So much for tolerance. A Radical Michigan Gay Group Attacks Christian Church Service on Sunday. Yup, those gay people that Christians are to be so tolerant of, acted in a very intolerant, disgusting way during a church service.

On Sunday, November 9, 2008 Michigan liberals sat peacefully through announcements, worship and prayer for the sick, our nation and our President-elect before staging a coordinated, disgusting and repulsive attack on worshipers and the broader concept of the church itself at Lansing's Mount Hope Church.

...Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. "Jesus was gay," they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

Don't expect the mainstream media to pick up on this.

Right Michigan reported more details about the attack: (My emphasis)

The "open minded" and "tolerant" liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a "right winger" on tape daring to push back (none did).  And just in case their camera missed the target, they had a reporter in tow.  According to a source inside the church yesterday there was a "journalist" from the Lansing City Pulse along for the ride, tipped off about the action and more interested in getting a story than in preventing the vandalism, the violence and anti-Christian hatred being spewed by the lefties.  We'll see what he files and what his editors see fit to print.

...The church's response?  After things settled down, the blasphemy ended, the lewd props removed and the families safe from fear of additional men and women running into and past them the pastor took the stage and led the congregation in one more prayer... not for retribution, or divine justice or a celestial comeuppance (that's what I'd have prayed for) but instead that the troubled individuals who'd just defiled the Lord's house, so full of anger and hate, would know Jesus' love in their lives and God's peace that exceeds human understanding.

I am thankful that this group of believers acted in a Christian way. Their actions speak volumes about their beliefs and character.

In case you haven't noticed, Christians are fast becoming the only group where intolerance is allowed. We better wake up.

Side note: Any media bias here? It is interesting that an Obama victory at 52.7% (McCain 46%) is called a landslide or mandate, but California's Proposition 8, which would outlaw gay marriage, passed by 52.4% (No 47.6%) and was called a narrow margin.

White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA:  Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban. [Hazmat crew determined it wasn't toxic.]

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Would you like to go to the polls on Nov. 4th and have everyone view your ballot? Not too many people would. The right to a private ballot is important to Americans.

Peer pressure can be a powerful force--especially in unions. There is a bill right now called the Employee Free Choice Act, HR 800. The name would make you think it protected privacy. It doesn't. Senator Barack Obama co-sponsored and voted for it. 

It is such an affront to workers' rights, that even former Senator George McGovern opposes it. He ran an ad during last night's debate describing why he was against this legislation. (It was one of the highlights of the debate!) From Real Clear Politics,

One of labor's top agenda items for at least the last two years has been the Employee Free Choice Act, which would strip employees from the secret ballot in deciding whether to form a union. The measure was defeated earlier, but will doubtlessly get a second hearing with an Obama administration.

You can see the ad on Gateway Pundit, who concludes, "Too radical for George McGovern?...That's Barack Obama!" 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I heard both Congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner interviewed on Jay Weber's radio show this morning. (Hour 4 Part 2). Since I trust the opinion of both of these men, I was curious as to why Ryan voted YES and Sensenbrenner NO on the latest bailout bill. 

First Congressman Ryan, who does have a degree in economics. The following are some notes I took from the interview--they are not direct quotes. Listen to the podcast if you can.

Ryan said the bill yesterday was the Paulson plan with quite a bit of tweaks.

The original Paulson bill was 3 pages: Give me a blank checkbook with $700billion.

We wrote a [Republican] alternative. Ours said, Let's make the firms buy insurance.

We rewrote the bill, added stock options--warrants to taxpayers, so the taxpayer is first in line to get money back (if there are profits--that means ACORN would not be getting funding as the orig. Paulson bill stated.) Executives won't get a Golden Parachute.

This bill was $350 billion: $250b immediately and $100b later. An additional $350b would need to be voted on in the future.  

Over the weekend, credit markets went crazy. The problem is not just on Wall Street. Credit markets are shutting down. [That means cash flow for payrolls is unavailable.] There is a fear of recession.

"I'm now sincerely worried this could lead to recession."

Jay Weber: Can we move slowly or do we need to move quickly?

Ryan: Tax money goes out the door either way, this way (bailout) or from FDIC (if banks fail.) Paulson mishandled this so badly.  We added 107 pages to his bill. 

I have never seen things like this [credit freezing up]--ever. Businesses won't be able to cash flow payrolls.

Weber: There is a deep distrust of Congress.

