The Democrat Party, both nationally and regionally, is going to have to exorcise its communist wing. As David Rice notes in his article "Democrat Inevitability or Democrat Failure to Thrive," the party was soundly defeated in 2024.
Americans rejected the messaging and behavior of the Left. It is no longer acceptable to indoctrinate children with transgender ideology or let males compete in females sports and invade their spaces. It is no longer acceptable to promote anti-white policies under the guise of anti-racist theories. Americans have soundly rejected endless wars and ever-increasing taxation.
Rice was able to obtain information from a Missouri Democrat strategy session. The Democrats in Missouri plan to work from the bottom up, with rural municipalities a focus of their incursion. Part of their strategy is municipal-level investment, strategic county targeting, candidate recruitment, and a data-driven approach.
From the article: "The 'Plan to Take Over Rural Missouri' document and the implementation
observed in Osage County, Greene County, and elsewhere suggests
Democrats are pursuing the second option—establishing progressive
infrastructure in rural areas despite, rather than because of, their
policy positions' appeal to residents."
There is a recording, lots of screenshots and so on. Incidentally, Facebook rejected the article as "spam." Censorship is still a big thing over there. Ask us how we know. :-)
It's always good to know what the opposition is planning. Forewarned is forearmed. You can read the whole thing HERE. Some local individuals are briefly referenced.
A lawsuit filed last September by former library board attorney
Harry Styron was referenced at the Feb. 25, 2025 Christian County
Library Board of Trustees meeting.
It was voted to
table the preceding agenda item pertaining to removing the library
district as a plaintiff from the lawsuit. This passed without any
conflict. It was the next agenda item, “Fees from John Spurlock in Defense of the Lawsuit from Janis Hagen” that caused a stir. The exchange begins
at around the 1:18:50 minute mark:
Remember, the issue
that precipitated the Sept. 23, 2024 lawsuit was the vote of
officer elections that happened at the Aug. 27, 2024 library
meeting. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs (!) are claiming a violation
of the Sunshine Law, as well as a violation of the the library
board’s own bylaws. Background HERE.
The lawsuit Mr.
Styron filed, naming both the library district and Janis Hagen as
plaintiffs against the majority board members who voted to remove Allyson Tuckness as president, was authorized without board
deliberation or vote. However, only one board member is named as a
plaintiff—Janis Hagen, and she indicated that her lawsuit is a
“personal issue” between herself and the defendants that “has
nothing to do with the library.”
Hagen also claims
the lawsuit has nothing to do with the use of library funds “and
[it] would be considered embezzlement and breaking the law” to pay the
board members' legal fees incurred by the lawsuit.
Hagen tries to make
the argument that the defendants are being sued as individuals and
not as board members. Trustee Brazeale (an attorney) countered that
the three board members were sued in their capacity as board members
and not as individuals.
It appears that
Hagen (and perhaps Interim Director Dana Roberts who chimes in) have been
coached to suggest the possible embezzlement charges. They most
likely would not have come up with this type of argument on their
own. Would it be too far fetched to think that another
lawsuit is being planned?
This type of
potential lawfare dovetails with the public doxxing that is going on
against the three board members. Interesting. File lawsuits that have
shock value in the public's view to drive a narrative. These things are done to
defame and ruin reputations and are easily recognized as a widely
used tactic of the Left.
In the video of the
meeting, you can see that Hagen claims she never spoke individually about the
lawsuit to attorney Styron until he had left his position as board
attorney (Nov. 21, 2024). She stated, “I individually talked to Harry after he had
resigned as the representative for the library.” If not individually, did she speak together with Mr. Styron and trustee Allyson Tuckness in August/September and agree to be the plaintiff in the lawsuit?
It seems strange that she did not individually consult with Attorney Styron from late August to late November when Mr. Styron ceased to work for the library district. If that is the case, how did the lawsuit come about on Sept. 23, 2024 with Hagen
as a plaintiff if she was not consulting with him during that time? It doesn’t make sense.
But maybe the only
sense that needs to be made is the public ruination of the three
defendants’ reputations via lawsuits and doxxing.
