|To: Alabama Legislators
From: Eunie Smith, President Eagle Forum of Alabama
Apparently you have received misinformation regarding Eagle Forum’s position on an Article V Convention. Please read carefully Eagle Forum Board Member Andy Schlafly’s short statement following, forwarded to me on 5/3/15:
“I completely oppose an Article V Convention. It is a dangerous threat to our values and our Nation. Congress or judicial activism would likely require that the voting at such a convention be in proportion to population, and thereby dominated by liberal states. They would probably put a right to abortion and homosexual marriage into the Constitution, and repeal the Second Amendment. There is nothing good that can result from an Article V Convention, because Congress and the Courts will not feel restrained by a new amendment any more than they comply with existing text. Even proposing an Article V Convention has the harmful effect of devaluing the Constitution we cherish.
The original Constitutional Convention was made possible by rules of secrecy against media interference. That is impossible today, and thus the liberal media would obtain the result it wants. Pinning one’s hopes on an Article V Convention today is like a bankrupt man turning to gambling to solve his family’s financial problems. Hard work, in electing good people who defend our existing Constitution, is what is needed. The pie-in-the-sky, dangerous proposal of an Article V Convention should be rejected. (11/16/2014)”
Andrew L. Schlafly, Esq.
Proponents of a Constitutional Convention have insisted that a Convention could be limited to the one issue of a Balanced Budget. However, Yellowhammer quoted the House Sponsor as saying that the “Convention would be limited to a small set of issues….” Unfortunately, such limiting is wishful thinking because a convention once convened, is a law unto itself. All it takes is a majority proclaimed by the chairman of the Convention, and anything goes.
Join the largest national protest of Planned Parenthood this country has ever seen!
By now, you’ve most likely seen the undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood doctors callously discussing how to dismember aborted babies and sell their body parts for profit.
No one needs Planned Parenthood.
Not in our nation.
Not in our state and federal budgets.
And certainly not in our city of Birmingham.
That’s why you are invited to join Alabama citizens of compassion and conscience for the National Day of Protest against Planned Parenthood!
This protest will be one of HUNDREDS of events coast-to-coast on October 10, in cooperation with a coalition of more than 40 pro-life groups. It will be the largest national protest of Planned Parenthood this country has ever seen. You don’t want to miss it!
Mark your calendar and bring your friends — especially those who haven’t been out on the front lines like this before. Let’s be the truth tellers in this nation!
We may never have a better opportunity to strip Planned Parenthood of their massive $500 million taxpayer subsidy and expose the truth about this corrupt organization. Plan to attend today.
Bishop Emeritus David Foley
Diocese of Birmingham
Her Choice Birmingham
Abortion Recovery Alabama, with Mitch Kelley leading songs of worship.
Please forward this invite to all of your friends!
For more information on the national event, visit www.protestpp.com.
|“Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
To donate to Eagle Forum of Alabama, click one of the links below.
There is an email alert circulating regarding an internet sales tax bill asking people to make calls on it. This is an alert we sent out LAST year during the legislative session. There is NOT a bill introduced on the internet sales tax this year and it is not possible to use it to close the shortfall in the general fund budget. If you have any questions, please call or email our Exec. Dir. Brooklyn Roberts at 205-441-9879 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Last year, we commended the Alabama legislature for having passed the toughest anti-illegal immigration law in the United States. Now the trick is to keep it that way. The law has already been partially upheld in federal court, so we’re off to a good start, but we recognize that some tweaks may be necessary. We are currently evaluating the proposal by the original bill’s sponsor, Rep. Micky Hammon. Keeping in mind that we still have questions that need to be answered and expert opinions to consider, we have several initial thoughts.
First, we are concerned about the sheer number of changes that are made. The new version of the bill looks a lot different from the original version and we are worried the courts will think so too. In fact, 22 of the 34 sections in the bill are changed–that’s a full two-thirds of the legislation. Specifically, we’re worried the 11th Circuit might decide not to hear the current case since the bill they are now evaluating would no longer exist in that form. This would mean we would have to start the entire legal process over again, and it could take years before we get closure on the law.
Our second concern is that a lot of the provisions being tweaked have already been upheld by the courts. For example, HB56 requires a law enforcement officer during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest to conduct an immigration status check of individuals if the officer reasonably suspects the individual is illegally in the United States. (SeeH.B. 658, p.37; Ala. Code § 31-13-12). HB658 limits the requirement to conduct immigration status checks to only situations where an individual is arrested or issued a traffic ticket. It expressly allows for immigration status checks of the passengers in a car, if the driver has been arrested or issued a traffic ticket. (H.B. 658, p.37) The original provision was not enjoined by the court in the current lawsuit and we question the need for changes.
