Category Archives: Vote Fraud

Bits ‘n Pieces

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

Missouri Secretary of State, Jason Kander

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

Missouri House endorses voter photo ID requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

Social Justice Warriors Come to Campus

By Robert Weissberg, February 19, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebook

One week

Posted on by

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.

Facebook

Missouri Ballot: Constitutional Amendments

Posted on by

Were you aware there are several Constitutional Amendments on the Missouri ballot next month? Many people do not. Only one proposed amendment is getting any attention because it affects education. That one amendment strikes at the education unions, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and their embedded group of administrators and school board members that I call ‘the Education Mafia.’

I’ll speak more about that amendment later, but first let’s examine each amendment in numerical order. The amendments are numbered: #2, #3, #6 and #10. If you would like to do some personal research, follow this link  at www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2014ballot/ and page down past August to the November ballot issues.

The first one, Constitutional Amendment 2, is to restore the ability to use a defendant’s past history as evidence. The defendant’s personal history, if he has a ‘propensity’ to act in a particular manner, would be usable in some cases. The federal government and thirty-three states allow ‘propensity evidence‘, sometimes call ‘character evidence,’ in court. Missouri’s Supreme Court struck down the use of such evidence in 2007.

This amendment allows propensity evidence to be used again in specific cases—sexual offenses against minors. If the amendment is passed, such evidence can be presented in court if the Judge examines the evidence and rules if it is appropriate to the case. For instance, a history of kiting checks would likely not be allowed in a sexual offense trial unless the writing of fraudulent checks can be linked to the sexual offense—difficult, if at all possible. However, other prior offenses that can be linked to other sexual offenses, may be presented if the Judge agrees. Prosecutors across the state are in favor of this amendment.

I recommend voting, “Yes!” on Amendment #2.

Constitution Amendment 3 has the education unions and the Education Mafia up in arms. Why? Because it looses the stricture imposed by tenure. Teachers can be easily fired—and are fired, within the first five years in their positions. After five years of continued employment, they may apply for tenure.

Usually tenure is granted. Thereafter, it is nearly impossible to fire the teacher—or administrator even with extensive documentation. Amendment 3 provides another process to remove ineffective teachers and to support and promote good teachers. How? By performance. This amendment will allow school board to evaluate teachers and administrators by performance, not by longevity.

I’m not surprised the unions, administrators and union shills are screaming. It makes educators accountable by their demonstrated performance. The unions scream it means testing. That’s one method. It isn’t, however, the only method. But testing is one means of determining performance and school boards are free to use testing—or other quality measurements, as justification to remove ineffective teachers, administrators, or to reward good, effective teachers.

In short, it introduces accountability in education and that is what has the unions and the education mafia up in arms. Frankly, anything that constrains tenure and enforces accountability is a step in the right direction. For education, whenever the unions scream, you know it will improve the final product, the knowledge base of our children.

Constitutional Amendment #3 was sponsored by a citizen’s initiative, not through the legislature. With the power of the education lobby, this amendment would never be presented much less passed. we’re fortunate we have the ability to propose Constitutional Amendment without passage through Jeff City.

I recommend voting, “Yes!” on Amendment #3.

Constitutional Amendment #6 is an attempt to legalize one method of vote fraud—early voting. You remember the old adage, ‘vote early, vote often’? This would allow that by loosening the current absentee voting law. The way fraud happens is that Joe Blow votes early, then he shows up on election day and votes again. County clerks don’t cross-reference early voters on the rolls sent to the polls. There is nothing to prevent a voter who voted early from voting again. Once a ballot has been run through the voting machine, who can tell if that vote was proper or not?

County clerks are supposed to require justification for absentee ballots. How many do so? I know my current democrat county clerks does not. Consequently, this is a bad amendment. It allows more vote fraud. I recommend voting, “No!”

Constitutional Amendment #10 is complicated and concerns the ability of the Governor to withhold funds appropriated by the Legislature. Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has a line-item veto for the state budget and he used it heavily in the last legislative session. When the Legislature returned, a significant amount of those line-item vetos were overturned.

The Governor may, if there is a shortfall in state revenues, justify withholding funds at his discretion. However, democrat Jay Nixon has been withholding funds, usually from education, when no shortfall in revenue exists to justify withholding the funds. This amendment corrects some of the loopholes that currently exists that allows the Governor to abuse his power.

Missouri State Senator Ed Emery provided this description of Amendment 10. From his October 10th, 2014 legislative update…

Amendment 10 
(Proposed by the General Assembly.)
 
This amendment clarifies expectations on how a governor should prepare his annual budget proposal. It also provides a check on any governor who tries to manipulate budget withholdings for political purposes. Frustration with the current governor’s approach to budgeting and spending demands that something be done to prevent similar abuses in the future. If Amendment 10 passes, a governor is prevented from counting his chickens before they are hatched. He/she could not forecast revenues, for example, based on the anticipation that the General Assembly will pass a tax increase— it has been done.

Amendment 10 also provides a path for the Legislature to override a governor’s operating fund withholdings similar to the procedure now employed to override a veto. Abuses to the governor’s power to withhold funds make it necessary to provide a check and balance on behalf of those agencies that are being used as political pawns.

Senator Emery recommends we vote, “Yes!” on this amendment. I agree. For years we’ve heard the democrats and the education mafia claim we’re not spending enough on education. It’s a lie. The legislature has appropriated more than enough funds—it has been the democrat governor, Jay Nixon, who has been withholding funds from education.

When you enter the voting booth in two weeks and see the list of proposed amendments, remember to vote, Yes, Yes, NO, and Yes for Amendments 2, 3, 6, and 10. Or, vote yes for all except for #6.

See you at the polls.

Facebook

Primary Day! Go Vote!

Posted on by

Today is Primary Day in Kansas and Missouri and probably a few other states, too, but, I’m only interested in these two. I was Facebook chatting with a friend earlier. We were wondering if the turnout would be high or low and whether one would benefit our folks more or less. In the end, we just didn’t know.

It did remind me of the first time I voted. The time was 1956. Adlai Stevenson was running against Dwight Eisenhower. My folks lived in southern Illinois. My mother was a grade school teacher. My father was a coal miner and part-time farmer. A few years later when the near yearly strikes by the UMWA permanently closed most of the coal mines, he became a full time farmer.

Being a miner, he was a member of the UMWA, the United Mine Workers of America. Dad remained a member of the union after the mine, where he worked for thirty years, closed. He wanted to retain his pension and health benefits. If he didn’t continue to pay union dues, he would lose pension and benefits.

Elections in coal country were a bit different from other areas of the country. There were highly organized affairs with the unions firmly in control. On election day, each poll would have a collection of union officials outside. Every union had a representative at every polling station. When union members arrived to vote, they checked with their union representative who, in turn, checked their name off the union roster. Heaven help the union member who didn’t vote or check in with the union before voting. Fines up to $100 was not uncommon.

In Illinois at that time, schools and many businesses closed on election day. Mom and Grandma had voted earlier. Dad had some chores to do. He voted later and I, nine-years old, went with him.

We arrived at the polling station that was set up in the yard of the township headquarters in West City, IL. Dad was recognized by a number of other union members and waved over. The union rep at that polling place was a man whose name I’ve forgotten. I do remember Dad calling him a ‘loud-mouth.’

Dad checked in, had his name checked as voting on the union roster and was given a ballot with all the union-backed candidates already checked off. There were few, if any, items on the ballot unchecked. Dad introduced me to Loud-mouth. I remember he hollered, “Another UMWA vote here!” and pushed a ballot into my hands. He told me to follow my father and put the ballot into the same box as did my Dad. I looked at Dad. He looked down at me and gave a slight nod of his head.

A few steps away were the election judges, both union men. One took my ballot and Dad’s and stuffed them in the ballot box. The other had my Dad sign the voter roster. He asked my name and I gave it. The judge wrote it on the voter roster just below my Dad’s name.

I had just voted in my first election, at age nine. It was the union and Illinois way. In parts of the county today, I’m told the voting practices haven’t changed in the near-sixty years since I first voted.

Facebook

Mississippi Primary just won’t go away

Posted on by

The NRSC, Haley Barbour, Thad Cochran and Karl Rove wish they’d been more…clandestine in their behind-the-scenes maneuvering in this past primary election. In fact, I’ll bet they hope to survive their fiasco without spending time in the gray-bar hotel.

http://images.politico.com/global/2014/06/28/140628_thad_cochran_gty_605.jpgYesterday, a black minister accused the Cochran campaign of vote buying. That is illegal at both the state and federal level.

Democrat Pastor Accuses Thad Cochran Campaign of Vote-for-Pay Scheme

 

 

A black Mississippi pastor has emerged to claim Sen. Thad Cochran’s (R-MS) campaign paid “thousands” of Democrats $15 each to vote in the June 24 GOP runoff – and that he was Rev. Stevie Fielder, an associate pastor at First Union Missionary Baptist Church in Meridian, Mississippi, says Cochran’s campaign “told me to offer blacks $15 each and to vote for Thad.”

Fielder, who was paid by freelance journalist Charles C. Johnson for the story, provided a new outlet launched by Johnson—GotNews.com—with four text messages from a person purporting to be Cochran campaign staffer Saleem Baird.

The messages cite an official Cochran campaign email address—Saleem@ThadForMs.com—and include detailed discussions of the campaign providing envelopes of money to distribute to people who vote.

“Send me individual names and amounts along with home address to saleem@thadforms.com and I’ll have money separated in envelopes at the office waiting for you,” one message, sent three days before the runoff, says.

Fielder said he helped distribute the Cochran cash for votes on a promise of eventually getting paid $16,000—and because a key Cochran campaign staffer convinced him that Cochran’s conservative challenger state Sen. Chris McDaniel was racist.

“They sold me on the fact that he was a racist and that the right thing to do was to keep him out of office,” Fielder said.

But Cochran’s campaign never paid, Fielder said.

Today, it has been disclosed that Haley Barbour was behind the racial robot calls against McDaniel.

On the Tuesday broadcast of his FOX News show, host Sean Hannity played a radio ad that aired in Mississippi during the Republican primary which clearly pitted State Sen. Chris McDaniel (R-Miss.) as a racist that wants to take away government benefits. The group responsible for that ad, Citizens for Progress, is reportedly backed by Haley Barbour, the former governor of Mississippi and former chairman of the Republican National Committee.

“He’s got some answering to do on that,” Hannity said. — Real Clear Politics.

Neither story bodes well for Cochran, Barbour, et. al. There appears to be concrete proof supporting the accusation. It does not bode well for the NRSC, either, nor the GOP Washington establishment. More reports from Mississippi by McDaniel supporters say they will not vote for Cochran if he is still on the ballot come November. It could well be that a democrat is elected to the Senate this year in Mississippi.

Facebook

It’s a new month!

Posted on by

Today, if you haven’t yet noticed, is the first of July. Across the state line in Kansas, newly passed legislation comes into force. One of those is open carry. It is now legal to carry a weapon openly in Kansas. Are there restrictions? I don’t know. That is one reason why I won’t be open carrying when I cross the state line.

But the local news media has noticed. One TV station is already in the process of whipping up mass hysteria, just watch the biased video. So far, no one is biting.

Open carry law now in effect in Kansas

Posted 11:30 pm, June 30, 2014, by , Updated at 05:56am, July 1, 2014

KANSAS CITY, Kan. — A new gun law in Kansas will go into effect Tuesday that will let owners openly carry guns in public.

It will be legal to openly carry a gun in a holster, in your hand or a rifle on a sling.

Captain Rance Quinn with the Kansas City Kansas Police Department says the sight of a gun is scary for a lot of people. Police said they will still respond to calls about people with guns, but the way they handle it will be much different.

“They may make a consensual interaction with the person, ‘Like hey, how are you doing today. I see that you are exercising your right to bear firearms. Is there anything I can do for you today?’ Or something along those lines,” said Capt. Quinn.

The state already has roughly 90,000 gun owners with permits to carry concealed firearms.

The new law also gives private businesses the right to prohibit guns in their buildings.

Of course, private businesses has always had the right to prohibit guns on their premises. Whoever wrote this piece certainly was not familiar with eprior Kansas law nor with this new one when it took effect. Still, the comments, for the most part, are positive.

One commenter tried to used the hackneyed argument the cops will spend all their time checking the legal carrying of weapons instead of chasing criminals. I wonder if the commenter stopped to think that those calls would most likely be placed by people like himself who panics every time a weapon is glimpsed.

***

The fiasco known as the Mississippi primary continues with more and more allegations of vote fraud and vote buying emerging against Thad Cochran. An initial investigation in one county after the election found at least 1,000 fraudulent votes for Cochran. That discovery is just the beginning. McDaniel supporters are calling for him to run as an independent in the general election.

BREAKING: New Allegations Point to Cochran Campaign in Mississippi Senate Vote Buying Scandal

By: Aaron Gardner (Diary)  |  June 30th, 2014 at 09:15 PM

An audio interview has surfaced in which the interviewee claims that he was to be paid by the Cochran camp to grease voters in the Mississippi GOP Senate runoff election. The audio interview, which coincides with a separate audio recording and batch of evidence produced by the newly launched GotNews.com, a project by Charles C. Johnson, alleges that the Cochran campaign conspired with a Mississippi Reverend to buy the votes of African American voters, who happen to be democrats.

…

Reverend Fielder has claimed to have evidence that would prove illegal activity took place in the Mississippi GOP Senate run off election. Furthermore, the evidence he claims he has would implicate the Barbour machine and a staffer to Cochran’s Senate campaign. The motivations of the Reverend are not those of a saint. As is made clear throughout the interview and in the transcript, this Reverend is looking to get paid to provide information, just as he sought to get paid to deliver votes by illegal means. Reverend Fielder claims that Cochran’s people were supposed to pay him approximately $15,000 for his efforts, but failed to do so after the incumbent Senator had achieved victory in the run off.

With all of that said, if the evidence is produced and validated, I don’t know how much longer Thad Cochran will be a Senator.

Even if Cochran isn’t deposed because of these illegal tactics, that does not mean the McDaniel supporters will automatically vote for the GOP candidate. More likely what will happen, if Cochran’s name still appears on the general ballot, they will just skip over the field and either place no vote for Senator, or choose someone else.

The tactics the RNC used in the primary, with the able assistance of Karl Rove and Haley Barbour, has tainted not only Thad Cochran, but the entire Republican party within the state. Mississippi was once a GOP stronghold. No longer, and any assumptions of automatic wins for any GOP candidate have just evaporated.

Facebook

Countdown

Posted on by

The Missouri Legislative session only has a few more days to run. Conservatives passed a much needed Tax Cut by overriding Nixon’s veto of the bill. The tax cuts will affect small businesses and individual taxpayers the most.

Unfortunately, many other bills are hung in committees, held hostage by RINOs who dare not offend their liberal constituents. They care not for their conservative supporters.

Here is the run-down on some of the more popular bills. It’s possible one or two may break loose and make to the the floor for their final votes. If so, expect Nixon to vote each one.

The first item is the Impeachment of Governor Jay Nixon. Three separate bills of impeachment were submitted. All are sitting in the House Judiciary committee and they will likely remain there. None of the ‘Pub committee members have the guts to bring the bills to a vote, much less allow them to reach the House floor. Those members, all lawyers, are using legal reasoning to block the bills. Impeachment is NOT a criminal charge—it’s a political charge, but the lawyers in the committee refuse to consider that position.

Right-to-Work. Dead. However, it is still possible that Paycheck Protection, a separate bill, may be voted upon this week.

House Majority Floor Leader John Diehl, R-St. Louis, said explicitly Thursday he does not believe Republicans the votes to send ‘right-to-work’ to the Senate. The bill was a chief priority of the conservative wing of the House Republican Caucus, including House Speaker Tim Jones. Instead, labor eyes are turned to the Senate, where lawmakers are expected to return to the ‘paycheck protection’ bill. The legislation would require annual authorization for public labor unions to use dues and fees to make political contributions, and consent for withholding earnings from paychecks. — PoliticMO Newsletter, May 12, 2014.

Voting Bills. There are two Voting bills in the Legislature that may get final attention this session. One will be presenting a Constitutional  amendment to the voters to require photo-ID for anyone voting in Missouri. Voter-ID has been under attack in the state and this effort is another plan to strengthen our battle against liberal vote fraud in St. Louis, Kansas City and other locales in the state.

The other bill would be to authorize early voting. This is another attempt by democrats to provide a means for more vote fraud. Urge you Legislators to vote NO on this provision.

Second Amendment Protection Act. This one, too, is hung in a House Committee. Ron Calzone in his May 10th, 2014, Missouri First newsletter reports:

Five legislators hold the fate of SAPA, the Second Amendment Preservation Act in their hands.

That’s how many members of an 8 person committee are needed to sign a Conference Committee Report that will take most of the teeth out of HB 1439 and send if back to the Senate, where it will probably die.

Right now, it looks like at least 5 of them are probably going to recommend to the House and Senate that they remove the strongest enforcement clause from the bill. If they do, our only hope would be for Senator Nieves, the Senate handler of the bill, to refuse to make a motion to accept the Conference Committee Report, or for the House or Senate to vote the report down and go back to the stronger bill.

The frustrating thing for me is that it’s the House sponsor of the bill, Rep. Doug Funderburk, who wants to take most of the teeth (the “ineligibility clause”) out of the bill. Doug says he’s afraid that unless we weaken the bill, one particular Republican senator will vote “no” if a veto override is needed next September.

While it’s true that the senator he’s concerned about IS a potential no vote on override, this senator voted FOR the bill WITH the ineligibility clause in it just 10 days ago. This same senator voted FOR the veto override last September.

The ‘ineligibility’ clause was reinstated in the Senate. It prevents any Federal official from taking employment in Missouri in the Law Enforcement field under some circumstances.

The “ineligibility clause” in HB 1439 is the most important enforcement provision in the bill.

It’s designed to prevent federal officials who would infringe on your gun rights from accessing state resources as well as provide personal disincentive to those federal officials.

In addition to the “ineligibility clause”, SAPA includes a “private cause of action” provision that gives legal standing for any victim of 2nd Amendment infringement. Such a civil suit against an agent or agency does not depend on government doing their job, as would be the case with criminal charges.

However, because of something called “Supremacy Clause immunity”, civil suits and criminal charges, are almost impossible to make stick against federal officials. That’s where the “ineligibility clause” comes in.

The “ineligibility clause” simply says that any federal official who violates the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act shall be forever ineligible to hold a Missouri law-enforcement job.

Paper Ballots. The purpose of this bill is to insure that a paper audit trail will exist. Electronic voting, used in some parts of Missouri, have no paper trail and are vulnerable to hacking…or manipulation. Vote fraud exists. In one St. Louis precinct, more people voted that were eligible in the entire precinct. Without a photo-ID and an audit trail, just examples of vote fraud are very difficult to prove in court.

This bill, SB623, is hung in Rep. Thomas Flanigan’s Fiscal Review Committee. The Missouri Secretary of State claims this bill would cost counties money to remove the electronic voting machines and implement processes and procedures to insure paper audit trails are built to conform to the requirements of this bill.

We’ve come close this year but not close enough. We must all remember, when we approach the polls in the upcoming August Primary and the General elections next November, who voted for these bills, who did not, and most importantly, the gutless wonders who blocked these bills in committee. Remember, come August and November.

Facebook