Billoblog ®

A number of conservative bloggers, from BlackFive to RedState to The American Thinker have been dumping on the NRA because it dropped its opposition to the DISCLOSE act after a special carve-out was added to exempt them from its limits on free speech.  They say that it is a betrayal of the NRAs libertarian conservative principles to fail to oppose the act on the basis of the act’s effects on free speech.  After all, they say, the First and Second Amendments are inextricably linked — each supports the other.

That attitude displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what a lobbying organization is.  For people like me, “supporting” or “opposing” a bill means complaining about it during lunch, or maybe writing about it in my blog. Maybe I’ll write a letter to my Congrescritter.  Usually, a position on one single bill will not change my vote — it’s one straw added or removed from the back of the camel.  For a lobbying organization, “opposition” isn’t just expressing a preference.  It means that it will *do* something substantive.  It will decline to contribute to a campaign, or contribute to an opponent.  It will do opposition research.  It will make TV and newspaper ads.  It’s not  just waving  its hand; it’s swinging a knife.

The NRA is an effective lobbying group because it is so single-minded.  A politician can be a baby-eating, spouse-cheating, jerk who double-dips the salsa and chips at the dinner table, but if he or she supports gun-rights, the NRA is his or her friend.  That’s a rock-solid guarantee that allows that NRA to get support of gun rights from people all over the political spectrum from the secular progressive left to the conservative religious right.

Now, pundits want the NRA to throw that all away because they don’t like the way the legislature is acting regarding corporate speech.  They want the NRA to put itself in the position of saying “Hey look, you know how we said that if you were a friend of gun rights, we are a friend of yours?  Well, er, that’s not really the case any more. “  They want the NRA to be in the position of campaigning against a gun rights proponent in order to support an enemy of gun rights because of a vote on a completely different issue.  That’s crazy.

The NRA opposed the DISCLOSE act because it impeded its ability to support Second Amendment rights.  When that impediment was removed, even though by a carve out, that removed the objection.  That’s entirely appropriate.  The NRA doesn’t have a dog in the free-speech fight.  It has a dog in the gun rights fight.  And it is no more appropriate to demand that the NRA dilute its voice in protecting Second Amendment issues than it would be to say we should stop supporting the EFF because it doesn’t take a position on concealed carry.

The NRA, by being focused on its single issue, has been a profoundly effective force in securing Second Amendment liberties.  That’s why I support it.  And I don’t want it to shoot itself in the foot by diluting that focus on other issues.  Just like I support the EFF.  And I don’t want it to shoot itself in the foot by diluting that focus on other issues, either.

My memorial to Dad.

Fathers get a bad rap these days.  On TV they are all bumblers and in the liberal mind they are irrelevant.  Tommy has two mommies, and doesn’t need a Dad.  Down with the “patriarchial” society!  And down with patriarchs.

But the world needs fathers.  Men who are men.  Men who are providers, protectors, leaders, and teachers.  Men who show boys how to be men.  Men who know what honor is.  Men who teach us about obligation.  Men who teach us about fighting for what is important, and how to tell what is important.  Men who do what needs to be done.   Society doesn’t value those things as much as it used to, and it’s a poorer place for it.  But *my* father was one of those men.  And I am richer for it.

Typical.

What a disaster.

Is Paypal continuing into dhimmitude or has it officially decided that only those who support a new genocide against Jews should have their services?

Atlas Shrugged has been banned as a “hate site.”

On the other hand, Revolutionmuslem.com is peachy.

Which one, do you think, posted:

Allah(oh God) Kill The Jews That Occupy Palestine & Their Supporters

A Prayer to My God

Ya Allah(Oh God) I beseech You to carry out your wrath on the Jewish occupiers of Palestine & their supporters.

Ya Allah(Oh God) please throw liquid drain cleaner in their faces.

Ya Allah(Oh God) burn their flammable sukkos while they sleep.

Ya Allah(Oh God),make rocks crash through their car windows as they drive in Your land Bayit al Maqdes

Ya Allah(Oh God), make their fingers and brains stick on cafe walls from impact.

Ya Allah(Oh God) answer my duaa (prayer)

This is what Paypal supports.  Opposing it is “hate” and must be stopped.

Great job, Paypal.

I stopped using Paypal when they declared war on the Second Amendment.  Of course, with some places, it’s your only choice, but people who count on monopoly eventually fall.

Pathetic.

What a disaster.

No surprises here.

So much for that “you can keep your plan if you like it” promise.

What a disaster.

Those of you who do not listen only to the state media may remember the clear case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia.  It was an open-and-shut case, but was dropped by the Obama DoJ.  Now we know why.

“Liberal civil rights lawyers argue that because “a history of official discrimination” can be one subsidiary factor in voting cases it “wipes out every other factor” and prohibits cases from being brought against blacks. And further, that since “socio-economic” factors can be considered in determining whether voting discrimination has occurred, these cases cannot be brought against black defendants until there is economic parity between blacks and whites. Such attorneys use phrases like “traditional civil rights cases” and “traditional civil rights victims” to signal that only minority victims and white perpetrators concern them. Justice sources tell me that career attorneys have been “assured” that cases against minority defendants won’t be brought…”

Read it and weep.

Our “post racial President” has decided that he *likes* racial violence, as long as white folk are hurt.

What a disaster.

Hat tip Instapundit

See it here. Priceless.

Update — YouTube has taken it down.  Of course they’ve left a billion other parodies up, but if speech is pro-Israeli, it must be silenced.

You can still see it here.