Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Miller campaign should receive boosts from immigration watchdog and NRA

Joe Miller meets the press.
Joe Miller meets the press.

“Fairbanks attorney and Tea Party firebrand Joe Miller... is again a candidate in the GOP Senate primary (set for Aug. 19), this time vying for the right to take on Democratic incumbent Mark Begich in a key general election matchup that will help determine control of the Senate,” RealClearPolitics reported Thursday.

Unfortunately, he’s polling in third place, and some of that may be due to confusion that can quickly be cleared up now that Miller’s questionnaire has been completed for Numbers USA, a leading immigration reform organization. This correspondent has been checking that group’s posting for the Alaska U.S. Senate race, and at this writing, Democrat Mark Begich shows failing ratings for most key areas of the survey criteria, while Republican Miller and his primary opponent Mead Treadwell show no ratings.

That should soon be set right as Miller completed the survey on Tuesday and shared his answers with Gun Rights Examiner. He answered “Yes” to every one of the questions on the survey, placing him in 100 percent agreement with Numbers USA positions.

While results are still not available for Treadwell, a candidate comparison issues chart put out by the Miller campaign notes his GOP rival “Supports limited amnesty for illegal aliens” and cites “Stated at the United for Liberty-Alaska/Conservative Patriots Group debate in Anchorage” as the source for that conclusion.

GOP frontrunner Dan Sullivan is not even listed by Numbers USA. This might explain why. And per RealClearPolitics, Miller is in a better position than he was four years ago.

What does this have to do with the purpose of this column, the right to keep and bear arms? As Gun Rights Examiner has reported on several occasions, Gun Owners of America and Pew Research Center analyses show overwhelming preference among illegal immigrants for the Democratic Party. That the party’s platform includes what it calls “reasonable regulations ... like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole” is self-evident. That Barack Obama is working to undermine the Second Amendment is indisputable, at least to all who are rational. That Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson “said the approximately 11 million people who are in the country illegally have ‘earned the right to be citizens’” is documented. That the issues are tangentially related goes without saying, even if the one group ducking the relationship using the “single issue” dodge might prefer that it did.

Even so, assuming the race is limited to pure Second Amendment fidelity, how does Miller fare?

Per his campaign’s candidate comparison, he’s been endorsed by Gun Owners of America (which gives Democrat Begich a “D”) and the National Association for Gun Rights. His primary opponent Treadwell is “supportive of hunting and recreational shooting,” the comparison states, citing a “speech delivered at Wasilla Day of Resistance rally 2014.”

In fairness, Treadwell can speak for himself.

“The Second Amendment protects our right to self-defense,” he says on his campaign website (which also shows his commitment to “move forward” with Democrats on immigration issues). “Law-abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, plain and simple. I will defend the right for Alaskans to defend their families and their homes. The U.S. Senate Majority today is working to erode our Second Amendment rights and Mark Begich supports their leadership. I will oppose all efforts to water down the Second Amendment.”

Absent from that opinion is anything about “being necessary to the security of a free State,” and resisting watering things down notwithstanding, he says nothing about restoring what’s already been infringed upon. Perhaps that’s why no major gun groups have endorsed his campaign, although the point he makes about Sen. Begich raises an interesting question about who NRA is backing. Or more importantly, why are they silent on a race that can help change the balance of power in the Senate? (If NRA has made an endorsement, the Miller campaign has not been informed, there is nothing on the Political Victory Fund website and a call to PVF before 5 p.m. Eastern resulted in a voice message that offices were closed.)

Will they factor in that Mark Begich, who on top of failing on immigration, evidently does not consider the right to keep and bear arms important enough to be one of his campaign “priorities” except in passing mention along with banning “Frankenfish”?

Will they factor in that Mark Begich’s first reaction after Sandy Hook was to declare “a ‘sea change’ in the politics of gun control immediately after the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., telling his local newspaper that he would not hesitate to buck the powerful National Rifle Association”?

Will they factor in that Mark Begich voted to confirm both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court? Sotomayor, of course, cast one of the dissenting votes in the narrowly-won McDonald v. Chicago case, first proving she had no problem contradicting what she’d said in confirmation hearings when answering questions about the earlier Heller decision, but more importantly, confirming NRA’s commitment to score votes for Sotomayor and Kagan.

How can they, after making that pledge, still give Begich an “A”?

Will NRA endorse Joe Miller for U.S. Senate, particularly after he returned their questionnaire in 100 percent agreement with them? It’s not like he’s an unknown quantity, having received an “A” grade from them in 2010.

And it’s not like NRA doesn’t endorse in primaries when it’s important to them.

Begich is one of those supposed “pro-gun Democrats” who, like the demonstrably insincere Jon Tester of Montana, lives in a state where an anti-gun position would leave him locked out of office. The party can let him vote in self-interest in those cases so that he can help put through the rest of its agenda, as the Miller comparison chart clearly illustrates.

As Miller says, “The truth is, most politicians support ‘gun rights’ because it is politically expedient. Our founders embraced the right to keep and bear arms as fundamental. They knew that for a free people, it was not just a personal right, but a political right, the last line of defense against a tyrannical government.”

There is no reason for any citizen who believes in the right to keep and bear arms, and who believes that “amnesty” will work in the favor of any but “progressive” Democrats, to support and vote for anyone besides Joe Miller. And that applies especially to the NRA, which needs to weigh in without delay and put its clout to work to give Begich back some of that “’sea change’ in the politics of gun control” he was talking about when he let his mask slip in a moment of political opportunism.

One would think trying to remain noncommittal in the Reid/Angle race should have taught them neutrality will not work out in the interests of anyone but the Democrats.

Gun owners interested in learning more about the Joe Miller U.S. Senate campaign can do so at his website and also keep up with relevant news he shares over at Restoring Liberty. One need not be from Alaska to realize the importance of replacing Obama supporters with freedom-minded allies in the Senate.


If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."


Those who would disarm you against your will can't always get what they want. My latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is online, and you can read it well before the issue hits the stands. Click here to read "Gun-grabbers Can't Get No Satisfaction.”


My latest JPFO Alert notes, true to their "Every Day is Opposite Day" natures, it is the "progressives" who prove to be the most ignorant and hateful of bigots. See “Minority Gun Owners Share No ‘Stigma of Violence.’”


Don’t like the latest Supreme Court ruling? My newest entry in The Shooter’s Log recommends “To Prevent Another ‘Abramski,’ Get in the Fight.”

Report this ad