Edgewood Easter Egg Hunt (March 24, 2013)

Easter Egg Hunt 2013 2-1

Write text here…

The LIBRE Initiative Calls on Government Officials to Cut Spending and Balance Budget

The information posted below is an effort of The Libre Initiative.  The Related Articles links were provided by us.

For Immediate Release:                                   Contact: Judy Pino
 February 26, 2013                                                        202.578.6424
The LIBRE Initiative Calls on Government Officials to Cut Spending and Balance Budget
Washington, DCThe ‘Sequester’ is a distraction from the true problem in Washington: Overspending.Today, LIBRE Executive Director Daniel Garza made the following statement:“The imminent ‘sequester’ is yet another distraction from the heart of the matter affecting the economy of our country – wasteful federal spending that is the direct cause for lack of jobs and job creation. It is unfortunate that the President has been unable to work with Congress on shrinking the size of government. The Obama administration’s go-to solution is to increase tax revenues on already struggling Americans in this weak economy. A campaign of fear will not solve the problem of a dysfunctional government that spends too much and accomplishes too little. LIBRE calls on all elected officials to make alternative strategic cuts by significantly reducing federal spending on corrupt, duplicative and inefficient programs. Americans constantly make difficult financial choices at home by tightening their belts; it’s time that elected officials start taking responsibility, balance the federal budget in the next 10 years, and cut wasteful spending now.”
For more information or to schedule an interview, please contact Judy Pino at (202) 578-6424 or jpino@thelibreinitiative.com

La Iniciativa LIBRE pide a funcionarios del gobierno recortar gasto y balancear presupuesto
Washington, DC –El ’embargo de fondos’ es una distracción al verdadero problema de Washington: gasto excesivo.El Director Ejecutivo de LIBRE Daniel Garza divulgó la siguiente respuesta hoy:“El inminente ’embargo de fondos’ es otra distracción al problema en cuestión que está afectando la economía de nuestro país – el malgasto de fondos federales que son causa directa del desempleo y la falta de creación de empleos. Es lamentable que el Presidente ha sido incapaz de trabajar con el Congreso para reducir el tamaño del gobierno. La solución predilecta de la administración de Obama es imponer más impuestos para los estadounidenses que están sufriendo en esta economía débil. Una campaña basada en generar miedo no va a resolver el problema de un gobierno disfuncional que gasta demasiado y logra muy poco. LIBRE hace un llamado a todos los funcionarios electos a que hagan recortes estratégicos que reduzcan significativamente el gasto federal en programas corruptos, redundantes e ineficientes. Los estadounidenses constantemente toman decisiones financieras difíciles en el hogar y tienen que “apretarse los cinturones”. Es hora que los funcionarios electos asuman responsabilidad, balanceen el presupuesto federal de los próximos 10 años, y recorten los gastos innecesarios.”
Para coordinar entrevistas favor contactar a Judy Pino, 202-578-6424 o jpino@thelibreinitiative.com

Jim Crawford: Public/Private Partnerships … NOT

Another great analysis from Jim pointing out the evil in governments, rather than the markets, picking the winners.  Think about the Rail Runner and the Space Port.  Two sucking holes which are not and probably never will do what was promised:

Following are some notes I sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on SB 273 for hearing on 2-25.
Later Jim

——– Original Message ——–

Subject: Oppose SB 273 Public Private Partnerships
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:34:08 -0700
From: James Crawford <jamesr.crawford61@gmail.com>
To: Richard Martinez <richard.martinez@nmlegis.gov>, Joseph Cervantes <Joseph@cervanteslawnm.com>, Ron Griggs <ron.griggs@nmlegis.gov>, Linda Lopez <linda.lopez@nmlegis.gov>, Cisco McSorley <cisco.mcsorley@nmlegis.gov>, William Payne <william.payne@nmlegis.gov>, John Ryan <john.ryan@nmlegis.gov>, Michael Sanchez <senatormichaelsanchez@gmail.com>, Lisa Torraco <lisa.torraco@nmlegis.gov>, Peter Wirth <peter.wirth@nmlegis.gov>
CC: Clemente Sanchez <clemente.sanchez@nmlegis.gov>

I am opposed to public private partnerships (P3).  There may be some specific, focused  P3’s that are successful but the very broad and all encompassing P3 legislation being proposed in the 2013 NM legislature (HB 405 and SB 273) is merely a way to increase government scope, size, and power.  P3’s allow the government to undertake projects that would not normally be financed through a normal budgeting process.  The government picks winners and losers in the business world and sets up unfair competition.  Normal procurement procedures do not apply and the least expensive and best proposal may not be the one selected for implementation.  The selection process is ripe for political cronyism.  Government power of eminent domain and bonding may be used to provide private gains.

