24thState

No on Prop P

Members of the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition in conjunction with St. Louis County Republicans have established a committee named No on Prop P.

Last year the state legislature passed enabling legislation for St. Charles, St. Louis County and St. Louis City to vote on a 3/16 of a cent sales tax awarding 40% to local parks, 30% to Great Rivers Greenway and 30% to City Arch River Project. St. Louis County must pass the tax increase or the vote is voided in St. Louis City.

St. Charles County has opted out of the tax increase. St. Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann testified for informational purposes at the committee meeting in Jefferson City that cities could redirect tax payer money from the sales tax for unrelated development projects. Ehlmann is quoted in the Post Dispatch, “When people go to the ballot box and they vote on a tax increase, they need to be assured all the money goes where it is suppose to go."

St. Charles County Council did not allow the sales tax to be brought forward. County Council Republican Joe Brazil was quoted in the St. Louis Beacon “Whenever they need money for a bond issue (the City and St. Louis County) they come running over to us”. He was further quoted “If you want to be a metropolitan community it needs to go both ways. Not just when you need something.)

What Councilman Brazil was referring to was the city earnings tax. Residents of Saint Charles and St. Louis County pay 1% of their wages to St. Louis City for the privilege of working in the city. St. Louis County already contributes tax money for the following institutions, Zoo, Art Museum, Science Center, Botanical Garden and the History Museum. Yet residents of the city are not charged an earnings tax when they are employed in the surrounding counties. Regionalism needs to be reciprocal.

The No on Prop P committee is a grassroots effort to defeat Prop P in St. Louis County. County taxpayers will finance roughly ¾ of the funding for Great Rivers Greenway and City Arch River Project. City voters will more than likely support the tax. A city alderman advised me confidentially that the city would be foolish to vote down improvements paid for primarily by county residents. This tax is one further step closer to a city/county merger.

Who Supports Prop A?

At 24thstate, we have dealt with several issues surrounding Prop A, the so-called 'local control' of STL City police proposition.  All lead us to the the conclusion that Missouri should Vote NO on Prop A.

1) Prop A Promotes Partisan Policy, Not Principles: proponents have carefully couched their message in Jeffersonian principle taken out of context, and have intentionally confused the relationship differences between state & national (federalism) and state & municipal (Federalist #45).

2) The End of Transparency: the Civil Service Commission, appointed by Mayor Slay, holds hearings closed to the public, and will conduct police hearings in the same manner.  This is not surprising when one sees union boss Jeff Roorda was behind the push for Prop A.

3) Viva La Local Control: a major endorser of Prop A is the group La Raza.  This raises major concerns about the establishment of sanctuary cities in the state of Missouri.  In fact, Texas Governor Rick Perry has been working on re-establishing state control of major metro areas in TX that have ignored efforts at stopping illegal immigration.

Well, it turns out that there are many more questionable endorsements with Prop A.

AFL-CIO: proponents of Prop A have attempted to portray the issue as anti-union, but that could not be further from the truth.  And one only need think of Wisconsin to understand why the AFL-CIO wants the STL police under sole control of Mayor Slay & STL City Democrats.  Do not forget that Richard Trumka heads the AFL-CIO.

Civic Progress: this organization is a major advocate for a city-county merger in STL, but it gets worse.  Not only do they want to "unify the St. Louis region," but they want to "connect us to the global community."  If this does not bring up thoughts of 'sustainablity' & Agenda 21, then you need to do some studying.  Furthermore, this sort of agenda will cripple conservative efforts to establish responsible governance in St. Louis.  It is impossible for conservatives to win in STL City, and near-impossible for conservatives to win in STL County.  Combine the two and you get a mini-Chicago in Missouri.  That will be devastating to the conservative vote in the entire area.

STL City & County Democrat Committees: not surprising in light of the city-county merger element, and the fact the the STL City Democrat Committee will essentially run the police with Mayor Slay.  

Four Freedoms: KC's voice for the LGBT community in the Democrat Party.  What is more glaring about this endorsement is the fact that I do not see a STL analog on the endorsement list.  Perhaps, the STL LGBT community understands the danger in handing Mayor Slay & the STL Democrat Machine unilateral authority over the police?

Missouri Family Family Network: Wait, what?!  I mean, they are a great conservative group, but why have they thrown their lot in with the aforementioned groups?  

It becomes even more surprising when one sees that every major conservative group in the STL region opposes Prop A.

TEA Parties: St. Louis Tea Party, Jefferson County Tea Party, K&N Patriots

Republican Organizations: STL City Central Committee, STL County Central Committee, numerous townships within STL County, Jefferson County Republican Club

[It should be mentioned that the black police officers association, the police leadership association, retired officers associations, and the ACLU oppose Prop A, due to the forced implementation of Fair Share (would force everyone into one union) and risk to the well-funded & maintained police pension (as happened to the STL City firefighters).]

So what gives?  Well, I know for a fact that Missouri Family Network took the time to speak with major Prop A advocate Carl Bearden, but that Gary Wiegert, who is heading up opposition, was not given the time of day before an endorsement was given.  What is really weird though is the fact that neither Carl nor Carl's group, United for Missouri, is on the list of endorsers (who would want to be listed with that group?), but Missouri Family Network is right in the midst of La Raza, AFL-CIO, Civic Progress, a multitude of Democrat organizations, and Four Freedoms.

I guess when it comes to Missouri Family Network & United for Missouri, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.  The lesson here: beware of those wrapping Democrat issues in conservative rhetoric.

Viva La Local Control

Editorial Comment: Gary Wiegert has been a St. Louis City police officer and resident for over 20 years, and a limited government patriot even longer. Residency law put him in the line of fire when a guy he busted walked by his house and started shooting at him. In short, he is vested in not just police issues, but St. Louis City and City resident issues. His interest is the big picture.

A Safer Missouri, the organization funded by Rex Sinquefield to give control of the St. Louis Police Department over to Mayor Slay and his democratic political machine, is proud to announce on their website that they've been endorsed by La Raza.

A search of their websites reveals they publicly support Latino issues and collectivism (Socialism). What they really support is illegal immigration and Sanctuary cities--American cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws. The reason they support local control is they believe the implementation of Sanctuary City policy in St. Louis should be determined by the local sympathetic big city politician regardless of regional concerns.

Sanctuary City policies are championed by liberal cities across the country to encourage illegal aliens to migrate to their city. Illegal aliens children are entitled to the welfare and medical benefits of this country. Welfare benefits fuel the local economy of big cities like St. Louis and Kansas City. Sanctuary City policies hamper the police and make it illegal for police to inquire into a criminal’s illegal alien status. The police are hamstrung by these policies and the police cannot force subjects to produce identification or report to Immigration Customs Enforcement as illegal aliens.

These policies have produced spikes in crime in assorted cities. Texas Governor Rick Perry attempted to address the issue after an illegal alien killed a popular Houston Texas Police Officer.

The state of Missouri outlawed sanctuary cities under the administration of then Governor Matt Blunt. The state laws means nothing if the local authorities operating on big city political considerations order their police to disregard the letter of the law. LaRaza knows that local control is a precursor to turning St. Louis into a sanctuary city which would be bad for the St. Louis Police Department and worse for St. Louis residents and visotors.

Prop A Promotes Partisan Policy, Not Principles

Proponents of Prop A have been selling a tainted bill of goods to grassroots conservatives.  Supposedly, 'local control' of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department represents the purest of Jeffersonian principles, identified in this quote:

It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.  What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government, which has ever existed under the sun?  The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body...

Notice the "..." at the end there.  I mention this because this is how one individual, representing an organization funded to promote issues such as Prop A, has presented it.  Well, as it turns out, this quote has been taken completely out of context, in order to sell that tainted bill of goods.  You see, this quote comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to one Joseph C. Cabell, and just prior to the aforementioned quote comes this line from Jefferson:

Let the national government be entrusted with the defence [sic] of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. (emphasis added)

Perhaps, the omission was quite innocent, but in light of the amount of money being spent for a statewide referendum that really only relates to the City of St. Louis (and its effect on the surrounding counties), I doubt it.

As I have argued in forums & threads, constitutionally speaking there are only two subdivisions: the national government & the governments of the several states.  This relationship is governed by the principle of federalism.  And as we all know, the national government is one of limited powers, while the state governments are ones of general powers, as discussed in Federalist #45 & enshrined in the 10th Amendment.  Generally speaking, state powers consist of safety, health and education, and include state common law consensus on crime, contract and tort.

The current administration of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police does not violate the principle of federalism, and falls within the state power of safety, consistent with the Missouri Constitution.  Since we have established that no constitutional or Jeffersonian principle is at stake in the issue of Prop A, we can conclude that this is an issue of policy, and policy always boils down to partisan politics.  So, where did this policy of 'local control' originate?  Well, from Mayor Slay and the STL City Democrat Machine.  If you think they sit on the same side as you in partisan politics, then you would be doing them a favor by voting for Prop A.

I have my own Jefferson quote for this debate:

...unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust.

Does Prop A allow the mass to retain sufficient control?  Well, we can follow that question with another, "Has the STL City Democrat Machine ever lost an election?"  And, lest someone think I was taking a quote out of context, please check on the source.  Interestingly, in this same letter, written from Jefferson to Francois Adriaan van der Kemp, we get the following line:

The only orthodox object of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it.

What can we glean from this line?  Breaking Jeffersonian principle down into baser elements, such as 'local control,' detracts from the primary focus of Jefferson; simply put, "Does this function of government make those it affects happier?"  In the case of Prop A, I would have to argue no, in light of the fact that it has already garnered much opposition from conservative grassroots groups & GOP organizations in the STL area which follow:

Tea Party groups:

• St. Louis Tea Party
• K and N Patriots
• Jefferson County Tea Party

Republican Organizations:

• St. Louis City Central Committee
• St. Louis County Central Committee
• Jefferson County Republican Club
• Concord Village/Lemay Township
• Meramec Township
• Gravois Township
• Tesson Ferry Township
• Lewis and Clark Township
• Northwest Township
• Airport Township
• Wild Horse Township

Surely, the debate will continue, but for now:

VOTE NO ON PROP A

Vote NO on Prop A this November 6th!

I am asking Missouri citizens to vote no on Prop A on November 6th.

Currently four St. Louis city citizens are appointed by the Governor, along with St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay to serve on the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners. A no vote would allow citizen commissioners to continue to hire, fire and establish rules for St. Louis city police officers. Under the Prop A proposal citizens would lose their ability to administer the police department, which would revert to the mayor and his city democratic political machine.

This statewide vote was financed by Rex Sinquefield and his powerful lobbyists who, in order to achieve the support of all factions, made a back door collective bargaining agreement between the St. Louis Police Board, Mayor Slay and The Police Officer’s Association (union). The police union has always been against local control and did not switch positions until they were granted collective bargaining with binding arbitration and the enforcement of “Fair Share”. Fair Share is the forced collection of dues from non members of the union.

There are three labor organizations in the St. Louis police Department, The Ethical Society of Police (African American officers), Leadership Organization (supervisors), and the SLPOA (union). Fair Share is designed to stifle competition. I was president of the union for six years and did not support fair share because competition makes a leader more responsive to the needs of the membership. The local control issue has enabled the union to be bullies, as they extract union dues from non members and expelled me from the union for practicing free speech against Prop A.

The St. Louis Police Pension Fund has 600 million in cash assets and Mayor Francis Slay switched his stance on local control, and seeks that money to finance pet projects like Aerotropolis, the Cardinals Ballpark Village and a retractable dome for the St. Louis Rams. Recently Mayor Slay paid the law firm Thompson Coburn a no bid contract $250,000.00 to administer a policy to circumvent payments to the St. Louis Firemen Pension Fund. In return Thompson Coburn contributed $40,000.00 to Mayor Slay’s campaign committee. This type of corruption should not be used for the purchase of police equipment or weaponry in the future.

The following are against Prop A:

Tea Party groups:

• St. Louis Tea Party
• K and N Patriots
• Jefferson County Tea Party

Republican Organizations:

• St. Louis City Central Committee
• St. Louis County Central Committee
• Jefferson County Republican Club
• Concord Village/Lemay Township
• Meramec Township
• Gravois Township
• Tesson Ferry Township
• Lewis and Clark Township
• Northwest Township
• Airport Township
• Wild Horse Township.

Interested Parties:

• St. Louis Police Leadership Organization (supervisors)
• Ethical Society of Police (African-American police)
• SPVA (retired police officers)
• SLAPO (retired African- American Officers)
• ACLU of the Eastern District of Missouri.

If you support citizens administering their own police department and not run by a corrupt union and democratic political machine then please vote NO on Prop A on November 6th.

Gary Wiegert
32 year police officer
Past President of the St. Louis Police Officers Association
Capitol Consultant St. Louis Tea Party

The Missouri Plan

Good lawyers know the law; great lawyers know the judge. ~Author Unknown

 Last week representatives once again voted on an issue that at first seems complex, but ultimately breaks down to a question of the fundamental principles of governance.  SJR 51 puts changes on the ballot in the way our state selects judges.

In 1940 Missouri was the first state to adopt a new way of selecting judges with a “non-partisan” 7 member commission.  As a result, this idea has been named the “Missouri Plan.” In MO, this commission is comprised of three non-lawyers appointed by the Governor, 3 lawyers selected by the MO Bar and 1 Supreme Court Justice selected by the Supreme Court (i.e. another lawyer).  The Commission gives 3 options to the Governor for whom to select as Judge for any open seat on the court.  The Commission can continue to resubmit passed over selections to the Governor giving him very little choice in who he selects to the judiciary.  The commission members are selected for 6 year terms, as opposed to the 4 yr terms of Missouri’s Governor and Senators.

SJR 51 makes several significant changes.  First, SJR 51 requires the commission to give the Governor 4 options instead of 3 to fill a vacancy.  Second, and more significantly, it takes the seventh position currently chosen by the Supreme Court and gives the selection to the Governor, thus giving him the option to select 4 of the 7 commissioners. Third, it shortens the commission’s term from 6 to 4 years.

What do these changes have to do with the fundamental principles of governance? SJR 51 swings the balance of power in the commission from unelected lawyers to an elected, accountable Governor. The Declaration of Independence states that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Furthermore, Article 1 section 1 of the Missouri Constitution states “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people.”  Thus, all officers of the government should be selected in such a way that they are accountable, first to the Rule of Law or the Constitution, and secondly to the will of the people. As the third branch of our state’s government, it is absolutely imperative that members of the judiciary be accountable to those from whom they derive their just powers.  In the current plan, a majority of the commission selecting MOs judges is chosen not by the people or their representative(s), but by the Missouri Bar Association, an unelected and unaccountable society of lawyers.  This plan, combined with the fact that the judiciary in MO is self-policed (judicial discipline is handled by another unelected commission and any impeachment is tried by the Supreme Court) gives ample opportunity for legal cronyism.  SJR51’s small changes take the swing vote away from unaccountable lawyers and give it to the Governor who can be held accountable by the electorate for bad judicial appointments.

 SJR 51 is a constitutional change and will be on the November ballot this year.   There will be a lot of money spent attempting to convince voters that allowing lawyers to choose the judges in front of whom they present cases is less corrupt than allowing the people’s elected Governor the swing vote.  This year our state has the chance to regain some accountability in our third branch of government.

 

Shades of Proposition B

Indiana farmer Frank W. James muses today on Animal Agriculture's "PR" Problem, and some of the lessons apply to the ongoing imbroglio about dog breeding in Missouri:

I guess I've been thinking about Animal Agriculture lately and it's PR problem.  Basically it stems from the fact that most of our national population resides in population centers of 100,000 or more.  (I think the figure from the last census was 51%.)  Additionally, according to most studies of demographics, the average urban resident is more than 4 or 5 generations removed from the farm.  That means you have to go back to their great-great-grandfather or later to find any direct linkage between their family and a farm heritage.

...

The biggest direct threat to Animal Agriculture in America presently is the Ballot Initiative. I think its either 25 or 26 states allow ballot initiatives if the organizers can gather 200,000 or more signatures.  This process has lead to cage-less chickens and the outlawing of swine farrowing crates in California, but California is not alone in this insanity.  These 'feel-good' animal agriculture production laws have been copied in a number of states and the consumer is the one who is ultimately stuck with the bill because the affected producer in an effort to stay in business must pass along all the added costs associated with some of this nitwit stuff.

If your food costs are going up, don't blame ethanol, blame the process that forces egg producers to put their chickens in an environment mandated by 'feel-good' ordinances which raise the cost of production through death loss, disease and other factors that ignore the realities of working with poultry or farrowing baby pigs.

He has nailed how Proposition B passed and how urban dwellers want to remake the world to suit their sensitivities without the knowledge of what that really means and ultimately how it will impact them.

Prop B Fails to Pass State Constitutional Muster

Image via Wikipedia

I asked Mindy Patterson to bring our readers up to speed on Prop B and the legislation in Jeff City to ammend it. Prop B, the so-called "Puppy Mill" ban, passed on last Novermber's ballot. Mindy was active in the fight against Prop B. Now she is working to fix the flaws in through Senate Bill SB113.

It states clearly in the Missouri Constitution, Article 1 Bill of Rights, Section 2, That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.

As Americans we live in a Republic, not a democracy. This means that it is up to our Missouri legislators to protect the individual rights and freedoms of its citizens. Thankfully, our Missouri legislators are doing just that as they see clearly that Wayne Pacelle and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) are using Proposition B to forward a radical animal rights agenda on our Missouri citizens.

Mr. Pacelle and the Humane Society of the United States continue to use emotion, misinformation and millions of out-of-state dollars to pressure our Missouri lawmakers. If it was really about the care and welfare of animals, why didn't HSUS spend their $4.2 million in campaign funds to help fund and enforce the Missouri Animal Care Facilities Act already in place?

Prop. B which won by only 60,000 votes and lost in 103 out of 114 counties, does nothing to stop animal abuse or punish the law breakers contrary to how it is portrayed.

Senate Bill113 is an excellent bill which actually provides Missouri with what Missourians viewed as the intent of the ballot language for Prop. B. 

• SB113 defines terms for the provision of food, water, shelter, vet care and exercise and makes those provisions enforceable with penalties for non-compliance.
• SB113 punishes the law breakers, not the law abiding.
• SB113 funds increased enforcement, and goes after the unlicensed breeders. Prop. B is an unfunded mandate with NO provisions for legal enforcement.
• SB113 also eliminates the 50 dog limit, and makes it clear that the law refers to dogs and not to the broader category of domesticated animals, thereby protecting Missouri agriculture. 

Our Missouri economy cannot afford the crushing blow that Proposition B would impose on our state's economy as it would force thousands of legitimate dog breeders out of business, and create a devastating domino effect on other Missouri businesses statewide. Accordingly, it is up to our legislators to uphold the Missouri constitution and protect their constituents’ “right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.” Therefore, we must support and thank our Missouri legislators who are thoughtfully considering what is best for all Missourians instead of crumbling under the pressure of mob rule.

Mindy Patterson is the Communications Director for Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (MOFED), Director of The Cavalry Group, and on the Board of Directors of the Missouri Equine Council.

Shocking! Prop B Was A Ruse!

 

From the Quincy Herald Whig:

Shortly after the Nov. 2 election, dog breeders started receiving letters from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Breeders were told that the HSUS filed a Freedom of Information act request on Oct. 4, to get access to information on USDA licenses for use in a civil lawsuit.

"These are the people who said â trust us' we're only worried about the puppies," said one Northeast Missouri breeder who requested anonymity. "Now they want private information on all of us."

License forms include information such as the number of dogs purchased, the number sold, the gross revenue and income after expenses.

The article also points out that HSUS spent $2 million on advertising for the puppy mill law (and it's known as the puppy mill bill because Robin Carnahan named it that), but only $43,000 on helping out shelters.

Others concerns include shelters forced to take in more dogs than they can handle, and the reality that the new law only addresses licensed breeders  No word yet on fake SWAT teams kicking in doors.  

Strange.  It's almost as if Prop B was some huge propaganda vehicle for HSUS to raise more money from donors instead of actually solving the problem of unlicensed breeders. 

But who could have seen that coming?

Voter Guide Links For 2010 Election

I'm here phone banking at the St Louis Tea Party Headquarters at 4512 Hampton Ave, and got the request for a voter ballot guide.  I'll try to put one out this weekend, but in the meantime, check out the MissouriFamilyNetwork for a guide on the propositions.

The League of Women Voters has also provided a voters' guide for the St Louis Region for candidate education.

Short version from me would be:

1) Robyn Hamlin, Todd Akin, Ed Martin in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd districts.

2) Yes on Prop A, No on Prop B. 

3) If a politician is running unopposed, leave that part of the ballot blank to encourage an opponent the next year.