps? My son has a following of older folks who show up for open mic nights on the chance that he might be there playing piano. The benefit concert he put on for his Scoutmaster got him an interview on satellite radio and one of his school projects caused him to be interviewed on camera for a television show intended for Japanese schoolchildren. Is that celebrity enough for him to smoke pot without fear of legal repercussions? Maybe he can speed now that he has his license.
Do you see where I'm going here? Simply because you have a soft spot for someone or find some of their achievements admirable does not mean that they should no longer be subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
I say kudos to Sheriff Lott. How would it help the crime rate in his county if he ignored a blatant, publicized instance of lawbreaking where the guilty party can be easily found upon whom to enforce the law? I'm assuming Mr. Phelps did not bring the marijuana to the party, which means someone else, who has access to the drug dealers of Richland County did. It is Sheriff Lott's sworn duty to press charges against Mr. Phelps and anyone else who broke the law at that party. It was Mr. Phelp's civic duty, not only to refuse the drug, but to report whoever offered it to him to the police himself. The only message criminals in Richland County should be taking from his actions is the message that no one is above the law here.
I don't have any idea how Sheriff Lott handles the rest of his duties, but in this instance, he's right on target.
So, kudos to you, Sheriff Lott and shame on you Mr. Litke for eroding the values and standards that uphold the republic.
"My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not." ~Proverbs 1:10
There was an article by AP columnist Jim Litke making fun of Richland County, SC Sheriff, Leon Lott for doing his job.
Apparently Sheriff Lott is attempting to build a case against Olympic champion Michael Phelps for smoking marijuana at a party and Mr. Litke feels this is ridiculous and over the top. In his words: "If Lott genuinely believes that Phelps is a danger to Richland County, somebody needs to sit him down and explain the meaning of prioritizing. "
Mr. Phelps' attorney also makes light of the matter , saying:"It seems to me that Richland County has a host of it's own crime problems much more serious than a kid featured in a photograph with a bong in his hand."
I beg to differ.
First, Mr. Phelps is not a kid. He is an adult. Twenty three years old = adult.
Second, he is a role model. The Saturday Night Live joke quoted in the article where a parent should answer a child's queries about why they can't smoke pot when Michael Phelps does may be funny, but it is inappropriate. (The answer was "right after you win 12 gold medals")
Third, this sort of moral relativity is at the heart of our country's troubles today. We have a standard of behavior here. It is called the law. It is the duty of citizens to uphold the law and to condemn those who break it.
Mr. Litke says"While there's no condoning what Phelps did, " and then goes on to explain why he does condone what Mr. Phelps did. "..if anybody has the right to blow off some steam, it's him. Phelps has been in the pool nearly every day since age 7." Then he cites some of the consequences Mr. Phelps has already suffered for his lapse in judgment as further reasons why he shouldn't be subject to Sheriff Lott's persecution.
This article disturbed me. I have spent a bit of time volunteering with children and one of the things I teach them is the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance. When we get to the lines "with liberty and justice for all" I have a little exercise I do with them. I say that phrase means that the law applies to everyone equally.
Then I set up a scenario for them:"We have a law against littering here. If Thomas(my son-who served as my den chief) and I are walking down the street and we both litter and a police officer sees us both, to whom should he give a ticket?" They usually get that one right. Both of us. Then I say what if the mayor and I were walking down the street and we both litter? Sometimes they have trouble with that one. They almost always have trouble with it when I name a celebrity or if I say the other person is a big businessman with lots of money. The point is, that I reassure them that the law applies to everybody equally in this country-or at least it's supposed to.
Now I would like to ask Mr. Litke, "At exactly what point did Michael Phelps transcend his subjection to the laws of the USA in your opinion?"
I'd like to know. Was it when he reached a certain number of hours of hard work? There are guys out there working 60-80 hour weeks to pay their bills who have been doing so for longer than Mr. Phelps has been alive. Should they get a free pass too?
Does this law transcendent status result from the winning of a gold medal? Does everyone with a gold medal get to consider themselves above the law or do they have to win more than one? Just what would that magic-the-law-no-longer-applies-to-me number be?
Is it celebrity perhaps? My son has a following of older folks who show up for open mic nights on the chance that he might be there playing piano. The benefit concert he put on for his Scoutmaster got him an interview on satellite radio and one of his school projects caused him to be interviewed on camera for a television show intended for Japanese schoolchildren. Is that celebrity enough for him to smoke pot without fear of legal repercussions? Maybe he can speed now that he has his license.
Do you see where I'm going here? Simply because you have a soft spot for someone or find some of their achievements admirable does not mean that they should no longer be subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
I say kudos to Sheriff Lott. How would it help the crime rate in his county if he ignored a blatant, publicized instance of lawbreaking where the guilty party can be easily found upon whom to enforce the law? I'm assuming Mr. Phelps did not bring the marijuana to the party, which means someone else, who has access to the drug dealers of Richland County did. It is Sheriff Lott's sworn duty to press charges against Mr. Phelps and anyone else who broke the law at that party. It was Mr. Phelp's civic duty, not only to refuse the drug, but to report whoever offered it to him to the police himself. The only message criminals in Richland County should be taking from his actions is the message that no one is above the law here.
I don't have any idea how Sheriff Lott handles the rest of his duties, but in this instance, he's right on target.
So, kudos to you, Sheriff Lott and shame on you Mr. Litke for eroding the values and standards that uphold the republic.
"My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not." ~Proverbs 1:10
Monday, February 16, 2009
Follow-up to the note.
I am back in town, but with a friend. The flu decided to join us for our trip home and I am not at my best.
This morning, I received a reply to my interest in matching New Hampshire's resolution 6 from the other half of my legislative representatives, my senator.
Here is his reply:
"Thank you for contacting me recently with your support for state’s rights.
I appreciate that you took the time to bring this resolution to my attention. I introduced a similar resolution last year but, unfortunately, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Government Reform has not allowed a hearing on the bill. I plan to re-introduce the proposal in the next few weeks in order to renew this effort. We need to pull back our power and responsibilities from our federal government.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please contact me again if I can provide additional information or answer any questions."
I have asked him to provide a link to the text of that proposed resolution, and I will publish it here as soon as I receive it.
"And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear. "~Exodus 32:18
This morning, I received a reply to my interest in matching New Hampshire's resolution 6 from the other half of my legislative representatives, my senator.
Here is his reply:
"Thank you for contacting me recently with your support for state’s rights.
I appreciate that you took the time to bring this resolution to my attention. I introduced a similar resolution last year but, unfortunately, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Government Reform has not allowed a hearing on the bill. I plan to re-introduce the proposal in the next few weeks in order to renew this effort. We need to pull back our power and responsibilities from our federal government.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please contact me again if I can provide additional information or answer any questions."
I have asked him to provide a link to the text of that proposed resolution, and I will publish it here as soon as I receive it.
"And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear. "~Exodus 32:18
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Just a Note
I, upon reading of New Hampshire's Resolution 6, immediately wrote to my own state legislators requesting a similar measure. As I will be out of town for a few days, I thought I would post his response here to encourage those who may not have felt it worthwhile
to contact their own legislators.
"Thank you for forwarding a link to the resolution introduced in the New Hampshire legislature. This document has gotten considerable attention, and I have been sent copies from several sources in recent days. Although the current majorities in the Wisconsin legislature are not likely to embrace such a resolution, I am discussing with colleagues the possibility of introducing a Wisconsin version regardless of majority support.
The federal government has repeatedly usurped the constitutional authority of individual states, and grown government control far beyond the framers intent. I will watch with interest the progress of this initiative in the New Hampshire legislature."
"Then three thousand men of Judah went to the top of the rock Etam, and said to Samson, Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us? what is this that thou hast done unto us? And he said unto them, As they did unto me, so have I done unto them." ~Judges 15:11
to contact their own legislators.
"Thank you for forwarding a link to the resolution introduced in the New Hampshire legislature. This document has gotten considerable attention, and I have been sent copies from several sources in recent days. Although the current majorities in the Wisconsin legislature are not likely to embrace such a resolution, I am discussing with colleagues the possibility of introducing a Wisconsin version regardless of majority support.
The federal government has repeatedly usurped the constitutional authority of individual states, and grown government control far beyond the framers intent. I will watch with interest the progress of this initiative in the New Hampshire legislature."
"Then three thousand men of Judah went to the top of the rock Etam, and said to Samson, Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us? what is this that thou hast done unto us? And he said unto them, As they did unto me, so have I done unto them." ~Judges 15:11
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
