Today I decided to call both Feingold's and Kohl's offices with my comments on 4 issues of importance to me:
1. Repeal the Washington D.C. Gun Ban
This bill is currently in the House of Representatives (H.R. 1288 District of Columbia Personal Protection Act), where I am confident it will pass. It is about time the citizens of D.C. are allowed to protect themselves and regain their Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.
I asked them both to support this bill when it reaches the Senate.
2. Co-sign Senator David Vitter 's (R-LA) bill to keep any "small arms control" the UN passes out of the US
It will be interesting to see how many co-sponsors this bill gets from the 100 Senators who swore to uphold the US Constitution. If I were a betting man, I'd say that a six-pack says neither Kohl, nor Feingold (who ran as pro-gun in the last election) will co-sponsor nor vote in favor of this bill. We'll see. I hope I'm wrong as this is a much needed bill (just as Bolton is needed as the US rep in the UN).
3. 527's - leave them alone and quit taking away my First Amendment rights
Not a lot to be said here, Feingold is at it again trying to silence the general population under the ruse that there is corruption in exercising our First Amendment rights. Sigh...
4. The only nominees to the Supreme Court that should be blocked are those that are not originalists
See, the point is that the only kind of justices we need on the Supreme court are those that will use the framer's original intent, as it is written, in forming their opinions on each case.
I tried to impress upon the office clerks that it is the people who change the Constitution, and it is the Justices that use what "we" wrote for the basis of their opinions.
Once again, except this time at Kohl's Washington office, the girl tried to tell me that the Senator is only against those nominees that go against the "mainstream", or that are "too far right or left in the political spectrum". I tried to explain to her that neither the mainstream (whatever that is), nor political orientation (Left or Right) should have anything to do with the qualifications of a Justice! All that needs be looked at is if the nominee, in past opinions, interpreted the Constitution as it is written, with the original intent of the Framers in mind.
I don't think I got very far in getting this point across.
Ah well. I tried.