Grover Norquist (courtesy ammoland.com)

By David Codrea [via Ammoland.com]

“For the first time in my 16 years on the NRA board there will be a recall on the NRA ballot,” NRA Director Todd Rathner notes. “I urge you to VOTE NO on the recall of Grover Norquist.” Rathners characterizes the recall effort as an “attack” on Norquist. He writes the motive behind it is personal, by a “troubled” and “obsessed” individual. “There are no allegations in the Recall Petition that have anything whatsoever to do with the NRA, its mission, purpose or programs,” Rathner assures us.Perhaps . . .

The petition and its supporting documentation appear to ignore an important issue that has plenty to do with NRA Bylaws purposes and objectives. And that distracts attention from Norquist’s support for “amnesty” while wearing his Americans for Tax Reform hat.

What’s that got to do with gun rights?

Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson insists that illegal aliens have “earned the right to be citizens.” Democrat Rep. Kurt Schrader claims immigration will decide “who is in charge of this country for the next 20 or 30 years.”

All credible polling shows that this will result in millions of new anti-gun Democrat voters, establishing unchallengeable majorities in the legislatures, a resultant stacking of the courts through confirmations of anti-gun activist judges, and a reversal of all legislative and judicial gains enjoyed in recent years.

NRA Director Norquist demonstrated his priorities on another occasion when competing loyalties between guns and taxes offered incompatible outcomes. Case in point, he endorsed Bob Dold for Congress, even though it was known that Dold “supports restricting gun purchase & possession.” That penchant for infringements would later win Dold an award from the Illinois Council Against Gun Violence.

What further conflicts Norquist’s participation in the Hispanic Leadership Fund and the Council on Foreign Relations present remain to be identified.

Also of concern is Norquist’s continued alliance with Michael Bloomberg’s amnesty-supporting “Partnership for a New American Economy.” There’s a reason why Bloomberg believes that will advance his interests. There’s a reason why the Department of Homeland Security under Obama is “turning foreigners into citizens as quickly as possible.” There’s a reason why Hillary vows she’ll go further than Obama. And none of those reasons bode well for gun owners.

Bring all three branches of government into the “progressive” sphere, and gun owners can forget political and “legal” remedies. And don’t look for the insiders and players putting their names behind Norquist to get behind anything else when those stop working.

As far as the Norquist recall goes, it’s probably a moot point. The voices in his corner will easily drown out mine.The Fairfax establishment is solidly behind the guy, in no small part because of his connections and the doors he can keep open for them. Besides, Jeff Knox of The Firearms Coalition has estimated something like only 7% of eligible members even bother to vote anyway.

So if Norquist beating the recall is a foregone conclusion, what’s the point in calling attention to it?

Essentially to springboard off it to repeat what the gun groups won’t tell their members because they’ve been avoiding it: Immigration is a legitimate issue for the firearms rights community to be involved with, and importantly, for gun rights groups TO SCORE POLITICIANS ON. Which they won’t do.

It would be easy to dismiss this article as just another personal attack. It would be harder to explain how Norquist’s support for amnesty, combined with the “pathway to citizenship” will not result in overwhelming Democrat majorities that control the legislatures and the courts.

Who can do that?

So far, Norquist and his allies have ignored the specifics, offering only incomplete context historical references, opinions, anecdotes, wishful thinking and platitudes. Those aside, they’ve produced nothing to refute all credible polling reflective of current conditions. They’ve offered no numbers that can be independently validated to show anything less than a collective 70+% advantage in favor of the Democrats/gun-grabbers.

I wish they could. Truly.

Barring that, this Life Member is voting YES on recalling Grover Norquist. And I’m reserving my director votes for candidates willing to unequivocally (and correctly) answer specific questions so that an informed choice can be made.

That said, there’s a much more important concern than who sits on the NRA Board. There is an existential threat, not just to the Second Amendment, but to the Republic, what a friend and colleague calls the “cultural terraforming” of America. Any politician not working to remove that threat, and any lobby group enabling such a politician, is part of the problem. That’s no matter which “good” votes they’ve cast, because they’re making inevitable the day when those votes will no longer be enough.

Recommended For You

82 Responses to Codrea: Vote “Yes” on the Recall of Grover Norquist from NRA Board

  1. Seems to me that, rather than recoil in fear [horrors!] from the notion that foreigners are invading our soils and will eventually vote against gun rights, and hence throw up all possible roadblocks to stem that tide, a better strategy would be to recognize the inevitable and educate the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to exercise their newly-acquired 2nd Amendment rights.

