Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Exposed as Fraud by Project Veritas Video … Anti-Second Amendment, Tell Moderate Republicans to “Get Over It” after Impeach Trump
THE DEMOCRAT PLAY BOOK, LIE TO THE VOTERS …
James O’Keefe and Project Veritas have exposed another Democrat politician for the fraud and lair that they are. This time it is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. McCaskill is in a close race with GOP challenger Josh Hawley. The undercover video exposes exactly what many of us already know, a Democrat in a red state won by Donald Trump in 2016 has to lie to the voters. McCaskill’s campaign will say anything to get the moderate Republican vote and then do just the opposite once elected. To the people of Missouri, McCaskill voted against the tax cuts, she voted against Kavanaugh and pretty much the entire Trump agenda. Why would you want this representing you and halting all that President Trump has accomplished in less than two years? Why would you want Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to be the Senate Majority leader?
Vote for Josh Hawley and help make America Great Again and continue the Trump agenda. There is no reason why this race should be close. Don’t be fooled Misouri, show McCaskill the door.
“People just can’t know that.” MO Sen. McCaskill Hides Agenda Including “semi-automatic rifle ban” from Moderate Voters, Staffers Reveal in Undercover Video it “could hurt her ability to get elected.”
The video shows McCaskill and her staff admitting that she supports banning semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, high-capacity magazines, along with supporting other far-left policies.
Rob Mills, who works on McCaskill’s campaign, says in the video that McCaskill can’t be open about her policies because “she has a bunch of Republican voters” and “that could hurt her ability to get elected.”
Nicolas Starost, who also works McCaskill’s campaign, says in the video that former President Barack Obama isn’t campaigning for McCaskill because she doesn’t want to be cast as too far-left, even though she believes in the same policies that Obama does.
“Because of how like, cause he’s a very liberal candidate,” Starost says. “And like… Claire distancing herself from the party is gonna help her win more votes than it will saying like: ‘Oh here’s Obama, the former President of the United States, to now speak on my behalf.’ Which is unfortunate because I love Obama to pieces, and I’d love to see him come here.”
“And they essentially have the same views on everything?” the Project Veritas journalist asks.
“Yeah,” Starost responds. “People just can’t know that.”
UPDATE II: From The Gateway Pundit: Claire McCaskill Responds After Project Veritas Reveals She’s a Complete Fraud … Blames her Opponent.
Claire lied some more, blamed Josh Hawley for the undercover video.
Senator McCaskill: I’ve been very up front about all my positions. I remember this person was trying to get me to say something different than what my positions are… It is startling that Josh Hawley would be part of fraudulently embedding something in my campaign.
YOU JUST CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP, THE HYPOCRISY OF THE LEFT ….
From the Washington Examiner, 18 year old, outspoken, anti-gun advocate from Parkland high school student David Hogg, showed up at a protest at the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Va with armed security. Yes, that was not a misprint. The outspoken and misinformed gun grabbing teen activist had armed security. While Hogg tries to take your guns away from you and impose on your Second Amendment rights to own and have a gun, he has guns of his own for his own security. In other words Hogg should be spouting, guns for me, not for thee. But then again, isn’t this just typical hypocrisy and a double standard of the LEFT?
The National Rifle Association mocked gun control activist David Hogg for apparently showing up to a protest at the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Va., this weekend with “armed security.”
“Today, @davidhogg111 (with armed security) and a bunch of gun-grabbing activists protested our empty HQ, and there were some interesting people there. Our social team chatted up the crowd and ended the day with ice cream paid for by @Everytown! Stay tuned for video interviews!” the NRA’s official Twitter account said on Saturday along with some photos. Everytown for Gun Safety is a nonprofit gun-control group.
That Didn’t Take Long … Democrat House Minority Leader Pelosi Tweets for Gun Control After Capital Gazette Newspaper Shooting
WITH DEMOCRATS IT NEVER FAILS, NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE …
Within less than a hour of the Capital Gazette shooting where 5 people reported were killed and others taken to the hospital with gun shot wounds, Without having an identification of the shooter and without hesitation Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called for more gun control. Authorities reported that the suspect, who was yet to provide his identity, used a long gun in the commission of the crime. That does not sound like it was an AK-47 or AR-15. But even though it does not fit the gun control, anti-Second Amendment Democrat’s agenda, that did not stop her from going there. Folks, do you really want this Pelosi being the Speaker of the House?
Nancy Pelosi tweeted: Praying for everyone injured & the families of those lost in today’s shooting at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland. Congress has a responsibility to take action to prevent the tragedy of gun violence. Every day it fails to do so is a stain on our country.
Major Defeat to Labor Unions, SCOTUS Rules 5-4 Against Forced Fees to Government Workers … Free Speech Wins
ANOTHER SCOTUS WIN FOR CONSERVATIVES …
Yesterday, the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to labor unions ruling 5-4 that state government workers cannot be forced to pay “fair share” fees to support collective bargaining and other union interests. Imagine that, employees are not compelled to have their free speech dictated by a union. This decision is said to affect 5 million government employees in 24 states and the District of Columbia. Writing the dissent for the court’s four liberal members, Associate Justice Elena Kagan said the majority succeeded in its “crusade” by “turning the First Amendment into a sword.” Sorry Libs, why wouldn’t this be a choice matter? Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kagan. Those in the majority, Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch. The majority overturned the high court’s four-decade-old precedent, known as the “Abood” case from 1977.
The key plaintiff was Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee, who pays about $550 annually to the powerful public-sector union known as AFSCME. While not a member of the union, he is required under state law to hand over a weekly portion of his paycheck, which he says is a violation of his constitutional rights. How can anyone not see that this was a violation of one’s First Amendment rights not to have compelled speech?
In a major legal and political defeat for big labor, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that state government workers cannot be forced to pay so-called “fair share” fees to support collective bargaining and other union activities.
The conservative majority said a union’s contract negotiations over pay and benefits were inextricably linked with its broader political activities, and concluded workers had a limited constitutional right not to underwrite such “speech.” The case specifically examined union fees paid by non-members.
“This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue,” Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a non-member’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”
While the current case applies only to public-sector employees, the political and financial stakes are potentially huge for the broader American labor union movement, which had been sounding the alarm about the legal fight.
The unions say 5 million government employees in 24 states and the District of Columbia would be affected by this ruling.
The majority overturned the high court’s four-decade-old precedent — known as the “Abood” decision — dealing with so-called “agency” fees, allowing states to require public employees to pay money supporting collective bargaining and other union activities.
Watch Mark Janus on his Supreme Court battle against Big Labor from Feb. 2018
WOW, WOULDN’T THIS BE SOMETHING …
According to the LA Times, a controversial plan to split the Golden State into three new jurisdictions qualified Tuesday for the Nov. 6 ballot. The proposal aims to invoke Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. This is a radical suggestion, but not unprecedented. It would be the first division of an existing U.S. state since the creation of West Virginia in 1863.
California’s 168-year run as a single entity, hugging the continent’s edge for hundreds of miles and sprawling east across mountains and desert, could come to an end next year — as a controversial plan to split the Golden State into three new jurisdictions qualified Tuesday for the Nov. 6 ballot.
If a majority of voters who cast ballots agree, a long and contentious process would begin for three separate states to take the place of California, with one primarily centered around Los Angeles and the other two divvying up the counties to the north and south. Completion of the radical plan — far from certain, given its many hurdles at judicial, state and federal levels — would make history.
It would be the first division of an existing U.S. state since the creation of West Virginia in 1863.
“Three states will get us better infrastructure, better education and lower taxes,” Tim Draper, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist who sponsored the ballot measure, said in an email to The Times last summer when he formally submitted the proposal. “States will be more accountable to us and can cooperate and compete for citizens.”
In the initiative’s introductory passage, Draper argues that “vast parts of California are poorly served by a representative government dominated by a large number of elected representatives from a small part of our state, both geographically and economically.”
The proposal aims to invoke Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the provision guiding how an existing state can be divided into new states. Draper’s plan calls for three new entities — Northern California, California and Southern California — which would roughly divide the population of the existing state into thirds.
In the 2016 Presidential elections Hillary Clinton won the 55 electoral votes in California with a 61.8% to 32.8% victory. However, look at the blue/red voting by counties and compare to the proposed 3 state map above. The representation voting and electoral college count would be quite different.