At least once a day I’m getting fundraising e-mails from the Romney camp. They really want a donation so I can win a chance to spend a day on the Mitt Romney tour bus. What’s second prize? Two days on the Mitt Romney tour bus? How about if I win, you let me pick the next nominee to the Supreme Court. That would be a real prize.
Category: 2012 Election
The Stupid Party Strikes Again
I would like to congratulate House Majority leader Mike Turzai for giving the lawyers who will eventually challenge Pennsylvania’s voter ID law their core argument, which is that, rather than being aimed at preventing voter fraud, it was aimed at delivering Pennsylvania for Mitt Romney. I can understand why Turzai wants to brag about having accomplished something, given how many slam dunk causes, like liquor privatization, the Pennsylvania GOP hasn’t been able to accomplish.
You could probably make a case, even under strict scrutiny, for an ID requirement for voting, with an aim to prevent fraud. It’s not slam-dunk, because voting is among the fundamental rights recognized by the Supreme Court. You can’t make a case for an ID requirement aimed at limiting the voting franchise. Turzai has, essentially, just admitted that Voter ID was not about prevention of fraud. I would encourage gun owners to think about this from the point of view of gun rights. If Mayor Rahm or Bloomberg suddenly admitted the purpose of their gun laws was to limit gun ownership as much as possible, rather than to prevent crime, we’d be quietly saying, “Jackpot! Keep talking buddy.” But neither Rahm nor Bloomberg are that stupid. Only Pennsylvania Republican leaders are that stupid.
Obama’s Messaging is Off
The Obama campaign has been paying protestors in Michigan to follow Mitt Romney around the state. They tried denying it, but the protestors admitted it to reporters, claiming they were pulling down anywhere from $7.25/hour to $17/hour. Pejman has the best explanation for why the denial from the Obama campaign is terrible messaging for the president:
Personally, I don’t understand why Team Obama doesn’t admit to paying the protesters. If they do, perhaps then the president can actually claim to have created a few jobs.
Where Do Small Government Supporters Turn When They Lose?
Why, the federal government, of course! Supporters of Ron Paul are upset that their candidate did not win. Instead of just learning what they can from the campaign and applying it to other candidates, they are filing a lawsuit asking the federal government to intervene in the nominating process of a political party.
The legal filing, which names Priebus and GOP chairmen in every state as defendants, “seeks the guidance of the court” on whether the plaintiffs are free to break with certain state party rules and vote for the candidate of their choice at the August convention.
The plaintiffs claim that so-called “binding” delegate rules – in which delegates are required to vote for the winner of their state’s primary or caucus at the convention – violate federal law and prevent delegates from exercising their “Constitutional right to vote their conscience” in Tampa.
I must have missed that part of the Constitution that specifies one’s right to vote at any private gathering. It’s worth adding that Ron Paul’s spokesperson says that they have nothing to do with this lawsuit and they do not support it at all.
This appears to be a case of folks who are all for small government until they decide they want to make government work for them to get what they want.
Dogs for Obama!
Ingratitude
You’d think with Obama stocking the federal courts with people who will redact the Second Amendment clean out of the Constitution, and running the numbers up for guns going to Mexico to create a pretext for a new Assault Weapons Ban, our opponents would show more gratitude than this:
Whether they want to believe it or not, Obama is their last great hope, in that, if he wins re-election, they have some. There’s a good chance they can reverse or severely limit Heller and McDonald in that instance. You’d think with that on the table, they’d just play along with the charade.
Wisconsin Recall Election Called for Scott Walker
Pretty much everyone is calling the election for Scott Walker at this point. Bitter alluded to this election earlier, as to whether this was more important than the November election. I tend to think, that in the long term, it is. Walker has stood up to public sector unions by limiting collective bargaining. This attacks the very root of public sector union power, which is getting close to bankrupting a number of states. Those states will surely going to be looking to Uncle Sugar to bail them out of any financial crisis they are likely to find themselves in as a result of these unions running out of other people’s money. The problem is that Uncle Sugar is also running out of other people’s money.
The end of the road is nearing. The New Deal coalition is hitting a hard limit on how much it can suck out of our collective wallets. The question is whether this will end with a bang or a whimper. I think that will largely depend on how well guys like Walker, who are actually willing to challenge the New Deal establishment, fare in their electoral prospects.
Quote of the Day
I received a free bumper sticker from his campaign in today’s mail: “Romney.  Believe in America.”
Believing in America is not the problem. Â Believing in Romney is.
Jacob also has some thoughts on keeping Mitt in line on the gun issue. My expectations of Romney are almost entirely placed around his short list for the Supreme Court. Some of the names I’ve seen floated would be welcome. One good thing about McDonald and Heller happening when they did is we now know a good number of “conservative” judges on the bench who are either not reliable, or outright hostile to gun rights. If the Second Amendment gets erased on Mitt’s watch, I’ll be looking to help these guys in 2016.
Obama in the Primaries
According to Gateway Pundit, Obama has lost 36 Arkansas counties to a man known as John Wolfe. Who he is we don’t know. In Kentucky, however, he lost 67 counties to “uncommitted.” But hey, at least he didn’t lose them to a prison inmate, right?
As much as I’d like to joke, it’s still going to be close. This race is going to hinge on a couple of states, among them being Florida and Ohio, which are currently tossups.
Obama’s VA Attacking Second Amendment Rights of Veterans
A bit of propaganda from the Veterans Administration, encouraging family members to take guns away from veterans who have served our country. It’s worth noting that the Brady Campaign is fully on board with disarming our country’s veterans of their firearms, some of which would be bring backs that were paid for in their blood, and the blood of their fellow soldiers.
To me this is much like the issue of pediatricians and guns with children in the house. I don’t, as a matter of absolute principle, think it’s wrong to have the discussion. It’s the way the discussion is framed that is problematic. Certainly a family who has a loved one suffering from severe Dementia, or that has mental difficulties that make him a danger to themselves or others, would be doing the responsible thing by removing firearms (and other dangerous objects) from the home. I also don’t have an issue with the VA advising families of this, along with a discussion of other dangers someone with Dementia can face. But here’s what your tax dollars are paying for:
The presence of firearms in households has been linked to increased risk of injury or death for everyone in or around the home, usually as an impulsive act during some disagreement. This danger is increased when one of the persons in the household has dementia.
Let me translate this:
Propaganda put forward by the gun ban lobby suggests that your veteran family member, who served his country with distinction and to whom we owe our continued freedom, is likely to murder you in an argument if there’s a gun in the home. Just, if he has Dementia, he is much more likely to murder you with a gun in the home.
It continues:
Family members do not always take appropriate action to unload, secure, or remove firearms in the home. These actions should be taken regardless of the severity of dementia or whether your loved one is suffering from a behavioral problem or depression.
Translation:
You family member, who served his country and was trusted with automatic weapons, grenades, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, can’t be trusted with firearms, regardless of whether your loved one is having issues or not.
The Obama anti-gun propaganda continues to suggest that love ones may be reluctant, believing in this quaint notion of Second Amendment rights, and the perceived independence that goes along with gun ownership. But don’t let that dissuade you: the veteran loved one needs to be disarmed for his own good. It’s the right thing.
If folks were wondering what Obama meant by “under the radar” this is it. This is why he has to go in November. Your tax dollars paid for this offensive nonsense, which encourages families to infantilize and disarm our nation’s veterans, regardless of the troubles they are having. This is grossly offensive to the service they rendered our country, and the Obama Administration ought to be ashamed of themselves for ever allowing anyone to put this to print.
UPDATE: Looks like I’m two months late to this issue! Oh well, I can’t notice everything.