A Declaration of Reascendance In 1776, our Founding Fathers faced a crisis of tyranny in their own government, and lacking our good fortune of having them in their past, they found themselves left with no other option, than to issue the Declaration of Independence, which of course began with:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Fortunately for us however, because of their actions, and their later efforts almost two decades later, which resulted in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, we no longer need to dissolve the political bands which connect us with one another, we only need to reassert them.
First and foremost, we should reassert that:
–We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
And amend the next phrase to:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter ***or to abolish*** it, ***and to institute new Government, laying*** reaffirming its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
That is the job of our legislators to perform, and to see to it that it is held to. But even more than that, it is our responsibility as citizens to see to it that our representatives are reminded of their responsibilities and of our awareness of that.
Through the creation of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, and further acts of Congress, we have an agency of the government, the Internal Revenue Service, which has been acting in rebellion to both the Constitution, the laws of the land and its own charter, abusing its power, intimidating the people of our land, and doing so while operating directly under the supervision and oversight of the Commerce Dept, the Justice Dept and the President of the United States of America.
As such, it has become self-evident that neither of these entities can any longer be trusted with managing or investigating that which they have already so completely lost control of.
As our representatives in Congress, We The People insist and demand that you, our Senators and Representatives, shall see to it that there be:
an immediate halt to normal operations of this IRS
an immediate hiring freeze
an immediate investigation by an independent prosecutor
an immediate halt to any plans that this agency be given oversight of any area of our healthcare system
For when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, (H/T Dana Loesch’s “Defund the IRS” and Jim Hoft “Now is the time to Speak Out“):
Though it is our right, because we have you, our Senators and Representatives, representing us in government, we do not need to do as our Founders did, and throw off our Government, we only need to re-apprise you of your duty to institute reliable Guards upon it for our present and future security.
–And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Ah. Another wacademic professor of law, struts his stuff in the White House. It remains to be seen whether or not we can survive the lessons they’ve been teaching us, the last one nearly did us in… will this one make us stronger? Listen to this:
““While there is no law, or set of laws, that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try. And I’m going to do my part.
This will not happen unless the American people demand it. If parents and teachers, police officers and pastors, if hunters and sportsmen, if responsible gun owners, if Americans of every background stand up and say, “Enough, we’ve suffered too much pain and care too much about our children to allow this to continue,” then change will come. That’s what it’s going to take..””
Yeah. One of the more straight forward things he’s said.
My understanding however, is that, although it took a couple tries for Mr. Obama and Justice Roberts to get it right, he did take an oath of office, and that oath was this:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.“
“…The Administration is clarifying that no federal law in any way prohibits doctors or other health care providers from reporting their patients’ threats of violence to the authorities, and issuing guidance making clear that the Affordable Care Act does not prevent doctors from talking to patients about gun safety.”
Clarify. Yeah. As Don Corleone’s muscular friend Vinny ‘clarifies’ that
”doz are sum nice kidz youse got dere… it’d be a shame should sumthin’ happen to ‘em.”
These have NOT been attacks upon the 1st and 2nd amendments, so much as they are attacks upon the very concepts and principles of Rights as such. Getting people to comply with justifying their rights – or not – as I tried to point out the other day, is but a means of sweeping them aside by reducing the One concept of Rights in the public’s understanding, to many particular chips, which can then can be easily stacked up, measured and bargained away.
Pay closer attention to what the President said with “This will not happen unless the American people demand it“. Worse than targeting specific amendments that protect our Rights, they are targeting our thoughts and the words we think them with. After over a century, they are succeeding in getting people to think of their Individual Rights as being simply a fluctuating set of privileges and pleasures, to be justified, and re-justified (or discarded) as reflects their present popularity. Once that is complete, and it is frighteningly close, then all of our Rights will have been transformed into favors and privileges to be bestowed upon us by those we’ve given the power to do so.
You don’t really have to destroy the amendments, only what people believe they are.
Make them think that the Right to bear arms in defense of your life, and all aspects of it, is something to be measured by what might be useful for hunting or taking down burglars – and it ceases to be a Right.
Make them think that the Right of liberty to follow your conscience depends upon making allowances for birth control, or exemptions from it – and it ceases to be anything other than administrative concessions to mollify those who can raise a ruckus.
I’ll go a step further. What Obama actually said yesterday, as he signed his executive orders and called for legislation, was no more important than what he said the day before yesterday, in calling for such. Why? Because what is truly important right now, is not how those in power go about doing what they’ve been saying they’re going to do, but in what you say and do about it (Sen. Rand Paul did make a nice start at getting the conversation started).
What is or is not Constitutional, hasn’t changed all that much since it was ratified. As I pointed out in an earlier post “♫ ♪ ♬ You say you want a Constitution … wellll ya know, we all want to change the world ♬ ♪ ♫“, when a Federal Roads bill was passed in 1817, President Madison vetoed it as unconstitutional. When a Federal Roads bill was passed, and it was signed, by President Wilson, in 1916, and was not overturned as being unconstitutional, by the courts. Something had changed in that century, and in this regard, it wasn’t the constitution, but We The People.
The Constitution records what We The People established for what may, and may not, be considered lawful. If any President or functionary seeks to act in contradiction to the Constitution, they are outside the bounds of law, as defined by the Constitution, which we defined.
If we forget the meaning of what it defines, and the reality behind that, then it’s gone. A steady drip, drip, drip corrupting our understanding of what is, and is not, true, has been nibbling away at our Rights for 150 years. The more we forget that that paper serves only to remind us of who and what we are, that our Rights must be recognized and respected, that in order to ‘pursue happiness’ we must secure ourselves from what those in power would do – the more we forget that, then the more they will get away with doing what they will.
With FDR’s outright theft of the citizens gold, where Supreme Court Justice McReynolds stated “This is Nero at his worst,” he thundered. “The Constitution is gone.”, but a case could be made that had happened twenty years earlier with the establishment of the first alphabet agency, the FDA. The Constitution has been dead and all govt actions have been those of outlaws for quite some time… but they can only get away with what you, We The People, forget about what they shouldn’t be doing.
At the very least, the govt has been engaging in outlawry for a century. Thanks to an educational system that has taught us how to not only not understand what it means to be an American, but to actively wish that we weren’t, we’ve now got a media, a culture, a President, a Congress, and a Supreme Court, who not only routinely disregard, but discard and disparage, the Constitution which they are formed from.
The Constitution hasn’t changed. What Rights are, hasn’t changed. You have.
And the more you continue to play along with their arguments, instead of pulling them up short, as any adult should do to an errant 8 year old trying to bargain their way around the rules, then those Rights which the Constitution serves to record for us, and which it does its best to uphold and defend, will be lost.
The secret of America and of the Constitution, is that the document doesn’t actually do anything about your Rights – You do. It has always been you. The problem with Conservatives, especially, is that they have been foolish enough to believe in the magical talismanic power of paper. It has no power.
Never has, never will.
The Constitution does nothing more than serve as a reminder to us, all of us, that we do have Rights which are inherent in our nature as human beings, and which require a careful, orderly, defense – from our inherent nature as human beings. If we forget that it is every bit as much part of our nature to desire to exert power to get what we want, which is the reason why those Rights must be recorded, understood and defended – by us – if we get carried away with thinking that all is well because of some asinine notion that ‘We are the people we’ve been waiting for!“, then what chance can Rights have to be respected and defended? And lacking that, what chance does Liberty itself possibly have? If you TRUST those who seek power over you, what chance has liberty got?
If we forget our Liberty and the Rights which enable it, or if we don’t bother learning what they mean and require, if we are foolish enough
, deluding ourselves into thinking that lines on paper are somehow going to prop your liberty up for you so you don’t have to strain yourself – then it will be lost.
Stop looking to politicians and start looking to your own understanding, or lack of it. If you don’t understand Liberty and the Rights it requires, then you have already lost it. If that is the case… what are you going to do about it?
“The NRA did not return messages seeking comment on Monday. A representative for Facebook told CNN they were not able to speak for the NRA and do not comment on organization’s actions on their own pages.”
In our collective consciousness we seem to have allowed central casting to award the part of “The Law” to to be played character actors who specialize in wimpiness like Don Knotts’s Barney Fife, or the oiliness of a more modern Grima Wormtongue… or, splitting the difference, a SOBbing John Boehner. The effect has been to sap our laws of having anything like the force of law behind their words.
They’re just not taken seriously. Lately, it doesn’t seem as if our first ten amendments to the Constitution even rise to the level of the 10 suggestions. Go figure.
You mean that a culture that educates their children to learn useful skills, rather than to understand what is Right and Wrong, doesn’t take meaningful words seriously, unless they’re delivered in a skillful manner that captures their attention?
What a surprise.
I suggest rebooting the franchise.
How about… if the NRA pays for new advertising, casting the wizard Gandalf to read the 2nd Amendment in darkened halls of congress, in the manner of his facing down the Balrog in the mines of Moria? Now with that in mind, picture Gandalf in congress, his voice and demeanor full of the sort of conviction millions have seen him express with “You … Shall… NOT pass!“, as he thunders out the 2nd Amendment,
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Eh? Whatcha think?
And no need to stop there, perhaps the NRA &… well… some other interested party, could get together for some cross promotional opportunities, and pay him to read the 1st Amendment too… I mean seriously, the language is there, we just need someone, someone with some solid screen presence, some gravitas, to bring those words to life in the same manner that Ian McKellen brought Gandalf to life in the minds of millions:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
That’d be something, wouldn’t it? Maybe if we bring some drama to the law, people would think of the laws and of our liberty, half as seriously as they do the movies.
What, are you complaining that I’m not taking this ‘latest issue’, (CRISIS!!! NO MORE!!! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!) seriously enough? Oh? Well how about you tell me why I should be taking this latest assault upon all of our individual rights, any more seriously than that of a casting decision? I should behave as if their hysterical words claiming power over our lives, have more meaning than those meaningful words which were written into law to defend our right to live our own lives?
Oh come on, give it a shot (!)… my comment box is functional, spill your guts.
While you’re at it, I tell you what, try telling me why any organization, be it the NRA or any other, should be considered by lawmakers and the media, as having to defend and justify ANY of our Rights, against the government and the media’s desire to abridge them? For our own good?
And you want me to take your latest ‘crisis’ seriously? Excuse me for a moment while I reach for some rotten tomatoes. Don’t move now….
hinking what went wrong and how to fix conservatism, it’s set one of George Carlin’s old comedy routines running around through my head on continuous loop, the bit on words that don’t go together,
“…the term Jumbo Shrimp has always amazed me. What is a Jumbo Shrimp? I mean, it’s like Military Intelligence – the words don’t go together, man… “
That’s what I especially hear when I hear that according to numerous rethinkers upon the state of conservatism, that in order to save conservatism, conservatism needs to be modernized, conservatism needs to get with the times.
Conservatism + Modernize. See what I mean? Just like Jumbo Shrimp.
Unfortunately, while George Carlin was trying to be funny, these folks are dead serious. They say, with a straight face, that in order to ‘modernize’ conservatism it will require ‘bold’ ‘new’ ‘thinking’ in regards to conservatism’s positions on college ‘educated’ youth, Latinos and supporters of gay marriage.
My immediate reaction, other than laughter, is that
‘bold’ thinking is not to be found in chasing after the presumed hot button issues of popular opinion.
‘New’ thinking is not found in reasserting the need to pander to decades old issues (and I don’t mean ‘decades old’ as in Old, but as in what’s merely fashionable, a passing fad).
‘Thinking’ is not what results from crunching numbers and electing to follow the higher tallies.
In addition to those obvious points, there’s also the fact that to the extent that you try to put a new face on an old philosophy in order to better appeal to the appetites of one particular group or another, it cannot be done without severing its principles, wrenching it out of its orbit, and transforming the entire project into an unseemly fraud. Continue reading →
Especially when I hear mirror images claiming the same ground, I want to get clear on what it is that we’re talking about. And not just out of curiosity or for argument’s sake but because if they are being principled or behaving conscientiously in doing what I am not doing – then what am I doing?
If I don’t agree, and have no basis but inclination for my position… then that’s some scary thin ice to be standing on. That’s disturbing. And it should be disturbing. Matters of principle and conscience should be taken seriously, and when people you respect come to opposite conclusions from yours, it’s well worth reconsidering the issues and your reasons for them. Why? Because ‘The Good Life‘ depends upon how you live your life, and if how you are living your life has little to do with being (properly) principled and conscientious… what kind of life can you be living? Isn’t that Reason enough?Are there more important issues to your life as a whole, than living it thoroughly and well?
And if on reconsidering them, you find you still disagree? A decent respect for the opinions of others requires that you declare the reasons for your disagreement.
In this case, I only wish that I could chalk up the disagreement to disagreement alone, but for all the claims being made on the basis of principle and conscience, as I’m looking at their positions – and I have listened and reexamined them – I am not seeing actual principles being upheld – I see only the appearance of them… not the substance; a preference, not a principle.
Of course I grant the grounds for personal choice and disagreement as to what is best, but these particular claims, are claimed to be being made on the basis of principle and conscience, and that exceeds the reach of personal preference, or the deference of friendship.
And for one friend (who, BTW, has donated countless hours of his own time, effort & money defending our Rights in court) who thought my rant couldn’t possibly apply to him:
“… are you suggesting that, me being a principled libertarian who has never voted for candidates based on their political party, I would not be acting on principle by continuing to vote only for those I believe to be the best candidates?”
, I’ve got to answer that if by ‘best candidate’ you mean, here and now, after the primaries, in the general election, if you are voting for who you think the best individual candidate is, who most reflects your views and convictions, as the primary purpose for giving them your vote; without regard to the purpose of the office and without regard to the dynamics of the race, without regard to the immediate and long term consequences of one the most likely winners winning, etc, then I regretfully must say – yes, then it applies to you as well, and perhaps it even applies to you most of all.
Despite what ‘common sense’ might tell you, voting for who the best individual candidate is, is not the purpose of an election. To vote for A candidate, without taking into consideration the dynamics of the race itself, the realistic chances of your ‘ best candidate’ to either win or affect the overall race, and the consequences of the election going to one or the other of the most likely winners, and what effects the likely winner might have in that office, then you have divorced your principles from the purpose they are principally supposed to serve – how the nation will be served by the person who is elected – rendering your actions, unprincipled.
First, keep in mind that Principles are an aid for thinking, not a substitute for it, and it is an ever present temptation to cast what is the more pleasing choice, for the short term, as an appealing escape from the more difficult consideration of the long term deeper and more important issues, especially when it is so easy to name such actions as ‘being Principled’. But you can’t delegate your conscience to a single issue, and while I hope all will reconsider their positions, I strongly suggest you begin by looking beyond your positions to what principles are, and what they are for.
(Cross posted from Blogodidact) I’m just a little curious about why those who are paid to be curious, are showing so little signs of being, even the least bit, curious. Those of you who saw the MO Senate Debate last week… saw Claire McCaskill wearing her usual calm, cool & collected, poised and color coordinated self, the very picture of the moderate professional.
I almost missed out on the opportunity to see the movie premier of Hating Breitbart in St. Louis last week, with a number of friends and core Tea Party activists. But unlike my order cheap cialis onlineact.blogspot.com/2012/03/warrior-poet-goes-unexpectedly-to-rest.html” target=”_blank”>several chances to meet Breitbart in person, all missed, this one I made – by the skin of my teeth (thanks again to Chris Loesch for hanging out in the lobby and getting us stragglers into the sold out show!).
I guess when I first heard of Andrew Breitbart, it was when O’Keefe & Giles made their underage prostitution bust of Acorn. The way he promoted it, flat out, with no reflexive nod to progressive sacred cows, no obeisance to political correctness, and a full out in your face laughing FU to those who expected him to, it was a thrill that ran up far more than just your leg, it charged all of our spirits, nationwide.
There’s been much said already, and deserved, about Breitbart’s mastery of the New Media, but IMHO what was truly different about Andrew Breitbart was that he didn’t try and pander to the Tea Party – he didn’t need to, he got it, he felt it and he believed it too.
Note: I’m not saying that he believed IN the Tea Party, but that he believed WHAT makes the Tea Party what it is, that we all have a right to live our own lives, and no one has a right to take that away from us. He didn’t believe in a movement or in something that was interesting new news, or the latest political happening. Instead he did what he did because he too had been someone who understood it, and, like the rest of us, was a believer before there ever was a movement to get behind. It was because of that part of Breitbart that is in all of us, that the movement caught fire in the way it has, from the healthcare battles and on down to today, and because of that, he knew exactly how to communicate it, rally it, and affirm it, with one or both of his two emotional settings: jocularity and righteous indignation.
To watch the movie ‘Hating Breitbart‘, is to see and experience all of that again, first hand, and there’s nothing quite like seeing someone saying and doing exactly what you would like to imagine yourself saying and doing, were you in the same position to. Continue reading →
(Cross posted from Blogodidact) Some folks are surprised by the ire directed at CNN’s Candy Crowley for her efforts in moderating the last debate, particularly for her ‘factual insertion’ regarding an ‘act of terror’. Well, since the context depends just as much upon what was not said, as well as what was not said, lets have a look at what was, wasn’t, and should have been said, both during the debate, and in the original White House statement’s – what was written and approved, and the President’s live comments, the day after the attack took place.
This all began of course during one of the many prickly moments in the debate, this time when it ‘strayed’ towards Libya and Obama tried to erect himself with a comment that,
“… the day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”
Romney knew that to be untrue, and set out after the president. After some back and forth, Romney pointed out that it was in fact 14 days before Obama called it “an act of terror“. Obama retreated, and then told Romney to,
“Get the transcript”
Crowley, seemingly shocked at this questioning of the media narrative, and stuttering in a manner that’d make Obama proud, said,
“eh,eh,eh, he, ah, he did in, in fact sir, so let me, let me, uh, call it an act of terror, so ul [garbled]…”
At which point Obama takes advantage of being let off the spitted hook Romney had him on, says
“Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”
She chuckles, as does the much pleased audience, and she says
“He did call it an act of terror, he did as well, uh, take, it did as well, uh, take, two weeks or so, uh, for the whole idea of their being a riot out there about this tape, to come out, you’re correct about that.”
There are many things to criticize Crowley for on this, not least of which was that she was supposed to be the moderator, not a tag-team player in the debate. Her job was to keep the candidates moving along and on point, not to help one of them to make their point for them, or to restrain the other from pressing home their point.
The fact is that Crowley not only did not insert facts into the debate, she effectively removed them, and in the process helped Obama to escape from a very, very, uncomfortable situation. There are many things which that is, but moderating isn’t one of them; it was instead tantamount to a referee knocking the ball out of bounds for the home team.
The words you choose have meaning – as do the words not chosen
As to factual evidence of the President’s statement in question, while in the leftist world, where concepts and principles are relegated to 2nd place, and at best to factoids, her comment was neither factual nor accurate. People like to say that words have meaning, but what meaning they have is determined by the context of the passage (comment, speech, book, etc) they are used or abused in. Noting that the word ‘terror’ was used, is a meaningless factoid, of not much more worth than noting the total number of words used in the speech.
The question is did the President call the Benghazi attack and ‘act of terror’, and the answer, easily verifiable by looking at his own words, is no, he did not.
The official transcript does not even mention the word terror at all. Not in any way shape or form. Nada. Zero. None. Look for yourself (at the link, or it’s reproduced at the bottom as a courtesy to my intellectually lazy readers):
“I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi,…”
Here it is simply characterized as an outrageous attack. Of course… he also called Romney’s comment to him in the debate outrageous, presumably he wasn’t calling Romney a terrorist, or imply that he was engaging in a terrorist attack?
He closes out that paragraph with the comment that those killed
“… stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.”
Callously took their lives is a far different thing than being murdered for a political cause. He then directs that the barn door be closed, now that the horse, 9/11, is out, by having his administration
“…provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya…”
and around the globe. He then refers to what he has already put forward as the cause of unrest in the region, the obscure anti-Muslim video (which he was to hang Susan Rice out to dry on, that Sunday)
“While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others”
, and says that
“we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”
“That kid of senseless violence” is also not calling, or even appropriately hinting at calling, the Benghazi incident a Terrorist Act.
In his words at the podium, he says he will
“Work with the Libyan govt, to bring to justice, the killers, of our people.”
The word Killers is also not a reference to terrorism, and that failure to not state it flat out, clearly, as an act of terror, is a much louder statement, portraying this as simply a ‘man caused disaster’. He then says that:
“…there is absolutely no justification to this kind of senseless violence.”
Yet another deliberate instance of Not referring to an act of terror. He continues, “… None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.” Another deliberate instance of Not referring to an act of terror.
He makes further references to ‘attacks’ and ‘attackers’, but pointedly not to terrorism. After an extended comment on Ambassador Stevens activities, he finally gets around to mentioning 9/11 (but not terrorism) and how he’d visited wounded warriors and then learned of this, you guessed it, ‘attack’. Finally, he manages to eek out the word terror,
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values we stand for. Today we mourn four Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done in this terrible act, and make no mistake, justice will be done.”
In that context, and following his ramble about what he did to mark 9/11, it was at best an oblique and very general comment about terrorism in general, it was NOT an instance of coming out and calling the Benghazi attacks to be an act of terror, made all the more obvious by his reference immediately afterward to a ‘terrible act’, and then again, to attackers:
“But we also know that the lives these Americans led, stand in stark contrast to their attackers.”
The very deliberate intent of this entire speech, and of the complete absence of the word ‘terror’ from the official statement, is to deliberately Not refer to Benghazi as an act of terror.
I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.
I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.
The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.
(and yet you are currently in, and running again for … the senate…right?), and on the other hand, your Democrat party’s control of the senate has given your husband’s business $40 million or so in Obama stimulus dollars.
How does that work out? It’s almost like your Right side doesn’t know what your Leftist side is doing?
Let’s look again… on the Right: “Control of Senate: ‘No biggee’”
And on the Leftist: Claire’s husband snaps up $40 million in big Obama stimulus bucks.
That just doesn’t balance out, does it?
Oh, but wait, then… it also looks like the Leftward hand doesn’t know what the behind the back knife-holding hand is doing either… why else would mostly Democrat leaning Flight Attendant union members protest Claire McCaskill’s campaign office with chants of:
“Represent Missouri not Texas!” and “Texas has 3 Senators, Missouri only 1!”?
It seems as if the extremely Two Faced Claire betrayed her Missouri constituents for her old college friends and donor$ from… Texas.
Stacy E. Washington filed a post from today, from the site outside Claire’s St. Louis office, where a hundred or so Flight Attendants were demonstrating just how very displeased they are with being flown around on AirClaire:
“According to the two [American Airlines] flight attendants I spoke with this morning, Claire has sold them down the river for campaign donations and as a direct favor to her old college roommate, Ann Loew, who is, you guessed it: the APFA Executive appointee!”
Are you Joking? That’s extremely Two-Faced, even for you Claire!
Why so serious?
Missouri: You are the Show-Me state… how much more do you need to see?
Vote McCaskill out of office before she helps you some more!
The reason why, was not to protest Coal, but to draw attention to what should be front and center in every Missouri voters mind in regards to the senate race between Todd Akin and Claire McCaskill: the issue of jobs, rising energy costs, and an incumbent senator who is more interested in her own political power, than the rising rates Missourians will have to pay for their power, as her policies take affect.
Dana Loesch of 97.1 FM NewsTalk, Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit, and other local activists, myself included, joined with a large number of local Missourians to remind Claire McCaskill, and those who fund her, such as, amazingly, Peabody Coal, about a few facts:
Peabody Energy is the LARGEST private-sector COAL company in the WORLD.
COAL fuels approximately 10% of the energy generation in the United States. One in 10 homes or businesses runs on coal.
COAL provides 81% of Missouri’s electric power generation.
Missouri 11th in the nation in energy affordability. Due to COAL.
COAL is directly responsible for thousands of union and non-union jobs.
At AmrenUE out of its 16,546 megawatts of electric generating capacity, 64.8% comes from COAL. These are generated at power plants such as Labadie Energy Center (Franklin), Meramec Energy Center (St. Louis), Rush Island Energy Center (Jefferson County), and Sioux Energy Center (St. Charles).
“Flipper” McCaskill’s votes, which give legislative force to her “I hate coal” comments will have a negative effect on the jobs at those plants and the economies of those towns and regions and Missouri as a whole. These policies and support of the MACT rule will cause YOUR “electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket.” Continue reading →
"The fight for liberty begins in our own backyards. Gateway Grassroots Initiative embodies the fighting spirit of our Founding Fathers. It's a model for locally-based, limited government activism. Kudos to all the modern-day minutemen who refuse to depend on Washington pols to secure the blessings of liberty. We can't wait!"
-- Michelle Malkin
"Enough talk. The Gateway Grassroots Initiative is about taking action."
-- Roger Stone
"American without civic action is not citizenship. The Tea Party is about ideas in action--real activism that affects change. Gateway Grassroots is a way to make constitutional ideas reality. Good luck to the new effort!"
-- Dr. Melissa Clouthier
"The future of the Tea Party movement isn't marches, but organizing. This initiative looks like a good start."
-- Glenn Reynolds
"Love it...'every citizen a soldier for freedom'!!!"
-- Steve Bannon
"Since people aren't wired to stay in one frame of mind forever, all great historical movements have a limited shelf-life. It's exciting to see the next incarnation of conservative activism taking shape and moving forward from the rallies of the Tea Party. I fully support the Gateway Grassroots Initiative's mission of action."
- Brooks Bayne
"It's always a great thing to see Conservatives coming together and organizing for a cause and purpose like the Gateway Grassroots Initiative. Nobody needs to tell them to do it, nobody needs to goose them along, bus them in or make them sandwiches. They do it because they believe in it. Period. That's the difference between Conservatives and Liberals."
- Steven Crowder