An Interesting Dilemma for NRA

I'm assuming everybody here is familiar with the Todd Akin brouhaha by now.

And they also know that winning the Senate is a key objective of "conservative" political activists.

If he does not drop out, will NRA dare back--and by that I mean endorse and financially contribute to and send out mailers on behalf of--this candidate with "an 'A' lifetime rating"? Especially considering they gave Claire McCaskill an "F"?

Or will they, as so many are doing, either keep a low profile, scale back, or abandon him altogether, out of political considerations that have nothing to do with his stance on guns?

If so, what happens to that "single issue organization" mantra their apologists employed to defuse criticism over Harry Reid?

Another NRA "A" Rating

NRA Endorses Gov. Phil Bredesen

Pay it forward, Phil. Pay it forward.

Maybe you and Brad can get together for a laugh.

On Endorsing Enablers

From correspondent Mack H:

This is something worth following, I think. Let me take this step-by-step...

A Virginian, all by himself (pro se), is suing George Mason University to secure the right to armed self-defense on college campus.

His legal briefs are posted here:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/31880.html

He lost in Circuit court, so now he is now appealing to the Supreme Court of Virgina:
http://www.virginia1774.org/GMUSCPetitionweb.pdf

The AG's office has responded with this brief:
http://www.virginia1774.org/GMUBRIEFOPPET.pdf

This brief alleges that a taxpayer supported university has a "compelling government interest" in banning armed self-defense because allowing students and visitors to bring weapons onto campus would imperil safety.

"Without the regulation, the University's safety is seriously compromised." From page 13. Read on to see examples listed as to why safety is threatened by guns on campus. You decide how ridiculous those examples are. No mention of armed campus cops. That wouldn't fit the template.

The Virginia Attorney General is William C. Mims.

Billy Mims is a well-known gun control RINO. He has always supported gun control over freedom.

Bill Mims is a close, personal friend of Bob McDonnell. For a time, they both served in the House of Delegates.

McDonnell hand-picked Mims to be his deputy AG - his second in command.

McDonnell planned all along, when he won the race for AG, to resign early so he could run full-time for governor.

McDonnell hand-picked Mims to be the new Attorney General -- his successor.

Bob McDonnell has received the endorsement of the NRA. He has not (so far) received the endorsement of the VCDL-PAC.

No one writes about this publicly. I wonder why?

Yep:

McDonnell...urged lawmakers to pick Mims, his chief deputy, to succeed him.

and:

Virginia: NRA endorses McDonnell for Governor

Any political rating system that doesn't take into account anti-gun political alliances is incomplete and deceptive.

"Zumbo" Bachus

Bachus did not support small city officials who asked if he would oppose all gun bans. Instead, he said, it may be necessary to support some assault weapon bans in order to keep all guns from being outlawed. [More]

It would be easier just to zumbo the dumb sob, using that term as the verb it has become.

It's also time to ask GOA and NRA just what they intend to do about this weasel's rating.

• Contact GOA
• Contact NRA
  

Kurt Hofmann has lots more. He has contacts for Bachus if you'd like to tell the guy what a pathetic excuse for an American you consider him to be.

Some may think this is something you want to salvage. I'm of the mind that once I lose trust I lose respect. Once I lose respect I feel nothing but disgust.

Anti-Gun Deception On The Senate Floor

Did we mention that our opponents are deliberately deceptive?

What--you mean they'll still give an A-rating to someone who votes for Eric Holder?

I want you to take a few minutes and read what NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox has to say about Holder, naturally under the "Vote Freedom First" header. Among other things:

...Holder's history of aggressive anti-gun activism is even worse than Emanuel's record of media-focused PR stunts.

Holder has always been among the first in front of the cameras to exploit tragedy for political gain. From Columbine to the September 11 attacks, there was no event in which Holder couldn't find some inspiration for gun bans, gun registration, gun rationing and more. Just weeks after terrorists used box cutters to turn airplanes into guided missiles, Holder wrote in the Washington Post, "One measure that is an essential part of any plan is the need to tighten our nation's gun laws, which allow the easy and legal sale of firearms to terrorists and criminals."

Holder claimed, mistakenly, "No court has ever said that the Second Amendment actually says that. I think, if you look at it, it talks about bearing guns in a well-regulated militia. And I don't think anywhere it talks about an individual." Holder most recently signed a brief...in the Heller case that "The Second Amendment does not protect firearm possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia."

But if senators don't "Vote Freedom First," well, anybody who has a problem with that just doesn't understand how politics works.

And forget talking filibuster. With the betrayal by all those A-rated republicans on the Judiciary Committee, we're told we just don't have the numbers. And why did they feel comfortable with betrayal again? Where was the NRA-ILA Alert leading a concerted effort to oppose Holder from Day One, to write, call and email senators, to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it known that "Vote Tyranny First" would not be cost-free?

Right. After what Cox just told us, we're supposed to turn around and accept that this is just not important enough to expend political capital on? Besides, activist gun owners would be so worn out from making a few phone calls and sending a few letters that they'd just be totally spent when AWB2 comes around. What, you think we can walk now and chew gun six months later?

Which I guess means a vote for cloture if someone does strap 'em on to filibuster won't be held against them, either. Or against any of those A-rated and endorsed "pro-gun" democrats:

If the assumption is "all the current Democratic senators," what can we expect from our new shining "pro-gun Democrat" star? Or we might ask where our "true champion of Second Amendment freedoms" Max Baucus stands...or Tim Johnson...or...

There is one point where I agree with the Lairds of Fairfax. There is anti-gun deception on the Senate floor. And it is deliberate.

John Kerry's Friend

John Kerry, who has an F rating from the NRA and an F rating from GOA, is urging Idaho Senators to drop their hold on his friend Michael Sullivan's confirmation as director of the ATF.

So Kerry's for him, as is Ted Kennedy and Mr. Vote Freedom First himself--you know, the guy gun owners put over the top in the last two elections.

If "Maximum Mike" is confirmed, expect more of the same abuse.

This is bigger than who heads BATFU. The message to Republicans needs to be loud and clear. The GOP keep expecting us to put up with their betrayals, and they're offering us front runners with a history of doing just that. If they want to lose really big in '08, just keep it up.

In the mean time, as a token gesture of gratitude for past support and good will for the future, we need to make it known we expect them to oppose this nomination.

Of course, if it's just a few of us saying this, it will amount to nothing. You have written your senators, right? (I eagerly await the first late-comer to give the "but they're Democrats" excuse...click this link to see how to address that)

And by the way--how come our self-proclaimed leaders from Fairfax are nowhere near the fray, and purposefully quiet about the whole thing?

This is Not Gun Control

The NRA insisted that it was not a "gun control" bill because it does not disqualify anyone currently able to legally purchase a firearm.

Yeah. Besides, when have we ever seen the antis try to renege on previous deals?

It's not like once the beachhead is gained and secured it would be used as a launching point for further attacks. It's not like this won't be expanded to include demands to go after gun s already in "the system"--or that demands would then be made to remove guns from the homes where such people reside belonging to other family members or roommates.

Nah, don't think of it as gun control. Think of it as public relations--and a foundation for future fundraising.

Hey, Wayne--as long as we're on the subject of responses to Virginia Tech, would it still be "exploiting tragedy" to broach the subject citizens not having their right to keep and bear arms infringed on campus, or is that concept still verboten?

Oh, look: He's "beginning a dialog."

Are we getting ready to change our tune, or is the lead-in lauding "armed guards" an indicator of more of the same?

Are there solutions to this problem? Is there anything we can all do to help protect our kids at school?

And they say there are no stupid questions.