    • Defens. The problem with your theory is Americans thought process comes from a culture of democracy. An illegal does not have that foundation to build upon. Contrasting Cultures…south of our border murder and corruption is business as usual and there is no equality under the law. Whereas Northern border immigrants are more law abiding because equality of the law exist.

      Democrats sole purpose supporting and increasing mass migration is to redistribute wealth of the middle class, erode their liberties and create a formidable voting block.

      • While I agree that the mass migration is done to get new more compliant voters , I also agree that the most effective way to counter that is to import propel who think the way we do. If that’s not possible then educate them.

        If you just get here form Central America, why are you not getting English lessons from a pro freedom group? Why are they not getting a civics class from somebody who’s not a liberal? Why is the NRA not providing immigrants with information about their gun rights in this country, in their language so they understand how important it is to keep those rights ?

        • Unless they at least have a “Green Card” (actually a “Legal Permanent Resident” card) then they have no gun rights.

      • Actually we are out to annihilate the rich evil bastards that control 95 per cent of Americas wealth because they have raped the working man to the point he can no longer survive economically. We are out to bring back strong unions so we can crush the evil corrupt filthy rich who have completely destroyed the American Dream. We are not anti-gun, we are not anti-second amendment. As I have stated before out of 1,000 members at our gun club most are liberals and all support the second amendment but our group is smart enough not to believe the propaganda of the filthy corrupt rich who succeed in brainwashing the far right and when it comes time to support the second amendment we had republicans voting to sanction the nomination of supreme court justice Sotomayor which then stacked the supreme court against any further pro second amendment rulings. Thank your back stabbing Gods the Republicans for that one.

    • Why is it ‘inevitable’ that any Nation should be over-run by Aliens? We’re not on the steppes of Asia facing the Mongol Hoards- these are peasants that offer nothing to America but some short-term cheap labor that is MORE than offset by the costs of supporting them. If we can’t protect our borders from Central American children walking in and signing up for benefits we will soon cease to exist as a nation. That’s not Xenophobia it is irrefutable common sense.

      • Sorry bud but you flunked out in History class many times over as each wave of immigrants has assimilated into America including the Muslims (6 million of them) and if you woke up out of your racist stupor you would see that they are doctors, lawyers, city council members, news commentators, police and fireman and yes dear rabid racist they serve in large numbers in our military, Latino’s, Cubans, Muslims, etc. etc. America would be a better place if we could send people like you back where your ancestors came from. We need lots of new blood to ignore far right wing fanatics and make the New America a great place to live just as it used to be when America was flooded with newly arrived immigrants. That’s why it was great because we had so many new immigrants. History proved that many times over. Three cheers for the new immigrants, Latino’s ,Cubans, Syrians , Muslims etc.etc. With another Democratic president we are going to bring in a million more and vote away the “out house gang” and replace them with the new “progressives”.

    • I disagree.

      First, it is not “inevitable” that we continue to take in such a massive number of illegals from our southern border. This so called inevitability is often asserted without any kind of evidence, as if migration is a natural process which cannot be encouraged, discouraged, or influenced in any way. This is one of those fictions which are repeated over and over by our elites and their friends in the fourth estate, as if doing so will somehow make it veridical. The truth of the matter is that all we need to do is muster the political and cultural will to enforce our border and build a wall (they seem to work well for Israel and other nations). The current enthusiasm for Trump shows this idea is not outlandish and holds popular support, at least among Republicans.

      Second, these immigrants understand what the 2nd Amendment entails, and they do not like it. Look at the state of gun control in the nations they come from (and gun crime, for that matter). In fact, they would not grant you that a “right” to bear arms in the capacity you want to even exists! To them, such thinking is just an artifact of a culture and a people who are passing away, and beyond that is a harmful one because they view the proliferation of firearms among the populace as a threat to public health.

      Do you really think that Jose and Esmeralda care what the stale, pale, male founders thought about guns? Lets be empirically minded about this- what are the demographics of people who support the 2nd Amendment, and what are the demographics of those who do not? How effective has inculcating your view of gun rights (a species of rights deemed nonexistent by ever growing numbers of Americans) been in these communities, and how effective will it be in the future as they become the new majority? Any honest assessment would suggest that if you care about preserving the 2nd Amendment in a recognizable form, you ought to care about preserving the people who will do likewise.

      • The Autodefensas movement in Mexico would seem to prove that many absolutely see the value in armed self defense and the concept of the 2nd amendment.

        • And one would also think that many of those fleeing massive violent crime and governmental corruption would be thrilled to be able to exercise their rights to self defense.

