From Citizens Against Government Waste

Click HERE to send the following letter to your congressman.

As your constituent, I urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act. It could be called the “Let’s Do Everything Act.”

H.R. 6566 would respond to the majority of Americans like me who in poll after poll have called for lifting the moratorium on offshore oil and natural gas drilling. Some say ending the moratorium will have no immediate impact on gas prices, but when President Bush lifted the executive ban on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) on July 14, prices for oil began to drop from $145 a barrel to less than $100 per barrel today.

H.R. 6566 also encourages the development of nuclear power, oil shale, coal, and alternative energies. Further, it cuts the red tape that has stymied the construction of oil refineries in the United States for over 30 years and provides tax incentives to encourage fuel-efficient vehicles and homes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) competing energy bill currently would only allow drilling for oil and natural gas in limited areas of the OCS and would not give states their fair share of revenue and royalty payments, providing no incentive for states to allow drilling off their shores. Her bill would also raise taxes on oil and natural gas companies, a tactic that history has shown results in cuts in domestic production and investment and greater reliance on foreign sources of energy.

High energy prices are not only costing me at the pump, they are increasing the prices I pay to buy groceries, to heat and cool my home, to travel, and to conduct virtually all of my other daily affairs. The American Energy Act will not only help lower energy prices now, it will also invest in the alternative fuels that will power our economy in the future and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

I urge you to vote for the comprehensive energy policy embodied in H.R. 6566.

Courtesy of NRA-ILA

WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 /PRNewswire/ — A strong majority of likely voters disagree with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on firearms
and self-defense related issues, according to a just-released ATI-News/Zogby poll. Brad O’Leary, president of ATI-News.com and author of
the explosive new book, The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama’s War on American Values, notes that opposition to Obama’s stance on these issues is
widespread across multiple demographics.

(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20030425/ATNLOGO)

Ban on Hunting Ammunition

In 2005, Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of legislation sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) that would have banned nearly all rifle
ammunition used for hunting and sport shooting. This position puts Obama squarely at odds with over 75 percent of likely voters.

ATI-News/Zogby asked likely voters: “Do you support or oppose legislation to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting
and sport shooting?”

Seventy-seven percent of likely voters said they oppose legislation to ban such commonly used ammunition, while only nine percent said they would
support such a ban. A strong majority of Democrats (58 percent), Republicans (92 percent) and Independents (84 percent) all oppose the
ammunition ban that Obama supported — as do 79 percent of military families. (This nationwide poll of 3,825 likely voters was conducted August
27-29 and has a margin of error +/- 1.6 percentage points.)

“This is just another example of how Obama’s extreme position on basic Second Amendment freedoms runs counter to the beliefs of most Americans,” said O’Leary.

Self-Defense

As an Illinois State Senator in 2004, Barack Obama voted against legislation that protects citizens, who use firearms in self-defense in
their home or business in spite of local gun bans, from prosecution. Here again, the Obama position is counter to that of most Americans.

ATI-News/Zogby asked likely voters: “Do you agree or disagree that you have the right to use deadly force as a means of self-defense in your home, without having to retreat?”

Eighty-eight percent of likely voters agree that they should have this basic right to self-defense, while only eight percent disagreed. An
overwhelming majority of Democrats (83 percent), Republicans (90 percent) and Independents (91 percent) all agree. (This nationwide poll of 974
likely voters was conducted August 15-18 and has a margin of error +/- 3.2 percentage points.)

Most state legislatures have already taken steps to strengthen this right. Thirty-three states now have “Castle Doctrine” laws that remove a
person’s “duty to retreat” from any place he or she has a legal right to be. Of these states, twenty-two also prohibit criminals and their families
from suing people who injure criminals in self-defense. Many of these laws have been enacted only in recent years, and more state legislatures are
expected to follow suit in 2009 and beyond.

“Why would Obama vote to make it more difficult for citizens to protect their homes, businesses and families from life-threatening criminal
attacks?” asked O’Leary. “Americans need to question whether or not they agree with the ‘change’ Obama could bring to their basic rights and
freedoms.”

For more on Obama’s positions and how they match up with your views and the views of likely voters, go to http://www.BarackObamaTest.com.

From the Family Research Council

Newsweek has an op-ed by Jacob Weisberg this week that manages a hat trick by being flawed on facts, ethics and premise. The piece is titled, “What Happened to Family Values? Palin’s pro-life extremism is as ethically flawed as it is politically damaging to the GOP.” The only example of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s “extremism” given is that her daughter chose to keep her child instead of aborting it. While marrying at an early age or single parenthood is not an optimal family structure, discarding life simply because it is the convenient thing to do, as Mr. Weisberg suggests, only encourages a culture where all life is seen as disposable. The author very cavalierly dismisses the “Juno” scenario, where a young woman places her baby for adoption rather than getting an abortion, yet he would do well to watch the scene where Juno, the young heroine of the film, describes accurately that what she is doing, while difficult, is the most generous thing one human being can do for another. The pro-life community that Mr. Weisberg disdains has always been in the forefront not only in helping young single mothers but also in counseling women who have been emotionally and physically devastated by their abortions - something the pro-abortion forces have refused to acknowledge even occurs.

Additional Resource: “What Happened to Family Values?“