Congresswoman Shot, Left goes on Witch Hunt

Jared Loughner: The Real Face of Responsibility

Yesterday’s shooting at Representative Gabrielle Giffords’ Congress on Your Corner in Arizona is a horrible and tragic event that should never have happened.  However, it did and therefore we must deal with it.

The shooting is a tragedy which should be uniting us in support and defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  It should be bringing all of us together in support of our way of life and our representative Republic form of government.  After all, Giffords’ event, an elected representative speaking with constituents, is the foundation of our Republic.

How are many on the left responding?  Instead of putting politics aside and coming together, they’re using it as yet another opportunity to divide America using crass and sickening political theater.  Arizona State Senator Linda Lopez only hours after the shooting, before any definite information was available, went on national television with accusations that the shooter was an “Afghan” veteran influenced by the TEA party movement.  Then Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik ended his press conference with a tirade blaming conservative media for filling the American people with vitriol.  It should be noted Sheriff Dupnik also believes Arizona’s recent law calling for enforcement of federal immigration law is “stupid” and “racist.”

The left-wing media and blogosphere are filled with accusations against Sarah Palin because of a marketing piece which had a target on Giffords’ congressional district (not on Giffords’ face as is being implied).  These accusations are utter nonsense.  First, Democrats and leftists have used similar marketing tactics in the past, not to mention even more disturbing depictions of former President Bush by the left, yet those blaming Palin for the shooting don’t bother to mention any use by the left of these types of marketing tactics.  Second, either the people making these accusations are such complete idiots or they believe others are such complete idiots that they can’t distinguish between a political advertising marketing tactic and an actual death threat.  If you truly believe a target on someone’s district was an actual death threat then you need to be locked up in the same sort of padded cell where the gunman belonged!

This is only one person responsible for yesterday’s shooting: Jared Loughner who pulled the trigger.  Apparently another suspect, known to authorities, remains at large.  Yet, Sheriff Dupnik, citing the advice of “legal counsel,” refuses to release photos or a complete description of this person so the public can be on the lookout for him. [Update: The Pima Sheriff’s Department finally released a photo of this person-of-interest.  Update to the Update: Pima Sheriff has cleared the person of interest.]

So what’s the picture of Loughner that’s emerging?  We now know he wasn’t an “Afghan” veteran or a veteran at all.  He applied for military service and was rejected.  The military won’t say why, citing privacy reasons.  However, the disjoined ramblings from his YouTube videos give us a pretty good clue.  We also know he’s been arrested for possession of illegal drugs.  It looks more and more like he is a demented leftist radical anarchist pothead.  Despite this, many on the left and the mainstream media continue to either openly or subtly blame the TEA party movement and conservative media.  It’s obvious they’re taking Rahm Emanuel’s advice to not let a good crisis go to waste and seek to use the tragedy as the springboard for censorship of conservative media, silencing of anyone who disagrees with their agenda, and very likely “gun control” as well.

The TEA Party movement – a movement and a mindset, not a political party – is about government accountability.  “TEA” is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already.  The movement consists of people from a wide spectrum of political beliefs.  They are united in a belief that government should act within its Constitutional bounds and those within government, both elected officials and bureaucrats, should be accountable to the people who pay the bill (the American taxpayers).  Acts of violence against the government are completely counterproductive to the aims of this movement, which seeks to restore Constitutional order.  Therefore, it’s pure absurdity to claim, as the left does, the TEA party and conservatives are agitating for violence.

Let’s look at the other side.  What do they have to say?  Many on the left, including some who’ve been right next to Obama, are calling for an overthrow of the system, such as self-described Marxist-socialist Van Jones’ “bottom up, top down, inside out” revolution. Frances Fox Piven, who many in the administration and many radical leftists hold up as a mentor, is calling for a violent uprising against the American system.  Obama once told left-wing activists, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” Another left-wing guru, political cartoonist Ted Rall, calls for the left to engage in violence against the right.  The often cited “bible” of leftists and one of the books from which Loughner says he found inspiration, the Communist Manifesto, is filled with calls for violence against the bourgeoisies and government officials.

Don’t get me wrong – unlike the left, I don’t want to restrict any of their speech; I want the cockroaches exposed to the light of day so we can clearly see them for exactly what they are.  My point is to expose the outright lies of the left in claiming conservatives are “inciting violence” when in fact it’s those on the radical left who are consistently and clearly calling for violent uprisings.

Is it because so many on the left are calling for open, violent uprising that they are so convinced conservatives are doing the same?  As someone who pays very close attention to conservative media, I can find absolutely nothing which even comes close to the left’s repeated and unequivocal calls for violence.  Conservative media talks about things like restoring honor, returning to the Constitution, taking personal responsibility, government accountability, the importance of integrity, and so forth.  I must not have the “Manchurian” programming, since I’m completely missing any calls to violence, “coded” or otherwise.

It’s time for Americans of all political persuasions who might disagree on policy, but agree on the basic framework of the Constitution and the representative Republic to stand together.  We simply cannot allow radicals to collapse our Republic.  We must find the common ground of the Constitution on which we can unite.  We can agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

We honor the memory of those killed when we stand up for the Constitution in the face of the real radicals, like Jared Loughner, who seek to destroy our Republic.

We’re Open and Tolerant – of Our Own Opinions

Juan Williams (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

Shame on NPR and especially its CEO, Vivian Schiller, for firing Juan Williams.  Your actions simply prove my earlier point that progressive liberals are “open” and “tolerant” of any viewpoint as long as it’s their own.  Ms. Schiller, in one fell swoop, you have single-handedly exposed the rottenness and evil of progressivism for the world to see – thank you!

Ms. Schiller, if anyone is in need of a psychiatrist, it’s you (as an aside, if you want to sincerely apologize to Mr. Williams for your remark, do so by personal phone call to him instead of a “cover my ass” “statement” – funny how progressives consistently label anyone who disagrees with them as someone in need to mental help).  My friendly advice is for you to close your mouth and simply resign.  Every time you keep opening your mouth, you do nothing but expose more and more the hypocrisy of the liberal media and progressive agenda.  You claim you fired Williams for violation of objectivity standards, yet have done nothing about your “journalists” at NPR who repeatedly disparage conservatives.  Apparently, in your mind, objectivity only applies if someone deviates from the approved progressive liberal talking points supplied by George Soros’s liberal think tanks (more actually, attack machines), like the Tides Foundation and Media Matters.

Speaking of Soros, Ms. Schiller also reveals the progressive’s contempt for the average American.  She, like most progressives, seems to believe the American people are brain-dead, gullible idiots incapable of independent thought.  How else does one explain the fact she thinks we don’t see the connection to Williams’ dismissal and NPR just receiving $1.8 million from George Soros for a program to hire “journalists” to “report” on “news” from every state capital?

Yet, I owe a debt of gratitude to Ms. Schiller.  This whole incident has exposed the progressive liberal mindset and agenda unequivocally to the light of day.  You are an idiot or liar if you look at this incident and cannot see progressives for what they are:  They claim “openness” and “toleration” of all viewpoints, but shut people down as soon as they express a viewpoint in opposition to the progressive agenda.  Open and honest debate of ideas in the public forum, where the best solution wins, is simply not allowed.  Progressives think the average American is a moron, incapable of rational self-thought – and certainly incapable of self-government.  Without their guidance, progressives believe, we uneducated and uncouth serfs will do nothing but rape, pillage and murder “Mother Earth.”  We are simple children and any deviation must be severely dealt with – for our own good after all.

Elected representatives, remind me again why my hard-earned tax dollars are going to support NPR and PBS?  The liberal bias of these organizations is inarguably clear at this point.  If they chose to have such bias, that’s fine, but it should be done without the use of public money.  After all, if liberal progressive ideas are so good, shouldn’t they be capable of standing on their own without the need for public subsidies?

I disagree with Williams on many of his opinions.  Even so, I respect him as a man of integrity and one of the only liberals I’ve seen who’s willing to engage in an open, honest and civil debate of ideas.  He is a stand-up guy who doesn’t rely on the progressive fall-backs of baseless ad hominem attacks like Bill Clinton and Barry Obama or simply walking away when a discussion isn’t going his way like the clueless, liberal progressive “ladies” on The View.

NPR and Vivian Schiller, your actions are inexcusable.  You toss out Juan Williams, the only African-American male broadcaster on your network, because he’s not towing the “party line.”  Then you disparage the American people by offering idiotic “evidence” as some sort of justification for your actions, all the while seeming to think we’re too ignorant to notice the timing of your actions — right after George Soros buys your network for $1.8 million.  Give me a break!  But on the other hand, again, thank you for so clearly exposing the liberal progressive mindset to the light of day.

Anything but the Issues

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Progressives, why is it so difficult for you to discuss issues?  Surely, if your ideas are as good and as solid as you claim, you’d welcome open and honest debate on the issues?  Doesn’t “openness” and “toleration,” which you claim to support, mean we debate issues and ideas in the public forum where the best solutions win?  Why is it “openness” and “toleration” for you apparently means openness and toleration for only your own ideas?  Why is your consistent response to those who disagree with you nothing but ad hominem attacks and divisiveness?

The other day, Bill Clinton claimed Republicans need psychiatric help and by implication, those who vote against Democrats are nothing but mindless GOP puppets.  Obviously since liberal progressive ideas are so wonderful, the only possible explanation for anyone disagreeing with them is because the person has a mental problem.  Bill, how exactly do comments like yours foster dialogue and discussion?  As with all progressives, you claim openness and toleration, but then immediately dismiss or attack anyone who holds differing ideas.  Doesn’t exactly sound like openness and toleration to me.

Then we have Team Obama® relentlessly attacking the US Chamber of Commerce (USCC) over nebulous claims of using foreign money for campaign contributions.  Yet, Team Obama® offers zero proof to support their accusations, instead saying no one can prove the USCC isn’t doing it.  Huh?  So now we’re guilty until proven innocent?  Aside from being yet another tactic to avoid debate on actual issues, someone needs to warn Team Obama® those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

While spouting their baseless claims against the USCC, they forget (or more likely conveniently ignore) the fact Clinton and Gore were caught accepting Chinese campaign contributions.  Team Obama® received numerous unidentifiable and untraceable campaign contributions.  Even more damning is video evidence of phone banks in Palestine soliciting donations for Team Obama®.  So while actual proof exists of Democrats and Team Obama® doing exactly what they baselessly accuse the USCC of doing, that proof is conveniently ignored – an actual inconvenient truth.  The media won’t bring it up and Team Obama® supporters remain drunk on their kool-aid, not wanting to be bothered with such a “downer” as the truth.

This brings us back to my first point: why the fear to discuss issues?  Why is every serious question about issues met with dismissal or attack?  Could it be, progressives, that you know when held to the light of truth, your platform falls apart like so many cockroaches scattering when the light comes on?

I base my opinions, principles and positions on independent critical research of the facts.  Therefore, I’m willing to stand by my ideas and defend them.  Why the fear on your part to do the same?

Not Race, but Power

The NAACP levels charges of racism against the TEA Party movement, claiming their actions stem from racial slurs hurled at black members of congress during the rally against passage of Obamacare a few months ago.  Yet, despite the salivating media looking to disparage the TEA Party movement and a $10,000 reward offered by Andrew Breitbart, absolutely zero proof has surfaced of anyone saying any racial slurs – even with all the video cameras rolling at the time. So, the NAACP claims very strongly appear to have absolutely no basis in reality.

While attacking the TEA Party movement over supposed racism, when zero evidence exists, at the same time the NAACP ignores members of the New Black Panthers intimidating voters and calling for the murder of all white “cracker” babies.  Clearly, a double standard is in effect here.  Why?

In reality, the current situation has nothing to do with race.  Instead, it has everything to do with advancing the largest Marxist-socialist power grab in history.  It’s a tactic ripped directly from the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals play book.

The idea is to disparage the enemy so his voice becomes irrelevant.  It’s the age old military tactic of divide and conquer.  For some reason, there’s still a large group of Americans sitting on the sidelines.  If they can be convinced the TEA Party movement is nothing but a bunch of racist white “crackers,” then they discount anything said by someone associated with the TEA Party movement (and by implication, anyone who wants to see government return to its Constitutional bounds).  Just like Russia, just like Nazi Germany, just like the Cuban Revolution, by the time the majority of people wake up to what’s really going on, it’s too late to do anything to stop it.

In order to defeat the enemy, we must first understand the enemy.  Today’s enemy of liberty, freedom and the Constitution are Marxist-socialist radicals.  They are very clearly operating directly from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  Understand the Rules, and you have the ammunition to defeat them.  They’re attempting to use our “rules” against us to defeat liberty, freedom and the Constitution.  Let’s turn the table and use their rules against them to defeat Marxist-socialist tyranny.

Far too many people, who don’t understand the radical’s mentality, think radicals employ over-the-top speech simply to express a point.  This ignores the fact that radical after radical throughout history told us exactly what he intended to accomplish (Hitler’s Mein Kampf as merely one example), yet people brushed it off as “just wild talk.”  When a radical speaks, he’s not just blowing smoke; he actually means what he says.

Like most radials, Alinsky expresses a typical atheistic attitude which believes if you think your ends are worthy, then any means used to reach those ends can be justified – likewise, the more important you believe your ends (such as establishing a “utopian” Marxist state), the more otherwise unthinkable means become “justified.”  This is an extremely dangerous position.  It means when a radical says in order to reach the goal of “liberation,” all white “crackers” must be killed, he means all white “crackers” must be killed.

With that in mind, here are Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

Rules for Power Tactics:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:

1. One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.
2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.
11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”

The Constitution, Not International Law

As the NRA pats itself on the back and the media pontificates about today’s Supreme Court decision in favor of the Second Amendment, as usual they miss the real story.  The important story today is the Constitution held on by only one vote!  The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, yet it’s under attack like never before in our history.  We came very, very close to losing the Constitution today and no one seems to care!

Don’t think it’s a big deal?  Look at the dissenting opinion in today’s judgment.  Appeal was made to international law with the ridiculous argument that other “democratic” nations don’t hold that their citizens have a right to keep and bear arms.  It doesn’t matter what other nations hold as law – our law comes from the Constitution, period!  As Justice Roberts pointed out, Japan is a “democratic” nation, yet it doesn’t hold its citizens have a right to trail by jury.  Perhaps there’s something to that dusty old Constitution after all?

This appeal to international law is a growing and dangerous trend.  Supreme Court nominee Kagan is merely one of a chorus of liberal “progressives” who hold that we need to turn to international law to interpret our law.  The entire reason we have a Constitution is precisely because our founders took issue with prevailing international law.

Once we go down the road of international law, particularly in the form of UN treaties, we literally throw out the Constitution and our cherished rights.  Under international law we lose many of the individual rights which make our nation a representative Republic and would instead turn our country into a socialist state where the power rests with the “ruling class” and not with the people.

Under current pending treaties, if they’re ratified, the Second Amendment and First Amendment would disappear.  There’s currently a UN small arms treaty (supported by the Obama administration) which would effectively make it a crime in the United States to own firearms.  Additional, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (also supported by the Obama administration) would effectively make all children wards of the state with parents only being charged with clothing, feeding and providing shelter – other than that, parents would have almost no rights to raise their children as they see fit.  Most people don’t understand that by the Constitution, once we ratify international treaties, they become the law of the land and trump the Constitution.  The Constitution was written like this as our founders never in their wildest dreams imagined we’d be stupid enough to negotiate away our sovereignty.

Despite all this, incumbents are being reelected by wide margins in the ongoing primaries.  They’re proved time and again they have no interest in changing the status quo – and in fact most favor the sprint towards socialism.  Survey after survey shows dissatisfaction with Congress by wide margins, yet voters keep electing the same people and expecting change.  It’s moronic and beyond understanding!

The stakes are too high and the consequences too dire to keep sitting on the sidelines!

DISCLOSE Act Passes House, Obama Nominates Anti-Gun Lib to Supreme Court; NRA on Sidelines

Here’s the non-statement statement from the NRA regarding passage last week by the House of the DISCLOSE Act, a highly un-Constitutional, draconian attack on basic First Amendment Rights:

STATEMENT ON DISCLOSE ACT PASSING THE U.S. HOUSE

Thursday, June 24, 2010

The NRA’s sworn duty is to protect the Second Amendment above all else. We face attacks daily from the White House, Congress, state legislatures, city councils, courts, the United Nations, multi-billion dollar media conglomerates and billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. Make no mistake; if our political voice is silenced, they will destroy the Second Amendment.

We refused to let that happen. We will continue to fight to protect the Second Amendment against all attacks – direct or otherwise. And we will never back down from that commitment.

So my question to the NRA leadership (apparently being led by chief lobbyist, Chris Cox), remains: if the DISCLOSE Act is bad (which the NRA leadership appears to admit), then shouldn’t the NRA oppose this piece of legislation regardless if the NRA is thrown a loophole (asked for or not)?

Groups of a certain size (which magically happens to be Big Union and leftist “community activist” groups) are exempted from the ridiculous provisions of the DISCLOSE Act.  In order to silence opposition from the NRA, Democrats threw in an amendment to exempt groups with the NRA’s level of membership.  Having been thrown this “bone,” the NRA is now using asinine political double-speak to justify their non-opposition of this terrible piece of legislation.

Of course, other leftist-groups, like the Sierra Club, became upset over the NRA-non-deal-deal, so Democrats lowered the “magic” number to include them as well.  As with most things coming out of the current Congress and Administration, the only people the Act will apply to are the regular people speaking out for a return of Government to its Constitutional bounds.

It seems the NRA has become “too big to fail.”  The leadership apparently is more concerned with not rocking the boat instead of standing up for what is right.

As I pointed out before, the First Amendment and Second Amendment are closely tied.  If either one falls, the other – and the Republic itself – cannot stand.  Therefore, an attack on one is a de facto attack on the other.

It’s frankly shameful and pathetic that the NRA leadership refuses to stand in opposition the DISCLOSE Act regardless if they receive an exemption from this dangerous legislation or not.

The NRA also released the following statement on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan:

With a Key Supreme Court Decision Pending, NRA Watches the Court’s Latest Nominee

Friday, June 25, 2010

On Monday, June 28, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will begin confirmation hearings on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  With a Supreme Court decision expected that same day in the critical Second Amendment case of McDonald v. City of Chicago and many more Second Amendment cases likely to come, the NRA is following the debate over the Kagan nomination extremely closely.Because Ms. Kagan has no judicial record and few academic writings, the NRA is carefully reviewing her record in other government posts, including her clerkship for the late Justice Thurgood Marshall and her involvement in formulating anti-gun policies at the Clinton White House.  What we’ve seen to date shows a hostility towards our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, such as her role in developing the Clinton Administration’s 1998 ban on importation of many models of semi-automatic rifles; her note mentioning the NRA and the Ku Klux Klan as “bad guy” organizations; and her comment to Justice Marshall that she was “not sympathetic” to a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban.We are working with pro-gun Senators to make sure that Ms. Kagan is aggressively questioned regarding her views on the Second Amendment and other issues that affect America’s 80 million gun owners and we look forward to hearing her answers.

They are watching Kagan?  Her record in opposition to the Second Amendment is abundantly clear.  She wrote the Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban which simply banned semi-automatic rifles based on nothing more than their appearance.  What more proof do you require NRA leadership to figure out where Kagan stands on the Second Amendment?

I don’t know what’s going on with the NRA leadership (though I suspect with all their ancillary activities, they’re worried about losing money if they take an actual stand on “controversial” issues).  However, at this point, I can no longer support the organization — which is not a decision I make easily or lightly.  They already have my money as a life member, but I will no longer contribute money to the NRA, nor can I in good conscious recommend others join the NRA or renew yearly memberships until the NRA leadership gets out of their corporate mindset and gets back to defending the Constitutional rights of the organization’s members.

In the mean time, the three Second Amendment organizations I support and recommend are the Gun Owners of America, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation.  These three organizations are solidly committed to defending the Second Amendment – and all three understand the First Amendment is closely tied to the Second Amendment.  For Ron Paul fans, you might like to know he called the Gun Owners of America, “The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.”  That’s a pretty resounding endorsement for any organization.

As Benjamin Franklin said, “We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.”

Has the NRA Leadership Sold-out?

It certainly seems the leadership of the NRA has cut a “deal with the devil” and sold-out the First Amendment.  Apparently, the NRA leadership believes there’s a First Amendment for Big Union and the NRA and anther first amendment for the rest of us.  I urge you to read the message below, and if you’re an NRA member, contact NRA HQ immediately to protest this sell-out.  There is only one First Amendment and it applies to all of us equally!

I’ve added links to the news strories referenced in the email alert below so you can read the stories in full.

Threat to Free Speech Lights a Fire in the Grassroots

— Vote has been temporarily postponed; keep up the heat!

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org/

 

“[T]he NRA — on whose board of directors I serve — rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for ‘neutrality’ from the legislation’s requirements.”

— NRA Director Cleta Mitchell, June 17, 2010

Thursday, June 17, 2010

The above quote — part of an editorial authored by NRA Director Cleta Mitchell — ran in The Washington Post today.

Like Mitchell, bloggers and editorial writers around the country have lit up the Internet with the story that we have been alerting you to over the past 48 hours. Here are just some of the headlines:

* “The NRA sells out to Democrats on the First Amendment,” The Wall Street Journal

* “Conservatives take on the NRA over deal on disclosure bill,” The Washington Post

* “The National Rifle Association’s Excuse Holds No Water,” RedState.org

The conservative movement (and to be honest, many liberal organizations as well) are coming together to loudly protest the DISCLOSE Act — legislation that threatens to gag our ability to effectively hold individual congressmen accountable in the days and weeks leading up to an election.

It is imperative that we continue hammering the Congress. But rather than cry “uncle,” liberal Democrats are now trying to buy off more groups with an exemption for those that have at least 500,000 members (rather than the higher threshold of one million, which would have applied to few groups other than the NRA).

Of course, how is the government going to know how many members an organization has? According to the legislation, each organization will have to certify to a government commission how many members they have. But what if the commission wants documentation; will the organization have to “disclose” the names of their members?

GOA, of course, will never do this. Furthermore, you should know that your Gun Owners of America can NOT be bought off. We will continue opposing this bill on principle, urging all gun groups to stick together in this fight. As we stated yesterday, we realize that: “We must all hang together, or we will all hang separately.”

GOA applauds NRA Director Cleta Mitchell for the courageous stand she took today. (You can read her editorial here.) We hope that the NRA leadership will heed her wisdom and take a stand against this bill. If they don’t, we wouldn’t be surprised if NRA members start demanding a change in their leadership. After all, the NRA has engaged in many good fights over the years, and it would be a shame to lose this VERY IMPORTANT battle because high-ranking staff led the NRA down the wrong path.

ACTION:

1. Please call your congressman today and urge him or her to oppose HR 5175. We’ve asked you to send emails before, but now on the eve before the vote, it is crucial that the phones ring off the hook. If they’re not ringing, they won’t be worried.

You can use the Talking Points below to call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

2. If you haven’t yet urged the NRA staff to change its position on HR 5175 and stand with Gun Owners of America, please do so. NRA Director Cleta Mitchell was absolutely correct, and the NRA leadership should heed her wisdom. You can call the NRA at (800) 392-VOTE (8683).

3. Please help Gun Owners of America to continue fighting for your rights. You can go to http://gunowners.org/contribute-to-goa.htm to help us alert as many people as possible to the DISCLOSE Act threat.

—– Talking Points for contacting your Representative —–

1. I stand with Gun Owners of America in opposing the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175).

2. The Bill of Rights is clear in saying that Congress has no authority to pass legislation like this. Just like the Second Amendment says our gun rights “shall not be infringed,” the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

3. The Supreme Court was right earlier this year in the Citizens United case. Sen. John McCain — the author of the Campaign Finance Reform law (otherwise known as the Incumbent Protection Act) — was wrong. Americans, and the groups they choose to associate with, should be able to criticize Congress in the days and weeks leading up to an election WITHOUT BEING GAGGED OR FORCED TO JUMP THROUGH HOOPS that are mandated by Congress.