God forbid NRA would have anything to say about this:

H.R. 2424: To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act

Maybe I shouldn't have said anything about that. I'd hate to think I was partly responsible for getting Ron Paul's rating knocked down another grade.


[Via Dave Licht and JH]

Check Out The Handgun Club of America!

Some of the gun blogs are mentioning a new group, Handgun Club of America, and encouraging us to check it out.

I just took a cursory glance at their site, and will need to learn more before I can recommend joining.

They say they’re not a “politically-charged grou[p] like the NRA and other firearm organizations.” Instead, they say they “are, if you will, a calm, rational alternative for the 60 million households who lawfully choose to own a handgun.”

Fine. Not everyone can be an activist. There is room for recreational/educational clubs, and they can do much good in promoting an interest in shooting handguns, which can result in an interest in defending the right to own one. But claiming to be a “calm, rational alternative” implies those fighting for the right to keep and bear arms are agitated (fair enough) and irrational (hey, wait a minute...).

This raises a flag for me. An unequivocal statement of support for the Second Amendment--along with some examples to demonstrate their understanding of "shall not be infringed"--would help alleviate concerns.

Just who is behind HCA? Who are the people who want us to send them money? A register.com WHOIS lookup identifies one Josh Manheimer of J.C. Manheimer & Company as the registrant—although it’s not clear if he’s the principal behind the effort or an agent of those who are. I’ve never heard of him—either in the gun rights community or as someone of note in the field of handgun expertise. A Google search on his name turns up nothing in terms of any kind of "street cred" in the firearms community—although I do note he raised $100 for Howard Dean in 2004.

Yeah, Dean used to have an NRA "A" rating (for what that's worth), but he's on record supporting the "assault weapon" ban, the Brady Bill, and ending the "gun show loophole." He also has no problem with states ignoring the Bill of Rights--at least as far as the Second Amendment goes. Manheimer's support--if he is a principal behind HCA as opposed to a paid pr guy-- raises another flag for me.

What Manheimer is is a direct mail copywriter, a pro at crafting words so that people in his target market will want to buy the product or service he has contracted to promote.

That's great. If you want to attract people, you have to know how to do it. His advertising expertise is impressive and the HCA site reflects this.

But that's all style--I have another concern--another flag--about substance: On their “Gun Safety Rules” page, HCA tells us to:

"Store firearms and ammunition separately. When cleaning a firearm, put ammunition in a separate room or locked up out of reach.

"Stored firearms should be unloaded to prevent accidents when removing from their storage location. Ammunition, especially while cleaning a firearm, should be stored separately."

Well, sorry, but if I do that, it becomes useless for emergency defense. This seems to be the same advice we get from Andrew McKelvey’s Americans for Gun Safety, which tells us to: “Keep your ammunition as safe and inaccessible as your firearms.”

And it's the same position adopted by the Brady Center, which has initiated a Legal Action Project because they say “a majority of gun owners living with children do not store their guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.”

We see that when applied uniformly in the real world, such one-size-fits-all policies can result in nasty, brutal things--like pitchfork murders--where minors couldn’t reach a gun to save their lives.

I think HCA needs to address this.

Bottom line: HCA may turn out to be a fine organization. Mr. Manheimer may turn out to be a handgun enthusiast who has created something that will benefit gun owners. He may turn out to be a hired marketing consultant for someone else.

But until we find out who is behind HCA and whether or not they really support the Second Amendment--and how they do so--I can’t recommend giving them any money. Some sport shooters almost got burned by the American Hunting and Shooting Association until some curious folks started checking up on them.

I'll go this far in joining the other gun bloggers who recommend checking out HCA:

Yes, by all means, do so.

What Community Couldn't Use More?

Sixteen Republican Representatives Tell President they Want More than 18,000 Refugees [More]

Good thing this has nothing to do with that "single issue"!

That's why NRA says "Bill Huizenga has earned our endorsement and “A” rating."

And the Saviors agree!

[Via Felix B]

A 'Pro-Gun' Democrat

'A' Rating from the NRA [More]

That's because all this talk is just that.

And this is a guy who is too "conservative" for the Democrats.

[Via Mack H]

Mostly

PolitiFact: Only ‘Mostly True’ to Point Out Joe Manchin Has ‘D’ Rating from NRA [More]

Well shoot -- they could make the same claim about Kirsten Gillibrand and Tim Walz and Anitere Flores and Rick Scott and  (I could do this all day)...

Or make that night.

A Revised Opinion

NRA Demands Tennessee Dem Retract Ad Featuring Old Rating [More]

After all, why would an experienced and highly-paid political operator like Chris Cox think a Democrat could end up betraying him?

[Via Jess]

A Tale of Two Candidates

Gun Owners of America recently endorsed Shak Hill for Congress. [More]

Meanwhile:

Comstock has an A rating from the NRA, which is headquartered in Fairfax and has supported her campaigns.

So why the "B-" here?

And what about that one issue that can eviscerate that "single issue"? The one "The WinningTeam" and its board  is bent on ignoring...?

See for yourself:

So what's with all the penis-smearing, aside from throwing Hill (who explains the posts on his boutique publishing site as automatic and unintended) into the ruthless Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule pit?

Everybody knows the "conservative" Washington Free Beacon is a hotbed of swamp-enabling "Never Trumpers," with ties to our old pal the Kristol Methhead?

[Via Carlos Perdue] 

A Staunch Supporter

"I absolutely believe that in this country if you are 18 years of age, you should not be able to buy a rifle, and I will support a law that takes that right away," Rubio said at CNN's town hall in Florida. [More]

If that doesn't merit "the highest attainable 'A+' rating from the NRA," nothing does.

[Via Felix B]

Oath-Breaking Political Turncoat Flores Betrays Gun-Owning Florida Supporters

In other words, she does not support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. She prefers so-called “gun free zones,” with prohibitions backed up by the force of law. And that’s curious, to say the least, seeing as how in the last election campaign, Flores’ opponent used her supposed “pro-gun” stance and National Rifle Association grade against her (the NRA Political Victory Fund website, accessible to members only, notes she was given an “A” rating). [More]

The enemy within must be expelled.

Talk About Brazen!

This was a brazen act by individuals who obviously had no fear of being met with any opposition from the people who work in or patronize an environment where firearms are banned by federal law. [More]

Thanks for nothing, Supreme Court. What do we feed you people for again?

You know what else is brazen?

"Pro-gun Democrat" Jon Tester making sure post offices stay "gun  free" and getting an "A" rating and NRA endorsement plus NSSF's "Legislator of the Year" award for "protecting gun rights."

New Examiner "Review" Criteria May Explain What Staff Refuses To

Long-time readers who have supported my work deserve an explanation, so here's an update for those of you who have been wondering what's going on with Gun Rights Examiner. Sorry it's so long -- there are many pieces to consider.

I've been writing for them since 2008, and never had a column pulled before. Now they've sunk two in a row, and have clammed up on their reason, to boot.

A full week after Examiner.com "unpublished" my Hastert column, and five days after they torpedoed my follow-up column about a media subscriber news service including that story in an alert to members, they still have not responded to multiple inquiries asking why. That's in spite of their instruction to "Contact support with any questions."

That they would  let a content provider spend hours researching, writing, publishing and publicizing an article, pull it, and then go into hiding, is indicative of the "leadership" routinely endured over the years, and leads to natural speculation as to what "offense" against "standards" could have possibly occurred this time. If tough to know what's allowable when anti-gun "progressives" are permitted to outright lie and call gun owners who believe in their rights "ammosexuals" (that's actually a keyword tag on the Examiner site).

It looks like that assumption was wrong -- albeit with no explanation followed by the silent treatment, it was an understandable conclusion to jump to. They just sent out an email to their list defining new criteria for both acceptability of an article as "newsworthy," as well as general editorial criteria for all articles.

Understand that Examiner does not submit all articles to the Google news feed. They have requirements, like the story must be under 48 hours old, you have to link to sources they consider credible, you can't reference other Examiner links, you can't use the first person, etc. That's been understood, even if it's self-defeating for those of us who actually dig out stories on our own, as opposed to linking to what someone else has uncovered and rewording it to take advantage of keyword and topic trending. In other words, those of us doing investigative journalism, where we are the ones breaking stories, and where we have nothing else to refer to as a source but our own prior work, are penalized for deviating from the content farm model.

They now appear to be extending that to all articles, not just the ones submitted to the news feeds. And it appears not complying with "review criteria" they just sent out today may be the reason behind "unpublishing" articles published a week ago.

Their criteria, incidentally, corroborate the valuing of search ranking manipulation over content. Case in point, from the Examiner Support Center "Basic Editorial Requirement writing Tips":

Please refrain from using one-sentence paragraphs, paragraphs consisting of only a few short sentences or paragraphs made up of incomplete sentences whenever possible. Google rejects pieces that are formatted that way.

Compare that to Purdue University's Online Writing Lab, teaching journalism students how to write:

Tips for Writing a Lead ... Brevity: Readers want to know why the story matters to them and they won’t wait long for the answer. Leads are often one sentence, sometimes two.

The "review criteria" also list some of the "sins" committed in my Hastert and follow-up articles:

Self-promotion: Not allowed in article content. No click-baiting or product marketing is permitted ... Third Person: Avoid first-person references ("I," "me," "my," etc.) The focus of the article should be on the story, not on the person writing it.

That depends on the meaning of the term "self-promotion." and the qualifications of  the person making that assessment. My columns never contain "click-baiting or product marketing." What they do contain are references to original work that no one else has uncovered, and if not called to reader attention, will remain unknown to everyone but me. We certainly know the "mainstream media" has no interest unless it's to take a story uncovered by small fry, bigfoot it, and claim it as their own.

Yes, my Hastert story contained a link to one of my articles from 16 years ago, an open letter I wrote to him (that was subsequently published in a Libertarian Party publication at the request of one of their officials), and that necessitated a first-person reference. It couldn't be helped.

Everybody and his brother are "reporting" on the Hastert scandal and charges the guy's got himself embroiled in. Not one writer was informing gun owners about his betrayal of their interests when he was Speaker, and how in spite of that, he was still given an "A" rating from NRA. That's legitimate information for a gun rights advocacy readership to be aware of. It's not my fault no one else knew about and was reporting that. I guess the Examiner solution for original and unique offerings is to "unpublish" and suppress them.

Using that criteria, that reference to self or to prior works of original investigative journalism is verboten, let's look at some of the other stuff, allowed in the past, but now evidently in violation of the new criteria:

My FOIA-based exposé on the fake Ceasefire "PSA" that yielded a permit saying “Actors are interviewed on camera in a fake gun store” comes immediately to mind. It included my email correspondence with the Mayor's Office and also linked to my piece at The Shooters' Log. Is that "self-promotion" or is that telling and expanding on a dimension of a national interest story no one else is? And for that matter, if they're going to be consistent why hasn't that article been "unpublished"?

How about my other stories resulting from FOIA requests I filed? Who is going to report on those if not me? We know the "partial response" I got from ATF proved a whistleblower had been called on the carpet for talking to the Senate. We also know the Senate was publicly pressured -- by me -- to interview and protect Gunwalker whistleblowers in the first place.

As a matter of fact, look at all the reporting Mike Vanderboegh and I did on this before anyone in major media said word one about Fast and Furious. By Examiner's "review criteria," this all needs to be pulled from the site. And future stories -- and Mike has arranged to share documentation with me on a huge one -- cannot, as a matter of their "rules," appear there.

So what else, just off the top of my head, must go?

It looks like I can't tell readers how ATF claimed -- to me -- an Administrative Procedures Act exemption from their recent ammo ban "framework" trial balloon. Nor can I tell them how -- after my reports -- the "real reporters" discovered the B. Todd Jones leaving ATF for NFL story, or the Armatix management split story, or how an anti-gun "filmmaker" broke the law regarding bringing imitation firearm onto school premises without permission, or...

Nor can I include links in future articles to information vital to understanding a complex and ongoing story that appears nowhere else, such as the series of reports I have done containing exclusive information on the Reese family case, John Shipley, ATF's Vince Cefalu and Jay Dobyns, the '68 GCA and other legal challenges, and those are just off the top of my  head as topics where I have to refer and link to earlier reports I posted in order to validate claims. And who knows what this will do to the innumerable source documents I alone have archived on Scribd? How is linking to my account there not "self-promotion"?

I guess I can forget about telling you things I'd like you to help be a force multiplier for. That's a major reason I do this, to provide information that no one else does or will, and to then rely on activist readers to help me bypass "legitimate media" gatekeepers. And sometimes, the action just happens to center on my activities. So if I interview Rand Paul, or appear on a television panel, or get interviewed on a network show, or help write lyrics to a song for a political video produced by a multiple-award winning filmmaker and premiering on a nationally-syndicated radio program, or give a speech in front of a state house, those are all things I'm evidently no longer allowed to tell regular readers about in my column -- a column I started and expanded to a national presence on the premise and promise that I could.

That's in spite of a pledge made to me by Examiner only three months ago after one of their reviewers had rejected my ATF ammo ban piece from news feed submission on the grounds that I did not link to a recognized news source.

"As for the main premise of my story having no link, what am I supposed to do when this is original investigative journalism based my telephone conversation held today with an ATF official identified as the point of contact on a new proposed rule?" I asked. "There IS no other source to link to, as no one else has this development but me. I repeat: What am I to do?"

This was the last official word received on the matter:

Click to enlarge

I guess the "welcome" has been pulled back, or at least my being able to identify myself as the one who made the story happen in the first place, and to reference and link to an exclusive in follow-up reports.

Several of you have reached out to me, asking if I want you to do anything, maybe write to Examiner. Thanks, but no. These conditions are intolerable. I'm probably going to need to post a bare minimum article once a month just to keep them from declaring my account inactive and not sharing page view revenues from past articles, but it looks like their rules will no longer allow me to do much of the original stuff that requires self-referencing and linking.

How this will play out and if I'll land anywhere else is anybody's guess, but it doesn't look promising. Ultimately, I have to admit the failure to figure a way out of the box is mine, as my stuff is unacceptable to big boy media as well as to "lobby groups." That's because I do this to say what I want to say.

I'll keep writing for the magazine as long as they want me, and also do occasional contract assignments that don't dictate information-stifling restrictions, but without a replacement gig, this is probably going to require stepping back and refocusing energies on something that values my efforts enough to actually pay the bills. For now, look for this blog and all of my social media activity to be limited to dreaded "self-promotion."

UPDATE: Well, that was quick. At least it shows they can move when motivated. They fired me, and warned me not to show anyone the termination notice because that would violate a confidentiality agreement.  I'll match their agreement violations over the years against mine if they want to pursue this, because I maintain this is definitely in the interests of pursuing a story about cheesy Examiner.com practices:

[Click to enlarge]

NRA’s ‘A-’ grade for Begich in Alaska Senate race endangers GOP takeover

To have any meaning at all, Begich’s vote for Sotomayor should have dropped his rating by a full letter grade, and I would argue for more than that. But compounding the effects of his betrayal with a vote for Kagan should have resulted in an example that all would have taken notice of. Degrading him to an “A-” after that is a transparently insincere joke. With that party über alles move, and by adding potentially mortal insult to critical injury, he should have been given an “F” for life. [More]

Today's Gun Rights Examiner report notes the game-playing for motives unknown continues.

Awaiting Moderation? This Needs to Be Seen NOW...

Ain't it something...?  Examiner's DISQUS moderator has no problem letting pure unadulterated spam slip through, but get a relevant comment and forget it--particularly one that is time-critical, as after today it won't be able to do any good.  Meaning my tech support ticket won't solve anything until it's too late.

So I guess I'd best post this here, in re the McDaniel/Cochran race:

Terrific article. Thanks. The crying shame is that we could've had several *dozen* Brat-Cantor-type upsets, had the gun rights, tea party, conservative and Republican
communities graded honestly and lifted a finger. Not least, we could've forced Lindsey Graham into a runoff and then defeated him. For evidence, one need only see the Brat-Cantor race. Brat went from being down 33 points to winning by 12 in one month, thanks to haphazard grassroots and talking head support, and thanks to the endorsement, ads and robocalling for Brat by Gun Owners of America. Cantor was defeated despite the NRA endorsing and campaigning for him, despite GOA's failure to downgrade Cantor from an A to the D or F he deserves (thus undermining GOA's own national endorsement and spending for Brat) and despite the national Sterile Bee Queen "Tea Party" groups' passive-aggressive or open support for Cantor, open-immigration and amnesty. Lindsey Graham avoided a runoff by just 9% against 6 more conservative candidates. Given the rapid Brat swing, Graham could've easily lost by 9% instead, forced into a runoff, then defeated, if the major loyal American organizations and talking heads had lifted a finger. At least Graham was only rated C by GOA. But, had GOA's grade reflected GOA's observation of the effect of open immigration on gun rights, Graham would've been an F, that alone might have been enough to hold him to a runoff.

The national "Tea Party" groups "stayed out" of the Brat-Cantor race, yet immediately took credit for it in their typical, fraudulent, Nigerian-style fundraising emails. All major "Tea Party" groups either openly endorse amnesty or passive-aggressively support it (e.g., Club for Growth). Sal Russo's "Tea Party" Express has endorsed amnesty, < http://theteaparty.net/>TheTeaParty.net is in bed with the open-immigration San Francisco neo-"Libertarian" group The Independent Institute (effectively an "Immigration-Socialist" group), and "FreedomWorks" was founded by openly
pro-amnesty beltway lobbyist and Chamber of Commerce waterboy Dick "Amnesty" Armey. All these groups, including "Tea Party Patriots", suck money out of Tea Party candidate coffers with hysterical, fundraising cons claiming to support certain candidates or issues -- 95% of the money actually goes for lavish salaries and sweetheart consulting contracts.

Joe Miller has clearly and consistently opposed
and exposed amnesty in personal communications and campaign emails. e.g.,
< http://joemiller.us/2013/06/amnesty-another-ruling-class-effort-to-destroy-America > http://joemiller.us/2013/06/am...
Also, Miller's opponents are waterboys for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Hence, it's incredible that Miller has no NumbersUSA rating, which means either NumbersUSA neglected to send it to him and make sure he got it, or he declined or neglected to fill out their questionnaire. I emailed Miller and his campaign about this last week, so if he
refuses or neglects to reply or fill it out, then he will pay a price, including my support. I've been a Miller donor since 2010.

‘C’ grade for anti-gun Sheriff Brown by Calif. gun group should be an ‘F’

Because even though it’s not a good grade, a “C” is a passing one. Santa Barbara gun owners who don’t know any better will vote accordingly, so what CRPA will end up doing, after seeing evidence of Brown’s betrayals of his earlier “A,” and after meeting with NRA members he’s shafted, is help Bill Brown get reelected. The rating has the effect of being a de facto endorsement with plausible deniability and without any of the risks. [More]

I expect today’s Gun Rights Examiner report is going to anger no shortage of people, including some gun owners. That’s too bad. The documented build-up to this has been years in the making, and there’s no excuse to sit on hands and allow this man to remain in power.