JANUARY 14, 2008
"Men who are familiarized to danger, meet it without shrinking, whereas those who have never seen service often apprehend danger where no danger lies" -- George Washington (1732-1799), Letter to the Continental Congress, February 9, 1776
(on the danger of electing candidates with insufficient experience)
This is an idea that I have been developing for the last 2-3 years.
Why do we continue to send our elected national representatives (and maybe state representatives too) to Washington D.C. (or central state location)? Wouldn't it be better for the citizenry to require them to maintain their only offices in the district from where they were elected. That way they would be more accessible to the people who put them in office.
Originally it was necessary for our representatives to be in one place so that they could meet together and debate and hash out the details of proposed legislation. But that isn't the case anymore. We now have the communications technology available that would allow them to accomplish the same things from any location.
Right now there are literally hundreds and hundreds of lobbying businesses and organizations in Washington D.C. whose sole aim is to obtain special favors and considerations for the groups they represent, AND, by succeeding they put the remainder of our population at disadvantage. Requiring our representatives to remain close to home would greatly reduce the influence of the lobbyists. Today there is nothing that our Congressmen do that could not be accomplished if each of them were required to work and live among the people who elected them.
I can only imagine the howls of protest if our Congressmen were to hear of this idea, but my response to them would be, "what's wrong, have you so failed in the job of representing the people who elected you that you are afraid to live among them?"
But that's the whole idea. Make them more likely to respond to the wishes of their constituents and less accessable to the lobbyists.
Do you like this idea? If you do then feel free to cut-and-paste this paragraph and email it to other people you know.
Did you know that you DO NOT have a "right to vote" in federal elections? There is no such right mentioned in the US Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. That, however, doesn't bother liberals in the media: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/stories/2008/01/11/tucked_0113.html
And the Democrats proposal is.......(surprise, surprise). ..... more government spending: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080112/ap_on_go_co/democrats_economy
Democrat Congressman submits bill to make halal food (approved by Islamic law) mandatory: http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2008/01/12/news0916.htm
Baghdad continues move toward normalcy: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080113/FOREIGN/504850653/1001
Hillary quotes..... err..... misquotes..... err..... fabrications: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1350
Liberal assertions found to be propaganda: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177653.ece
High school Sr Class in Oregon selects Bible verse Isaiah 40:31 as class motto. School district says "you can't have anything religious related": http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/01/oregon_school_bans_motto_for_r.html
Interesting issue may have effect on future China/US relations: http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-01-13-voa16.cfm?rss=war%20and%20conflict
What Department of Education?: http://americandaily.ws/index.php/article/157
NY Times bashes troops, gets their data wrong: http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/MAF/MAFNews
Sure I discriminate! So do you: http://americandaily.ws/index.php/article/199
Activists sue God over climate change: http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1081
Lawmakers still being "bought": http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7439.html
Stopping illegal immigration: http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3109/Employers-key-to-stopping-illegal-immigration.aspx