Category: Elections

Do Democrat Gun Owners Believe Democrat Politicians?

Most democrat gun owners support the right to keep and bear arms. There was a time when the Democrat party did too. Unfortunately, that changed decades ago. Today, gun-control and civilian disarmament is all but the official Democrat party position. Do gun-owning democrats believe their own politicians? Even if their particular candidate hasn’t asked to confiscate guns today, he will vote with a party that champions “compensated confiscation” and adding more gun-control to the tens-of-thousands of firearms regulations we already have.

Arizona- Democrat Senator Mark Kelly said “It is fu##ing nuts” not to pass more gun-control laws after the murders at a grocery store in New York and at a school in Texas. Kelly didn’t comment on the fact that the sites of those attacks were “gun free” zones where ordinary citizens were disarmed by law. Kelly says that the police should be armed and we should not. Senator Kelly ignored that hundreds of police officers stood outside an unlocked classroom door while children were being murdered in Uvalde, Texas. Senator Kelly didn’t comment on the hundred-thousand times a year that honest citizens use a long gun to defend themselves.

Georgia- Democrat Senator Raphael Warnock voted to ban modern rifles. Fortunately, that provision did not have enough support to pass the US Senate. The bill he supported would fund cameras in schools, but money could not be spent to put more armed police officers or armed school staff on campus. Senator Warnock wants armed security for himself and for his family, but denies it for our children. Warnock received a “strong endorsement” by the Giffords gun-control organization.

Nevada- Democrat Senator Catherine Masto was a co-sponsor of the bill that encouraged states to enact “red-flag” laws. The idea behind these “red flag” laws is that concerned family members can ask the police to take a relative’s firearms. Most red-flag laws remove a person’s firearms before the individual is represented by legal counsel in court proceedings. Sadly, these laws will allow confiscation without providing mental health treatment. For the last two decades, some states have had mandatory background checks and mental health laws that allowed involuntary confinement and firearms confiscation.  Senator Masto didn’t mention that those states did not reduce their rate of suicide.

Pennsylvania- Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman has said a lot about gun-control. He wants to ban modern rifles. As a US Senator, Fetterman would outlaw both the sale of modern rifles and the possession of existing guns. He doesn’t say how he would remove the 25-million modern rifles that are owned by the public today. He also doesn’t say how disarming honest citizens will stop criminals and the few people who commit mass murder in order to receive worldwide publicity. He wants to make the rest of the US have the gun-control laws found in California, the state which recently had the most mass-murders.

Wisconsin- Senate candidate Mandela Barnes pushed for background checks and red-flag laws. After the attack by ISIS terrorists at a concert in France, Barnes said that people who believe in “God, country, and guns is as dangerous of a rhetoric here as it is over there.” Lieutenant Governor Barnes supported a ban on homemade firearms, bans on modern rifles, and making firearms manufacturers and distributors financially responsible for the actions of criminals who use a gun. Barnes also proposed to ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 20 rounds, though President Biden proposed to lower that limit to 8 rounds. Barned does not say how this would affect the millions of people who legally use a firearm in self-defense each year. Mandela Barnes is endorsed by the Giffords gun-control group .

Utah- Evan McMullin is an independent candidate for the US Senate. His campaign brochure proposed more “sensible gun-safety legislation.” It is hard to tell what that means beyond the fact that McMullin encouraged Utah Senator Mike Lee to follow the example of Senator Mitt Romney and vote with Democrats to move more gun-control legislation through the Senate. McMullin was a CIA operations officer until 2010. McMullin’s previous political experience consists of running against President Donald Trump as an independent in 2016.

Michigan- Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer said we need more gun-control. She did not explain which of the existing 23-thousand gun-control regulations failed when a teenager stole his fathers gun and murdered his classmates in a Michigan Highschool. Some county clerks and police departments in Michigan stopped processing firearms applications after 2019. Some counties imposed over a years delay in processing the state required paperwork. Whitmer vetoed legislation that would require government officials to process firearms related permits during “emergencies”. Whitmer called “gun violence” a public health emergency. She did not explain how most counties will not have a murder of any kind, yet more than half of our murders occur in just 2-percent of our counties, mostly in our failing cities.

New York- Governor Kathy Hochul has little use for armed citizens, other than as her security guards. Hochul said, “This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesn’t hold up. And the data bears this out, so that theory is over.” She ignores the 1.7-2.5 million times an armed citizen uses a firearm for legally justified self-defense. She called for and signed the sweeping new gun-control bills that made most of New York state into a “gun-free” zone. Somehow, Governor Hochul ignored the fact that mass murderers perfer “gun-free” zones.

Massive amounts of gun-control have been tried for decades. We are told that that mountain of laws didn’t stop violent crime, but the next gun-control law is sure to work. After missing the target 23-thousand times, I’m skeptical that the next gun-control law will work any better than the rest. Do Democrat gun owners believe that?

It’s always “the end of democracy” when demoncraps are about to lose an election. That’s because “democracy” is just their term for “unchallenged demoncrap power.”

If there was ever a real ‘GOP dictatorship’, these yammerheads wouldn’t be yammering.

BLUF
Republicans need us more than we need them. That’s because, say the Democrats get their supermajorities and pass whatever citizen disarmament edicts they want, appoint judges to uphold them, and equip functionaries to enforce them. There’s one thing no one wants to talk about:

We will not disarm. Surrender our guns? No. Your move. Seriously.

If Republicans want to stay relevant, they’d best realize that, and strap ‘em on so it doesn’t come to that on a large scale. With a growing resigned TINVOWOOT sentiment among gun owners jaded by past betrayals, GOP leadership had best realize they need us fired up if they don’t want that to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Republican ‘Commitment to America’ Must Not Take Gun Voters for Granted

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The Commitment to America represents a new direction and better approach that will get our nation back on track,” House Republicans declare in a plan “Preamble” on Kevin McCarthy’s “Republican Leader” website. “Starting Day One, we will work to deliver an economy that’s strong, a nation that’s safe, a future that’s built on freedom, and a government that’s accountable.”

You can read it in English or watch it in Spanish. The “commitment” itself is divided into four parts:

  • An Economy That’s Strong: (Make America Energy Independent and Reduce Gas Prices; Strengthen the Supply Chain and End Dependence on China)
  • A Nation That’s Safe: (Secure the Border and Combat Illegal Immigration; Reduce Crime and Protect Public Safety; Defend America’s National Security)
  • A Future That’s Built On Freedom: (Make Sure Every Student Can Succeed and Give Parents a Voice; Achieve Longer, Healthier Lives for Americans; Confront Big Tech and Demand Fairness)
  • A Government That’s Accountable: (Preserve Our Constitutional Freedoms; Hold Washington Accountable; Restore the People’s Voice)

Do you know what you have to look hard to find any mention of? The main reason gun owners have for voting Republican is that they will defend the Second Amendment and pledge to repeal infringements. You have to go to the reverse side and the bottom half of their “Commitment to America” pocket card to find a statement that couldn’t be more tepid and equivocal:

“Preserve our Constitutional Freedoms: Uphold free speech, protect the lives of unborn children and their mothers, guarantee religious freedom, and safeguard the Second Amendment.”

With even the most rabid gun-grabbers claiming “You can be in favor of the Second Amendment and also understand that there is no reason in a civil society that we have assault weapons around communities that can kill babies and police officers,” what does “safeguard the Second Amendment” —  with no specifics as to how — even mean?

With the GOP leadership unwilling to use its bully pulpit to defend and educate on the right to keep and bear arms (probably because most of them don’t know how, have a shallow surface understanding, and basically do what their staffers and focus groups tell them will play best to the masses and minimize attacks), it’s no wonder individual candidates are keeping their mouths shut and hoping nobody calls on them to take a position.

Continue reading “”

Biden Midterms Closing Argument: Trump And “Extreme MAGA Republicans” Are “Un-American”.

Compared to Biden’s rage-filled Red Speech, which was infuriatingly insulting, Biden’s speech tonight at Union Station in D.C. was more sad and pathetic. Yes, Biden used a lot of the same rhetoric, but it was more hollow, more disassociated from reality, more bizarre.

An old man shouting at the clouds, while Democrats face a potential electoral catastrophe next week because inflation is out of control, and people are suffering. Instead of addressing what he will do about it, his speech was name calling. And Trump. Again.

“As I stand here today, there are candidates running for every level of office in America — for governor, for Congress, for attorney general, for secretary of state — who won’t commit to accepting the results of the elections they’re in,” he said.

Biden said election deniers have been inspired by Trump, who is pondering a run for president in 2024 just as Biden works to decide if he wants to seek another four-year term.

Biden said “American democracy is under attack” because Trump will not accept the results of the 2020 election that he lost to Biden.

“He refuses to accept the will of the people, he refuses to accept that he lost,” Biden said.

Trump is an obsession for whoever wrote the speech:

The Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was committed by a mob “whipped up into a frenzy by a president repeating over and over again the big lie that the election of 2020 had been stolen,” he said.

Now, “extreme MAGA Republicans” aim to question not only the legitimacy of past elections, but elections being held now and into the future, Biden warned. They are “trying to succeed where they failed in 2020 to suppress the right of voters and subvert the electoral system itself,” Biden said.

Who is Biden trying to convince? The half of the electorate who voted against him, and the more than half who currently disapprove of his performance? Apparently not, it was a speech to a base that already is going to vote for Democrats.

The disconnect was creepy and in some ways chilling. What does Team Biden have up their sleeve? They can’t be THIS disconnected from reality.

I was going to say…’battle‘?

BLUF
As of August 2022, three independent election forecasters rated the general election as Solid Republican or Safe Republican, according to Ballotpedia.
If Missouri’s open senate seat is to flip to the Democratic party, it would take an upset by Trudy Busch Valentine on Election Day

The battle for Missouri’s vacant Senate seat
Polls and a look at prior elections would suggest this race is already settled before Election Day.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Barring an election night surprise, there appears to be a well-defined path from the Missouri Attorney General’s office to U.S. Senate.

The current Attorney General, Republican Eric Schmitt, is leading by double digits in most polls ahead of his Democratic opponent, Trudy Busch Valentine, a nurse and heiress to the Anheuser-Busch brewery fortune.

His commanding lead comes just four years after the former Attorney General, Republican Josh Hawley, beat the incumbent two-term Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, for a spot on Capitol Hill.

Hawley was the first Missouri Attorney General to ascend directly to the U.S. Senate since then-AG John Danforth, also a Republican, was elected to the Senate in 1976. Other big names in Missouri politics have also used the AG’s office as a stepping stone to the U.S. Senate, like Republican John Ashcroft and Democrat Thomas Eagleton, but both held other offices before becoming a senator.

That path may be trodden again on Nov. 8, partly due to the retirement of two-term Republican Sen. Roy Blunt. His surprise announcement in March of last year that he wouldn’t seek re-election left a wide-open field of candidates vying for his job. A crowded and often-times nasty Republican primary brought Schmitt to the top of the field for his party.

Sen. Roy BluntU.S. Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri will not run for reelection in 2022
Trudy Busch Valentine announced her candidacy less than five months before the August primary and beat out the populist candidate and prolific fundraiser Lucas Kunce for the nomination.

This race is one of many that will determine the balance of power in the U.S. Senate, but a democrat win would certainly surprise many political observers. Missouri hasn’t sent a democrat to Senate in 10 years, when Sen. McCaskill won her re-election bid in 2012, easily beating Republican Todd Akin, who was ahead in the polls until his infamous “legitimate rape” comments.

Continue reading “”

America’s parents are revolting: They are fed up with schools indoctrinating their children. And now they’re fighting back.

Education has rarely been a major electoral issue in the US. Yet as we approach November’s Midterms, the state of the nation’s schools now follows closely behind the economy and crime among voters’ key concerns. And parents are worried about far more than falling academic standards. They are angry that teachers are using the classroom to promote their own narrow political views.

Parents opposed to woke indoctrination in schools are organising. They may even prove to be a decisive force in the elections. Parents Unite, set up by New England mothers Ashley Jacobs and Jean Egan, is one of many groups to have emerged in the past couple of years. It brings together parents, teachers and academics concerned with what children are being taught in America’s independent schools.

Having grown quickly, the group held its second annual conference in Boston last week, which I was invited to attend. What became clear from listening to the stories of parents was a growing sense of anger that children are being corralled into uncritically accepting highly contested and political ideas. This is an experience common to every type of school, public and independent alike, across the US.

Many of the parents I spoke to talked about lockdown and ‘Zoom school’ as having been pivotal in making them more aware of what their children were being taught. They say they witnessed lessons that push children to see America as a uniquely sinful country, forged solely out of racial discrimination. Parents say that this stepped up a notch in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death in the summer of 2020, when suddenly a great deal of the school day was taken up by Black Lives Matter activism.

A similar story emerges in relation to teaching about sex and gender. Parents are unhappy at the prospect of sending their daughter to school, only for her to return home questioning whether she might actually be a boy. In addition, there is concern that sex education introduces children to provocative and hyper-sexualised content at far too young an age.

When the values promoted at school are fundamentally at odds with values espoused in the home, students need to be able to respond critically to what they are taught. They also need to be able to hear alternative perspectives. Yet parents who complain about the politicisation of their schools report being met with hostility. Some even suggest their children are targeted by teachers for raising ‘inappropriate’ questions.

Parents who ask about the role of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) officers say they are treated as a threat to the safety of students. They even risk being publicly branded as troublesome within the broader school community. In response to this, Parents Unite aims to ‘ensure that all schools promote a culture that values and prioritises true diversity of thought, freedom of discourse and self-expression’.

Jean Egan and Ashley Jacobs – friends, neighbours and the founders of Parents Unite – tell me that ‘watching Zoom classrooms for about six months really highlighted that things needed to be addressed’. Ashley notes that ‘a very one-dimensional worldview was being highlighted’ by teachers. Getting together and sharing concerns with a handful of others led them to question what was going on in schools. Yet at first, according to Ashley, ‘these questions did not always lead to satisfactory answers’.

