The so-called "hate crimes" legislation took a new form yesterday when Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) attached the controversial amendment to a Defense Reauthorization bill. This move will could push senators to vote on the issue as early as this week. You need to contact your senators right away and tell them to oppose the "hate crimes" amendment.
CONTACT Your Senators at www.senate.gov/
Hate crimes laws are actually "thought crimes" laws that violate the right to freedom of speech and of conscience and subject individuals to scrutiny of their beliefs rather than focusing on a person's criminal actions. Hate crimes laws will have a chilling effect on people who have moral or religious objections to homosexual behavior. Evidence of a person's beliefs will be used against any individuals who are even suspected of committing a crime.
In a debate on a similar bill that passed the House in May, Rep. Artur Davis, who supported the bill, admitted that under this law a minister could be charged with the crime of incitement if the minister preached that homosexuality is a serious sin and a person in the congregation left church and committed a crime against a homosexual.
[taken from a Liberty Counsel e-mail]
Oregon's Senators' phone numbers can be found at the bottom of the page.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Immigration Bill is dead, for now.
From Associated Press:
WASHINGTON - The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.
Senator Smith voted No Cloture on the bill. Call him or e-mail him and thank him for his vote.
Senator Wyden voted For Cloture on the bill. His secretary told me, 'However, the bill is dead.' That's not really a good excuse for ignoring what the people have expressed, and what is best for America as a whole. Let Senator Wyden know that you disapprove of his vote, and let him know that you won't be voting for him next election.
WASHINGTON - The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.
Senator Smith voted No Cloture on the bill. Call him or e-mail him and thank him for his vote.
Senator Wyden voted For Cloture on the bill. His secretary told me, 'However, the bill is dead.' That's not really a good excuse for ignoring what the people have expressed, and what is best for America as a whole. Let Senator Wyden know that you disapprove of his vote, and let him know that you won't be voting for him next election.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
What will they think of next.
These articles are all regarding the 'Trucking Provision' that allows Mexican Trucks free access to the US. This bill passed as a provision of an Iraq Funding bill.
This is what our government is pushing. Have you ever visited www.spp.gov? Do so.
Also, call your senators and urge them to vote against the Immigration Reform bill. We don't want 'Meximerica'.
Straight up from the NY Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01EEDC143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fN%2fNorth%20American%20Free%20Trade%20Agreement
Read This
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55469
This is an article on the bill that passed today, as a provision of the Iraq funding bill.
"As WND previously reported, when the Mexican truck pilot project initially was introduced by Peters Feb. 23, the test was entirely one-way. Mexican trucks from 100 Mexican trucking companies were to be given free access to the U.S., but at that time, Mexico had not agreed to open up to U.S. trucks. "
"Simply put, the Bush administration has turned a tin ear to both the public and the Congress and there are no objections which can put a stop to the DOT plans," he told WND.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56171
This is what our government is pushing. Have you ever visited www.spp.gov? Do so.
Also, call your senators and urge them to vote against the Immigration Reform bill. We don't want 'Meximerica'.
Straight up from the NY Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01EEDC143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fN%2fNorth%20American%20Free%20Trade%20Agreement
Read This
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55469
This is an article on the bill that passed today, as a provision of the Iraq funding bill.
"As WND previously reported, when the Mexican truck pilot project initially was introduced by Peters Feb. 23, the test was entirely one-way. Mexican trucks from 100 Mexican trucking companies were to be given free access to the U.S., but at that time, Mexico had not agreed to open up to U.S. trucks. "
"Simply put, the Bush administration has turned a tin ear to both the public and the Congress and there are no objections which can put a stop to the DOT plans," he told WND.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56171
Will they not hear us?
This is an article on the resurrected immigration bill. I support some of what Bush does, but I could kick him out for pushing this immigration bill. I don't want this passed, and there are a lot of other people that don't either. Senators don't care what we want, however.
I also heard today that part of a military funding or something bill, a certain provision in that (unrelated) bill changed our border systems. Now trucks from Mexico can roll into the US unispected, 'to foster trade'. On this issue, I don't know what bill or exactly the wording, but that is what I've heard. If you think that the government wouldn't stoop that low, check out www.spp.gov
I'll do more research on that part.
David Wu's phone (202) 225-0855Ron Wyden's phone 202-224-5244Gordon Smith's phone 202-224-3753
I know some of you all care, and if you do, call your representatives and tell them to vote against this bill.
WASHINGTON - The Senate resurrected the immigration bill that could legalize millions of unlawful immigrants Tuesday, but the delicate compromise faces the same threats that derailed it earlier this month.
The White House and Republican and Democratic architects of the bill hailed the crucial test vote that revived the legislation, and they predicted approval of the measure by week's end.
Their victory was fleeting, though, giving way just hours later to stalling tactics by GOP foes. Conservatives succeeded in delaying until Wednesday consideration of a package of amendments designed to pave the way for a final vote on the bill.
They did so by using Senate rules to insist that the entire 373-page package be read aloud, relenting only when Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed to postpone action on the amendments.
That was just the first in a series of formidable obstacles lying in the bill's path. The Senate is slated to consider 26 amendments, mostly from senators seeking to change key elements of the bill, that have the potential to either sap its support or draw new backers.
After that, the legislation must overcome another make-or-break vote as early as Thursday. And there is no guarantee that it will ultimately attract enough support to pass.
Republicans and Democrats alike are deeply conflicted over the bill, which also would create a temporary worker program, strengthen border security and institute a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces.
Masking those divides, the Senate voted 64-35 to revive the bill, which stalled earlier this month when it failed to muster the 60 votes it needed to scale procedural hurdles.
Twenty-four Republicans joined 39 Democrats and independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut to move ahead with the bill. Opposing the move were 25 Republicans, nine Democrats and independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the lead Democratic negotiator on the bill, called the vote "a major step forward for our national security, for our economy and for our humanity."
"We did the right thing today because we know the American people sent us here to act on our most urgent problems. We know they will not stand for small political factions getting in the way," Kennedy said.
On the other side, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said opponents of amnesty for illegal immigrants are being told they must vote for the bill anyway "because that's the only way we're going to create a legal system of immigration in America."
Under the bill, he said, "we're not going to get any substantial reduction in illegality, we're going to double illegality."
President Bush and his team were working intensely to rally support for the measure.
"It's a careful compromise," the president told business leaders and representatives of religious, Hispanic and agricultural communities. He said, "In a good piece of legislation like this, and a difficult piece of legislation like this, one side doesn't get everything they want."
Bush was working the phones to drum up backers, said Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, who with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was also lobbying senators.
Tuesday's vote suggested that key senators and White House officials had succeeded — at least for now — in bargaining with skeptical lawmakers for a second chance to pass the bill. Several senators who have been promised votes on their amendments, including Sens. Kit Bond, R-Mo., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Norm Coleman, R-Minn., Pete Domenici, R-N.M., John Ensign, R-Nev., and Jim Webb, D-Va., supported moving ahead with the measure, after siding with opponents earlier this month on the test vote that stalled it.
Less clear was whether that support would hold. At least one Democrat who backed reviving the bill, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, publicly said he could not guarantee he would vote later to end debate and move to final passage.
Menendez is pushing for passage of his amendment to award more points in a new merit-based green card allocation system for family ties to U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.
Several of the Republican amendments slated for Senate votes would make the bill tougher on unlawful immigrants, while those by Democrats would make it easier on those seeking to immigrate legally based solely on family ties.
Likely to be among the first voted on is a proposal by Sen. Kay Baily Hutchison, R-Texas, to require all adult illegal immigrants to return home before gaining permanent lawful status. The bill would require only heads of households seeking green cards to do so.
Particularly worrisome to supporters, including the Bush administration, is a bipartisan amendment by Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Max Baucus, D-Mont., that would change the bill's new program for weeding out illegal employees from U.S. workplaces.
___
The bill is S 1639
I also heard today that part of a military funding or something bill, a certain provision in that (unrelated) bill changed our border systems. Now trucks from Mexico can roll into the US unispected, 'to foster trade'. On this issue, I don't know what bill or exactly the wording, but that is what I've heard. If you think that the government wouldn't stoop that low, check out www.spp.gov
I'll do more research on that part.
David Wu's phone (202) 225-0855Ron Wyden's phone 202-224-5244Gordon Smith's phone 202-224-3753
I know some of you all care, and if you do, call your representatives and tell them to vote against this bill.
WASHINGTON - The Senate resurrected the immigration bill that could legalize millions of unlawful immigrants Tuesday, but the delicate compromise faces the same threats that derailed it earlier this month.
The White House and Republican and Democratic architects of the bill hailed the crucial test vote that revived the legislation, and they predicted approval of the measure by week's end.
Their victory was fleeting, though, giving way just hours later to stalling tactics by GOP foes. Conservatives succeeded in delaying until Wednesday consideration of a package of amendments designed to pave the way for a final vote on the bill.
They did so by using Senate rules to insist that the entire 373-page package be read aloud, relenting only when Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed to postpone action on the amendments.
That was just the first in a series of formidable obstacles lying in the bill's path. The Senate is slated to consider 26 amendments, mostly from senators seeking to change key elements of the bill, that have the potential to either sap its support or draw new backers.
After that, the legislation must overcome another make-or-break vote as early as Thursday. And there is no guarantee that it will ultimately attract enough support to pass.
Republicans and Democrats alike are deeply conflicted over the bill, which also would create a temporary worker program, strengthen border security and institute a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces.
Masking those divides, the Senate voted 64-35 to revive the bill, which stalled earlier this month when it failed to muster the 60 votes it needed to scale procedural hurdles.
Twenty-four Republicans joined 39 Democrats and independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut to move ahead with the bill. Opposing the move were 25 Republicans, nine Democrats and independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the lead Democratic negotiator on the bill, called the vote "a major step forward for our national security, for our economy and for our humanity."
"We did the right thing today because we know the American people sent us here to act on our most urgent problems. We know they will not stand for small political factions getting in the way," Kennedy said.
On the other side, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said opponents of amnesty for illegal immigrants are being told they must vote for the bill anyway "because that's the only way we're going to create a legal system of immigration in America."
Under the bill, he said, "we're not going to get any substantial reduction in illegality, we're going to double illegality."
President Bush and his team were working intensely to rally support for the measure.
"It's a careful compromise," the president told business leaders and representatives of religious, Hispanic and agricultural communities. He said, "In a good piece of legislation like this, and a difficult piece of legislation like this, one side doesn't get everything they want."
Bush was working the phones to drum up backers, said Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, who with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was also lobbying senators.
Tuesday's vote suggested that key senators and White House officials had succeeded — at least for now — in bargaining with skeptical lawmakers for a second chance to pass the bill. Several senators who have been promised votes on their amendments, including Sens. Kit Bond, R-Mo., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Norm Coleman, R-Minn., Pete Domenici, R-N.M., John Ensign, R-Nev., and Jim Webb, D-Va., supported moving ahead with the measure, after siding with opponents earlier this month on the test vote that stalled it.
Less clear was whether that support would hold. At least one Democrat who backed reviving the bill, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, publicly said he could not guarantee he would vote later to end debate and move to final passage.
Menendez is pushing for passage of his amendment to award more points in a new merit-based green card allocation system for family ties to U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.
Several of the Republican amendments slated for Senate votes would make the bill tougher on unlawful immigrants, while those by Democrats would make it easier on those seeking to immigrate legally based solely on family ties.
Likely to be among the first voted on is a proposal by Sen. Kay Baily Hutchison, R-Texas, to require all adult illegal immigrants to return home before gaining permanent lawful status. The bill would require only heads of households seeking green cards to do so.
Particularly worrisome to supporters, including the Bush administration, is a bipartisan amendment by Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Max Baucus, D-Mont., that would change the bill's new program for weeding out illegal employees from U.S. workplaces.
___
The bill is S 1639
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
HB3526 (SB2) and HB2007 will be voted on by the House on Tuesday
URGENT: Call or e-mail your representatives and let them know how you stand on these bills. Both HB3526 (SB2) and HB2007 will be voted on by the house Tuesday, if I am correct. I believe the schedule was updated. Let them know that you do not want these bills passed.
Continue to call, republican Representatives John Limm, Chuck Burley, John Dallum, Vicki Berger, Bob Jensen, Patti Smith, and Susan Morgan; as well as all democrats. These Republicans currently support the bills, and they need to hear from us.
Representatives Fred Girod and Donna Nelson have both stated that they will vote agianst the bill, because of your phone calls. E-mail them and thank them for doing right. Continue to call other representatives and ask them to vote against the bill.
Also, if you go over to www.stopthebilloregon.com and click on 'Sign the Petition' (or go to www.restoreamerica.org/petition.aspx ) you can sign a petition which will be presented to the House before their vote. There are currently over 7,000 names on it, but each additional one counts.
Find your legislator here: http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/
Also, there is a poll about whether the bill should pass or not at www.restoreamerica.com on the sidebar. Check it out, it's fast and easy.
Continue to call, republican Representatives John Limm, Chuck Burley, John Dallum, Vicki Berger, Bob Jensen, Patti Smith, and Susan Morgan; as well as all democrats. These Republicans currently support the bills, and they need to hear from us.
Representatives Fred Girod and Donna Nelson have both stated that they will vote agianst the bill, because of your phone calls. E-mail them and thank them for doing right. Continue to call other representatives and ask them to vote against the bill.
Also, if you go over to www.stopthebilloregon.com and click on 'Sign the Petition' (or go to www.restoreamerica.org/petition.aspx ) you can sign a petition which will be presented to the House before their vote. There are currently over 7,000 names on it, but each additional one counts.
Find your legislator here: http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/
Also, there is a poll about whether the bill should pass or not at www.restoreamerica.com on the sidebar. Check it out, it's fast and easy.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
TWOFOLD: Results of the Public Hearing
The Committee which has been working on HB3526 (i.e. SB2) and HB2007 reached a decision today. They voted 5 to 2 in favor of HB2007, which sends it to the house floor. It may be voted on as early as this Thursday.
The wording in House Bill 2007 has been changed from 'Civil Union' to 'Domestic Partner'. Somehow, the committee thinks that merely changing a name can change the nature of the bill. Changing 'Marriage' to 'Civil Union' to 'Domestic Partner' does nothing to change the fact that the bill provides an institution equal to marriage for same sex couples.
On HB2007, Urgent action is requested. Call your local representative. Urge them to vote against HB2007. You can find their number here: http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/ .
These are the Committe members who have been listening to the hearings on these bills. Sal Esquivel and Kim Thatcher both voted against HB2007, and will vote against HB3526 (SB2). Thank them for their vote, and encourage them to stand for truth.
The Committee was undecided on HB3526, which would elevate homosexuality and similar behavior to minority status. They are holding another discussion on that issue today at 5PM. They will still recieve your e-mails on this issue if you get them out tonight.
Diane Rosenbaum - rep.dianerosenbaum@state.or.us
Dave Hunt - rep.davehunt@state.or.us
Arnie Roblan - rep.arnieroblan@state.or.us
Vicki Berger - rep.vickiberger@state.or.us
Sal Esquivel - rep.salesquivel@state.or.us
Kim Thatcher - rep.kimthatcher@state.or.us
Peter Buckley - rep.peterbuckley@state.or.us
E-mail these committee members about HB3526 (SB2) and call or e-mail your representative about HB2007. Please help to stop these bills.
The wording in House Bill 2007 has been changed from 'Civil Union' to 'Domestic Partner'. Somehow, the committee thinks that merely changing a name can change the nature of the bill. Changing 'Marriage' to 'Civil Union' to 'Domestic Partner' does nothing to change the fact that the bill provides an institution equal to marriage for same sex couples.
On HB2007, Urgent action is requested. Call your local representative. Urge them to vote against HB2007. You can find their number here: http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/ .
These are the Committe members who have been listening to the hearings on these bills. Sal Esquivel and Kim Thatcher both voted against HB2007, and will vote against HB3526 (SB2). Thank them for their vote, and encourage them to stand for truth.
The Committee was undecided on HB3526, which would elevate homosexuality and similar behavior to minority status. They are holding another discussion on that issue today at 5PM. They will still recieve your e-mails on this issue if you get them out tonight.
Diane Rosenbaum - rep.dianerosenbaum@state.or.us
Dave Hunt - rep.davehunt@state.or.us
Arnie Roblan - rep.arnieroblan@state.or.us
Vicki Berger - rep.vickiberger@state.or.us
Sal Esquivel - rep.salesquivel@state.or.us
Kim Thatcher - rep.kimthatcher@state.or.us
Peter Buckley - rep.peterbuckley@state.or.us
E-mail these committee members about HB3526 (SB2) and call or e-mail your representative about HB2007. Please help to stop these bills.
Public Hearing for SB2/HB2007
There was a large turnout of folks for the public hearing last night regarding HB3526 (i.e. SB2) and HB2007. I hope that the committee members take into account the number of people that came to oppose the bill, especially the number of young men and women. Unfortunately, they may not consider that as a factor.
The committee will hold a workshop today on the bills. After they discuss them, they will vote on whether to send the bill to the floor. If they vote no, then it is dead. If they vote yes, there is still time to contact your representatives.
I'll post the committees decision as soon as I know what it is.
The committee will hold a workshop today on the bills. After they discuss them, they will vote on whether to send the bill to the floor. If they vote no, then it is dead. If they vote yes, there is still time to contact your representatives.
I'll post the committees decision as soon as I know what it is.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Public Hearing in Salem Tomorrow on HB 2007 and HB 3526
There will be a public hearing in Salem tomorrow regarding Oregon House of Representatives HB 2007 and HB 3526.
HB 2007 would create civil unions which are equal in all aspects but name to marriage. This is blatantly against the Oregon Constitutional amendment that we passed in 2004. You remember your high school math, right? If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. The legislators seem to think that they can use a new name for a 'civil union' and make it equal to marriage. You might also remember that if A=C, you can replace C with A. They are literally making homosexual marriage legal, and giving it a new name in hopes to pass it.
I am amazed and appalled by the attempt to bypass the voters on this issue. They have heard where we stand, but yet they believe it acceptable to move this bill forward.
HB 3526 is the House companion to SB 2, which is explained in detail below. SB 2 passed in the senate, but we may be able to oppose it in the House.
Representative Email Addresses & Phone Numbers for the committe which will be holding a hearing on these bills tomorrow.
Diane Rosenbaum - rep.dianerosenbaum@state.or.us
Dave Hunt - rep.davehunt@state.or.us
Arnie Roblan - rep.arnieroblan@state.or.us
Vicki Berger - rep.vickiberger@state.or.us
Sal Esquivel - rep.salesquivel@state.or.us
Kim Thatcher - rep.kimthatcher@state.or.us
Peter Buckley - rep.peterbuckley@state.or.us
You can call the toll free 1-800-332-2313 line to the Legislature and ask for one of the above. The operator will then connect you. If we contact each of these, it will have an effect.
Full text of HB 2007 http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/hb2000.dir/hb2007.intro.html
Full text of HB 3526 (SB2) http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0001.dir/sb0002.intro.html
Find your legislator
http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/
HB 2007 would create civil unions which are equal in all aspects but name to marriage. This is blatantly against the Oregon Constitutional amendment that we passed in 2004. You remember your high school math, right? If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. The legislators seem to think that they can use a new name for a 'civil union' and make it equal to marriage. You might also remember that if A=C, you can replace C with A. They are literally making homosexual marriage legal, and giving it a new name in hopes to pass it.
I am amazed and appalled by the attempt to bypass the voters on this issue. They have heard where we stand, but yet they believe it acceptable to move this bill forward.
HB 3526 is the House companion to SB 2, which is explained in detail below. SB 2 passed in the senate, but we may be able to oppose it in the House.
Representative Email Addresses & Phone Numbers for the committe which will be holding a hearing on these bills tomorrow.
Diane Rosenbaum - rep.dianerosenbaum@state.or.us
Dave Hunt - rep.davehunt@state.or.us
Arnie Roblan - rep.arnieroblan@state.or.us
Vicki Berger - rep.vickiberger@state.or.us
Sal Esquivel - rep.salesquivel@state.or.us
Kim Thatcher - rep.kimthatcher@state.or.us
Peter Buckley - rep.peterbuckley@state.or.us
You can call the toll free 1-800-332-2313 line to the Legislature and ask for one of the above. The operator will then connect you. If we contact each of these, it will have an effect.
Full text of HB 2007 http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/hb2000.dir/hb2007.intro.html
Full text of HB 3526 (SB2) http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0001.dir/sb0002.intro.html
Find your legislator
http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
URGENT: Call your State Legislative Senator
This is regarding Senate Bill 2, which would grant minority status to Homosexuals, Bi-Sexuals, and Trans-sexuals. The bill is scheduled to be on the Oregon State Senate floor sometime this week, so quick action is needed if we want to stop it.
There are a few reasons I and many others oppose this bill. It does not contain sufficient exemption or protection for churches and religious institutions. While it does have an exemption clause, it is not broad enough to completely protect churches. The current clause forces the courts to define the 'Primary Purpose' of a church, and they also have to decide whether any specific position is 'closely connected' with the primary purpose. This could lead to litigation against churches, which, even if unsuccessful, would still be harmful to the church.
The bill also neglects the precedent for a minority class. All minority classes are based on unchangeable characteristics such as Race, Age, Disability, etc. This bill would grant minority status to a group of people based on their lifestyle choices. Not only is it a misapplication of protected minority status, but it could set a new standard in discrimination laws, opening up a whole new set of legislation.
There is one last reason that I'm going to write here. This legislation is a small step towards the eventual full recongition of homosexual couples. Even the homosexual activists admit this, although they are pleased, because it looks like the bill will pass.
PLEASE, CALL YOUR STATE LEGISLATIVE SENATOR!!
Urgent action is required if we want to stop this bill. Call your State Senator, and ask him to oppose SB 2 and SB 500. We can do something to oppose this, but if we don't, it will most certainly pass. Make your voice heard.
Representative government fails when the people are apathetic.
Here is a website where you can find your local senator's phone.
www.defenseofmarriagecoalition.org is the Oregon Family Council website. Click on Citizen Lobby Center' under Action, and then click 'Call your Legislator'. It has tips on what you may want to say, as well as his number. You may also want to write an e-mail or a letter, but because the date is so close, a call is the surest way to be heard.
Full Text of the Bill
http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0001.dir/sb0002.intro.html
There are a few reasons I and many others oppose this bill. It does not contain sufficient exemption or protection for churches and religious institutions. While it does have an exemption clause, it is not broad enough to completely protect churches. The current clause forces the courts to define the 'Primary Purpose' of a church, and they also have to decide whether any specific position is 'closely connected' with the primary purpose. This could lead to litigation against churches, which, even if unsuccessful, would still be harmful to the church.
The bill also neglects the precedent for a minority class. All minority classes are based on unchangeable characteristics such as Race, Age, Disability, etc. This bill would grant minority status to a group of people based on their lifestyle choices. Not only is it a misapplication of protected minority status, but it could set a new standard in discrimination laws, opening up a whole new set of legislation.
There is one last reason that I'm going to write here. This legislation is a small step towards the eventual full recongition of homosexual couples. Even the homosexual activists admit this, although they are pleased, because it looks like the bill will pass.
PLEASE, CALL YOUR STATE LEGISLATIVE SENATOR!!
Urgent action is required if we want to stop this bill. Call your State Senator, and ask him to oppose SB 2 and SB 500. We can do something to oppose this, but if we don't, it will most certainly pass. Make your voice heard.
Representative government fails when the people are apathetic.
Here is a website where you can find your local senator's phone.
www.defenseofmarriagecoalition.org is the Oregon Family Council website. Click on Citizen Lobby Center' under Action, and then click 'Call your Legislator'. It has tips on what you may want to say, as well as his number. You may also want to write an e-mail or a letter, but because the date is so close, a call is the surest way to be heard.
Full Text of the Bill
http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0001.dir/sb0002.intro.html
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Senate Iraq War Policy
If you listen to the radio you may have heard about the 'Non-Binding Resolution' on Iraq. Congress is debating a bill that 'disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.'
I encourage you to read the full text of the bill, found here : http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-574
It is really short, quite readable.
In short, what this bill does is..... nothing. Really. No action or legal ramification is associated with this bill. All it does it what you just read. Disapproves of the sending of troops. If you were a Soldier in Iraq, or if you knew someone there, how would you like to hear that all of Congress was opposed to sending you backup?
Personally, I think the war is taking too long. But if we're going to do something, DO SOMETHING. Send them backup and finish the job. Bring them home and let the Iraqis sort it out. But leave them there, and tell them that you think they shouldn't get any reinforcements? I think it is deplorable.
Let your Senator and Representative know what you think they should vote on this bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-574
I encourage you to read the full text of the bill, found here : http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-574
It is really short, quite readable.
In short, what this bill does is..... nothing. Really. No action or legal ramification is associated with this bill. All it does it what you just read. Disapproves of the sending of troops. If you were a Soldier in Iraq, or if you knew someone there, how would you like to hear that all of Congress was opposed to sending you backup?
Personally, I think the war is taking too long. But if we're going to do something, DO SOMETHING. Send them backup and finish the job. Bring them home and let the Iraqis sort it out. But leave them there, and tell them that you think they shouldn't get any reinforcements? I think it is deplorable.
Let your Senator and Representative know what you think they should vote on this bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-574
Assault Weapons Ban
From govtrack.us : This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise bills before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee.
While this is still in the committee phase, it is another bill aimed at banning 'assault weapons'. Personally, I find it absurd. The phrase 'Shall not be infringed' seems fairly clear to me, but other people don't see it that way.
If this does make it to the General Debate, we should definitely contact our representatives. If you call or write to any senators or congressman and encourage them to oppose "H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes", let them know that you think they should oppose it if it comes to the floor.
Let our government know that this ISN'T how we want ourselves to be legislated. If we talk, they will listen.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022
While this is still in the committee phase, it is another bill aimed at banning 'assault weapons'. Personally, I find it absurd. The phrase 'Shall not be infringed' seems fairly clear to me, but other people don't see it that way.
If this does make it to the General Debate, we should definitely contact our representatives. If you call or write to any senators or congressman and encourage them to oppose "H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes", let them know that you think they should oppose it if it comes to the floor.
Let our government know that this ISN'T how we want ourselves to be legislated. If we talk, they will listen.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Border Patrol
I don't know how many of you know this, but there has been news on the case of two border guards for some time now. The story has been out on the radio, because they recently started serving their sentences.
Much of the news you hear about these two border patrol agents is inaccurate or hype. Many people are calling for the pardon of these two officers, claiming that 'they were doing their job' and the illegal drug smuggler goes free. I personally was under the impression that this was a massive failure on the part of the Justice System to protect those who protect us.
