U.S. Congressman Scott Perry defeated Janelle Stelson in debate | Dr. Stephanie Coxon

By: Dr. Stephanie Coxon

Pennsylvania may be the deciding state in the 2024 election. Some have it estimated that Trump has a 96% chance of winning if Pennsylvanians give their vote to him. In the mix of that, there are pretty big PA races that may give us insight into the mind of voters. The biggest of them, Republican candidate Scott Perry versus Democrat Janelle Stelson… and this week was their first and only debate.

Unlike most democrat candidates, Stelson is actually showing up; an impressive feat compared to her comrades who prefer to avoid the media and/or otherwise stay in the safety of their proverbial basement. Also, unlike other democrats I have seen debate, she was civil, made coherent sentences, and answered a couple of the questions. However, like most of the democrats running around, she mostly sticks to the approved script, pushing the false narratives of January 6th and abortions . . . to be fair, that’s all they have so who can blame her?

In a weird turn of events, Stelson actually supports sending illegal immigrants back to their own countries, but stated she had no idea on how to actually achieve that. Traditionally, dems can’t go after Perry on immigration, after all, he is half Colombian. So If anyone gets it, it’s him; hailing from a childhood with no electricity, little stability, where he truly wants to see every person succeed. So they need to reach into the emotional democrat soap box of “women’s reproductive health.” Stelson, unwilling to clearly state her position on just how far one should be permitted to go in the selective slaughter of a child (12 weeks, up until or after live birth?) goes after Perry, a husband and father of two girls … and … who actually respects life. Understanding there are two people involved in abortion, he clearly stated his support of the child with exception of mother’s life, rape, and incest while hitting a key point that there should not be tax payer funded abortions. And for the democrats sitting in the back, Perry is also the prime sponsor on “The Protect IVF” house bill. He also takes the constitutional position that it should remain a state right, not federal. Stelson apparently can’t answer because she isn’t a healthcare provider (she actually said that), nor did she seem interested in protecting any form of life within the womb. I wonder how every adopted child feels about a person seeing their life as inconsequential? That aside, she seems convinced that abortions should be a federal issue despite the constitutional design our founding fathers put before us. Additionally, she produced a nonsensical answer that really was rerouted to attack Perry’s stance rather than support her own.

Perry was criticized for voting against the majority of federal budgets. He pointed out that every 100 days we are going another trillion dollars in debt. If this was the average household, you would be kicked out of your house, lose your car, and mostly like be in a tent in the street (if the government didn’t kick you out of that too). Where is he wrong? We are living on borrowed money at this point . . . when does it stop? You want to know why you cannot afford food? It’s called printing money, borrowing money, and spending money you do not have. Thank you, federal government. Perry also distinctly explained the pork filled bills that initially appears to solve a problem, but ends up with larger issues. It was clear that Perry had actually read the bills. Thank goodness someone is because it appears that most of our congressman do not. And I do not think, for one second, that Stelson actually reads the bills, but rather the two sentence memory card that she was supposed to say about said bills.

Stelson also tried to throw in January 6th, but lets correct that complete lie. I really appreciated Stelson calling Perry the “chief obstructionist.” Outwardly, she is stating that she does not believe she should investigate the concerns of constituents. This should be a big red flag to all voters. Perry was on the house floor when the protesting started, he called for an investigation (something done by every democrat who has lost over the past decade plus), and he took the concerns of his constituents to the correct place.

Another red flag? She stated she always tells the truth. Personally, I can’t find a news station that is delivering truth, so curious on how she came to that conclusion. Her “greedflation” remark also delivered on the “D approved narrative” list. While she blames it on corporations, let’s be real… we are so over regulated and over spent that she clearly does not recognize the roll the government is playing. When someone is this blind to economics, it’s a good formula to end up in communism. Do I think she believes in communism, no, but with the lack of critical thinking, that is where we will end up. Where would she cut spending? She couldn’t answer except to say she would look at everything. Thank you, Janelle, for that very politician answer.

While Stelson seems to have good answers, the question is can she stand up to the democrat machine? The statistical conclusion would be no. First, it seems to be a complete anomaly when that does happen. Second, if she attacks Perry so vehemently for standing his ground, she must not believe in doing so. While Stelson was coherent (unlike some other democrats), she joins the ranks of her cohort lacking the necessary critical thinking skills to turn this country around or the balls to stand up (but I think her party can get them surgically implanted for her). One other little side note. Stelson doesn’t even live in the district she wishes to represent. When consistently asked if she will move, she says, “after the election.” This, my friends, is not about Janelle Stelson’s desire to save America. This is about Janelle Stelson’s next job opportunity, funded by people who said “hey, she was on the news for years, so people know her name, so let’s throw money at her and have her run.” And that is what we call a “carpet bagger.” Look it up. The definition applies.