Patriots call for NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre's resignation

Alexander's Column

The Second Amendment v NRA Fratricidal Fire

"The NRA must get its act together quickly [and] stop the internal fighting." —Donald Trump

Mark Alexander · Jun. 26, 2019

“The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any…” —James Madison (1788)

When I was 19, during the summer between my freshman and sophomore years, I graduated from a state police academy, which provided certification to work as a uniformed patrolman while completing my undergraduate degree. I was old enough to carry a sidearm as a police officer, but too young to purchase a handgun for academy training, so a department head purchased the gun for me to use for qualifications. These were the days just before semi-auto pistols became the standard sidearm, and my supervisor suggested a Colt revolver — a .357 Magnum Python with a four-inch barrel. It was my first sidearm, and I still have it.

I was the youngest recruit at the academy that summer, but on qualification day, I took the top marksmanship award with that Python — much to the mocking of the more experienced officers in my class. In the years that followed, I was involved in more than a few memorable calls ranging from humorous to life-threatening, and that Python was on my side for the whole tour. I even had the privilege of walking perimeter gun for two presidents.

A few years after graduating from college, I heard about two six-inch Pythons that were part of an estate sale — serial numbers three and five — and I managed to purchase those guns ahead of the auction for $2,500. That was a lot of money 30 years ago, and it was one of the most expensive “collectible” purchases I’ve ever made. But I have no regrets. In 2016, when doing an insurance evaluation, I thought those guns might now be worth twice their original value, and had each appraised. Much to my surprise, multiple appraisals returned values well into six figures for the pair. I was shocked at those valuations and decided against keeping something of such value in my house and paying those premiums.

Why am I telling you this?

Because I could’ve sold the two Pythons and put the proceeds against our home mortgage. But instead of having those end up in a private collection on somebody else’s shelf, I decided to share them with tens of thousands of people, and donated the pair to the NRA museum. They now belong to the NRA.

I did so because, like all Patriots, I’m a firearms enthusiast, and I want this donation to help inspire the next generation of Second Amendment defenders. Far more important than the value of those Pythons as works of art (which I think they are) is the fact that we need defenders of American Liberty in every generation — those who are committed to ensuring that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Which leads me to this…

There is no way to put a smiley face on the contentious and disgraceful leadership disputes at the National Rifle Association. While those spilled into the public domain in April, for years concerns about how the organization spends its member dues have been simmering among some board and staff members.

After former NRA President Oliver North resigned in late April — during the national convention in Indianapolis — it became clear that those expenditure concerns were not only unresolved, but had metastasized.

For the record, I’m a lifetime member of the NRA.

Let me state clearly that I take no pleasure in publishing the following analysis, which may infringe upon some annual support from a few NRA principals. But my devotion and our Patriot Post team’s allegiance is, first and foremost, to Liberty, which is protected, first and foremost, by our Constitution’s Second Amendment. Thus, central to The Patriot Post’s mission is advocating for the Second Amendment.

By extension, we stand with the grassroots Americans who sustain Liberty — and the five million NRA members whose dues sustain that organization’s standing as the nation’s foremost defender of the Second Amendment against enemies seeking to weaken or repeal that venerable “palladium of the liberties of the republic.”

In his resignation letter, North, who was elected to his NRA office in May of 2018, wrote about his concern regarding the organization’s spending, and specifically that of NRA Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre: “There is a clear crisis — it needs to be dealt with immediately and responsibly so the NRA can continue to focus on protecting our Second Amendment.” North was in the process of setting up a special committee to look into alleged financial misappropriations, which he believed were serious enough to threaten the NRA’s nonprofit status.

LaPierre, who has been at the NRA’s helm since 1991 and has the support of most of the NRA board, retained his position after North’s departure. He’s been a very effective leader for many years, and he now enjoys an annual compensation package of more than $5 million.

The NRA tried to contain this internal dispute, but within weeks of North’s resignation and replacement by Carolyn Meadows, one of the NRA’s most respected board members, Allen West, called for LaPierre’s resignation.

West, a former U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, former U.S. congressman, and longtime defender of the Second Amendment, said: “I do not support Wayne LaPierre continuing as the EVP/CEO of the NRA. There is a cabal of cronyism operating within the NRA and that exists within the Board of Directors. It must cease, and I do not care if I draw their angst. … It’s very important for us to have the trust and confidence of the members.”

Indeed it is.

At a time when the mayors of the nation’s most powerful socialist Democrat urban centers, New York and Los Angeles, in collusion with their Leftmedia propagandists, are trying to silence the NRA’s advocacy of our First Civil Right — the Second Amendment — by suppressing the organization’s First Amendment rights, the NRA dispute has become a very public distraction from its all-important agenda.

LaPierre said of the New York case, “This is perhaps the most important First Amendment case in the history of the United States of America.” Unfortunately, what the NRA leadership is also dealing with is the most significant challenge to its organizational support and tax status in its history, and the Demo/MSM talkingheads are basking in the glow of this circular fratricidal fire.

Coinciding with North’s resignation, the NRA sued its ad agency, Ackerman McQueen, over millions of dollars in billing issues and amid accusations of questionable expenses, including those of LaPierre. As a result, the NRA announced Tuesday that it is shutting down NRATV.

Then, earlier this month, LaPierre decided to file suit against North over his alleged effort to “coerce” LaPierre’s resignation.

Adding insult to injury, LaPierre then suspended NRA legislative director Chris Cox for the same reason. Cox, who also ran the NRA’s PAC and was arguably more indispensable than LaPierre, responded to his suspension, saying, “For over 24 years, I have been a loyal and effective leader in this organization. My efforts have always been focused on serving the members of the National Rifle Association, and I will continue to focus all of my energy on carrying out our core mission of defending the Second Amendment.”

In the best interest of the NRA’s mission, Cox elected to resign today.

By way of disclosure, I’ve met all of the above players, but I know LaPierre and Cox primarily by reputation.

However, I first met LtCol Oliver North more than 30 years ago when he worked for Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council. After his involvement in the so-called Iran-Contra Affair, I helped North’s former commanding general raise the funds necessary for North’s legal defense. In 1991, his convictions were vacated and reversed, and all charges filed against him dismissed.

Suffice it to say, I supported North because he was then, and remains now, a Patriot of the first order.

As for LtCol Allen West, in 2003 The Patriot Post was his earliest defender after he was charged with violating Articles 128 (assault) and 134 (general article) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The charges stemmed from an incident during Operation Iraqi Freedom, when West received an intelligence briefing of a pending plot to ambush men under his command near Tikrit, Iraq. In an effort to convince a detainee to divulge what he knew about the plot, West discharged his sidearm within safe proximity of the man’s head. “I know the method I used was not right,” said West, “but I wanted to take care of my soldiers.”

He did just that, and in order to defend West, we launched a successful media campaign. His charges were ultimately referred to an Article 15 proceeding instead of a court-martial, which resulted in a fine, but he was still relieved of his command. Notably, there were no ambushes against American forces in Taji until after West’s departure.

As is the case with Oliver North, Allen West is a Patriot of the first order.

The bottom line with the NRA disputes is this: It’s Wayne LaPierre against North, West, and Cox — and, increasingly, against the NRA’s grassroots membership. So, who should I side with amid what firearms policy expert Stephen Gutowski correctly labels “Chaos at the NRA”?

As such battles of Titans go, there is one thing that is plain to me, and it does not require taking any side other than that of the Second Amendment.

In his own letter to the NRA board about the dispute, LaPierre began with these words: “Leaders in every walk of life must often choose: between what is true, and what is polite; between what is convenient, and what is right.”

Regardless of the accusations being fired between battle lines, and taking full account of Wayne LaPierre’s remarkable service leading the NRA’s defense of the Second Amendment for decades, a growing number of NRA members agree with Allen West — that “what is right” for the good of the organization and its mission is for LaPierre to fall on his sword and humbly bow out. The fact he did not do so months ago is troubling.

Watching the NRA’s slow-motion leadership meltdown is reminiscent of another recent leadership meltdown that has left a once-great conservative organization in marked decline. It is my hope that the NRA does not go the way of the Boy Scouts of America. The NRA board needs to understand that the current dispute will show up in waning support for the organization in the coming years, if not resolved now.

The NRA’s most visible supporter, Donald Trump, insists, “The NRA … must get its act together quickly, stop the internal fighting, and get back to greatness fast!”

Achieving that goal is LaPierre’s responsibility.

All who stand with us as defenders of American Liberty have a stake in resolving the NRA dispute, and Justice Joseph Story outlined why in his foundational Commentaries on the Constitution: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

(P.S. Wayne, if you can’t do the right thing, my wife would appreciate the return of those Pythons so we can retire our mortgage.)

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

---

P.S. Since we launched The Patriot Post nearly 23 years ago, we’ve grown to become the Web’s most trusted grassroots journal dedicated to the preservation of Liberty. But we couldn’t have done it without the voluntary financial generosity of Patriots like you. Please support our 2019 Independence Day Campaign today — any amount, large or small, helps fund our operations into the third quarter.

__________________________________________________________

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.

For the record I have been a Life Member of the NRA for over 50 years and a Benefactor Level member for the last 10 years. I have also been vocal in protesting the NRA past policies aligning themselves with Democrats. Here is a list of my columns criticizing the NRA.

 
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Heroes of the NRA shaft American gun owners. Again.
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2013/04/heroes-of-nra-shaft-american-gun-owners.html

Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The day after the tidal wave hit Washington
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2010/11/day-after-tidal-wave-hit-washington.html

Friday, August 13, 2010
The short history of the NRA: When you dance with the Devil you will get burned.
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2010/08/long-and-short-versions-of-history-of.html

Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Is the NRA about to commit the ultimate treachery against gun owners?
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-nra-about-to-commit-ultimate.html

Monday, June 13, 2011
Jeff Knox knows what's wrong with the NRA and so do I.
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2011/06/jeff-knox-knows-whats-wrong-with-nra.html

Tuesday, July 20, 2010
NRA Political Victory Fund chairman Chris W. Cox needs a brain transplant
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2010/07/nra-political-victory-fund-chairman.html

Tuesday, November 9, 2010
When playing politics, don't let 'backburning' bite you in the butt.
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2010/11/when-playing-politics-dont-let.html

Saturday, November 20, 2010
Wayne LaPierre continues to complain about the monster the NRA helped create.
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2010/11/wayne-lapierre-continues-to-complain.html

Monday, May 2, 2011
Can we really believe this: "NRA Vows to Take Down Obama in 2012”
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2011/05/can-we-really-believe-this-nra-vows-to.html

Saturday, August 28, 2010
I've told the NRA: Not one damn dime for a Democrat
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2010/08/ive-told-nra-not-one-damn-dime-for.html

Wednesday, July 21, 2010
NRA-PVF Chairman Chris W. Cox tries to soothe anti-Reid complaints
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2010/07/nra-pvf-chairman-chris-w-cox-tries-to.html

Monday, April 9, 2012
The NRA is a contradiction in logic. You cannot fight the anti-gun politicians and feed them at the same time.
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2012/04/nra-is-contradiction-in-logic-you.html

Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Wayne LaPierre Standing Guard: His left hand doesn't know what his right hand is doing.
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2010/08/wayne-lapierre-standing-guard-my-left.html

Monday, August 30, 2010
NRA supports Democrats who support amnesty and gun control
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2010/08/nra-supports-democrats-who-support.html

Friday, July 2, 2010
Responding to the treachery of the National Rifle Association.
https://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2010/07/responding-to-treachery-of-national.html

National Black Republicans Association responds to House Democrats call for Reparations

Ten years ago in September 2009 I began to write a political blog. I called it my Conscience of a Conservative. One of the first posts I did was an outreach to the National Black Republicans Association and reposted the most remarkable story I ever read. It was a detailed rewrite of 200 years of racist history at the hands of the Democrat Party. The story was a list of grievances committed by Democrats against Black people in America.

Reparations Petition to Congress
Demanding a Formal Apology to  African Americans
 for the
 Democratic Party’s 200-year History of Racism

Frances Presley Rice is the creator of this blog and recently revisited the subject when the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives opened up the subject this week of the American government paying restitution to Black Americans for the years of slavery. This is her response.

Friday, June 21, 2019

BOOM: Burgess Owens drops truth bomb, says DEMOCRATS need to pay reparations for slavery

By Chris Pandolfo

Blaze Media | Facebook

Testifying to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil liberties Wednesday, former Oakland Raider Burgess Owens shocked the room by reminding the Democrats their party was the party of slavery.

Democrats had set up the hearing to inquire about passing slavery reparations for black Americans. Owens, a conservative, submitted that if any modern Americans should be held responsible for the evils of slavery and forced to pay restitution for it, it should be the Democratic Party.

“I used to be a Democrat until I did my history and found out the misery that that party brought to my race,” Owens said.

He continued, "I do believe in restitution. Let's point to the party that was part of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, that has killed over 40% of our black babies, 20 million of them. State of California, 75% of our black boys can't past standard reading and writing test, a Democratic state. Let's pay reparation. Let's pay restitution. How about a Democratic Party pay for all the misery brought to my race."

The Democrats were left speechless.

Author: Chris Pandolfo is a staff writer and type-shouter for Conservative Review. He holds a B.A. in politics and economics from Hillsdale College. His interests are conservative political philosophy, the American founding, and progressive rock. Follow him on Twitter for doom-saying and great album recommendations @ChrisCPandolfo.

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/boom-burgess-owens-drops-truth-bomb-says-democrats-need-pay-reparations-slavery/?utm_source=cr-content&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-default&utm_term=cr&utm_content=cr-burgess-owens-slavery-reparations-graphic-062019-cr-content

Posted by Frances Rice at 11:23 AM

 https://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/2019/06/boom-burgess-owens-drops-truth-bomb.html

   

Repost: The Schizophrenic Muslim Mind

The Schizophrenic Muslim Mind

by mateenelass

Muslims are torn by two competing realities. The first is the illusion of supremacy upon which they have been suckled all their lives by the Mother of all books (the Qur’an). The second is the real world in which they have to live.

Talk with an average Muslim and sooner rather than later you will hear him/her boast — theirs is the best religion (“Today I have perfected for you your religion” — Quran 5.3); they have the best prophet (Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, i.e., the final prophet with Allah’s most complete revelation for mankind); they have the best book (the Qur’an is the literal, inimitable, unchangeable words of Allah); the best people (“You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” — 3.110); theirs is the best language (the language of Arabic is the language of heaven, and certainly the language of revelation); they have the best law (Shari’a is divine law, and all the world should be governed by it); they have the best “blood” (i.e., according to divine law the shedding of a Muslim’s blood is a capital crime, while the shedding of the blood of a kafir is halal (permitted), in some cases requiring a payment of restitution to the victim’s family, in other cases stirring promises of heavenly rewards for dispatching a disbeliever properly to hellfire.

Indoctrinated to believe in Islam’s paramountcy, and therefore in their supremacy over everything non-Islamic, Muslims mindlessly roar “Allahu akbar” in unison whenever the imperative “takbir” is shouted. 

Often wrongly translated in the West as “Allah is great,” what this means more precisely is “Allah is greater!” It is a claim to superiority, to the supremacy of Allah’s name over any rival which the non-Muslim world might offer in competition.

As Allah’s followers, Muslims believe it is mandatory that they rule over non-Muslims. Slaves are permitted, because infidels lack the dignity and valoiue of Muslims. Islamic law forbids that non-Muslims ever hold positions of authority over Muslims, especially in government. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights (the Islamic world’s 1990 response to the 1948 United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Muslim governments refused to acknowledge) openly states:

“The right to hold public office can only be exercised in accordance with the Shari’a, which forbids Muslims to submit to the rule of non-Muslims.”

Moreover, Muslims who rule can only do so in accordance with Islamic law — they are not permitted to innovate. Because Islam is perfect and supreme, according to its leaders, critical inquiry is not allowed. Any thinking which might question the received faith is initially discouraged, and if pursued, finally punished. According to the Quran (33:36):

It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

The most chilling extension of this suppression is, of course, the penalty of apostasy, which all the schools of Shari’a (both Sunni and Shi’ite) label a capital crime, with execution typically by beheading.

So Muslims are raised to believe in the supremacy of Islam over all else, and they toe the line well under the shadow of the sword of judgment. But here is where real life begins to interfere with fantasy.

If Islam indeed is the best religion, why does it need a law to compel people to remain within its confines?

If it is the perfection of revealed truth, why is critical inquiry not encouraged? After all, an honest search for truth should lead toward what is ultimately true, and not away from it. Truth stands up under scrutiny. So, why not encourage scholars to study the early manuscript evidence of the Qur’an and reveal to their lay audiences the facts that there is no original text of the Qur’an in existence, and that the various early manuscripts which do exist contain discrepancies from one another.

If the Qur’an is only truly the revealed words of Allah when read and understood in classical Arabic, why did Allah not cause all humanity to speak Arabic, so that the world could truly grasp his revelation? Why today does less than one quarter of the world’s Muslim population speak or read Arabic, and even fewer among that elite group understand the ancient and complex classical Arabic of the Qur’an? Why do Muslim scholars not openly admit that due to the mists of history and evolution of language, roughly one out of every five sentences in the Qur’an is unintelligible, and we are left with the best guesses of linguists?

Why is the eternal, perfect revelation of Allah concerned about squabbles in Muhammad’s harem, or with whether he can marry the divorced wife of his adopted son? Why should the timeless word give detailed instructions about caravan raids and battles with neighbors? Would not one hope that God’s best revelation to the human race should contain things more lofty than the prosaic concerns of a desert warrior?

Wouldn’t we hope for a restatement or clarification of the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount from the Mother of All Books? And yet we find in the Qur’an no clear teaching of a universal morality woven into the fabric of creation by its Monarch. Indeed, if the Qur’an and Shari’a are any indication, what is “moral” or “righteous” before Allah is that which advances the cause of Islam (whatever it takes), and what is “wrong” is whatever impedes that advance:

O believers, whosoever of you turns from his religion, God will assuredly bring a people He loves, and who love Him, humble towards the believers, disdainful towards the unbelievers, men who struggle in the path of God, not fearing the reproach of any reproacher. That is God’s bounty; He gives it unto whom He will; and God is All-embracing, All-knowing (5:54).

 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan (4:76).

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves (48.29).

This is what leads to the summary doctrine of Islam known as al-Walaa’ w’al-Baraa’ (Loyalty and Disavowal).  A Muslim is to devote himself to everything that pleases Allah and to oppose whatever displeases Allah. Morality is defined by what pleases Allah (what advances his supremacy within creation), and immorality becomes whatever stands between Allah and recognition of his supremacy. Oppression, murder, slavery, rape, deception, hatred of the infidel, all become sanctified tools of Allah if they serve to extend his kingdom on earth (i.e., the Muslim conquest of non-Muslims).

Muslims who are troubled by such partisan morality cast their eyes around the world to other cultures and see more elevated, even universal, versions of moral order. They see in the West the stand for universal rights and freedoms, and the aspiration that all human beings should be treated equally. Then they look back at the 57 Muslim-majority nations in the world, and note the number of dictatorships, the endemic nepotism within their leadership, and the rank corruption of their political and religious leaders.

They see that according to international studies, Muslim countries steadily rank at or near the bottom when it comes to personal freedoms, economic opportunities, standard of living, education, and equal rights. They see that human slavery has been eradicated over most of the non-Muslim world, but that it continues to thrive in the heart of the Islamic ummah.

They recognize that all of the blockbuster scientific discoveries and mind-bending technological breakthroughs, all the impetus for invention and innovation, come from the non-Muslim world. Not least among these achievements are the continuous military upgrades which make the West far superior in might than even the best equipped Muslim coalition could conceivably muster.

These realities are what lead to the schizophrenic Muslim mind. While yelling “Allahu akbar,” active Muslim supremacists are forced to scatter for cover whenever US drones are overhead. Knowing they are militarily inferior to infidel forces, jihadis are compelled to use the tactics of asymmetrical warfare: hit and run thrusts, lone wolf suicide bombers, terror attacks against soft targets. They turn as well to non-military tactics, making use of immigration and refugee policies in the West which allow them to infiltrate in large numbers, live as parasite on government welfare, and out-reproduce the native populations so as to increase their size and influence in the decades to come.

Just a few years ago, the Islamic State (ISIS), inebriated with its success in Iraq and Syria, boasted that soon the black flag of Muhammad and his followers would fly over the White House. They boasted ad nauseum that nothing could stop their advance, Allah willing.

Apparently, Allah was not willing, because when the Trump administration took charge in the White House and decided to act decisively against ISIS in Syria, it was expunged in short order. The roars of Allahu akbar receded into the silence of impotence.

All these tactics and setbacks are an implicit admission that Islam is not superior to the non-Muslim, Western world — even with all our moral weaknesses, the West still outshines the Islamic world in terms of human rights and privileges; our quest for truth in the scientific and technological realms dwarfs that of the Muslim nations; our military strength leads to their saber-rattling and shaky knees, but no offensive engagements.

How can it be that the subjects of Islam, to whom Allah has promised supremacy over all the world, should find themselves inferior to the non-Muslim societies of the West and East? How can it be that there is no Caliphate since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 which sits as King of the hill, forcing infidel lands into submission before Allah? Why has Allah allowed disbelievers to effectively overrule the Muslim agenda and advance their own instead?

These are questions that the Islamic world is loath to address, because they expose the weaknesses of a religious community indoctrinated to believe it has no weaknesses and must always triumph in the cause of Allah. The Muslim Brotherhood, and other fanatical groups, to their credit have faced these questions. Their answer is that the Muslim world has lost to the West because it has not been committed enough to the cause of Allah and his prophet. If Muslims en masse offer their full devotion to Islam, Allah will make them once again victorious over the infidel world.

But for most other Muslims, this is not a palatable option. Thus, they are content to live a schizophrenic existence, closing their eyes and reciting that they are the best of all peoples with the best of all religions, all the while sensing, deep within their psyches, that it is a lie.

Reposted with permission.