Snowflakes in Hell

So the other day I highlighted a candidate for Congress who doesn’t have a chance. Then I pondered why Bob Brady wanted her off the ballot – I assumed it was because his ego was too fat to allow anyone else on it.

In all of that, I assumed her campaign didn’t have much money. Well, I still think that political reality shows this is an more than an uphill battle for Pia – more like climbing the Alps – but I was wrong about the resources in her attempt at a PR coup. She has full page ads in both Philadelphia papers today. They stop you in your tracks, and they get right to heart of matter – “Hate Philly Politics?”

Damn straight, people do hate it. And clearly enough people hate it to help her buy some these ads. And hopefully these ads will lead to more volunteers and votes.

It’s not just a little gun control the Democrats seeking the gubernatorial bid are going for – they are all in. It’s a sad thing to say – the most moderate only wants to ban your EBRs. And, to some degree, Jack Wagner really only said he supported it previously. I haven’t seen him release an action plan to take them. And, yes, that puts him far above the other options for Democratic gun owners have on their primary ballot.

Take Dan Onorato. Apparently, there was early speculation that he was pretty pro-gun. He squashed that rumor at his campaign launch saying that any speculation about his support of the Second Amendment was “a mischaracterization.” Turns out that may be the understatement of the year.

Yesterday, he released his “plan for safe communities.” In it, we find a plan to end preemption (say goodbye to carry in Philly!), a proposal for statewide lost-and-stolen, and a plan to challenge Heller/McDonald.

Say what?

Yup. Dan Onoranto wants to force all gun owners who have minors in the home to lock their guns. Apparently he missed that key part in Heller:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

You don’t lose your right to read scary news or watch violent movies just because there are kids in the home. You shouldn’t lose your right to self-defense over the same. There is a factor of common sense, but that hasn’t been a serious problem for the overwhelming majority of families. Just like most parents don’t let their 6-year-old watch a gory horror flick or read extremely graphic descriptions of war to them at bedtime, gun owners take care when children are around their guns. There’s a difference between discovering the right solution for your home and the state removing your right to immediately defend yourself and those same children you love.

I think we can all agree that any perception of Dan Onorato supporting civil liberties is, in fact, a mischaracterization. He was absolutely right about that – just about the only thing he’s been on right on in this campaign.

Jim Geraghty makes some excellent points about the dynamic between parties when it comes to gun rights:

But there’s a catch. For even the best, most pro-Second Amendment House Democrat, the first vote they cast in the House is to make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House, ensuring the floor schedule is controlled by a woman who is scored an “F” by the organization. And her speakership ensures that F-rated John Conyers of Michigan chairs the Judiciary Committee, and that liberals, often but not always anti-gun, control the important committees.

Meanwhile, if that A-rated House Democrat were beaten by some squishy C or B-rated Republican, his first vote be would make A-rated John Boehner (or perhaps some other Republican) the Speaker.

It’s a very good point, but I’m not sure how you really get around it unless you score the vote on the Speaker and leadership. We don’t want to hitch the gun rights wagon to a particular party, but we do want to hold individual politicians accountable for their positions on our issue, and many Democrats on the issue are quite good. If we refuse to back Democrats who support our issue, we essentially offer the Democrats nothing for their support, in which case, right now, we’d be getting steamrollered in Congress.

So why not score the vote on the Speaker? Because, not surprisingly, politicians are political animals. If the Republicans and pro-gun Democrats can get together to get together and form a majority for the purposes of gun bills, they can’t necessarily get together on other matters, such as the selection of Speaker. The problem is, while the Democratic Party is divided between Progressives and moderate-to-conservative Blue Dogs, the Progressives are the ones in the safest districts, and the ones with the most seniority.

They also represent a voting majority within the party itself. The only way you could get a different Speaker than Pelosi would be if the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats got together and elected a different Speaker. That’s not going to happen. Why? Because the party is in charge of committee assignments according to House rules, and any Democrat crossing the ailes for that kind of thing is going to find himself with the worst assignments. There’s also many many things the party apparatus can do to a Blue Dog to make him cooperate, or punish him for lack of cooperation. The system makes it very difficult for a minority faction within a party to have a whole lot of sway, so it’s very difficult for them to buck their party on a vote like Speaker. Sure, you can grade the vote, but it’s not going to make you popular on the Hill, and you’re not going to win anyway. There’s no easy answer to the Pelosi problem.

What surprises me, is that in a year like this one, you don’t see more Blue Dogs threatening to switch parties if the progressive leadership keeps twisting their arms. Maybe there’s a good reason that move is very hard to pull off in DC, but if I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t hesitate to play that card. This is going to be a bad year to be a Democratic. Even worse if you voted for the health care bill.

Obama says he’ll withdraw his support of wavering Democrats on Health Care, and not campaign for them. It would seem to me that this isn’t exactly a threat. In fact, if I were one of those wavering Blue Dogs, I think my inclination would be to ask the White House if they would put it in writing. Perhaps Obama could twist more arms by threatening to show up at key campaign events. You can’t say “no” to the President, after all.

I don’t know if y’all have noticed, but Obama really enjoys coming to the Philadelphia area. He’s here often enough that when Sebastian complains about all the cops out when he drives to or from work, we can safely assume that Obama is here.

I think I just figured out why that is. It’s not because the City of Brotherly Love is showed him so much love in the last election (in the form of men armed with batons blocking polling places). It’s because the stench of Democratic corruption must remind him of Chicago.

For those who have forgotten, Obama won his first campaign unopposed. Which is interesting considering there was a sitting Democratic incumbent who did not retire. He challenged all of her signatures to get her thrown off the ballot – along with any other competitors.

The intriguing campaign I mentioned yesterday is facing a similar problem. Only instead of her being an incumbent, she’s a political newbie who has no shot of winning the overwhelmingly Democratic district represented by the head of the Philadelphia Democratic Party. But he wants her off the ballot anyway. There’s no room for anyone else once you factor in his ego, I suppose.

There’s been some more activity today on the issue of whether the Slaughter Rule for passing Health Care would be constitutional.  Michael McConnell says it’s not constitutional in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, via Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy. Based on this reading, which would indicate the House and Senate never actually plan to pass the same bill, I would agree it’s unconstitutional. I would think there has to be limits to House and Senate rules in so far as they aren’t delegating their role to the other body. For instance, if they create a rule that deems two bills to be passed with one vote, why not three? Four? Twelve? Certainly they can consolidate twelve bills into one bill, but can the House or Senate really have a rule that just deems any number of bills as “passed” even if there’s never been a vote? I think the answer to that has to be no, at least if the Constitutional role each body plays isn’t considered to be unconstitutionally delegated.

While researching my list of federal candidates on social media sites, I came across a longshot campaign for Congress against Rep. Bob Brady in Philly. Brady heads the Philadelphia Democratic machine. At the big Democratic shindig/nominating party, he was right up on stage with Nancy Pelosi – the only non-statewide office holder or candidate I saw up there with her. The head of Pittsburgh’s Democratic Party wasn’t around, just Philly. I don’t think the dead girl/live boy rule even applies to this former union organizer.

But this 27-year-old girl not only has a great website, she has a message that could disconnect some of the younger voters from the entrenched Philly politicians. (That won’t win races, but it’s just interesting.) Here’s what I like:

• Focusing on where the incumbent leadership has failed: “Today, the First District has the distinction of being the second hungriest district in the nation. It has some of the worst schools, the highest crimes rates, the most strangling taxes and the greatest pension problems. For too many years, this district has been abused by those who have ravaged this birthplace of the American dream under the guise of brotherly love.”
• Specific example of broken promises/wasted resources that tangibly makes district life worse: “In an attempt to revitalize the city by bringing a green real estate project to the district (without grants or government aid), I came head to head with the inner politics that go on here every day behind the scenes. The Industrial Empowerment Zone, a nation-wide government program started by President Clinton, was meant to bring industry back to Philadelphia but we know industry is not coming back. Philadelphia has been given millions of dollars in federal funds to essentially blight neighborhoods causing homeowners and landlords to drastically lose property value. These properties are being purchased by well connected insiders at bargain-basement prices at the expense of the residents of the First District. Our project was rejected by the zoning board the day after Michael Nutter promised to make Philadelphia the greenest city in the nation in his inaugural address. Today, the land still sits vacant.”
• Confidence in style. Take a look at her website. She at least knows how to make you to stop and take a look.
• According to her site, she wants to use this opportunity to create a PR plan for free markets that others can use around the country. I like the attitude of experimentation here. It’s beyond an uphill battle, but sometimes those are the best opportunities to try radical ideas to see if anything sticks. It may not win this race, but maybe something useful will come out of it.
• I think her campaign video has a few issues, the first of which is a little too hard hitting for most voters who aren’t that comfortable taking a leap to something new in rough times. But, I do think it’s a great example for others to follow in support of candidates to specific constituencies (i.e. rallying the base). I love the ending – a real call to action to not let them get away with this anymore. It’s not enough to bitch, action has to be taken.
• Contrast her message with Bob Brady’s campaign site which is nothing but why you should give him money and how you should give him money. He’s not interested in telling you about himself or really giving a damn about what you want to hear.

I have no illusions about how this campaign will turn out in November. But sometimes losing can teach us lessons about how to approach other battles. What I like about her web presence isn’t so much a “sexy/MTV” vibe, but how real issues are addressed and not just talking points. Even when she does rely on talking points, she remembers to put in the request for you the viewer to help take back the country and make it a better place.

I can respect those who actually take a stand to try something new. It is the spirit of America, and I hope that Pia does find a few elements that stick, even in solid blue Philadelphia.

Why? Because I’m fascinated by this stuff.  And I spent two days studying district maps, Googling unknown candidates, and otherwise trying to find every bit of information on these elections that I could in order to make a more useful resource for gun owners this year.

• Of the 6 Senate races in the area, 4 incumbents were A rated in their last election cycle. One was a B rating, and the other F.
• There are 30 House races in the area. Only 8 of these races are (so far) uncontested. Six of those are districts in Philadelphia.
• Of the 8 unchallenged incumbents, 2 had Fs, 2 had Ds, 1 had a C, 1 had a B, and 2 have maintained A ratings.
• Looking at the full list of races with incumbents running (28), we have: 3 ?s, 3 Fs, 10 Ds, 3 Cs, 4 Bs, and 5 As.
• The two open seats were previously represented by lawmakers with A and F ratings.

I think our pro-gun Senate seats are safer than the pro-gun House seats on the whole. One of our B rated guys in Philadelphia is actually facing charges, though to be honest, that doesn’t turn many Philly voters off. So I maintain that even though he has challengers from his own party and the other, it might not be much of a race for the new entrants to the race.

The House races are especially important for those who fall on the right side of the political aisle. Right now the Democrats control the House by just a handful of seats. The Senate is safely Republican, and is likely to become even more so after this year’s elections. This will be legislature that redraws all of the district lines and erases at least one Congressional district from the state.

I spent the better part of two days examining every single state race going on in our districts – PA-8 & PA-13. If you live in Bucks, Montgomery, or North Philly and own guns, you should go find your local races and get an idea of what’s going on.

For those of you not in the area, here are a few interesting observations:

• For the federal races, both districts will have competitive Republican primaries with no Democrats on the ballot other than incumbents. In PA-13, it won’t really matter since the chances of unseating Schwartz run at about 1 in a million if you’re feeling generous to the challenger. Other than the more sparsely populated northern tier of her district, that area is solidly Democratic – and pretty far left Democratic at that. In PA-8, I have my doubts about all of the GOP candidates against Murphy in the fall. However, professional political observers in DC say that if Fitzpatrick can pull out a win in May, he’ll have a good shot at beating Murphy. I’m on the ground and am far more skeptical.
• Out of the 6 state senate districts in the area, only one is held by an incumbent with less than an A or B from NRA. Granted, she’s got an F, but she represents primarily Philly. In smaller races with less direct influence from Philadelphia, we can still do reasonably well. Regardless of whether you live in this area or even another state, that’s something to keep in mind if you have a safe anti-gun Congressman. There may be local races where your help can make the difference.
• Bad news: A lot of poorly rated Philadelphia politicians have no challengers this year from either side. In theory, a write-in campaign could change this. In reality, it’s not likely to make a difference without serious planning and the incumbent over a dead body.
• Good news: A handful of friendly (or at least not hostile & willing to listen) lawmakers – even some from Philly! – also have no challengers from either side. Again, this could change with an effective write-in campaign. While that makes it an uphill battle, gun owners should still keep an eye out.
• Of all of the races that are re-matches from 2008, the GOP looks like it could pick up seats in all but one. One re-match was decided for the Democrat by less than 900 votes in a record-setting Democratic year. While the Republican candidate still has to beat the incumbency factor, this is a great year to pick up this battle again.

If you are in the area and have a favorite already, get in touch and I’ll let you know how you can get involved.

You really couldn’t come up with a better name for the latest scheme the Democrats have come up with to pass health care. Absent the votes to actually pass this monstrosity, we’ll just slaughter the Republic and the Constitution and ram it through! But there seems to be some debate as to whether this mess is constitutional. Here are some thoughts on the matter, keeping in mind I’m far from an expert on these topics.

It would seems to me to be perfectly constitutional for the House to amend the Senate version, then send it back to the Senate, which the Senate will then pass and go on to the President. This path, however is closed by rule, since it would require 60 votes in the Senate to shut off debate on the bill, which the Democrats no longer have (thank you Massachusetts!). There’s also the political problem that Pelosi would no longer appear to have the votes necessary to pass anything called “Health Care” in the House.

My understanding of the Slaughter Solution is that they pass a reconciliation bill, along with a rule change that deems the Senate version to have been passed (even though it has not). The reconciliation bill then goes to the Senate under reconciliation rules, under which the terms of debate do not allow for the filibuster. The reconciliation bill, being signed by the President, then becomes the Health Care law. Now, there seems to be some question on whether, after the reconciliation bill passes the Senate, the House will then actually have a vote on the Senate bill, and if passed, both bills will be presented to the President for his signature or veto.

It would seem to me any law which is presented to Obama, not having passed both houses of Congress, would be pretty clearly unconstitutional. But is it judicable? In other words, can someone file suit. I think that yes, a minority of members of Congress could sue because they were denied their constitutional power to request a roll call vote. This is pretty explicitly in the constitution, and it would seem to be to be fairly unambiguous that this path would be unconstitutional, and the minority would have a means for invalidating the bill. The only counter argument I could see here is that, effectively, the House combined several questions into one vote, which is should be permitted to do if the House rules allow it. But how far would this be allowed to go? What if the House changed its rules to say any bill which the Senate passes in a given session will be “deemed” to have pass? It would seem to me there also might be questions that could be raised under the Non-Delegation Doctrine as well.

The latter case, where the House moves a reconciliation bill forward, under a rule that deems the Senate version to have passed the House, but with the Senate version later being actually voted on by the House and both bills being presented to the President simultaneously is a bit more constitutionally ambiguous. There’s a better case that this is constitutional., since the House and Senate will have, effectively, passed two bills, and presented both to the President. The “deeming” of the Senate bill being passed, in this instance, would merely be a procedural maneuver that would allow the Senate to use the reconciliation rules to get the fixes some House members are demanding before they’ll flip their vote. It’s my opinion that if this is the plan, it’s likely constitutional. The question is whether it violates the reconciliation rules. Reconciliation rules require that you change a budgetary matter that is actually existing law. It would seem to me that this Slaughter rule wouldn’t really get around that. They’d essentially be changing budgetary issues that don’t effectively exist. The House passing a rule that “deems” a bill to be passed does not actually make it so.

Either way you go, this tactic is a disgusting abuse of procedure and an affront to the democratic process. It’s hard for me to understand how it’s legal under either path. I definitely don’t see how the House gets around having to vote for the Senate bill. It would seem to me you can’t pass two bills with one vote because of the Article 1 Section 5 requirements in the constitution. If anyone out there has any specific expertise on this topic (and after reading the actual rules, if you do, I have a huge amount of respect for you, these rules are complicated) feel free to chime in with comments.

I think any American, no matter how they feel about health care, ought to be outraged by this tactic. Dave Kopel asks whether it’s even Constitutional.

Jacob has some coverage, including a return of Doug Hoffman, and Kirsten Gillibrand attracting yet another challenger. Before too long it seems like half the State of New York will have announced they are primarying Gillibrand. Apparently even Bloomberg’s girlfriend wants a piece of that action.

Ultimately, the Albion Borough Council which previously banned guns on city property rescinded their ban after they realized it would cost a pretty penny to defend against lawsuits that they could very likely lose.

The financial cost to taxpayers is a talking point that non-gun owners can identify with, and a major source of contention in Pennsylvania after last year’s state budget fiasco and the simple fact that the Governor has been simply unable to deliver a budget on time since he’s been in office. Local budgets can’t afford partisan political games from Harrisburg, so they definitely don’t have the spare cash to fight lawsuits. It doesn’t have to be your only argument against local gun control, but make sure it gets made.

Everyone says we should look to Pennsylvania as a bellwether of 2010 politics. We have the most number of competitive Congressional races, and we’ve got major statewide elections that will drive people out to the polls more so than other states in this year’s non-presidential cycle. We also have a very good shot at turning the Pennsylvania House over to GOP – a strictly partisan move I would not have cared much for until the very centrist Democrat House Speaker announced his retirement. I do not trust who might move up to that top spot if the Democrats remain in control. (Here is an effort to draw attention to states with closely split legislative houses that can be flipped by pushing just a handful of candidates.)

Last night was the local GOP vote for John Murtha’s former seat. Due to the timing of his death, this election cycle is pretty complicated with two different elections with some of the same and some different candidates held for the same seat on the same day. The shorter story you need to know is that both parties have selected candidates for their races who are political unknowns. The Democrats chose Murtha’s former district director who clearly has political experience, but isn’t on the record with his own views. We don’t know if he shares Murtha’s dedication to gun rights. On the GOP side, there’s a businessman who brings new energy to the grassroots and who the Democrats have resorted to calling mean because he once built a successful business, sold it, and the other owners laid people off. (I expect PA-12 to turn into a children’s playground at the rate the campaign is going because of outside candidates who didn’t have local support. Expect spitballs and screams of “I’m gonna tell on you!” any day now.) As a political newbie, GOP candidate Tim Burns also doesn’t have a record on gun rights yet. So this should be interesting. The district has always been reliable for guns, but we don’t know if it will remain that way.

Depending on how things go, we can see it as a blessing or a curse that we’ll be losing that district anyway. Given that the candidate will have only served a term and a half, it is likely that both parties will agree to do away with PA-12 when we have to give up a seat following the Census.

Depending on how much you like politics, this is either a political junkie’s dream world or a cynic’s worst nightmare. For me, it relies on my mood. Since the political attitude is more anti-incumbent than pro-Republican, I’m really not sure how this will play out. Given that uncertainty, and the fact that the local GOP is trying to actively drive voters into the arms of Democrats, I’m leaning more toward a nightmare mood.

If you’re a Pennsylvania politico, or just a politics watcher who generally has a feel for what’s going on, take the PoliticsPA poll (on the left, about halfway down) on which will be the most interesting May 18 race. Also leave your answer as a comment if you’re so inclined. I’d like to know which races you guys are interested in.

According to Hotline, the two top candidates in the GOP primary for Arizona governor are bickering about web ads. Meanwhile, the longshot campaign of NRA Board member Buz Mills has just gone on television with his first ad.

One of the interesting observations: He has a mobile campaign. I read something the other day about campaigns using mobile campaigns that suggested they go ahead and lay out the big cash to buy their own “text to” number. Apparently, you can basically rent a word that uses the same text number as many other campaigns.

For Buz, that word is GOBUZ. However, it turns out he is far from the only one using the same number. For example, if you’re in Lake Charles, Louisiana, you can use the same number and text CASA for free queso dip or margarita at this joint. If you’re a golfer who loves wine, you may want to check out the 19th hole event text that could have gotten you special information about a golf event that, presumably, involves wine. If you want to see a biotech shop kiss ass to environmentalists, just use BIOTECH. Taste of Dallas will hook you up if you use the same number with the word TASTE.

Fortunately, it looks like there’s not any craziness sharing the same number as Buz’s campaign. But, you can see how this could get funny for any candidate.

The State Police are continuing to ensure that Pennsylvanians only have access to shitty beer. Either that or the State Police are planning one hell of a party and figured out a cheap way to get the beer.

I’m surprised they went after a distributor. The beer distributor lobby in this state is powerful. Normally I am politically opposed to them, because they want to maintain their monopoly through regulation, but if they want to join me in getting rid of this ridiculous registration requirement, I’d be happy to ally on this issue.

“This is really an outrage,” said a local bar owner who missed his Duvel delivery yesterday. “The state doesn’t understand that Duvel actually is registered and has been sold here for years and years. It’s almost unbelievable.”

Don’t get angry, get even. Let’s get together and push Harrisburg to put a short leash on the beer nazis.

If you had asked me what pro-gun bills might be at the top of my priority list, I might have ranked making sure Pennsylvania has an official state gun somewhere down with a house resolution making next February “Gunsmith Awareness Month”. That said, I don’t have any issue with Pennsylvania making the rifle named after the state (don’t let those dirty Kentuckians tell you it’s a Kentucky Rifle) its official gun.

Capitol Ideas is reporting that CeaseFire Pennsylvania is taking a position against this muzzle loading, black powder, flintlock being our official state gun, suggesting that “The last thing the Pennsylvania General Assembly should be doing is designating an official state rifle.” Next time I see some gang member toting around a muzzle loading flintlock, I might at least understand the opposition, even if I don’t agree with it. But do we really have to have a debate about this?

Joe Grace would no doubt prefer a debate about “Lost and Stolen” ordinances, and he says as much, but Joe needs to explain why he’s gotten almost two dozen municipalities to pass these ordinances, yet we have zero prosecutions. Two of those municipalities are Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. You’d think if this was such an important crime fighting tool, it might have been used once or twice by now.

Orin Kerr I think sums it up nicely over at Volokh, as to why it’s going to be very difficult to get justices to revive key constitutional principles because they are more academically correct:

My point is only that it’s the system the Constitution gave us. The Framers bestowed responsibility upon politicians for nominating and confirming Justices, and that choice means that the Justices we’re likely to get are likely to be more practical people than constitutional theorists. So if you’re disappointed that the Justices are not committed enough to constitutional first principles, it is of course fair to criticize the individual Justices, and the broader legal culture. But I think at least part of your criticism should be directed to the Framers for giving responsibility to politicians for who ends up a Justice.

It’s often heard that the founders intended to put certain rights beyond the political process when they enacted the Bill of Rights. But really, all rights are subject to politics over the long haul. The genius in our system is that it takes a sustained shift in constitutional thinking, over a long period of time, in order for new ideas and interpretations to work their way into our courts. Perhaps someday, if the population is committed to electing politicians that demand justices right what was wrong, we’ll get Privileges or Immunities restored to its rightful place, but not now.

Ultimately our rights are subject to the political process. That might not be ideal in abstract theory, when in practical implementation of a government, I’m not sure how you make a system that works better than what we have now. Ultimately the Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment are fading ink on pieces of parchment. At the end of the day, what those word mean as a matter of law is entirely up to we the people.

Apparently we’ve solved so many crimes in this state that the State Police have nothing better to do than go around looking for unregistered beer. I am particularly disturbed that they seized one of my very favorite area beers, the Monk’s Flemish Sour Ale. I was completely unaware that there was any such thing as a beer registry in Pennsylvania, but I can’t say I’m surprised. The beer business in this state is basically run by the big distributors. It’s regulatory capture at its worst.

It’s high time our state legislators stood up to the Malt Beverage Distributors Association of Pennsylvania, and enacted comprehensive reform and modernization of our laws governing alcoholic beverages. It’s time for Pennsylvania to move beyond the prohibition era. Everyone hates this system. What’s to lose by changing it?

Over at the other blog, we talk about how the Congressional races are shaping up in Pennsylvania on the gun issue. The first big one is for Murtha’s seat.

Thomas Sowell has an excellent interview here discussing why it’s dangerous to put intellectuals in charge of everything. This is truth. I’ve often heard people decry the influence of lobbyists in Washington. I don’t. The lobbyists are the only ones who know how anything works. If you took the lobbyists out of the equation this country would be run by dimwitted politicians with delusions of grandeur, and overeducated twenty something staffers who think they know a lot more than they really do.

Thomas Jefferson Club, one of our local tea party groups, is making note of the fact that our Congresman, Patrick Murphy, doesn’t seem to want to be seen in public with President Obama. This is a smart move for Murphy politically, but it’s quite telling. Murphy is vulnerable this year, but despite that, the Bucks County GOP is doing everything in their power to ensure that we do not recapture the seat.

Clayton Cramer talks about an article he wrote recently about decriminalization of marijuana. I would put myself firmly in Clayton’s first category, namely that I think the social costs of prohibition are higher than an increased incidence of schizophrenia, though the social cost of that is certainly nothing to dismiss. I’d have no problem funneling money we save on the war on drugs toward taking care of the mental illness that result from substance abuse. But I find Clayton’s fourth point interesting:

People arguing that marijuana laws don’t have any influence on behavior–no matter what the laws are, the same number of people will smoke pot. Yet, at the same time, they acknowledge that having it illegal drives up prices, attracting the violent criminals into the trade. Somehow, rising prices don’t affect demand or consumption.

Let me change that around a bit:

People arguing that gun laws don’t have any influence on behavior–no matter what the laws are, the same number of criminals will get guns. Yet, at the same time, they acknowledge that having guns illegal drives up prices, attracting the violent criminals into the trade. Somehow, rising prices don’t affect demand or consumption.

But I suspect that Clayton believes as I do, that the issue is a bit different. I don’t dispute that prohibition would drive the price of guns up, and the number of criminals able to afford guns down. But if I can’t have a gun either, it’s little comfort to me that the guy who robs me on the street threatens to shiv me instead of shoot me, or the guy breaking in my house threatens to beat me with a crowbar instead. Also, much like with Clayton’s argument about alcohol, we’re already an armed society. That genie left the bottle a long time ago. Of course, I also think, with respect to marijuana, that is probably also the case. It’s hard to prohibit something that you can grow in a closet with the right equipment, and if you think about what you have to do to stop something of that, it involves a police state. That’s why I’ll continue to be a proponent of decriminalization. Mental illness we can treat, a police state is a much harder nut to crack.

Earlier today I heard a rumor that Roberts was stepping down as Chief Justice for “personal reasons.” It turns out that the rumor was false. Thank God for us, because we’d be utterly fscked if that were the case. They all have to stay on/alive for the next few months. Let’s not have any unexpected resignations or deaths. I heard that Scalia is a smoker. Please Justice Scalia, try some of this.

The Brady Campaign thinks they can compete on the grassroots front with us. It’s so naive that I think it’s kinda cute. This morning they put out a call to action on Twitter and Facebook asking their followers (a good number of whom are actually pro-gun) to go vote in a Wall Street Journal poll on whether Starbucks should cave and insert themselves into this issue. (Don’t follow the link @bradybuzz sent, it’s wrong. Use this one to vote freedom first today.)

Then a writer for Consumerist decides to profile the situation and only quote anti-gun leaders before putting up a poorly-worded poll about the issue. They claim the company has changed their policy to allow guns, but that’s not true. No policy has changed. However, they have still added a poll to gauge support for the issue. Here’s another chance to vote freedom first by choosing either the 2nd or 4th option – supporting the policy or don’t care and will buy anyway.

So if this is the game that Paul wants to play, let’s show him how it’s played. It will be a nice little preview of November.