“Friend,” a Saturday email from Organizing for Action National Organizing Director Sara El-Amine began. “You're going to want to go to this party.”
OFA is the successor to Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and Organizing for America, which itself “evolved” from the 2008 Obama for America campaign.
So why are they calling me “friend”? Probably for the same reason that old fraud John McCain does. They want money.
But why are they writing to me for it?
I keep myself on email lists, not just from the RNC and DNC, but from all kinds of groups I like to keep an eye on. You should, too, if you want to know what they’re up to.
“It's OFA's first birthday, and we're saving tickets for two lucky founding members and their guests,” my “friend” Sara gushes. “We'll fly you out and put you up in a hotel -- all on us. And then we celebrate!”
Not that I'm a "founding member," but what the heck. One of the spots could be mine, I am told, but I can’t win if I don’t enter. And how do I do that?
Well, if I “donate today, before our critical quarterly fundraising deadline,” they’ll take care of that for me automatically. They even provide a handy link for me to do just that.
Say, wait a minute. Isn’t that like a gambling raffle? Aren’t there at least laws in some states that have rules for these things?
Sara & Co. have thought of that. At the bottom of their missive, they include some fine print:
No purchase, payment, or contribution necessary to enter to win. Void where prohibited. Entries must be received by 11:59 p.m. on December 31st, 2013. You may enter by contributing to the Sponsor here. Alternatively, visit here to enter without contributing. Two winners will receive the following prize package: round trip tickets for winner and one guest from within the fifty United States, DC or Puerto Rico to Washington, D.C.; hotel accommodations for winner and one guest; tickets for winner and one guest to the OFA Anniversary Party (approximate combined retail value of all prizes $985. Odds of winning depend on number of eligible entries received. Promotion open to all U.S. citizens, or lawful permanent U.S. residents who are legal residents of the 50 United States and District of Columbia and 18 or older (or of majority under applicable law). Promotion subject to Official Rules and additional restrictions on eligibility. Sponsor: Organizing for Action, 224 N. Desplaines St., Suite 5000, Chicago, IL 60661.
The above was edited to remove the link for contributing. But the link for the rules was left in, primarily because they reveal another interesting bit of inconsistent “progressive” hypocrisy, not that more evidence of that is needed, but because it’s always fun to expose and mock.
“PROMOTION OPEN ONLY TO INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL PERMANENT U.S. RESIDENTS WHO ARE LEGAL RESIDENTS OF THE FIFTY (50) UNITED STATES AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA…” they shout.
How about loveable-when-tipsy Uncle Omar?
What about all the “Dreamers”? Or are they only important to the administration when scoring political points?
And how is someone supposed to prove they are citizens and/or lawful permanent legal residents, anyway? I thought the Obama’s DOJ said requiring proof of that disproportionately violated the civil rights of minorities.
At least when it comes to voting. Evidently Obama fundraisers require more security and controls than that.
True to “tolerant progressive values,” the discrimination doesn’t stop there.
“Sponsor may, at its option, conduct a background check on each potential winner,” the rules advise.
“Sponsor reserves the right to disqualify any potential winner from receiving any prize based on such background check if Sponsor determines, in its sole discretion, that awarding any prize to such potential winner could result in a safety or security risk to any person or persons or could result in the disruption of any event associated with the Promotion,” they say.
And then they reserve the right to do the same thing to your guest.
Good grief -- “universal background checks” on freaking contest entrants? Why so paranoid?
“Sponsor will, in its sole discretion, then select two winners from the list of eligible potential winners on the basis of criteria determined and applied by Sponsor to provide for an appropriate range of views, backgrounds, and interests among the winners selected,” they claim.
“An appropriate range”? In other words, they don’t want anyone at their shindig who may not be in lockstep with the agenda? So on top of everything else, they also have an ideological purity/party loyalty test?
How very "progressive." But they have a point: that would be disruptive. Especially if the winner believes in real limits as set down in the Constitution intended to bind government from usurping powers it has no rightful claim to, and that the Bill of Rights means what it plainly says, including the part about “shall not be infringed.”
I’ve decided not to enter. They can keep their damn first prize, even if I could get it for free. I couldn’t stomach being in the presence of such collectivist control freaks and their useful idiot Cult of Obama acolytes anyway.
If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."
When it comes to gun laws, the antis love them so much they’d like to make a patchwork quilt out of them. The latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is online, and you can read it before the issue hits the stands. Click here to read "Preemptive Strike.”