AARP's Fall from  Grace
    

    
I find this very interesting reading,  so let's keep it going if you agree. It only takes a few days  on the Internet and this will have reached 75% of the public  in the USA .. Seniors need to stand up for what is right, not  what the politicians want or big Corporations want.


This letter was sent to Mr. Rand who  is the Executive Director of AARP.


THIS LADY NOT ONLY HAS A GRASP OF 'THE  SITUATION' BUT AN INCREDIBLE COMMAND OF THE ENGLISH  LANGUAGE!


Dear Mr. Rand,


  Recently you sent us a  letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP  by the requested date. I know it is not what you were looking  for, but this is the most honest response I can give you. Our  gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real  problem, a deepening lack of faith.


 While we have proudly  maintained our membership for several years and have long  admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no  longer endorse its abdication of our values. Your letter  specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for  our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of  being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE  FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have  come to embrace.

      We do believe that when two parties  agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is  probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term  goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This  is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of  government.

 Once upon a time, we looked  forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked  to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power  we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP gave us a  sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist  politics practiced by the Obama Regime and empowered by AARP  serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance  strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!

 We do not understand the AARP  posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we  expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a  great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the  relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem  anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other  organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way  of life or offending our sensibilities.

 This Obama Regime scares the  living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our  proud and bloodstained heritage.But  even more importantly for our children and  grandchildren. Washington  has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather  than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never in my life endorsed  any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening  to them. I don't have to agree with them to appreciate the fear  which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity  presents little more than a balance to the voice of the  Socialist mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great  stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my  adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it  represents as  well as the responsibilities it requires.

Your website generously offers us the  opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU  KIDDING??? The illegal perpetrators  have broken into our 'house', invaded our home without our  invitation or consent. The President has insisted we keep  these illegal perpetrators  in comfort and learn the perpetrator's language so we can  communicate our reluctant welcome to them.

I DON'T choose to welcome them.

I DON'T choose to support them.

I DON'T choose to educate them.

I DON'T choose to medicate them, pay for  their food or clothing.

American home invaders get  arrested.

Please explain to me why foreign  lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans  do not get?

 Why do some immigrants have to  play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break &  enter to be welcomed?

  We travel for a living.  Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over  10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people  than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good  folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded  only ONE supporter of the current Regime. One of us is out of  touch with mainstream America  .
   
       Since our poll is conducted without  funding, I have more faith in it than ones that are driven by a  need to yield AMNESTY. (aka - make voters out of the foreign  lawbreakers so they can vote to continue the government's free  handouts). This addition of 10 to 20 Million voters who then  will vote to continue Socialism will OVERWHELM our votes to  control the government's free handouts. It is a "slippery slope"  we must not embark on!

As Margret Thatcher (former Prime  Minister of Great Britain) once said "Socialism  is GREAT - UNTIL you run out of other people's  money".

We have decided to forward this to  everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the  same... With several hundred in my address book, I have every  faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible  statement to you.

I am disappointed as all get out  !!!!

I am more scared than I have ever been  in my entire life !!!

I am ANGRY !!

I am MAD as h---, and I'm NOT gonna take  it anymore!

Walt & Cyndy
Miller Farms Equine Transport

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE KEEP THIS MOVING FORWARD.(In internet  lingo: If enough people pass this on it will go  viral

Powered by ScribeFire.

From INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
901 N. GLEBE ROAD SUITE 900   

ARLINGTON, VA 22203  

  (703) 682-9320     FAX (703) 682-9321
HOME PAGE:  WWW.IJ.ORG

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:           
June 27, 2011                               

U.S. Supreme Court

Strikes Down
Arizona’s “Clean Elections” Act

Court Protects Free Speech

and Political Participation

Arlington, Va.—In a victory for free speech and

political participation, today the U.S. Supreme

Court ruled that the “matching funds” provision

of Arizona’s so-called “Clean Elections” Act is

unconstitutional.  The landmark case is Arizona

Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v.

Bennett, argued by the Institute for Justice. 

Both IJ and the Goldwater Institute had

challenged Arizona’s law in court.

“This case is a clear reminder to government officials

that they may not coerce speakers to limit their

own speech,” said Bill Maurer, an attorney with

the Institute for Justice, who argued the case.

“The Court’s decision today, like other recent

decisions, makes clear that the First Amendment

is not an exception to campaign finance laws;

t is the rule.”

Maurer said, “As a result of today’s ruling, government

can no longer use public funds to manipulate speech

in campaigns to favor government-funded political

candidates and turn the speech of traditionally funded

candidates into the vehicle by which their entire

political goals are undermined.”

Arizona’s “Clean Elections” Act manipulated

election speech by favoring candidates who

participated in the public funding system over

those who chose to forego taxpayer dollars

nd instead raised funds through voluntary

contributions.  For every dollar a privately funded

candidate spent above a government-dictated

amount, the government gave additional funds

to his opponent.  The Act even matched funds

spent by independent groups that supported privately

funded candidates, thereby canceling out those

independent groups’ speech.  

According to the Court, “The direct result of the

speech of privately financed candidates and

independent expenditure groups is a state-provided

monetary subsidy to a political rival.  That

cash subsidy, conferred in response to political

speech, penalizes speech.”

The Court’s decision followed the reasoning of

its 2008 decision in Davis v. FEC, in which it

struck down unequal contribution limits for

candidates.  As the Court said in today’s decision

, although the penalty imposed by Arizona’s law is

different in some respects from the law in Davis “

those differences make the Arizona law more

constitutionally problematic, not less.”

For example, Arizona’s law matches not only

candidate expenditures, but those of independent

expenditure groups, such as the clients represented

by the Institute for Justice.  As the Court put it “the

matching funds provision forces privately funded

candidates to fight a political hyrdra of sorts. 

Each dollar they spend generates two adversarial

dollars in response.”

At bottom, the matching funds provision was a

bald attempt by the state to manipulate speech

by forcing speakers to either trigger matching funds,

change their message, or refrain from speaking. 

According to the Court, “forcing that choice . . .

certainly contravenes ‘the fundamental rule of

protection under the First Amendment, that a

speaker has the autonomy to choose the content

of his own message.’”

Moreover, the Court recognized that the end result

of the matching funds was the total curtailment of

political speech, for “If the matching funds provision

achieves its professed goal and causes candidates

to switch to public financing, . . . there will be less

speech:  no spending above the initial state-set

amount by formerly privately financed candidates,

and no associated matching funds for anyone. 

Not only that, the level of speech will depend on the

State’s judgment of the desirable amount, an amount

tethered to available (and often scarce) state resources.”

But as the Court strongly reiterated today, “the whole

point of the First Amendment is to protect speakers

against unjustified restrictions on speech, even when

those restrictions reflect the will of the majority. 

When it comes to protected speech, the speaker

is sovereign.”

In finding that matching funds substantially burden

speech, Chief Justice Roberts pointed to research

by University of Rochester political scientist David

Primo, an expert in the case.  Contrary to claims of

Clean Elections’ backers, Dr. Primo’s original research

“found that privately financed candidates facing

the prospect of triggering matching funds changed

the timing of their fundraising activities, the timing

of their expenditures, and, thus, their overall

campaign strategy” to avoid sending additional

funds to opponents.  The research is available at

www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/first_amendment/az_

campaign_finance/expert-report-d_primo.pdf.

Today’s ruling is important not just for those states

and municipalities that have similar “matching fund”

systems.  As Maurer explains, “The decision prohibits

government from attempting to level the playing field

among political speakers by creating disincentives

for some and incentives for others.  The clear

message of the First Amendment to government

is:  Hands off!”

Although today’s ruling affects only the matching

funds provision of the Clean Elections Act, there

is a measure on the November 2012 Arizona ballot

that would end the whole Clean Elections system

by forbidding government support of candidate campaigns.

The Institute for Justice has litigated against this

unconstitutional provision since 2004.  IJ

represents independent political groups the

Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC

and the Arizona Taxpayers Action Committee as

well as political candidates Senator Rick Murphy

and former State Treasurer Dean Martin.

“Now that matching funds are no more, we do

not have to censor our own speech,” said Steve

Voeller of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s

Freedom Club PAC.  “As long as this law was

in place, we knew that that speaking out in the

election meant that our political opponents would

be showered with government money.  The more

we spoke, the more politicians we opposed

benefitted.  Now we can actually speak freely.”

Shane Wikfors of the Arizona Taxpayers Action

Committee said, “We have always believed that

this law was meant to corral not only candidates

but also voters by limiting political speech,

intimidating organizations like ours and ultimately

leading to a political outcome that was tainted

by the state’s involvement.  We are grateful that

the Court protected political expression and struck

down this unconstitutional state intervention.”

Rick Murphy said, “I'm grateful a majority of the

justices recognized that the government shouldn't

try to ‘level the playing field’ of free speech with public money.”

Dean Martin said, “After nearly a decade, justice

has prevailed.  Now I am looking forward to

November 2012, when the voters have a chance

to get rid of the rest of taxpayer money that

support politicians.”

Many observers anticipated the Court would strike

down the matching funds program.  IJ-Arizona

Staff Attorney Paul Avelar explained, “It was

pretty clear that matching funds violate the First

Amendment rights of candidates, citizens and

independent groups.  The Ninth Circuit’s decision,

now overturned, was so inconsistent with protections

for free speech in campaigns that two other

federal appellate courts almost immediately refused

to follow it.  In those cases, the courts struck down

matching funds systems in Connecticut and Florida.”

“This is yet another example of an important judicial

trend the Institute for Justice has advocated since

our founding—that of judicial engagement,” said

Institute for Justice President and General Counsel

Chip Mellor.  “The Court looked beyond the state’s

claims about Clean Elections to its substance.

It recognized that the real purpose of the law was

not to eliminate corruption, but to level the playing

field by manipulating speech.  In the past, the

courts have all too often rubberstamped the

government’s claims about corruption in elections

and upheld campaign finance laws that violated

First Amendment rights.  The Court seems to be

moving in the other direction in campaign finance,

and as a result, we are all freer.”

Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club

PAC is just one of several challenges the

Institute for Justice is litigating against restrictions

on free speech by campaign finance laws.  Mello

r promised that “IJ will continue to fight against

laws that reduce speech, silence disfavored

speakers and viewpoints, and allow government

to manipulate the marketplace of ideas thereby

stripping away people’s right to govern themselves.”

Social science research shows that the purported

benefits of public funding programs rarely materialize,

while the costs to candidates and independent

groups are real.  Dr. Primo summed up the findings

of the best available research in a paper for the

Institute for Justice (available at

http://www.ij.org/about/3466), and concluded,

“Public funding is a program that promises much

and delivers little.”

IJ recently won a landmark victory for free speech

in federal court on behalf of SpeechNow.org, an

independent group that opposes or supports

candidates on the basis of their stance on free

speech.  IJ also won on behalf of a group of

neighbors who were prosecuted by their political

opponents under Colorado’s byzantine campaign

finance laws merely for speaking out against the

annexation of their neighborhood to a nearby town.

  In addition, IJ won recent victories for free speech

in Florida when a federal judge struck down the

state’s broadest-in-the-nation “electioneering

communications” law and in Washington when

it stopped an attempt to use the state’s campaign

finance laws to regulate talk-radio commentary

about a ballot issue.

#  #  #
 

Best,

Christina Walsh
Director of Activism and Coalitions
Institute for Justice
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 682-9320
(703)-682-9321 (fax)
www.ij.org
www.castlecoalition.org
Twitter: @ChristinaWalsh
Subscribe to our YouTube channel!
 http://www.youtube.com/instituteforjustice

Powered by ScribeFire.

from the Institute for Justice

Friends:

Today marks six years since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its disastrous decision in Kelo v. City of New London.  By radically altering the traditional meaning of “public use”—parks, schools, and roads—to include “economic development,” a mere one-vote majority of the Court gave bureaucrats license to take homes and small businesses at their leisure.  Now property can be seized from its rightful owners on the mere promise of increased tax revenue or jobs.

This decision sanctioned an unholy alliance between greedy local governments and wealthy developers.  As former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor so appropriately wrote in her dissent, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

While we suffered a setback in this battle, we steeled ourselves for the fight ahead—and we’re winning the war.

Together with you, our activists, we ignited a property rights revolution nationwide that has resulted in 43 states reforming their eminent domain laws to better protect home, small business and farm owners.  IJ has worked alongside home and business owners to save over 16,000 properties from eminent domain abuse.  From San Pablo, California, to Auburn, New York, we have successfully defeated projects that threatened the private property of hard-working Americans.

You have played an integral role in this national backlash against Kelo.  Without the tireless efforts of activists like you, these successes would not have been possible.  Yet we must press forward.  Together we must urge our elected officials to respect the private property rights of their citizens.  Thank you for continuing to stand on the frontlines with us in the fight to end eminent domain abuse.

To thank you for your continued commitment, we are including a FREE "End Eminent Domain Abuse" t-shirt with every purchase from our Freedom Market.  Visit fmarket.ij.org to get yours today!  Enjoy!

Best,

Christina Walsh
Director of Activism and Coalitions
Institute for Justice
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 682-9320
(703)-682-9321 (fax)
www.ij.org
www.castlecoalition.org
Twitter: @ChristinaWalsh
Subscribe to our YouTube channel!  http://www.youtube.com/instituteforjustice

Powered by ScribeFire.

From ACT For America

Violence-Positive
Texts
Incubate Jihad
in

Mosques; Congress
Needs to
Ensure They Do Not

Do the Same in
Federal Prisons

Washington, DC, June 13, 2011 – Chairman
Peter King has just announced the witnesses
who will appear on June 15th before the House
Homeland Security Committee as part of a
series of hearings on radicalization of the
Muslim-American community. The Center f
or Security Policy respectfully suggests that
one of the lines of questioning for the past and
present law enforcement officials* called to testify
 about “The Threat of Muslim-American
 Radicalization in U.S. Prisons” must be
an inquiry into permitted print and video
materials that may contribute to jihadist
recruitment and indoctrination inside
federal penal institutions.

Such materials were used in a new peer-reviewed
study published last week in the highly respected
journal Middle East Quarterly (MEQ) as
indicators of jihadist sentiment and proselytization
in a random sample of 100 American mosques.
This study, which is entitled Shari’a and Violence
in American Mosques, involved the collection of
empirical data through repeated on-site investigations
over several years. It established that 81% of U.S.
mosques had the cited materials on the premises.
The study also found that in over 84% of the
mosques surveyed, the imam recommended
texts advocating violent jihad.

The seven texts featured in the MEQ analysis are
illustrative of the body of hate-mongering,
supremacist  literature and films used
by shariah-adherent Muslims to inculcate in
targeted populations their call to violent jihad:

1. Al-Nawawi's Riyad-us Saliheen (Gardens of the Righteous)

2. Maududi's Jihad in Islam

3. al-Misri's Umdat al-Salik (The Reliance of the Traveller)

4. Maududi's Tafhim al-Qur’an (The Meaning of the Qur’an)

5. Saabiq's Fiqh-us-Sunnah (The Book on Acts of Worship)

6. Tafsir Ibn Kathir

7. Qutb's Ma’alim fi’l-Tariq (Milestones)

[Click the links above to read more about each
book, including PDFs of the full text, notes on
each texts' availability, and more.]

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center
for Security Policy, said today:

The materials advocating violent jihad found
in the vast majority of American mosques
surveyed in the Middle East Quarterly study
have reportedly also been made available in
American prisons nationwide. If so, there is
every reason to believe they will contribute
significantly to the radicalization of inmates.

The House Homeland Security Committee’s
hearing on Wednesday is an opportunity to
amplify and inform the public debate over
the national security implications of jihadist
texts that are found in both America’s mosques
and prisons – and to set the stage for addressing
the seditious actions they are designed to foment.

Illustrative quotes from these materials include:

From Maududi’s Jihad in Islam: “Islam wishes
to destroy all States and Governments
anywhere on the face of the earth which
are opposed to the ideology and programme
of Islam regardless of the country or the
Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is
to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and
programme, regardless of which Nation assumes
the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule
of which nation is undermined in the process of the
establishment of an ideological Islamic State.”

From Qutb’s Milestones: “If someone does this
 [prevents others from accepting Islam], then
it is the duty of Islam to fight him until
 either he is killed or until he declares
his submission.” (Chapter 4).

From Qutb’s Milestones: “But any place
where the Islamic Shari’ah is not enforced
and where Islam is not dominant becomes
the home of Hostility (Dar-ul-Harb) for both
the Muslim and the Dhimmi. A Muslim will
remain prepared to fight against it,
whether it be his birthplace or a place
where his relatives reside or where
his property or any other material
interests are located.” (Chapter 9)

The full text of the Middle East Quarterly
article can be found at
http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques.
Additional resources may be found at
www.mappingsharia.com.

* Witnesses at the second of the Homeland
Security Committee’s Radicalization hearings
will be: Patrick Dunleavy, Retired Deputy
Inspector, Criminal Intelligence Unit, New York
Department of Correctional Services;
Kevin Smith, a former Assistant United
States Attorney for the Central District of
California; and Los Angeles Police Department
Deputy Chief Michael Downing, Commanding
Officer, Counter-Terrorism and Special
Operations Bureau.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that  these are emails you want to receive.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
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
olunteer 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.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Successfully Combating Jihad and Sharia

Successfully Combating
Jihad and Sharia

Vision + Strategy +
Organization = Victory

by Guy Rodgers, Executive Director,
ACT! for America

Consider these alarming data.

A 2003 survey of Detroit-area Muslims conducted  by a Muslim organization found that 81% agreed with the statement that sharia law should be imposed in Muslim lands—with 59% strongly agreeing. How likely do you think it is that most of these Muslims also support the imposition of sharia law in America? A 2007 survey of nearly 4,500 Muslims worldwide,  including approximately 500 Indonesian Muslims who identified themselves as “moderates,” found over 65% support for a requirement that strict sharia law be applied in all Muslim countries. A Pew study released in 2009 revealed that  78% of Pakistanis supported the death  penalty for those who leave Islam and 83% supported stoning adulterers. According to a study just published, which  was highlighted in our email Monday, a representative sample of 100 mosques in America found that 81% had moderate  to high support for advocating jihad to advance sharia law.

This snapshot leaves us with
the unmistakable conclusion:
Support for sharia law among Muslims
 across the world is widespread and growing.

This is what the apologists for radical Islam,
those who arrogantly dismiss concerns
about sharia law, either are ignorant
of or willfully blind to.

Are there “moderate” and “reformist”
Muslims who do not subscribe to either
violent jihad or stealth jihad, who do not
subscribe to the advance of sharia law a
nd the unity of mosque and state? Of course.

We work with some of these leaders
and promote what they do.
We commend them and hope
their efforts succeed.

But, for many reasons, the odds
are clearly against them.
As the poll results above demonstrate,
Islamic organizations and leaders
that are committed to the advance
of sharia law, either through violent
or stealth jihad, are driving the agenda
for worldwide Islam.

This is why those who follow ACT! for America
see our staff, chapter leaders and members working
hard, day in and day out, to build a formidable,
ever-increasing national citizen action network,
employing strategies and tactics that are
producing legislative and other kinds of
victories to roll back this threat.

You saw an example of this network in
action in our email yesterday,
which highlighted chapter leader Michael Hayutin’s
challenge to a public school textbook in California.
You saw it in the passage of the refugee
resettlement legislation in Tennessee.

We are not going to wait until,
like the UK, we have sharia courts
dotting the American landscape.

Talking about the threat isn’t enough.
Education is necessary, but it’s not sufficient.
We don’t want to just combat radical Islam—
we intend to defeat it.
Strategic action is what is needed—and strategic action is what we do.

For example, to challenge the threat  of sharia law creeping into our courts, we have thus far gotten bills passed in Arizona and Tennessee that prohibit state courts from using foreign law, and by extension sharia law, in their decisions. To challenge pro-Islamic bias and  indoctrination in public school textbooks, our sister organization, ACT! for America Education, will release this fall an analysis of 38 such textbooks. We will mail this to every one of America’s 50,000 school board members, and then we will urge ACT! for America chapter leaders and members to pour into school board meetings emanding changes to textbooks to eliminate this bias and indoctrination.

These are just two examples of how
we are honing in on the threat and
developing and applying strategic
action to counter the threat.

We’ve said this before, but it bears repeating:
 The bigger our national organization becomes,
 the bigger and more numerous the victories
we will achieve.

Vision + Strategy + Organization = Victory.

Or to put it another way:

People power… with a purpose…
and a plan… achieves results.

I have reviewed polling data and analyzed
how our opposition, such as CAIR, is reacting
 to national trends. CAIR is clearly desperate
 as it sees America waking up. We are turning the tide.

And I am convinced that the only thing
that will prevent us from prevailing over
radical Islam is, to paraphrase Edmund Burke,
when “good people do nothing.” Brigitte Gabriel
 understood the power of organized, strategic action
when she had a vision of an organization that is today
 ACT! for America.


As we are fond of saying, if everyone does a little,
together we accomplish a lot. What can you do today?

Encourage a friend to sign up for our email alerts. Join or start a chapter. Become a fan on our Facebook page. Make a contribution.

Yours for a safe and free America,


Guy Rodgers

Powered by ScribeFire.

Your Tax Dollars At Work...

Dear Weston,

Yes, it’s true.

June is National Gay Pride Month and your
tax dollars are funding festivities around
the nation and even overseas.

Last year, President Obama called
on all Americans to honor Lesbians,
Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders as
special citizens.

But the fact that even one penny
of your tax dollars is funding
this abnormal sexual behavior is an
outrage.

Additionally, a recent press release confirms that the U.S. embassy in Bulgaria is joining the French, Swiss, German, and British embassies to sponsor a gay film festival from June 1st – 29th.

The press release says the goal
is to promote acceptance
(usually a code word for special
rights for homosexuals).

The U.S. will kick-off the party b
y screening Milk, a film about
Harvey Milk, the first radical
homosexual activist to be elected
in California.

Of course, the film will be followed
by an after-show party at the local
night club.

In 2009 the U.S. embassy in Albania
also screened Milk and held a media
workshop for radical homosexual
activists -- all paid for with
your tax dollars.

These U.S. embassy sponsored gay
pride parties are not only offensive
to many Americans here at home, they
are even more offensive to our host
countries overseas.

Even in Iraq, the U.S. embassy in
Baghdad threw a gay pride party
encouraging everyone to “dress
in drag or as a gay icon.”

These brazen sexual displays are
considered by most host countries
to be an example of the corrupt
American culture.

Yet, the Obama Administration and its
radical homosexual allies continue to
use taxpayer funds to embarrass our
country and push the Homosexual Agenda
world-wide.

That’s why I will work tirelessly to do
everything in my power to fight this
corruption from taking hold of our culture.

If you can, today, please support
Public Advocate in this fight.

For the Family,


Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate of the United States

P.S. I ask you to prayerfully consider chipping

in with a contribution of $10 or more to help

fund the fight for traditional values.

Thank you very much for your support in advance.

---

Public Advocate depends solely on your support.

Donate to Public Advocate of the United States!

---

Because Public Advocate of the U.S. lobbies to fight the radical

agenda of the Homosexual Lobby, contributions are not tax deductible

for IRS purposes.  This email was not produced or e-mailed at

taxpayer expense.  Public Advocate's website is http://publicadvocateusa.org/.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Shifty

 

---

"Shifty" By Chuck Yeager


Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served with Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of the 101st Airborne Infantry.  If you've seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the History Channel, you know Shifty.  His character appears in all 10 episodes, and Shifty himself is interviewed in several of them.  

I met Shifty in the  Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn't know who he was at the time.  I just saw an elderly gentleman having trouble reading his ticket. I offered to help, assured him that he was at the right gate, and noticed the "Screaming Eagle," the symbol of the 101st Airborne, on his hat.  

Making conversation, I asked him if he'd been in the 101st Airborne or if his son was serving.  He said that he had been in the 101st.  I thanked him for his service, then asked him when he served, and how many jumps he made.  

Quietly he said: "Well, I guess I signed up in 1941 or so, and was in until sometime in 1945 ..." At that point, again, very humbly, he said "I made the 5 training jumps at Toccoa, and then jumped into  Normandy . . .  do you know where Normandy is?" 

I told him "yes, I know exactly where Normandy is, and I know what D-Day was." 

 

At that point he said "I also made a second jump into Holland, into Arnhem."  I was standing with a genuine war hero ... and then I realized that it was June, just after the anniversary of  D-Day.  

I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from France, and he said, "Yes...  And it's real sad because, these days, so few of the guys are left, and those that are, lots of them can't make the trip." 

I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in coach while I was in First Class.  I sent the flight attendant back to get him and said that I wanted to switch seats.  When Shifty came forward, I got up out of the seat and told him I wanted him to have it, that I'd take his in coach.

He said "No, son, you enjoy that seat.  Just knowing that there are still some who remember what we did and who still care is enough to make an old man very happy."  His eyes were filling up as he said it. 

Shifty died on Jan. l7 after fighting cancer.

There was no parade. No big event in Staples Center. No wall-to-wall, back-to-back 24x7 news coverage. No weeping fans on television. And that's not right!

Let's give Shifty his own memorial service, online, in our own quiet way.

Please forward this email to everyone you know.  Especially to the veterans.  

Rest in peace, Shifty.  

Chuck Yeager, Maj. General [ret.]


P.S.  I think that it is amazing how the "media" chooses our "heroes" these days...

Michael Jackson & the like!



"SHIFTY" - an incredible American hero.
SHIFTY DIED JAN 17, 2011..........May God rest his soul.
Please do me a favor and pass this on so that
untold thousands can read it.
We owe no less to our REAL heroes.

Powered by ScribeFire.