I received this and wanted to pass it along. I believe the vote is SOON.
Sincerely,
Mike Vatavuk
Down below is the NRA's spin on the story after a big-time sellout of something
other than just 2A (this time it's 1A as well). Biggest bunch of bull I've seen in a long time. Listen to Lars Larson try to get a straight answer
out of LaPierre.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7UFU0WmDRg&feature=player_embedded
Reminds me of good ole Vladimir Posner of the USSR, though he was much slicker. NRA staff spews patronizing lie after condescending
prevarication, each contradicting another in a previous statement, paragraph, section, even a previous sentence or clause. "Three-dimensional chess".
<Gag>. Too smart by a third.
================
From: Oregon Firearms Federation <off@oregonfirearms.org>
Date:
Mon, 21 Jun 2010
Oregon Firearms Federation
PO Box 556
Canby, OR 97013
Voice: (503) 263-5830
www.oregonfirearms.org
OFF ALERT 06.21.10
HR 5175 is still alive and
kicking. We can't stop now.
How do you get free speech? You have a lot of money.
NRA, ok. Sierra Club maybe. AARP maybe.
Every state-wide and local pro-gun organization? Shut up.
This has to stop.
Read more at either of the following
links:
http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/06.21.10%20aler.html
http://tinyurl.com/29gj7jc
_________________________________________________
Did
someone forward this to you? To receive the
most up to date information consider subscribing
directly to the Oregon Firearms Federation
e-mail list.
The volume of mail usually is quite low.
To subscribe to, or to be removed from the OFF E-mail Alert list please go to:
http://webnation.webnation.us/mailman/listinfo/offmail
.....................
Subject: Here We Go Again: DISCLOSE
Act
From: "Gun Owners of America" <Gun_Owners_of_America@capwiz.mailmanager.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010
Pelosi Trying to Shove DISCLOSE
Act through Congress Once Again
-- NRA remains on the sidelines
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102,
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm
"A top House Democrat
said Monday that he remains hopeful of mustering enough votes to pass sweeping new campaign finance legislation, which has prompted a political uproar
over a deal crafted to help the National Rifle Association." -- The Washington Post, June 21,
2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Washington Post corroborates what Gun Owners of America has been hearing on Capitol Hill. Top Democrat leaders in the House
are trying to make another go at the DISCLOSE Act... and they think they are very close to getting the votes to pass it. According to the Post article from yesterday:
Democrats are "in striking distance of getting the votes" for the
package, which would require corporations, nonprofit groups [like GOA] and unions to disclose details about their political spending.
The
big news last week was a "carve out" that Democrat leaders made to exempt the NRA from the provisions of the bill. This week, in order to gain more
votes, there is talk about exempting many more non-profit organizations -- which may include GOA.
Our answer to Congress is simple and is
found in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." In other words, NO DEAL.
The NRA claims,
in a widely circulated letter, that "some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to
protect other organizations."
To the contrary, sacrificing a First Amendment principle will end up putting the Second Amendment on even
more precarious footing.
The restrictions on government power contained in the Bill of Rights do not exist in a vacuum. For instance,
the First Amendment protections are what allow groups like GOA and people like you to complain to the Congress about anti-gun legislation, while the
Fourth Amendment keeps the government from coming into our homes without a warrant to seize our guns.
The DISCLOSE Act will impose a host
of new restrictions upon groups like GOA, effectively limiting our ability to hold individual congressmen accountable in the weeks leading up to an
election.
Your activism against this bill so far has been OUTSTANDING, and it is the reason why liberal Democrats are trying to mute the
voice of the gun lobby. While other groups might acquiesce to a deal, GOA will oppose this bill so long as even one gun owner's voice is silenced.
The Democrat leadership is trying very hard to round up the votes to pass the bill this week.
ACTION: Please keep up the pressure. We must continue to contact our Congressmen in opposition to the DISCLOSE Act and urge
others to do the same. If we are going to defeat the Obama gun control agenda, we have to be able to speak out against the politicians who are
sacrificing our rights on the altar of liberalism.
1. You can call your
Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762; or you can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your
Representative.
2. Also, urge the NRA to change its position on the DISCLOSE Act
and stand with Gun Owners of America. All the gun groups need to stick together on this. You can call the NRA at (800) 392-VOTE (8683).
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Representative:
Vote "NO"
on the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175). Every member who votes "yes" -- including you -- will be remembered at election time and I will vote NO on you.
Do not accept any deals... do not support any compromises... do not vote for this infringement of the First Amendment at all.
Sincerely,
------------
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to: www.gunowners.org/ean.htm .
From: fpv@fpaulvalone.com
Subject: DISCLOSE Act sellout: NRA says you just don't understand
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010
Responding to the maelstrom it created by
selling out gun rights supporters on the misnamed DISCLOSE Act, the NRA is now sending forth a propaganda brigade of NRA board members and other
apologists to convince you that you just don't understand…
http://bit.ly/NRASellout3
DISCLOSE
Act sellout: NRA says you just don't understand
June 19, 5:22 PM![[]](http://image.examiner.com/img/greydot.gif){kind=small}
Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner
Paul Valone
‘DISCLOSE Act’ maelstrom leads
Speaker Pelosi to stall vote on bill: Redouble your efforts to kill HR 5175.
Responding to the maelstrom it created by selling
out gun rights supporters on the misnamed “DISCLOSE Act,” the NRA is now sending forth a propaganda brigade of NRA board members
and other apologists to convince you that you just don’t understand.
Given the NRA’s probable bleed of hundreds of thousands – if not
millions – of dollars in cancelled memberships, statements issued by NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox to the effect that it doesn’t “support” HR 5175 are not surprising.
But unfortunately, his is a game of semantics: Nobody has accused the NRA of supporting attempts to muzzle gun groups during elections. What Politico, The Washington Post and others are reporting is that the NRA is
removing opposition to the bill. And the fact is that the NRA is
the big gorilla of lobbying; if it removes its opposition, passage of a law to muzzle other pro-gun and conservative organizations is all but assured. They have neatly thrown you under the bus.
Then we have the indignant (if somewhat addled) statement from NRA First Vice President David Keene which adds little to the debate:
“I can assure you that I would never countenance a ‘deal’ of the sort you think the NRA made with Congress to further Democratic attempts to restrict political speech. I consider such restrictions to be not only repugnant, but blatantly unconstitutional, an opinion shared by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris Cox.”
Meanwhile, NRA board members on
various gun rights forums are running a propaganda campaign that sticks very closely to the official talking points.
FORMER NRA PRESIDENT:
YOU AREN’T BRIGHT ENOUGH TO GET IT
But none can top the rationalization offered by the NRA’s immediate past president John C.
Sigler in a statement to the “Fifty Caliber Institute,” of which he is president. Being forwarded to gun lists by at least some NRA board members,
it is entitled “Checkers, Chess or Politics a la Mister Spock? EXAMINING NRA’s
RESPONSE to DISCLOSE ACT” and covers the usual NRA semantics about not “supporting” HR 5175.
To Sigler’s credit, he accurately
relays the many free speech perils of the DISCLOSE Act – albeit expressing them as hazards to the NRA, when in reality they are hazards to all
political organizations. But the crux of Sigler’s rationalization seems to be that this is an “ three dimensional chess” game that you just
couldn’t be expected to understand:
“Before you criticize NRA for understanding that this isn’t your grandpa’s checker game or even your college dean’s chess game, you need to thank them for treating this as an extremely complex exercise more akin to Mister Spock’s three dimensional chess. A chess game [sic] demanding a very sophisticated and highly intellectual approach to the very serious problem at hand.”
That would be a “sophisticated and
highly intellectual approach” utterly beyond your capabilities, of course.
WHY SIGLER’S RATIONALIZATION DOESN’T CUT IT
The
“you don’t have the big picture” argument has been a staple of NRA responses to its membership for many years. Recognize it for what it is: A
weapon to shut you up.
The crux of the “three dimensional chess” argument is that the NRA is executing a “poison pill” amendment to
kill the bill, as it presumably did in adding language to the DC Voting Rights Act which would have gutted the District of Columbia’s draconian gun
laws.
But this is not a similarly “no risk” strategy: Only idiots would have failed to anticipate the response of pro-gun conservatives
to the NRA carve-out from HR 5175. LaPierre and Cox aren’t stupid enough to fail to recognize the damage it would cause the NRA.
PREVIOUS
NRA SELLOUTS
Nor do NRA leaders want you to remember their long history of compromising their principles. Chief among them was S. 1805, the first incarnation of the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.”
Introduced in 2003, S. 1805 was intended to stop cities and counties from suing gun makers out of business. First, a consent agreement by
Senator (and NRA Board member) Larry Craig enabled debate of a slate of gun control amendments to the bill, including a Boxer amendment for gun locks,
a Kennedy amendment for “cop killer” bullets, and a McCain-Reed amendment for gun show restrictions.
Yet even as a variety of anti-gun
amendments were hung on the bill, the NRA continued its support. Only under withering fire from a large coalition of state and national organizations
– a situation very much like today – did NRA LaPierre finally withdraw support from the bill.
State activists report many such
ideological compromises. In North Carolina, NRA lobbyist Nicole Palya allowed an entire gun show bill to be appended onto the NRA’s own gun
litigation bill, SB 680, touting the bill to members while carefully neglecting to
mention it would shut down most gun shows in the state. (For full details, see my Charlotte Observer column, “Strange Bedfellows and Guns.”
Why the NRA would accept gun control and
mislead its members in order to pass laws prohibiting gun suits already being thrown out of court I will leave to your imagination, noting only the
NRA’s 2003 “William B. Ruger Endowment,” and Ruger’s rather significant contributions to the NRA National Firearms Museum…
WHY IS
THE NRA DOING IT?
Says Sigler:
“Chris Cox and his staff have but one loyalty and that is to protect and defend the rights of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, and to position NRA so as to be an effective advocate for firearms freedom in America.”
Alas, not all would agree. My good
friend and former NRA-ILA Executive Director Neal Knox – who made the NRA the political juggernaut it is today – told me many times about NRA
consultants Ackerman-McQueen and the Mercury Group, about how he feared they
and Wayne LaPierre would bankrupt the organization.
When the NRA starting going awry, Neal spent many years trying to reform it. For his
trouble, NRA leadership ran a campaign – including “don’t vote for” ads in NRA magazines – to remove him from the board of directors.
What Neal identified is that unlike most organizations, where boards of directors command corporate officers, at the NRA it is the corporate
officers who command the board, making the NRA a large organization run, paradoxically, for the benefit of a small number of employees. As a perfect
example, Fox News today reported that NRA board members were only minimally informed of the organization’s deal-making on HR 5175.
Before
he died, I often told Neal he was wasting his time trying to reform the NRA – that his efforts would be better spent forming a new group to replace
it. Unfortunately, LaPierre, Cox & Co. seem bent on proving me right.
KEEP THE PRESSURE ON
In postponing the vote, Democrats
and the NRA just blinked. Keep the pressure on. Rather than calling general membership numbers, here are some numbers that go directly to NRA
officers. Let them know how you feel about having the world’s biggest gun rights organization betray the interests not only of its members, but of
gun owners everywhere. North Carolina residents should also call the politician who brokered the deal, Congressman Heath Shuler, at
Congressman Heath Shuler: 202- 225-6401. If possible, call on Monday, June 21 between the hours of 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM – but if you miss that
time, call regardless.
Ronald L. Schmeits, NRA President:
Home: 18 Private Rd #2001ST, Raton NM 87740, (575) 445-5836, (575) 445-2080
fax
Office: International Bank,200 S 2nd Street, Raton NM 87740-3908, (575) 445-2321
Charles L. Cunningham, Director, NRA-ILA Federal
Affairs:
4864 Oakcrest Drive, Fairfax VA 22030
703-352-3245, 202-651-2570
David A. Keene, NRA 1st Vice President:
5602
Dawes Ave, Alexandria VA 22311-1102, 703-671-5602
James W. Porter II, NRA 2nd Vice President:
215 21st St N # 1000, Birmingham AL
35203-3710, (205) 322-1744, Fax: 205.322.1750
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7UFU0WmDRg&feature=player_embedded
----------------------------------------------------------------
At 09:25 AM 6/20/2010,
Subject: Statement From NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox On H.R. 5175, The "DISCLOSE Act"
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:00:16
-0400
Click here to vote in this week's poll.
I appreciate the concerns
that some NRA members have raised regarding our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and
intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you'll allow me to provide the proper context.
The U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was a significant victory for free speech and the Constitution. The NRA filed a
strong brief in that case, which the Court specifically cited several times in its opinion. The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to reverse that victory
and that's why we told Congress we oppose it.
The NRA has never supported -- nor would we ever support -- any version of this bill. Those
who suggest otherwise are wrong.
The restrictions in this bill should not apply to anyone or to any organization. My job is to ensure they
don't apply to the NRA and our members. Without the NRA, the Second Amendment will be lost and I will do everything in my power to prevent that.
We believe that any restriction on political speech is repugnant. But some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a
First Amendment principle to protect other organizations. That's easy to say -- unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all
else, as I do.
The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second
Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. Nor do all groups fight all issues together. For example, we didn't support the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce when it backed amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens and we did not join the Chamber in its support of President
Obama's stimulus bill. And we've been in direct opposition when the Chamber has tried to restrict Second Amendment rights in publicly accessible
parking lots.
Rather than focusing on opposing this bill, some have encouraged people to blame the NRA for this Congress's unconstitutional
attack on free speech. That's a shame. If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from
you.
Statement From David Keene, NRA First
Vice-President On H.R. 5175, The
"DISCLOSE Act"
I have been an
NRA Board member for some years and currently serve as NRA's First Vice-President -- that you may know. What you may not know is that I have been in
the forefront of the fight against liberal attempts to tilt the political playing field their way for decades through what they like to call campaign
finance reform. This is a battle that began in the seventies when I put together the case that went to the United States Supreme Court known as
Buckley v. Valeo. I was a vocal opponent of the so-called McCain-Feingold "reforms" that shackled
groups like the NRA in recent years, and I have served as a First Amendment Fellow at Vanderbilt University's Freedom Forum.
I can assure you
that I would never countenance a "deal" of the sort you think the NRA made with Congress to further Democratic attempts to restrict political speech.
I consider such restrictions to be not only repugnant, but blatantly unconstitutional, an opinion shared by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne
LaPierre and Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris Cox.
The so-called "DISCLOSE ACT" is a horrible piece of legislation
designed to do exactly what you suggest. It would require advocacy groups to run a regulatory gauntlet designed to make it very difficult for many of
them to play the role for which they were formed and is both bad policy and flies in the face of recent Supreme Court decisions.
But I'm afraid
there's more . particularly how it would affect the NRA. When you think of the NRA you no doubt think mostly about the NRA's advocacy on Second
Amendment issues, but the NRA also provides training to its members, law enforcement and military personnel, works with states, counties and private
organizations to build ranges and runs competitive events such as those at Camp Perry in Ohio. Since Camp Perry is a military base, public monies go
into range development and federal funds go to training military and police personnel, the NRA would be classed with government contractors and TARP
recipients under the DISCLOSE ACT as originally written and effectively prohibited from engaging in any meaningful political activity.
In other
words, this act as originally written by anti-gun legislators like New York Senator Chuck Schumer would have silenced the NRA .which would have been
the death knell for the Second Amendment.
NRA has one major mission . to defend the right of its members and all Americans to Keep & Bear
Arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Therefore, the NRA served notice on Congress that since the act threatened our very existence, we were
prepared to do anything and everything that might be required to defeat it unless it was changed so that we could continue to represent the views of
our members in the public arena. The letter, sent on May 26, was public. The NRA did not engage in back room shenanigans, but told Congressional
leaders quite clearly that we would do whatever we needed to do to protect the rights of our members and our ability to defend the Second
Amendment.
Last week Democratic leadership in the House capitulated by agreeing to exempt the NRA from the act -- not in return for NRA support,
but to avoid a political war that might cost them even more seats this fall.
I have to tell you that I never thought the Democrats would agree to
this -- not because they have much regard for constitutional rights -- because I didn't believe their left wing would allow it. The events since
their capitulation convince me that their fear of NRA retaliation forced them to take steps that split their coalition and could easily doom the whole
bill.
Consider this: on Thursday night, California Senator Diane Feinstein, one of the most anti-Second Amendment members of the Senate,
announced that she wouldn't support the DISCLOSE ACT if it exempted the NRA. By Friday some two-dozen left wing activist groups that had previously
been pressing Congress to pass the bill announced that now they wanted it defeated.
The bottom line is that in refusing to risk its members'
rights and the very survival of the Second Amendment, the NRA has also made it less rather than more likely that support for this terrible legislation
will collapse and the free speech rights of every one of us will benefit.
We appreciate the concerns some NRA members have raised about our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE
Act." Unfortunately, the mainstream media and other critics of NRA's role in this process have misstated or misunderstood the facts. We'd like to
set the record straight.
We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the
contrary, we clearly stated NRA's strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter
sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).
Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has
consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun
owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members'
right to privacy and freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to
list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings -- even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let
this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.
The introduced version of the bill would also have prohibited
political speech by all federal government contractors. The NRA has contracts to provide critical firearm training for our Armed Forces and law
enforcement agencies throughout the country. The bill would have forced us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our
right to free political speech. We refused to let this Congress force us to make that choice.
We told Congress we opposed the bill.
Consequently, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on political speech. If that happens, we will not
be involved in final consideration of this bill in the House. If it doesn't, we will strongly oppose the bill.
Our position is based on
principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly
refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn't happen; instead, the
NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We
will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.
There are those who say the NRA should put the
Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That's easy to say -- unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above
all else, as we do.
The NRA is a non-partisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of
the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That's their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and
defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.
Today, the fate of the bill remains in doubt. The House floor debate has
repeatedly been postponed. Lawmakers and outside groups who once supported the bill, or took no position -- including the Brady Campaign -- have now
come out against it because of the announcement regarding NRA. The outcome in the Senate is even murkier, as anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
has announced her strong opposition to the proposed change.
No matter what may happen now, NRA members can be assured that protection of gun
owners' interests will remain NRA's top priority. Please check in regularly at www.NRAILA.org for the latest news on this issue.
=================
Subject: Threat to Free Speech
Lights a Fire in the Grassroots
Reply-To: "Gun Owners of America" <Gun_Owners_of_America@capwiz.mailmanager.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun
2010 17:43:06 -0400 (EDT)
Threat to Free Speech Lights a Fire in the Grassroots
-- Vote has been
temporarily postponed; keep up the heat!
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102,Springfield,
VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
www.gunowners.org
“[T]he NRA -- on whose board of directors I serve -- rather than holding steadfastly to its historic
principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a
political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for ‘neutrality’ from the legislation's requirements.”
-- NRA Director Cleta Mitchell, June 17, 2010
Thursday,
June 17, 2010
The above quote -- part of an editorial authored by NRA Director Cleta Mitchell -- ran in The Washington Post today.
Like Mitchell, bloggers and editorial writers around the country have
lit up the Internet with the story that we have been alerting you to over the past 48 hours. Here are just some of the headlines:
* “The
NRA sells out to Democrats on the First Amendment,” The Wall Street Journal
*
“Conservatives take on the NRA over deal on disclosure bill,” The Washington Post
*
“The National Rifle Association’s Excuse Holds No Water,” RedState.org
The
conservative movement (and to be honest, many liberal organizations as well) are coming together to loudly protest the DISCLOSE Act -- legislation that threatens to gag our ability to effectively hold individual congressmen
accountable in the days and weeks leading up to an election.
It is imperative that we continue hammering the Congress. But rather than cry
“uncle,” liberal Democrats are now trying to buy off more groups with an exemption for those that have at least 500,000 members (rather than the
higher threshold of one million, which would have applied to few groups other than the NRA).
Of course, how is the government going to know
how many members an organization has? According to the legislation, each organization will have to certify to a government commission how many members
they have. But what if the commission wants documentation; will the organization have to “disclose” the names of their members?
GOA, of
course, will never do this. Furthermore, you should know that your Gun Owners of America can NOT be bought off. We will continue opposing this bill on
principle, urging all gun groups to stick together in this fight. As we stated yesterday, we realize that: “We must all hang together, or we will
all hang separately.”
GOA applauds NRA Director Cleta Mitchell for the courageous stand she took today. ( You can read her editorial here .) We hope that the NRA leadership will heed her wisdom and take a stand against this
bill. If they don’t, we wouldn’t be surprised if NRA members start demanding a change in their leadership. After all, the NRA has engaged in many
good fights over the years, and it would be a shame to lose this VERY IMPORTANT battle because high-ranking staff led the NRA down the wrong path.
ACTION:
1. Please call your congressman today and urge him or her to
oppose HR 5175. We’ve asked you to send emails before, but now on the eve before the vote, it is crucial that the phones ring off the hook. If
they’re not ringing, they won’t be worried.
You can use the Talking Points below to call your Representative toll-free at
1-877-762-8762.
2. If you haven’t yet urged the NRA staff to change its position on HR 5175 and stand with Gun Owners of America, please
do so. NRA Director Cleta Mitchell was absolutely correct, and the NRA leadership should heed her wisdom. You can call the NRA at (800) 392-VOTE
(8683).
3. Please help Gun Owners of America to continue fighting for your rights. You can go to http://gunowners.org/contribute-to-goa.htm to help us alert as many people as possible to
the DISCLOSE Act threat.
----- Talking Points for contacting your Representative -----
1. I stand with Gun Owners of America in opposing the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175).
2. The Bill of Rights is clear in
saying that Congress has no authority to pass legislation like this. Just like the Second Amendment says our gun rights “shall not be infringed,”
the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”
3. The Supreme Court was right earlier this
year in the Citizens United case. Sen. John McCain -- the author of the Campaign Finance Reform law
(otherwise known as the Incumbent Protection Act) -- was wrong. Americans, and the groups they choose to associate with, should be able to criticize
Congress in the days and weeks leading up to an election WITHOUT BEING GAGGED OR FORCED TO JUMP THROUGH HOOPS that are mandated by
Congress.
Not interested any more? Unsubscribe