Post-Ferguson Era

According to some news outlets, we are now in a ‘Post-Ferguson Era.’ The Eric Garner case in New York has pushed Ferguson from the national headlines.

Like you, I haven’t a clue what ‘Post-Ferguson Era’ means. Regardless, Ferguson continues to be highlighted in Missouri’s news—Nixon is still running from it, Attorney General Chris Koster was successful is keeping out of the limelight and is using Ferguson for his advantage for 2016. Democrat legislators from St Louis are proposing new bills that would cripple law enforcement if/when they encounter violent thugs, and the Kansas City ‘Red’ Star has a surprisingly balanced editorial!

The millennium has come! The KC Star has an editorial contrary to the liberal party line!

Let’s get back to the headlines.

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2014/11/24/fergusonjpeg-06e2e_c0-326-3000-2074_s561x327.jpg?e6f3f10d7e7b7f874d41be4a69b48182d5e91f7e

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon

Democrat Governor Jay Nixon, during a visit to the Missouri bootheel was asked about his orders for the National Guard. Nixon responded:

“Our plan was to have, and we did have, over 700 guardsmen out that night, guarding locations all throughout the region. We wanted to have the local police — St. Louis County and St. Louis City — and others, to patrol on the front lines who had been engaging directly with many of those folks throughout the summer. We thought that was better than bringing in the National Guard in full military garb straight onto those streets. Obviously Monday night, we were somewhat surprised by the … riots, not helped by the number of folks trying to whip that up at various times. As the night went on, we did bring in additional guardsmen into the police department there to back up the folks who were there, and ended up getting out their response teams in the area.”

Nixon continued:

“Really, the choice that night was whether we’re going to lose lives or lose property. When you have that many hundreds of people shooting guns and running throughout the area and looting, I think it was important to preserve life, and I think all of the unified commanders, as well as the guard’s folks, did a great job of that. We didn’t have a single shot fired by a single law enforcement officer, and we had hundreds of shots fired out. We didn’t have a single shot fired by a national guardsman, and we had none of them significantly injured. So while it was a difficult thing to watch, and challenging, in many ways, I think that when we look back at this, having those law enforcement officers out first, having the guard there behind them, was in fact the best way to do it.” — Southeast Missourian.

While Nixon was on his road-trip, Chris Koster was establishing his position for a future run for Governor. Koster is hoping to gain some kudos over Missouri’s ‘Deadly Force’ statute that Koster claims is contrary a federal court decision.

Missouri’s attorney general called Tuesday night for a change in state law to make it tougher for law enforcement officers to justify the use of deadly force, a week and a half after a grand jury declined to indict former Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown.

NBC News reported last week that one of the factors that would have complicated any prosecution of Wilson was a Missouri statute that gives peace officers greater leeway in using deadly force than is allowed in many other states. In a statement to MSNBC’s “The Last Word,” Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said Wednesday night that state lawmakers should bring the statute into line with an important Supreme Court ruling.

“Among the problems that Ferguson has brought to light is the need to update Missouri’s use of deadly force statute,” Koster said. “This statute is inconsistent with the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Tennessee v. Garner. Consequently, it is important this statute is amended by the Missouri legislature to incorporate the Garner decision and to avoid confusion within the criminal justice system.”

The 1985 Garner decision is one of two Supreme Court rulings — the other is from 1989 — addressing when a law enforcement officer can justifiably use deadly force.

The 1985 decision says it’s justifiable only if the officer has probable cause to believe a fleeing suspect is a violent felon and poses a significant threat to the officer or the public — requiring the existence of a threat before an officer can use deadly force. The 1989 decision — Graham v. Connor — found that an officer’s justification for use of deadly force must be assessed in the context of a “reasonable” officer’s state of mind under the specific circumstances — one of which can, but doesn’t necessarily have to be, a threat to the officer or the public.

In an interview last week with NBC News, Roger Goldman, Callis Family Professor of Law emeritus at St. Louis University Law School, said that under the current statute, “if I’m representing the police officer, I’m arguing that Missouri law allows an officer to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon even if he is not a danger to the public or fellow officers.”

I am not a lawyer so I’ll leave a review of Koster’s comments to those who are. However, I’d like to point out a flaw in Professor Roger Goldman’s logic—Michael Brown was NOT a fleeing felon. He was an aggressive thug who initiated the attack on Darren Wilson and was attacking Wilson when he was shot. If Brown had run, he probably would still be alive today. Assuming, of course, that he wasn’t shot by some storekeeper who had a weapon and was determined not to be a victim of thuggery.

Some residual protesters are walking to Jeff City to make their demands known to a legislature that is not in session and to a Governor who is out of town. According to some reports, the protesters have met some contrary opinions along the way.

More than halfway through their journey to the Capital City, marchers on a 120-mile journey from Ferguson were met with opposition Wednesday as they journeyed through Mid-Missouri.

Andrew McFadden Ketchum came from Denver to join the marchers on a whim and said it has become an “amazing experience.”

“There’s a lot of love here,” he said. “I was surprised at what I saw in Rosebud. It was so quiet when we went in and then bang, the noise started.”

Ketchum posted a video to YouTube, which shows the group walking through the small Gasconade County town. Residents are seen standing along the highway quietly until the group approaches the center of town where some members of the crowd begin yelling.

