Another A+ NRA Rating

The campaign has asked gun rights advocates like state Rep. Dan Surra, a Democrat from rural Elk County with an “A+” rating from the NRA, to form a coalition of supporters who can vouch for Obama.

“It is clear out there that I am for Obama, and they have reached out to me as a sportsman and a gun owner,” Surra said Thursday. “There has been an outreach to pro-gun legislators, pro-gun people who are sympathetic to Obama’s message.”

So who you help gain even greater power doesn't count toward your rating? And we're sure his supportive votes are because of deep, abiding principle, and not because he knows any other course would be politically suicidal in "rural Elk County"?

Keep dancing with the devil. Just don't make the mistake of thinking he'll ever let you lead.

Nicely Done

The National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund says state Senate candidate Frank Niceley has been "deliberately misleading voters" by saying in campaign literature that his NRA rating is "A+" instead of the "C" that has was assigned for the 2012 primary. [Read]

In a way it's kind of funny to see a politician try to convince voters he's the darling of the NRA even when he's not. It's also kind of funny to see how realpolitik plays out against the contentions of the delusional.

Go ahead, turncoat wannabes: Listen to Oliver Willis.  Believe him when he says "The NRA is a gang of very strange, conspiracy-theory spewing, racist, bigoted know-nothings who don’t give a damn about the safety of their fellow citizens. They would rather the streets be flooded with all manner of weapons rather than ever allow a single law or regulation that would govern the world of guns."

If we're going to have enemies, it's in our interests to keep them ignorant and have them underestimate us, and Ollie here is doing a splendid job of that.

Thanks, Ollie! Nicely done.

Bill Brown Update

No "incompetence" issue. The issue is honesty and "transparency", which I believe is the term Brown is promising to bring to the Sheriff's Department.

The "story" is that Brown has gotten the NRA PAC endorsement and I've personally held that bright orange mailer touting Brown'’s 'A'” rating (meaning pro-gun stance). Brown either embraces the endorsement or runs from it, which is it?

We all know what a political powerhouse that NRA is; AND THEY DO NOT GIVE ENDORSEMENTS TO ANTI-GUN POLITICIANS.

Brown had to seek out the NRA endorsement to get it and now you and his other supporters are running from it and hiding it from the majority of voters. When is it going to be on his website? Or is it?

See reader comments at The Santa Barbara Independent, particularly the exchange between anti-gunner Dian Davis and Brown apologist Misleading Anderson supporters watch, who tries to dismiss things as "hearsay".

That's really something, when the gungrabber is the one telling the truth.

In other developments, someone at NRAHQ has been doing research on my name:



Guys, it's OK. You can come out and approach me directly. I won't bite. All I want to do is ask you a question--and, of course, get a straight answer--for the record.

The question has also been posed over at Calguns Forums. There's no answer, but there is an excuse.

Here's the thing. In the grand scheme of things, I really couldn't give a rat's behind about who Santa Barbarans elect as sheriff. This is bigger. This is about the integrity of NRA ratings--their trustworthiness as a whole. If this is the practice in one locale, how can ratings in others be trusted? If we're being asked to expend financial and political resources on a candidate, we deserve to know the truth. And it's not like the question hasn't come up before. Again and again.

This is a build-up to something I'm working on now, something bigger than a local election. More to follow in the next few days...

Related posts:

NRA's "A-Rated" Citizen Disarmament Enforcer

What Can Brown Do to You? (The Silence is Deafening)

Cheek to Cheek With Senator Rick Santorum

I finally had time to go through the September issue of American Rifleman, which features a Wayne LaPierre/Chris Cox tag team suck-up session masked as an interview titled "Face to Face With Senator Rick Santorum."

The subhead tells us the senator "receives an 'A+' grade from the NRA Political Victory Fund."

Gun Owners of America gives him a "C" rating. Why the disparity?

For one thing, the senator's own words show him in lock-step with NRA management.

"I support strict enforcement of current federal gun laws...My overarching position on gun legislation, and I also believe, the Republican Party's position, is that before we pass new laws to restrict Second Amendment rights, we must enforce the laws currently on the books to determine whether they are truly effective, rather than pass more redundant, ineffective laws."

