Constituent Correspondence
21 Searles Road
Windham, NH 03087-1203
Dear Mr. Blevens:
During the remaining weeks of your campaign, I urge you to publicly address the issue of poverty in our nation and the steps you propose to take to cut poverty significantly in the next five to ten years.
The Preamble to the United States Constitution raises the "general welfare" as one of the responsibilities of the federal government. The general welfare is suffering, as attested to by the Census Bureau poverty report for 2007, released the last week of August. Although the number of families living below the poverty threshold held from 2006 to 2007, those below fifty-percent of the poverty level fell deeper into poverty; and more households joined that group. The only income group with any gain in income was the top 10 percent.
As you campaign for election in November, I will be watching ads and listening to what you say about reducing poverty. I believe that as a nation we have the potential to reduce poverty significantly. I am calling for the reduction of poverty by fifty percent in ten years. What plans do you have, and will you share with constituents, in the weeks ahead?
The number of persons without health insurance in 2007 was significantly higher than the number in 2006. The good news is a decrease in the number of children without health insurance, due to Medicaid and the SCHIP program. However over three million children remain without regular access to regular health care. It is frightening to think of the loss of potential among children who lack consistent health monitoring, many of whom are also under-nourished. Health and nutrition are integrally related to a child's ability to grow and develop to meet their potential.
It is critical that future generations are capable of solving national and global problems as they continue to escalate.
I urge you to speak out, let all of us, your constituents know what you plan to do about poverty when you are elected.
Thank you,
Sincerely,Cecilia Coefield
Ken Blevens
As you should well know our children and their future are important to us all. Understanding and accepting the complete parameters of the issue are equally important.
I believe saddling the future generation with more debt is something that I in good conscious could not do. I believe that is part of what you're asking of me.
I also believe freedom is the most important thing that we can leave for all posterity.
"In a free society government does not cause poverty nor can it be corrected by it."
Libertarian Ken Blevens
Lynn Hall
5 Sycamore Rd
Milford, NH 03055-3033
Dear Mr. Blevens:
As a supporter of traditional marriage, I am concerned that one of America's foundational institutions is coming under increasing attack. In California, elected officials are attempting to use deception to scare voters into voting against a marriage-protection amendment. In Massachusetts, a law has been passed to allow residents of other states to travel there for a same-sex wedding, even if would not be recognized in the residents' home state.
As a member of the Center for Moral Clarity, a national Christian grassroots organization, I am concerned that elected officials are showing such disregard for the sanctity of traditional marriage. I believe the best way to address this confusion once and for all is with a federal Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Since you are running to represent me in Congress, I would like to know: where do you stand on this issue? If elected, would you support the Marriage Protection Amendment? Why or why not? I would appreciate a response so I can determine how I will vote this fall. Thank you in advance for your response.
Sincerely,Lynn Hall
Ken Blevens
I too support traditional marriage. This is my problem with a constitutional amendment.
Where in the constitution would it be? The formation of government or the Bill of Rights? The constitutional question is a complex one. Under the scenario you propose I believe you intend to have the federal government control the issue of marriage. If this is the case I could not support the amendment as it factually would limit personal freedoms not protect them.
I believe what this comes down to is do you believe in a free country or a free people? As a Libertarian I would be committed to vote down any legislation that infringes on personal freedom i.e. to have government determine what marriage is or is not. Thank you so much Lynn Hall for your concern on this important issue.
For LibertyKen Blevens
Libertarian Candidate for U. S. Senate 2008
Sal, cocosm@comcast.net
Hi Ken,
Thanks for including us with sharing this issue. We too support traditional marriage between one man and one woman. While we support this person's efforts to promote our beliefs as well as yours and we hope the majority of Americans, we also recognize as you do, it has no place in the U.S.Constitution. This is and should continue to be in the forefront of every Christian effort to teach what we believe in. However, as you well put it, Freedom includes Freedom from any interference ... Freedom for or against any Religion and the Freedom to believe in what you want, was one of the founders' clear messages. Therefore to force people not believing as you do, to behave as you want, is just as selfish as saying everyone MUST be Christian ... Worldwide terrorism is just a good example of one religion trying to force others to believe as they do or non-exist... We commend your persistence to keep principal above politics. Too many politicians today sometimes falsely support an issue to win a group or its' financial backing or both... Unfortunately at all levels we continue to suffer and even stop advancement in many areas, while the parties with the most money and best lawyers brainwash the citizens to continue believing Big Government should rule every aspect of our lives... Again thanks for sharing your view...
For God & Country,Sal