Someone can be heard shouting, “No peace, no welfare checks!”

“All this for a thug and a thief,” shouts another resident in an apparent reference to Michael Brown.

Although the legislature is out of session, December is when bills are pre-filed for the upcoming session. Two St Louis legislators want to constrain police when encountering suspects on the street.

Vet Ferguson bills with care in Missouri legislature

12/03/2014 4:11 PM

Missouri lawmakers have responded to the police shooting of teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson with a host of bills on matters such as police use of deadly force and overuse of traffic tickets by some cities.

The spate of legislation filed in advance of the 2015 session’s Jan. 7 start could lead to thoughtful discussions. But it is important that the General Assembly vet the bills carefully.

Two Democratic senators from the St. Louis area, Maria Chappelle-Nadal and Jamilah Nasheed, have filed legislation aimed at limiting the circumstances under which a police officer can use deadly force. Nasheed’s bill would require officers to use other options first, such as a taser, and issue a warning before firing a shot. It also would cause officers to be suspended without pay pending an investigation if they fired at a suspect more than 20 feet away.

Lawmakers and the public need to hear from police about these proposals. Good police departments heed to standards and best practices developed and constantly re-evaluated by law enforcement professionals. State legislators should tap that expertise before setting their own rules.

The same goes for bills that call for the appointment of a special prosecutor in all officer-involved shootings. Lawmakers need to hear from prosecutors about the wisdom of that idea.

Maria Chappelle-Nadal and Jamilah Nasheed are Missouri’s leading gun control advocates. They have opposed every bill in the legislature that supports gun owners and bills that enhance Missourian’s 2nd Amendment rights. Perhaps the photo below from the Riverfront Times blog is indicative of the separation between them and the rest of Missouri.

Photo from the Riverfront Times.

The photo above is the supposed original version according to the Riverfront Times. When it was shared on the internet, it was trimmed to exclude to two outer figures leaving only the center sign and protester. The Riverfront Times now claims that the verbiage of the sign was altered from “leaves home” to “robs a store.” I’ve examined the photo closely and the digital information with it and I can see no evidence that it has been altered. But I make no claims to be an expert on digital photos. Regardless of the validity, there is a truth in the message as it appears above—a truth that is being ignored because it doesn’t support an protester’s and the St Louis liberal agenda.

Perhaps the Riverfront Times and the protesters are upset that the photo reveals a truth behind the lootings and burnings in Ferguson. It would seem the two legislators from St Louis prefer the logic of the photos above as a basis for law than a law that protects businesses from thugs and thieves.

Wow! What a weekend.

I had a real busy weekend. I had a real busy week. My shootin’ buddy and I spent Thursday at the range practicing for a pistol match coming up next month. Saturday night was a Friends of the NRA dinner and auction in H’ville. Then Sunday afternoon was the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance 25th Anniversary picnic.

I’m pretty much whooped.  Still…I’d do it again in a second.

***

The Kansas Senatorial race continues to be in the front of the news. I’ve had some friends ask me what the controversy is all about. It’s this, as briefly as I can explain.

There are (were) three candidates running for US Senator; Pat Roberts, the incumbent on the Republican Ticket, Chad Taylor on the democrat ticket, and Greg Orman, a democrat who the democrats wouldn’t let run against Taylor in the primary. Orman decided to run as an ‘independent.’ In reality, it’s two democrats running against one ‘Pub. Ordinarily, this would be a shoo-in for Roberts because Orman would split the democrat votes with Taylor.

Suddenly, the environment changed. Polls indicated that Orman was running better against Roberts than Taylor. To the democrats, this meant one of their candidates was a possible winner, especially since Roberts pissed off much of the grass-roots conservatives who had backed Milton Wolf. A significant percentage of those Wolf supporters declared they would either vote for Orman or stay home.

The democrats were now in a dilemma. Orman, a democrat in an independent’s costume, was ahead of Taylor. They decided to have Taylor quit. That would allow the democrats to vote for Orman instead of splitting their votes between the two democrat candidates.

The Kansas democrat leaders forced Chad Taylor to quit.

After a series of legal shenanigans, with the aid of their left-leaning KS Supreme Court, they got Taylor off the ticket. Bad news for Roberts. But Orman isn’t the clean-cut, scandal-free candidate the democrats and he projects. He is being sued for failure to pay royalties to another company for the use of their patented technology.

The establishment ‘Pubs are rallying around Roberts and Orman is facing more scrutiny from the national press. Surprise, surprise! Orman is keeping closed-mouth about what his political views?

Greg Orman, a political enigma, faces growing scrutiny in Kansas Senate race

September 28 at 8:53 PM

Greg Orman, the upstart Senate candidate threatening to unseat longtime Republican incumbent Pat Roberts in Kansas, says it’s liberating to run as an independent: “I can go to Washington as a problem solver, not a partisan.”

But not having a party also liberates Orman from taking positions — especially on controversial issues that might alienate partisans.

Greenlight the Keystone XL pipeline? Orman said he doesn’t have enough information to say yes or no.

What about gun control? He said gun restrictions should be “strengthened” but would not specify whether he backs an assault-weapons ban.

And on the biggest question of all — Would he caucus with Democrats or Republicans? — Orman insists he’s not sure.

“It’s not in the best interests for us to say that,” Orman said in an interview here last week.

Orman has said he would caucus with whichever party has the majority after November’s midterm elections. But what if the Senate is evenly divided and Orman’s decision swings the balance? He said that would be “a wonderful opportunity for Kansas.”

Orman’s rise has transformed deep-red Kansas into the year’s unlikeliest political battleground. Many voters say Roberts has lost touch with the state he’s represented in Congress since 1981.

Since Democratic nominee Chad Taylor withdrew his name from the ballot this month, Roberts has been in a two-man race with Orman, who has previous ties to the Democratic Party but preaches independence. Public polling has been unreliable, but both sides believe the race is very tight.

Orman, who entered the race in June, has surged on the strength of his pitch to fix a broken Washington without any allegiance to a political party. But now the enigma is under increasing pressure from voters to provide a clearer sense of his ideology and politics, while facing attacks from the Roberts camp over his business ties and Democratic past.

“I’ve been impressed with Greg so far, but we’re still in the ‘I’m an independent’ stage,” said Lynda Neff, 68, a retired teacher. “I’m ready to move past that and hear about some issues. . . . I will support him if he gives me a little more information.”

Perhaps the biggest test for Orman, a multi­millionaire investor who is partially funding his campaign, is surviving the intensifying public scrutiny of his business and personal relationships with Rajat Gupta, the former Goldman Sachs board member who was convicted in 2012 of insider trading and is serving a federal prison sentence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dre/politics/election-lab-2014

Election Lab: See our current forecast for every congressional race in 2014.

View Graphic

Roberts and his Republican allies have launched a barrage of attacks designed to make Orman appear untrustworthy. On the campaign trail in Kansas last week, a parade of top Republicans alleged that Orman is a liberal Democrat in disguise.

“Anybody with a liberal record like Greg’s . . . that’s not independence. That’s someone who’s trying to snooker you, Kansas,” Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and vice-presidential nominee, said Thursday in Independence.

Palin’s 2008 running mate, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), told voters a day earlier in suburban Overland Park: “Let’s be honest — he’s a Democrat. He walks like a duck and he quacks like a duck and he is a duck.”

Robert J. Dole, a former Senate Republican leader and 91-year-old Kansas legend, said Monday night in Dodge City, “There’s a multimillionaire who claims he’s an independent, but really [he’s] in the other party.”

In Kinsley on Tuesday, after reporters asked whether he trusted Orman to govern as an independent, Roberts said, “All of a sudden, if there’s a metamorphosis and the caterpillar changed — why, I just don’t think that’s in the cards.”

Orman argues that the Republicans are reading him wrong. He said he voted for Obama in 2008, and public records show that in the middle of that decade he made donations mostly to Democrats, including Obama and Sen. Al ­Franken (Minn.). In 2008, he briefly ran for Senate against Roberts as a Democrat before dropping out.

The column by the Washington Post is long. You can read it completely on their website.

I was surprised that the Washington Post says the new Senate will be ‘Pub controlled, 62 to 48 given their history of biased reporting. Joni Ernst now leads Braley, 44 percent to 38 percent. Most of the polling over the last month or more has Ernst in the lead but the MSM claimed otherwise and called Iowa a ‘leaning blue’ state.

Des Moines Register: “The ground under Bruce Braley has shifted. The Democratic U.S. Senate candidate is 6 points behind his GOP rival, Joni Ernst, according to The Des Moines Register’s new Iowa Poll of likely voters. Ernst leads 44 percent to 38 percent in a race that has for months been considered deadlocked…. One potential reason: Two-thirds of likely voters who live in the country are bothered by a remark he made about Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley that’s been perceived as besmirching farmers.”

Braley should have known that dissing farmers in Iowa is not a career-enhancing tactic.

Alpha and Omega

Revelation 1:8 King James Version (KJV)

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

In the passage above, God is the beginning and the end. In today’s world, democrats and liberals want to usurp that authority.

To an extent, they have done so at the beginning with widespread abortions upon demand. Now another liberal and Obamacare architect, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, wants to kill us when we reach age 75. “Seventy-five years is enough,” he says. Death at the beginning and end by government fiat.

Whenever we chip away a bit at abortion, the abortionists scream and froth at the mouth. This month, Missouri passed a bill over democrat Jay Nixon’s veto, to extend the waiting period from 24 hours to 72 hours. It’s a small thing, giving a pregnant woman three days to think over her irretrievable decision. But if you listen to the abortionist’s protest, you would think Missouri had banned all abortions completely.

They lie, of course.

A woman doesn’t know if she is pregnant for a month or more after conception. Frequently more, two, sometimes three months before observable changes occur. The abortionists want us to believe that three days is critical? Why? Is it really the woman’s decision or the abortionists? The abortionists, according to democrats and liberals.

When Nixon’s veto was overridden, I knew it wasn’t the end. I was right. The abortionists have changed tactics. They are shipping pregnant women out-ot-state for abortions…like cattle to slaughter. All because of another 48 hours delay.

‘Out-of-state abortion providers ready to treat more Missouri women,’ St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “One of the strictest abortion laws in the country is about to take effect in Missouri, and some out-of-state providers say they are prepared to treat more Missouri women if they show up at their clinics. Starting Oct. 10, women who want to stay in Missouri for the elective procedure will have to wait 72 hours after consulting a physician before they can receive an abortion. That’s triple the previous 24-hour waiting period. There are no exemptions in the case of rape or incest. The state has only one abortion provider left, Planned Parenthood in St. Louis.

 

“Dr. Erin King, the associate medical director at Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, said she’s not sure if more women will show up, but she’s ready to respond if they do. Her clinic is about 15 minutes from downtown St. Louis. The state of Illinois has no waiting period for women age 18 or older. … King said her group tries to provide as much information about women’s options and the state-imposed wait times on its website. … The price for an abortion varies depending on the stage of the pregnancy, which also dictates the type of abortion. The price ranges from $465 for the abortion pill to $3,720 for a procedure performed at 23 weeks, according to Hope Clinic for Women’s website. A patient then submits an itemized summary to her insurance carrier but is not always reimbursed, according to a Hope Clinic staffer. King’s clinic performs more than 5,000 procedures a year, according to its website, and is one of the closest clinics to Missouri. A Planned Parenthood and the Center for Women’s Health, located in Overland Park, Kan., serve metropolitan Kansas City. A third provider, Aid for Women, closed its doors in July, according to its website.” — PoliticMO and the St Louis Post-Dispatch.

Why all this effort to kill people from the left? Perhaps it is because they view us as commodities—commodities to be used and discarded when we are no longer useful to them. We have the abortionists at the beginning of life slaughtering innocents and then we have others, like Dr. Emmanuel, at the other end waiting to dispose of us.

In his controversial essay that appears in the October issue of The Atlantic, the prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel argues that longevity — living into your 80s, 90s and beyond — often comes at the expense of quality of life. Emanuel says he will be perfectly content if he dies at age 75.

“By the time I reach 75, I will have lived a complete life,” Emanuel writes in the magazine. “I will have loved and been loved. My children will be grown and in the midst of their own rich lives. I will have seen my grandchildren born and beginning their lives. I will have pursued my life’s projects and made whatever contributions, important or not, I am going to make. And hopefully, I will not have too many mental and physical limitations.”

Emanuel, the director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and head of the Department of Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, helped develop President Obama’s health care reform law. — CBS News.

Dr. Emanuel reminds me of the movie, Soylent Green. Sarah Palin’s Death Panels exist. Dr. Emanuel created them in Obamacare.

 

And people shake their heads when I predict an upcoming civil war. The left will continue to push, push, push their agenda of maximum control until the rest of us get fed up and refuse to comply. When that happens, the gloves come off and the left will unleash their goons to force us into compliance…and we will refuse. That’s why the government is creating para-military groups in the Department of Education, the IRS, USDA and other federal agencies that have nothing to do with violence except what they create themselves. Perhaps the Surgeon General’s Riot Control Police will appear next.

Is it possible to prevent a civil war? Yes, of course. But we won’t when we have leadership like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell leading the congressional ‘Pubs. They are part of the problem, not the solution.

Different vision

It’s amazing how the libs and conservatives can see the same thing and interpret that ‘thing’ so differently. Wishful thinking? Partially. Self-deception? That, too. What are we talking about? The Iowa Senate race.

Yesterday, an article appeared on Drudge. The headline read, POLL SHOCK: Dems now have 51% chance of holding Senate. According to the Washington Post, the Iowa Senate race 'leans' left towards democrat candidate Bruce Braley. The article states that two weeks ago, Joni Ernst led Braley.

The Washington Post says,

* Iowa: Two weeks ago, the model gave state Sen. Joni Ernst (R) a 72 percent chance of winning. Today she has a 59 percent chance.

The Washington Post’s own poll has Joni Ernst leading Braley 59% to 41% and they say the state is ‘leaning’ left to Braley. FOXNews ran an article about the same Iowa race using another poll. Their poll, too, had Ernst well out in front by 6 percentage points. The astounding item in all this is that the Washington Post poll has Ernst further ahead than the FOXNews/Quinnipiac University poll. Both sides see the same fact, Joni Ernst is well out in front, and both sides report that fact oppositely.

I believe the dems are grasping at straws. It is common knowledge that the closer we approach the election, the tighter the races appear. To the dems, Ernst dropping from 72% to 59%, according to their poll, means Ernst is losing.

FOX just reports that Ernst continues to poll higher than Braley by 6%. That, my friends, is the difference between FOX and the Main Stream Media. The MSM filters all news through their bias, FOX just reports the facts as they are.

***

Have you heard about the new Form 4473? What is the Form 4473? It’s the form you must complete to buy a firearm through a federally licensed dealer. What has been changed? The new form requires the buyer to state his race and ethnicity. The Obama administration changed the form, quietly, without little fanfare—until it hit the dealers.

Obama administration forcing new gun buyers to declare race, ethnicity

ATF policy irks dealers, risks privacy intrusion, racial profiling: critics
– The Washington Times – Tuesday, September 16, 2014

The Obama administration quietly has been forcing new gun buyers to declare their race and ethnicity, a policy change that critics say provides little law enforcement value while creating the risk of privacy intrusions and racial profiling.

With little fanfare, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2012 amended its Form 4473 — the transactional record the government requires gun purchasers and sellers to fill out when buying a firearm — to identify buyers as either Hispanic, Latino or not. Then a buyer must check his or her race: Indian, Asian, black, Pacific Islander or white.

The amendment is causing a headache for gun retailers, as each box needs to be checked off or else it’s an ATF violation — severe enough for the government to shut a business down. Many times people skip over the Hispanic/Latino box and only check their race, or vice versa — both of which are federal errors that can be held against the dealer.

Requiring the race and ethnic information of gun buyers is not required by federal law and provides little law enforcement value, legal experts say. And gun industry officials worry about how the information is being used and whether it constitutes an unnecessary intrusion on privacy.

“This issue concerns me deeply because, first, it’s offensive, and, secondly, there’s no need for it,” said Evan Nappen, a private practice firearms lawyer in New Jersey. “If there’s no need for an amendment, then there’s usually a political reason for the change. What this indicates is it was done for political reasons, not law enforcement reasons.”

ATF said the change came about because it needed to update its forms to comply with an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reporting standard put into effect during the Clinton administration. The ATF declined to comment on why race and ethnicity information are needed in the first place or what they are used for. On its prior 4473 forms, the bureau had been collecting race data.

The BATFE is blaming Bill Clinton for this change. It’s strange that for eight years of the Bush Administration and four years of the Obama Administration, the BATFE saw no need to change the Form 4473. I don’t believe their excuse.

OMB’s race and ethnicity standards require agencies to ask both race and ethnicity in a specific manner (as done on [Form 4473]), and agencies may not ask for one without asking for the other,” wrote Elizabeth Gosselin, a spokeswoman for the ATF, in an emailed response to The Washington Times. She did not say why the agency suddenly made the change in response to a rule that was more than a decade old.

For ATF to ask for a purchaser’s race and ethnicity is not specifically authorized under federal statute, and since a government-issued photo ID — like a driver’s license — and a background check are already required by law to purchase a gun, the ethnicity/race boxes aren’t there for identification reasons, Mr. Nappen said.

“There is nothing [in ATF or OMB’s website links addressing the change in policy] that supports the requirement that ATF collect race-based information. The OMB guidance merely describes what categories of race should look like if information is collected,” Laura Murphy, the American Civil Liberties Union director for legislative affairs in Washington, said in an emailed statement.

In addition, Mrs. Murphy notes, the OMB guidance was supposed to be implemented by 2003; there’s no information given why ATF decided to make this change almost a decade later, she said.

“If there is a civil rights enforcement reason for the ATF to collect this data, I have not heard that explanation from ATF or any other federal agency,” said Mrs. Murphy.

Both the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza — the nation’s largest national Hispanic civil rights group — declined comment. — The Washington Times

The column continues at the Washington Times website. You can read the entire column here.

There is no justification, nor federal requirement for Obama to collect this information. Why are they? What purpose does it server? Perhaps, just to intimidate those who want to buy a weapon.

***

If you like single-malt Scots whisky, you may see prices going up if Scotland votes to secede from the United Kingdom.

Scottish Secession a Sobering Prospect for Scotch Whiskey Drinkers

It’s on! Veto Override Session

I had hoped to go to Jeff City this morning to do some politicin’. Well…I didn’t. I’ve been running on a sleep deficit for several days and it caught up with me last night. I woke up at 9:15am and it is a three-hour drive to Jeff City.

I’ve been urging folks to go to Jeff City and lobby their legislators on a number of bills, SB 656 for one, the Armed Teacher bill. There are more on the block if the backer’s can get 2/3rds of the House and Senate to override Nixon’s veto.

Eli Yokley’s PoliticMO Newsletter has this to say.

VETO SESH — the budget: ‘Missouri legislators look to override $40 million of Nixon cuts at veto session,’ PoliticMo: “When the Missouri House convenes for the first day of veto session tomorrow, they will be faced immediately with dozens of spending items vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon that would cost the state $40 million. Nixon – a Democrat – has framed it as the Republican-controlled legislature opting to “grow government,” noting that their budget included 30 spending items not in the budget he presented. On the other side, the Legislature’s budget leaders said Tuesday Nixon’s priorities are in the wrong place, accusing him of putting his travel expenses above funding for priorities like children and victims of domestic abuse. …  Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, … who was joined by House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream, R-St. Louis, was non-specific when asked which items the legislature would specifically address. That information, he said, would be made available after the two budget leaders present their suggestions to members of their party tomorrow morningLawmakers will move through the 50 line-items one by one Wednesday morning starting in the House. Stream said debate would be limited in order to move quickly and on to other bills.

“Nixon has indicated that he could very easily turn around and withhold the new spending, especially if lawmakers override his vetoes of what he has depicted as costly sales tax measures. He has already withheld nearly $600 million due to that and sluggish state income. Schaefer said that decision – whether to withhold the money – is one the governor will have to make, but that legislators are planning to proceed with the override effort “to send the message on behalf of Missourians who are in need of these programs that the governor is wrong.'” http://bit.ly/1AyzRHS

– guns: ‘Missouri Republicans push for gun bill victory,’ by the AP’s new Summer Ballentine (@esballentine): “Missouri Republicans are clashing again with Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon on guns, as lawmakers approach a vote today that could overturn his veto of legislation allowing teachers to bring firearms to school and other residents to carry them openly in public. After multiple setbacks, a veto override would mark a victory in Missouri for backers of expanded gun rights. A measure that would have voided federal gun control laws died in the final hours of session this May. Nixon vetoed a similar bill last year that could have subjected federal officers to state criminal charges and lawsuits for attempting to enforce federal gun control laws. Lawmakers passed a less sweeping bill this session that would allow specially trained school employees to carry concealed guns on campuses. The measure also would allow anyone with a concealed-weapons permit to carry their gun openly, even in cities or towns with bans against open carry. 

“Missouri lawmakers’ efforts to pass gun legislation are part of a larger movement among conservative states. After 20 children and six adults died in 2012 during a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, some Republican-led state legislatures, including Missouri’s, fought against stricter gun control laws backed by Democratic President Barack Obama. … David Kopel, an associate policy analyst for the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, said the president’s policies played a powerful role in motivating Second Amendment activism. About 30 states allow the open carrying of guns without a permit, and about 13 others require some sort of license. Kansas in April approved a measure allowing the open carrying of firearms, which, like Missouri, will trump any local bans on open carry. Georgia gun owners can carry firearms openly in more places after the Legislature reduced open-carry restrictions, and lawmakers voted to make Arkansas an open carry state last year.” http://bit.ly/1uvYWT1

– abortion: ‘House speaker advocates for abortion-policy bills on eve of veto session,’ Columbia Missourian: “Speaker of the House Tim Jones had harsh words for Gov. Jay Nixon on Tuesday as he advocated for House bills 1132 and 1307 on the eve of the legislature’s veto override session.  … Jones said he hoped that the legislature would override the governor’s vetoes on the two bills.  House Bill 1132 establishes a tax credit for contributions to pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes and food pantries. House bill 1307 extends the waiting period for a woman considering an abortion from the current 24 hours to 72 hours. … Jones also said of House Bill 1132 that those who wanted to see the bill enacted into law were “simply asking for an extension of the public-private partnership.'” http://bit.ly/1p79qCM

Another veto to overturn is for SB 523, the Student Protection bill sponsored by our own Senator Ed Emory.

This act prohibits school districts from requiring a student to use an identification device that uses radio frequency identification technology to identify the student, transmit information regarding the student, or monitor or track the location of the student. The bill protects our students in public schools from unwanted data surveillance and tracking. This also prohibits the transmission of this data. — Missouri Alliance for Freedom.
The Legislature has already overridden one of Nixon’s vetos this year, the Tax Cut bill, SB 509, vetoed by Nixon early in the 2014 legislative session. The Legislature, promptly overrode Nixon’s veto within a week, if I remember correctly. Now, it’s time to continue that trend.

***

The Kansas Senatorial Soap Opera continues—with lawsuits. ‘Independent’ candidate Greg Orman is being sued in Federal court over the failure of his holding company to pay royalties to another company. The suit has been slowly making its way through the legal system since 2012.

Chad Taylor is now suing the state of Kansas—Kris Kobach as Kansas Secretary of State, to get himself removed from the November ballot. It’s a liberal tactic to shift democrat votes who would normally vote for Taylor, to vote for ‘democrat-masquerading-as-an-independent/RINO’ Greg Orman.

Kobach refused to remove Taylor from the ballot citing Kansas law.

Kobach cited a 1997 Kansas statute requiring a withdrawing candidate to declare he or she is “incapable” of serving if elected. Taylor’s letter, Kobach said, referenced the law but did not contain the required language. — Kansas City Star.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article1512707.html#storylink=cpy

According to Kansas law, the only valid reason for candidate withdrawing at this point in the election cycle is if the candidate is incapable of holding the office—such as a severe illness, injury, or sudden mental defect of the candidate. Taylor’s problem is that he has none of these valid reasons for withdrawing. None, that is, than obeying the democrat party’s diktat to quit.

I’m sure Pat Roberts would love to join in. I wouldn’t be surprised if he weren’t checking to see who he can sue to join in on the fun.

Friday Follies for September 5, 2014.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_kris_kobach_dm_120424_wblog.jpgI’ve a followup from yesterday’s post. Democratic nominee, Chad Taylor, must remain on the November ballot, according to Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. It seems that, according to Kansas law, Taylor can only withdraw at this point if he is unfit to hold the office.

Uh-oh!

If Taylor makes that claim, it could mean he’s also unfit to hold his office as Shawnee County (KS) District Attorney. Caught between a rock and a hard place, aren’t you, Chad?

But let’s assume that Taylor did drop out leaving Pat Roberts running against “independent,” Greg Orman? Orman claims he hasn’t decided which party he would caucus with if he won. It’s significant that some of his backers are a number of so-called “moderate” ‘Pubs. You know whom I speak, the liberals masquerading as republicans. These are the same groups who are also backing democrat Paul Davis against ‘Pub Sam Brownback for Kansas Governor. A Pat Roberts spokesman said:

“…some members of Traditional Republicans for Common Sense had revealed their true colors by endorsing Democrat Paul Davis for governor rather than backing Republican Gov. Sam Brownback.” — Topeka Capitol Journal.

If the Kansas Senate race becomes a two-dog race, is Roberts a shoo-in? No, according to an article that appeared in the American Thinker.

Democratic Senate candidate in Kansas withdraws

By Rick Moran, September 4, 2014

The Kansas Senate race, which was supposed to be a breeze for long time GOP Senator Pat Roberts, just got very interesting.

Democratic candidate Chad Taylor told the Kansas secretary of state that he was withdrawing from the race, leaving the field clear for a head to head match up between Roberts and independent businessman Greg Orman.

Politico:

Orman, 45, has shown some fundraising prowess throughout the campaign, raising more than $670,000 through mid-July.

The development could have serious implications in the battle for control of the Senate. Once viewed as a GOP lock, Kansas may now emerge as a critical race in determining whether Republicans return to power for the first time in nearly a decade. Republican outside groups — which had been mainly focused on four red states and battlegrounds states like Iowa, Colorado and New Hampshire — may be forced to spend money to save Roberts’ seat.

A mid-August poll of likely voters from Democratic firm Public Policy Polling showed Orman beating Roberts 43-33 in a head-to-head matchup, while Taylor was shown losing narrowly. Randy Batson, a Libertarian candidate, will also be on the ballot.

Roberts’ camp quickly sought to cast Orman as a Democrat in disguise, calling Taylor’s withdrawal a “corrupt bargain between Greg Orman and national Democrats including Senator Harry Reid that disenfranchises Kansas Democrats.”

“Orman is the choice of liberal Democrats and he can no longer hide behind an independent smokescreen,” the Republican’s campaign said in a statement.

Travis Smith of Axiom Strategies, a Roberts consultant, said the campaign will give Orman, whom he said wasn’t really taken seriously as a contender until Taylor withdrew, a “full, thorough vetting.”

“I don’t think he can get away with it,” Smith said.

Orman has spent time as both a Democrat and Republican, but he emphasizes that he’s spent more of his life as an independent or unaffiliated voter — and most of his political donations have gone to independent candidates.

While Kansas is a solidly GOP state, the rise of the tea party has alienated many moderates in a state with a long-standing tradition of centrist lawmakers. As the state GOP has moved sharply to the right, it has created an opening — not just for Orman, but also Democrat Paul Davis in this year’s governor’s race against conservative incumbent Sam Brownback.

Orman has vowed not to vote for either of party’s standard-bearer as Senate leader. His campaign website describes North Dakota Democrat Heidi Heitkamp and Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski as potential leaders he could support, willing to buck their party “to vote for what is right.”

Is Orman a Democratic stalking horse? Whether he is or he isn’t, that’s how Roberts is going to portray him. He is probably not going to get all the Democratic votes that Tayor was going to receive, which means he will have to draw a lot of non-alinged voters to his side in order to beat Roberts.

Possible, but not probable.

Roberts’ real danger is in a credible Libertarian candidate who might draw just enough Republican votes to deny him victory.

Orman has several things going for him:

1. Kansas is a cheap media state so Orman can compete on a somewhat equal level.

2. Roberts is disliked by a majority of Kansans who think he has been in Washington too long.

3. The state GOP is divided and Tea Party Republicans may stay home on election day.

This is a recipe for disaster and unless Roberts is successful in getting people to believe that Orman is really a Democrat in independent clothing, he will be in trouble in November.

It is quite possible that the Kansas Senate race—and Gubernatorial race, will turn into a free-for-all. No one knows who will come out on top.

2012 Redux — Kansas

14785422344_a9fa1504c6_zClaire McCaskill, according to some, set up Tod Adkins as an opponent and then set him up, again, to fail. She has been working with the dems in Kansas to repeat her 2012 tactic. This time in Kansas.

There are two articles that appeared today on this subject, one from FOXNews and the other in the PoliticMO newsletter.

From the FOXNewsletter, September 4, 2014:

WAPO: MCCASKILL BEHIND KANSAS CANDIDATE SWITCH
WaPo: “Democratic nominee Chad Taylor dropped out of the race for U.S. Senate in Kansas on Wednesday, an 11th hour move that could clear the way for his party to rally behind an independent candidate and potentially change the math in the battle for the Senate majority. … The move, which came on the last day for ballot changes, could clear the way for Democrats to rally behind Greg Orman, an independent candidate who has left the door open to caucusing with both parties if elected. Orman, who used to be a Democrat and a Republican, has been viewed as a more viable opponent against Sen. Pat Roberts (R), who polls show is vulnerable. Orman has been a far more productive fundraiser than Taylor.”
 
[No exit? – The Hill: “Despite filing papers with the Kansas secretary of State withdrawing from the Senate race late Wednesday, Democrat Chad Taylor may be stuck on the ballot this fall. Two election law statutes have raised questions about whether Taylor gave sufficient cause to remove himself from the ballot, and, if so, whether Democrats must ultimately choose a candidate to replace him.]

Howdy, neighbor – WaPo: “Taylor, the Shawnee County district attorney, was in touch with at least one prominent Democrat in the days leading up to his decision. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) spoke with Taylor about dropping out of the race in order to consolidate support behind Orman in hopes of unseating Roberts, according to Democrats familiar with the talks. … In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Orman would not say which party he would caucus with if elected. He suggested that he would side with whichever party is in the majority and would consider joining both sides if he ends up being the deciding vote.”

In 2012, dems clandestinely supported Tod Adkin’s candidacy for Senator believing him to be the weaker candidate as compared to John Brunner or Sarah Steelman. Chad Taylor learned, to his dismay, when you’re a dem and you get orders, you obey or be hammered.

Greg Orman claims to be an independent. He’s not. He’s been endorsed by Kansas’ RINOs who refuse to support the state’s conservatives. They’re nothing more than liberals masquerading as ‘Pubs. Orman is just another lib hiding his true allegiance to the liberal, progressive agenda. At least Chad Taylor was truthful about what he was and his agenda. Not so, Orman.

The other article comes from the PoliticMO newsletter. It mirrors the tale from FOX.

ACROSS THE BORDER — ‘The Senate Race In Kansas Just Got Crazy,’ FiveThirtyEight: “The past few weeks haven’t produced much good news for Democrats’ hopes of retaining the Senate. While their position is far from catastrophic — the Senate playing field is broad this year, and the outcome of many races is uncertain — Democrats’ chances of keeping the Senate were down to 35 percent as of the FiveThirtyEight forecast late Wednesday afternoon. Part of the problem is that Democrats are almost entirely playing defense, with few prospects to pick up Republican-held seats. Georgia, where we have the Democrat Michelle Nunn’s odds at about 30 percent, looks like their best opportunity. It’s also too early to foreclose the possibility of Democrats winning Kentucky, but Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has not trailed in a nonpartisan poll since May, and two new surveys Wednesday put him ahead.

“Kansas, however, had become an under-the-radar opportunity for Democrats. The Republican incumbent there, Pat Roberts, barely survived his primary and has extremely low approval ratings. Several recent polls had put the race in single digits between Roberts and his Democratic opponent, Chad Taylor, with the independent candidate Greg Orman getting about 20 percent of the vote. As of Wednesday, the FiveThirtyEight forecast gave Roberts an 80 percent chance of winning. That’s not bad, but it’s not any better than McConnell, who also has about an 80 percent chance of holding on in a race that has gotten far more attention. Late Wednesday afternoon, however, Taylor announced his withdrawal from the race, setting up a contest between Orman and Roberts. (There is also a Libertarian candidate, Randall Baston, on the ballot.)

“Why would Taylor leave the race right when polls showed it tightening? Perhaps because he and Orman share a lot in common philosophically. Based on the ideological ratings we track (more background on those here), both Taylor and Orman rate as the equivalent of moderate Democrats. Orman, in fact, ran as a Democratic candidate for the Senate in 2008, although he withdrew from the race during the primary. … There was also a recent survey, from Public Policy Polling (PPP), which showed Orman ahead of Roberts 43-33 in a potential two-way race. The same poll had shown Taylor trailing Roberts by 4 percentage points in the event Orman dropped out. If the PPP survey is accurate, this is a huge problem for Republicans. Suddenly, they’re behind in a race against a former Democrat who might caucus with the Democratic Party should he make it to the Senate. … If we do program the model to treat an Orman win as a Democratic pickup, then the Democrats’ chances of retaining the Senate would improve to 38 percent from 35 percent. We’re going to do some further thinking overnight about how to handle the case.” http://53eig.ht/Z7D6uC

WHY’S IT MATTER HERE? — ‘Was Claire McCaskill in the middle of a Democratic effort to push Chad Taylor out of Kansas race?,’ on PoliticMo: “Kansas Democratic Chad Taylor terminated his U.S. Senate campaign Wednesday, clearing the way for a two-way race between independent candidate Greg Orman and Republican Pat Roberts as the embattled incumbent seeks a fourth term. Taylor’s exit puts the Kansas seat back in play for Democrats hoping to weaken Republicans in their quest to take back control of the upper chamber for the final two years of President Obama’s term.

The late change appears to be placing Kansas in the same place Missouri was two years ago: In the center of the political universe as an unexpected opportunity for Democrats to take a win away from the GOP in a race that was not even supposed to be competitive. Here in 2012, Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill made a gamble to back Republican Todd Akin in the three-way Republican primary. Akin won, and the rest is legitimate history. Nearly two years later, some are asking whether McCaskill – whose political stock has been on there rise since her 2012 victory – was involved again. Wednesday night, hours after Taylor’s announcement, an aide to McCaskill said she did speak with Taylor in recent weeks surrounding his decision to drop out. ‘Claire did talk with Chad Taylor and was happy to,’ the aide said. ‘She thinks very highly of him and thinks he has a very bright political future. And she knows these decisions are both hard and personal.’

“McCaskill’s involvement comes as she has been working to raise her profile as a party leader. In Missouri, McCaskill has led Democratic efforts to take back seats in the Legislature and contributed $200,000 of her own money to the cause. Nationally, McCaskill has said she will back Hillary Clinton for president. She was one of the first Senate Democrats to support the “Ready for Hillary” PAC, and has traveled to Iowa to campaign for her. Last week, the Kansas City Star reported that the former state Representative and state auditor was even flirting with a run for governor. McCaskill has made no secret her hope to be Missouri’s first female chief executive. That 2016 question for McCaskill, the report noted, may have something to do with what happens in 2014′s U.S. Senate elections.” http://bit.ly/1pszXdR

What goes around, comes around. This time, if McCaskill has her way, it will happen in Kansas like it did in Missouri two years ago.