Or…thank God it’s not Monday. all switched from Standard Time Sunday morning to Daylight Savings time. Of the two, I much prefer Daylight Savings and if I had my druthers, I would prefer that we do not change back come Fall.

I’ve gone through the house and have changed all the clocks and the one in my Tahoe. I think the only one not changed is the clock in Mrs. Crucis’ Hupmobile. Job done…except…for me and Mrs. C.

An advantage of being retired is that you don’t need to set alarms in the morning. For forty years, more or less, I awoke at 6am, showered, dressed and went off to work.

A few years ago, I started working from home. All I needed was a broadband internet connection. My employer provided a laptop, TCP/IP phone and a VPN connection to the corporate network. When I worked from home, I told friends my daily commute to work was thirty steps down to my office from upstairs. When I worked from home, I changed my wakeup time from 6am to 7:30am. I just had to be on-line no later than 8:30am.

That was great. Since then, I’ve retired and it seems that each day, I wake up a few minutes later. With the time change last weekend, every clock and timepiece has changed…except for Mrs. Crucis and myself.

Time change is still a work-in-progress…[yawn.]


Obama is still sweating the spying his administration is doing through the NSA. He and the NSA hit a major speed-bump this week. The NSA lost a court battle to allow them to keep telephone metadata longer than five years.

I had read the article earlier this week. When I made a search this morning, I found no mention of the court decision from the major news outlets. Articles were there earlier in the week, where have they gone? The first article I found was from The Verge, not a major news outlet like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, WaPo. On reflection, those alphabet organizations aren’t news outlets any longer, having long devolved into liberal propaganda organs.

Here is the report from The Verge.

Court blocks government’s request to keep NSA phone records longer than five years

By Adi Robertsonon

The court in charge of overseeing NSA surveillance has nixed a plan to keep American phone records in government databases for longer than five years. In an opinion published today, Judge Reggie Walton said that privacy protection laws overrode the government’s argument that it needed to retain evidence for EFF and ACLU lawsuits, denying a request that the Department of Justice made in February. Such a move “would further infringe on the privacy interests of United States persons whose telephone records were acquired in vast numbers and retained by the government,” said Walton. “The government seeks to retain these records, not for national security reasons, but because some of them may be relevant in civil litigation in which the destruction of those very same records is being requested.”

The groups that might need the NSA’s evidence don’t actually want it

The FISA court, which made this ruling, has previously decided that the NSA can collect phone metadata in bulk but must destroy it after five years. The Department of Justice, however, pointed to a ban on destroying evidence that was pertinent to a court case. By that estimation, since the ACLU, EFF, and others have filed suit over the phone record database, that made it illegal to purge the records. It promised, however, to make the records unsearchable by NSA agents, ostensibly resolving privacy concerns.

This argument, however, didn’t convince the court. One point of contention was that the actual parties involved have expressed mostly confusion over the plan. In February, ACLU legal director Jameel Jaffer called the move a “distraction” from the real issues. “We don’t have any objection to the government deleting these records. While they’re at it, they should delete the whole database.” EFF attorney Mark Rumold, meanwhile, agreed “in principle” with the government’s request, but he expressed doubt it was acting in good faith. “It’s disheartening to see the government try to hold the privacy of all Americans hostage to score PR points,” he said.

In short, the groups that would be benefiting from having evidence retained didn’t necessarily want it, and the Department of Justice made only a perfunctory case for keeping it. “The government makes no attempt to explain why it believes the records” are relevant, said Walton. The rules for collecting data, meanwhile, are clear about the fact that it can only be kept for national security investigations. Granted, these rules have been very liberally interpreted in the past — the fact that all phone records are considered “relevant” to an investigation, for example, is highly controversial. But the court found that maintaining the database for a civil lawsuit didn’t fit the bill.

So why did it want the phone records in the first place? Walton said the request seemed to be motivated by “fear” that judges might censure it for destroying evidence, although he called that outcome “far-fetched.” As the EFF’s statement above implies, however, it’s possible it’s also an attempt to demonstrate that suing over an allegedly unconstitutional invasion of privacy will only cause more privacy violations.

A win for privacy. You may wonder why more hasn’t been made of this by the MSM? Perhaps it is due to another scheme of misdirection. Senator Diane Sweinstein, D-CA, wants an investigation of the CIA. Again, why? Because of possible CIA surveillance during the Bush years.

Yep, that’s right, whether it’s CIA spying or NSA data farming on our citizens, it’s all Bush’s fault.

Feinstein: CIA searched Intelligence Committee computers

By Ed O’Keefe and Adam Goldman,

The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday sharply accused the CIA of violating federal law and undermining the constitutional principle of congressional oversight as she detailed publicly for the first time how the agency secretly removed documents from computers used by her panel to investigate a controversial interrogation program.Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that the situation amounted to attempted intimidation of congressional investigators, adding: “I am not taking it lightly.”She confirmed that an internal agency investigation of the action has been referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. And she said that the CIA appears to have violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance.

Ms Sweinstein didn’t bat an eye when the Obama administration bugged reporters and ransacked their offices. But, she can believe, despite having no proof, that Bush and his CIA bugged her and the Senate. That reminds me, the NSA still hasn’t answered the question whether they have been spying on members of Congress. Nor has Lerner testified before the House on the Obama administration using the IRS to oppress the Tea Party.

It’s just fine for Obama to spy and intimidate citizens, according to Ms Sweinstein. But let a myth appear and, “It’s all Bush’s fault!”


The closing topic today is one that applies to all levels of government. It applies to the city council who spend taxpayers money of frivolties like recreation centers, to County Commissioners in love with TIF, to Congressmen who vote for near Trillion dollar ag bills. Voters have a responsibility to remove legislators who waste taxpayer’s money.

RAHN: The responsibility to resist fiscally irresponsible politicians

Fiscal prudence must be carried from the kitchen table to the voting booth

To paraphrase Mr. Rahn’s column, voters have a responsibility to remove representatives, from local city councilmen, to county commissioners, state and federal legislators to the President of the United States, who violate the spending restrictions demanded by the citizenry.

We, the citizens and voters of this country, are failing in our duty.

Criminal goverment

That is a shocking title for a post, but it is accurate. We have governments, federal, state, and local, that commit criminal acts…and get away with it. Some years ago, our county commission approved contracts where some commissioners had a monetary interest and would profit. One commissioner resigned and another lost his re-election bid.

At the state level, we have the commander of the State Highway Patrol illegally send personal information on all Missouri CCW holders to the federal government, not once, but twice. In addition, the DMV, or whatever name it is, collected personal data from CCW and driver license renewals and new applicants and sent that information to an outside organization, again, in violation of state law.

Then there are the feds. For them, the list seems to be endless from shipping guns to the drug cartels in Mexico, to refusing to enforce numerous federal laws, to arbitrarily changing federal law without authorization. I call it thugocracy.

But I guess, nothing reaches the level of one of our elected officials advising the public to commit manslaughter at best or murder at worst.

Joe Biden gets a Detroit woman killed.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  November 12th, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Good job there, Mr. Vice President:

It was shortly before 1 a.m. Nov. 2 and Renisha McBride was involved in an accident with a parked vehicle in Detroit.

More than two hours later and six blocks away, she was shot in the face by a man who told police he thought someone was breaking into his Dearborn Heights home. The 54-year-old homeowner, according to police, said his 12-gauge shotgun discharged accidentally.

…and by “good job” I mean “I hope that you’re happy, Joe Biden.” Because that homeowner did what Joe Biden told people to do (bolding mine):

V.P. BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”

I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

And he told them that more than once:

In a Facebook town hall hosted by Parents magazine, vice president Joe Biden responded to a woman concerned that bans on various weapons may make law-abiding citizens more susceptible to criminals with the following advice: “If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barreled shotgun.” “You don’t need an AR-15, it’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use,” he stressed.

Biden indicated that he has given his own wife the same advice. “I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” he said, and urged viewers, in closing, “Buy a shotgun, buy a shotgun!”

This is what a Democrat politician thinks is a ‘pro gun’ message, by the way: shake the Magic Boom Stick in the air and fire the Devil Bees in random directions until the Bad Man flees into the night. Out in the real world, what actually happens when you try that is that you run an unacceptably high risk of having a woman take a load of buckshot to the face.

Look, guns are not toys* and they are not magic staffs. They are very dangerous tools, designed to do a very specific job. If you do not treat them with respect and caution, you run the risk of misusing it, and thus causing a tragedy. If this is too difficult, it’s best to not have a gun in the first place. But even if you do not have a gun, it is still in everybody’s best interest if people speak responsibly about firearms. That includes the people that do not like firearms.

So you do not COWBOY it, Mister Vice President. This is not the WILD WEST or a VIDEO GAME. This is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and IN the USA there are people who think that surely the government would not let the Vice President say stupid things that would get people KILLED. Until they figure out that we really are letting Joe Biden do that, I suggest that Joe Biden stop talking.

Tuesday’s Thoughts

Tomorrow is the 12th anniversary of 9/11. I expect the MSM will do the usual 30 second spiels and then forget about the occasion…unless it fits some agenda item of theirs.

I’ll be in Jeff City to attend the veto override session tomorrow, so I’ll post this little reminder of 9/11, today.


Obama is facing opposition from all directions, even his own party. He made a fool of himself by drawing a “Red Line” over chemical warfare in the Syrian civil war. Obama blamed Assad, wanting to support his Muzzie buddies. The problem is no one can prove who used Sarin gas on whom? Both sides claim the other did it.

Obama blamed Assad and threatened to attack Syrian government installations. The rebels cheered. Then, more news appeared and the rebels did not appear to be so blameless. The EU, as usual, got cold feet. Five years of Obama’s diplomatic assaults and insults against the UK grew fruit and the Brits said, “Not us!”

One by one, Obama’s expected allies dropped away, soon to be followed by…members of his own party. Locally, Representative Emmanuel Cleaver, who never met a commie he didn’t like, said, publicly, that he would not support Obama. Other democrat pols joined the opposition.

As Reid and Boehner counted noses in Congress, Obama did not have any support to attack Syria. Reid, to save some face for Obama,is delaying a resolution to attack Syria to a vote. Boehner is like to follow. Why would they not vote? Neither wants to embarrass Obama.

Now Vladimir Putin has upstaged Obama with a solution to remove all chemical weapons from Syria. Assad has agreed. The rebels are balking. That speaks volumes on who is likely to have attacked whom—those Obama wanted to support.

Obama can’t lie his way out of this situation.


We have a local issue that is beginning to draw public attention. Last October, the Raymore city council voted to install a Roundabout at the intersection of one of the city’s heaviest points, Lucy Webb and Dean. Both are high-volume streets, especially during rush hours. Before construction started, only Dean Avenue had stop signs, Lucy Web did not.

The reason for the roundabout was supposedly for increase safety and enhance traffic flow. The proposed cost, last October was around $450,000. Since that time, the contractor has raised his price another $100,000. Over half a million in construction costs alone. Cheaper options to add two more stops signs, making the intersection a 4-way stop, costing maybe a $1,000 at most, or to install traffic lights like the intersection a few hundred yards to the east, were discard, if they were discussed at all. In the end, the vote was a tie to kill the project or at least to revisit the cost and scope. Mayor Pete Kerckhoff broke the tie to continue the project and increase the budget to more the $500,000.

Construction started a week or so ago and we’re already seeing the results of the council’s lust to spend. The proposed roundabout, designed purposely to be single-lane, is too small. A truck got stuck this morning trying to navigate through the intersection. I drive a Tahoe. I have difficulty getting around the roundabout traffic lane.

No, the whole project is turning into a gigantic example of governmental misfeasance and incompetency. One council member claims they tested the design by drawing the traffic lanes in a parking lot. They had no problems. Obviously, their testing was faulty.

Half-a-million dollar project and it is too small. I would not be surprised, after real-world use proves the defects of the concept, that the council will want to spend more to “fix” the roundabout’s design. How much will this cost in all? A million? More? There is land to be bought to expand the intersection if that is the solution.

More waste by council members with a lust to spend when a solution could have been in place last year for a thousand dollars or less. You can bet Raymore’s residents will remember this fiasco when the next city elections come around.

Friday Follies for June 21, 2013

I was going to make a FB post yesterday and was distracted. It’s a little thing, personal only to me and my sister. Yesterday was my father’s birthday. If he were still alive, he would be 111.

Happy birthday, Dad.


An item was disclosed this week about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that appears to violate the Constitution’s 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. — 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

It now appears that FISA modified part of the 4th Amendment.

Authorized by Section 702 of the amended Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the program did away with the traditional individual warrant for each foreign suspect whose communications would be collected in the United States. In its place, the FISA court, which oversees domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes and whose proceedings are secret, would certify the government’s procedures to target people overseas and ensure citizens’ privacy. — The Washington Post.

Instead of individual warrants as required by the 4th Amendment, NSA was given a blanket certificate—a hunting and fishing license, so to speak, that allowed them to search anyone, everyone, whether hard evidence for probable cause existed, or not.

A comment posted on the Washington Post article above said, “I’m beginning to think the FISA court was set-up by the executive branch to rubber stamp all executive branch demands. The world’s most secret self-licking ice cream cone.” (Panhandle Willy, 6/20/2013 8:03 PM CDT)



Today is the anniversary of the ratification of the US Constitution. It received its 9th approving vote 225 years ago today by New Hampshire.

On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. —

Virginia and New York followed New Hampshire later in June but New Hampshire’s vote was sufficient to actually getting the new government running.


The Tea Party was out in force, yesterday, with a rally in Washington DC to protest the actions of the IRS. A number of Congressmen attended as well, Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Dave Camp (Mich.). The question now is whether any of our Missouri Senators and Representatives were there?

I’ve not seen any of the Missouri delegation post about their presence at the rally. I’ve asked Vicky Hartzler and Jason Smith that question but I’ve received no answers yet.

We must remember those absences when the primaries come next year and candidates want Tea Party endorsements.


Unsatisfied with the bureaucrats in your state and federal government? That makes you a terrorist says a Tennessee bureaucrat.

Unsatisfied with the quality of your water and eager to let the government know about it?

You might be a terrorist, according to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.

“We take water quality very seriously. Very, very seriously,” deputy director of TDEC’s Division of Water Resources Sherwin Smith told a baffled and outraged audience in Maury County, Tennessee. “But you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there’s no water quality issues, that can be considered under Homeland Security an act of terrorism.”

Audience members saw the official’s answer as a means of deterring complaints from the public, according to a report in The Tennessean. — The Daily Caller.

Welfare, Corporate Payoffs and Pork.

Today’s blog title would imply democrat policies. You’d be wrong. It refers to the GOP’s House Farm Bill championed by Speaker John Boehner and our own Vicky Hartzler.

Both the Senate democrats and House ‘Pubs have Farm Bills. The Senate rammed theirs past GOp opposition and brags they’ve cut the $1Trillion bill to $500Billion. The House GOP claims their version has cut more.

The crux is SNAP, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. What is SNAP? Food stamps. SNAP is 80% of the cost of the Farm Bill. The supporters of the House version brag they’ve cut the Food Stamp (SNAP) program as well. How much? Three percent. Three lousy percent.

The dems and ‘Pubs are wrangling over—not the actual farm and agricultural portions of the bill, small that they are. No, they’re fighting over SNAP! If SNAP is so critical, it should be removed from the Farm Bill and stand for itself.

Some have advocated a change, one that I can accept IF food stamps are really necessary, is to convert the entire program to block grants and let the states create their own version of food/welfare assistance. In blue states, the money would line democrat pols pocket. Oh well, the blue staters get the government they vote for.

For the moment, dems and ‘Pubs are apparently in a race to see who can waste more of our tax money.

Farm bill cuts judged both too much, not enough

By Tom Howell Jr. – The Washington Times, Monday, June 17, 2013

A year after they failed to pass a farm bill and suffered for it in several big congressional races, House Republicans think they’ve finally got the right balance to fund agricultural programs while weaning more Americans off food stamp benefits.

Speaker John A. Boehner has thrown his weight behind bringing this year’s bill to the chamber floor, and debate kicks off on Tuesday.

But House GOP leaders will have to bridge divides within the GOP, and may have to count on getting Democratic votes for passage. The Senate, led by Democrats, passed its own version last week.

Both the Senate and House bills would end direct payments to farmers in favor of more extensive crop insurance programs.

But the sheer size of spending contained in the bills — particularly on food stamps, which takes up 80 percent of the Senate’s five-year, $500 billion farm bill — could become a sticking point during the House debate.

“The bill should be rejected outright for its price tag and its expansion of the government’s outsized and outdated role in American agriculture,” Stephen Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Monday.

The Senate passed a farm bill last week that cuts the food-stamp program — now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — by about $400 million a year, or half a percent.

But the House version goes further, cutting SNAP benefits by $2 billion a year, or a little more than 3 percent, and making it more difficult for some people to qualify.

Now, isn’t that great. $1Trillion of waste and the dems brag they cut $400 million, or one-half of a percent while the ‘Pubs brag they’ve cut three percent.

Some GOP lawmakers say that’s still not enough, while House Democrats argue that low-income families cannot absorb the cuts. As of Monday, 134 of them had co-sponsored a resolution that asks members to reject any legislation that reduces food stamp benefits.

House Agriculture Chairman Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma Republican, who shepherded the House bill through his committee in May, noted that “no other committee in Congress is voluntarily cutting money, in a bipartisan way.”

Rep. Collin C. Peterson, Minnesota Democrat and the ranking minority agriculture committee member, said “it is past time to get this bill done.”

But Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group, said Monday it will launch an advertising blitz in a bipartisan slate of 15 congressional districts, including Mr. Boehner‘s, that takes aim at the House bill. The group says the bill is bloated by food-stamp spending and that “well-connected corporations” will get the rest of the funds.

Last year, Mr. Boehner declined to bring a farm bill to the House floor to avoid a nasty intraparty fight ahead of the November elections, as farm state Republicans pushed for crop subsidies while other GOP conservatives demanded widespread cuts. — Washington Times.

The establishment ‘Pubs who support this welfare bill shouldn’t be concerned what their dem congressional friends think of the Food Stamp Welfare bill. No, they should be more concerned what their constituents think. The next congressional primary is only a year away. Pubbies, vote for this and I can guarantee you’ll have primary opposition next year. I’m already hearing increasing rumbles of discontent.

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.