24thState

Whitehouse.gov Setting (some) Records Right

Missouri Record: http://www.missourirecord.com/blog/index.asp?blog=689

Patrick Tuohey had a little fun with FiredUp, pointing out they got a lot of mileage out of Politifact’s lie of the year in 2010.  Touey's post was a good idea, so we took a look at other noted liberal sites who ran with the Politifact lie of the year in 2010 and list the number of times they repeat the "story".

    "Politifact" "government takeover"

    FiredupMissouri - 47 individual times
    DailyKos.com  -317
    Mediamatters.org - 422
    Talkingpointsmemo.com - 18
    crooksandliars.com/ - 1370
     thedailybeast.com/ - 29
    Npr.org –44
    CNN.com – 69 ( including several transcripts)
    HuffingtonPost.com -323
    Thinkprogress.org – 104
     Whitehouse.gov – 89 results

Now, this year’s “lie of the year,” targets Democrats claiming Republicans wanted to end Medicare, force grandpas to be strippers, and throw little old ladies off cliffs so we don’t have to pay their healthcare costs.  Don't hold your breath for Whitehouse.gov to show equal zeal for setting this story straight.

Thankfully, conservatives learned long ago that Politifact and other fact-checking sites, nonpartisan watchdogs sites like CREW,  news sites like Politico, and “moderate Republican” writers like John Cole and Andrew Sullivan are just CYA sites that bash Republicans and offer the fig leaf of once a year attack on Democrats.  It would be nice if left-wing bloggers would stick to their principles, but when Politifact and others resume normal operations. They’ll be right back on the horse, pretending.  

But it was a nice holiday gift to watch them howl.

 

 

Breaking! Fired Fire Chief's Suicide Prompts Demand for Resignations

The favorite fire board candidate of Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder stands defiant.  As related earlier, voters in West County have fought for years to first regain and then hold the Monarch Fire District away from control of the union felt betrayal when several Republican lawmakers endorsed the union-backed Swyers.  While Kinder, Auditor Schweich, and State Reps McNary and Gosen insist they endorsed the right guy, the suicide of Chief Fred Goodson may have been an attempt to jog minds to see the horrible destruction the union is perpetuating in their blood coup. 

Attendees received the stunning revelation that the excuse for the firings pertained to the alleged mismanagment of the sexual harassment allegations is contradicted by the revalation that the firings were promised over a month in advance of the court ruling.  So it appears that were the leaders who were not even accused, then fully vindicated, they still would have been fired.  When all you have ever done is lead a fire house, how do you make that career change at 60 plus years of age, especially when you have been fired without so much as a hearing?

So let's recap the record of the "Republican," "Taxpayer Candidate,""independent of the union" Swyers.

                                                                1.  He has voted with the union favorite Kim Evans in a perfect block against Robyn Harris on every major decison.

2.  He successfully voted to pass a tax increase.

3.  Swyers, the certified public accountant actually voted for the tax rate increase before he even knew what the budget would be.  Standard procedure is to vote a budget and then set the rate to meet it.

4. Swyers, embarrassed by the backlash over the tax increase then voted to undo his tax increas while complaining publicly that the lower rate would make the budget complicated to design.

5. Swyers, again in a block with Evans voted to fire virtually the entire leadership of the Fire District and do so without even giving any of the accused the opportunity to have a public hearing.

Why were the accused not given the chance to defend themselves?

6. Finally, Swyers the CPA voted to install a new fire chief hand-picked by the union who is not even minimally qualified.  I repeat, he does not even meet the qualifications to be hired as a private.  He has zero experience in a multi-house department and does not even have the requisite college degree. 

7.  Almost worse than the offense of hiring a union shill for chief, Swyers and Evans voted to waste money hiring an outside search firm to look nationwide for a guy they knew locally.  So what did the firm do?  Did they come up empty?

The unfortunate reality for Swyers and Evans is that former board member Gans has decided to not quit caring.  Gans went from active citizen in the early 90s, to union-endorsed candidate for the board, to union-opposed board member amassing incredible institutional knowledge and connections.  He predicted almost before the search firm began, that Vinyard would be their choice.  This would be laughable if not such a shameless abuse of the public trust.

The combination of these embarrassing revelations and violations of the public trust lead Director Robyn Harris to take the extraordinary step of asking his colleagues to resign.  They refused.  Perhaps the Republican lawmakers who endorsed the clearly union-corrupted Swyers will ad to the pressure and join the departed Chief Goodson and demand justice.

Megan McCain's Unwitting Warning

The new media and self-publishing world has spawned an explosion of information and opinion sources, some more valuable than others and some just plain dangerous.  Knowing what sources to trust can be a challenge.  In Red State yesterday, book reviewer, Leon H. Wolf takes into the dribble of the candidate's daughter turned pundit; Megan McCain in a biting and humorous way that provokes a number of thoughts.  The treatment is so effective, one only hopes that Wolf never encounters daddy never in a dark alley.  Then it occurs, that daddy would have a hard time not being thoroughly mortified for himself.  What can he say?   By elucidating the self-contradictions in McCain's rantings, Wolf exposes a flawed character and warns of the danger of her having any audience whasoever. From the review:

"In the final analysis, however, I determined that most of Meghan’s flaws – such as her unbearable narcissism, delusions of persecution (sic) and mendacity – couldn’t be chalked up to her manifestly below-average intelligence. These are blameworthy traits born of a malfunctioning moral compass, and they are laid bare in spades on every page of Dirty, Sexy Politics. Furthermore, it is important to address them because Meghan McCain’s book is an active attempt to split the Republican Party in two and thereby destroy its ability to win elections. And even though she is an idiot, she is a useful idiot in the hands of the media and other assorted Democrats, who also want to achieve this goal."

It is the author's last point that makes this review/rebuke further worth reposting.  Wolf exposes her as a grammatically challenged, narcissistic dolt who would divide us as long as she can maintain her place on the stage.  She is a destroyer, not a builder, whom Wolf asserts, needs to be addressed.  Absolutely. 

Thank you Mr. Wolf, for doing the job and reminding us to be leery of simplistic, narrow thinking useful idots who in their exaggerated sense of self-worth, assail conservatives and Tea Partiers thus serving the left more than the right.  Patriots should be cautious before heeding the rantings of these types.

The Mysterious PonyTail Man Who Never Speaks

Who is this man? 

The outline of the Ponytailed Jean Man, standing next to the SEIU Defense Witness, is still the most puzzling part of the night. 

Ponytail is in the moogrogue video, stepping over Elston McCowan on the ground.  He clearly was involved in breaking up the altercation.  You can hear him tell Perry Molens "THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO DO IT," as Perry grabs Kenneth from behind and throws him to the ground. 

Cheryl Johner, the OFA member who pled guilty to assaulting Kelly Owens, also yells at Perry Molens, telling him to get off Kenneth.  

These two did not speak at the Gladney trial, nor were they interviewed by police or prosecutors.  They were the most likely witnesses for the defense, as they were close enough to be there and in fact were involved in breaking it up. 

And yet, no one heard from Ponytail, who stood silently by and said nothing to the police. 

He really is an interesting character, because SEIU claims Ponytail was protecting McCowan.  Once the video was published, SEIU broke up screen captures of the event and tried to paint Gladney as the aggressor in the video.

His testimony would have been valuable, as he was a central figure in stopping the assault.  While the defense did not call him (and that was their right), it would have gone a long way to have him cross-examined under oath, as it was clear he saw Molens and McCowan attacking Kenneth.  His statement, "not the way to do it," suggests that he would not have been a sympathetic witness.

As we look at the trial, we can see D'Agrosa doing his job, earning his $10,000 paid by SEIU trial fee for an ordinance violation. We can't pretend the trial tells the truth.  Molens and McCowan were not found innocent.  The jury said the prosecutor didn't convince them based on his case. 

There's a world of difference in those two statements.

Defense Witness For Elston McCowan Gets A Helping Hand From Police

An earlier post helped identify the defense witness in the Gladney beating trial as an SEIU woman who can be seen entering the video after the initial assault.  In addition, the video begins further back, and then zooms in. 

The SEIU shirted defense witness, a heavy set woman in a cane, walks into the frame after David Brown and Kelly Owens arrive, neither of whom saw the initial assault.  To be an eyewitness, she would have had to be walking with Elston and Perry when the two decide to confront Kenneth Gladney. 

The videographer, moogrogue, was also closer to the action than the defense witness.  He had time to flip on his camera, point it at the attack, and zoom in, prior to the defense witness arriving at the scene. 

Compare that testimony with that of two prosecution witnesses at the scene, who were close enough to break it up, and who gave immediate testimony. 

We don't have trial transcripts yet, but we do know that the SEIU defense witness did not speak to police or the prosecutor's office to provide evidence.  Her testimony was two years old, and was not researched in advance by the prosecutor.  Had he done so - had he utilized the video, pictures and articles provided to the first prosecutor, he would have known what to say to her.  His strongest cross examination was to ask her why she didn't speak up that night.  A verbal report from the trial states the Defense Witness was scared to speak to police because they were macing people.   There was one person maced, Javonne Spitz, who resisted arrest after barging into the scene and confronting officers. 

So did the defense witness have a right to be scared?  Rather than trust her memory two years later, let's take a look at video from that night. 

 

As you can see, the defense witness is standing next to Elston McCowan, being assisted in making a phone call by a St Louis County police officer.  She had the presence of mind to ask him to shine a flash light on her phone, but not to tell him that she was a witness.  From start to finish of the police arriving and arresting McCowan and Molens, the witness was there.  At no time did she speak up, even when she had the opportunity to.  Three videos form that night show multiple angles of her standing, mute, while her friends are arrested to assault.  

This same lady is the one who Elston says, "you'll protect me."  She never tells him that she saw Gladney attack him.  She stands around, offering comfort, like someone who walks up to a scene after it happens.  Which from the moogrogue video, suggests that is exactly what happened. 

 

Gladney Assault Trial: Is This The Defense Witness?

Yesterday's trial resulting in a not guilty verdict for Elston McCowan and Perry Molens hinged on the testimony of witnesses. Setting aside all of the peripheral evidence, the case came down to two witnesses for the prosecution stating they saw McCowan and Molens attack Gladney, versus a witness for the defense who made the claim that Kenneth started the "fight" by slapping the hand of Elston McCowan.

It was up to the jury to determine which witness testimony was most reliable.  The $10,000 defense strategy was not to claim Elston was assaulted and did nothing.  It was to claim Elston and Perry acted in self-defense.  Note this is in direct conflict with the statements Elston has made for two years of being attacked and not fighting back. 

It was their legal right to change the story for the trial, but bringing in a new witness is a different matter. As we pointed out years ago, there were no other witnesses to the beginning of the assault.  The two people closest were Cheryl Johner (who pled guilty to assault of Kelly Owens), and the ponytailed man in jeans seen standing over McCowan in the opening sequence of the video.  Neither testified.

Instead, there was a defense witness, still unnamed, who claims to have seen the beginning of the altercation.  She was decribed as heavyset, with a cane. 

Do you mean this woman?  The one seen walking into the scene after the assault had taken place?  The woman who slowly moves forward and who gets to the scene after David Brown (blue shirt), who did not see the initial assault?  This is the witness? 

The full video:  You can see her just a few seconds in, clearly getting to the scene after it occurred. 

 

As we verify the identity of this witness that stepped forward two years after the fact, it seems fair to question if she perjured herself, seeing as she arrived after the assault occurred.  And if so, what can be done about it?

 

 

Arnold Council to You: "Yeah, About That Whole 1st Amendment Thing..."

How far can you go to trash the Constitution before people really start to notice?  You would think our "friends" on the Arnold City Council would have backed off after the September 16th incident, when they decided to push the vote to hire their friend Bob Sweeney back into his cushy $200K a year job as City Attorney before We The People had a chance to tell them how we felt about it.  Maybe people weren't getting the message?  After all, according to Councilman Randy Crisler, being elected means you are presumed to be correct, right?

That same night, September 16th, information was handed out regarding a citation the City had sent to one of it's residents regarding the height of grass and weeds at one of his properties in the City.  Feeling this was in error, he approached the City Council and handed out a packet of pictures showing the height of the grass and questioning the reason for the citation.  That packet was also handed out to citizens in the audience as well.  After 3-4 packets were handed out, the individual handing them out was told to stop by an Arnold Police officer.  Is it any coincidence that that officer happened to be Bob Sweeney's brother?

On November 2nd, Election Day, a group of concerned Arnold residents worked the polls handing out a flyer to inform citizens what their City Council was doing and why they wanted to shut down the discussion and debate.

This was apparently the straw that broke the camel's back.

On November 15th, a sign on the window of the Council Chamber at City Hall was installed, reading "NO SIGNS OR HANDOUTS ALLOWED UNLESS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL".

I'm sorry.  I've been reading my Pocket Constitution, and I can't find the place where it says the First Amendment doesn't apply at 2101 Jeffco Blvd, Arnold, MO 63010.

Now obviously, the point of contention with this sign is the fact that, well, Freedom of Speech should at least be observed in the one true public place in town, the Council Chamber.  I believe it was in 2nd or 3rd Grade that they start teaching children about the Bill of Rights and why Freedom of Speech was so important.  I find it hard to believe that 6 of the 8 councilpersons were absent from school that week.   

I would like to give my friends on the Arnold City Council a little lesson on how a Republican form of government works.

1.  God is the Creator and granted us humans certain inalienable rights.

2.  We The People are soverign and enjoy the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

3.  We delegate to you, representatives of us, certain limited powers to conduct the daily business of government.

4.  You consult us, we don't consult you.

Now honestly, there have been plenty of books written over 230 years that go into great detail about those principles.  But for future reference, please keep those in mind.

And remember, like we saw in Jefferson County on Nov. 2nd, the easiest way to reform government is at the ballot box.  For some on this Arnold City Council, that day is April 5th, 2011.

 

Windmill Farm's Windfall from Taxpayers Represents Nepotism from Carnahans

In typical fashion, the attack-dog blog of the Carnahans provides cover for their dirty-doings.  Instead of addressing the serious issues of earmarks and the massive redistribution of wealth to allies through the "Stimulus," FiredUp wants to quibble over Ed Martin's use of the term earmarks.

Here’s what you need to know. In 2005, Tom Carnahan was a lawyer, and his brother was just elected to Congress. In that time, the company Tom Carnahan formed has given over 100,000 to Democrats, including the campaigns of his brother and sister, as well as to Democratic Party PACS that also give to his brother and sister.

Tom Carnahan is on record stating that wind power needs stimulus and subsidies and cap and trade to compete with coal. Quite simply, without the stimulus, cap and trade, and other legislative actions, it's doubtful that Tom Carnahan’s wind company would be profitable. Without the government help and the Carnahan name, the Wind Capital Group would be in a much different financial picture. They would certainly not be giving all that cash to elect Democrats.  They wouldn't get cash grants that amount to almost $1.5 million an employee.  Who can doubt this?  It's not like Tom is an entrepreneur - he's in an industry business that only exists as a money maker because the Green movement is pushing it. 

Who wrote the renewable energy rules the way they did?  What impact did lobbyists or lobbyists organizations have on how those rules were written?  There is no disputing that a lawyer with no background in construction or wind farms has been able to build a very large business on the backs of the US taxpayer.  Tom Carnahan got rich off us, but because he's a lawyer and a Carnahan, he figured out how to work the system so he wouldn't have to have his brother and sister do illegal things to make him rich.  It doesn't matter if Russ was handing money envelopes to government officials.  He didn't need to.

People instinctively know this. They know that the Carnahans back-scratching with the environmental groups is useful to Tom.  They know that Tom got into the wind farm business because he knew he had advantages others didn't.  They know that Robin Carnahan was in charge of the ballot language that was passed by proposition to mandate renewable energy targets for Missouri.   If Tom wasn't taking government money, this would not be a story.  But he is. That's his business model.  Take government money and crush the competition with massive, overbearing legislation his brother voted for and his sister supports.

Suffice it to say that the Carnahan family got $107 million from the "stimulus."

How much did you get?

Randy Crisler: "As Legislators We Have The Presumption Of Being Correct."

While revisiting former issues in Arnold from 2005 on the site ArnoldTalk.com, I came across an interesting topic regarding then-Attorney General Jay Nixon's view on Red Light Cameras.  There was an article on stltoday.com (which has since been scrubbed) stating Nixon's opinions on prosecuting someone for a red light camera violation.  Below is the article, which was posted on ArnoldTalk.com:

Questions are raised on use of "red-light" traffic photos
By Shane Graber
Of the Post-Dispatch
Tuesday, Aug. 09 2005

Some Missouri cities soon might use traffic cameras to ticket unlawful drivers. But the state attorney general doesn't think the photographs will hold up in court.

The city of Arnold recently decided to install traffic cameras that will
photograph license plates of vehicles running red lights. Creve Coeur is
considering a similar program.

But Attorney General Jay Nixon says the photographs won't provide enough proof to ticket motorists.

"I think it's pretty clear these pictures can't be the sole or only evidence to cite drivers for violating state traffic laws," Nixon said in a telephone
interview. "I have deep concern whether taking someone's picture rolling
through a stop light is adequate evidence in and of itself to uphold a state
traffic law."

Red-light cameras are set up at the corners of an intersection on poles. The cameras point toward the intersection. If a car enters the intersection against a red light, it sets off a trigger, which then tells a computer to snap two pictures. The first one shows the car entering the intersection. The next one shows the car in the middle of it.

American Traffic Solutions will provide Arnold with the service. Jane Dueker, a lawyer who represents the company, said local police would have the authority to use the cameras because they would be enforcing local ordinances, not state laws. Pictures are used as evidence in courts all the time, she said.

Big Brother factor

Arnold Police Chief Robert Shocke said the violation won't go on the person's driving record.

Several cities, including New York, Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles,
already use red-light cameras. Some studies, though, show that legal or not, the cameras don't make intersections safer.

In a study by North Carolina A&T State University in 2004, funded by the Urban Transit Institute, research showed that while accidents at intersections decreased over a five year period, intersections where red-light cameras were installed did not experience the same decrease.

Dr. Mark Burkey, co-author of the study, said he had found no benefits to the cameras.

State Rep. Connie L. Johnson, D-St. Louis, tried to pass a bill last
session that would have made the cameras legal statewide, but it died in
committee "because all the controversy of Big Brother," she said.

"But nobody has a right to privacy on a public street," she said. "It's as
simple as that."

The Big Brother concern is a common one, said Tom Miller, a spokesman for the Missouri Department of Transportation. His department has traffic cameras at about 100 of its 1,000 intersections in the area.

Although they're used for traffic flow and not enforcement, he gets calls all the time from motorists who think they're being watched.

Gateway Guide, a joint venture between the Missouri and Illinois transportation departments, also uses dozens of cameras throughout the region. These, too, are unable to be used by law enforcement, Miller said.

Nixon said the state, city, or anyone else can snap as many photos as they want of people on the road. But those photos alone won't prove a legal case.

"A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a picture in and of itself is not a conviction," he said.

Scrolling down, I came across a comment from Arnold City Councilman, resident tax-cheat and co-snipe sign conspirator Randy Crisler regarding Nixon's comments in the Post-Dispatch:

What you do not see is Mr. Nixon coming straight out and saying that this is an illegal practice. There is a reason for that. This is not an Illegal practice. Our ordinance is sound and we believe it will hold up in accordance with the laws.
I also fail to see where the taxpayers would lose out due to lawsuits. Who is going to be sued and over what. If you beat a ticket in court you cannot sue for damage to your character. If and I do mean if Mr. Nixon is not just coming out of his shell to grouse and then return to his hole for six more weeks of winter I will be surprised. However in the unlikely event that this happens it is he that must provide that we are wrong. As legislators we have the presumption of being correct when we enact ordinance. That is a high hurdle to jump even for the states top Attorney.

Wow.  That's pretty strong words by Mr. Crisler.  I'm sure he thought that equating the now-Govenor to a groundhog, and proclaiming Arnold's City Council as omnipotent would not get noticed on ArnoldTalk.com.  I'm sure Mr. Crisler didn't believe that 5 years later he would be the catalyst for the biggest example of quid pro quo in Arnold's 38-year history.

Job 4:8 states "“As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it.", also known as "You Reap what you Sow".  Crisler, and others in Arnold have been sowing the seeds of corruption and stabbing Arnold in the back for many years now.  Very soon, these same elected officials may be reaping the resuls of thier actions at the ballot box.

 

Arnold City Council Videos, Part I and II

The Jefferson County Tea Party has their first videos up of the council meeting in Arnold Thursday, September 16th, 2010, where the new council, ushered into office on a very mysterious wave of money, voted to reappoint the former attorney into a cushy $200,000 a year part-time position.

 

Part I

 

 

Part II