Karma and other stories

A woman in Idaho, an animal lover, killed a protected raptor, a Falcon, to save a duck. The woman saw the falcon take a duck out of midair.

RAPTOR RAPPED
An Idaho woman’s overzealous sympathy for the hunted over the hunter may land her in jail, The Coeur d’Alene Press reports. In January, Patti McDonald allegedly meted out a dose of unnatural selection when she came upon Hornet, a falcon owned by hunter Scott Dinger. In his investigation of the incident which reportedly led to the bird of prey’s demise, Craig Walker, an Idaho Department of Fish and Game regional conservation officer said his office received a phone call from an unidentified woman who said she saw a falcon take a duck from the air and then went to the aid of the duck and tried to scare away the falcon. When the falcon remained in place holding the duck, the woman said she removed a scarf that had beads on it and beat the bird. “The woman later stated that she had been very upset about the duck being injured, but felt bad about injuring someone’s pet, because she “beat the crap out of it really hard,” the report states. If found guilty, McDonald could be sentenced to a maximum of six months in jail and $5,000 in fines. — FOX Newsletter, March 17, 2015.

This reminds me of the report from a year or so ago when a woman who had hit a deer in a deer-crossing zone, wanted the signs moved so the deer would cross elsewhere.

Sigh…

***

Tyranny begets legislation. The City of Columbia has passed some ordinances to block businesses from performing background checks on new employees. I supposed the city wants to make Columbia a safe place for criminals to live and pursue their profession. This, and other ordinances passed by cities around the state has prompted the legislature to respond.

Gowntown versus Capital City is a feud over local control in Missouri, Kansas

College-town politics don’t exactly match up with the increasingly conservative leanings of Missouri and Kansas.

That doesn’t stop leaders in the University of Missouri’s hometown from pushing on.

Since the beginning of December, the Columbia City Council has banned private businesses from conducting criminal background checks on job applicants and implemented regulations on ride-booking services such as Uber and Lyft.

It raised the age to buy cigarettes within the city to 21 and barred the indoor use of e-cigarettes.

Thirty miles south in Jefferson City, the Republican-dominated Missouri General Assembly has taken disdainful notice.

The implications of what happens next could be felt across the state, as a series of bills make their way through the legislature aimed at blocking or overturning local laws.

“This is about the role of government,” said Rep. Caleb Rowden, a Columbia Republican. “Columbia is off track and so we need to define the lines between the roles of local and state government.”

Several of the bills may be inspired by the actions of a college-town city council, but their impact won’t be confined to Columbia.

City, county and school district leaders have long complained about actions they deem as interfering with local control. But facing what some say is an unprecedented number of legislative challenges to their authority, local officials around the state are crying foul.

“Nobody knows local affairs better than the locals. Nobody is better able to respond to local needs better than the locals,” said Kansas City Mayor Sly James. “To have people, the majority of whom don’t live in the locale, trying to implement one-size-fits-all policies, I think is shortsighted and unwise at best.”

Columbia is a rabid enclave of ‘progressives’ in the middle of a conservative state. Like their counterparts in St. Louis and Kansas City, they want to impose their brand of liberal tyranny on their residents.  These are the same cities who fought tooth and claw against CCW and other conservative issues. Jackson County to this day imposes severe constraints on CCW applicants and those seeking a renewal in spite of state law. Columbia, like her two sister cities, continue to seek their version of progressive governance that further restricts our liberty and endangers our safety.

 

Is he, or isn’t he?

That is the question. What question? Whether Obama is a Muslim or not.

I’ve not written nor spoke about this issue before, although many others have and claimed Obama is a Muslim. Yes, he attended Jeremiah Wright’s church for twenty years. Many Christians also claim that Wright’s brand of theology is far removed from Christianity.

This week the issue came to the forefront initially by an interview of Rudy Giuliani when Giuliani said Obama did not love America. You can guess how that went over with the MSM. After the liberals and MSM drew their bloody knives, Giuliani, amid death threats, went one step further.

Rudy Giuliani Doubles Down – ‘No, Obama Doesn’t LOVE America’

The former Mayor of New York City knows how to make some waves. Rudy Giuliani cut his teeth putting mobsters behind bars in crime-infested New York City, then he became Mayor of New York and cleaned the city up – helping it to reclaim her status as the greatest city in the world.

Now he’s stirring things up again with a recent frontal assault on president Obama’s love of country. Just a few days ago he shocked the liberal media when he questioned President Obama’s love of our nation.

First of all, I’m not questioning his patriotism. He’s a patriot, I’m sure. What I’m saying is that in his rhetoric I very rarely hear him say the things that I used to hear Ronald Reagan say, the things I used to hear Bill Clinton say about how much he loves America. I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American presidents. And when it’s not in the context of overwhelming number of statements about the exceptionalism of America, it sounds like he’s more of a critic than he is a supporter. You can be a patriotic American and be a critic, but then you’re not expressing that kind of love that we’re used to from a president…

What I question about the president, maybe it’s even broader than that he doesn’t express love of America enough, which I don’t think he does. I think he talks more about criticism rather than about what an exceptional country we are. At least I don’t feel that form him. Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t feel that.I also don’t believe he expresses a love of Western civilization that he should or understanding of Western civilization or what Western civilization has brought to the world. It’s had its grave, grave faults, terrible sins, but it’s also gone through things like the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Counter-Reformation. We have three different forms of Judaism; reformed, conservative, orthodox. They all live together, they don’t kill each other, they don’t stone each other. At one time they did, a long time ago.But now how about we talk about how we get Islam into the modern age where there is a recognition that you have to have this kind of debate within your religion and it’s got to come out in the open. It’s got to be discussed. If you refuse to say that there are extremist members of the Islamic religion, then it sounds like you’re living on Mars.

But Rudy Giuliani wasn’t finished. He’s no ‘shrinking violet.’ He has a reputation of pushing back when pushed. He continued on the offensive not only defending his earlier remarks but taking another step forward.

I’m right about this. I have no doubt about it. I do not withdraw my words. If the president goes and makes a speech and talks about what a great country this is, if the president could complete the following sentence, during the Crusades the Christians were barbarians and so were the Muslims, if the president could say Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is our enemy, I will applaud the president. But until he does that, I will have doubts about his emotions, his feelings, his attitudes and the way in which he developed. We haven’t even mentioned some of the other communists and leftists who educated him as a young man. But all we need is Reverend Wright. 17 years in that church and that man condemned America over and over and over again. And he remained a member of that church?

I am saying, and I may be wrong, it’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it, I do not detect in this man the same rhetoric and the same language, the same love of America that I detected in other American presidents, including Democrats. And I think it guides a lot of the things that he says and a lot of the things that he does.

The MSM isn’t satisfied with trashing Giuliani. They attempted to ambush Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker when he attended the winter session of the National Governors Association. A reporter asked Walker if he thought Obama was a Christian.

Gov. Scott Walker: ‘I don’t know’ whether Obama is a Christian

February 21, 2015
http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/02/20/Production/Daily/Editorial-Opinion/Images/208041222.jpg?uuid=JQj-qLlAEeSqBRzoErP90g

Scott K. Walker, governor of Wisconsin, dismissed questions about President Obama’s faith Saturday. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News)

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a prospective Republican presidential contender, said Saturday he does not know whether President Obama is a Christian.

“I don’t know,” Walker said in an interview at the JW Marriott hotel in Washington, where he was attending the winter meeting of the National Governors Association.

“I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that,” Walker said, his voice calm and firm. “I’ve never asked him that,” he added. “You’ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven’t had a conversation with about that. How [could] I say if I know either of you are a Christian?”

Walker said such questions from reporters are reflective of a broader problem in the nation’s political-media culture, which he described as fixated on issues that are not relevant to most Americans.“

To me, this is a classic example of why people hate Washington and, increasingly, they dislike the press,” he said. “The things they care about don’t even remotely come close to what you’re asking about.”

The MSM tried to ambush Scott Walker but failed. Walker neatly stepped out of the trap the reporter had laid for him. It was the MSM who changed the topic from Obama’s love or hatred of America to Obama’s religious views.

I had an opportunity to briefly meet Rudy Giuliani a few years ago. He and several others gave speeches about leadership. It was a seminar series that toured the country and my employer bought a block of tickets for their employees. I was one of those who attended. After all the speeches were over, we were conducted to a hospitality suite where Giuliani and others were present. I shook Rudy’s hand and we spoke a few sentences. I doubt if Giuliani remembers. I remember his openness and honesty. I don’t agree with all of Giuliani’s politics. He’s more ‘moderate’ than me, but I never doubted his sincerity nor his courage

The conversation since Giuliani’s first statement has shifted from Obama’s love of America to Obama’s religion. Many believe Obama is a Muslim. I’ve not gotten into those discussions before. I believe a person’s acts speak louder than words.

But the question is now being asked at the national level. It’s no longer a topic for the Tin-Foil Hat crowd. The MSM has, unintentionally perhaps, raised the question, “Is Obama a Muslim?” If I must, as I said above, judge a person by his actions, then the answer must be, “Yes, he is.”

It’s Live! From the State Department…

http://imgs.ntd.tv/pic/2014/1-22/p3642301a33403066.jpg

State Department Spokeswoman, Marie Harf.

I listened to the interview given by State Department spokesman, oops, spokeswoman, Marie Harf. After listening to her babble for a bit, I was struck with the realization that Ms Harf was the source of every blond joke I’ve ever heard. She continued to be the poster-girl of blond jokes by claiming, later to critics of her statements, that her remarks were, “too nuanced,” for the common people to understand.

I’m filing this episode of the liberal mindset under, “Reality beats fiction.”

Ramirez-02182015

 

 

They’re off!

The 2016 campaign season started this week with GOP sessions in Iowa and other locales. Ted Cruz, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio received applause. Rand Paul a few less, mainly due to his lack of support for national security. Apparently Rand Paul has no problems with the Castros in Cuba. Cruz and Rubio, do. In Arizona, John McCain was booed at the AZ state GOP meeting and Sarah Palin hinted she may consider running again in 2016. Of course, the liberal media went into hysterics. All-in-all, it was a good start.

***

Everyone is watching the scenes and positions: Conservatives vs. RINOs, RINOs and Liberals against Conservatives. There  is another, less well known, battle going on in, of all places, the gamer and science-fiction communities. Have you heard about Gamergate and the controversy in the SFWA (Science Fiction Writers of America) over the Hugo Award? Most people think the conservative vs. progressive conflict involved only politics. Wrong!

Gamergate is…complicated. The SFWA controversy less so. Both involve censorship and attacks by ‘progressives’ against more conservative participants. Gamergate, a term created by Firefly actor, Adam Baldwin, began with a controversy involving sexism, feminism in on-line games. Self-declared critics quickly took sides and the battle was on. Taken as a whole, Gamergate is trivial. Viewed as a cultural battle, it is another battleground used by the progressive movement to change American culture into a tyranny where free speech and expression do not exist.

It issue became so controversial that Wiki banned five feminist editors from touching the topic. The issue was ‘fairness.’ ‘Fairness,’ however, depends on your personal viewpoint. Wiki strives to maintain impartiality for their online encyclopedia. Usually, they are successful and this ban is a response to maintain that impartiality.

The SFWA/Hugo Award controversy is less confused. Larry Corriea, a SF/Fantasy writer is on one side, that of conservatives, many of them members of the Baen writers group. Baen writers are generally conservative. Many of the writers product military science fiction and write with a more conservative viewpoint. On the other side is John Scalzi, a self-declared liberal and progressive, and the progressive members of SFWA.

An explanation about the Hugo awards controversy

A few days ago the finalists for the Hugo were announced. The Hugos are the big prestigious award for science fiction and fantasy. One of my books was a finalist for best novel. A bunch of other works that I recommended showed up in other categories. Because I’m an outspoken right winger, hilarity ensued.

Many of you have never heard of me before, but the internet was quick to explain to you what a horrible person I am. There have been allegations of fraud, vote buying, log rolling, and making up fake accounts. The character assassination has started as well, and my detractors posted and tweeted and told anyone who would listen about how I was a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, a rape apologist, an angry white man, a religious fanatic, and how I wanted to drag homosexuals to death behind my pickup truck.

The libel and slander over the last few days have been so ridiculous that my wife was contacted by people she hasn’t talked to for years, concerned that she was married to such a horrible, awful, hateful, bad person, and that they were worried for her safety.

I wish I was exaggerating. Don’t take my word for it. My readers have been collecting a lot of them in the comments of the previous Hugo post and on my Facebook page. Plug my name into Google for the last few days. Make sure to read the comments to the various articles too. They’re fantastic.

Of course, none of this stuff is true, but it was expected. I knew if I succeeded I would be attacked. To the perpetually outraged the truth doesn’t matter, just feelings and narrative. I’d actually like to thank all of those people making stuff up about me because they are proving the point I was trying to make to begin with.

Allow me to explain why the presence of my slate on the Hugo nominations is so controversial. This is complicated and your time is valuable, so short explanation first, longer explanation if you care after.

Short Version:

  1. I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied.
  2. So I got some right wingers on the ballot.
  3. The biased voters immediately got all outraged and mobilized to do exactly what I said they’d do.
  4. Point made.

The column continues with a discussion about motives and issues surrounding the award process. If you read all of Correia’s post, you will notice the controversy is not about books, novels, nor much about their quality nor content. It’s about politics—conservatives vs. liberals.

On the other side, among many, is John Scalzi, past President of SFWA whose term expired in 2013. Scalzi, perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, chose to not run again for office. His name was the only one on the ballot when he was elected.

Correia and Vox Day have been accused of attempting to stuff the ballot box by creating proxy memberships in SFWA. Scalzi admits that the tactic has been used before by liberal writers in their attempts to win Hugos. The tactic is fine when liberal writers do it. But when Correia gathers some real conservative writers and persuades them to join SFWA, it suddenly become controversial. Another form of the liberal bias is the weighted voting system. Toni Weisskopf, Baen’s publisher, had the most votes for Editor Long Form award, but came in 2nd due to WSFS’s (World Science Fiction Society) weighted voting system. Baen’s conservative books are an anathema in the SFWA.

Scalzi wrote this posting after the Hugo Awards were announced. I’ve never heard of the winning writers, Charles Stross excepted, and I’ve been reading science fiction since I was in grade school sixty years ago. Of the winners, however, every single one of them is a progressive who push their political agenda openly in their novels. Even USA Today noticed the conflict.

Thoughts On the Hugo Awards, 2014

Retaliation

If you thought the GOP establishment would accept the flood of new conservatives in Congress, you were wrong. McConnell, et. al., is already planning to remove leading conservative Senators. Ted Cruz is too strong in Texas, but Mike Lee of Utah is perceived to be weaker.

They’re Coming for Mike Lee

Erick Erickson (Diary)  | 

It is extremely notable that Manu Raju of the Politico has written that the establishment intends to destroy Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)See Full Scorecard97%. Raju serves as the court stenographer for the Senate GOP leadership. His pieces are routinely littered with the conventional wisdom and talking points of the Senate GOP leadership. He has more than once anticipated Senate GOP leadership strategy based on their conversations with him.

So when Manu Raju says the establishment intends to go on offense against the tea party by beating Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)97% in the Utah Republican Primary, we can be sure Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)67%, the NRSC, etc. will be stepping aside and failing to give Lee the support they gave Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)51%, etc.

Of note, the story focuses on Jon Huntsman, Sr., who remains well respected in Utah. Huntsman, you will recall, is the man who spread the rumors about Herman Cain in 2012, in an effort to help his son, Jon Huntsman the lesser, run for President. All he managed to accomplish was taking out Herman Cain and getting his granddaughter an MSNBC show.
But Huntsman is clearly planning on destroying Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)97% to gain a tea party scalp and the GOP establishment in D.C. clearly plans on standing aside to let it happen.

You can read the entire article by following this link.

One interesting portion of the article is the involvement of the Huntsman family. John Huntsman was a candidate for President in 2012. As the campaign progressed, his views aligned him more with Obama and the democrats that with any of the remaining GOP candidates. In the end, it became clear that Huntsman’s purpose in the campaign was the disruption of the other GOP candidates instead of a true run for the Presidency. With the Huntsman family deep pockets, Mike Lee will be the underdog in funding his re-election to the Senate.

***

Bill de Blasio and Al Sharpton have been accused with fomenting the tension that led to the murders of two New York police officers. When New York Mayor de Blasio attended a memorial service for the two officers, many of the officers attending turned their backs to the Mayor.

Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik said,They [de Blasio and Sharpton] have blood on their hands.”  The statement appeared in an article appearing in The American Thinker. De Blasio’s relations with the NYPD continue to deteriorate. With growing pro-police pressure, de Blasio attempted to step back and issued a statement pleading for a cessation of the anti-police protests. Al Sharpton, one of the protest leaders, refused.

The growing disruption is a creation of the media and of charlatans like Sharpton. They claim Eric Garner was choked to death while being arrested. He was not. Eric Garner died of natural causes, a heart attack, an hour after being arrested due to his own health issues. You won’t learn that in the media. No, you have to review the coroner’s reports because the media ignored that vital piece of information. The Coroner blamed the cops before the Grand Jury, but when the report was examined, it said otherwise.

The misinformation by the media and their liberal accomplices are slowly coming to light. Generations of Americans have been mislead by the liberal controlled media. Some members of the black community are beginning to realize they’ve been lied to for decades. Follow the link. It is an interesting read.

NYT: All the worthless news unfit to print

From time to time it is important to ridicule those institutions who continually expose their stupidly. The New York Times is a perfect example.

The New York Times published a piece attempting to foment dissent within the ‘Pubs. Their core theme was correct, there are ‘Pubs fomenting dissension…just not Ben Carson.

G.O.P. Hopes for Unity May Be Upset by Ben Carson

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.