However, after looking up what actually happened, I can no longer call for their pardon. I have had LE training, and I know the Rules of Engagement as they relate to firearms. I also know how to properly report an incident. These rules were not followed in this case by the two officers.
-----
It started as a 'standard' pursuit in Fabens, Texas. Border patrol agents pulled over a van that, having only moments before entered the US, was suddenly attempting to return to Mexico. The driver got out and raised his hands, which were empty.
Testimonies of the officers that were present differ at this point.
In the end, one officer fired 14 shots at the suspect, while another fired one shot, hitting the suspect in the buttocks. The suspect was not armed, and, from what attorneys gathered, never made hostile actions towards the border patrol. After the suspect fled, the officer that fired 14 shots picked up his spent brass (shell casings), and enlisted the help of a more junior officer to assist him. They discarded the shell casings into a nearby canal. This is a blatant violation of the standard operating procedures. Also, the shooting was not reported to their superiors, as is required.
Regardless of whether the shots fired were lawful, the actions of the officers following the incident were unacceptable. Who would deliberately disturb an investigation scene except those who have something to hide?
I started this post thinking to call for justice. I was under the impression that these modern martyrs should be pardoned. However, after reviewing the facts as they are made available, I believe justice is being done. While I pray that the two officers are not harmed in prison, I believe that their time there is no misdeed. While I feel for their families, those who enforce justice must not violate the laws they uphold.
-detailed account-
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Feb16/0,4670,BattleontheBorder,00.html
-current summary-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244193,00.html
Much of the news you hear about these two border patrol agents is inaccurate or hype. Many people are calling for the pardon of these two officers, claiming that 'they were doing their job' and the illegal drug smuggler goes free. I personally was under the impression that this was a massive failure on the part of the Justice System to protect those who protect us.
However, after looking up what actually happened, I can no longer call for their pardon. I have had LE training, and I know the Rules of Engagement as they relate to firearms. I also know how to properly report an incident. These rules were not followed in this case by the two officers.
-----
It started as a 'standard' pursuit in Fabens, Texas. Border patrol agents pulled over a van that, having only moments before entered the US, was suddenly attempting to return to Mexico. The driver got out and raised his hands, which were empty.
Testimonies of the officers that were present differ at this point.
In the end, one officer fired 14 shots at the suspect, while another fired one shot, hitting the suspect in the buttocks. The suspect was not armed, and, from what attorneys gathered, never made hostile actions towards the border patrol. After the suspect fled, the officer that fired 14 shots picked up his spent brass (shell casings), and enlisted the help of a more junior officer to assist him. They discarded the shell casings into a nearby canal. This is a blatant violation of the standard operating procedures. Also, the shooting was not reported to their superiors, as is required.
Regardless of whether the shots fired were lawful, the actions of the officers following the incident were unacceptable. Who would deliberately disturb an investigation scene except those who have something to hide?
I started this post thinking to call for justice. I was under the impression that these modern martyrs should be pardoned. However, after reviewing the facts as they are made available, I believe justice is being done. While I pray that the two officers are not harmed in prison, I believe that their time there is no misdeed. While I feel for their families, those who enforce justice must not violate the laws they uphold.
-detailed account-
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Feb16/0,4670,BattleontheBorder,00.html
-current summary-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244193,00.html
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Why this blog?
I have always wanted to have some involvement with the representative system, and I have contacted my representatives before, but I wanted to do something more.
I recently got the idea to start a blog that would provide individuals with an easy way to contact their representatives. I'll post things that I think our Congressman and Senators should hear, and I'll also post contact info for them. No looking for addresses or phone numbers, no feeling 'out of the loop', just down to earth info (from my point of view).
I recently got the idea to start a blog that would provide individuals with an easy way to contact their representatives. I'll post things that I think our Congressman and Senators should hear, and I'll also post contact info for them. No looking for addresses or phone numbers, no feeling 'out of the loop', just down to earth info (from my point of view).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