        • I will not grant that the Autodefensas movement in Mexico evinces any kind of serious, large scale support for the 2nd Amendment (conceptually speaking) among Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the United States. Pointing to a marginal group does not indicate anything substantive. For example, several years ago VICE did an amusing special on Neo-Nazis in Malaysia. Does that mean that there is widespread approval of National Socialism among Malays, or that we can expect to see large numbers of Malaysians goose-stepping down the avenues of Kuala Lumpur? There isn’t, and we won’t. Mexico, like Malaysia, is a fairly large place, home to many disparate groups, people, and ideologies, some of which are consonant with our own, and many of which are not. To make meaningful assessments, we must take a more expansive and holistic approach that goes beyond saying “here is a group that seems to be in favor of gun rights, so maybe we can impute their position to the much larger whole”. There are some Hitler enthusiasts everywhere, after all.

          Thankfully, we live in an age where we can rely upon demographers, sociologists, political scientists, and statistical analysis to provide us with a clear picture of what people, in aggregate, believe. As it turns out, Mexican immigrants and their descendants (along with Latinos more generally) are STRONGLY in favor of gun control, which even a cursory glance at the literature demonstrates. We ought to be data driven and empirically minded when we look at the effects of immigration on gun control (and in every other sphere of inquiry) if we are serious about how these issues intersect.

        • Mark N,

          Your contention is not borne out by what the data says. Most Mexicans and Latinos within the United States favor gun control.

    • Or we can not let them into to begin with and avoid the risk of them voting against us, we are not the worlds flop house or rapeugee camp.

      They will vote away your rights for welfare, do not believe me? Look at CA or NY.

    • I could not agree more. The paranoid far right do not realize that in our club alone which numbers over 1,000 gun members we are all democrats and all pro second amendment. This right wing extremist paranoia against immigrants ignores the fact that we were all immigrants at one time either long ago or just yesterday.

  2. I think it is time to decouple tax reform from firearm rights. No, I don’t buy into any kooky crypto-islamic theories, I just buy into the idea that Norquist cares more about tax cuts than firearm rights. Which is why under bush, the best we have to show are appointing supreme court justices (including a squish, Roberts, who is likely holding back MORE pro-gun decisions and refusing to take a new case after Mcdonald), liability protection for manufacturers, and not getting an AWB renewal on his desk. Yeah. We lost a crucial opportunity to gain firearm rights. What if bush or congress had included national carry in the PATRIOT act as part of a layered national defense strategy? Discounts for those that maintain marksmanship? We’d be looking at a completely different fight.

    People like Norquist make guns about identity politics, NOT about advancing firearm rights. I’m only a regular member, so I can’t vote- but I urge those who can to think on this deeply. And VOTE.

      • Joined last year. Stayed out of the fight, but decided to add my name. Not making enough $$ to buy a life or whatever else might accelerate the process.

        Nothing like the zeal of a new convert, eh? I’d supported from the sidelines, or rather, from the armchair before, but I understood my dereliction of duty and did what I could to remedy it.

        I see continuous failure, and a large organization that, on paper, should have us on the offense, not the defense- and I wonder why. I’ve read enough and investigated enough I’m drawing my own conclusions that many Republicans favor tax cuts over gun rights, and use gun rights to get elected to bargain with Rinos and Dems to pass tax cuts with the promise of *not* expanding firearm rights. There’s not much evidence for it, but of course, backroom deals leave no paper trails. But if you look at the facts… we should have been winning by now. We haven’t. Something stinks. And now that I’ve given my money, I want to give my voice, and have the organization I give money to *ACTUALLY* back what I care about- expanding firearms freedoms. Not acting as leverage for board member’s pet projects to get passed at the expense of my freedom.

  3. The NRA is, AT BEST, partially responsible for all of the anti-gun legislation in the past several years. The liberals propose a hardline stance, the NRA proposes a compromise, it passes. That’s called being complicit, because either way, some form of restriction passes. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed, not infringed on just a little bit. Gun Owners of America (GOA) stands behind shall not be infringed. I dropped the NRA, and the Texas State Rifle Association, last year, after their backstabbing actions here in Texas with actual opposition to the OC bill and compromises offered for the campus carry bill.

    • One thing about laws, unlike constitutional provisions, is that they are more easily changed. To get a huge benefit, even if it is not everything, and even if by compromise, always leaves open the possibility of further benefits in the future when the new law fails to demonstrate evidence of an increase in crime.

  4. Perhaps the idea should be to educate immigrants about their newly minted 2A rights, and get these people to work with us (its not like the concept of armed self defense is unknown elsewhere, look at the autodefensas in Mexico), rather than chasing identity politics, alienating and driving these people into the arms of our political enemies, and trying to stop things that, realistically, are not going to be stopped.

    Redirect that tide to work for us, rather than vainly trying to stop it and turning it against us.

    • The problem is just like California. They’re insular communities, in hard to reach places, and we don’t have the politics or muscle to do so.

      Sure, red states can pass gun education mandates that teach kids guns are good. But the problem is, if say 50%+ are in California, that’s not going to effect them, and when they spread out across the country, they bring their ideology with them.

      Even in Red states that can pass this stuff, if they have bilingual classes, you might very well face enormous opposition from the few qualified instructors and no way to verify they’re living up to the mandate.

      • Maybe 50% of migrant workers, who follow the crop cycle, are in California ( I have seen no statistics on the subject, but it seems doubtful to me), but there are many many Hispanics in the Midwest, in the north, and throughout the farming communities in Alabama and Georgia.

        • Fair points! I looked it up, and you’re right: I’m working with old data. Apparently, it’s only about 23% in CA, and they’ve spread out to more red states. Which is good, as we should be able to force schools to teach this stuff!

          Unfortunately, as outlined above, we still depend on teachers to actually teach it, and not gloss over it. Parents will more likely complain about it being taught, not it being left out, so we’ll have a compliance problem. Further, if they’re from illegal immigrant families, guns WILL be illegal for their parents to buy or have access to. So there’s that problem as well. Especially given how much of the classes are made up of immigrant children, there very likely won’t be anyone that supports our side to monitor and make sure that state indoctrination actually teaches something beneficial. Further, their practical exposure to firearms will naturally be limited by their parents not being allowed to own them.

    • So your point concedes that you believe that immigration will have a negative effect on gun rights. Otherwise you would not have made it.

      Which is exactly why Norquist needs to go.

      There is no social or economic benefit to the importation of people. It only leads to increased taxation, decreased wages, less social freedom and ultimately genocide.

      • Funny how that didnt happen with the Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc immigrants.

        The rhetoric that immigrans result in genocide is absurd and isnt going to get anyone anywhere. This entire nation is a nation of Immigrants, and people just need to be made aware of their rights and why bearning arms is important as they come in. That didnt seem to be a problem for the aforementioned immigrant groups.

        • The difference is those people you mentioned came to America to be Americans; wanted and have assimilated into the culture. These illegals have no interest in assimilating and only looking to get as much money/benefits as they can sending most of the money back to Mexico. In short they don’t give a rat’s ass about America except how to exploit it and their enablers in the Democrat party.

          And your Autodefensas example is the exception rather than the rule. This is only happening in a few southern states in Mexico not all of it. Not only that they have been effectively neutered with their founder in jail who will never get out and the second-in-command selling out to the government to form the Fuerza Rurales who are now just as corrupt/pro-Cartel like the previous government establishment there.

        • Bull. They send money back to relieve the crippling poverty of their family and relatives. Many become citizens, and most do not want to leave. However, recent statistics indicate that more Mexicans are leaving than coming in. Obviously economic factors play a role, and perhaps many are simply retiring to a place where it is much cheaper to live. Most Mexicans are incredibly hard working to accomplish these goals, living in substandard conditions so that they can afford to send money back. The migrant workers in California live in migrant camps of tents, tarps and vehicles, or in cheap motels. They work dawn to dusk at jobs no American will take because the work is too hard and the pay too low. Without the migrant farm workers, crops rot in the fields and farmers lose money. It happened in Georgia, it can happen in California, and it can happen anywhere there are growing crops. Did you know most cooks and dishwashers in just about every kind of restaurant are Mexicans?

  5. What French writer Renaud Camus calls “The Great Replacement” when referring to the intentional demographic shifts and insane immigration into his own country has been happening in America since 1965, thanks to Ted Kennedy and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that abolished the national origins formula. Folks, a nation is its people. The politicians want to replace the middle American majority (who the upper class and lower class oppress differently in what Sam Francis called ‘anarcho-tyranny’) with people who are more malleable, easier to control, and inclined toward supporting socialism.

    Importing millions of central and south Americans will (and has already, in some places) transformed this country into a mirror image of their own. Try this as a thought experiment: imagine the Japanese population is severely dwindling. Imagine then, that to remedy this you imported millions of Somalians into Japan tomorrow instead of incentivizing native Japanese to reproduce. Would it still be Japan?

    Worse yet, we don’t even try to force foreigners here to try to assimilate like we used to. That would be raaaaaaaaacist. We had periods of immigration from Italy and Ireland (where some of my own ancestors came over from) that caused some pretty intense disruption, spikes in crime, etc. and they were from Europe! It took two generations of an immigration pause before they were mostly integrated. Now we just tell people that it’s okay to retain their own cultures and the establishment denies that a modern American culture even exists. In truth it does, but the popular conception of it is that it solely consists of shallow crap based on consumerism (which isn’t entirely wrong, sadly).