Ryan: 2,300 calls [to my office] almost all against the bailout. [That is changing a little now.] We have to corral Wall Street so it doesn't spill to Main Street.

Weber: Why aren't Republicans hammering this?

Ryan: I am. Since 2002 I have voted against Freddie and Fannie every time.

I think Paul Ryan voted for this measure because he is genuinely worried about our economy shutting down. He knows that if businesses cannot get credit to meet their payrolls, that means workers do not get paid. With many Americans just a paycheck away from being broke, we cannot afford to let that happen. Businesses also use credit to purchase supplies and equipment for future production.

Then it was Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's turn:

Paulson [Barney Frank] plan fatally flawed from the beginning. That money all came from taxpayers.

The word was, $700billion would not be enough.

America can't afford this. We are wealthy, but there is a limit. 

All of this is inflationary. Interest rates will shoot up. [Remember] 20% prime rates during Carter? 

We should go back to the regular order [of crafting legislation] with committee meetings, rather than Paulson saying we have to do this.

Weber: We're racing against the clock.

Sensenbrenner: When markets opened [today] they were up 200, so hopefully the markets have calmed down.

Paulson is pushing for now. It bailed out the people who caused the problem.

I'm prepared to go back when Pelosi calls us back.

This is a case of Congress serving the people. 

Weber: What angers people is Frank and Dodd in charge of the fix. Is there any mechanism to say when you failed the people, get off the committee!

Sensenbrenner: The Community Reinvestment Act was a significant factor [to what is going on.] 

The process worked yesterday. The speeches like from Pelosi need to stop. She also knew there were not the votes to pass. Why did she bring the bill to the floor? [To fix blame on the Republicans]

Weber: Would you change the Community Reinvestment Act?

Sensenbrenner: Repeal of that law should be in the new package now.

The Security and Exchange Commission dropped the ball--enforcement was not vigorous. 

The Justice Department should investigate if any fraud was committed. [Imprisonment would serve as a deterrent.]

So there you have the Yea and the Nay. Where is Solomon when you need him? 

Conservatives would hope the next version of the bailout bill would be better for taxpayers, that it keeps money from ACORN and repeals the Community Reinvestment Act. With this crew I don't have much hope.

My fear is that the next version will included ACORN funding again or worse. The Democrats will vote for it, and President Bush, who is really over a barrel here, will have to sign it.

Calls from Americans running 500 against, to 1 in favor, of the bailout might be the only thing that saving us from an UGLY pig of a bill.

Post Script: Along the lines of Sensenbrenner's request that they craft this bill carefully, 165 Economists rip bailout plan:

The economists say they are well aware of the current financial situation and agree there's a need for bold action but ask Congress "not to rush."

They urge lawmakers to hold appropriate hearings and "to carefully consider the right course of action." 

Right now the market is up 307 points from yesterday's close. You can check anytime on USAToday. (If you leave it open, it automatically refreshes.) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Remember Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Remarks Upon Becoming Speaker of the House two years ago? (Emphasis mine) 

I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship, and I look forward to working...

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Boehner, and the Republicans in the Congress, for the good of the American people.

... and the American people told us they expected us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standard and with civility and bipartisanship.

... After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go; no new deficit spending.

... Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

... My colleagues elected me to be speaker of the House. The entire House. Respectful of division of our founders, the expectations of our people and the great challenges that we face, we have an obligation to reach beyond partisanship to work for all America.

... Let us stand together to move our country forward, seeking common ground for the common good.

Did her performance yesterday live up to her promise? Blaming Bush for all of this? (There is plenty of blame to go around. If our economy is in such danger, and I think it could be, is this the time for finger pointing or "seeking common ground for the common good.")

Pelosi let 16 Democrat Congressmen in tight races off the hook--they could vote NO. Obama campaign co-chair Jessie Jackson Jr., Democrat from Illinois, voted NO.

If Speaker Nancy Pelosi was so sure this bill needed to pass, why did she poison the deal with her rant and not insist her own party support it? Was she hoping it would fail so they could get the ACORN funding back in? Who knows.

I think it all comes down to a matter of trust. Do you trust this Congress to come up with an acceptable solution?  

About this time 2 years ago, before the majority shifted to the Democrats, the Congress' approval rating was 25%. Last year it was 11%. In July it was 9%: "The overall national approval rating is at 9 percent. The first time in history that the rating has fallen to a single digit. ...So you see, history can be made. All it took was some hard work and bipartisanship."

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner said, "Now is not the time to fix the blame, it is time to fix the problem."  I pray they will be able to do just that before credit totally freezes up and businesses can't make payroll.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Yup, it is true. Former President Bill Clinton appeared on Good Morning America this morning and defended John McCain. (Politics makes strange bedfellows!)

ABC News' Nitya Venkataraman Reports: Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward.

... 

"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton also commented on the Democrat's accusation that this problem came out of nowhere--we had nothing to do with this. He admitted some responsibility in this mess lies with the Democrats in Congress. (About half way through the clip)

Well... ...the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put in some standards and tighten up a little with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [He also blamed the Up Tick rule.]

I really hope the Congress acts in good faith and not in their typical political way, as in the NO Drill Bill. When Sen. Obama originally stated that he would not come, that "If you need me, call me." if he was needed, I wondered how that would have gone over with the Democrats if Pres. Bush had done that with Hurricane Katrina.

GOPUSA's piece, Bailing out the Bailout, talks about Sen. Reid's flip flop on McCain's presence and what some conservatives hope McCain can do, 

...Until McCain's announcement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed inclined to support the $700 billion bailout bill -- provided Democrats could lard it with their own goodies -- but only if McCain (and other Republicans) would support the package and provide the Dems with political cover.

"I got some good news in the last hour or so ... it appears that Sen. McCain is going to come out for this," Reid announced Tuesday evening.

...

Reid's office promptly released a statement that said, "We need leadership; not a campaign photo-op." So the bailout is worth spending $700 billion of other people's money -- but not worth McCain flying to Washington to broker a doable deal? Get the feeling Reid is completely out of touch?

Now, what if McCain could reduce the size of the bailout? (That is a tall order, but hope springs eternal with me.)

If, however, McCain can broker a more fiscally responsible plan -- read one with a price tag about half of the original's size or less, and with a cap on executive pay -- he just might be able to broker a deal that can pass muster.

McCain is taking a huge chance here. Even just going to Washington to vote on this measure is a risk. One has to wonder if Obama hoped he could duck the whole thing by not going to the Senate to vote at all--a variation on voting, "Present."

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Have you noticed that the mood of the country has changed regarding energy?

Last year, THE solution was all about growing our own energy by using ethanol. The emphasis was on reducing our carbon footprint and dependence on foreign oil, regardless of the cost.

But rising food prices and the fact that ethanol was a boondoggle (using as much energy as it supplied) caused ethanol's reign to slip from political popularity.

Then came Newt with his Drill Here.Drill Now.Pay Less. campaign. While I am surprised that he never did get those 3 million petition signers, he certainly started the conversation that we must start producing more oil domestically.

It was a conversation the President and House Republicans were willing to listen to. Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats, however, were not. In fact, she shut down the House for 5 weeks!

During that 5 weeks off, around 130 House Republicans kept the heat on the discussion in the House. See YouTube

Also during the summer, the polls started showing that 67% of Americans favored domestic drilling.

John McCain responded to that fact by embracing offshore drilling. Certainly his picking Palin indicates he is looking at domestic oil and increasing natural gas. The Republican ticket has an "All of the above" approach. (Oil, clean coal, natural gas, tidal, hydro, hydrogen, geo-thermal, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.)

Barack Obama wouldn't go that far, but did promote getting off foreign oil dependence by increasing clean coal, natural gas, and safe nuclear as additions to the usual wind, solar, etc.

But while all this new domestic energy posturing was going on, Pelosi and the House Democrats were not available until this week. On Monday:

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday morning that the newest Democratic energy bill will be brought to the floor under normal rules and will be subject to a vote on a Republican alternative that is likely to call for even more drilling than Democrats are prepared to swallow.

So finally, she and the House Democrats are willing to allow a vote on drilling!

"Pelosi miscalculated in her heavy-handed tactics before the recess.  She attempted to push through her own plan under suspension of the rules, a tactic she decried in 2006, which kept Republicans from offering an alternative.  When it failed, she adjourned Congress, hoping to put off the debate until after the conventions … and her book tour.

"Instead of regrouping, the Democrats found themselves routed by an angry electorate and motivated Republicans.  The House Oil Party kept the issue in the media eye, at least to an extent, but high gas prices kept it on the minds of voters while Democrats took their summer vacation.  It was as poor a political calculation seen in recent years, and the sudden shift in generic Congressional ballots and in party identification has been the result.

"Pelosi and Harry Reid may have finally figured out that they could lose this election on energy policy.  Will this be enough to stanch the bleeding? (My emphasis)

This vote would have never happened without public pressure. We tend to forget that fact. But don't jump for joy just yet.

The next hurdle will be, what kind of energy bill gets passed? Will it be a real energy bill that truly increases drilling opportunities and new energy sources? Or will it be just all show and no go? as a token attempt by Democrat Congressmen and Senators up for reelection to appear sympathetic to energy prices?

But House Republicans called the Democrats' proposals "gimmicks," and instead have insisted on a stand-alone vote on oil drilling.

"Speaker Pelosi's so-called 'energy' bill will do nothing to help our energy crisis," said Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican. "It will multiply red tape and make it almost impossible to lower already skyrocketing oil costs." (My emphasis)

Stay tuned! 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Last May I told you about Randy Melchert, candidate for the Wisconsin State Assembly--24th District.  Although that is not my district, his "Melchert Plan" to lower area gasoline prices by 10% is appealing. I don't have to live in the Menomonee Falls/Germantown area to be in favor of that! 

From his website:

...[His] three-part plan would eliminate the Minimum Markup Law, lower the state Gas Tax to the national average, and end the forced use of Reformulated Gas.While gas prices have risen nationwide, gas in Wisconsin has risen more than other states because Wisconsin has one of the ten highest gasoline tax rates in the nation! The Tax Foundation shows how gas taxes in Wisconsin are 3 cents higher than Indiana, 5 cents higher than Ohio, almost 11 cents higher than Minnesota and Iowa, almost 15 cents higher than South Carolina and Kentucky, and 19 cents higher than New Jersey

Now I could understand if the gas tax was used for highway maintenance and road repair, but when Governor Doyle can steal $240 million from the transportation fund to cover the rest of his budget, we're paying too much in gas taxes.

On his website, Melchert includes a series of interesting charts, graphs, and lots of statistics that illustrate how Wisconsin drivers pay more for gasoline than most other states. There is also a savings calculator where you can punch in your numbers to see how the minimum mark up, reformulation, and higher gas taxes affect you. On average, I probably would save $300 a year, but if I would calculate the savings for our entire household, we would be saving somewhere around $900 a year.

Since we just returned from a trip out west, I can confirm we found gas prices elsewhere much cheaper. The added bonus was that we could get non-ethanol gasoline in other states, giving us more miles per gallon.

For example: in a 2 day period on Aug. 16th and 17th, regular gasoline in Sioux Falls, SD was $3.49/gal, Willmar, MN was $3.62/gal, but in Wisconsin, reformulated gas (the only kind available) in Black River Falls was $3.79/gal. 

Check out the information on Melchert's website, and if you would like to save 10% on your gasoline bills, contact your representatives and senators and ask them to implement the Melchert Plan!

If I lived in the 24th District, I would be voting for Randy Melchert come Sept. 9th. But I live in the 14th District, so my vote happily goes to Leah Vukmir.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

Yesterday, I caught a bit of Mark Belling's show. He was talking about needing a photo ID to make a bank transaction. That got me thinking about how many times I need to show my drivers license more than the average person.

Because of my name, when I use my credit card I frequently am asked,

Is that your husband's card?

I say, No, it is mine.

Oh, could I see your driver's license?

Sure, and I show them. Conversation about my unique name follows. (Good reason to name kids with classic names.) 

I would not be allowed to use the card if I did not have a photo ID to prove who I am. 

Mark Belling (Podcast), talked (griped?) about his experience at the bank trying to make a deposit. He needed a photo ID to complete the transaction. He then thought about how many places everyone needs a photo ID just to carry out everyday life besides banking transactions: buying liquor and cigarettes, obtaining a Blockbuster card, library card (?), and checking in at the airport to name a few. Yet we are unwilling to take the ID step to securing our elections.

A little past the last half of the podcast, Mark got into the phony idea State Democrats promote of how requiring a photo ID disenfranchises voters. Jim Sullivan of Wauwatosa was mentioned as voting against photo ID, yet he (and other democrats) don't campaign against any other place that requires a photo ID.

The photo ID is a basic form of security in America, but we aren't willing to use the basic security for securing our vote!, Mark exclaimed. What we have allowed to happen regarding safeguarding our elections in Wisconsin is a disgrace.

Since I am planning some summer vacations, I got to thinking of all the places I need a photo ID for. We purchased a National Parks Pass. I needed a photo ID to purchase it and must show one every time I use it for admission. I have to prove I am the person on the card.

We might go to Greenfield Village and the Henry Ford Museum. I will need one to purchase a membership (its cheaper if you go more than once) and then need the photo ID to use the membership card to prevent fraud.

Some states, especially in areas with lots of tourism, require a photo ID every time a credit card is used. The National Park concessioners require one as does Disney World. Frequently gas stations along the interstate require a photo ID to charge at the counter. Oh, and of course you need one to rent a car. 

You might say, these are all areas the poor would not be utilizing. True. But remember the basics of life mentioned earlier  all require a photo ID: check cashing (that would include a welfare check), banks, purchasing cigarettes and liquor, and let's not forget, driving. 

What we have allowed to happen regarding safeguarding our elections in Wisconsin is a disgrace. I couldn't have said it better.

If your State Senator is Jim Sullivan, let him know what you think about his NO vote last session. 

State Senator Jim Sullivan, Democrat, 5th District
Sen.Sullivan@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-2512,  866-817-6061

Don't forget the Music Concert to Benefit Chinese Quake Victims, Saturday, May 31st, 10AM - 1PM, Brookfield Civic Plaza

Links:

We've heard the term: Frankenstein Veto, and we have seen what it can do: Doyle's raiding the transportation fund to give to the general fund, comes to mind. But before any Republicans start acting smugly, Tommy Thompson created Frankenstein monsters too. But do you know what it really is?

Mark Belling explained this monster the other day. The Frankenstein Veto uses the trick of the veto pen, altering legislative language, to create something totally unintended. It allows the Governor to eliminate numbers, words, phrases, or sentences from legislation that crosses his desk, and those eliminated parts allow him to alter the intent of that legislation.

Fictitious Example: All monkeys must be licensed by April 15th. The license fee of $10.00 is payable to the City of Brookfield to offset costs incurred by the police department and Elmbrook Humane Society. 

On April 1st, voters will have the power to end the Frankenstein Veto through a Constitutional Amendment. If you want to end this practice, vote YES. You are saying, Yes, we want to alter the state constitution. Of course they don't call it the Frankenstein Veto, they call it the Partial Veto. (Thanks FairlyConservative.)

Both sides of the isle are generally in favor of ending this practice, Belling said. Doyle probably would not want it to end, however, since it gives him the power to create something uninteneded out of legislative language.

Eliminating this type of Partial Veto would still allow a governor to veto certain parts of a law, just not transform the intent of a law.

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

Things are really heating up over the controversial Voter ID Constitutional Amendment. The controversy being that around 80% of Wisconsinites--regardless of political affiliation--want a Voter ID requirement, but the Democrat controlled State Senate won't bring the measure up for a vote before the current session ends next week.

So they just get to it next year?  I don't think so. Voter ID is a Constitutional Amendment. It is my understanding that for a Constitutional amendment question to be brought to the voters on a ballot, it first needs to pass both houses for two years in a row.

Voter ID has passed the Assembly two times and the Senate once. This next week is Voter ID's only chance to pass the senate for the second time. If it is not brought up for a vote, then the question of should the state constitution be amended to require Wisconsin voters to show a Voter photo ID to vote cannot be put on the ballot for Wisconsin voters to decide.

Yesterday Assembly Republican, Rep. Jeff Stone and 6 Senate Republicans held a news conference criticizing the Senate Democrats for not bringing Voter ID for a vote. You can read the account on the Wisconsin State Journal.

The squabble escalated until Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Weston, stepped toward the lone Assembly Republican, Rep. Jeff Stone, of Greendale, and angrily told him to leave.

"Go back to the Assembly and take care of your business there," Decker told Stone.

As Decker quickly turned to leave, Stone replied, "I did. I'm waiting for you to take care of the people's business here." 

I called my State Senator Jim Sullivan's office this morning. The aid (Steve) said they had received a lot of calls on this.  He was rather vague about the issue though. I tried to pin him down as to Sen. Sullivan's position on Voter ID ( AJR17 ) , but he  focused his attention on telling me that the senator would let me know his views on it via letter.

I said I wanted to know Sullivan's position on Voter ID. Steve said, oh, Sen. Sullivan favors a Voter ID. I said then why has he not pushed to bring it to a vote? Again, some talk about how I would hear Sullivan's views in a letter.

I told Steve that Sullivan's 5th District constituents would be watching how Sen. Sullivan acts on this important issue.

According to a caller I heard on Vicki McKenna's radio show today, when he called Sen. Sullivan's office, the aid told him that the Senator favors Voter ID, but as a law, not a Constitutional Amendment!

That sounds like a dodge to me, but if it is true, why has not Sen. Sullivan introduced such legislation? 

More from the Wisconsin State Journal:

With Sen. Spencer Coggs, D-Milwaukee, observing the news conference, the Republicans cited a recent report on voting irregularities in Milwaukee in calling for the voter identification requirement.

Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Falls, challenged Coggs to explain why he was "afraid to let the people decide" on the constitutional amendment.

Coggs replied that Democrats disagree with Republicans on the issue and that requiring photo identification at the polls wouldn't stop voting irregularities.

Coggs and the Republicans continued to debate the merits of the proposed amendment, with Stone saying, "Let's let everyone in Wisconsin have a voice on something that's a basic principle."

I know I am sounding like a broken record here, but call Senator Sullivan and  Senator Decker. Tell them, Let the people decide, bring AJR17 to a VOTE!

Senator Russel Decker, Senate Majority Leader
Sen.Decker@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-2502

Milwaukee Police Department Special Investigation Report on 2004 Election Voter Fraud

Prior Posting: Virtual Schools, Ethanol back in committee, Photo ID languishing in Senate 

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

Assemblyman Leah Vukmir's office called today in response to an email I sent*. Her aid informed me that the Renewable fuel bill (Ethanol) was going to committee again this Wednesday, Feb. 27, at 10 am.

He also said that Leah Vukmir was in a hearing meeting on the Assembly version of the Virtual Schools bill AB870(?) It was to go to Executive Session (committee) Tuesday, Feb. 26, 10 am. The Assembly version of the Virtual Schools bill did not have the cap restriction as the Senate SB396 version did.

Fifth District Senator Jim Sullivan voted FOR capping the Virtual School program. The capping will eliminate about 3,000 children from this very popular program unless the Assembly comes up with a solution.

Contact the Assembly about the Ethanol bill and Virtual Schools. 

Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (Assembly Majority Leader), from Horicon. Counties: Columbia and Dodge
Rep. Michael Huebsch (Assembly Speaker), from West Salem. Counties: LaCrosse and Monroe

State Representative Leah Vukmir, Republican, 14th District
Rep.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9180

Representative Rich Zipperer, Republican, 98th District
Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-5120 

On another note, the Photo ID bill amendment, AJR17 is stalled in the Senate. Kevin Fisher of New Berlin was filling in for Mark Belling today. He relayed that unless Majority Leader Russ Decker brings it to the floor soon, it will be a dead issue--the 2007 legislative session ends March 13th. 

State Senator Mary Lazich of New Berlin wrote an informative piece on how this simple ID requirement will not adversely effect our election process as Governor Doyle and others suggest.

Kevin stated it is estimated that about 80% of Wisconsin residents would like to have a photo ID requirement for voting. Hey, I would be happy if they would ink our fingers too. Anything to discourage vote fraud.

If you would like to see Wisconsin adopt voter ID, please contact Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker and urge him (politely) to bring this bill to the floor now. As a Wisconsin voter, you have the right to request this vote, since he is blocking this important legislation. Let your Senator know how you feel about voter ID too.

Senator Russel Decker, Senate Majority Leader
Sen.Decker@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-2502
 

State Senator Jim Sullivan, Democrat, 5th District
Sen.Sullivan@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-2512,  866-817-6061

State Senator Theodore Kanavas, Republican, 33rd District
Sen.Kanavas@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9174, 800-863-8883

Governor Doyle
608-266-1212, 414-227-4344

*(Don't you just love responsive government? Leah Vukmir always emails or calls me back. Even Rich Zipperer and Ted Kanavas email me, and they aren't my representatives! I am still waiting to hear from my State Senator Jim Sullivan on these and other  issues I have contacted him about over the past weeks. My last response from him was about the budget, dated November 2007.)

Familiarize yourself with this issue: Ethanol: The bad bill that just won't die! It's back

A MUST read: Ethanol bill poses conflicts, One sponsor has $20,000 interest in fuel producer, 

Clearing Land for Biofuels Makes Global Warming Worse, The Ethanol Fallacy

Ethanol bill heads to senate Thursday--Speak Up, Ethanol bill: Just what would be a conflict of interest?

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna