Lollar for Congress
I turned on the radio to listen to Sean Hannity and write my blog for today. He was interviewing Charles Lollar who is running as a Republican in the 5th Congressional District of Maryland—Majority leader Steny Hoyer’s District. I googled him and decided to post about him today. I’m supporting Charles Lollar for Congress in this election.
His website—http://www.lollarforcongress.com/—lists seven issues:
1) “jobs
2) accountability
3) healthcare
4) immigration
5) marriage
6) life at conception
7) second amendment”
Although his answers aren’t exactly as I would answer, they are infinitely better than the voting record of Steny Hoyer.
“Marriage:
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of living together as husband and wife during their joint lifetime.
As an institution, marriage predates our Constitution, the Magna Carta, the Roman Empire and the pyramids. Before there was government, or church or a written language, there was marriage. During all of that time the participating parties have always been limited to a man and a woman.
Today there are some who want to redefine marriage to include persons of the same sex. I am opposed to such a redefinition. As a married man, I have personally endorsed the institution in its historical form. Doing so doesn’t make me evil, hateful or anti-gay. It just makes me married.
The real question that we face is not whether marriage should be redefined, but who has the authority to change it in the first place? Can one judge override all of history in order to redefine it to suit his personal view? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to read into the Constitution a definition, which the authors would never have intended and rejected if proposed? Should the Congress legislate a one size fits all solution that over-rides the various state legislators and settles the matter one way or the other?
The answer to each of these questions is an emphatic NO, for the simple reason that our Republican form of government gives the people, through their state legislators, the final say on matters not approved or proscribed in our U.S. Constitution. In the end it is your voice that should have the final say on whether marriage should be changed or remain the same. If the citizens of Maryland, through referendum or their state legislators, were to vote in favor of redefining marriage, the will of the people would prevail. But our decision in Maryland would have no effect on Virginia, or New York or Texas, leaving them free to decide the question for themselves. Because on questions such as this your opinion, perspective and experience is just as valid and appropriate as that of any sitting judge, Supreme Court Justice, or Congressman.
As your Congressman I would resist any effort to deny you the right to be heard on this issue. That is the only appropriate action permitted under our Constitution, and I would uphold my oath and stand in defense of it. If the definition of marriage is to be tweaked, revised or redefined, it can only be done at the state level by the will of the people.
Life at Conception:
I believe that life begins at conception. I believe that the life of the unborn is just as sacred and unique as the life of those who are already born. I believe that the unborn are deserving of the same opportunity for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, as you or me.
While these are my beliefs, they may not necessarily be yours. There is no question that we are both entitled to our own opinion. The only issue is who gets to decide the question, one way or the other.
Prior to the decision by the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, you and I would have decided this matter at the state level. We would have petitioned our State legislators to vote in favor of or opposed to the question. Once decided, the matter would have been settled, until the people of that state chose to review the matter again. That has all been changed.
As a result of Roe vs. Wade, seven judges on the Supreme Court chose to read into the Constitution a right that had never existed before. In one fell swoop they literally redefined our founding document, our government, and substituted their opinion and beliefs for that of every citizen, in every state, in the union. The will of the people was revoked, and replaced by the will of five judges on the Supreme Court.
The consequence of their action has been to create a permanent state of war in Congress. Regardless of the talent, experience or temperament of a nominee for the Supreme Court, the only question that must be answered is whether the nominee will continue to rule in favor of, or overturn the decision in Roe vs. Wade, a question that no nominee of any wisdom would ever answer, as it would immediately disqualify him for the position.
If elected as your next Congressman I will fight to defend the life of the unborn and restore your right to decide this matter, as intended under our Constitution.
Regardless of how you may feel about it, this issue is too important a matter to be decided by a haphazard collection of judges on the Supreme Court. The decision to permit, restrict or prohibit abortion is literally one of life or death. It is only fitting that ‘We the People’ have an active voice in determining the moral code that will govern that decision.”
His website: http://www.lollarforcongress.com/.
If you desire, you may donate at his website. He said on Hannity that Steny Hoyer has 5 million dollars and is raising more. However, Steny Hoyer does have an abysmal track record in Congress!
I turned on the radio to listen to Sean Hannity and write my blog for today. He was interviewing Charles Lollar who is running as a Republican in the 5th Congressional District of Maryland—Majority leader Steny Hoyer’s District. I googled him and decided to post about him today. I’m supporting Charles Lollar for Congress in this election.
His website—http://www.lollarforcongress.com/—lists seven issues:
1) “jobs
2) accountability
3) healthcare
4) immigration
5) marriage
6) life at conception
7) second amendment”
Although his answers aren’t exactly as I would answer, they are infinitely better than the voting record of Steny Hoyer.
“Marriage:
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of living together as husband and wife during their joint lifetime.
As an institution, marriage predates our Constitution, the Magna Carta, the Roman Empire and the pyramids. Before there was government, or church or a written language, there was marriage. During all of that time the participating parties have always been limited to a man and a woman.
Today there are some who want to redefine marriage to include persons of the same sex. I am opposed to such a redefinition. As a married man, I have personally endorsed the institution in its historical form. Doing so doesn’t make me evil, hateful or anti-gay. It just makes me married.
The real question that we face is not whether marriage should be redefined, but who has the authority to change it in the first place? Can one judge override all of history in order to redefine it to suit his personal view? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to read into the Constitution a definition, which the authors would never have intended and rejected if proposed? Should the Congress legislate a one size fits all solution that over-rides the various state legislators and settles the matter one way or the other?
The answer to each of these questions is an emphatic NO, for the simple reason that our Republican form of government gives the people, through their state legislators, the final say on matters not approved or proscribed in our U.S. Constitution. In the end it is your voice that should have the final say on whether marriage should be changed or remain the same. If the citizens of Maryland, through referendum or their state legislators, were to vote in favor of redefining marriage, the will of the people would prevail. But our decision in Maryland would have no effect on Virginia, or New York or Texas, leaving them free to decide the question for themselves. Because on questions such as this your opinion, perspective and experience is just as valid and appropriate as that of any sitting judge, Supreme Court Justice, or Congressman.
As your Congressman I would resist any effort to deny you the right to be heard on this issue. That is the only appropriate action permitted under our Constitution, and I would uphold my oath and stand in defense of it. If the definition of marriage is to be tweaked, revised or redefined, it can only be done at the state level by the will of the people.
Life at Conception:
I believe that life begins at conception. I believe that the life of the unborn is just as sacred and unique as the life of those who are already born. I believe that the unborn are deserving of the same opportunity for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, as you or me.
While these are my beliefs, they may not necessarily be yours. There is no question that we are both entitled to our own opinion. The only issue is who gets to decide the question, one way or the other.
Prior to the decision by the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, you and I would have decided this matter at the state level. We would have petitioned our State legislators to vote in favor of or opposed to the question. Once decided, the matter would have been settled, until the people of that state chose to review the matter again. That has all been changed.
As a result of Roe vs. Wade, seven judges on the Supreme Court chose to read into the Constitution a right that had never existed before. In one fell swoop they literally redefined our founding document, our government, and substituted their opinion and beliefs for that of every citizen, in every state, in the union. The will of the people was revoked, and replaced by the will of five judges on the Supreme Court.
The consequence of their action has been to create a permanent state of war in Congress. Regardless of the talent, experience or temperament of a nominee for the Supreme Court, the only question that must be answered is whether the nominee will continue to rule in favor of, or overturn the decision in Roe vs. Wade, a question that no nominee of any wisdom would ever answer, as it would immediately disqualify him for the position.
If elected as your next Congressman I will fight to defend the life of the unborn and restore your right to decide this matter, as intended under our Constitution.
Regardless of how you may feel about it, this issue is too important a matter to be decided by a haphazard collection of judges on the Supreme Court. The decision to permit, restrict or prohibit abortion is literally one of life or death. It is only fitting that ‘We the People’ have an active voice in determining the moral code that will govern that decision.”
His website: http://www.lollarforcongress.com/.
If you desire, you may donate at his website. He said on Hannity that Steny Hoyer has 5 million dollars and is raising more. However, Steny Hoyer does have an abysmal track record in Congress!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:49 PM
<< Home