Sam Rasoul deceives NRA voters with Fishersville campaign sign!

In a previous post I showed you this photo of a Sam Rasoul for Congress sign in Waynesboro. This sign is complete with "NRA Grade A" stickers on both sides at the top and pointed out how this information was deceptive and flat out inaccurate. Well now a similar sign also with "NRA Grade A" stickers has appeared in Fishersville just outside Waynesboro along Rt. 250 next to other Democrat candidate signs. I've had it reported to me that the same sign, once again with these "NRA Grade A" stickers is located in Staunton. I've not seen the sign that is reported to be in Staunton, but have photographed the one in Waynesboro can assure you from my own eyes that this photo, show in this post is an exact duplicate of the sign displayed bordering some farm property on the East side of Rt. 250 in Fishersville. For information on what the NRA candidate ratings mean as well as what candidate got what rating you can read my earlier post here or directly from the NRA here. You'll quickly learn in either case the Sam Rasoul didn't recieve the quoted "A" rating and in fact the only NRA "A" recipient for this race is incumbant Congressman Bob Goodlatte.

I would agree that one sign could be a mistake and not of the knowledge of the Sam Rasoul campaign, but with two comfirmed signs and another reported all in high traffic areas I have to reasonalby assume that the Rasoul campaign is aware and OK with this. If this allegation and assumption is correct than it leaves some questions. Sam Rasoul, why are you intentionally lieing and misleading voters who are interested in what the NRA thinks? Mr. Rasoul if you genuinly aren't aware of these signs and didn't authorize them, then who is runing your campaign and why would you want liers runing you campaign?

Mr. Rasoul you've got some explaining to do for Valley voters who see these signs every day.

2nd Amendment Poll Question Answer

In the most recent poll question here at The Augusta Water Cooler "Is the 2nd Amendment a big enough issue to effect voters this November?" The overwhelming response was that "Yes." Well apparently the blog world feels this is a big issue and it should be as many people (including yours truly) believe that the 2nd Amendment is the one that secures all others. Remember this on Nov 4th, regardless of what Sen. Webb wants us to believe about Sen. Obamas voting and actions record on your gun rights.

Many facts on this issue can be found here. Thanks for voting in this poll a new one will be up soon.

Sam Rasoul deceives NRA voters with Waynesboro campaign sign!

This Sam Rasoul Campaign sign is located about 50 feet South of the intersection of Rosser Ave & Northgate in Waynesboro, VA. When my wife and I saw this sign, we at first thought we were seeing things or have lost our minds, so we turned around to get a better look and we found that we were not seeing things or gone crazy and this sign did in fact advertise the the Mr. Rasoul has an "A" rating from the NRA. This sign has a two yellow stickers in the upper right and left sides of the campaign sign that state NRA Grade A. The stickers say "NRA Grade A." I thought this was odd because I'm a life member of the NRA and only recall one candidate for the U.S. House 6th District of VA race getting an "A" rating from the NRA. For clarification the rating of "A" is defined by the NRA print publication and web site as: Solidly pro-gun candidate. An “A” incumbent who has supported NRA positions on key votes. May also describe a non-incumbent “A” candidate (one not represented with an *) who has previously held other office and cast consistent pro-gun votes, or an “A” candidate who hasn’t held office but has expressed strong support for NRA positions on Second Amendment issues. It should be noted that a “non-incumbent” candidate may have been awarded the “A” rating due solely to their responses on the NRA-PVF candidate survey. The one candidate that did recieve the "A" rating was incumbent Congressman Bob Goodlatte. I wanted to make sure that my memory was correct. I checked my copy of the November 08' American Rifleman magazine which contained the NRA candidate ratings for the 08' elections. My memory was correct and Congressman Goodlatte was the only candidate for this race with an "A" rating. I checked http://www.nrapvf.org/ to ensure that the print copy I received had the most up to date information. The site confirmed that Congressman Goodlatte was in fact the only candidate to have been given an "A" rating from the NRA for this race.

Lets address the rating that the Democrat challenger Mr. Sam Rasoul was given. Mr. Rasoul received the rating of "AQ" which is defined by the NRA's print publication and web site as: A pro-gun candidate whose rating is based solely on the candidate’s responses to the 2008 NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire and who does not have a voting record on Second Amendment issues. While the description for "AQ" is basically pro-gun it is not by any means an "A" rating and as a result is misleading and deceptive to voters who may who may make opinions based on a candidates rating from the NRA. The NRA's information clearly states that there is a way for a candidate who has not yet served in elected office to get an "A" rating, however Mr. Rasoul has not been "A” candidate who hasn’t held office but has expressed strong support for NRA positions on Second Amendment issues." Based on the rating of "AQ" that Mr. Rasoul did in fact receive, it can be assumed that he answered the questionnaire with pro-gun answers.

I checked Mr. Rasoul's website and was unable to locate a specific reference to the NRA rating. If this concerns you please contact the Rasoul for Congress campaign and ask them why a their sign in Waynesboro indicates an A rating from the NRA when in fact Mr. Rasouls rating is "AQ" which means something else entirely.

Mr. Rasoul, I have no reason to believe your responses in the NRA Candidate Questionaire were anything buy honest. Mr. Rasoul, you know that the NRA didn't give you an "A" rating, myself and the thousands of other Valley voters (many NRA members) knonw you didn't get an "A" rating so why would you advertise anything else?

Mr. Rasoul, be honest with voters and don't claim an endorsement that you don't in fact have.

Never allow a deceptive or questionable campaign to go unchallenged.

Roberts Court Shows Common Sense

Recently the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts finally made clear the high courts opinion on the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution and key component of the Bill of Rights. In a 5 to 4 decision with Justice Kennedy as the tie breaker, the high court did as some predicted. The high court ruled that the DC gun ban was in fact a violation of Mr. Heller's Constitutional rights. The high court in its decision, also stated that the 2nd Amendment was in fact an individual right.

Many opponents of this decision have already started the cry that "people will no longer be safe" and other such similar statements. I simply can't agree with this view, especially since Washington DC has consistently had one of the nations highest murder rates and in some years leading in murders. When will people realize that when you remove guns from law abiding citizens you simply create a "target/victim rich environment" for malcontents and others who do not respect the rule of law. Some people are under the ridiculous and false belief that when you outlaw firearms, criminals turn in their guns and cease all activity to acquire new ones just like the law abiding members of society. History has shown that criminals do not turn in guns when others are asked to and certainly don't cease attempting to acquire new and or additional guns. Gun free zones which many anti-gun enthusiasts view as Utopia are nothing more than Disney to criminals. I challenge anyone to show me even one example of a society where guns were taken from the lawful populace and the result was not either a tyrannical government or an increase in crime against those no longer able to defend themselves.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many people wish to continue to question what the 2nd Amendment meant even though it was the shortest and most concise of all the amendments. Some will say that the framers never intended for the general public to own or have access to arms, which is highly questionable considering the framers based it on the concept of preventing a tyrannical government. I grow very tired of people telling us that "art" depicting excrement on Jesus is protected by the 1st Amendment, yet virtually anything short of a disassembled single barrel shotgun (unloaded and trigger locked of course) is questionable and not what the framers wanted. I may not agree with certain "displays" such as the previously referenced example, but it, like guns are, has been, and will continue to remain protected under the US Constitution. The only way that this can be changed is for our legislative branch to attempt a new Constitutional Amendment which requires at minimum 3/4 of all members to be in agreement.

This decision by the high court, although heavily favored by, is not a victory for the Republican Party, the NRA, or even Mr. Heller who first started this case rolling. This decision is a victory for the Constitution itself, for the high court did as it is charged and confirmed the meaning and wording that was put to ink all those years ago.

The US Constitution and all contained therin are the law of the land which is the basis of our society and basis of our rule of law.