Barrett Confirmation Means We’ll See If Gun Prohibitionists Were Right to Worry

H/T AmmoLand.

I think Justice Amy Coney Barrett will be a friend of the Second Amendment on the Supreme Court.

Only time will tell if she is a friend to the Second Amendment.

 

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Amy Coney Barrett Has Been Confirmed As Trump’s Third Supreme Court Justice,” BuzzFeed News reported Monday evening. “Barrett deepens the court’s conservative wing to 6–3.”

That’s why the Democrats and their media cheerleaders have been complaining to their followers that the confirmation vote should have been put off until after the election so that if Joe Biden wins, he’d get to nominate the replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsberg. That such a requirement appears nowhere in the Constitution hardly matters to them. Were delegated powers with checks and balances important to them, they would revere the ultimate check and balance on government abuses of all, the right of the people to keep and bear arms as mandated by the Second Amendment.

 

“The Senate voted 52-48 to confirm Barrett, with one Republican, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, breaking ranks to join Democrats in opposing her nomination,” the report continues. That creates a dilemma for Republicans, as the four-term incumbent is shattering spending records but still trailing in the polls, meaning an already-close senate could lose a seat. That said, former Everytown endorsee Collins has earned nothing from Maine gun owners but their contempt, and if she does pull it off, she’ll have six more years to betray them.

With Barrett, the expectation is that her philosophy will be similar to that of the man she once clerked for, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. As such, her nomination was applauded by the three major national gun owner rights groups.

“Judge Barrett’s record demonstrates a steadfast commitment to the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution,” the National Rifle Association declared in September.  With this nomination, President Trump continues his record of nominating qualified, fair-minded federal judges who respect the Bill of Rights – including the Second Amendment – to our nation’s highest court. ​

“From a Second Amendment perspective, Judge Amy Coney Barrett appears to be a strong choice,” Gun Owners of America assessed.  “She has indicated a willingness to examine and apply the Second Amendment as written, by looking at its text and using history as a guide, instead of engaging in the judge-empowering interest balancing that has run rampant in the lower courts.  Gun owners will relish seeing a new addition to the Supreme Court who is ready to hold lower courts accountable for failing to uphold the Constitution and for refusing to follow the Heller and McDonald precedents.”

“Judge Barrett is eminently qualified to take a seat on the highest court in the nation,” the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb weighed in. “Our research shows her to be an outstanding candidate and we hope the U.S. Senate can quickly vote to confirm her.”

Reactions from the gun-grab groups are more visceral.

“It’s done. The Senate just confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett,” the Brady group bemoaned. “Survivors like @ravinranta — who was shot by her ex-husband — had urged senators to #BlockBarrett. But they failed us. Make no mistake, we will hold them accountable at the polls. #OurCourtOurVoices #DisarmDV”

“Senate Republicans broke their own rules and stole this seat by jamming Judge Barrett, a gun rights extremist, onto the Supreme Court at the behest of the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby,” Michael Bloomberg’s hirelings hyperventilated. “Everytown, Moms Demand Action, and Students Demand action will continue to work to hold them accountable for it at the ballot box.”

“Days from an election, Senate Republicans confirm a SCOTUS nominee who will jeopardize our health and safety in the middle of a pandemic and gun violence crisis,” Giffords flat-out lied.

The assumption that Barrett’s confirmation “deepens the court’s conservative wing” cannot be taken for granted. With the way Chief Justice John Roberts has been ruling of late, some are wondering if we’re more like still stuck at 5-4. There could be a reason recent cases have been rejected, that “conservative” justices don’t trust the way he would vote. As The Atlantic recently speculated:

“John Roberts may not be the ally gun-rights advocates hoped for. The Court’s decision not to hear several Second Amendment cases may be a sign that the chief justice is not a solid vote against gun control.”

While Barrett’s confirmation should give gun owners a degree of hope and should certainly be viewed as more positive than a Biden nominee being placed on the High Court, we’ll need to wait and see if the gun groups or the gun-grabbers are right in their assessments. Republican appointments have disappointed in the past. Warren Burger and David Souter coming to mind.

Hopefully, President Trump’s latest pick will turn out to be a good one. If nothing else, the differences between his appointment and one hand-picked and vetted by the Democrats should convince any gun owners who still haven’t committed on their vote to understand what is at stake if Joe Biden wins and they did not do everything in their power to prevent it.

Buzz Aldrin Gives Awesome Endorsement to McSally with Coded Fighter Pilot Message

H/T Western Journal.

I think that Buzz Aldrin’s endorsement will help Sen.Martha McSally(R-AZ)with her reelection bid.

More than 50 years past the height of his fame in the legendary Apollo 11 moon landing, astronaut Buzz Aldrin can still cause a buzz in the political world.

The man whose lunar salute to the American flag is etched in the national memory jumped very much into the political present on Friday with a Twitter post predicting victory for Republican Arizona Sen. Martha McSally in her tightly contested election fight.

The fact that McSally’s opponent, Democratic Mark Kelly, is a fellow astronaut of Aldrin’s just gave Aldrin’s endorsement added weight.

And the fact that Aldrin — a national hero by any accounting — used fighter-pilot lingo in his post made the move no doubt McSally’s coolest endorsement yet.

 

“Martha, check six — Mark?” Aldrin wrote.

He signed off: “Buzz — over 100 jet hours in Arizona.”

In a Twitter post, Aldrin explained the code:

 

“12 o’clock is straight ahead. 6 o’clock is behind. Fighter pilots understand what ‘check six’ means in FTR lingo talk. Martha, wave as you move ahead past Mark, to 12 o’clock, and you win for Arizona!”

In other words, McSally is putting Kelly in her exhaust en route to re-election to the Senate seat she’s filled since January 2019 (formerly held by the late Republican Sen. John McCain, the seat was filled first by former Republican Sen. Jon Kyl.)

In endorsing McSally, Aldrin is doing more than taking sides against a fellow astronaut (Kelly is a U.S. Navy captain whose service with NASA included three space shuttle missions as well as time aboard the International Space Station, according to Space.com).

Aldrin was stepping into one of the fiercest Senate fights of the 2020 election year — and on the underdog’s side at that.

McSally, a special target of the liberal media in Washington — has been trailing Kelly in polls throughout most of the campaign and was behind in the RealClearPolitics polling average by 5.6 points as of Friday.

However, two polls reported by Breitbart on Friday showed McSally ahead of Kelly. And McSally, a former Air Force fighter pilot who was the first American woman to fly in combat, shows no sign of going down without a fight.

She welcomed Aldrin’s backing in a Twitter response that alluded to Aldrin’s own career, not only as an astronaut but as a fighter pilot during the Korean War (where he earned the Distinguished Flying Cross).

 

“Absolute honor to have the support of hero astronaut Buzz Aldrin in this mission!” she wrote.

“We must hold this seat, the Senate, and save the country. It’s a dog fight, and as we fighter pilots say: Fight’s On!”

There’s no question that every Senate seat fight matters at a time when the Republican majority is only 53 seats. (The imminent confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court thanks to that Republican majority is a reminder of how crucial that control is.)

And there’s no question that McSally has a fight on her hands against Kelly — who is best known for being the husband of former Democratic Rep. Gabbie Gifford and a dangerously outspoken attacker against the Second Amendment.

He’s used Gifford’s shooting in January 2011 as an argument to strip gun rights of all Americans. The shooting was regrettable, of course. But the political ends liberals have used it for have been a disgrace.

But Aldrin is a household name and a man who has no compunction about demonstrating his pride in his country. His very public disapproval of the 2018 movie “First Man,” which depicted the moon landing but deliberately omitted Aldrin’s flag-salute scene, could well have been one reason the movie was a box office disappointment.

More than 50 years after Aldrin sealed a place in American hearts thanks to the matchless courage of the Apollo astronauts, he’s still setting an example for the country.

Conservatives can only hope Arizona voters will follow it, for their own sake, and the sake of the rest of the United States.

“Just shoot him in the leg”

H/T JPFO

More bad advice from Joe Pee Pads Biden.

Dangerous, felony gun advice goes nationwide—

JPFO condemns Joe Biden’s illegal dangerous advice.

What may be worse, mass media failed to inform the public—
Don’t they know it’s illegal to shoot to wound people?

.

This is the same man who suggested firing a shotgun blast through a closed door.
The mandatory gun safety rule is: “Know your target before squeezing the
trigger.”Joe Biden—and mass media—apparently need better understanding here:

Although Joe Biden demonstrated a nearly complete lack of knowledge about firearms law, firearms safety, self defense and crime-prevention tactics, he has never been questioned on these subjects by mass media. The words “Second Amendment” get invoked periodically, followed by familiar wedge-issue talking points, and substantive detail never emerges. The paucity of understanding exhibited in these displays, not just “gaffes” that can be written off with chuckles, but careless ignorance and apparent willingness to act upon it, should alarm you. Based on the few statements he has made, it is not unfair to speculate that Joe Biden would be unsafe at a shooting range with a cocked pistol fully loaded with live ammo, and a paper target downrange. Yes, the very thought put a chill through us too.

Joe Biden suggested committing felonies with firearms to a national audience. JPFO recommends contacting our spokesperson and firearms expert Charles Heller to explain why those are both dangerous felonies, and better ways to handle similar situations. Mr. Biden’s encouragement to make noise shooting a gun up into the air is a specific criminal act.

“While it’s legal to use deadly force to defend yourself in the most dire circumstance, it’s never legal to intentionally wound someone. If you truly believe your life is at immediate risk, the last thing you want to attempt is the most difficult shot known—hitting a moving human limb in the fractions of a second where such a shot could be legally fired at a killer assaulting you. Given his statements, I suspect Joe Biden couldn’t even recite the basic three gun safety rules.”
–Alan Korwin, Co-Author, Supreme Court Gun Cases

Although websites were awash in chastising Joe for his foolishness, no one confronted the candidate with his unwise advice. For all we can tell, he still thinks shooting the legs out from under villains is a strategy. What sort of “news” media doesn’t bring this up? This is bigger than the Second Amendment, which is merely a concept and words. This is iron and guns for G-d’s sake! Will somebody speak to the man? Say what, he’s holed up at home?

 

Halloween 2020

Pacific Paratrooper

Halloween this year has many comparisons to that which went on during WWII, but there were no episodes of mass destruction in the cities as I have seen in Philadelphia.

WWII put quite the damper on any activity as chaotic as Halloween was back in those days, people weren’t making heroes out of criminals … according to history, war shortages made everyone edgy, and towns clamped down on Halloween pranking with both curfews and notices sent home from principals and police. There was a national plea for conservation: any piece of property damaged during Halloween pranking was a direct affront to the war effort.

In 1942 the Chicago City Council voted to abolish Halloween and institute instead “Conservation Day” on October 31st. (This wasn’t the only attempt to reshape Halloween: President Truman tried to declare it “Youth Honor Day” in 1950 but the House of Representatives, sidetracked by the Korean…

View original post 396 more words

Michigan Open Carry Sues, Michigan AG, for violation of Law and Rights

H/T AmmoLand.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Michigan Secretary of State Joycelyn Benson has taken the dictatorial step of banning open carry at all polling places on election day in Michigan.

Open carry, in accordance with Michigan law, has been legal in Michigan for the entire history of the state.

 

It appears, by caprice or for political purposes, Benson has decided to change the long precedent for the 2020 elections. Benson is acting as a dictator, imposing restrictions the legislator and governor have refused to pass, although they have had numerous opportunities to do so.

Benson’s stated excuse is that people seeing others exercise their Second Amendment rights, might feel intimidated, and thus not vote. No other Michigan Secretary has issued such an order.

Thomas Lambert, Michigan Open Carry, Inc., Michigan Gun Owners, and Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners have all joined in a lawsuit against Secretary of State Joycelyn Benson, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, and the Director of State Police Col. Joe Gasper, to obtain a declaratory injunction against the illegal order.

 From the lawsuit:

  1. The Secretary of State’s pronouncement has created a Hobson’s choice for those wishing to exercise both their 2nd Amendment right to self-protection and their fundamental right to vote. Under the pronouncement and associated threat of arrest, one mus choose on right or the other, but not both. If one wishes to vote, one must surrender their 2nd Amendment and Mich. Const. 1963, Art. I, § 6 rights. If one wishes to exercise the right of self-protection, one must surrender their right to vote. The practical effect of the pronouncement is to disenfranchise 2nd Amendment and Mich. Const. 1963, Art. I, § 6 supporting voters.

  2. Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the secretary of State’s pronouncement, regulation, directive, or edict is an ultra vires act. Further, Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the secretary of State’s pronouncement, regulation, directive, or edict is in violation of Michigan law, an ultra vires act, and void. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relieve with immediate consideration thereof.

The leader of a group representing 385 Michigan police chiefs says the edict prohibiting open carry at all polling places is contrary to existing law. From detroitnews.com:

The head of the group that represents 385 Michigan police chiefs warned Monday that officers won’t be able to enforce Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s ban on openly carrying firearms at polling places on Election Day because the edict is not based in law.

Several Michigan Sheriffs are refusing to enforce the illegal order, saying there is no law to enforce.  From whml.com:

Murphy stated Livingston County Prosecutor Bill Vailliencourt has concurred the ban is unenforceable. He noted that people can’t point or wave guns or anything else, which would constitute intimidation or even felonious assault. Murphy said someone simply having a gun strapped to their hip or a long gun strapped on their chest or back is open carry and as long as it stays there, there’s nothing that can be done. As for the intimidation factor, Murphy says they can take enforcement if someone is being intimidated at the polls. But he clarified that someone just open carrying is not intimidation and not illegal. Murphy said if someone is open carrying a pistol or a long gun and they were to approach someone and make comments about who someone should vote for – that would put it into the category of intimidation.

State Officials say they will use State Police to enforce the order. From bridgemi.com:

Michigan Sheriffs Association executive director Matt Saxton called the order “a solution in search of a problem” and Ottawa County Clerk Justin Roebuck said the “legally ambiguous guidance … could incite others to challenge it on Election Day.”

If local law enforcement doesn’t enforce the rule, the Michigan State Police will, Benson said. 

Over the weekend, Nessel told Showtime’s “The Circus” that the state police would patrol polling locations where they believe sheriffs won’t enforce voter intimidation laws to ensure compliance. 

Joycelyn Benson is a lifelong radical Democrat. She was aided in her run for Secretary of State by the SOS project funded by George Soros. The SOS project is dedicated to elect radical leftists so they can influence the administration of election law.

Ninth Circuit District Judge -Superbly Argued Court Order

H/T JPFO.

Conservative judges that have been appointed by President Trump is another reason to reelect him.

On 23 September, 2020, Judge Roger T. Benitez issued another impressive order in a case involving the Second Amendment.

A number of California residents, firearm businesses, special interest groups, foundations, and a political action committee have organized to sue California AG Xavier Becerra et al, to challenge the Constitutionality of California’s complex net of regulations for the ownership and use of various firearms the state deems to be “assault weapons”. The lawsuit has been winding its way through the federal legal system in the Ninth Circuit.

In Miller v. Becerra, the defendants moved to summarily dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of lack of standing, and for a failure to claim relief.

The judge in this case is Roger T. Benitez, of the United States District Court, Southern District of California. Judge Benitez has become well known for his superb, well reasoned and exquisitely written opinions in Second Amendment cases.

Judge Benitez has created another splendid example of his command of logic and rhetoric in the order denying summary judgement to AG Becerra and the other plaintiffs.

The order was issued on 23 September, 2020.

Judge Benitez demolishes the argument that plantiffs have no standing, because they have not suffered an injury. The chilling of the exercise of a Constitutional right *is* an injury in federal jurisprudence. Judge Benitez gives example after example in case law. From the order:

It has long been the case that a plaintiff possesses Article III standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to a state statute which regulates the exercise of a federal constitutional right and threatens a criminal penalty. “When the plaintiff has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he ‘should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.’” Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat. Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) (quoting Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973)). “[I]t is not necessary that petitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights.” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974). “In Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn. Inc., 484 U.S. 383 (1988), we held that booksellers could seek preenforcement review of a law making it a crime to ‘knowingly display for commercial purpose’ material that is ‘harmful to juveniles’ as defined by the statute.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 160 (2014). Of course, “[s]uch challenges can proceed only when the plaintiff ‘faces a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the law’s operation or enforcement.’” Skyline Wesleyan Church v. California Dep’t of Managed Health Care, 968 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). But the simple continued existence of the criminal penalty provision together with an absence of a defendant’s disavowal of prosecution satisfies the requirement of a credible threat of prosecution. Susan B. Anthony List, 573 U.S. at 164 (threat of future enforcement of the false statement statute is substantial with history of past enforcement).

Then Judge Benitez shows several recent examples where federal courts within the Ninth Circuit have granted standing on orders to thwart the Trump administration:

The bar for standing is not particularly high. For example, organizations that have been “perceptibly impaired” by a government rule “in their ability to perform the services they were formed to provide” is sufficient for organizational standing. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 950 F.3d 1242, 1266–67 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The Organizations are not required to demonstrate some threshold magnitude of their injuries; one less client that they may have had but-for the Rule’s issuance is enough. In other words, plaintiffs who suffer concrete, redressable harms that amount to pennies are still entitled to relief.”). An organization has standing to sue on behalf of its members when “the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose.” Sierra Club v. Trump, 963 F.3d 874, 883 (9th Cir. 2020) (also noting individual’s standing to challenge border wall construction based on: “concern[] that the wall ‘would disrupt the desert views and inhibit him from fully appreciating the area,’ and that the additional presence of U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents ‘would further diminish his enjoyment of these areas’ and ‘deter him from further exploring certain areas’ [while] worrie[d] that ‘construction and maintenance of the border wall will limit or entirely cut off his access to fishing spots’ along the border, where he has fished for more than 50 years.”).

There are several others. The reader can access the order on line to read in depth. Judge Benitez is using the Ninth Circuit’s over the top precedent to allow any lawsuit against the current administration by applying the basic judicial principle of reciprocity. What is good for one plaintiff is to be applied to all plaintiffs.

The stakes are high. The plaintiffs are challenging California’s byzantine network of complicated laws which make owning many common firearms a legal minefield in the state.

A divided Supreme Court has punted on enforcing Second Amendment rights for a decade. With the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the likely confirmation of Amy Coney Barret to the Supreme Court, the time seems ripe for the Court to take on Second Amendment cases, and clarify obvious infringements such as effective bans on the carry of firearms outside the home; bans on magazines, bans on semi-automatic rifles, and lifelong bans on the exercise of Second Amendment rights for people who are not a danger to the community.

If President Trump wins re-election, he is likely to flip the Ninth Circuit with a majority of originalist and textualist judges.

Judge Benitez was born in Cuba, in 1950. He understands oppression.

Perhaps Judge Benitez will be elevated to the Court of Appeals. He is an obvious choice.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch

 

 

Michigan Gun Store Owners: Biden Gun Tax Would Damage Declining Hunting Economy

H/T Breitbart.

One more reason to keep Joe Pee Pads Biden and Kamala Knee Pads Harris out of the White House.

Two Michigan gun store owners told Breitbart News that Joe Biden’s proposed taxes on firearms and accessories would hurt an already ailing hunting economy in the state.

“I think the hunting economy is already suffering in Michigan,” Ed Swadish, owner of Huron Valley Guns of New Hudson in Oakland County, said, adding that hunting among young people is on the decline.

A coalition of organizations called “Hunting Works for Michigan” reported $2.3 billion is spent annually by hunters in Michigan. The group said 529,000 people hunt in Michigan every year, including 28,000 from out of state.

According to Mlive, as many as 1.2 million Michiganders hunted in the 1990s. By 2018, that was nearly cut in half — less than 675,000 individuals.

“If you add costs to hunting you’re just going to whittle that down even more,” Swadish said.

Breitbart News previously reported that Biden’s proposed gun policy includes a plan to register so-called “assault weapons” like AR-15s under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), which means hunters could be required to register their AR-15s with federal authorities, submit their fingerprints and photographs, potentially submit to an FBI background check, and pay a $200 federal tax on AR-15s they already own, if these owners decide not to participate in any proposed federal buy back program.

Moreover, Biden’s proposal could also apply the same $200 tax and NFA registration requirements to every so-called “high-capacity” magazine a gun owner possesses, if the owner decides not to participate in any proposed buy back program.

The $200 tax on AR-15 rifles alone would impose a collective $3.6 billion in new taxes on the estimated 18 million privately owned AR-15 rifles in the United States.

Biden’s proposed policy does not define how many rounds a “high-capacity” magazine contains, but past gun control legislation like the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban defined it as a capacity of over 10 rounds. Biden himself has criticized the existence of “magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them.”

“The interest in hunting has gone down,” Lisa Mayo, owner of Flashpoint Firearms in Comstock Park, Michigan told Breitbart News.

She predicted Biden’s possible taxes “would make it go down even further.”

Swadish thought the taxes would create a “gray market,” where owners would sell guns among themselves, and avoid retailers, who would likely be responsible for collecting such taxes.

An accelerated decline would also impact wildlife management and conservation.

“Hunting and fishing fees account for more than 90% of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ $42 million wildlife conservation budget,” Mlive reported.

According to Hunting Works for Michigan, hunters pay $289 million in state and local taxes annually, and the pastime supports over 34,400 jobs in the state.

Additionally, hunters spend $1.3 billion on hunting equipment, averaging $4,400 per hunter each year.

 

Chew on This: The History of Gum

H/T History.com

A look back at the history of chewing gum.

You might guess it’s a custom dreamed up by a modern-day, real-life Willy Wonka, but people have been chewing gum, in various forms, since ancient times. There’s evidence that some northern Europeans were chewing birch bark tar 9,000 years ago, possibly for enjoyment as well as such medicinal purposes as relieving toothaches. The ancient Maya chewed a substance called chicle, derived from the sapodilla tree, as a way to quench thirst or fight hunger, according to “Chicle: The Chewing Gum of the Americas” by Jennifer P. Mathews. The Aztecs also used chicle and even had rules about its social acceptability. Only kids and single women were allowed to chew it in public, notes Mathews. Married women and widows could chew it privately to freshen their breath, while men could chew it in secret to clean their teeth.

In North America, the Indians chewed spruce tree resin, a practice that continued with the European settlers who followed. In the late 1840s, John Curtis developed the first commercial spruce tree gum by boiling resin then cutting it into strips that were coated in cornstarch to prevent them from sticking together. By the early 1850s, Curtis had constructed the world’s first chewing gum factory, in Portland, Maine. As it turned out, though, spruce resin was less-than-ideal for producing gum because it didn’t taste great and became brittle when chewed. Curtis and others who’d jumped into the gum business after him subsequently switched to ingredients such as paraffin wax.

The next key development came when an inventor in New York, Thomas Adams, got his hands on some chicle through exiled Mexican president Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. The exact details of how the two men connected are unclear, although they would’ve been in contact following Santa Anna’s arrival in the United States sometime after the mid-1850s (before that, he led Mexican forces at the Battle of the Alamo in 1836 and served multiple terms as Mexico’s president). Santa Anna wanted assistance developing chicle into a substitute for rubber, and believed the riches he stood to earn would enable him to return to power in his homeland. Adams began experimenting with chicle but when his work failed to yield the desired results, Santa Anna abandoned the project. Adams eventually realized that rather than trying to create a rubber alternative, he could use chicle to produce a better type of chewing gum. He formed a company that by the late-1880s was making gum sold across the country, according to Mathews. Chicle, imported to the United States from Mexico and Central America, served as the main ingredient in chewing gum until most manufacturers replaced it with synthetic ingredients by the mid-1900s.

In the 20th century, chewing gum made William Wrigley Jr. one of the wealthiest men in America. Wrigley started out as a soap salesman in his native Philadelphia. After moving to Chicago in 1891, he began offering store owners incentives to stock his products, such as free cans of baking powder with every order. When the baking powder proved a bigger hit than the soap, Wrigley sold that instead, and added in free packs of chewing gum as a promotion. In 1893, he launched two new gum brands, Juicy Fruit and Wrigley’s Spearmint. Because the chewing gum field had grown crowded with competitors, Wrigley decided he’d make his products stand out by spending heavily on advertising and direct-marketing. In 1915, the Wrigley Company kicked off a campaign in which it sent free samples of its gum to millions of Americans listed in phone books. Another promotion entailed sending sticks of gum to U.S. children on their second birthday.

Competition also played a role in the development of bubble gum. Frank Fleer, whose company had made chewing gum since around 1885, wanted something different from his rivals and spent years working on a product that could be blown into bubbles. In 1906, he concocted a bubble gum he called Blibber-Blubber, but it proved to be too sticky. In 1928, a Fleer employee named Walter Diemer finally devised a successful formula for the first commercial bubble gum, dubbed Dubble Bubble.

Today, of course, gum is sold in a variety of shapes and flavors (although, sadly, Willy Wonka’s three-course dinner chewing gum, said to taste like tomato soup, roast beef and blueberry pie, has yet to become reality). And finally, despite what you might’ve been told, if you swallow a piece of gum it’s highly unlikely to end up stuck in your stomach for seven years. Even though gum base is indigestible, it passes through the digestive system harmlessly and is eliminated from the body just like other foods.

 
 

Mark Levin: ‘Joe Biden Is the Laziest Candidate in History’

H/T Western Journal.

Joe Pee Pads Biden by staying in his basement he could not make any gaffs.

It also makes you wonder if he is up to the rigors of being president.

Conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin believes Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has a work ethic problem.

“Joe Biden is the laziest candidate in history. Avoiding all scrutiny,” Levin tweeted Thursday.

In a related tweet the previous day, he added, “Joe Biden is the least energized person to ever run for President. His work ethic is non-existent.”

Biden has essentially held no in-person campaign events from March through August, save a much scaled-back Democratic National Convention speech in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, citing COVID-19 concerns.

Since that time he’s maintained a very light schedule, often calling a lid in the morning to let the media know they will have nothing to cover, nor any chances to ask questions of the candidate.

The events he has held have generally been for a few dozen people at the most, in contrast to the tens of thousands coming to Trump rallies.

In a shocking move, the Biden campaign announced they would be holding no events from Sunday through Thursday night’s debate, the New York Post reported.

That’s a convenient move in light of the unfolding Hunter Biden email scandal.

National Pulse editor-in-chief Raheem Kassam tweeted, “America is going to call a lid on Joe Biden.”

Last week, prior to Biden’s appearance on ABC News town hall, the commentator joked, “Joe Biden might try to call a lid *during* the townhall tonight.”

On Thursday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted, “In the past 5 days, President @realDonaldTrump has traveled to 5 states, nearly 6,000 miles!

“He has carried his message directly to the American People while @JoeBiden sat in his basement, traveling to 0 states, 0 miles!” she added.

“The American People deserve better!!”

Trump’s campaign stops this week have included the battleground states of NevadaArizona, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, as well as a fundraiser in California.

The presidency has been called the hardest job in the world, certainly in terms of responsibility.

The American people need a commander in chief who is up to the daily demands of the office, and Joe Biden clearly is not.

Joe Biden Proposes Reviving Obama Social Security Gun Ban

H/T Breitbart.

Joe Pee Pads Biden has never met a gun control idea he would not try to implement.

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden’s gun control proposals could mean reviving the Obama gun ban that barred certain Social Security recipients from buying firearms.

The Social Security gun ban was an Obama-era policy which targeted benefit recipients who needed help managing their finances. On July 18, 2015, the Los Angeles Times reported that the ban would be sweeping; that it would cover those who are unable to manage their own affairs for a multitude of reasons–from “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease.”

 

Breitbart News reported that the policy was finalized by the Obama Social Security Administration on December 19, 2016, weeks after Donald Trump won the presidential election, and just over a month before he was to be sworn into office.

Republicans focused on repealing the ban early in the Trump presidency. On February 12, 2017, Breitbart News reported that Duke University psychiatry and behavioral science professor Jeffrey Swanson believed Congress was right to repeal Barack Obama’s Social Security gun ban. Swanson suggested the ban targeted the “vulnerable” rather than the dangerous.

Swanson used a Washington Post column to explain the ban, saying, “Social Security beneficiaries with psychiatric disabilities who are assigned a money manager for their disability benefits would be reported to the FBI’s background check database as people ineligible to purchase firearms.” He noted that “the mental health conditions in question might range from moderate intellectual disabilities to depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia,” and then pointed to academic work showing that “the vast majority of mentally ill individuals” are not violent or suicidal.

On February 28, 2017, Trump signed legislation to do away with the ban.

Biden’s campaign website indicates that, if elected, he will revive the ban that targeted certain Social Security recipients.

The website says:

Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy.