24thState

Right To Work - Punt, Pass, Kick

How does a Democratic Governor, with a veto proof legislature, generate more excuses, from Republican leadership, in one legislative session, than a third grader whose dog ate their homework? Easy. Be a Governor of a non-Right To Work state.

It’s nice to know that self-preservation is alive and well in the Missouri General Assembly.

While Missourians have been wishing, chanting, screaming for legislators to pass Right To Work legislation in their state, the Republican legislature has been dancing around how to avoid the issue for years. Always, the mantra has been to blame the Governor.  But first, they blamed the fact they had no majority with which to pass the legislation. And so, Missouri gave them a veto proof majority in 2012. It became almost entertaining to watch the squirming from the “right” as they knew they would be expected to do something, but what? How would they appease their voting base and still protect Republicans who clandestinely enjoy Union support? Well, they have come up with the quintessential “It’s not my fault” solution. They’re gonna punt. They are passing the buck, to you. It will be your fault. The $7.1 million dollar question is, will voters fall for it? Here’s how it works.

Two key pieces of legislation have been introduced, this session, which promote Right To Work. HB 77 and HB 91 are two, almost identical bills that might bring Right To Work to Missouri, but not at the hands of the legislature whom, by the way, was elected to represent the interests of their voting constituents, not special interests. They both contain language that kicks it to you, the voter. That’s right. They are both ballot initiatives. So, in short, instead of taking responsibility, taking a stand on an issue, the legislature is throwing it to you. Yes, you now must decide whether Missouri will be a Right To Work state, should the one of these bills pass through the general assembly in this session.

And as long as things go well, and Missourians can out campaign and out spend, the Unions, they should expect great success. If not, then it’s your fault. Pretty tidy and convenient for the legislature. And we will all be able to sleep better at night knowing we have maintained our veto proof majority. Did I mention we will be at least $7.1 million dollars poorer to address the issue by ballot initiative?

It looks like the bill with legs is HB 77, and it goes to committee tomorrow. The main difference between the bills is that HB 77 puts the issue on the ballot in November of 2013 and HB 91 goes on in November of 2014. There is no general election in 2013 and the cost to tax payers to put it on the ballot, in an off year, will be in the neighborhood of $7.1 million dollars. Should anyone ask the general assembly to forego their salaries, this session, to offset the costs of a special election?

You can thank the following for advancing Right To Work in Missouri:  HB 77 – Eric Burlison (sponsor) Speaker, Tim Jones, Brattin, Diehl, Lichtenegger, Lant, Morris, Rieboldt, Frederick, Bahr, Schatz, White, Dugger, Ross, Cookson, Anderson, and Kelley (co-sponsors) HB 91 – Donna Lichtenegger (sponsor) Speaker, Tim Jones, Burlison, and Bahr (co-sponsors)

Few would argue the importance of brining jobs to Missouri. There seems to be a great philosophical divide in just how to get that done. Remember China Hub? Tax credits are an old time favorite of our elected and we now also have a repackaged, repurposed, recycled version of the China Hub Tax Credit initiative. HB 221, Sponsored by Anne Zerr and co-sponsored by Deihl, Allen, Leara, Swearingen, McCaherty, Walker, Lauer, Kratky, Sommer, Torpey, Smith 85), McNeil and Otto is moving right along and will be heard in committee, today, at 5:00 p.m.

My American Heritage Dictionary defines “Leader” as – n. 1. A person who leads others along a way; a guide. Are we being led over a cliff?

 

Governor Nixon and Attorney General Koster sell out Missouri jobs to appease special interests

The following was submitted by Mark Patterson of The Cavalry Group.

The old adage of “its not what you say, but what you do that counts” has never been more poignant than in the last four years of Governor Nixon’s administration. There have been many examples of Nixon selling out Missouri families and Missouri businesses in favor of powerful special interest groups, or trying to curry favor with President Obama. Let’s not forget Governor Nixon trying last year to sneak in the Obamacare exchanges under the nose of Missourians. However, none of the Governor’s actions have been more vicious and transparent as pretending to broker a compromise between radical animal rights groups and Missouri Dog Breeders and animal agriculture groups and then selling law abiding Missourians down the river.

After a bitter battle over the slimly won 2010 Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act Ballot Initiative where the Humane Society of the United States spent $4.8 million dollars on propaganda in Missouri to create a “crisis” where one didn’t exist, the Missouri Legislature courageously stepped in to protect law abiding Missouri businesses from an un-constitutional effort to destroy a viable industry. Missouri already had extensive animal welfare laws in place, and this new Measure did nothing to deal with the small percentage breaking the law, nor the State’s failure to enforce the law. However this battle was really about wiping out the already heavily regulated, successful, Missouri dog breeding industry. An industry which has produced quality purebred dogs for families all over the United States and beyond. Ironically, the Humane Society of Missouri will sell you a mutt with behavioral problems for $300 if you are interested. The conflict of interest is obvious.

As the Missouri legislature crafted a fix for this job killing Measure, Governor Nixon, stepped in to broker what is now known as the Missouri Solution. He caps that by meeting with both sides and declaring victory. The Governor’s failure to actually determine with empirical data that there is a problem is swept under the rug. Instead the Governor falls in line with the massive propaganda campaign put forth by out of state special interests, specifically HSUS. Nobody questions or takes into account the fact that HSUS has gone state by state claiming them as the ‘puppy mill capital of the US” and subsequently destroying their dog breeding industries.

According to Missouri Law what was supposed to happen next is that a 12 person committee made up of diverse agricultural interests works with the Department of Agriculture to write the rules and regulations so as to accurately and fairly implement the law. Unfortunately, Governor Nixon had disbanded this committee in 2009. So who wrote the rules and regulations? We have information that Director of Agriculture, Dr. Jon Hagler was involved, as was a gentleman named Bob Baker who is the director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation (MAAL), animal rights advocates masquerading as animal welfare proponents and a direct conduit to the radicals at HSUS. Otherwise we are not sure who else was involved. In that smoky back room, most of the unconstitutional aspects removed from the Measure made it back into the rules coupled with numerous onerous and business crushing new rules that had no foundation in the law itself. These rules went into affect on July 11, 2011.

According to Matt Rold, Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA) Coordinator for the Missouri Department of Agriculture, the result was that in the period from July 2011 to July 2012 approximately 50% of the 1,500 licensed Missouri dog breeders went out of business as they were financially incapable of complying with the new onerous rules requiring thousands of dollars of unneeded kennel modifications. The impact to Missouri is tens of thousands of lost jobs and over $500 million plus in lost positive economic impact to Missouri. So while the economy is struggling all over Missouri, Governor Nixon decides to crush thousands of Missouri families and their jobs to appease out of state radical animal rights activists. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster even decided that it would make a good campaign ad.

Taking a cue from President Obama, Nixon then doubled down on this strategy moving $1.1 million dollars from other important Missouri programs to the Department of Agriculture’s 2011-2012 budgets to enforce these new rules and implement an aggressive new enforcement campaign rather than to go after the unlicensed law breakers that were the target of this Measure. This effort ramped up this summer and the immediate results were hundreds of questionable violations against even Missouri’s top Blue Ribbon breeders. New interpretations of the old rules and vigorous enforcement of new rules that were unsupported by the actual law put everyone in a state of confusion including the Department of Agriculture’s Inspectors who were told to call Dr. Hagler for interpretation of the new rules with Dr. Hagler acting as the Department of Agriculture’s judge, jury and executioner. Worried that the Missouri Department of Agriculture could wipe out the Missouri dog breeding industry by the end of 2012, The Cavalry Group filed suit in early September 2012 challenging the constitutionality of many of the provisions in the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act including the “new” rules and regulations, and making a claim for a regulatory taking of private property. The Cavalry Group is in the midst of this legal action and will pursue all remedies to protect Missouri jobs and ultimately Missouri families. Hopefully we can help save a Missouri industry made up of real Missouri families with a great history and heritage.

Missouri voters have a clear choice on November 6th. Governor Nixon and Attorney General Koster have made that choice easier by attacking and destroying the livelihoods of those who they are supposed to protect: the law abiding citizens of Missouri. When you vote on November 6th, I hope that you will remember those law abiding, hard working Missouri families that Governor Nixon and Attorney General Koster forgot. Vote for Dave Spence for Missouri Governor, and Ed Martin for Missouri Attorney General.

The Cavalry Group is America’s Advocate for animal owners, outdoor sportsmen, and animal related businesses defending them on the legal, legislative, and cultural fronts. www.TheCavalryGroup.com

 

Evaluating Dave Spence's New Ad

Dave Spence has begun airing the ad above in select markets. According to Reboot Congress, Stephanie Patton who is featured in the ad, operated an adult day care service for fifteen years in Missouri before the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) shut her down. Patton was treated terribly by a DHSS inspector, Cassie Blum.

