Daily Archives: September 15, 2022

The 17th annual "Right to Keep and Bear Arms Rally" was held on the steps of the State Capitol, with speakers across the country and the Commonwealth

HARRISBURG, Pa. Supporters of gun rights filled the Capitol steps this morning in Harrisburg. Organized by Republican state representative Daryl Metcalfe, the 17th Annual "Right to Keep and Bear Arms Rally", featured pro-Second Amendment speakers from across the country and the Commonwealth.

Metcalfe said this rally on Monday morning was a reminder of the rights, he said, are enshrined in the U.S Constitution.

We have a tradition and we have a heritage," said Metcalfe, "We need to ensure that we protect the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.

Many people that attended the rally agreed. Kevin Anderson, a Chester County native said, "Our rights are rights. They're not an option or a privilege.

Metcalfe is a sponsor of House Bill 357 which is legislation that prohibits any law that imposes gun control.

On the other side of the political aisle, gun control activists say they support Second Amendment rights, but also support protections including safe storage requirements, red flag laws, and universal background checks.

The public at large supports life-saving gun safety policies," said Josh Fleitman, western Pennsylvania manager at CeaseFire PA, "They recognize what Chief Justice Antonin Scalia said in the Heller, the famous Heller decision by the Supreme Court, which is that even the Second Amendment like all Constitutional rights, is subject to reasonable regulation in the interest of public safety and public health.

The Pennsylvania Democratic House Caucus agrees. They wrote in a statement to FOX43:

There are millions of Pennsylvanians who respect 2nd Amendment rights but also support common-sense gun safety measures which would save countless lives across the Commonwealth.

Governor Wolfs office also released the following statement to FOX43:

The governor supports common-sense legislation to address gun violence without impacting law-abiding responsible gun owners.

House Bill 357 is currently in the House Judiciary Committee for the reviewing process.

See the rest here:
Pro-Second Amendment rally held on the steps of the State Capitol - WPMT FOX 43

On August 30, President Biden emerged from about three weeks of vacation to start what appears to be a full transition from leading the country (if you could call it that) to a dedicated campaign mode.

The sparsely attended appearance in Wilkes-Barre, PA was touted as a promotion for Bidens Safer America Plan, but was really just another opportunity for the president to rail against NRA, Republicans, law-abiding gun owners, semi-automatic firearms, and the Second Amendment.

Bidens meandering, at times confusing delivery was what you would expect. He told a bunch of stories about himself and others, although they all seemed a bit too contrived, and impossible to verify. But he also told many lies, and made a few gaffes. Again, what youd expect.

He brought up his long-stated goal of banning semi-automatic firearms, saying, Im determined to ban (so-called) assault weapons in this country. He followed that up with the head-scratcher, I want to be clear: Its not about taking away anybodys guns. So, hes either lying about banning guns, which would, by definition, require taking them away from people, or hes lying about nottaking away anybodys guns.

He then tried to convince those attending, But I support the Second Amendment. And I support the Second Amendment. No matter how often he repeats this line, it remains contradicted by mounds of evidence.

Biden also stated, Right now, you cant go on (sic) and buy an automatic weapon. You cant go out and buy a cannon. The first part of that is sort of correct, but the second is totally wrong.

Yes, fully-automatic firearms are strictly regulated, and prohibitively expensive for most. But if you want to go through the tremendous amount of red tape required to lawfully procure and own one, are willing to wait anywhere from several months to more than a year for your paperwork to be processed, can find another lawful owner willing to part with one, and have the financial resources, you can buy one.

As for cannons, hes just wrong, and he likely knows it. He has made the same outrageous claim for a number of years, originally saying you could not buy one at the time the Second Amendment was ratified. That has been proven to be false a number of times.

Now that he has dropped the historical reference, hes still wrong. Muzzle-loading cannons, which are what most people think of when you say cannon, are what existed and were in common use at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendmentand even up to the Civil War and well beyondand they are not generally prohibited under federal law.

Not satisfied with just lying, Biden then went on to ridicule anyone who opposes his anti-gun agenda, mocking their support of the Second Amendment.

His voice dripping with condescension, Biden proclaimed, And for those brave, right-wing Americans who say its all about keeping America keeping America as independent and safe: If you want to fight against a country, you need an F-15.

While not quite as threatening as California U.S. Representative, and failed presidential candidate, Eric Swalwell (D) implying the U.S. government would use nuclear weapons against its own citizens, its still a rather disturbing statement to make.

In effect, Biden is saying that it is pointless for U.S. citizens to resist oppression from a tyrannical governmenti.e., keeping Americaindependent and safebecause they would be overmatched against a country with its own military forces.

Biden then ran the gamut of nonsense.

First, he claimed AR-15s just rips (sic) the body apart of anyone shot by someone wielding one. For anyone with a basic understanding of ballistics, this statement is absurd. Not only does the standard .223 caliber projectile not rip the body apart, one of the consistent critiques of the 5.56x45mm cartridge is that it is relatively underpowered.

He followed his lie about AR-15s with the tired joke hes been using for years about hunting and deer in Kevlar vests. This time, however, he added bear to the mix of animals that dont wear Kevlar.

Not satisfied with having already shown how little he knows about firearms, he then claimed the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun.

Not only is the cartridge fired by the AR-15 not five times faster than any other gun, it is actually slower than many other modern cartridges that fire similar weight projectiles. The 5.56x45mm cartridge is limited to around 3,200 feet per second in standard loadings out of the 20 inch or shorter barrels common to AR-15s. Cartridges like the .204 Ruger and .22-250 can push similar bullets up to and beyond 4,000 feet per second.

Of course, he also repeated the lies that he passed the 94 ban on semi-autos (actually passed by the House and Senate, then signed by President Bill Clinton), and that the ban drove down mass shootings (studies found no convincing evidence that such laws reduce violent crime generally or even mass shootings in particular).

But a Biden campaign speech wouldnt be complete without a few gaffes. Throughout his rambling presentation to the small crowd in Wilkes-Barre, there were a number of instances where he mumbled semi-incoherently and trailed off as he appeared to lose his train of thought. For the most part, though, when reading from his teleprompter, he remained reasonably focused, with only a few obvious mistakes when his eyes strayed too far from the screen. At the end, though, looking away from his electronic assistant, he went full Biden.

Trying to come across as the folksy Biden, he asked the small gathering, Please, please elect the Attorney General (Democrat Josh Shapiro) to the Senate. Elect that big ol boy (Democrat Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman) to be governor. Of course, Biden being Biden, he mixed up the candidates and their respective races.

This appearance is likely to be a template for many Biden appearances from now until Novembers midterm elections. The man who was sold as a uniter to voters in 2020 has completely removed that faade, and is using disdain and derision to show his utter contempt not just for the Second Amendment, but for anyone who opposes his gun-ban agenda.

All who care about freedom in this country should make note of this kind of reckless messaging, and use it to embolden themselves and others to work even harder to ensure we elect staunch defenders of the Second Amendment this coming Election Day, on November 8.

Read more here:
Biden Continues Railing Against the Second Amendment - NRA ILA

Today, much of rural America remains as remote and self-sufficient as the frontiers of old. And rural, urban, or otherwise, the swift onset of an unprovoked animal attack affords no opportunity for anything but the ablest of self-defense. Bystanders, if there are any, are often helpless in the face of animal attacks, and their courage to intervene cannot always be counted on. As in the context of self-defense against criminals, we are our own first responders.

Nor can we count ourselves safe simply because we do not live in a rural area. Brazen wild animals often wander into suburbs and cities, and even domestic dog attacks account for 50 human deaths a year.

In June, the Supreme Court decided a seminal case, New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. In it, the Court reinforced a framework of Second Amendment interpretation that required courts to closely analyze American history and tradition in determining the scope of the right to keep and bear arms. And that history and tradition illustrate the longstanding necessity of Americans to protect themselves from animal attacks. In fact, the wild animal populations had grown so out of control and instilled so much fear in the settlers that colonies like Massachusetts and South Carolina began to place bounties on the heads of animals like wolves, bears, bobcats, and panthers.

For an illustration of the dangers of the American frontier, one needs to look no further than the following event involving legendary frontiersman Daniel Boone. Boone and his brother, Neddie, were hunting when they stopped by a stream to rest. Daniel spotted a bear rustling in the woods; he proceeded to shoot and follow it while his brother Neddie remained behind. Then, hearing gunshots, he saw a handful of Shawnee Indians over his brothers corpse, which they had decapitated. With the Indians on his tail, Daniel ran to Boones Station. When he returned with a posse to the site of Neddies killing, he found his brothers corpse eaten by a panther. In one founding era gun story, we have a beheaded corpse, a panther, a bear, and Indians.

Americas wilderness and rural settings can be dangerous today, and one always must be prepared for surprise attacks from unseen quarters. This is especially true of those who visit or travel through these parts since they are the least likely to know how to avoid attracting the attention or interest of wild animals.

The history and tradition of our Nation and our Second Amendment clarify the importance of self-defense in the face of animal attacks. The pre-existing right of self-defense is, as the term suggests, focused on the self. The aggressors identity does not matter; man, woman, or animal, a person has an equal right to defend himself or herself from anyone and anything by whom or which his life is threatened. Given that backdrop for the Second Amendment and early American history, it is quite difficult to see how protection from animals could not be one of the key applications of the right to keep and bear arms.

Justice Alitos concurrence in Bruen concluded with the following observation, which is as applicable to self-defense from animals as it is to self-defense from other humans:

Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.

Originally posted here:
The Second Amendment and the Right to Self-Defense From Lions, Tigers, and Bears SMERCONISH - SMERCONISH

Is the FBI intentionally targeting proponents of smaller government? Or is it just a coincidence that a Domestic Terrorists Symbols Guide solely targets beliefs that fall on that part of the political spectrum? Identifying threats to individual and national security is of the utmost importance to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). But, at the cost of branding citizens as domestic terrorists, where do we draw the line?

On August 2, 2022, an article was published by the often controversial Project Veritas titled, FBI Whistleblower LEAKS Bureaus Domestic Terrorists Symbols Guide on Militia Violent Extreamists Citing Ashli Babbitt as MVE martyr. This article had images that leaked FBI Internal Use Only documents containing information used to identify Militia Violent Extremists.

Militia Violent Extremists (MVE), as described by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), are [individuals] motivated by a belief that private citizens must use violence to resist government overreach, combat purported tyranny, or maintain law and order.

This definition of a domestic terrorist falls very close to what the framers envisioned as a right and duty so that we, as Americans, may protect our liberties.

Stephen P. Halbrook published a research article about the history of the second amendment and how it applies today. A well-regulated militia was a debate for congress in 1792. The Militia Act would require that all able-bodied white males would enroll in the militia and provide their arms. This gave the people the power to protect our natural rights.

Are we to believe that because we have grown as a nation and evolved, we no longer retain the right that grants us the ability to defend all other liberties? Forming militias from the citizens that are officered by individuals selected among themselves is at the foundation of what it means to be an American.

Many of the symbols outlined in the leaked FBI documents have a rich and valued tradition dating back to the founding of this great nation: The Liberty Tree, the Betsey Ross Flag, the Gadsden Flag, and even refers vaguely to revolutionary war imagery. By associating with these symbols, you are potentially placing yourself under the scrutiny of the FBI as a domestic terrorist.

Wouldnt people associating with historical symbolism be more likely to remain true to the constitution that is being upheld?

The second amendment is also under a great magnitude of scrutiny. The FBI cites that the second amendment allows MVEs to justify their existence due to the right to bear arms and a well regulated militia. Tens of millions of gun owners in America identify with the second amendment in some form or another, or they would not be in possession of a firearm.

Militia Violent Extremists do exist in the United States. They are bad. MVEs desire to inflict violence when not in direct threat of tyrannical oppression is what disqualifies them from being a well regulated militia and labels them as domestic terrorists. The percentage of MVEs to regulated militias is low, and we can decrease it further. But equating individuals who display this imagry to these extremists is nonsensical.

ICCT states, The US government can limit radicalization through transparency around its domestic activity, thereby countering the anti-authority sentiments and conspiracy theorists that fuel the movement.

The leak of this document from the FBI does not invoke feelings of trust among its people and may actually push more people over the edge and make them believe the MVEs were right all along.

Is the FBI a pawn of the ruling class and being used to eliminate the second amendment? Are normal people who are invoking their constitutional liberties and respecting revolutionary symbolism being branded as domestic terrorists? It is time for some transparency.

Spenser Stenmarkcovers natural resource management, forestry, fire ecology, and other critical policy issues affecting the Pacific Northwest.

View original post here:
Has the FBI Identified You as an Extremist? - Catalyst

Protecting abortion rights was the top issue for North Carolina's swing voters who participated in our latest Engagious/Schlesinger focus group.

Yes, but: Whether their feelings on those issues will drive them to the polls in the November midterms was less clear, especially considering many participants couldnt name North Carolina's U.S. Senate candidates, Cheri Beasley and Rep. Ted Budd.

Why it matters: Democrats hope that falling gas prices and voters energized by abortion restrictions will help them win congressional races in North Carolina and several other states in a year that's expected to be more favorable to Republicans.

Driving the news: About halfway between the U.S. Supreme Court's June decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the November midterms, Axios partner Engagious/Schlesinger conducted two online focus groups on Monday with 11North Carolinianswho voted for Donald Trump in 2016 then Joe Biden in 2020.

Of note: While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events. Schlesinger recruits from a national panel of people willing to participate in qualitative research.

The big picture: Most were passionate about abortion and gas prices, while offering mixed views on gun control and student loan forgiveness, and ambivalence over the state of healthcare in N.C.

Voter Russell T. of Forsyth County listed protecting a woman's right to abortion as his top issue, then protecting the Second Amendment and fighting for racial equity. He said he believes the Republican Party has historically been about keeping "less government in your life," but that changed after the Dobbs ruling.

Reality check: Few participants were engaged in North Carolina's U.S. Senate race. In fact:

Between the lines: Unlike in recent focus groups in Florida and Wisconsin, none of the North Carolina swing voters said they regretted voting for Biden. Most said Biden lost their support early in the presidency but has gained some of it back in the past few months.

When asked if their opinions on Biden would sway their vote in the Senate race, nobody said yes. But when asked if their opinions on former President Trump would sway their vote in the Senate race, however, several said yes.

Continue reading here:
Abortion is top of mind for some North Carolina's Trump-Biden voters - Axios

Gun rights advocates scored a major victory in June when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 63 that "the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home."

In the 2008 caseDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment secures the right to possess a handgun inside the home for self-defense. Two years later inMcDonald v. Chicago, the justices applied that right against state and local governments under the 14th Amendment, which prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. June's decision inNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruenapplied the logic ofHellerandMcDonaldto gun possession in public.

The case involved a New York law requiring that anyone seeking a license to carry a concealed handgun in public satisfy a local official that he has "proper cause" to do so. According to the state, a "generalized" wish to carry a handgun for self-defense was not enough to meet that standard.

"In 43 States," Justice Clarence Thomas noted in the majority opinion, "the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen's showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State's licensing regime violates the Constitution."

The heart of the matter was whether the wide discretion that New York gave local licensing officials was consistent with how constitutional rights are typically treated. "We know of no other constitutional rights that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need," Thomas wrote. "That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with the majority but wrote separately to emphasize that "the Second Amendment allows a 'variety' of gun regulations." The legal challenges to those various regulations will come knocking at the Court's door soon enough.

This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Gun Rights Win Big at SCOTUS".

Go here to read the rest:
In 'Bruen,' SCOTUS Ruled That Gun Rights Are Secured by 14th Amendment - Reason

I dont usually give Congress credit for passing useful legislation. Bills that run to a thousand pages or more just cant prove beneficial, especially when our elected representatives admit to or even brag about not reading them. An exception to my cynical appraisal of congressional mischief is its designating every September 17 as Constitution Day.

No, it is not a federal holiday which gives everyone a paid day off of work. Nor are there ubiquitous parades and ceremonies to mark the anniversary of the Constitutions signing. About the only requirement is for colleges that receive federal funding, which is all of them except Hillsdale and one or two others, to commemorate the day in some educational manner. The hope, unfortunately misguided, is that our next generation of leaders will know and appreciate the powerful simplicity of the best governing document ever written.

It isnt working. One need only listen to all the demands for its reinterpretation, modification or outright rejection. Abolish the Electoral College because the wrong candidate was elected. Ditto for the Supreme Court for its failure to rule the way some vocal and politicized group demanded.

Even the Bill of Rights is subject to an ideological guillotine. Free speech and the free exercise of religion have come under attack when citizens choose to exercise their rights independently of the received wisdom coming from their political betters. And forget about the Second Amendment.

After these two can you list the other eight? Due process, trial by jury and self-incrimination may come to mind, but what about quartering troops in peacetime or common law suits? They just dont generate the level of heat as the first two. I think thats a good thing in a perverse sort of way.

What gets lost in this fevered discourse are the two most important amendments: the Ninth and the Tenth.

The Ninth states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Why do we need such an amendment? Does it imply that our rights are granted by the government rather than being inalienable and held to be Creator endowed? If the government can guarantee them, then can it take them away? Thomas Jefferson may have thought this answer to be self-evident but many people today believe and act otherwise, at least to the extent that they argue these rights can be limited or curtailed for cause.

But then who determines if the cause is righteous? A currently favored majority political party? This isnt Great Britain, where its constitution appears to be whatever the House of Commons declares it to be ... today. The checks-and-balance system written into our Constitution is meant to protect against a tyranny of the majority. Give John Adams credit for preaching that sermon.

Perhaps the answer lies with the Tenth Amendment which declares that The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This echoes our nations Anglo-Saxon heritage rather than the Latinized one pervasive in Europe. It is the people who hold residual rights, voluntarily surrendered to government for limited purposes. Note that it concludes with the phrase the people. Now think about the opening words of the Preamble to the Constitution: We the People. Coincidence? Probably, but then it gives pause for thought.

The Roman legal heritage of our European fellow nations takes the opposite view of this. Citizens are granted the right to do certain things by their government. The premise behind this is obvious: Government is the source of our freedom as defined by it. Read Dan Hannons Inventing Freedom: How the English Speaking People Made the Modern World for an insightful discussion of this significant difference in these two political philosophies.

So if basic rights are natural and endowed by God, how important is a constitution designed to be protected from the current electoral majority? Quite important, if one reads the Founding Fathers. The dysfunctional Articles of Confederation and the multiple defects of the state constitutions provided the impetus to construct a document meant for that generation and their posterity as the Preamble gives it.

The distinction was clear to them: there is ordinary law as determined by the legislature from time to time, and there is fundamental law that arose from the people themselves and not subject to legislative whim. For more on this critical distinction, read Gordon Woods Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution.

I am a Son of the American Legion based on my fathers service in World War II. The preamble to our constitution begins with the words: Proud possessors of a priceless heritage. That heritage is inscribed in the timeless words of Americas constitution. May we never lose sight of that.

Mark Franke, M.B.A., an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review and its book reviewer, is formerly an associate vice-chancellor at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.

Mark Franke, M.B.A., an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review and its book reviewer, is formerly an associate vice-chancellor at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.

Read the original here:
The treasure of our Constitution | Opinion | shelbynews.com - Shelbynews

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

PORTLAND, Ore. Voters in Oregon and Washington sounded off on their election priorities both locally and nationally as the midterms approach.

"The farther left the better," Sydney said in Bellingham, Washington, a city located about 20 miles south of the Canadian border.

But extreme candidates won't appeal to voters like Jon, a Seattle resident whose priorities include preserving the Second Amendment as well as a woman's right to have an abortion.

"I'm looking for a Holy Grail candidate," he told Fox News while visiting Portland. "The Dems need to put up a more moderate candidate to get my vote and then the Republicans need to also do the same."

OREGON GOP HOPEFUL CHRISTINE DRAZAN REVEALS PLANS FOR STATE THAT HASN'T ELECTED REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR IN DECADES

Jon from Seattle says he's looking for a "Holy Grail" candidate who isn't too far to the left or right. (Fox News Digital)

He also said he's skeptical voters will find moderate candidates in Washington or Oregon, which he called "essentially one-party states."

"A lot of Americans don't want a collaborator or a moderate candidate anymore. They want someone who's gung-ho and going to go full 100 and very emotional," he said. "I think that makes our politics more dangerous."

A three-way open-seat race for governor is bringing more competition to Oregon, which hasn't elected a Republican to that office since 1982. In Washington, a first-time Republican candidate hopes to unseat Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, who was first elected to the Senate in 1992.

SUPREME COURT'S ROE V. WADE DECISION: READ THE DOBBS V. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH RULING

Brenda told Fox News she supports the Second Amendment but would like to see tougher gun control as Portland continues to deal with high numbers of shootings. There were 114 shooting incidents in the city in July, compared with 34 during the same month in 2019, according to police data.

"This is out of control," Brenda said.

Amber, a Portland resident, said eco-friendly initiatives were her number one priority nationally.

"Understanding that global warming is real and aiming to make the initiatives that help push us in the right direction and kind of combat that," she said.

But locally, safety was top of mind for Amber. She said she wants to see the city of Portland focus on making people "feel comfortable" downtown again.

Farther north in Bellingham, many people told Fox News they hadn't started thinking about the election yet. Those who were planning to vote placed abortion rights, affordable housing and the environment among their top priorities.

People gather to protest the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, in Portland, Oregon. Voters in Oregon and Washington told Fox News abortion, affordable housing and the environment are among their top priorities this election season. (Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images)

Women's rights have "been put kind of under attack, especially at the federal level with the Supreme Court and everything," Francis said.

Election experts speculate the Supreme Court's June decision to overturn Roe v. Wade could drive more Democratic voters to the polls, potentially threatening Republicans' shot at taking control of Congress. Washington and Oregon both have state laws protecting abortion rights, but this week Sen. Lindsey Graham announced a federal bill to ban abortion after 15 weeks.

"It's important locally to make sure that you focus on candidates that are going to support your beliefs to hopefully have things go more to the federal level and just kind of be like a snowball effect," Francis said.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS DEMAND TWITTER PUT FORTH PLAN FOR COMBATTING MIDTERMS 'MISINFORMATION'

Voters are also worried about housing costs, as rent and home prices continue to increase in the Pacific Northwest.

"It seems like with COVID when everyone started working remote, you got a lot of people from wealthier cities like Seattle that have a lot more high-paying jobs come into smaller communities" and drive up housing prices, Francis told Fox News.

The median home price in Washington was $560,400 in 2021, nearly double the price of a house just six years previously, according to state data. In 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic began, the median price of a home was just shy of $398,000.

Mary said she wished local legislators would address affordable housing and "unhoused issues" more aggressively. Nationally, she hopes Democrats retain control of the House and Senate even though she doesn't consider herself a Democrat.

Mary says she hopes Democrats retain control of the House and Senate because there was too much "hatemongering" when President Trump was in office. (Fox News Digital)

"I felt like there was a lot of the hatemongering that went on in the last Republican president's term," she said. "Not only BIPOC people but also people's gender differences, and everybody was a loser if they didn't love him."

Kaelyn and Sydney said they hope to see more compassionate candidates elected.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Caring about like homeless, people of color, LGBTQ rights, people that have been kind of like pushed to the side forever," Kaelyn said. "Making sure that every little step is taken to help those people out and work towards a better equilibrium."

Keith was most concerned about term limits and said "it's time for a revolution."

"We've got to get the incumbents out and put new people in," he said. "The House of Representatives is supposed to be replaced every two years. Why are they in the house for 30 years?"

Hannah Ray Lambert is an associate producer/writer with Fox News Digital Originals.

Read the rest here:
Washington and Oregon voters say abortion, affordable housing among top election priorities - Fox News

When Mary Peltola walked up to her new office for the first time on Tuesday, she glanced at a plaque and burst into tears.

Less than two weeks earlier, Peltola won a protracted and crowded special election to become the first Alaska Native elected to Congress. But her reaction to the plaque that read Office of the At Large Congressional District of Alaska, was less about her own personal triumph, she said, than her grief.

Peltola, 49, is completing the term of Rep. Don Young, a Republican who held the seat for nearly 50 years and died in March. Peltola was a close family friend of Youngs; in fact, half a century ago, her parents volunteered on his first congressional campaign. Now, shes his successor.

Its daunting, Peltola says. No one will ever be able to fill his shoes.

In an interview with TIME, Peltola, discussed her plans for finishing Youngs term after her stunning special election victory over former governor and conservative firebrand Sarah Palin. The election was the first in Alaska to use ranked-choice voting, a system that allows voters to rank the candidates in their order of preference. But her days of campaigning are far from over. The Alaska Democrat, who still has a general election to win in November, also talked about how she plans to turn her two-month term into a two-year term.

The interview, consisting of two separate conversations, has been edited and condensed for clarity.

You won a special election thanks in part to many voters writing you in as their second choice. What do you think your race reveals about the virtues of ranked-choice voting?

I think that it reveals that there is an appetite for middle-of-the-road candidates. I think that moving away from closed partisan primaries will help us elect fewer ideologues who are less entrenched and more capable of compromising, reaching consensus, and building coalitions. I think it shows that such candidates are more palatable even among those who may not have picked someone else as their first choice. That adds value as well.

Alaskans were obviously very familiar with Sarah Palin. What were her vulnerabilities in this race?

Although I like her, she can be a polarizing figure. We had a good working relationship. Her two years as governor coincided with my last two years in the statehouse. But her support was in the 30 percent range, and it was hard for her to get beyond that and tap into folks who are not her supporters.

Palin was begging Nick Begich, another Republican, to drop out of the race so she could consolidate Republican support. Did his presence in the race help you?

Begich is much stronger on public policy, and he has ideas and approaches. Im not necessarily sure that if we got more [candidates] out of the field, people who ranked him first would necessarily rank Sarah first. What we saw in ranked-choice voting is that there are many Republican votes and many conservative Alaskans who ranked Nick first and me second, or ranked Nick and no one else. Im not sure necessarily that if one is out of the field, that their votes automatically go to the other.

Tell me about your path to victory in November? How are you going to turn your two-month term into a two-year term?

I need to work at making sure that Im communicating with Republicans and conservative voters. Its important to me that they understand that my values probably align with theirs: We all want good schools for our kids; we all want adequate housing and affordable housing options, whether thats renting or purchasing; we all want to see inflation go down and the cost of living to go down; were all concerned about gas and oil prices going sky high. At the same time, I think most people are very concerned about the preservation of democracy. We want to have confidence in our elected officials.

How are you appealing to conservative voters?

Its just showing them that Im a regular Alaskan. I believe in Second Amendment rights. I believe in womens reproductive rights and our attachment to freedom. I spent 10 years in the state legislature, where I chaired the Bush Caucus, which was composed of 10 rural members out of 40, and we were typically five Republicans and five Democrats. It did not matter what party we were from, we were all just looking to help Alaskans move forward. We worked hard on K-12 education, university funding, and developing more vocational technical programs and properly funding those programs, and having good public safety. These are not partisan issues.

Alaska is a big hunting state. Would you support an assault weapons ban and universal background checks? These are major priorities of national Democrats.

Of course, I support background checks. I dont think that that is an infringement on Second Amendment rights. I would like to see the particulars of an assault weapons ban, because they are used in some instances in hunting in Alaska. And they are tied to food security. But right out of the gate, no, I dont support a complete ban on all assault rifles.

What does it mean to you to be the first Alaska Native elected to Congress?

I am very happy to see that Alaska natives are getting a seat at the table. But I just really want to emphasize to the folks that Im the representative for all Alaskans, regardless of their ethnic background or gender or religious affiliation. Im here to work for all Alaskans.

Are Alaskans tiring of Trump and his acolytes?

I think that he does have a very strong base of support, and that is reflective of the fact that there is a universal feeling now of disenfranchisement, of being forgotten, of being ignored. And this now extends to Caucasians and men, and that is not something that should be dismissed. That is a real feeling. It didnt come out of nowhere. I dont think that theres any use in dismissing that. I think that anybody who has those feelings should be validated that those are authentic feelings. We should find a way to make sure everyone feels that theyre being heard.

Do you want Biden to come to Alaska to campaign with you?

Id like to take a wait-and-see approach. I dont know what is on the horizon. I havent thought about that much. Really, right now, what Im focused on is rolling up my sleeves and getting to work to fill out the remainder of Congressman Youngs term and to get some wins for Alaska. Then I can think about returning to campaign mode.

Do you think he should run for re-election?

I dont have an opinion on that right now.

What was your relationship like with Don Young?

My parents were friends with him. My dad taught school together with Don Young in Fort Yukon, a very small community on the Yukon River in the 1960s. They were really good friends. They were hunting buddies. They both had winter trap lines. They bought a bulldozer and took 12-hour shifts fighting a wildfire one summer. My dad doesnt have a lot of close friends, but Don was certainly one of his lifelong friends. When I went to school in Pennsylvania and wasnt able to get home for Thanksgiving, I was invited by Don to spend Thanksgiving with his family in Virginia. That was the first time Id ever spent Thanksgiving without my family. I have tremendous respect and admiration for Don and his 49 years of service to our state and his real commitment to our state and the people of our state.

What does it mean to you now to be filling in his shoes as his successor?

Its daunting. No one will ever be able to fill his shoes.

More Must-Read Stories From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

More Must-Read Stories From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

See the original post here:
Alaska Native Mary Peltola on Being Elected to Congress - TIME