RSS

Tag Archives: Senate

Outrage A Fluke; Hypocrisy Real

Warning: Uncensored Language.

Betty Ann McCaskill, Claire’s Momma, was so outraged at Rush Limbaugh’s verbal abuse of Sandra Fluke that she… …she… …asked for money. “Now he’s made me mad!” said she.  So buck up $5.00 and she’ll rid the world of the Republican War On Women.  Republican War On Women?

You mean Bill Maher, the Democrat voter, who called Sarah Palin a cunt and a dumb twat.  Momma McCaskill, will you forward me your letter of outrage when your favorite Liberal misogynist verbally abused a wildly popular Governor.  Are you going to raise money to stop Bill Maher’s Democrat “war on women”?

Or, how about Ed Schultz, the Democrat voter, who called Laura Ingraham a talk slut?  Please forward me your letter of outrage railing against MSNBC and “his out-of-control nasty mouth”.

Here’s the latest Democrat prostitution of a woman to raise money and fortify their power:

h/t Boone County Republicans

From: Betty Anne McCaskill <info@clairemccaskill.com>

Date: March 6, 2012 1:12:44 PM CST

To: *

Subject: Who are you calling a “slut” or a “babe”?

Reply-To: info@clairemccaskill.com

Brian —

Don’t Let Republicans Wage War on Women – Click Here to Contribute [link removed]

Now he’s made me mad.

Rush Limbaugh has never been someone I paid much attention to. But you can’t call my daughter, or any woman, that!

When Rush Limbaugh attacked my daughter and law student Sandra Fluke last week, I saw red. I feel for that young lady’s mother. But I bet she’s proud of her daughter’s willingness to stand up for her rights.

Somebody please send me a link where Rush Limbaugh “attacked my daughter”.  I’ve searched the Interwares and nada example I find.

Can you give $5 to help fight back against Rush and his anti-women assault? [link removed]

I have been working for women’s rights all my life, and brought up my three daughters and a son to believe that every human being deserves respect, dignity, and equality.

And at 83, I can honestly say that I’ve seen real change when it comes to women’s rights. But in the last few weeks it has become obvious that some want to walk back the progress women have made in this country.

Rush Limbaugh and his out-of-control nasty mouth is part of the problem. But it is much bigger than even his mouth.

Please don’t let the Republicans have their

way on this. Don’t let them wage war on women.

Show them that we know how to defeat them by making a contribution to Claire’s campaign today. [link removed]

Nothing will bother this old boys club more than a strong independent thinker like Claire being reelected.

I thought after 40 years of progress this wouldn’t be an issue any more. Unfortunately, it seems that I’ve thought too highly of Republican Party leaders.

Please help Claire put these anti-women Republicans in their place with a $5 contribution:

This is an incredibly important moment for women, and we need you on our side.

Thank you for your continued support of my daughter,

Betty Anne McCaskill

Claire, you and your Momma feign outrage; we know it’s just a fluke.  But your hypocrisy is fully transparent and real.  Of course, I doubt there’s a Conservative within earshot of the Internet that believes that you actually penned that letter.

Clearly the vile Bill Maher, Ed Schultz and The View, supporters of Democrats, represent the views of Missourians, so we should certainly re-elect you to the Senate.

 
5 Comments

Posted by on March 6, 2012 in Democrat, Liberals, Media

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Schumer: Eliminate Senate Confirmation of Czars

From our friends at Let Freedom Ring we get a heads-up on Charles Schumer and Lamar Alexander’s latest attempt to usurp the Constitution.

h/t http://www.letfreedomringusa.com/

“MEMO FOR THE MOVEMENT

Senators Schumer & Alexander plan to reduce number of Presidential Appointments subject to Senate confirmation process undermines Advice & Consent role and weakens Congressional Oversight responsibility.

No More Czars for the President—It is a Bad Deal!

RE: A proposal by Senators Schumer & Alexander and others to eliminate the confirmation process for hundreds of political appointees and basically create more executive branch “CZARS.” Eliminating the confirmation process removes the only check the legislative branch has over many Presidential appointments.

ISSUE-in-BRIEF: Every President has approximately 400 senior level positions among the major cabinet departments & agencies to fill subject to confirmation by the United States Senate. The vast majority of these positions are confirmed by the Senate with little fanfare—but that is after a careful review of each nominee’s record by the Senate and in many cases a confirmation hearing. Here are seven reasons this Schumer proposal (S.679) is a bad deal for the American people:

1. The President already controls a little over 2700 political appointees not subject to senate confirmation. This would increase the number and expand the list to include positions with more responsibility and authority such as agency Chief Financial Officers, Assistant Secretaries for Congressional Affairs and Public Affairs, Bureau Directors at Department of Justice, Positions at the IMF and African Development Foundation and the Treasurer of the United States—to name just a few.

2. Aids in the Growth of Big Government. The single biggest reason there are more Presidential Appointees subject to Senate Confirmation than there were 50 years ago is because of the growth of government. When President Kennedy was elected there were no presidential appointees at the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing & Urban Development, Transportation, the EPA, OSHA or the Peace Institute because none of these bureaucracies existed.

3. Weakens the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Advice & Consent is required by the Constitution—it should not be a discretionary matter left for Presidents of either party to determine. The Congress should not decide by law to relinquish the Senate role in filing a federal office and leave filling the office to the President alone. Key positions at almost every major cabinet department and agency would be affected, including Treasury, State, Defense, Commerce, Education, Energy, Labor, Homeland Security and Justice.

4. Reduces Opportunity for Congressional Oversight. The best time to fix a leaky roof is when the sun is shining—eliminating the possibility of a confirmation hearing allows for less transparency in the process. Once an individual is appointed to their position the oversight role of Congress is an after-the-fact event. The confirmation process is a crucial part of the congressional oversight process. Do the names Van Jones and Kevin Jennings ring a bell?

5. Takes Effect Immediately. Unlike changes to executive branch governance rules in the past, this proposal would be effective immediately rather than wait until 2013 and the next administration. In effect President Obama would be immediately free of the traditional Senate oversight of Presidential appointments and could appoint individuals at a moment’s notice.

6. Creates More Czars and Reduces Transparency. The problems of this administration with complying with the Freedom of Information Act are legendary and just this past February the House of Representatives voted to eliminate many of the “Czars” the President had been appointing to circumvent the accountability and scrutiny that comes with Senate confirmation.

7. Undermines Civility between the Branches of Government. The confirmation process ensures that individuals truly outside the constitutional mainstream are not appointed to influential positions in the executive branch without certain conditions placed on them by members of the Senate.”

Just another day in the life of a liberal elected official… …’what can we do to ignore the Constitution and take away rights from the American Citizen?’

 

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 14, 2011 in Congress, Constitution, White House

 

Tags: , , , ,

Claire’s Conundrum

Today the Senate may vote on an Amendment proposed by Mitch McConnell which is a copy of the ObamaCare Repeal Act passed by the House on Monday January 21, 2011.

Senators are faced with voting to support the original bill they passed in 2009 or voting to repeal it.

Senators like Claire McCaskill sealed their fate in 2009 when she voted to pass ObamaCare in the face of immense pressure from her constiuency.

Now, it’s a real conundrum:

If she votes to repeal,  Missourians know she has no principles.  In 2009, in the face of heated debates and angry town halls, she proceeded to ignore the outcry from Missourians and vote to pass ObamaCare.  She released video of herself reading the bill to prove her support and condescended on her constituents at the town halls.

She voted based on her principle that it was the best thing for Missourians, and she knew best.   Right?!?!

In the meantime, Missouri passed Proposition C with a 71-29 margin and lawsuits are starting to mount that will find the bill unconstitutional (which she knew was the case in the first place).

Changing her vote know would show that the only principle she’s worried about is doing whatever it takes to get re-elected.

If she votes to suppress the repeal, she has her principles on this matter, but she is voting again for an obviously unconstitutional law and breaking her oath to defend the Constitution.

Either way, McCaskill is done in Missouri.  Voting continually to support the radical agenda of a President for whom Missouri voted against was one thing, but voting for a clearly unconstitutional measure is another.

H/T HillBuzz.wordpress.com

Senator, if you’re true to the typical politician that you seem to be, enjoy your next career as a lobbyist.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 2, 2011 in Constitution, Democrat, Obama

 

Tags: , , ,

Updated: A Clue?

Update Update Update Update Update Update Update Update Update Update

Well, according to CNN, the GOP did not sack Lisa Murkowski as party leader on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.  Do the votes of the Alaskans not matter after all?  Lame excuses about her being gone anyway ring hollow.

She’s running as an I.N.D.E.P.E.N.D.E.N.T… …which is NOT-REPUBLICAN.  So, why would we even keep her as the party leader on the trash bin committee?

Update Update Update Update Update Update Update Update Update Update

Did the Senate GOP start to get a clue about what’s going on in America?

Lisa Murkowski, current U.S. Senator from Alaska,  lost her primary bid for re-election to Tea-Party backed candidate Joe Miller.  With disdain for the choice made by voters and in a fit comparable to a 3-year-old child, Murkowski launched a write-in campaign for U.S. Senator.  Ignoring the will of the Republican Alaskan voters is no surprise to those watching this year’s election activity with Charlie Crist launching a similar Independent bid after losing a Republican Primary.

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans voted to strip Lisa Murkowski as the party leader on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.  In response to her rejection of the will of the Alaskan voters, the Senate Republicans rejected her.

I’m sure that Murkowski and the State Run Media will bemoan the treatment by the GOP, but keeping her at the helm of the powerful committee would be akin to making Arlen Specter the Minority Leader.

Could this be a glimmer of hope about the Republican Party?  …that they are starting to understand that America is done with the ‘good-ole-boys-and-girls-club’ and that when we put you out, you’re out.

I hear statements from the Republicans that they need to control, contain, reduce, cap and reign in spending.  Statements like that make me think they don’t get it.  Tea Party Americans don’t want that; they want MASSIVE cuts to spending, major cuts to departments and programs, and a hatchet taken to the budget and the IRS!

I hear statements from the Republicans that they want to correct, fix, and improve Obamacare.  I hear some say they will rip it out by its roots.  Tea Party Activists want it ripped out!

I really don’t think the GOP gets it yet; but this is certainly a step in the right direction.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 22, 2010 in Election, Health Care, Reform, Republican, Tea Party

 

Tags: , ,

Is Carnahan Up For The Job?

The Washington Times reports that Missouri is one of 5 states that have not implemented the electronic-delivery requirement under the MOVE Act.  The MOVE Act was enacted in 2009 to ensure that our Military brothers and sisters abroad were not denied their right to vote (as was rampant in 2008)

The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE Act) requires states to mail absentee ballots at least 45 days before an election and requires states to use electronic delivery mechanisms to expedite the delivery of absentee ballots to military members.

As I read the article, I prayed that Missouri would not be on this list… …knowing, personally, friends and coworkers who have family members in harms way.  But to my disappointment, there was Missouri on the list.

Robin Carnahan, the Secretary of State of Missouri, would be your employee responsible for enacting the measures described under the MOVE Act.  Much will be made of her Senatorial opponent’s voting record in the run-up to the November 2010 election.  So, if we’re going to look at Robin’s record, on this one, we see… …job NOT done.

But, we’re to believe she’s up for the next job she wants.

I know I’ll hear about “legislature this” and “governor that” and “Matt Blunt email thus” and “It’s Bush’s Fault”, but the bottom line is that the job should have got done.

Here’s some more from Big Government on Carnahan’s shenanigans with the voter roles

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 13, 2010 in Election, Reform

 

Tags: , , , ,

Chewing Tea Bags

The opposition to common sense (and the Tea Party) are jumping on the latest disagreement among several Conservative Groups (who happen to be Tea Party supporters).  The State Run Media will tell of a great divide in the Tea Party — that the leadership is splintered, flailing and dysfunctional.

The story here is that some of the St. Louis area and other Missouri Conservative groups have strongly endorsed, supported and campaigned for Chuck Purgason.  Chuck Purgason is a very good man and an stalwart Conservative in the Missouri’s legislature.  He righteously fought his own party and for Conservative principles when he filibustered the bailout of the Ford Claycomo Plant.  Purgason is running for U.S. Senator from Missouri against Roy Blunt.

Late last week Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Representative and staunch Cosnervative, endorsed Roy Blunt.  Blunt has 14 years in the House and has been tied to bad votes on the Bailouts, Cash For Clunkers, and Medicare Prescription Plan.  Blunt touts his own Conservative record and one cannot deny the fact that he successfully passed a Balanced Budget Amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives as the top Republican there.  Haven’t seen Pelosi tackling that bailiwick.

So, the rift is that the Purgason supporters wanted Bachmann’s endorsement, and they didn’t get it.

On July 31st, Bachmann was to be in St. Louis to campaign for Blunt.  She was to meet with several Tea Party leaders… …surprisingly including me.  The Purgason Camp called out for protesters to meet at the GOP headquarters and protest, nicely, Bachmann’s Blunt endorsement.  Purgason canceled other campaign events to be at the protest.  Several members of the groups have sent out angered e-mails, texts and Facebook posts decrying Bachmann and her endorsement.

I pray that the Purgason camp will see the error in their folly.  True Conservatives respect informed decision.  Period.  Whether they like the decision or not, Michele Bachmann has every right to endorse Roy Blunt and he IS a good man.  Let’s show Michele Bachmann the respect she deserves as one who would not just follow the establishment GOP candidate.  For cryin’-out-loud, she started the Tea Party Caucus which now has 40+ members in the House!

Tea Party members can chew each other up and give the Lame Stream Media fodder to make jest at their efforts, or they can be disappointed in Bachmann’s decision, say so, and move on.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on August 1, 2010 in Conservative, Election

 

Tags: , , ,