Leftist Judge Susan Bolton Sides With Illegals And Drug Lords Against America

No, that's not sour grapes in the title. It's the bare truth. Essentially, Susan Bolton is saying that Arizona cannot enforce Federal Law and that the Feds do not have to enforce their own laws.

Think I'm kidding? Here is what Investor's Business Daily notes:

Bolton blocked the main provisions of Arizona's law requiring state lawmen to ask people they come into legitimate contact with to show documentation if there's reasonable suspicion they're here illegally. So now a van driver arrested by a state trooper for driving 120 miles per hour with 30 people stuffed under his floorboards will still get a speeding ticket, but the officer can't ask about his immigration status. Nothing to see here; move along. Bolton also blocked provisions requiring foreigners to carry papers at all times (as federal law already requires), as well as a section prohibiting public solicitation of work. Likewise, a section allowing warrantless arrests on probable cause was tossed.

Judging Arizona
Investor's Business Daily
July 28, 2010

In essence, by tossing the Arizona law, Bolton also tossed Federal Law.

Now, we have nothing to contain the tide of illegals, drugs and other contraband that is coming across the Mexican border. Barack Obama has gotten his wish, as he expressed to Senator Kyl of Arizona:

Obama Won't Secure Border Until Lawmakers Move on Immigration Package
Fox News
June 21, 2010

So, what we have here is a situation where the Federal Government is refusing to carry out its responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States and it is prohibiting the citizens from protecting themselves. That is a volatile combination, one that will either have mildly serious consequences or majorly serious consequences down the road.

I don't know who, but someone once said: "When the government fails in its responsibility to protect its citizens, it is the duty of the citizen to take up that responsibility for himself." That is going to come into play here very soon. It will come in two phases.

First, the November elections are coming up fast. The mood across the United States is clear. The Obama Administration is in the toilet and this ruling against a state law that enjoyed broad support across the United States is only going to make that worse. There were several Democrat Governors visiting the White House who expressed their concern that the actions against Arizona are "toxic" to the election and re-election hopes of Democrats.

Governors Voice Grave Concerns On Immigration
Abby Goodnough
New York Times
July 11, 2010

After the November elections, if the Federal Government doesn't get the message from the American people, then the people will begin taking matters into their own hands. A nation that is truly free must have laws and those laws must be enforced by the government entrusted to enforce them. If the government decided to pick and choose which laws it will enforce and which laws it will ignore, it will destroy the confidence of the people and the people will respond accordingly.

We may very likely begin seeing a violent backlash against illegals in the country with a concurrent attempt by the government to stem this backlash. But that will only fuel the fire. People will see a government cracking down on its own citizens while ignoring the threat coming across the border. That will, in turn, result in more violence.

Think that's exaggerating? Consider this:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer put on a brave face, saying the battle was "far from over" and her state would fight all the way to the Supreme Court. But this will take decades, giving Mexico's murderous cartels many years of people-smuggling profits. So the delay itself amounts to a victory for the law's foes. In addition to paying for the expensive litigation, Arizona can look forward to a growing bill for housing, schooling, jailing and providing "free" health care for the illegals who will now flow into the state. And it can't say no. Isn't that taxation without representation? Some 15,000 Arizona state officers could be helping the federal government enforce the laws it isn't enforcing now. Now, they'll do other things instead. By the logic of Bolton's ruling, the state trooper who arrested Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on a speeding violation in 1995 would now be prohibited from arresting him for the federal crime of the bombing, too. If it wasn't clear before, it is now: The federal government has no intent of enforcing the laws against rampant and brazen illegal immigration. Indeed, it will punish those states that try, leaving them at the mercy of the kidnappers, terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers and human traffickers that now freely cross our southern border.

Once that level has been achieved, the Federal government will have no way of controlling it. Think law enforcement agencies will be able to handle what is coming? No, it will be too big. Think using the military will work? No, most members of the military will refuse to take action against American citizens and will openly question why the illegal invasion was allowed to go unchecked in the first place.

Susan Bolton may very well have written the modern day Uncle Tom's Cabin that will spark a modern civil war, a war that the Federal Government will not be able to win this time.

How The Death Tax Kills Small Businesses, Communities—And Civil Society

Think that the "Death Tax" is an engine for redistributing wealth from the wealthy to the needy? Not so. A more accurate description would be that it redistrubutes wealth from small communities to large corporations.

This isn't to say that large super-chains like Wal-Mart and Target are to blame. No, far from it. The large corporations are simply taking advantage of the opportunities that the Death Tax makes available to them.

When the owner of a business or farm whose valuation is over the Death Tax threshold dies, those who stand to inherit the estate will have to pay the Death Tax. Now, if the deceased did not leave enough cash reserves to pay off the Death Tax, the heirs will have to come up with the money. That usually means selling off land or assets and most often, a large corporation will be there to make the purchase.

But it isn't only the business or farm that suffers. The community around which the business or farm existed also suffers, especially now since the new owner's have no vested interest in the local community the way a family-owned business does.

Writing for the Heritage Foundation, Patrick Fagan, Ph.D., illustrates this witrh crystal clear reasoning:

All across America, the day-to-day richness of Americans’ way of life is evident among families who live in tight-knit towns and small communities. Com­munities are formed through an intricate web of con­nections. The typical web-building process is familiar: Children gather at a local swimming pool or join a Boys & Girls Club. Their parents become acquainted. Parents and children form friendships and find their lives intersecting in a widening variety of places—at church, at school and local civic organizations, on ath­letic teams, and through charitable projects. They visit in one another’s homes, share their concerns about their children’s schools, and render mutual aid and moral support in times of difficulty. Through such interactions, individuals and families spontaneously knit the fabric of a community. Then the boy mar­ries the girl and it all starts over again. But community is not an inevitable result even when people live in close proximity to each other. The associations that form a community are like an ecosystem, where all the complex interactions depend on a few sources of sustenance: air, water, sunlight. Degrade one of those sources, and the eco­system is vulnerable to systemic breakdown. So, too, with communities. By undermining a primary source of sustenance for communities, the small business, the “death tax” (the federal estate tax levied on individuals, including owners of small companies, after their death) is a direct assault on a community’s ecosystem. In any typ­ical community, small businesses are not external sources of nurturance, like sunlight cast on an ecosys­tem from afar. They are integral parts of—and active participants in—a community. As such, they generate some of the most critical forces that knit communities together. These crucial economic resources are often destroyed by death taxes. ... Playgrounds, senior centers, volunteer organiza­tions—are all spaces within which people interact to form community. These spaces are not optional; a community cannot exist without them. In threatening the source of their support, the death tax is the Grim Reaper that can gut small communities by uprooting people’s livelihoods, decimating charity flow, cutting down young entrepreneurial talent, while in the pro­cess robbing small-town America and city neighbor­hoods of much of their civil society underpinnings.

While the Obama administration deems many businesses (usually those with large bodies of Union employees) as "too big to fail" they have yet to declare any community as "too small to steam roll."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

How The Death Tax Kills Small Businesses, Communities—And Civil Society
Patrick Fagan
Heritage Foundation
July 26, 2010

Obama's Poll Numbers Down, Imaginary Racism Up

It's a hot topic this week. What we have been seeing with ThinkProgress.org editing a video for propaganda purposes and then with Shirley Sherrod admitting to an overt act of racism, is a massive playing of the race card by the left. Only this time, the race card is blowing up right in their faces, and they know it. Thus, they go on the offensive and claim that only Conservatives can be racist but they immediately clam up or go into major spin mode when asked to explain the comments of people like King Shabazz and Shirley Sherrod.

And of course, no one on the left will even consider commenting on the Justice Department's directive not to pursue any case where the victim was white and the perpetrator black.

Ann Coulter has a nice take on this:

This is what "racism" has come to in America. Democrats are in trouble, so they say "let's call conservatives racists." We always knew it, but the Journolist postings gave us the smoking gun. This explains why we've heard so much about Tea Partiers being "racists" lately. But despite a frantic search, the media have been unable to produce any actual evidence of racism at the Tea Parties. Even the trace elements are either frauds or utterly trivial.

Whereas bloggers like me have been posting hard evidence about racism in other organizations or that alleged Tea Party racism turns out to be fabricated, we have yet to find one person or group that has any hard evidence of a racist Tea Party.

Rememeber when Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 to anyone who could produce an audio or video tape showing that some Tea Partier had called Rep. John Lewis a certain racial epithtet (beginning with the letter "N") at least one time, nevermind the 15 times that the news media charged? That reward still remains unclaimed. Why? Because the incident never happened.

Given the number of video cameras, cell phones and other recording devices that were present, there is no way someone could have yelled that word fifteen times and it never got recorded.

More:

And now this week, with the NAACP accusing the Tea Partiers of harboring racists, and conservatives demanding proof, the George Soros-backed Center for American Progress ran a 45-second video allegedly showing racism at the Tea Parties. One of the videos shows an obvious liberal plant announcing, "I'm a proud racist!" Apparently this was their best shot, because they had to work this video into the montage twice, amid utterly innocuous posters, for example, saying, "God bless Glenn Beck." So I guess they didn't have anything better. Here's the part Soros' people didn't show you: In the fuller video shown on the Glenn Beck show, the Tea Partiers surrounded the (liberal plant) racist, jeering at him, telling him he's not one of them and to go home. In a spectacularly evil fraud, all that was edited out.

I have that very video posted on this blog.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama's Poll Numbers Down, Imaginary Racism Up
Ann Coulter
Townhall.com
July 22, 2010

The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

A wonderful essay from Fred Barnes at the Wall Street Journal regarding the expose of liberal journalists on JournoList who worked to make sure that certain negative stories about Barack Obama got covered up. Before I get to the meat of the article, I have to relay one particular item that seems relevent due to the recent stories about racism within the NAACP and the fact that ThinkProgress.org found it necessary to edit a six minute video down to a few seconds in order to produce a piece of propaganda that had been intended to make the Tea Party look racist.

Here is what Fred wrote:

What was particularly pathetic about the scheme to smear Mr. Obama's critics was labeling them as racists. The accusation has been made so frequently in recent years, without evidence to back it up, that it has little effect. It's now the last refuge of liberal scoundrels.

Italic emphasis mine. Those two lines show why the Tea Party has been under attack. It is not because they are racist. It is because their message of lower taxes, reducing wasteful government spending and getting government out of our private lives is resonating among mainstream America. The progressive left finds this to be a huge threat and therefore must resort of making false accusations in an attempt to discredit the Tea Partiers.

Now, about that JournoList. Here is what Fred wrote:

JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the [Reverend Wright] controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama's critics as racists. He wrote: "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them—Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares—and call them racists. . . . This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction." No one on JournoList endorsed the Ackerman plan. But rather than object on ethical grounds, they voiced concern that the strategy would fail or possibly backfire.

And this:

I think JournoList is—or was—fundamentally different, and not simply because one of its members proposed to make palpably false accusations. As best I can tell, those involved in JournoList considered themselves part of a team. And their goal was to make sure the team won. In 2008, this was Mr. Obama's team. More recently, the goal seems to have been to defeat the conservative team. Until JournoList came along, liberal journalists were rarely part of a team. Neither are conservative journalists today, so far as I know. If there's a team, no one has asked me to join.

Ethics in journalism from outlets like the Washington Post or New York Times? Not from what I have seen.

Thank God we have an Internet and alternative means of getting good, accurate information that the major media outlets cannot censor or cover up.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy
Fred Barnes
Wall Street Journal
July 22, 2010

Think Progress Used A Heavily Edited Video To 'Prove' Tea Party Is Racist

But they didn't show the full video nor did they mention that the subject of the video was a Democrat plant sent in to stir up controversy. That man was a well-documented Tea Party crasher.

In the Think Progress version of the clip, you only see one or two seconds of this man claiming that he is a white racist. This is due to the editing that Think Progress did to reduce the six-minute clip down to only those parts they could use as propaganda. In other words, Think Progress is deliberately misleading their viewership.

Here is the full video and proof that the Tea Party is not tolerent of racists in their midst:



Also note that Think Progress used another video to claim Tea Party racism but retracted it when it was learned that the video footage they were using was from 2006, three years before the Tea Party revolution began.

Any members or supporters of Think Progress are welcome to address this post and give their side of the story.

Racism Within The NAACP

The NAACP really needs to clean up its own ranks before calling other organizations racist, exspecially when there is no evidence of racism in those other organizations (like the Tea Party) but their is solid evidence of racism within the NAACP.

Note the following video in which USDA official Shirley Sherrod admits to acting on her own racist beliefs and feelings when dealing with a white farmer. Especially note how other members of the NAACP either approve of her action or conspicuously fail to call her out for it.

Actions speak louder than words.

With Mid-Term Disaster Looming, Dems Backtrack On 'Racist Tea-Party' Rhetoric

It appears that the Dems are beginning to understand exactly what is going to happen to their party come November. Why else would Vice President Joe Biden declare that the Tea Parties were "not racist" when that has been the mantra of the Dems and their media allies for over a year?

From the Washington Times:

"Very conservative, very different views on government and a whole lot of things," Biden said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "But it is not a racist organization." President Barack Obama doesn't think so, either, Biden said.