Note the concern is wholly whether or not an edict will be "effective," not whether it is Constitutional. Perhaps Sen. Santorum and Messrs. LaPierre and Cox would explain where the Constitution provides for any federal gun laws, and how that squares with "shall not be infringed." Perhaps they could explain to us why their focus isn't on repealing, rather than enforcing existing infringements.

"In addition," Santorum continues, "I support programs such as Project Exile that have been successful in dramatically reducing violent gun crime."

Oh, for God's sake. Go read this.

I guess if you repeat something long enough, you might get some Kool-Aid drinkers who take things at face value without fact-checking to buy into it.

NRA's Project Exile showcase cities are experiencing murder rates at "crisis" levels. In Philadelphia, police are reduced to begging the public for help in identifying killers, and Richmond actually saw a murder increase in 2004 while national numbers declined.

NRA management needs to be told by its membership--in no uncertain terms--that they can't have it both ways. They can't tell the antis that gun control doesn't work, and then turn around and recommend gun control.

NRA members need to understand that "enforcing existing gun laws" is exactly what the feds were doing at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Trump Donations to Clinton Foundation Add to Gun Owner Concerns

First we need to make sure the fingers behind his back aren't crossed.

I see Pat Buchanan and Ilana Mercer just came out with approving columns on Donald Trump that do not mention the following concerns I raised in my May 15 Gun Rights Examiner column (and previous columns). Because so few seem to be aware of these concerns, I am reposting that article with minor corrective edits here:

Potential GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and his daughter have donated “at least $105,000 to the Clinton Foundation,” The Hill reported Thursday. Contributions, per the Foundation website, “advance the work of any part of the Clinton Foundation, including the Clinton Global Initiative.”

That would be the same group behind the Clinton Global Citizen Award, presented to anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg by Vice President Joe Biden for being the “most fierce and most effective advocate that we have on the matter of gun sanity.”

Trump has come across as effectively bipolar on guns.

“I love the NRA, I love the Second Amendment, so you have to know that,” Trump proclaimed at April’s National Rifle Association Leadership Forum in Nashville. “I promise you one thing, if I run for president, and if I win, the Second Amendment will be totally protected, that I can tell you.”

That doesn't exactly square with past statements -- by a long shot. True, he’s not against the concept of guns in private hands, under controlled circumstances, as Trump is one of the few elite recipients of a New York City concealed carry permit. But where does he stand on other aspects of the right to keep and bear arms that will interest gun owners looking for candidates worthy of their support?

Trump has a record on the issue from a prior time he was thinking about tossing his hat into the ring.

“Dems and Reps are both wrong on guns,” he declared in 2000, offering what he presumed to be an acceptable middle ground. “Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.

“I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,” he elaborated.

Add to that a troubling history of not just generous financial support for the Clinton Foundation, but to a host of anti-gun Democrats, enabling them to retain their ability to attack the right to keep and bear arms.

“Over the past decade, Trump has given massive amounts of money not only to Democrats but the most liberal and most corrupt Democrats, such as Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Charlie Rangel,” former Rep. Tom Tancredo noted in 2011. He has given $116,000 in recent years to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He supported John Kerry in 2004…”

Asking if he's a "secret liberal," Business Insider noted "Donald Trump Has Given Much More Money To New York Democrats Than Republicans."

Still, Trump found another issue that resonates with NRA members who are seemingly unaware that their association intentionally ignores it (when not promoting those enabling it): Illegal immigration leading to a "pathway to citizenship."

“You look at what’s happening with Mexico, the border is a sieve,” Trump continued, broaching an issue NRA has thus far been deliberately indifferent to under a “single issue” excuse that does not withstand close scrutiny. “Everybody’s coming in illegally, millions of people coming in illegally, we've got to stop it at the border, and we have to stop it fast.”

The room ate it up, along with his "American jobs first" theme, and ended up giving Trump a standing ovation. Perhaps their enthusiastic reaction would have been tempered had his inspiring sentiments been compared to his record.

