YETI Responds to NRA Backlash in Email to Dealers, Ambassadors

Per an email issued to YETI ambassadors and dealers, the embattled company says they still support conservation and 2A.

According to Austrailian bowhunter Adam Greentree, YETI ambassadors received this email explaining how YETI Coolers amended its legacy vendor program—which now excludes NRA Foundation and also Safari Club International (both of whom are closely tied to the NRA).

In the email blast, YETI says they continue to “actively support hunters, anglers, and the broader hunting community.” They also stressed they “believe in the Second Amendment and the Constitution of the United States.” They claim their restructuring of their legacy vendor program is a business decision, and not a political one—stressing they still support conservation.

Not sure if YETI will issue a public release explaining why they ditched their legacy vendor programs with NRA-affiliated groups NRA Foundation and Safari Club International. Did they increase ties with more lefty conservation groups? Did they do a massive sweep of conservation groups of all political stripes? Time with tell.

However, a lot of damage has been done by YETI. We shall see what pans out.

UPDATE I: One YETI ambassador, Rachel Athila, claims the company made a statement, yet there’s no word it’s from HQ themselves:

​UPDATE II: YETI put out an official statement in response to the media attention it’s been getting



No, The NRA Isn’t to Blame for the Decline of Hunting in America

A Quad-City Times article falsely scapegoating the NRA as the primary actor for the decline of hunting is off-target.

It’s seems like the National Rifle Association (NRA)’s is the left’s favorite punching bag. Now, this malice has transferred to those who allege to speak for the hunting community, as well.

Jon Alexander, editorial page editor for Quad-City Times, recently authored a piece entitled “NRA is a threat to hunting.” Mr. Alexander couldn’t be more off-target with his premise.

He begins by writing, “The best thing for hunters would be the erosion of the National Rifle Association’s clout, which suddenly looks possible amid widespread protests calling for new gun laws.”

He goes on to suggest that since he goes hunting, he knows how the majority of hunters feel about gun control. Huh? He shouldn’t claim to speak for all hunters, as many hunters—both Republicans and Democrats—belong to gun rights groups like NRA, Gun Owners of America, and National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Alexander adds:

“The precipitous decline in hunters poses a very real issue for all of society as conservation funds dry up. It’s no coincidence that the public face of NRA shifted from your kindly hunting instructor to something much more menacing as the number of hunters dropped nationwide. Like any organization, the NRA’s primary goal is the promulgation of its own existence. And the growing economic frustration particularly among rural Americans was begging to be tapped.”

And more:

It’s the NRA that’s politicized guns. And it’s doing long-term damage to hunting in the process, the primary means through which states fund conservation programs.

He goes on to barely brush the surface on the problem related in declining participation numbers, then launches a full-on assault again on the NRA:

The various reasons most cited for the decline are many and complex. Americans are more urban and less involved in processing their own food. The old gender roles have collapsed, too.

But I can’t help but believe that the weaponization of gun politics acts as a barrier to would-be new hunters. It’s hard, after all, to enter into a new culture when inclusion demands complete and total adherence to a strict set of beliefs, even at the point-of-sale.

Is Mr. Alexander aware that excise taxes from firearms purchases—including semi-automatic shotguns and rifles—go directly back to conservation efforts that support wildlife and habitat rehabilitation efforts? Does he know the firearms and ammunition industry pumped back $51.3 billion into the economy, as recently as 2016? ​He didn’t read that excellent NPR piece closely enough. Nor can one surmise he’s greatly attuned to the efforts of organizations like Council to Advance Hunting and Shooting Sports (CAHSS), which has launched their R3 initiative to combat this decline. R3 is an initiative geared towards recruiting, retaining, and reactivating (R3) participation in hunting and fishing that’s gained major steam among major stakeholders in both respective industries.

Briefly perusing through Mr. Alexander’s past columns, I was able to find gems like “Deer blinds and the patriarchy“—where he describes his struggle in contemplating “the inherent oppressiveness of my machismo.”

Mr. Alexander then concludes his column “about my own buy-in to a system that, for eons, rendered women property to be bought and sold for the enrichment and political gain of the men who dominated them.”

In a separate column responding to Trump’s endorsement of teachers arming themselves (if they choose), he expressed dismay for it and accused the president of dodging instead of “blaming the very tools designed explicitly to inflict maximum damage.”

This greatly explains the animus he has towards the NRA. Not a shocker.

Here are the factors ACTUALLY contributing to the decline of hunting below:

Increased Urbanization

With approximately 80.7% of the population residing in urban counties, opportunities to fish and hunt have become more limited. That is not to say partaking in these activities is impossible in urban outposts. (I’ve gone fishing in the heart of Washington, D.C. before, though I wasn’t successful in catching anything. However, I have more success fishing and hunting in Maryland and Virginia.)

Outdoor enthusiasts will have to typically travel a minimum of 30 minutes to find the nearest body of water or traverse private land hunting opportunities to get their fill. Many conservation organizations have been grappling with this very trend and are seeking ways to lure in existing and new participants into hunting much like fishing. Events like Pint Nights, fly tying events, and private organizations like Outdoor Access are catching urbanites’ attention and fueling (or refueling) their love for the Great Outdoors.

While it was just reported that rural counties are making a comeback, it’s not wise to ignore city-dwellers who partake in hunting (like fishing) or who are curious to learn.

Hunting is Seen As Too Costly and Low-Priority

If you’re hunting out of your home state, the costs you’ll rake up are quite burdensome. Want to go on a public elk hunt in New Mexico? The cost of a guide, non-resident license fees, travel, lodging, food, and insurance will average in the thousands. Heck, even going next door to North Carolina, for instance, you’ll pay $110 for a 10-day non-resident fee to go duck hunting if you live in Virginia or pay $60 if you’re a non-resident hunter coming from Georgia.

Given these exorbitant costs, people start to lose interest naturally. Who can afford to prioritize hunting if it breaks one’s budget? As a result, the costs and even lack of access will prompt hunters to phase out and prioritize other things more in their lives like family, finances, or schooling.

It’s An Old Boy’s Club In Need of New Blood

While I won’t go as far to blame the male gender for machismo like the aforementioned columnist, for too long the hunting and shooting sports industries didn’t know how to effectively deploy outreach programs to reach new demographics and non-traditional participants. Despite the neglect placed in outreach efforts, the industry is seeing a surge in female hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts. There is untapped potential to seize upon this, and major stakeholders in the industry already recognize this.

Upon learning that I’m new to hunting, a leader in the hunting industry remarked it’s rare —but encouraging —to see those in their mid-to-late 20’s pick up hunting later in life. If the right tactics are employed through R3, for instance, we can see more urban-dwelling Millennials learning to hunt.

Are white men—who comprise the majority of hunters today—opposed to women and Millennials hunting? Quite the contrary. Only 5-10% of traditional hunters, in my experience, are patronizing or wholly opposed to growing the sport beyond the echo chamber. Major conservation organizations, fishing tackle companies, firearms manufacturers, and other players in conservation circles want to grow participation numbers.

There is hope in increasing our numbers.

Social Media Vitriol Against Hunters

Unlike Mr. Alexander, I believe the blame on hunting’s decline should be attributed to the attacks leveled against hunters on social media. Groups like Humane Society and PETA juice up their base to strategically and viciously target those who hunt across Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and elsewhere.

When Instagram flags pictures of wild game meat being prepared or outright bans accounts that tout hunting, there’s a great problem at hand. (That’s why apps like GoWild were created to supplement existing social media platforms.)

When the anti-hunters hurl attacks at new hunters or female hunters, many become deterred and dismayed—and may choose to leave the sport altogether due to unfair attacks and threats hurled their way. In fact, one hunter last year was bullied so severely by the likes of anti-hunters, she sadly took her own life. This is unacceptable and disgusting.

But yes, pin the blame on the NRA…

Fact: The NRA Actually Plays an Indirect But Important Role in Promoting Conservation

Much to the dismay of Mr. Alexander, the NRA not only juggles legislative efforts related to promoting and protecting the Second Amendment. They concentrate their legislative efforts on supporting pro-hunting legislation across the country—including Right to Hunt and Fish (RTHF) amendmentspublic access to private hunting, and Sunday Hunting bills, just to name a few. The NRA also partners with esteemed conservation organizations like Safari Club International and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, among many, to promote conservation. (In 2012, a White House petition labelled all three groups “domestic terrorist groups.”) The petition, which has since been deleted, stated this:

“Groups like Lobo Watch, Big Game Forever, Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, NRA, Safari Club, etc., are a menace in our midst. Not only do many of them want our native predators like bears, wolves, wild cats, and the like decimated to the brink of extinction, but some of them have the nerve to harass, threaten, and downright intimidate anyone who dares to oppose them, even the government. And they’ve got some powerful people in their corner, too. They throw their mammoth monetary weight around, and think they can buy their way into power in America and put down anyone who’s got a backbone and might provide resistance. It’s time to put these groups in their place and strike them down. Time to protect our carnivorous wildlife from those who seek to decimate them!”

Since Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke took charge of his respective department, funding for hunting and fishing has increased to great heights—with more than $20 billion total funding conservation efforts for thanks in part to involvement from NRA and similar gun rights groups.

More importantly, its charity outfit — NRA Foundation— has awarded grants totaling $369 million since 1990 to advance firearms safety, shooting sports, and hunting:

  • Promote, advance and encourage firearms, shooting sports and hunting safety
  • Educate individuals with respect to firearms, firearms history, participation in the shooting sports, hunting safety, and marksmanship
  • Conduct research in furtherance of improved firearms safety and marksmanship facilities and techniques

To suggest the NRA is killing hunting participation is not only downright inaccurate, it’s insulting to conservation efforts. You may not like the NRA, but to castigate them in this unfair light brings down the whole conservation movement.

Hunting and shooting sports go together like bread and butter. Not every hunter belongs to NRA, but that doesn’t mean their role in conservation efforts should be diminished.

Leave the hunting outreach to the real professionals please, Jon Alexander.

VICE Says It’s Criminal For Women to Join, Belong to NRA

Last fall, the media company was revealed to have a toxic office culture teeming with sexual harassment.

On Friday, VICE tweeted how horrible it is for the National Rifle Association (NRA) to want to train preachers, school teachers, club goers, and gasp, women, on gun safety.

Here’s the complete list of people the NRA wants to arm, which is apparently offensive in VICE’s eyes:

Women should be allowed to safely handle and use firearms? How dare they want to protect themselves against attack? How dare they choose to empower themselves? How dare they have options to defend themselves? The horror, the horror!

Is VICE projecting its shortcomings? That appears to be the case. The media is fending off criticism for boasting a toxic office culture that invites and breeds an environment encouraging sexual harassment. Here’s more on the media company’s troubling office culture:

Phoebe Barghouty, a former associate producer for Vice, told the Daily Beast that in 2015, her boss, Kaj Larsen, would inappropriately touch her and take her to parties in Los Angeles, which she thought was unusual.

Barghouty, then 23, said she went to a human resources representative to voice her concerns and was reportedly told, “When it comes to talent, we can’t really tell them what to do.”

“They bring in the money and attention and you just have to deal with it,” she claimed she was told. The rep disputes those remarks.

During another occasion after a meeting, Larsen reportedly told Barghouty, “If you’re going to get anywhere with Vice guys, you’re going to have to be a lot sweeter,” she told the site. She added, “It felt like a threat.”

“The way he looked at me, the way he grabbed my arm. I remember feeling scared,” Barghouty recalled.

It’s undeniable that women, especially Millennial women, are the fasting growing bloc of gun owners and hunters (see herehere, and here). It’s criminal for women to trained by or a part of the National Rifle Association, apparently. This is the usual Left calling into question womanhood if females choose not to subscribe to subservience and groupthink common in the female establishment. Remember the Colorado state lawmaker who said the best deterrent against attack is for women to induce vomiting, to resort to screaming, or best of all, to urinate on themselves? VICE seems to be on the same page.

As we have learned over the last few days, it was the fault of Broward County Police Department—not the NRA or Second Amendment advocates—for ignoring warning signs about the Parkland killer. Sheriff Scott Israel received 18 calls about the Parkland killer’s questionable behavior, and the department received 39 calls about the killer over the course of seven years. More specifically, four deputies hid as Stoneman Douglas High School was ambushed by the killer. This has rightly prompted calls for Sheriff Scott Israel, who berated NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch and the NRA for inspiring the Parkland killer, to resign.

It was recently revealed Sheriff Israel rewarded political favors to supporters by awarding them and their family members jobs doing public relations and community outreach for his department:

The outreach workers, who mainly attend community events, are in addition to political activists and others Israel hired into community affairs roles, writing and designing printed pieces about the agency, and sharing it on social media. The employee log shows six hired into community affairs roles, their salaries totaling $388,729.

Israel’s opponents say he’s built a publicly funded political machine, paying back supporters with jobs and using them to keep him in office. They say the money could be better spent, particularly after the sheriff complained about not having enough funding to secure the county courthouse, where a murder suspect recently escaped.

Moreover, comedians like Amy Schumer and Jim Gaffigan are coordinating with Everytown for Gun Safety to bully Google, Roku, AppleTV and other streaming services to drop NRATV with calls to #DumpNRATV and #BoycottNRA.

It seems like finding reasonable solutions won’t be achieved anytime soon, as the Left and anti-gunners continue to scapegoat innocent and law-abiding Americans for the crimes of a sick depraved individual and negligence by authorities who abdicated their duties by not stopping this guy in wake of warnings. But yes, let’s attack women who choose to involve themselves with the NRA.

I’m proud to be an NRA member and hope you consider joining too. Register here.

Don’t Commit These 3 Social Media Blunders In Wake Of Mass Shootings

In wake of another mass shooting, social media is buzzing yet again with interesting hot takes on firearms. Ugh.

Decency, as it stands, is dead.

Of course, some Americans—particularly media, Hollywood elites, and others keen on virtue signaling—are lecturing the populace on what measures need to be taken to prevent this from happening again. Their solution? Gun confiscation, sugarcoated as “sensible gun reforms.” They don’t admit it, but that’s what they’re thinking. Plain and simple.

Why no mention of mental health reforms? Better parenting? Reversing a wayward culture that celebrates graphic and sexual violence? Personal responsibility is too difficult of a concept to promote, so let’s scapegoat firearms. Right.

When it comes to social media, the knee-jerk responses—just minutes after blood has been shed and parents not knowing if their child is safe or not—have worsened with each recent mass shooting. It’s grown to intolerable heights. We’re all sick of it, and the dialogue isn’t getting better. Where has reasonable discourse gone? Will it ever return?

I offer three ways to not make social media blunders in response to mass shootings. They can be found below:

Don’t misconstrue facts by gunsplaining if your firearms knowledge is limited or non-existent

In response to any horrific event, opinion makers and reporters take it to social media to blame firearms, political parties (Republican/conservative), and pro-gun groups for the crimes of deranged individuals. They love to throw out lofty statistics to inflate violent crime rates to serve their agenda, although homicides are at an all-time low. (The Washington Post did a decent job disputing Everytown for Gun Safety’s methodology for determining the frequency of mass shootings.)

If you’re reporting on the issue, do it with extreme caution and consideration of the facts—the true facts. Here’s what we know about this killer thus far:

—FBI got a tip on shooter on January 5, but didn’t follow through on protocol.

—Police called his home 39 times since 2010.

—He wrote on YouTube he wanted to be a professional school shooter.

If you lump him in with law-abiding gun owners or NRA members (see point 3), you are doing a shoddy reporting job. Stick with the facts. If you’re a journalist or opinion maker, you sure as hell better know what you’re talking about and not gunsplain. If you’re a reporter or opinion maker, here are some common misconceptions about firearms and firearms deaths:

Suicides account for the most shooting deaths, not mass shootings. This doesn’t negate or downplay the latter’s horrific nature, but it’s important to note. Inflating this to serve an agenda is harmful and dishonest to public discourse.

—There are differences in firearms and their handling. Semi v. fully automatic. Pistol v. rifle. Open carry v. concealed carry. Do you know the difference? Can you confidently report on this?

—Do you know what existing firearms law is? Are you aware of existing laws, federal or state, on background checks, mental health, and the like? Do you see the failure to enforce existing law and the duplicitous nature of proposing new laws? Be sure to study up and get your facts right.

This Google Doc from Washington Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski can guide you when reporting or opining on firearms issues. It provides the differences between firearms classification (automatic v. semi-automatic), open v. concealed carry, and other basic facts for accuracy in reporting. Again, here’s the link.

If you’re a reporter who touts objectivity but decide to go full gun control activist, expect the appropriate constructive criticism. Many opinions and statements regarding firearms come from a place of inexperience or naïveté. Likely, a mainstream media reporter shouting for Australian-like gun control doesn’t understand the Constitution nor can they surmise how violent crime comes in all shapes and forms, even in absence of firearms. Moreover, these reporters likely have never fired a round or gone through the process of purchasing a firearm or taking safety courses. Chances are, they don’t have any friends or know people who are shooting instructors, despite claiming the contrary.

If you are diligent and believe in your profession, consult security experts or firearms instructors. Don’t misconstrue the facts.

Don’t lambast those who offer thoughts and prayers

The second social media blunder, condemning the notion of offering thoughts and prayers, has been lambasted by those eager to push gun control. They accuse their opponents of having no respect or reverence for the deceased, which is false. Examples of such derision include the following:

“If you don’t take immediate action on this, you’re part of the problem!”

“Screw your thoughts and prayers! That won’t save lives!”

These are typical tweets or messages you’ll find across social media in wake of terrible mass shootings. For example, morning TV host Kelly Ripa said it’s not enough to offer this. BBC wrote it’s time for “policy and change” not “thoughts and prayers” The USA Today editorial board issued this piece suggesting doubling up on background checks (which are already in the books) and banning bump stocks, not thoughts and prayers.

Interestingly enough, if you casually look across social media, you’ll see many Americans —even those who aren’t staunchly in favor of gun rights— not buying this rush to push gun control.

On Fox News last night, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) said prayers helped him recover after he was nearly gunned down last June here in Alexandria, VA.

Embedded video

Fox News


.@SteveScalise on Florida school shooting: “Anytime there’s any kind of tragedy…immediately you’ve got a group of legislators that go run out and start calling for gun control to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens.” @IngrahamAngle

3,984 people are talking about this

What’s wrong with offering thoughts and prayers immediately after a horrific tragedy? Are we not a Judeo-Christian nation? Can’t those grieving find some solace amidst the pain? No, there must be swift action—action that will largely have no effect on mitigating future mass shootings. The Federalist said it best:

It’s understandable that Americans want solutions to mass shootings. No one should be satisfied with what happened in Parkland, Florida. No one should willingly embrace mass shootings as the norm. But it’s deeply unfortunate that in our search for solutions, we have turned on each other. Ridiculing prayer as well as people of faith does nothing to make our kids and our communities safer.

Don’t lump criminals with law-abiding gun owners

Perhaps the most egregious social media blunder people commit in wake of mass shootings is lumping in law-abiding gun owners with evil killers, like this Parkland, Florida, killer. Not surprisingly, the blame has been pitted on the Republican Party, the National Rifle Association, and lawmakers who partake in inaction.

Here’s who’s responsible for the crimes of this sick, twisted kid—according to those in gun control or Democrat circles:

—Republicans, therefore one columnist says their removal from office will rid society of gun violence (So asinine)

—The National Rifle Association, allegedly “a terrorist group” that has blood on its hands for crimes committed by non-members (Ridiculous)

Scapegoating groups or individuals to push your agenda will not only backfire, it’ll reduce your credibility further. As I mentioned earlier, it’s easy to scapegoat your political opponents when you are reluctant to be accountable or hold those accountable for their actions. It’s unfortunate this is the state we’re in now and serious dialogue on this issue can’t be had.

Nobody wants mass shootings to become the norm. Nobody condones this evil behavior by the shooter. Nobody wants kids and schools to be defenseless. If you call for bipartisanship but delegitimize your opponents by lumping innocent people with criminals, forget dialogue and expect chaos with respect to public discourse.

The three aforementioned social media blunders can be avoided in wake of mass shootings. But will members of the media, those in Hollywood, and other opinion makers be open-minded to this prospect? Time will tell if that’s the case. I want to be optimistic, but at this time, I can’t.

NRA’s Shocking Betrayal Will Lead to All Guns Being Banned

If you call the NRA at 1-877-NRA-2000, their menu has changed: “if you’re calling from Slide Fire, maker of the “bump-stock” device, press 6 to go directly to hell.”

Normally, we can count on the NRA to uphold values and critical-thinking, and to not back up for political purposes. But not this time.

Slide Fire invented and patented the “bump-stock.” They went through the technical and legal procedure for ATF approval. The ATF determined that the “bump-stock” had no moving parts and no mechanical actions on its own, and therefore was not regulated under existing firearms laws. This was in 2010.

The company sold a bunch of the devices. Stephen Paddock used them to do a terrible deed. Now the gun grabbers want to sacrifice Slide Fire to the gods of “pay for the sins of others.” And the NRA is right there to hold the torches.

This is frankly an unbelievable betrayal by the NRA.

I’m not talking specifically about the “bump-stock” here. That device, used as the video shows, increases the rate of fire of an AR-15 to a level faster than most shooters can pull the trigger on their own (but not so implausible that someone couldn’t match that rate of fire without the device). It could even be reasonable to assume that the “bump-stock” was made primarily for that purpose, and therefore we might rethink if retailers want to sell it.

Cabela’s has already pulled them from shelves. I would expect other retailers will follow. I get that. It’s bad publicity.

But what the NRA has done is to back the government going back seven years and reviewing a device and the legal opinion it gave because someone who bought it did a terrible thing. Do they realize the precedent they are setting?

Does the NRA realize that they’ve opened the door for every AR-15 design, and manufacturer like Daniel Defense, to get the same treatment once this happens? Do they realize that any gun used in any crime will now be subject to retroactive review and potential loss of business?

Do they realize that, with this one action, they’ve potentially given the left the thread to pull to destroy the gun industry in America? Kiss goodbye to $11 billion dollars and 35,000 jobs.

If the “bump-stock” and its maker Slide Fire, are to be sacrificed to the gods of political expedience, who’s next?

And one final note, from this piece in NOQ Report, “Bump stocks, belt loops and slippery slopes“:

In looking over the original patent US # 8,127,658 B1 for the device one finds a very interesting point about this story. The background section of the patent mentions the various techniques and devices to ‘increase the firing rate of semi-automatic weapons’. One of these being the techniques of “Bump firing” and the use of the “Belt loop”method, whereby one merely places the weapon next to their hip and hooks one finger through both the trigger mechanism and belt loop of their clothing. The opposite hand is placed on the hand guard, when the firearm is pushed forward the trigger is a activated by the finger to discharge a round. The recoil the pushes the firearm back, resetting the trigger so that when the firearm is pushed forward once again it fires another round. The point is that one does not need a ‘Bump Stock’ to mimic the select fire function, only a belt loop.

The author observed dryly: “Are we to ban these as well?”

No. They’ll be satisfied if they can ban the trigger, or the housing, or the lower, or the magazine, or the firing pin, or the barrel. Or just the whole gun. The NRA has really messed up this time.

Nancy Sinatra: These Tweets Are Made For Hatin’

Back in 1967, Nancy Sinatra hit number one on the Billboard Top 100 by singing “Something Stupid” with her dad Frank.  Today, Nancy is topping the Twitter charts but just saying something stupid, like this:

Nancy must have got into high dudgeon after reading a Daily Kos article entitled, “The Burden of Proof is Squarely on the NRA:  How the Hell Are You Making Us Safer?”  There’s a link to the article in the tweet if you want to read it for yourself, but be warned:  It has the power to render the thoughts of an aging chanteuse all but incoherent, so heaven knows what it might do if loosed upon an unsuspecting world.  Better to just leave it in the fever swamps from whence it came.

Dana Loesch, a spokeswoman for the NRA, summed up the reaction of people who aren’t bat-guano crazy when she tweeted back:

Sadly, it’s a reaction typical of the left:  Whenever there’s a mass shooting, they want to take away guns from people who didn’t commit the crime—only this time, Nancy adds the twist of wanting to execute the people who didn’t do it as well.  Like I said, that Daily Kos is dangerous stuff.  Perhaps Congress should close the internet loophole so the emotionally unstable can’t access it so easily.

Or perhaps the left could just focus less on casting the NRA as the boogeyman and more on acknowledging that these mass shootings are a complex issue, involving not only access to guns but also mental illness, the role of the media in driving violence and the general breakdown in the moral fabric of the country.  Then there’s the delicate balancing of liberty and safety—you can have some of one and some of the other, but never one hundred percent of both at the same time.  Blaming the NRA for everything, while politically expedient, won’t change any of that.

Plus you can’t squeeze it all into a 140-character tweet—which seems to be the limit of Nancy Sinatra’s understanding of the issue.  On the bright side, though, at least Hillary Clinton can be happy.  Her tweets about Las Vegas are no longer the stupidest ones on Twitter.


Nancy With the Hating Face must be getting some heat over her tweet, because she’s now saying it was all a joke:

Um, okay.  So I guess people should only be lined up and shot if they took her literally, or something?  Gallows humor really is in the eye of the beholder.

New York Congresswoman Kathleen Rice Calls Dana Loesch a “Domestic Security Threat”

Katleen Rice is the dumb as dirt congress-idiot from New York who is scared of little ol’ Dana Loesch. Rice believes both Loesch and the NRA must be considered domestic security threats under President Trump.

I guess the representative would be okay with one of her progressive defenders taking hostile action against Loesch. How else would one stop a domestic security threat who is not violating any laws? Progressives, by the way, have been targeting Dana Loesch and her children and husband for harassment.

Is it any wonder Dana Loesch supports the second amendment? With nutjobs like Kathleen Rice publicly calling her a domestic security threat, it is only responsible to be well armed to protect against nutters who might feed off Rice’s rhetoric.

It is also grossly irresponsible of Rice to target a private American citizen for harassment. When President Trump did that in the past, Rice was outraged. Now she has become Trumplike.

I just donated $100.00 to the National Rifle Association in Kathleen Rice’s honor. The best defense against a congressman targeting a private citizen for harassment is a well armed militia and an advocacy group dedicated to that well armed militia. You can donate here.

Dana Loesch Isn’t Inciting Violence. The Left Is.

There’s a lot of brouhaha surrounding a April 2017 National Rifle Association ad featuring syndicated radio talk show personality and Blaze TV host Dana Loesch. Many folks on the Left–particularly those armed with gun control ties and money to support them– are suggesting she’s inciting violence. Many have claimed she’s inciting a “civil war” in the ad in question. Huh?

Here’s the ad for your viewing pleasure:

Below is the full transcript:

“They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse the resistance.

“All to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. To smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding — until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness.

“And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth. I’m the National Rifle Association of America, and I’m freedom’s safest place.”

Please tell us how this script incites violence? Metaphors are now triggering? This is rather ironic from a group of individuals who’ve been reluctant to condemn death threats on Republican lawmakers, those who’ve welcomed the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise, and those who’ve said the Left must mount physical “resistance” against the Trump administration. Spare us the faux concern.

Here’s the stream of tweets coming from the Left–particularly those who hold anti-gun views and some who have even incited violence against Republicans.


Here’s Dana’s commentary on the subject:

Others came to Dana’s defense to debunk the accusations being flung her way:

Dana Loesch isn’t the enemy. She’s one of the most level-headed commentators out there. Why is the Left projecting their violent tendencies onto her? What do they have to hide? What happened to “when they go low, we go high”?

Are there duds who claim to be on the Right who are inciting violence? Yes–arguably in the form of the so-called alternative right (which doesn’t comprise constitutional conservatism). There are bad actors on both sides who have incited violence in recent memory. But the blame, as it currently stands, rests on politically charged, anti-Republican, anti-conservative rhetoric being propped up by the cultural, political, and academic elites on the Left in the present day.

The resistance being mounted against President Trump – like him or not – is unwarranted. Don’t like him as president? You can’t change the fact. Get over it, accept it, and agree to disagree. Learn to be civil again.