The Rock River Patriots are meeting on Friday February 14th at 6:00 pm in the Community Room at the Dwight Foster Library in Fort Atkinson. The Dwight Foster Library is located at 209 Merchants Avenue.
At this meeting we will discuss current events, initiatives, and anticipate receiving a legislative update from one of our representatives. We welcome Pastor Matt Trewhella from Missionaries to the Preborn, to speak about the Lesser Magistrate Doctrine.
These Bills Need To Be Passed This Session!!!
TIME TO PUT THE PRESSURE ON!!!
BURN UP THE PHONE LINES – PLEASE SHARE: There is IMPORTANT BUSINESS that they’re going to leave unfinished unless we insist that they do their jobs. Please pick up the phone TODAY, call your STATE SENATOR AND YOUR STATE ASSEMBLY REP. Tell them that you expect them to do their jobs and get some important legislation passed before they end session.
The conservative members of the Senate Republican Caucus are disgusted with what’s going on surrounding AB 426. They don’t want ANY of the changes proposed by Senator Kedzie. They’ve introduced a twin to AB 426 that’s currently assigned LRB #4045. Call your senator and INSIST that this bill gets passed IMMEDIATELY! And keep the pressure on Kedzie and Schultz.
Here’s another one where you can give Senator Schultz a piece of your mind. This bill, introduced by Senator Glenn Grothman, would restore important FOOD FREEDOMS to Wisconsinites, has been sitting in Senator Schultz’s committee for 6 MONTHS. Now he’s letting the bill’s worst enemy, the Wisconsin Dairy Association, tinker with it. You can bet the bill won’t be worth a dee-doodle once they get done. Call Senator Schultz and tell him to knock it off. Then call your own legislators and tell them that it’s time to get this bill PASSED and stop putting farmers in jail!
Reps. Mary Williams and Scott Suder should see their bill pass THIS SESSION. It had a public hearing in the Senate yesterday. It NEEDS TO CLEAR COMMITTEE AND PASS to restore prerogative to local governments and land rights to individual citizens. Tell your legislators to STOP AGENDA 21 NOW…not five years from now when it’s too late. The globalist groups are coming out in force to try and stop this bill. THIS NEEDS TO BE PASSED!!!
Rep. David Craig and Senator Leah Vukmir have written two excellent bills that will enhance legislative awareness of Obamacare issues and prevent state agencies from acting on their own to comply with any aspect of Obamacare. AB 530 deals with state agency reporting to the legislature. AB 531 ensures that any aspect of Obamacare compliance must be placed before the legislature for consideration, NOT acted upon solely by state agencies.
Many people are now reporting health issues as a result of wind turbines in their area. Introduced by Frank Lasee, this bill would place a moratorium on the building of any further wind turbines until the health effects can be more closely studied. This also buys more time for property owners to figure out how to contend with the forces behind wind energy. The bill is stuck in committee. Tell your legislators you want it out of committee, passed, and on the governor’s desk PRONTO!
Rep. André Jacque and guys like Steve Karlen and Matt Sande at Pro-Life Wisconsin have crafted an excellent bill to prevent the sale of baby body parts for ANY reason. If baby parts can be sold, they can be purposefully harvested. What kind of society are we if we let this possibility stand? Tell your legislators it’s time for Wisconsin to DO THE RIGHT THING.
Below is a very good article on State vs. Federal power. This applies to so many issues that are happening today and speaks to why we have an out-of-control federal government. This is also due, in part, to the national media. There is a vested interest by the national news media in having a strong central government. Not only does this increase the “importance” of their coverage, but also allows for easier coverage. Most of the media focus only needs to be spent in one place, Washington D.C, instead of the coverage being spread throughout the 50 State Capitals of our nation.
The Framers set up our constitutional republic as a system having the power “decentralized”. Many of the most contentious issues like abortion, I believe, will never be solved on a national level. To truly solve these issues the States need to re-assert their sovereignty.
Pro-Life advocates, for example, have a much better chance to stop abortion on a State level. As the article points out, if a person doesn’t like how their respective State is handling this issue, they can work to change it and/or “vote with their feet” to another State with whose laws they agree with.
Recently, the National Right-to-Care Reciprocity Act of 2011 passed overwhelming in the House of Representatives. One thing that stood out, there were some on the left that cited the 10th Amendment as justification for it being Unconstitutional.
As much as I’m an avid gun-rights advocate, I have to admit that this criticism is valid.
Currently, forty states have some form of concealed permit reciprocity, so is the power for the Federal Government really necessary for the final ten states?
The question becomes, does the expansion of liberty by this law outweigh the growth of power in the Federal Government? The problem is… yes, they can pass this bill which on some level I like, but what is stopping the Federal Government using this tactic on something I don’t like?
I know abortion is a touchy issue with a lot of people. I just ask you give me some latitude here to make my point, and I will make you a promise. I will not endorse one side or another or even state my position on abortion. Since it is such a divisive issue, it allows me to make a particular points.
If we are honest with ourselves, the heart of this issue comes down if you believe or not that the unborn child has natural rights or not. Obviously, the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life crowds have different views whether life begins at conception or birth.
Personally, I can make compelling arguments for both points of view. A Pro-Choice individual will naturally argue that a woman has the right to her own body. Her body is her property and the state can’t claim it. She can choose what to eat, drink, or even who shares her bed. This isn’t the function of the state.
A Pro-Life individual will state the unborn child has rights and should be defended. If a man beats his wife who is pregnant and she loses the child as the result, he should be punished for the loss of the child, right? If so, we are saying as a society that the unborn child has rights on some level. So how can an individual have partial rights?
If we are honest, we really can’t refute either argument. We can intellectually disagree but all we can do is form some conclusion that seems morally right to us. I do know one thing about the abortion issue. No matter which side I come down on, there are a significant number of people in this country who will disagree with me.
When this topic comes in conversations, I will state my view, but I will also make a case that I do understand the arguments from the other side. One time, a Pro-Choice friend of mine made the case that she felt the Fourteenth Amendment justified her position. However, I pointed out to her that to a Pro-Life individual would argue that the Fourteenth Amendment would also apply to the unborn child and they are defending those same rights. She never really considered this point of view.
I don’t demonize those who disagree with me on this issue. My goal when the topic comes up is to share my understanding on this issue in hopes they don’t demonize individuals as well.
Since this is such a divisive issue, I believe I don’t have the authority to force my view on those who disagree with me through the power of Washington DC.
Let us pretend there are three islands close together. The first island is settled by Catholics who want to practice their faith in peace. There are about the same number or settlers living on the second island, but they are atheists. Both of these islands are roughly the same size and have similar resources.
The last island is larger and is occupied by head hunting cannibals. (I know this sounds like a Gilligan’s Island plotline, but just bear with me.) This island has superior resources they often attack the smaller islands.
Representatives of the first two islands discuss working together to fight off the cannibals. They form a council to discuss their issues with the cannibals. They agreed that they will trade among themselves and defend each other, but will stay out of each other’s internal affairs.
The Catholic island because of their faith have abortion illegal. The atheists could care less about the issue and thus not illegal.
Do the atheists have the right to force the Catholics to allow abortions? Do the Catholics have the right to force the atheists to ban abortions? Isn’t this determination up to the people who live on these islands?
However, what if one of the following happens: a Catholic comes to the conclusion that abortions shouldn’t be banned? Or one of the atheists starts thinking that abortions are morally wrong?
1) They can just accept their circumstance and do nothing.
2) They can use their natural right of Free Speech and try to persuade those around them to their point of view.
3) They have natural right of traveling to the other community who shares their viewpoint.
This concept is what our Founders had in mind with the creation of a Federal and not a National system. The states are themselves sovereign and should control most of their internal issues.
The “conventional wisdom” has been that the Federal Government needs to maintain a check on States who may abuse their power. Again who will maintain a check on the Federal Government? The Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court went from 1937 to 1995 without ruling a Congressional Act as Unconstitutional. Really???? You mean that every law during this time frame was totally Constitutional? I sincerely doubt it.
There is no debate that States themselves will abuse power. Well, they are government institutions after all. However, there is a check on the states. If a state becomes too oppressive, people and companies will leave the state and move to another one. The State will then lose tax revenue and the quality of life will decline in the state.
Or if a State creates a bold plan for its citizens something like a state run healthcare system. If successful, other states will study and copy the program. If it fails, the impact is only felt by said state.
However if the Federal Government passes a bold program, the failure of the program affects everyone. A citizen can’t avoid it by just moving to another State.
We have acknowledge the importance of competition in the marketplace for our dollars. There are several shops or manufactures will sell you a hammer if you need one. Why not force the states in the position to compete for your citizenship and tax dollars?
This is the check on the States and demonstrates why a lot of what Federal Government does isn’t necessary. There is also the problem of the Federal Government abusing the states doing things that they believe are right.
Like the Republicans who supported the National Right-to-Care Reciprocity Act.
John Lambert [send him email] is the Outreach Coordinator for the Texas Tenth Amendment Center.