Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Endorsing Danielle Ahrens for Senate District 1

Join me in voting for Danielle Ahrens on May 15

Endorsing Danielle Ahrens for Senate District 1

Endorsing Danielle Ahrens for Senate District 1

Well, you can tell that it\’s an election year, all the colorful signs posted on every corner and along every highway, road, and lawn. Names and faces that we glance at and then go on our way without another thought. Without really thinking about what those signs are there for.

Well, I’ll tell you what they’re there for and why. They are the hopes of some of your neighbors. People who have seen our country get deeper into debt, deeper into corruption, deeper into violence, discord, and cultural separation and, rather that moan and condemn and complain and do nothing, they are the ones who are standing up and saying to you, “I can make it better! I can fix this! Let me try! Give me a chance!”

They are trying to help you make a decision….do you still sit and complain or do something about it? For the ‘do somethings’, those signs are billboards, offering you the opportunity to pick the one who can make that change. They have done their work, now it’s your turn.

But, there are so many who want to do the job! Who is best? Which will do what I want? How can I choose? The information is there, you have to look for it. Facebook, websites, public forums, newspaper and radio articles and interviews.

You are responsible for your government! You must make your voice heard! My voice will be heard because I choose to endorse Ms Danielle Ahrens.

The Constitution, our founding principles, our inalienable rights and freedoms, and a strong faith are her guides. A litany of past and present civic and professional association memberships with leadership roles and positions requiring the utmost trust prove her commitment to her community and State.

Many hours spent in Boise volunteering in the House and Senate becoming familiar with the workings of the State, what works and what doesn’t, what to do and what to avoid, and the best ways to get the job done for Idaho give her the experience she needs to be the best candidate for Senate District 1.

Ms Ahrens is not backed by any lobby, union, or PAC and is therefore not beholden to any but Idaho. Ms Ahrens is pro-life, an NRA member, avid fisherwoman and hunter, grandmother, and good for Idaho! I would hope, with her qualifications and love of Idaho, that you would make your decision and join me in voting for Danielle Ahrens on May 15.

Gay Warner

 

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews

7 Comments on Endorsing Danielle Ahrens for Senate District 1

  1. Ms. Warner,
    Re: My comments at the March 22, 2018 Danielle Ahrens Interview posted on Redoubt News.
    You claim that the Constitution is one of her guides; well, based on her pathetic responses to several basic Second Amendment questions that were posed to her, Ms. Ahrens is clearly ignorant about the Second Amendment. I don’t mean this as a put-down, I mean she needs knowledge. Senator Ahrens? I think not!

    • Would appreciate if you could be more specific in your statements. I have re-listened to the interview and wasn’t able to spot anything that could be construed as a “pathetic response” and that she is ‘clearly ignorant about the Second Amendment”
      I hope to hear from you.

  2. You may want to read my earlier comments that I posted on APRIL 5, 2018 AT 5:57 PM where I referenced [Re: My comments at the March 22, 2018 Danielle Ahrens Interview posted on Redoubt News].

  3. I did. There were an awfui lot of words and an awful lot of references that don’t change the fundamental right of the people to keep their arms for their defense. So many misrepresentations of the “militia” and so many misinterpretations of the term ‘well regulated’ have been bandied about and it has confused the original meaning. It is too lengthy to post here but if you would read the link you might better understand the term.
    https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2014/06/24/well-regulated/
    Secondly, your reference to neither Ms Ahrens or Cpt Alexander not being aware “that the first clause of the Second Amendment was destroyed at the turn of the 20th century by an agreement between the Congress and the States by way of the Militia Act of 1903 and the National Security Act of 1916” no act, reorganization plan, agreement or other provisionals can change any part of the Constitution or the BoR without a CoS. Anything else is a misdirection. The militia is STILL the people, all people, all free people who want to stay that way, and their rights are nonnegotiable.

  4. I challenge you to educate yourself about the first clause of the Second Amendment and remove your chains of ignorance before you so arrogantly question my veracity on my posted comments. My previous statement is not intended as an ad hominem attack on you personally. I do not use the term ignorance as a put-down; rather, I use it to indicate that based on the responses you have provided thus far, in my honest opinion, you need knowledge.

    When I suggested that you may want to read my earlier comments, you responded that “I did. There were an awful lot of words and an awfui lot of references that don’t change the fundamental right of the people to keep their arms for their defense.” Nowhere in any of my previous comments did I state, or even remotely infer, that the people do not have the fundamental right to keep their arms for their defense, so your response is counter-factual.

    You responded with “So many misrepresentations of the “militia” and so many misinterpretations of the term ‘well regulated’ have been bandied about and it has confused the original meaning.” I cannot locate any misrepresentations of the “militia” or any misinterpretations of the term ‘well regulated’ that you accuse me of having “bandied about and confusing the original meaning.” Unless you can, as you say, “be more specific in your statements” then again, your response is counter-factual.

    You then responded with “It is too lengthly to post here but if you would read the link you might better understand the term.” Again, I cannot locate any “misunderstandings” on my part – would you be so kind as to “be more specific in your statements?” Otherwise, your response…again…is counter-factual.

    I did write that neither CPT Alexander or Ms. Ahrens seemed to know, or even be aware, that the first clause of the Second Amendment was destroyed at the turn of the 20th century… and you responded, and rightfully so, with “no act, reorganization plan, agreement or other provisionals can change any part of the Constitution or the BoR without a CoS. Anything else is a misdirection.” Thank you for unwittingly confirming and validating my previously stated thesis for me! You apparently do not know, or even seem to be aware either, that the first clause of the Second Amendment was destroyed at the turn of the 20th century by an agreement between a rogue Congress and the several States by way of the Militia Act of 1903 and the National Defense Act of 1916…so on this point you are also ignorant!

    Nevertheless, the Militia of the several States were, in point of fact, “de facto repealed” (and using your term “misdirected.”) as I have previously explained in all my posts on this website…ad nauseam. The first clause has not been formally repealed and is still written in the Second Amendment, but the words ring hollow and are not what the Founders envisioned or enshrined when they were ratified in 1791. The Founders’ Militia of the several States, unfortunately, was replaced at State level by the unconstitutional National Guard, unorganized milita, and organized militia. [RE: Idaho Statute Title 46.]

    You responded with “The militia is STILL the people, all people, all free people who want to stay that way, and their rights are nonnegotiable.” All the words are still in our Constitution and Bill of Rights; however, tell that to America’s rogue public officials at the National, State, and Local levels that “The militia is STILL the people, all people, all free people who want to stay that way, and their rights are nonnegotiable.”

    In closing, a Constitutional remedy to this interminable usurpation of the first clause of our Second Amendment would be for the revitalization of the Militia of the several States…which can be done legislatively by State statute…assuming there was the political will of the people!

  5. I’m sorry that you misread my statements, particulary re. your third paragraph above. Nowhere did I state that it was YOU misrepresenting the term militia and misintrepreting the term ‘well regulated’! I simply was stating a fact and offering the link as a bit of info on the actual meaning of ‘well regulated’.
    As to your 5th paragraph, please explain how I can be right about the requirements to change the Constitution and then tell me I’m unaware “that the first clause of the Second Amendment was destroyed at the turn of the 20th century by an agreement between a rogue Congress and the several States by way of the Militia Act of 1903 and the National Defense Act of 1916” and then tell me I’m ignorant!
    Your 6th paragraph was actually unnecessary as it was exactly what I stated in my comment on the requirements to change the Constitution.
    As to your final paragraph, I am in complete agreement since Article 14 of the Idaho Constitution of Idaho specifically requires it.
    In closing, I’m still not certain why you assume Ms Ahrens and Cpt Anderson are not versed in the Constitution, as the answers to what questions were put to them were straight forward and honest. If you still would like further discussion, I will be happy to continue, however, I only want to know what pathetic answers to basic questions you are referring to, which was my original question.

  6. YOU WROTE: I’m sorry that you misread my statements, particulary re. your third paragraph above. Nowhere did I state that it was YOU misrepresenting the term militia and misintrepreting the term ‘well regulated’! I simply was stating a fact and offering the link as a bit of info on the actual meaning of ‘well regulated’.
    SNAKE EATER: No worries, no harm, no foul.

    YOU WROTE: As to your 5th paragraph, please explain how I can be right about the requirements to change the Constitution and then tell me I’m unaware “that the first clause of the Second Amendment was destroyed at the turn of the 20th century by an agreement between a rogue Congress and the several States by way of the Militia Act of 1903 and the National Defense Act of 1916” and then tell me I’m ignorant!
    SNAKE EATER: I already explained it to you in my previous post, here it is again verbatim! “Thank you for unwittingly confirming and validating my previously stated thesis for me! You apparently do not know, or even seem to be aware either, that the first clause of the Second Amendment was destroyed at the turn of the 20th century by an agreement between a rogue Congress and the several States by way of the Militia Act of 1903 and the National Defense Act of 1916…so on this point you are also ignorant!” My thesis is that the rogue Congress and the several States destroyed the first clause anyway! That is the exact point I have been trying to make!! You wrote that “no act, reorganization plan, agreement or other provisionals can change any part of the Constitution or the BoR without a CoS. Anything else is a misdirection.” That is correct, it should not have been destroyed and converted to the National Guard, the unorganized militia, and the organized militia…but it was!!!!!! You were correct that it is not supposed to be destroyed, but you were ignorant in not knowing that it had been destroyed!!! You never said anything that even remotely led me to believe that you did, in fact, know that it had been destroyed!! That was and is my point!!!

    YOU WROTE: Your 6th paragraph was actually unnecessary as it was exactly what I stated in my comment on the requirements to change the Constitution.
    SNAKE EATER: Not true at all!! It was necessary because although you correctly stated your understanding that the Militia of the several States was not supposed to have been “misdirected” (your term) by the agreement between the rogue Congress and the several States, you still had not grasped that they did it anyway!!! My 6th paragraph was intended to take your understanding to the next level and explain it to you in a way that I had hoped you would understand.

    YOU WROTE: As to your final paragraph, I am in complete agreement since Article 14 of the Idaho Constitution of Idaho specifically requires it.
    SNAKE EATER: No it does not!!! Not sure how you came to this conclusion, because the ARTICLE XIV (MILITIA) of the Idaho Constitution was APPROVED JULY 3, 1890, a full thirteen plus years before the Militia Act of 1903 and the National Defense Act of 1916 were even agreed upon by the rogue Congress and the several States to destroy the first clause! Keep in mind that any references to a militia by either the Idaho Constitution (ARTICLE XIV) or the Idaho Statute Title 46 are not constitutional with respect to our national federal Constitution! The state militia in Idaho (and the militia in all the other 49 states) are not the same Militia of the several States that our Founders envisioned, legislated, ratified, and enshrined in the first clause of the Second Amendment. Thus, and this is my thesis, the necessary need for each state to take it upon themselves to revitalize the Militia of the several States by state statute!!!!! Actually, there is no mention anywhere in the Idaho Constitution or the Idaho Statute Title 46 about revitalizing the original Militia of the several States! I challenge you to locate it, and point is out to me!

    YOU WROTE: In closing, I’m still not certain why you assume Ms Ahrens and Cpt Anderson are not versed in the Constitution, as the answers to what questions were put to them were straight forward and honest. If you still would like further discussion, I will be happy to continue, however, I only want to know what pathetic answers to basic questions you are referring to, which was my original question.
    SNAKE EATER: This is where it may get subjective on my part…but I have very high standards for someone who wishes to serve as a Idaho State senator! I expect them to be intelligent, articulate (which Ms. Ahrens was not), knowledgeable (Ms. Ahrens was not), professional, personable, be able to build a consensus, and able to demonstrate critical thinking skills of their own (which she did not demonstrate) on the fly…not just regurgitated boilerplate talking points on key issues that they feel her voters are concerned about and want to hear!! Stating that our Second Amendment “will not be infringed” is hardly an intelligent response when it has already been infringed…pathetic! There was no substance behind each of Ms. Ahrens pathetic answers, just empty rhetoric! I’m not going to reiterate for you every single pathetic response to all the Second Amendment questions she attempted to field…and failed. Suffice it to say, Ms. Warner, that even though you only want to know what pathetic answers to basic questions I was referring to, and despite it being your original question, I will again refer you to what I wrote to you on April 6th, You may want to read again my earlier comments that I posted on APRIL 5, 2018 AT 5:57 PM where I referenced [Re: My comments at the March 22, 2018 Danielle Ahrens Interview posted on Redoubt News].

    If after reviewing the interview video closely for actual substance and reviewing my comments about Ms. Ahrens pathetic answers, you still do not understand why I said what I said, then I really don’t know what else to tell you beyond what I have already written, we can agree to disagree and you can vote for her…that is your right as a citizen. As far as I’m concerned Ms. Ahrens is at the bottom of my list of potential candidates and I will not be voting for her. You can respond to this post if you wish, but be advised that I have said all there is to say and I am not going to beat a dead horse!

Comments are closed.