Friday Follies for January 23, 2015

Under the tag line of, “You’ve got to be kidding me!” comes this tidbit from Politico. Given their continuing failures in reporting news, CNN is in discussion with changing Anderson Cooper’s 360 program to a game show. We all know that CNN has not been a news channel since the first Gulf War when their lead anchor, Bernard Shaw, had hysterics in Bagdad at the start of the Gulf War I air war. I suppose it’s only reasonable that CNN comes out of the closet and admits it hasn’t been a news channel and moves on.

CNN developing political game show

By DYLAN BYERS, 1/21/15 2:42 PM EST

CNN is producing a new political game show hosted by Anderson Cooper, TVNewser reports.

The show, which is set to air on Presidents’ Day, will be a quiz-style program focused on presidential politics. If the show is a success, CNN is likely to produce future episodes.

We’ve reached out to CNN for more details and will update here if and when we hear back.

CNN, like MSNBC, has drifted so far from reality that nothing they do now surprises me.

***

The Jubilee has come! Eric Holder actually changes DoJ policy in favor of the states. The FedGov will no longer usurp state and local asset forfeiture cases. In many of those cases, the state and local law was more restrictive than federal law. The DoJ would takeover cases then give local PDs a cut-of-the-action. Theft by government order. I’ve never liked asset forfeiture until the accused has actually been convicted and sentenced. Even then the laws are too broad; seizing accounts and assets unrelated to the actual crime(s).

Holder Has Made It Harder for Federal Government to Legally Seize Your Property

Jason Snead / / Andrew Kloster / /

In a stunning announcement last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Department of Justice would immediately stop “adopting” state civil asset forfeiture cases. Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement came exactly one week after leaders on Capitol Hill called on him to halt the controversial program as a step toward broader reform of the nation’s civil forfeiture system.

Before today’s announcement, federal agencies could take over, or “adopt,” forfeiture cases from local or state law enforcement agencies. In other words, state or local law enforcement personnel would seize property and then turn it over to the federal government to process.

Pursuant to agreements with the federal government, once the property was successfully forfeited in federal court, the originating state or local agency got a portion of the proceeds, potentially as high as 80 percent. That money had to be used for law enforcement operations, placing it beyond the control of local governments and state legislators.

The program became the subject of controversy for effectively allowing local agencies to circumvent restrictive state laws in favor of the potentially more lucrative federal route, raising serious federalism and good government concerns. Even where states had strong procedural safeguards for property owners or limitations on the use of forfeiture funds, law enforcement could partner with the federal government and use federal rules to seize property and make use of the profits.

Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., and John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote that “these seizures might circumvent state forfeiture law restrictions, create improper incentives on the part of state and local law enforcement, and unnecessarily burden our federal authorities.”

Apparently responding to these concerns, the attorney general’s new policy bars federal authorities from adopting local or state seizures of “vehicles, valuables, cash and other monetary instruments.” The AG was able to make this change unilaterally because the statutes underlying federal civil forfeiture made the equitable sharing payments optional. The Department of Justice has the authority to craft, and to change, the rules of the program. The Treasury Department, which operates its own forfeiture fund, announced its forfeiture operations will conform to the same guidelines as those laid out by Holder.

The article continues with an explanation of exceptions under Holder’s new directive. All-in-all, it’s a step in the right direction.

***

Ya just gotta love Dave Clark. Who’s he? He’s the black, conservative, Milwaukee County Sheriff who won his last election despite the efforts of liberals who hate black conservatives. He does not hesitate to make his opinions known. This time the subject was Al Sharpton.

David Clarke, Wisconsin sheriff: ‘Al Sharpton ought to go back into the gutter he came from’

– The Washington Times – Thursday, January 22, 2015
http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2014/12/10/david-clarke_s878x473.jpg?de75613b37228017a9f5cb3e6ff07328005a3223

Milwaukee’s tough-talking black sheriff, David Clarke, argued this week that white Americans have “made great strides” in healing race relations, and that sooner or later they’re going to grow tired of having their noses “rubbed in the past sins of slavery.”

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke didn’t pull any punches in his assessment of the Rev. Al Sharpton — who vowed to keep fighting for justice for slain Ferguson teen Michael Brown, despite the feds’ decision to drop a civil rights investigation — and characterized him on national television as less than intelligent and unworthy of respect.

“The grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, got it right,” Sheriff Clarke said, during an appearance on “Fox & Friends.” “Officer [Darren] Wilson has been exonerated. The thing I want to know is how does he get his reputation back?”

Sheriff Clarke then directed anger at Mr. Sharpton, who spoke sharply in the wake of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision not to prosecute Mr. Wilson, a former police officer, on civil rights charges.

Sic’em Dave!

***

Former Speaker of the House, Tom Delay.

Tom Delay may be out of Congress, but the libs failed to defeat him. The Texas Supreme Court ended the Travis County (Austin, TX) democrat prosecutor’s vendetta against Delay. He’s back now with a review of Obama’s SOTU speech earlier this week.

In Obama’s speech, a conservative call to arms

– – Thursday, January 22, 2015

I found President Obama’s State of the Union address this week infuriating — and exhilarating.

It was infuriating for all the usual reasons. For all the talk that this time things would be different, in the first State of the Union speech since the American people repudiated his entire agenda we got the same old Mr. Obama, arrogant, disdainful, defiant of the new Republican majorities and of the voters who sent them to Washington. Had there been a referee on the premises, he would have thrown a flag for taunting.

It was perhaps the most in-your-face speech of this kind that I have ever heard, and I felt for the Republican lawmakers who had to sit through it, knowing that the television cameras were ready to pick up any scowl, eye roll or failure to join a “spontaneous” standing ovation. (It must have been especially tough for House Speaker John Boehner, who had to preserve his dignity and remain polite while Joe Biden was bouncing up and down like a manic jack-in-the box behind the president.)

The president either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that his party badly lost the elections. He’s not listening to the American people, as was evident in the very first minutes of his speech when he laid out the same old tired agenda that dragged down the Democrats in the first place. When President Clinton got a similar repudiation in the 1990s, at least he had the smarts to cooperate — sometimes kicking and screaming — with our new Republican majorities to get items like welfare reform passed. Things worked out so well that now Mr. Clinton brags about the things we forced him to accept.

That’s clearly not Mr. Obama’s way. What we got instead was one of the most misguided, frankly unconstitutional speeches ever given by an American president. The president called for universal child care, gender pay equity, guaranteed paid sick leave for workers, a higher minimum wage, free community college and new rules to make labor unions stronger — not one of which is the responsibility of the federal government under the Constitution. Then he laid out all the things he’s ready to veto if he doesn’t get his way — not exactly the bipartisan outreach that his advisers said was coming.

Even more infuriating — if possible — was Mr. Obama’s boasting about how far we have allegedly come under his watch. He bragged of bringing down the federal deficit in recent years when it was his uncontrolled — and unconstitutional — spending and taxing that ran up the deficit and debt in the first place. The official unemployment rate is down, but only because 90 million Americans have grown so discouraged that they’ve dropped out of the labor market altogether.

The president says he wants to turn his attention to stagnant wages and income inequality, apparently oblivious to the fact that wages aren’t going up precisely because there is a vast army of nonworkers out there saturating the job market. And income inequality will never be “fixed” by taxing the job producers more and giving the money to people who aren’t working. That approach has failed everywhere it has been tried.

The president’s victory lap was even more incredible when you consider the full plate of crises beyond our borders, from Russia and Iran to Yemen, Nigeria and Syria — the easily foreseen consequences of an administration that brags of “leading from behind.” The president claims the “shadow of crisis” has passed, but that’s not true to anyone who has been paying attention.

So why the exhilaration, you ask?

The more I listened to the speech, the more I was convinced that the president is handing the Republicans an incredible opportunity. He’s not backing down from his disastrous progressive agenda, and that means conservatives cannot afford to back down from theirs.

New Sen. Joni Ernst struck a nice, hopeful tone in her official rebuttal speech, but building the Keystone pipeline and getting more help to vets is not a full agenda. The joint House-Senate Republican retreat last week was another missed opportunity to pre-empt the president’s liberal agenda, to put a true constitutional conservative program on the table and force this president to react.

But Mr. Obama’s speech made it crystal clear that Republicans have no alternative to confrontation, a clash that should last through the 2016 election. Facing a delusional and defiant president, this is no time for conservatives to play small-ball. We need a bold agenda that presents an alternative to the left. We need real, pro-growth tax reform. We need to repeal Obamacare — now. We need to slash spending. We need to defund the president’s illegal executive actions, starting with his amnesty for illegal immigrants. We have to show we respect life and traditional values.

There can be no debate about it any more. Barack Obama has made it unmistakably clear he wants a fight.

We should give him one.

Well said, Tom. Well said.

Waiting for Godot

Ferguson has been on the mind of just about everyone in Missouri…and in a few other places, too. Jay Nixon has declared a State of Emergency, if you haven’t noticed, in anticipation of an innocent verdict. He’s also sending National Guard elements to St. Louis and Kansas City. Outside agitators say they’ll riot if Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson isn’t indicted for ‘something’.

Ferguson and St Louis residents are preparing, too. Gun sales have gone through the roof.

Evidence that has been leaked by insiders to the Grand Jury, clearly supports Wilson’s version of the event and exposes the lies of some of the witnesses. Evidence, or innocence, isn’t the issue for some. Wilson is guilty, if nothing else, of being a white police officer in an area where the majority of the citizens aren’t. Those agitators don’t care whether Wilson is innocent or guilty. The situation provides an opportunity for them to create unrest to pursue their agenda.

Mrs. Crucis was watching the news most of yesterday. She teaches in a local seminary in Kansas City. Most of her students are black. She isn’t concern about them, but for them. Her students won’t be the ones out on the street. They have families, jobs, and are too busy to be protesting on the streets. No, her concern is that they will have to travel the streets of Kansas City, endangering themselves, if Wilson is found innocent and lawless protests break out in Kansas City.

Jay Nixon has won no laurels with his proclamation of a State of Emergency. Some political activists claim that Nixon’s proclamation was illegal, that such proclamations can only be declared after the fact, not before.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who has never met a democrat they didn’t like and support, published this cartoon about democrat Governor Jay Nixon. It speaks for itself.

http://static.ow.ly/photos/original/7Dha2.jpg

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

So we’re all patiently, well some not so patiently, waiting for news from the Grand Jury. Will the jury accept the evidence that Wilson was doing his duty and defending himself, or will they throw a scapegoat to the mob?

Today’s post title is taken from a play by nihilist, Samuel Beckett. In his play, two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, wait endlessly and in vain for the arrival of someone named Godot. Today and until the Grand Jury in St. Louis speaks, we are all like Vladimir and Estragon, endlessly waiting, not for the arrival of Godot but for the Ferguson grand jury to speak.

The day of the Tyrants…

…will soon begin to end…or at least, hit a speed bump. The level of tyranny changes on a daily basis. One of the most egregious acts by a tyrant, an act clearly unconstitutional, has been reversed. Houston Mayor Annise Parker has told her enablers to withdraw the subpoenas to seize the sermons of five Houston pastors. Her reason for the subpoena? It violated her new anti-gay/anti-free speech edict.

She received immediate push-back. The Texas Attorney General wrote her a letter informing her that she was violating the 1st Amendment. The Houston-Five, as they are now known, refused to comply with the Mayor’s order. Christians and conservative began to send Bibles to the mayor. Finally, when she realized she had really stepped into a pile of hot, steaming dung, she reversed her order.

Houston mayor drops bid to subpoena pastors’ sermons

Subpoenas issued to five Houston pastors demanding all sermons and correspondence dealing with homosexuality, gender identity and the city’s Equal Rights ordinance have been withdrawn, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor announced at a Wednesday press conference.

“After much contemplation and discussion, I am directing the city legal department to withdraw the subpoenas issued to the five Houston pastors who delivered the petitions, the anti-HERO petitions, to the city of Houston and who indicated that they were responsible for the overall petition effort,” said Mayor Annise Parker in remarks covered by television station KPRC.

My column on the issue sparked a bit of national outrage – well – a lot of national outrage. To be honest it was a full-scale hullabaloo. City Hall was deluged with telephone calls, letters, emails – along with hundreds of Bibles and sermons. More than 50,000 supporters signed a petition.

Nevertheless, the mayor still seems hell-bent on defending the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance – a piece of legislation that will in part give grown men who identify as women the right to use the restrooms of their choice.

“It is extremely important to me to protect our Equal Rights Ordinance from repeal, and it is extremely important to me to make sure that every Houstonian knows that their lives are valid and protected and acknowledged,” Parker said. “We are going to continue to vigorously defend our ordinance against repeal efforts.”

Tyranny retreats in the face of opposition. As she was quoted above, Houston’s tyrant has no intention of backing down. This setback is just a small pause in the progress of her tyrannical agenda.

We, here near Kansas City, have another example of tyranny. Over the summer, Kansas City Mayor Sly James rammed through the city council an ordinance banning the open carry of firearms. In itself, such an act has been done in cities across America. What was most tyrannical in this case was the motivation behind the ordinance—suppression of free speech.

He said aggressive open carrying of weapons can be intimidating for customers and bad for business. — Kansas City Star.

Mayor James’ logic for the ordinance was that he didn’t want to see people legally carrying firearms openly in Kansas City. He could not provide any evidence that carrying weapons increased lawlessness but he could create a law to make open carry illegal. The Missouri Legislature passed a law this year that made James’ ordinance invalid—but only for those licensed carry a weapon concealed.

Mayor James knew his ordinance would soon be invalid but he pushed it through anyway. His purpose was not public saftety. He knew he had no evidence that his law would improve that. No, the ordinance was enacted solely to curb acts of free speech from the Open Carry advocates.

There are more instances of liberal tyranny across the country. In Idaho, a city passed an ordinance requiring churches to perform same-sex marriages regardless of the minister’s religious views. The order was a clear violation of the 1st Amendment but liberals ignore the Constitution when they violate it.

That Idaho city has now backed off from their order—which included jail time and heavy fines for non-compliance. But never doubt, tyranny is only waiting for attention to wander and they will return. That is why we must be always vigilant and ready to respond to every tyrannical act.

One week

We’re a week away from the election. In a number of states, including Missouri, people have already voted. In Missouri, it absentee voting. The other states have early voting, a scheme by democrats to make vote fraud easier.

Easier? How?

It’s simple. Most county clerks really don’t do a passable job. For them it’s best to just ease along, not making any waves. When people register to vote, they don’t cross check to see if the person is already registered with another name. For instance, I, like most Americans, that three names. Let’s make up one, John Thomas Roberts. Mr Roberts could be registered as John Roberts, Tom Roberts, John T. Roberts, J. Thomas Roberts at 123 Main Street. If the clerk mistypes the address, some of those entries could be at 123 Main Street, others at 124 Main Street—and everyone version would be registered as a real voters. Mr. Roberts could, therefore, vote four times—more if he voted early and then showed up at the polls as well. You see, most county clerks never cross-check, nor remove early voters from the poll registry. Mr. Roberts could, theoretically, vote eight times.

In areas in Kansas City, St. Louis, and other liberal bastions across the state, the local poll judges wouldn’t be able to stop them. In times past, some judges were blocked from the polls, or intimidated by thugs. Kansas City’s past history in the last decades has had both.

http://media.cleveland.com/plain_dealer_metro/photo/11647531-large.jpg

Polling station with paper ballots

Can we eliminate vote fraud? No, not completely. What we can do, however, is make vote fraud much more difficult. First, require voting by paper ballots. In my county, we mark our choices in black ink on the ballot and then it is scanned and read. Fool proof? No. If the ballot is improperly marked it could be misread. The scanner can have basic logic to reject ballots that have no votes, two votes for the same office, or marks outside of the selection box. But, if there is a question later on the vote count, those paper ballots are still available for a real person to check.

What else can be done? Photo Voter-ID, using a photo taken at the time of registration. Liberal claims to the contrary, if a photo ID is required to cash a check, there is no reason why a photo-ID can’t be required to vote. All claims to the contrary are just tactics by liberals to preserve their ability for vote fraud.

What else? Eliminate early voting. The democrat adage, “Vote early, vote often,” is real. Should we eliminate absentee voting? No, there are legitimate reasons for absentee voting. Citizens in the military, deployed  outside the country or based in other states, retain their right to vote and to have their votes counted. There are mechanisms in place for the military to vote. There are also legitimate reason why others, not in the military, cannot be present to vote at their polls. But, in those cases, the absentee voter should present and sign an affidavit attesting to their reason for not voting at their home polling station, such as travel or illness to name two.

Our Republic is based on the fundamental right of its citizens who meet the established requirements for a voter. That means that aliens, non-citizens, whether here legally or illegally, do NOT vote. The democrats want those illegal votes, it dilutes the votes of citizens and the democrats believe those illegal votes can be bought. The legality of voting is irrelevant to them. Voting is nothing more than a means for them to gain and retain power. If they thought they could get away with it, and if we don’t fight them, one day our right to vote and have it counted, will be no more.

This election appears to be leading to a ‘Pub victory in many areas of the country and in Missouri. Let’s work with our legislators, local and national, in the 2015 session to pass, and override vetos, for some real voter security—paper ballots, audits of the voting rolls and insuring they are clean, passing Photo-IDs for registration and voting, and putting some real teeth in penalties for vote fraud. In many instances, vote fraud is only a misdemeanor. Vote fraud should be a felony with a long prison term and heavy fines.

The United States is a republic, not a democracy nor a mobocracy. We must have the tools to insure it remains a republic. Else, we will have not a republic, not a democracy, but the rule of elites of a single party—just like the old USSR.

Hearts and Minds

…is an old phrase made famous in the ’60s and ’70s. The concept was valid. However, the implementation left a lot to be desired. The phrase came to me today as I read an article in the American Thinker. Most of the nation is watching the candidates for federal office. But there are hundreds of other candidates running for local, county and state offices as well and the prognosis for THEM is more telling on the sensibilities of the country. The outlook for the dems is potentially worse than anyone thought.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/content/images//2014-10-16%20Senate%20Map%20(600).png

Center for Politics Projected Map of the 2014 general election

One clarification. When the article below speaks of chambers, it counts the state Houses and state Senates separately. One state, Nebraska, has a single-chamber legislature. Nebraska is also, by state law, non-partisan. That leaves 98 partisan legislative chambers.

State Legislatures and 2014

By Bruce Walker, October 19, 2014

Most of the midterm attention seems to be on control of the United States Senate, with some attention on key gubernatorial races like Florida and Wisconsin, and with a smidgen of notion to the size of the Republican House majority after 2014.  Most pundits see Republicans padding that current majority by some seats.

There is another level to the 2014 midterm that passes almost completely under the political radar:  control of state legislatures.  Twenty years ago, in the 1994 midterms, Republicans made dramatic gains in state legislatures – a vital part of our constitutional system, which had been utterly dominated by Democrats for a century.

How weak had Republicans been in state legislatures?

Consider these data.  After the 1980 Reagan landslide, Democrats held 74 of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers.  After the 1984 Reagan landslide, in which Democrats carried only one state, Democrats held 67 out of the 98 chambers.  After George H. Bush beat Dukakis in 1988, Democrats held 72 out of 98 chambers.  Even when Republicans were winning the White House easily, Democrats held overwhelming strength in state legislatures.

This really changed when Newt Gingrich nationalized the midterm election with his Contract With America, which swept Republicans into secondary statewide elective offices, like lieutenant governor and state attorney general, as well as state legislative seats.  After the 1994 midterms, Republicans held 46 of the 98 state legislative chambers; they held the same number after Clinton was re-elected in 1996.  This strength actually grew after the 1998 midterms, when Republicans were losing House seats, and grew again after the 2000 presidential election. 

That was a tipping point.  Democrats had long, and rather boastfully, gerrymandered congressional districts so that the number of Democrats in the House was significantly larger than the number of votes Democrat candidates in House races received.  In the reapportionment and redistricting after the 2000 census, Republicans, for the first time in a century, could stop Democrat gerrymandering and, in fact, gerrymander themselves.

Just as importantly, Republicans could now stop Democrat gerrymandering of state legislative districts and could, in fact, draw the district lines in state legislatures to maximize the number of seats Republicans would win.  This strategy proved so resilient that even after the 2008 election – after two straight elections of big Democrat gains – Democrats held only 62 of the state legislative chambers, five fewer than they held after the 1984 Reagan landslide.

Hidden in the congressional gains of the 2010 Republican landslide, the GOP controlled 59 state legislative chambers, far more than at any time in modern history, and as a direct consequence of that, Republican governors like Scott Walker were able to push through laws to limit public employee unions, reduce voter fraud, and protect the sanctity of life, among other conservative reforms.  

Because 2010, like 2000, was the election to choose state legislatures who would draw congressional and state legislative districts for the next decade, this Republican midterm gain was particularly important.  So even when Obama was re-elected in 2012, the congressional seats that had been drawn after the census largely by Republican state legislators elected a comfortable (albeit smaller) House Republican majority, and the state legislative districts drawn largely by Republicans gave the GOP 56 of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers – a slight drop, but far more than Republicans had ever held in the heyday of Reagan or Eisenhower, both of whom won two landslide presidential elections.

After the 2014 midterm, which looks increasingly like a Republican wave election that will bring victory to Republicans in state elections as well as Senate and House elections, that 56 state legislative chambers could grow – perhaps a lot.  The Democrat majority makes for just one vote in the Colorado Senate, Iowa Senate, Nevada Senate, and Washington Senate.  In other chambers, the Democrat majority could easily be swept away by a modest Republican tide: Colorado House, Maine Senate, Minnesota House, Minnesota Senate, Nevada House, New Mexico Senate, New Mexico House, New York Senate, Oregon House, Oregon Senate, Washington House, and West Virginia House. 

Depending upon the outcome of gubernatorial races, this could put Republicans in a position to actually control state government in sates like Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa.  These legislatures could pass and Republican governors sign new laws that rein in the political levies of public employee unions or create new and more effective ways to investigate and prosecute voter fraud.

No one is going to be talking about state legislative races on the Tuesday evening of this midterm, but the impact on politics and policies could be huge.

Liberal tyranny is spreading everywhere from Houston’s Mayor Annise Parker attempting to suppress religious speech to the city of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, ordering two pastors to officiate same-sex marriages or face fines and/or imprisonment. These two examples of suppression of free religious speech is no different from Kansas City’s Mayor Sly James passing an ordinance banning the open carry of a weapon, “to send a message,” to open carry advocates. The purpose of the ordinance was, again, the suppression of free speech and expression.

In the end, all these acts by government are suppression of ‘unalienable’ and constitutional rights by leftist controlled governments. That is why gaining control of local and state governments is so important. Political rot starts at the top. Political recovery begins at the bottom.

Time’s up!

Yesterday, July 14th, was the deadline for Governor Nixon to veto, sign or ignore the pile of bills on his desk. One, SB 656, was one of those waiting for Nixon’s action. Late yesterday—at the very last minute, he vetoed SB 656.

What was SB 656? It was a bill that among other things, allowed teachers to protect their students after extensive training and certification by law enforcement, similar training, in fact, that LEOs undergo.

Nixon vetoed it saying it endangered the children. He prefers School Resource officers. So he said. Some school districts cannot afford hiring police to patrol their schools every day nor does every police department have extra officers to station them at every school.

Regardless of his motives, what Nixon has done was to leave schools open for more shootings. Our students must continue to be taught in free-fire zones.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:49

http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Jay-Nixon-kmov.jpgMissouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) vetoed legislation Monday that would have allowed vetted and trained teachers and school administrators to carry firearms on campus. The measure had passed the Republican-dominated state house by a strong 111-28 vote and the state senate in a 21-7 vote.

“I cannot condone putting firearms in the hands of educators,” Nixon said. “Arming teachers will not make our schools safer.”

Nixon said he supports the use of duly authorized law enforcement officers employed as school resource officers.

The bill, SB 656, was designed to allow school districts to cross-train faculty to a new “school protection officer” standard. These volunteer teachers and administrators would need a valid Missouri concealed-carry permit and complete a Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission certification course. Following these steps, they would be allowed to carry on school grounds if the district opted to allow armed personnel on campus.

Over the summer, no fewer than 10 school districts have sent selected teachers and staff through up to 75 hours of training in anticipation of the bill being signed by the governor. This required training ran at a cost of $17,500 for every two staff members.

Bloomberg surrogates, Moms Demand Action, are ecstatic that student remain endangered.

***

In another firearm related issue, Jackson County quietly passed an ordinance earlier this year prohibiting firing a firearm within the county. The way the law is written, if you have to shoot to protect yourself, you will be arrested, regardless of the merits of the act, for shooting within the county.

Kevin Jamison, one of the creator’s of Missouri’s CCW law and President of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance, had this to say.

Jackson County has an ordinance which prohibits shooting in the “urban tier” of the country. There is a map of this urban tier but it takes some effort to get. It does not exempt self-defense. The ordinance was slipped through last December without public notice. It does allow for ranges but does not define them and no county permit for ranges exists. This complicates some of the CCW instructors who have a home range. There was a hearing on a repeal sponsored by County Legislator Greg Grounds. The hearing was continued to 28 July, 2014 at 2:30 in the Jackson County Independence courthouse, in the basement. There were a great number of people there today. That always gets a politician’s attention.

The Jackson County Sheriff’s office says that they did not request this ordinance.

Spread the word.

***

SJR 36, also known as Amendment 5 on the August 5th ballot continues to be under fire from gun control activists. An appellate hearing occurred yesterday before the Missouri Supreme Court. Ron Calzone, a gun-rights activist was present and made this report.

What do you think “unalienable right” means?

Today I went to the MO Supreme Court hearing over the ballot title for Amendment 5, the super strong gun rights amendment sponsored by Sen. Kurt Schaefer.

The lawyer for the anti-gun side said, (beginning at about 2:50 of the audio link): “The effect of the word ‘unalienable’ has no legal meaning, as we argued in our brief. Three states have, that I have found, have the phrase “inalienable right’ in their constitution. In all three of those states their Supreme Courts have said, specially, that the use of the word ‘inalienable’ does not trigger strict scrutiny standards and that they will review those under rational basis.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/46c3c6fb6b7bd9eb86257d0a00634fcf/$FILE/SC94293.mp3

This type of thinking is exactly why, in SJR 36, we advocated for the addition of a specific requirement that gun rights be protected by “strict scrutiny” standards in court.

For a 4 minute primer on Strict Scrutiny vs. the Rational Basis Test, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzETeTvYDu4

You’ll see that the rational basis test the anti-gun lawyer argued allows government restriction on gun rights for about any reason. You can also see why it’s so important to pass Amendment 5!

Once a Marine, uhhh, Legionnaire…

 

The American Legion

The American Legion

The Obama administration fears veterans, it appears. First they deny benefits to returning and discharged veterans, then they cut funds to the Veterans Administration. Now, they are attacking veteran support organizations like the American Legion.

There were veteran organizations prior to the Legion, many from the Civil War, but none of those elder organizations survive.  The three largest today are the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and Amvets. These three are the most recognizable, but there are many, many more.

The Obama administration is attempting to curb opposition using the IRS as its tool of choice. Their attacks against conservative and Christian organizations have been exposed. Now they are focusing on Veterans.

A very bad choice for them. Veterans have survived privation, stress and warfare. If pushed, does anyone think government bureaucrats can do worse than what these veterans have already experienced? I doubt it.

Rogue IRS Shamefully Targets Nation’s Veterans

 Posted 08/26/2013 07:01 PM ET

 Scandals: One of the nation’s largest veterans groups is being required to provide proof of membership eligibility. Posts that can’t or won’t comply face heavy fines. Your government thanks you for your service.

“The American Legion has recently learned of the so-called IRS ‘audit manual’ and is concerned that portions of it attempt to amend statutes passed by Congress and approved by the president,” American Legion legal counsel Philip Onderdonk Jr. told The Daily Caller.

“The IRS now requires American Legion posts to maintain dates of service and character of service records for all members. …The penalty for not having the required proof of eligibility is, apparently, $1,000 per day,” the American Legion stated.

‘Unconscionable’ is an overused word in describing the abuses of power and the continual overstepping of legal and constitutional boundaries by this administration. But it certainly applies in this case. The American Legion is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit veterans organization chartered and incorporated by Congress in 1919, and now has more than 2.4 million members in 14,000 posts worldwide, according to its website. It has never had to deal with such a requirement until now.

The American Legion will take up the issue during its national convention in Houston this week and decide whether to pursue the matter through the courts or Congress, where at least one lawmaker has already come to the organization’s defense.

“On the heels of Americans’ anger over revelations that the IRS intentionally targeted certain groups, it has been brought to my attention that the IRS is now turning their sights toward our nation’s veterans,” Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran rightly says.

“The IRS seems to be auditing veteran service organizations by requiring private member military service forms.”

We are aware that some individuals, including some politicians, have invented or embellished their service records. But what the IRS is suggesting here is that American Legion posts, as organizations, may be enjoying tax-exempt status under false pretenses.

The Obama administration, which has already dishonored survivors of the Fort Hood terrorist massacre by calling the attack “workplace violence,” causing them to lose needed benefits, now is telling those who have honorably served their country and risked their lives in its defense, “show us your papers.”

I’ve not heard if the VFW, the AMVETS or other veteran organizations have been targeted like the Legion…yet. But, if the IRS attacks one, why would they hesitate from attacking others? And, why attack these organizations? Is it, perhaps, because they are conservative, critical of liberals and the Obama administration, because of their vocal support of veterans against the VA?

I do have a personal stake in this attack on the Legion. I was once a member. I’m not now, but my reasons for not renewing my membership had nothing to do with the parent organization. If I were still a member, I, like the other members, would have to be heading for our lock boxes to get our DD-214s or other documents to prove our active service. Documents that contain much, much more than just our periods of active service.

When I joined, I filled out a form on-line. When I went to my first Legion meeting, I met a couple of my peers from my Air Force days. They, like me, stayed in our local area after we left active service. I hadn’t seen some of them for over thirty years.

The Marines have a saying, “Once a Marine, always a Marine.” I think that motto applies to veterans from all the services. In this case, for me, “Once a Legionnaire, always a Legionnaire.”