Once again, it’s a busy day. I’ll be back on Monday.
I was busy yesterday, running around Missouri delivering flyers for next month’s gun rally (see yesterday’s post.) My travels gave me ample opportunity to listen to the radio, mostly Rush and Hannity, but a few others, too.
The topic yesterday was Netanyahu’s big win in the Israeli elections—and Obama’s reaction. You see, Obama sent teams to Israel, teams paid for by US tax dollars, to defeat Netanyahu. They failed.
This, of course, enraged Obama. Obama, has congratulated numerous election winners around the world. Many, most maybe, were dictators or our avowed enemies. Obama did not congratulate Bibi Netanyahu. Instead, he is pursuing a path to harm Israel.
I’m busy today passing out flyers for Missouri’s annual Gun Rights Rally. The rally is scheduled for Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 @ 10am on the steps of the Missouri Capitol in Jeff City.
Last year’s rally was flooded out. Let’s make up for that this year.
A woman in Idaho, an animal lover, killed a protected raptor, a Falcon, to save a duck. The woman saw the falcon take a duck out of midair.
An Idaho woman’s overzealous sympathy for the hunted over the hunter may land her in jail, The Coeur d’Alene Press reports. In January, Patti McDonald allegedly meted out a dose of unnatural selection when she came upon Hornet, a falcon owned by hunter Scott Dinger. In his investigation of the incident which reportedly led to the bird of prey’s demise, Craig Walker, an Idaho Department of Fish and Game regional conservation officer said his office received a phone call from an unidentified woman who said she saw a falcon take a duck from the air and then went to the aid of the duck and tried to scare away the falcon. When the falcon remained in place holding the duck, the woman said she removed a scarf that had beads on it and beat the bird. “The woman later stated that she had been very upset about the duck being injured, but felt bad about injuring someone’s pet, because she “beat the crap out of it really hard,” the report states. If found guilty, McDonald could be sentenced to a maximum of six months in jail and $5,000 in fines. — FOX Newsletter, March 17, 2015.
This reminds me of the report from a year or so ago when a woman who had hit a deer in a deer-crossing zone, wanted the signs moved so the deer would cross elsewhere.
Tyranny begets legislation. The City of Columbia has passed some ordinances to block businesses from performing background checks on new employees. I supposed the city wants to make Columbia a safe place for criminals to live and pursue their profession. This, and other ordinances passed by cities around the state has prompted the legislature to respond.
College-town politics don’t exactly match up with the increasingly conservative leanings of Missouri and Kansas.
That doesn’t stop leaders in the University of Missouri’s hometown from pushing on.
Since the beginning of December, the Columbia City Council has banned private businesses from conducting criminal background checks on job applicants and implemented regulations on ride-booking services such as Uber and Lyft.
It raised the age to buy cigarettes within the city to 21 and barred the indoor use of e-cigarettes.
Thirty miles south in Jefferson City, the Republican-dominated Missouri General Assembly has taken disdainful notice.
The implications of what happens next could be felt across the state, as a series of bills make their way through the legislature aimed at blocking or overturning local laws.
“This is about the role of government,” said Rep. Caleb Rowden, a Columbia Republican. “Columbia is off track and so we need to define the lines between the roles of local and state government.”
Several of the bills may be inspired by the actions of a college-town city council, but their impact won’t be confined to Columbia.
City, county and school district leaders have long complained about actions they deem as interfering with local control. But facing what some say is an unprecedented number of legislative challenges to their authority, local officials around the state are crying foul.
“Nobody knows local affairs better than the locals. Nobody is better able to respond to local needs better than the locals,” said Kansas City Mayor Sly James. “To have people, the majority of whom don’t live in the locale, trying to implement one-size-fits-all policies, I think is shortsighted and unwise at best.”
Columbia is a rabid enclave of ‘progressives’ in the middle of a conservative state. Like their counterparts in St. Louis and Kansas City, they want to impose their brand of liberal tyranny on their residents. These are the same cities who fought tooth and claw against CCW and other conservative issues. Jackson County to this day imposes severe constraints on CCW applicants and those seeking a renewal in spite of state law. Columbia, like her two sister cities, continue to seek their version of progressive governance that further restricts our liberty and endangers our safety.
Why a post title of ’47’? It’s a good number, that’s why. It’s also pertinent to my wedding anniversary. Mrs. Crucis and I were married 47 years ago, today. We were both in college at the time. We had just finished finals for the Winter quarter. There was a one week break before the beginning of the Spring quarter. If I recall correctly, we both had our last final in mid-week. We were married on Saturday, had a short, three-day honeymoon and were back at work by the following mid-week. We both worked for the university and filled in for others who wanted to go home over the break. Plus…we could use the money.
Forty-seven. It doesn’t seem all that long.
The drama isn’t ending. More evidence is appearing about the complicity of the Catherine Hanaway campaign to the vile radio ad against Tom Schweich. The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch printed an article about the links between Citizens for Fairness, who ran the ad, and the Catherine Hanaway campaign.
A couple of days ago, Wednesday to be precise, Glenn Beck made a diatribe against Grover Norquist and the NRA claiming that Norquist was an “Agent of Influence” for CAIR and the Islamic Brotherhood. He also said if the NRA didn’t kick Norquist out of the NRA (Norquist is a NRA Board Member,) he, Beck, would resign his life membership in the NRA and urge others to do so.
I took Beck to task. On today’s show, Beck back-tracked somewhat on his demands. He spoke again in his show today claiming Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice-President and CEO of the NRA, had called him and said that the NRA would start an ethics investigation on Norquist. Beck claimed LaPierre’s call was prompted by calls from the NRA membership. Frankly, I doubt Beck has all that much influence among NRA members.
Hearing Beck’s claim of an NRA ethics investigation on Norquist, I scanned all the NRA websites and searched for “NRA + ‘Grover Norquist’ + ethics” and similar search variations. Nothing. Nothing on any of the NRA websites had any mention of Norquist other than as him being listed as a NRA board member. None of the internet searches found anything, either, except for those claims made by Beck, himself, and from his supporters.
Is Beck lying? Maybe. He’s been caught doing that before and has had to make retractions on statements. His monologue today had no mention of him resigning from the NRA. It did imply some backtracking on Beck’s part. He said his earlier diatribe this week produced numerous calls to the NRA and those calls, said Beck, resulted in LaPierre calling to discuss Norquist’s future with the NRA. In that call, according to Beck, LaPierre said an investigation of Norquist would follow.
I’ll wait and see. I’m more inclined to believe the conversation with Wayne LaPierre to be another of Beck’s fantasies. Regardless, my post from Wednesday of this week stands unaltered. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out, Mr. Beck!
Just plain busy. Maybe tomorrow, too.