Mailbag 2/6
Democrats pose threats to gun owners Gun owners of this country, beware. We who have concern about our ownership can no longer sit by and simply hope for the best, believing that our "right to bear arms" will not be infringed upon. We now have a Democrat majority in both the House and the Senate, along with a Democratic president. Many of these politicians are quite liberal in nature, and many have expressed anti-gun sentiments in the past. At this time one of the members of the House has introduced legislation that would strongly affect those who do own guns of any sort. If you own a gun, or even know and care about someone who does own a gun, please pay attention to this pending legislation. Legislation of this type will make criminals out of many law abiding citizens without any benefit to our country, and of course, the criminal element is not going to abide by legislation of any sort. I urge you to look at the following video, www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE, which demonstrates what the feeling is in England as their guns have been confiscated. In addition Australia has suffered even a worse fate. Confiscation of guns is not the solution to reduction of crime, for we all must realize that the criminal will always find a way to access a firearm. It is speculated that this bill does not have a chance of passing, but we cannot count on that. Gun owners of this country need to flood their elected representatives with communication expressing their concerns. I urge you to do a Google search on "H.R. 45." Then check into resulting links. First, Thomas-Library of Congress, register and read. Also check www.washingtonwatch.com, along with several other links out of the Google search. Once you realize how real this is, contact your representative, Tammy Baldwin, 2446 Rayburn Bldg., Washington, DC. 20515, (202-225-2906). Up until now we have been able to be apathetic. That is no longer true. Thank you Fred Williams for bringing H.R. 45 to the attention of readers of the BNR. John Meitner, Baraboo Board candidate promises to work for taxpayers Can someone please tell me why on earth do administration staff have credit cards that the taxpayer is paying for? What is this costing the taxpayer in interest and in the final cost? Can you also tell me why Jim Long comes in and tells the school board that he won't do this and he won't do that when you're his boss? You jump on Ed Mortimer for asking the tough question about how our tax dollars are being spent and then limit yourself to asking those tough questions. My God what in the heck is going on here? The board represents the taxpayer and the student body not the admin staff and the admin staff in no way should be telling the board how things should be run. It seems that the admin staff tells certain board members how it is and they agree, instead of the admin staff being an advisory unit and the board making the final decision. I have three children in the school district with one in the special education program. Making sure that our dollars are being spent in the best way to benefit our students is a priority. If voted in, I'm not going in there and pound my chest saying that you work for me and this is the way it is. I will say, however, that I work for the taxpayer and the students of this district and you will not come before the board and tell us how to run the district, you will advise us. A vote for the status quo is not what we need in these times. We need change that will benefit the students the most, not the admin. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that we have a very good admin staff, but raise after raise that adds up into the tens of thousands of dollars year after year defies logic. Accountability, trust, and fiscal responsibility will be what you'll get if you vote for me. Please give me a call if you support me or not, tell me why I'm right or wrong. Raymond Borkenhagen, Baraboo Anybody but Stewart for School Board The recent article regarding the candidacy of Mary Anne Stewart for the school board begs a response. She claims that much of what is going on now in the school district happened because of her. I would agree: 1) Two failed school referendums. 2) The hiring of District Administrator Lance Alwin, a decision that was largely of her making. That decision cost the district at least $250,000 fruitlessly. This decision caused considerable angst among teachers, administrators and staff and we are still reeling from the effects of that travesty. I must disagree over her remark that the State Constitution "obligates" the board to provide education for 4 year olds. Article 10, Section 3 simply says that there shall be no tuition charged for children from ages 4 to 20. If the school board were "obligated" how could this have passed unnoticed since 1848? I will vote ABS (Anybody But Stewart). Bob Hanes, former school administrator and former school board president