Category Archives: Political Correctness

Pluses and Minuses

Posted on by

A plus for Carly Fiorina. She opposed the GOP’s trade deal. What is it? It would allow Obama to ‘fast-track’ trade treaties with nations along the Pacific Rim, i.e., the PRC. That is the People’s Republic of China for those of you who are acronym deficient.

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina on Sunday came out in opposition to giving President Obama the authority to fast track a massive trade deal with Pacific Rim countries, breaking with the GOP’s free-trade agenda.

Mrs. Fiorina, a former chief executive officer of Hewlett Packard, insisted that she supports free trade but said she doesn’t trust Mr. Obama to make a good deal for American workers and businesses.

“The devil is usually in the details, and that is particularly true with this president. The truth is we don’t know what’s in this deal,” she said on NBC”s “Meet the Press.”

“This administration unfortunately has a track record of burying things in fine print … that turn out to be very different from their selling points,” said Mrs. Fiorina, who announced her White House bid last week.

The Senate this week is scheduled to take the first votes on fast-track authority, or trade promotion authority, which would make it much easier for the president to pass the 12-country Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. — The Washington Times.

The GOP is about to sell out US businesses in exchange for what? Campaign funds? Oh, that’s illegal although it didn’t stop Bill Clinton from receiving laundered ChiCom money. Remember all those Buddhist monks giving thousands upon thousands of dollars to Bill’s campaign? I do.

As Fiorina claims, the devil is in the details and in this treaty, no one really knows what is in it. Again! Issues like this make you wonder how much McConnell’s and Boehner’s cuts will be from the kick-backs.

***

Have you heard about the gender trail that going on in the Army? By trial, I mean…a test. A test to see if women can successfully pass the Ranger course.

Ranger School is the toughest course in the US Army. It is physical and mental torture. It is the closest to actual combat the Army can create in a training scenario. The washout rate among men, enlisted and commissioned, is high.

One of the goals of the course is to teach leaders, Officers and NCO, just how hard they can push their troops and the physical and mental impacts that combat inflicts on the troops. The Ranger graduates know. They’ve been there and know how to care for their troops to get the most and best out of them.

In the ‘new’ gender-neutral military, the liberals want women in combat. The Army was willing to see if women can endure the same conditions as men. Not so much as line troops, but as leaders—platoon and company commanders leading troops in the field, in combat. It’s important. You can not have a fighting unit whose lowest denominator is the physical and mental condition of its commander.

Passing Ranger school is also a career builder…or destroyer. If a candidate gives up, he/she is classified as “lacking motivation.” and “leadership skills.” No claims the women applicants, volunteers, all, lack motivation. Some have displayed enormous stubbornness to succeed. Unfortunately, none, to date, has passed the first stage of Ranger training.

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/dd830f725178e1798000a372cbccc2a4e851f31a/c=318-0-5298-3744&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/2015/04/23/GGM/MilitaryTimes/635654094046570203-ARM-women-ranger-school-day-two-2.JPG

Male and female trainees in the US Army’s Ranger School.

The eight women who remained in the first gender-integrated class of Army Ranger training will not move onto the next round of training, Fort Benning announced on Friday.

That means all 19 women who began the training in April have washed out in the first phase.

The eight women, together with 101 men who washed out of the Darby phase, will retry the first part of the Army’s most elite training course beginning May 14, the release said.

“I had the opportunity to visit the Ranger students yesterday and was impressed that whether going forward to the mountains or recycling the Darby phase they were motivated to continue training and focused on successfully completing the Ranger Course,” said Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, commanding general of the Maneuver Center of Excellence. “They’re a strong group of soldiers, who are working their way through the U.S. Army’s most physically and mentally demanding course.”

Thirty-five male soldiers failed to meet the standards of Ranger school and will not attempt the course again, the release said.

About 15 percent of soldiers repeat the first phase, called Darby phase, however, about 75 percent of those who make it through the first week of the program will eventually pass the Darby phase and move onto the mountains, according to the Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade’s website.

About 37 percent of all students recycle at least one phase of Ranger training, the site said. — The Washington Times.

The Army appears, at least, to be enforcing a single standard for both male and female trainees. There are male and female observers present to insure the rules are enforced equally. There is no favoritism of male over female, nor of female over male. As least as far as we know. There was one instance where the male trainees were ‘smoked’, i.e, went through a series of strenuous exercises before commencing one of the Darby-phase full-pack hikes. The women were not. The men started the hike exhausted. The women were fresh.

But that was a minor detail and not uncommon throughout the school. Each trainee is evaluated how they perform under pressure and stress. I would hope the Army does not relent to political correctness and change the standards for women to be less than those for the men. To do so would only lead to unnecessary causalities in wartime. Combat is no place for political correctness.

Facebook

Bits ‘n Pieces

Posted on by
https://jasonkander.com/files/2015/02/Jason-Kander-for-US-Senate-100x100.jpg

Missouri Secretary of State, Jason Kander

Jason Kander, our democrat Missouri Secretary of State and scion of the Kansas City democrat political machine, has announced he will run against Senator Roy Blunt in 2016. Kander received the endorsement of the entire Missouri democrat team as well as from the KC ‘Red’ Star. Surprise, surprise!

Attorney General Chris Koster, who is readying to join Kander on the statewide slate in his own run for governor: “Every day, Jason Kander uses the lessons he learned serving in the Army in Afghanistan to do what’s right for Missouri. He doesn’t care who gets credit for an idea, he just wants to get the job done for our state. We need that approach in Washington, which is why I am supporting Jason Kander for United States Senate.” — PoliticMO Newsletter, February 19, 2015.

So it will be Turncoat Koster running for Governor teaming with Kander running for Senator. All in all, Kander has a better rep than Koster. Still you have to wonder, in this ‘race of the Double-Ks’ who is helping whom?

***

An idea whose time has come? Missouri already has a Voter-ID law on the books. There are a number of acceptable forms of ID listed on the Missouri Secretary of State’s website.

ACCEPTABLE FORMS OF VOTER ID:
  • Identification issued by the state of Missouri, an agency of the state, or a local election authority of the state
  • Identification issued by the United States government or agency thereof
  • Identification issued by an institution of higher education, including a university, college, vocational and technical school, located within the state of Missouri
  • A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or other government document that contains the name and address of the voter
  • Driver’s license or state identification card issued by another state

If you do not possess any of these forms of identification, you may still cast a ballot if two supervising election judges, one from each major political party, attest they know you. – http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/govotemissouri/howtovote.aspx

This new effort will add a Constitutional Amendment to give more teeth to the existing law which has a number of exceptions that still allow people to vote without proper ID. The existing law is a good first step, but, reviewing the documented acts of vote fraud in St. Louis and Kansas City, it isn’t enough.

Missouri House endorses voter photo ID requirements

By MARIE FRENCH, Associated Press, Feb 18, 6:21 PM EST

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — The Missouri House is once again pushing forward with a Republican priority to require photo identification at the polls, after similar measures were stymied by the Senate or courts in recent years.

The House gave initial approval Wednesday to a proposed constitutional amendment that would go before voters in 2016 and also endorsed a bill that would institute the voter photo ID requirements if the constitutional amendment is approved.

Both measures need a second House vote and also would also have to pass the Senate, where Democrats have previously blocked the proposed photo ID requirements.

Supporters say the requirement is needed to ensure the integrity of the election process. Rep. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, said the measure would protect individuals’ voting rights by making sure someone does not try to vote for another person.

“It ensures that someone did not take their vote and steal what is rightfully their vote,” Brattin said.

If you read the full article at the website, you will see, as usual, democrats, abetted by MO Secretary of State Jason Kander, protesting the measure because it would make their continuing vote fraud schemes more difficult.

***

Have you heard the term, Social Justice Warrior? It’s all the vogue on university campus across the country and in other segments of society (see my post concerning the SFWA and the Hugo Awards.) Social Justice Warriors have become the progressives’ front-line troops in their battle against free speech and expression.

Social Justice Warriors Come to Campus

By Robert Weissberg, February 19, 2015

Since the late 1960s, radical students have periodically taken over the university president’s offices to propose a laundry list of “non-negotiable” demands. Early takeovers tended to be about their school’s cooperation with the military during war in Vietnam; today, however, “social justice” is the aim so let’s call these office occupiers Social Justice Warriors or SJW’s.

Back in February 2014 a group of 30 Dartmouth students commandeered the president’s office to  announce a “Freedom Budget”:70 specific calls for greater diversity, eliminating sexism and heterosexism, an improved campus climate for minorities and gays, banning the term “illegal immigrant,” offering a class on undocumented workers in America, creating a professor of color lecture series, and harsher penalties for sexual assault, among many, many others.