Patton was forced to close her business because of regulatory actions taken by Jay Nixon's DHSS. In the ad, Patton claims that the inspector got a 5% raise. A review of the salary data at the Missouri Accountability Portal confirms a 5% raise in 2009; however, like other state employees, Blum's salary has been frozen since then.

Missouri Governor Race: From Good to Great

The reasons to replace Jax Nixon as Governor are numerous and valid, starting with his lockstep allegiance to public sector unions and opposition to the right to work, but those discussions are best held for another day. What is noteworthy in this cycle is that rather than the typical lineup of Republican politician versus Democrat politician, Congressman Lieutenant Governor or Auditor of one party versus Governor of the other, in this cycle, Missourians have tremendous and unusual options, any of whom hold the potential to be stellar leaders in stark contrast to the dearth of leadership from the play-it-safe Nixon.

While Dave Spence, the tremendously successful businessman has all of the trappings of the official GOP establishment choice, that is a bit unfair. Spence is a true leader in his own right, who was called to service and answered that call. That makes him a patriot. He has solid credentials as a conservative and certainly as a businessman and has shown courage that is rare even for a businessman in Missouri. Spence actually had the cajones to stand in front of the status quo loving, shrinking violets at the RCGA and repeat the need to revisit the right to work reform in Missouri. You go man! What he lacks, is typical for business leaders turned politicians and that is the sophisticated political accumen. The political world is not the business world and neither is government. Government has totally different accounting standards and diplomacy in politics is very distinct from business negotiations. Your competitor in business is rarely the strategic partner the next day the way a Senator from the opposing party may be in politics. Can a guy like Spence who had an unremarkable first half of his life and a stunning second half have built the accumen to skillfully navigate these waters? Maybe. He certainly has surrounded himself with some great people, like Bill Rowe, a friend of mine from grade school, who will help.

The next candidate gaining attention is Bill Randles. I struggle with this guy, and I may lose friends who adore him, but here is why I urge caution. Politics almost never rewards shortcuts. The first tier candidate for any party is always a proven commodity. You are proven in politics first, otherwise, and far less often, an outsider can make a run for high office and be credible only if there is some other celebrity status and/or significant personal wealth. Total outsiders devoid of a public record or name identification (name ID), and no way to fund the creation of significant name ID never win. Never. In fact, the record of failure is so clear, that those who have devoted themselves to politics, from grassroots volunteers to lower level office holders find it almost egomaniacle when someone thinks they have the "juice" when they have no juice. To ask volunteers to dedicate themselves to ones Quixotic quest demeans them and boarders on the audatious. On the other hand, Bill Randles has a Harvard Law degree. That says a lot about someone's capabilities, but not nearly enough for him to shortcut the process. Randles would be very credible running for State House or even perhaps Senate, but not the state's top job.

The candidate getting the least attention deserves the most, and that is Fred Sauer. For the sake of full disclosure, I once worked for Fred. That experience also gives me particular authority regarding the subject matter.

Fred Sauer is a complex man possessing perhaps the finest combination of personal character and personal accomplishment of anyone I have ever known. I have known some great people notably, the late Jerry Wamser about whom I wote a few weeks ago. Missourians wanting to hitch their wagon to this man's train would be extremely well-served.

I do not impress easy, but when you spend a few moments with the guy, the thought occurs that you are in the company of a truly gifted, maybe even superior human being. While Randles went to Harvard law school and certainly did fine legal work thereafter and Spence went to state school and created a stunning business, Fred Sauer did all of the above and more. Fred not only went to Yale and then Stanford, he then proceeded to build tremendous personal wealth, demonstrated a nearly unparallelled willingness to devote that wealth to the selfless promotion of causes he feels called to support and finally, devoted decades toiling in the grassroots of the party structure (as a committeeman) never seeking the personal glory of running for office. In short, rather than shortcut, Fred Sauer has quietly done every one of the very things we ask of our candidate and far, far more. Plus, unlike Randles, Sauer has the ability to self-fund. That makes him every bit as "first tier" as Spence.

