Pennsylvania doesn’t do a good job of sending Conservatives to Congress and Rick Santorum is included in that. To add an additional challenge, the legislative Districts in Pennsylvania are a little lopsided due to redistricting. This primary has a chance to improve upon PA’s dismal standing. However, the MAGA universe doesn’t seem to be properly aligned with Conservatism when it counts in this state. This is a problem, but hopefully there can be enough push to remove some RINOs. Overall, PA had a lot of lukewarm candidates with a couple of exceptions and no shortage of bad candidates to choose from.
Best Picks: Steve Bloom, Doug McLinko, Marty Nothstein
Worst Picks: Lou Barletta, John Joyce, Rick Saccone, Tom Marino, Brian Fitzpatrick, Lloyd Smucker
Best Race: District 13, District 7
Worst Race: PA Sen
Trump’s endorsement sure made a lot of Conservatives forget that Lou Barletta is a complete and utter RINO. As noted in the linked article:
Jim Christiana is the conservative choice in this race, but Lou Barletta stands the best chance to win because Jim Christiana doesn’t have a whole lot of cash. Barletta is also a fairly talented campaigner. But first and foremost, he is a loyalist. If the other candidates fail to up their social media game, Barletta could run away with this. And if he wins, we’ll just have a Democrat vs a RINO come November.
Conservative Pick: Jim Christiana
Within a very brief time, the technical incumbent, Brian Fitzpatrick has been one of the House’s most left-leaning Republicans. He even opposed stopping government-funded sex changes in the military as well as supporting every other fiscally irresponsible measure. Most RINOs are vote conservative on social issues, other than abortion, but not this one. Dean Malik is running from the right and could do no worse.
Conservative Pick: Dean Malik
David Torres is running unopposed in his bid to defeat Brenden Boyle.
Bryan Leib is running unopposed in his bid to unseat. He’s a pro-Israel member of the tribe. He could be a Conservative, buut what conservative rides Lou Barletta’s coattails as much as he.
Dan David is another unopposed GOP challenger to a Democratic incumbent.
Pearl Kim is the sole Republican running for this vacant seat, while the Dems have a feeding frenzy.
Greg McCauley is the only Republican in this race. His platform resembles that of a RINO.
In District 7, there is finally some action. It’s a faceoff between Marty Nothstein and Dean Browning. Nothstein is a former Olympian looking to drain the swamp. His platform is strong, and his economic policy is more focused on rolling back regulation than “jobs.” Browning is also a Conservative but his emphasis on increasing military spending is worrisome for fiscal conservatives. Many of them used the military to justify voting for Omnibus. It is also a safer bet that a gold medalist in cycling is more electable in a presumably blue district than Browning.
Conservative Pick: Marty Nothstein
The 8th District is likely to swing red due to the redistricting bringing about hungry contenders. First up, John Chrin. Chrin is a run-in-the-mill campaign conservative. Nothing really special. Like others, he uses Lou Barletta to advance himself. Chrin has a concise platform and more campaigning skills than one would initially think. Joe Peters is probably the most formidable candidate. He has a law enforcement background and a “law and order” style campaign. He’s had appearances on Fox News as a counterterrorism expert. His background is perhaps the most hinting factor at him not being a real Conservative. But on issues like immigration, he’s in line with Trump. What’s conspicuously absent on Peters’ campaign is anything on debt. Lastly in the race is Robert Kuniegel. Kuniegel is a likable man with a down to earth campaign. His platform brings up topics like media bias but promotes the free market as the solution. Though he is in favor of regulating tech giants in order to promote free speech. Government regulation, I would argue, is not the solution to this problem. The most hindering sign about Kuniegel is the fact that his platform is so bogged down with less important issues. I think this poses a risk of saying stupid things like Roy Moore.
Conservative Pick: John Chrin
The ninth was made even redder, so it is imperative to fill this seat with a staunch Conservative. Scott Uehlinger was a former CIA operative. His campaign is fairly strong on healthcare and immigration. He has the endorsement of Sabastian Gorka. Dan Meuser is the rich insider looking to dip his toes into politics. He resembles Trump, in that he has a history of donating to leftist candidates, which is his biggest hurdle in this race. His platform says the right things, but he has no action to back it up. This is likely a two man race with George Halcovage as a third wheel. He doesn’t seem like a bad gut though.
Conservative Pick: Scott Uehlinger
Scott Perry is an unopposed incumbent which is fine considering he has the highest Liberty Score in PA with no close second.
Lloyd Smucker is a giant RINO but is opposed in a now redder district. This could be the demographic switch that could oust this swamp creature. Entering the ring is Chet Beiler. Beiler lost to Smucker by 10 points back in 2016, But he’s rich enough to fund another go. It seems as though he is running from the right, but honestly, he could be no worse, so we can hope.
Conservative Pick: Chet Beiler
Tom Marino is an incumbent RINO with a terrible record on spending. Challenging him is Doug McLinko. McLinko is running from the right and using Trump to his advantage. McLinko has a record at a local level of fiscal responsibility and issued a statement condemning recent spending deal. McLinko is one of the most impressive candidates PA has to offer.
Conservative Pick: Doug McLinko
This race is wide open, but the biggest candidate is Art Halvorson. He is seen as the MAGA candidate, but beyond the rhetoric, he actually wants to end special interest stranglehold on Washington. This include ending corporate welfare. Halvorson has a strong grasp on the Constitution and a likelihood for fiscal responsibility. It is a little bit of a turn off how into tariffs he is but these are within the Congressional powers. Another strong Conservative in the field is Steve Bloom who has a solid record in the PA legislature. This race may come down to funding, which John Joyce leads the pack in.
On the left is John Joyce's son Sean, former campaign manager to Bill Shuster and currently a lobbyist for the Podesta Group.
— Defeat Shuster (@Defeat_Shuster) May 11, 2018
There seems to be a credibility problem with Joyce, part of it with him being an “outsider” is his lack of record. There are plenty of candidates in this race with a decent record, John Eichelberger to name another. Why taker a foolish risk?
Conservative Pick: Steve Bloom
Rick Saccone is looking for a rebound after he blew an easy win to Conor Lamb back in March. He should give up on politics. Guy Reschenthaler is an actual Conservative who might not suck at campaigning.
Conservative Pick: Guy Reschenthaler
Glenn Thompson is an unopposed RINO.
Mike Kelly is an unopposed RINO.
Keith Rothfus is PA’s 2nd highest rated Republican. He’s unopposed.
No GOP candidates.
FRAMING THE DISCUSSION
How often have you read words to the effect that a highly placed source close to the investigation revealed xyz today under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case… Blah… Blah… Blah…. ?
Is your first thought that just really must be something juicy that I can barely wait to read? Or do you stop and wonder how untrustworthy is the person who was supposed to protect information who instead divulged it?
Do you also think about how unscrupulous the person was who received the information and published it without concern for the consequences? The more fundamental question is do you believe that the whole world has a right to know everything a government agency is doing?
Is there ever a need to protect anything from public disclosure? The government sometimes has to classify information to protect sources whose lives would be in danger and to avoid revealing methods by which the data was collected.
Whatever the American public knows, our enemies around the world also know. That is simply a fact of life.
Do you feel sympathetic for Bradley Manning revealing sensitive U.S. military information? Do you admire Julian Assange for making it known? Do you think Edward Snowden is a traitor or a hero or somewhere in between?
Have you delved into all the nitty-gritty details of the incident in San Francisco? Is there a legitimate reason a law enforcement agency would want to stop a leak within their Department? That is a totally separate issue from how they go about trying to plug the leak.
Does a journalist have a right to publish anything he or she becomes privy to? Without understanding the entire case, how would the writer estimate the implications of such disclosure?
Does it even matter or is just getting a scoop and public acclaim an uncontested ultimate goal which overrules all other considerations? War correspondents often have to agree not to disclose locations and other sensitive info.
I still remember when Geraldo Rivera went on Fox News live shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and drew marks in the dirt showing where they were and how they got there. He was quite appropriately disinvited from accompanying the troops.
It all comes down to whether one considers his or her own career as tantamount to the national well-being.
The next point of contention comes into play when a journalist is convinced that their role is that of apologist for a particular ideology. The flipside of the disclosure of secret information is the suppression of matters which the public has every right to know.
All the major influential news media in Hawaii are controlled by the Democrat Party. Oh, I doubt there is any actual deed of ownership. Not even a signed agreement. Just a tacit understanding that perpetuating the status quo is the media’s proper role.
Therefore any conservative upstart candidate does not deserve to be heard and his or her message should be buried. The most effective way to do that is simply to ignore and refuse to cover the campaign.
It’s really hard to say whether a liberal society leads to a liberal media or whether a liberal media leads to a liberal society. One thing for sure is that they go hand-in-hand.
During the last 25 years or so in this internet age, print media has lost its dominance in influencing public opinion. 24×7 cable news coverage was a big deal 35 years ago. Now websites and social media provide real-time access to both breaking news and analysis.
PUTTING THINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE
There is now a real opportunity for conservatives to get our message to the people. Most of our fellow travelers in this world are followers and lurkers. They are the lemmings who plunge over the cliff if somebody charismatic leads them there. So, we need to recruit qualified men and women to provide objective alternatives without trying to lead anybody anywhere.
Many misuse their rhetorical talents for self-aggrandizement and personal enrichment. But journalists must recognize their responsibility to the public trust. It is an awesome privilege to be one of those who document an epoch in human history.
We know what has gone before us in the world only through the eyes of those who wrote about it either contemporarily or in retrospect. If this world is still here a hundred years from now, and there is some doubt about that, what will people know about the year 2019? None of us is going to be around in 2119 to reminisce about it.
THE STAKES ARE HIGH
We could go back 160 years to the administration of President James Buchanan in 1859 and read about events that led up to the War Between the States. Now we mostly hear it called the Civil War, but it used to be more commonly understood as what it really was. It wasn’t civil. It was a conflict that tore this country apart.
Lest we go that route again, we all need to start thinking of ourselves collectively. Rather than fanning the flames of divisiveness, journalists would be commended to emphasize those common beliefs and objectives that draw us together as a nation.
It really is not complex. It is the simplest thing in the world. Have integrity. Do what is right. Write the truth.
The myth of overturning Roe v Wade
Many on the right are skeptical about opening up Roe v Wade insisting that overturning Roe v Wade will not serve Pro-Life causes because it will force the issue back on the states. In such scenarios, Alabama will be the safe haven for the unborn while New York becomes the importer for people who want to kill their babies. Even if this is the case, it is still a giant win for the pro-life side to enable entire states to ban abortion. But this is merely a literal overturn of Roe v Wade, not a practical one.
Take Brown v BOE as an example of a Supreme Court case that overturned a predecessor: Plessy v Ferguson. The Ferguson ruling maintain the theoretical notion that separate accommodations could be equal; therefore, private businesses must comply with the state’s discrimination policies. It’s a pretty bad ruling, comparable to Roe v Wade, which conjured out of nowhere a Constitutional right to an abortion. But Plessy v Ferguson was overturned by demonstrating that the black schools were inherently inferior to the white schools. So Plessy v Ferguson, was overturned by the parameters of its own ruling.
The Alabama bill defines an abortion as a murder by the practitioner. This is a different animal than what the Supreme Court has ruled on before. In this case we have multiple issues. The chief issue at play is when does personhood begin? The Supreme Court, in order to strike down the Alabama law would have to rule that an unborn child is not a person, again. Evidence has changed since the Casey ruling in biologically proving that an unborn is a human being, not a clump of cells. The pro-abortion arguments against moral personhood have gotten more extreme than viability. Arguing that a fetus is not a person is a losing argument as conception/implantation are the most logically defensible points of the transfer of moral personhood.
The next issue is who has the power to define personhood? Should the Supreme Court strike down the Alabama or the Georgia law, the Supreme Court, out of their own superfluous arrogance would, once again, assert their own jurisdiction in the realm of life. If the Supreme Court rules that a state can define where life begins, they will be denying the self-evident. But what if the Supreme Court rules that inalienable rights, in our founding documents, plainly recognize life begins at creation. In such ruling the Supreme Court would be taking a hint from the Divine, and could issue a sweeping ruling denouncing abortion everywhere.
A third issue at play: does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? The state’s ability to write criminal law is on the line in this court case to come. Alabama has placed steep penalties on the mob doctors who perform abortions. The Supreme Court, in upholding infanticide, would essentially be placing limits on the state’s ability to write criminal law as it relates to homicide. The anti-Constitutional implications of this is yet another power reserved to the states impressed upon, subject to overseeing by the federal government. This ruling would enable people who kill an unborn child and the mother to only be charged with one homicide, not two. Essentially, the law in New York will be the law of the land in a worst case scenario.
What if it fails
I would advocate that Alabama and Georgia ignore the Supreme Court, instead choosing to enforce the law which they pass. The Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce their rulings, by design. So let them try. If they do not recognize when life begins or recognize when life begins and still decree that Alabama must sanction murder, then the Supreme Court is not worth obeying.
When does personhood begin? Who has the power to define personhood? Does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? These three questions need answers, and a sweeping ruling is almost certain.
Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written
Just a sample of some of the repeating firepower that existed long before the 2nd amendment.
Leftist lore has it that the only guns in existence at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment were muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. This being exemplified by the New York Times in using an image of a musket contrasted with an assault rifle in an article on their usual obsession with gun confiscation. Or from a commercial from a liberty grabber group depicting the long, drawn out reloading of a musket. As is usually the case with leftist lore, this is a complete fabrication.
The fact is that multishot or repeating firearms existed long before the affirmation of the common sense human right of self-preservation in the US Constitution. We’ve already highlighted some of these technologies that predate the Constitution. However, for the sake of completeness, we shall fill out the list with the other fine examples.
Since there is no set definition of the term ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’ or what ever farcical term the liberty grabber left has come up with to demonize ordinary firearms, we bestowed this term to these technology as some of the first ‘Assault Weapons’.
Repeating rifles of the early 1600s, predating the Constitution by 160 years
The Encyclopedia Britannica has a very informative article on this subject with this excerpt detailing the most important point:
The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—designed by a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in North America, having separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half cock.
Please note that these multishot or repeating firearms existed almost 2 centuries before the writing of the Constitution, eviscerating the ‘Muskets only’ lie of the national socialist Left. For those who are numerically as well a factually challenged, this was also 370 years before the 21st Century.
The Lorenzoni repeating flintlock: Portable firepower that predated the Constitution by over 100 years
Our first video from the venerable website Forgotten weapons is of two London-Made Lorenzonis Repeating Flintlocks. This was a repeating flintlock developed in the early 1600’s that was able to fire multiple shots 160 years before the writing of the Constitution.
Early development of revolving cylinder firearms, predating the Constitution by over 109 years
Next on the Pre-constitutional timeline, we have One of the Earliest Six-shot Revolvers from the collection of the Royal Armory that we profiled in a previous article. The Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson notes that this wasn’t one of the earliest revolvers along with pointing out how the technology has ‘evolved’ over time.
This also brings up an important point, that arms and other weapons of self-defense were vitally important, a matter of life or death. Every living being is in a battle for survival, in the case of human society, these technologies determined its survivability. Thus it is a constant competition with these technologies constantly changing and evolving over time. Something that would have been known by the learned men that wrote the founding documents.
The Puckle or Defense Gun from 1718, was predating the Constitution by over 70 years
We have previously detailed the Puckle or Defense Gun invented in 1718 and demonstrated early ‘automatic weapon’ fire in 1721:
The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.
This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.
For those following along this missed the mark of being a 21st Century weapon by almost 300 years.
The multishot Girardoni Air Gun that predated the Constitution by 9 years.
This is another multishot weapon of war that existed before the Constitution.
Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket – 1786, this also predates the Constitution
Our last video of multishot or repeating firearms that predated the Constitution is the Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket from 1786. We’re trying to keep this as short as possible, thus we have left off other examples such as the Ribauldequin, Duckfoot or Nock gun.
Very much like the previous example, the Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket was known to the founding fathers because he corresponded with Congress on this weapon in 1777 [Again, before the drafting of the Constitution]. For those keeping score at home, 1786 is still is not of the 21st Century.
Leftist lies on this subject depends on a number of improbable fallacies and assumptions. The founding fathers would have known the history of technological developments and they would have expected those developments to continue. Thus rendering the fallacy that they could not have foreseen that weapons technologies wouldn’t of continued on to the point of absurdity.
Unfortunately for the Liberty Grabber Left, firearms tend to be valuable historical artifacts, these videos show that multishot or repeating firearms existed well before the Constitution. Thus we have eviscerated the ‘musket myth’. It should also be evident that the violence problem hasn’t been caused by the ‘easy’ availability of guns or repeating firearms.
As is the case with most Leftist lies and prevarication’s, they depend on a lack knowledge of the subject to succeed. This is why is extremely important that everyone of the Pro-Liberty Right be apprised of these facts in engaging those of the Left who have little care for logic, science or truth. The fact that multishot or repeating firearms existed centuries ago should make it clear that the Left is lying about the subject of self-defense from beginning to end.
The myth of overturning Roe v Wade
Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written
Naeem Fazal: Is Allah the same as Yahweh?
4 Retweets in an hour: Bill de Blasio’s campaign failed to materialize
The rise of citizen journalists
Strait is the gate and narrow is the way: Churches, stop pushing a ‘wide gate’ doctrine
Did Jesus die exactly 1000 years after King David died?
The sons of God in Genesis 6 were not the sons of Seth (and Nephilim were really giants)
True inclusion is narrow and pure as Matthew 7 teaches
Jude 1:21 – ‘in the love of God’
Proverbs 4:18 – ‘path of the just’
Exodus 20:8 – ‘the sabbath day’
Luke 5:31-32 – ‘sinners to repentance’
John 3:16 – ‘everlasting life’
Culture and Religion1 day ago
How Alabama’s abortion law sets President Trump up to be a pragmatist
Culture and Religion2 days ago
Is the Shroud of Turin the burial cloth of Jesus?
Guns and Crime1 day ago
Two separate illegal aliens with child sexual crime felony convictions caught crossing the border again
Culture and Religion23 hours ago
7 life lessons we can learn from Daniel’s example
Guns and Crime2 days ago
Illegal alien Billy Chemirmir charged in 12 murders, was never ordered for deportation
Culture and Religion2 days ago
17 years later, Paul Washer’s shocking message still holds true
Guns and Crime2 days ago
Thomas Massie exposes the many problems with Red Flag Gun Laws
Conspiracy Theory20 hours ago
What does San Francisco Mayor London Breed have to hide about Jeff Adachi’s death?