Posts Tagged → principle
One good reason to vote for Scott Perry
Scott Perry is the current congressman in Central PA. Has been for something like ten years, maybe twelve…fourteen? As political careers go, Scott is just about to enter the “been around a long time” category, a category I am normally leery of, because long term career politicians always lose touch with their constituents. They become institutions in their own right, and use that institutional hold to self-enrich, while hardly ever doing The People’s business.
Career politicians usually slide into cruise control mode and make pretend about doing something, bloviating, and then go on long vcations.
The fact that Scott has to work hard and campaign hard in a competitive district in order to hold on to his seat is a good thing. It is good for him, because it keeps him honest and responsive, and because it forces him to listen to his constituents. It is good for us, his constituents.
Scott Perry has several different reputations, some I understand and some I just do not understand. Some of these are well-earned, for better and for worse, and some are just bitch-and-moan partisan politics, which I categorially reject. I can say that I have had conversations with Scott where we disagreed, and where we agreed.
One of his good (I think) reputations is as an independent maverick, an independent thinker, his own man, who operates away from political party oversight and control. It is this way of conducting himself that has earned him my vote.
Where each political party has its own constellation of circling sycophantic self-interested parasite groups, say, teacher’s unions for the Democrats and tobacco for Republicans (it is a toss-up which is worse for you, the teacher’s union or constant tobacco use), the unusually rare career political reps like Scott Perry have constructed their own unique support network that is tailored to their own/ his own unique way of advocating and voting.
Over the spring and summer, Congressman Perry did something that few other elected officials in either party did: He opposed Flock Cameras. Wow. This is a brave thing to do, especially in an election year. Takes real conviction and principle for any politician to take a stand against such a political and financial behemoth as Flock Cameras.
Something so powerful, that promises so much (fake) security, what could go wrong, right?
What are Flock Cameras? For those readers living in a cave (welcome to my own cave here, by the way, proud to say it) or in Rio Linda, and who do not know what Flock Cameras are, here is my perception of them:
Flock Cameras are a high technology evil portal to Hell, where, while of and on this earth, they are combining with artificial intelligence (nothing super about that, yet) to quickly bring the end of a free and Constitutional America and usher in the age of robot warfare against humans.
We have already seen the dystopian futuristic movies and read the books they are based on (1984, THX1138, Terminator, etc), to know what an all-seeing anti-privacy robot eye can do to humanity, to you. Well, Flock Cameras are the watching all-seeing surveillance eye sent by Satan to control us. This is no hyperbole, and it is refreshing to see that American citizens of all mindsets and policy thinking are now coalescing around opposing Flock Cameras.
And while lots and lots of elected officials in America were taking Flock Cameras cash, some above board and some apparently undisclosed, and signing very very illegal Non-Disclosure Agreements with the company so it could set up in thousands of communities around America, Scott Perry was one of the few, one of the early voices among elected officials, to say STOP THIS.
Scott Perry is up for election in a month. Some things he promotes I do not agree with, some things he votes for or submits legislation on I do agree with, such as his official opposition to Flock Cameras. Such a love-hate relationship is healthy with elected officials and constituents alike. But then again, this is the thinking person’s approach to politics and policy. People who are trained seals clapping and barking for their partisan “team” will not understand this kind of critical thinking approach to life.
If you are a central PA voter trying to figure out whether to vote for Scott Perry, I recommend voting Yes. If for no other reason he had the balls and principle to stand apart from the big money pack and stake out policy territory popular with The People, but unpopular with elected officialdom. Scott said No to Flock Cameras, and he has thus earned my Yes vote next month.
Party or Principle: To which are you loyal?
Just curious because of the curious elections going on around America right now. Appears that a lot of Americans are loyal to one political party, and not necessarily to a set of immutable principles.
Which are you loyal to, a political party or to certain principles?
Maybe you remember a certain political party back when it stood for certain principles, and I also remember that political party. From my seat now, it is hard to see how either of America’s two main parties have stayed true to a set of immutable principles, though one party has stayed much closer to its original founding ideas (anti-slavery, keeping the American union of states together, ensuring that new states admitted to the Union were not slave states) than the other.
Used to be that adherence to a political party resulted from agreeing with the policies it sought to implement. That kind of loyalty makes sense. It is a linear, logical relationship. And now that we see one of the American political parties so. freakin. far. from its historic beginnings, and yet still commanding loyalty of half of America, it is hard to square up.
In fact, this one political party is openly devoted to the interests of illegal border jumpers over those of existing American citizens, more supportive of Iran’s IRGC jihadi terror forces than of the American military forces seeking to stop them from nuking America, more supportive of pedophiles and murderers and rapists than of their victims, etc. The list of contrary policy positions is very long for this political party, to which tens of millions of Americans nonetheless pledge their allegiance, their money, and their vote. Imagine that your political party is supported by the IRGC, Russia, China, Cuba, and North Korea….the worst, most oppressive, most cruel, least-free nations all support…the Democrat Party.
Only one explanation for this makes sense to me: Self-destruction is the ultimate virtue signal.
In our modern digital world of personal signals and attempts to stand out, be unique, get noticed, break loneliness, gain influence or fame, nothing says I am superior to others than hating yourself and voting for policies that destroy yourself, your nation, your core necessities.
A stated willingness to sacrifice your own interests is the ultimate statement of purity, of goodness, or moral superiority, these leftists believe.
Problems with this are two:
One, leftists’ self-destructive (“suicidal empathy”) behavior is not limited to just leftists. They seek to impose this same destruction upon everyone else in America. So much for showing anyone the way and how socialism is supposed to be done right by living it successfully for the rest of us skeptics; nope, it has to be forced on us at gunpoint. And in their minds, the socialists are the ones with the guns…
Two, this behavior is based on the super rich irony that you have to be super rich and live in a super rich and super organized nation, like America, to indulge fantasies of self destruction. It requires living among such great wealth that one feels invulnerable, immune to accountability, to be able to entertain these moronic statements and beliefs.
Only spoiled rotten people can dye their hair blue, self-identify as a dog, change their pronouns daily, hate America, hate tax-paying white people, and also demand and expect expensive lattes and gourmet food. Starving people cannot indulge themselves in self-destructive fantasies, just like those humans who already lived under socialism, and got out alive, assiduously reject it.
We saw this mentality most vividly at the nationwide anti-Israel-anti-America-anti-police student + activist university encampments from 2023-2025. Students there made a big deal about going on hunger strikes to make their political point, and then just hours later they whined about the lack of “Door Dash” food deliveries to their violent environment.
Spoiled rotten pampered children of privilege acting out all brave and fierce, only to then complain about not getting exactly the kind of expensive, fancy food to which they are accustomed, or that the police they decried were also nowhere to be seen when needed to protect these overgrown children from each other.
What complete rubbish and childish nonsense.
Leftists and Democrats view America as an eternal safety net that is too big to fail, to which they must never donate but from which they can always take, that America is too successful to collapse under the weight of this sustained assault. At their deepest, leftists appear to believe that self-destruction is some sort of atonement, and that their lives will be better afterwards. And people like me say, in response, are you outta your freakin mind!
There is no food period in your leftist gulags. Forget Door Dash, or expensive lattes; food itself of any sort is in short supply at the education camps these fools envision for others but which will inevitably house them.
A great deal of this discussion is encapsulated in a powerful speech given by a Democrat at the Republican National Convention last week. Yes, he is a Democrat whose own family vilifies him for having broken ranks. But you know what? The people who care the absolute most about political party allegiance, like the Kennedy family, are not interested in ideas, or principles, or in being consistent, or in supporting the US Constitution. Rather, their political party affiliation is either their business, their family, or their religion.
For the Kennedy clan, being a Democrat is strictly business. It is access to power and wealth.
For many unaffiliated Catholics and Jews, the Democrat Party has become both family and the embodiment of their “religious values.” Not that abortion until after birth or defenseless citizens under the jack boot of all-powerful government are values of Judaism or Catholicism, as founded, but to the fallen members of these groups who are far far distant from actual religious teachings, these kinds of vacuous policies have supplanted tradition.
When coupled with the heroin-like dopamine rush these people get for always “voting correctly,” America ends up with tens of millions of uncritical Americans who are not anchored in principle, but who are rather loyal to a political party that changes with the winds, and which openly runs on self-destruction.
Even if that political party is destroying the America that protects and feeds them and caters to their every desire and dream. Their silly fantasy about showing how much they care by killing themselves and their interests takes precedence.
People like me inhabit the other end of the many spectrums (emotional, cognitive, religious) involved here. I am loyal to America’s first principles, its founding ideas, like the superiority of meritocracy, not to any political party, and especially not to any political party that deviates so far from America’s first principles.
And I have a tough time understanding anyone who acts otherwise, except to pity them as the in-effect lost-in-space drug addicts they are.
I am loyal to the ideas the old party used to stand for, not for the crazy, self-destructive policies it promotes today. I did not leave the Democrat Party, it left me.
John Fetterman, canary in a coal mine
If a healthy body politic is measured by the amount of middle-ground, America is in trouble. If the health of the body politic is assessed by polarization, America is in trouble. If the body politic’s veins are full of founding principles, great, and of the veins are full of foreign bodies and alien ideas, then the very bloodstream is being poisoned and is not healthy. A poisoned blood stream means the body has not long to live.
It might be popular in the Democrat Party’s mainstream media to accuse Republicans of being racist, or extreme, but the fact is that the GOP is filled to the brim with mealy mouthed “moderates” incapable of taking a policy stand of any sort or substance. Note how US Attorney nominee for Washington DC, Ed Martin, was blocked by old guard RINO Sen. Tom Tillis and at least a half dozen other similar minded Republican senators hiding in the shadows.
And it is the Democrat Party that is increasingly radical, extreme, anti-America, and unwilling to brook any kind of moderation in its own ranks. Note how US Senator John Fetterman is now hostilely surrounded by his own party, the constellation of far-Left Marxist interest groups, and their media apparatus, for the simple crime of being too moderate.
And John Fetterman is no moderate! He has simply broken with far-left woke orthodoxy on American jobs, border security, and supporting key American ally, Israel.
This slight amount of independent thinking alone has made him unacceptable to the Democrat Party…then again, RFK Jr and Tulsi Gabbard were also almost destroyed by a Democrat Party enraged that any of theirs could possibly find ways to work with the other side. His own party is trying to drive him from office with fake MSM reports about him.
All the time I get these ridiculous emails from the Pennsylvania Democrats decrying “extremism,” and yet it is they who are openly extreme. I have no idea how anyone normal supports the Democrat Party today, because their actions and words left all normalcy behind a very long time ago.
Way back when I was a Democrat, over three decades ago, it was a JFK political party that loved America and Americans. I will also say that the NRA member pro-gun and pro-Life Central Pennsylvania Democrat Josh was more conservative than at least half of the elected Republican Party today. This is how far far far Left the Democrat Party has moved.
Who would have guessed it, but Senator John Fetterman is now the main canary in the American coal mine. His political health is the indicator of how healthy and safe America is overall, how politically balanced we are.
If John Fetterman is driven from office, then the only moderation will be on the political “right,” and it will exist only because corrupt spineless jellyfish career GOPe officials like Tom Tillis are too afraid to take quintessential stands on policy based on First Principles (Constitutional principles from our nation’s Founding in 1776 and 1787-1789). And yet they will fight for re-election like their lives depend upon it, because they are making sooooo much money on insider trading.
Senator John Fetterman, you have this Republican’s admiration, and hope for your physical and political health. Hang in there, buddy. We are all watching your senate tenure as a vital sign of life of America.
UPDATE 5/13/25: Senator Fetterman has friends in unexpected places
Says who, the zero credibility far-Left AP? The far-Left teacher’s unions? Sure appears to be a set-up to get a fake negative headline on Fetterman
New York Magazine is another stalwart far-Left Democrat Party machine outlet. Like a sewer outlet.
Sy Snyder is a devoted Democrat Party 360-degree all-things Pennsylvania Democrat “daily pulse” email that also contains the usual left wing marching orders. PennLive is a super partisan pro-Democrat Party political activism organization posing as a “media” outlet. Ha ha.
Choices: Principles vs Institutions
Humans create institutions to institutionalize our values, religious practices, hopes and aspirations, cultural identity, etc. Our institutions are created in order to make permanent and carry our values forward, a sort of vehicle. Schools, libraries, government agencies, religious institutions, family foundations, charitable foundations, unions, associations, etc, every single one created with a mission to implement certain principles.
Over time people naturally identify with a particular institution, become a champion of it, and a stakeholder to it. Again, private schools, public school PTAs, library associations, the National Ukrainian Club, various church and synagogue umbrella groups, Democrat Party, Republican Party, etc, you know those particular institutions in your own life, because they reflect your values.
What happens when the institution no longer represents or reflects the founding principles that breathed life and cause into it?
Examples abound: The United Nations works against the western democracies who founded it and currently pay for it. The Democrat Party has become a wild communist orgy of anti-Americanism; the Republican Party has forsworn its abolitionist roots and has become a bunch of establishment do-nothing fuddy-duddies; the National Rifle Association accretes multiple layers of bureaucracy into everything it does, instead of spending its limited money pursuing individual freedom; school teachers unions become outlets for destructive radical politics, far outside the mainstream of American families; a local church or synagogue is poorly run by a small group of self-reinforcing, self selecting, like-minded establishmentarians who cannot and will not respond to changes in their respective demographics…
The one that got me thinking about this subject is the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, a sportsmen’s group I had a long relationship with, which then attempted to take a hard left turn into climate alarmism and gun regulation back in 2020. In one quick weekend of fake votes and heavily manipulated elections, the PFSC leadership torpedoed the institution the leaders said they loved. Their far-left politics alienated their base, and the group has not yet recovered its former standing.
With PFSC, I took a hard and public stand, and while I succeeded in stopping the old group from becoming leftist stooges of the charitable foundation trust fund sector, I also lost a lot of friends. People who were loyal to the PFSC they remembered, and who they wanted it to still be. Some blamed me for damaging PFSC’s public reputation, while I blamed PFSC’s leadership for making unpopular decisions its base rejected. For sure the messenger got shot!
In 2020, PFSC’s leaders jettisoned the principles on which PFSC was originally founded, and a great portion of their natural base stopped believing in the institution.
Recently I stepped back from a formal leadership role in a local house of worship, as the venerable institution begins to crumble onto itself. Leaders there, who fondly remember this house of worship from their childhood, cannot make the tough decisions necessary to keep it alive, and in fact keep making decisions that guarantee few or no young people will join it and keep it going. This particular institution is beginning to greatly deviate from its own founding principles, and its base, its natural adherents and admirers, no longer recognize it.
One last example: The US Environmental Protection Agency was a place I badly wanted to work in while I was in college back in the mid 1980s. When I finally got to work at the USEPA, I realized that a great deal of the basic principle that had undergirded its founding had been long since tossed overboard. In place of the simple principle of a clean environment came a whole regime of anti-capitalism, anti-America regulations. After seven years as a policy staffer at USEPA, I could not wait to get out. I now think the agency needs a whole new name and a very clear mission change.
So should we be loyal to the hollowed out shells of institutions that now exist mostly in facade, gutted of what they once stood for, hopeful that they will somehow regain their former glory, or should we seek to create new institutions that are more representative of the principles that enervated the originals we so dearly loved and identified with?
Change is a constant, evolution is healthy, and institutions that do not change to some degree become stale, immobile, static, and fragile. But those that deviate from their founding principles are destined for a much faster devolution, because most people just simply stop believing in them.
The competitive free market will cause new institutions to spring alive, bringing hope and aspiration anew to old principles, replacing the old institutions as they dry up and wither away. For me, I am of two minds: Stay loyal to the old institution until that is no longer possible, on principle, and then help found a new one, on principle.
Roe v. Wade was never about abortion
Like so many other far-reaching court decisions, or laws, or executive orders emanating from Washington, DC, Roe v. Wade was originally cast publicly as something it actually wasn’t.
Yes, on its face Roe v. Wade was about abortion, the termination of human life while still inside the mother’s body. But in fact, the way the court’s decision was structured, it was the exuberantly creative legal theory behind the Roe decision that was most important. And it was that legal theory that laid the ground work for so much of the openly political activist behavior we see emanating from way too many judges and federal bureaucrats across America.
Roe v. Wade was decided within a time of great social turmoil and cultural change, and a lot of the contemporaneous political activism pressure from the Left is visible in Roe. Especially the twin evil sisters of moral relativism and intellectual relativism. One example is the in-artfully creative use of the word “penumbra,” a sort of shadowy shadow that reputedly lay over so many different amendments to the US Constitution that clearly listing them all was just too tiring to Roe’s authors. Yes, the Court majority invoked aspects of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and went on to stitch together a pseudo- logical framework for legal decision (then using the 14th Amendment) making that is still with us today.
Vagueness as a reason for heavy handed policy is now the Left’s standard. “Because we told you to do it” is the way that is spelled out.
Every professor who taught me constitutional law was a liberal, and every single time any one of them delved into Roe, a smirk was on their face. Lots of eye rolling and chuckling accompanied these professors’ analysis of the poor legal reasoning behind the decision. Which meant to me then, and even more so now, that no one with real constitutional law training believed Roe was a legitimate legal decision based on actual logic, law, and fundamental constitutional principles. Rather, all the liberals who exulted in Roe did so because it backdoor-attained a policy goal they could not achieve through the legislative process, and because it established a mush-headed standard for all future legal decisions.
So today, some fifty years after Roe v. Wade-type legal analysis has wafted its way throughout the legal profession, the courts, and the bureaucracy, we see the ultimate and inevitable result of such a “creative” legal approach: Although the Second Amendment says crystal clearly that citizens may both keep and publicly bear firearms, and that this right shall not be infringed, a zillion policy makers and courts blatantly ignore 2A’s plain wording and just start throwing anti-gun policy ideas into the pot. These judges give no respect to what the Constitution actually says; rather, they use their court rooms purely for writing policies that fit their political views. Same goes for ATF bureaucrats.
I blame Roe v. Wade for where our court system is now. And where it is now is not just political policy shops in black robes, but we have defiant leftist activists in black robes, who simply ignore the Supreme Court’s precedents and make their own damned ruling. Even if their damned ruling is totally contrary to a US Supreme Court decision from just weeks or months ago. This approach is junk law, and it calls into question the entire field of jurisprudence. It highlights in just one more way how the Left is hell bent for leather to implement its political policy goals, at whatever cost to America’s legal and cultural fabric.
In case you don’t know it, when a lower court openly defies the Supreme Court, the entire court system is thrown out the window. We then have nothing but anarchy.
So, when the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two weeks ago, it was not surprising to see the Left melt down, as if their ability to kill babies had in fact been fully deprived of them. After all, when a person sees every branch of government as nothing more than a policy shop devoid of logical process, then everything becomes about winning or losing the policy war. Here the Left feels they have lost, when in fact, all this recent Court decision did was turn the issue over to the various states (No, Barack, there are not 57 states). Where actual voters get to choose how they want their state government to address what should be a sensitive subject.
(The same 1960s and 1970s people who had just protested against American soldiers as “baby killers” in Vietnam then became the biggest champions of killing babies…go figure).
To its proponents and supporters, Roe v. Wade was never really about abortion or babies, it was about introducing a weak-minded, unprincipled, grab-what-you-can “by any means necessary” approach to forming government policy. And in fact one of the main reasons I left my US EPA policy job in Washington, DC, was because I personally witnessed many regulations and rules being formed exactly this way, where (liberal/ Left) agency staff would literally just imagine a bunch of shit and put it in the regulation or rule. Justified or no, or extra cost to industry and consumers be damned. It is a terrible way to run representative government. But it is the way that Roe taught liberals and Leftists to think about government.
As a proponent of good government, where transparency and accountability are everyday occurrences for the taxpayers, I am glad that Roe is gone. Now the politically difficult part of democracy is upon all of us: Figuring out how many babies people can kill, when, and where. Based on my principles, I would expect this democratic process to follow a certain logic path. But we are not dealing with principles here, but rather a passion on the Left for absolute control. And they don’t like losing control. Or thinking hard. Or debating issues with evidence and cross-examination and due process.
Should be interesting going forward.
Ten take-aways from my Election Day experience
With the Kerwin men, quality people
Primary elections are more important than the general election every November, because voters choose who is going to be representing them at the November election. And in the case of Republican Party voters, if you don’t vote for constitutional America-First candidates, you are guaranteed to have a Republican In Name Only (RINO) liberal running against the Democrat Party liberal in the November election. There’s not a whole lot of philosophical difference between the Republican liberal and the Democrat liberal, and after that November election between a RINO and a Democrat it’s just a question of how rapidly America is destroyed under your feet, slowly or quickly.
On Tuesday I volunteered at four different election polls, handing out brochures for Kathy Barnette, and I spoke with a lot of voters. Here are some take-aways from my experience during and after Tuesday’s Primary Election here in PA:
- Unsurprisingly, voters make both simple and complicated choices in voting for candidates. Simple choices can be lazy or principled, and complicated choices can be bizarre or carefully thought out. Candidate selection is as complex as any other choice in life, and I think that is a good thing.
- Party establishment endorsement is a negative among Republican/ conservative voters, who appear to increasingly view the GOP as a force for bad and not for good. For example, Lou Barletta’s campaign unleashed a tidal wave of Republican establishment career politician endorsements in the days before Tuesday’s election, and if anything these endorsements seemed to hurt Barletta at the polls, not help him; Doug Mastriano crushed Barletta.
- On the other hand, Democrat voters seem highly attuned to and in synch with their establishment, as witnessed by political newcomer Justin Fleming’s trouncing of long time Democrat Party activist Eric Epstein in the newly created 105th Legislative District (PA House). For at least ten years, and probably closer to twenty years, independent-minded liberal Epstein has run for everything from dog catcher to school board to state senate, almost always unsuccessfully but always with close-call results. Not this time. Apparently ten unions and the House Democrat Campaign Committee aggressively weighed in to stop Epstein from finally capitalizing on his well-known household name in southcentral PA. Fleming the unprincipled “electoral pragmatist” won with 61% of the vote.
- Money is not all that it used to be, but it can still matter in elections, no surprise. Case in point is a very small amount of money (like $157,000 total), old fashioned shoe leather, and reasonable social media networking got conservative grass roots favorite Kathy Barnette up to 25% of the vote in an eight-candidate race. This is a huge statement about the lack of importance of money. However, when the wildly false negative attacks against Barnette started pouring in during the last week from McCormick and Oz and their supporters, like Sean Hannity, Barnette lacked sufficient funds to get out her last-minute rebuttals on TV and radio that could have gotten her over the finish line to win. Enough confusion and obfuscation was created by the attacks to blunt Barnette’s position at the top, and allowed both Oz and McCormick to grow their own voter returns at her expense. Had Barnette possessed a million dollars to do last-minute TV and radio ads, she probably would have won the election.
- Negative advertising does work, and it also greatly suppresses voter turnout. At all of the five polls I was at yesterday, voting was down between 10% and 20%, and I believe many voters were just fed up and confused by all of the negative advertising. SO they stayed home and said “I will just vote in November for whoever wins this primary race.”
- Conservative voters are much more oriented toward ideology and principles than political party.
- Almost every primary election has one winner and some losers, and almost always the losers say they will take their ball and go home if they don’t win, and they won’t back the winner of their race. For weeks before and even after the election was over, I heard unceasing complaints from Republicans about how Mastriano is “too conservative” for Pennsylvania, and that his win will automatically hand the governorship to Komrade Josh Shapiro. I also heard unceasing complaints from Republican voters that Lou Barletta was too milquetoast to appeal to anyone in November, except for blue haired suburban GOPe Republicans. Folks, get used to these competitive races. They are good for us. This competition is just the nature of real and healthy primary races, something that Republicans really need, and something that the GOPe HATES. The Republican Country Club Party hates hates hates sharing decision making with the unwashed dirty masses, who keep gumming up GOPe dreams of easy ill gotten wealth and posh fundraisers. Sorry not sorry, GOPe, get used to ceding more and more decision making to the actual people you claim to represent. It is a good thing, and it is why Mastriano won by an enormous margin.
- For the most part, the GOPe got its ass kicked in PA and elsewhere in America. RINOs like Jake Corman (the sitting President Pro Tem of the PA Senate!!), Jeff Bartos, et al either dropped out or finished below 5%, while underdog candidates like Kathy Barnette and Dr. Oz scored big time vote returns against the establishment’s wishes. We are witnessing a power shift away from GOP party bosses, which is a good thing, because party bosses are corrupt and self-serving people.
- Charlie Gerow is still a good guy, and still not a catchy candidate. Once again, voters enjoy Charlie as an articulate proponent of conservative values, but not as a representative in government for their needs. Charlie is a salon intellectual in the mold of William F. Buckley, one of the 20th century’s great conservative crusaders. Not winning elections doesn’t mean Gerow isn’t relevant, it just means his strength is in policy debates and in the conservative salon of ideas. Nothing wrong with that.
- Finally, yard signs and road signs do not mean anything close to what they used to represent even ten years ago. At one time yard signs and roadside signs were a big part of electoral public outreach, but in this digital age, they are becoming less important. I would not say they are unimportant, because in some ways they can be used to get a sense of voter engagement. Like, lots of signs for Candidate X in a county or in a region probably means that Candidate X is well known there. But it does not mean that Candidate X is necessarily going to convert that name recognition into an Election Day win. Information is now moving so fast and so far across the political landscape, that just one gaffe or one slip-up by an otherwise reasonable candidate can mean the end of their lead or presumptive win. No amount of yard signs can counter a fifteen second video of a candidate doing or saying something ridiculous.
Thank you to all the voters who spent time talking with me on Tuesday. I promote candidates at polls on Election Day every year because these are people I believe in, and I believe in sharing the why and how I have arrived at my decision on whom to vote for. One thing that has not changed among voters at polls since I was a teenager is this: Liberal voters at polls are always surly, grumpy, dismissive, or disrespectful. Do not ask me why this is, but it does hint at how some people think.
True spirit of an American president
What follows below is the real spirit of the true American president and every true American citizen. Not a corrupt Marxist thief who stole the would-be elected position through vote fraud and now seeks to coerce free American citizens to become feudal serfs under the thumb of tyrannical government bureaucrats, but a freedom-loving, citizen-loving, Constitution-loving American through-and-through.
An order of April 6, 1779, issued in Boston and now preserved in the Emmet Collection of the New York Public Library (also on display in Morristown, New Jersey), describes in detail the required arms and accouterments of that day (1779) for America citizens. Its spelling is of that time:
To Shrimpton Hutchinson Esq.
SIR,
You are hereby ordered and directed, to compleat yourself with ARMS and Accoutrements, by the 12th Instant, upon failure thereof, you are liable to a FINE of THREE POUNDS; and for every Sixty Days after, a FINE OF SIX POUNDS, agreable to Law.
Articles of Equipment,
A good Fire-Arm, with a Steel or Iron Ram-Rod, and a Spring to retain the same, a Worm, Priming wire and Brash, and a Bayonet fitted to your GUN, a Scabbard and Belt therefor, and a Cutting Sword, or a Tomahawk or Hatchet, a Poach containing a Cartridge Box, that will hold fifteen Rounds of Cartridges at least, a hundred Buck Shot, a Jack-Knife and Tow for Wadding, six Flints, one pound powder, forty Leaden Balls fitted to your GUN, a Knapsack and Blanket a Canteen or Wooden Bottle sufficient to hold one Quart.
In other words, our American citizen, Shrimpton Hutchinson [fabulous name!], Esq., was commanded by his government to prepare for war against enemies both foreign (British Redcoats) and domestic (anti-freedom, anti-America Tories/Royalists/Loyalists), by assembling his own personal war-making weapons and equipment. Notably a military-grade firearm and all of its necessities, plus what we would today call hiking and camping gear for Mister Hutchinson’s time afield as a citizen soldier.
This fierce founding spirit, strong among those who first created America, in its general sense and in its particular military-grade gear requirement, is still alive among those Americans who do not take our freedoms or founding principles for granted. We who embody this spirit today know that tyranny is always just one generation away, because unfortunately, a proportion of humans are always power-crazed control freaks, who will not rest until they have every person under their thumb and absolute control. It is just the nature of some people to be bad this way, and it is therefore the duty of freedom-loving people to reject and sometimes legally or even physically repel those bad people.
In this vein, several months ago, Pennsylvania attorney Josh Prince won a significant lawsuit about the ownership and use of private firearms here in Harrisburg, with implications for holding over-reaching, anti-freedom government bureaucrats accountable across the entire Commonwealth. In a nutshell, the Court held that Pennsylvania’s firearm pre-emption law means exactly what it says, which is that local municipalities cannot create a 2,500-municipality crazy patchwork of firearm regulations here, any more than local municipalities can create such a patchwork of abortion regulations or approved books regulations etc.
I am the Harrisburg City plaintiff in this lawsuit, brought and paid for by Firearm Owners Against Crime, a group of which I am a life member. Although I am not presently bearing arms against tyrants like our patriot friend Shrimpton Hutchinson in 1779, I am part of the ongoing legal contest to preserve the basic rights of free American citizens to own and bear military-grade firearms for our own self-preservation.
The irony of this is that I actually do not like or enjoy military-grade firearms. My greatest personal enjoyment and use of firearms is the old muzzle loaders and black powder cartridge sporting firearms of the 1770s through about 1910. It is that spirit of free choice you have between one firearm and another that I defend and promote.
Hopefully soon, America will have a person in the Oval Office worthy of being called President (and not President* or pResident), a person in and on whom the spirit of our founding principles sits deeply. A person who not only trusts his fellow citizens with military grade firearms, and who sees America as a government Of, By and For The People, but as in 1779 he demands that they personally keep and own such firearms at home and on their person, to be prepared always to use them in defense of America.
The spirit of America – a worker leaving his office while preparing to repel lawless tyrants. This is where your freedom comes from
Tinker Toys & Lincoln Logs
Tinker Toys and Lincoln Logs are kids’ toys, used to teach elementary building concepts to little kids. The laws of physics are a core component of those lessons.
Apparently these basic rules have been forgotten by a huge portion of Americans when they are applied to building a nation.
America provides more liberty, freedom, and opportunity to more individuals from more walks of life than any other nation. The way it does that is through a carefully constructed and delicately balanced arrangement of written laws and social norms.
No house of cards, America is nonetheless like any human society. It’s relatively fragile, easily upset, prone to mistakes.
So what is up with the Black Lives Matter anarchists and their many enablers carefully positioned around the racist movement’s periphery. Don’t these people recognize that if you make war on all police officers, whose job it is to keep our society from literally falling apart, the basic underpinnings can come out?
Students of history wonder aloud about Nazi Germany, how such a refined and materially successful culture fell so quickly, to be replaced by the lowest savagery. Well, societal failure can happen anywhere. It can happen here in America, too, if serious citizens do not work hard to teach to newcomers and next generations the basics of what it takes to make this place run so well.
Instead, one political party is dedicated to a culture of anarchy, false grievance, and Santa Claus – like gifting of everything from cell phones to houses, gratis the over-taxed American taxpayer. BLM has had the backing of Obama and most of the members of his party.
This means one of two major American parties is dedicated to America failing. Perhaps this is the “transformation” Obama spoke of, but let’s face it: This is a recipe for wall to wall catastrophe.
America is like a bank account. You only get to take from it what you put into it. A culture of taking, taking, taking and demanding and foot-stomping is a giant withdrawal from the bank account. To the point where the account is becoming overdrawn.
Put another way, America is like a carefully arranged assortment of Lincoln Logs and Tinker Toys. Once the bottom most foundational principles are removed, the whole thing will crash down.
Please don’t take America for granted. She can only sustain so many overdrafts and big withdrawals from her account before she fails. Lend a hand and keep the underpinnings held together. Vote for the only presidential candidate who can and will do that, Donald Trump.
And yes, I think it is sad that he is the smartest, most capable kid in the playroom. But that is the fact. Trump is not arguing against the laws of physics
People ask me why
For some people, politics and political activism are their bread and butter. Politics pays their bills. With the right clients, they can make millions of dollars out of politics as a business model.
For me, politics is about personal liberty, freedom, opportunity and many other inspiring principles behind the founding of America. It is also about the little freedoms we have that emanate from the bigger ideas: The freedom to drive or walk somewhere without having to prove that you belong there, the freedom to choose where to live, the ability to select from a wide assembly of fresh food, to name a few popular ones.
Call it an innate sense of justice and right and wrong, which family and friends have said I’ve had since I was a little kid, or call it a lack of patience, an inability to watch, participate in, listen to, or tolerate BS/fluff/empty slogans/lies/self-interest, whatever it is that motivates me, I am passionate about good government.
Good government has been a passion of mine since I was a teenager, when I first got involved in political campaigns. Back then, I was horrified at the way abortion-on-demand was changing our culture, I was against gun control, and nuclear missiles scared me. Later on, watching police beat non-violent pro-democracy marchers in South Africa motivated me to put my voice behind change there (note that now the monumentally corrupt and un-just African National Congress government there is hardly better than the overtly racist apartheid government it replaced). Age, paying taxes, and work experience have a way of shaping political views for normal people, and I was no exception.
So here I am, living a life that has meaning for me, trying to shape Pennsylvania and American politics in ways I believe are healthy, necessary, and just. The citizens and taxpayers who are supposed to be served well by their government (of the people, by the people, for the people) are not being well served today. This is why I am involved in politics. That is why I will not go away, at least not until things are fixed to my satisfaction.