Again, Trump appears to have learned the right words. He recognizes Republicans are on a “suicide mission” in which “11 million people will be voting Democratic," that “anchor babies” becoming citizens “was never the intention behind the 14th Amendment,” and that even “legal immigrants do not and should not enter easily ... we must take care of our own people first.”

With that being the case, Trump’s “D-“ grade from Numbers USA in 2011 (including an "Abysmal" rating on "limiting unfair foreign worker competition") points to a serious disconnect between rhetoric and substance on immigration. Likewise, his donations to the Clinton Foundation and to vehemently anti-gun Democrats raise serious doubts over what he told cheering NRA members and what he actually would enable if they entrusted him with political power.

As this column observed in 2012, Trump could be a great friend if his seeming enthusiasm for the Second Amendment is real. How we could go about determining that, aside from doing things backwards -- trusting him and then seeing if he ends up earning it -- is unclear.

The bottom line: The guy has some serious explaining, disavowing and apologizing to do, and that includes outlining unequivocal ways to prove he is being sincere, as opposed to self-serving and manipulative.

UPDATE to NRA Opposing Surgeon General Nominee Story

I just added this update to yesterday's GRE:

UPDATE -- per Emily Miller at The Washington Times:

A spokesman for the NRA told me that the five-million member organization will score the Senate vote, meaning that it counts toward a member’s rating in campaigns.

Why the letter and announcement did not say so, and why NRA's media office did not answer that question when asked and did not call back with an answer is unknown. When and if a reply is received or a clarifying statement is issued, it will be noted here.

Second Update:

UPDATE: NRA sent out a "Grassroots Alert" email this morning about their Murthy opposition, and again say nothing about scoring the vote, including in the complete alert posted on the ILA website.

‘Pro-gun’ attorney general's actions match past words, not current ones

He’s so pro-gun he makes the NRA seem leftist by comparison? So why is he fighting to keep law-abiding legal aliens defenseless? [More]

Today’s Gun Rights Examiner report looks at yet another politician whose discretionary actions belie his words—not to mention his NRA rating.

NRA-PVF Endorses "A"-Rated Stupak

"As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Bart Stupak has supported the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen, and demonstrated a commitment to the Second Amendment and to preserving our country's rich hunting heritage," said Chris W. Cox, Chairman of NRA Political Victory Fund. "His pro-gun support has earned him an 'A' rating and endorsement from NRA-PVF. I urge every NRA member in Michigan’s First Congressional District to vote for Bart Stupak on November 4th."

It's nice to see fences have been mended.

Time was, they only gave him a "C+."

That's probably because he supported the Brady positions on "campaign finance reform" First Amendment abridgements, not excepting RKBA political speech, not reducing background check time, private sale controls, opposing repeal of the DC gun ban and HR 2122.

But he's done good before and he's done good since, and we really ought to judge people by where they're at now, right?

I am proud to pledge my support to Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy for President of the United States of America...

I have invited the Senator to campaign with me in northern Michigan and share his vision for change with the people of the First Congressional District.

I don't know how the group behind this, who are reportedly "spending well into the 'eight figures' -- some have estimated as much as $40 million," to defeat who they predict would be "the most anti-gun president in American history," can present such a glowing endorsement with a straight face--and expect any credibility when they do.

It's not like Republican opponent Tom Casperson suffers by comparison, but let's grant for a moment that supporting Stupak is the politically smart thing to do--the guy can be supportive of gun owners, the lobbyists can work with him, it give us another voice in the democrat party, we can't realistically expect him to jump ship on the party nominee and be effective--come up with all the valid reasons for people to choose Stupak that you will. Fine.

Make those arguments. Come up with the pragmatic reasons why it's in our interest to do the political thing.

But address the differences, too, so we can be fully informed, evaluate the good with the bad, and persuade based on information we deserve to know, so that we can weigh best perceived outcomes against principles. In other words, cut the BS and be honest--why is that too much to expect from our "gun rights leaders"? This business of treating gun-owning voters like slogan-thirsty idiots who only serve to drink the Kool-Aid and pay for the next round does not serve well to inspire confidence in the sincerity of the Fairfax spin machine.

Distrust and Verify

The nation’s most respected Sportsmen association has endorsed Senator Emmett Hanger on his re-election campaign and for the June 12th primary this coming Tuesday...

The NRA Political Victory Fund has publicly endorsed Hanger and is encouraging all its members to vote June 12 to return Hanger to the Virginia Senate.

Why? What does Hanger really believe about gun ownership and use rights?

From his website:

Gun Rights

As a rural legislator, I have long been a leading advocate for the protection of 2nd Amendment rights.

From consistently opposing legislation intended to chip away at gun owner rights, to patroning key legislation to afford statewide protection of this constitutional right, I am regarded as a leader in the Senate on this issue.

I am proud of my A+ rating from the National Rifle Association and have a clear record of consistency on this issue over the years. I also am pleased to be a Republican co-chair of the Sportsman Caucus in the General Assembly.

I don't see much in terms of specifics here. And the problem is, what with the Sheriff Bill Brown 'A' rating endorsement fiasco-- and NRA's refusal to address numerous, oftentimes multiple sustained efforts by members (for months) to find out how that happened and what's to prevent it from happening again-- the Association has created conditions where its credibility on political endorsements is-- and should be-- questioned.

Candidly, why should we trust people who have let us down? Do we accept their endorsement on blind faith, or do we maybe peel back a few layers and examine things a bit more closely?

We might ask why, for instance, the Virginia Gun Owners Coalition gave Hanger a "C minus".

We might ask why he ignored a 2003 Virginia Citizens Defense League survey altogether. We might also ask why Hanger's independent (libertarian) challenger in the November 2007 election Arin Sime, issued a press release stating "that he agrees with the VCDL’s position stating that SB827 would greatly burden gun sellers and is a step in the wrong direction for second amendment rights."

And what about Hanger's Republican challenger for the June 12 primary, Scott Sayre? Apparently, gun rights aren't important enough to list on his "Issues" page (interesting he posted a Virginia Tech memorial black ribbon logo--I wonder what his solution for preventing future massacres would be?). A Google search for the terms "Scott Sayre" + gun doesn't give us much insight, either, although there is a link to a VCDL post, indicating that as of a few weeks ago, he had not returned their questionnaire. It doesn't look like he's all that interested. But he is, according to a support blog, "an avid turkey hunter," for what it's worth.

And what about Democrat candidate David Cox? Perhaps it's not fair to make assumptions based on the fact that he's an Episcopal priest, but I just can't find anything about his position, or even how to ask him--searching for his name doesn't result in any readily-accessible campaign website or blog.

Look, I don't mean to malign Sen. Hanger--I really don't know that much about him, and what I do see is vague. He may be a fine politician and the best hope for Virginia gun owners. But what I know--from bitter experience--is not to automatically accept NRA ratings as the final word. And since Mr. Sime looks very good on RKBA, there ought to be a more credible way to determine who will best serve the interests of Virginia gun owners.

There is. I developed this political questionnaire some years back. It would be interesting to see if any of these candidates would respond, and if so, how:

1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," that the Bill of Rights acknowledges the birthrights of all Americans, and that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms from being infringed?

2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state? How?

3. Who are the Constitutional militia?

4. Please give some examples of gun control laws you consider do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Please share as many as you can think of.

5. Please give some examples of gun control laws you consider unconstitutional.

6. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?

7. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern?

8. Do you support or oppose registration of weapons? Why?

9. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?

10. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?

11. If elected, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?

13. If brief clarification is requested for any of your answers, will you provide it?

I'll send a link to this post to both campaigns, and report back on any responses or lack thereof...meanwhile, if anyone has knowledge to share about any of these candidates, feel free to educate us in the "Comments" section to this post.

UPDATE:

If gun owners demanded it, NRA could lead repeal of Obamacare

That’s where NRA could come in – if Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and ILA Executive Director Chris Cox wanted it to, or could be persuaded to follow through on. NRA political grades are a powerful tool the politicians in all but incontestable “blue states” vie for, and there are so-called “pro-gun Democrats” in states like Montana who are dependent on them to retain their seats. Even those currently rated lower than an “A” would have powerful incentives not to go into their next election with a markedly lower rating than their challenger. It may even take only one or two “defections” to act like a crack in the dam, convincing balkers that their political fortunes are best served by opposing an administration centerpiece that Americans are increasingly rejecting, with approval at “a new numerical low” providing additional cover for crossing party lines.[More]

Today's Gun Rights Examiner report notes the power is in "our" hands --where it's always been, if "we" would only realize it and use it.

The Worldly Among Us

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote. These are your United States Senators who voted to sign away your Second Amendment Rights via the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty gun grab... [More]

I see "pro-gun Democrat" Max Baucus on the list -- I wonder if this will affect his NRA rating...

[Via SamAdams1776]

Bill Brown as Covered by the Professionals

To some local residents' dismay, Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown doesn't believe the public is made safer by permitting more people to carry loaded and concealed weapons.

And he cites a 2005 handgun murder that climaxed a road-rage incident in Buellton as evidence of why he feels that way...

“I don't subscribe to the theory that it's safer in public if you have large numbers of armed people running around,” Brown added during an interview at his Sheriff's Department office near Goleta.

Right. As I've demonstrated time and again, we're just not as stable and trustworthy as Brown and his "Only Ones."

Nice to see the "authorized journalists" are finally getting around to noticing something we mere bloggers have been covering for over half a year now. Still, it's funny how the primary issue that makes this story unique--NRA's "A" rating and endorsement of an anti-gun sheriff who doesn't believe armed citizens make society safer-- apparently isn't considered "newsworthy."

There's also an important clarification to make about Larry Rankin, who the reporter does mention. Per Larry:

Just for your information, they said, I "could not be reached for further comment," they did not try to contact me or I would have given them some good feedback about Sheriff Brown and my reasons.

I'm working on a follow-up right now--it will feature statements from Santa Barbara gun owners and NRA members who have contacted NRA on this matter and been blown off. Their silence on this and refusal to explain themselves and condemn Brown's stance is simply unacceptable. But count on the stonewalling to continue because only myself and a handful of others give a damn enough to demand answers. Which means the ratings charade will continue.

Sounding Off on Bill Brown

My philosophy is to issue CCWs sparingly, according to our policy, if there is a valid reason.

And you're the sole arbiter of what's valid, right, Sheriff?

This is the text version of the "web paper" story I linked to earlier.

I registered and added this comment:

I guess the real question here–and it flat out baffles me that no one from the media has looked into this–is why did NRA endorse Brown for sheriff and give him their coveted “A” rating, which is supposed to be reserved for 2nd Amendment champions? Why did they mail postcards to their members and supporters informing them of this? Why did they encourage their members to support Brown? How many members donated time and money to the Brown campaign based on this endorsement? How many voted for Brown and encouraged their gun owner friends to do so as well?

And most importantly, now that Brown’s philosophy has been revealed in practice (and to my knowledge, he never hid it to begin with or changed positions after elected–in other words, he has always been publicly pretty consistent in his opposition to concealed carry), why is NRA now silent on this, ignoring long time members who ask them to explain themselves?

I’d like to attribute this to a political mistake, but anyone with just a little knowledge about the Association’s past practices can tell you this is not the first time “A” ratings have been awarded to undeserving candidates–and not the first time questions about this practice have been ignored.

So how about it, Daily Sound–are you going to call NRA and ask them for the record why they endorsed Brown? If not, why not?

Feel free to add your own comments to their site--maybe if enough people show interest and lead them by the nose to a story, the "authorized journalists" will ask a pointed question or two.

More on Bill Brown

[Via Larry Rankin and Russ Howard]

The Sound and the Fury

The Sound:


The Fury:



Per Larry Rankin:

This newspaper reporter was against citizens' having guns rights. I know because I asked him if he was against guns and he quickly said, YES, and than caught himself.

This is a good article to use against the NRA A rating program. I have had several people call Ed Worley, NRA/ILA rep in Sacramento, more than one time and as many as three. To this day he has not returned one call!

This article says a lot. The best part is when he [Bill Brown] says in a roundabout way that the other sheriffs gave out too many. So he is saying that Sheriff Jim Anderson was a lot more pro-gun than he.

I am happy with this article because it shows the new direction that Bill Brown has taken us! Thank you NRA for helping get such an anti-gun sheriff elected!

[Also via GP]

(As an aside, I'd like to know what idiot at The Santa Barbara Daily Sound thought "the Web Paper experience" was a good way to do anything except keep people from reading the damned paper on the Web.--DC)

GOA Candidate Beats NRA Candidate

Joe Schwarz does not believe the Second Amendment is an individual right; he opposed concealed carry in the state of Michigan; and he voted in favor of mandatory trigger locks when he came to Washington.

So why the NRA "A" rating, and what's with Chris Cox, who told members:

“Representative Schwarz has a legacy of fighting for and protecting the Second Amendment for all law-abiding Michiganders. He has earned the NRA’s endorsement and trust of Michigan’s District 7 gun owners.”

What did Yogi Berra say, "It's deja-vu all over again"?

[Via KABA Newslinks]

A-Rated Sheriff Bill Brown Denying CCW Renewals

Santa Barbara Sheriff Bill Brown's new policy has been issued and is now being implemented. He is now denying concealed carry permit renewals for permits that had been approved by the previous--and presumably less "gun friendly" sheriff. Larry Rankin, who first clued me in to Sheriff Brown, just received this (click on images to enlarge) :


Additionally, Mr. Rankin advises he was forced to sign the following "under duress," meaning that he was informed his application would not be forwarded to Sheriff Brown for consideration unless and until he had done so:


And here's the thing--Larry says the Sheriff's Department now refuses to give him a copy of the form he signed, providing him instead with a blank. Why would they do that?

This is typical "Only Ones" arrogance, of course. They have their guns, they deny a citizen the right to bear his, and they'll arrest or kill him if he tries and they find out about it. Of course they will do nothing to guarantee the safety of Mr. Rankin and his family, nor assume liability should he or they be harmed or worse in a situation where his having a gun could have prevented an attack.

And what about this?


You'll notice there has been nothing but silence from the people who gave Sheriff Brown an "A" rating during the election--despite several attempts to contact them and an invitation to post their unedited response. I think it's past time NRA's California Grassroots explained why they solicited their membership with a pro-Bill Brown mailer and who knows what other kind of election support, and it's high time they publicly admitted they were wrong and revoked their rating and support. But it's probably easier to just have their apologists dismiss this as more NRA bashing.

I may have time this weekend to scan and post the entire new policy.

#TurncoatTurner

[More]

Here's how big of a lying political whore this character is:

NRA Endorsed with NRA-PVF Rating: A 

It's easy to see how he made Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's bipartisan "Most Corrupt" list.

He evidently thinks he enjoys a big enough Republican advantage to betray those who believed the lies. Assuming a challenger who actually understands what the Second Amendment is about doesn't primary this poltroon out of office, any gun owner who nonetheless still votes for this political adulterer may as well just admit to being a willing cuckold. That's exactly the kind of "lesser of two evils" rationalization over the years that got us into this mess in the first damn place.

Besides, someone who pretends to be your friend and then betrays you so completely and profoundly is the greater evil.

Be nice if the title hashtag stuck...

Another 'Pro-Gun Democrat'

[More]

Rep. Tim Ryan is giving the campaign money — $20,000 in all — he’s received from the National Rifle Association to gun control groups. The Niles Democrat, who began his career in Congress with an “A” rating from the NRA, decided to donate his NRA money to Sandy Hook Promise, Americans for Responsible Solutions and Everytown for Gun Safety. [More]

How many times does this have to happen before Lairds of Fairfax loyalists admit to themselves the Vulcan chessmaster is playing checkers -- badly?

"Unpublished" Examiner Article

This is what has been removed from the Examiner.com site. I am posting it here to keep the information from being suppressed. I'm also going to continue tracking down why it was torpedoed in the first place.

---

Embattled Hastert was no friend to gun owners despite ‘A’ rating

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert has been indicted on “one count each of structuring currency transactions to evade currency transaction reports and making a false statement to the FBI,” NBC News reported Friday. Further reports citing “two federal law enforcement officials” suggest the politician-turned lobbyist has been paying hush money to cover up sexual abuse accusations dating back to when he was a high school teacher and wrestling coach.

That the charges come now, when Hillary Clinton’s star is rising amidst allegations of her past improprieties, is perhaps to be expected as a politically smart way to take such focus off the presumptive Democrat front-runner. In any case, it illustrates that the greatest danger to Republicans comes not from principled conservatives criticizing betrayals by party elites, but from those elites’ own actions. It also makes it fair to wonder if anyone else in the leadership is similarly vulnerable and compromised – a theory some have suggested as a potential explanation for a succession of seeming surrenders following last November's political polarity shift.

In any case, gun owners with long memories will shed no tears over Hastert being in the hot seat. Many of us still remember May, 1999, when, per CNN, “House Speaker Dennis Hastert entered the fierce debate on gun control ... saying he favored raising the minimum age for owning a handgun to 21 and requiring background checks for all sales at gun shows.”

It was especially “puzzling” at the time, as “[a]n aide from [then-Senate Majority Leader Trent] Lott's office told CNN that ... the gun control issue is not slated to come up in the House of Representatives anytime soon.”

“Where the hell is it within the Constitutional powers of the federal government to enact any kind of gun control legislation at all?” I asked in an angry open letter response to Hastert. “Where the hell do you get off endorsing a handgun ban for a segment of our population that is old enough to vote, to marry, to parent and to go to war and die protecting your sorry politically opportunistic @$$?”

Adding insult to injury, the following month, Hastert refused to use his position of influence “to ‘whip’ members into a unified party line” on guns, The Los Angeles Times noted. “Hastert has spoken favorably of new gun safety measures since the Littleton, Colo., high school massacre.”

Curiously, even after those betrayals, NRA still gave Hastert an “A” rating. Evidently giving them some of what they wanted, including access to his office, was enough to induce Fairfax to overlook the infringements he favored imposing. In any case, with the triumphant attacks on Republicans that are certain to come (and the “progressive” braying has already predictably started), principled “no compromise” gun owners can at least prove a substantial level of separation from the inevitable guilt-by-association conflation.

UPDATE: Indications are the allegations concern sexual misconduct with a student.

SUGGESTED LINKS

• Gun group warns against continuing resolution surrender by Republicans
• Republican 'leaders' block and derail campus carry in Nevada
• Koch money and GOP access may discourage pairing amnesty with gun rights
• Republicans leaving anti-rights restoration provision in appropriations bill
• Precinct Project provides blueprint to ‘take back Republican Party’

The Choice is Clear

Sarah Palin Endorses Joe Carr for Senate Against Lamar Alexander [More]

Good for her. She's right, you know.

As we've observed before, amnesty will create millions of new Democrats, and when that happens, "gun control" will not be checked at the polls or in court confirmations. It IS a critical component of that "single issue." Anyone who says otherwise is an apologist liar.  You'll note they didn't raise the same objections when NRA (quite properly) took on McCain/Feingold.

So look how Carr does against Alexander.

Per NRA, Carr even does better than Alexander on guns. (And note Lamar's GOA rating.)

So why haven't they endorsed him?  (And what's with this headline-without-a-story placeholder at the Greenville Sun?)

Trying not to rock the establishment boat? Listening to (gun-grabber-endorsing)  Grover and his cronies again?

The only logical explanation: the Vulcan chessmaster is trying for a Reid-Angle repeat.

Stop with the damn games. Do the right thing.

UPDATE: Perhaps I've been hasty.  Alexander is reestablishing his RKBA creds by making soothing noises for those of us with antique firearms containing ivory. Sorry, Mr. Carr.