« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 »

May 30, 2007

School's Future is in Your Hands - June 18

On Monday, June 18 7-9pm at Hermitage High School, "An interactive session is planned to discuss the school division's future mission, beliefs and goals"

This would be a great place to voice your thoughts about the school system. You can also get more information and provide input at http://www.henrico.k12.va.us/announcements/OurFuture.html

Related Links:
http://www.cblpi.org/choices/
http://www.vahomeschoolers.org/
http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/main/reports.php?subcategory_id=16
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/tax.php

Patrick Henry Supper Club - June 5, 2007

The Patrick Henry Supper Club Presents:

Del. Jennifer L. McClellan (D-71)

As noted two months ago our usual location (Eastern Buffet) has had a "small" fire. As of this writing it is still closed. Therefore we will meet at:

Thai Diner
8059 W Broad St
Richmond, VA
(in Westland Shopping Center)

6:00pm Dinner 7:00pm main event.

More about the speaker:

Jennifer McClellan was elected to represent the 71st District in the Virginia House of Delegates in 2005. She serves on the House Commerce & Labor and Education Committees. In 2006, Governor Kaine appointed Jennifer to the Commission on Sexual Violence, and the Speaker appointed her to the Civil Rights Memorial Commission, the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Commission, and the Board of Trustees of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Living History and Public Policy Center. Jennifer is a member of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus.

Jennifer is Assistant General Counsel Mid-Atlantic South for Verizon Communications, focusing on state regulatory matters for the District of Columbia, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. She is Secretary of Virginia State Bar Young Lawyers Conference and Immediate Past Chair of the Virginia State Bar’s Corporate Counsel Section. Jennifer is a member of the Virginia Bar Association Administrative Law Section Council, the VBA Young Lawyers Division, the American Bar Association Legal Opportunities Scholarship Fund Committee and Young Lawyers Division, and the Old Dominion, Richmond, and Metropolitan Richmond Women’s Bar Associations.

Jennifer serves as Vice President of the State Board of the Sorensen Institute of Political Leadership, and is a graduate of the Institute’s 2001 Political Leaders Program and 2005 Candidate Training Program. Since 2004, Jennifer has served on the Board of the Richmond Metropolitan Authority. Jennifer also serves as Vice President of the Board of Trustees for the Black History Museum & Cultural Center of Virginia, and is a member of the boards of the Virginia Alliance of Boys & Girls Clubs, Flagler Home at St. Joseph’s Villa, Boaz & Ruth, and the Oliver White Hill Foundation. Jennifer is a member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, the Junior League of Richmond, the Fan District Association, the Fan Women’s Club, the League of Women Voters, and the Richmond Crusade for Voters. She is a member of the 2004 Class of Leadership Metro Richmond.

Jennifer currently serves as 1st Vice Chair, Organization for the Democratic Party of Virginia, and is a member of the Democratic National Committee and the Association of Democratic Chairs. Jennifer previously served as Vice Chair for Outreach and Chair of the 3rd Congressional District Democratic Committee. She has been active with local Democratic committees in Richmond, Chesterfield County, and Charlottesville. She served three consecutive terms as president of the Virginia Young Democrats (1994-1997), and is the founding president of the Metro Richmond Area Young Democrats (1997-2004).

Prior to elected office, Jennifer served Governor Mark Warner on the Virginia College Building Authority (2002-2005), serving two years as Vice Chair.

Jennifer has received several awards in recognition of her dedicated community and public service. In 2007, Jennifer was named one of the Top Young Lawyers in Virginia by Virginia Super Lawyers Magazine. In 2006, Jennifer was named the Virginia Jaycees Outstanding Young Virginian. In 2005, Jennifer was awarded the Leadership Metro Richmond Servant Leader Award, and named to Style Weekly’s Top 40 Under 40 in 2005. In 2002, Jennifer was named the Virginia State Bar Young Lawyer’s Conference Edward R. Burnett Young Lawyer of the Year Award. She is also a three-time recipient of that organization’s Outstanding Service Award.

Jennifer was born in Petersburg and attended public school in Chesterfield County. She received a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Richmond in 1994. In 1997, she received her law degree from the University of Virginia.

May 25, 2007

The Blight of Eminent Domain

by Robert Russo

For those who could not attend last week's Henrico convention, John Taylor of the Virginia Institute For Public Policy is an accomplished libertarian lobbyist and former party leader. He had all the elements to inspire libertarians a speaker could possibly bring, being the founder of both a nonpartisan research group and the lobbying organization Tertium Quids (legally one organization can't be both, so it's rare to meet an accredited researcher and political activist in the same person). He cited his successful initiatives as state chairman of the party in Georgia and its transformation from an under-funded, poorly run minority into a success that at times left the major parties with egg on their face. It was for me a glimpse of a greater proficiency in libertarianism than most of us have seen in Virginia, and I am glad he has taken his fight to this state.

He passed out some reading material including "The Real Story of Eminent Domain in Virginia" by Jeremy P. Hopkins, a VIPP report published last December. This document outlines the history of property rights and their demise in Virginia with horror stories that would move anyone who reads it. Basically the rights to property we as Virginians take faith in to conduct our daily lives are guaranteed by the constitution, judicial precedents and clearly spoken intentions of the Founding Fathers, but do not exist if that property stands to benefit whatever special interest wants it. Each case pits an ambiguous but affluent entity (such as Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner of Virginia) against ordinary families (Hunter, Cartwright, Stull etc.), with the semblance of a fair trial between two clients, but is in fact the new legal relationship of eminent domain, that of the "condemnor" and the "condemnee".*

The condemnor is one of a long list of entities (VDOT, Mosquito Control Commission etc.) appointed by local government which takes action "condemning" private landowners to lose their property without trial (and in many cases revokes their right to trial). As a condemnee the citizen also forfeits their right to appeal once this label has been placed on them by the condemnor. In many cases the sole purpose of taking land from its rightful owner is to grant it to more affluent citizens and corporations (for a parking lot, shopping mall etc.). The condemnor may not even notify the owners that their land is being confiscated, because if they file a request through the courts and the owner is not there to dispute the property's worth, they can name whatever arbitrary compensation they choose and not even have to pay it before they take possession. This is known as the "quick-take power".*

These entities are faceless political thugs with little motive of their own, hired by local authorities and big business to disassociate these crimes from their source (usually decided in marketing meetings). In Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner vs. Warwick Lodge, VDOT refused to pay for the land it had seized with the bogus claim that the owner's title was bad. When this stalling tactic was disproven they then charged rent to the owner for living on his own land. In East Tennessee Natural Gas Co. vs. Thomas, the court appointed a commission to determine the amount the landowner was entitled to and then declared a mistrial because the assessment was too high. The second trial was by jury whose assessment was also thrown out for being too high. In cases where the citizen actually wins, condemnors have lost millions rather than pay the owner the true value of their land to begin with.*

This "continuing and public threat of condemnation" is the poorly concealed truth that the entire class (with few exceptions) to which legislators and business moguls belong sees only the color green, and nothing preventing them from taking their neighbors' ground. The lawsuits themselves are the only remnant of democracy. These entities "view themselves as an ordinary market participant", as if their acquisitions were a normal consensual sale and not a theft.* What they are condemning us to is a nomadic existence where deeds are not worth their ink and our other rights may as well topple like dominos. Turning the tide would mean electing (non-affluent) landowners themselves or anyone who cares about them.

In Mr. Taylor's words there has been a transfer of sovereignty, the peoples' influence is denied. I would recommend all libertarians read this work at www.virginiainstitute.org/pdf/V002-0017EminentDomain.pdf, which goes into great detail on the fight against eminent domain (such as Del. Johnny Joannou's bill last year which was intended to be a direct action by the Assembly, but was routed to the constitution with the rest of ignored property legislation).* It says something of the unique political quagmire Virginia has become when such well-spoken and accomplished men are fighting an uphill battle here, which Mr. Taylor calls the "ultimate good ol' boy" scenario. He also represents the Tuesday Morning Group coalition which meets monthly in Richmond.

*http://www.virginiainstitute.org/pdf/V002-0017EminentDomain.pdf

May 23, 2007

Gun Show Report

The C&E Gun Show was this weekend. Thanks to a few last minute volunteers, the LP had a table there.

A big thanks to:

Russell Booker
Kate Marshall
Louis Gifford
Matt Siegle
Shaun Whelden

Finally, since staffing these tables are so important, the folks who worked this past show will get a free dinner at the June PHSC.

Shad Planking Photo Highlights

The Shad Planking was held last month. As usual I helped with the VCDL table.

[Editor's Note: A full report will hopefully be posted here in the near future]

Photo Highlights at: http://www.richmondliberty.org/events/photos/20070418shad/

America's financial situation

Here is a fun blog entry on Americas financial situation.

http://www.clairewolfe.com/wolfesblog/00002575.html

Ron Paul

If your still not sure if you should support Ron Paul in the upcoming election cycle then here is a site to help you decide.

http://www.paulonpaper.com/

its got around five hundred articles that he’s written on various subjects.

[Editor's Note: Ron Paul seems to have the Republicans so scared of him that they are trying to ban him from their debates and polls - http://www.reason.com/news/show/120309.html ]

Who are Terrorists

From Bill Walker:

This is REALLY disturbing.

http://www.pa-aware.org/who-are-terrorists/domestic-6.asp

If this is what Pennsylvania is pushing, I wonder what the rest of the state governments are doing. If you're going to destroy a country, I guess you have to discredit, round up, and eliminate the people who want to stop the destroyers.

A massive effort needs to be undertaken to awake everyone possible. The "soft war" HAS to be won, else the hard war is sure to be very very hard indeed.

Henrico Libertarian Convention a Success

For Immediate Release

Henrico Libertarian Convention a Success

henrico@richmondliberty.org

On Wednesday, May 16 the annual convention of the Libertarian Party of Henrico drew a larger turnout than it did in 2006. Two candidates for the Henrico Board of Supervisors, George Marchenko of Tuckahoe District and Matt Martin of Brookland District, were nominated and approved. The current members of the LPHC board were all reelected and bylaws debated.

The keynote speaker at this event was John Taylor, president of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy and founder of the lobbying group Tertium Quids. In an inspiring oration he outlined the strategy he used as state chairman of the Libertarian Party of Georgia to help transform that party from an under-funded nonentity into a successful political bastion in that state, rivaling the major parties. As a lifetime student of public policy he gave informed perspectives on the increasing irrelevance of Democrats and Republicans and why the Libertarian party will rise.

LPHC Chairman Leonard Harris says of the event "I was happy to see higher turnout than last year's convention. We also nominated two really great candidates for Board of Supervisors. Matt Martin and George Marchenko have the right vision to move Henrico's forward."

For information on next year's convention or the LP of Henrico in general, contact henrico@richmondliberty.org.

Photo Highlights: http://richmondliberty.org/gallery/f/2007Convention [Editor's Note: We're using new photo gallery software. If something does not display correctly, please contact info@richmondliberty.org]

Immigration Bill has anti-gun provisions

From http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm

First, there was the McCarthy-Dingell bill. The folks on Capitol Hill have been telling you we need HR 297, a bill to greatly expand the Brady Law. They say it will stop future Virginia Tech shootings. And, oh yes, there's one more thing: they want you to believe the McCarthy-Dingell gun control bill isn't really gun control.

Now, they want to bring you an anti-gun immigration amnesty bill. Already you're hearing it’s not really an amnesty bill. (Yeah, right.) So don't be surprised if they tell you it's not an anti-gun bill either...

Senator Ted Kennedy and the anti-gun zealots who wrote the bill just couldn't resist the temptation to get their hands on our guns. They have included language that GOA has been able to defeat in the past.

When Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced these anti-gun provisions in 1998, the GOA grassroots were able to convince seven senator cosponsors to pull their names from Hatch's bill.

At the time, The Hill newspaper credited GOA with having "generated a significant number of postcards" into Senate offices. "The defecting [seven] senators, echoing the concerns of the GOA, are apprehensive about the violation of Second Amendment rights," reported The Hill.

The current language in the amnesty bill is only slightly different from Hatch's original language almost 10 years ago, but it would essentially do the same thing -- threaten every gun store in America.

In Section 205, for example, all it takes for the employees of a gun shop (of five or more persons) to become a "criminal gang" is:

* For them to commit two or more violations of ANY federal felony gun offense -- which includes virtually all gun offenses, including paperwork violations; and

* For the anti-gunners to find that violating gun laws was a "primary purpose" of the group.

So let's say your local gun store sells two or three firearms to Mayor Bloomberg's thuggish agents under New York City's extraterritorial "sting" operations. Your gun shop is now a "criminal gang."

This provision could even be used against a family of five who drives by two schools on the way to a movie with a gun in the glove compartment. Certainly under a Hillary administration, it would not be surprising to see them treat this infraction as a "felony" under the weird language of Gun Free School Zones Act. Thus, you and your family would become a "criminal gang."

OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL

There is still no official immigration bill -- that is, the working draft does not have an official senate number. The draft was concocted by senators who put it together behind closed doors, all the while bypassing the normal committee process.

While this unofficial draft has been "the buzz" around the country this past week, several things have been overlooked. One thing, to be sure, is the threat to gun owners' rights mentioned above. But also ignored is the fact that the negotiating draft imposes draconian penalties for those who live in states that have the audacity to veto the National ID card (which passed as part of the REAL ID Act of 2005).

If you live in a state such as Montana, Maine, Idaho, etc. which has passed legislation opposing the government's efforts to turn your driver's license into a National ID card, YOU COULD BE DENIED EMPLOYMENT OF ANY SORT.

Gun Owners was already concerned about this law -- which has yet to be implemented -- because of the threat it poses to gun owners' privacy. But now the immigration bill will go even further by requiring all present and future private sector employees to be screened by the Electronic Employee Verification System (EEVS).

And in Section 1(a)(4)(i) of the draft legislation, the bill allows for EEVS approval of your continued employment only if your private employer meets "strict standards for identification documents that must be presented in the hiring process, including the use of secure documentation that contains a photograph, biometrics and/or complies with the requirements [of the] REAL ID Act...."

Hence, no National ID card... no job.

ACTION: Please use the Take Action feature to send your Senator a pre-written message.

-----Pre-written letter-----

Dear Senator:

Why does the Congress seem bent on pushing gun control every chance
it gets? First, there was the McCarthy-Dingell bill in the House (HR
297) that would greatly expand the Brady Law. We don't need more gun
control as a response to Virginia Tech shootings. We need to repeal
the gun free zones that turn people into mandatory victims!

Now, the Senate wants to sneak gun control past us in the form of an
immigration bill. The Senate immigration package is a horrid piece
of legislation in such a wide variety of respects.

But, in addition to everything else, section 205 could, in the hands
of an anti-gun administration, PUT EVERY MAJOR GUN SHOP OUT OF
BUSINESS.

All it would take is for the shop to commit two felony paperwork
violations -- and an anti-gun administration willing to find that
this was a "primary purpose."

Similarly, a family driving to church or to the movies -- with a gun
in the glove compartment -- could be a "criminal gang" if it passed
two schools, and an anti-gun administration determined that
protecting his family was one of the father's "primary purposes."

Again, I urge you to OPPOSE the immigration package as long as this
anti-gun language remains in the bill.

Sincerely,


****************************

May 15, 2007

Should We Back Ron Paul?

by Robert Russo

A party that has not yet elected to national office at least has purity to pride in before their day in the sun, and the corruption that accompanies all successful platforms and candidates. All revolutionaries that come close to success are forced into the same catch-22, i.e. Northern Ireland could never decide as a nation to split from its parent country or not, one group will always make the tough choices to gain office while the other objects violently. We as a party have not yet had to face this situation. Dr. Paul did what he had to do to get libertarian values voiced in congress and the presidential debates, and no force on earth will make our party as a whole support or oppose a "stealth Republican" candidate. The more successful he is the bigger the split will be, so perhaps it's best that he is not among the frontrunners and has the option of running as a Lib after the primaries and truly lead the party.

Dr. Paul represents libertarianism in the House and in his party, he says the things no other congressman is willing to say, and for this he is treated the way we would expect congress to treat a libertarian. For this he certainly deserves our support. Would-be 2008 candidate Michael Badnarik relinquished his own bid in favor of Paul, an act of unprecedented political grace.* The trouble is a Libertarian-Republican alliance to beat the Democrats at any cost (after 8 years of Republican incumbency that put our nation into an imperial age Rep. Paul himself opposes?) will not only hurt the nation but our party won't get a fair deal out of it. It was out of necessity that Dr. Paul chose his political identity, not to pull all of us in with him. Our party will give up its ticket. On the one hand how can he ask this of us, and on the other how can we refuse? It is a lot to ask, trusting him as a libertarian to use whatever he gains to reciprocate as soon as he can. If you or I were in his shoes we would face the same gauntlet.

Besides being a libertarian what "Dr. No" has against him is face value. He is an older White congressman in his 10th term, which only puts him on even ground with perhaps Dick Gephardt or Joe Biden, not heavyweights like Clinton and Guiliani. Then there is the argument that he only represents the right and the erroneous equation of libertarians and republicans. His platform (albeit full of libertarian wisdom and conscience) is ultra-conservative and devoted to economic reform, as opposed to liberal/cultural leadership that doesn't seek fulfillment in the business world. Left-leaning libertarians have a slew of grievances with him such as his lack of foreign policy, considering him our most "marginal revolution" yet.

But being a lib is also his greatest strength. He is the voice for change in this year's election and has accomplished much for our cause already that no candidate on our own ticket has ever managed. There is certainly something to be said for infiltrating a major party with our ideas by any name, and as Badnarik says "vote for Ron Paul the person".* For more info on Dr. Paul's candidacy go to www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/ron-paul.html or www.ronpaul2008.com.

*http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/02/23/libertarian-badnarik-endorses-ron-paul/

Question of the Week: Do you agree that if Rep. Paul does not win the Republican nomination, he should run as a Libertarian so we will have a ticket? If he doesn't should we still support him? Send your thoughts to henrico@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

May 09, 2007

GunShow May 19-20

Virginia Tech is another fine example of how restricting the liberty of peaceable people can put everybody in danger. Help spread the message of freedom and liberty at the upcoming gunshow.

Once again we have a table and we need your help to keep it staffed.

THE SHOW IS JUST OVER A WEEK AWAY AND WE HAVE NO VOLUNTEERS!!

Please contact gunshow@richmondliberty.org if you would like to help.

Location:
The Showplace
3000 Mechanicsville Turnpike.

Shifts:
9:00-1:00 and 1:00-5:00 on Saturday
10:00-1:30 and 1:30-5:00 on Sunday

Martin turns in Signatures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

contact: www.MatthewTMartin.com
P O Box 1443
Glen Allen, VA 23060-1443
info@matthewtmartin.com

As of May 5, Henrico Board candidate Matt Martin is just a handful of signatures away from challenging Republican incumbent Dick Glover for the seat of Brookland District Supervisor.

As there is no Democratic challenger in this race, Matt is the voice for change against republicanism and incumbency in this critical election year. He opposes the continued fleecing of Henrico through taxation and zoning, the growing pacts between big government and big business that hurt the citizen, and will defend the rights of the individual and the Constitution.

Matt is a native Virginian and participant in Henrico civic events who successfully campaigned against the meals tax referendum in 2005, and challenged incumbent John O'Bannon for Virginia House of Delegates. Matt is the elected vice-chair of the Libertarian Party of Henrico and a member of the Virginia Citizen's Defense League.

"We have seen oppressive new taxation, convoluted new regulations, and intrusive new security measures." says Matt, "All of this is done because the politicians and bureaucrats think they know better than we do how to live our lives.". He is against the daily $2 million spending of the current Henrico Board, the manipulation of real estate and eminent domain.

Ron Paul

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present Ron Paul

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dNvoaGfwZcc

Henrico Libertarians To Hold Convention

For Immediate Release

Henrico to Host Libertarian Party Convention

contact:
Leonard Harris
Chairman, Libertarian Party of Henrico County
liberty@leonard-harris.com


May 7, 2007- The Libertarian Party of Henrico will be holding its annual convention at Dumbarton Library on Saturday, May 16 at 6:30 PM in the conference area. This is an opportunity for Henrico residents to meet their LP board members, candidates and platforms, and affiliate organizations.

The keynote speaker will be John Taylor, President of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy. This event is open to the public. Exhibitors representing many organizations active in the freedom movement will be represented. Among these groups are the Virginia Citizens Defense League, the Free Liberal and VOTORS (Virginians Overtaxed on Residences). These issues and more will be discussed as the board elects new members, nominates candidates for office and amends bylaws.

This election year is critical not only for the nation but for Henrico County, to stem the tide of big government and big business working together at the expense of our civic rights. Two libertarian candidates this year will be challenging this incumbency, Matt Martin and George Marchenko. Dumbarton Library is located at 6800 Staples Mill Rd. and the event runs until 8:45. For more information contact Leonard Harris, LPHC Chairman, chair@henricolp.org.

Regulating DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

From DownsizeDC.org

Big special interest lobbies want to regulate citizens' groups like DownsizeDC.org.

Several of these groups have been working behind the scenes, in secret, with some of the same politicians who created the incumbent protection law known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

Six of these big lobbying groups published a joint letter on March 7 describing some of the details of this secret legislation.

These priveledged insider groups, such as Century 21, have been able to misrepresent this legislation to the media and the public. Opponents of this legislation have been at a disadvantage because we have had no access to the legislation.

Now the legislation has finally seen the light of day as bill H.R. 2093.

H.R. 2093 is about to be rushed to a vote in the House.

It is very clear that there has been a conspiracy to deny you your rights to use groups such as DownsizeDC.org.

America's secret government (big special interest organizations) have conspired with elected representatives to silence taxpayers

There is no time for detailed analysis or explanation of H.R. 2093. This is what happens when politicians legislate in secret, and then rush to a vote!

Suffice it to say that supericial changes have been made in this legislation, compared to earlier versions, to make it look better. But these changes are superficial only.

They have raised the threshold for triggering the regulations to $100,000. That makes it look like only big organizations will be regulated, but groups that raise just $100,000 are not large and influential at all. The bottom line . . .

DownsizeDC.org will still be regulated!

We have defeated similar legislation in the Senate, but now we need to defeat it in the House, or risk losing the battle in Conference Committee, after which the Senate may just rubber-stamp the final bill.

We need to flood Congress with opposition.

Our standard message on this issue asks the House to strip out the grassroots provisions. Add to this, in your personal comments, your opposition to H.R. 2093 specifically. Tell Congress you object to secret, conspiratorial legislating, as represented by H.R. 2093.

Tell them you know H.R. 2093 is a fraud.

Time is short, so send your message now! http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=61

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

DC Courts turn down DC's Second Amendment appeal!

From vcdl.org

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has just turned down the
District of Columbia's appeal for a rehearing in front of the full
court on the Parker v. DC case!

That is good news as the Court apparently did not feel a need to
change the ruling of a three judge panel, which earlier this year
said that both DC's handgun ban and DC's ban on having a loaded gun
in a home were unconstitutional.

The next move is expected to be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court
by the City.

Meehan Introduces “Grassroots” Bill to Silence Us. Call Your U.S. Representative Today

From GrassrootsFreedom.com

Dear friend,

Congressman Marty Meehan (D-Massachusetts) has introduced H.R. 2093 that will harm the rights of citizens to receive information about and criticize Washington.

Please call your United States Representative today and tell him or her to oppose H.R 2093, the Meehan grassroots bill. Go here to find contact information for your U.S. Rep:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

And please forward this email to as many people you can today, and ask them to act quickly.

The House Democratic leadership is keeping their timing under close wraps, but congressional staffers have said this unconstitutional bill may be considered by the Judiciary Committee as part of lobbying reform as early this Friday, but more likely next week. If it gets voted out of committee, then it goes to the floor of the House.

Whatever day HR 2093 is considered, it’s important to start calling Congress now, and forwarding this email alert now to help get more callers to oppose this bill.

The Meehan bill will regulate citizen-supported grassroots causes. What would trigger this new law? Citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights to (1) speak, (2) publish, (3) associate and (4) petition the government. It even will regulate some religious activity.

But get this. It will help big special interests, billionaire George Soros, and even big-time lobbyists themselves. The bill was written by lobbyists, so it will, of course, protect them and their clients.

My letter this week to Congressman Meehan shows how our First Amendment rights are being done in by secret dealings with insider lobbyists and Mr. Meehan’s own lawyers.
http://www.grassrootsfreedom.com/gw3/articles-news/articles.php?action=view&CMSArticleID=1381&CMSCategoryID=23

Dozens of grassroots organizations joined by the ACLU have signed a letter opposing the Meehan bill, H.R. 2093.

Grassroots causes would be required to tell Congress what they’re talking about in private communications to you and other citizens – often before they even say it.

This is very bad legislation. It is actually dangerous to our democracy because it attacks our basic freedoms to speak and criticize government.

The grassroots bill was defeated in Senate earlier this year, 55 – 43.

Now citizens must tell the House of Representatives that the First Amendment means what it says, “Congress shall make no law . . .”

So please, call your U.S. Rep today. Tell him or her to vote against H.R. 2093, the Meehan grassroots bill.

And please forward this email to as many people as you can today, if you can.

Thank you.

Mark Fitzgibbons
GrassrootsFreedom.com

P.S. Let us know how your Representative says he or she will vote on the grassroots bill. Email back! We want to know who’s for the First Amendment and who’s against it.

GrassrootsFreedom.com
9625 Surveyor Ct, Suite 400
Manassas, VA 20110

May 08, 2007

Freedom of Religion Under Fire

by Robert Russo

On May 3rd the major networks reported President Bush's promise to veto the so-called Hate Crime Bill, an amendment to the 1968 statute that outlaws race-related violence and discrimination. The proposed expansion passed by the House has been in the works since 1998 when brutal hate crimes against gays prompted a redefinition of civil rights infraction, those that target sexuality and gender. At first this measure seems as humanitarian and necessary as it should be, except that if it becomes law this means that ministers and other church patrons can be arrested for what they choose to say from the pulpit, and that is a violation of incalculable implications.*

Now I myself attended a local church for a couple of years which had a welcoming atmosphere, relevant lessons and incredible music, until a speaker made an anti-gay comment to which some of the congregation reacted in favor and I have not been back since, partly because I believe hate is not only a crime but a sin, and that a sanctuary is not a platform for cultural vendettas or political statements, even if one believes in a natural order. As much as the content of a sermon should be sacred however, so must the speaker's unlimited rights of free speech. Now that citizens can be sued for defaming big business at civic hearings and county government sued for listening, a fear of liability at the pulpit would be catastrophic, not only to us as a civic nation but as a nation of faith.

There seem to be a lot of "international" or "non-denominational" places of worship cropping up in the Richmond area or existing church administrations delivering a "softer" message that appeals to people with a wider diversity of beliefs (i.e. saying that evil is not something manifest but a product of human imagination). I enjoy non-denominational services for the public but these should not a be a replacement for whatever religious ordance or purity a person needs as the spiritual anchors in their life. These semi-doctrines are sounding more like the "wellness" or "betterment" seminars that take people's money and spread good thoughts without addressing the hindside.

In the works of Victorian writers like Victor Hugo we have the memory of a time when the sanctity of the church was absolute, above that of the law, and yet in recent years cathedrals, mosques and basilicas have become battlegrounds like the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem**, and Iraqi religious leaders acting as generals.*** Is this perversion the only future for respecting holy ground, political adversaries forcing each sanctuary to become a headquarters?

There is a third way. If people want to ban free speech then it obviously still has weight, and the way to fight speech is with speech, not legal trickery. I have often thought that if I were president I would start the first national advertising campaigns and boycotts against hate groups like the KKK, which doesn't violate their constitutional rights in any way because it's just free speech. No president has fully understood his value as an activist or propagandist (which of course could be taken too far, but there is no written taboo saying he can't). People think the law is the solution to all their problems so they don't actually have to work and think. They've been taught that saying what you mean is useless compared to speaking legalese, which makes us a community of cheaters.

Using free speech alone may not be a complete solution in today's world, but it is an honorable one. Likewise churches would be better off standing their ground and refusing to engage in politics or watering down their message, regardless of the risks as Christ himself lived. I applaud the President for heading off such a potentially dangerous development and hope it was not his personal views on gay marriage but a respect for the Bill of Rights that motivated him. For more on the Hate Crime Bill go to http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/hate.crimes.bill/index.html.

*http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hate4may04,1,1283480.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_nativity#2002_Siege
***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-sadr

Question of the Week: What puts you more at ease as a member of your religious community, knowing that it is an oasis from all politics and lesser considerations of this world, or knowing it's a forum where anyone's views, political or otherwise, can be voiced in confidence because everything in our lives is a part of our beliefs? Is the peace and tolerance that faith provides enough to overcome these differences? Send your thoughts to henrico@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!