Finally, check out the analysis below prepared by the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform. Please take a few minutes to review their assessment of the changes. We share their concerns that many of these changes weaken the legislation.
SOPA a.k.a. the Stop Online Piracy Act is the first step to letting the federal government censor the internet. As we said here, SOPA is dangerous. It will, for the first time ever, require private companies like Google, Mozilla, Facebook, Twitter, and others to censor internet content. The bill requires social networking sites and search engines to block content that the entertainment industry decides “facilitates online piracy or copyright infringement.”
In its original version it would have also:
- Made social networking sites such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter responsible for content posted by their users.
- Banned links to sites that are deemed offending even in search results
- Mandated the use of deep packet inspection by ISPs to watch all traffic of all users.
Some of these controversial provisions were taken out in committee. But the changes don’t go far enough to negate the censorship concern.
James Gattuso gives the clearest description of what the legislation is authorizing in his WebMemo for the Heritage Foundation:
As it is currently drafted, this is how SOPA would work: First, it allows the U.S. Attorney General, as well as individual intellectual property holders, to sue allegedly infringing sites in court. The site would have to be proven to be a foreign site “directed towards” the U.S. and that it would be subject to seizure if it were U.S.-based. Alternatively, a suit could be brought by a private plaintiff, who would have to show that the site is “dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” That test, in turn, can be met if the site or a portion of the site is “primarily” designed, operated, or marketed to “enable or facilitate” infringement. The bill requires that attempts be made to notify the website operator of any such legal action, but legal proceedings would go forward even if no response is received.
If the court finds in favor of the plaintiff, a range of third-party restrictions would go into effect. Specifically, in cases brought by the Attorney General, to the extent “technically feasible and reasonable,” a court order would:
- Require Internet service providers to prevent subscribers from reaching the website in question. This would be done by severing the mechanism by which the domain name entered by Web users is connected (“resolved”) to the proper IP address;
- Prohibit search engines such as Google from providing direct links to the foreign website in search results;
- Prohibit payment network providers, such as PayPal or credit card firms, from completing financial transactions affecting the site; and
- Bar Internet advertising firms from placing online ads from or to the affected website.
In cases brought by a private party, only the restrictions on payment networks and advertising firms would apply.
One particular controversial provision that would have allowed intellectual property holders to trigger the above described third party restrictions based on their own unilateral determination that a site was violating their property rights was taken out. Now, as noted above, intellectual property holders will have to get a court order to trigger these restrictions. Gattuso lists several other concerns with the current version. While this is better, it is not good enough.
When considering regulations, we must look at the potential benefit vs the cost. The risk of starting a slippery slope with this legislation is too great. More importantly, there are other ways we can address the problem and achieve the same result–see the Wyden/Issa proposal.
Bottom line: SOPA is a huge risk and even with improvements it still has the potential to bring federal censorship of the internet to a whole new level.
Representatives Robert Aderholt, Jo Bonner and Mo Brooks recently wrote Secretary of Education Arne Duncan asking him to stop tying federal waivers and grant opportunities to the adoption of CCSI. They said in part:
“We are aware that the Common Core Standards developed by the National Governors Association in conjunction with the Chief State School Officers are meant to be just that: standards. However, the inclusion of ‘illustrative texts’ pushes these standards dangerously close to being a national curriculum. As you are aware, it is currently a violation of federal law to adopt a national curriculum.”
“We believe states should be allowed the freedom to adopt their own high quality standards, a rigorous curriculum to meet these standards, and strict assessments to evaluate students’ progress.”
You can download a full copy of the letter by clicking here.
I’ve written before about the danger of net neutrality and its threat to free speech. Unfortunately, last December the FCC passed new net neutrality regulations despite significant opposition. A little over a week ago the FCC finally published the new rules in the Federal Register starting a 60 day comment period before they become law on November 20. It is imperative that we keep this from happening.
The House has passed a resolution (H.J.R. 37) that will nullify the new regulations. The Senate has 51 days left to act. They must pass the joint resolution and get it to President Obama’s desk. Opposition to net neutrality is bipartisan and will put a lot of pressure on the President to sign.
So what can you do?