|
|
August 29th, 2010
“No state will make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” — The Constitution of the United States; Amendment 14, Section 1. (Emphasis added)
Today, a Clark County, Nevada, ordinance governing the Coroner’s Inquest process (Clark County Code 2.12 – “Coroner”) is a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution’s “due process” clause. At least it seems that way to this non-lawyer. When only one side of a case is presented, during a life-and-death legal proceeding, how can that be considered “due process?”
I suspect the Trevon Cole family will agree, given the outrageous finding of “justifiable” by a seven-person jury that heard two days of “testimony” about Cole’s brutal killing by a Las Vegas Metro officer. That Coroner’s Inquest hearing set a new low in the U.S. definition of “justice.” Detective Bryan Yant, who shot Trevon Cole at close range with an AR-15 rifle, while Cole was on his knees, hands above his head, clutching a tube of lip-balm, changed his story several times, during sworn testimony. And although the District Attorney practically called Yant a liar, the jury still found Yant’s actions “justifiable.” Incredible.
Few citizens of Las Vegas are aware of the brazen, bizarre and one-sided nature of the Coroner’s Inquest process in Clark County. When I read the ordinance that dictates how an inquest hearing must be conducted, I fully understood how the citizens of the old Soviet Union must have felt, when they were subjected to that nation’s so-called “legal process.” Las Vegas citizens are today’s Soviet subjects, thanks to a coroner’s inquest process that lets the police tell their side of a story, while denying meaningful challenges to their carefully crafted performance.
Key elements of today’s county ordinance that governs the inquest hearing:
http://erikbscott.com/blog/
WTF!
Here is an article you might want to read before you vote this November.
by William N. Grigg, Pro Libertate
“He made me do my job,” insisted Bryan Yant when asked to explain why he gunned down 21-year-old Las Vegas resident Trevon Cole last June in what was clearly an act of criminal homicide.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/08/showtime-syndrome-strikes-las-vegas.html
Guess who the NRA led by Wayne LaPierre is supporting in the coming elections?
None other than Harry Reid, the Constitutional criminal Obamite Marxist.
Yes as America is imploding this once proud and honest organization has become nothing more than a globalist front.
Gone are the days when Medal of Honor recipient Joe Foss ran that pro American and pro gun group. It is now nothing but a shill for Obamanism.
The current publication of the NRA in the American Hunter carries the proud Reid and LaPierre as booby buddies, because Reid fronts for a few NRA productions. Whore and pimp would be a more appropriate word as America gets screwed.
. . . continue . . .
“In fact, Capitol insiders say Harry Reid may be the driving force for this
exemption. Reid is in a very tough re-election race in Nevada, but the NRA has all but endorsed him (see the latest NRA magazine, with many flattering pictures of Reid). If he’s held accountable for his bad votes on the gun issue, he will almost certainly lose – which is why he’d like to silence all of the pro-gun groups except the one that’s supporting him.”
—-
Did the NRA tell you they still oppose the DISCLOSE Act?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7UFU0WmDRg
At 6:40, LaPierre says “We’re not in it anymore.” That means they removed
their opposition.
Did the NRA cut a backroom deal?Call it what you will, but the NRA was opposed to this bill and now, with
the exemption, they are not opposed to this legislation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7UFU0WmDRg
Start at about 6:30 and you’ll hear LaPierre say “we had to make sure the
voice of gun owners is protected”. What do you think he meant by that?
The NRA had to make sure their voice was preserved so….they did what?
They cut a deal. Call it what you will (if you don’t think that’s a deal, I
have swampland in Florida to sell you), but it meant they removed their
opposition to the bill.
The NRA got their exemption. How do you think that happened? It didn’t
happen by accident – it happens by agreement, in private rooms. And then
both parties agree not to talk about it.A principle – the right of self defense – is much more important than
any one organization.
The talk show host asks a very salient point: IF there is no deal, then the
NRA is free to continue to oppose the bill. LaPierre keeps saying “we
aren’t in the bill anymore.” So, what he’s really saying is the NRA can’t
fight against the bill because they have an agreement (to be exempted).
. . .
…This is a sick and craven play by the NRA. It’s not the first time (the
Brady Act itself was passed because of an NRA deal), and it won’t be the
last. But gun owners shouldn’t stand by and not hold these compromisers
accountable.
—-
Why is the National Rifle Association protected but not the National Right to Life organization? Obviously, no one wants to answer.
The National Rifle Association is carved out of this bill, and they get a special deal. Now, the NRA is a big defender of the Second Amendment of the Constitution—the right to bear arms. Yet they think it’s all right to throw everybody else under the table, so they can get a special deal, while requiring everyone else to comply with all of the rules outlined in this bill. Frankly, I think it is disappointing.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H4802&dbname=2010_record
—-
| (Courtesy of House Administration Republicans)
H.R. 5175: Democrats’ Attempt to Regulate Free Speech
The DISCLOSE Act: Democrats’ campaign finance legislation designed to regulate free speech while protecting unions and Washington special interests.
- Unfairly exempts unions and Washington special interests from unconstitutional and cumbersome reporting requirements designed to discourage certain organizations from engaging in political debate.
- Bans political speech by government contractors and TARP recipients but not unions with collective bargaining agreements with the government or unions who receive dues from government payroll deductions.
- Imposes legally unsound limitations on coordinated communications between federal candidates and organizations – possibly subjecting candidates to investigations and fines for activity they don’t know took place.
- Creates highly complex reporting requirements – unlikely to impact unions – that would have high compliance costs and disproportionate effects on small businesses.
- Places more stringent “stand by your ad” requirements on organizations than candidates by forcing organization heads and top funders to appear in ads, stating their organizations’ names up to five times.
- Deliberately and recklessly seeks to affect the 2010 elections by taking effect in 30 days without waiting for the FEC to issue instructions and rules so people can follow the law and avoid criminal and civil punishment.
Background on DISCLOSE:
- After government lawyers failed to convince the Supreme Court that the government should have the right to ban books and restrict political speech, Democrats’ top political operatives launched a stealth legislative initiative to create new obstacles designed to silence critics before the election.
- Just as we’ve seen with health care and bailouts, this legislation has been rushed forward without concern for the Constitution or existing law. Having introduced legislation with little to no thought of its consequences, Democrats are now trying to quickly advance the bill by making backroom deals for Washington special interests.
What Folks Are Saying About the House Democrats’ Recent Attempt to Salvage Unpopular Bill
“It is inappropriate and inequitable to create a two-tiered system of campaign finance laws and First Amendment protections’”
45 Nonprofit Organizations including the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club (Roll Call 6/17/10)
“The purpose of this bill is to make sure that elected representatives are not beholden to special interests, yet here is special interest No. 1 receiving a deal to exempt it from an otherwise very good bill.”
Sen. Diane Feinstein (The Hill 6/16/10)
“By erecting what amounts to a grandfather clause of First Amendment rights, the bill creates a sort of interest-group incumbency, concentrating the power to speak freely among a handful of large and longstanding groups.”
Wall Street Journal Editorial (WSJ 6/16/10)
“It’s bad policy to treat reasonably similar groups so differently. Why exempt the NRA but require the Sierra Club or the NAACP to report their donors for campaign-related causes? There is no good answer except for the matter of political muscle.”
Washington Post Editorial (Washington Post 6/17/10)
“This is not just ‘disclosure.’ It is a scheme hatched by political insiders to eradicate disfavored speech. There is no room under the First Amendment for Congress to make deals on political speech, whether with the NRA or anyone else.”
Cleta Mitchell, Member of the NRA’s Board of Directors (Washington Post 6/17/10)
“Disclose and disclaim. Don’t select and silence. …the legislation tries to choose which political speech is legitimate and which is not. It would bar American companies that have as little as 20 percent foreign ownership from engaging in political speech. That would silence firms that are largely held by U.S. interests.”
Chicago Tribune Editorial (Chicago Tribune 5/21/10)
“Look who’s protecting incumbents. …Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. — have introduced a bill designed to stifle critics of what the Democratic Congress has done in the past two years.”
Examiner Editorial (Washington Examiner 5/25/10)
For more information contact the Committee on House Administration Republican Office, 5-8281 |
The House Republican Conference • GOP.gov
1420 Longworth HOB • (202) 225-5107 |
|
We won the first round of the battle over H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act (which really should be called the Establishment Protection Act), but we’ve received word that H.R. 5175 could be resurrected for a vote as soon as this Wednesday.
Your help is needed right away. Even if you have already done so before please call and/or email your congressman immediately:
Contact your congressman and urge them to vote no on H.R. 5175.
To find the name and number of your congressman click Contact Lawmakers at www.vgoc.org
Last week, we saw a prime example of why the statists want to ram H.R. 5175 through the U.S. House as quickly as they can.
The vote on DISCLOSE was all set for last Friday, but thanks to your quick action and that of other gun owners and like-minded grassroots activists across the country, the outcry was so great that Pelosi had no choice but to cancel the vote.
Liberty-minded activists were especially incensed when it was revealed that the NRA and a few other huge insider organizations (like AARP and the Humane Society) got a special deal exempting them from this speech-killing legislation.
House leaders are close to silencing freedom-loving organizations like C4L so their anti-liberty agenda can sail to victory unopposed.
Call you congressman and INSIST Congress defend your right to freedom of speech and association.
This isn’t the first time H.R. 5175 has been stalled.
The bill appeared to be going nowhere until the National Rifle Association bargained for an exemption for itself and a few other large groups. The NRA helped put the bill on the fast track after agreeing to drop its opposition – leaving organizations like VGOC and other true liberty-minded Second Amendment organizations like National Association for Gun Rights and Gun Owners of America — to fend for themselves and to look out for own interests.
Free speech is everyone’s interest.
Meanwhile, other organizations that later became exempted, like National Right to Work, have stayed in the fight and stuck to principle by pledging their opposition to the bill.
Contact the NRA headquarters at 1-800-672-3888 and their Legislative Action group at 1-800-392-8683 and urge them to join other exempted groups in opposing H.R. 5175.
The Establishment Protection Act could force VGOC to hand over its donor lists for doing nothing more than holding our elected officials accountable for their positions and urging them to either support or oppose key legislation.
They want to know exactly who is opposing them and how much they’re spending to do so.
VGOC takes the trust you place in us very seriously, and your privacy should not be sacrificed by a deeply unpopular Congress to score cheap political points in an election year.
You see, Speaker Pelosi and the Obama White House are doing their best to spin this as a bill to help the little guy. But like the rest of their playbook, the Establishment Protection Act will only enhance their power, entrench their favorite special interests (like exempting the unions from some of the bill’s key provisions), and insulate them from accountability.
I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of watching statists shred the First Amendment.
Please, call your congressman immediately and demand the House defend the Constitution and reject H.R. 5175.
And be sure to call the NRA headquarters at 1-800-672-3888 and their Legislative Action group at 1-800-392-8683 and let them know how you feel about their move to stab freedom organizations in the back. Urge them to drop the deal and stand with these other organizations in opposing the Establishment Protection Act.
Encouraged by our victory last week, let’s turn up the pressure and make sure Congress hears us LOUD and CLEAR – while we still can.
And please make a generous donation at www.vgoc.org to keep us in the fight for freedom.
For Liberty ,
Mike McHugh
President, VGOC
www.vgoc.org to donate
|
|