More recently, Clemson University SJW’s demanded that the school provide a “safe” multicultural center for students from “under-represented” groups, employing more administrators and faculty of color, a more diverse student body, mandatory sensitivity training for faculty and administrators, and increased funding for students organization catering to under-represented groups.

Then there are the University of Minnesota students who seized the President’s office to demand a bigger budget for the Department of Chicano and Latino Studies Department, removing all racial descriptions from university police reports, offering gender-neutral bathrooms at all college facilities and, of course, recruiting more faculty and students of color.

Fortunately, this is the U.S., where such political histrionics are greeted with mild amusement. Ironically, school officials typically welcome “meaningful political dialogue and change,” the need for “hard work” to achieve progress and then conclude by thanking the Social Justice Warriors for their assistance in moving forward. Though police may remove protestors, criminal charges, let alone violations of campus rules, are rarely pursued and the moral buzz for these SJW’s may last weeks. In fact, I suspect some warriors honestly believe that their achievement will burnish their resume when applying to a second-tier MBA program. Imagine if these SJW’s tried this in Russia or China?

Such incidents are easy to pooh-pooh as the politically-correct version of Animal House. But that said, they nevertheless offer important insights into today’s college activist’s thinking and why university administrators tolerate the foolishness.    

Most evidently, the Social Justice Warriors totally disregard the costs associated with their self-righteous crusades. Everything is single-ledger accounting. Will the tooth fairy fund Dartmouth’s proposed $3.6 million dollar Triangle House, the “safe haven” for LGBT? Yes, high-school dropouts may believe that government benefits are “free,” but youngsters admitted to top colleges? No wonder the U.S. sinks deeper and deeper into indebtedness — even among the smart, costs are invisible. Picture a Warrior taking Econ 101 and hearing for the first time that there is no such thing as a free lunch. What a shock!

The shallowness of these demands is breathtaking and suggests that these activists are just winging it. The Dartmouth students are surely among America’s brainiest but why do they denounce “ableism”? Are they suggesting that acknowledging variations in ability is morally wrong and if differences are to be abolished (hopeless anyhow), how would society function? Why must the campus offer gender-neutral bathrooms? Keep in mind that in a few decades such folk may be among our national leaders.

Particularly troublesome is how these presumptuous, self-centered warriors think that if they think something is good, it must be good, so case settled. For example, they glibly assume that academically challenged black and Chicano youngsters really benefit by attending schools that would never admit them in a merit-based admission process.  Have these young do-gooders considered the downside of this generosity — schools will fake the numbers by creating easy-to-pass courses in dubious ethnic-studies departments, steering them to easy grading instructors or just tolerating rampant grade inflation. Or, more important, that these in-over-their-head youngsters may be better off in community college acquiring well-paying skills like welding?

Closer to home, have these SJW’s calculated the link between achieving their vision of “social justice” and tuition? Attracting minority students, addressing their academic deficiencies, creating a nurturing environment and all the rest costs money, and this will inevitably push soaring tuition even higher and, since there is no Santa Claus, a college education will be yet further beyond the reach of many poorer students while saddling graduates with yet more debt. In effect, these idealistic protestors are demanding a tax on those who are not members of their version of “under-represented.” Imagine if these SJW’s had to hold jobs to pay their own tuition?

Do these Social Justice Warriors realize that their demands will require administrators to break the law to achieve this multicultural Utopia? That is, under today’s judicial guidelines it is almost impossible to admit students solely on the basis of race or ethnicity. California, Michigan, and Washington (among others) have state laws explicitly banning racial preferences.

Why do schools tolerate such idiocy, including ignoring violations of campus policy? The answer is that no matter how imprudent the demands, they help drive the university’s bureaucratic expansion, and in today’s campus life, size matters. A symbiotic relationship exists between the children’s crusades and yet more bureaucratic bloat. Universities are not the profit-driven private sector. Absolutely everything, everything in every one of these SJW catalogues entails spending more university money, hiring more personnel, and creating yet more rules and regulations and the apparatchiki to monitor and enforce them.

It is a long article and I urge you to follow this link to the website and read the entire piece. It may be an education for you; make you aware of another insidious attacks against our liberty by ‘progressives.’ Joe Stalin and Adolf would be proud of them.

Facebook

It’s Monday!

Posted on by

Urg!

That was my usual response before I retired. I was fortunate during my last working years to be able to work from home. I told people my morning commute was thirty steps downstairs to my home office. After I retired, I continued most of those habits…writing this blog being one.

Last Friday, I wrote a post about the apparent downward spiral to war in Eastern Europe. It is arguable whether the Ukraine is European. My definition is that all of the territory west of the Ural and the ‘stans, are European, if only by religion and heritage. The major religions are the Catholic varieties—Roman, Greek and Russ ion Orthodox. Those areas mark the furthest extent of the Turkish/Islamic advance of the 16th and 17th Century.

But Eastern Europe is not the only area where war warnings exist. WesPac is a potential point of conflict as well. Finally, someone in the Pentagon and Washington is looking westward instead of eastward.

Amid Chinese Aggression, Obama Affirms U.S. Defense of Japan’s Senkaku Islands

April 24, 2014 at 3:49 pm

During his trip to Japan, President Obama publicly affirmed long-standing U.S. policy that the bilateral security treaty applies to the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands. China claims sovereignty over the islands and, in recent years, has tried to intimidate Japan—much as Beijing has bullied the Philippines in pursuit of its extralegal territorial claims in the South China Sea.

President Obama’s statement was a welcome and proper confirmation of U.S. support for a critical Pacific ally.

During a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Obama declared, “let me reiterate that our treaty commitment to Japan’s security is absolute, and Article 5 [of the bilateral security treaty] covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku Islands.”

While this was the first time Obama publicly affirmed the parameters of the U.S. defense commitment to Japan, it is consistent with the long-standing policies of his predecessors. As Obama pointed out, “this isn’t a ‘red line’ that I’m drawing; it is the standard interpretation over multiple administrations of the terms of the alliance…There’s no shift in position. There’s no “red line” that’s been drawn. We’re simply applying the treaty.”

In 2004, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage stated that the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty “would require any attack on Japan, or the administrative territories under Japanese control, to be seen as an attack on the United States.”

During a 2010 flare-up of tensions between China and Japan over the Senkakus, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated, “we have made it very clear that the [Senkaku] islands are part of our mutual treaty obligations, and the obligation to defend Japan

The Obama administration’s public reassurance to Japan is meant to deter China from behaving aggressively. In recent years, Beijing has used military and economic threats, bombastic language, and enforcement through military bullying to extend its extra-legal claims of sovereignty in the East and South China Seas.

In November 2013, China declared an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea, including the Senkaku Islands. Beijing threatened to use its military to enforce the ADIZ. Washington condemned this declaration as a provocative act that exacerbated tensions in the region and increased the risks of a military clash.

Beijing is also attempting to divert attention from its own actions by mischaracterizing Japan as a threat to regional security. China’s bellicose actions have fueled regional concern and triggered a greater Japanese willingness confront Chinese expansionism and strengthen its military. This willingness to defend its territory has been mischaracterized as a resurgence of Japan’s 1930s imperial militarism.

One of Japan’s problems isn’t with Chinese aggression. Their problem is toothless assurances from the United States when a significant portion of the US Naval Fleet…is along dockside, awaiting repairs, upgrades, or lacking the funding to return to the fleet.

According to sources, there are 430 ships believed to be in active service. That includes ships under construction and in reserve. The majority of these ships were built in the late 20th Century, some dating as far back as the 1960s. The Fleet is aging.

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), USS Enterprise (CVN 65), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) — Norfolk Naval Yard, December 2012.

During the Bush years, we had twelve carriers afloat, each carrier being the center of a battlegroup. That number has been reduced to ten. The photo to the left, taken over the Christmas and New Years holidays in 2012. Reduced those battlegroups on the high seas, from ten to five for a short period.

With those ship’s crews on leave for the holidays, how quickly could they have responded if the Chinese chose to ignore the treaty between Japan and the US? My guess would be a month to retrieve the crews, top off consumables and sail to the trouble area.

Does Obama’s, Kerry’s and Hillery’s statements affirming that US/Japanese alliance hold water? I don’t know. The question really is, does the Chinese believe it does.

***

Clive Bundy is in the news again. He stepped in it, big time. He had an interview with a reporter from the New York Times. The NYT did it’s usual hatchet-job, taking Bundy’s words out of context, changing the order, doing their usual job putting Bundy in the worse light possible. The MSM took it an ran with it.

In the end, Bundy did say those things. However his statements does not change the facts about the BLM’s aggression and overt attempts of land grabbing.

In response to the NYT interview, this column appeared in The American Thinker.

Why It’s Okay to Hate Cliven Bundy

By J.R. Dunn, April 28, 2014

It has become clear that Cliven Bundy was transgressed by the New York Times, his words taken out of context and retailed in such a way as to mean something they were not. Bundy is no racist, and the attempt to make him look like one is another step downward in the collapse of American national media.

But conservatives still have a right — in fact, a responsibility — to be annoyed with Bundy.

To wit: Bundy did not walk, not stumble, did not swerve into the trap set by the New York Times.  He was not ambushed, he was not taken by surprise. He instead ran full tilt and threw himself into that trap, exactly like the kid at the end of Million Dollar Hotel.

Bundy sat across from a reporter for the NYT, the most vicious, calculating, untrustworthy, and dishonest nest of vipers in the entire U.S. media network, and talked straight to him about matters of import and controversy, under the impression that he would understand and transmit his thoughts the way that he actually expressed them.

Nobody, a full century into the progressive era, seventy years into the epoch of big government, and fifty years after the mass media turned anti-American as a matter of course, has any right to do this. Nobody has a right to be that stupid, to be that ill-informed, or to be that self-centered.

Granted that Bundy, a lifetime Nevada rancher, is not the epitome of sophistication. He is not the typical Times reader, even for Nevada. He may well have never held a copy of the paper in his hands, much less read it. But that’s no excuse, because the status and nature of the New York Times has become a truism of American political culture. It is the bastion of left-wing thought in the media, the source from which everyone else takes their cue. In conservative circles, it’s what amounts to a punchline.

Bundy must have heard of this, at least vaguely. And yet he went out, and kindly loaded up Adam Nagourney’s pistol for him, then turned around, took his hat off, and waited for the bullet. The living portrait of middle-American conservatism in the 21st century.

How many times does this have to happen? How many Todd Akins do we need giving bizarre lectures on female biology exactly as if he knew what he was talking about? How many O’Donnells do we need providing ammunition to Bill Maher? How many Mourdocks? Even Sarah Palin, one of smartest political figures we’ve got, fell for this her first time out. (Granted, she was given plenty of help by McCain’s staff.)

I have been interviewed by newspaper reporters several dozen times in my various careers in business, writing, and conservative politics. How many times was I quoted correctly? Not once. Not a single time. Reporters typically mangle quotes, misunderstand what you’re saying, shift contexts, or deliberately rearrange statements to make them work the way they want. (And there’s nothing you can do about this. Once you speak to a reporter, what you have said is the newspaper’s property.  That’s right. Your words no longer belong to you — according to their interpretation. Your statement is theirs, to do with as they see fit, with no input from you, the schmuck who merely spoke the words. Of course, there’s no legal backing for this whatsoever. But there’s no legal backing for airline baggage handlers destroying expensive musical instruments. Yet they still get away with it.) The first time you see this it’s annoying. The second time it’s infuriating. The third time it’s expected.

Why do they do this? Not necessarily out of maliciousness or stupidity. (Though  that’s true often enough.) It’s the culture. The idea that newspapers are there to print “facts,” Who-what-where -when-and-why, is mythology gone with Jimmy Olsen and His Gal Friday. Today, reporters work with certain formats, to which they are expected to fit any related story.  One such concept is “every conservative is a hate-filled, fanatic Neanderthal.”  A corollary of this is “All Nevada ranchers are demented racists.”

Papers higher on the food chain, along with magazines and broadcast and cable networks, have agendas which these stereotypical patterns are used to support. I doubt I need to detail the nature of these agendas.

From these realities certain rules can be derived.

1) These people are not on your side.

2) Anything you say can and will be used against you.

3) Nothing you say will ever be used to support your position (or any conservative position at all.)

So what can we do in this situation? A friend of mine long experienced in public relations puts it very simply: you tell them exactly what you want them to say in the exact words that you want them to say it with. No ambiguity, no complications, no diversions. Then you stop. You don’t say any more. You add nothing. You don’t answer their questions. Their questions are not intended to shed light on your ideas or to develop detail. They are meant to trip you up and that is all. Anybody who acts as if they are truly interested in what you think about them there Negroes or legitimate rape is speaking as the enemy. You don’t feed them. You don’t hand them the weapon to strike you down with. You say “good afternoon” and turn on your heel.

The article continues at the website. It is a lesson to be learned. The media are not our friends, regardless of the medium and the reputation of the reporter. You are always on record and the media, like rapacious piranha, are waiting to feed upon you.

Politicians and candidates take note. Be careful what you say. If you are a conservative, the bottom-feeders are waiting for you to make a mistake or to misspeak.

Facebook

Revolt against the DOR

Posted on by

UPDATE (Wednesday, March 6, 2013): I renewed my driver’s license at my local bureau yesterday. I’m over 65 so all I had to show was my voter’s registration card—something to indicate my residence. I asked the lady about the DoR scanning documents. She had not heard about it nor had in instructions to do so.  One difference, this was a franchise office. That may have been the difference.

My Missouri Driver’s License will expire next week. It seems to be coming faster every iteration. My CCW expires in a few months. That will be my 3rd renewal. For you outside Missouri, our CCW license is our driver’s license or a non-driver’s ID card issued by our Department of Revenue with the appropriate annotations added, the letters CCW and an expiration date.

Since the beginning of Missouri’s CCW, its expiration date and that of the driver’s license have had different renewal dates. Our driver’s license term is for four years, our CCW is for three.  There have been a number of attempts to synchronize both for the same term. To the best of my knowledge that has not been done.

This year, both of my licenses are due the same year—different months, but still the same year. I had thought to renew them separately until I read this in the news.

Missouri Dept. of Revenue Allegedly Compiling Data on Concealed Carry Holders, Forwarding It to Company With Ties to Gov’t

Mar. 5, 2013 3:46am

A Southeast Missouri man has sued after being told by a license office that it would make digital copies of documents needed for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The Missouri Department of Revenue has allegedly been compiling data on Missouri residents seeking concealed carry permits and then forwarding it to a third party with ties to the federal government.

Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder held a press conference on Monday and revealed the lawsuit had been filed to fight the action and prevent any violation of Americans’ privacy.

The lawsuit was filed Monday by Stoddard County prosecuting attorney Russ Oliver on behalf of Missouri resident Eric Griffin. Oliver filed the lawsuit as a private attorney.

“I fully support Mr. Oliver in this important legal action in Stoddard County Circuit Court,” Kinder said in a press release. “The case has issues of statewide importance implicating serious privacy concerns for law-abiding citizens. These folks have followed the letter of the law and have been approved for concealed carry by the proper authorities. They must not be required to share that information with any third parties or the federal government.”

The issue was brought to light after Griffin, the Missourian on whose behalf Oliver filed the lawsuit, went to his local Department of Motor Vehicles fee office after passing the application process for a concealed carry gun permit. Oliver says Griffin refused to let DMV employees scan and store some of his documentation — so he was denied his permit.

The Missouri Department of Revenue reportedly installed new computer equipment that records certain information as a part of the federal Real ID Act of 2005, according to Oliver. State laws prohibit the department from retaining and forwarding certain information. The information that was compiled by the DOR was reportedly being forwarded to Morpho Trust, U.S.A., a Georgia company that “specializes in partnering with state and federal governmental agencies,” according to the press release put out by Kinder’s office.

“There are important privacy concerns for concealed carry holders who justly fear their information is being sent to a third party or the federal government,” Oliver said. “Missouri law makes it clear that what is going on here is illegal, and serves no legitimate purpose since the county sheriff is solely charged with the duty of determining applicants’ eligibility for endorsement.”

A trial judge issued a temporary restraining order over the practice Monday — the same day the lawsuit was filed — and scheduled a hearing March 12. Oliver said the order is limited to the Stoddard County license office.

I’m glad Peter Kinder stood up to help block the illegal acts of the Department of Revenue. There has been an injunction issued blocking the DoR from collecting that information. I don’t know how long that injunction will last. It may force me to renew my CCW early.

The Department of Revenue has been operating like a rogue agency for years, if not decades. It’s time the state brought the DoR to heel.

A Revenue Department spokesman said the agency follows the law. — The Blaze.

That response makes me wonder whose law they are following? It isn’t the law of the State of Missouri.

***

Tidbits in the news: Vanity license plate, Freedom, banned in Washington, DC.

‘Freedom’ license plate banned in Washington D.C.

March 5, 2013 | 9:56 am
Banned-in-DC

Banned in Washington, DC.

The word “FREEDOM” is among the list of banned vanity license plate slogans for Washington D.C., according a government file obtained by a Freedom of Information Request filed by the transparency website GovernmentAttic.org.

Other banned phrases include anti-tax messages such as “TAXKLLR” and “TAXRUS4″…

***

Unions, specifically, teacher’s unions, in Michigan, are back in the news. Michigan is now a Right to Work state. The state’s teacher’s union, seeing mandatory union dues disappear are trying a new tactic—forcing teacher’s to pay their future dues in advance—TEN years of dues!

Teachers fight back after union locks in dues payments for next 10 years

2:39 AM 03/05/2013

A school district is attempting to force teachers to pay union dues for the next 10 years, despite being located in Michigan, which is now a right-to-work state that specifically prohibits mandatory unionization.

Michigan became the 24th right-to-work state in December. But the law doesn’t take effect until March 28 — giving unions time to grandfather in their contracts if they can get them approved before the deadline. As part of this effort, the Taylor School District approved an entirely separate “union security agreement” that will force teachers to keep paying the union until 2023.

Under the security agreement, teachers’ only options will be to pay union dues, or pay an agency fee amounting to about $800 a year.

But three Taylor teachers who want to leave the union said enough is enough.

“I believe it is unfair of the union to have a security clause that requires me to be a member for 10 years,” said Rebecca Metz, a Taylor teacher, in a statement.

Metz, along with fellow teachers Angela Steffke and Nancy Rhatigan, is suing to block implementation the 10-year dues extension.

A lawyer representing the three teachers framed the issue as a clear case of a union and a school district attempting to thwart the will of the legislature.

There is more at the website but once again, education unions are acting more like mobsters than like teachers.
Facebook

The Purge of Republicans in Federal Civil Service is about to begin

Posted on by

From Glenn Reynolds on his Instapundit site. This memo, in affect, allows the Office of Personnel Management the authority to purge anyone hired, retroactively back for five years, who doesn’t meet Obama’s litmus test. In other words, Republicans.

During the Clinton administration, some political appointees were allow to convert to being in the US civil service. When Bush entered office, he continued the practice established by Clinton. Now Obama want to purge those who converted during 43’s administration.



OPM is now claiming authority to weed out every former political appointee from being considered for ANY federal positions at EVERY level of the GS Pay Scale, for both the competitive AND excepted service – made RETROACTIVE for the past 5 years! (This is a new, extra layer of scrutiny previously reserved for SES hires.) OPM will now check the recommended hires to “ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws.”

It is well established anti-discrimination law in the Federal sector – the public (political appointees included) may not be excluded from consideration for federal jobs because of their political affiliation.

OPM’s alleged rationale is to keep political appointees from “burrowing in,” but agencies would need to have already considered the applicant the best qualified to even reach this new hurdle.

Stated another way, “but for” the applicant having served as a political appointee within the past five years, all agencies would not be required to seek review from OPM for all agency positions. Effectively, the ONLY reason EVERY agency will now be REQUIRED to consult OPM is to “ask permission” to hire a person based on their political affiliation.

Why make the policy retroactive for 5 years? I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

The Purge of Republicans in Federal Civil Service is about to begin

Posted on by

From Glenn Reynolds on his Instapundit site. This memo, in affect, allows the Office of Personnel Management the authority to purge anyone hired, retroactively back for five years, who doesn’t meet Obama’s litmus test. In other words, Republicans.

During the Clinton administration, some political appointees were allow to convert to being in the US civil service. When Bush entered office, he continued the practice established by Clinton. Now Obama want to purge those who converted during 43’s administration.



OPM is now claiming authority to weed out every former political appointee from being considered for ANY federal positions at EVERY level of the GS Pay Scale, for both the competitive AND excepted service – made RETROACTIVE for the past 5 years! (This is a new, extra layer of scrutiny previously reserved for SES hires.) OPM will now check the recommended hires to “ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws.”

It is well established anti-discrimination law in the Federal sector – the public (political appointees included) may not be excluded from consideration for federal jobs because of their political affiliation.

OPM’s alleged rationale is to keep political appointees from “burrowing in,” but agencies would need to have already considered the applicant the best qualified to even reach this new hurdle.

Stated another way, “but for” the applicant having served as a political appointee within the past five years, all agencies would not be required to seek review from OPM for all agency positions. Effectively, the ONLY reason EVERY agency will now be REQUIRED to consult OPM is to “ask permission” to hire a person based on their political affiliation.

Why make the policy retroactive for 5 years? I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Facebook