Nevada Families.org
July 2006 - Newsletter

Nevada Families Eagle Forum

Your annual support is very important.

Your annual support for our Subscription Renewal drive is very important to us. It is always difficult to raise sufficient funds to keep Nevada Families/Eagle Forum operating. All of our funds come from your free-will gifts at subscription renewal time and throughout the year. Your support is essential to our continued efforts. Thank you! Janine Hansen

Nevada Families Voter Guide Coming for the General Election

We are in the process of preparing the Nevada Families Voter Guide. In 2004, we distributed 50,000 Voter Guides statewide. Nevada Families has published the Voter Guide every general election since 1988. We include information on all US Senate, Congressional, Statewide, State Senate, Assembly, County Commissioners, County Sheriffs, and State and Local School Boards. We also make recommendations on Statewide ballot issues. In addition to publishing the Voter Guide we will be placing all this information on our website www.nevadafamilies.org

Just the printing of the 50,000 Voter Guides cost over $10,000 not to mention the cost of mailing some 11,000 copies and distributing the remainder. We hope you will sign up on the enclosed form to distribute Voter Guides for the General Election to your family, friends, neighborhood, church, business or club. We can’t do it without your donations or your help in distributing the Voter Guides.

Some Primary Election Candidate Comparisons

More information will be available on the website www.nevadafamilies.org

Governor--Republican Primary

State Senator Bob Beers is the initiator and champion of the Tax and Spending Control for Nevada (TASC) petition, which will be on the ballot in November. He has publicly supported Protection of Marriage (to keep marriage only between a man and a woman). While in the Assembly in 2003 he was one of the brave 14 who voted against the largest tax increase in Nevada history. He also supports the important Eminent Domain petition to protect private property. In 2003, he voted against allowing the Mexican Matricula Consular to be used as ID, an important vote to control illegal immigration.

Melody Damayo is a porn star.

Congressman Jim Gibbons has publicly expressed his Pro-Choice position. While a Nevada Assemblyman in the 1990’s he voted to legalize Sodomy. He recently, while under pressure, voted for a federal Protection of Marriage amendment. His anti-tax petition to require a 2/3^rds vote in the Legislature to pass any tax was first really tested in 2003 when the Legislature passed the largest tax increase in history. Just 15 out of 42 Assemblymen could have stopped the increase. His wife Dawn Gibbons was one of the Republicans that voted to increase the taxes. Gibbons has not indicated support for the Eminent Domain petition. Americans for Better Immigration give Gibbons a C+ http://grades.betterimmigration.com/ on illegal immigration issues.

Lt Governor Lorraine T. Hunt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorraine_Hunt is the owner of The Bootlegger Bistro, a nightclub long popular with Las Vegas locals and showroom performers. Hunt is herself a singer, and often performs at the restaurant. As lieutenant governor, Hunt has focused primarily on tourism and economic development related policies. In all of Hunt’s campaigns she has never responded to our candidate questionnaires, which should tell you something about where she stands.

Jim Gibson is the mayor of Henderson. Jim Gibson told the Reno Gazette Journal Oct. 22, 2005 on the abortion issue: "I'm never going to be putting myself in a position where the things I really think and believe are at odds with what we enact. So I believe that abortion is an alternative in the circumstances I described (incest, rape or if the life of the mother was in danger), and that would be the kind of legislation -- if it ever came to that; I don't even imagine it will -- that's the position I would take." He is pushing an embryonic stem cell research center in Nevada. He has been dubbed the "flaming let all the illegals in candidate." He is actively courting the Hispanic vote.

State Senator Dina Titus is the Democrat minority leader in the State Senate. She is pro-Choice and she has never supported the Protection of Marriage (marriage only between a man and woman). She has been very supportive of petition rights in the Election Committee in the Nevada Legislature. She voted in 2003 to allow the Mexican Matricula Consular to be used to obtain a driver’s license in Nevada. She does support the Eminent Domain petition.

Leola McConnell bills herself as a liberal Democrat. She wants to work to overturn Nevada’s Protection of Marriage Constitutional Amendment. She says on her website, "I will never comply with any federal legislation that criminalizes Latinos in Nevada." She opposes the Iraq war and is concerned about domestic spying by the Government.

US Congress Dist. 2—Republican Primary

Assemblywoman Sharron Angle is pro-life and supported the Protection of Marriage petition. She has long worked for property tax reform although her property tax petition this year failed to get on the ballot. She also supports Tax and Spending Control for Nevada (TASC) petition, which will be on the ballot. She was one of the brave 14 who voted against the huge tax increase in 2003 and went to court to uphold the 2/3rds rule. In 2003, she did vote to allow the Mexican Matricula Consular to be used as an ID in Nevada, which unfortunately is helpful to illegals. She was helpful in getting the Eminent Domain petition drafted.

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons is pro-choice and has not supported the Protection of Marriage. In 2003, she voted for the largest tax increase in Nevada history. She did vote against allowing the Mexican Matricula Consular to be used as an ID in Nevada.

Dean Heller has spent his time as Secretary of State building the size and reach of government. He continually worked to increase the government regulations over candidates, which are incumbent protection laws, discouraging challengers and violating free speech. In 2003, he supported a huge increase in the fees the Secretary of State’s office charges as part of the package of the largest tax increase in Nevada’s history. In the past Heller has said he was pro-choice. The Independent American Party Chairman has filed felony charges against Heller for abuse of the election laws, as Secretary of State.

Supreme Court Seat G

It is almost impossible to obtain real information about where judicial candidates stand on issues. The Nevada Judicial Information Committee website www.nvjic.com has posted the answer they received in their questionnaire. I have included excerpts from their answers about the 2003 case Guinn vs Legislature in which Governor Guinn seeking the largest tax increase in history took the Nevada Legislature to the Nevada Supreme Court to force the Legislature to pass the tax increase. The Court sided with the Governor under suspicion of collusion.

Nancy Becker currently sits on the Nevada Supreme Court and voted in favor of the Governor in the controversial Guinn vs Legislature case.

Thomas F. Christensen and Nicholas Anthony Del Vecchio did not answer the NVJIC Questionnaire.

Nancy M. Saitta who currently serves as a District Judge said regarding Guinn vs Legislature "Since the constitutional provision requiring a 2/3 vote of the legislature for a tax increase or new tax was clear on its face, Justice Becker and her colleagues violated the law by ignoring the provision and instead relying on their own interpretation of the intent behind its passage. Because the provision requiring a 2/3 majority was enacted more recently than the other constitutional provisions the Supreme Court claimed were in conflict, the 2/3 majority provision should have prevailed over the simple majority provision."

John Calvert is a criminal defense attorney and has not been a judge. His comment on Guinn vs Legislature is as follows: "With regard to Guinn v. The Legislature of the State of Nevada, this, in my view, is a case, controversy or issue that is likely to come before the Nevada Supreme Court and therefore, my comments may not commit me to any side of the issue. However, I will make limited comments. The opinion should be withdrawn by the court sua sponte, i.e. without prompting or suggestion. This action would eliminate any precedential value for the case."

Supreme Court Seat F Continued

Michael Douglas was appointed to the Supreme Court just months before he was elected in 2004. He ran against Joel Hansen in 2004 and was supported by the liberal establishment including Governor Guinn and Harry Reid. His partial statement on the NVJIC website regarding Guinn vs Legislature is, "I do believe that the court had jurisdiction to act on the Writ, even though I do not agree with the outcome."

Cynthia "Dianne" Steel was in the Nevada Assembly in 1995. She is pro-life, pro-family and for limited government. She has served since 1996 as a District Judge in the Family Division. About the Guinn issue she said in part. "I do not believe that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to intervene in the controversy between the Governor and the Legislature via the Guinn v. The Legislature of the State of Nevada, 71 P. 3d 1269 (Nev. 2003)." This is the position Nevada Eagle Forum held.

For more information on candidates please see our website www.nevadafamilies.org We will post information on which Assemblymen and Senators voted for the largest tax increase in history, who voted to give illegals drivers licenses, and who voted to oppose the right of conscience of pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for abortifacients. You can also call Lynn Chapman in Sparks 775-356-0105 or Janine Hansen in Elko 775-397-6859.

 IRS Threatens Political Speech

Congressman Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk, A Weekly Column, www.house.gov/paul July 24, 2006

Five years ago, I wrote about threats made by the Internal Revenue Service against conservative churches for supposedly engaging in politicking.  Today, the IRS is again attempting to chill free speech, sending notices to more than 15,000 non-profit organizations—including churches—regarding its new crackdown on political activity.

But what exactly constitutes political activity?  What if a member of the clergy urges his congregation to work toward creating a pro-life culture, when an upcoming election features a pro-life candidate? What if a minister admonishes churchgoers that homosexuality is sinful, when an initiative banning gay marriage is on an upcoming ballot?   Where exactly do we draw the line, and when does the IRS begin to violate the First amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion?

I agree with my colleague Walter Jones of North Carolina that the political views of any particular church or its members are none of the government’s business.   Congressman Jones introduced legislation that addresses this very serious issue of IRS harassment of churches engaging in conservative political activity.  This bill is badly needed to end the IRS practice of threatening certain politically disfavored faiths with loss of their tax-exempt status, while ignoring the very open and public political activities of other churches. While some well-known leftist preachers routinely advocate socialism from the pulpit, many conservative Christian and Jewish congregations cannot present their political beliefs without risking scrutiny from the tax collector.
The supposed motivation behind the ban on political participation by churches is the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state. However, the First amendment simply prohibits the federal government from passing laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state," yet lawmakers and judges continually assert this mythical doctrine.

The result is court rulings and laws that separate citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings, in clear violation of the free exercise clause. Our Founders never envisioned a rigidly secular public society, where people must nonsensically disregard their deeply held beliefs in all matters of government and politics. They certainly never imagined that the federal government would actively work to chill the political activities of some churches.
Speech is speech, regardless of the setting. There is no legal distinction between religious expression and political expression; both are equally protected by the First amendment. Religious believers do not drop their political opinions at the door of their place of worship, nor do they disregard their faith at the ballot box. Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths.
The political left, however, seeks to impose the viewpoint that public life must be secular, and that government cannot reflect morality derived from faith. Many Democrats, not all, are threatened by strong religious institutions because they want an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society.  So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.
The Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom must not depend on the whims of IRS bureaucrats. Religious institutions cannot freely preach their beliefs if they must fear that the government will accuse them of "politics." We cannot allow churches to be silenced any more than we can allow political dissent in general to be silenced. Free societies always have strong, independent institutions that are not afraid to challenge and criticize the government.

The Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution Provides, "That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured.."