More Missouri Moments

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/7b/87b666b9-fe90-5331-91d1-3d57fe8eda0d/530a3d118898d.preview-300.jpg

Ed Martin, now chairman of the Missouri Republican Party, in an Oct. 6, 2010, file photo. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

Missouri GOP Chairman Ed Martin announced his resignation yesterday. Rumors had been floating around some some weeks before the announcement. Martin is leaving to become President of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum.

The announcement did surprise many. Today, we’re hearing some news who may replace Martin. Some are well-known conservatives. Others, such as the protégé of Ron Richard, aren’t.

Possible Four Way Race Shaping Up for Missouri GOP Chair

Duane Lester, February 3rd, 2015

Yesterday Ed Martin announced he was not running for re-election for the Chair of the Missouri Republican Party, instead taking a position with The Eagle Forum.

When I heard that, I only knew of one person who was in the hunt: John Hancock.

After I posted Martin’s press release, I had someone reach out and say, “Did you hear that someone else may jump in?”

I hadn’t, but today I have a name: Eddy Justice.

Justice has shown interest in leading the Missouri GOP, but didn’t want to challenge Martin. He said he didn’t have any problem replacing him though.

Another name that’s being mentioned is Pat Thomas, current Secretary of the Missouri Republican Party. She’s also deputy Treasurer.

Finally, a name I’m hearing as being possibly recruited for the position is Nick Myers, Newton County GOP Committee Chairman. Myers is a good friend of Sen. Ron Richards, and a power player in southwest Missouri.

So, overnight, this turned from a one man race into a bit of a dog pile for the leadership of the Missouri GOP.

I’ll be working on doing some profiles on each of these folks.

I’m reminded how Ron Richard betrayed the GOP by reversing his votes in the last veto session and in the veto session in 2013 to block passage of some key bills. The 2013 reversal came after a mid-east junket with democrat Governor Jay Nixon. Ron Richard had earlier voted for the bills. But when it came to support the GOP, he didn’t. Richard has no core principles other than his own advancement. Consequently, I would not be a supporter for anyone connected to him.

***

CNBC Reporter Kelly Evans, tried to ambush Senator Ron Paul during an interview. Paul didn’t fall for the tactic and turned the tables. Before the interview left the air, Paul called Kelly’s attempts as ‘slanted’. I always like to see a lib’s plan fail. Especially when it backfires so spectacularly.

I’m not a believer that vaccines cause autism. I believe it falls into the same category as global warming—cherry picked data to fit a preconceived objective. The originator of the ‘vaccine causes autism’ cherry-picked data and actually fabricated data in a study that started this controversy. Every study since, that I’ve examined, still uses that original false study as source document.

Be that as it may, I also believe it is a parent’s right to choose which, if any, inoculations her or his child receives. The libs are pushing for mandatory vaccinations using the current measles outbreak as justification. The ‘anti-vaxxers’, as they have been called, claim that their children are the only ones at risk. Those vaccinated should not fear being infected.

That last statement, too, is false logic. First, no inoculation is 100% perfect. Some will get sick regardless. The inoculation will not work for some. Some, whose immunizations work, can still be a carrier. There is some justification for inoculation. However, the final choice still belongs to parents, not government.

***

The current buzz today is the straw poll conducted on the Drudge Report yesterday. Scott Walker was the clear leader of the possible GOP candidates with 46% of the votes. Ted Cruz was second with 14% and Ron Paul third with 12%.

The poll is meaningless, of course, but it did create a storm of discussion on the ‘net! For me, it was a toss-up between Walker and Cruz. I’m more aligned, politically, with Ted Cruz. On the other hand, Scott Walker has proven to be a fighter and the GOP needs a fighter. There are none in Washington, DC.

Passages

To use a phrase from a time past, yesterday was a bummer of a day. Mrs. Crucis and I went to the funeral of a 29-year old man who died suddenly last week. The funeral was in a small town about 100 miles SE from here. We didn’t go so much for the young man. I hadn’t met him and Mrs. Crucis hadn’t seen him since he was a child. We went to help support his parents and grandmother, all whom we have known for decades.

The young man had two kids, a boy and a girl, neither old enough for school. I was thinking that now they would likely have no memories of their father when they grow older.

Most of the funeral attendees were friends and relatives. A significant number were from the local Amish community.

The young man had helped them during their harvest although he had acknowledged that he was no ‘farm boy.’ But his willingness to help buys a lot of credit in a community built around self-help, cooperation, and the willingness to share labor for kith and kin.

His kindness with the Amish, and theirs to him, is proof that when it counts we are all kith and kin.

***

More of the story about the shooting in Ferguson, MO, is coming to light. Witnesses now are confirming the cop’s version of the event. The instigators of the rioting is not the local residents, but from outside agitators like the New Black Panthers from Oakland, CA.

Add to the mix that the toxicology reports reveals that Brown had marijuana in his system, the facts are now replacing the myths spread since last week by the media.

***

“Stalinesque tactics!”http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/ratio--3-2--830x553/public/articles/rtr41tt3.jpg?itok=C92iL83P Rick Perry vows to fight the indictment issued by a select Travis County grand jury. Even David Axelrod says the indictment has no basis.

Dualities

Throughout most current political commerce, the field of discussion is a duality of agendas. Conservatives have their agenda, liberals has theirs, the Ruling Class, which includes the establishment of both major parties, have theirs. The most obvious examples of duality is what legislation, action, regulation proposes and what those same actually do.

Let’s take a couple of examples, the SEIU effort to unionize the fast-food industry and Obamacare. In the former, SEIU has sold a bill of goods to workers telling them they can get $15/hr, more than doubling the current minimum wage. What SEIU is NOT telling those potential strikers is that they can be replaced—permanently, if they go on strike.

SEIU’s Fast-Food Strikers May Legally Be Replaced, Perhaps Even Permanently.

By making the rallying cry about wages, the SEIU and its cohorts put strikers’ jobs at risk

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  August 21st, 2013 at 09:00 PM  |

Fight For $15

They’re loud. They’re boisterous. They’re the SEIU…and they’re not as bright as they think.

The fast-food workers who are being pushed by the SEIU to take to the streets in a “nationwide” strike on August 29th, as part of the SEIU’s four-year old plan to collect union dues from the fast-food industry’s 3.7 million workers, have placed themselves in a precarious position legally.

As part of its battle strategy to unionize the industry, in its 2009 blueprint, the SEIU declared that economic issues (wages) would be its rallying cry:

Use a living wage as a vehicle to excite, build momentum, build worker lists/ID potential leaders and potentially support collective bargaining. We believe we will have enough traction with an ordinance to use as a legitimate tool for organizing and potentially as legislation to raise standards.

One of the campaign’s main websites also makes it clear that wages–and nothing else–is the key issue.

So, why is the fact that SEIU-backed strikers are pushing for higher wages important?

Very simply, for legal reasons, the fact that the SEIU–and now those who have become the SEIU’s ‘useful idiots‘ have now made their fight about “a living wage” or “Fight for $15″–is very significant.

In any strike, an employer has the right to replace (not fire) strikers. However, generally speaking there are two types of strikes: 1) Unfair Labor Practice Strikes, and 2) Economic Strikes.

In an unfair labor strike, while strikers can be replaced, they must be reinstated at the end of the strike.

However, due to a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in an economic strike, strikers may be permanently replaced and only offered reinstatement when an opening occurs.

Here is what the National Labor Relations Board states [in PDF] about economic strikers.

Strikes for a lawful object. Employees who strike for a lawful object fall into two classes “economic strikers” and “unfair labor practice strikers.” Both classes continue as employees, but unfair labor practice strikers have greater rights of reinstatement to their jobs.

Economic strikers defined. If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. [p. 10, emphasis added.]

Now, while it is doubtful that any of the fast-food chains have the testicular fortitude to actually exercise their legal rights, here is how the August 29th strike could play out:

8:00 am (in some city)–As the SEIU bus pulls up with its astroturf protesters, the morning shift at Mickie D’s walks off the griddles and out from behind the counters, picking up picket signs and beginning to parade around on the sidewalk in front of the store.

8:01 am–A separate bus pulls up across the street and new Mickie D employees in fresh Mickie D uniforms walk into the store and assume the abandoned work stations.

8:10 am–Mickie D’s attorneys have noticed delivered (on the sidewalk) to each striker notifying him or her that, as each striker is engaging in an economic strike, by 8:20, the employer will have permanently hired all of the temporary replacement workers it needs and, by 8:30, will be converting said temporary replacement workers into permanent replacement workers. Further, there will no longer be a need for the individual strikers’ services, however, should an opening occur, they will be eligible for recall based upon their date of hire and qualifications for said vacancies.

Now, again, it is unlikely that any of the fast-food employers are willing to do what they have the right to do but, if they did, it could be that easy.

And, what could the SEIU and its astroturf friends do? What would they do?

They’d scream and gnash their teeth for a while. They’d call for boycotts. They’d get Jesse Jackson to go on Al Sharpton’s MSNBC show and scream about the evils of corporate America…everything they are already doing, by the way.

However, does anyone in the public really care? Would people really stop scarfing Mickie D’s because someone got replaced in New York? Really?

Most of the Lefties supporting the SEIU’s cause aren’t Mickie D’s customers anyway. They’re the earthy, crunchy, vegan types. [Okay, granted, maybe Michael Moore will stop eating Big Macs…for a while.]

The point is, though, if Mickie D’s and the rest of the fast-food operators wanted to, they could follow Barack Obama’s modus operandi: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” And, if so, they could prevail in the long run.

That’s sage advice, by the way, from the President whom the SEIU put into office. Heck, the fast-food companies are already on the President’s Enemies List–or, at least his wife’s enemies list. So, no real loss there either.

If Mickie D’s or any other fast-food operator chose to do this, Mary Kay Henry and the SEIU (despite their cries) would have no one to blame but themselves.

It would be messy and it would be public…but, in the end, fast-food eaters the world over will still line up in the drive thru.

The article continues with the explanation that SEIU will continue following Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

What the union promised, is not what it can deliver if the fast-food companies resist. Those companies are caught in the middle—controlling costs and expenses (wages) while still being able to market a product (‘burgers) with a price that meets their customer’s demographics. The union tell the workers that customers will still continue to buy ‘burgers. The companies have extensive research that tells them the maximum price their customers are willing to pay.

The unions know this as well. They care not if their individual members remain employed. No, they’d rather have a much higher turnover because with each turnover, the union collects a fee—a fee that may exceed any revenue the union receives through membership dues. In short, the union is lying to their potential members; their agenda is not what is apparent.

The other example of duality is Obamacare. There are so many examples of liberal claims versus what they deliver. The current example in the news is Obama’s claim, “You can keep your existing healthcare!”

That, folks, was an out-right lie. This news item about the recent UPS announcement proves Obama’s lie.

UPS cuts insurance to 15,000 spouses, blames Obamacare

By Jose Pagliery  @Jose_Pagliery August 22, 2013: 7:13 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

United Parcel Service is planning to drop 15,000 workers’ spouses from its health insurance plan, citing higher costs due to Obamacare.

In an undated memo to employees, UPS (UPS, Fortune 500) said it will discontinue coverage for all working spouses who are eligible for insurance with their own employer. That applies to about 15,000 spouses covered by UPS today.

The internal document was obtained by Kaiser Health News. UPS told the nonprofit news agency that the policy applies only to non-union U.S. workers. It hasn’t responded to questions from CNNMoney.

In the memo, UPS said it’s willing to take care of its own, but it won’t bear a burden that other companies can take on.

“We believe your spouse should be covered by their own employer — just as UPS has a responsibility to offer coverage to you, our employee,” the memo states.

Spouses of UPS employees who don’t work — or who are not offered coverage by their own employer — will get to stay on the UPS plan.

Most of the company’s workers, such as delivery workers and truck drivers, are unionized through the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and receive insurance under a different plan.

UPS blamed the move on several aspects of Obamacare, including mandatory coverage for dependent children up to age 26 and new government fees.

“We are making these changes to offset cost increases due to the [Affordable Care Act],” the memo states.

In the memo, UPS said its health care costs usually increase about 7% a year, but that it expects those costs to climb by 11.25% in 2014 due to Obamacare.

The company also said that 35% of companies intend to make the same changes to their plans, but didn’t cite specific market data.

A recent survey by consulting firm Towers Watson found that next year, 18% of employers will require that workers’ spouses buy insurance from their own employer before turning to the surveyed company for insurance.

The other impact from Obamacare is the growing practice of companies converting full-time employees to part-time. Employees who work 32 hours per week or less, may not receive benefits. If a company converts or replaces full-time employees with part-time workers, the Obamacare impact is reduced. There is no impact for those new part-time employees who are not eligible for company-provided health insurance.

We live in a world of dualities. Some of those dualities are unintended. Others, like the union and Obamacare examples above, are deliberate. In both cases, it is the dupes who allow those dualities to exist; who also fall for them. Later, perhaps, they, the dupes, will look back and wonder how foolish they were…and learn. Others, unable to admit their stupidity, will blame others. Not the ones who duped them, but the ones who disclosed the lies.

To paraphrase Dave Ramsey, “The stupid, we will always have with us.”

 

What’s Really in the Immigration Surrender Bill?

The Senate ‘Pub leadership sided with the dems and didn’t fight cloture on the Gang of Eight’s bill. McConnell and others thought it would be too much work to fight this monstrosity and caved—as usual.

The bill contains all the worst that could be imagined. Amnesty for 30 million illegals and their families and much, much more. It also has some surprises.

  • grants immigration benefits to American citizens’ gay partners
  • secure the border before any of the bill’s provisions could be utilized.
  • illegal immigrants have to wait until the borders are deemed secure before they can get any legal status
  • allows DHS, Janet Napolitano, to decide when the border is secure (yeah, right,) and when the other provisions of the bill become effective (citizenship.) This negates the previous bullet item.
  • guest-workers would be allowed into the country to compete for jobs with American citizens and be given preferential treatment
  • make English the official language.
  • allow businesses to declare English-only policies in their workplaces

…and, more. The problem with these provisions is that they are all amendments and each amendment must be voted before the Senate and receive at least 60 votes. Given Harry Reid’s ham-fisted treatment of amendments on other bills, I doubt any contrary amendments, if any, will be presented for votes. Our best hope is that this entire bill dies on the Senate floor.

On top of it, Marko Rubio has destroyed his reputation as a conservative and any chance for higher office—or, perhaps, his re-election. He sold out to La Raza, hook, line and sinker. For all of his claims to conservatism and limited government, Rubio has proven that he will sell out those principles. He has lost our trust.

Rubio still claims that stiffer border security is in the bill. Obama has proved, many times, that he can ignore law at will and his lib syncopates in Congress will turn a blind eye on any such actions.

I don’t know if Rubio is a dupe or a willing accomplice. Either way, he cannot be trusted on any conservative issue—he’s proven that he, like McConnell, McCain, Graham, and Boehner, will sell us out on any issue.

It’s not what you know, it’s…

…what you know that is wrong!

That is a paraphrased quote attributed to Will Rogers. It’s one all too many people overlook. It reminds me of a TV commercial where a woman claims that everything on the internet is true. I hate to disappoint folks, but that could not be further from the truth.

Even the most cynical of us get taken in at times.  My wife and I realized last night that we’d been taken in on one, too. Morgan-FreemanWe like Morgan Freeman, the actor. We don’t care for his politics but we do like his acting. We’d heard a few months ago that he’d died. We checked some sources and they confirmed his death. They were wrong. He’s alive and well.

I noticed that he’s in a number of movies that are just now being released and wondered that he knew his end was coming and tried to finish as many as he could given his remaining time. That lead to question of what caused his death.  I did some research and, lo!, discovered Morgan Freeman is alive and well and the numerous reports of his death were hoaxes.

Like I said at the beginning, It’s not what you know that causes problems, it’s what you know that is wrong that causes problems. We see examples all around us. Global Warming is a good example. The climatologists who started the hoax cherry-picked data to support their position. They claimed that Himalayan glaciers were shrinking. The half dozen they chose for examples were shrinking. However the hundred-plus other glaciers in that mountain range weren’t—in fact they were growing!

Then there was the reports of average temperature rising. They were—at the points being measured. What they failed to inform the public was that many of the monitoring stations that had been in rural areas were moved to metropolitan sites to aid aeronautic weather reporting. Locally, our Lees Summit airport now has automated reporting for pilots. That station didn’t exist a decade ago.

When more automated stations are located in or near metro area, the averages—of those stations, will rise. However when you average ALL of the weather stations, no temperature rise was found.

Metro areas do have higher temperatures than rural areas—all those people, cars and concrete to absorb heat from the sun. When you manipulate the source of the data collection, you change the validity of that data.

Collectively, I call these examples as exercises in pseudo-science. All too often, we believe what we want to believe contrary to the facts. Those beliefs can extend from the belief that cell phones interfere with electronics and sound systems, to the belief that vaccinations cause autism. I was taken to task for that last one, vilified and attacked for pointing out that the original study that created the belief of vaccinations causing autism, was based on a hoax.

Retracted autism study an ‘elaborate fraud,’ British journal finds

By the CNN Wire Staff ,January 5, 2011 8:14 p.m. EST

(CNN) — A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an “elaborate fraud” that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday.

An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study’s author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study — and that there was “no doubt” Wakefield was responsible.

“It’s one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors,” Fiona Godlee, BMJ’s editor-in-chief, told CNN. “But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data.”

Britain stripped Wakefield of his medical license in May. “Meanwhile, the damage to public health continues, fueled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals and the medical profession,” BMJ states in an editorial accompanying the work.

The now-discredited paper panicked many parents and led to a sharp drop in the number of children getting the vaccine that prevents measles, mumps and rubella. Vaccination rates dropped sharply in Britain after its publication, falling as low as 80% by 2004. Measles cases have gone up sharply in the ensuing years.

In the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than in any other year since 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than 90% of those infected had not been vaccinated or their vaccination status was unknown, the CDC reported.

“But perhaps as important as the scare’s effect on infectious disease is the energy, emotion and money that have been diverted away from efforts to understand the real causes of autism and how to help children and families who live with it,” the BMJ editorial states.

Wakefield has been unable to reproduce his results in the face of criticism, and other researchers have been unable to match them. Most of his co-authors withdrew their names from the study in 2004 after learning he had had been paid by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers — a serious conflict of interest he failed to disclose. After years on controversy, the Lancet, the prestigious journal that originally published the research, retracted Wakefield’s paper last February.

I’ve heard that a number of lawsuits have been filed against physicians and vaccine manufacturers based on his hoaxed study. Given human nature to try to find blame, somewhere, for their misfortunes, I wouldn’t be surprised.

We’re in an era of exploding scientific research and exploding dissemination of information without restraint nor constraint. We cannot take individual reports at face value, we must do our own due diligence and validate, as best we can, our information and sources personally.

Always remember…

“It’s not what we don’t know that hurts. It’s what we know that ain’t so.”

Will Rogers