If there is one criticism of Fred it is that he is naive'. That is a misunderstanding. Fred Sauer takes very seriously, the biblical mandate that we comport ourselves wise as serpents and gentle as doves. He is both extremely wise and certainly learned, but this American hero who enlisted during Vietnam, is as gentle as a dove holding no personal malice for any man. He will however, deploy tremendous force and personal resources against actions he loathes, but never against people. He is trusting, almost to a fault. Were the race for Governor a cage fight in which the combatants were judged on demonstrably solid character, principles, and selfless dedication, Fred Sauer would be Royce Gracie, and leave the best comers in his wake. Like the famed Brazilian jui jitsu artist who at less than 200lbs stunned the mixed martial arts world by defeating the biggest meanest opponents in a time before they even had weight classes, Fred Sauer quietly, humbly and strategically gets the job done vanquishing any task or opponent with grace. In the Governor's race this August, Republicans have two great choices and one stellar choice. The stellar choice is Fred Sauer.

Right to Work is the Right to Prosper

Guest Contributor, Bill Randles

The state of Missouri has a fundamental economic choice to make.  Will we pursue a proven path to prosperity or continue to sacrifice the economic good of all to pander to a small special interest group?  If Missouri does not become a right to work state its economic decline will continue.

There are two types of states in terms of labor laws.  Missouri is one of 27 states that is a “closed shop” state.  That means if you wish to work in a business that is already unionized, you must join the union to get a job.  You must also, therefore, consent to a mandatory deduction from your check to be used for essentially whatever purposes (including political) the union chooses.  In the 23 right to work states, it remains up to the individual worker whether to join a union and whether to have his wages docked by the union.

The long-standing decline of union membership in the US is being vigorously resisted by union leadership and their pet politicians.  Union membership has dwindled in the private sector to about 6.9% of workers.  In the public sector, the number is about 36%.  Obviously, the market has spoken and whatever purposes unions may have served in the past, the private sector has largely moved on. However, as evident by the large number of public sector unions, politicians who pay court to union leadership remain determined to prop up unions.  The cost to the rest of us is substantial.  Missouri and the other closed shop states continue to lose jobs and economic development to the other right to work states.  In fact, since this “recovery” began only the then 22 right to work states have added net jobs.  Additionally, during the last census, only the then 22 right to work states added congressional representation as well.  Thus we have a clear contrast between a broken model and a successful model.  Recently, Indiana recognized this model of success and has become the 23^rd right to work state.  Yet Missouri stubbornly clings to the broken model.  Why? (see our earlier post on Indiana)

It is because Jay Nixon and the Democratic Party have been bought and paid for by the labor unions.  Labor unions along with trial lawyers are the largest contributors to Nixon’s political campaigns and they’ve gotten good value for what they’ve paid for.  He stubbornly refuses to even consider right to work legislation and works hard to peel off enough Republican legislators to prevent the legislation from even coming to his desk.  The fact that it costs Missouri jobs, raises the price of every single item sold in this state, and will dramatically inflate the costs of projects in the future like rebuilding Joplin does not trouble Nixon and the Democrats one bit.  On the contrary, loss of jobs and a hidden union tax on every transaction in the state of Missouri is a price they are happily willing to pay to continue to pay off their devoted union backers. 

So the choice Missourians need to make is quite clear.  Will we choose economic prosperity for all or a stunted economy that panders to a few?  Will we have a free, open, and vibrant economy or continue closed tightly regulated, crony capitalism?  When I am elected governor I will promptly push through a right to work statute which will benefit all Missourians.  Missouri does not have to live with the mediocrity that we have endured in our economy and political system over the last several years.  The people of this state do not have to be held hostage by special interests and their captive politicians any longer.  Missouri must become a right to work state and in 2013, in the first legislative session after I’m elected governor, it will.  

Missouri is in last place and in dire need of OFFENSE against Nixon.  He obviously does not know how to make a state survive, let alone thrive.

Indiana Enacts Right to Work; Why can't Missouri?

Congratulations to Indiana for doing something that seems beyond the Show Me State: pass right to work legislation:

Indiana officially became the 23rd state in the nation to enact a right to work law that allows employees working in union shops to opt out of joining and paying dues to the union. Gov. Mitch Daniels signed HB 1001 into law this afternoon after the Senate passed the legislation by a 28-22 vote.

Gov. Mitch Daniels issued a statement about the bill after signing it Wednesday. That statement reads in part:

Indiana will improve still further its recently earned reputation as one of America’s best places to do business, and we will see more jobs and opportunity for our young people and for all those looking for a better life.

As was noted at Advance Indiana, 23 states have adopted right to work legislation. Wouldn't it be apropos if Missouri, the 24th state to join the union, could be the 24th state to adopt a right to work bill?

The first step on that path is in Missouri's General Assembly. The Missouri Senate has taken action on right to work, but the Missouri House has let the legislation flounder. Speaker Steven Tilley needs to prioritize this reform.

There is a risk that Democrat Gov. Jay Nixon will veto right to work. In an election year, it is the job of a conservative legislature to force a liberal Governor like Nixon to take a stand on this crucial issue.

 

 

Ed Martin and Scott Eckersley

We've covered this ground before, but the St. Louis Post Disgrace has decided to throw their support behind Chris Koster with smears of Ed Martin that have already been debunked. Here's a convenient round up of our previous coverage:

Part 1: Memogate: A political stunt by Koster and Nixon

Part 2: Why is there no evidence showing Eckersley to be a whistleblower?

Part 3: Eckersley: condemn's himself as tardy, exhausted, and working for others

Part 4: Eckersley was also insubordinate

Apparently, the Post Disgrace is hoping to burnish Koster's image with North St. Louis by smearing Ed Martin as a racist. I think this will come back to haunt them:

"... every friggin' developer can figure out who is illegal," Mr. Martin said. "There's a bunch of Mexicans out there, I guess some of them are probably not legal."

Again, we reiterate his need for effective advertising here.

"See brown people. Round up brown people. Ed Martin. Tough on crime." That's quite a slogan.

Really? That's just amazing. The editorial board of the Post Disgrace has just kicked-off Black History Month with a February 1st racial smear of Ed Martin.

Kinder Accuser Has Mysterious Wikipedia Edits

The RFT's hit piece on Peter Kinder aired August 9th this year. 

The next day, the wikipedia entry for John Ross was edited to removed Tammy Chapman as a roommate to Ross. 

The edit was anonymous, from an IP in Springfield, MO. 

At the time of the edit, no one outside of Tammy and John's circle of friends knew they were roommates.  

Big Government suggests Ross was involved in the hit piece.  Certainly the question of who sent the photo to the RFT from Tammy's private phone and who identified Verlin's in the comments has yet to be answered.  If the RFT wants to act offended about its journalistic practices, perhaps they ought to be clever enough to understand when they're being used.

We can't fault them for pushing the story.  We can point out that Chapman, Ross and the Democrats have a history of this kind of behavior.

The real question, is what clumsy political operative in Springfield decided to remove the fact that Chapman and Ross were roommates as the story was breaking?  And what else have they edited that would give clues to who they are?   

Nixon Vetoes Voter ID

Governor Nixon has vetoed voter ID for all the regular reasons:

Jay Nixon vetoed a bill Friday that could have eventually required voters to provide a government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot.

In the closing days of the legislative session, lawmakers passed an amendment to the state’s constitution mandating a photo ID to vote and a bill putting the amendment into practice. Voters will have the final say next year on the amendment, but by vetoing the implementation bill Nixon has prevented the law from going into effect even if it is approved by voters.

“This [photo ID] mandate would disproportionately impact senior citizens and persons with disabilities, among others, who are qualified to vote and have been lawfully voting since becoming eligible to do so, but are less likely to have a driver’s license or government-issued photo ID,” Nixon said in a letter explaining his veto. “Disenfranchising certain classes of persons is not acceptable.”

To turn their Social Security benefits into the store-brand cat food that Republican policies force them to eat, though, they will have to produce photo ID.

You know who this would disproportionately impact?  People without ID.  But we have a long distance from compel them to make an effort to get a photo ID if they don't have one, with the cost of the state photo ID waived if they're poor to standing in the polling place doorway with clubs to prevent people from voting.  Actually, under the right circumstances, I'm not sure that's against the law any more.  The United States Department of Justice doesn't think so.

Getting a photo ID is a small inconvenience to a small set of people.  Fraudulent voting, or the mere distrust in the electoral system that is building because so many elements of our ruling class don't want to take steps to assure the public that it takes the sanctity of elections and our system of government seriously, is a far greater threat to our way of life.  And, maybe, Jay Nixon's re-election.  Not necessarily because he's depending on fraudulent votes, but because he depends upon those elements of the ruling class.

(Link seen on Pundit and Pundette.)        

 

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.