“Last year the General Assembly passed Public Act 05-228, now known unofficially as the Community Investment Act, to provide funding for farmland preservation, open space, historic preservation and affordable housing. This year a coalition including the Grange will be working to protect this funding and insure that it is not diverted to other purposes. Particularly in an election year the legislators want to provide programs that directly benefit their constituents while not increasing any taxes to pay for those programs. If funds generated for the four programs in the Community Investment Act are not used as fast as they come in, the General Assembly may be tempted to divert those funds to other places. While many farmers are anxious to sell their development rights to the State and most towns are ready to purchase land for open space, there are very few historic preservation or affordable housing projects that are far enough along to be ready for funding this year. The organizations lobbying for farmland preservation and open space are encouraging the organizations interested in historic preservation and affordable housing to work together for the benefit of all. ”

“ A public hearing was held in the House Judiciary committee this morning, dealing with 6 eminent domain bills. The bills (HB 2427, 2854, 2855, 2924, 3017 and HJR 4217) all clarify the state’s authority to utilize powers of eminent domain.  All of the bills are similar in that they define under state, county and city statutes what constitutes a “public use” and restricts it to that.  Further, they expressly prohibit the transfer of a private property right for the purpose of economic development.  They also go one step further to say that if land is condemned for a public use and is not used, the government MUST give first right of refusal to the owner of the property for which eminent domain was used.  Don Whiting testified in support with concerns of these bills. He discussed with the committee our action that was taken at this years’ Grange convention. This gave him the direction he needed to support these bills.

Grange policy passed at 2005 convention: 2006 Legislative Handbook, Page 5, Growth Management #4:  “We oppose any private properties taken by governments for reasons that would only benefit private individuals or commercial developers.”

These bills are moving and changing. We will continue to work closely with the Governor’s office, the prime sponsors and other interested parties on a compromised proposal. “

“Your NJ State Legislative Committee is asking that each and every one of you become a member of your New Jersey State Legislative Committee by joining our telephone lobbying committee. There are no dues or meetings, only an opportunity to voice your opinion on any topic that is of concern to Grangers, your friends, your neighbors, or yourself.

Feel free to use this toll free number to contact your National Senators and Representatives on National concerns. It has been recently changed, it is now 1-866-877-4455

Please use it frequently; it is your way of performing no cost lobbying. Comments and requests are monitored by the Congressional staffs, so your voice and opinion does count in the overall scheme of Congressional legislation. The only cost involved is a little of your time. The onslaught of calls on whatever the issue can be very influential in making your opinion known or felt.”

A letter from U.S. Representative Bob Inglis:

Dear John,

Thank you for contacting me to share your support for our Pledge of Allegiance. The 9 th United States Circuit Court of Appeals was clearly out of step with the people of this country and the history of its founding by claiming in 2002 that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The purpose of the First Amendment was to rule out the establishment of a particular religion and to prohibit government from discriminating against one religion by favoring another. But it was never intended to mandate that government ban religious expressions or deny the existence of God.

Mentioning "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is consistent with our heritage, much like including the official motto, "In God We Trust," on our currency. Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence itself recognizes that we were all "endowed by our Creator." How then can a reference to God be unconstitutional?

Thankfully for us, South Carolina is in the 4 th United States Circuit Court of Appeals. Our Circuit got it right. This past August the 4 th Circuit upheld a Virginia state law calling for the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The three-judge panel of the 4 th Circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise not a religious affirmation.

The Constitution of the United States is not intended to establish an irreligious nation hostile to God and religion. Rather, as John Adam's wrote in 1789, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The Pledge Protection Act (HR 2389) is currently in the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for review and analysis. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I look forward to examining the legislation to see if it is the best means to protect our Pledge in a Constitutional manner that is consistent with the system of checks and balances. In the meantime, please feel free to contact me as the issue develops. You may also find further information on related issues on my Web site: www.inglis.house.gov

Best regards,

Bob Inglis