In Freedom’s Cause

Written by Selwyn Duke
Tuesday, 08 July 2008 09:41
Source: John Birch Society

On Tuesday, July 1, a Texas grand jury refused to indict Joe Horn, the Texan who killed two illegal aliens who were fleeing a robbery.

The story began on November 14, 2007, when Joe Horn witnessed two men robbing a neighbor’s house. Like any good citizen, the 61-year-old grandfather called 911, but he also did something else — he fetched his shotgun. While the emergency operator implored Horn not to confront the burglars, the Pasadena, Tex., resident made a decision. Here is a partial transcript of the 911 call:

Horn: They’re getting away!
Dispatcher: That’s all right. Property’s not worth killing someone over, OK?
Dispatcher: Don’t go out the house. Don’t be shooting nobody. I know you’re p***** and you’re frustrated, but don’t do it.
Horn: They got a bag of loot.
Dispatcher: OK. How big is the bag . . . which way are they going
Horn: I’m going outside. I’ll find out.
Dispatcher: I don’t want you going outside, Mr. Horn.
Horn: Well, here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going.

What happened next isn’t entirely clear. We know the two burglars – Diego Ortiz and Hernando Riascos Torres, both unemployed illegal aliens (Torres had already been convicted on cocaine charges and deported, but I suppose his trade is more lucrative in the U.S.) from Columbia who were fleeing with about $2000-worth of loot – did not yield. In dispute, however, is whether Horn had reason to feel threatened and consequently use deadly force.

An action such as Horn’s seems an anachronism in our bystander-apathy, go-by-the-book world. It has created a maelstrom of controversy, with some hailing the Texan as a Charles Bronson vigilante hero and others hating him for taking the law into his own hands. Many agree with the dispatcher – you don’t shoot people over property.

Not many decent folks feel good after killing other human beings. It’s something one would do out of necessity, much like amputating a gangrenous limb; you know the condition will spread if not checked, but, still, you regret that something originally meant to be good must be lost.

Whenever I hear of a situation such as Horn’s, I usually side with the homeowner. My preference would be to hold the perpetrators for authorities or wound them (it’s hard to miss legs with a shotgun), but it’s easy being an armchair quarterback. Adrenaline is pumping in such a circumstance and, as Horn himself said, “You lose track of time,” — it’s real life, not a movie. It’s like shootings involving our troops in Iraq or police officers in that I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to the “good guys” every time.

Some say the difference is that Horn isn’t a cop; he should have left such matters to the professionals. It’s that ever-more-common injunction to “not get involved.” But is this what America was built on? Is it what we’ve degenerated to? Whatever you think of Horn’s case, leaving things to the “professionals” – be it education, health, charity or thwarting evil – is a recipe for societal decline. The best of lands have proactive citizens, not passive ones. Horn didn’t create this situation by getting involved in justice; the two thugs did by getting involved in crime. If you lose your life during the commission of illegality, the fault lies with only one person: you.

The notion that the only thing at stake during the incident was property has been heard before, and it’s a good example of a failure to look beyond the moment. To use a variation on a Frederic Bastiat line: a fool considers only what can be seen; a wise man considers what can be seen and what must be foreseen.

In a case such as Horn’s, seen is that two criminals who attempted to steal property are dead. But what must be foreseen?

When robbers successfully steal, they seldom retire to lives of sweetness and light; they usually become bolder and persist in their wicked ways. They victimize more people and sometimes innocents are hurt and/or killed. We can’t be sure that Ortiz and Torres would have thus devolved; one can never know about individuals. Certainly in general, when criminals are stopped – whether by steel handcuffs or lead bullets – innocent life and limb are saved. When they aren’t thwarted – whether due to fecklessness or fearfulness – lives that could have been saved are lost.

Our “cower first, slap on the wrist later” attitude, along with other permissive elements in our society, creates an atmosphere where the risk/reward factor starts to favor lawbreakers, sending the message that crime actually does pay. This causes crime to proliferate, as there’s an inverse relationship between the risk an activity entails and the number of people who will engage in it. Those without moral constraints militating against criminal impulses must fear the consequences of indulging them. As that group becomes less fearful of consequences, they become more indulgent of impulses.
Whatever your position on the Horns of the world, it shouldn’t be based on the notion that “only property” is at stake. That’s akin to saying that a cancerous organ shouldn’t be removed because a body part is more important than cancer cells.

May the Lord have mercy on the souls of Ortiz and Torres. I’ll save my tears, however, for the innocents who die every day because we have mistaken permissiveness for compassion.

(Continued from Part I)
For the record, I have contacted the NYS attorney general with the following email:

Comments:
Please forgive the apparently “dumb
question”, but I am trying to find a law
and have not yet found it. The site I
searched was:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

I am looking for the law requiring a
license to drive and found nothing.
Only laws mentioned are for commercial
vehicles and modified vehicles for road
use. They make mention of class d
license and just say it is valid for use

in a passenger car, under a certain
weight, etc., but never say a license is
required for a passenger car. Could you
point me to the exact law, title,
article, etc., that states that a
license is required for a

non-commercially operated automobile, in
New York State. Thank you.

Again, I hope this is not looked at as a
joke or disingenuous. I truly cannot
find where the law is. Thanks again.

---

His response was in the form of a letter, as seen below:

I will keep posting my findings here in the future.

Driving without a license sounds like a bad thing, right? Check the laws because it’s not as bad as you think. In fact, there is no law to be found that restricts it, assuming you were not driving for commercial purposes and the vehicle is just a regular automobile, not a taxi cab, 18-wheeler, or off-road type of automobile.

How do you look up these laws? A website called findlaw.com can help you find the laws for your state. As for New York State, my home-turf, no law says any license is required for driving a typical automobile.

By clicking the above “New York State” link, you’ll see a row called “Driving without a license/With a suspended license”. The link associated with it takes you to http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/, a site that lists the laws of New York State. The category called “VAT” (Vehicle and Traffic) takes you to the laws for driving.

Valid But Not Required

Article 19, Section 501 starts by talking about different licenses and what they are valid for. The typical class for an average person who travels for moving himself from point A to point B, is a CLASS D. The law says this about a class D:

(iv) Class D. Such license shall be valid to operate any passenger or
limited use automobile or any truck with a GVWR of not more than
twenty-six thousand pounds or any such vehicle towing a vehicle with a
GVWR of not more than ten thousand pounds, or any such vehicle towing
another vehicle with a GVWR of more than ten thousand pounds provided
such combination of vehicles has a GCWR of not more than twenty-six
thousand pounds, or any personal use vehicle with a GVWR of not more
than twenty-six thousand pounds or any such vehicle towing a vehicle
with a GVWR of not more than ten thousand pounds, except it shall not be
valid to operate a tractor, a motorcycle other than a class B or C
limited use motorcycle, a vehicle used to transport passengers for hire
or for which a hazardous materials endorsement is required, or a vehicle
defined as a bus in subdivision one of section five hundred nine-a of
this title.

So it is valid but never says it’s required. If it is valid, that just means it satisfies the standards for licenses found in Section 502. It is referring to the license, not the person driving. This is not just a technicality, as I thought at first.

Some Licenses Are Required

All classes down to class MJ say that licenses are valid. Below that, it begins to mention licenses that are required. For what are licenses required? Here’s the list:

1. To operate double and triple trailers
2. To transport hazardous material
3. To operate a tank vehicle
4. To operate a bus
5. To operate a farm vehicle
6. To operate a personal use vehicle
7. To operate a tow truck
8. To operate a commercial motor vehicle
9. To operate a school bus

Number 6 says a personal use vehicle, but don’t mistake that for a car. Under definitions in Section 501-A , a personal use vehicle is defined as:

8. Personal use vehicle. A vehicle constructed or altered to be used
for recreational purposes which is exclusively used to transport family
members and/or personal possessions of such family members for
non-business recreational purposes by the operator, or a rental truck
which is exclusively used to transport personal possessions of the
person who has rented the truck for non-business purposes.

This is obviously not a car that most people drive. That is more like an RV, camper, U-Haul, or some type of moving vehicle.

Section 509, Violations

Under Section 509 (violations), it says that nobody can operate a motor vehicle without being duly licensed “pursuant to the provisions of this chapter”. What does that chapter say? Every section says “whenever a license is required“. Again, licenses are not required for operating your average car. A class D is valid for it, but not required.

2. Whenever a license is required to operate a motor vehicle, no
person shall operate a motor vehicle unless he is the holder of a class
of license which is valid for the operation of such vehicle.

If driving a commercial vehicle, it is required, as stated here:

7. No person shall operate a commercial motor vehicle without being in
possession of the appropriate license for the motor vehicle being
operated.

So Now What?

If you are ticketed for driving without a license, ask for the exact law (article, chapter, and section) that was violated, that explicitly states that a license is required for driving your particular automobile. Some states may have that law, but as far as New York law is concerned… the law is missing.

Part Two

WND Exclusive INVASION USA
Unemployment plummets after crackdown on illegals
Lawmaker: Oklahoma no longer ‘OK’ for undocumented aliens
Posted: April 25, 2008
12:10 am Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Unemployment rates are rising across the United States, except Oklahoma. That state is experiencing the most dramatic reduction in unemployment since 2007, an improvement many in Oklahoma attribute to the passage last year by the state legislature of a strong employment-focused immigration reform law.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday reported unemployment in Oklahoma had fallen to 3.1 percent in March, down from 4 percent in March last year, while unemployment nationwide was 5.1 percent, up from 4.4 percent in March last year.

“Oklahoma is no longer ‘OK’ for illegal aliens,” said State Rep. Randy Terrill, who sponsored House Bill 1804 which passed by overwhelming majorities last year in both the House (84-14) and Senate (41-6) of the Oklahoma Legislature.

“The bottom line is illegal aliens will not come here if there are no jobs waiting for them,” Terrill said. “They will not stay here if there is no government subsidy, and they certainly won’t stay here if they know that if they ever encounter our state and local law enforcement officers, they will be physically detained until they are deported.”

House Bill 1804, the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, has been characterized by USA Today as “arguably the nation’s toughest state law targeting illegal immigration.”

The Oklahoma law imposes strict penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, makes it a felony to transport or shelter illegal immigrants, forbids the state to issue drivers licenses or pay social welfare benefits to illegal aliens or their families, and empowers state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws.

Last month, the Oklahoma Bankers Association threatened Oklahoma would lose about $1.8 billion annually in productivity and wages, largely because House Bill 1804, which went into effect in November last year, will force an estimated 50,000 illegal immigrants to leave the state.

The group based the conclusions on a study done by economists Russell Evans and Kyle Dean of the Oklahoma-based Economic Impact Group that estimated as many as 70,000 illegal immigrants were living in Oklahoma when the legislation was passed.

Proponents of the law would counter that forcing illegal aliens to leave Oklahoma was precisely the intended effect of the bill.

“The next question to ask would be whether citizens have taken jobs that illegals used to do,” observed blogger Tom Blumer. “Though the lower unemployment rate doesn’t in and of itself prove that, it does point strongly in that direction.”

“Will anyone in Old Media dig more deeply into the Sooner State’s situation?” Blumer wondered. “Or will they try to pretend that Oklahoma’s improvement doesn’t exist, because finding out why might expose some inconvenient truths, and hurt the cause of illegal-immigrant ‘amnesty.’”

Source: CBS4 Miami

MIAMI (CBS4) ? If you are the parent of a young girl you most likely have heard of a
first of its kind vaccine named GARDASIL, developed to protect against
the viruses which can cause cervical cancer.

The FDA’s approval of the vaccine triggered efforts in Florida and
across the nation to mandate its use for 11 and 12 year old girls. CBS4
Chief Investigative Reporter Michele Gillen has learned there is an
increasing concern over the use of the vaccine.

Christina Bell’s daughter, Brittney, was one of the young girls who
recieved the vaccine. Just weeks later, her life took a radical turn
for the worse.

Seemingly, in a moment’s time, Brittney’s left leg became paralyzed,
her ankle swinging like a rag doll’s. Even with a shoe brace, she
walks with a limp.

“It’s hard for me to lift it up,” Brittney told Gillen.

Brittney’s limb paralysis occurred shortly after the 12 year old went
to the doctor for a routine tetanus shot for school. That is when Bell
says the doctor suggested Brittney also have the GARDASIL vaccine on
the same day. And she did.

GARDASIL is a first-of-its-kind vaccine approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) for girls as young as nine. The vaccine is
profiled on the FDA website with the headline, “New vaccine prevents
cervical cancer.”

In trials, the vaccine was shown to prevent pre-cancerous lesions due
to certain types of Human Papillomavirus (HPV).

In searching for answers as to why her daughter now suffers from a limb
paralysis, Christina Bell says she couldn’t shake the idea that it
might somehow be tied to the HPV vaccine. She hasn’t found a doctor to
agree with her, including the pediatrician who recommended the shot.

“He doesn’t believe it has anything to do with the shot at all,” said
Bell.

She says he stopped returning her calls. When the CBS4 I-Team tried
calling him, he didn’t return the calls.

Bell began to research the vaccine herself and what she found startled
her - government-compiled reports, filed from around the country, of
adverse events that occurred sometimes within hours, other times within
weeks, of a GARDASIL vaccination.

While they don’t prove a link, they do document that in some cases an
adverse event occurred following an injection. These types of events
have been reported to VAERS, a federal vaccine reporting system.

“[We've seen reports of] paralysis, convulsions, seizures in young
girls. It’s very, very, scary and very unfortunate,” said Irene Garcia,
spokesperson for Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group that
obtained the VAERS records from the FDA through the Freedom of
Information Act and posted them on the Internet.

When the data was finally released, Garcia said she felt outraged.

“It was outrage because all that I had seen publicly in the media and
on television and from pediatricians was positive,” said Garcia.

Last February, the FDA told CBS4 that it was investigating reports of
13 deaths following an HPV vaccination. At the time, the agency said
it was confident that none were tied to the vaccine and that reports of
adverse events were under review but not considered anything out of the
ordinary.

An FDA spokeswoman told CBS4 this week that she could not provide an
update on the number of reported events, including deaths.

“I haven’t seen updated numbers for several months. We monitor on a
daily basis but we don’t total it up. We are not seeing a problem,”
said Susan Cruzan, spokesperson for the FDA.

In some states across the U.S., it is mandatory to report a suspected
reaction to VAERS. But in others, it isn’t.

“It varies by state and there is no blanket federal law,
unfortunately,” said Garcia.

Brittney’s mom said she can’t find a doctor willing to report an
adverse reaction following the administration of her daughter’s
vaccines. CBS4 informed her that parents, just like doctors, can report
an adverse event and the Bell family has done just that.

“It might always be that people will say you can’t prove that this is
linked,” Gillen told Bell.

“I am still going to speak and tell everybody what I think. I tell
everybody,” replied Bell.
“What do I want today? I want my daughter back to normal,” said Bell.

In a response to this report Merck, which makes the GARDASIL vaccine,
issued the following statement:

Merck actively monitors adverse event databases throughout the world,
including the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). An
event report does not mean that a causal relationship between an event
and vaccination has been established - just that the event occurred
after vaccination.

The labeling for GARDASIL reflects the extensive data available from
our clinical trials. The data, including safety information, have been
thoroughly reviewed and discussed by medical experts.

Since its FDA approval in June 2006 through March 31, 2008, Merck has
distributed more than 26 million doses of GARDASIL worldwide.

Merck will continue to evaluate all reports in the context of our own
post-marketing adverse experience database and our clinical trial
database. Post-marketing adverse event reports received by the Company
are sent to regulatory authorities worldwide in accordance with
regulatory requirements, and Merck updates its product labels with new
safety information as appropriate.

Merck encourages healthcare providers and consumers to report any
potential adverse experiences following vaccination with GARDASIL to
the Company and to adverse event reporting systems.

Article published Apr 11, 2008
Source: Washington Times

April 11, 2008

By Jim McElhatton and Jerry Seper - Two of Sen. John McCain’s top advisers and fundraisers are among several Republican and Democratic presidential campaign officials whose lobbying firms have been paid more than $15 million by foreign governments since 2005.

The firms of McCain senior adviser Charlie Black, who until recently was the chairman of Washington-based BKSH & Associates, and campaign co-chairman Thomas G. Loeffler, who heads the Loeffler Group in San Antonio, received millions of dollars lobbying the White House, Congress and others as agents of nearly a dozen foreign clients in recent years.

“At no time have I discussed my clients with John McCain, and there have been many occasions where he has voted against my clients’ interests, but that doesn’t change my belief that John McCain is the best candidate to lead our nation,” said Mr. Loeffler, a former Texas congressman, whose firm has received millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia.

The arrangements are legal, and hundreds of lobbyists are registered to work for foreign clients. But experts say conflict-of-interest questions can arise if lobbying and campaign activities overlap.

“I’m not sure it’s a good idea that one person plays all these roles,” said Toni-Michelle C. Travis, a political analyst and professor of government at George Mason University. “The entanglements become greater and greater, and that can lead to conflict-of-interest questions at some point.

“People are slipping across the lines to play multiple roles.”

Mark Penn, former top strategist to Democratic candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, recently resigned after consulting on a Colombian trade agreement that Mrs. Clinton opposed. Mr. Penn is chief executive of Washington-based Burson-Marsteller, which has lobbied for the Pakistan Peoples Party, the Colombian Embassy and the Mexico Tourism Board.

In addition, the Glover Park Group where top Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson previously worked, received more than $170,000 last year from the Colombian trade bureau and $250,000 from Dubai Aerospace Enterprises Ltd.

Clinton bundler John Merrigan is registered to lobby foreign governments at DLA Piper, which during a six-month span last year reported more than $2.8 million in fees from foreign entities. In addition, former New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli, another Clinton bundler, signed off on a $15,000 per-month lobbying deal last year with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, Taiwan’s office in the U.S.

The lobbying efforts by New Jersey-based Rosemont Associates, where Mr. Torricelli is managing partner, included e-mails and a meeting with Mrs. Clinton’s Senate staff in November, at a time when Mr. Torricelli was raising money for the Clinton presidential campaign, records show. Telephone and e-mail messages left with Mr. Torricelli and the Clinton campaign were not returned yesterday.

In the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, fundraiser William T. Lake and adviser Stanford Ross were registered as a foreign lobbyists in the 1990s, according to Justice Department records.

China takeover

Mr. Black, who chaired BKSH when it received more than $700,000 in fees from foreign entities since 2005, also signed a deal to lobby for the China National Offshore Oil Corp., a state-owned firm that backed out of an $18.5 billion takeover of U.S. oil producer Unocal amid sharp congressional opposition.

In 2005, the House passed a resolution 398-15 calling for a thorough review of the deal and lawmakers from both parties said the prospect of a Chinese state-owned energy company in charge of a U.S. oil producer posed a national security threat.

Mr. Black said he wasn’t working on any campaigns at the time, but he added that he has a personal rule against giving advice to Mr. McCain on any issues in which he has been a lobbyist: “If an issue comes up, I don’t participate in the discussion.”

Saying he resigned from BKSH to spend more time on the McCain campaign, Mr. Black said Mr. McCain is not influenced by lobbyists, including those who have worked or raised money for his campaign.

Mr. Loeffler’s firm has received more than $10 million since 2006 from the Saudi Embassy and the Ministry of Commerce & Industry of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Just two months ago, the firm also signed an agreement with the South Korean Embassy to consult on “legislation affecting Korea’s foreign military sales status and related matters.”

Since 2005, the firm reported more than $11 million in fees from foreign lobbying clients.

Legislation pending in the House and Senate would make it easier for South Korea to buy weapons from U.S. companies. The Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Christopher S. Bond, Missouri Republican, has not come up for a vote.

Lorenzo Morris, chairman of the political science department at Howard University, said Mr. McCain can expect some scrutiny in the general election over ties to lobbyists given his reputation as an anti-special interest candidate.

“John McCain has a reputation about being scrupulous since he is the co-author of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law,” Mr. Morris said. But he added that it is also probably unrealistic to expect a candidate to run a campaign without some help from people who work in the lobbying industry.

“K Street takes up a lot of Washington,” Mr. Morris said.

Other bundlers

Other McCain campaign bundlers, who have committed to raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for the candidate, also have received lobbying fees from foreign governments. They include the following:

c Peter T. Madigan, a former top official in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who is a top lobbyist for the Washington-based firm of Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart.

The firm, whose clients include the Colombian government’s trade bureau, reported more than $1 million in fees from foreign clients since 2006.

c Kirk Blalock, national chairman for Young Professionals for McCain, who is a partner at Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock, a government consulting and public relations firm established in 1978 and described by Fortune Magazine as the “hottest lobbying firm on Capitol Hill.”

Mr. Blalock’s firm has received at least $700,000 since 2005 lobbying for clients, including Peru, Vietnam and the Korean International Trade Association. The firm also signed a deal to lobby Congress and the White House for “enhancement of the Bahrain free trade agreement,” records show.

c Rob Allyn, head of the Dallas-based Allyn & Co., a public relations, advertising and political media firm, who was paid $720,000 by the Mexican government in 2006 to polish its image and call for a guest worker program for millions of Mexican nationals illegally in the United States.

The lobbying efforts came at a time Congress and the White House were debating comprehensive immigration-reform legislation, which was defeated in June. Then-President Vicente Fox was an outspoken critic of the proposed legislation.

Mr. Black and Mr. Loeffler also are listed by Mr. McCain’s campaign Web site as bundlers, expected to collect thousands of dollars in donations from several sources to bypass federal election laws limiting individual contributors to a $2,300 maximum donation.

Although bundlers for Mr. Obama who have raised more than $50,000 and those for Mrs. Clinton who have raised at least $100,000 are identified, how much each of the McCain bundlers has raised is not listed.

Source: Judicial Watch

“Sir Elton John is not a citizen of the United States and is therefore prohibited from making any contribution to Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign.”

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) related to a fundraising concert by musician Sir Elton John on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Elton John, a foreign national, is prohibited by federal law from making any contribution to a federal, state or local election campaign.

“Recent news reports suggest that Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton for President have accepted an in-kind contribution from a foreign national, Sir Elton John, in contravention of federal electon laws,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated in an April 14 letter to the Office of the General Counsel for the FEC. “On behalf of Judicial Watch and its supporters, I hereby request that the FEC investigate this matter.”

According to a press release issued by the Clinton campaign, the expressed intent of the concert was to raise funds for Hillary’s campaign for president. In the release, Elton John is quoted as saying, “I’m excited to support Hillary by performing at what will be a truly memorable night.”

Press reports also show that Sir Elton John, on March 17, 2008, through the Clinton campaign, sent out a mass email announcing the concert and soliciting support. The Elton John concert took place on April 9, 2008 and raised more than $2.5 million (from the sale of 5,000 tickets) for Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton for President.

However, according to 2 U.S.C. § 441e, “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals,” it is illegal for any foreign national to “make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value…in connection with a Federal, State or local election.” The Washington Times reported March 27, 2008, that a “1981 FEC decision prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a U.S. Senate campaign.”

“It looks as if Elton John, a foreign national, gave a valuable, in-kind contribution to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, which is prohibited by law. The FEC and other authorities need to take appropriate action and investigate Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and Elton John,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

By JudicialWatchWeb
Created 24 Apr 2008 - 13:53

Subhead:
McCain Campaign May Have Accepted In-Kind Contribution from Foreign Nationals in Contravention of Federal Election Laws
Location:
Washington, D.C.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a formal complaint, dated April 22, 2008, with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) related to a fundraising luncheon held at London’s Spencer House to benefit Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign. The venue for the event was apparently donated to the campaign by foreign nationals, in violation of federal campaign finance laws.

“Recent news reports suggest that Sen. John McCain and John McCain for President may have accepted an in-kind contribution from foreign nationals Lord Rothschild OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel Rothschild of Great Britain in contravention of federal election laws,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton wrote in a complaint letter dated April 22, 2008. “On behalf of Judicial Watch and its supporters, I hereby request that the FEC investigate the matter.”

The McCain fundraiser was held on March 20, 2008 at London’s Spencer House, billed as “London’s most magnificent 18th century private palace.” The McCain campaign distributed an invitation indicating that the site for the luncheon had been provided “by kind permission of Lord Rothschild, OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel Rothschild,” who are both foreign nationals. In statements to the press, the McCain campaign referred to the luncheon as a “fundraiser.”

While it is, as yet, unclear how much money was raised during the luncheon, had the venue not been donated to the McCain campaign, the net profit from the event would have been significantly reduced. The donation of the venue, therefore, represents an illegal in-kind campaign contribution.

According to 2 U.S.C. § 441e, Contributions and donations by foreign nationals, it is illegal for any foreign national to “make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” to a Federal, State or Local election. (Judicial Watch filed a similar complaint on April 14, 2008, concerning a fundraiser by Elton John for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.)

“The Clinton campaign recently accepted an in-kind contribution in the form of a fundraising concert by Elton John. And now the McCain campaign has apparently run afoul of federal election laws with this foreign fundraiser. The FEC must treat these incidents seriously, and hold any campaign that accepts contributions from foreign nationals accountable. We cannot allow these presidential campaigns to play fast and loose with the law,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

To read Judicial Watch’s FEC complaint in its entirety, please click here [1].

April 24, 2008

###

DENVER ABC NEWS Source

Listen to the actual clip from Rush Limbaugh where he incites riots. Alex Jones throws out an interesting unknown fact about Rush Limbaugh at the end of this clip, so listen to the entire 4 minutes and 15 seconds.

right-click to download: rush calls for riots

“…the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention, and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”