Don’t forget to VOTE (PA Residents)

NRA Endorsements can be found here: http://nrapvf.org/grades-endorsements/2012/Pennsylvania.aspx

 

District 4 Residents – Please consider voting for Thomas Parsley as Delegate to the Republican Convention. He is my father-in-law, and a very strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution.

 

***

U.S. House of Representatives

District 4

[NRA Endorsed] Scott Perry  – one of the main proponents for PA’s Castle Doctrine.

[AQ] Eric Martin, Ted Waga, Chris Reilly

NOTE: AQ = Answered Questionnaire with positive answers but that there is no voting record.

District 18

[NRA Endorsed]  Tim Murphy

[AQ] Evan Feinberg

 

State Senate

District 23

[NRA Endorsed] Gene Yaw

District 29

[NRA Endorsed] David Argall

 

***

Delegates for Ron Paul in Districts 4, 11, & 15.

District 4Delegates

Thomas Bryan Parsley
Suzanne C. Doller
Elizabeth Roberts
Dave Talley

District 4Alternates
Derek Cotton
Dave Garry
Chad Nagle
Seth M. Shoemaker
Dave Talley

 

District 11Delegates & Alternates

Michael Anderson
Michael Harrison
Joe Zapach
Holly Anderson (alternate)

District 15 – Delegates & Alternates

Ellen Blickman
Russ Diamond
Rich Piotrowski
Chris Donatelli (alternate)
John Lax (alternate)
Todd Schulber (alternate)

Advertisements
Published in: on April 24, 2012 at 5:57 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

Ron Paul gets the 2nd Amendment in tonight’s debate….(applause)

Ron Paul had a great quote in tonight’s debate….

Ron Paul stated that the problem is government involvement, particularly on a Federal level. But then he addressed the issue of whether birth control leads to immorality.  Ron Paul stated he doesn’t see it that way, rather he believes the pill is the result of the behavior not the cause of the behavior… “Much like the 2nd Amendment advocates who point out guns don’t kill people.”  (approx. quote)

Finally, when dealing with a medical topic a debate sought Ron Paul’s opinion, particularly on birth control.

 

Published in: on February 22, 2012 at 9:00 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Primary Talk: Broken Primaries and Brokered Conventions

I had a thought a while back, and it’s rather interesting to see that thought is growing on many people’s minds. Is there potential for something surprising to come out of this primary. And I think there is…

I’m not a big fan of Romney, there are aspects of Newt I like, but many more aspects make him a toad. Santorum, stands for many issues I believe in, but then does it in ways I dislike. 

Ron Paul, of all candidates is the one who in recent years has caused me the most reflection and self re-evaluation of what I believe to be right – and why.  To me, he is the only candidate who would likely shake things up.

The primaries are confusing things.  Many don’t even realize that often they’re voting in nothing more than a “straw poll” which declares who is popular at the moment. And that the real election is by the delegates. Each state handles this differently. Some states require all delegates to vote according to the polls while others do not. Furthermore, there are numerous “party members” who get to vote as an establishment – something I fundamentally disagree with.

All that said, this election has the potential to go in an unusual direction. The media has repeated called for Romney. But Romney has had some big/surprising losses both to Newt and Santorum. (And there is a good chance Maine should have gone to Ron Paul.) These set backs weaken his total dominance. It also shows that the Republican party vote is extremely split. If this trend continues with Newt and Santorum winning a few here and there. The balance could be shaped in which none of the candidates have the necessary delegates (1,144) to win the nomination on their own.

This results in a “brokered convention”, in which all delegates are allowed to vote freely if bound and in which the delegates of weaker candidates are encouragage to support the stronger candidates. Now if Romney or another candidate does go on to achieve the 1,144 necessary delegate votes. There is no brokering. But if not…things could get real fun and interesting.

There seems to be a growing speculation as to whether a brokered ticket featuring Mitt Romney & Ron Paul could come of this.  And there are some peculiarities that might hint at that possibility.  Areas to which speculators point to:

  1. The fact that very little mud-slinging has occurred between the two candidates.
     
  2. The two candidates have been seen as very cordial to each other off camera.Rumor has it their wives became friends in the 2008 campaign. So that might account for a lot…but it could also be a bridge.
     