There are many examples of failed P3’s that should make all legislators and tax payers wary of this kind of legislation.  A few of the more familiar are US Postal Service, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, Solyndra, General Motors, First Solar, Abound Solar, Evergreen Solar, and here in New Mexico, Eclipse Aviation, Earth Stone, Schott Solar, Lion’s Gate Entertainment, and TCI Medical.   The list could go on and on.  The government has dumped billions of taxpayer dollars down the partnership rat hole on these corporations and the many more like them.

P3’s are a way for government to side step the normal legislation, appropriation, and public involvement process for approval of “public” projects.  The process is handled by executive branch bureaucrats and elected officials will have little involvement let alone their constituents.

P3’s come with a combination of government  power to enforce policy, power to tax or not tax, power of eminent domain along with corporate wealth and advertising budgets to shape public policy and influence what services and products we consumers have available and use.  Many of these products could not compete in a free market.

P3’s often grant tax rebates or tax exemptions to the corporate partners which in turn give them unfair advantage over potential competitors.  P3’s also can set up monopoly situations where only the corporate partner may provide a product or service.

The most frightening aspect of P3’s is use of the government power of eminent domain to promote private development.  P3’s set up a mechanism for government confiscation of private property that is then turned over to private interests for development or other supposed “public purpose for the common good”.

The private partners essentially gain the power of government and become government sanctioned monopolies that may do as they please.  The executive bureaucrats in return have the independence of the private partner and no longer need to answer to the voters.

Because of the government contribution in most of these partnerships, they probably violate the anti-donation clause in the New Mexico constitution which tightly limits the amount of public participation with private enterprise.

There have been examples of P3’s working well for building specific school buildings, a specific toll bridge, or specific section of road.  These were uniquely identified projects.  The two NM bills have no specific projects but are a carte blanche list of anything and everything that might be dreamed up as “public projects for the common good”.

Separation of government and corporations needs to be maintained.  As there is more and more blending of the two, we are moving toward a corporate fascist state where free enterprise will be a thing of the past.

These bills should not see the light of day.

Thank you

James Crawford

Related articles


Jim & Donna Crawford: Two More Bills To Oppose

This one from Jim:

Here is a new and improved version of my comments to the Senate Judiciary Committee for their hearing on 2-25.
Later Jim

——– Original Message ——–

Subject: Oppose SJR 3 Land Grant Fund Balance & Distribution CA
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:26:33 -0700
From: James Crawford <jamesr.crawford61@gmail.com>
To: Richard Martinez <richard.martinez@nmlegis.gov>, Joseph Cervantes <Joseph@cervanteslawnm.com>, Ron Griggs <ron.griggs@nmlegis.gov>, Linda Lopez <linda.lopez@nmlegis.gov>, Cisco McSorley <cisco.mcsorley@nmlegis.gov>, William Payne <william.payne@nmlegis.gov>, John Ryan <john.ryan@nmlegis.gov>, Michael Sanchez <senatormichaelsanchez@gmail.com>, Lisa Torraco <lisa.torraco@nmlegis.gov>, Peter Wirth <peter.wirth@nmlegis.gov>
CC: Clemente Sanchez <clemente.sanchez@nmlegis.gov>

I oppose SJR3 Land Grant Fund Balance and Distribution.  This bill is the annual attempt to make additional raids on the permanent funds for one social welfare purpose or another.  In this iteration of the permanent fund raid, an annual 1%  distribution from the land grant permanent fund will be dedicated to “education” services from birth to kindergarten age.  In other words it is designed to provide baby sitting service until a child is old enough for kindergarten.  This is one more bill in this legislature to provide state control of children from the womb to the first grade.  The permanent funds were created for certain specific purposes and should be restricted to those purposes.  Tax and spend legislators always view the funds as slush funds to endow pet projects that have no way of making it through the regular appropriation process.  As stated in the Fiscal Impact Report, continued raids like this will result in eventual depletion of the permanent fund.

Large scale universal baby sitting services such as proposed here are insanely expensive and have little or no affect on the child’s learning ability.  This is borne out by the experience in Georgia and Oklahoma which have universal womb to first grade programs.  More than a decade after offering universal preschool, neither Oklahoma nor Georgia has shown significant progress in academic improvement.  In fact Oklahoma’s 4th grade reading proficiency has declined since starting universal preschool.  Many if not all of any perceived gains early in the programs have all dissipated by the time a child reaches first grade.

Besides being costly (almost $200 million per year in NM) and ineffective, universal preschool programs have other disadvantages.  It will provide an unneeded subsidy for middle and high income folks.  It will tend to crowd out private preschool companies which now provide most preschool opportunities in favor of state run schools.

The biggest and longest running preschool program is Head Start.  Head Start has been around for more than 50 years and has no proven long term results.   In fact any results attributed to Head Start have dissipated by the time children reach the 3rd grade.  The best that Head Start can do is provide a few hours of warmth, safety, and nurturing that may not be found at home (i.e. baby sitting) but will not do anything for educational ability.

As yet, no one knows how to provide an effective and successful early childhood development program.  Throwing more money at it is sure not the answer since it has not worked anywhere so far.

This permanent fund raid needs to be defeated one more time.

Thank you
James Crawford
19 Lucero Road
Los Lunas, NM 87031



This one from Donna

Here are the comments Donna submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee for their hearing on this bill 2-25.
Later Jim

——– Original Message ——–

Subject: OPPOSE SB 477 Utility Right-of-Way Access Fees
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:34:31 -0700
From: Donna Crawford <donnalee.crawford69@gmail.com>
To: Richard Martinez <richard.martinez@nmlegis.gov>, Joseph Cervantes <Joseph@cervanteslawnm.com>, William Payne <william.payne@nmlegis.gov>, Ron Griggs <ron.griggs@nmlegis.gov>, Linda Lopez <linda.lopez@nmlegis.gov>, Cisco McSorley <cisco.mcsorley@nmlegis.gov>, John Ryan <john.ryan@nmlegis.gov>, Michael Sanchez <senatormichaelsanchez@gmail.com>, Lisa Torraco <lisa.torraco@nmlegis.gov>, Peter Wirth <peter.wirth@nmlegis.gov>
CC: Don Tripp <trippsdon@netscape.net>, Alonzo Baldonado <zobaldonado@gmail.com>, Kelly Fajardo <kelly.fajardo@nmlegis.gov>, Clemente Sanchez <clemente.sanchez@nmlegis.gov>

OPPOSE SB 477 Utility Right-of-Way Access Fees

I am trying my best to calm the outrage I feel about some of the legislation coming out of this legislature.  You are citizen legislators; what are you thinking?!  Your mind-set seems to be fees, tax credits, taxes, and spending.  No matter what representative or senate district you are from, you still represent ALL of the citizens of this state, and you work for us, not the other way around.  My point being that I can’t imagine citizens of this state wanting their utility rates to be raised, which is what SB 477 is about.

The Fiscal Impact Report of SB 477 says that counties and municipalities can now charge all public utilities up to 4% of a utility’s gross revenue (in the county or town) to be collected as a “Right-of-Way fee”.  Nothing in the bill prohibits a county AND municipality from collecting the same fees.  The possibility exists for a lot of money to be collected from utilities.  Once the word gets out to the counties, every county in the state will jump on this, thus raising everyone’s utility rates.  Who do you think the utilities are going to bill for their increased fees that they have to pay?  Rate-payers, that’s who.

Let’s examine just the short list of what expenses are already coming up for rate-payers:  1) our state, PNM, and the EPA recently reached an agreement on “Regional Haze”, calling for closing of two units at San Juan Generating Station, equipping the others with selective non-catalytic reduction, constructing a gas plant and other “replacement power”.  2) In 2007, the NM Legislature mandated into law the Renewable Portfolio Standard which by 2020 (only 7 years from now) is going to cost rate-payers $2.3 Billion dollars.   3) Under the Renewable Portfolio Standard, electric utilities are required to build wind and solar facilities which are the most expensive source of electricity.  To ensure continuity of power, “back-up” coal or gas-fired power plants have to be built at the expense of rate-payers.  4) New transmission lines for wind and solar are paid for by rate-payers and now this bill wants rate-payers to kick in for the “right-of-way” fees for the transmission lines.  5) The energy edicts coming out of the White House are no doubt going to make “electricity rates skyrocket” even more in the next four years; TBA.

And yet, you as legislators have the audacity to suggest even more rate increases?  One has to believe that the authors and sponsors of these kinds of bills really don’t want citizens to be able to afford electricity in their homes and businesses.  But that’s the “green energy” mentality.

