Mortgage Monday: New Polling Place

One of the things that many people forget about when they move is the simple fact that, for many of us, our polling place changes. For those of us who move to a different district or county our representatives change as well. Thankfully, I know exactly where I need to be tomorrow morning to vote as I pass the municipal building on a regular basis. Of course, what will be interesting to find out is how the space is organized, how active the campaigning is outside, and whether I will be casting an electronic (as in Bala Cynwyd) or paper (as in Chester Springs) ballot.

However, knowing where to vote it only a small part of the equation. It is important to learn as much as you can about your new place of residence by researching your representation, finding out where they stand on positions important to you, and, when needed, getting involve in the process. After all, for those of us who are looking to stay in our homes for the long term, this is more important and we must be active in making it the best place to live as possible.

And while there are many political aspects about our new community with which I agree, the representation can sometimes be a little confused to figure out as we are bordering on many different areas. Simply put, there are clearly some moments and decisions when they didn’t know what to think. This is why I took things a bit further in my research, got on the phone, and asked them (at least their office) about certain positions that they have taken. After all, they are now representing me and I want to know if I can support them.

While voting this time around won’t be as crowded as November, it is a decent little practice run for the fall. And while I couldn’t help but laugh at the Bernie Sanders volunteer that called the house tonight, I hope that I will be a little more composed in the coming months so that I can challenge the positions of the politicians who chose to ignore my Do Not Call requests. It is a process for sure but, at least for me, it is necessary to more fully understand where I live and whether or not I need to take things to the next level in ensuring that my voice is heard. Now all that is left is more research and bracing for the conventions (traffic should by lovely around Philadelphia) and the general election when hopefully the right candidate is elected.  

Firearms Friday: Exposure

When my wife and I took our son to the doctor for his annual checkup we expected that he would be getting shots and additional testing done. Whenever we know these are coming up we also know that there will be questionnaires associated with each of those tests. This time around one of the optional tests that was discussed involved out son’s exposure to lead. To determine whether the test would actually be done my wife and I had to fill out a questionnaire… largely innocuous in nature we had no issues eliminating the need for pulling out another needle.

However, one of the questions got under my skin a bit. I could see that if we were in an older house (built prior to 1985) or one of our jobs involved being around lead all of the time that the test would be necessary. However, in the form it also asked if one of our hobbies involved firearms. Well, that would be none of your business people and unless I am sucking on bullets throughout the day (unjacketed of course) or made a nipple out of a 9mm cartridge, it has no bearing on this test. While annoyed at the question and skeptical of the actual reason behind the query, I wasn’t surprised at all to find it included on the form.

Unfortunately, prodding questions such as this are a part of daily life now due to the lack of backbone displayed time and again by politicians and the rabid naiveté of a public more concerned with the radical media agenda and what is says about their urban social standing. It is a darn shame because these misguided views are causing thousands to succumb to lead poisoning in the United States this year not by exposure but by direct injection. Although, come to think of it, their mass psychosis could be the result of exposure to lead over a long period of time.

While I doubt these ‘advocates’ would ever admit to their addiction, the fact of the matter is that the question on this form was not about exposure to lead, it was a means to expose law abiding gun owners so that the delusional mass could get their self-righteous fix. These people, addicted to the utopian ideal, fail to live in the real world where bad things happen and inequality exists. At the same time they also fail to acknowledge the fact that we have individual rights to firearms, religion, opinions, and a self-reliant ability to defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We don’t try to trick you to take away your ability to speak your mind or any other right you embrace (yet scold others for embracing who don’t share your opinion). We don’t initiate these underhanded methods. We believe in the rights of the individual. And while I know that these questions won’t come to an end any time soon, I can pretty much guarantee that they will continue to annoy me just as much as they do right now and I will continue answering or not answering in the same way. However, for all those who continue to deceive and outright lie about their motives I do have a final question for you… when exactly are you going to feel the burn? I’m pretty sure that it won’t be during this election cycle.

Caucus Results: Thinning the Hurd

Regardless of your party affiliation, it is always entertaining to watch the first votes cast of the year. Of course, having both tickets up for grabs makes for a much more interesting few weeks. As the results are tabulated in Iowa and then New Hampshire the following week, you can see the energy shift from one candidate to another. Sometimes the results are expected as they essentially meet the predicted percentages that the polling reflected days or weeks prior. However, sometimes there are little twists that basically throw the nomination back up in the air.

This year, Iowa gave us the first culling of the heard on both sides with O’Malley, Huckabee, Santorum, and, unfortunately, Rand Paul, suspending their campaigns following disappointing support. At the same time, there were a few candidates that got a surprising level of support in the first round with the socialist Sanders nearly edging out Clinton, Cruz winning by a surprising margin over Trump, and Rubio nearly taking second place from the lewd Billionaire. However, when all the votes were tallied and the concessions faded into the campaign records, Rubio seemed to be the most presidential both in the support that he received and the gracious yet substantive speech that he made. 

The Iowa Caucus made for some intriguing foreshadowing for what was to transpire in New Hampshire Primary where the outsider candidates, Trump and Sanders, claimed victory. Not surprisingly, following a poor debate performance over the weekend, Rubio fell a couple of spots. However, in the end, the primary did just what it was designed to do… it narrowed the field as both Christie and Fiorina suspended their campaigns following single digit turnouts.

