Washington Times EDITORIAL: NRA mans up to Harry Reid

The REAL Harry Reid.

Harry Reid might pass for a somewhat senile senior citizen if it weren't for the fact that he is the epitome of a political liar who believes that he is not accountable for anything said in support of a political position.  And if you try to hold him accountable it is akin to trying to hold on to a slippery eel and he will shamelessly redefine his words to mean the exact opposite of what he said and claim that he was only taking a position that would contribute to the national good.  He's doing that right now in his campaign for re-election as he redefines his infamous "This war is lost!" statement that gave succor to the enemy on the battlefields of Iraq to being the impetus that created the surge which he was unsuccessfully opposing.  The man clearly has no moral scruples when it comes to politics and political power; but he is, unfortunately, also not alone in that damning moral low-ground.

The NRA is, thankfully, holding him accountable for his actions, as opposed to his words, in supporting two, unquestionably anti-2nd Amendment, Obama Supreme Court nominees.  Reid is typical of Neo-Lib Democrats who say one thing then do another.  He has always said he supports the 2nd Amendment because that is politically popular in Nevada; but he helped put two über-liberal Supreme Court Justices with demonstrated antipathy to the 2nd Amendment through the confirmation process and they now sit on that Court with lifetime appointments.  If he truly supported the 2nd Amendment there is no way he would have voted for their confirmations.

So kudos to the NRA.  They should endorse Sharon Angle, of course, but at least they aren't endorsing one of the most despicable Senators in modern history.

Follow the link for more.

Rumors Abound that the NRA Might Support Harry Reid

There are rumors going around that the NRA plans to endorse Harry Reid in the Nevada race.  Clearly this is another case where the NRA is looking at the politics of the situation as opposed to the principles that are involved.  The political reason is clear:  Harry Reid has been a vocal proponent of the 2nd Amendment and should he not be elected he will likely be succeeded by Sen. Charles "Chuck You" Schumer, a very vocal opponent of the 2nd Amendment.  That is, if the Democrats can hold onto the majority in the Senate which, at the moment, is not guaranteed.

If they were to do that this would be the second time in this political season that the NRA placed politics over principle.  The first, of course, being accepting an exempt status in the DISCLOSE legislation that, having passed the House, is going before the Senate.  Many NRA members, me included, objected to that as we have always believed that the 1st Amendment was vitally important to protecting the 2nd Amendment and the DISCLOSE Act is definitely an assault on the 1st Amendment.  It's only purpose is to be in effect for the coming election so as to affect that election on behalf of Neo-Lib Democrats because it is sure to make its way to the Supreme Court where it will be thrown out before the 2012 election.  It is clear that the NRA accepted the exemption along with Neo-Lib friendly unions for political reasons rather than on principle.

Being wise to the political landscape is generally a good idea for any organization that lobbies and the NRA certainly does lobby.  But hedging bets in a struggle that, if lost, will definitely adversely affect the Constitutional rights of all Americans, is an egregious violation of principle.  And while the NRA may fair well as an organizational entity, Americans as a whole may not.

For my part, as a Life Member of the NRA, I sent the NRA the following message:

I am concerned about rumors flying around relative to the possibility that the NRA might endorse Sen. Harry Reid over Conservative nominee Sharron Angle in the Nevada Senate race.  I understand the political strategy that is being considered looks at who might be Harry Reid's successor should he not win if the Democrats retain control of the Senate and can agree that Chuck Schumer would be bad as he is not a 2nd Amendment supporter.  But we will always have to fight Schumer and his ilk over the 2nd Amendment and as long as we have Neo-Lib Democrats in office the fight will go on.

More important, however, is the overall composition of the Senate and the standing of the NRA as a proponent and protector of the 2nd Amendment and, indeed, the entire Constitution.  If we do not stand for the Constitution as a whole then we are sure to lose all our rights.  Harry Reid has shown himself to be a proponent of a socialist agenda that will eventually lead to an abrogation of the entire Bill of Rights or, even worse, a "redefining" of what is written in the Constitution.  He clearly showed that with his support of Justice Sotomayor who has already proven that she is firmly anti-2nd Amendment.  It’s no surprise, therefore, that he also supports Kagan who believes that the 2nd Amendment is outdated and wants to define it out of existence from the bench. 

That Reid says he supports the 2nd Amendment and the goals of the NRA is completely belied by his actions.  Better to have a vocal opponent who is battling us to our faces than one who puts his arm around us and hugs us while handing someone else the knife to stick in our backs.  

I urge the NRA not to endorse Harry Reid.  Endorse Sharron Angle.  She will stand up for us.  Besides, wouldn't it be a shame if the NRA's endorsement of Reid and his subsequent victory resulted in the Democrats retaining control of the Senate by a single member?

Stay principled.  Endorse the conservative candidate.

Sincerely,

I'll post the reply if and when it comes.

Free Press and the Left Have Had At Least 30 ‘Behind Closed Door’ ‘Sellout’ Meetings with the FCC since January

Free Press and the Left Have Had At Least 30 ‘Behind Closed Door’ ‘Sellout’ Meetings with the FCC since January

There is no doubt that the FCC, led by radical leftist Julius Genachowski, plans an assault on all free speech that conflicts with their own world view. The proposed law to control unfavorable political speech by imposing extensive reporting requirements is key to the strategy of Barack Obama and will go hand-in-hand with the DISCLOSE Act that narrowly passed the House and is now before the Senate. DISCLOSE can only be described as a law by which the Neo-Lib Democrats plan to issue permits for political free speech to their own supporters (the Unions which are exempt from the Act) while regulating free political speech through comprehensive arcane and odious reporting requirements by small businesses and other groups less likely to support the Neo-Lib Democrat agenda. In other words, you can still say it but you had better have detailed data on hand going back over 5 years because you'll have to report it all to the government or be subject to fines. Can anyone say censorship?

What is disturbing to me, and to a great many on the radical left (I must admit it is an odd feeling to be partially aligned with those whose political position I abhor), is that a last minute add-on lumped the National Rifle Administration in with the Unions thus giving the NRA a free pass on political speech as well. The bill is being driven by the ultra-left of the Neo-Lib Democrats and I can't imagine any Democrat who wants to be re-elected wanting to support such a blatantly unconstitutional bill especially as it is crafted so that it will only affect one election–the next one–because it is sure to be declared unconstitutional by the 2012 election cycle. As a Life Member of the NRA I am appalled that the organization would willingly participate in a move that clearly puts politics over principle. The NRA has said many times that the 1st and 2nd Amendments are inextricably entwined so their willing participation in an assault on the 1st Amendment is troubling, to say the least.

Unless, of course, their presence there is an excuse for Neo-Lib Senate Democrats to vote no on a bill that will wreck their careers if they vote "Yea." Could there have been a behind the scenes deal worked out? Possibly. But the NRA has lost some of my respect if it was involved in such a shenanigan and it is clear that the NRA membership needs to start watching who they vote for during the annual election cycle. You can be sure I shall.

Follow the link for more.