NRA Joins Mitch McConnell Against Rand Paul and Gun Owners for America

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said moments ago that the National Rifle Association wrote him a three-page letter explaining the organization's opposition to Senator Rand Paul's gun amendment, which is being debated on the floor now and which Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been trying to kill all day. 

This fits with what a Senate staffer told me yesterday, which is that Paul's office didn't even bother reaching out to the NRA. But it doesn't exactly help the group's Tea Party credentials, certainly not when you consider that it supported the DISCLOSE Act and opposed Dick Heller taking his case to the Supreme Court. 

UPDATE: 85-10, Paul's gun amendment is dead.

UPDATE II: 91-4, Paul's banking records amendment is dead. Time for a vote on reauthorization. 

UPDATE III: Read the NRA's response here

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Michael Moore||

    Did I hear that right? The NRA? Wow, my head hurts.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The NRA keeps calling me to get me to join. They can have my membership dues when they pry them out of my cold, dead hand.

  • P B||

    I quit in 2003 after several calls warning me about what a future Pres. Rodham-Clinton would do to guns laws. I told the guy reading his script to pound sand and cancel my membership and that he should be ashamed of trying scare people into giving them more money. They are just another org more interested in their own existence than their original charter.

  • ||

    I've used their business reply envelope to send them a detailed explanation of how they're failing to do their job.

    -jcr

  • Thomas Jefferson||

    What the fuck have y'all done with the Republic?

  • Alexander Hamilton||

    I don't see anything wrong with it.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    To be perfectly honest, Hamilton even might be alarmed by what's going on.

    But I'm no expert.

  • ||

    ""What the fuck have y'all done with the Republic?""

    Pissed it away just as some of the founders predicted.

  • Ben Franklin||

    Word

  • Scruffy Nerd Herder||

    I think DeTocqueville had a few words about all of this

  • Andrew Jackson||

    What did you expect after the shit I was able to get away with.

  • Abraham Lincoln||

    Amateur, some of the stuff I got away with would make even Obama blush.

  • ||

    NRA: America's #1 gun control lobby.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    You know, NOW and Planned Parenthood are more absolutist on abortion rights than the NRA is on gun rights...and Rand Paul is supposed to be the lunatic.

  • ||

    lunatics and nutters are the people who believe what the state tells them.

  • ||

    Let's not overreact. If it weren't for the NRA's activity back in the 80s and 90s, strict gun control would be ubiquitous.

  • Otto||

    Thank you, SAF. Now we don't have to support a bunch of authoritarians to support the 2nd Amendment.

  • Chris||

    Amen, proud SAF member, done with the NRA forever.

  • ||

    Libertarians joining an irrelevant organization to make themselves feel better. Color me surprised.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    NRA's a bunch of dickbags.

  • Dylboz||

    They are that. A big bag of dicks. That's why I joined the GOA.

  • Warty||

    Every once in a while, I think seriously about letting my NRA membership lapse. This might do it for me.

  • ||

    Its about time. How could a liberty lovin' fella like yourself associate with these frauds?

  • Dylboz||

    Do so. And let them know why. Then, join the GOA and JPFO (no need to get circumcised, they'll let goyim send them money, they'll even give you a member card).

  • Otto||

    The GOA supports Sheriff Arpaio, although they're at least in favor of the Paul Amendment. I think the SAF is more effective, certainly on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

  • ||

    No shit. This is bad. What the hell is the matter with them? Is the whole thing run by cops or something?

  • ||

    Unfortunately, I have a life membership so I'd have to actively cancel it, but man, I am considering it. Besides, American Rifleman sucks and I'm sick of getting it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You know, there is one way out of a lifetime membership.

  • Paul||

    You know who else had a way out of lifetime memberships?

  • Almanian||

    Harry Houdini? D.B. Cooper?

  • ||

    Pacific northwest magic?

  • x,y||

    Christopher Reeve?

  • In Omnibus Libertas||

    No, no, no. If you're a Life member, you have voting privileges. And you never have to give them a single penny again.

    Just take whatever money you might have been planning to give to the NRA and give it to the GOA, JPFO, et. al. instead. And tell the NRA why. Repeatedly.

  • SIV||

    This fits with what a Senate staffer told me yesterday, which is that Paul's office didn't even bother reaching out to the NRA.

    Seems foolish not to try if your goal is to kill the provision as much as the whole act.

  • Fluffy||

    If you know the fix is in, you might not bother.

    Especially given the Pauls' history with the NRA.

  • prolefeed||

    No
    Rifles
    After all

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    No
    Rifles
    Allowed

  • pmains||

    Nullifying
    Rights of
    Americans

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I like it! That could apply to the National Recovery Administration, too. Can we give congress an acronym that spells NRA?

  • ||

    No
    republican
    Aspirations.

  • Mo||

    C onvicts
    O rdaining
    N aked
    G rabs of
    R ights &
    E xuding
    S hit
    S tench

  • ||

    No
    Really
    Assholes!

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    I keeping thinking that we'll overhear a hot mic with someone reporting, "Yes, Chancellor Obama, the amendment has been tabled. Congratulations, your excellency."

  • Ska||

    Sounds like Final Fantasy IV.

  • ||

    Nutter
    Republican
    Association

  • ||

    Guns for me but not for thee!

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Senator Rand Paul,

    If you continue your support for the Constitution, I promise to suck your cock dry every 6 years.

    Thanks,
    ACB

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    Darn it man, why are you trying to discourage him?

  • Jared||

    Again the NRA fails to support something that is clearly in the best interest of gun owners.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They're not interested is gun rights, but in pushing their law and order conservative agenda in which law enforcement can do no wrong and anyone who challenges that notion is worthy of a swat raid.

  • ||

    Hence their many lawsuits against police departments that confiscate weapons from innocent gun owners.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    NRA:

    Fuck you.

  • Joe M||

    Wow, okay, NRA, you suck. Obviously they're concerned about their "reputation" more than about the 2nd or 4th amendments. I'd always heard GOA was better; now I know.

  • Warty||

    CNN continues to impress.

    ART
    The patriot act went to far as far as I'am concerned but this one part about gun ownership is the only thing I have no issue with. Why should a court order be necessary to see whether a gun is legal or not? This idiot Rand scares me, he s more radical than his decrepit father

    May 26, 2011 04:32 pm at 4:32 pm |
    Peggy - TX
    "Records should be private " Paul says, but why? Who are you protecting? My best guess is the only person being protected by keeping this info private are folks that horde guns becasue they are nuts and one day may go postal in a big and scary manner and those that illegally sell them to criminals such as the Mexican Crime Organizations; Otherwise, why would some one care. I personally would like out Government to be able to detect a potential problem and be able to at least interview the person to see if thier gun facination is ligitimate.

    May 26, 2011 04:38 pm at 4:38 pm |
  • Otto||

    I don't know -

    ...folks that horde guns becasue they are nuts and one day may go postal in a big and scary manner and those that illegally sell them to criminals such as the Mexican Crime Organizations...

    At least she's against the BATFE and Border Patrol.

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    Ah, Project Gunrunner. Good thing the state is so much more trustworthy with guns than individual citizens, eh?

  • Otto||

    It's teh gun shows! TEH GUN SHOWS!!!

  • ||

    You know, I should have known CNN commenters would be this bonecrushingly dumb, but for some reason it still surprises me a little.

  • fish||

    ....and those that illegally sell them to criminals such as the Mexican Crime Organizations

    Who thought that Peggy would be out there front running for the ATF.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Peggy sounds like a British bureaucrat justifying the Writ of Assistance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....al_America

  • ||

    """Records should be private """

    Private doesn't mean "from government eyes" anymore. That dog was shot and dumped years ago.

  • Mr Whipple||

    These people deserve the shit storm that is coming. I hope they are in debt up to their fucking eyeballs, and sold all of their gold and silver jewelry to pay their minimum credit card balances. Fuckers.

  • Rich||

    Would someone *kindly* link to the text of the NRA's letter to Chambliss? Guess I need more (or less!) coffee, 'cause I can't find it ...

  • Otto||

    Here it is.

  • Rich||

    Thanks, Otto, but that's a short email to Senate offices. Still looking for the three-pager.

    FWIW, the email contains this:
    While well-intentioned, the language of this amendment as currently drafted raises potential problems for gun owners, in that it encourages the government to use provisions in current law that allow access to firearms records without reasonable cause, warrant, or judicial oversight of any kind.

  • Otto||

    Oops - sorry, Rich.

    I will say, however, that I think the language is BS, just to provide cover for the NRA's pals in the Senate. The government can currently access those records anyway, and adding a warrant requirement is hardly "encouragement."

  • ||

    How about the NRA's repetitive rubbish, "if the government would just enforce all of the gun laws already on the books.......", asseverated on so many other occasions?

    Guess that would not apply here.

  • Otto||

    As others have pointed out, they are essentially an establishment establishment. They exist to exist. I get the feeling that if gun banners really started to decline, they'd start secretly supporting them so they wouldn't lose their meal tickets.

  • Warty||

    And HuffPo takes the lead!

    HUFFPOST SUPER USER
    aligatorhardt
    empty on purpose
    1069 Fans
    5 minutes ago (5:06 PM)
    Rand Paul owes the IRA it seems. As long as terrorists buy American guns then murder is ok.
  • aligatorhardt||

    To be fair, I'm kinda stupid.

  • Doctor Feelgood||

    Don't worry, scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick-ass lives.

  • WWJGD||

    Are SuperUsers on that site only elevated once they achieve some new level of stupidity? It seems like their idiocy far surpasses anything else on that shitswill of a site.

  • fish||

    Generally a sharp blow to the head resulting in some small degree of brain damage is required for HuuPo Super User status. If I recall correctly it's called Yglesias Syndrome.

  • ||

    "Are SuperUsers on that site only elevated once they achieve some new level of stupidity?"

    Yes. It is kind of the eagle scout award for brain dead liberals.

  • ||

    It's the ones who can shout the loudest into the echo chamber.

  • CE||

    The Super stupid.... it hurts.

  • Ted S.||

    On the bright side, at least she recognized that Americans were helping arm the Southern Irish terrorists.

  • Jim||

    Wow, ask and ye shall receive. I said in an earlier thread on this that I wanted to know what the NRA reaction would be (assuming, like a fool, that they would side with Paul).

    I paid dues for the first time in my life two years ago, and renewed last year. That's the last dollar they see from me.

    And American Rifleman isn't that bad, Epi. I'm enjoying the new one with the commemorative .45 stories.

  • ||

    All their gun reviews are basically "it's great!" so the free guns for testing keep coming. Utterly useless.

    The rest of it is mostly military fetishizing, which I have no interest in.

  • ||

    Maybe Consumer Reports should review firearms.

  • Otto||

    Speaking of reviews, can anyone tell me if the Rossi R85104 .38 Spec. is a decent gun? Or failing that, anyone with experience with Rossi revolvers comment on their products?

  • quentin tarantino||

    Load it, stick it in your mouth, pull the trigger and get back to me.

  • Otto||

    I'll have to buy it first, rctl.

  • rather||

    WTF, if it was me, I'd put my blog address. Besides, I would have told you to insert it anally; la sexualité est toujours. :-)

  • Old Bull Lee||

    I have the Rossi R35202, the 5-shot j-frame .38. It's a decent gun.

  • Old Bull Lee||

    Who, Epi posted that about the same time as me. Perhaps he has the same model. Anyway, it was a little under $300 and I don't know if it's of any lesser quality than S&W or any other big name.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Why not go with a 357 mag which will also shoot the 38 spec. Two for the price of one.

  • Otto||

    Model 851, that is.

  • ||

    I have a Rossi .38, and it's a perfectly good gun (and cheap). I don't know what model mine is, but it's a pretty standard snubnose. It's heavy, though. Not good for carrying, but it shoots nice.

  • Otto||

    Thx Epi & Old Bull Lee. The one I'm looking at would be about $306 after tax, which is a decent price - but not if it was a crap gun.

  • Old Bull Lee||

    I will say this - I have heard bad things about really old Rossi guns, but the newer ones are manufactured by Taurus and better. In any case, with revolvers I don't think it's as risky to go with cheaper brands. Autos it's a whole different story.

  • ||

    They are not crap guns. However, they are heavy. Taurus makes some very light .38+P revolvers that can be had for as low as $325; if you want to carry, I would suggest the Taurus because they're stupid light, and they are pretty good guns.

  • Otto||

    As Old Bull Lee pointed out, the older Rossi guns did have a bad rep, which was the last I'd heard about them. I didn't know if that was still true. After both of your recs, I'll probably get one, unless I can get a better deal.

    I've heard a lot of good things about Taurus, for a long time. Fortunately, the .38 has a light enough kick that a light gun isn't a problem. (I'm a recoil wussy).

  • l0b0t||

    Never shot a Rossi but I can't say enough nice things about Taurus wheelguns. My favorite backyard plinker is the Model 99 (a 9-shot .22LR - http://www.taurususa.com/produ.....=&search;=) and for carry while hiking in bear country, I have a wonderful Model 4510 (5-shot .45/.410 - http://www.taurususa.com/produ.....mbseries;=).

  • Old Bull Lee||

    And you're welcome. THAT'S RIGHT REID, WE'RE ANONYMOUSLY DISCUSSING CHEAP GUNS RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSE!

  • ||

    Not if the NRA has anything to do about it.

  • SIV||

    That's no different than any other gun magazine. American Rifleman has decent technical and historical articles.
    IIRC, you can pay a little extra and get their gun collecting magazine.

  • Jim||

    This. Epi is right that the reviews are mostly faux positive, but the tech specs, esp. on ammunition, are usually very good.

    And I like the slightly OT history articles, like the one a few months ago about Hemmingway's Italian hunting shotguns.

  • ||

    It is mostly reviews of obscenely expensive weapons as well. Really, how many $3000+ European shotguns do you need? Most of the shit they review would be at most a once in a lifetime purchase for me. After a few months it gets old.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Uh oh, Franken isn't doing something right!

  • ||

    I'd be interested to see what the NRA's justification for this is.

    It was loathesome enough to see Wayne Le Pierre campaigning for Reid in the 2010 general, but at least that made some degree of sense (gun owners don't want Schumer as Sen Maj Ldr). I don't see what sense this is supposed to make.

  • SIV||

    Read the NRA letter to the Senators linked above.

    This fits with what a Senate staffer told me yesterday, which is that Paul's office didn't even bother reaching out to the NRA.

    The NRA says it doesn't usually take a position on procedural votes. Perhaps contacting them in advance might've helped in this case.

  • Nick Haynes||

    Awww, widdle Wayne's feelings must have been hurt by that.

    If that's their major concern, they need to grow up.

  • ||

    Tulpa, In the event that an incumbent has the same rating as a challenger the NRA will endorse the incumbent, presumably as someone with a known record.

    Reid has an A rating but you're right that Le Pierre added the bonus of actually giving Reid a boost was motivated by their belief that if Reid lost the Senate Dems would very likely pick a hoplophobe as leader.

  • ||

    I meant to say, "... the NRA will endorse the incumbent, regardless of party..."

    Other than that, they are a single issue advocacy group. Issues like the healthcare bill are not their concern. In fact, like the tea partiers their members see to have absolutely no problem with the welfare state in principle.

  • Apogee||

    Other than that, they are a single issue advocacy group.

    Apparently then they're on the wrong side of that single issue.

  • CE||

    I'd be interested to see what the NRA's justification for this is.

    Providing cover to conservative Senators to extend the police state a few more years, so those Senators will stand up firmly for the 2nd Amendment right to go hunting once a year?

  • ¢||

    Maybe Consumer Reports should review firearms.

    They do. There's an "if you bring a gun in your house, it will kill everyone you love, twice, every day" in every home security review they publish.

  • West Texas||

    So true. So true.

  • ||

    Okay, then a Consumer Reports just for guns, published by a different organization.

  • ||

    PL, see my comment below about Gun_Tests.

