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.

The Elefante in the Room

Latinos in America are a done deal. Good idea, bad idea, disaster, or doesn’t much matter–it’s still done. [More]

---

UPDATE NOTE: There is a problem with the link at present. If it persists, here is the cached version.

---

I mostly like Fred Reed. And as much as I don't want to admit it, he's probably right about illegal immigrants being here to stay, although he's kind of short on probabilities when two disparate cultures try to occupy the same turf. He appears to have the background to grok that.

But while ridiculing motives of amnesty opponents in this and other essays on the topic, reducing it to a cartoon combination of bigotry and South Park "'ey took our jobs!" resentment, I've never seen him address the main motivator, which has nothing to do with the simple prejudices he limits his arguments to lambasting.

There's an elefante in the room I've never seen him acknowledge, let alone address.

Maybe he can be the one to answer my longstanding challenge, because it's a cinch none of the cheap labor Republicans or the NRA want to touch it:

Audit all credible polls against real world experience in places like California and then produce credible data – not opinion, not anecdotes, not isolated examples, but something that can be independently validated – demonstrating that “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and legally, with CURRENT culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners.

Show your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts. Show how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts and reverse gains made to date.

What, we need to start to think about assimilation instead? It's a little late for that, but I could add "Show how assimilation will reverse this outcome-- be sure and provide verifiable numbers to show costs and percentages against a timeline, and the likelihood that enough factions can agree on a unified plan to make a bit of difference."

In the absence of any substantive response, the questions become" "Who will be assimilating whom and under what terms?" and what happens when a critical mass will "not go gentle into that good night"?

That terrible probability is why some of us, a handful, strive to warn, futilely, I fear.

But not going gentle means not giving up.

UPDATE:  Comments gone.

I don't know if this is a hack attack or if I accidentally deleted everything with a wrong check mark in a box, which seems a system flaw to allow that much to be lost by a simple keystroke withno "delete" confirmation dialog --I'm going to try to get back in and see if any reconstruction is possible -- in the mean time I'm putting in what I can recover from undeleted email notices under this and a few other posts, but it looks like it may be extensive and going to manyother posts.

If I Truly Believe

This comment was left on Facebook under a post promoting my latest Oath Keepers column. I just don't have time for detailed one-on-one exchanges, but I feel like addressing points publicly raised, so I'm including my response here:

David Codrea I have read your article on the Chattanooga Shooting and Jihad. If you truly believe what you wrote then I must ask you why you are not screaming at the top of your lungs that we must revitalize that specific power "To repel Invasions"? The Constitution is clear in this; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15, along with the hundreds of corresponding state statutes that originally gave force to that authority. As Adm. Yamamoto warned the Japanese command that they could not invade the US because, "There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass". Imaging the benefit to society in general. We have now approximately 750,000 so-called law enforcement that is in no way capable of curtailing crime or the build up of gangs. With a revitalized Militia, we would have every able bodied person who has regular duty armed at all times. Crime on the streets and in the halls of the legislatures would diminish, and we certainly would not have millions of illegal aliens roaming our streets. Are you one who truly wants to keep the US free, and safe?

First of all, I've been beating that drum for many years.  From an article I wrote about George Bush appointing an anti-gun Homeland Security Czar after 9/11:

Promote and utilize, rather than prosecute, armed citizen volunteers training and acting in concert for homeland defense, that is, provide leadership to restore the Constitutional militia.

I can come up with all kinds of examples from before and after that, but then again, so can anyone with a burning desire to see them, a search engine, and more spare time than I do on their hands.

As for repelling invasions, that's a non sequitur in terms of the article I'm inviting a discussion on. The Chattanooga killer was a naturalized citizen, welcomed into this country, all done "lawfully" in accordance with policies instituted by Congress, the very people tasked by the Constitution "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The Republican establishment is as much behind the "invasion" as the Democrats. I can neither envision nor expect they will be motivated to totally reverse their immigration stance and then perform a duty they have institutionally ignored without a compelling "or else," especially with the powerful twin incentives of cheap labor and votes their masters are whipping them with. Lord knows the few of us raising the "pathway to citizenship" warnings aren't getting any help from the vast "single issue" majority.

As for my screaming at the top of my lungs to make anything happen, I could only wish I had that kind of political juice. The fact of the matter is, I can barely persuade a handful of readers to share links now and then, or to send an email. The minute I bring up donating a dollar or two to worthy causes, support drops exponentially. "Profiles in apathy" is another recurring theme I've addressed over the years without making much progress at inspiring change.

I don't have high hopes that most gun owners would willingly submit to the rigors and enforceable discipline of well-regulated militia duties and endure long term risks, hardships and sacrifices. History would seem to bear that out even in revolutionary times. Hamilton even addressed continued militia service in Federalist No. 29, when he acknowledged "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped."

As for Yamamoto's "rifle behind every blade of grass," sorry, but I advocate against repeating and propagating unsourced quotes. And as for questioning my sincerity ("if you truly believe/are you one who truly wants...?"), if my challenger truly believes that, his time would be better spent where such doubts don't come up.

There's always going to be people who think I need to do this or that, or say something differently, or emphasize something else. If I do what one person wants, someone else will think I should have made a different choice.

There's nothing stopping anyone who's dissatisfied with that from doing things their way.

There Oughta Be a Law

"Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian." [More]

Thank you, John. Most cool of you to do this.

I do have a suggested edit: The statement is merely a truism, and does not go on to recommend a further action on the part of anyone -- any misconception otherwise is probably due to conflicts or confusion attributable to the way I've presented it.

If the response to the truism is to incarcerate an individual, he still has a right to fight off prison beatings and rapes  --  that is, failures of custodians to properly fulfill their obligations. That opens up a door into a whole 'nother room about what "we" should do about people who can no more be trusted to roam freely among us than we could trust a man-eating lion.  In any case, what John has designated "Codrea's Law" is silent on a "solution."

Now jump over to another point I frequently make -- that "illegal aliens" being given a "pathway to citizenship" will result in a majority that will allow for government evisceration of the right to keep and bear arms. While I definitely have strong opinions on the subject of immigration, "legal" and otherwise, my observation alone comes with no recommendation on "what to do about it" (aside from properly considering political actions supporting it to be "anti-gun" in effect). It merely states that based on all observable data, and without significant presently unknown factors altering outcomes, that will be the result. That's why I keep issuing my (unanswered to date) challenge to those who maintain otherwise to give us more than wishful thinking, anecdotes and platitudes, something that can be independently validated. Without it, all we're left with to guide an appropriate course are probabilities.

But back to Mr. Comeau's post, and lightening up a bit: When I read the title, my first thought involved a fantasy voice-over introduction to it. Realizing the extreme unlikelihood of that ever happening, my second thought went to an old Firesign Theater bit. And again.

A Heartstring-Tugging Non Sequitur

Received via email, coincidentally right after my latest Oath Keepers piece:

Hallett, Ryan <ryan.hallett@grey.com>  Today, 9:14 AM
Hi David, Racism and discrimination are haunting America’s conscience. Anti-immigrant sentiment, often based in racist and hateful ideology, is on the rise in our country, but few of the “haters” realize that approximately 11% of all U.S. veterans come from an immigrant background. Veterans have made real sacrifices for our country and are among the most respected and honored Americans, which is why Southern Poverty Law Center is partnering on Vets Fight Hate, a campaign to urge Americans to think twice before judging people who are different than they are and whose stories they don’t know or understand. Through Vets Fight Hate, immigrant veterans are responding to hateful tweets by sending an inclusive message of peace and unity to positively impact our fractured society and fight back against those spreading hatred. You can view the powerful new PSA here. Additionally, visitors to vetsfighthate.com can sign up to receive more information on the campaign and learn how to get involved. Either way, I hope you will consider sharing this with your readers. Don’t hesitate to reach out if there’s any additional information I can share. RyanGrey Group Disclaimer

Ah, I see -- their video says they've "identified haters with a large group of followers and fought back with personalized messages."

Ryan is calling people like me a racist and a hater. That's an old SPLC fundraising strategy. So is setting up an Astroturf organization with a resonating name. And teaming up with a slick, well-funded Grey Advertising propaganda campaign featuring "the most respected and honored group in the country" has produced a campaign intended to shame and to silence.

So "Hi" back, Ryan.

To claim the basis of my concerns is hate and racism is insulting and ignores the actual issue, which your "outreach" avoids.  So you get the same challenge as everyone else:

In addition to explaining away the California experience, produce credible data – something that can be independently validated – that “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and even legally, with current culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor “progressives” and anti-gunners. Show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts. Show how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts, and reverse gains made to date.

Notice I didn’t ask for platitudes or for anecdotes about exceptions to the rule, or about who is turning up in increasing numbers at gun stores and ranges – that doesn’t matter if he can’t point to a corresponding overriding shift in voting trends. I didn’t ask for wishful speculation about how education and outreach programs MIGHT help bring more over to the NRA side. I'm asking you to show how all credible estimates putting the disparity at over 70% Democrat and anti-gun are wrong (and how the needle barely moves in the right direction after 20 years).

You lobbed the ball over here, Ryan. It's in your court.

[Click to enlarge]

Vote GOP -- Squishes You Can Count On, Sort Of...

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Tuesday warned that his state could see a wave of Democratic victories in the 2018 midterm elections, and pressed supporters to "counter" the "Far Left." [More]

So stay on the bus that gets us there slower?

The problem is, Scott, we see stuff like this and the implications aren't lost on us:

Two years ago, Walker said that it "makes sense" to grant citizenship to some of the millions of undocumented workers already in the country. By earlier this year, his position had changed, with Walker saying in March: "I don't believe in amnesty" for those in the country illegally. Later that same month, Walker told New Hampshire business leaders at a private dinner that he did, in fact, support providing some illegal immigrants with a pathway to citizenship, according to those familiar with the discussion. News accounts of the event sparked an outcry from the right, along with immediate denials from his staff.

And then we see stuff like this:

Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican with an A rating from the National Rifle Association for his long history of supporting pro-gun measures, is shifting his approach following the recent mass shooting at a Florida high school and as he seeks re-election in November.

Got anything to kindle fire in bellies, like we saw in 2016, or have establishment Republicans done their best to squelch it? I know "The Swamp" will blame apathy losses as a rejection of "Trumpism," but some see the difference between the man and the platform that elevated him -- and have no use for those who undermine it.

Pull that prag "perfect is the enemy of the good" crap on people who haven't seen it a thousand times and won't be fooled again.  What, that means a Democrat will win and really turn up the heat?  That'll get us to the brink, won't it?

See, some figure, thanks to unprincipled Republiquislings, that they're not going to vote their way out, which makes it really dangerous for all concerned. They figure if push comes to shove, they still have the right to keep and bear arms -- whether it's recognized or not. What oppressors and "compromisers" don't seem to grok is that "tolerating" this right not only protects us, but them as well.

Right now they're only seeing defiance.  Resistance takes on a whole new dimension.

Sure, Democrats Have Blacks and Hispanics, But We Have a Shot at Uber Drivers and Vapers!

Grover Norquist proves how delusional and deceptive his arguments are. [More]

Whether this imaginary "coalition" proves resentful enough to make a difference in November or not isn't even the point -- the "pathway to citizenship" he and Bloomberg and the cheap labor über alles Republicans are paving and adding speed lanes to will more than take care of elections after that.

WarOnGuns correspondent Carlos Perdue has posted two highly relevant comments so far  -- and since I can't seem to make individual comment links work, I'm going to copy and paste them here:

Carlos Perdue
4/9/2016 8:14 PM EDT
Groveler al Nor'Qu'ist's Saudi pals are the ones directly responsible for the destruction of all those jobs in America's oil shale drilling patch.

and

Carlos Perdue
4/9/2016 7:13 PM EDT [Edited]
OMG. More delusional, deceptive nonsense from Bloomberg collaborator and islamophile quisling, Grover al Nor'Qu'ist (proper Arabic spelling of Norquist; please be sensitive). 

Bloomberg and his gun-grabbing billionaire pals don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars for amnesty and open immigration to ensure "cheap labor" for Bloomberg's news operation. He's doing it to lock down his long-term gun ban strategy: The permanent cultural and political terraforming of the USA.  

Grover al Nor'Qu'ist openly collaborates with Bloomberg's strategy to overrun our country and overwhelm the relatively conservative native-born citizenry's voting control with fast-breeding legal and illegal immigrants and their offspring, who will continue to lean overwhelmingly Democrat and anti-gun as they have increasingly since "Republicans" went along with Kennedy's 1965 Trojan Horse Immigration Act, since Reagan's and subsequent de facto and de jure amnesties, and since the gross dereliction and subversion by every president after Eisenhower of our most critical national defenses -- our own borders and immigration controls. 

Unless the invasion-occupation-takeover of the USA is halted and reversed, anchor baby citizenship for the children of non-citizens abolished, and legal immigration slashed back to the kind of pleasant, beneficial, non-suicidal trickle we enjoyed from the 1920s under Coolidge through the 1950s under Eisenhower, then within 20 years thanks to the immigration Nor'Qu'islings, the Democrats will have permanent supermajority control of all branches of both the federal government and a supermajority of the states. 

The vast majority of U.S. population growth since 1965 is due to government-sponsored over-immigration and invasion-occupation. The interest groups al Nor'Qu'ist cites are not in the same order of magnitude and will not even vaguely make up for the damage done by al Nor'Qu'ist's subversive immigration policies.

A Good Democrat?

"The NRA is proud to endorse Chris Koster and we urge Missouri's gun owners and sportsmen to get out this November and vote to elect a governor with a proven record of fighting to preserve the Second Amendment." [More]

You mean the "active supporter of Hillary Clinton"? The guy who donated big money (he's in the "between $10K - $25K category) to the Clinton Foundation, which promotes, among other things, a glowing eulogy for Sarah Brady, advice from Mark Kelly and Gabby Giffords to graduating students to "make our communities safer from gun violence," and a boast about how the [Bill] Clinton Administration made "communities safer [through] commonsense gun laws"?

The guy who rolled over for Obama's executive actions on guns despite a clear duty to defend state interests?

The guy who remains intentionally off the record on the Norquist/Bloomberg Amnesty Alliance? Thank goodness that -- aside from guaranteeing a "pathway to citizenship" Democrat supermajority allowing legislatures to pass whatever gun edicts they like and assuring friendly court appointments to uphold them -- this has nothing at all to do with that "single issue."  Right, Messrs. LaPierre and Cox?

Oh, but he's on our side! He saw which way the political winds were blowing and backed a "right to bear arms amendment" (after voters showed what they expected)!  He'd never betray us if political circumstances created different opportunities, like, say, Kirsten Gillibrand and Harry Reid (and plenty more I could name) did, would he?  Those were just flukes when NRA allowed its members to be used and discarded, right?

Besides, the Republican he's running against, former SEAL and Purple Heart/Bronze Star recipient Eric Greitens must be a gunsquish RINO, right?

Ummm... no. No. And no.

So what kind of game is the Vulcan chessmaster playing here?

One thing you can be sure of: It will rely heavily on pawns.

UPDATE: WarOnGuns Correspondent MM calls our attention to a Koster post at The Zelman Partisans. I see they too have noticed a discrepancy with those orange cards -- as have I.

Before you go over there, you might want to have this playing in the background.

Stossel Enables NYC Government to Traumatize Gun Owners

Yeah, John, we know they're monopoly of violence fascists. [More]

So why are you actively abetting the cultural and political terraforming that will enable them to take over the entire Republic?

In addition to explaining the California experience, produce credible data – something that can be independently validated – that “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and even legally, with current culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners. Show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts.

Show us how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts, and reverse gains made to date. The sudden passing of Justice Scalia, and the precarious balances of the Heller and McDonald decisions, ought to drive home for all how dangerously critical that is.

Notice I didn’t ask you for platitudes, or for anecdotes about exceptions to the rule, or about who is turning up in increasing numbers at gun stores and ranges – that doesn’t matter if you can’t point to a corresponding overriding shift in voting trends. I didn’t ask for wishful speculation about how education and outreach programs MIGHT help bring more over to the NRA side.

I asked you to show how all credible estimates putting the disparity at over 70% Democrat and anti-gun are wrong (and how the needle barely moves in the right direction after 20 years). If you think that can be changed, you’re going to need to be specific about how (assuming it can be done, which you’ll also need to spell out), and how by then the damage won’t be irreversible, beyond any kind of beltway insider political “solution.”

Like Grover Norquist, NRA and everyone else I've issued this challenge to, you won't directly and unequivocally answer it either, because you can't.

The Enemy Within

Leading immigration experts say Sen. Thom Tillis’ (R-NC) latest push for amnesty ignores President Donald Trump’s mandate for cracking down on illegal immigration. [More]

OK, Tillis, you get the same challenge no one else has been able to answer:

In addition to explaining the California experience, produce credible data – something that can be independently validated – that “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and even legally, with current culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners. Show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts.

Show us how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts, and reverse gains made to date. The sudden passing of Justice Scalia, and the precarious balances of the Heller and McDonald decisions, ought to drive home for all how dangerously critical that is.

Notice I didn’t ask you for platitudes, or for anecdotes about exceptions to the rule, or about who is turning up in increasing numbers at gun stores and ranges – that doesn’t matter if you can’t point to a corresponding overriding shift in voting trends. I didn’t ask for wishful speculation about how education and outreach programs MIGHT help bring more over to the NRA side.

I asked you to show how all credible estimates putting the disparity at over 70% Democrat and anti-gun are wrong (and how the needle barely moves in the right direction after 20 years). If you think that can be changed, you’re going to need to be specific about how (assuming it can be done, which you’ll also need to spell out), and how by then the damage won’t be irreversible, beyond any kind of beltway insider political “solution.”

How about some verifiable numbers to refute my concerns?

Thank goodness none of this has anything to do with that "single issue," right, NRA?

Show us how his "good votes" now won't be erased and reversed by his support for Norquist/Bloomberg cultural and political terraforming.

Whatever It Takes?

Our campaign stands ready to do whatever it takes to stop the bastardaziation of our constitutional rights. [More]

Whatever?

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY: There is already a southern border wall, it needs to be improved and repaired. The data shows that we have too many illegal immigrants coming into the country that are causing the court system and jails to be substantially overloaded and consequently costing taxpayers substantial amounts of money to deal with the problem. The immigration process needs to be fixed to review and expedite cases.

So-- not a word about those already here, "amnesty," a "pathway to citizenship" and "birthright citizenship"? Not a word about how the "legal" cheap labor side of things creates the same dangers?

I look at that statement coming from someone with an obvious capability to indulge in fiery rhetoric when he wants to, and I wonder how it differs in essence from Michael "fixing the broken immigration system" Bloomberg's.

If that's the best the guy can do, forgive me for invoking Fletcher.

Sometimes, the way just the right buzz words evoke a Pavlovian response reminds me of the town hall audience when Lois Griffin ran for mayor.

[Via bondmen]

In the Spirit of Compromise

Yesterday I stood with my colleagues as we received a petition signed by more than 1.3 million Americans calling on Senate Republicans to do their jobs and stop the outright political obstruction around Supreme Court nominations. [More]

OK, we can talk about it, but in order to be confirmed, the nominee must in principle:

1. endorse "shall not be infringed" and pledge to never rule against the Second Amendment being an individual right.
2. agree that all Second Amendment cases brought before the court be considered under strict scrutiny.
3. acknowledge that the legal concept "in common use at the time" refers, at a minimum, to weaponry carried by soldiers for battlefield use, in addition to those commonly used for self-defense and sport, and that it will include technological advancements so that new "arms" used for those purposes cannot be denied to We the People.

There's really no excuse for the mealy-mouthed duck-and-cover that Nazgûl nominees typically use to weasel out of actually revealing anything about the corpse under their robe. And this list is just for starters, meaning I'd also need to nail them down for views on immigration/amnesty/pathway to citizenship and other issues that threaten our ability to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Somehow, I don't think Murph the Smurf here is going to be receptive to the concessions I'd need before giving him what he wants.

Oh, and I'd also expect NRA to cause grade/endorsement pain for any senator not using this as a litmus test (Yeah, I know, "Ha!"). Because without an "or else," who thinks the Republicans won't cave?

[Via Jim Q]

A Very Particular Set of Skills

I had the "opportunity" the other night to finally watch The Marksman.

We've visited this money-maker before.

Anti-gun in real-life Liam Neeson plays an Arizona rancher/former Marine sniper intent on getting an "unaccompanied minor" illegal alien to his relatives of unknown legal status living in anti-gun Chicago.

Spoiler alerts aplenty follow.

Just to show how ignorant scriptwriters are about the laws Hollywood types are desperate to pile on, when stopped by a cop in pre-"constitutional carry"Texas and asked if he has any firearms, the Arizonan admits to a handgun under his seat and a rifle in the back of his truck. But he assures him they're both "registered."

Being pursued by cartels who came across the border -- legally, with visas -- he stops at a brick-and-mortar gun store in Oklahoma to buy more guns. Apparently being from out of state is no problem. The FFL tells him the system is down, so he has to come back the next day. He assures the FFL he needs them and is not a criminal, inducing the man who has his whole life tied up in his store that he isn't being played, which is all it takes to get the man to tell Neesom OK, he'll just "report them as stolen."

A bit later he figures he needs to teach the kid how to shoot and does so without eye and ear protection, and ends up handing the child a gun to keep on his person.

Once in Illinois, just south of Chicago, the FOIDless Neesom engages in the grand finale gun battle with the cartel and then drops the child off with said unknown-status relatives who, if any reality can be injected into things at this point, will no doubt raise him so that, once his "pathway to citizenship" has been bestowed, he will grow up to become a "gun sense" Democrat politician.

I haven't been this unimpressed with Hollywood's "knowledge" of gun laws since that crappy Death Wish remake where Bruce Willis buys a new machinegun from a Chi-Town gun store.

The stuff that dreams are made of, indeed...

Got a 'Republican' Alternative?

See, that's the dilemma: If not Trump, who? [More]

My friends at GOA say "Cruz." Disregarding his wife's Goldman Sachs affiliation, who doesn't believe Team Hillary won't challenge him on "natural born" citizenship -- and that they won't be right?  Don't argue with me on that, refute Alan Korwin's observations.

Rubio or Kasich? Not that they have the numbers, but if you want the amnesty/pathway to citizenship destruction of the Republic, and to make the Red-Blue Axis establishment happy, go for it. I note NRA, Norquist, et al, have thus far shown deliberate indifference to trying to refute those concerns with anything other than misdirecting anecdotes and unsupported happy talk. That's because they can't, and that's because the numbers can't be manipulated to work in their favor. Most of them appear to be hoping if they don't acknowledge it, a critical mass won't learn about it, and they're probably right.

Mitt Romney, after he jumps in to "save" the sellouts responsible for making Trump so appealing to so many...? Really?

Carson? That doesn't seem likely to happen unless he joins the frontrunner as Veep wannabe and fate/intent intervenes.

All the energy and acrimony may stem from people deep down knowing there is no alternative, and while everyone is having a cow over the number of angels on the head of a pin, "something wicked this way comes."

Speaking of Shabby

Comment by: jhvg (3/9/2015) Grover Norquist does not support amnesty. He supports immigration reform and securing our borders. David Codrea never quoted Norquist or talked to him. Shabby journalism. [More]

You know who else is guilty of shabby journalism, jhvg?

• National Review
• Powerline
• Breitbart
• Look up the rest yourself.

I note you didn't explain what "immigration reform" means to him and to you, not to mention to Michael Bloomberg, with whom he has partnered on the issue, and what it will result in. Why is that? And how will it be different from allowing all current illegals to remain, enjoy a "pathway to citizenship" and have birthright citizenship babies, all of which Norquist wants, to accomplish exactly what only a few of us are warning against?

And what knowledge do you have -- not conjecture, not anecdotes, not platitudes, and certainly not more of your toxic misdirection -- to actually refute the concerns GOA and I share?

Shabby deception. Come out of the shadows, jhvg. Let us test each other's motives.

Deceiver.

As Good as Gone

[Click to enlarge]

If we lose the Presidential election to an extremist anti-gunner like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, our Second Amendment rights and our guns are as good as gone...

Really?

You believe that, Wayne?  Or did you mean to say your guns are as good as gone?

And then are you going to say "Enforce existing gun laws" and advise members to turn 'em all in Mr. and Mrs. America? And if we don't like it we can vote our way out? Like they can do in California and New Jersey?

I thought you were supposed to be a leader -- you sure get paid like one.

And the only way to avert this disaster is to buy a coin and then eat whatever heaping helping of Republican steamers they put in front of us -- or we'll "lose our guns"?  Even if that just means the pathway to citizenship they're selling us out for will make doing things your way even more useless and futile?

You're still not going to get serious and admit that's a legitimate "single issue" concern, are you, Wayne?  That way, you can keep passing out those "A" grades and keep your insider Beltway Boys access all the way up to retirement and beyond.

One question -- after Hillary takes my guns, what's to stop her from taking my coin?

What a goddamn con job.

As the Culture Terraforms

 The bill also includes the most far-reaching changes in immigration law in more than three decades. It would sweep away restrictions on family-based immigration, making it easier for spouses and children to join family members already in the country. And it would expand worker visas to allow more foreigners to come to the United States for jobs. [More]

Conservative Daily's "Daily Sanity" email (sorry, I can't give the "View in Browser" link without giving anyone who accesses it the ability to "unsubscribe" me) says:

Not only does it give illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship, but it even includes illegals with multiple criminal convictions and even illegal aliens who have already been deported! That's right: the Democrats' amnesty plan would take illegal aliens who have already been deported and welcome back into the country to put them on a fast track for citizenship!

Good thing this has nothing to do with that "single issue"! If it did, I'm sure our "gun rights leaders" would be all over it.

Right?

Let's Review the Bidding

A hive insect queen intends to order owners of "in common use at the time" militia-suitable magazines to "Turn 'em all in, Mr. and Mrs. California." (Interesting, this Opposite Day egalitarian-against-power-sharing has got an exemption for "sworn" officers. I guess we're not supposed to pay attention to what they're swearing to.) [More]

Petition to the rescue!  Oh, and send money. Thing is, it will go to the same people who have made California tops in Brady ratings. The majority is supposed to be scared when they know their seats are only becoming more secure?

And the other thing is, the head of the group behind the petition is out there using his influence to stump for Grover Norquist, whose amnesty/pathway to citizenship actions will politically turn the rest of the country into one big "Golden State."

No?

If you think not, maybe you're the one who can produce that "credible data" none of the other apologists have been able to come up with so far.

[Via Dave Licht]

Ad Hominem Alert

GunsAmerica defends continuing to employ Jorge Amselle by attacking the ratings of a website criticizing his endorsement of Hillary Clinton. [More]

So popularity determines validity? Somebody should have told Giordano Bruno.

Nothing like proving you have the bigger d!ck to settle an argument.

Nice try, Paul Helinski. Now if you'd care to address the real issue, perhaps you will answer the questions about what Amselle's reasons mean for RKBA that no one else has been able to:

• Can you produce credible data – not opinion, not anecdotes – something that can be independently validated, that “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and legally, with CURRENT culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners?
• Can you show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts?
• And can you demonstrate how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts and reverse gains made to date?

If you can't, you're admitting you are giving aid and comfort to someone who is helping to destroy not just RKBA, but the Constitution and the nation through Democrat deluge immigration. Your choice and your right.  Just as it's the right of we lesser people who don't enjoy your magnificent ratings to bear that in mind when assessing the relevancy of your opinions.

Rope-Selling Cheap Labor Capitalists

 U.S. Chamber to Biden: You can help Americans by importing foreign workers [More]

It's not like we've not got plenty of our own people out of work thanks to the utter China virus bungling and exploitation. And the demand is not just for white-collar workers.

What you won't see for tech "migrants" is an admission that many of those jobs can be done via remote access/telecommuting, something we're seeing many companies and government agencies rely on. That would also be much more humane in terms of not separating families, and also of having higher wage foreign workers pump their prosperity into their local economies.

But then they wouldn't get to come over here, jump onto that "pathway to citizenship" and vote Democrat, would they?

In terms of the blue-collar workers (i.e., amnesty for illegals) the treasonous Chamber is applauding, let's examine a case study:

Meet Instacart Founder Apoorva Mehta, a young and recent billionaire born in India, raised in Canada, and now heading a wildly successful grocery delivery service headquartered in that bastion of "progressive" economics, San Francisco. Talk about an American success story that's, as the Chamber puts it, "contribut[ing] to our economy driv[ing] growth, and in turn, creat[ing] jobs for hardworking Americans."

That must be why he's "firing every employee who voted to unionize" in a move that will "will impact nearly 2,000 of the company’s 10,000 grocery store workers."

Wait a sec: Aren't the Democrats supposed to be about "the working man"? Didn't "Biden promise... to be ‘the most pro-union president’" and doesn't he have a "PLAN FOR STRENGTHENING WORKER ORGANIZING, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND UNIONS"?

Who thinks these fraudulent bastards are sincere about anything except grabbing everything they can for themselves, and the hell with useful idiots they can swindle votes out of? Do you think if they cared about working Americans they'd be doing everything they can to destroy Mike Lindell and "My Pillow" because of his political beliefs, and to hell with the 1,500 American workers dependent on those jobs for their livelihoods, their rent, their food, their children...?

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

[Instacart tip via Steve T]