If you want to know what role these initial dry runs have on the process, this is exactly it. We can’t head into November with a dozen candidates on the ballot. In a matter of two weeks a half dozen campaigns came to an abrupt halt. However, it seems as though the vote is still quite divided, more so than it has been in some time, and this whole process could drag on into the summer when Pennsylvania has a darn good chance of determining who will represent their party in the Presidential election. This is clearly case on the Republican side but is also a possibility on the Democrat side as the FBI may finally catch up to Clinton and the vacuum could draw a few more late entries into the fray… makes you wonder why Clinton’s campaign slogan isn’t “Catch me if you can!”

Anyway, it should continue to be an interesting race throughout the year especially if Trump keeps putting his foot in his mouth and Cruz keeps hiring actresses that will put anything in their mouths. Maybe we get lucky and both happen opening the door for Rubio. Of course, this is only half of the ticket and I am curious to see the candidates that have been bandied about as running mates. Could Rand Paul still be in the mix? I guess we will have to wait and see.

Firearms Friday: Taking Over The NRA?

It really isn’t a surprise, especially with the campaigns in high gear, that following another incident of evil there are numerous politicians taking aim at gun owners and the NRA. This has been a potent topic for years and was particularly prominent during the first Democratic debate this week with Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continuing to be a vocal proponent of gun control. Oddly enough, this was in direct contrast with Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders who has a long record of voting against such legislation. Of course, that kind of stance never lasts with a socialist leader so I don’t give much credence to his past performance. Basically it doesn’t matter who ends up being the nominee for the Communist party, the rights of ALL law abiding citizens will be a particular point of contention between the parties.

While all of this back and forth was happening on the national debate stage, there were also a few headlines being grabbed by a New York State Senator, Liz Kreuger, who is advocating her fellow rights abolitionists to join the NRA and force a change in stance on the issue of gun control from the inside. As was reported by the New York Daily News, “Krueger first raised the issue at a roundtable on gun violence issues hosted by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) after someone suggested meeting with the NRA to try to find common ground on a gun control law, the New York Observer reported.” Yes, this is how far and how demented their ideas have become.

First of all, as was noted in the same article, Thomas King, president of the state Rifle and Pistol Association and an NRA board member, “the NRA has more than five million members and scoffed at the suggestion there are enough "anti-gunners" to make an impact on the organization.” This is true, and those of us who are proud members would not stand for that kind of drastic “change” in policy… that is not why we donate our hard earned money. We choose to support and strengthen our rights be fighting those who wish to continue limiting our freedom.

Secondly, keep in mind that the same people who support this kind of radical action are the ones that would be filing suit if every Republican in this country were to register as a Democrat in order to change the party and support candidates that would oppose those policies that they currently hold so close to their empty hearts. Either action should be seen simply as perpetuating a fraud against those who support the basic principles of the organization. And what they are underestimating is that by proposing such actions they are actually galvanizing support for the NRA by the current membership (especially those of us who are life members), including me, which is why I have decided to join the NRA Golden Eagles. 

Which One Is The “Old White Men’s Club”?

Here is a screen shot of the potential GOP candidates for 2016
(not all have announced or formed committees).

It is interesting to read the news with the media still labeling the Republican Party as the “old white men’s club” rather than using descriptors that are based on principles. While I will discuss the latter of the two dilemmas later in the post, let’s first take a look at the slander that is still being bandied about. Here is the current list of those who are running for President in 2016 (this includes those who have announced and those who have formed exploratory committees):

Democrats:

Former Governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee: White, Male, 62

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: White, Female, 67

US Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders: White, Male, 73

Former US Senator from Virginia Jim Webb: White, Male, 69

Summary: 4 candidates; 3 men, 1 woman; all white; average age of 67.75.

Republicans:

Dr. Ben Carson: Black, Male, 63

US Senator from Texas Ted Cruz: Hispanic, Male, 44

Former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson: White, Male, 60

Businesswoman Carly Fiorina: White, Female, 60

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee: White, Male, 59

US Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul: White, Male, 52

US Senator from Florida Marco Rubio: Hispanic, Male, 43

Summary: 7 candidates; 6 men, 1 woman; 4 white, 2 Hispanic, 1 black; average age of 54.43.

While there is no denying that politics on both sides are still dominated by men, the other characteristics of the candidates paint a much different picture than those on MSNBC would have you believe. Diversity is nearly nonexistent among the Democrats while nearly half of the Republican candidates are ‘minorities’. Additionally, the average age of the Republican candidates is over 13 years younger than those of their counterparts on the Democratic side. So, tell me again, which one is the “old white men’s club”?

However, let’s step back and look beyond the demographics of the candidates. Would you rather support a party that prides itself on limiting the rights of the people to support and defend themselves or would you rather vote for someone who will maintain the rights of every citizen of this country to be self-sufficient, hardworking, and accountable for their own actions? Would you rather have the government make choices for you or would you prefer to have the freedom to choose what is best for yourself and your family? Would you rather have the power reside in the individual states and the people therein or in a large, centralized, government dictating policies and handing down executive orders?

Consider your responses to those questions carefully. I have had to answer those questions for myself which is why I continue to support the party of the people, the party which continues to fight to preserve my rights, the Republican Party. This is also why, when considering the changes that need to be pursued and the decisions that have to be made moving forward, that I am supporting Rand Paul for President in 2016 (still up in the air as to running mate but I am currently leaning toward Marco Rubio). I have made my decision, who are you going to support?