  • ||

    Man, that was quick.

  • Colin||

    At least, all these anti-gun politicians are now on record.

    Of course, the only reason the NRA came out against it is to give these shits some cover.

  • mr simple||

    Sen Murray (D Wash.) is talking now about a jobs bill for vets. She says America is a beacon for democracy and freedom. Wonder how she voted on the Paul amnds and USAPA renewal?

    Well then she said 27% of returning vets are unemployed, which is 1 in 5 without a job. Seriously, fractions, how do they work?

  • ||

    Murrey is pretty fucking stupid. Next up she is going to tell us how we can balance the budget by ending "fraud waste and abuse".

  • ||

    To be fair, fraud waste and abuse cover about 90% of the budget. I don't think she meant SS, Medicare and the Department of Agriculture though.

  • CE||

    And DoD.

  • mr simple||

    Next Inhofe is talking about how the Islamic Nations hate us because we're free and a nation of laws with a 200 year old constitution. How do these people fucking breathe? FUCK!

    I have to stop watching this. These people are taking my money for this?

  • Nick Haynes||

    Then you'll love the speech following Inhofe--Durbin speaking on the DREAM Act because it's in the best interest of "justice".

    Which I won't necessarily deny, but why don't we follow principles and mandates set forth in the Constitution to ensure "justice" before we start worrying about things that aren't explicitly covered by our founding documents.

  • ||

    I haven't re-upped since Heller. It turns out I did the right thing.

  • ||

    Who owns the firearms records database? State governments? I know little about it, so just asking.

  • ||

    Facebook.

  • ||

    Google perhaps?

  • JD||

    There is no central firearm records database federally (thinks in large part to the NRA); some of the bluer states have various forms, usually either a license required to own firearms or a handgun registry.

    The feds are prohibited from keeping records of the background checks they do for gun purchases. Dealers keep the background check forms on site; they are required to retain them for a certain number of years (7? 10?) and then can destroy them. If they go out of business, the ATF takes the forms, but is prohibited from computerizing them.

  • JD||

    ATF is also allowed to inspect dealers' records annually, and they have been known to copy large amounts of information from the background check forms during these "compliance inspections".

  • Spooner||

    That's it. I put up with Scrotorum and Huckleberry speaking at the annual meeting. I'm letting my membership lapse and joining GOA.

  • ||

    Maybe Consumer Reports should review firearms.

    Gun-Tests effectively performs that function. No advertising and they buy every gun they test. Then they have sales where they sell off the inventory they've accumulated.

    And they will absolutely slam any gun that doesn't perform. And will generally follow up if the manufacturer contacts them to try to remedy any defect they found.

  • Nick Haynes||

    They only care about being a donation machine to the GOP and having access to the leadership. The more that gun-rights activists have on their plate to work for, the more powerful and influential the NRA becomes--which means that the more they actually accomplish in terms of long-term solutions that protect Second Amendment rights, the less of a reason activists have to send them dues and donations.

    Good riddance.

  • ||

    In the event that an incumbent has the same rating as a challenger the NRA will endorse the incumbent, regardless of party affiliation, presumably as someone with a known record.

    They are totally a single issue group.

    The only reason they seem closer to the GOP is that there are more gun-friendly Republicans.

  • Nick Haynes||

    Well, I understand the incumbency procedure--I've been involved in politics for a while, and I would use the same way of determining endorsements in primaries.

    But that has no bearing on this issue. From Heller, to the DISCLOSE Act, and now to this, they've proven that they're simply a part of the establishment, and their only goal is to continue raking in donations to scare the bejeebus out of the American people.

    And that's fine by me. I'll just continue shelling out my limited resources for donations--only I'll do it for other groups, just like I have for the last five years. The NRA lost me long ago.

  • ||

    If they keep going in the direction they've been going in, they'll just get a bailout when their donations dry up.

  • Mr. Mark||

    My thanks to the voters of Kentucky.

    To my fellow Americans, please join me in asking the NRA to get off crack.

  • ||

    You do realize who else the voters of Kentucky put in the Senate?

  • ||

    Seeing how the NRA-ILA has for years lobbied for guns to be taken from the hands of non-violent criminals in the name of "criminal justice", this comes as absolutely no surprise.

  • Enyap||

    GOA wrote an editorial supporting Joe Arpaio for homeland security chief, leave the NRA if you want but don't give any support to those fuckstains.

  • proegg antichicken||

    funny, 6 months ago I would have dismissed this thread as the whoopin and hollerin of a bunch of paranoid gun freaks. Now I realize firearm proficiency is not scary and with due diligence and responsibility, a very worthwhile hobby.

    But to someone who never handles guns or sees them used for some good and safe fun the are hobgoblins that jump out of safes to shoot kindergarteners. And gun owners should be tagged with radio chips so they aren't starting domestic terrorist armies.

    So guns are good. I should be free to enjoy them without being treated like a suspicious person or put on any list. Fuck the NRA.

  • squishua||

    What more can be expected from these incompetent crooks? This is, after all, a government that was pwned by a bunch of foreigners armed with box-cutters and plane tickets.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The NRA represents gun makers, not gun owners. I agree with others in not seeing wht they felt the need to jump into this. I know what I'll be telling them the next time they hit me up for money. I'll tell them to call Chambliss and McConnell 'cause they're not getting a dime from me.

  • Hacha Cha||

    Its nothing newm, the NRA are statist pussies who don't give a shit about the 2nd amendment, or any other amendment. And its Gun Owners OF America, they're for America too, but that isn't their name.

  • MlR||

    "I can't spare this man. He fights."

  • ||

    OK, the Paul amendment should have been supported by pro-gun-rights people, I get that.

    But let's keep our sense of proportion. It's not like the Senate voted to ban handguns today -- it's just marginally easier for the feds to get lists of people who buy guns. Concerning yes, but not the gutting of gun rights some here are making it out to be.

  • ||

    And of course I think what we're all really pissed about is that the Patriot Act is getting reauthorized, which was pretty much inevitable anyway.

  • AJ||

    This is supposedly from the text of NRA's letter:
    "While well-intentioned, the language of this amendment as currently drafted raises potential problems for gun owners, in that it encourages the government to use provisions in current law that allow access to firearms records without reasonable cause, warrant, or judicial oversight of any kind."

    So it looks like NRA agrees with Paul on the principle here, but they believe the amendment is badly written, and would actually cause more problems for gun owners than it fixes.

  • ||

    Sad News. I called the NRA ILA yesterday and the woman i spoke with said they did support Rand Paul. Anyway, I am not surprised to hear this. I have been an NRA member for many years, but always find GOA and JPFA and others to be more faithful to the cause than the NRA.

  • ||

    Surely, in a state the sent Rand Paul to the senate, there's got to be another decent candidate, and an electorate willing to pick him over McConnell in the next Republican senatorial primary.

    -jcr

  • ||

    UPDATE: The NRA didn't take a position on this amendment. Read the later post.

    Maybe Mr Riggs will find it in his heart to correct his post.

  • JTWilliams||

    The NRA is an absolute disgrace. Their organization appears to be interested in taking up the interests of gun regulators, and selling those interests to 2nd amendment advocates.

    All of America should be told, that if the NRA supports any firearm related measure, it is likely on behalf of government interest at the expense of the people's liberty.

    I do not own any firearms, but I understand why the people should own weapons, and the government has no just authority to be involved in the people's property ownership.

    With friends like the NRA, who need enemies!

  • ||

    Mitch McConnell should be hung with the rest of the traitors to our Constitution. I wouldn't waste a bullet on him.

  • rex84||

    In Virginia, we have a kick ass 2nd Amendment lobby called the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
    http://www.vcdl.org/

    One would think it's merely a state lobby, but since Michael Bloomberg has set his sleazy, internationalist socialist sights on Virginia's gun laws, the VCDL has been fighting on the front lines in the national battle to ensure our natural rights.

  • ||

    This only makes sense if there is going to be a take over of our lives & country!

  • ||

    It just shows that the NRA is a gutless lobby that has lost it's sense of direction. Time for somebody within that lobby to step up.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement