Connect with us

Democrats

Arizona just put Kyrsten Sinema in the Senate

Published

on

Unless theres a miracle Arizona just put Kyrsten Sinema in the Senate

Update: No miracle came to save Martha McSally, Arizona, or America. Kyrsten Sinema was elected to the Senate and will bring her brand of socialism to the table.

Original Story:

As of this morning, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema has a 32,169 vote lead over Republican Martha McSally. There are still votes left to count with both sides claiming the uncounted votes favor them, but considering the sources for remaining ballots, it appears they favor Sinema.

In other words, she almost certainly won.

What does that say about the state of the Republican Party? What does it say about Arizona? What is the writing on the wall for the American people?

Big questions surround this election because the race really should have gone the other way if we use conventional wisdom. Sinema was caught on multiple occasions disparaging the people she hoped to represent, calling Arizona the “meth lab of democracy.” She ran as a moderate, which is easily contradicted by both her extreme Green Party views a decade ago and her voting record in Congress. Her opponent, McSally, is a veteran who flew combat missions in Afghanistan. She truly is a moderate.

All of these factors tell us a state like Arizona should have picked McSally. Unfortunately, it appears that isn’t the case.

Did the GOP do enough? If you ask McSally’s team, at least one of them doesn’t think so. A senior member of her campaign staff who wanted to remain anonymous said the state GOP “did right by us” but the RNC was focused elsewhere.

“We heard support was coming but it didn’t. Not enough of it at least,” the senior campaign member said. “I got the feeling they thought PACs would swoop in and save the day but the RNC was absent. If we lose it’s on us but they let it happen.”

As for what this says about Arizona, we have to wonder whether the illegal immigration message is being used properly in the border state. Illegal immigration hurts legal immigrants the most, yet McSally’s border security message didn’t seem to resonate.

Texas didn’t fall to a far-leftist, but it appears Arizona did. If the result hold, the GOP should watch closely to see if this is a one-off or the beginning of a trend similar to their surges from 2010-2016.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. John

    November 12, 2018 at 1:58 pm

    “A far leftist”

    Give us a break.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Published

on

By

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.

[Our Emphasis]

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.

The Takeaway

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.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

4 Retweets in an hour: Bill de Blasio’s campaign failed to materialize

Published

on

4 Retweets in an hour Bill de Blasios campaign failed to launch

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was supposed to make an impact on the Democratic presidential nominating process. At least that’s what a handful of pundits thought. But after a little buzz on his first day and a few jabs by the President, it appears de Blasio was nowhere near ready to run for president despite coming in much later than most in the field.

Last week, we noted how his YouTube channel had failed miserably. But that embarrassment was nothing compared to his attempts to play on Twitter, which happens to be the President’s favorite social media playground.

Bill Tweet

In case he keeps the Tweet up (he shouldn’t) and doesn’t attempt to artificially boost his numbers (he shouldn’t), I’ll put it here to see if it got any traction. Out of sheer embarrassment for him, I shared it and encouraged people to help him out. This is just too cringeworthy to watch unfold on its own.

Is Twitter important? There’s actually as much of a risk to candidates saying the wrong thing on Twitter as there is of them gaining support as a result. But between Trump’s epic use of Twitter in 2016 and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s use of the platform to shoot herself up to fame, candidates need to at least try to do well on the platform. Bill de Blasio is not doing well. That indicates two possibilities: either he and his team were ill-prepared to run for president or they’re not really running for president but rather running for a cabinet spot or something else in exchange for his help delivering the New York delegates to the eventual nominee.

Either option seems viable at this point.

One thing is certain: Bill de Blasio’s campaign for president should not be taken seriously by anyone. Democratic primary voters and Republican operatives need to all ignore him. He’s going nowhere in 2020.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

Blue Collar Logic: How the left is acting like a villain who wants to be caught

Published

on

Blue Collar Logic How the left is acting like a villain who wants to be caught

There are many ways to look at the unprecedented lurch to the left the Democratic Party has been experiencing over the last couple of years. Some, particularly the radical progressives leading the charge, see it as a natural evolution of ideas as their delicate sensibilities blossom. Establishment Democrats see them as a backlash against losing so inexplicably with Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Many Republicans don’t see much of a difference other than a more vocal expression of what they’ve held in their hearts for some time.

The folks over at Blue Collar Logic have a different take. They’re seeing the strange actions and hyper-leftist lurching by the Democrats as a transition into a criminal mindset. Whether consciously or subconsciously, they’re throwing out ideas that make very little sense even when compared to what they’ve said in the past. Like a criminal that wants to be caught, they’re leaving clues that they know what they’re doing and saying is wrong, but they feel compelled to do them anyway.

The clearest example to me is the notion that abortions can and should be a consideration even after an “unwanted” baby is born following a botched abortion. Even in the most evil levels of consciousness, there has to be a sense of wrongdoing in the way they’re describing the events as they can hypothetically happen based on what’s being proposed in some states today, but they continue down this road as if they’re unaffected by logic or compassion. The push for “women’s rights” has so superseded their thinking when it comes to abortion that the most extreme version of abortion must be the one that they embrace.

As we approach the 2020 election season, let’s keep a close eye on the rhetoric and radical policy proposals candidates are throwing out. Just because it’s on record doesn’t mean enough voters will hear them. We need their ideas to stick to them like evidence in a murder case.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending