God really moved and we received the answers from the Lord and spread truth to the legislature!! But we also spread truth to all the people who were waiting for hours in that big room (outside of view of camera) for their turn to testify, and those watching live on wiseye, and those YOU will send this post/video to! I honestly can’t explain, with 17 bills to discuss, why they didn’t impose time limits on our speeches or answers, except a direct answer to prayer, thank the Lord!
Remarkably, the next day Sen Roger Roth, who watched the video on livestream, called us on his cell to tell us that one of the questions our daughter answered the Assembly Committee really impacted him. We talked for over 20 min during the Senate recess on the day he would speak against SJR 102 before the Senate.
But first, let’s see what happened on Monday the 21st… my daughter says it would be better (and more entertaining) if I could give a verbal commentary on these hearings, but the best I can do is a written inside scoop on the videos below, the stuff “off camera”…
We the People, the citizens of WI, were given less than 24 hr notice and had to make rushed sacrifices of gas, time, and preparation to get there at all. Since we were only told the evening before an early 9:30 am Senate public hearing, we couldn’t testify at Convention-die-hard-Stroebel’s Senate mock public hearing consisting of only the Senate Committee members and the lobbyist, but a very small group of us were able to testify at the Assembly hearing (because the 24 hr notice was given on Friday evening for a Mon hearing).
Of those Wisconsinites who came to testify and also those who came to support us in prayer,
- One of them left their family early to testify and then head to a conference.
- One left several children with the spouse to drive 6 1/2 hrs round trip to come testify.
- One blew 12 hours of double-time pay to instead come to testify.
- Several dealt with and suffered health complications from traveling or testifying.
- Thank you for all your prayers for us!
And yet, remarkably, the paid lobbyist Ken Quinn was there at the Capitol in plenty of time to fly from Maine & get accommodation and be at BOTH the “rushed” Senate and Assembly hearings. Either it’s just a coincidence, or he had advanced warning the rest of us – actually from our State – were not privy to. He’s been hanging out lobbying, deceiving, and schmoozing on the legislators for their votes, and paid to do so. At the Assembly hearing he said he’s been here for a full week.
We also found out on Mon, from an inside source, that the powers that be polled the legislators of this new State Affairs Committee we were testifying to (possibly even before they chose which committee to send the bill to), locking in their vote to be sure this would pass an Assembly Committee this time.
While the Lobbyist Quinn says that he is there in support of AJR 135 and that 82% of Americans support “this” and 75% of Wisconsinites support “this”, I need to point out that this support is for TERM LIMITS, not the dangerous Convention process in AJR 135. If you stay tuned through the whole video, Holly discusses in her testimony how the convention movement is deceptive in its polling to convince voters (she has personal experience of this) or legislators of huge grassroots support. In the meantime, keep in mind that approval for term limits is NOT approval for Article V Convention process.
I liked testifier Theresa Henderson’s take on this and disagree with Salesman Lobbyist Quinn’s take (he says the following information shows a dysfunction in the system and a need for term limits convention):
- Congress has had an 18% approval rating for the last decade, which is equivalent to a 1 star rating at a hotel.
- If 75% of voters across party lines support term limits, and
- If 96% of incumbents win office again – with an 18% approval rating,
Theresa Henderson remarked to me that information indicates massive election fraud and that
They don’t want the same people in, aren’t happy with them, but somehow they keep getting in.”
Again, the ballot box in a true, fair and free election with an educated electorate is the answer.
Something you can’t see on the video during our testimonies against convention, the Lobbyist Quinn was visibly agitated and dramatically shaking his head like we had no idea what we were talking about. Technically, he could not ask us any questions because he’d already had his turn and he was not on the Committee. You could see he was so frustrated. To the point that on two occasions he got up and went up to the Committee Legislature (while we were testifying) and pulled aside the bill’s author, Rep Knodl (rather convenient that one of the two authors was on the Committee, wasn’t it?), and gave the author paperwork and ammo to make points/ask questions of us that he (the lobbyist) couldn’t. It surely would have been obviously awkward (and entertaining) if Knodl had been sitting in the middle of the board, and not off to the left, wouldn’t it? I wonder if the lobbyist Quinn would still have gone up to him?
God used it, as you will see in the video.
One more observation you can’t see in the video is after we were done testifying, I saw Quinn in the hallway outside the hearing with one of the Reps who appeared to be turning during our testimonies and Q&A. Quinn seemed to be talking him BACK into support of his bill. My husband said he should have taken his Constitution and gone out with them and joined their conversation, hee hee.
One leading lady (on our side of this battle to protect our Constitution) watched the hearing live on wisconsineye and emailed me,
I loved that Elayna hit the ball out of the park in answering Knodl. And what did he respond–that she dodged the question and would make a good politician someday? I couldn’t figure out if he didn’t understand that she answered the question, or he didn’t want to admit it.”
I had just testified in favor of 2 election integrity Bills 133 & 134 before we all testified against AJR 135. After testifying, we walked the halls of the Capitol and passed out information asking Senators to vote against Term Limits Convention S102 in the Senate the next day (Tue the 22nd). While we were doing that, one Senator’s office said they were contacted from others within the Capitol to get on wisconsineye right away and watch our testimonies live, another way God was moving.
When we were done with the literature drop, we checked back in with the State Affairs committee, wanting to be there for the actual vote for their accountability to We the People, but they were not done with the public hearing on the 17 election bills before we had to leave the locked Capitol. So we were not present for the vote (see video).
Knodl finally did get the last word – to the legislature before the vote – and his comments (see video) remind me of the verse,
The prudent man forseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” Prov 22:3
The problem is, his decision and punishment affect the rest of us, and our descendants.
Final note while that popcorn is popping for the video, those who watched the last video of our testimonies before the Constitution & Ethics committee will remember that was our THIRD TIME testifying to that particular committee and you will notice a difference in our family’s approach in testifying to a new committee on State Affairs with new speeches. Curtis even reports on what amendments came out of the “conservative” Convention of States 3-day long Simulated Convention in Sep 2016 in Virginia.
Bearing in mind that since this was the FIRST TIME we addressed THIS committee, we gave them the benefit of a doubt that they had not yet heard the truth, and upon learning the truth, would protect our Constitution, and wow, the questions, praise God!! Watch what happens…
VIDEO starts from the lobbyist and continues on exclusively on AJR 135 Term Limits Convention.
NOW FOR THE FULL SENATE FLOOR VOTE SJR 102 (Term Limits Convention):
Remember the only two places we could stop Term Limits Convention was either in the above Assembly Committee or on the Senate floor?
We did. We stopped it on the Senate floor.
WE WON! 17-16
And then we lost. 17-15
Rather convenient, is it not, to be able to re-vote when you don’t get the vote you wanted?
This looks like 2 or more people secretly planning something unethical to me, which is the definition of conspiracy, but I could be wrong.
- Some (who know more about this stuff than I do) speculate Darling did this on purpose, because this is a strategy that has been used elsewhere (you can only change your vote if the first time you voted with the majority, like hedging a bet). Whether she did it on purpose or not, what follows seems suspicious.
- Pro-convention RINO Stroebel (the other author of the bill) made a beeline for the desk when he didn’t get it through the Senate despite every effort to rush this through.
- Listen on the video as Darling (Senator from the 8th) says she wants to change her vote from Aye to Nay. (she voted nay the first time)
- I think she disarmed democrats and anti-convention people to think we were going to win by an even greater number, 18-15
- Then pro-convention President of the Senate RINO Kapenga (who I will never vote for again for his convention and election fraud decisions) immediately appeared to repeat her request, and smoothly, unnoticeably, changed her request that she wanted to do it from No to Yes. My husband caught it. I imagine Chair Kapenga (who went to training on how to get Convention bills through state legislatures) knew exactly what the agenda was that they were carrying out, and what Darling was doing — and when she voted again, she DID say AYE. (And she had asked to vote nay.)
- If they had let her change her vote, instead of going into reconsideration, it still would not have changed the outcome, even though Chair Kapenga said it WOULD. Because he said it would, the Democrats naturally objected, which (unfortunately) pushed the bill into reconsideration and a revote.
When Senator Roth read the rules to them, he knew Sen Darling changing her vote alone could not change the outcome of the vote. He testified against this bill (one of the few conservatives on our side) and said some nice things about our kid’s testimonies on the Senate floor, in the video below, I think within the first 10 min. His speech is good on the ramifications of Term Limits – unelected bureaucrats (like the CDC doing illegal eviction notices or the attempted use of OSHA for mandated medical procedures in the workplace, etc) prove that Term Limits will have no one running our government that is accountable to the people, whereas the Deep State will live forever).
Back to the unanimous consent to change Darling’s vote (that would NOT have changed the outcome):
Anyone there that day knew there was a pretty good chance the Senator from the 4th would object, since she was objecting to everything all day long because she was protesting that her bill was not passed. And sure enough, she is the only one that did object. I believe that Sen Carpenter who was rightly questioning the ethics of this, understood he should leave it alone and it wouldn’t change the outcome. But Sen from the 4th did object. Which opened the door for reconsideration and a full Senate revote, and a revote DOES change the outcome. Watching it will add further understanding.
Senator Erpenbach gave an excellent speech against SJR 102 and voted against it. After the vote, he went home, not knowing they would vote again or that it would change the outcome. This is the reason the vote tally lost a voter the second time.
I question the timing of “the Senate will stand informal for 30 sec” (while they conspire for 5 min?), Darling comes to the desk, Kapenga speaks with her, and then after the 5 min, by a stroke of luck, RINO LeMahieu suddenly tables the bill they were on, which had they continued, would have made reconsideration (revote) impossible, to the Chair appearing “busy” with papers while he’s waiting for his communications from the phone – who is on the other end?, to the Chair giving false information to everyone that changing Darling’s vote would change the outcome – so that people would protest it so that she COULD request reconsideration to revote that WOULD change the outcome — it is all well orchestrated.