Jean tells me that it was only after a great deal of digging that they discovered that much of this teaching was driven by the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS), the accrediting body for America’s private schools. Although ‘individual teachers were doing their best’, the NAIS was ‘setting the agenda’, she says.

Ashley explains that ‘social justice’ has driven the NAIS for years, but there was an ‘extra sense of urgency after the death of George Floyd’. At the time, an apparently coordinated social-media campaign accused private schools of racism. Schools then ‘over-compensated’ in a way that left no room for ‘viewpoint diversity or for people to question what children were being told’, Ashley says. The message to schools, Jean tells me, was ‘you need more DEI officers, you need to change your curriculum’.

According to Jean, ‘this was not being driven by educational practice or the best way to teach, but by political motivations’. The NAIS provides books, speakers and teacher training, though these resources have an obvious ideological slant. For instance, schools are told they should invite speakers like Ibram X Kendi, a prominent woke academic.

Ashley explains that parents can be quite powerless in the face of private schools, which can remove their children from the school roll almost on a whim. Ashley and Jean spotted that ‘someone had to do something’. There was an urgent need to get to the bottom of what was going on and to challenge their schools in a more collective way. And so Parents Unite was launched. Its primary goal is to promote greater viewpoint diversity for both students and teachers and to offer schools alternative resources, which are grounded in scholarship and evidence rather than woke ideology.

The response to Parents Unite has been overwhelmingly positive, Ashley and Jean tell me. Teachers and administrators, as well as parents, have been in touch to say that they are unhappy with the indoctrination of America’s schoolchildren and that they want ‘balance restored’. Jean tells me she thinks education will be of crucial significance in shaping how people vote in the Midterms.

One thing seems undeniable: parents are extremely angry about what is happening in America’s schools. We should not be surprised if this anger spills over into the ballot box.

Harrisburg resident shoots man who broke into his home

A man allegedly shot while breaking into a Harrisburg home Friday is now facing criminal charges, police said.

Keon J. Washington, 32, kicked in a back door of a home in the area of Disbrow and Carnation streets around 4:45 p.m. Friday and was confronted by the homeowner, according to city police.

Police said the homeowner — who legally owned a firearm — gave Washington warnings to stop and leave before shooting Washington.

Washington was found in the North 17th and Carnation streets area a short time later, armed with a large butcher knife, police said. He was taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

Police charged Washington with trespassing, attempted burglary, terroristic threats and recklessly endangering another person.

BLUF
There is no doubt a pro-gun House is a firewall against executive actions like ATF’s self-serving attempt to redefine the very meaning of a “firearm.” So, be sure to visit nrapvf.org to know where the candidates in your district stand, and vote freedom first this November!

Your Vote Matters: A Pro-Gun Congress Can Stop Biden’s Anti-gun Executive Overreach

In August, a sprawling regulation took effect that fundamentally changes what counts as a regulated “firearm” under federal law. Certain firearm parts, parts kits and even unfinished receiver blanks will now be treated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as if they were operable guns, with all the bureaucracy and restrictions that implies.

The rule is as audacious as it is indecipherable in its details. ATF is vastly expanding its own law enforcement jurisdiction, simply by unilaterally redefining the main commodity it regulates.

The White House and its collaborators in the media tried to sell the rule to the public as a crackdown on so-called “ghost guns.” These guns do not function differently than “normal” guns, and federal law requires that they be just as detectable by X-ray machines or magnetometers as other firearms. But because they are made by unlicensed individuals for personal use, they do not bear the markings and serial numbers of guns produced or imported by federal firearm licensees (FFLs).

Continue reading “”

Iowa Gun Rights Amendment on Track for Passage: Survey

Voters in Iowa appear poised to adopt a state constitutional amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms, a new poll says.

The Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll says 58 percent of likely Hawkeye State voters “plan to vote for the proposed amendment in the Nov. 8 midterm election.” The survey also revealed 38 percent will oppose the measure and 6 percent still aren’t sure….

According to the newspaper survey, 86 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Independent voters support the proposed amendment, but 76 percent of Democrats will vote against it. The poll was conducted Oct. 9-12 among 620 likely voters, with a +/- 3.9 percentage point margin of error.

Iowa is one of a handful of states currently without a right-to-bear arms state constitutional provision.

When Liberty Park Press first covered this election issue on Oct. 17—eight days ago—it was noted passage of this amendment has been a long-term goal of the Iowa Firearms Coalition. Some 30 anti-gun groups are lined up against it.

However, outside of Iowa, the campaign is not getting much attention. This could be for any number of reasons, but with the likelihood of success, the idea of voters adopting an RKBA amendment to their state constitution should be a notable event.

According to the Des Moines Register, “Supporters say the amendment is necessary to protect Iowans’ rights from infringement, while opponents say passing the amendment would make it easier to strike down existing gun laws and make it harder to pass new regulations.”

Iowa is one of only six states that do not have an RKBA amendment in their state constitutions. If the polling data is correct, that will change on Nov. 8.

Gun Control Not a Priority as Midterms Loom with Biden in Basement

A new Monmouth University poll released this week shows gun control is second from the bottom of a list of nine priority issues with the midterm elections just over two weeks away and American gun owners poised to help take Congress away from Democrats.

At the same time, Rasmussen’s Daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows President Joe Biden’s numbers still trailing, with 44 percent approving of his performance but 54 percent disapproving. This includes only 22 percent who “strongly approve” and 45 percent strongly disapproving.

The top issue concerning voters—certainly including gun owners—is inflation. Their concerns have jumped 9 points since last month, corresponding to the rise in inflation, including gasoline. During the fall months, outdoorsmen and women spend a fair amount of money on fuel just to get back and forth to the field, and then to operate generators and chainsaws. They also are paying more for groceries than at this time last year.

At the bottom of the list for voters is climate change, an indication that the Biden administration’s priorities are at odds with that of American consumers.

Crime is the third highest priority, the Monmouth survey revealed, which likely explains why increasing numbers of Americans are carrying or applying for licenses to carry in the 25 states where a license is still required. Fully half of the states no longer require carry permits or licenses.

It has not been a good year for the Democrats’ gun control agenda, which collided with the Constitution in June as the Supreme Court struck down a century-old restriction in New York requiring carry permit applicants to prove a “good cause” for needing to carry a defensive firearm. In the aftermath, the New York Legislature swiftly adopted a new scheme designed to get around, rather than comply with, the high court’s ruling.

But in recent days, federal judges have smacked down components of that legislation, declaring it unconstitutional. This week, the Second Amendment Foundation obtained a temporary restraining order from a federal judge in Buffalo, derailing places of worship to be “sensitive places” where even legally concealed handguns are prohibited. The speed with which Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. handed down his TRO surprised many, and SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb was delighted. It took only three days for the judge to rule. SAF filed its initial lawsuit earlier this month.

“Ample Supreme Court precedent addressing the individual’s right to keep and bear arms—from Heller and McDonald to its June 22 decision in Bruen—dictates that New York’s place of worship restriction is…unconstitutional,” Judge Sinatra wrote.

Now, with the midterm elections looming and pollsters predicting Republicans could take over the House and possibly the U.S. Senate, the likelihood is increasing that Biden’s gun control agenda is about to crash.

Iowans Want RKBA Provision in State Constitution

For more than 175 years, Iowans have been among the relative handful of citizens without a specific right to keep and bear arms provision in their state constitution, but that could change Nov. 8 when Hawkeye State voters will cast their ballots on the proposed amendment to enshrine the right.

According to KCCI News, it’s a goal the Iowa Firearms Coalition (IFC) has been pursuing for more than ten years. IFC Chairman John McLaughlin told the news agency, “The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and we want to codify that in the Iowa constitution. So if for some unknown chance [that] the U.S. Constitution would be changed through a makeup in the Supreme Court or something that we really can’t foresee, that [gun rights] protection will continue for the state of Iowa.”

Grassroots Second Amendment activists believe the right to keep and bear arms is the backbone of the federal constitution.

The proposed Iowa amendment is a step ahead of the Second Amendment. It reads, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

Considering the recent Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, this just might be the nearest thing to perfect of any state RKBA provision.

However, there are opponents in the gun prohibition movement. KCCI referred to Progress Iowa and Iowans for Responsible Gun Laws. The latter has been calling the proposed amendment “reckless.” The coalition includes nearly 30 liberal groups including religious organizations, Planned Parenthood groups and at least two local chapters of Moms Demand Action.

Another group, Iowans for Gun Safety, is also campaigning against the amendment.

Opponents argue the proposed amendment would jeopardize what they consider “common sense gun laws,” according to KCRG News. Supporters insist the amendment would simply protect the rights of law-abiding Iowa gun owners from government overreach.

They will all have an opportunity to vote on the measure Nov. 8.

The Midterm Boogeyman of ‘Christian Nationalism’

The so-called Public Broadcasting Service is anything but a “service” to Republicans. Tune in any night of the week. As a whole, Republicans are extremists; Republicans are insurrectionists; and Republicans are terrible, racist, sexist Christians.

On Oct. 11, the “PBS NewsHour” warned all about the threat of right-wing “Christian nationalism” and what it means for the midterm elections. Anchor William Brangham reported, “A growing movement led by right-wing politicians is increasingly challenging a centuries-old value of America’s political system: the separation of church and state.”

PBS ran clips of Republicans Kari Lake, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Doug Mastriano, Dan Cox, and Ron DeSantis all speaking about drawing on their religion in public life or how, as Boebert said, “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church.”

Media liberals hate the idea that Republicans lean on religion for their political ideas. They are so aggressively for separating church and state that they almost think religious conservatives shouldn’t be allowed to vote, since they’re a threat to democracy — or at least to the Democrats.

The “NewsHour” found an agreeable expert for their secular feminist worldview. It was a professor of gender studies named Kristin Kobes Du Mez, author of the book “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.”

Christians don’t corrupt a faith when the Rev. Raphael Warnock runs for office as a “pro-choice pastor,” or when politicians embrace a “religious left” that pushes amputations of breasts or penises as “gender-affirming care.”

According to Du Mez’s book, this macho John Wayne heresy means that conservative white evangelicals allegedly link the gospel to “patriarchal authority, gender difference, and Christian nationalism, and all of these are intertwined with white racial identity.”

On PBS, Du Mez offered the bizarre theory that conservative Christians shouldn’t feel embattled in today’s secular and “woke” culture, that they are somehow dominant in America. “Even though they are in the majority and even though they have a lot of cultural and political power, they will continue to insist that they are the ones who are embattled,” she said. “Therefore, what choice do they have but to be ruthless and seize power?”

PBS anchor Laura Barron-Lopez naturally turned to Jan. 6 to associate all conservative Christians with rioting: “We saw a lot of Christian imagery in the crowd on Jan. 6, when rioters stormed the Capitol, and faith being used to justify violence there.”

Du Mez briefly expressed that not all Christians supported violence at the Capitol. But then she gave PBS what it wanted. Yes, “more extreme versions of Christian nationalism, we do see a correlation between the idea that America has a special destiny, and it’s a destiny that’s under threat, and it must be protected. We see connections between that and a willingness to use violence.”

Barron-Lopez cited a University of Maryland poll that 61% of Republicans would favor an official declaration that the U.S. is a Christian nation, “but, also, a majority of Republicans understand that doing so would be unconstitutional.” One can cite Pew polls that 63% of Americans identify as Christians — a Christian nation — without canceling the religious freedoms in the First Amendment. A significant chunk of those self-identified Christians is not conservative at all.

But PBS and Du Mez are preaching to the liberal choir that the Christian right is a menace that is eroding democracy and pushing “voter suppression” somehow. There’s no conservative counterpoint to this midterm messaging on taxpayer-funded TV. That’s somehow not eroding democracy.

Didn’t President Trump get impeached over something like this?

Did Joe Biden Try to Blackmail the Saudis To Interfere With the Midterms?

As you may recall, a few years ago Joe Biden’s son Hunter got a lucrative board position at Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings, despite having zero relevant experience. So, when Burisma Holdings was being investigated by Ukraine’s then-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid to Ukraine (which is illegal) unless they fired Shokin. This wasn’t mere accusation, as we have video of Biden bragging about his quid pro quo—implicating Barack Obama in the scandal as well.

It looks like Joe Biden is up to his old quid pro quo habits.

Saudi Arabia says that Joe Biden is trying to get the Kingdom to delay a cut in oil production by a month. Why a month? Well, take a look at the calendar and you’ll see that in a month, the midterm elections will be over. Isn’t that convenient?

According to a statement by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, they reject accusations made after OPEC+ cut production of oil describing the decision as the Kingdom “taking sides in international conflicts” and being “politically motivated against the United States of America.”

The Kingdom insisted that OPEC+ decisions are made by consensus, not by a single nation, and that these outcomes are based solely on economic considerations that aim to maintain oil market balance and limit volatility that harms consumers and producers.

The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would also like to clarify that based on its belief in the importance of dialogue and exchange of views with its allies and partners outside the OPEC+ group regarding the situation in the oil markets, the Government of the Kingdom clarified through its continuous consultation with the US Administration that all economic analyses indicate that postponing the OPEC+ decision for a month, according to what has been suggested, would have had negative economic consequences. [emphasis added]

Here’s the full letter:

Biden administration cooks up a new message for voters upset about soaring prices at the pump.

Joe Biden has made a hash of prices at the pump and has no one to blame but himself.

That hasn’t stopped him from trying, though, and now with midterms on, he’s run out of scapegoats and has come up with a ‘look! squirrel’ message to voters.

According to the Washington Examiner:

A senior Democratic official predicted that, at this point in the year, voters would be able to look at the strength of the labor market and legislative wins brokered by the administration as evidence the country “is moving in the right direction” but similarly worried about GOP ads “flooding the space” on gas.

That’s right: Voters are supposed to cheer up from their high gas prices at the pump because of the great job Biden is doing on the economy, and content themselves with Biden’s ‘legislative wins.’

Sound like a winner for voters come election day?

Don’t bet on it.

Fact is, Biden’s legislative wins are big inflation producers — huge federal spending programs that force the Federal Reserve to print money, stoking the inflation maw the way Athenian youths and maidens were fed to the Minotaur. The latest was the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which was a combo-plate of IRS auditing agents to target small business, and a revamped green new deal. The others were similar pork byproducts to connected cronies.

Sound like a decent consolation prize for all those high prices at the pump?

That’s the plan to cheer voters up enough to vote for Democrats in the coming midterms. Imagine what the rollout will look like.

They must think voters are stupid.

Senate Candidate Put His Ignorance of NRA, Gun Owners on Full Display

It’s not unusual for anti-Second Amendment politicians to lambaste this nation’s oldest-civil rights organization. President Joe Biden (D) routinely likes to say that he “took on the NRA and won,” despite this being provably false.

And, like Biden’s oft-repeated statement, it’s common for these same politicians to outright lie about the NRA and gun owners, which brings us to Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D). In his bid for the U.S. Senate seat made available by Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R) coming retirement, Fetterman decided he would try to score political points earlier this year by spreading further falsehoods.

“I’m not afraid of anything, and certainly not the NRA,” said Fetterman in April. “And let me be clear, the NRA does not represent the overwhelming majority of what gun owners really believe and want.”

The senatorial candidate didn’t stop there. “That is the lunatic fringe of gun ownership. And they are disproportionately represented and that skews the conversation. And pushing back at, I would never make the mistake of thinking, that’s representative of your average gun owner in America.”

Predictably, the event was held by Giffords, the anti-gun group that endorses every restrictive anti-Second Amendment policy possible; much like Fetterman, whom the group endorsed. Fetterman’s campaign website also lists universal background checks, red-flag laws and more on his wish list. It is also worth noting he supports abolishing the filibuster so that he may enact his anti-freedom agenda, which also includes banning what he calls “military-grade assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” and a desire to “throw out the PLCAA [Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act].”

So Fetterman thinks that every mainstream policy position of radical gun-control groups is what the “overwhelming majority of gun owners want,” while also claiming that the NRA is the “lunatic fringe of gun ownership.” This is curious, given that NRA-backed constitutional carry has spread throughout the nation and gun ownership over the past few years has soared, particularly among women and minorities. The NRA also played a crucial part in the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed the right to keep and bear arms, and struck down the subjective criteria that had been commonly used by New York permit issuing authorities to deny the vast majority of law-abiding citizens in the state from being able to exercise these rights. To say that the NRA doesn’t represent gun owners is simply not true.

In refrain, it’s no surprise that anti-gun candidates have to simply lie about the NRA, gun owners and more. John Fetterman is just another in a long line of out-of-touch politicians who despise your constitutional rights.

“Fetterman is endorsed by the gun-control group Giffords. To explain his views, he published a letter saying, in part, that the ‘NRA’ is somehow ‘suffocating’ members of Congress—actually, the NRA’s influence comes from its millions of members who vote. Fetterman also wrote that ‘the NRA would rather that a violent criminal could purchase my gun on the street, no questions asked.’ Has Fetterman ever looked at an NRA publication? It is the NRA that loudly argues that we need to prosecute armed criminals and those who help criminals get guns,” wrote America’s 1st Freedom Editor in Chief Frank Miniter.

Election day is fast approaching, and though Fetterman claims to want what “an overwhelming majority of gun owners believe and want,” he couldn’t be more out of touch.

 

From Editor: This Is Not A Culture War

It is tempting to think of the struggle to keep—or, in too many cases, to win back—our Second Amendment freedoms as a culture war. But an analysis of the numbers disintegrates that claim.

Before tackling the telling statistics, it is worth noting the gun-control groups like the culture-war claim. They need to frame this as a culture war, because a cultural struggle implies that gun control, like other social movements, will slowly win over time. This is why they so often speak of this issue in “evolutionary” terms.

The thing is, the numbers show this to be a war of a comparatively small number of “elites” against the people as a whole; whereas a real culture war needs two distinct sides.

This isn’t how gun-control groups and their supporters in the mainstream media, Hollywood and the political class want this issue to be thought of by the American public; as an elite-against-the-people reality implies the elite will lose this freedom issue over time in a democratic republic—which is what has been happening thanks in no small part to this civil-liberties association.

A we-the-people-versus-a-few-elites situation also isn’t helpful to their efforts to gain control of the American people. Imagine a gun-control-preaching college professor raised in the 1960s, an academic clinging to a tenured position in an ivory tower today, and you can see and feel why these elites would writhe and squirm if forced to confront this reality.

This is also why, as we trek closer to this midterm election on Nov. 8, the gun-control groups want this freedom issue framed as a “safety issue,” with gun control as the solution; as in, if the elites just had the power to ban, confiscate or deeply restrict the use of firearms, they could save the people. That’s nonsense, of course, as history shows again and again that disarmed peoples are not and do not remain free; “safe” is not an adjective the people of Venezuela, to give one example, would now use to describe their situation.

Now, to get to the numbers. As I said, a culture war, to be a culture war, needs two distinct sides, whereas Americans in every demographic own guns today.

We, thankfully, don’t have concrete numbers on the number of citizens who choose to own guns. But gun-sales numbers over decades, along with other data, makes it a safe estimate that over 100 million Americans now own more than 400 million guns. There are about 332 million Americans, but there are only about 258 million American adults, so perhaps half, or nearly that many, of the American citizenry has chosen to own a gun.

Indeed, an estimated 18.5 million citizens bought guns in 2021 alone, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). This was the second-highest annual figure ever, behind the 21 million who bought guns in 2020; in fact, at least 5.4 million Americans became first-time gun owners in 2021 alone, according to data from the NSSF.

The NSSF also now says that American citizens own about 24.4 million AR-type rifles. It is safe to say that about half of Americans’ guns are likely semi-automatic designs.

The popularity of this right is related to the need for safety, as most new gun owners say they decided to buy a firearm for self-defense.

So, if gun-control advocates were honest, they’d look at these facts—and all the data behind what actually makes Americans safer—and demand that armed criminals be prosecuted. They would, in sum, get on the law-and-order bandwagon in what must be a law-and-order election.

But they can’t, as control is what they’re really after.

OREGON: Vote NO on Ballot Measure 114!

Ballot Measure 114 is the nation’s most extreme gun control Initiative and will be voted on this November! The NRA has launched a website to inform voters why they must VOTE NO on Ballot Measure 114.  It is up to you to stop Oregon from further eroding its law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights! Criminals do not obey the laws. Increasing laws and financial burdens will diminish, if not eliminate, the rights of law-abiding citizens.

If Ballot Measure 114 passes, Oregon will unconstitutionally:

-Ban magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition and most modern shotguns

-Create a government registry of law-abiding gun owners’ personal information

-Require a permit-to-purchase or transfer a firearm (which will require classroom and live-fire training from law enforcement)

Please share this information with your friends, family, and fellow Second Amendment advocates, and vote NO on Ballot Measure 114!

Oregon’s early vote-by-mail system means ballots will be landing in your mailbox soon, so be on the look-out, and be sure to vote NO on Ballot Measure 114 by November 8th, to protect your rights and the rights of future generations.

Arizona Supreme Court Kills Soros-Funded Ballot Initiative

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday against allowing a ballot initiative that would overturn new voter integrity laws in the state.

In a unanimous ruling, the court found that there were not enough valid signatures on a petition submitted to place an initiative on the ballot that would overturn recently passed election reform laws, according to Breitbart.

The initiative, financed in part by billionaire George Soros, fell 1,458 short of the required 237,645 signatures to place it on the November ballot, the report said.

According to Ballotpedia, the Arizonans For Free and Fair Elections initially submitted 475,290 signatures. Maricopa County Judge Joseph Mikitish disqualified 75,000 of those Aug. 19 after reviewing challenges, but eventually allowed the measure to move forward and be placed on the ballot.

Mikitish, however, reversed on Aug. 26 after the State Supreme Court asked him to explain his rationale behind the disqualified signatures.

The higher court then affirmed the reversal and the ballot initiative died, according to the report.

“In reversing itself today, the trial court has done something never done before in Arizona initiative practice and which is not authorized by statute,” lawyers for Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections said in a statement following the ruling. “It has allowed initiative challengers to strike individual signatures under (the law), for any reason, and allowed them to benefit from the invalidity rate calculated by the County Recorders’ random sample that the challengers did not include in this lawsuit.”

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club said in a statement that the upheld ruling “vindicated” its efforts to get the initiative thrown out.

“[The ruling] vindicates what we knew all along: the radical Free and Fair election initiative lacked enough lawful signatures to qualify for the ballot,” the group’s statement said. “The other side knew it too, and that is why their lawyers tried to get the court to adopt a rigged methodology to calculate the final number of valid signatures that would sneak their disqualified measure onto the ballot.”

Supporters of the initiative included some $10 million in donations from an organization called ADR Action, according to financial documents filed with the state.

That group’s website is not available as of Tuesday, but its page on Twitter is still accessible.

According to that page, the group is “dedicated to community empowerment, civic participation, and equitable democracy.”