Changing Electorate Restricts CA Gun Advocate Responses to ‘Back-Stabbers’

By David Codrea

How about rethink Ling Ling instead? If the Republican difference for gun owners is they’ll stab you in the back instead of the guts, what’s the advantage in voting for them? (Ling Ling Chang for Senate Facebook photo)

USA – -(“’Pro-2A’ Politician Stabs You in the Back,” The Firearms Policy Coalition is telling supporters.

“Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang … has received plenty of endorsements and grades from pro-gun groups,” FPC explained. “We even gave her an ‘A’ on our report card for last year’s legislative session.”

Despite that, Chang voted for AB 1135, SB 880 and AB 1695, part of the so-called “Gunpocalypse.”

“Both AB 1135 and SB 880 BAN all semi-auto rifles with a bullet button starting in 2017,” the alert elaborated. “All existing semi-autos with a bullet button or other locking device will now have to be registered as assault weapons.

“AB 1695 makes some non-violent misdemeanors punishable by prohibitions on owning firearms,” FPC added.

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, Chang joins a long list of political animals who lie about their beliefs in order to trick advocates into supporting their rise to power.  That allows them to gain contributions, campaign support and the all important votes. They milk the deception until they no longer need to maintain it, then jilt loyal supporters in favor of allies they perceive can help them more.

Prominent turncoats who come to mind include “true champion of the Second Amendment” Harry Reid, Kirsten Gillibrand, and others. And as has been documented for many years, such politicians are often abetted by a grading system that allows (encourages) them to get away with it.

As for Ling Ling, she’s now running “to replace the termed out, pro-gun Senator Bob Huff.” See, that’s one of the problems, because if Huff is so “pro-gun,” why is he putting party politics over principle and endorsing gun-banner Chang? And why are no California activists asking that question?

It’s because there’s nothing they can do about it. The state is dominated by anti-gun Democrats. They’ve got no one else to turn to.

So where does this leave California gun owners is terms of “avenging” themselves on Chang for her betrayal? You could “give her office a call at 916-319-2055 and politely let her know that you do not approve of politicians who betray you and your Second Amendment rights,” that is if you believe in being polite to liars, rights rapists and traitors.  You could sign the FPC petition, knowing she’s made her choice and is now giving gun owners “a cold shoulder,” so she really won’t give a damn.

Or you could say the hell with voting for a back-stabber. How about letting the Republicans know that until they find their principles, they can just feel your pain? After all, what kind of asking-for-more cuckold would put up with such an unrepentant betrayal?

Oh, but then the Democrats will win and really, really hurt you? More than an enemy inside the gates? Besides, they‘re the unchallengeable majority in California. What do you think is happening now?

They’ve been in-your-face about citizen disarmament in California for a long time now, and it’s only going to get worse, particularly with all the major gun groups deliberately ignoring the cultural terraforming through both illegal and legal immigration and a “pathway to citizenship” for untold millions. We know that works overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats and gun-grabbers in all three branches of government, as exemplified by California, and as we see spreading steadily through the rest of the country. We also know the cheap labor Republicans are all on board with that. As are, by default, Grover Norquist supporters (which included the FPC).

The 29th Senate District where Chang is running has now reached a tipping point to where the almost immeasurable difference that has given Republicans an advantage over Democrats will soon be reversed, and changing demographics look to keep things that way. Because both the Republican establishment and the gun advocacy establishment have refused to address that, the only “salvation” for California gun owners would be through a Supreme Court decision – and if Hillary wins, they can kiss that hope goodbye.

Unless gun owners take note of what’s happening in California and realize this will be coming to them soon unless they unify to stop it, they can expect the same fate. It’s just a matter of time.

If it enables citizen disarmament, it by God IS part of the “single issue.”

Anyone who tells you any different is blowing smoke. You’ll know because all they’ll offer are dismissals, platitudes or anecdotes. What they won’t offer are verifiable numbers refuting all credible polls – and the California experience – showing open borders and a pathway to citizenship giving “gun control” Democrats overwhelming majorities that will put them solidly in control of legislatures and the courts.

At that point, masks will come off and politicians won’t need to worry about stabbing you in the back.

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 38 thoughts on “Changing Electorate Restricts CA Gun Advocate Responses to ‘Back-Stabbers’

    1. @Bob,the ’72 election was my first one too. I actually voted for McGovern in it. First and last time I voted Democrat. I remember the VP fiasco with Eagletons mental problems,than bringing in Shriver. Long time ago.

    2. The 1972 election was the first election for which I was old enough to vote. My parents were both Republicans so I was educated enough in the problems with Democratic Party programs and, independent of that, I didn’t trust McGovern. I voted straight Republican ticket. Later, Nixon was proven to be an enemy of the democratic process by using illegal methods to influence the election.

      Although I have never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, I did not vote for another Republican candidate until George H. W. Bush in 1988. At that time, I lived in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts and was afraid enough of a Dukakis presidency that I did not want to take a chance on it. Big mistake. Massachusetts is so Democratic, that there was no hope Bush would have won its electoral votes so my vote for Bush could not have made a significant difference. I should have voted for someone I liked (neither Bush nor Dukakis). And Bush turned out to be a liar and a traitor to his constituency. Within 90 days of taking office, he reneged on his “no new taxes” pledge and also enacted the first executive order banning “assault weapons”. I have never been so pissed off at any other elected official — actually more pissed off at myself for allowing myself to be tricked.

      In retrospect, Dukakis would have been better for the country. Why? The economy had been growing for several years — long enough that it was due for a correction. Whoever won that election would be blamed for the correction. At first, I thought the Republicans were very smart in selecting George H. W. Bush because he looked like such a wimp (think Dana Carvey) that I thought he was picked in order to hand the election to the Democrats. Then when the Democrats picked Dukakis, I thought they were responding with an “Oh no you don’t”. Dukakis was unable to work with, or even tolerate, those who didn’t agree with him and he was utterly humorless when it cam to trying. He would not have been a better president but, because of that, he would have been better for the country. He would have been unable to accomplish much of anything and would have antagonized much of the electorate — and he would have taken the blame for the economic correction. This would have had two benefits: (1) it would have got him out of Massachusetts, leaving it in the hands of his incompetent lieutenant governor for the last 2 years of his term as governor and (2) it would have saved us from 8 years of Clinton.

      I have not voted for a Republican (or Democratic) presidential candidate since 1988. Dole and Romney (I was still in Massachusetts for part of his governorship) both seemed weak on the Second Amendment, McCain actually attacked both the First and Second Amendments, and I didn’t feel I could trust any Bush. Instead, as I had in previous elections, I voted for a candidate I liked and trusted on the Bill of Rights.

      But there is a risk. Bernie Sanders was a local Burlington, VT politician when Clinton started his first term. At that time, Vermont had a Republican U.S. Representative, Peter Smith (Vermont only has one Representative). Smith voted in favor of Clinton’s “assault weapon” ban. The next election, Vermont gun-owners either didn’t vote at all or didn’t vote to re-elect Smith and Bernie Sanders won by default, thus entering the national political arena. I still believe in voting for candidates on principal rather than strictly by party or for the lesser-of-two-evils to block their opponents, but there is that risk. If you’re not going to vote for a turncoat politician, I believe it’s important to provide real support for an alternative candidate for whom you can vote; that is: assist with his or her campaign, financially and/or by volunteering, and let the turncoat candidate and his/her party know about your displeasure and your withholding of any support of any kind for their candidate.

    3. I thank God every day for my life as it is now ever since the day I escaped the PDRK (Peoples Democratic Republic of Kalifornia)! Once Every Business, large and small, and Every Working Citizen of the State leaves for a better life elsewhere it will become the Duty of Hollywood to support ALL of the Illegal Aliens and the smarmy denizens of Sacramento.

      1. Don’t kid yourself. California is coming to you, wherever you are, thanks to the subversive immigration policies of Grover Norquist and his partner Michael Bloomberg, supported by their collaborators in the Firearms Policy Coalition, Brandon Combs, Alan Gottlieb, SAF, CCRKBA and the NRA

    4. Frank I believe you are right about most people aligning philosophically more with the Libertarians than the main two parties. I took a test myself and landed squarely with the Libs. I am currently torn because I would like to promote the Libertarians. I cannot stomach an election that awards Trump the Presidency. So I must vote against Trump. I truly question his sanity.
      As for the subject of this article, I do believe that California is a lost cause and will not live or likely even travel there.

      1. “Libertarians” are the most damaging fellow travelers and useful idiots in the USA. Their suicidal, treasonous, SOCIALIST immigration policies are destroying and redistributing the USA, sabotaging our sovereignty, liberty, culture, security, quality of life, real per capita wealth and income, cost of living, cost of land, privacy, dignity, elbow room, and human and natural environments, and handing permanent political control to the Democrats on a silver platter. They couldn’t do more damage if they were actual traitors, which many of them are. Most are too ignorant, arrogant and stupid to know it.

        And you won’t vote for TRUMP? “Libertarian” immigration policy is infinitely more delusional and insane than anything you can claim Trump allegedly stands for. And don’t even get me started on the “Libertarian” delusion that Iran isn’t a threat, etc etc.

        Why are you posting here on a gun site, when your “Libertarian” pals are working more effectively to end gun rights than the open enemy is?

    5. It may be the triumph of hope over experience, but I will continue to vote LP — the best of those unlikely to be elected — in the possibly vain hope that enough people will see their vote as an investment that will take time to mature. Until we invest one of those unelectable third parties with enough clout that the FEC cannot — without losing its remaining credibility — exclude them from the next round of Presidential debates, nothing will change. We will hear only the opinions of TweedleDee and TweedleDum (who say almost exactly the same thing or lie about it), and any alternative voices will be silenced.

      I have heard it said that most Americans are libertarians — ready to adopt “MYOB” as official policy — but they don’t yet know it. They don’t know it because they never hear libertarian/constitutionalist voices on the Presidential debate stage (except for Ron Paul who got torpedoed by the GOPe). Maybe it’s time to fix that problem.

      You didn’t bite that bullet in 2012 when it would have meant something. You didn’t bite that bullet in 2008 or 2004 or 2000 when it would have meant something. Now your vote means nothing. Why waste it on the Republicans?

      1. Yup, another Libertarian vote that statistically increases the chances of Clinton winning. Gotta love it when people ignore facts and just do what makes them feel good instead.

      2. OMG, did you even read the article? Deluge *legal* immigration and invasion-occupation-amnesty are well advanced in the process of giving the Democrats permanent supermajority control of all branches of the federal government and a supermajority of the states, at which point the destruction of gun rights and the USA itself becomes demographically irreversible, if it isn’t already thanks to “Libertarians”, RINOs, neo”cons”, businesstraitors, and other de facto and actual globalists.

        But you want to vote for LP candidates, who are even *worse* than RINOs and Democrats on immigration? The vast majority of “Libertarian” leaders believe that numerical limits on immigration are immoral and amount to “slavery”, and that anyone who wants to limit immigration is a closet racist or bigot (e.g., David Theroux and the San Francisco “Independent Institute”, Ron Paul, Grover Norquist, John Lott). They do not believe in borders. Which means they are subversive to the very existence of the USA as a sovereign nation. If you have lax borders and excessive immigration limits, then you have no country. Thanks to “Libertarians” and their allies, immigration to the USA is at least an order of magnitude too big for the USA to survive absorption into the “new world order”.

        Even the well meaning “Libertarians” are effectively anarchists, and therefore globalists. No “Libertarian” can honestly take the oath of office or even the pledge of allegiance.

      3. The problem is that Gary Johnson, william weld, and the koch brothers who back them are all low tax liberals, not true libertarians. Harry Browne was a real libertarian, and ron paul is the most well known libertarian in american history since thomas jefferson.

        1. Ron Paul: Some actual facts and cites:

          2011 Tom Tancredo article quotes Ron Paul’s book:

          “Last week, Rep. Paul released his latest book, ‘Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom.’ One of those 50 issues is immigration, and Paul gives a more detailed explanation of his views in the book than I have ever seen before. The result is not pretty. Paul’s book misrepresents the views of immigration-control advocates and then insults their motivations. He insinuates that patriotic Americans who oppose mass immigration are lazy and motivated by race. He says that immigrants…

          ‘…have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything.’ [- Ron Paul]

          Paul also claims: ‘It’s hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than toward a European illegal immigrant.’ [- Ron Paul]

          Speaking for myself and everyone I know, that’s nonsense. Thanks for smearing us Ron.

          The immigration website VDARE refutes these assertions. 77% of illegal aliens are Hispanic, while less than 5% of illegals and 10% of legals are European, so the idea that we treat Europeans specially is specious. VDARE also points to a Center for Immigration Studies report that shows immigrants are much more likely to be on welfare than native-born American citizens.

          Besides insulting the motives of the critics of uncontrolled immigration, Ron Paul argues against strawman policies that we don’t support. According to Paul, immigration-control advocates want to …

          ‘split up families and deport some who have lived here for decades.’ [- Ron Paul]

          There is nothing keeping the children of illegal immigrants from going home for their parents. If we got rid of birthright citizenship, which Paul says he supports (supports getting rid of), that would not be an issue to begin with. As for the illegals here for decades, why should we reward them for breaking the law longer than others? Some crimes have a statute of limitation, but unlawful entry into our country does not. According to Paul, deporting such people would be…

          ‘incompatible with human rights.’ [- Ron Paul]

          That is an off argument for any true libertarian to make, since the protection of true human rights begins with the U.S. Constitution and our ability to enforce the rule of law. …we do not need to deport all illegal aliens to make them go home. If we simply prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens by using E-Verify and step up interior enforcement as Arizona, Oklahoma and other states have done, most illegal aliens will go home on their own.

          Paul comes out against both these policies. He not only opposes the E-Verify program, he even comes out against all laws that prohibit employers from hiring illegal aliens. To make his point even more dramatic, he absurdly calls the idea of fining employers for hiring illegal aliens involuntary servitude.

          [In the neo-‘Libertarian’ alternate universe, the existence of numerical immigration limits and borders is equivalent to ‘involuntary servitude’ and ‘tyranny’. I’ve heard this from other neo-‘Libertarians’, including the head of the San Francisco ‘Independence Institute’, who accused me of being for slavery, etc., because I’m for limiting immigration and deporting illegals.]

          Paul comes out against Arizona’s popular SB 1070 law using absurd arguments of the type normally heard only from America-hating leftists:

          ‘Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of ‘suspicion’ is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a threat, without charges ever being made.’ [- Ron Paul]

          I am still trying to figure out what supposed secret prisons and political assassinations have to do with enforcing our immigration laws. The Arizona law’s definition of ‘reasonable suspicion’ is the same standard that applies for federal immigration officials and local law enforcement for non-immigration violations, so the law does not expand police powers.

          So if we can’t enforce the law, what does Paul want to do with the 12 million illegal aliens here in this country? While he says he opposes amnesty, he argues,

          ‘Maybe a green card with an asterisk could be issued.’ [- Ron Paul]

          This asterisk would deny them welfare and not grant them immediate automatic citizenship. Both these qualifications are meaningless because every amnesty proposal makes illegal aliens jump through some symbolic hoops before they get amnesty.

          I have no idea why he has changed his position on illegal immigration, but one thing is clear: Asterisk or not, Ron Paul now supports amnesty. ”


          From VDare, ‘Worse than A Crime–A Blunder: Ron Paul’s Tragic Turnaround On Immigration’]

          ” Paul’s triangulation continues:

          ‘One side says use the US Army, round them up ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty. The first choice – sending 12-15 million illegals home – isn’t going to happen and shouldn’t happen … if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who have never lived for any length of time in Mexico. This would hardly be a Good Samaritan approach to the problem. It would be incompatible with human rights.’ [- Ron Paul]

          To his discredit, Ron Paul echoed Obama all the way down to the cliches about splitting up families and children without Mexican roots…

          Paul doesn’t mind illegal aliens working anyway, he argues:

          ‘Many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they ‘take’ are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered.’ [- Ron Paul]

          A believer in free markets should understand that this is merely another way of saying American labor has been underbid. The real question: why should a Paul Administration ally with the owners of capital against labor, by increasing its supply? …

          Worst of all, Paul calls for ***increasing*** legal immigration from its present record levels. He writes:

          ‘With free markets and private property, a need for immigrant labor becomes obvious. Make it legal and easy with a generous visitor work program.’ [- Ron Paul] ”

          (i.e., swarm us with ‘cheap labor’ until the former USA is squeezed tighter than a sardine can. Instead of 325 million people, imagine the USA with 3.25 BILLION people.)

          Like other Left-‘Libertarians’, the Pauls’ suicidal immigration policies facilitate the coup d’etat … cultural-demographic-electoral terraforming; over-immigration, invasion, occupation, anchor-Democrat brood-parasitism; all of which is in the process of taking over, redistributing, wrecking, and ending the USA.

    6. every major city in california will grow to be just like chicago. cops wont carry guns; instead they’ll be equipped with evidence bags, i pads (for keeping notes), toe tags, body bags, and air freshener. what a f***ed place that’s become.

    7. It’s Commiefornia. Until you fully acknowledge that you will never understand.
      I left, so should you but leave your Commiefornia ways and attitude behind, your next state doesn’t want them.

      1. Don’t kid yourself. Thanks to the subversive immigration policies and collaboration with the enemy by The Firerams Policy Coalition, Brandon Combs, Alan Gottlieb, SAF, CCRKBA, and NRA, California is your future no matter what state you live in or flee to.

    8. Sorry I moved from her District and Califirnia! At least I would have had the distinct pleazure of telling her she was a back stabbing Commie (thats tge poliite me) and voted against her! Most likely a wasted vote but I did my duty to GOD, Country, and Constitution! Maybe no one else would care but my Fore Fathers would be proud of me!

    9. An FBI agent I worked with used to say “Once a c***ksucker, always a c***ksucker.” If you have been screwed by the RINO there is no reason to believe the RINO won’t give it to you again so you have nothing to lose by voting them out. If they make you suffer you need to return the favor. Do unto others as they would do unto you, only do it first.

    10. I did not vote in the general election in 2012 or 2008 because romney and mccain are gun banners, but I will be voting for trump. Why would I reward a gun banner? The one and only thing that keeps 99.9% of the gop in line – ron paul and pat buchanan types are the very rare exception – on the gun issue is fear of losing their job by angering the grass roots. If a gop clown voted for gun control, then pro gun people should make it known that they will not vote for them and hope they lose the general election race. If they win, then they will be Cantored in the next primary. We have to send a message to both that specific politician and all future ones of what will happen – with no exceptions.

      1. You don’t send any message by not voting. What you do accomplish is, statistically, give the advantage to the person who is worse than the other. Was Romney great on guns? No. Was he better than what we got? Arguably yes. By not voting you helped the other person get elected and didn’t send any message to anyone. The Democrats love that. If all you wanted to do was feel good about yourself and accomplish nothing, fine, you did it.

        Want to send a message? Write a letter to the RNC telling them you will never contribute one cent to them until they change their ways. Get ten friends to do the same and have them do the same. By arithmatical progressions THAT mounts up and THAT does send a message loud and clear. Money talks and BS walks.

        1. You think sending letters to the rnc sends a message?!?!?! How naive. They care about the donor class giving them money and not getting negative media attention – winning support from middle class flyover country is not important at all to them. That is an example of making yourself feel better without accomplishing anything. If you doubt this at all then take a look at how the gop has done its best to sabotage Trump – they would rather lose the race and keep their big donations from the billionaire and millionaire donor class. I sent a message when I voted for ron paul – I was not going to vote for gun banners and open borders clowns like mccain and romney.

          And yes, millions of voters staying home helped create the void for trump to take on the evil gop establishment. I would also argue that it was much easier to defeat gun control and amnesty with obama pushing them rather than a romney or mccain demanding the gop follow in line. Had romney been in power when the CT shooting took place, I am 100 percent confident that we would have universal registration and a very good chance of another AWB passing.

          1. Don’t quote out of context. I said send a letter AND tell them no more money. If you believe the majority of their funding comes from large donors I believe you are mistaken. Just like campaigns, it’s the small donors, many of them, that mount up. As for what might have happened if Romney were elected, coulda, shoulda, woulda. Irrelevant, he wasn’t and we’ll never know.

            1. You tell me not to quote out of context then attribute something to me that I did not say. Nowhere did I mention who gave a higher percentage of donations, but I did talk about what the GOP ruling regime cares about. If you think they care more about the small donors than the big donors, why have they constantly pushed amnesty?

              The small donors in the GOP are almost entirely against amnesty, and yet the party keeps pushing it every year because the donor class wants it. So no, you and your friends sending them letters saying they will stop giving hundred dollar donations means nothing to them, even though it should. The only thing that stops them are events like the majority leader losing his own primary or trump destroying all of the chosen ones in the GOP primary – in other words, loss of power.

              You are trying to dismiss what Romney would have done in office, but we already know he signed a gun control bill while governor that banned all sorts of common weapons. We have also seen him fold under pressure from the media to criticize trump as a racist when there is really no benefit for him to do so, so we know he does not handle pressure very well. The GOP congress passes all sorts of things with a GOP president that they would resist if a Dem was pushing it, and that is just a basic political fact true of both parties.

          2. You seem to think we’re on opposite sides. We are not. The reason the GOP has dismissed small donors so far is because there has never been a unified, country-wide effort to rise up as one voice and tell them “not one penny more”. If or when that happens they’ll take note. Until then you are absolutely correct, it’s business as usual.

            1. It is easy to misread context over the internet. We are definitely on the same side. Even if you disagree with trump on various views of his – and as a paleo libertarian, there are a lot I oppose – he is clearly the greatest threat to the gop ruling power bosses ever. Taking power away from the neocons and the establishment alone makes trump worthy of being supported in my view. It is also payback for the way the gop used all sorts of dirty tricks to stop pat buchanan and Ron Paul from getting a fair shot at even being heard.

        2. Feckless nonsense. Naggy letters to the enemy give comfort to the traitors who run the party. Unlike Brandon Combs, et al., RINOs and party apparatchiks know the power of organization, focused application of power, and real activism. They know it’s all about ELECTIONS. They know as long as “gun rights leaders” focus “activists” on demoralizing themselves, getting on their knees and wasting their time writing whiny, stupid letters politely begging the enemy, they won’t be doing anything effective such as volunteering, donating and organizing focused campaigns to defeat RINO infiltraitors.

          Prags like you and Brandon Combs are like Hans Blix in Team America World Police:

          Kim Jung Il: Hans, Hans, Hans! How many times do I have to terr you: We don’t have any weapons of mass destwuction!

          Hans Blix: Mr. Il, let me inspect your palace, or else.

          Kim Jung Il: Or ershe WHAT?

          Hans Blix: Or else the United Nations will be very, very angry with you, and we will write you a letter telling you that we are very very angry with you.

          Kim Jung Il: Ok. You want to inspect parace? Move a ritter to yo reft… Ritter more… Good. [pulls trap door lever dropping Hans Blix into a shark tank]

          Here we are still in the primary ELECTION season in some states, and you’re urging activists to waste their time writing letters to traitors instead of doing what’s necessary to *bounce* enemies out of office – particularly the enemy in your own command post, which is by far more damaging than the enemy on the other side of the wire.

          Anyone with a brain can see that feckless M.O.s like petitions and naggy letters to the enemy have become almost the exclusive tool of fundraising scammers and to a lesser extent feckless fools. Petitions achieve nothing and their purpose is to gather names for the scammers to take money from good but gullible Americans and shove it in the scammers’ pockets.

          In this case, the Firearms Policy Coalition is run by Norquist-Bloomberg collaborators Brandon Combs and Alan Gottlieb, whose subversive, idiotic immigration polices and active and passive-aggressive collusion with the enemy led to the California disaster in the first place.

    11. Vote for the folks you know will represent you and leave a blank square beside the names of those who’ve proven they won’t. The quislings can add and subtract. When they see that they didn’t get as many votes as did others of their same party they will get the message that there were a hell of a lot of voters who could have voted for them and didn’t, and they’ll know why.

      1. Way to late for that in sunny CA. The only way out is, literally, the road that leads you out of the State. Move or just stay and be resigned to the fact that no matter what you do it’ll only get worse.

        1. V40, I agree. If one can’t count on Ling Ling Chang (R). Then look at who she is running against. She running against former Irvine mayor Sukhee Kang (D) and veteran Josh Newman (D). There are no viable conservative alternatives. It’s a back stabbing RINO or two Democrats. A lost cause either way.

          1. To send a message to RINO traitors, vote for the Democrat and make sure the RINO knows why. Whoever gets in will be a gun grabber. But the enemy in your own command post is always vastly more damaging and demoralizing than the open enemy on the other side of the wire. RINOs and betrayers are the enemy in your own command post. We cannot win unless we get rid of them. If gun owners get together and do whatever it takes to punish the traitor, it sends a message to other RINOs like nothing else.

        2. Bzzz. Wrong. It’s not the way out, merely running away from the immigration tsunami is not going to save gun owners and the USA. It will get you anyway unless you recognize what it is and take action. California is the future of the USA, thanks to the immigration policies supported by Grover Norquist and his partner Michael Bloomberg, and their collaborators like Brandon Combs, the Firearms Policy Coalition, SAF, CCRKBA and other Alan Gottlieb front groups, and the NRA.

    Leave a Comment 38 Comments