  3. A combined ticket might be more likely to defeat President Obama.
     
  4. Even in some contentious situations (ie: Maine caucus), Ron Paul has chosen not to raise a stink on irregularities.
     
  5. Ron Paul’s campaign has been organizing to take win delegate seats. Rumors persist that he is gaining more delegates than he would normally receive based on polls. And may have a fairly strong delegate hand.

So could we see a Romney/Paul ticket?  Maybe….but I’m not so sure.

  1. Ron Paul and Romney differ on many viewpoints.
  2. If Romney wins the delegates, I doubt he’d make such a compromise.
  3. Ron Paul is seen by many to be outside the mainstream.
  4. It’s all just speculation and rumor.
  5. Age…Ron Paul is older than the rest of the candidates running.

Why it might happen and might even work?

  1. To be frank, I do not believe Romney can beat President Obama. Nor do I believe Santorum or Gingrich can, in fact, as much as I like Ron Paul – I doubt he’d be able to bring about a win over President Obama.  But, quite a while back, I postulated a Romney/Paul ticket would have a much better change of winning.  Ron Paul might lose half his supporters. But he also swings a small portion of the Democrat vote. And when we’re talking 2%-3% margins of win. A mere 1%-2% percentage points shifted can make all the difference. 
     
  2. Adding Ron Paul to the ticket is unlikely to seriously hurt Romney.  Sure, there are some staunch establishment conservatives who dislike Ron Paul.  But in those circles Romney can dismiss their fears by pointing to Vice President Biden as an example of the office of VP being essentially meaningless. Besides, those not liking Paul are more to be voting “against Obama”; so little negative affect will be seen vote wise. 
     
  3. Ron Paul might be seeking a Romney/Paul ticket. But he might not be seeking it for himself?  Could he be pursuing the addition of his son, Rand Paul, to the ticket?  The Kentucky Senator is younger, more junior than Romney, and doesn’t bring quite the same baggage & stigma that Ron Paul carries. Furthermore, he’s more photogenic – and that’s a big plus in modern elections.

If we do see a Mitt Romney/Rand Paul ticket – don’t be surprise. Just kick back, nuke some popcorn, and enjoy what will be a much more interesting election.

ROMNEY/PAUL 2012

Primary Talk: Why America is Treading on Questionable Ground

American liberty is founded on the right to vote, the ability to remove our leaders and replace them with new ones. It is the gift that our Founding Fathers purchased for us with their sacrifice. It’s a beautiful gift…

A few years ago I had the pleasure to participate in an Appleseed Project event. It was a blast, we learned marksmanship, history, camradery….but the pinnacle of the weekend was a reminder about how we don’t need to have another revolution because our Founding Fathers provided us with a system that allowed for change.

There is a group, often referred to as the 3%, who believe the system is broke and there is no other choice but to enact change, by force if necessary.  The moniker is taking from the fact that during the Revolutionary war the active forces in the field fighting the tyranny of England never exceeded 3% of the colonial population.

I myself, tend to agree with the philosophy that so long as there is a means to enact change, the “trump card” option of force need never be used.

But what happens, if a large enough portion of the voter base begins to feel disenfranchised?  Even more of a question…what happens, if they are right in their beliefs that their ability to affect change is being negated?

That is a scary question… but it’s one that I feel will become more visible unless things change in our election process.

Presently, we have a system of primaries occurring, in which a tremendous amount of FAIL and fraud is occurring.  We have a candidate whom the establishment of the party has chosen, and has worked hard to see become the nominee (Romney).  While that candidate will likely become the nominee, it has been far from the “sweep” the establishment both wanted and expected, and arguably manipulated for.

Besides the media, which has repeatedly been calling for Romney in shocking fail after fail. Has there been more at hand?

We have seen a number of elections/caucuses  end with disturbing results. And it’s fairly well understood that the party leadership of the Republicans want at all cost not to see Ron Paul win.  Now I am not saying that Ron Paul would have necessarily won the elections in which questionable events have occurred.  What I am simply saying is a tremendous number of issues have arisen,  and some with very peculiar aspects. These incidents will lead to a growing feeling of disenfranchisement. That the system is merely rigged and no more than a circus and pony show.

Iowa, numerous irregularities, differences from polls, 137 precincts with irregularities, 8 precincts not reported (many of which gave no votes for Romney in 2008).  Oh, and let’s not forget moving to a secret location to count ballots.   How atrocious is Iowa’s results?  So bad, they’ll never be able to report a true winner. This is a state for which Ron Paul had a very strong position.

Nevada, once again a caucus which had bizarre behavior. High amount of precincts reported, and then suddenly a two day wait. In Ron Paul campaign’s case, it was one for which many Ron Paul supporters expected a strong result. And some feel by the fact that Ron Paul had increased his vote tallies by an avg of 200% -ranging from 85% (in FL, a state he did not campaign in) to 385% over his 2008 performance. Then suddenly in Nevada Ron Paul found himself with a meager 1.5% gain. Perhaps Ron Paul did not grow his support in Nevada (as this blogger would argue ).  But when combined with numerous delays, people complaining that figures were not being reported correctly, voters are sure to question “what just happened?”

Maine, more recently we’ve found ourselves in another similar issue with regards to Maine. Maine also has been having many questionable reports coming out of it. First off, it’s a fairly close race, but was announced for Romney while only 85% of the votes were reported. Second, a county believed to be strongly in support of Ron Paul had their caucus cancelled by a GOP party member on record for their support of Romney. Reports have circulated of individuals who worked the polls claiming the numbers being reported do not match what they reported.

And in many of these races, the votes of certain precincts have been discounted over the fact that extra ballots have been cast.  Many Ron Paul supporters feel that the GOP has engaged in election fraud. And are perhaps sabotaging precincts with strong Ron Paul support by adding irregularities so the votes are not counted.

This may or may not be so. It’s quite possible all those Ron Paul supporters are merely the loonies that the mainstream media likes to make them out to be. And you know what, A LOT OF THEM ARE!

But what it does say is that without a doubt our political system is broken. And that is a very dangerous situation in a democracy.

I understand that some will put forth that political parties are “private entities” and therefore cannot have their practices determined by the government.  I’ll disagree, and I’ll point to laws that have regulated how and what parties can function (laws mostly passed by the main two parties to exclude any alternative parties from competing).

Until you’ve tried to go through the political process of signature petitions, jumping hoops and hurdles, etc; you do not realize how hard it is to work within the system.  The laws governing our politics have essentially made the two party system the de facto system.  As such, I believe that either a) primaries need to come under regulation and observation or b) that the laws governing “major party” status should be prohibited, or at the very least revised.

At the very least, every Republican should be enabled to sue the Republican Party for fraudulent behavior. And be able to have the party penalized for it’s actions be they deliberate or negligent.

Why does this concern me?

Because if we continue to have elections in which the people feel “robbed” of their vote. We will lose the buffer of grace that Democracy provides. When people feel there is no way to enact change within the system, they will look outside of the system to enact change.

This is why I believe one of the #1 issues that should be of concern in the political year of 2012/2013 is primary reform.

***

Dear Republican Party,

THIS MEANS YOU!!!
(time to get your act together please)

Primary Talk: Young chooses old…

Ron Paul repeatedly winning the vote of the younger generations.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/31/what-is-so-appealing-about-ron-paul-to-young-voters/

Please understand, in no way do I think Ron Paul is the perfect candidate. I have a few issues with his stances, namely, the fact that I am opposed to state rights. I believe individual rights trump both state and Federal and that the point of the two governments is to be in constant opposition to protect the rights of the individual.

That said, the media (& his own party’s) repeated attempts to silence Ron Paul and his message, leads one to be concerned about the system.  Today, CNN casually leaves Ron Paul off the tally listing. I could understand if they simply include Romney and Gingrich. But they included Santorum, who had one win and less delegates than Ron Paul.

But here is the interesting case study. I’ve noticed that election after election that Ron Paul is winning the young vote 29 and under, and a lot of the mid-30’s crowds as well.

What does this say?  Some are finally starting to talk about this trend.

I am of the opinion that Ron Paul is really the 2016 candidate. But he will probably be too old to run at that point.

What do I think is leading to this support?

1. He is the only candidate talking about getting rid of America’s debt. The younger generations understand they’re going to inherit this debt.  Who wants to inherit your parent’s credit card debt. When grandpa says let’s pay it off, I’m with grandpa.

2. He is the only one addressing the issue of the American empire and militarism.  What many criticize him for as “isolationism”, but is in fact merely non-imperial behavior. Ron Paul supports free trade, diplomacy. I think this approach makes greater sense to me. I see how we’ve handled Cuba. 1/2 a century of embargo and zero effect or achievement of goals. I believe the sanctions are the wrong approach. That increasing trade relations would do more to bring down the regime and further change.  We can look to China, which is still no rose garden. But it’s been the introduction to capitalism that has encouraged change, not embargoes.

3. He comes across as not part of the big entrenched government beaucracy. I think this is what a lot liked about Barack Obama as a candidate, they had the hope that he would not be a typical entrenched politician. Many have since become disappointed and disenfranchised with President Obama on these matters.

4. On a number of social issues, Ron Paul’s libertarian approach gains approval of a generation that views the world much differently than it’s predecessors. Most younger people seem to want government out of marriage. Something Ron Paul supports, perhaps for different motivations. But the results are the same.

All of this needs to be noted by the Republican party who is more and more increasingly being seen by the younger voters as an old boys club which is simply concerned about politics and elections, and not the issues. 

I think 2016 and 2020 will have very different platforms to today’s politics. The Republican party has done much to impede Ron Paul. They are failing to grasp that it is not a man, but an ideology. In truth, were the ideology to have a better figurehead than Ron Paul, I believe the primary would already be over. 

Eventually things will change regardless. A nation cannot continue to have $1 trillion deficits without eventually facing the muster.

Published in: on February 1, 2012 at 4:38 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,

If we can’t trust our Senators…who can we trust?

U.S. Senator Rand Paul was stopped by TSA and prevented from boarding a flight. Apparently, he triggered an alarm while going through the body scanner. He refused a pat down, but had offered to go through the scanner again.

It’s pretty sad, when a Senator, son of a Presidential candidate, is unable to board a flight courtesy of the TSA. And while I know that many will say we should all be treated equal, to which I mostly agree, but I must state that if we are really that afraid of our top elected officials being terrorists. Then we have serious, serious, problems.

[UPDATE: May even be some breach of power issues in this case as well.]

SECTION 6 of the Constitution reads “They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
The one good side to this incident is that the Silly TSA agents just gave one of their biggest opponents extra ammunition.

There was a time I was concerned to fly because of Al Quaeda. There was a one in a million chance I might be terrorized. Now, thanks to the TSA, I am nearly guaranteed to be terrorized. I have not flown since the TSA scanner/pat down policies were implemented. Thankfully, I’ve been able to avoid this conflict. My concern is increased with reports that the TSA seems to be increasingly leaving their airports, and train stations to venture onto American highways.

ARTICLES [1] [2] [3]

We all talk about lines in the sand. Where do we draw them? How do we draw them? I believe unwarranted random stops, searches and seizures on the part of the TSA violate the Constitution. When should a U.S. citizen simply continue driving in civil disobedience. (Yes, there will be consequences. But there were consequences for Rosa Parks when she rode the bus.)

When does one say enough of the slippery slope? I do not know…but I am greatly saddened that my fear of our own government agencies is surpassing my fear of Al-Quaeda. Is this the “Victory” in the war on terror we were looking for?

Will I one day find myself detained for simply having “Ron Paul 2012” emblazened on my bumper? If so, what do we do America?

One of the biggest reasons I am supporting Ron Paul in this election, is because I believe we are heading toward a tipping point. And we need someone who will absolutely say “We won’t go there.” And for all the talk of candidates, there is only one who has made that stance.

I don’t want to ever have to face my lines in the sand. I know a few of them, that I will not let be crossed. Those pretty much involve the harm and/or detention of my children or wife. Most others are still gray and in the distant fog. I want them to stay that way. I don’t want them to ever be close enough that I will be able to see them defined with their edges.

I want to continue believing in and loving America!

Published in: on January 23, 2012 at 4:39 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , ,

Primary Talk: Who is and isn’t electable?

First off, from now on I will try to label all primary (non-gun) posts with the Primary Talk prefix (and later Election Talk:) just for those who want to at an eyeball’s glance ignore them. If I fail to do so, please not in the comments so I can fix. 😉

Recent poll reveals that Mitt Romney is polling at a 48% vs 47% for Obama for the win.  Sounds substantial.  But the same poll gave President Obama only a 48% victory versus 46% for Ron Paul.  The error of margin essentially making it a three way tie.

Now one can take this information many ways.  One could tout a potential victory for Romney, or one might tout the validity of Ron Paul who has often been dismissed as both unelectable and unable to win against President Obama.  If such is true, a mere 3% spread is not much difference between a supposed best shot candidate (Romney) and supposed unelectable (Paul).

Each candidate has their so called skeletons in the closet or more so the bag of bones.

  • President Obama – It’s the economy stupid. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Unless he gets that unemployment rate down to 5%-6% he’s got a tough game ahead of him.
     
  • Mitt Romney – Liberals don’t like him. Conservatives don’t like him. Has big bad business moniker. But mostly, a large expectation of simply being more of the same. Clinton Bush term #7.
     
  • Ron Paul – Seemingly radical views, at least for this century.  A perceived isolationism, (which I personally feel is a mistaken perception). Opposes much of the infrastructure of government that has been set up over the last 60 years. As such, is expected to cause much disruption in the status quo.

The real question is, are enough people sick and tired of President Obama’s policies to vote him out and put in his stead a candidate who is likely to do little different than his previous contempories.  Are enough Americans sick of the guy in the office to vote for an individual who garners no good will from them?  I am of the opinion they are not, and expect to see another 4 years of President Obama in office.

I could be wrong.  But to be frank – if I am wrong, and Romney wins, I doubt we’ll notice much difference other than perhaps if we’re very very lucky we’ll ensure a moderate-to-conservative judge is appointed on the Supreme Court vs another extreme liberal. And if by some amazing miracle of chance Ron Paul were to win the Presidency, well I guess we could count ourselves in Chinese proverbial fashion to “be blessed to live in interesting times”.

UPDATE: Let me just further add, when a fair amount of the American populace is supporting a candidate. And major media, such as CNN.com is so glaringly ignoring that candidate. Even when the viability is being shown to be higher than any of the other candidates, excepting the leader, one must question the motives and the integrity of that media.

I literally asked myself, was Ron Paul in this last debate or did they exclude him like they did in 2008. Apparently he was, but not a single thing in CNN’s coverage would make you aware of that fact.

Seriously, I think I will vote for Ron Paul just because of CNN.com

Published in: on January 17, 2012 at 7:27 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

Which GOP candidate does NOT live in a million dollar house?

Yeah, you guessed it. Ron Paul

(Okay, technically Newt purchased his house for $5,000 less than a mil.)


WHY THIS MATTERS?
(to me personally)

We select our Rep candidates by our personal views. In which mine is I’d like a modest unobtrusive government.

Ron Paul, if you were to use homes as a basis, seems to represent that. While he is not the poorest of the candidates, falling in the middle of the pack. He appears to have the most modest home of all the candidates.

Especially when compared with his net wealth. Ron Paul lives the most modest lifestyle of all the candidates. In a time when we are experience excruciating national debt levels. It is important to me to elect a candidate who will help bring deficit spending under control, and I believe Ron Paul exemplifies that facet in his personal life more than the other candidates.

  • Romney
    $85 to $264 million, $12 million house. (4.5% – 14% of wealth / avg 9.25%)
     
  • Huntsmen
    $16 to $72 million, $3.3 million house (4.5% – 20.5% of wealth / avg 12.5%)
     
  • Newt
    $7 to $31 million, $1 million (3% – 14% of wealth / avg 8.5%)
     
  • Santurum
    $1 to $3 million , $1.3 million house. (33% – 130% of wealth / avg 81.5%)
     
  • Ron Paul
    $2.4 to $5.4 million, $262,500 house (4% – 11% of wealth / avg 7.5%)
     I’d wager no one knows Ron Paul’s net worth because he’s a gold bug. And with gold’s recent increases he might have several million dollars off the record. Further lowering his home’s percentage of his worth.

Home values from this link
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/news/economy/1201/gallery.presedential-candidates-wealth/

Wealth figures from here.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/real_estate/1201/gallery.candidate-homes/index.html

Published in: on January 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags:

Ron Paul discusses his thoughts on Gun Control

Nice when a politician gets it…
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-12-09/ron-paul-on-gun-control/

Published in: on December 11, 2008 at 4:58 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: