Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:05 PM
Subject: This ad can defeat Obama
|
Saturday, October 20, 2012
From NRA: This ad can defeat Obama
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:05 PM
Subject: This ad can defeat Obama
From NRA: Watch NRA's Chris Cox on CNN
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 1:23 PM
Subject: Watch NRA's Chris Cox on CNN
 | ||
| ||
 | ||
Friday, October 19, 2012
From ACT! for America: Should the U.S. 'shut up and play nice'?
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:22 AM
Subject: Should the U.S. 'shut up and play nice'?
       | |||||
 |
nice…" Dear Lee, For five years now, there has been a recurring concern in our national email alerts about one aspect of stealth jihad—the gradual suppression of free speech. In an absolutely must read Washington Post column below, Jonathan Turley surgically diagnoses what is happening to free speech in the West. Frankly, this is more than troubling—it is frightening. ACT! for America is gearing up for a strong effort in 2013 to push back against "creeping sharia" that is increasingly limiting free speech. THIS IS A THREAT NONE OF US CAN AFFORD TO IGNORE. Because if we do, the day will come when what we now take for granted—freedom of speech—will be severely limited.
Many of our founding fathers sacrificed their lives and fortunes to ensure we had freedom. They understood the truth of Edmund Burke's words, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." If we are to pass on the freedoms we enjoy to our children and grandchildren, we must fight to protect those freedoms when they are under assault. ACT! for America is determined to do so—but we need your help. Please make an online monthly gift or single gift so we will have the resources we will need to defeat this threat! Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-four-arguments-the-western-world-uses-to-limit-free-speech/2012/10/12/e0573bd4-116d-11e2-a16b-2c110031514a_story.html By Jonathan Turley, Published: October 12The Washington Post Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony. In the face of the violence that frequently results from anti-religious expression, some world leaders seem to be losing their patience with free speech. After a video called "Innocence of Muslims" appeared on YouTube and sparked violent protests in several Muslim nations last month, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that "when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others' values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected."  (Brian Stauffer for The Washington Post) It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is intolerance. As Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard put it in her recent speech before the United Nations, "Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred." A willingness to confine free speech in the name of social pluralism can be seen at various levels of authority and government. In February, for instance, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin heard a case in which a Muslim man was charged with attacking an atheist marching in a Halloween parade as a "zombie Muhammed." Martin castigated not the defendant but the victim, Ernie Perce, lecturing him that "our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures — which is what you did." Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people — challenging social taboos or political values. This was evident in recent days when courts in Washington and New York ruled that transit authorities could not prevent or delay the posting of a controversial ad that says: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad." When U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer said the government could not bar the ad simply because it could upset some Metro riders, the ruling prompted calls for new limits on such speech. And in New York, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority responded by unanimously passing a new regulation banning any message that it considers likely to "incite" others or cause some "other immediate breach of the peace." Such efforts focus not on the right to speak but on the possible reaction to speech — a fundamental change in the treatment of free speech in the West. The much-misconstrued statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that free speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater is now being used to curtail speech that might provoke a violence-prone minority. Our entire society is being treated as a crowded theater, and talking about whole subjects is now akin to shouting "fire!" [CONTINUE READING THE FULL OP-ED HERE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 http://www.actforamerica.org/ ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website. HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Send a personalized version of this message to your friends. HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Click here to give an online donation. |
Thursday, October 18, 2012
From ACT! for America: act4america just uploaded a video
>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:22 PM
Subject: act4america just uploaded a video
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
From NRA: Freedom Times, Issue no. 85
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:00 PM
Subject: Freedom Times, Issue no. 85
|
From Ohio CCW: "Obama Coming For Handguns"
Obama Coming For Handguns
16 October 2012
For the past four years President Barack Obama has arguably been the best thing to happen to the firearms industry since the expiration of the assault weapon ban. Sales have soared on fears of the potential for new anti-gun legislation. Shortly after he was elected Obama even signed legislation that made your state issued license to carry a concealed handgun recognized by most national parks across the country.
Those of us who are skeptical of a proven anti-gun politician figured Obama was simply waiting for his lame duck session to pass gun control. Democrats learned from the mistakes of President Bill Clinton and the Congressional power shift that has always been attributed to the 1994 assault weapon ban.
Following every tragic shooting event in recent memory Obama has steered clear of extremely aggressive calls for gun control - almost as if he's walking on political egg shells. What happened Tuesday night during the second presidential debate is probably a damaging excited utterance that reveals President Obama's true colors. Consider these statements derived from transcripts of the event from Federal News Service:
Following every tragic shooting event in recent memory Obama has steered clear of extremely aggressive calls for gun control - almost as if he's walking on political egg shells. What happened Tuesday night during the second presidential debate is probably a damaging excited utterance that reveals President Obama's true colors. Consider these statements derived from transcripts of the event from Federal News Service:
"And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced…"
The Assault Weapons Ban, which President George Bush and Congress allowed to expire, was a colossal failure:
The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.
This conclusion isn't just a pro-gun opinion, but a fact that has been admitted by the most non-biased research organizations. Anyone who has done any bit of research on the assault weapons ban knows that it banned certain firearms based on the appearance, their model number, or other irrelevant factors.
Two nearly identical caliber rifles sitting on a shelf could be exhibits A and B of a legal and outlawed rifle - the fact is the ban was the first attempt to pass even greater gun control. Like most gun control endeavors the AWB was nothing more than the begining of what gun ban proponents envisioned as the first step in even more aggressive limitations.
We saw this tonight because President Obama did not stop at re-enacting the failed federal rifle ban. He is coming for your handguns too:
"...part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence, because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence, and they're not using AK-47s, they're using cheap handguns."
Our current president, who moments before saying these things stated he believes in the Second Amendment, revealed just how out of touch he is with our firearms laws (or how much he wanted to confuse the audience) when he dropped the automatic weapons line:
"Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill."
There isn't a gun owner I've met in my life who feels that a criminal or a mentally ill patient should be able to obtain a firearm for nefarious purposes -- but for the President of The United States to imply that fully automatic weapons have not been aggressively controlled and in extremely limited supply since the 1960's demonstrates exactly where he stands on misleading the public about gun control. Seconds later, Governor Romney addressed that fact, but unfortunately without a complete understanding of the law:
"We of course don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons."
Well, not really on two counts. First, I'd love to have a couple automatic firearms in my collection. Second, I believe what he meant to imply is that there are in fact laws that strictly regulate how you can possibly own a fully automatic firearm. But what he said overall is incredibly promising to gun owners:
"Yeah, I -- I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on -- on guns and -- and taking guns away or -- or making certain guns illegal... ...What I believe is we have to do as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have and to change the culture of violence we have."
This is exactly what I said in response to a Phillip Morris column in the Cleveland Plain Dealer earlier this month where Morris asked the day before the first debate for this very discussion on gun control.
The children killing each other in Chicago, Miami, Washington D.C. don't care about an assault weapons ban or any law for that matter. They kill each other over things as simplistic and irrelevant as which block of the neighborhood their perceived enemy lives on. They've fully accepted the fact that they will die at an extremely young age -- so what exactly do they have to lose in life by killing each other? Nothing - because of a culture that has accepted this as normal.
Romney strayed into how to fix this, how to improve our society and moderator Candy Crowley forced him back to the subject of guns, the expired assault weapons ban, and the her position that he signed an assault weapons ban while Governor. His response is quite impressive:
Romney strayed into how to fix this, how to improve our society and moderator Candy Crowley forced him back to the subject of guns, the expired assault weapons ban, and the her position that he signed an assault weapons ban while Governor. His response is quite impressive:
"Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation, and it's referred to as a -- as an assault weapon ban, but it had at the signing of the bill both the pro-gun and the anti- gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted."
Unfortunately, neither the moderator or either candidate took the opportunity to explain why the Clinton era assault weapon ban did nothing to prevent violence, violent acts, or the death and mayhem that exists in some of our poorest neighborhoods.
Instead, those people in the audience or watching at home who don't know better or care enough to research the truth were left with the idea that fully automatic firearms are widely available in this country and in the hands of every mentally ill criminal. They also likely left thinking Obama's challenger isn't willing to do anything about that.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
From ACT! for America: George Bailey's 'what if?'
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:50 AM
Subject: George Bailey's 'what if?'
| |||||
|
Dear Lee, In that timeless Christmas classic, George Bailey discovers what life would have been like had he never been born. He learned that many things he took for granted wouldn't have happened. In real life, we don't get that kind of high definition clarity, to see what wouldn't have happened if… But there are times we can get a pretty good idea.
So we thought about this. Here are just three answers.
The choices made yesterday determined the course of events today, and the decisions we make today do indeed determine the course of events tomorrow.
Recently, as part of ACT! for America's five year anniversary, we launched what we're calling the "5 for 5 campaign." We need your help! Here's how it works.
When you do you'll be eligible for something we've never done before. If your name is chosen from the pool of people who make a $5 monthly gift, Brigitte Gabriel will come to your community to personally meet with you and up to 25 of your friends. Those who have met Brigitte know that she is not only passionate about protecting America—she is passionate about people. You and your 25 friends will have the opportunity to meet and get to know this remarkable woman whose vision made ACT! for America possible. You'll also get a "behind-the-scenes" look at what's going on in the life of ACT! for America, and Brigitte will autograph a copy of her bestselling book They Must Be Stopped for you and the 25 friends you select to join you.
And if you're already a Patriot Partner, we'll automatically enter you into the drawing.
And by making a $5 monthly gift (just 16 cents a day) you'll be helping ACT! for America in its fight against radical Islam.
In addition to getting a chance to be one of the two winners selected, we'll also send you a gift as our thank you for your monthly or single contribution.
It's really that simple. What would America look like today without ACT! for America? There would be no organized national grassroots resistance against the Muslim Brotherhood and its legacy organizations in America, such as CAIR, ISNA, and MPAC. There would be no national grassroots education campaign about sharia law. You can make a powerful difference for the future of America with only $5 a month. Just 16 cents a day. And you'll make the America of tomorrow look a lot better than it does today. Isn't that worth 16 cents a day? Please, join our "5 for 5" campaign today and make a monthly gift of $5, $10, $15 or more, or a single gift of $30 or more. Thank you!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 http://www.actforamerica.org/ ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website. HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Send a personalized version of this message to your friends. HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Click here to give an online donation. |
