Barack Obama, Claire McCaskill

Original Post: Here Are the Ex-Im Facts Ann Wagner and Claire McCaskill Don’t Want You to Know.

Rep. Ann Wagner’s Heritage Action Score is a disappointing 59. It’s about to drop even lower. Last week, the Republican from Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District came out strongly in support of cronyism by endorsing and vowing to fight for extending the Export-Import Bank. From Wagner’s interview with National Public Radio: “There is some talk about a…

The post Here Are the Ex-Im Facts Ann Wagner and Claire McCaskill Don’t Want You to Know appeared first on Hennessy's View.

Barack Obama, Claire McCaskill

As expected, the Farm Bill was re-married with the Welfare/Food Stamp Bill and was an assault on the taxpayers, freedom, and the free market in general.

Sadly, the conservative position as well un-represented by the Missouri Republican Coalition with all Republicans voting for the bill:

It’s disappointing, as I look at the current scorecard for Missouri (a bit differently than most), I see that:

  • Billy Long votes against conservative positions 18% of the time
  • Jason Smith 24% of the time
  • Ann Wagner 31% of the time
  • Vicky Hartzler 32% of the time
  • Sam Graves 33% of the time
  • Blaine Luetkemeyer 37% of the time
  • Senator Blunt votes against conservative positions 43% (almost half) of the time

Notice how often the Missouri Democrats vote with the other side of the aisle – lock – stock – barrel:

  • William Lacy Clay votes against liberal positions 16% of the time
  • Emanuel Cleaver 10% of the time
  • Clair McCaskill 6% of the time

Some middle-of-the-roader Clair is… …but the point to note is that when our “conservative” representatives go across the aisle… …this country continues to move to the left… …toward tyranny.


Barack Obama, Claire McCaskill

nsrcNear the holiday season, at end of the year, I always expect to be approached by charities and other organizations looking to raise funds for a good cause. But I really don’t expect to be dogged by political organizations for campaign contributions, especially since we have not yet entered the campaign season.

Last week, I received yet another solicitation from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) disguised as correspondence that I might receive from my local county assessors office. Pretty tricky. It worked, though. I opened the envelope. What I found inside was a “St. Charles County Republican Area Assessment,” not a tax statement from my tax collector. I was actually quite surprised to see that they had the nerve to put me back on their mailing list, since I sent them some pretty graphic pieces of my mind when they intentionally derailed the Akin campaign in 2012. We, in Missouri, have been licking the wounds inflicted by Claire McCaskill, since then. I want to extend my personal thanks to Carl Rove for helping that initiative along. But I digress.

Read the rest of my latest post on

Filed under: Legislation, PolitiChicks, Politics Tagged: Carl Rove, Claire McCaskill, Culture Vigilante, democrats, Kumbaya Conservatives, Lisa Payne-Naeger, NSRC, Obamacare,, Repeal the 17th, Term limits, Yankee Doodle Legislation

Barack Obama, Claire McCaskill
Why is our govt doing this to us?

People across the nation (and the world) have been asking this question, more frequently and more loudly. The answer is, because we have allowed govt to think of itself as something more than power organized for the defense of our property, rights and lives.. It is not. And if it is allowed to stray from that narrow purpose, it cannot help but to spiral downwards into ever greater depredations upon our property, rights and lives.

My friend Patch, from Po'ed Patriot & "The Bell News", wrote a rare and moving post, about his own circumstances, how the expansion of govt has brought turmoil into his and his family's lives. His title, "Obamacare: It May Have Destroyed My Life, But We All Have Lost Our Liberty" encapsulates the nature of our current condition, as the closing paragraph points up:
POSTPONED – Saturday “Wheel In” Protest Postponed Due to Snow
Sen. McCaskill saved by flake - Wheel-In protest postponed to next week due to glowbull warming snowstorm.

"So before you drag out the decorations and throw a pity party for me.. just remember…. even in this nightmare we call an economy it will be far easier for me to replace the things I have lost….. than it will be for all of us to replace the Liberty which was taken from us through Obamacare.

And that my friends.. is the real tragedy to this story…."
Our mutual friend, Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, recently experienced the miracles of modern medicine, and soon afterwards the horrors of modern government. When a persistent 'cold' led to loss of vision in one eye, Jim, taking advantage of his personal insurance plan, went to the hospital and discovered that what he thought was a cold, was actually a deadly infection and he was days away from death. As he describes it:

"The bacteria blinded my left eye, ate a hole through my heart, caused five strokes on both sides of my brain and forced the removal of my prosthetic left knee.

Dr. Lee was the surgeon assigned to perform open heart surgery. What was originally scheduled to last four hours ended up lasting twelve. My heart was severely damaged. Dr. Lee later told me the surgery was one of the most difficult of his career. He also said I only had a few days to live without the surgery.

Thanks to the excellent insurance I carried I was able to receive life-saving medical treatment at St. Louis University."
Truly, Jim experienced the miracles of modern medicine. But that miracle didn't arise only from the medical arts, it owed just as much to the industry which produced the diagnostic machinery, the implements of medical technology, and the financial techniques of the insurance industry (though ever more hamstrung by each  passing administration of the last 50+ years) which made it possible to regularly apply relatively small portions of your wealth on a monthly basis, against future medical needs and disasters.

And even more fundamental to that, what made such miracles possible, was the system of laws designed to uphold and defend the property, rights and lives of the American people, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and through the liberty which flowed from that - which really means each person being able to act on their own best judgment, to live their own lives and follow their own pursuits, they've enabled, paradoxically to those who haven't attempted to understand it, the most interconnected, wealthy, successful society in history.

But such miracles of modern society are being imperiled by the very thing which originally led the way to their becoming a reality in our time, our government, and specifically ObamaCare has led Jim, and millions of others, to go from experience miracles, to experiencing the horrifying effects of the modern regulatory state.

If you think that's hyperbole, imagine yourself, recently saved in the nick of time, and still heavily dependent upon medical care, and consider Jim's closing comments:
"This week I found out I am going to lose my insurance. The company that carried me is leaving the Missouri market. I will have to find something else.

I am one of the millions who will be looking for new insurance. God willing, I will be able to keep my doctors at St. Louis University. I trust them. They saved my life. Please pray for me and the millions of working Americans who are going through this same ordeal.

Why is our government doing this to us?"
This weekend, Saturday the 11th, from 11:00 am to Noon,
"Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit, plans Wheel-In Rally at Senator Claire McCaskill’s St. Louis Office- Asks “Why is Our Government Punishing the American People-Give Us Back Our Healthcare!

Saturday December 14, 2013 / 11 AM CT until Noon
– Wheel-In Location:
Senator Claire McCaskill’s St. Louis Office
5850 Delmar Blvd, Ste. A
St. Louis, Missouri 63112
From 11 AM CT to Noon"
It is important to ask this question, 'Why is our government doing this to us?", and it is particularly important to ask it of our representatives.

But it is equally important to remember that our government is doing what it is doing to us, and those potentially dark things that are yet to come, because we, with the best of intentions, we have allowed our collective power, gathered together in the form of our government, to stray from that narrow purpose it was designed to serve; we have allowed us to seduce ourselves into thinking that we could command prosperity, rather than to simply enable it, we've allowed ourselves to think that we could impose (teensie-weensie) evils upon the lives of some of us, for the supposed benefit of others. But though we might fool ourselves into thinking that there would be no penalty for such violations, such actions could not help but spiral downwards into ever greater depredations upon all of our property, rights and lives.

As I was recently reminded, Henry Hazlitt, in "Man vs. The Welfare State", warned us long ago, in discussing that gateway drug of ever greater 'greater goods', the progressive income tax, that whenever a society allows those seemingly 'teensie' evils, when they could still be imagined to be small, to roam free of the iron manacles of the Rule of Law, that:
"The graduated personal income tax should be abandoned in favor of a strictly proportional income tax. The argument against the "progressive" tax rate was conclusively stated as long ago as 1833 by the Scottish economist J. R. McCulloch: "The moment you abandon the cardinal principle of exacting from all individuals the same proportion of their income or of their property, you are at sea without rudder or compass, and there is no amount of injustice and folly you may not commit."
Or in other words, if you allow the power you've organized into a government, for the defense of everyone's property, rights and lives, to stray from that narrow purpose, breaking its bonds through the power of your best wishes, then it cannot help but spiral downwards into ever greater depredations upon the property, rights and lives of everyone of us.

We have got to say "No More!" See you there Saturday.

Barack Obama, Claire McCaskill
Sadly, too many Americans struggle annually to wisely select their choices for public office. This has consequences for all of us. The problem is partially to do with the media, and partially to do with the influence of big money in politics, but the biggest problem is the sorry state of civics education. We are pounded with slick ads designed by consultants who believe they need to deliver messages on a fourth grade level. The battles involve shiny things; who will give them out and who will take them away. I have heard about way too many Missourians who lean...

Barack Obama, Claire McCaskill
Putting your purpose into action
Ok, so yesterday we established that Principles are an aid to thinking, not replacements for it, and that voting for a candidate that 'reflects your values', rather than voting for the candidate that has the best chance of either preserving your rights, or of harming them less, is in fact unprincipled and unconscionable, that,
"... 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 your state and the nation will be served by the person who is elected - which renders your actions, unprincipled."
So... so what then? So how do you figure out the actions you should take, in order to best serve your proper purposes in voting? It's surprisingly simple to do. Figuring out 'how' hasn't changed all that much in the last few thousand years, it involves thinking the issue through, and realizing that:

Nichomachean ethics, 8
"... We must consider it, however, in the light not only of our conclusion and our premisses, but also of what is commonly said about it; for with a true view all the data harmonize, but with a false one the facts soon clash."
When you are properly putting your principles into practice, your data - in this case the ramifications of your vote - will tend to be in harmony with each other, to integrate well. When not, not. When they clash, such as when your own narrow self regard begins to take precedence over the purposes of your vote, then you begin to be faced with one uncomfortable truth after another, and you begin to search excuses, each one more of a stretch than the last, such as with:
"Don't tell me my vote is a vote for Obama, it's your two party system which your voting for the lesser of two evils, that's caused all the problems!".
Poppy-cock. If you do not use your vote in the most effective way possible to oppose the greatest threat to our liberties and to the government that was established to support them, then you are aiding that threat - your vote for a third party, IS a vote for Obama, and/or for McCaskill and for Jay Nixon... & co., etc.

Whether or not our 'Two party system' is the best system is another question entirely (and one that should perhaps be pursued further, soon), but right now, here and now, the two party system IS the system we have. And under this system, ideally, you have a candidate to vote for which you believe to have principles you consider to be important, there is a place for those beliefs in our current system, that is the purpose of Primaries - and in those earlier elections you should work to convince your fellows to see the merits of your judgment. But afterwards, you must do better than behaving like a sore loser if your candidate does not win. You cannot wish the loss away, and you must not elevate your disappointment to a higher position than the purpose of the election itself - that would be unconscionable.

If your fellow voters did not agree with you, nominating instead a candidate you disliked, then, depending upon how much you dislike the candidate, you might not be able to vote for that candidate, but that does not mean that you do not vote! At the risk of re-repeating myself, You do not vote For a candidate, rather, you cast your vote in order to affect the system of governance, and if you cannot vote for a candidate that has a reasonable chance of competing, then your vote should be cast against the one you think will do the most immediate damage during their term of office.

Does that mean that you should vote for the lesser of two evils? NO. You do not vote for the lesser of two evils - ever! - you vote against the worst of the likely evils facing you, using the most effective weapon at hand for stopping the greater evil - the candidate most likely to be able to defeat them.

Then, if you care for principle, if you strive to be principled and are a conscientiousness citizen, then you continue working to eliminate all of those evils you can (and you can say 'continue', right? You can continue because have already been actively working Against those things you disapprove of, right? What with your being principled and all? Good to hear).

The winner of this election will be determined by the ideas held in the minds of the people participating in it today. The winner of future elections, will be determined by the future knowledge of the electorate - if you want to be able to, with good conscience  vote for someone who does agree with you, and has a reasonable chance of winning, it's not elections you need to win, but minds.

And to win minds, minds capable of understanding why it is that today's candidates are inadequate, as are those policies and ideas they represent, we need time. I am not casting my vote to make things better - no candidate can do that, only you and I can - I'm voting to stop, or to at least slow down, what is making things worse.

In this election, with today's ideas in the minds of today's electorate, we don't have the option of voting For someone, only against; which brings us to the election we have to vote in, in just a few days time. Sooo... starting with the top of the ticket, oppose the greater threat to your liberties,

  • for President of the United States of America, I'm voting against Obama, by way of Romney's 'X'.
  • For the Missouri Senate, I am voting against Claire McCaskill, by way of Todd Akin's 'X',
  • and for Governor of Missouri I am voting against Jay Nixon, by way of Dave Spence's 'X'.
What's more important though, is should they win, then after this election, I will immediately continue to, ramp up even, doing what I can do to educate people on what ideas our system is based upon - exposing in the process why the current system and their popular candidates - Romney included - are cancers upon our body politic.

In case you didn't realize it, no, I'm not here to be a cheer leader for Romney, but a voice raised against those ideas which Obama represents.

But if they're both cancers, why vote for one over the other? Because the one is like an inoperable brain cancer, and the other is relatively treatable, like prostrate cancer. Still deadly, but a more manageable risk.

Why is Obama a greater electoral evil than Romney, etc?
I continually get comments such as "How can you vote for Romney? How is he worse than Obama?" Especially with his soph-revealing statements such as:
"Mitt Romney said Sunday that he likes parts of ‘Obamacare’ and will keep key provisions involving pre-existing conditions and young people. “I’m not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,” he said on NBC’s “Meet The Press. “One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.”"
Pardon me, but for those conservatives who were caught by surprise by this, I'm having a hard time working up the sympathy for your surprise that Romney would have sympathetic thoughts for aspects of Obamacare. Please. If it wasn't apparent at least four years ago that he was comfortable with the idea of government being involved in your healthcare, you never opened your eyes in the first place. He's not a conservative, at least not in the sense of someone seeking to conserve the concepts and principles which this nation was founded through and upon.

Never was.

He is not a solution to any conservative issue, he is simply the one left standing that is less of a threat to our lives than the other likely option we are facing in Obama. Many of us tried to elect someone else in the primaries. We failed. That wasn't just due to the GOP or the RNC. The problem is deeper and more widespread than that.

To ask "How about that! How can you vote for this guy?" is to ask the wrong question and so miss my answer, which is: I am NOT voting For Romney, I am voting in opposition to Obama with the candidate most likely to unseat him, which is clearly Romney. If there were a three-way tie going, I might consider that third party, but there is no, and so I will not.

When I say this, it's usually followed by some variation on 'Why should I assume Obama is going to be worse than Romney?'

My answer is that if you pay attention to essentials, you shouldn't have to assume anything, look at what and who they support, and what drives those actions.

  • Mitt Romney is someone who believes that government should be used to take an active role in improving people's lives. That, on the Federal level, is anathema to me. It will not work. In the isolated cases of 'success' they are prime examples of What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen. Does his latest revelation on healthcare change anything? No, nothing I didn't already know and expect.
  • Obama is someone who believes that government should be used to take an active role in transforming the beliefs and actions of Americans by using govt's regulatory power to forcibly alter our everyday actions, sentiments and beliefs. He believes in using the power of government to dilute our rights to our property and to our ability to live our own lives, to which we slowly become unaccustomed to having done to us. Those actions, combined with a Federal takeover of our schools and what is not taught in them, combine to undermine the Rule of Law and the sanctity of our Rights, transforming Americans, slowly but surely, into anti-Americans. The regulatory state even as its cost dwarfs that of our tax burden, it is its means of intruding the state into our lives through its ever present nudging of our lives, is the political means of spreading 'pod people' amongst us.
If you doubt that, then you have not read any of the many books where Obama, and the many people who believe as he does, where they openly state just that. If you don't believe me, pick up a copy of "The Second Bill of Rights" by Cass Sunstein, President Obama's hand picked 'Regulatory Czar'. A good summation can be found here,
"... The Second Bill of Rights may rest on a logical fallacy, a primitive economic theory, and a silly ethical claim, but it is instructive nonetheless. Sunstein's treatment of the problem of how to use the judiciary to enforce welfare rights shows what a radical departure they are from the rule of law, how they introduce arbitrariness into government policy, and how, ultimately, the contradictions and incompatibilities generated by welfare rights undermine the very idea of rights itself — for when "rights" conflict, the state must decide whose "rights" are to be respected, but, since it has been stipulated that both of the conflicting parties are in the right, the state's decisions must be on the basis of something other than right.

Sunstein's work represents a return to the governmental theories of absolutism — of power, rather than of right. Welfare rights are incompatible, not only with property rights, but with law and with the very concept of rights. Professor Sunstein, meet Louis XIV."
You will be hard pressed to find a more fundamentally anti-American book out there, and he is putting his ideas - the eradication of private Property Rights, and the replacement of Individual Rights with Collective Rights, aka: Entitlements; those benefits, privileges and restraints, bestowed like gold plated chains around our necks each day by our lawmakers .. see the SSA, Medicare, FCC, EPA, DOE, DoEd, NLRB, FDA, EIEIO, for reference.

The Real RINO Threat
If you are looking for why a Romney presidency is better for our long term goals than another Obama presidency, look no further than who they will put in power in their regulatory agencies. Romney will no doubt put wonks in place to keep the agencies 'running smoothly', but Obama is putting people in them who are of like mind with Sunstein, and who are not just keeping the regulations up to date, but who are purposefully using them to transform the ideas, beliefs and customary structures of American life, and so replace the system, Liberty, which gave rise to them.

Conservatives are continually making the SCOTUS argument as a reason to vote for Romney, and while Romney's nominations would no don't be less bad than Obama's, there's a danger in focusing too much on the SCOTUS appointments, because it makes the SCOTUS seem like the real goal.

It is not. Don't get me wrong, it's nothing to sneeze at, and another Obama term would undoubtedly put harmful 'justices' upon it. But the ProRegressive Left has long looked to the Constitution and the SCOTUS primarily as being aids or obstacles to establishing an administrative state in their stead; once they have their powers secured, the Constitution and SCOTUS will be annoyances only. We are very nearly at that point now.

The SCOTUS is going to be of little concern if the administrative regulatory agencies manage to get much more power... and that is the full focus and concern of this administration - just look at what they they say and what they do!

Obama, his administration and the agencies under his control, have shown themselves, time and again, to be absolutely opposed to, the Rule of Law (do you recall the EPA imposing the rules the congress voted down? Or ICE imposing the immigration rules that congress voted down? Or the FCC imposing NetNeutrality rules that the congress voted down? Etc.?), they have shown themselves, time and again, to be intent upon dissolving any and all remaining private property rights, they have shown themselves, time and again, to be intent upon promoting Collective Rights, over Individual Rights as such.

Romney, while the typical proRegressive republican who believes that govt can 'help you' by making better decisions for you, is not deliberately and ideologically opposed to our culture, our system of government or to free enterprise as such. His administration will undoubtedly continue the erosion of our Rights, believe me, I have no illusions about that (and it has been the norm over the last century), but under his administration, that erosion will occur incidentally or accidentally, rather than with the force, intent and momentum of intentional malice which the Obama administration has shown itself to wield.

What formally began in Obama's first administration, will quite possibly be completed in a second administration, the final relegation of the Constitution to the ceremonial status of the Queen of England, through elevating the regulatory agencies over it; and congress itself is not likely too far behind.

If you are hoping that there is anything more than a Republic In Name Only left in place after another four years of Obama... I think you're whistling in the wind. But if you are more worried about a Republican in Name Only, than a Republic In Name Only, you are about to get what you so richly deserve.

What about a 3rd party candidate?
At this point in time, a 3rd party candidate has zero demonstrable chance of securing even a significant 3rd place in a presidential election, let alone 2nd or third. There are times that voting 3rd party might be wise, Perot in '92 for instance, as a statement that violating a pledge of no new taxes (Bush 41's 'Read my lips: No new taxes!', was unacceptable. But despicable as he was, Clinton was no Barack Obama, and that 1992 vote ushered in a conservative congress. It was a valid option, one which I took, for the foreseeable future.

But, in case I need to remind you, it was not without cost - Monica, ChinaGate, LippoGate, the first World Trade Center bombing, Mogadishu, the allowed rise of Osama Bin Laden, the attack on the USS Cole. All of that was unforeseeable in 1992, yet that pales against what IS foreseeable today - just imagine what we cannot imagine yet. Elections do have consequences, and sometimes they suck. And those consequences are not always foreseeable - but when you can foresee  clearly, dire consequences from one candidate winning, more dire than what you can foresee arising from the election of their opponent, you must vote against them.

Such a choice today - to sit out the election, or to vote 3rd party - in this election, can only be made in utter, self blinded denial of the consequences, it is a denial of an impending evil, and such an action would be unconscionable.

With electing Romney (and I'm still disgusted typing that), we wheedle some more time from fate, time put back on the clock which we can, must, use to try our best to right things with. This is less a vote for a President, than a bid for more time, time to help inform your friends, neighbors, family and co-workers, time to wake up We The People, not with something so ephemeral and unreliable as alarm (and Obama's already done that), but with knowledge and understanding of what America means, so that they will again be capable of choosing a President who will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, rather than ignoring or dispensing with it.

What's the alternative, throw up our hands and yell 'Wheee!' as we head over the cliff?

No thanks. If we're going down, I'll go down fighting, throwing those punches that have at least some chance of landing on our real opponent, ignorance.

And I've got news for anyone that thinks Electing Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or anyone else of the like would change things - it could not, and would not. Many of us tried to elect someone else, anyone else than Romney, in the primaries. We failed. The problem is deeper and more widespread than a single candidate. Romney didn't win just because of the GOP or the two party system, it was due, at the very least, to the knowledge and awareness of the people who make up the electorate. We have the system we have, because over the last 150 years, our understanding of the meaning and purpose of Law, Rights, Liberty and Govt have been fundamentally transformed.

No elected officials, no matter how many, are going to change that. If we swept all offices and branches of govt with Founding Fathers grade classical liberals, who would go in and rip every code and law out of the books back to the mid 1800's... We The People, the sovereigns in this nation, would haul their asses out the next term and demand that their goodies be reinstated.

We The People are what must be changed... no political change of any import is going to happen until that!

All political fights at this point in time are holding actions, the real work MUST be done in the minds and understanding of your family, your friends, your neighbors and your co-workers.

Fail at that, fail at all.

To succeed, to have even a hope of succeeding, we need more time, and for the time being, that means using your precious vote, your responsibility to your own Rights, to elect those who will harm them less than the next most viable candidate is likely to.

And make no mistake, if you do not vote to oppose the greater evil, you are using your vote, either by casting it where it can have no effect, or simply by casting it away, to aid in ushering in the greater evil.

This Tuesday, please, don't waste your vote; cast your vote where it will have the greatest effect, by casting it against the greatest threat to our liberties - don't lay down, don't retreat, don't throw it away - Fight!

Barack Obama, Claire McCaskill
When acting 'on principle' is unprincipled behavior
When I hear people proudly proclaiming that they are going to make a ‘principled choice’, that they are going to ‘vote my conscience’ or 'stand my ground!' by either not voting or voting for a 3rd party this election, I take notice.

I even Rant.

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.

What are you talking about?
Let's start from the beginning: What does it mean to be Conscientious? To follow a Principle? To be Principled? Our friendly netborhood dictionaries, give us some definitions to begin with:
con·sci·en·tious - Guided by or in accordance with the dictates of conscience; principled

Principled: Acting in accordance with morality and showing recognition of right and wrong.

Principle: a fundamental, primary, or general law; an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct
There's a fourth that applies here, but leaving that for later, these three tell us about what we hope to be, but not how to become them or how to practice them. Essentially, the purpose is to do what is morally right, virtuous, so that you can act with a clear conscience, knowing that even if a decision was tough, maybe even painful, you know that it was the best decision available for you to make at the time.

But what do we mean by 'a good decision'? Good for what? Good... for the moment? Good enough to get you out of a prickly situation? Or do you mean to make a decision that can be seen as being Good over time, Good for the long run, Good that is in accordance with what is wise and true, Good as you can explain to your children what happened and why without feeling ashamed, no matter the outcome, Good so that you can rest easily in your own mind, for having chosen it, win or lose, right?

At any rate, that is what I have in mind when I try to make a Good choice... do you have something else in mind? I think the sense that sums this up best for me, is my favorite quote from George Washington's favorite play 'Cato', which puts it this way:
  • "’Tis not in mortals to command success. But we’ll do more, Sempronius, we’ll deserve it.”
, and when the dust settles, doesn't that sound like what you want to be able to feel and say? We strive to lead principled lives in order to succeed in more than apparent success, to conform our actions to what is Good and True, so that even if you do fail - and do not forget that no strategy, no choice, principled or not, is proof against the chances of fortune - you know that you did what was Right... right?

It is to serve those ends, that we seek to develop Principles from out of the mass of distracting particulars that are seeking to pull us this way and that. A Principle is a general law, a fundamental rule to guide behavior in accordance with what is known to be right and wrong; mental tools that have been discovered and honed, most of them over the course of thousands of years, as general rules for navigating us through the rough waters of Scylla & Charybdis, enabling us to see what is both practical and moral (and if you see those two as being in opposition, I suggest that you get your philosophical eyes checked), which the unaided inner eye might otherwise have missed.

So what's so tough about being principled? People have been talking about Principles for a long, long, time, it shouldn't be too difficult to locate some, why not just jot down a list of old stand-by principles, and consult that checklist whenever we have a tough decision to make. That should be easy enough to do, right? Let's just assemble those checklists and declare ourselves to be Checklistians - how transparent would that be?!

It's not prudent to let your Principle stand alone
As it turns out there are very good reasons why we can't just consult a checklist whenever we have a decision to make; principles don't typically operate independently and in isolation of each other, if they did, Judgment wouldn't be necessary, we really would just pull out a piece of paper and consult a checklist to determine our next move, and move on (BTW, that, taking your directions from a top-down series of positions on a checklist, and applying them without judgment, assured of the impregnable smartness of your checklist, is precisely how (and why) the proRegressive seeks to centralize power and live your life for you).

One of the oldest examples of exposing the folly of thinking and behaving as a checklistian, is still one of the best, from Plato's The Republic, where Socrates responds to Cephalus's comment that Justice is something like a simple matter of checklists, of speaking the truth and paying your debts. Socrates pulls out his patented philosophers pin and pops poor Cephalus's bubble of stability,
'...And even to this are there not exceptions? Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition.'
The truth is that if you consider only the narrowest of considerations, taking heed only of your principles in isolation of each other, in this case thinking only of ownership and your promise to return to your friend what is his, then as a Checklistian you would have to return his property and endanger your friend's life - after all, if you approach this matter as consulting a checklist, in place of using your judgment, you'd simply say:
  • The weapons are your friends property (Check!)
  • You gave your word to return his weapons to him when he returned (Check!)
  • Hand over his weapons - and run (Check!)
Isn't that how it would go? Your typical Checklistian would say that not returning your crazy friends sword would be a violation of property rights! Doesn't matter if you had a good reason, you're breaking your word! See! My Checklist says so! Right here (BTW, that is the argument of Kant's heinous categorical imperative)!

But there is a problem with that, isn't there? In some strange way it almost seems as if it would be unprincipled to return to him what is his... can that be right? It seems as if your conscience would be troubled if you were to keep your word to your friend... wait... sooo... what, keeping your word and telling the truth... could be UnPrincipled? Wuh...?

Well that complicates things, doesn't it?

And while that may be annoying, that only proves that people haven't changed one bit in nearly three thousand years, for Cephalus exited the dialog at that point too, a 'practical' man, he had no time for discussing the annoying particulars of right and wrong. And of course soon afterwards, what with government being 'the greatest of all reflections on human nature', Athens rid itself of Socrates and his annoying questions of right and wrong, by providing him with a cup of Hemlock to swallow.

Problem solved? Check!

That is the way it tends to work, as consciences tend to be crushed by the power of checklists (see such historical Checklistians such as Robespierre, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc., etc., etc.), because checklists don't ask 'Why?', they simply check their list and do what it says needs to be done, without thought and without conscience.


If you want to live as a human being though, a checklist just won't do. You have to ask Why; you have to weigh what you find in answer to the questions facing you, and you have to judge. Why would it be unconscionable to keep your word and return your crazed friend his arms? Because such an act would be in opposition to the larger considerations and greater principles and virtues involved. Acting by checklist would do violence to the higher and deeper principles of friendship and justice as well as to your obligation to your community - but you won't find that answer within the Checklist; you have to look outside of, and think beyond the list, for the purpose and for the Why.

You can't be principled, conscientiously respecting principles, without also being something else, and that is our missing fourth definition.

Unlike Eagles, Principles do flock together
Principles do not operate separately from one another, there are always several principles in play in regards to every decision, and when your principles seem to be in conflict, it's more likely that you are taking a too narrow view of matters, and allowing a lower level decision to take command over a higher one - and as if that's not enough, as the context changes, what is principled behavior one minute, might become unprincipled the next. For instance, to refuse to return your friends arms to him when in his right mind, would be just as wrong as returning them to him when he's not in his right mind.

This is not an example of expediency (as it's usually used), it is not an example of bending the rules, and it is not an example of pragmatically making an exception. In the full context of our weapons scenario, not keeping your promise and not respecting your friends right of property, would not be unprincipled; and it would be highly un-principled to 'strictly adhere to the letter' of the two seemingly separate principles.

In this context, keeping your word, would be a false expedient, a salve to your vanity, seeking to keep up the appearances of seeming 'principled' in the eyes of others ("I didn't want to, but I had to respect the Principle of the matter... may he rest in peace"), but to do so would be to do so at the expense of everything that gave those principles meaning and value to your life in the first place.

The way to keep your principles from becoming tangled up, is to always be looking to the higher and wider perspective of context and purpose; you need to always keep in mind that principles exist for something beyond themselves, beyond 'the letter of the law', you might even be tempted to paraphrase that as "The Principle was made for man, and not man for the Principle".

If that seems too hard, too complicated, well, tough! , if you wanted an easy life, you were born into the wrong species! There is no guarantee for success, principles simplify judgment, but they don't make it easy, there is no 'easy way out' of life, your only choice is to go through it sighted or blind.

The method of going through life sighted, rather than blind, is by looking always beyond the immediate moment, of taking careful note of the hierarchy of relevant principles involved, ranking them by keeping their purpose, and their context, foremost in mind, and that method is called Prudence.
Prudence mid-14c., "wisdom to see what is virtuous, or what is suitable or profitable,"... from Greek 'sophrosyne' “prudence, moderation,” from sophron “of sound mind, prudent” (see Sophronia).
  • Prudence; 'Practical Wisdom', the art of applying a knowledge of universal principles to particular actions in time
Since men first began trying to puzzle out a systematic approach to do what was Right to do, what Wisdom was, the Cardinal Virtues; Prudence, Justice, Courage and Temperance, have been seen as the key to unlocking the pursuit of happiness. And though neither could exist without the others, Prudence ranks first and highest amongst equals, because it is through Prudence that you are able to apply general laws to particular happenstances, and so do what is best in each moment.

Those general laws of behavior which we call Principles, serve the Cardinal Virtues, not the other way around. Being prudent is how you rise above the moment and see how a short term decision could cause deep and long term damage. A too rigid regard for Principle would return your addlepated friend his arms and destroy his life and possibly others as well, it is Prudence which saves you from turning principles against the good.

Being principled without being prudent, makes a mockery of what principles are and are for, and they can and should never be divorced from their purposes, that of moving our lives forward in a worthwhile manner, in pursuit of happiness (in the classical sense). Cicero put the above dilemma this way, and steers it closer to our voting question:
"If one had deposited a sword with you when he was of sound mind, and were to ask for it in a fit of insanity, to restore it would be wrong; not to restore it, your duty. What if he who had deposited money with you were to levy war against the country? Should you deliver up the trust? I think not; for you would act against the state, which ought to be nearest to your affection. Thus many things which seem to be right by nature become wrong by circumstances. To keep promises, to abide by agreements, to restore trusts, by a change of expediency becomes wrong. "
Once more, Prudent judgment must always be circumspect - taking into account your options from all angles and with your long term purpose, your goal, firmly in mind and in line with what is Right to do - and making the choice in applying right reason, using all the applicable principles and understanding of the realities you face, in order to make the decision that advances your position, both practically, and morally.
11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
Getting down to brass tacks
If you look towards this November's ballot, whether for President or Senator, or even that of convention delegates, and look no further than the choices offered to you, then you are not applying principles in order to make a worthwhile and principled choice for the long term; instead you are taking the easy way out by making a choice for, and restricted to, the present moment in time, at the expense of what is true across time.

That is not behaving in a Principled manner, but its very opposite, that of behaving pragmatically, regarding 'truth is what we agree “works”' for the moment. It's taking the easy way out of a hard decision, it is the action of someone seeking to flatter their own faux pride and self regard, which is itself a violation of conscience and a disregard of principle.
A few moments thought about pragmatism's 'Truth is what people agree works', leads to Richard Rorty's confession that Truth "... in the pragmatist’s eyes, are empty metaphysical compliments – harmless as rhetorical pats on the back to the successful inquirer or agent, but troublesome if taken seriously and “clarified” philosophically." IOW Pragmatism ultimately means the rejection of the very concept of Truth
To act in the narrow observation of the letter of principle, in blinkered disregard for the larger purpose the principle serves, is, far from being principled, it is deeply unprincipled. Can I speak freely friends? Such an action is shallow. It is inadequate. It is short sighted. It is cowardly. And above all else, it serves nothing more than your own vanity.

If you are puffing yourself up with a righteous dose of constitutional self regard, refusing to vote for a candidate or party because they themselves show little or no regard for the constitution - if you show little or no regard for the wider context of the election - the consequences of one or the other likely winners becoming president, or senator - then you are doing a disservice not only to the constitution, but to the purpose for which the constitution was written to serve in the first place; that of the prosperity, under law, of the nation, which is the actual meaning of the 'General Welfare'.

For Checklistian Libertarians, if you refuse to vote, or refuse to vote for Romney, or Akin, etc, because:
  • *Voting for the lesser of two evils is still promoting evil
  • *I'll vote my conscience rather than vote for ____
  • *I'll remain prinicpled and vote for a 3rd party candidate
, then please, please don't claim that you are voting your conscience - you are not, you are seeking only to soothe it.

And don't try and tell me that your are being principled, for it is most certainly NOT being principled, it's consulting a paper thin checklist and checking your brain at the door while you add up the tallies to determine your 'choice', and what that furthers, the ends to which it aims, is evil. And I mean that in the most level headed, secular fashion possible (those of you who'd like to expand on that from a religious angle, please, feel free).

Again - 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 your state and the nation will be served by the person who is elected - which renders your actions, unprincipled.

The purpose of an election is not to soothe your conscience  or to declare 'your principles', or to excuse you from the unpleasantness of making a difficult decision. The decision on how, or even whether, to cast your Vote does not begin with casting your vote or even who you will vote for, but with why it is that we have voting in the first place.

So what is the wider perspective that should inform your voting decision?

Voting comes full circle to the point from which your Rights began from: your necessity to think and to choose. Because you must be at liberty to act as you see fit to live your own life, govt's are instituted among men to uphold their Rights, and deriving its just powers from those it governs, a Just government will not violate the Rights of the governed.

But that is not an easy proposition to live up to, because govt means, and is, power. And Power is too dangerous to leave, unchecked, in the hands of any sovereign, whether the One or the Many; the sovereign is best kept as far from directly wielding their power as possible, which is why in our system of government, we use representatives chosen (directly or indirectly) by the sovereign (you & me) to do the work of holding Sauron's ring for us. Our representatives in govt serve in the several branches of government - Legislative, Executive and Judicial - where not only we can keep an eye upon them, but where they can, and will, be trusted only to be jealous of the power of their fellow branches, each involved slightly in the doings of the other and so balancing their desire for power against each other's desire for power.

One reason why agencies such as the EPA are so dangerous, is that they operate with virtually none of their power balanced against anthers - each of these agencies contain within themselves an Executive (dept Head & minions), Legislative (bureaucracy that writes their regulations), and Judicial(each has its own Judges who decide upon the objections you might raise against what their agency thinks is best). Such a situation, the combining of Legislative, Executive and Judiciary into one was the very definition of Tyranny, as our Founder's generation understood it.

Whichever candidate, for whichever office, is more inclined to empower these agencies, or expand them - Hello Barack Obama. Hello Claire McCaskill - is the candidate who must be opposed most.

Why? Because in a general election, you should not primarily be voting for a candidate, should not primarily be voting for their ideals, or even for who you feel most comfortable with, the fundamental reason for why you vote, is that it is a fundamental expression of, and a defense of, your Rights, and you should primarily cast your vote for the purpose of asserting, upholding and defending those Rights. You should cast your vote in a manner that in your judgment affords your rights (and the full context of what they depend upon, as thumbnailed above) the best defense possible.

The fact that your vote might benefit one candidate, or party, or another, is the least worthy aspect of consideration in the whole process. Voting is how we affect who will represent us in that process, those who will operate the govt which upholds our rights (and from which it derives its power from).

That is the purpose of voting. And if your vote is not used to see to it that those elected will pose the least threat to that purpose, then you are not being principled in your actions.

Part 2 Tomorrow, putting those purposes into principled actions.

While campaigning in south St. Louis county, Todd Akin explained how Claire McCaskill supported cap and trade. While it's true she did not vote for the cap and trade legislation introduced in 2009, she did vote for it in 2008.

More recently, she voted to grant authority to the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. That effectively allows the EPA to implement cap and trade and other policies that will increase the cost of energy. As Americans for Tax Reform wrote the other day:
She supported the Administration’s efforts to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and voted over and over against amendments to block the EPA from regulating CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Even the Missouri AFL-CIO president said these EPA regulations “will both threaten jobs and increase costs on energy consumers in Missouri.” Bear in mind, humans exhale carbon dioxide. From an economic standpoint, this policy is devastating – St. Louis’ Meramec power plant is older, and is likely to close because of these policies.
Claire McCaskill supports the same policies of Barack Obama under which the price of energy derived from coal, oil, and natural gass will necessarily sky rocket.

Barack Obama, Claire McCaskill

Republican Todd Akin is out with a new ad featuring a supporter who says she had an abortion after being raped (h/t: Politico). Akin faces Democrat Claire McCaskill in Tuesday's election for US Senator from Missouri.

Barack Obama, Claire McCaskill

The Hill reports that a GOP super-PAC, Now or Never PAC, is supporting Todd Akin:
A Republican super-PAC that had backed one of Rep. Todd Akin's (R-Mo.) primary opponents will jump in to help the embattled Senate candidate in the final week of his campaign. 
Now Or Never PAC will spend $800,000 on television advertising for the cash-strapped Akin between now and Election Day, spokesman Tyler Harber told The Hill.