Looks like panic mode has been achieved.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Biden: Tea Party Isn't Racist Organization
Associated Press via Washington Times
July 18, 2010

Women Of America Are Rising Up, Again! (Mama Grizzlies)

The Dems are completely incompetent and the so-called men in the GOP are falling all over themselves to become Dem-lite. Let's let the traditional women of America take over for a while. I'll bet they'll get the hard work done that others are completely incapable of doing.

Black Panther Advocated Killing White Babies

And this is the same Black Panther (King Shamir Shabazz) who was standing out in front of a polling place in Philadelphia intimidating voters.

From Hot Air:

When Attorney General Eric Holder suddenly reversed course and had the DoJ dismiss the voter-intimidation case against two New Black Panther Party activists stemming from an incident in 2008 in Philadelphia, many questioned why the DoJ would quit a case it had already won. Attorneys within the DoJ wondered why the federal government had suddenly become disinterested in voter intimidation. Some, like Christian Adams, Asheesh Agarwal, and Mark Corallo have gone public with their outrage, and also wonder where the hell Congress has gone in its duty to oversee the executive branch and its enforcement of laws Congress passed. Well, look, maybe this was just a bad day for the defendants. Maybe they were just nice young men who took civic engagement to a momentary extreme of enthusiasm. They’re probably just nice guys caught in a single instance of bad judgment … right?

Let's look at the video:



All that racial hatred from these people and yet Obama wanted to be the post-racial President. If he was so post-racial, why did he allow the Department of Justice to drop the case against such a racist scumbag as Shabazz?

You can access the original blog entry on-line here:

Video: The Nice Young Man Eric Holder Let Off The Hook
Ed Morrisey
HotAir.com
July 6, 2010

The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration

Ever wonder what the Federal Government and the media were NOT telling you about illegal immigration? Well, we finally have a website that brings all the facts together in one spot for easy reference.

Herein you will learn facts that don't make the front page of major newspapers nor the lead stories of television newscasts. Things like:

Tuberculosis (TB) kills approximately 2 million people each year. It is estimated that between 2002 and 2020, approximately 1,000,000,000 people will be newly infected, over 150 million people will get sick, and 36 million will die. TB is a highly contagious disease. Like the common cold, it spreads through the air. When infectious people cough, sneeze, talk or spit, they propel TB germs, known as bacilli, into the air. Each person with active TB will infect on average between 10 and 15 people every year. The United States currently has one of the lowest rates of TB in the world. Mexico has 10 times the rate of prevalence and many African countries along with Afghanistan, Cambodia, the Philippines, and Indonesia have rates that are 100 – 150 times higher. Making matters worse, a few years ago a Multi-Drug-Resistant (MDR) strain of TB has emerged that is resistant to all standard anti-TB drugs. Treating a single case of MDR TB costs over $250,000 and as much as $1,200,000 per person, and even with treatment about half of the patients with MDR-TB prematurely die. The MSM report ad nauseam that illegal aliens are only "doing work that Americans won't." This mantra is mercilessly bandied about by illegal immigration supporters and echoes throughout the halls of Congress and the White House whenever the topic comes up. What is never mentioned, however, is that the illegal aliens are artificially depressing compensation and that illegal aliens are the only ones who will do the work at such low wages. In actual fact, illegal immigration distorts the law of supply and demand in a capitalistic society. Additionally it is grossly hypocritical to want to raise the minimum wage on one hand while the other hand winks at illegal aliens working at far below prevailing wages. While some of the costs summarized above are subsets, e.g. cost of the murders as part of the cost of crime, as you can see the economic costs of tolerating illegal immigration is quite considerable. You are paying for it in terms of higher taxes, insurance premiums, et cetera. Some estimates place the net costs of each illegal alien in the country at $50,000 – $100,000. (FYI: 12,000,000 X $50,000 = $600,000,000,000) When the all the indirect costs are factored in, it is probably even higher. In any case, it is a cost that YOU are paying for.

You can access the website on-line here:

The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration
P.F. Wagner and Dan Amato

Justice Department Suit Against Arizona Imminent, Official Says

It's a sad day when the President of the United States sides with illegals over legitimate American citizens. This action shows where Obama's heart really is, and it is not with the American people.

From Fox News:

Obama and other top officials have criticized the law as misguided, while Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has slammed the administration for pursuing a lawsuit. She claims the administration has not done enough to secure the border -- a charge the administration denies. Brewer told Fox News in June that Arizona would not back down from its law. "We'll meet them in court ... and we will win," she said, calling the administration's actions a "disappointment." The Arizona law has touched off an intense national debate over immigration. The results of any court challenge would have wide-ranging implications, as a number of other states and jurisdictions have taken up tough immigration policies similar to Arizona's. The Obama administration has meanwhile tried to use the law as the impetus to prod Congress into tackling an immigration bill. While Arizona lawmakers defend their law as necessary to patrol the border, Obama described it last week as "unenforceable" and a vehicle for civil rights abuse. He said a "national standard" is needed and that he won't "kick the can down the road" any longer.

There's only one problem with Obama's statements on the issue: The Arizona law mirrors current Federal law.

Lack Of Leadership In The Immigration Debate
Michael Zuckerman
CBS News
May 12, 2010

That's right, 8 USC 1357 is the same law except that it is more permissive in it's enforcement. The Arizona law is much more restrictive in how it can be applied.

Also remember that Eric Holder admitted that he had never read the Arizona law before offering criticism for it.

Far from being post-racial or any kind of a uniter, this latest action shows Obama in his true colors. He is a race-hustler and a class-warfare scam artist who holds non-Americans in higher regard than he holds legitimate Americans.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Justice Department Suit Against Arizona Imminent, Official Says
Fox News with Mike Levine
July 6, 2010

NRA To Endorse Anti-Gun Harry Reid In Nevada?

I guess no organization is safe from committing political suicide. What has gotten into Wayne LePierre? Why is he playing footsie with politicians who want to trample on the 2nd Amendment?

Erick Erickson over at RedState.com is wondering why the NRA would even consider endorsing leftist Harry Reid (who endorsed every single anti-gun judicial nominee) over the pro-gun Sharron Angle? Here is Reid's record on gun-control votes:

June 28, 1991. Vote No. 115. Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases. October 21, 1993. Vote 325. Voted to eliminate the Army Civilian Marksmanship Program. Only the most fringe anti-gun Senators voted for the amendment. November 19, 1993. Vote 385. Allow states to impose waiting periods over and above the 5 days waiting period required under the Brady Bill. November 19, 1993. Vote 386. Voted to eliminate he 5-year sunset in the Brady Bill. November 19, 1993. Vote 387. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill. November 19, 1993. Vote 390. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill. November 20, 1993. Vote 394. Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-business-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun. August 25, 1994. Vote 294. Voted to close off debate on the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.” August 25, 1994. Vote 295. Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.” April 17, 1996. Vote 64. Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years. June 27, 1996. Vote 178. Voting to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of 30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program. September 12, 1996. Vote 287. Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting “taggants” in black and smokeless gunpowder. September 12, 1996. Vote 290. Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 yards of a school. May 12, 1999. Vote 111. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. May 13, 1999. Vote 116. Voted to ban the importation of ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 rounds. May 14, 1999. Vote 119. Voted to criminalize internet advertisements to sell legal firearms in a legal manner. May 18, 1999. Vote 122. Voted to for Mandatory triggerlocks. May 20, 1999. Vote 133. Voted to create new Federal regulation of pawn shops handling of guns. May 20, 1999. Vote 134. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. The vote was 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking vote. May 20, 1999. Vote 140. Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures. July 29, 1999. Vote 224. Voted to close debate on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures. February 2, 2000. Vote 4. Voted to make firearms manufacturers and distributors’ debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy if they were sued because they unknowingly sold guns to individuals who used the gun in a crime. 68 Senators voted against Reid’s position, including 17 Democrats including Bryan of Nevada. March 2, 2000. Vote 27. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings. March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27). March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements. April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows. April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new burdensome gun control mandates. May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures. May 17, 2000. Vote 102. Vote to overturn the ruling of the chair that the Daschle amendment (commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures) was out of order. May 17, 2000. Vote 103. Voted against an amendment stating “the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed.” May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures. February 26, 2004. Vote 17. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks. March 2, 2004. Vote 25. Voted for Federal regulation of gun shows. July 28, 2005. Vote 207. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks. March 5, 2009. Vote 83. Voted against a ban on the United Nations imposing taxes on American citizens after France and other world leaders proposed a global tax on firearms.

If LaPierre does end up endorsing the gun-grabbing Harry Reid, then I and hundreds of thousands of others will immediately cancel our memberships and the NRA will cease to exist. If that happens, look for me to join Gun Owners of America instead.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

NRA Now Leans Toward Endorsing Harry Reid
Erick Erickson
RedState.com
July 1, 2010