Kill this bill, please.

Donna L. Crawford

19 Lucero Rd.

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Jim Crawford: Another Bad Bill (Tax Credit For Plug-In Electric Vehicles)

English: Jedlik's electric car in 1828, Hungary.

English: Jedlik’s electric car in 1828, Hungary. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The analyzer is back making sense as he always does.

Here are some comments I prepared for the Senate Finance Committee for hearing on this bill 2-25.  This is the second committee.  I missed it the first time around.
Later Jim

——– Original Message ——–

Subject: Oppose SB 264 Plug-In Electric Vehicle Tax Exemption
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:52:37 -0700
From: James Crawford <jamesr.crawford61@gmail.com>
To: John Arthur Smith <john.smith@nmlegis.gov>, Carlos Cisneros <carlos.cisneros@nmlegis.gov>, Sue Wilson Beffort <sue.beffort@nmlegis.gov>, William Burt <bill.burt@nmlegis.gov>, Pete Campos <petecampos@newmexico.com>, Carroll Leavell <leavell4@leaco.net>, Howie Morales <howiemorales@yahoo.com>, George Munoz <munozgeo@gmail.com>, Steven Neville <nmsenate@msn.com>, Nancy Rodriguez <nancy.rodriguez@nmlegis.gov>
CC: Michael Sanchez <senatormichaelsanchez@gmail.com>, Clemente Sanchez <clemente.sanchez@nmlegis.gov>

I oppose SB 264 Plug-In Electric Vehicle Tax Exemption.  This bill provides an exemption from gross receipts and compensating taxes for plug in electric cars.  In additon it provides an exemption from the motor vehicle excise tax.  The exemption from the excise tax has an expiration date of 2018 but there is no expiration on the exemptions from gross receipts and compensating taxes.  It is estimated general fund revenues will take a hit of over $400,000 per year.

SB 264 is just one more attempt by the progressive global warming elitists to entice people to buy cars that are horribly expensive, unreliable, dangerous, provide no environmental benefit, already heavily subsidized, and which nobody wants.  It is a sinful waste of NM taxpayer money to dump more of it into the black hole of electric cars.

Electric cars cost about $40,000 and up plus another $2,000+ for a charging station.  There are not many of us who can spend that much money on a tiny unreliable car.  On top of the upfront costs, electric cars are expensive to operate.  A compact  car getting about 35 miles per gallon of gas costs about 10 cents per mile but an electric car ends up costing about 14.3 cents per mile or 43% more per mile.  The typical electric car buyer has an income of $170,000 so these cars are basically for the relatively wealthy elite car buyers.  Why do they need to be taking money out of all the rest of us NM taxpayers’ pockets?

Electric cars are unreliable.  At best they can go 100 miles on a charge and more likely only about 30 miles.  When roads are bad or traffic is at a stand sill these cars can exhaust their battery life while snarled in traffic and be stranded on the roadway.  Recharging stations are few and far between so ability to recharge is pretty unreliable.  New Mexico and most western states have large distances to be covered.  There is no way an electric cars is suited to NM travel conditions.  Trying to lure New Mexicans to by an electric car is an exercise in futility.

Electric cars are not safe.  There have been incidents of the batteries catching fire in crashes and endangering the passengers .  There have been incidents where people have been run over because the cars make almost no noise.  We now have proposals to add beepers to the cars to warn people of their presence.  Users often have to choose between using the heater and making it to their destination which is dangerous in very cold areas.  As mentioned above they are prone to getting stranded in traffic if delays are long enough which may cause traffic accidents.

Electric cars are the darlings of the environmental crowd.   However, do they have any environmetal benefit?  They do not.  Instead of being called electric cars, they should be called coal fired cars becuase of the amount of coal fired electicity it takes to keep them on the road.  They can’t be charged at night by wind and solar so electric cars depend on elelctricy from coal and gas fired generation stations.  Charging takes 3-8 hours using an amount of electricity equivalent to 3 1/2 ton air conditioner and we know what a big AC does to our elctric bills in the summer!  In addition they use giant batteries made from toxic metals like lithium and cobalt and create a disposal problem since batteries do not last the life of the car.  Battery manufacturing also front loads the carbon emissions due to electric cars in addition to the emissions from electric generation.  These things are not the environmental wonders they are cracked up to be.

So here we are wanting to give well-to-do buyers making $170,000+ pre year more tax welfare to buy an electric car.  Elitist buyers already are getting $7,500 government rebate for these things.  This is just more welfare for people that don’t need it.  On top of the direct subsidies to the buyers, the manufacturers are heavily subsidized to build  electric cars.  For example, each Chevy Volt is the beneficiary of $250,000 of federal and state subsidies.  General Motors loses as much as $49,000 on each one it builds.  Dropping another $1200+ of New Mexico taxpayer money for each car into this bottomless pit is insane.

In spite of federal and state legislators constantly trying to bribe people to buy an electric car, there is no market for them.  There were supposed to be 11 models of electric cars produced but 6 of the 11 have not made a delivery, stopped production, or are already out of business.  The Volt has also recently stopped production.  No one but a few environmental purists with a lot of money will even consider buying one of these electric cars.  If they want one they can buy one on their own without my help.

SB 264 is bad for the general fund, bad for all the low and middle income taxpayers who will support this welfare program for weathy elites, and of no benefit to the environment.  It is a loser all the way around.

Do not pass SB 264

Thank you
James Crawford




Related articles

Edgewood Chamber Friday Blast 2/22/2013

  Friday Blast
             February 22, 2013
    Your Chamber,
Working for you…
Great to see all
who attended
the Mixer
Last night

Edgewood Chamber Office
Hosted by
East Mountain

A specia hello to Bob Brittain, president of East Mountain Chamber who with his lovely wife joined us. A lively discussion about what
Toastmasters can do for you was enjoyed by all.  Contact Steve Grabriel
or Robin Foshee at 867-3298
to learn more about Toastmasters.
They meet every Thursday evening at 6pm
at the Edgewood Chamber office
advertising sales
for the second year of our glossy wirebound Relocation Guide.
CLICK HERE for price sheet
Please call Madeline if you are interested in this professional piece that goes out to all those who are interested in relocating to our area, CVB’s and Chambers in the New Mexico area, and to Real Estate members who give copies of this directory and information piece to their new closings.
Teacher Star Awards:
We will announce our February winner
in next Friday
‘s Blast, and in the following issue of The Independent.
Applications for March will be  available at the Chamber office. and The Sandia Laboratory Credit Union.
Help to honor a local teacher who is deserving of recognition!
Teachers in Moriarty, Edgewood, and East Mountain area are all elegible.
Call the office 850-2523 with any questions. Deadline for March’s nomination is Friday March 22. Leave at
Chamber office or Sandia Laboratory Credit Union Edgewood Branch.
    Area Happenings
This Friday Blast Section is reserved for your events or happenings in the area!  If you have an upcoming event or a special happening that you would like to see in the Blast, please email it to the office by Wednesday. Approved information will be reviewed and inserted in the Blast on the following Friday.


Edgewood’s Civil Air Patrol
 is hosting an Open House at the Edgewood Community Center this
Saturday, Feb 23 from 3:00 – 5:00 p.m

The Cadet program is for 12 – 17 year olds who are interested in flying, aerospace, leadership, and emergency services training. 

There will be food, activities, contests and prized given out.  So come join us this Saturday, and see these young people in action, and learn more about
this exceptional program.
Civil Air Patrol,
the civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force, provides training for service to our communities

Support YOUR Community Storehouse

Help Bethel
restock for Spring


We need clean, useable items to share with others Tax receipts are available Call 832-6642 to schedule a furniture pickup today Donation hours are Monday thru Friday 9-4:30, Saturday 10-4:30

Edgewood Civitan Club
meets first and third Tuesdays at the
Edgewood Chamber of Commerce at 6pm.
About Us 
Hours of Operation:
10:00am – 3:00pm
95 State Road 344 Ste 3
(Library/Chamber Bldg)
Edgewood, New Mexico
Phone Numbers:

info@ edgewoodchambernm.com
Join us on Facebook
Executive Director:
Madeline Heitzman
Board of Directors
     Robin Markley                  2014
Vice President:
     Saul Araque                      2013
      Martha Eden                    2014
       Lisa Vigil                         2014
Board Members at Large:
Patrick Thompson                 2013
Ray Seagers                          2013
Misty Miller Moonshine      2013
Howard Calkins                    2014
Chris Hopper                        2013

Chris Hopper /  Howard Calkins
Political Affairs & By Laws:
Ray Seagers
Events:               Committees
Education:          Lisa Vigil
Programs:         Brenda Murray
Luncheons:       Martha Eden
/Linda Thomas
Leadership Alumni Group
Kathy Courreges
Route 66:    Madeline Heitzman
Edgewood Chamber

Board Meeting
Monday March 11
Chamber Offices
Wednesday March 13
Edgewood Community Center

Thursday March 21
5:30 -7:30

Triple Crown Corporate Partners for 2013:

Rich Ford
WalMartEPCOR Water

Town of Edgewood

 meets First and Third Wednesdays of the month
at 6:30pm
Edgewood Community Center
 Planning & Zoningmeets First and ThirdMondays of the month at6:00pmEdgewood Community Center.

Other Chambers:
East Mountain Chamber meets
the first Thursday of the month at
11:30am.  Call 281-1999 or
Moriarty Chamber meets
at noon the third Tuesday of the month at the Moriarty Civic Center.  Call 832-4087
Mountainair Chamber meets the first Tuesday of the month at 11:30am at the Shaffer Hotel. 847-2975 or
Please Call me:
Committees ontinuing to form for the new year.
Can you spend a little time working with your business peers to help all of our members?  You will be amazed at how it increases your own business!
 If you are a chamber member, you can leave your business cards, rack cards and flyers at the Visitors center inside the South door to the Library. Be sure to get your information over here. It’s part of your benefit as an Edgewood Chamber member!
Stop by the office to see Madeline if you have any questions , or call my cell 850-2523.
2012 Edgewood Chamber of Commerce – All rights reserved
PO Box 457 Edgewood NM 8701
PO Box 457, Edgewood, NM 87015, USAUnsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

Peace Office Bill — More Like Piece Of Bull Butter

Here’s another analysis on which we can agree. Another flap of the flat cap to Jim Crawford:

Flat cap, side view.
Flat cap, side view. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here are some comments I sent to the Senate Rules Committee for hearing on 2-22.
Later Jim

——– Original Message ——–

Subject: Oppose SB 66 Create Office of Peace
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:59:43 -0700
From: James Crawford <jamesr.crawford61@gmail.com>
To: Linda Lopez <linda.lopez@nmlegis.gov>, Daniel Ivey-Soto <daniel.ivey-soto@nmlegis.gov>, Jacob Candelaria <jacob.candelaria@nmlegis.gov>, Stuart Ingle <stuart.ingle@nmlegis.gov>, Mark Moores <mark@markmoores.com>, Gerald Ortiz y Pino <jortizyp@msn.com>, Cliff Pirtle <cliff.pirtle@nmlegis.gov>, Sander Rue <sanderrue@comcast.net>, Clemente Sanchez <clemente.sanchez@nmlegis.gov>, Michael Sanchez <senatormichaelsanchez@gmail.com>

I oppose SB 66 Create Office of Peace.  This bill creates a new executive branch office (Office of Peace) and a new Citizen’s Peace Advisory Council.  The purpose and duties of the department are so ill defined that the Fiscal Impact Report only estimates the cost as “substantial”.

The Office of Peace Act is another social justice and environmental justice bill that is so convoluted, vague, and poorly written there is no way to know what the Office of Peace is supposed to do except spend taxpayer money. The definition in the bill is “The purpose of the Office of Peace Act is to establish an office dedicated to peacemaking, social justice and human rights; training that will enable the prevention, management and resolution of conflict without violence; and the study and implementation of appropriate educational curricula at all levels and of conditions that are conducive to a culture of peace.”

The bill contains several “definitions” that are so convoluted that I feel the need for a definition of the definition.  The following two are a couple of examples.   “B. “dialogue” means a facilitated process of a group of people taking turns talking and listening to each other to allow an exchange of diverse ideas, information, opinions and experiences to foster greater understanding between people;” “E. “restorative justice” means a facilitated process that allows everyone involved in a conflict to be heard and take responsibility for any harm caused, seeks ways to repair the harm and make things right as much as possible and restores relationships and community.”

The rest of the bill contains more of the same convoluted meaningless mumbo jumbo as illustrated in the above examples.  It basically boils down to promoting a “progressive” social and environmental justice indoctrination program for school students, teachers, and community organizers.

This is nothing more than state directed behavior and mind control to create more socially compliant sheep.

I have reviewed all the bills introduced in this session of the legislature.  In my opinion this has to be the worst one I have seen.  It is incomprehensible, expensive, and with no clearly defined purpose.

Please do not pass SB 66.

Thank you

James Crawford

Enhanced by Zemanta