    We have a huge problem here and I’m glad Codrea touched upon it. If the trends continue on the way they are and we allow the country to be sold down the river you can kiss your gun rights, as well as several others, goodbye. We’ll end up like Brazil. Completely corrupt from top to bottom, low trust, multiracial conflict, and a massive police state to keep everything held together (we already see this. Did you see the security precautions for the Super Bowl?).

    Diversity + Proximity = War

    • I think there needs to be something kept in mind here, in that many of these places aren’t exactly culturally alien for these immigrants. People of their ethnicity and background lived in these places long before they were part of the US, and many such places still retain their pre-US names and have always had sizeable populations of Mexican descendants.

      Hell, my house in San Diego was built in a neighborhood called Rancho Bernardo next to Rancho Penasquitos and Escondido, a city that once was *part* of Mexico…on a ranch established by a grant from the king of Spain and subsequently recognized by Mexico…its really not like the situation in Europe.

      • I’d be willing to bet a Mexican descendant that comes from a Tejano line that’s been in Texas for several generations is quite different than a fresh-across-the-border illegal Mexican, Guatemalan, Salvadoran, etc.

      • I am reminded of people who lived in Eastern Poland, between the world wars. When the Soviets invaded simultaneously with the Nazis, a lot of the natural leaders were arrested immediately for entering the Soviet Union illegally. They hadn’t moved an inch; the border crossed them.

        • Are you comparing the United States to the Soviet Union and our immigration policies to that, or am I misunderstanding you?

        • I’m not.

          But remember, the guy I am replying to was discussing the situation of people whose ancestors have lived in the same place for generations–and the US won those areas in the Mexican-American war.

          There are plenty of illegals out there, and they ought to be sent home…but every once in a while someone tells a Hispanic to “go back where you came from” and the Hispanic actually already IS where he came from. For instance, his ancestors might have lived in New Mexico before there was even a United States anywhere, much less anywhere near the Rio Grande. That man is actually in the situation superficially similar to the one those Poles were in…except we aren’t trying to arrest him. (And of course I’d a trillion times rather have the US border cross me than the USSR’s!) That won’t stop Bubba from demanding he go “back home,” however.

      • You seem to think that the immigrant migration is limited to former colonial Spanish regions. I have news for you, most of the urban crime in South Central Pennsylvania is not being created by the Amish. It is largely the much more recent immigrant population.

  6. The NRA is a single-issue advocacy group. Yes, immigration is certainly a critical issue. It may affect gun rights, but what doesn’t?

    The NRA should not take an official position on immigration policy. When Obama dreamed up his lunatic Obamacare socialized medicine scheme, he ran it past the NRA. Once the NRA was sure that Obamacare had no direct attacks on gun owners, the NRA took a neutral position — not opposed and not for — because defending medicine is not the NRA’s business.

    Neither is immigration. I’m sure that the NRA hates Obama’s immigration policy, but fighting it is not the NRA’s business.

    • The one thing I saw here that should be germane is Norquist’s support of a grabber politician who was good on taxes. (I didn’t read the whole thing though.) Although he’s certainly free to decide the tax issue is more important than the gun issue, if he is willing to put the one (taxes) before the other (gun rights), he shouldn’t be on the board of an organization that’s supposed to be dedicated to working on gun rights.

      • I’m sure that Karl Malone (an NRA board member) loves basketball, and many basketball players are anti-2A. Tom Selleck is pro-acting, yet most actors and film executives are anti-2A. Grover Norquist is pro-tax reform. So what?

        The only question is whether or not they support 2A, not whether 2A is the most important thing in their lives. I’m sure that if you asked the more religious members of the Board about the thing they love most, most would be inclined to say that religion is more important — even if many or even most religions are anti-2A.

        • The religious lobby isn’t responsible for cutting deals with every administration, every new session of congress, every time, and winning a LOT of concessions.

          Tax cuts seem to be doing very, very well. In state legislatures, in congress’ attempted bills, during republican administrations.

          Firearm rights seem to be doing well in state legislatures, middling in congress’ attempted bills that *just* fall short of enough (not planned at all! Not like there’s RINOs that vote FOR it knowing it will fail because they coordinated with other members to carry out their wishes), and pretty abysmal during republican administrations that get the first republican majority in a very long time in congress AND presidency AND democrats too afraid to speak up in opposition.

          Firearm rights could have leapt ahead during bush. They haven’t. On the federal level, our most significant achievements are giving cops more special rights (LEOSA), protecting manufacturers (good- but only about gun owners indirectly), appointing 2 SCOTUS judges (one who is now unreliable), carry in national parks (which we got under Obama… hmmm… maybe there IS an ability to do things if we *Really* want to), and a congress failing to send W. an AWB renewal he said he would sign.

          Yeah, I’m sorry, it seems like tax cuts seem to win an awful lot more than chance. When you look at the tax base that benefits from the Bush tax cuts, and look at the number of firearms owners, one is a larger group. Norquist’s tax group isn’t as strong as the NRA. Yet the tax cuts keep coming despite a weaker lobby group, and a smaller base that benefits, while firearms rights languish.

          And that’s somehow a coincidence? When backroom deals get cut, you’re telling me Grover is going to the mat over guns and asking for gun rights over tax cuts?

          None of this would be necessary if we’d started taking back ground earlier. But magically, with 8 years of a Republican president, a national crisis that changed the identity of the nation and let any bill defense supporters wanted get passed, and a republican majority- all of these magically were unable to deliver firearm rights. And I’m supposed to believe that this is a coincidence. Wow. I think the last occupier of Malheur sounds more sane than what I just wrote.

        • Further, Grover has had almost all GOP members take the “no raising taxes” pledge. There’s no equivalent, “I will vote for national carry and Suppressor deregulation” pledge. Hmm… why’s that? Who seems to be delivering better- Americans for Tax Reform, or the NRA? Even though ATR’s ideas can be more easily rolled back, and there will be more pressure to under a democrat.

          Results speak for themselves: Republicans are more afraid of Norquist and his ATR organization than his larger, more funded, more powerful and activist NRA. And supposedly there’s no quid pro quo…

        • Ralph,

          I guess I didn’t phrase myself well. The article claims that Norquist supported an anti-gun politician, because that politician was good on taxes. Those other examples you gave, hold other things more important in their lives than gun rights…but they don’t do so to the detriment of their efforts in the struggle to keep/regain those rights.

          Supporting an anti-gun politician because one likes their stand on some other issue is, to my mind, a disqualifier to be on the board of the NRA or any other gun rights organization. The only question in my mind is: Is the allegation that Norquist did this actually true?

  7. The two problems with educating the sneak in class are history and access. Their history and traditions are those of a people who deferr to and depend on government. Access to these folks is mostly only available to government agents and since the welfare folks and public school teachers are among the least likely supporters of liberty and the Second Amendment real education is out of the question. They are going to be reliable Democrat voters who will support the party line.

  8. I’ve read enough about Norquist to distrust him. I think he a jihadist fellow-traveller. Even worse, his presence on the NRA board puts him in a position to subvert NRA policy and bend it in directions that undercut gun-rights at this critical time in our history. His presence on the NRA board is no accident. He needs to leave.

  9. This is going to lead to everyone stereo typing the NRA as racist. Has Norquist done anything to call his 2A stance into question? If not then we should take a long look at this and vote on RKBA and not that he’s married to a muslim or has business dealings with Bloomburg. Which reminds me, I have some business dealings I have to make with islamic extremist dictatorships at the gas pump today.

    • You should stop caring what your enemy thinks of you. The left will call you a racist, a gun nut, or whatever no matter what you do. Why should we try to seek their approval and allow them to frame the debate? They don’t hold the moral high ground.

      What really matters is what the average person you’re trying to convince thinks of you.

      Ignore leftist ad hominems, present your points in a casual, intelligent and friendly way to those willing to listen and move on.

      Fact of the matter is, if we let the current trend continue we won’t have anything. We will be dispossessed. If 2012 America had 1964 America’s demographics, Romney would’ve won that election in a landslide. The Democrats know this and that’s why they’ve done their best to replace us with groups who only care about handouts.

    • 1. Our oil comes predominantly from Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, and central America, along with domestic production. Middle eastern oil is less than 10% of US oil from a few years back; with surging domestic production, likely less.
      2. Norquist is primarily about taxes. Notice how we’ve gotten lots of tax cuts that benefit less people than firearm freedoms, which benefit more? Ever wonder why the backroom deals seem to make firearm freedoms a redheaded stepchild?

      If he’s coordinating with bloomberg at all, that’s bad. Period. If he even thinks talking to bloomberg, much less giving him support is ever warranted, it shows which interest Norquist cares more about.

      I’m tired of politicians making the 2nd amendment about identity politics, and never handing us anything. Our federal victories have been lackluster for a reason. Because Republicans have been pushed to care more about tax cuts than firearm freedoms. I care more about firearm freedoms, and would prefer that tax cuts become the redheaded stepchild for a while.

  10. Is it likely that the majority of new immigrants will support the progressives when and how they can? Probably. Is Norquist advocating accommodating illegal immigrants? Yes. Does this mean that Norquist as a board member for the NRA is bad? Seems like a non-sequitur to me.

  11. I’m disappointed that TTAG chose to publish only one of the postings on this issue that were published on Ammoland. To it’s credit, Ammoland published both a “vote for the recall” (story above) and a “vote against the recall.” By posting only one of these views, TTAG is slanting its report and not telling the full story. The “vote against” post on Ammoland can be found at http://www.ammoland.com/2016/02/vote-no-on-recall-of-grover-norquist-from-nra-board/#axzz3zyq9WAlE. I would like to think that the readers of TTAG are intelligent enough to read both sides of the story and vote accordingly.

    • Except they did post an article here about not recalling him or did you not bother to look at it?

      Then again it is Robert’s site, Robert’s rules. Don’t like it then go somewhere else. Or why don’t you send in a pro-Norquist article to them and if it is well-written they might even publish it here.

  12. Is the NRA a gun-rights organization or a right-wing think tank? Norquist’s positions on issues other than guns should have no bearing on his service to the NRA unless those views make him a political liability.

    • Or, potentially, if he’s willing to endorse a guy who’s wrong on guns but agrees with him on another issue (taxes). Guns need to be the priority for someone serving on the board of a gun rights advocacy organization, otherwise he’s going to sell them out from time to time.

    • Or if they mean he’ll sell out gun rights for other issues?
      Think about it. If the Bush Administration had put half the effort they did into gun rights as they did tax cuts, we wouldn’t be arguing with obama, as we’d already have national carry and perhaps suppressor deregulation.

      Face it. Tax cuts seem to always win over gun rights. One of the man who backs tax cuts is supposed to be one of our biggest supporters. Maybe it’s time to wonder if he cares more about one than the other, and just uses gun-owning rubes to get his leaders elected to do far more for his preferred agenda than for ours? After all, if we have a guy involved in backroom dealing to get our way, wouldn’t you prefer to *know* he cares our issue over all others, and won’t trade away gun freedoms for tax relief?

  13. RF, i was thinking it would look, sound, and further illustrate our point about gun ownership rights being one of the things that makes this the best country in the world, if instead of saying “that doesn’t bode well for gun owners” you could say ” that doesn’t bode well for this country”. or is that a non sequitur?

  14. I think Robert brings up a very valid point, the fact that an organization Norquist is involved with supports Democrats is a huge issue for me and I am printing out this petition and signing YES on it TODAY. I will also include a letter stating that I will not donate another dollar to the NRA until Norquist is off the board.

    Furthermore, I have known about Frank Gaffney for about 8 years now and I have followed his writings and the efforts of the Center for Security Policy and I very much admire their work. The allegations against Norquist and his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are backed up by other people who I equally respect like Andrew McCarthy (US attorney who lead the prosecution against the infamous “Blind Sheik” terrorist) and former Congressman from Florida and once Army Colonel, Allen West whom I support strongly.

    I strongly resent the argument by Todd Rathner that Norquist’s ties to a group that supports and donates money to other terrorist organizations has nothing to do with the NRA’s mission. The 2nd Amendment should always be against any group that supports pro-Islamic terrorism, no matter how much money they might have or what their connections could do for the NRA. Defending this country against a murderous ideology that wants to kill Americans ought to be high on the list of NRA priorities. Many NRA members or gun owners are former military who fought and died in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan defending this country against radical Islamists of the same ilk who Norquist is married into and supports. In my humble opinion his continued place on the Board of Directors is an insult to every American life lost in those wars.

    As Farago pointed out, he has ties to groups that support amnesty and gives money to democrats
    As Gaffney and his allies pointed out, he has ties to groups that favor radical Islam in America
    Therefore that smug-faced little [expletive]-head Grover Norquist should have no place in the NRA and his removal from the board will enhance the credibility and integrity of its mission.

    • I read this wrong I thought it was Farago’s commentary with the part about Norquist’s the ties to the Hispanic leadership fund, council on foreign relations, support for Dems, etc…that was actually David Codrea’s article, sorry for mistaking that.

  15. Ah. I’m glad we see the ‘anti’ side here. Now that I see what it is I can dismiss it as ridiculous as it has nothing to do with guns.

    We need to be convincing more people to be ‘of the gun’ not throwing them out because they don’t all agree with every republican talking point.

    • The more important point about Norquist isn’t if he’s pro-gun or anti-gun… it’s if he’s advancing firearm freedoms. Given the massive size of the NRA, the activism of members (I’m one! Not a longtime one, but I joined last year!), and the money, and rankings that regularly feature the NRA as one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country, contending with AIPAC, AARP… we should have seen some forward movement.

      Bush was incredibly weak tea. LEOSA, 2 SCOTUS who voted for mcdonald/heller- but now one seems to be a squish, and likely behind the denials of all the 2A cases since McDonald- manufacturer immunity from suit. The only reason the AWB is gone is because of congress, not Bush.

      Under Obama, we got carry in national parks- which affected more gun owners than anything under Bush. And that’s the best we could do with a historice full republican control of executive and legislature? While we got massive, unprecedented tax cuts?

      Please. It’s about priorities. The fact that we haven’t been more successful clearly indicates something else is as work. The fact that tax cuts have advanced more than firearms freedom doesn’t make any sense- unless firearm rights are the first concession in backroom deals for tax cuts.

  16. I have to admit, this whole Norquist recall thing has so far failed to move my give-a-shit meter in either direction.

      • I absolutely do think that would help. I also think the chances of his replacement actually being “new blood” looking to move to an offensive footing, and not just another fossilized OFWG hunting buddy of the existing board members are virtually nil.

        • 🙁

          Wouldn’t change at least put others on notice that they might be replaced if they keep FUDing around?

  17. NRA is a corrupt anti-gun bureaucracy that sells out the lives of its members to police unions. NRA contract lobbyist Todd Vandermyde put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 “NRA backed” carry bill in 2013, NOT Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

    When Vandermyde cut the deal for DTI with the anti-gun Chiefs of Police, Tim McCarthy of Orland Park was president of the Illinois Chiefs. That’s the same Tim McCarthy who was a Secret Service agent when President Reagan was shot, and the same Tim McCarthy who promotes gun control with Jim & Sarah Brady.

    Vandermyde was a lobbyist for William Dugan at the Intl. Union of Operating Engineers local 150 in Countryside, IL, before Dugan was convicted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in 2010. Have Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA done a background check on Vandermyde to see if he has any organized crime associations from the 150 road builders union that was investigated by the FBI & U.S. Attorney in Chicago? Why is NRA paying money to this rat so armed citizens can be set up and killed by police criminals? Vandermyde can’t be the only traitor at NRA HQ. He can’t have a job unless Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham cover up for him.

      • Not all members of the Intl. Union of Operating Engineers local 150 in Countryside Illinois thought Todd Vandermyde was an effective lobbyist. This post states his salary was $145,488/year.
        http://www.150membersvoice.org/vandermyde.php

        Vandermyde’s spin on leaving his highly paid position with the 150 road builders union is that he cares so much about 2nd Amendment issues that he wanted to lobby full time for NRA. Illinois Secretary of State lobbyist registration records show that he started with 150 before he represented NRA full time, which is why Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at ILA still pay him. If they did a background check on Vandermyde today, it’s doubtful NRA would hire him. Vandermyde’s boss William Dugan at the 150 union was convicted in 2010. In 2011 Vandermyde no longer shows as a registered lobbyist with 150. Like a rat he knows how to leave a sinking ship. Let NRA members see his FBI file and decide.
        https://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-releases/2010/cg101410.htm

        The 150 road builders union gave away about $330,000/year to politicians in recent years. They may give away more money than any other union in IL. Speaker of the House Mike Madigan steers most union money to Democratic candidates in Illinois, and Vandermyde is a creature of this corrupt process. He is widely disliked among legislators at the Illinois state capitol for good reason. He is untrustworthy and plays both sides of an
        issue. Vandermyde is an example of everything that is wrong with Illlinois politics.

        Cox & Cunningham know Vandermyde sold out to police unions with Duty to Inform. If they don’t fire him, it’s because they want the worst possible bills so they can make money on the lawsuits. NRA made $1.3 MILLION in legal fees on the McDonald case. If Vandermyde is an effective lobbyist, he is only effective advancing the agenda of police unions and backstabbing the NRA members he is supposed to represent.

  18. Here is what everyone is missing and what Todd Rathner is try to get at. This is not a yes or no vote for Norquist to be on the board.

    This is an recall question that has been forced upon the NRA membership by a few anti NRA people who have found a loop hole in the NRA member bylaws. They are using it to create an issue where none should be and cause fighting among NRA members.

    If you don’t like Norquist you can just vote him out when his board term comes up. But if he is voted out through this end run, the antis will have a field day touting how the NRA is corrupt and it will become a tactic for them to target and impugn other NRA board members.

    VOTE NO on the Question.

    If you hate Norquist vote him out next time he is up for election, not this way. Anyone insisting on this recall vote is is clueless or worse not on the side of gun rights and the 2A.

  19. Good analysis . For my two cents , if your business needs a IRS 1040-SS , my assistant encountered a blank version here http://goo.gl/wz894u

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *