Category Archives: Liberal Racism

Well, shoot!

Posted on by

I had a nice post all planned out for today until I ran into one of those pesky little issues that so many ‘real’ journalists ignore. There is a story floating around the internet first published by this website. I even shared it on FB (my bad.) The story highlights a column that supposedly appeared in late April in the New York Times.

This same story appears in numerous postings on the internet. All lead back to here, one website. A single source. ‘Real’ journalists know they should have at least two or three corroborating sources, not just one. I don’t claim to be a journalist, but I do try to follow the same standards of journalism wherever I can. There is a difference between reporting and editorializing. Too many “real’ journalist ignore or were never taught that difference.

That column is interesting—if it is true. But I can’t confirm it and I’m beginning to believe it is just another piece of fiction fabricated to support an agenda. I don’t doubt there are some elements in the story that are true but once one piece cannot be verified, the entire story becomes, “fruit from a tainted tree.”

***

This section could be called, “Actions have consequences.” After Baltimore’s Mayor and Prosecutor sided with the mob against the police, Baltimore’s crime—and death rate, had sky-rocketed while arrests have dropped by 50%.

Baltimore Residents Fearful Amid Rash Of Homicides

May 28, 2015 8:53 AM

BALTIMORE (AP) — Antoinette Perrine has barricaded her front door since her brother was killed three weeks ago on a basketball court near her home in the Harlem Park neighborhood of West Baltimore.

She already has iron bars outside her windows and added metal slabs on the inside to deflect the gunfire.

“I’m afraid to go outside,” said Perrine, 47. “It’s so bad, people are afraid to let their kids outside. People wake up with shots through their windows. Police used to sit on every corner, on the top of the block. These days? They’re nowhere.”

Perrine’s brother is one of 36 people killed in Baltimore so far this month, already the highest homicide count for May since 1999. But while homicides are spiking, arrests have plunged more than 50 percent compared to last year.

The drop in arrests followed the death of Freddie Gray from injuries he suffered in police custody. Gray’s death sparked protests against the police and some rioting, and led to the indictment of six officers.

Now West Baltimore residents worry they’ve been abandoned by the officers they once accused of harassing them. In recent weeks, some neighborhoods have become like the Wild West without a lawman around, residents said.

“Before it was over-policing. Now there’s no police,” said Donnail “Dreads” Lee, 34, who lives in the Gilmor Homes, the public housing complex where Gray, 25, was arrested.

“I haven’t seen the police since the riots,” Lee said. “People feel as though they can do things and get away with it. I see people walking with guns almost every single day, because they know the police aren’t pulling them up like they used to.”

Police Commissioner Anthony Batts said last week his officers “are not holding back” from policing tough neighborhoods, but they are encountering dangerous hostility in the Western District.

“Our officers tell me that when officers pull up, they have 30 to 50 people surrounding them at any time,” Batts said.

At a City Council meeting Wednesday, Batts said officers have expressed concern they could be arrested for making mistakes.

The column continues at the CBS website. The residents are beginning to realize that without police crime is without restraint. Now the citizens are beginning to learn the consequences of supporting criminals instead of supporting the police. It is a repeat of the adage, “What goes around, comes around.”

Facebook

Let’s take a look at…

Posted on by

…Carly Fiorina. She announced her candidacy for President yesterday. She wasn’t present at the NRA Annual Meeting last month, but she did sent a video which is more than Rand Paul could bother himself with and many present wished Jeb Bush, Lindsay Grahamesty and the Huckleberry had done.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eNYiMAokXVs/maxresdefault.jpg

Carly Fiorina, 2016 GOP Candidate for President

She was applauded at the NRA meeting in Nashville as were all who spoke there. I should note the applause for Jeb and Grahamesty was more perfunctory. All in all, Fiorina’s topics from her video was complementary with those of the other conservative speakers.

Today she is making the rounds of the talk shows. She spent some time with Glenn Beck this morning and, I believe, she’ll be with Hannity this afternoon.

I was in the shower, listening, when she said something that I’ve heard no other candidate, certainly not Jeb, Grahamesty nor Huckleberry say. She said the government should be placed on a zero-based budget like the private sector.

What is a zero-based budget? It is a budget where every penny spent must be justified—every penny. No increase from last year. Every year, every penny spent, regardless of the project, must be justified. And if the expense cannot be justified, it is cut!

A business knows how much it can spend. It has a reasonable expectation of its income, and it knows every penny that will be spent. Spending cannot exceed income. Unlike the government, a business cannot arbitrarily print off a few billion dollars if the treasury is low.

I retired from Sprint a few years ago. One of the exercises we expected every Spring was budget submissions. The process was this. The board allocated funds for the company. The executives broke that down by divisions, then to departments, continuing down the the project and, in some cases, the individual.

Next came the project that the business side wanted done. From that point a winnowing process began between the business side that wanted products and the development and operational side who would build, implement and maintain those products. As each product was analyzed and and expensed, those projects went up the management chain to be justified. If the project couldn’t be justified, it was allowed to be resubmitted with a reduced cost or cut. The project cost also includes the cost of the employees who develop, test, implement and maintain the product.

When this idea has been floated before, one complaint is that the process ‘takes too long.’ Yes, it does take a while. Sprint built next years budget, this year. It took about a quarter to get it done and approved. But, during that quarter, we also performed our regular jobs. No missed delivery dates allowed just because we had to work on a budget. In addition, our product cycle from concept to development to production was often much less than a year.

When one is employed in the private sector, you quickly learn what ‘multi-tasking’ really means. It means you deliver all your projects on time and on budget—or you’ll soon be escorted out the door.

Carly Fiorina proposes to do the same to the Federal government. Just imagine the same rules applied to all departments and agencies of the US government! I wonder how well the IRS, EPA, FCC, the NLRB and many of the other departments, like Education and HHS would fare? I would not be surprised if many withered away or were consolidated, at a reduced level, into a governmental department.

I hope other candidates take up Carly’s idea. The country desperately needs it. I have no doubt our federal debt would not last long if Carly’s budgetary rules were imposed on the national government.

***

Some interesting statistics are coming out after the Baltimore riots. One statistic that I saw said that over 20% of the employed in Baltimore, worked as government employees. Just image what that percentage would be if you included everyone on the welfare rolls. Are not welfare recipients paid by the government? They should be included, too. When you examine the demographics of Baltimore, you will find that half of the Baltimore police are black and most of the elected and appointed officials of Baltimore are black.

With those facts on the table, where is the white oppression? The whites aren’t in control of the city and hasn’t for over thirty years.

The feds have given Baltimore billions, yes, billions with a ‘B’! Where has those billions for education, jobs and infrastructure improvements gone? I wonder how much slithered into private political pockets.

Add to that mess, is this item I came across this morning. The Baltimore PD went to the DoJ for funding of a training program for their street officers. Holder turned them down—but Obama claims it’s all the ‘Pubs fault. One more lie by Obama and the democrats.

Facebook

Getting the government they voted for

Posted on by

The MSM is on a feeding frenzy over Baltimore. As happened in Ferguson, the peaceful protesters were run off by the thugs and imported agitators. The rioters were supported by such con men luminaries as Jesse Jackson and Al “the Slims” Sharpton. If you don’t know what, “the Slims,” mean, ask a black friend.

Baltimore’s Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake appeared on TV and made a total fool of herself. Correction, she revealed the fool that she was. When her foolishness was spread by the MSM, she blamed, like other fools before her, the media. A lib will never admit fault. It’s always someone else’s fault.

The real question, one that is never asked, is why the protests against police when these large cities are controlled by liberals? If the black communities have issues with their police, surely they’ve discussed the problems with their democrat masters representatives in the city government. The police report to the city. If there are problems, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has the authority to fix them. Why hasn’t she?

Yes, there are questions how Freddy Gray was injured. Instead of protesting the police and rioting, why aren’t the people protesting the Mayor? She is the one in charge.

It was the same in Ferguson. A liberal city in a liberal county with a liberal city government elected year after year by the majority of the residents—who are black. Instead of blaming the police, why aren’t people blaming the liberal, democrat city governments who control the police?

Wherever a city is controlled by liberals, the city is in trouble. Detroit, with over sixty years of democrat controlled city government looks like a war-zone. Businesses were forced to leave by an oppressive city government. Large stretches of the city have been abandoned and Detroit is shrinking in population and territory.

baltimore_rioter

Baltimore rioter after looting a CVS drugstore.

Instead of managing the situation, Baltimore’s Mayor made it worse, “giving them space to destroy,” as she was quoted. Mrs Crucis and I watched the confrontation on TV last night. The police did nothing. Whenever the rioters approached, they retreated. When rioters looted and burned businesses, the police watched and did nothing. According to on-the-scene news reports, only 200 police confronted the rioters. Where were the rest of the police?

Surely a city the size of Baltimore has more than 200 police officers on their force. Sent too few police to confront violent rioters is worse than doing nothing—the Mayor risked the lives of her police while doing nothing to stop the rioting.

The Mayor issued a curfew order from 10PM to 4:30AM—starting today! Why didn’t she issue one for last night? The Maryland governor declared a State of Emergency and has called out the National Guard. Where are they?

There used to be a quaint custom called, “Reading the Riot Act,” to rioters. There were given time to disperse, a short time, and then they were forcibly removed, arrested, or shot if the rioters offered violence. A local Baltimore reporter was rescued from the rioters by a shotgun toting business owner. The police did nothing to protect peaceful citizens nor their property.

Someone with the guts to read the riot act is what Baltimore needed. The city didn’t get it. The Mayor blames the media.

Mayor Rawlings-Blake has personified the other old saying: “People get the government they deserve.” The citizens of Baltimore have a city government of incompetence and ineffectiveness. A government unwilling and unable to act regardless of the consequences.

Facebook

Retaliation

Posted on by

If you thought the GOP establishment would accept the flood of new conservatives in Congress, you were wrong. McConnell, et. al., is already planning to remove leading conservative Senators. Ted Cruz is too strong in Texas, but Mike Lee of Utah is perceived to be weaker.

They’re Coming for Mike Lee

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 22nd, 2014 at 12:50 PM

It is extremely notable that Manu Raju of the Politico has written that the establishment intends to destroy Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)See Full Scorecard97%. Raju serves as the court stenographer for the Senate GOP leadership. His pieces are routinely littered with the conventional wisdom and talking points of the Senate GOP leadership. He has more than once anticipated Senate GOP leadership strategy based on their conversations with him.

So when Manu Raju says the establishment intends to go on offense against the tea party by beating Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)97% in the Utah Republican Primary, we can be sure Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)67%, the NRSC, etc. will be stepping aside and failing to give Lee the support they gave Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)51%, etc.

Of note, the story focuses on Jon Huntsman, Sr., who remains well respected in Utah. Huntsman, you will recall, is the man who spread the rumors about Herman Cain in 2012, in an effort to help his son, Jon Huntsman the lesser, run for President. All he managed to accomplish was taking out Herman Cain and getting his granddaughter an MSNBC show.
But Huntsman is clearly planning on destroying Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)97% to gain a tea party scalp and the GOP establishment in D.C. clearly plans on standing aside to let it happen.

You can read the entire article by following this link.

One interesting portion of the article is the involvement of the Huntsman family. John Huntsman was a candidate for President in 2012. As the campaign progressed, his views aligned him more with Obama and the democrats that with any of the remaining GOP candidates. In the end, it became clear that Huntsman’s purpose in the campaign was the disruption of the other GOP candidates instead of a true run for the Presidency. With the Huntsman family deep pockets, Mike Lee will be the underdog in funding his re-election to the Senate.

***

Bill de Blasio and Al Sharpton have been accused with fomenting the tension that led to the murders of two New York police officers. When New York Mayor de Blasio attended a memorial service for the two officers, many of the officers attending turned their backs to the Mayor.

Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik said, “They [de Blasio and Sharpton] have blood on their hands.”  The statement appeared in an article appearing in The American Thinker. De Blasio’s relations with the NYPD continue to deteriorate. With growing pro-police pressure, de Blasio attempted to step back and issued a statement pleading for a cessation of the anti-police protests. Al Sharpton, one of the protest leaders, refused.

The growing disruption is a creation of the media and of charlatans like Sharpton. They claim Eric Garner was choked to death while being arrested. He was not. Eric Garner died of natural causes, a heart attack, an hour after being arrested due to his own health issues. You won’t learn that in the media. No, you have to review the coroner’s reports because the media ignored that vital piece of information. The Coroner blamed the cops before the Grand Jury, but when the report was examined, it said otherwise.

The misinformation by the media and their liberal accomplices are slowly coming to light. Generations of Americans have been mislead by the liberal controlled media. Some members of the black community are beginning to realize they’ve been lied to for decades. Follow the link. It is an interesting read.

Facebook

Post-Ferguson Era

Posted on by

According to some news outlets, we are now in a ‘Post-Ferguson Era.’ The Eric Garner case in New York has pushed Ferguson from the national headlines.

Like you, I haven’t a clue what ‘Post-Ferguson Era’ means. Regardless, Ferguson continues to be highlighted in Missouri’s news—Nixon is still running from it, Attorney General Chris Koster was successful is keeping out of the limelight and is using Ferguson for his advantage for 2016. Democrat legislators from St Louis are proposing new bills that would cripple law enforcement if/when they encounter violent thugs, and the Kansas City ‘Red’ Star has a surprisingly balanced editorial!

The millennium has come! The KC Star has an editorial contrary to the liberal party line!

Let’s get back to the headlines.

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2014/11/24/fergusonjpeg-06e2e_c0-326-3000-2074_s561x327.jpg?e6f3f10d7e7b7f874d41be4a69b48182d5e91f7e

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon

Democrat Governor Jay Nixon, during a visit to the Missouri bootheel was asked about his orders for the National Guard. Nixon responded:

“Our plan was to have, and we did have, over 700 guardsmen out that night, guarding locations all throughout the region. We wanted to have the local police — St. Louis County and St. Louis City — and others, to patrol on the front lines who had been engaging directly with many of those folks throughout the summer. We thought that was better than bringing in the National Guard in full military garb straight onto those streets. Obviously Monday night, we were somewhat surprised by the … riots, not helped by the number of folks trying to whip that up at various times. As the night went on, we did bring in additional guardsmen into the police department there to back up the folks who were there, and ended up getting out their response teams in the area.”

Nixon continued:

“Really, the choice that night was whether we’re going to lose lives or lose property. When you have that many hundreds of people shooting guns and running throughout the area and looting, I think it was important to preserve life, and I think all of the unified commanders, as well as the guard’s folks, did a great job of that. We didn’t have a single shot fired by a single law enforcement officer, and we had hundreds of shots fired out. We didn’t have a single shot fired by a national guardsman, and we had none of them significantly injured. So while it was a difficult thing to watch, and challenging, in many ways, I think that when we look back at this, having those law enforcement officers out first, having the guard there behind them, was in fact the best way to do it.” — Southeast Missourian.

While Nixon was on his road-trip, Chris Koster was establishing his position for a future run for Governor. Koster is hoping to gain some kudos over Missouri’s ‘Deadly Force’ statute that Koster claims is contrary a federal court decision.

By M. Alex Johnson

Missouri’s attorney general called Tuesday night for a change in state law to make it tougher for law enforcement officers to justify the use of deadly force, a week and a half after a grand jury declined to indict former Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown.

NBC News reported last week that one of the factors that would have complicated any prosecution of Wilson was a Missouri statute that gives peace officers greater leeway in using deadly force than is allowed in many other states. In a statement to MSNBC’s “The Last Word,” Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said Wednesday night that state lawmakers should bring the statute into line with an important Supreme Court ruling.

“Among the problems that Ferguson has brought to light is the need to update Missouri’s use of deadly force statute,” Koster said. “This statute is inconsistent with the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Tennessee v. Garner. Consequently, it is important this statute is amended by the Missouri legislature to incorporate the Garner decision and to avoid confusion within the criminal justice system.”

The 1985 Garner decision is one of two Supreme Court rulings — the other is from 1989 — addressing when a law enforcement officer can justifiably use deadly force.

The 1985 decision says it’s justifiable only if the officer has probable cause to believe a fleeing suspect is a violent felon and poses a significant threat to the officer or the public — requiring the existence of a threat before an officer can use deadly force. The 1989 decision — Graham v. Connor — found that an officer’s justification for use of deadly force must be assessed in the context of a “reasonable” officer’s state of mind under the specific circumstances — one of which can, but doesn’t necessarily have to be, a threat to the officer or the public.

In an interview last week with NBC News, Roger Goldman, Callis Family Professor of Law emeritus at St. Louis University Law School, said that under the current statute, “if I’m representing the police officer, I’m arguing that Missouri law allows an officer to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon even if he is not a danger to the public or fellow officers.”

I am not a lawyer so I’ll leave a review of Koster’s comments to those who are. However, I’d like to point out a flaw in Professor Roger Goldman’s logic—Michael Brown was NOT a fleeing felon. He was an aggressive thug who initiated the attack on Darren Wilson and was attacking Wilson when he was shot. If Brown had run, he probably would still be alive today. Assuming, of course, that he wasn’t shot by some storekeeper who had a weapon and was determined not to be a victim of thuggery.

Some residual protesters are walking to Jeff City to make their demands known to a legislature that is not in session and to a Governor who is out of town. According to some reports, the protesters have met some contrary opinions along the way.

Marchers endure counter-protest in Rosebud

By Jeff Haldiman, Thursday, December 4, 2014

More than halfway through their journey to the Capital City, marchers on a 120-mile journey from Ferguson were met with opposition Wednesday as they journeyed through Mid-Missouri.

…

Andrew McFadden Ketchum came from Denver to join the marchers on a whim and said it has become an “amazing experience.”

“There’s a lot of love here,” he said. “I was surprised at what I saw in Rosebud. It was so quiet when we went in and then bang, the noise started.”

Ketchum posted a video to YouTube, which shows the group walking through the small Gasconade County town. Residents are seen standing along the highway quietly until the group approaches the center of town where some members of the crowd begin yelling.

Someone can be heard shouting, “No peace, no welfare checks!”

“All this for a thug and a thief,” shouts another resident in an apparent reference to Michael Brown.

Although the legislature is out of session, December is when bills are pre-filed for the upcoming session. Two St Louis legislators want to constrain police when encountering suspects on the street.

Vet Ferguson bills with care in Missouri legislature

12/03/2014 4:11 PM

Missouri lawmakers have responded to the police shooting of teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson with a host of bills on matters such as police use of deadly force and overuse of traffic tickets by some cities.

The spate of legislation filed in advance of the 2015 session’s Jan. 7 start could lead to thoughtful discussions. But it is important that the General Assembly vet the bills carefully.

Two Democratic senators from the St. Louis area, Maria Chappelle-Nadal and Jamilah Nasheed, have filed legislation aimed at limiting the circumstances under which a police officer can use deadly force. Nasheed’s bill would require officers to use other options first, such as a taser, and issue a warning before firing a shot. It also would cause officers to be suspended without pay pending an investigation if they fired at a suspect more than 20 feet away.

Lawmakers and the public need to hear from police about these proposals. Good police departments heed to standards and best practices developed and constantly re-evaluated by law enforcement professionals. State legislators should tap that expertise before setting their own rules.

The same goes for bills that call for the appointment of a special prosecutor in all officer-involved shootings. Lawmakers need to hear from prosecutors about the wisdom of that idea.

Maria Chappelle-Nadal and Jamilah Nasheed are Missouri’s leading gun control advocates. They have opposed every bill in the legislature that supports gun owners and bills that enhance Missourian’s 2nd Amendment rights. Perhaps the photo below from the Riverfront Times blog is indicative of the separation between them and the rest of Missouri.

Photo from the Riverfront Times.

The photo above is the supposed original version according to the Riverfront Times. When it was shared on the internet, it was trimmed to exclude to two outer figures leaving only the center sign and protester. The Riverfront Times now claims that the verbiage of the sign was altered from “leaves home” to “robs a store.” I’ve examined the photo closely and the digital information with it and I can see no evidence that it has been altered. But I make no claims to be an expert on digital photos. Regardless of the validity, there is a truth in the message as it appears above—a truth that is being ignored because it doesn’t support an protester’s and the St Louis liberal agenda.

Perhaps the Riverfront Times and the protesters are upset that the photo reveals a truth behind the lootings and burnings in Ferguson. It would seem the two legislators from St Louis prefer the logic of the photos above as a basis for law than a law that protects businesses from thugs and thieves.

Facebook

Lawfare and warfare

Posted on by

After democrat Governor Jay Nixon took over responsibility for the Ferguson riots, first by ordering the local police to stand-down and then placing a Missouri Highway Patrol captain in charge, the riots continue. According to some, outside instigators are arriving in droves to feed the disorder.

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/ce/2cebea04-6275-5dd8-b70b-0baa7ea39242/53f04c2b4ce38.preview-620.jpgSunday night, more rioting, shooting and looting occurred. To gain control of the situation, Nixon has ordered in the Missouri National Guard. That decision could be a very serious mistake. Many guard members are Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. When they are shot at, they could have built a reflex to shoot back. Warfare, not riot control, is what soldiers—and National Guardsmen, are trained for. Soldiers do not make policemen.

***

Lawfare. It is a word seldom heard in the news although its use, as a political tactic, has been around for decades. The recent indictment of Perry in über-liberal Austin, TX, is the most recent examples of this despicable tactic.

http://media.star-telegram.com/smedia/2014/08/16/14/40/1lq2Gb.St.58.jpeg

What was Texas Governor Rick Perry indicted for? Doing his job. No one, not even Perry’s political opponents, says what Perry did, veto funding, was illegal. Neither was his efforts to remove a drunken District Attorney from office illegal.

So why was he indicted? He was indicted because he was a ‘Pub and wouldn’t kowtow to liberals. The Austin Grand Jury called it an “abuse of power.” The only abuse of power I see is that by the Austin prosecutor and that grand jury.

Rick Perry isn’t taking this charge by rolling over. No, he’s fighting back and I applaud him for doing so.

Facebook

ABC…Anybody but Claire

Posted on by

Todd Akin, depending on the poll, is within 2pts of Claire McCaskill. I’m told there are still some conservatives who don’t know for whom they’ll vote. Frankly, I find that hard to believe for true conservatives. I’d expect that response from those who reflect the views of whomever they are around at that moment. Chameleons may be a better description.

McCaskill is trying to market herself as a moderate. The truth is she’s no where near a moderate. Not with a voting record that supports Obama and Harry Reid 98% of the time.

But, for those of you who are really undecided, let’s sift the facts on Claire’s record. Here’s a list of issues and McCaskill’s stance on them. (From OnTheIssues.org)

Abortion:

  • Support embryonic stem cell research but not cloning. (Oct 2006)
  • Support a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Oct 2006)
  • Continue promising stem-cell research. (May 2006)
  • Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
  • Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
  • Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
  • Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
  • Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
  • Emergency contraception at all military health facilities. (Dec 2009)

You’ll notice that she was against the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. However, that was in 2006 during an interview on Meet The Press with Tim Russert , Oct 8, 2006. Since being elected to the US Senate, however, she has voted FOR every abortion issue and against restricting abortion. There’s a disconnect between what Claire says…or said in this case, and what she actually does—her voting record once in office.

Budget and the Economy:

  • Take on sacred cows that gave us $8 trillion debt. (Oct 2006)
  • $300 billion in Iraq is a lot of money. (Oct 2006)
  • Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
  • Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
  • Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)
  • Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
  • Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
  • Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)
  • Ban abusive credit practices & enhance consumer disclosure. (Feb 2009)

 The disconnect with Claire’s word and her actions continue when it’s the economy. You’ll notice in the bullet points above a difference when George Bush was President and when Claire was elected Missouri’s Senator. In 2006 she was against more spending—especially when it was for the war in Iraq. Once in office she made a 180° turn. In office she voted against paying down the federal debt (2007), voted for more stimulus spending (2009), and voted for legislation on mortgage “abuses” that provided more federal taxpayer money to support underwater mortgages.

In fact if you examine Claire’s voting record, every vote that was the least bit “moderate” was one where the outcome was already decided. In otherwise a safe vote where Claire’s “moderate” vote had no effect on the outcome.

Let’s continue with McCaskill’s record.

Corporations:

  • Limit TARP recipients’ executive compensation to $400,000. (May 2010
  • Rated 86% by UFCW, indicating an anti-management/pro-labor record. (May 2012)

Like all liberals, they refuse to acknowledge how and why corporate executives are paid.  Executives are paid for performance. They are given goals by the corporation’s Board of Directors and if those executives meet those goals, they are well paid—with a good salary, bonuses and stock options. It’s not easy to meet those corporate goals. That’s why the tenures of a CEO is short, a handful of years in most cases. Why? Because the first time that CEO fails to meet his goals, he’s out the door. 

If you limit his compensation, like McCaskill voted, what is the incentive for that CEO? He knows he won’t stay long as CEO. That’s the nature of business—perform or you’re out. So he’s expected to work and work hard with no incentive?

No, he won’t. He’ll go where he can be paid for what he’s worth.  Only the ignorant believes otherwise—or those who refuse to understand the nature of business. Business exists for profit. Without profit, the business will cease to exist. It’s the CEO’s task to insure that profit or get fired.

Let’s look at McCaskill’s stance on energy.

  • Energy independence by 2020 via alternative fuels. (May 2006)
  • Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
  • Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax. (Apr 2009)
  • Voted YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (Apr 2009)
  • Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
  • Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
  • Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

Again, McCaskill voted for initiatives that hurt the economy unless it was a safe vote. She voted against banning excesses by the EPA (2011), voted for Federal support (and taxes) for Global Warming (2007), voted for Cap ‘n Tax (2008), and supported the so-call Green Initiatives and have been a financial disaster (2008).

Finally, let’s examine McCaskill’s record on Healthcare and Obamacare.

  • Opposes annual limit on federal Medicare spending. (Sep 2006)
  • Expand Medicare for people, not for drug companies. (May 2006)
  • Negotiate for lower Rx prices and re-importation. (May 2006)
  • Uncovering Medicaid waste reduces cost of medicine. (Dec 2005)
  • Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (May 2011)
  • Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
  • Voted YES on expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
  • Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
  • Voted YES on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on allowing tribal Indians to opt out of federal healthcare. (Feb 2008)
  • Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007)
  • Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
  • Establish a national childhood cancer database. (Mar 2007)
  • Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (Apr 2008)
  • Disclose payments from manufacturers to physicians. (Jan 2009)

Once again, McCaskill followed the liberal party line. Her stance before being elected to the Senate in 2006 was decidedly different after being elected. Before, she was in favor of curbing Medicare costs, afterward, it was curbing Medicare benefits.When she voted for Obamacare, she robbed Medicare to $700billion to feed the Obamacare monster. Note, too, that 70% of Missouri voters voted against Obamacare (Prop C). That didn’t deter McCaskill at all. She ignored Missouri’s vote against Obamacare and voted the dem party line.

She voted to allow the Indian Tribes to opt out of Obamacare when you could not. She voted for Medicare cuts and more limitations on Medicare reimbursement for Physicians, Hospitals and Drugs forcing many Physicians and private hospital to refuse any new Medicare patients while driving up the cost of healthcare for individuals. In addition, she voted against Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform plan.

When you examine Claire McCaskill’s record, there is nothing moderate about it. Yes, she did vote on occasion to support some conservative issues like gun control, but if you look at the actual vote in the Senate, those issues already had a clear outcome. McCaskill just hitched a ride to ease her opposition at home in Missouri.

Claire McCaskill is a liberal. Worse, she’s a lying liberal who attempts to mask her true nature. When you enter the voting booth next week. Vote NO against McCaskill and FOR Todd Akin. Akin, considering all his foibles, is still a true conservative—one who won’t sell his vote for expediency or personal gain.

Facebook