Because of a desire to cast a vote for Fred Thompson some years ago, am still registered as a Republican. I never got to vote for Fred, because he didn’t make it all the way to Pennsylvania. They said he didn’t act like he really wanted the job, which for me is a plus. No sane person would want to be President. But because I did not switch back to Independent, I get the sheer joy of casting my vote tomorrow in the primary. I say that with the upmost sarcasm, but I do have a Congressional primary race I want to have a say in.
For the PA-08 Congressional primary, I am voting for Mark Duome. Andrew Warren got a C on his questionnaire from NRA. Unsurprisingly, Brian Fitzpatrick did not even bother to turn in his questionnaire. His brother was not very strong on the issue, and I always believed him to be a weasel. I believe if the chips are down, Fitzpatrick will betray us, and I don’t have much faith in his brother either. He’ll be way to afraid of Bloomberg’s money.
For the State Attorney General, NRA has not issued any endorsement. Last time John Rafferty ran for his PA Senate seat, he was rated A- and endorsed. Joe Peters has an AQ rating for this race, meaning he answered well on his questionnaire, but does not have a record on the issue. Rafferty probably has better name recognition in these parts, and that’s going to be key to getting the AG’s office back in the hands of someone who won’t muck about with reciprocity agreements, and who isn’t claiming power to ban private transfers of long guns, as some Dem candidates are doing. That probably tips me more into the Rafferty camp. We have to win this one.
Then we get to the big race. It looks like Marco Rubio is still on the ballot, so I will vote for him in protest to the remaining candidates, or I just won’t vote at all. I could write a whole overly long post of all the problems with Trump, but I’ll go with my gut instinct that he’s a swindler. Now, to a large degree all politicians are swindlers, but I get the same bad feeling about The Donald I got about Obama. I think they share a good many weaknesses. I’m also still not convinced Trump isn’t a stalking horse for Hillary, joining the race to put the GOP in disarray, but who has beat all expectations.
Despite polls that show Cruz polls better than Trump against Hillary nationally, Cruz doesn’t change anything. He’s still going to be struggling in the same swing states. He will have to win Florida and Ohio to win, and Cruz has lost everything west of the Mississippi except Maine and Wisconsin. He lost The South to a guy from New York City. I don’t think he’s a naturally likable candidate. The only strength he would have in the general election is that neither is Hillary. That leaves Kasich, who I’ve heard enough stupid crap from to just say no. He’s also only won one state, and it was his home state. Obama has successfully driven Republican voters bat shit crazy. He deserves credit for that. Very well played.
Be sure to check your delegates. Remember, it’s likely to be very very close, and these delegates are not bound on the first ballot. They can vote for whoever they want. So be sure who they say they are pledging to in your Congressional District. For those of you in the 8th Congressional Distict:
Barry Casper, Trump
Deborah Evangelou, Cruz
Jim Worthington, Trump
Sean Shute, Trump
Robert Loughtery, Popular Vote
Marguerite Quinn, Popular Vote
Gene DiGirolamo, Unknown. He’s the PA rep for the district down from mine.
You only vote for no more than three. I could not find any information on alternates, but you can only vote for three and there are three running. I will vote for Evangelou and DiGirolamo. The ones who are committed to the popular vote are likely to be Trump supporters. This only reflects my preference for Cruz over Trump if things at the convention go down to the wire. This is the only strategic voting I’m doing in this primary.
So that’s my slate. Be sure to head to the state store and stock up tomorrow. You deserve it if decided to pick from this sorry lot!
Remember when President Obama ordered the military and federal agencies to come up with a plan on how to promote smart-gun technology through the procurement process? Well, that report might be due out this week:
Sources in and out of government say the administration is about to put forward a report from the agencies on the way forward on smart guns. The document could be released as early as this week, these sources say.
Its exact recommendations are being closely guarded by the White House, but it’s likely to reopen a years-long debate on whether smart guns ultimately can cut down the number of accidental shooting deaths — 500 in 2013 alone, 30 of those under age 5.
Bicycles kill more people in accidents every year. Accidental poisoning kills 38,851 people every year, and 76 of those were children under the age of 5 (via Poison Control Center). Unlike accidental shootings, which thanks to community education efforts have been on the decline, accidental poisonings among both adults and those under 5 have been increasing substantially. So why all the attention on this issue? To me, the answer is clear. This isn’t about saving the lives of children, it’s about gaining political advantage over those rubes in flyover country.
We have to be ready for this. Any manufacturer who cooperates with this shit gets the Smith & Wesson treatment. For those readers who are young, gun owners nearly drove the iconic gunmaker out of business because they cooperated with the Clinton Administration to enact back door bans for civilians. Military and police contracts represent a small percentage of the industries overall business. If a company wishes to lose all their civilian business entirely, by all means, bow to pressure from this administration or the next.
I’ve been very intrigued by this supposed reactionless EM drive. When I first heard of it, I was very skeptical, since it violates every law of physics we think we know. Hell, I’m still skeptical. But the fact is that several teams have built one of these contraptions and have measured thrust being generated. Now in MIT Technology Review, we’re offered a theory by which this drive could legitimately be producing thrust. As much as I think there’s probably something else going on here, I really hope this is true. At the risk of people accusing me of being a Debbie Downer again, this late election season has convinced me the only long term hope for libertarian-minded people is getting the hell off this rock and leaving the world’s troubles behind. I’m becoming more convinced that free people need a frontier, because without one, eventually, the meddlers, swindlers, and sycophants of the world catch-up to us.
Senator Pat Toomey has no primary challenger in Tuesday’s Republican primary. Pennsylvanians for Self Protection are urging GOP primary voters to write in “2A” in place of voting for Senator Toomey:
Pennsylvanians For Self-Protection (PA4SP) a non-partisan, non-profit gun rights advocate based in the Southeast yesterday recommended it’s members to write-in “2A” for 2nd Amendment when voting in the Republican U.S. Senate Primary. The write-in vote is a protest for Senator Pat Toomey’s strong support for gun control legislation. As Toomey is running unopposed in the Primary Election, the write-in vote is symbolic and a message to Toomey. PA4SP cites Toomey’s campaign ad where he is endorsed by a board member of the anti-gun group CeasefirePA as the final straw. In the past, CeasefirePA has called for laws that would restrict the rights to own and purchase firearms placing them at the mercy of criminal predators.
“Pat Toomey has consistently sided with the gun grabbers. He wants to do something about mass shootings in this country, we all do, but making it harder for law abiding people to protect themselves with legal firearms isn’t the way. We need to send him a message to remind him that the 2nd Amendment is a right.” said Dave Sager, President of PA4SP.
Toomey is the co-sponsor of the infamous Toomey-Manchin Gun Bill introduced after the Newtown Shooting in 2012. Critics slammed the bill as bad legislation, doing nothing to stop mass shootings and creating more problems than solving.
“Pat Toomey can’t point to a single mass shooting that would have been stopped by Toomey-Manchin. It’s bad legislation and we don’t need more laws for the sake of laws. We need to enforce current federal gun laws that provide strict penalties for guns used in crime.” offered Carlo Grilletto PA4SP’s Vice President.
Pat Toomey has betrayed legal gun owners. It is important for legal gun owners to let him know it.
I’ll be honest, I’ve never done a write-in before, and have no idea how you’d go about one with the new electronic fraud voting machines. Instructions on how to do a write-in would probably help boost this effort, since a lot of people aren’t going to want to ask poll workers.
The only thing that makes me wary of something like this is that if you set out to send a message, you really need to be sure you can send it. If you throw down, and don’t end up generating enough momentum for the targeted politician to really take notice, you signal weakness.
It’s a shame there was no primary challenger this cycle, but I suspect the GOP is concerned about holding the seat. Next election Toomey will be running in an off year, which to me is when a primary challenge will have better odds of success. The big question in my mind is whether we’ve only lost Pat Toomey on this one issue, or whether he’s embracing a strategy of trying to survive as an full on anti-gun Republican, like Mark Kirk. Time will tell.
I’ve been keeping up with the news this week, it’s just that there isn’t much of it. Note that I am not complaining about this. No sir. I know what happens when I complain about slow news. I am totally fine with slow news. So I will make an attempt to clean out my tabs of items I do have:
Upstate New York was Predictable Trump Country. I knew he was going to win New York, but he did well beyond what I expected. Upstate New York is in worse shape than Pennsylvania in a lot of ways, but I expect Trump will do well here. He does very well with working class people suffering under the blue state model, and Upstate New York fits that bill for sure. The article explains why Pennsylvania will be less receptive to Trump:
But it’s also true that some of these places might yet be resurrected. In fact, some of them already have been. Two hours southeast of Binghamton, across the state line, is Williamsport, Pa., a town that was shrinking for fifty years but is now the seventh fastest-growing metro region in the country. It’s unemployment rate is below the national average and future job growth there is estimated to be more than 41 percent over the next decade.
The difference between Binghamton and Williamsport is that New York banned fracking and Pennsylvania welcomed it.
Because New York is controlled politically by New York City, whose residents couldn’t care less about the plight of working class stiffs. Pennsylvania can still outvote it’s large cities, though with coal country in the southwest clearing out population wise, I fear for the future. There are a lot of parts of this state that are in just as bad shape as Upstate New York, and I expect Trump will do very well in these places on Tuesday. Those folks don’t want to hear about what you’ll do to reinvigorate small business, or listen to you talk about how much you love Jesus, or listen to politicians opine about who gets to use what bathroom. They want to know how you’re going to make their lives better, and Republicans better have an answer to that if they don’t want to head the way of the Whigs.
I guess the epic smackdown Michael Bellesiles received at the hands of Clayton Cramer and other in the gun community wasn’t enough. The left is back again with this fraudulent argument, arguing that Americans had no real interest in guns until after the Civil War. In this case, the argument is that Big Corporations made us love guns. I can’t imagine why anyone heading out west on the wagon train might, for perfectly rational reasons, desire themselves a repeating rifle. Yep. Must be slick marketing.
What it boils down to is that this is an election year, and Clinton is determined to get elected on a platform with gun control at the center. Notice Haag, the author, says:
Haag says she began this project determined not to become “entrapped” in gun-control politics. “I came to this material as an historian,” she writes. But she concludes with calls to put the bottom-line gunmaker, rather than the emotionally invested gun owner, at the forefront of the battle over gun violence. She calls for “smart gun” technology, by which a weapon can be used only by its rightful owner. She wants to remove the barriers to research and data collection on gun violence. She calls for additional consumer regulations and protections involving firearms. (“A toy gun is subjected to more consumer safeguards as a product than a real gun,” Haag writes.) Most important, she urges the repeal of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields manufacturers, distributors and dealers from civil liability for damages caused by their products.
Yes, I do not wish to become “entrapped” in gun control politics. She’s just a poor little innocent historian, after all. So now allow me to regurgitate every talking point from Hillary’s campaign.
Like most people who support gun control, I figured this article was written by an old white woman, but she seems to be of my generation. The silver lining in this article is that if she’s having to deal with female students exciting about shooting, we’re winning. Winning even though in this case, she questions giving a student a recommendation because the student enjoys shooting:
She seems to be a good kid, Sarah. And I don’t know what she really thinks of gun advocacy and political failures that have cost us all these lives and our sense of safety as educators. I don’t know what she does on the weekends. I also don’t know if she understands emotions, or what real rage feels like. It seems to me no person who has truly experienced the full impact of their own emotions would ever go near a gun.
Sounds like you’re projecting some of your own personal failings onto others there, Professor. I agree, if you’re so emotionally unstable that you worry you’ll hurt others in a fit of rage, don’t own guns. It’s really not for you. She speaks of her mother who got rid of all the guns in the house because her father was manic depressive and had wild mood swings. No one on our side would argue with that. But not everyone is the same way. I’ve never in my life been so angry that I felt like I did not have control, and I’ve been plenty angry. There are millions of other Americans who are the same way.
Sorry, but tricking people into watching a snuff film is pretty ghoulish. If I were interviewed afterwards, I’d argue the people who arranged this were sick. It’s not that I am not aware that violence happens, or refuse to face the “consequences” of my beliefs, it’s that I don’t particularly want to watch murderers ply their trade. It’s not the guns that killed those people… it’s the murdering sack of shit behind the trigger. I get that argument has become tired and cliched, but it’s still true.