vote4tom

this site has been moved

2009-01-27T09:03:00.001-07:00

please visit http://www.votetom4council.webs.com

Thank You

2007-01-22T21:52:00.000-07:00

I realize this is quite late, however I would like to thank all those individuals which cast their ballot vote for me during the last election cycle. It gives me hope to know that "others" are aware that the current political system is broken an until you change the faces in politics you'll never change the face of politics.
Our electorate cast most of their votes for Shane Schoeller, during the election cycle Shane became a friend and has remained in contact with me everytime I have sent him an e-mail concerning some whacked out idea being floated in Jeff City. I firmly believe that Shane will represent the interest of this area and when needed to he will oppose the party apparatus should it be contrary to his beliefs.
I look forward to keeping Shane informed of how this area believes that Jeff City may be encroaching on our creator given rights. Shane just like us will stand up for our limited freedoms and individual responsibility that we espouse so dearly.

Give him an opportunity to show what he is made of, we could be pleasantly surprized.

TOM DEWEESE DEBATES THE UNITED NATIONS BEFORE THE CAMBRIDGE UNION SOCIETY

2006-12-10T13:03:00.000-07:00

For years the Republican Party and the followers of such have
espoused disdain for the United Nations. It was George the elder which
proclaimed a "New World Order" would come into being and at the helm
would be an organization known as the United Nations.
Clinton follow suit as invasions and military actions under the guise of the United
Nations were used to stop "ethnic cleansing" and "warlords" from government over throws.
Bush the younger not having found massive catches of WMD's now uses UN resolutions for our invasion of Iraq and what is known as the "War on Terror".
Sorry people Art. IV Sec. IV of the constitution says it quite simply, The
federal government is charged with the defense of our nations borders and allowing groups of individuals and individuals alike to be given the key to the country is quite irresponsible. Of the 19 hijackers(if you believe the "official" government story)how many were still over here after their VISA's expired??

By Tom DeWeese
November 24, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

My first reaction was “this is a joke.” However upon a second and then a
third reading of the letter in my hand it became clear the invitation
was legitimate. “It is with great pleasure that I extend an invitation for you to speak at the Cambridge Union (the debating society of Cambridge University, England) this Michaelmas term.” It was signed by Luke Pearce, President of the Union.

Founded in 1815, the Cambridge Union is a near 200 year-old debating society that stands as a “vibrant center of debate and free speech in British intellectual
life.” It has played host to Anthony Eden, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. Economist John Maynard Keynes was one of the Societies’ presidents. An incredible list of political, cultural and religious leaders have spoken there, including Ronald Reagan, Professor Stephen Hawking, the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu.

Now the invitation came to me to debate the issue of the United Nations. Said the letter of invitation, “As a political activist for over two decades and now the president of the American Policy Center, you would bring experience and insight to this debate. Cambridge students would be honored to listen to you speak in proposition of the motion,” The motion we were to debate was, “This House believes the United Nations is a dead loss.”I couldn’t agree more and after a few moments of consideration of what I was about to do, accepted the invitation.

Rules of the debate process call for six participants, three arguing for the
proposition, three in opposition. I was actually on the side of the proponents, arguing a kind of double negative = yes, I am opposed to the UN.

Each participant is to speak for approximately ten minutes, giving an opening statement. Four participants present their opening statements, and then the floor is opened to a series of two-minute speeches from the audience. Finally, the last two
participants, one from each side, give a ten-minute summation. During the speeches, any participant or member of the audience may interrupt a speaker with “Point of Information” and they may then make a point or ask a question of the speaker. However, it is entirely up to the speaker whether to allow the interruption. He can simply say no to the Point of Information.

Just prior to my leaving for the UK, I learned who the other participants were to be. On my side, speaking against the UN was Ted Knight, a UK labor leader (I came to learn he was a major Leftist leader known as “Red Ted”; and SimonTisdall ,
Assistant Editor of The Guardian and a foreign affairs columnist. Speaking for the opposition and in support of the UN were Lord DavidHannay, Former UK Ambassador to the UN and a member of the House of Lords; Salil Shetty, Director of the UN’s Millennium Campaign; and Simon Hughes, President of the UK’s Liberal Democrats and a Member of Parliament.

The
night of the debate began with the participants meeting over a formal
dinner. I actually found “Red Ted” very engaging. This was also his
first appearance before the Society. I was informed that my
presentation was to be first. Said Red Ted, “Then I shall see how you
do!” During the dinner I also found myself sitting next to Mr.Shetty. We had a brief moment to talk before heading into the debating chamber.

We
marched into the historic debating chamber behind the secretary of the
Cambridge Union Society, who was wearing a traditional top hat. There
was thunderous applause from the four hundred students and Union
members who filled the impressive leather seats or jammed the balcony
above us. Union President Luke Pearce quickly got down to business by
introducing me, coming “all the way from theUnited States.

I
walked up to the historic front table where two wooden boxes were
placed (one for each side). Speakers stand behind or beside them to
make their 10 minute opening remarks. As I worked through my
presentation, there were actually gasps from the audience. Apparently
few had heard such hard hitting attacks on the UN (a full copy of my
opening remarks can be found elsewhere in this report). Suddenly shouts
of “point of information” could be heard from several locations in the
audience. I denied them. I continued with my assault. Finally, LordHannay
shouted, “surely the gentlemen will yield?.” I briefly relented and he
attacked my assertion that the UN meddled in individual sovereign
affairs of nations. I held my ground, finished my remarks, accepted a
couple of questions and then sat down. I had made it through.

From
that point on, the debate became an all out attack on the United
States. I had expected it, being the “token Yank,” and considering my
remarks had set a strong tone. What became obvious, however, was that
the debatewasn ’t three to three, rather it was five to one. Ted Knight
gave an impassioned address, but I still have no idea what his
opposition to the UN was, except hedidn’t like how it was run. Simon Tisdall, the final speaker for “our side” openly admitted he didn’t oppose the UN, he just didn’t like the United States running it. Lord Hannay
seemed bored with the whole proceeding, having to deal with the
peasants. Simon Hughes played to the anti-US flavor of the crowd, as he
took twenty five minutes to rebut what I took ten minutes to say.
Reform was their only answer. None addressed my position on property
rights. LordHannay
actually denied the UN had any interest in global governance. I took
hit after hit as the audience attacked the Bush Administration and !
the Iraq war.

As
the debate ended, each member of the audience was instructed to pass
through one of three doors. One was marked Noes for those who disagreed
with me and the house proposition. One marked Yeas, for those whodidn
’t think the UN was a dead loss. And the center door was for those who
abstained from any opinion at all. Speakers and audience retired to the
Union bar to await the results. Itwasn ’t good: 361 noes, 33 ayes and
15 abstentions. I was soundly defeated, but not bad, I thought,
considering it had been five against one.

However, something
much more important was about to happen. I was the only speaker who
stayed after the tally was announced. About 200 students stayed as
well. Over the next two hours I fielded sincere questions about my
stand on property rights. They earnestly asked me, “you really don’t
believe in redistribution of the wealth?” “No,” I said, “It’s theft.”
As I explained how it takes ownership of property to create wealth, and
that’s how we have done it in America to make us the richest nation or
earth, several openly responded that my positions were “an interesting
concept,” and they wanted to know where they could learn more.

I
came to Cambridge to debate what I consider to be the deadliest force
on earth the UN. Perhaps I left a small spark of an idea which will
burst forth into a light to help show the way to freedom for some of
the brightest students I have ever met.

OPENING STATEMENT BY TOM DEWEESE BEFORE THE CAMBRIDGE UNION SOCIETY CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
October 26, 2006

“This
House believes that the United Nations is a dead loss” It is reasonable
that honest, compassionate people seek a means for governments to come
together to discuss and air their differences. It is also reasonable
that honest, compassionate people should desire some way to voluntarily
pool resources to provide charitable aid to those who are starving or
are victims of natural disaster.

Indeed this is the image of the
United Nations that has been sold to the world since its inception. It
is not, however, the reality. The world is in chaos and, quite frankly,
it’s the UN’s fault. It gives validity to zealots and petty bigots. It
helps to keep tyrannical dictators in power. It gives a voice to
international terrorists.

Delay. Negotiate. Recommend. Study.
Reconsider. Do nothing. This is the game the UN has played in nearly
every international crisis. It is the reason North Korea remains a
threat after 50 years.

It is the reason Zimbabwe’s murderous
Robert Mugabe is able to steal his election and then steal the land of
white property owners, drive the nation intoeconomic ruin and
starvation without an international protest, boycott, or sanction.
Instead, Mugabe is given a voice in the UN’s Sustainable Development
conference in South Africa.

It is the reason why the Chinese
government is able to ignore UN rules not to its liking -- while
growing as an international military and economic threat. And it is the
reason why a terrorist nation like Syria can be given a seat on the
UN’s Human Rights Council.

The United Nations, internally, is a
mess. It now finds itself buried under scandals. It has Oil-for-Food
scandals. Smuggling scandals. And theft scandals. Peace keeping
missions actually bring fear to the local citizens they are supposed to
protect. Rob, rape and pillage seem to be the UN’smodus operandi.

How
can we be surprised by such revelations? Who has the power to oversee
and control its actions? The people don’t vote on UN actions. The media
has little access behind the scenes. Who audits the accounting books?

Of
course, even its supporters will readily agree that such problems
exist. They are quick to jump in and call for “reform.” However, when
talking reform, one must be very careful of what the word may means.

UN
reports on reform don’t indicate a simple desire to plug holes in UN
spending -- or to clear up scandals. Quite the contrary. According toKofi Annan
, Maurice Strong and many others, reform means global governance. Since
its inception, the UN has advocated the desire to eradicate sovereign
nations -- while imposing what it calls “world-mindedness.”

A
1949 UNESCO document said, “…nationalism (is) the major obstacle to the
development of world-mindedness.” In the 1990’s, Maurice Strong said,
“it is not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by
individual nation/states, however powerful.”

There in lies the
true goal of the United Nations. And that belies its public image of
simply a place where nations may come to air their differences and act
responsibly. Instead, the UN is openly working to gain power for itself
in order to become independent and supreme over its member nations.

To do that it needs the power to tax. On September 19th
plans were approved to begin the creation of a global tax, mostly
through airline tickets to help pay for the treatment of aids. They of
course euphemistically call it a contribution.

There are several
other tax schemes on the UN wish list, including a carbon tax on Co2
emissions, a currency tax on transactions of foreign currency
exchanges, and taxes on the Internet, to name a few. If the UN gains
the power to tax and the enforcement power necessary to collect them,
then the UN will become an unstoppable force in the world. A monster
free of its chains.

And, of course, the UN wants its own
military. It already has its own court. These three things, the ability
to collect taxes to provide near unlimited funds from independent
sources; the ability to enforce its will with a military force; and a
court system to impose its own brand of justice, are all that is
required to create a government.

Imagine a world run by the
justice of China, with the economics of Cuba and the military might of
the United States. Such is the world of the future under United Nations
global governance. Public relations propaganda aside, clearly, the
United Nations wants to be much more than a place where nations can
come together to air their differences under a voluntary membership
association.

The truth is, today, fifty years after the
inception of the United Nations, the international community is a
dangerous place. Today the world has more wars, more poverty and more
suffering that anytime in human history.

Obviously, the United
Nations is irrelevant as a body to deliver world peace. Just as
obviously, the UN is more interested in meddling in the sovereign
affairs of nations, seeking to impose its own agenda over development,
production and what it calls social equity in a drive to set itself up
for global governance.

Using images of dire environmental
emergencies or life-threatening diseases or starving children, the UN
promotes an agenda which really seeks to redistribute the world’s
wealth. Its only answer is government control - and confiscation of
individual wealth and property. Nowhere is there mentioned in a single
UN document that I have read an advocacy for the right to own private
property.

In fact, quite the opposite is the case as nearly
every UN document, report, working paper, program, treaty, protocol,
declaration and resolution is dedicated to the confiscation,
redistribution, regulation and tax of someone’s property.

And it
is a fact that the inability to own private property creates poverty.
It is also a fact that confiscation of private property never helps to
eradicate poverty. It is bad economic policy. Yet that is the UN’s only
solution to the massive suffering throughout the world. Take it from
one source to give to another. And that, I contend, is the very root of
the suffering not the solution.

The UN was wrong from its very
beginning and wrong now because it has always sought to interfere with
national sovereignty rather than to provide a unique forum to help keep
the peace. That is why the UN is a dead loss. It should be tossed on
the trash heap of history so that we may start over and create an
honest enterprise that seeks to help nations, not eradicate them.

The
United Nations is not “dysfunctional” as some “reformists” have
claimed. It is a criminal enterprise in which no moral nation should
ever participate, let alone perpetuate.

© 2006 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved

Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center and Editor of The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia.
(540) 342-8911E-Mail: apcmail@americanpolicy.org
Website: www.americanpolicy.org

Election Day v. Veterans Day: A tale of two oaths

2006-11-10T11:26:00.000-07:00

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” —John Stuart Mill

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

It is no small irony that Election Day and Veterans Day fall in the same week.

Veterans and elected officials all have one thing in common: Upon entering service, both took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

On 1 June 1789, the first law enacted by Congress was statute 1, chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths. It established the oath that all civilian and military officials take before entering into the service of our nation. Our Founders understood that the security of the Republic depended on leaders who would honor and uphold constitutional rule of law, lest the Republic would dissolve into a democratic state ruled by men.

Notably, the oath mandates the support and defense of our Constitution , a document revered not only for its timeless precepts, but for its crisp and clear language. The oath refers to our Constitution precisely as it was ratified, not the so called “living constitution” rewritten by judicial activists, who populate what Thomas Jefferson predicted would become “the despotic branch”.

Veterans support and defend our Constitution with their lives, while most elected officials debase it with all manner of extra-constitutional empowerment of the central government, and forced income redistribution to benefit the constituency groups which re-elect them. That is to say, while veterans have nobly honored their oath, most elected officials have disgracefully violated the same.

In recent months, we have been swamped with ugly politics. This week, we saw the whirlwind that an ostensibly conservative political party reaps when it abandons its oath of office and platform. If Republicans thought they could retain majorities in the legislative branch by offering themselves as the lesser of two evils, they were sorely, grossly, terribly mistaken. They overestimated conservative tolerance for those who desert their oaths.

Manage Subscription -- Change your e-mail address, select editions and formats, view recent archives, send comments or unsubscribe

By contrast this Veterans Day, consider the story of one American who never violated his oath. That American is my friend and Patriot mentor, Col. Roger Ingvalson.

Roger was born in Austin, Minnesota, in the era between the World Wars. He was an all-American kid, attending local schools and then the University of Minnesota. He joined the Air Force in 1950 and earned his wings in 1953. He married Jacqueline in 1959, and they had one son. He spent the next nine years as an operations officer for fighter squadrons around the world.

In 1968, Roger was flying the F-105D with the 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron out of Korat Royal Air Force Base, Thailand. The air war over Vietnam was in its third year, and the pilot casualty list included Roger’s wingman and best friend, Wayne Fullam, who was shot down in late 1967.

On 28 May, Roger took off on his 87th combat sortie, leading a mission to destroy a bridge in North Vietnam. (Roger notes lightheartedly today that it is very important to keep the number of mission takeoffs and landings equal.) With 1600 hours in the F-105, he was confident that this mission would be a success. As he pulled off the target, an air controller requested that he hit an enemy truck convoy nearby.

Roger’s tactical preference was for high speed and low altitude engagement in order to assure accuracy. At about 0900, he located the convoy of Soviet-built trucks near Dong Hoi and rolled in at more than 500 knots. At 50 feet above the hard deck, he fired a long 20mm burst into the convoy.

Moments later, Roger recalls, “I heard and felt an explosion and my cockpit immediately filled with smoke. I hit the afterburner to gain valuable altitude, then pulled the canopy ejection handle to get rid of the smoke. I rocketed up to about 600 feet before my aircraft went into an uncontrollable roll. I pulled the ejection seat handle and squeezed the trigger. As I was catapulted out of the burning aircraft, the wind blast knocked me out, and I didn’t regain consciousness until just prior to landing on a dried out rice paddy.”

Give John Kerry the brilliant rebuttal he deserves with this bumper sticker memo from ’Irak!’

As he hit the ground, Roger’s first reaction was to feel for broken bones. “With 15 years of fighter-aircraft experience, I was fully aware of the fact that there is very little chance of survival during an emergency ejection at high speed and low altitude, without a multitude of injuries. To my amazement, I had no broken bones or other injuries.”

Roger had regularly attended church for 40 years, but he says his relationship with his Savior really began when he realized he had survived the ejection. He prayed and gave thanks as his would-be Communist captors were running toward him.

For the next 1,742 days, Roger endured torture, starvation, desolation, disease and one stretch of 20 months in strict solitary confinement.

Three years into his horrendous internment, Jane Fonda showed up in Hanoi to collaborate with Roger’s captors. She starred in a propaganda film purporting that American POWs were being treated humanely. Roger and other POWs were shown that film repeatedly in an effort to further break their spirit. Hanoi Jane even posed for photographs on an NVA anti-aircraft gun near his prison. She boasted of the civil unrest being fomented back home by leftists like her friend John Kerry who “aided and abetted the enemy” by accusing American service personnel in Vietnam of all manner of atrocities.

Roger received devastating news in late 1971, when he was told by his captors that his wife, Jackie, had died months earlier from complications related to multiple sclerosis. Roger recalls, “During the three years since capture, I had continually dreamed of her in a crippled condition. Then the night after receiving the tragic news, I had another dream of my dear wife—this time she was in perfect health, just like the day we were married. She had gained the victory from suffering and sin; whereas, I gained the peace of knowing that she was in heaven.” (His 13-year old son was taken in by Jackie’s parents.)

On 14 March 1973, after nearly five years of brutal incarceration, Roger and his fellow POWs, including future Senator John McCain, departed for Clark Air Base in the Philippines. There, for the first time in half a decade, he was given medical aid, wholesome food and clean clothes. “The Lord sustained me through 1,742 days of tragedy; nevertheless, I count my blessings. I was set free by the North Vietnamese Communists but had already been fully liberated by Jesus Christ.”

Col. Roger Ingvalson retired from the Air Force a couple of years after his release. His decorations included the Silver Star, a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Legion of Merit, the DFC with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Air Medal with 6 Oak Leaf Clusters, and the POW Medal.

However, the most remarkable chapter in this Vietnam Vet’s story was yet to be written.

Upon his return to the United States, Roger married the widow of Wayne Fullam, his wingman and best friend, and they raised their combined family of four sons together. After returning to his wife’s hometown of Chattanooga, Tennessee, Roger spent the rest of his career in prison ministry.

To Roger, and all our fellow Patriots who have served their nation with courage and great sacrifice, we offer our heartfelt gratitude. You have honored your oath to “support and defend,” as do those on the frontline in Iraq today. You have kept the flame of liberty, lit by our Founders, burning bright for future generations.

In 1918, the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month marked the cessation of World War I hostilities. That date is now designated in honor of our veterans, and a focal point for national observance is the placing of a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery.

Let us never, ever forget.

(On a personal note: It is somehow fitting, that in final edit on an essay honoring veterans this morning, I received word that my Uncle Ted—a Naval Aviator and my father’s wingman in World War II, passed away. Farewell to another Patriot Veteran of the Greatest Generation. He was one of my heroes, a gentleman who always had a smile and a great story. Thank you, Uncle Ted, for introducing your sister to my father!)

Top 10 States With the Worst Business Tax Climates for Fiscal Year 2007

2006-11-01T15:48:00.000-07:00

Is it any wonder that most of these states vote democratic in the state elections.

Posted Oct 24, 2006

Ranked by the Tax Foundation

Every year the Tax Foundation publishes its “State Business Tax Climate Index,” which, according to foundation, “ranks how ‘business friendly’ the 50 state tax systems are, providing a roadmap for state lawmakers concerned with keeping their states tax competitive. . . . Keeping a state competitive in today’s global market can be difficult, but there is one factor lawmakers have direct control over: the quality of state tax systems. The index measures how well a state’s tax system encourages investment by maintaining a broad tax base and low rates.” Below are the 10 states that came in at the bottom of the Tax Foundation’s FY 2007 index, along with their FY 2006 ranking.

10. Minnesota
FY 2006 Rank: 12

9. Maine
FY 2006 Rank: 8

8. Iowa
FY 2006 Rank: 7

7. Nebraska
FY 2006 Rank: 6

6. California
FY 2006 Rank: 9

5. Vermont
FY 2006 Rank: 5

4. New York
FY 2006 Rank: 2

3. New Jersey
FY 2006 Rank: 3

2. Ohio
FY 2006 Rank: 4

1. Rhode Island
FY 2006 Rank: 1

Top 10 States With the Best Business Tax Climates for Fiscal Year 2007

2006-11-01T15:44:00.000-07:00

The residents of these states should be proud

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Every year the Tax Foundation publishes its “State Business Tax Climate Index,” which, according to foundation, “ranks how ‘business friendly’ the 50 state tax systems are, providing a roadmap for state lawmakers concerned with keeping their states tax competitive. . . . Keeping a state competitive in today’s global market can be difficult, but there is one factor lawmakers have direct control over: the quality of state tax systems. The index measures how well a state’s tax system encourages investment by maintaining a broad tax base and low rates.” Last week, we published the 10 states with the worst business tax climates. Below are the 10 states that came in at the top of the Tax Foundation’s index, along with their FY 2006 ranking.

10. Oregon
FY 2006 Rank: 10

9. Delaware
FY 2006 Rank: 9

8. Montana
FY 2006 Rank: 8

7. New Hampshire
FY 2006 Rank: 6

6. Texas
FY 2006 Rank: 7

5. Florida
FY 2006 Rank: 5

4. Nevada
FY 2006 Rank: 4

3. Alaska
FY 2006 Rank: 3

2. South Dakota
FY 2006 Rank: 2

1. Wyoming
FY 2006 Rank: 1

The two major party candidates are both eminently qualified for the job.

2006-10-29T19:08:00.000-07:00

this is actually quite funny as the news leader points out how much the majority party candidates are alike, then they turn around an endorse the lessor of the two evils.
pitifull

Tom Martz
candidate for the 139th

Talent is right choice for Senate

For all the negativity and outside national interest obscuring Missouri's race for U.S. Senate, one fundamental truth stands out to us.

Election 2006 Online Resource Guide
Republican Jim Talent has had a distinguished career as a state legislator, a member of Congress, an educator and lobbyist and, for the past four years, a U.S. senator.

Democrat Claire McCaskill, too, has risen from the ranks as a state legislator, a county prosecutor and state auditor. We endorsed her when she ran for governor two years ago because of the experience she would have brought to the job.

We endorsed Talent when he ran for Senate for the same reason.

So who do we choose this time?

Our choice is Talent.

We think he's a better fit for the job. We believe he's done nothing in the past four years to disqualify him from our continued support. And we believe his views are most in line with southwest Missouri voters.

The campaign

Make no mistake, this is a neck and neck race. In meeting with both candidates and analyzing their debate performance, we found plenty to like and dislike about both Talent and McCaskill. What we didn't like about the campaign is that because it became such a national race, with outside money pouring into Missouri by the millions, we believe two good people lost touch with some of the values that made them successful in Missouri politics.

McCaskill embarrassed herself with her statement about President George W. Bush letting the victims of Hurricane Katrina die because they were poor and black. Talent hit below the belt with an advertisement that called his opponent a liar and a cheat.

We hear from voters that they're disgusted by such behavior. But in that regard, Missouri's race is not much different than other big-time races on a national stage, and negative campaigning isn't a voting issue in our minds.

The war

The reason this is such a close race is that when it comes to the big issues, there is much less separation between McCaskill and Talent than either candidate would like you to believe. (Some would suggest that's a reason to vote for Progressive Lydia Lewis or Libertarian Frank Gilmour. We don't think either is qualified for the job, but, to be fair, their views are in stark contrast to the principal two candidates). Let's start with the war. Talent voted for it, and McCaskill says she would have, too. Talent voted for the compromise torture/military tribunal bill, and McCaskill says she would have, too. Talent says he doesn't expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq four years from now; McCaskill says she wants them out in two, "give or take."

While many voters would like this election to be a referendum on the war, if it is, the primary difference between the two candidates is that Talent refuses to support a deadline for withdrawal and McCaskill does. On that issue, we think Talent has it right.

There's no doubt that the Bush administration has mishandled the war. On that, Republicans and Democrats agree. And Talent deserves criticism for voting in lock step with the president on this issue. But when asked about the future of the battle, both candidates argue similar points, that troops should be withdrawn at some point in the next couple of years. We agree that setting an arbitrary date is the wrong move militarily. We're confident that no matter who wins this race, pressure will build for Bush et al. to change course and develop a plan for getting our troops home safe.

Other issues

Looking at the other issues, the candidates also argue similar positions.

Both claim to be in favor of a fence at the Mexican border and tougher enforcement of illegal immigration laws, particularly against employers.

Both are in favor of ethanol subsidies, and, frankly, we disagree with them on that position.

Both claim to be fiscally conservative, and, again, we don't think either the Democrats or Republicans can make that claim anymore with a straight face.

On the issue of stem cell research, we find ourselves in disagreement with both of the candidates. We share Talent's disapproval of Amendment 2, though we have different reasons. And we think McCaskill is wrong to disregard the damage to Missouri's constitution the amendment will have if it passes.

One of their primary disagreements is over an issue that we highlighted the last time we endorsed Talent for Senate. He's a big proponent of health-care consortiums for small business. He continues to push that fight at the national level despite opposition from the Democratic Party. We believe such health-care consortiums have the potential to help turn the tide against the rising health-care premiums that hit all of our pocketbooks. That issue is important to southwest Missourians, and it helps tilt the race in Talent's favor.

The future

In the end, we think Talent's steady approach to the Senate is best for Missouri. What he lacks in McCaskill's passion he makes up for in his thoughtful approach to issues. Ultimately, we find both candidates to be moderate voices, but Talent has proven his ability to work with Democrats on key issues in his four years in the office.

We don't blame him for voting with his president anymore than we would blame McCaskill for voting with a Democratic president.

That's the nature of politics. But Talent has succeeded in being bipartisan on issues of importance to Missouri.

The nature of a difficult campaign has forced him to refine positions, and we have McCaskill to thank for that. It's why tough campaigns are better than no campaigns at all.

If Talent is re-elected, we hope he hears from the voters who want clear answers on the war, not more "stay the course" rhetoric. We hope he finds the votes he needs to pass a health-care consortium law.

Ultimately, this race is going to be a nail-biter come election night.

For voters who have yet to make up their minds, we suggest Talent is the best candidate for southwest Missouri.

Schoolcraft is best choice in 139th District

2006-10-26T19:42:00.000-06:00

how typical of the SnL to leave me out of the whole article. I went in early to my appointment and also allowed an individual from the community sit in during my interview process. I answered all of Brian Lewis's questions of course the way he was scribling the answers down I should've known something was up. I had never anticipated receiving the nomination however the part written about Shane Schoeller looks like it came from one of my blogs on the subject.
The least they could've done was to include me in the coverage since I filed paperwork up in Jeff City to have my name placed on the ballot.

I'm Tom Martz the unknown Libertarian candidate for the 139th district a vote for me goes toward stemming the tide of socialism in MO.

Real-life experience makes difference.

Voters in the 139th District have a choice between two candidates with distinct differences.

They can vote for a candidate who has learned the ropes of the legislative process by working for elected officials most of his adult life.

Or they can vote for a candidate who has learned the ropes of life by attending the school of hard knocks.

One candidate, Republican Shane Schoeller, has quite the political pedigree, having worked for John Ashcroft, Roy Blunt and Matt Blunt.

The other candidate, Democrat Jamie Schoolcraft, is a paramedic and volunteer firefighter who has been politically active since he was a teenager.

Both candidates are smart, understand the northern Greene County district and would be worthy replacements for outgoing Rep. Brad Roark.

Both men would be conservative in their approach to issues.

Both make faith a central point of their campaigns.

But of the two of them, Schoolcraft, we believe, has more potential to be a strong, independent voice who can truly make a difference in Jefferson City.

Where Schoolcraft rises above Schoeller is in his real-life experience, his firm opposition to school vouchers and in his creative approach to dealing with health care.

Schoolcraft is firmly in the anti-vouchers camp, and he understands particularly how passing pro-voucher legislation could hurt small school districts such as those in northern Greene County. "Our district is proud of their public schools," Schoolcraft says. "The schools are the lifeblood of our communities."

Schoeller tries to walk a tightrope on vouchers, suggesting that in certain school districts — though not those in Greene County — they might work. His approach, however, is problematic, and we believe the best position is total opposition to the concept.

On health care, Schoolcraft has a specific proposal to remake the Medicaid system that involves the sort of public-private partnership that is likely in the ballpark of what the Republican majority will recommend early next year. The plan would take the state out of the medical micromanaging business and create a more direct patient-insurance company relationship among those on state-funded insurance. It's an idea worth pursuing.

Mostly, we give Schoolcraft the nod because while Schoeller has a firm grasp of the legislative process, we believe the Democrat's real-life experience gives him more independence and a better capacity to make the tough decisions. He's seen people at their most vulnerable and knows how to keep them in mind when he's in the Capitol making legislative decisions. As he says, he's "not your average Democrat."

When he was 16 years old, Schoolcraft helped found a booster club in Bois D'Arc that raised money for tornado warning sirens. His entire young life has been marked by public service, as a teacher, paramedic and volunteer.

Voters in the 139th should help him continue his life of public service by electing him their state representative.

Decision 2006

Today's races: 139th District Our vote: Jamie Schoolcraft

Ohio Court Rules BSL Unconstitutional

2006-10-26T19:38:00.000-06:00

score one for the freedoms and rights of all individuals for once.

[Tuesday, March 07, 2006]

The Sixth District Court of Appeals in Ohio handed responsible dog owners a monumental victory last week when it ruled that local and state breed-specific "vicious" dog laws were unconstitutional. In a 2-1 decision, the Court held that Toledo Municipal Code 505.14a. (limiting ownership to one "pit bull" per household) and Ohio Revised Code 955.11 and 955.22 (failure of pit bull owner to provide liability insurance) violated several constitutional rights, including the right to due process. The Appellate Court held, just as the Ohio State Supreme Court did in 2004, that such laws do not provide owners with an opportunity to appeal a "vicious" dog finding before being penalized or charged with non-compliance, thereby violating their right to be heard and to defend their property.

The Appellate Court went on to declare these laws unconstitutional for two other reasons, both of which are extremely significant to those who have argued against breed-specific legislation for many years. First, the Court ruled that the laws violated an owner's right to equal protection since there is no rational basis to single out pit bulls as inherently dangerous. It stated that breed-specific laws "have in the past been enacted based on outdated information that perpetuates a stereotypical image of pit bulls." The Court found no new evidence to prove that these breeds are any more dangerous than others. Regulating or limiting pit bull ownership was therefore "arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory."

A final important ruling was the Court's determination that these breed-specific laws were unconstitutionally vague due to the fact that there is no accurate way to properly identify a pit bull. "Based on the facts presented," wrote Judge William Skow, "we conclude that the subjective identification of pit bulls may often include both non-pit bulls or dogs which are not vicious, to the extent that an ordinary citizen would not understand that he was breaking the law and which would result in the occurrence of arbitrary arrest and criminal charges."

For years, the American Kennel Club, many animal organizations, and countless responsible dog owners have opposed breed-specific laws in favor of reasonable, enforceable dangerous dog laws that hold all owners responsible for their dogs' behavior, regardless of breed. The Court's ruling last week supports those arguments, and AKC applauds its decision. Although the City of Toledo has indicated it will appeal, this case will hopefully serve as a precedent for legislators in their future efforts to address dangerous dog issues in their communities and states.

Pit bull registrations push past deadline

2006-10-24T18:08:00.000-06:00

Just a group of animal lovers that have been swept up in the political firestorm which has led to an unjust end. mans best friend has now been micro-chipped, tagged, muzzled, and put out to pasture within a closed in kennel. Sad really because I know some of these individuals and have met there dogs. I have a ferret that is more vicisious then the Rushing's dog and it irritates me to no end they are being treated like convicts because they own an animal which some people have turned into an unreliable breed.
Let's jail the owner not the animal which has been neglected or trained to defend to its death or someone elses.
Wake up people it is only a matter of time before this list grows to include Doberman Pinchers, German Shepherds, Chows, Rottweilers and rumor has it Labs. Lets not forget the Dalamation which has shown tendencies to be aggresive.
Should we talk about Siamese cats next??

Remember this valuable lesson if you learn nothing else today:
When you ask government to impose your values upon others, you wind up with government imposing someone else's values on you.

I'm Tom Martz the only candidate in the 139th which will fight to defend YOUR rights.

Owners keep up complaints that city keeps them on too short a leash.

Jane Huh
News-Leader

Jose Arroyo on Monday joined about 50 others in registering their pit bulls after the city ordinance deadline, bringing the total tally up to 255.

Arroyo registered his 6-year-old pit bull, Kane, to comply with the new rules regulating pit bull ownership in Springfield.

But on the other side of the law, at least 21 tickets have been issued to Springfield dog owners since Oct. 16, when the ordinance went into effect.

As the second week of enforcement begins, the volume of complaints and concerns seem to have "settled down a lot," said Ron Boyer, assistant health director.

But, "those who are not registered are still at risk for getting ticketed," Boyer warned.

The city registers the dogs at the Springfield Animal Shelter near Kansas Expressway and Norton Road.

According to the city, an estimated 4,000 pit bulls live in Springfield. The figure is based on a formula using national statistics.

Dog owners who get ticketed for not registering their pit bulls can face fines of up to $1,000. With permission from municipal court, the city can confiscate unregistered pit bulls found at large.

At the city's animal shelter, there are already half a dozen pit bulls given up by the owners. As a result, the shelter has maxed out its capacity to take any more pit bulls.

Shelter employees put pit bulls in separate pens. Other dogs can be grouped.

Randy Barnts, animal control supervisor, said those dogs may be euthanized as early as today to make more room for other pit bulls that the officers pick up.

The owners who gave up their pit bulls to the city were told that giving up the dogs could result in euthanization.

"We tell them that upfront," Barnts said.

Owners who want to give up their dogs to the city for no charge can still contact the health department.

While there have been some reports of pit bulls getting dumped outside the city limits, the Springfield-Greene County Health Department cannot do anything about it.

No effective date has been set for a proposed Greene County ordinance that would give the city's health department legal authority to pick up free-running nuisance dogs outside Springfield limits, Boyer said.

Besides Barnts, there are seven animal control officers and two full-time shelter employees who are responsible for maintaining the pound and euthanizing animals.

The ordinance has at least two pit bull dog owners still fuming.

Last week, Joshua Hunter contacted local media outlets to express his opposition to the ordinance — in particular, its requirement to keep pit bulls in a fenced-in enclosure with a top and an opening latch. Hunter has registered his dog with the city.

The ordinance requires pit bull owners to keep their dogs inside an enclosure if they are outside and unattended for a long period of time, Barnts said.

Brian Rushing, who also has registered his dog with the city, emphasized that he and Hunter realize that the animal control officers are doing their job. But Rushing said he feels the city is treating him like a criminal for having a pit bull.

"You can't violate everybody's rights for the few bad apples," Rushing said. "That's what's upsetting people like me. We went through the trouble of training our dogs, we went through the trouble of being responsible, and we're being treated like criminals."

Arroyo shared those sentiments Monday after his dog, Kane, was registered and microchipped.

He said could never give up Kane, which he raised since it was "a little pup."

Arroyo said he considers himself lucky for being able to foot the cost associated with compliance.

"I call (this law) discrimination against pits," Arroyo said. "I think all animals are equal. It's how you raise the animal, really."

Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?

2006-10-23T10:30:00.000-06:00

far to often the media and those that live off the system have portrayed a tax cut as something BAD. I might mention the government should provide only one service of which we should be billed for, The cost of the defense of this nation should be shouldered by ALL that reside within the border.
As an ex-military person I have no regrets for my service except during my term of service just like now I am taxed on the very income I was earning to defend this nation. I don't believe ACTIVE members of the military should be taxed to help pay their own salary. It is quite an oxymoron but then why don't we charge them to purchase the bullets as well?? I will have others that will suggest that police officers, firefighters, teachers, and probably government workers should receive the same treatment, however my opinion on that matter is easy to explain. I don't need the police to defend my household or me personally, most generally they get there after the fact anyhow. I don't need the firefighters to help me put out my house fire most generally they would tell me to leave if I'm battling one anyhow. As far as teachers go we home schooled and had no need for government education nor the teacher which is paid to do the teaching.
I do however need the military to defend the borders of this nation and to keep it secure from attack, something our current crop of politicians haven't done.

I'm Tom Martz libertarian candidate for the 139th district and I offer you a voice in Jeff City not just the same old warn out record.

October 23, 2006

Whenever tax cuts are discussed in Washington, the media and most politicians use the phrase, cost to government. How much will this tax cut cost the government? we are asked, as though some crime is being contemplated when we consider reducing taxes. The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they deem acceptable, and if they choose-- through their elected representatives-- to reduce that funding level, they are not somehow injuring the government. If Congresses passes a new law that results in you paying $1000 less in taxes next year, have you taken something from the government that rightfully belongs to it? Or has the government simply taken less from you?

You don't cost the government money, the government costs you money!

Of course it's reasonable to demand that politicians cut spending when they cut taxes. That's the definition of real fiscal conservatism: government should not take too much from the private economy in taxes, but neither should it spend too much and run up deficits. That's why I vote against the wasteful appropriations bills that relentlessly increase federal spending year after year.

I reject the notion that tax cuts harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us.

Tax reduction is my first priority in Congress. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. Tax Freedom Day, representing the portion of the year you must work to pay for government at all levels, is roughly June 1st for most Americans. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and the end of May going to the government!

One tax in particular should be eliminated as soon as possible-- the tax on Social Security benefits. Those benefits were never taxed between the 1930s and 1984. Treating them as taxable income represents nothing more than a trick to reduce Social Security benefits by stealth. I supported legislation that successfully repealed a 1993 tax increase on benefits, and my own bill, HR 180, would go further and eliminate all taxes on Social Security. Our seniors paid taxes throughout their working lives to fund the Social Security system, and it is immoral to tax them again on their benefits.

Various other taxes also must be reduced. Capital gains taxes are terribly counterproductive, punishing those who save and invest. Payroll taxes impose a tremendous compliance burden on businesses, especially smaller entrepreneurs who cannot hire an accounting department. Federal gas taxes should be slashed to provide taxpayers relief at the pump. Most importantly, federal spending must be dramatically reduced so that all Americans can go back to working for themselves instead of working to pay their taxes.

Election judge banned from polls for double voting

2006-10-22T19:45:00.000-06:00

this story got much more attention then the double voting Mayor Kathy Taylor of Tulsa,OK but then again she is a democrat.

The Associated Press

Maplewood — A veteran Republican election judge will not be allowed to work at the polls Nov. 7 after acknowledging he illegally cast two absentee ballots.

St. Louis County Election Board Chairman John Diehl said the man — the second judge caught double-voting this year — was elderly and told election officials that he hadn't meant to vote twice. Diehl declined to identify the judge.

County election officials took the action Friday after the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called inquiring about a tip.

Diehl confirmed the tipster's account, that the judge cast one vote before and a second vote after an Oct. 9 election-judge training class at the county Election Board's headquarters in Maplewood.

Diehl said that the Election Board learned of the man's actions Oct. 10 and was planning to confront him.

"He has worked for us for a while," Diehl said. "We don't believe it was an intentional or devious act."

Diehl said evidence of the man's double voting will be turned over to county prosecutors, who will decide whether to take legal action.

People convicted of voting more than once face a minimum fine of up to $2,500 and a maximum penalty of five years in jail.

They also permanently lose their right to vote.

The election board previously turned over evidence involving a Democratic election judge who was fired over the summer after officials determined that judge had illegally cast two absentee ballots for the Aug. 8 primary.

Diehl said the board has not been told of any action in the earlier case.

Diehl said an unexpectedly high number of absentee voters are casting ballots for a midterm election.

"The line is out the door," Diehl said, referring to the board's office in Maplewood.

So far, almost 5,000 absentee ballots have been cast by mail or in person in St. Louis County, election officials said.

Missouri voters can cast absentee ballots for reasons that include being disabled or expecting to be away from home on Election Day.

Egregious Earmark of the Week:

2006-10-18T10:16:00.000-06:00

you'll notice that only 31 votes against this type of spending and by the way Mr. Bush signed it into law. Conservative administration my @$$.

The flow of the status quo continues. I would bet my lunch money that Rep Paul(TX), Rep Flake(AZ), and Rep Pence(IN) all voted against this type of wasteful spending.

Taxes & Spending

$100,000 to Fix Orange Show Stadium

by Rep. Jeff Flake
Posted Oct 18, 2006

Earmark Reform: Conservatives Await Next Steps

Pork for Defense

How Much Is a Year of Life Worth?

Egregious Earmark of the Week:
$100,000 to Corona, Calif., Old City Hall

Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.) has spotted this week's egregious earmark buried in the Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriations bill (H.R. 3058) for fiscal year 2006.

The noteworthy pork project comes to the grand total of $100,000 allotted to the city of San Bernardino, Calif., for making renovations to the National Orange Show Stadium.

"When is Congress going to have the juice to say 'no' to squeezing taxpayers?" said Flake.

The House passed the bill with a vote of 392-31 and the Senate sent it through without one vote of opposition. It was signed into law by President Bush on November 30, 2005.

Mr. Flake represents the 6th District of Arizona in the U.S. House of Representatives. He serves on the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Resources.

Conservatives Will Regret Putting Dems in Power

2006-10-18T09:38:00.000-06:00

Once more we have a pontificator that astounds us with a prediction that says if you stay home and don't vote republican you have elected a democrat. I'm so sick and tired of this political posturing.

I wonder if baseball fans would only like to be able to watch the NY Yankees playing the Florida Marlins every game during baseball season ands then again for the World Series???

How about Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt Jr. racing every NASCAR race with only them on the track??

The Pittsburgh Steelers playing the Seattle Seahawks for 16 weeks straight then the 3 playoff games and then again for the Super Bowl??

I would bet viewership and fan attendance would drop drastically in a matter of weeks except for the HARDCORE fan, of which even they would get bored with it. However in politics we have the exact stupidity going on, republicans and democrats, democrats and republicans. They have become the same side of a coin and they have made it so only they get media attention. I wonder if the Marlins would like it if the Yankees received all the draft choices??

The McTalenskill infomercial here in MO was a classic example. 4 candidates, 2 of which were ALLOWED on the podium to voice their opinion. In the sporting world dynasties come crumbling down every few years so they can be rebuilt. In politics when the political parties control the news media and every media outlet viewed by the mindnumb masses those that could possibly challenge the dynasties aren't even allowed to be on the playing field.

I'm Tom Martz the best candidate for the 139th district in MO.
secure your freedoms by voting Libertarian

October 18, 2006

By Tony Blankley

John Stuart Mill once famously called the British Tories "The Stupid Party." From time to time since then, the Tory's American cousin, the Republican Party, has also earned that moniker. Now may be one of those moments. If current polls and anecdotes are to be believed, there may be a million or two conservative Republicans who are planning to not vote this November.

Of course, Mill also said, "A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but also by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury."

Apparently, these anticipated conservative non-voters are annoyed with Republican imperfection. They are disheartened, disappointed, disillusioned, distempered, and dismal -- and thus plan to dis the party that better advances conservative principles in government.

They appear to have fallen victim to the false syllogism: 1) Something must be done; 2) not voting is something; therefore, 3) I will not vote. Of course the fallacy of the syllogism is that the second category could be anything. For example, No. 2 could as well read "eating dog excrement is something."

I rather suspect that they will feel about the same afterward, whether they chose the non-voting option or the scatological one. They are both equally illogical -- and repulsive -- and would deserve the moniker "Stupid."

Here are some telltale signs of the sort of person who would vote (or not vote) to cause the election of a party that would act to defeat every value and interest he holds dear (merely because the party that will at least try to advance most of those issues has not done as well as he might have hoped):

1) When offered by a car dealer 25 percent off on a car, he insists on paying the full factory-recommended retail sticker price -- because he is damned if he will accept 25 percent when he deserves 30 percent off.

2) When the prettiest cheerleader asks the nerd to take her to the prom, he turns her down -- just because he can.

3) When stopped for doing 70 in a 65 zone, he tells the trooper that's not possible because he had the cruise control set on 90 -- he just resents being falsely charged.

4) When diagnosed with a serious illness, he promptly cancels his medical insurance -- in order to save the cost of premium payments to help pay for the upcoming hospital stay.

A conservative would have to be just that stupid to stay home on Nov. 7. I have heard it put around that the Republicans need a couple of years in the wilderness to regain their conservative bearings.

While turning over the Congress to the Pelosi/Kennedy mob for even two years would be recklessly irresponsible -- particularly during a dangerous war-- there is no assurance the wilderness years would last only 24 months.

In 1954, the Democrats, led by the great Sam Rayburn, retook the House after control had seesawed back and forth for 10 years (1944-Democrat; 1946-Republican; 1948-Democrat; 1950-Democrat; 1952-Republican; 1954-Democrat)

Sam Rayburn (one of the shrewdest politicians ever to play the game) was so sure that the Republicans would take back the House in the Eisenhower re-election year of 1956, that when he became Speaker after the 1954 election, he didn't even bother to move his furniture back to the better office suite occupied by Joe Martin (the Republican Speaker who returned to Minority leader status after the 1954 Republican loss.) They decided to keep their previous office spaces rather than go through the bother of moving across the hall.

As it turned out, the Republicans didn't re-take a majority of the House for 40 years (The Gingrich-led election of 1994). So for 40 years the Republican minority leaders got to keep the better office space (that looked out over the majestic Washington Mall), while the Democratic Speakers for 40 years got a view of the parking lot.

I don't care who has the better office space in the future, but any conservative ought to be very concerned about who has the political power in Washington. The Democrats have virtually promised to scandalize the Republican administration (with subpoena and impeachment-seeking oversight hearings) for the next two years -- in preparation for defeating the 2008 Republican presidential nominee.

Moreover, every Democrat who beats a Republican in three weeks will have two years to feather his or her nest, and use the powers of incumbency to defeat his 2008 Republican challenger.

Even more important, in a closely fought 2008 presidential election, every extra Democratic incumbent senator, congressman and governor makes it just a little more likely that the Democratic presidential candidate may win that district or state. All those freshly tuned new Democratic machines will help get out Democratic Party votes for the top of their 2008 ticket.

This current conservative petulance -- if it actually occurs on Nov. 7 -- will increase the chances of electing Hillary, or worse (if such a thing is possible) in 2008.

There is no rational policy or political basis for conservatives not voting. I'm not sure the country can take the current Democratic mob in power for long.

A realist once observed that the history of mankind is little more than the triumph of the heartless over the mindless.

The Democrats are obviously heartless. Conservatives must guard against falling into the category of the mindless. Ignore your heartfelt peevements, use your brains and vote.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

comparing records

2006-10-13T10:17:00.000-06:00

Shane Schoeller:http://www.electschoeller.com

"Shane's professional background encompasses Missouri state and federal politics focusing on grassroots organization and fundraising. After graduation from college he has had the opportunity to engage his efforts in both political campaigns and officially elected offices. He has worked in the campaigns of Ashcroft for Senate in 1994 as a field representative, Bob Dole for President in 1996 as political director for Southwest Missouri and Blunt for Congress as the campaign coordinator. These opportunities allowed him to then go on to work in an official role as a field representative for Senator John Ashcroft and Senator Kit Bond, Legislative Assistant for Congressman Roy Blunt, Chief Administrative Aide to Secretary of State Matt Blunt and Chief of Staff to Speaker Pro Tem Rod Jetton in the Missouri House of Representatives who is now the Speaker of the House. In these various capacities Shane organized grassroots campaigns and political rallies, helped in the drafting of legislation and directed legislative services."

Jamie Schoolcraft:http://electschoolcraft.com

"There are five things that a representative should try to ensure for everyone they represent. Affordable health care, a quality education, a good paying job, shelter, and food. As your State Representative, I would fight everyday to ensure that everyone in the 139th and across the state has these essential tools to be a productive member of society. Most of the elected officials do not know what it is like to be poor and to struggle to meet the bills. I remember what it is like and I won't forget. I will think of those struggles every time before I vote."

"I don't believe in handouts. I believe in empowering everyone to lead the life that we all dream of. You and I together can make a difference. We can change the lives of thousands of Missourians who feel they are facing insurmountable odds. We can truly make life better for those around us. It is going to be a long hard road but we will prevail. Thank you so much and God bless."

Tom Martz:

I cut the previous paragraphs for a reason of which should be self evident once you visit the websites. Mr. Schoeller tries to portray himself as a non political person, however he has years of being in the trenches so to speak. This compliance will bid well for him in the party once he is elected. Any ideas he has of changing Jefferson City will evaporate quickly.
Mr Schoolcraft is endorsed by all the various democratic strongholds so to post these is only citing the obvious. I'm not aware of any union organization that doesn't support a democrat. In the above paragraphs he says he doesn't believe in handouts however in the paragraph prior he espouses a belief that makes me cringe. "There are five things that a representative should try to ensure for everyone they represent. Affordable health care, a quality education, a good paying job, shelter, and food."
Sounds to me like Jaime can't figure out which side he is on less government or more government.
I'm a business owner here in Springfield and have been for the last eight years. When we first moved to Missouri we settled down in Willard for the first couple of years. It was a nice area but the cost related to housing and the like was a little out of line with the average income in this area.
We relocated to Springfield and decided to purchase a home on the north end of town.

I represent the unspoken here in the 139th, these are the people that are fed up with not only with politicians but of government all together. I was a strong supporter of getting the city of Springfield audited and worked on the weekends gathering signatures to make sure the hardworking taxpayers of this city had a voice.

I am the ONLY candidate that will work tirelessly to ensure government takes the proper steps to SHRINK in size. Every industry in America has lay-offs except those in government and those funded by government. It is time that government become more in line with those that support the leviathan.
I'm pro-life, pro 2nd amendment, pro homeschooling(I want to see a deduction to compensate for the cost of this equal to the amount per student in government education). I'm pro business and support the community with volunteering on a street clean-up and a stream clean-up. Volunteering to help the community in which I live, not having government force some clean-up organization down my throat.

Tom Martz
139th state representative candidate

HOBSON’S CHOICE

2006-10-02T11:13:00.000-06:00

Although this is the current state of affairs over in England, I believe after reading this article many will recognize the foundation exist right here in the U.S.A. except we only have two national parties that receive attention. The third national party has yet to figure out a way to get out of the corner that most media types have painted it into.

The party of personal responsibility and fiscal constraints on government is the Libertarian Party and those members that try to unseat the monopoly two.

The three main parties go to great lengths to convince us that they are totally different and that only they have the ability to look after the country properly. The Tories tell us that they will promote efficient small government and minimise the tax burden, the Labour party tell us they will provide for the weak and protect public services and the Liberal Democrats tell us they will protect the rights of the individual. Seems ideal, we have a Capitalist party, a Socialist party and a Liberal party, what more could we possibly ask for?

However if we take a closer look we find that not only are they prepared to sacrifice their principles at the drop of a hat, but that they will also adopt identical policies if they think it will help them at the polls. Our hard won democracy is therefore reduced to what goodies each party can offer and the more difficult issues are collectively ignored:

Labour: Well-meaning but a certain route to destruction

The Labour party is rooted in a public sector mentality: well-meaning and virtuous ideas which are self-defeating. Its activists want to see more spending on health, education and welfare. They want higher salaries for public sector workers and more rights in the workplace. Above all, they want to tax the rich and redistribute resources to the poor. All of which probably seems like a good idea to large number of people. However, the politics of envy is no solution and any democratic country which has gone down this path has suffered economic disaster leading to even worse conditions for the poor and fewer resources for public services.

Tony Blair is careful not to advocate this route explicitly but he allows Gordon Brown to accomplish it by stealth: a bit more tax here, a bit more regulation there, all tempered with empty promises to reform the public services. Above all, Blair understands power. The immediate electoral benefits of such policies matter far more to him than the implications for our economy or our society in years to come. He takes the same attitude to the European Union: the personal kudos he gains by going along with his fellow European leaders far outweighs the economic decline and loss of self-government that such plans will inevitably entail.

The ‘Old’ Labour of the activist base and the ‘New’ Labour of Mr. Blair thus lead to the same place. On the surface the Labour message is appealing but if we are genuinely concerned about the future of our country and its people we need to face people with reality rather than empty promises.

We must realise that we will become a third-rate economy with a dysfunctional society and a shell of a government unless we look beyond New Labour spin. Tory prime minister Harold Macmillan in the 1950s claimed that we had “never had it so good” at the very time that we were first starting to fall behind our competitors. Labour spin-masters are now simply copying what their Tory predecessors started.

The Conservatives: Slower perhaps but an equally certain route to decline

The Conservative party has become steadily more inclined to adopt the fashions of the day. This may get them votes but it prevents them attempting the far-reaching changes that our society needs. Despite espousing sound values that resonate with people on many issues, history shows that the Conservatives will always compromise our future for political gain.

After the war the Conservatives persevered with Labour’s welfare agenda, resulting in so-called ‘Butskellism’ (named after the consensual views of the Conservative minister Rab Butler and Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell). The seeds of the three day week, the 1970s stagflation, the IMF crisis and the ‘Winter of Discontent’ were all sown in the welfare state policies of the post-war era. In the post-Suez tunnel vision that afflicted British foreign policy in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Tories saw ‘Europe’ as the answer to our problems. While the Conservative party is now critical of the EU it was they who took us into the EEC and subsequently signed the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty.

During Margaret Thatcher’s time as prime minister the complacency and state corporatism that she inherited was for once challenged. However, many social problems were not addressed and the Conservative establishment soon reasserted itself. In recent years the party has reverted to its post-war role of accepting the apparent consensus and promising not to stray from it too fundamentally.

In short, the Conservatives – if we can believe their promises – will tax slightly less than Labour, will try to spend the money a little more wisely and will be a bit tougher with the EU. In other words, they may slow down our decline but they will not reverse it.

The Liberal Democrats: Oh Dear !

And what can we say of the Liberal Democrats, except that they are certainly not liberals and are quite unconvincing as democrats. They can not be compared to the classical liberals of the nineteenth century who believed in a progressive and free society built on shared values, self-restraint and personal responsibility. Today’s so-called liberals feed on the group rights culture and a high tax and spend philosophy that pays lip service to economic viability. And not only does parliamentary democracy not figure highly in their plans, Westminster would almost be irrelevant in the Liberal Democrat world of multi-tiered layers of government doing the bidding of the EU and the UN. If the Liberal Democrats ever became anything more than a protest vote then they would undoubtedly cause great damage.

Conclusion:

The present choice for the voter is indeed a poor one. All three parties have polished their vote catching skills at the expense of principled leadership and each party, in its own way, has given in to the view that Britain is and will remain an irrelevance in the bigger picture. None of the parties can tell us how to stop our domestic decline and none of the parties can tell us how to measure up to world class economies.

So who is to blame ?

Although there is growing distrust of politicians it is matched in equal measure by apathy and self interest. Voter turnout may be falling but this does not prevent the usual suspects from using the same old tricks to win elections. Although many people realise that the unremitting breakdown in our self-reliance, our skills and our society cannot continue indefinitely, a significant number apparently could not care less. At the end of the day we can hardly criticise politicians for reverting to spin if we are prepared to accept it. Despite all the evidence of our decline, it sometimes seems that we do not press our politicians too hard in case we might not like the answer. It will only be when we demonstrate our willingness to listen to the plain truth about what needs to be done to get our country back on the rails, that our politicians will at last pluck up sufficient courage to put their cards on the table.

The New Party has no wish to denigrate the efforts of those politicians who are doing the best they can to help their country. We are simply pointing out that our so-called “adversarial” system no longer functions properly as the main political parties have all resorted to politically expedient policies and spin to avoid confronting the electorate with too many of life’s harsh realities.

Senate candidates:(monopoly two) Shoot straight

2006-09-16T08:21:00.000-06:00

Well come on New Leader give the people some credit and give them some coverage of the "OTHER" two candidates in the race as well. Yes it is true that the monopoly two will spend money like it is going out of style to get *s*elected. Many believe as I that money is what is wrong with politics.
Why would anyone spend 3 million or so dollars to gain employment in a position that only pays less than 200K? POWER over the people.
Once again the SNL gives half a story, but hey they are consistent.

I'm Tom Martz Libertarian candidate for the 139th district, the only clear voice for the people of northern greene county.

Negative campaigns not worthy of Ozarks.

Maybe Jim Talent and Claire McCaskill think we Ozarkers are just dumber than a pile of rocks.

The two candidates for U.S. Senate say that we're important to their race. There are a lot of us and, well, for the most part, we like to vote. We're generally a conservative bunch, some of us coming from farms and far-away places tucked away in hollers. Both candidates seem to think that they're a lot like us.

So, why are they treating us like a bunch of darn fools? Maybe that's what happens when deep-pocketed fellas in fancy suits from the East Coast take over campaigns of good folk.

McCaskill started the silliness when she tried to make Talent look bad for taking money from that big chicken outfit in Arkansas, Tyson. We're not sure why that's such a big deal. Tyson, Wal-Mart, all of those big companies, they provide jobs in our communities. We're a hard-working people, and we don't care much who's signing our paycheck as long as we're paying our bills. The way we figure it, if the Tyson folks want to give Talent money, he shouldn't say no. Frankly, neither should McCaskill, which is why she had asked them, too.

But Talent is the one trying to pull the wool over our eyes these days.

He's been running a flashy television ad in our part of the world that makes McCaskill look like she's against God, apple pie and probably pickup trucks as well. The ad starts by saying that Howard Dean, that screaming liberal Democrat from one of the New England states next to where the Kennedys live, is McCaskill's hero. It's true, she said that. But she was talking about campaign finance reform. She said the way Dean raised a whole lot of money when he ran for president from small donations on the Internet is the sort of campaign she wishes she could run. She thinks that would be good for the nation, and, well, she's probably right. In that same interview, with a Kansas City columnist a few years ago, she said she wouldn't have voted for Dean for president.

But Talent's ad doesn't say all that. It figures we aren't interested in those details.

The ad also says that McCaskill's against terrorist surveillance, and, well, we just don't figure how anybody could be against that. Turns out that she just wants the president to follow the law, which is what a lot of newspapers said, too. Like most of us, she wants the president to keep an eye on the terrorists, even secretly, as long as he follows the provisions in law set out by Congress. A whole lot of folks in Talent's party suggested that he do the same thing — so did a federal judge.

We don't see how such a position makes McCaskill against terrorism surveillance. Sounds like a bit of a yarn to us, like that old story about daddy climbing up the tree and eating all them apples at one time. We like to tell stories like that around here, but we don't always believe them. Maybe Talent didn't get that message during one of his stops here. Neither, apparently, did McCaskill, based on her recent criticism of the president. She basically said that George W. Bush let those people die after Hurricane Katrina because they were poor and black. We've lived through a few disasters of our own around here, and we figure, Mother Nature doesn't discriminate. The president didn't seem to do a very good job after that big hurricane, but it seems to us it's because he put a horse trader in charge of the rescue effort, not because he didn't like black people.

So here we are in the Ozarks, with both candidates for this big Senate seat saying we're important to them, and yet they're talking to us like we're just plain dumb. We saw that ad where McCaskill's talking to her mama, and we suggest that somebody's mama ought to set both of these Missouri folks straight.

We aren't a homogenous population of simple-minded, uneducated hillbillies. We're a bright, articulate, engaged group of voters. Some of us are farmers; others are city dwellers and businesspeople. We care about the issues and we can see through the spin of campaign sound bites.

We don't care what your fast-talking friends from D.C. are telling you. If you want our votes, just give it to us straight.

RULE OF LAW (LAND OF THE FREE????)

2006-09-03T11:09:00.000-06:00

How many people will say "well if your not doing anything illegal you haven't any thing to worry about"

Sorry folks this is happening to LAW ABIDING citizens. WAke up drink your coffee and get a clue. LAND OF THE FREE!!! INDEED!!!! HAHA yes we have more freedoms then MOST countries, however in the past 30 years or so they have been evaporating quite quickly.

RULE OF LAW

Wrong Door
By RADLEY BALKO and JOEL BERGER
September 2, 2006; Page A9

The Supreme Court ruled this June that evidence seized in an illegally performed "no-knock" police raid can still be used against a defendant. Though disturbing in its own right, Hudson v. Michigan touched on only a small part of a larger problem -- the trend toward paramilitary tactics in domestic policing.

Criminologist Peter Kraska estimates that the number of SWAT team "call-outs" soared past 40,000 in 2001 (the latest year for which figures are available) from about 3,000 in 1981. The vast majority are employed for routine police work -- such as serving drug warrants -- not the types of situations for which SWAT teams were originally established. And because drug policing often involves tips from confidential informants -- many of whom are drug dealers themselves, or convicts looking for leniency -- it's rife with bad information. As a result, hundreds of innocent families and civilians have been wrongly subjected to violent, forced-entry raids.

Last year, for example, New York City police mistakenly handcuffed Mini Matos, a deaf, asthmatic Coney Island woman during a pre-dawn raid. While her young son and daughter burst into tears, Ms. Matos's plea to use her asthma pump was ignored until an officer realized they entered the wrong apartment.

Home invasions can also provoke deadly violence because forced-entry raids offer very little margin for error. Since SWAT teams began proliferating in the late 1980s, at least 40 innocent people have been killed in botched raids. There are dozens more cases where low-level, nonviolent offenders and police officers themselves have been killed.

Last summer a SWAT team in Sunrise, Fla., shot and killed 23-year-old Anthony Diotaiuto -- a bartender and part-time student with no history of violence -- during an early-morning raid on his home. Police found all of an ounce of marijuana. This January a member of the Fairfax, Va. SWAT team accidentally shot and killed Salvatore Culosi, a local optometrist with no criminal record, no history of violence and no weapons in his home. Police were investigating Culosi for wagering on sporting events with friends.

Public officials are rarely held accountable when mistakes happen. The Culosi family has yet to be given access to documents related to the investigation of his death, including why a SWAT team was sent to apprehend him in the first place. More than a year after Diotaiuto's death, his family too has been denied access to any of the documents it needs to move forward with a lawsuit.

New York City provides perhaps the most egregious example of public officials' reluctance to rein in the excessive use of paramilitary tactics. Throughout the 1990s, the city's newspapers reported a troubling, continuing pattern of "wrong door" drug raids. In many cases, tactical teams raided homes based solely on uncorroborated tips from unproven informants.

Members of the city's Civilian Complaint Review Board cautioned that they were seeing increasing complaints of botched raids, but limited jurisdiction and bureaucratic turf wars prevented them from doing anything about it. The principal result of the CCRB's warnings was the creation of a special police unit for the sole purpose of fixing locks, doors and windows in cases where forced-entry searches were performed on the wrong premises. Civil rights attorneys warned that without more substantial changes, it was only a matter of time before an innocent person would be killed in a botched drug raid.

They were right. In 2003, acting on a bad tip from an informant, police mistakenly raided the Harlem home of Alberta Spruill, a 57-year-old city worker. The violence of the incursion literally scared Spruill to death; she died of a heart attack at the scene. The raid spurred public outrage, calls for reform, and promises from the city to change its ways. The NYPD published new guidelines calling for more reliability when taking tips from informants. The city also promised greater vigilance in conducting surveillance and double-checking addresses before a SWAT team was sent in.

But later, during the course of a lawsuit stemming from another, mistaken raid -- in 1992, on corrections officer Edward Garrison, his elderly mother and two young daughters -- the city declared that all of the post-Spruill reforms it had promised were merely discretionary, not enforceable in court, and could be revoked at will by any future mayor or police commissioner.

In any case, botched raids have not stopped. In 2004, police arrested a Brooklyn father of two in a drug raid and held him for six months at Riker's Island. In March of this year they dropped all the charges, conceding that he had been wrongly targeted. The man's lawyer called it the worst case of malicious prosecution she'd ever seen. Also in 2004, police mistakenly raided the home of Martin and Leona Goldberg, a Brooklyn couple in their 80s, when an informant provided bad information. "It was the most frightening experience of my life," Mrs. Goldberg later said. "I thought it was a terrorist attack."

The NYPD goofed again in 2005, when a SWAT team raided the Brooklyn apartment of the Williams family, instead of the targeted apartment on the same floor. Police continued to search the apartment even after it was obvious they were in the wrong home. This year, according to the CCRB, there have already been at least 15 mistaken raids.

A few cities, such as New Haven, Conn., and San Jose, Calif., restrict the use of SWAT teams to cases where a suspect presents an immediate threat. Denver dramatically cut back the number of "no-knock" raids conducted after a SWAT team shot and killed an innocent man in a botched raid in 1999, and follow-up investigations revealed severe deficiencies in the how police had obtained "no-knock" warrants.

But these examples are few and far between. Most of the country is moving toward more militarization, more aggressive drug policing -- and less accountability when things go wrong.

Mr. Balko is the author of "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America," published by the Cato Institute, where he is a policy analyst. Mr. Berger is an attorney representing the Williams and Garrison families and a former New York City Law Department executive.

clear proof the voters aren't paying attention

2006-09-03T10:48:00.000-06:00

Once more the political spin machines try to cast a light of graciousness on the issue. The Republicans would WIN in a landslide if they weren't acting like Democrats(Iraq War not included). For years the Republicans have led many to believe they are the party of FISCAL responsibilty, as the Democrats gave all the candy away in the store.
POWER has corrupted absolutely in terms of earmarks, political paybacks, footloose contributions.

Will this change once the democrats take power in the HoR? NOPE
different party same agenda

It is time to BREAK-UP the established political monopoly with other parties controling the reigns.

I'm Tom Martz Libertarian candidate for the 139th district and I would appreciate your vote come November. In the words of Barry Goldwater "I'm a voice, not an echo"
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats enter the fall campaign with a clear edge in the high-stakes fight for control of the U.S. Congress, riding a wave of momentum that has them positioned to retake the U.S. House of Representatives and make significant gains in the Senate.

President George W. Bush's low approval ratings and public dissatisfaction with the
Iraq war, gas prices and the country's direction threaten Republican leadership in Congress and put Democrats within reach of victory on November 7, analysts said.

"I don't think the question any longer is can Democrats win control of Congress, it's can Republicans do anything to stop it?" said Amy Walter, House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report newsletter. "All the factors and issues are pushing so strongly against Republicans."

All 435 House seats, 34 of 100 Senate seats and 36 governorships are at stake in November's election, with Democrats needing to pick up 15 House seats and six Senate seats to reclaim majorities.

Strategists in both parties say the glum public mood has created a strong desire for change and given Democrats a big advantage at the traditional opening of the campaign season on Monday's Labor Day holiday.

"It's too late to fix the national mood -- it's not going to be fixed," said Republican pollster Frank Luntz. "The major issues are not playing well for Republicans this year, and Republicans are not playing well with America this year."

History is also with Democrats -- the party holding the White House traditionally loses seats in a president's sixth year. The modern exception was 1998, when public unhappiness over the Republican-led impeachment of President
Bill Clinton helped Democrats gain five House seats.

"This looks like a classic sixth-year election," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, who called the president's low approval ratings, hovering at about 40 percent, "the single best indicator for any mid-term election."

A Democratic majority in even one chamber of Congress would slam the brakes on what is left of Bush's second-term legislative agenda and hasten his descent into lame-duck status in the final two years of his presidency.

It also would give Democrats an opportunity to hold hearings and investigate many of the administration's more controversial foreign, military and energy policy decisions.

Candidates around the country will spend Monday's Labor Day holiday marching in parades, shaking hands at fairs and laying the groundwork for the final two-month push to the November 7 election.

KEY BATTLEGROUNDS

About 40 House districts and a dozen Senate seats will be the key battlegrounds, and they will be flooded in the next two months with campaign cash and appearances by party big shots.

Democrats are in the strongest position in the House, analysts said, where nearly every endangered incumbent is Republican. Independent analyst Stuart Rothenberg projects a Democratic gain of 15-20 seats, while the Cook Report lists 17 House seats as toss-ups -- all Republican.

But Republican House campaign spokesman Carl Forti shrugged off predictions of a takeover.

"We're nowhere near as bad off as the experts would have you believe," he said, adding Bush's low ratings and public dissatisfaction with the Republican-led Congress would not determine House races.

In the Senate, Democrats are expected to pick up seats. But to win control they will need to bump off at least five Republican incumbents -- difficult but not impossible even under favorable conditions.

In recent polls, Democratic challengers led Republican incumbents Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, Conrad Burns in Montana and Mike DeWine in Ohio. Jim Talent in Missouri, Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island and George Allen in Virginia also face re-election struggles.

The open Tennessee seat of retiring Republican Senate Leader Bill Frist is also on the endangered list for Republicans.

Democratic incumbents Maria Cantwell in Washington, Debbie Stabenow in Michigan and Bob Menendez in New Jersey face potentially tough races, and Democrats must defend open seats in Minnesota and Maryland.

Many voters do not start paying attention until late in the campaign and many candidates only start spending heavily in September, giving the races plenty of chances to shift before the election.

Unexpected events, like the capture of al Qaeda leader
Osama bin Laden or a major terrorist strike, could quickly shift the political landscape.

"I'm a political realist. Can we win? Yes, but this is 10 weeks out and a lot can happen in 10 weeks," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

Role Reversal?

2006-08-25T13:51:00.000-06:00

Role Reversal?

Remember when the Republicans would advocate smaller government and less federal spending?

Freshmen members were typically the most vocal proponents of limited government, as they often brought optimism and a strong ideology to Capitol Hill. After time, some of these GOP ideologues tended to succumb to the culture of Washington and lose their moorings. But this process usually took years.

Lately this phenomenon appears to be happening much more rapidly. Speaking about the recent explosion of pork-barrel spending, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) noted, “We’ve developed a culture, unfortunately, over a number of years where incoming freshmen are conditioned to believe that this is the only way to get reelected.”

Now, it seems even candidates for Congress are talking like inside-the-Beltway porkers. In a hotly contested race for an open congressional seat in Illinois, a “fiscally conservative” Republican is pledging to bring home the bacon if elected.

The Daily Herald said of Pete Roskam, “The 6th Congressional District GOP nominee said he’d support continuing the so-called practice of “earmarks” if elected to Congress to make sure projects like fixing the dangerous railroad crossing at Irving Park and Wood Dale roads continue to get funded.”

Meanwhile, Tammy Duckworth, the Democratic nominee for the Illinois congressional seat, has taken a strong anti-pork stance. She notes, “One of the easiest steps Congress can take to reduce the deficit and reform ethics is to immediately end the practice of earmarking.” Duckworth has even created an “Outrageous Earmark of the Week” section on her campaign website.

It sounds a lot like Congressman Flake’s “Egregious Earmark of the Week.” That is to say, she sounds a lot more like a fiscal conservative than the Republican candidate.

Native Illinoisan Ronald Reagan, who once vetoed a highway bill because it contained too many earmarks, must be spinning in his grave.

Let us NOT forget

2006-08-22T14:43:00.000-06:00

14 years ago we were appalled with the show of force from the federal government, today many would welcome it.

Tom Martz

Massacre at Ruby Ridge

ATF agent I suspect few government officials realized in 1992 the widespread anger and resentment their actions in a remote area of Idaho would inspire. Randy Weaver and his family were just some more "troublemakers" who didn't like the multicultural cesspool and wanted to be left alone. They would be "taken down hard and fast."

While most of the American sheeple paid no attention to this atrocity, a substantial minority on both sides of the political spectrum were outraged and wouldn't forget. Now the story continues.

Please note that, damning as the Justice Department investigation is, FBI officials are now believed to have destroyed evidence to keep it away from investigators.

Don Black

The Wall Street Journal, June 30, 1995, p. A14.

Ruby Ridge: The Justice Report

By James Bovard

The 1992 confrontation between federal agents and the Randy Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, has become one of the most controversial and widely discussed examples of the abuse of federal power. The Justice Department completed a 542-page investigation on the case last year but has not yet made the report public. However, the report was acquired by Legal Times newspaper, which this week placed the text on the Internet. The report reveals that federal officials may have acted worse than even some of their harshest critics imagined.

This case began after Randy Weaver was entrapped, as an Idaho jury concluded, by an undercover Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent to sell him sawed-off shotguns.

While federal officials have claimed that the violent confrontation between the Weavers and the government began when the Weavers ambushed federal marshals, the report tells a very different story. A team of six U.S. marshals, split into two groups, trespassed onto Mr. Weaver's land on Aug. 21, 1992. One of the marshals threw rocks at the Weaver's cabin to see how much noise was required to agitate the Weaver's dogs. A few minutes later, Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, and 13-year-old Sammy Weaver came out of the cabin and began following their dogs. Three U.S. marshals were soon tearing through the woods.

At one point, U.S. Marshal Larry Cooper "told the others that it was ['expletive deleted'] for them to continue running and that he did not want to 'run down the trail and get shot in the back.' He urged them to take up defensive positions. The others agreed.... William Degan ... took a position behind a stump...."

As Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris came upon the marshals, gunfire erupted. Sammy was shot in the back and killed while running away from the scene (probably by Marshal Cooper, according to the report), and Marshal Degan was killed by Mr. Harris. The jury concluded that Mr. Harris's action was legitimate self-defense; the Justice report concluded it was impossible to know who shot first.

Several places in the report deal with the possibility of a government coverup. After the firefight between the marshals and the Weavers and Mr. Harris, the surviving marshals were taken away to rest and recuperate. The report observed, "We question the wisdom of keeping the marshals together at the condominium for several hours, while awaiting interviews with the FBI. Isolating them in that manner created the appearance and generated allegations that they were fabricating stories and colluding to cover up the true circumstances of the shootings."

After the death of the U.S. marshal, the FBI was called in. A source of continuing fierce debate across America is: Did the FBI set out to apprehend and arrest Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris -- or simply to kill them? Unfortunately, the evidence from the Justice Department report is damning in the extreme on this count.

The report noted, "We have been told by observers on the scene that law enforcement personnel made statements that the matter would be handled quickly and that the situation would be 'taken down hard and fast.' " The FBI issued Rules of Engagement that declared that its snipers "can and should" use deadly force against armed males outside the cabin.

The report noted that a member of an FBI SWAT team from Denver "remembered the Rules of Engagement as 'if you see 'em, shoot 'em.' " The task force report noted, "since those Rules which contained 'should' remained in force at the crisis scene for days after the August 22 shooting, it is inconceivable to us that FBI Headquarters remained ignorant of the exact wording of the Rules of Engagement during that entire period."

The report concluded that the FBI Rules of Engagement at Ruby Ridge flagrantly violated the U.S. Constitution: "The Constitution allows no person to become 'fair game' for deadly force without law enforcement evaluating the threat that person poses, even when, as occurred here, the evaluation must be made in a split second." The report portrays the rules of engagement as practically a license to kill: "The Constitution places the decision on whether to use deadly force on the individual agent; the Rules attempted to usurp this responsibility."

FBI headquarters rejected an initial operation plan because there was no provision to even attempt to negotiate the surrender of the suspects. The plan was revised to include a negotiation provision -- but subsequent FBI action made that provision a nullity. FBI snipers took their positions around the Weaver cabin a few minutes after 5 p.m. on Aug. 22. Within an hour, every adult in the cabin was either dead or severely wounded -- even though they had not fired a shot at any FBI agent.

Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and 16-year-old Sara Weaver stepped out of the cabin a few minutes before 6 p.m. to go to the shed where Sammy's body lay. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back. As Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and Sara Weaver struggled to get back into the cabin, Vicki Weaver stood in the cabin doorway holding a baby. Agent Horiuchi fired again; his bullet passed through a window in the door, hit Vicki Weaver in the head, killing her instantly, and then hit Mr. Harris in the chest.

At the subsequent trial, the government claimed that Messrs. Weaver and Harris were shot because they had threatened to shoot at a helicopter containing FBI officials. Because of insufficient evidence, the federal judge threw out the charge that Messrs. Weaver and Harris threatened the helicopter. The Justice report noted, "The SIOC [Strategic Information and Operations Center at FBI headquarters] Log indicates that shots were fired during the events of August 22.... We have found no evidence during this inquiry that shots fired at any helicopter during the Ruby Ridge crisis. The erroneous entry was never corrected." (The Idaho jury found Messrs. Weaver and Harris innocent on almost all charges.)

The Justice Department task force expressed grave doubts about the wisdom of the FBI strategy: "From information received at the Marshals Service, FBI management had reason to believe that the Weaver/Harris group would respond to a helicopter in the vicinity of the cabin by coming outside with firearms. Notwithstanding this knowledge, they placed sniper/observers on the adjacent mountainside with instructions that they could and should shoot armed members of the group, if they came out of the cabin. Their use of the helicopter near the cabin invited an accusation that the helicopter was intentionally used to draw the Weaver group out of the cabin."

The task force was extremely critical of Agent Horiuchi's second shot: "Since the exchange of gunfire [the previous day], no one at the cabin had fired a shot. Indeed, they had not even returned fire in response to Horiuchi's first shot. Furthermore, at the time of the second shot, Harris and others outside the cabin were retreating, not attacking. They were not retreating to an area where they would present a danger to the public at large...."

Regarding Agent Horiuchi's killing of Vicki Weaver, the task force concluded, "[B]y fixing his cross hairs on the door when he believed someone was behind it, he placed the children and Vicki Weaver at risk, in violation of even the special Rules of Engagement.... In our opinion he needlessly and unjustifiably endangered the persons whom he thought might be behind the door."

The Justice Department task force was especially appalled that the adults were gunned down before receiving any warning or demand to surrender: "While the operational plan included a provision for a surrender demand, that demand was not made until after the shootings.... The lack of a planned 'call out' as the sniper/observers deployed is significant because the Weavers were known to leave the cabin armed when vehicles or airplanes approached. The absence of such a plan subjected the Government to charges that it was setting Weaver up for attack."

Mr. Bovard writes often on public policy.

a documentry??

2006-08-22T14:11:00.000-06:00

I watched the Spike Lee film last night on HBO called "When the Levee's Broke" and it enforced my opinion that people have been led to believe and educated likewise that the job of the federal government is to help those in need no matter what.

Was this a nation tradegy?? YES
Was the city forewarned that this could happen?? YES
Does the city sit in a flood plain?? YES
Did any of the local officials go above and beyond the call of duty to avert this problem?? it doesn't appear to be so, oh sure there are individuals which rose to the occasion but it appears many sat back and waited for government to help.

During Mr. Lee's interview which can be read at the above mentioned link, I find it quite humorous that he laments that only a 1/4 of the actual population is back within the city. Many of these individuals are spaced out in the other continental states living off of the taxpayers dollars just like many of them were doing while living in New Orleans.
When government subsidizes a bad behavior more of the same ensues.

By the way it is much simplier to blame the federal government then it is to blame Ray "I'm not going to drive the bus" Nagin

That is my opinion and I'll stick with it until shown otherwise.

70 some days to go

2006-08-22T13:57:00.000-06:00

At this point I will concentrate more on my oppenents views compared to my own. Last night I spent extensive time reviewing the positions that both my opponents have taken, and I must admit I was quite confused when I got finished.
Both of them seem to have some governmental solution to our problems, then they both lament of how much government intercedes into our lives.

All three of us are second amendment types and believe the citizenry should be allowed to own firearms. I will take this a step further and proclaim that any law abiding citizen should be allowed to purchase any firearm made which is legal in the United States. In this manner the government actually has to pass legislation to prevent "certain" firearms from being allowed in the country. It is quite hard to hide behind this position.

Mr. Schoolcraft says he is pro-choice but says that through the use of government programs we can change the tide of abortion on demand.

Mr. Schoeller is pro-life and even received the nod from the organization which this position is quite important.

I am pro-life, no organization is going to endorse a third party candidate, my feeling weren't hurt. On some issues I completely disagree with the Pro-Life organization. I'm against any government expenditures whether they support the life or choice movement makes no difference to me. I also firmly believe this was a states rights issue not one of the federal government. We used to have 50 sovereign states which could govern the peoples residing within the states boundries, no more however as the fed reigns supreme.

change the face of politics and vote only third party candidates.

Tom Martz

Lowering the Cost of Health Care

2006-08-21T13:42:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - A weekly Column

August 21, 2006

As a medical doctor, I've seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

I believe the repeal of bad laws and court decisions which drive up these cost should be handled first. The tenticles of government tend to add more cost then deemed necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

Hence government has NO legal Constitutional authority to mandate this type of action. It was at this point everyone that voted for this bill should have been given the BOOT.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of "universal coverage"- is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

That's just it both the current duopoly parties in POWER want this system to remain, after all they do bring home the bacon for the constituients. The bigger the entitlement the better to remain in office with.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

Most people have been government educated so the understanding of this paragraph is limited to about 2% of the population.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down. As long as "somebody else" is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

Just to make sure there is an understanding with the term "third party", Mr. Paul is not reffering to the Libertarian Party, but to the insurance companies.

The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:

HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief-- including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums-- to make medical care more affordable.

As a business owner I should be in favor of this but the word "tax credit" sounds more like a government give back theme.

HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

"To err is human" can't remember the individual which said this but it is quite true in this case. I understand suing in regards to GROSS NEGLIGENCE, but for items out of the control of either the doctor or the facility is just plain WRONG. Suing a doctor because the baby is born with a handicap can't be controlled by the doctor or the hospitol. That is a risk that we the individual should bare.
If I fall off of a ladder is the manufacturer liable?? Sadly the answer would be yes in todays court system, although I wouldn't sue for my own stupidity.

HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.

Open up the insurance industry to allow "specific types of policies" Everything has gone via the big box store mentality. As the consumer I should be able to purchase specific types of policies for my families needs.

HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.

Once someone is diagnosised with a terminal illness ALL the money contributed to that number should be immediately released to that person, how they spend it is up to them, however keep in mind if the money gets wasted don't come crying back to the taxpayer for your ignorance.

I'm Tom Martz and I'm the Libertarian candidate for the 139th district. If you believe government expenditures are out of control and government has to much POWER over your daily life then I welcome you to vote for every Libertarian on your ballot to make EFFECTIVE change. The more members we get in state congress the more power we can return to the people.

Tom Martz

copied but important info pertaining to the audit

2006-08-18T16:04:00.000-06:00

The Libertarian Guy said...

The Greene County Libertarian Party has scheduled a public forum for interested citizens to provide their concerns to be submitted to the State Auditor's office. On Saturday, August 26th, our first forum will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Frisco room at the Library Station. Audit suggestions can also be phoned in to the G.C.L.P. at (417) 300-9148 or by e-mail at auditinfo@intergate.com.

Let your voice be heard to what departments should be audited.

Medicaid reform is the real issue

2006-08-11T15:04:00.000-06:00

Lawmakers spend too much time on fraud.

A legislative committee was in Springfield on Wednesday looking for fraud in Medicaid.

Perhaps there is some to be found, but we suggest lawmakers are once again focusing on the wrong priorities when they talk about Medicaid. What they ought to be doing is figuring how they're going to remake the system. When the legislature slashed Medicaid two years ago to balance the state budget, they passed a bill that wipes out the current state system of state-funded indigent care by 2008. The plan, Gov. Matt Blunt and Republican legislators said, was to remake the system from scratch.

It stands to reason when the tenticles of government get intwined in areas which should be the private sector cost will definetly GO UP.

So what are they doing? They're still talking about fraud and abuse, which was their rallying cry when they made the cuts in the first place. In the meantime, real people are suffering. Children have lost their insurance. Disabled adults have quit their jobs to keep their Medicaid. We're about two years away from the system going away and we're nowhere closer to figuring out the plan to develop a sustainable Medicaid program.

If you look at the BUDGET for mediScare there wasn't a cut in cost or budget so how does the SNL proclaim there was one. Easy the electorate buys into it via the SOB stories we see on TV nightly.

The good news is that Blunt seems to understand the key issue. In an interview with the News-Leader editorial board recently, he decried the liberal myth that too many people in our system today don't have access to health care.

"Everybody has access," Blunt says. "It's the emergency room. We need to change that."

The irony, of course, is that was the Democratic criticism two years ago when he slashed the Medicaid rolls and forced too many folks to use the emergency room as their sole source of health care. That Blunt today understands that reality of our system speaks well for the potential reform of the Medicaid system, if only the governor and lawmakers can get past political hurdles and focus on the real issues.

Personally using the Emergency Room as my source of medical resourses isn't actually an intelligent idea. My pet ferret knows emergency room cost will skyrocket, so how come it is people with college degrees don't understand this?

Reforming Medicaid has little to do with fraud and abuse, and everything to do with determining sustainable levels of care that provide security for our state's residents who need it, but mostly as a transitional benefit, not a permanent state-provided health insurance system. The problem with the old system is that it grew out of control. Like other forms of welfare — from food stamps to public housing — it didn't provide the sort of flexibility that helps folks as they help themselves. Under the old way of thinking about welfare, services are provided until a certain income level is attained, and then they're cut off. That forces people who are still in poverty to choose between food and medicine, shelter or a better-paying job.

The new model of Medicaid, we believe, must include sliding scales of service that help those who need it most and charge co-pays — or slowly reduce services — for those who can afford it. The new model must reward those who improve their income by keeping services in place until folks have climbed out of poverty, rather than just cutting them off when an arbitrary new income level is reached. The new model must recognize the truth that Blunt realizes: sending folks to the emergency room is not a solution.

Remaking Medicaid should be about providing incentives for those who can help themselves and access to health care for those who can't.

It's time for state lawmakers to make real Medicaid reform a priority.

Teens are OK with drug tests

2006-08-11T14:47:00.000-06:00

this will be interspirced with some of my commentary.

The News-Leader says that student drug testing is misguided and disturbing. So are the reasons it gave for opposing it. It cites the so-called failure of the DARE program as a reason not to test. That doesn’t mean this also will fail. If that educational program failed, then why insist on more? Why not attempt to curb drug use in a different way? Why not try a way that puts students in a position where taking a drug test will affect their extracurricular activities?

Since there are many ways to teach a student from private schools to home schooling I have no problem with this. After all going to government schools is voluntary not FORCED upon the citizenry.

If one student turns down drugs for fear of failing a drug test, then it does work. The purpose of student drug testing isn’t necessarily to catch students doing drugs. The purpose is to be a deterrent from doing drugs in the first place. It gives teens a solid reason to turn down the lure and pressure of drug use.

Once more government schooling is voluntary not FORCED!!

The News-Leader also cites personal freedoms as a reason not to test students. It’s not a disturbing trend, as it says. It’s a way to respond to drug problems in our schools. A good reason to test students is safety. It protects the student and those around them. But shouldn’t our society be used to measures that limit our personal freedom all in the name of safety? Speed limits, DUIs and underage driving laws restrict personal freedom all in the name of safety. Laws and decisions are made for our good. This decision isn’t out of the ordinary and isn’t misguided.

I'm not to complaint on the way the writer has decided to use safety as a means to limit personal freedoms. The Autobahn in Germany clearly shows that speed limits have nothing to do with safety. Many people die in auto accidents when they are complaint to the speed limit, obeying the law didn't save their lives.
DUI's don't tend to offer any safety either. Should I choose to go get drunk and drive it would be a RARE instance if I were to be stopped by the police.
I was driving at the age of 12, I still haven't been involved in an accident that has been my fault, hense the underage driving law protected NO ONE.

Drug testing isn’t intrusive or against the Constitution, as some say. The Supreme Court says this. It isn’t discriminatory either. Educators will say that participating in extracurricular activities isn’t a right, but a privilege. Those who want to participate need to submit to random drug tests. Drug testing isn’t punishment or discrimination. We shouldn’t view this as something negative, but helpful based on the current drug use by teens.

BAD argument!!! The SCOTUS also says that stealing ones property to give to a developer for economic gain to a community is constitutional as well.
I wonder if Mr Loomis would mind if Wal-Mart or any other retailor absconded with his property???? I would wager he would be complaining loudly.
However I still agree with random drug testing in the government school system since attendance is voluntary.

I offer my viewpoints based on personal experience. I am employed by the company who performed the drug tests on the Branson students and on the board members who approved it. I have given hundreds of drug tests to students.

Countless times a teen will tell me they don’t do drugs because they have so much to lose. More teens tell me they think it’s a good idea than those who complain about it. If they are the ones taking the tests and don’t mind, then why should the News-Leader mind?

Bill Loomis resides in Springfield and is a drug technician.

How have we allowed plundering of taxpayers' money go on?

2006-08-11T14:33:00.000-06:00

could it possibly be that the citizenry has become complaint to what the mainstream politicians tell them??

could it be that when someone questions the expenditures of the elite elected officials they are BEATEN down by a news media organization for being a "MOONBAT"??

One only need to look in the mirror Ms. Sarah Overstreet and to where this article was printed to discover the answer.

Funny I thought the newspapers had INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS, to write about this type of stuff.

KUDOS to Doug Burlison and the members of the Libertarian Party of Greene County for getting this subject on the forefront. Many thanks to the individual members of the police department, firefighters, and concerned citizens of Springfield.

There are two crimes I really can't understand:

a.) Serial killing. I've watched documentaries titled such as "The Mind of a Serial Killer." It's like I'm watching videos voiced in Farsi. Nothing computes.

b.) Embezzlement. I have to keep my bank account current (by subtraction, mostly), or My Good Friends Who Gave Me the Toaster to Sign Up With Their Bank will charge me a hefty fee for overdrawing.

So doesn't that beg the question, "How does someone in public life get away with it so easily, if the Gestapo at the bank are looking at every jot and tittle of my finances?"

Easy. In public life, sometimes no one's watching. The emperor has no clothes. No one wants to say anything, lest he or she be pilloried for pointing it out or suggesting we need CPAs, too.

Just a couple of examples — from the most current to the mists of history — where there were no checks and balances in southwest Missouri's past.

Some $1.2 million disappeared from the Springfield Municipal Court between Jan. 1, 2000, and June 13 of this year.

This is the court where we pay our fines for all the sins we commit, from driving transgressions to having our dogs roam at large. These tickets are not inexpensive. Look at the city's record of keeping watch of the money, and all you can do is get sick. The City Finance Department told News-Leader reporter Jenny Fillmer earlier this year that the city does not regularly check to make sure the money that gets deposited into city bank accounts balances against the money it collected.

What happened to the money, before and now? "It would be very difficult for us to know," the city's director of finance, Mary Mannix-Decker, told Fillmer. Again, since the city's Finance Department doesn't check the dough to see where it goes, they dunno. Why?

The official excuse the city has used is that it doesn't have the money to look after our money, even after a state audit showed in 2000 that "vulnerabilities" have existed in our Municipal Court for years.

And how long has this kind of thing been going on?

That would be a great game-show question.

At least since the late 1980s. That's when ex-Greene County Collector's Office employee Lois Long, former Collector Gene Wickliffe's head bookkeeper and cashier, took an estimated $94,000 from the office.

It seems like every few weeks, there's a new news release about a local embezzlement: a Springfield PTA treasurer, a children's basketball organization's treasurer, lawyers for private trusts, all kinds of bookkeeping burglary in private industry.

It's reprehensible when parents and supporters sweat buckets to plump up children's activities and someone steals it. It's gut-wrenching when crooks rob old people who think they're making investments that will take them through their lives. When employees are allowed to plunder from the taxpayers. Why have we let it go on so long?
Are we NUTS?

U.N.?

2006-08-07T12:57:00.000-06:00

for years most republicans tried to distance themselves from the U.N. for obvisous reasons. It is an organization which is hell bent on controlling the world. The democrats like this as it fits into the social agenda of which guides the party.

the party that baffled me to some extend was the complaince with the party leaders and the mainstream republicans. this notion however has subsided since I've come to the conclusion that the current administration is using the U.N. resolutions as the scapegoat for going into Iraq.
No longer can many mainstream republicans, nor can the party faithful object to the status of the U.N. after all they used it quite nicely to deflect some criticism with our current quagmire.

the light has been shown on the party of principle and we have learned they have none, which means the faithful that don't agree with the U.N. position should either not vote or vote third party right?? not a chance they will continue to support their party, since people like me are deemed conspiracy theorist. it isn't until its too late that we find out post like these were correct.

government, government schooling and a complaint media have dumbed down a whole generation and a half of the citizens. is it too late to retrieve "our" country from the ruins of which it is headed?? for my kids sake I hope so.

GIVE UP RIGHTS FOR THE "COMMON GOOD"?

2006-08-07T12:39:00.000-06:00

Sound like anyone here in the local area??

Where people fear the government you have tyranny; where the government fears the people, you have liberty.

Politicians, bureaucrats and especially judges would have you believe that too much freedom will result in chaos. Therefore, we should gladly give up some of our RIGHTS for the good of the community. In other words, people acting in the name of the government, say we need more laws and more JURORS to enforce these laws -- even if we have to give up some RIGHTS in the process. They believe the more laws we have, the more control, thus a better society. This theory may sound good on paper, and apparently many of our leaders think this way, as evidenced by the thousands of new laws that are added to the books each year in this country. But, no matter how cleverly this Marxist argument is made, the hard fact is that whenever you give up a RIGHT you lose a "FREE CHOICE"!

This adds another control. Control's real name is BONDAGE! The logical conclusion would be, if giving up some RIGHTS produces a better society, then by giving up all RIGHTS we could produce a perfect society. We could chain everybody to a tree, for lack of TRUST. This may prevent crime, but it would destroy PRIVACY, which is the heartbeat of FREEDOM! It would also destroy TRUST which is the foundation for DIGNITY. Rather than giving up RIGHTS, we should be giving up wrongs! The opposite of control is not chaos. More laws do not make less criminals! We must give up wrongs, not rights, for a better society! William Pitt of the British House of Commons once proclaimed,

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

INALIENABLE, [UNALIENABLE] OR NATURAL RIGHTS!

NATURAL RIGHTS ARE THOSE RIGHTS such as LIFE (from conception), LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS eg. FREEDOM of RELIGION, SPEECH, LEARNING, TRAVEL, SELF-DEFENSE, ETC. Hence laws and statutes which violate NATURAL RIGHTS, though they may have the color of law, are not law but impostors! The U.S. Constitution was written to protect these NATURAL RIGHTS from being tampered with by legislators. * Further, our forefathers also wisely knew that the U.S. Constitution would be utterly worthless to restrain government legislators unless it was clearly understood that the people had the right to compel the government to keep within the Constitutional limits.

take it for what you will!!!

2006-08-07T12:30:00.000-06:00

A SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

The Communist Manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, which teaches the citizens to give up their RIGHTS for the sake of the "common good," but it always ends in a police state. This is called preventive justice. Control is the key concept. Read carefully:

1. Abolition of private property.
2. Heavy progressive income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights on inheritance.
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Central bank.
6. Government control of Communications & Transportation.
7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture.
8. Government control of labor.
9. Corporate farms, regional planning.
10. Government control of education.

Looks to me like our citizenry has allowed the federal government along with the willing accomplises sitting on the Supreme Court to achieve all 10.
We may not be living in a communist nation yet but every vehicle is in place for the allowance of the tranisition.

Vote yes on city/county parks tax(News-Leader take)

2006-08-06T12:36:00.000-06:00

YES, folks this is the very same news forum jounalism which gave us the infamous WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING AUDIT.
Doug Burlison was made out to be a nut case with an axe to grind, the individual members of the Libertarian Party,with individual police officers, fire fighters, and concerned citizens of Springfield were told we were barking up the wrong tree. After all KPMG is such a world reknown auditing firm that the concept of mismanagement of funds was unthinkable.
Once again the SNL has decided to recommend that we the taxpayers allow a government entity to take even more of our hard earned money so the City of Springfield can achieve some status within the state.

The following links dispell the notion that somehow building all these extravagant venues is going to raise the revenue into the city coffers by people visiting the area. When something is built with taxpayer funds then continues to need taxpayer funds for maintenance and upkeep it is hardly a windfall for the citizenry. If parks are so needed and generate revenue why isn't the private sector stepping up to the plate to funds these MONEY making propositions?
Quite easy really they don't make money and the cost to maintain these properties isn't offset by any financial gain.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2830

Growth demands need for parks improvement.

There are two simple reasons to support the Springfield/Greene County parks tax increase when you vote on Tuesday:

1. The parks board has been a good steward of your tax dollars.

2. If the city and county want to continue to have a world-class parks program as the area grows, then more revenue will be needed.

We believe both of those premises are true, and that's why we encourage voters to say yes to a quarter-cent sales tax increase for parks in Greene County.

The proposal, which will raise $50 million over five years, is a continuation of a long-term vision that was developed by citizens and has been supported by the community time and time again. Voting yes finishes improvements to Dickerson Park Zoo that were started with the last parks tax increase. Voting yes spends money on improved parks and aquatic facilities in the north (Doling Park and Grant Beach Park) and gets the ball rolling on a park and family center east of U.S. 65, a fast-growing and underserved corridor. Voting yes continues to improve sports complexes such as the Cooper Tennis Center that serve as an economic development engine, bringing millions of dollars to our city when families fill up hotel rooms and buy food and other goods in our community during trips to Springfield for soccer, softball or tennis competitions. Voting yes protects watersheds and brings about necessary improvements to historic parks such as Sequiota Park. Voting yes continues an efficient cooperation between the parks board and the Springfield Public Schools as taxpayers dollars create flexible green spaces that can be used by schoolchildren and taxpayers.

Voting yes fulfills the promise of a higher quality of life for our community.

There is a downside, of course, to higher taxes. If voters say yes, they will have created a permanent quarter-cent sales tax over the past 10 years. Eventually, these fractions of a cent add up. In Springfield, with its multitude of taxing districts, recently approved bond issues for a power plant and better schools, eventually the added taxes will create a burden for those on fixed incomes. Frankly, we hear the voices of some critics who wonder why we would continue to approve parks taxes in our community while saying no to higher law enforcement taxes or sitting idly by as our city struggles to find money for raises for police officers and firefighters.

But we believe it's important to see the bigger picture. Saying no to the parks tax will not magically free up some money in the general revenue accounts of the city. Quite the opposite. Better parks lure businesses to town and help others maintain quality employees. Better parks help pay for themselves by bringing visitors to town who help produce higher sales tax revenue. This year's sales tax collections in Springfield, for instance, increased by more than 8 percent as of March — more than triple last year's increase during the same time. This doesn't happen by accident.

Our city is growing because it's a wonderful place to live. The parks are a big part of that equation.

Tuesday's vote continues to fulfill a vision that citizens had long before some of us came to the Ozarks. It's a vision that sees a growing city and makes sure that we have a connection to all parts of the city through our parks and trails system. The brilliance of the plan is that with every yes vote, the parks board secures enough money to pay for the future improvements. That's important because some day, money might be tight and we will have to say no.

That's not the case today. The parks board has earned the trust of voters in Springfield and Greene County. It has a job to do to continue to make this a beautiful place to live.

Let's give it the money to do that job.

Vote yes on the local parks tax.

VOTE NO on all tax increases, bond measures, and vote out all incumbents. We demand accountability.

Tom Martz(libertarian)
candidate for the 139th

Contractors group supports tax

2006-08-06T11:56:00.000-06:00

This is a no brainer. An organization that receives fees from the very same people that are going to be bidding on these contracts for so called improvements only makes sense. The city has already proven it is NOT to be trusted with any funds let alone supplying them with MORE.
Sorry but if the citizenry of this area willingly bows over and allows this to happen then they deserve NO less representation then they get. Sometimes I wonder if the people in this area ACTUALLY pay attention to the matters at hand, or are they to busy trying to get little Johnny and Suzy to be world class athletes in a town not known for its athletic prowess.
The people of this area need to wake up and observe the people they place into office. We the people are being lied to, ripped off and NO ONE seems to care. Well I care and will carry that voice to Jeff City to stop the abuses of government. I am but one voice but together we can and will be HEARD.

The Board of Directors of Springfield Contractors Association encourages the citizens of Greene County to "vote yes, to continue your parks' success" and approve the proposed quarter-cent sales tax on Aug. 8 ballot.

The sales tax is expected to raise approximately $50 million over the next five years. These funds will be used to continue to improve existing parks and provide new parks in under-served areas of Greene County.

Besides the direct economic benefit a vibrant and comprehensive parks system provides by serving our citizens and attracting visitors, the $50 million spent to improve our quality of life will also turn over in our hands to deliver about $150 million in impact of dollars spent in our community.

Several necessary water quality projects have been designed into the overall parks plan. Improving our water quality with the same dollars we use to improve our parks is good use of taxpayer money.

The comprehensive details of the planned improvements are available at www.voteyesparks.com.

We encourage you to find the answers to any questions you might have and most important: Go vote yes on Aug. 8.

Sheryl Letterman, Springfield The author is the executive director of the Springfield Contractors Association

Make a break from politics as usual, support third party candidates and throw out the people that refuse to listen to the voice of the people.

Vote Libertarian
Tom Martz
candidate 139th district

the run off for the 139th

2006-08-05T22:09:00.000-06:00

so lets see if I have this right. Shane Schoeller is a political insider, and has the support of Republican bigwigs Darrell and Dinette Proctor of Willard.
Karen Roark(Brad's mom)put her name on the ballot and NO one knows why except for maybe Karen. Both of these people were NO SHOWS @ the Families for Change political candidate forum.
My personal favorite is Joe Pyles. WHY because I met him at the above mentioned forum and he seems like a reasonable Republican. Yes he is the classic underdog just like I will be during the general election.
Personally having experience in politics is the reason why most people distrust government, and they should since past experience has proven not to be of any value.

I wonder if KY 3 will send out a reporter to cover me when I start walking door to door to introduce myself to the voters of this district. I'm not well known even to my neighbors, however that will change in the next few months as I am going to try to make inroads in an area well known for voting for the status quo of government.

One thing is for certain no matter how much the 3 republican candidates differ on the issues, they will walk in lockstep come election time. Some will say my tone is HARSH, however I live in REALITY and even the most social republican will walk in lockstep with the most conservative republican over 90% of the time, excluding one, Ron Paul, TX HoR district 14. A man with principles, charisma, and a firm understanding of the Constitution. Since I have started following politics this man has been my guiding light in times of dispair, and political mayhem.

#139 SCHOELLER: A TEST OF PARTY POWER
Some Republicans believe Shane Schoeller's success or failure Tuesday will be a test of how strong the party regulars remain in local politics. Privately, some G.O.P. insiders are just baffled about the candidacy of Karen Roark, Rep. Brad Roark's mother. When I asked one Republican resident in the #139th if she was qualified to be a lawmaker, he replied, "don't ask me that."

Many of the committee people in the 139th threw their support to Schoeller early on, and haven't even heard from Roark yet. "I've never even talked to her," said one party official. "She's made no effort to contact me."

The theory goes that Schoeller is stronger in the western end of the district, while Roark will perform better in the eastern part. "She obviously gets a lot just from the name. You see a lot of Brad's signs and a lot of her signs, real close to each other" says one Republican.

"I think Schoeller will pull it off in the end," says the #139th party official. "But it will be a real test to see if the party rank and file make a difference in picking and endorsing candidates anymore."

posted by David Catanese

Shane Schoeller Aims To End Roark Legacy
Republicans privately say this was supposed to be the year Shane Schoeller finally got his due, easily cruising to the G.O.P. nomination in the 139th legislative district.

But now Schoeller is locked in a 3-way primary race, where one of his opponents carries a popular political name in the district.

Schoeller is running against Karen Roark, Rep. Brad Roark's mother, and media consultant Joe Pyles.

I got to catch up with Schoeller today as he was going door-to-door in the 139th. Refreshingly, Schoeller wouldn't say anything even close to disparaging about either of his G.O.P. rivals. He seems not to hold a grudge or take anything for granted. Instead, he focused on issues and experience.

"The main difference is experience. I have it on the federal, state and local level," Schoeller said referring to his work for John Ashcroft, Kit Bond and both Matt and Roy Blunt.

"Karen Roark is running a good race. Joe Pyles is a nice man, very friendly," Schoeller said.

Schoeller said he spoke to Rep. Brad Roark about his mother running and said there were no hard feelings on either side. "I said to Brad, that's what's great about our country. Anybody can run," Schoeller recalled.

Just a note . . . I have contacted several top G.O.P. officials about ways to get in touch with Karen Roark to get her views. I have not received calls back yet. Any tips on how to get in touch with Ms. Roark would be greatly appreciated. Maybe I'm just bad at tracking down campaign sites?

Regarding Pyles, Schoeller said he believes he is more conservative than Pyles. "I think Joe may be a little more moderate than I am. I don't know if that's the message for this district. It's fairly conservative."

Here's Schoeller on the issues:

Medicaid Cuts - He'd vote to reinstate the MAWD program for working people with disabilities, but wouldn't say the Medicaid cuts went too far. "I think it is a smart investment to give the working disabled a chance to work. Anytime you have reforms, unfortunate things happen, I understand that."

Special Session - He'd only support a special session to reinstate Medicaid if it was held during the veto session so it wouldn't cost taxpayers any extra money.

Minimum Wage Hike - He said he'd only support a minimum wage hike as part of a larger package that would include tax breaks for businesses. "That's the only circumstance I'd support it," Schoeller said.

Stem Cell Amendment - He is against the stem cell initiative because he said it's a controversial proposal that destroys human life. "It's not a smart choice for Missouri. I certainly believe an embryo is a human life. Adult stem cells offer so much more results." What about embryos that are going to be discarded anyway? Schoeller is against using any type of embryos for research. "Once you do that, you hit a slippery slope. My position is firm on these issues."

License Fee Office Reform - This may be a touchy topic for Schoeller because his wife operates a fee office in Nixa. He said he does not yet have a position on Rep. Mark Wright's plan to change the way the offices are awarded and run. "I haven't taken a position, I'd have to see the details but so much has been mischaracterized about these license offices. Unfortunately it has become an issue, but for me it is already out there. My wife has one office in Nixa, but we didn't ask for it. We were approached about running it and I encouraged my wife to do it. People rarely ask me about it, most aren't interested in it."

Biggest Issue for #139 Voters - Iraq . . . You read it right, Iraq. Of all the issues Schoeller hears about, he said he gets the most questions, comments and concern about the war. As a potential state lawmaker, Schoeller obviously doesn't have much control over that issue, but he said that's what people want to talk about. "People have a lot of different opinions, but overall they want victory, a conclusion, some type of closure."

Here's his campaign website . . . http://www.electschoeller.com/
I appreciate the heads-up on it. As much as I googled and tried other searches, I couldn't find it.

Schoeller said while Roark has name identification, his biggest strength is organization. "I feel like I've done all the things necessary to win this race," Schoeller said. But he admits that getting people energized about voting in the middle of vacation season is difficult. "It's very hard in a primary. I hear people all the time say, 'When's that election again?,'" Schoeller said.

Of all the politicians he has worked for Schoeller said he's learned the most from his four years serving as a legislative aide to Rep. Roy Blunt. "He helped me set priorities and figure out what can and can't be done," Schoeller said. "I learned the most important thing is keeping your word to people. If you can't help them, you have to tell them that. It's better to tell them instead of telling them you'll look into it and you never get back to them. People will respect that," Schoeller said.

posted by David Catanese

Can Joe Pyles Pull An Upset in the 139th?
Can a candidate for a higher minimum wage, for the stem cell ballot initiative, supportive of restoring Medicaid cuts for the working disabled and revamping the license fee offices really win a northern Greene County G.O.P primary?

That's what Joe Pyles is trying to do in the 139th.

The Republican primary for the 139th legislative district includes three candidates, Shane Schoeller, Joe Pyles and Karen Roark. I couldn't find campaign websites for Schoeller or Roark, so Pyles gets the only web profile for now.

On his campaign website, Pyles tries to make the case that he's the only candidate in this race that is serious about representing the 139th. "I didn't move to the 139th to run for office or file on the last day. I am not part of any political machine," Pyles writes.

A Fair Grove resident, Pyles has served on the West Plains city council and fought in Operation Desert Storm. He's now a media consultant, so it's not surprising he has a website. He talks about bringing "political attention" to northern Greene County, by holding community meetings and town hall events. His list of issues include noting his "pro-life, anti-gun control" stands, but his positions on hot-button topics like Medicaid and stem cells do stand out above all. You certainly don't see those positions on the campaign websites of many Republicans running in southwest Missouri.

Still, he seems to reject the label of a "progressive or moderate." We gave him that label in a previous entry. And he's responded on his site. "The media tries to label Joe as a progressive, moderate. He just reminds you that he is just a human being that's offering his services to represent all parties, all views."

Pyles is attempting to reach out to moderate Republicans and even Democrats. He says he's chosen the Republican party because it best governs free enterprise, prevents government intervention and doesn't find ways to raise taxes. But Pyles promises he'll listen to Democratic ideas respectfully and work with the other side effectively.

Pyles also tries to take the populist approach when it comes to money, pledging that while he may be outraised and outspent, it won't matter. He says he has a "conservative budget" of $45,750 to spend on this race. On the donation part of the site, he recommends an $80 contribution for a primary victory . . . and a $110 contribution for a general election win.

I haven't seen any evidence of where this primary race stands, but insiders say Karen Roark will be the favorite just because of her name. That means if Pyles is able to pull off a win this primary night, it would be one of the big stories of election night.

Vote Libertarian,
change the face of politics

Tom Martz(L)
candidate for the 139th

Stay out of our business

2006-08-05T21:51:00.000-06:00

GAMBLING »

BRAVO Bill there really isn't to much I could add to this. Nice to see that others are picking up on the "fish wrapper" and there attempt at a nanny complex. This area is Christian central and most churches don't want gambling this close, it corrupts people you know!!
I seen corrupt politicians, business owners, people in general, and corrupt clergy, but don't ever call them out on it.
Again Bill you have your finger on the pulse of common sense thinking on this issue.

What does an editorial writer for the paper know about the needs or options of our community? "Find a way to ride the wave of success of Branson," were his words. Wake up to the facts. Branson Landing was built and continues to be built by taxpayer funding, i.e., Tax-Increment Financing.

The bills aren't in yet, the failure of anything in the Landing will bring the costs to a head. Who will end up paying? The taxpayers of Branson and Taney County.

Where did the money to fight our first venture to get gambling come from? A businessman who was afraid that the boat would take money away from his multiple ventures. That same person also fought to keep NASCAR from building a track in Hollister for the same reasons. Think about how many people that would have brought to the area!

Let's look at the facts. Rockaway Beach needs a break. Manufacturing isn't an option because of limited space.

The cost of the gambling boat will be paid 100 percent by the developer, not the taxpayers. More than 1,000 construction jobs to build the casino and 700 to 900 year-round jobs with benefits would be created. The tax money generated would benefit Rockaway Beach, Taney County and the state.

Lastly, bus tours come to Branson in droves, they stay in Branson for three days, leave and go to Tunica for the next two days. Why not keep it all here?

I can assure you that no one will be dragged kicking and screaming into the casino.

Mr. Editor, get your facts together before you try to tell us how to run our community.

Bill Petrovic, Rockaway Beach

Approve fire district tax increase

2006-08-04T16:27:00.000-06:00

It is the opinion of this candidate that if more houses are being constructed, more people moving into the area, more businesses moving into the area, that equates into more revenue into not only the fire district, but that of the police department and the schools.
For some reason this local area has a fire truck or two respond to every auto and/or truck accident even if the chance of fire is non existant. We have EMS/EMT and a host of other services that respond quite well to these types of accidents, why is a fire truck sent to a simple fender bender???

It would seem to me that the fire department should allocate its money to be an effective branch of civil government and stop playing politics. I grew up in an area about the size of Rogersville which had NO full time fire fighters nor did they have a large tax levy district to allot funds for new fire trucks and the like. My goodness what did they do when times were in need of fire equipment??? They approached the residents of Fayetteville, PA with the problem and had a fund raising campaign to purchase the equipment with cash so no loans were carried.

What happened to the days where instead of confiscating money via taxes the departments would approach the citizenry to finance a cash strapped entity? In this day an age 28% of the eligible voters will go to the polls of which 60%+ of that will inform the homeowners, business owners, that your cost are going up even though the case hasn't been made for more money.

Approve fire district tax increase

Logan-Rogersville has good plan for growth.

More people. More houses. More roads. More accidents. More fires.

To deal with burgeoning growth southeast of Springfield, the Logan-Rogersville Fire District is asking voters for a 12-cent property tax increase. We endorse their request.

Twice in the past few years the fire district has asked voters to approve a bond issue to help deal with growth in its three-county, 160-square-mile district, and both times voters said yes, but not by the supermajority needed to pass the bond issue. So fire district officials went to the citizens and asked for advice. They came up with a mill levy increase instead that will cost the owner of a $200,000 home about $45 a year. That seems like a lot of money for those folks who never have a fire or end up in a car accident.

But pick up the phone and dial 911 just once and you'll realize how important it is for firefighters to get to your home quickly.

That's what passing this tax increase will do: improve response times, particularly in the fastest growing area in Greene County.

The tax increase will fund 11 full-time firefighters and will allow the district to staff its busiest station — Station 2 on Blackman Road — 24 hours a day. That's the sort of protection homeowners in an urban area expect, and it's what Logan-Rogersville wants to provide.

Fire service takes care of one of our most basic government functions — safety — and it's why we wholeheartedly endorse this tax increase. As the area grows, we must pay for that growth sometimes by providing additional services. But there's a reward for our generosity. One of the benefits of improved fire coverage is decreased cost for homeowners insurance.

The Logan-Rogersville district has reduced their ISO rating to a 4, and that puts money right back in the pockets of taxpayers.

As calls for service increase, the only way to keep response times down is to increase personnel or build new stations. This will accomplish at least half the job by increasing paid staff and placing them at the busiest station.

Finally, the board of the fire district has spent its money wisely. Following the model of most fire districts in the Ozarks, Logan-Rogersville spends its money on paid personnel in the fire stations providing the day-to-day service to taxpayers. Money is not spent on bloated salaries for administrators. The district should be commended for that approach.

We urge citizens in the Logan-Rogersville Fire Protection District to vote yes on Proposition 1 on Tuesday.

City to look at storage unit rules

2006-07-29T19:29:00.000-06:00

Here's a wonderful idea to solve this problem. The company that supplies these containers can paint them with wonderful scenes from around the nation, which can blend into the landscape of the city of Springfield. The City Council will be happy so they can still continue to IGNORE the ordinance that they passed. The whiners that complain about the storage containers won't realize they are storage containers because they blend in with the landscape. The owner of the storage container company will have BEAUTIFUL containers which can have historic scenery painted on the sides or different places from around the country and (s)he can charge a little extra for the cost of the container beautification. All of this WITHOUT GOVERNMENT intervention, a proper Libertarian solution.

Permits to stop for six months, but staff say it will make little difference.

Jenny Fillmer
jfillmer@news-leader.com

The Springfield City Council voted Monday to stop issuing permits for on-site storage containers for the next six months, so it can review regulation of the units.

City staff members say the vote doesn't really change anything, because nobody ever asked for a permit in the first place, leaving thousands of the containers, on-site storage trailers and temporary storage units in the city out of compliance.

Containers the size of the trailer portion of a tractor-trailer rig often are placed near businesses to store extra merchandise on site, especially while stockpiling for the holiday season.

The permit suspension forces storage container owners who had neglected to obtain permits to either continue operating illegally or stop renting out units in the city.

But Mayor Tom Carlson said the six-month suspension isn't intended to put anyone out of business."If they're getting away with it, they're going to continue getting away with it."

Councilman Gary Deaver said widespread disregard for the law was why he asked the council to review it.

"Six years ago the council passed a law, but (no unit owners) have gone through the process and been approved," said Deaver.

Based on a consultant's recommendation, the council during its six-month review of the law also will consider environmental and aesthetic issues related to the containers, as well as how they affect neighboring property values.

The suspension rattled Brenda Teeslink, owner of Springfield-based Mobile Storage Solutions. Her company rents containers to local retailers.

"I don't have a problem with a study being done, but to say we can't rent trailers for six months, I might as well shut my doors," said Teeslink.

"Why do we need to stop us doing business for 180 days if you're just trying to determine if there's a detriment to the land values?" asked Teeslink.

Councilwoman Mary Collette pointed out a provision in the ordinance allowing for written appeal in certain instances. But neither council members nor city staff offered Teeslink additional guidance for operating her business legally during the next six months.

However, city staff said, unless someone files a complaint about a particular container, the city probably won't do anything about them.

"I don't know that we'd be enforcing (the law), because it would be hard to keep up," said city planning director Ralph Rognstad. "We don't have inspectors looking at every property every day."

Make your VOTE count.
VOTE third party candidates and scare the bejesus out of the monopoly parties

Tom Martz
candidate 139th district

Report: Missing court funds top $1 million

2006-07-27T21:20:00.000-06:00

I wonder if our esteemed City Council still believes it is a waste of money for the citizens of Springfield to see the city get a REAL AUDIT.

I guess we should also demand a refund from KPMG since there auditing procedures didn't catch this missing cash. I wonder if KPMG also audits the Springfield Government School System as well?? After all our government school system misplaced over five million dollars a few years back, and when the voters said NO to a tax increase for the schools this five million was found hiding under a desk drawer some where in the administration office.

To those of you that don't believe the city should be audited, well if this was YOUR million dollars you want it back wouldn't you??

http://www.sbj.net/db/docs/municipalcourtreport.pdf

Report: Missing court funds top $1 million

Funds missing from SpringfieldÂs Municipal Court are now estimated at $1 million or more.

The new figure Â more than double previous estimates Â was announced this afternoon in a report released by the city managerÂs office.

The report summarizes the cityÂs monthlong administrative investigation of the suspected embezzlement, which was discovered in mid-June.

The investigation included the services of a certified forensics examiner, who audited the courtÂs financial records dating from Jan. 1, 2000, to June 13 of this year. The new estimate comes from this examinerÂs findings. The city has now asked the examiner to expand the scope of the investigation to Jan. 1, 1997.

ÂThe discredit this has caused, and will continue to cause the Court and the City of Springfield, is enormous,Â the report reads. ÂIt will be extremely difficult to repair the damage that has been caused from this incident, as well as mend the public trust.Â

A criminal investigation, led by the Springfield Police Department, is ongoing, aided by the forensics examiner. A former court employee was arrested and released June 23 on suspicion of felony stealing. No charges have been filed.

To change the monolopy of American politics
VOTE LIBERTARIAN

Tom Martz
district 139 candidate

Candidate forum

2006-07-26T12:59:00.000-06:00

Last night I and several other LP candidates attended a political forum for all candidates hosted by Families for Change, here in Springfield. All three parties were represented by different people in different districts. The web page for this group is www.familiesforchange.com. This group is comprised of concerned citizens that are fed up with the abuses of DFS(department of family services).

The meeting started with a prayer and then on to the introductions. All candidates were invited to participate in this forum, however many didn't show up. There were a few that allowed the moderator to know they couldn't attend the event, the others just blew off this organization of concerned parents.

The introductions seemed destined to pit republicans against democrats in a political bickering contest. Our very own Kevin Craig running in the 7th district against Roy Blunt brought out many failures of the so called conservative legislator.
GREAT JOB Kevin as I believe you woke up a few in attendance.

Many of those in attendance talked about their background and why they decided to run for public office, there were only 3 of us that informed the attendees that we weren't going to continue the bloated government theme.

MediScare was the first topic brought up and I was quite surprised how many in attendance were of the essence that they should be able to rely upon government services for their well being. This topic became a political hot potato(e)(thanks Dan) between the detractors of the two political parties NOW in POWER. The talks of funding cuts of the MediScare program were rampant. All one needs to do is look at the budget for that program over the past decade or two and you won't find any spending cuts. The Democrat hopefuls once again used the tried and true method of scaring our elderly without the facts to back up their claims, but then again the two major political parties have never had to prove anything since they are both destined to have POWER.

We did have one actual current representative on hand and that was Bob Dixon. Bob is a nice enough guy, and it seems his heart is in the right place, but he just like most republicans realize the only way to get re-elected is to bring the bacon back to your own congressional district. This is why many have become addicted to government services.

By the way Bob the states budget isn't balanced, technically you can say it is, however there is a 400 million dollar loan floating around in Jeff City which allowed for you to be able to make that comment last night. Call it a slight of hand, a technicality, or a lie either one you chose would be correct. You can't possibly balance a budget on BORROWED money.

There was one particular person at this event which brought back memories of Hillary to me. Yes he was brash, passionate, and a defender of government programs, but his demeanor will probably cost him the election. The trend of the evening was how some people have helped others since they got involved in the campaign process, I wonder why they don't do that even when they aren't running for political office??

All things being equal I learned much from my first foray into the political world and will use this knowledge to help me when I finally learn who my competition is going to be for the general election.

Vote Libertarian it's the only way to change the government of status quo.

Tom Martz
district 139 candidate

Congressman arranges national site for wife

2006-06-19T14:12:00.000-06:00

And just how many of you have a National Park or bridge or a highway named in your honor? I would bet the answer is going to be a slim few of you even know of someone that has this honor.
Should this be a use of the taxpayer's dollars??
We expect this behavior from the democrats and now we seem to expect it from the republicans.
The differences between these political giants is miniscule and yet the talking heads would have you believe it is vast.
I'm sorry but wasteful spending stems the political scale of both right and left politicians, as well as political corruption!!
How do you get rid of these traits in the political class??
You start by not voting for anyone in either of the two political parties as power can and will corrupt and it has been shown to be so for years.

Vote Libertarian when possible and third party always.

APPROPRIATIONS: The move raises eyebrows among government watchdogs in the wake of the earmark debate.
BY MATT STEARNS
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON - Some guys give their wives jewelry or flowers. Ralph Regula gave his wife a national park.

Regula, a Republican congressman from Ohio, is a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee. In 2000, his subcommittee created the First Ladies National Historic Site in his district in Canton, Ohio.

Regula's wife, Mary, is the founding president of the nonprofit National First Ladies' Library, which operates the historic site for the National Park Service. She draws no salary.

The historic site is due to Mary Regula's inspiration, said John Debo, the superintendent of Cuyahoga Valley National Park, which includes the first ladies site.

Over the years, Ralph Regula's subcommittee has inserted more than $4.5 million in special ``earmarks'' for the first ladies site into federal spending bills. That includes $800,000 to buy a mansion that once belonged to President William McKinley and his wife and $2.5 million to help renovate a nearby bank building that his wife's group owns.

The practice of inserting earmarks into spending bills became controversial over the past year after a spate of publicity highlighted some particularly blatant examples, especially Alaskan Republican Rep. Don Young's $231 million ``bridge to nowhere.'' Lawmakers facing elections in November talked a lot about curbing the practice, but it continues.

Independent ethics watchdogs said the First Ladies National Historic Site was a particularly vivid example of how power worked in Washington, and they fear that Regula soon may be in position to up the ante dramatically. House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., is under federal investigation and has hired defense attorneys. If Lewis steps aside, Regula is a top contender to head the committee.

``I'd hope leaders who've made some public commitment to reining in earmarks would consider his full record before making him chairman,'' said Keith Ashdown, the vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group that monitors congressional spending.

Mary Regula's National First Ladies' Library group receives private donations in addition to federal money. Several corporations listed on its Web site as major donors are longtime supporters of Ralph Regula's political campaigns.

Among them: Timken Corp., a Canton, Ohio, manufacturer whose executives and political action committee collectively are the second-biggest donors to Regula's campaigns since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, another watchdog group that tracks money in politics.

A foundation associated with Timken gave $750,000 to help renovate the bank building and has donated more over the years, said Pat Krider, the executive director of the National First Ladies' Library.

Timken gained more than $200 million in federal payments from a law Ralph Regula sponsored that curbed dumping of underpriced foreign goods, according to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog agency.

It's become common practice for big donors seeking to curry favor with lawmakers to circumvent the legal limits on campaign donations by giving large cash gifts to charities and nonprofit groups favored by the lawmakers and their families.

``It's a double bang for the buck,'' said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. ``You win favor with the lawmaker and you get a tax write-off, which you don't get with a campaign contribution.''

The first ladies site consists of the Saxton mansion, where McKinley lived with his wife, Ida Saxton McKinley, in her girlhood home, and the bank building. Both have been meticulously restored. The site's mission is to preserve and interpret the role and history of America's first ladies, become a scholarship center for first lady research and preserve the Saxton home, according to the National Park Service.

Visits to the site since its official opening in 2002 average fewer than 10,000 a year, but the park's annual budget has grown to more than $1 million from about $600,000. Most national parks have faced tight budgets in recent years, and many have been forced to cut visitor services.

The first ladies site operates with a remarkable degree of autonomy from the National Park Service, even though the service pays about 70 percent of the site's operating costs. Mary Regula's group picks up the rest.

In fact, Mary Regula calls too many shots, charges the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

She used an acquaintance who had no formal training in historic preservation rather than Park Service professionals to oversee historic interpretation at the two buildings, Park Service officials said. She discouraged Park Service involvement in her plan to install an interactive exhibit, according to an e-mail obtained by PEER.

National First Ladies' Library Director Krider said Mary Regula ``is the driving force, has the vision'' and had pushed the Park Service to compromise when it wasn't used to doing so. Krider acknowledged that compromise hasn't always been easy.

It's easier when you're the wife of a congressman, responded Jeff Ruch, the executive director of PEER.

``On the one hand, you've got the National Park Service telling all its park units they're going to be subject to objective standards and strict economies, and then that doesn't apply to favored little units,'' he said. ``If you're running a park that gets hundreds of thousands of visitors and can barely make ends meet, you've got to wonder who's running the railroad.''

Once more the "fish wrapper" misleads the public

2006-06-12T19:03:00.000-06:00

Council needs compromise on pay

City police, firefighters also deserve increase.

What the Springfield City Council needs tonight is a peacemaker.

The city's relationship with its police officers and firefighters is deteriorating. Much of that responsibility lies with the public safety employees themselves for turning negotiations with the city over the pension plan deficit into a personal and nasty battle.

I personally can't blame the police officers or the firefighters for this SNAFU. The city leaders PROMISED and then renigged on it. Whose to blame? The City Whose at fault? The City Whose kissing the behinds of the city council? The Springfield News Leader who else!

We continue to believe that the steps the city has taken to fix the problem, from changing management of the board to reducing benefits for future officers and firefighters, are on the right track. So is the plan to contribute additional money to the pension fund — more than $500,000 in next year's budget.

Once you have lied and cheated people they find it hard to have faith in you again. Besides removing a member off of the pension management board and then replacing that person with a personal crony stems of distrust.

But if the council takes that money directly from the salaries of police and firefighters while giving the rest of its city employees raises, it will elevate the dispute to the point of no return. It's unnecessary and, frankly, it looks petty.

City employees seem to be doing quite well on the salary structure and since the average Joe and Jane Sixpack don't receive raises annually I think the city employees can forgo a few raises until the City(Springfield) gets its personal checkbook in order. Since the city seems to be running in the red I believe our city government personal should suck it up a bit and allow the city to become solvent. Promises made to the first responders years ago need to be taken care of first.

We understand the council's frustration with two employee groups who have been tough negotiators. But we also understand the reality of the situation.

The firefighters and police officers didn't create the pension problem. Some of it was plain, dumb luck. Some of it was bad planning on the city's part. There is no doubt the problem has to be fixed and the solution involves tough choices.

Misappropiation of funds is now considered plain, dumb luck. This is the understatement of the century

One of those choices should not be to give 3 percent raises to all city employees — including department heads, minus the police and fire chiefs — and exclude two groups of public safety employees. Doing that will create a morale problem and a recruitment problem that it might take years to recover from.

How about the department heads give up city supplied(taxpayer funded for the government educated amongst us)transportation. Forgo all raises until city obligations are met with those that they made PROMISES to.

We believe a compromise is in order.

The city has no choice but to make the extra contribution to the pension plan. But it must find other sources of money to allow at least some raises for all groups of city employees. Coming up with the extra money might not be as difficult as it seems.

Stop trying to make Springfield "the city of parks". get rid of the newly created consultant position which is a political payback.

Step one should be to reach out to firefighters and police officers and forge an agreement that they will stop with their plans to force an audit of city finances by State Auditor Claire McCaskill. Such an audit is likely to cost more than $100,000, and by state law, the city will have to come up with that money somewhere. Find a way to stop the audit and spend that amount of money — even if it comes from reserves — on raises.

When will you stop misleading the public? The audit is going to cost the city a maximum of $80,000.00 and that breaks down to $.53 for every man, woman, and child living within the city limits of Springfield. As it is right now the city spends almost $1400.00 per year for every man, woman, and child within the city. I'll take my chances on the $.53 option since it is MY $$$$$

Second, the city should decide to leave some of the already vacant police department positions unfilled and apply that money to raises for both police and firefighters. Reducing positions is not an idea we endorse lightly, but we believe that some positions can be lost on a temporary basis without the city losing service.

Are you kidding me we actually agree on something

Finally, the city should further examine changes it is making to various fees and determine whether those that have any connection to public safety can't possibly be raised to levels that better fund both the police and fire departments.

Once again we have a tax increase to pay off a debt because our city leaders have misappropiated money. I know your going to say a fee increase only affects those people that are required to pay the fee. Once enough money isn't raised the fees will be broadened to generate more revenue into the city coffers to pay for mismanagement of the PEOPLE'S $$$$

It seems counterintuitive that the city needs to raise one-time fees for sidewalk cafes by more than 400 percent, for instance, and yet DWI arrest fees are being dropped by $14.

A 400% increase will only move business out of the city, it won't create a bigger revenue stream. I sure hope these arrest fees are collected only after the person is found GUILTY

Singling out two groups of employees for no raises comes off as a punitive action that guarantees that the city and its police officers and firefighters will forever be embroiled in a battle of wills.

The city once more needs to follow through on PROMISES made to our first responders

It also creates a situation — unlike the change to future pension plan benefits — that could seriously affect the city's ability to recruit qualified employees in the future.

The city has made it's bed and now the taxpayers must pay for the city leaders ignorance, however it isn't only the city leaders, it's also the mind numb that continue to put the same people into office. Even when a member of City Council is replaced the position is just filled once more by a big government, big spender clone.

The council would be wise to find a compromise to this volatile situation. Take the first step and begin the process of healing the rift between city government and the men and women who protect its citizens.

I wonder when the News Leader is going to take the first step and correct the misrepresentations not only in this article but on many articles regarding the "city audit issue"

VOTE4MARTZ
district 139 candidate

an 8 step Libertarian Platform of my own making

2006-06-11T20:26:00.000-06:00

I am a Libertarian Because... (This "creed" is posted on numerous political web-sites, mostly those of the republican and democratic party even though the mainstream party politicians no longer believe in it. I've added my own perspective based upon the belief of Libertarian principals

(#1) I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored. (Individual freedoms must be safeguarded against the intrusions by modern technology, the corporation, and intrusive government. These freedoms are precious and should not be traded away for perceived economic benefit or an illusory sense of security.)

(#2) I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability. (This is such an easy concept to follow, I don't however believe government should mandate this to every individaul in the dealings of everyday life)(Besides the first two words are the most important "I BELIEVE")

(#3) I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity. (Let's distinguish that free enterprise and individual initiative are quite different from unfettered corporate power. Government safeguards in the marketplace are not incongruous with a robust economy.)

(#4) I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn. (The budget should be balanced, and the tax structures should work in harmony with the economy.)(I am a believer in the FairTax and see this as a means to strangle the powerbase from Washington DC back into the hands of the people.)

(#5) I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least. (If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government shouldn't be doing it.)

(#6) I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people. (Strong communities are the result of local support, but let's get the federal government out of these state and local issues.) (Remember a government large enough to give you everything you want is also large enough to take everything you have)

(#7) I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times. (Let's just be cautious not to get lost in nostalgia. Sometimes "conservative" is translated into a reluctance to move forward.)

(#8) I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world. (Let's find positive ways of building alliances and strengthening world freedoms. Our foreign policy is frequently too focused on "enemies" and coercive measures to conform the world to our vision.)(I don't however believe our government should be using the taxpayers money to curry favor with a foreign government)

FINALLY, I believe the Libertarian Party is the only vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government. In the world's only productive REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, the party which has aligned itself with the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution stands ready to bring government back into the realm of Constitutional reality.

If you believe as I do and have noticed the other two parties only pay these types of thoughts lip service then it is time to change the course of government.

VOTE4MARTZ
state representative district 139

New London approves evictions in eminent domain dispute

2006-06-06T14:13:00.000-06:00

This one issue will be my TOP priority when elected.

By Stephen Singer, Associated Press Writer | June 5, 2006

NEW LONDON, Conn. --City officials voted Monday night to begin eviction proceedings against residents who refuse to leave their riverfront homes, signaling the end may be near in an eminent domain dispute that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
Article Tools

The City Council approved the action 5-2, authorizing the city attorney to take the necessary steps, including possible court action, to evict the remaining two families and obtain the properties. A lawyer for the families said they are considering continuing their battle with the city.

About 100 people packed the meeting room, a hallway and an adjacent room.

The small city has been trying for a decade to redevelop the once vibrant Fort Trumbull neighborhood along the Thames River. Seven homeowners challenged the city's plans to seize their properties and build a hotel, convention center and upscale condominiums, saying eminent domain can't be used to make way for private development.

But a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling last year upheld the city's right to take the homes. The court, however, said states were free to restrict eminent domain seizures, and many already have. A proposal to change Connecticut's law died in this year's state legislative session.

Since the Supreme Court ruling, all but two families have settled with the city and agreed to leave.

Michael Cristofaro, one of the Fort Trumbull holdouts, spoke out against the property seizures.

"Just give us back our deeds," Cristofaro said. "You are not being straight with us or the public. You are not listening to the general public."

Cristofaro singled out five of the seven council members who favor taking the property.

"You are a disgrace to the city, the state and the nation," he said.

One Fort Trumbull resident, William Von Winkle, agreed to a settlement with the city Monday, just minutes before the City Council meeting began, The Day of New London reported. The terms were not disclosed.

Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice who represents the residents, said the homeowners can still fight the city. He said they'll be considering appeals to state government to ask that state funding for the development be pulled. He said they also may engage in civil disobedience.

"This is a civil rights struggle to save poor and working class people from eminent domain abuse," he said.

City Councilor Robert Perro supported the effort to remove the families. He said the issue has been through state agencies and three courts.

"This was a plan that was well thought out," he said. "The development of this peninsula needs to move forward."

But Charles Frink, one of the two councilors who opposed seizing the properties, criticized supporters, saying they should admit they made a mistake.

"I can't accept a possible reduction in taxes by having neighbors thrown out of their property," he said. "This is morally abhorrent to me. I refuse to profit from my neighbor's pain."

Gov. M. Jodi Rell had proposed letting the holdouts remain in their homes but giving the city the right of first refusal if the houses ever were sold.

New London Mayor Elizabeth Sabilia predicted before the meeting that Rell's proposal would not be approved.

"The balance of councilors are staying the course," said Sabilia, who also votes on the council.

The vote came five days after a deadline for settlements to be reached with the remaining property owners.

One local resident who spoke Monday night, Donald Harrington, was against Rell's plan.

"What right has she got to tell the city of New London what to do?" he asked.

The eviction process, which may include another court fight, could take a month to three months. But that's negligible in a land dispute that has been up and down the court system over several years.

"You know how some things take on a life of their own?" Sabilia said. "This thing is like a cat. It's taken on nine lives."

Bullock said he didn't think the city wants the publicity that will come with razing the homes.

"It would be a disaster, evicting Susette Kelo from that pink house that nearly everybody in the nation recognizes by now, when you've got a proposal from the governor on the table," he said.

Kelo, a 49-year-old nurse who bought her home in 1997, became the lead plaintiff in the court battle and has refused to sell, as has Cristofaro.

School board looks at another tax increase

2006-06-06T13:40:00.000-06:00

I don't know when the voters of Springfield are going to wake up. Every time a tax increase is passed onto the taxpayer do you walk into your bosses office and request a pay raise in the same amount equilevant to all the increases?

As a business owner it is quite difficult to pass on these increases since in some regards you will lose more business by doing this. I don't know how long the American taxpayer is going to put up with constant revenue demands by local, state, and federal government branches. I'm beyond the point of tolerating them which is why I decided to run for political office so changes can be made.

We collected over 7000 signatures to have the city of Springfield audited, but the education system in this town is exempt from that audit. We only required 5000 verifiable city residents registered to vote to sign. I believe we have more than enough for Claire McCaskills office to certify this and start looking into the expenditures of this city to find out where 215 million dollars on an annual basis is going.
Of course some of the local media outlets are doing there best to misinform the people, but that is to be expected since they are all part of the same network which gave us a $100,000.00 street paved with bricks outside of a building owned by our very own Tommy Carlson. Can you say PRIVILEDGED TREATMENT? I would like to have my street repaired since it floods out when it rains, I won't hold my breathe.

The cost of this audit is going to be $.53 for every man, woman, and child residing within the city limits. It is costing us almost $1400.00 for every man, woman, and child to sit on our hands and do nothing.

It is time to change government and the taxpayers choice is
MARTZ4MISSOURI
candidate for the 139th district

Members want more money for 2006-07 budget.

By Cory de Vera
News-Leader

Voters shouldn't be surprised that their Springfield Public Schools taxes go up this year.

They did, after all, approve a $96.5 million bond issue, which will be paid with an 18-cent jump in the debt service rate.

Reliable Imports
But if the school board goes through with its current plans, the total increase could be as high as 25 cents per $100 of assessed property value. That's because members are considering using their authority to increase the operating tax 5 to 7 cents to balance the proposed 2006-07 budget.

In board discussions at public meetings last month, the plan drew little to no opposition.

Board member Bruce Renner said he supports the increase because it means the district will be able to add teachers, reducing class size.

"I really felt like we needed that," he said.

Other budget additions will include expanding pre-school programs, adding the A+ Program at Kickapoo and Hillcrest high schools, and training for a new curricular approach at Pipkin Middle School.

An increase of 5 to 7 cents on the operating tax rate would raise $1.6 million for the district and cost the owner of a $100,000 home between $9.50 and $13.30. Along with the 18-cent increase on the debt service tax rate, that same homeowner could see a jump of $47.50 over what he or she paid in school taxes on 2005's property tax bill.

Director of Financial Services Cherie Alderson told the News-Leader the increase is a possibility, but the board won't know whether it will need to invoke the increase until all the books are closed on the 2005-06 school year later this year. The board must pass the 2006-07 budget before July 1.

A DELAYED INCREASE

Voters actually did approve an operating tax rate of up to $3.14 cents in June 2004, when they approved a two-phase operating tax increase. The first phase was a 15-cent jump that went into effect on the 2004 tax bill. The second phase, a 10-cent hike, was authorized to go into effect on the 2005 tax bill.

But in August, 2005 the board learned that property assessments had grown faster than anticipated, and collecting that full increase would produce more revenue than they told taxpayers during the 2004 campaign.

They were anticipating collecting $6.2 million, but had they imposed the full 25-cent hike, they would have collected closer to $9.8 million. So instead of collecting the approved increase, they rolled the operating tax rate back to $3.

Now, Renner says, the district needs some of that rollback.

"I feel we are providing everything we promised voters at less than the amount they approved," he said. "Even at 5 to 7 cents more, that is less than they approved."

TRANSPORTATION

Resident Ann Grace came to a board meeting last summer to argue against last year's rollback. The fact that the rate is going up again does not bother her.

"I thought it was silly that they dropped it down," said Grace, who at the time headed a committee to raise money for unmet needs at Parkview High.

"I thought they had enough commitments that they really didn't need to go rolling it back."

Resident Mel Hall came to the board last summer to plead for a restoration of transportation. She said she's disappointed that the board still isn't considering it a priority.

"I have to drive my son to school, we can't afford to pay the fees," said Hall, the single mom of a student at Study Middle School.

"It's hard to find a place to park, and it is dangerous the way people fly through there. I don't see how the school system is so unconcerned about busing issues," she said.

Beginning with the 2002-03 school year, the district kicked more than 2,000 elementary and middle school children off buses when it changed eligibility for bus service from those living farther than one mile from school to those living farther than 1.5 miles from school. The move was expected to save $421,000 a year. If space is available, a family can pay to ride.

Renner said he is concerned about safety and a new transportation director is reviewing policies. Current policy, Renner said, considers mileage only, and in most cases does not make allowances for children who must cross major roads.

"I don't think anything will change by fall, but I think as the new director gets in there, he will see what he can do," said Renner.

Things that will always bother me

2006-06-05T18:15:00.000-06:00

This is not meant to include all people into these groups, however in most cases the vast majority will fit the description.

like;

why do republicans still believe that the party is the party of smaller government

why democrats are determined to bring socialism to our way of life

why libertarians think it is OK to use government services(I don't care if your paying taxes)

how people can be offended at a piece of paper because it contains an essence of morality.

why there are no species of gay animals

why both political parties of power believe defending the Constitution of the US is optional

why do parents go out of there way to try to make there children wards of the state with problems that are mostly behavioral.(by today's definition). ie.. ADHD, ADD, Bipolar, Autism
before you jump to conclusions I have one son that can and would've been diagnosed as autistic, the other had been diagnosed ADHD. It is truly amazing what a change in diet and close parenting can do to alleviate these issues.

why people that complain of weight problems make frequent trips to the buffet line

why alcoholics and smokers are said to have an addiction. I've had problems with both but since have kicked both habits. It's called WILL POWER.

why people have children they can't afford

why parents can't teach there children to accept responsibility for their actions and why parent don't accept responsibility for how they raise the children.

why people get married only to get divorced if life becomes to hard. Yes long term marriages have had problems as well, they just get worked through.

why Rush thinks he's correct over 98% of the time, it's easy to do when you cover items that are already in your court.

why people of religion feel compelled to use government to create a perfect role model society.

how children born before the 70's managed to stay alive when government wasn't mandating everything.

why people think there vote belongs to either the democrats or republicans

why people will order the jumbo size burger and fries then order a diet coke/pepsi.

I have more of these but I would like to save some for later

VOTE4MARTZ
District 139 State Representative

An eventful weekend

2006-06-03T21:07:00.000-06:00

This weekend I had the pleasure of dining with Mr. Neal Boortz. This event was hosted by our local talk radio affliate KSGF 1260 AM and 104.1 FM. The event was held at Hickok's Restaurant here in downtown Springfield in the third floor loft. I arrived about 15 minutes early to find approximately 50 or so people had already arrived. There was an open cash only bar, which since I don't drink adult beverages anymore, I avoided it and found the area where the iced tea was being served.
The radio station made sure each attendee received the latest edition of the paperback version of the FairTax book. I already had the hard bound cover but hey a book that I could loan out to others to bring them on board with the idea. I found Mr. Boortz and asked him to sign my book since everyone else was doing the same. I also discovered that I would be sitting at the same table as Neal which would allow for some delighteful conversation. At the table there was five individuals and Neal. Mary and Elizabeth were mother and daughter, Melissa attended the event solo as did Dave and I.

Sitting at the same table as Neal allowed for various conversations to turn into many topics since Neal can't stay on topic longer then 3 or 4 minutes, which his radio show is built on. During dinner we discussed various political issues and how to get LP candidates to become more news worthy.
I believe we have a great slate of candidates this year for various local and state offices and we need to get the message across that we can make a difference in political circles when elected. Too many people today believe that there vote either belongs to the republican or democrat candidate, when in all reality your vote belongs to you. You should vote for the candidate that best represents your ideology and avoid the party line voting process.

I will work tirelessly to bring Constitutional government back to Missouri.

My platform will consist of lower taxes on all individuals and companies that actually pay taxes, less restrictions on businesses within the state boundry.

I am very pro family since I myself have been married for twenty years and have two teenage sons. My wife and I have home schooled both of our children almost since they were able to walk.

I am comfortable enough with my religion that I understand that there are people that don't believe in the bible or any religious dogma. I will not use governmental force to create legislation to force compliance of any religious belief with these individuals.

I consider myself a pro-life candidate, however I won't use governemt to try to change anything relating to Roe vs Wade without constitutional considerations.
I don't believe government should be funding any type of abortion nor do I believe government should be funding any type of abstinence programs. There are plenty of private organizations that use private funding to educate people seeking the education. Parents need to take a more active role in educating their children, instead of thinking the large bureaucratic babysitting service will do it for them.
Parents it isn't the governments job to teach your children about religion or sex, nor is it the job of government to babysit your children while your working to afford the large amount of debt that society seems to choose to endeavor into.

We as a government body shouldn't be forcing anyone into compliance on matters that aren't governmental. In recent years local authorities have used government force and strong arm tactics to force compliance of the Breathe Easy Missouri program.
As a non smoker I do like the FACT that I can walk into a restaurant and enjoy my food without the lingering cigarette smoke, however that should have been a decision for the business owner not government. I would bet many businesses would've determined on there own whether they had more smoking clients or non-smoking. It isn't up to the government to tell these business owners how to run their PRIVATE business.
A sign that hung on my own office door stated the following "I choose to make this establishment a non smoking one before government mandates I do so."
That is exactly how easy it is for business to regulate itself. I as a consumer can better regulate business by choosing not to spend my dollars there. I do this already with Wal-Mart. The great business uses governmental force and eminent domain to take property from individual land owners so they can build there stores for the masses. I staunchly oppose eminent domain being used for this purpose and I won't support anyone that does business that way.
Stand up for what is RIGHT and put a true proven constitutionalist in public office. I will be the first person to resign should I vote for something that would be against the writing of the constitution, unlike the current crop of politicians that use the document for shanty paper.

VOTE4MARTZ
state representative district 139

HELP WANTED: U.S. CONGRESS

2006-05-30T17:23:00.000-06:00

I can't and won't lay claim to this great article so therefore the person I received it from will be the beneficiary which is why I left the e-mail address on this post. I don't know who William Jud is or where he got this article but it is SPOT ON.

VOTE4MARTZ
a more constitutional Missouri legislature is all I'll promise.

----- Original Message -----
From: "WILLIAM JUD"
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 11:03 AM
Subject: editorial: HELP WANTED: U.S. CONGRESS

William Jud
27 May 2006

U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

U.S. Constitution, Article 6: ". . .Senators and Representatives . . .shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution . . ."

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: (Congress shall have power) "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1: "Before he (the President) enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'."

These are among the many jobs that the U.S. Constitution requires the President, U.S. Senators, and U.S. Representatives to do. Failure to do any of those jobs is sufficient grounds to terminate the employment of the President, a Senator, or a Representative.

Legislative Malpractice is further justification for removal from office. Not only are some members of Congress not doing their Constitutionally assigned jobs for the American people, as Article 6 requires, they are actively engaged in tearing down America and in giving America's enemies "Aid and Comfort."

The best thing to come from the recent, massive Street Demonstrations of Illegal Aliens (NOT illegal Immigrants), was to show unequivocally the huge and growing size of the problem, the mindset of the demonstrators, and their aggression toward these United States.

Demonstrators carried Mexican flags. Demonstrators proudly flaunted their Mexican nationality and their rejection of any desire to become U.S. citizens. Their message, loud and clear, was 'Screw you Gringos. We're just here for the money and welfare benefits."

The other message was "This is OUR land. We will drive you Gringos out and take back your land for Mexico."

The Mexican organization MEChA - Moviemiento Estudiantil Chicano de AZTLAN (Chicano Student Movement) is a student organization militantly demanding the Mexican "Reconquista" or "re-conquest" of our southwestern states that after the Revolution would be returned to Mexico.

MEChA's 'El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán' (the spiritual plan for Aztlán) states: "In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán [Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington] from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our
responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our hearts. Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent."

MEChA's premise is fraudulent. Ancestors of most modern Mexicans were Europeans who immigrated to Mexico from Spain, displacing Mexican Indians who lived there. Mexico was originally a Spanish colony that conquered Aztecs and other tribes in that region.

To be consistent in their demand for land repatriation, Mexicans demonstrating on U.S. streets would have to 'reclaim Aztlan' for the Mexican Indians. Everyone else in Mexico who is not a direct, full-blooded descendent of the original Mexican Indians is a 'foreign European' who must return to Spain.

The Mexican street demonstrators are a hostile, invading army. They fully intend to overthrow the U.S. Government and install their own brand of International Socialism. They fully intend to push out existing U.S. citizens and take our land and property. They come as thieves under the camouflage of 'Guest Workers.' 'Guest Workers' never go home.

Congress and President Bush are aiding, abetting, and giving comfort to this invading army of Mexicans. They do this in violation of the requirements for holding office as stated in the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, and Article 3, Section 3. Failure to protect U.S. citizens is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, Article 6. Senators and Representatives who refuse to protect U.S. citizens from the Illegal
Aliens hostile invading army are in violation of their Oath or Affirmation to 'support this Constitution.' If those elected officials remain in office they do so fraudulently, criminally and illegally. Those elected officials must be removed from office immediately and permanently.

Thirty nine Senate Democrats and 23 Republicans approved an immigration bill that gives amnesty to Illegal Aliens already here. Those 62 Senators are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Article 6, and Article 1, Section 8. Those 62 Senators voided their office. If they remain in office they do so illegally, unconstitutionally, and criminally.

We will see what happens with this immigration legislation in the House of Representatives, and with President Bush. But the House has its own internal housecleaning to do.

Socialism and the U.S. Constitution are mortal enemies. A person can be a Socialist, or can support the Constitution, but cannot do both.

Within the House of Representatives is an internal organization, the Democratic Socialists of America, DSA, and another called the Progressive Democrats of America populated by ultra-left Socialist Democrats in Congress.

Congressional Socialists are closely linked with Communist and Socialist organizations dedicated to overthrowing the U.S. government. Several of those subversive organizations were organizers of the Illegal Aliens Street Demonstrations of recent weeks. Those subversive organizations work tirelessly toward violent overthrow of the U.S. government and conversion of America to Socialism/Communism. To achieve this end, all of America's land, wealth and property must be given away to Mexico and Third World nations. White, Christian Americans must be eliminated.

Where are the "good-hearted folks" that President Bush said will be our Guest Workers (who never go home)? We are importing Revolutionaries and potential Terrorists, not helpers who "will do the work that Americans will not do." Congress and President Bush are giving Aid and Comfort to a hostile invading army bent on our complete destruction. Does that sound like Treason? You bet it does!

The Senate's immigration bill includes eventual U.S. citizenship for the Illegals. Illegals will get Earned Income Credit refunds on their taxes. The U.S. government must get the okay from the Mexican government to build a border security fence. Social Security retirement payments will go to Illegals and survivor payments to their families. In-state college tuition is authorized for Illegals. Can't-be-fired employment is guaranteed, at prevailing (not minimum) wage. Taxpayer dollars will flood into Immigrant Rights Socialist/Communist organizations that supported the
street demonstrations.

Treason? YES! Legislative malpractice? YES! Sufficient grounds for immediate termination of service of a whole bunch of Senators and Representatives? HELL YES!

Every elected official who votes, or voted, in favor of the Senate immigration bill needs to be removed from office immediately and prosecuted as an Enemy of these United States.

It's time for wholesale housecleaning in Congress.

Remember this Congressional sellout during the coming national elections.

When is a taxcut not really a taxcut??

2006-05-30T12:26:00.000-06:00

For the answer to that question you might want to call your representative and ask them about all the increases to registrations and other various FEES which will be rising this year.
To show how corrupt politics really is our current Senator Mr. Kit Bond is espousing the virtues of taxcuts down at the O'Reilly warehouse this afternoon. Meanwhile the "fishwrapper" finally got one right and with facts to support their claim. Every now and then even The News Leader will hold itself to the same standard that it requires of activist groups in and amoungst the peoples of Springfield, MO.

Our republican lead legislature knows that a tax increase would be a death nail to their political longevity, so they pass on TAX increases in other forms.
I can hear the reply from many as I type this "I don't own a boat so this is going to bother me" or "it's only an additional(fill in the blank)per year and besides the bigger boats are getting accessed a much larger portion then I am." Well I don't personally own a boat either and with these current increases I won't be purchasing one. User fees are set up so the people using the water ways are supposed to pay for the upkeep which sounds like a good idea, so then WHY isn't the government school system set-up that way???

A link to our states budget is below good luck in locating the appopiation for our waterways in this massive 587 page document. This is only the transportation portion of the budget.

http://www.oa.mo.gov/bp/budreqs2007/dept/Modot1.pdf

Boat fee increase awaits governor's decision

By David A. Lieb
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

JEFFERSON CITY — For many Missourians, Memorial Day weekend marks the traditional start of the summer boating season. But before this year's season ends, boaters could be paying more for the privilege of revving their motors on Missouri's rivers and lakes.

Missouri's boat registration fee would more than double for small boats and nearly quadruple for the biggest ones under a bill passed by the General Assembly and awaiting a signature decision by Gov. Matt Blunt.

Fees also could rise for the millions of Missourians who get their drinking water from public systems, as opposed to private wells. And various state and local governmental bodies could gain new discretion to raise fees on everything from honorary highway signs to the landowners in local drainage districts.

The Republican-led General Assembly remained opposed to new taxes during its 2006 legislative session. But lawmakers found fee increases not quite as repulsive.

The higher boating fees are perhaps the most obvious increase.

About 315,000 boats are registered in Missouri, excluding canoes, rowboats and other solely paddle-powered vessels. The legislation would raise fees to $25 for the smallest boats (shorter than 16 feet) and $150 for the largest boats (stretching more than 40 feet long).

Based on the number of boats in each category, the fee increase should generate almost $5 million annually for the state — $3 million more than the state now receives.

The new money would go to Missouri State Water Patrol, which has lamented for some time its low salaries and high mileage on its trucks and boats.

The higher boat charges essentially are user fees, meaning the people who use the waterways are the most likely to benefit.

Many of the other bills also are user fees.

For example, the annual fees charged for public water connections would rise more than 60 percent to fund the water quality duties of the Department of Natural Resources.

North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA

2006-05-30T11:47:00.000-06:00

In the not to distant future this will be the scene played out on the North American Continent along with Central America.

the crowd gathers outside to hear the upcoming speeches, after all this is a historic milestone in history of the world. people are laughing and cheering the newly elected President of the NAU(north american union).

Hector Gonzales waves to the crowd as he steps to the podium:

Thank You all for casting your ballots in this historic reclaiming of the North American Continent. I now present your newly elected President Gustavo Cerna
the crowd at this point is deafening while the newly elected leader steps to the podium;

My fellow citizens this has been a grueling battle and I commend my opponents for keeping this election above the board. You are here in Mexico City to witness a crowning achievement and over 100 years of work has finally seen its truition. Not once did your political leaders not have your best interest when we devised a plan to protect the homeland from terrorist attack.
The leaders of Canada and the United States, as well as Mexico have worked diligently behind the scenes to make sure that the outlying borders would be protected from hostile actions.
the crowd roars its approval;
During the early part of this century it appeared that the United States and Mexico were destined to have a border battle to achieve supremacy of the Rio Grande and the territories that border it. It appeared the citizens of the former United States were willing to allow these two neighbors to go to war to defend an imaginery line to determine who was and wasn't a citizen of the US. The background work for this one country was started by the very leaders of vision that we must maintain today as we move into the coming global government.
Ladies and gentlemen had it not been for President Bush, President Fox, and Prime Minister Martin we would not be standing here united as one.
the crowd roars its approval;
We still have much to do however the seperatist movement from the former United States is losing the mentality and courage to fight. I predict by the end of my term that the terrorist that reside within our borders will be brought to justice and our global community will be able to prosper in harmony.

You might laugh at my portrayal of how it is going to be in the very near future, but I remind you at one time we were a very PATRIOTIC nation which knew the meaning of INDEPENDENCE DAY. Our esteemed vice chair of the GCLP tried to reserve a float space for our cities annual Independence Day parade only to have been given "the deer in the headlight looks" at his request.
He was told the annual july 4th parade still had space available for our float. PITIFUL.

Immigration

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted May 30, 2006

Related Stories
Let Illegal Aliens Support Amnesty RINOs

In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.

SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Economía Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.

Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:

In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.

This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.

Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.

And again, the June 2005 SPP report stresses:

The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure.

Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.

What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.

Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.

Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department. Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created and extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as “a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.”

The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled “Building a North American Community.”

The Task Force’s central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii)

The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within:

Its (the North American Community’s) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3)

What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions:

While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.

The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24)

Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.

the news leader is at it again

2006-05-26T13:41:00.000-06:00

For any title in the News-Leader to include the word FACT is just truly unbelievable. This is after all the same paper that has misrepresented a petition drive to have the city audited, a misrepresentation of a pro american rally as being anti-immigrant.

Lets be focused News Leader and when you call the pot black make sure you also look in a mirror and call the kettle the same.

I don't know whether I'm for or against another coal buring, I'm more a nuclear power plant type since I believe it to be more ecologically sound. Does anyone know what they do once they remove all the coal out of the ground?

Keep SW2 debate focused on facts

VOTE4MARTZ

Opponents' group tries to play dirty-tricks game.

Certain opponents of the proposed new Southwest 2 coal-fired power plant are up to their same old political games.

Yesterday, the Ratepayers for Affordable Utilities held a City Utilities-bashing session in an attempt to convince voters to turn down the June 6 ballot issue that would fund a 300-megawatt coal plant.

We have no problem with folks who disagree that Southwest 2 is the best, most reasonable solution to Springfield's future power needs.

We have no problem with Ratepayers spokesman Lee Gannaway taking potshots at CU's management. That's his prerogative.

But we do have a problem with Gannaway and his band of naysayers trying to present inaccurate information to voters at the last minute. That's what they did with a misleading flier that was mailed out days before the election two years ago. That's what they tried yesterday by taking facts about energy costs out of context.

Voters should listen to the Ratepayers' call to check the facts.

When they do, they'll find that group's arguments on the salient facts related to Southwest 2 miss the mark.

Amid all the rhetoric spilled by the opponent group at its news conference Wednesday, one point stood out. The Ratepayers believe that the better option for voters is to turn down the Southwest 2 plant and force City Utilities to enter into an agreement to be partial owners of a proposed huge plant in Oklahoma known as the Tenaska/GRDA project. To back its claim, the Ratepayers group points to the consultant's study paid for by CU to compare a variety of possible alternatives to Southwest 2.

The cheapest of those was the Tenaska project.

Gannaway said Wednesday that consultants Black & Veatch endorsed that move over building Southwest 2. He pointed to the letter from the consultants as proof.

He's just plain wrong.

The consultants did say the Tenaska project is the lowest-cost of the other alternatives considered by CU, but it says clearly, in a sentence Gannaway conveniently ignored, that "B&V concludes that SW2 is the most economic baseload alternative for the CU system."

It doesn't get much clearer than that. CU General Manager John Twitty made that point in a later news conference. The Tenaska/GRDA proposal would cost 5.04 cents per kilowatt hour — and that's assuming the project gets an air permit, which it lacks. Southwest 2's cost is lower, 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour.

What bothers us most about Ratepayers attempt to mislead voters is that it waited so long to make its point. Other opponent groups have been publicly engaged in this city's debate over power alternatives for more than two years.

They, too, disagree with CU over its decision to seek approval for SW2. They think there are better, cleaner alternatives, and they've argued for them and given voters a chance to make a decision. They haven't made the debate personal, as Gannaway did Wednesday. They simply disagree.

Voters should keep that in mind as the debate over future energy needs reaches its fevered pitch in coming days. Look for facts, not rhetoric.

We believe you'll see, as we do, that Southwest 2 is good for our city's future.

The House smells like bacon again.

2006-05-26T13:21:00.000-06:00

Can someone please explain to me why the federal government has decided that the
Agricultural Dept. has a budget of this size??
What type of crops does the government grow to have this type of budget?

I wonder how much of this budget is required to pay ranchers and farmers not to raise cattle and the like or to grow crops?

The House smells like bacon after having passed the $18.4-billion 2007 Agriculture Department appropriations bill, 378-46. The bill may be $96 million less than its FY 2007 predecessor, but it's still $564 million more than the President requested. Meanwhile, several billion dollars of extra spending was approved for FY2007; again, above President Bush's request. An alternate lower budget was indeed proposed by Reps. Mike Pence and Jeb Hensarling; all too tellingly, though, it garnered only 94 Republican votes.

VOTE4MARTZ

House Majority Leader John Boehner revealed his legislative agenda for the coming year, but with congressional Republicans focused on November and no record worth speaking of, no one seems to care. If Boehner really wants to capture the attention of those who brought him and the rest of the Republican bench to the dance, he will focus on the legislative agenda as outlined by Mr. Pence and the Republican Study Committee. Here in our humble editorial shop, let's just say we're not holding our breath.

In ethics news, video surveillance of Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson shows him accepting $100,000 in cash from an FBI informant. $90,000 of that money was later found in the congressman's freezer during a search of his home (talk about frozen assets!). Jefferson will likely be charged with taking bribes from indicted businessman Vernon Jackson in exchange for helping Jackson to secure deals for his telecommunications holdings in Africa.

A Saturday night raid (with warrant) on Jefferson's congressional offices in Washington has caused a scramble on Capitol Hill to circle the wagons. Citing concerns over "constitutionality," Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a joint statement condemning the search of Jefferson's office and demanding that the papers taken be returned.

Since when, exactly, is Congress concerned about something so arcane as constitutionality? This spectacle of representatives claiming super-constitutional rights won't play well with voters already turned off by this arrogant Congress. It is precisely this imperious attitude that has obstructed Petition to Investigate and Indict John F. Kerry for acts of treason. President Bush has now ordered the seized documents sealed while the House and Justice Department seek a resolution to this so-called infringement upon the Legislative Branch.

royality chooses no sides

2006-05-24T12:05:00.000-06:00

Since when does the average american have this type of power, or vocalise the thought they they can bring law enforcement to its knees. Get over it Dennis the "crook" was caught with his fingers in the cookie jar(so to speak) now let the JUSTICE system run its course.
Kudo's to AG Gonzales for letting the pompous elected representative they AREN"T above the law and aren't above reproach.

VOTE4MARTZ
district 139

Hastert demands FBI return documents

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 21 minutes ago

House Speaker Dennis Hastert demanded Wednesday that the FBI surrender
documents it seized and remove agents involved in the weekend raid of
Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record)'s office, under what
lawmakers of both parties said were unconstitutional circumstances.

"We think those materials ought to be returned," Hastert said, adding
that the FBI agents involved "ought to be frozen out of that (case) just
for the sake of the constitutional aspects of it."

The Saturday night search of Jefferson's office on Capitol Hill brought
Democrats and Republicans together in rare election-year accord, with
both parties protesting agency conduct they said violated the
Constitution's separation of powers doctrine.

"Not anyone here is above the law," Pelosi told reporters Tuesday, as
she prepared to meet with the House speaker. But, she added, "I think
you've seen abuse of power of the executive branch over this weekend."

A day earlier, Hastert, R-Ill., complained personally to President Bush
about raid. Other House officials have predicted that the case would
bring all three branches together at the Supreme Court for a
constitutional showdown.

But while most leaders of both parties stand together in opposition to
an executive branch raid of a legislative branch office, party leaders
are acting on different political agendas.

Democrats, hoping to exploit Republican scandals on Capitol Hill and
regain control of Congress, are making it known that Jefferson, of
Louisiana, is no longer welcome on the House's most prestigious panel,
the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

For his part, Jefferson, who has denied wrongdoing, remains defiant.

"I will not give up a committee assignment that is so vital to New
Orleans at this crucial time for any uncertain, long-term political
strategy," Jefferson said Tuesday. "If asked, I would respectfully decline."

His spokeswoman, Melanie Roussell, added that Jefferson will not resign
from Congress.

Republicans are being careful to avoid defending Jefferson while
standing up for the separation of powers in an increasingly tense
relationship with the White House over its use of executive power.

In April, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., personally
told Bush that "the president doesn't have a blank check" during a
discussion of Bush's domestic wiretapping program.

Hastert kept up the drumbeat after the FBI's raid of Jefferson's office.

"My opinion is that they took the wrong path," Hastert said after
meeting with Bush in the White House. "They need to back up, and we need
to go from there."

The developments are the beginning of what lawmakers predict will be a
long dispute over the FBI's search of Jefferson's office last weekend.
Historians say it was the first raid of a representative's quarters in
Congress' 219 years.

FBI agents searched Jefferson's office in pursuit of evidence in a
bribery investigation. The search warrant, signed by U.S. District Court
Judge Thomas Hogan, was based on an affidavit that said agents found
$90,000 in cash wrapped and stashed in the freezer of Jefferson's home.

White House officials said they did not learn of the search until after
it happened. They pledged to work with the Justice Department to soothe
lawmakers.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tried to strike a conciliatory tone,
saying, "We have a great deal of respect for the Congress as a coequal
branch of government." But he also defended the search: "We have an
obligation to the American people to pursue the evidence where it exists."

Officials said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had
discussed Jefferson's situation with several fellow senior lawmakers and
there was a consensus that he should step aside, preferably voluntarily,
at least until his legal situation was clarified. It was not clear
whether she or an emissary approached Jefferson. The officials who
described the developments did so on condition of anonymity, citing the
delicacy of the situation.

Justice Department officials said the decision to search Jefferson's
office was made in part because he refused to comply with a subpoena for
documents last summer. Jefferson reported the subpoena to the House on
Sept. 15, 2005.

FBI Raid Angers Some on Hill

2006-05-22T14:21:00.000-06:00

There are two different sources on this story which is why both are linked. If this doesn't give you enough courage to cast your ballot for someone other then a democrat or a republican(let's not forget Jack Abramoff or Mr. "Duke" Cunningham)nothing will.
The total corruption of members of both parties flies in the face of those of us that work hard play by the rules and achieve success even tho' BIG BROTHER is trying his damnest to hold us back.

I hold NO allegiances to anyone or any group. My campaign is self funded. Neither of my businesses have benefited in any manner from government regulation.
I can be trusted to bring FISCAL responsibility back to Jeff City, and bring back constitutional compliance.

VOTE4MARTZ
state house district # 139

Source: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

Mon May 22 2006 10:00:41 ET

Saturday nightÂs FBI raid on the office of Rep. William Jefferson
(D-La.) surprised and angered House officials, who were not told that
the Rayburn House Office Building search was to take place until one
hour beforehand, offering the latest sign that federal prosecutors are
using increasingly aggressive tactics in their pursuit of allegedly
corrupt lawmakers.

This is believed to be the first-ever FBI raid on a Congressional
office, ROLL CALL reports.

Documents filed in support of the search show that the Justice
Department is assembling a wide-ranging case against the veteran
Democratic lawmaker.

At this time, Jefferson is being investigated for bribery, wire fraud,
bribery of a foreign official and conspiracy to bribe foreign officials,
according to an affidavit filed by an FBI agent in support of the search
warrant.

But the Justice Department and FBI agents are also looking at Âleast
seven other schemes in which Congressman Jefferson sought things of
valueÂ in return for official acts, the affidavit states.

That suggests that additional avenues for prosecuting Jefferson could be
revealed soon. The FBI has two confidential witnesses who are offering
testimony against Jefferson, as well as undercover audio and video tapes
of him allegedly asking for and receiving bribes worth potentially
millions of dollars in exchange for his help in putting together African
telecommunications deals for U.S. firms, according to the affidavit.

On one videotape, the FBI filmed Jefferson allegedly receiving $100,000
in cash from one of their cooperating witnesses. Most of the money was
later recovered in a raid of JeffersonÂ¹s home, reports ROLL CALL's John
Bresnahan.

Jefferson and his family members allegedly received payments from both
sides of the telecom deals, with money coming from the American and
Nigerian firms through companies controlled by the Jeffersons, his two
brothers and son-in-law, according to the FBI affidavit.

Developing...

Standing for Stronger Borders and Against Amnesty

2006-05-18T16:06:00.000-06:00

By looking at the title of this speech one would think it came from Ronald Reagan, JFK, Newt Gingrich, Bob Doornan, Ron Paul or anyother well known constitutionalist representative. Yeah I know Ronald Reagan didn't have a constitutionalist presidency as he went right along with the status quo of unconstitutional spending and other areas that were deemed shady.

This article right here folks is why the "liberal" "conservative" monikers don't hold water. I would bet Sean Hannity was beside himself that Robert KKK Byrd is more conservative on this issue then he is. That's right everyone Robert KKK Byrd is a democrat and by all accounts has been labeled a "liberal" and even Mr. Byrd stands for what is right when it comes to "illegal immigration"

Of course those on the so-called "right-side" of the argument will proclaim that Senator Byrd is in complete agreement with the "conservative" side for once. I doubt that to be the case, Mr. Byrd seems pretty stuck in his ways on this issue and I doubt he has changed his opinion.

Do we label Senator Byrd a "liberal" when his viewpoint doesn't agree with our own?? That seems to be the fortay of the well listened to windbags on the radio.
I doubt if Senator Byrd and I agree on much, but i won't label him to suit myself, I'll just consider him another reason why the voter apathy gets larger by the day.

News organizations seeking more information should contact Senator Byrd's Communications Office at (202) 224-3904.

April 4, 2006

Standing for Stronger Borders and Against Amnesty

In the Senate on April 4, Senator Byrd talked about the dangers of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants in the United States. There are millions of people waiting in line in their home countries to come into the United States legally; those people should not be forced to wait even longer because others have chosen to flaunt the law. Rewarding those who break the laws would serve to encourage more people to rush the borders and break the laws. Senator Byrd’s remarks are below.

Today, I speak on the Specter-Leahy substitute to S. 2454, the Frist Border Security bill.

At the present time, the Frist bill contains no amnesty for illegal aliens. However, if the Specter-Leahy Substitute is adopted, it would effectively attach a massive amnesty for eight to twelve million illegal aliens. And provide those illegal aliens with a path to U.S. citizenship. According to immigration experts, the pending substitute amendment – with its guest-worker program, and amnesty for undocumented aliens – would open the gates to thirty million legal and illegal immigrants over the next decade.

I oppose this amnesty proposal – absolutely and unequivocally. I urge the Senate to pass a clean border security bill like the House did – without amnesty, without a guest-worker program, and without an increase in the annual allotment of permanent immigrant visas.

For more than four years, the nation has wondered how 19 terrorists managed to penetrate our border defenses to carry out the September 11 attacks. It chills the blood to think of those terrorists crossing our borders not once, but several times in the months before the attack – easily outsmarting our border security checks to plot their dastardly scheme. They walked among us as tourists, students, and business travelers. Three of them even stayed in the United States as illegal aliens.

Today, more than four years later, our country remains dangerously exposed to terrorists seeking to penetrate our border defenses. Since September 2001, an estimated two million new illegal immigrants have successfully beaten our border and interior security, and are now settled in the United States. That’s two million new illegal immigrants since the Government pledged to regain control of the border after the 9/11 attacks.

Our immigration agencies are plagued with management and morale problems. They still do not have an exit-entry system with interoperable, biometric watch lists to accurately identify who is entering the country. We still cannot tell who is leaving the country. The requirement for foreign visitors to use biometric, machine-readable passports continues to be delayed, exempting millions of aliens each year from background checks. The Administration, still, stubbornly refuses to support the resources our border and interior enforcement agencies need to effectively do their jobs.

Meanwhile, the immigrant population continues to surge. The Center for Immigration Studies calculates that 1.5 million immigrants are settling both legally and illegally in the United States each year. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that immigration will be a major cause of the population of the United States increasing to 400 million people in less than 50 years.

The National Research Council estimates that the net fiscal cost of this massive immigration ranges from $11 billion to $22 billion per year, with the infrastructure of our nation – our schools, our health care system, our transportation and energy networks – increasingly unable to absorb this untenable surge in the population.

Many tout the additional border and interior enforcement personnel authorized since September 2001, but the president’s budget has not come anywhere close to funding those authorizations. Homeland security expenditures have been capped at levels that prohibit the Congress from adequately filling the gaps. Senator Gregg and I have had to fight for every additional nickle and dime that goes into our border security. It is never enough.

Immigration enforcement in the United States remains decidedly, half-hearted. We are pulling our punches. Tougher border security mandates are signed into law, but then not fully funded. Statutory deadlines are set, but then indefinitely postponed. Undocumented aliens are denied Social Security cards, but then issued drivers licenses and taxpayer identification numbers. Employers are warned not to hire illegal labor, but then allowed to sponsor, without penalty, their illegal workforce for legal status. Funds are not requested to perform even the barest level of work site enforcement. We send troops abroad ostensibly so that we don’t have to fight terrorists on American streets, but then we turn a blind-eye to millions of unauthorized, undocumented, unchecked aliens – any one of whom could be a potential terrorist.

When lawmakers and the so-called pundits comment that our current system is unworkable, it’s because we haven’t really tried to make it work. The contradictions in our immigration policies are undeniable. Lawmakers decry illegal immigration, but then advocate amnesty proposals which only encourages more illegal immigration. Advocates may try to distance themselves from that word – “amnesty”. They may characterize their proposals as “guest-worker” programs or “temporary visas”, but the effect is the same – to waive the rules for lawbreakers, and to legalize the unlawful actions of undocumented workers and the businesses that illegally employ them.

Amnesties are the dark and sinister underbelly of our immigration process. They tarnish the magnanimous promise of a better life enshrined on the base of the Statue of Liberty. They minimize the struggle of all those who dutifully followed the rules to come to this country, and of all those who are still waiting abroad to immigrate legally. Amnesties undermine that great egalitarian and American principle that the law should apply equally and fairly to everyone. Amnesties perniciously decree that the law shall apply to some, but not to all.

Amnesties can be dangerous, dangerous proposals. Amnesties open routes to legal status for aliens hoping to circumvent the regular security checks. By allowing illegal aliens to adjust their status in the country, we allow them to bypass State Department checks normally done overseas through the visa and consular process. One need only look to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, where one of the terrorist leaders had legalized his status through an amnesty, to clearly see the dangers of these kinds of proposals.

Our immigration system is already plagued with funding and staffing problems. It is overwhelmed on the borders, in the interior, and in its processing of immigration applications. It only took nineteen temporary visa holders to slip through the system to unleash the horror of the September 11 attacks. The pending proposal would shove 30 million legal and illegal aliens -- many of whom have never gone through a background check -- through our border security system, in effect, flooding a bureaucracy that is already drowning. It’s a recipe for utter disaster.

Amnesties beget more illegal immigration – hurtful, destructive illegal immigration. They encourage other undocumented aliens to circumvent our immigration process in the hope that they too can achieve temporary worker status. Amnesties sanction the exploitation of illegal foreign labor by U.S. businesses, and encourage others businesses to hire cheap and illegal labor in order to compete.

President Reagan signed his amnesty proposal into law in 1986. At the time, I supported amnesty based on the same promises we hear today – that legalizing undocumented workers and increasing enforcement would stem the flow of illegal immigration. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work today. The 1986 amnesty failed miserably. After 1986, illegal immigrant population tripled from 2.7 million aliens, to 4 million aliens in 1996, to 8 million aliens in 2000, to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens today.

In that time, the Congress continued to enact amnesty after amnesty, waiving the Immigration Act for lawbreakers. The result is always the same – for every group of illegal aliens granted amnesty, a bigger group enters the country hoping to be similarly rewarded.

The pending substitute amendment embodies this same flawed model. It’s more of the same – more amnesties, more guest worker programs, more unfunded mandates on our immigration agencies. We ought to be focusing on how to limit the incentives for illegal immigration, and erase the contradictions in our immigration policies that encourage individuals on both sides of the border to flout the law and get away with it.

What’s backwards about the pending substitute amendment is that it is actually rewarding illegal aliens. It rewards illegal behavior. It authorizes illegal aliens to work in the country. It grants illegal aliens a path to citizenship. It pardons employers who illegally employ unauthorized workers. It even repeals provisions in current law designed to deny cheaper, in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens.

The pending amendment is a big welcome mat for illegal immigrants. It is a misguided and dangerous proposal that would doom this Congress to the failures of previous Congresses.

The economist John Maynard Keynes once described the qualification for an economist as being the ability to study the present, in the light of the past, for the purpose of looking into the future. Patrick Henry echoed those sentiments more than a century earlier when he said “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.”

Our nation’s experience shows that amnesties do not work. They are dangerous proposals that reward and encourage illegal immigration. Our experience shows that we cannot play games with our border security or American lives could be lost.

I will oppose the Specter-Leahy substitute amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Senators urge farmers to rally behind aid plan

2006-05-16T14:17:00.000-06:00

Senators urge farmers to rally behind aid plan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. farmers and ranchers should sign electronic petitions to support a Congressional proposal for $4 billion in agricultural disaster aid the White House has vowed to veto, a handful of senators said on Tuesday.

can anyone find the justification for this in the Constitution. Once more we have elected representatives not abiding by the oath of office. The Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to misappropiate the taxpayers money in this fashion. This is why the farmers are urged to have crop insurance.

The Senate approved the aid as part of a $108.9 billion spending bill to help pay for the war in
Iraq. But the White House has threatened a veto because of the disaster aid and $10 billion in other spending it does not want.

Just how does crop insurance help the war in Iraq? Can you spell special interest program to constituents? Sorry readers but this is clearly a republican sponsored bill with democrat undertones.

House and Senate negotiators still must write a final version of the bill.

Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mark Dayton of Minnesota urged producers to sign the on-line petition.
Well at least we have mention of the democrat offenders. I wonder why no news media types will ask them where they garner the authority to do this type of spending?

"We have a pretty stiff test ahead of us," Dorgan said, to keep the disaster aid in the spending bill and prevent a veto. "We're here to encourage farmers across the country (to sign the petition). This is important."
Farmers just like the elderly rely on subsidies to make a living. I guess when business gets hard I as well should approach congress for my handout. Just kidding I can do for myself, I don't need government thinking for me.

Lincoln said it was possible that negotiations over the final version of the bill would not begin until June.

At least were safe for a few more days, grab a hold of your wallet after that though. There will be no stopping this spending until each and everyone of them is kicked out of office.

"I don't know when conferees will meet," said Dorgan, one of the Senate negotiators. He suggested House Republicans were stalling as a prelude to trying to kill Senate-backed provisions.

At this point then I'm happy we still have republicans that realize the money isn't theirs to spend willy nilly. Could be the HoR just wants to appropiate it some where else.

The petition was available at Dorgan's Web site, http://dorgan.senate.gov and also on Dayton's site, http://dayton.senate.gov. Dorgan said he expected other senators would put the petition on their sites too.

I recommend going to these sites and explaining to these people why the vast majority of people are against this type of spending.

Along with offering aid to producers on losses that exceed 35 percent, the bill would give grain, cotton and soybean growers a payment to offset rising energy prices.

Are they going to give the Owner operator truck driver one of these subsidies as well? Without trucks America stops. That is not even up for debate, should the American truckdriver shut down for 3 straight days our economy would be in the toilet. These trucking companies operate on a limited profit margin and I'm sure rising fuel cost is hurting the truckdriver/owner just as much as it is the farmer.
"general welfare" would mean all those that have been hampered by the high energy cost, not just a select few.

You want to see change in the political machine, then kick out the old and in with the new.
Martz4Missouri
district 139
state representative

Highlights of President Bush's Speech

2006-05-15T20:59:00.000-06:00

By The Associated Press
The Associated Press
Monday, May 15, 2006; 9:10 PM

-- Highlights of President Bush's speech:

_ BORDER PROBLEMS:

Bush said the United States does not have complete control of its borders and millions of people who have sneaked across the border have stayed in this country, living in the shadows of society.
Since both political parties contributed to this problem is anyone amazed? After all it is a Constitutional duty to defend the borders. I guess congress critters along with the president are extremely to busy spending our money.

_ NATIONAL GUARD:

Bush said the federal government will pay for up to 6,000 National Guard troops to be deployed to the southern border. They will serve in two-week rotations, meaning that over the course of a year a total of 156,000 troops could be involved. He said Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities; that duty will be performed by the Border Patrol. Guard units will work in support positions.

In other words they will walk around an look like they are trying to stop the influx of the problem. The National Guard troops should also be involved in the detainment of people until the Border Patrol arrives to handle the arrest.

_ TEMPORARY WORKER PROGRAM:

Bush called for a temporary worker program allowing foreign workers to enter the United States for jobs for a limited period of time. They would be required to return to their home countries at the conclusion of their stay.

Like this has ever worked in my lifetime. What he really means to say is you can come up here an perform work and when that job is over you can blend into our society and once another amnesty program passes you'll be a citizen.

_ EMPLOYERS:

It is against the law to hire an illegal immigrant, and Bush said employers must be held to account for their employees. He said a tamper-proof identification card for every legal foreign worker would help with law enforcement and leave employers with no excuse for violating the law.

This will be a national ID card for everyone, and the amount of information being stored on it will make privacy right groups cringe.

_ PATH TO CITIZENSHIP:

Bush said it is not realistic to deport the millions of people illegally living in the United States. "I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty; it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen."

Smoke" pot" GO TO JAIL, break into the country retain your job and eventually you'll become a good productive citizen. It is quite a good idea I had when I donned my hip waders to watch this display of "conservatism"

_ ASSIMILATION:

Bush said that Americans "are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly and an ability to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America."

Micheal Savage has been saying it for years; Borders, language, culture. These people don't want to assimilate into our culture they really want to assimilate us in the manner of the Borg on Voyager.
_ APPEAL TO CONGRESS:

Bush said he was speaking directly to members of the House and Senate in appealing for a comprehensive immigration bill. "All elements of this problem must be addressed together or none of them will be solved at all," he said. The House passed a law-and-order immigration bill that would erect fences along the Mexican border and treat people who sneak across borders as felons to be deported. The Senate began debate Monday on a broader bill.

Check you wallet when this one is done. It could be they may have to raise the debt ceiling again to contain this one within the ballpark. Be very aware of overladen pork in this as well.

I probably wouldn't build a fence but definite security measures would need to be in place quickly, since for years the congress critters with the help of the President has allowed the OATH OF OFFICE to mean exactly NOTHING.

Is ignoring your oath of office an impeachable offense?

Vote 4 change
Vote Martz4Missouri

tom martz

Once more the fish wrapper shows its true colors.

2006-05-13T22:44:00.000-06:00

Roses & Thorns

# A THORN: To ourselves, for not passing out the blame properly in last week's thorn when we improperly credited a radio talk show host for organizing an anti-immigration rally on Cinco de Mayo. The event was organized by a coalition of members from the Constitution Party of Missouri, the Missouri League of the South and supporters of the Fair tax. We should have included them in our thorn, and now we do.

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060513/OPINIONS01/605130319/1006/OPINIONS02

Here once again the majority of people are being labeled as anti-immigrant. Hey snooze loser get a clue, most people aren't getting angry at people that immigrate here LEGALLY. The problems come in when people commit a misdemeanor entering the country illegally then the felonies occur when they use forged documentation to get jobs in the U.S.

If the editorial board could possibly pull there collective heads out of their arses long enough to breathe fresh air they might actually get a clue.

To the editorial board;

Article 4 section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, read it, learn it, comprehend it, then write stories on HOW the federal government is failing in there Constitutional duties. The founding fathers realized how important the freedom of speech is, but I would bet they believed the news medias job was to report the truth.
Your advertisement to get on the editorial board proclaims you must back up your assertations with facts, I guess the current board didn't have to meet that obligation.

VOTE
Martz4Missouri
district 139

why republicans & democrats should be given the BOOT

2006-05-10T18:54:00.000-06:00

I don't need to say much on this. The democrats want them to have free access in order to garners votes. The republicans wnat them here freely because the business lobby puts large dollars into the campaign coffers.

Still think there is a difference?

Everyday I'm not in Jeff City allows a individual or company getting entitlements to remain happy.

VOTE4MARTZ
state representative candidate for the 139th district

Officials disclaim Bulletin 'tipping' report
By Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is refuting a Daily Bulletin report that the U.S. Border Patrol provided information to the Mexican government about the whereabouts of civilian border watch groups.

Read the disputed article: U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols

See the Mexican Government Web page: www.sre.gob.mx/eventos/minuteman/reporte3

"Today's report by the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, `U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols,' is inaccurate," read the statement issued Tuesday evening. "Border Patrol does not report activity by civilian, non-law enforcement groups to the government of Mexico."

Kristi Clemens, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection, would not elaborate on the agency's statement other than to say the U.S. gives information to Mexican officials under the rules of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, which provides foreign nationals being detained by a government the right to consular access.

"This is the same agreement that protects United States citizens when they travel to foreign countries," according to the statement.

An August 2005 document, "Third Report on the Activities of Vigilantes" -- posted on Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site -- suggests U.S. officials were giving out more details than required by the Vienna Convention. Part of that information was the location of U.S. citizens participating in volunteer border patrols.

The Daily Bulletin reported on the contents of that document and two others on the Mexican Web site in a story published in Tuesday's editions.

Mexican consulates also went beyond the boundaries of the Vienna Convention, asking U.S. Border Patrol officials to provide them with information on "vigilantes" operating along the U.S. border, according to the August 2005 document.

Some of the information cited in the Mexican document originally was given only to U.S. Border Patrol and law enforcement officials, border watch organizers said.

"Nobody but law enforcement and Border Patrol knew where we were at," said Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based nonprofit group Friends of the Border Patrol. "So how is our base address on a Mexican government document dated last August? Nobody, not even media, had this information."

Ramirez said he revealed the location of his base camp only to local and federal officials. The Mexican document gives the exact location of his group's site, which was on private property near San Diego.

According to Ramirez, the group had no encounters at that site with undocumented migrants, which would have been the only cause for that information to be revealed under the Vienna Convention.

On Monday, Mario Martinez, a U.S. Customs and Border spokesman, told the Daily Bulletin that when illegal immigrants are apprehended in the U.S., they have the right, under the Convention, to be represented by their country's consulate office and to information regarding their apprehension.

Information contained in a Border Patrol agent's field report, which is filed when a person is caught, would reveal the location of the detainee and therefore the area where the volunteer group is operating, Martinez said.

Martinez did not deny that information on the border volunteers was being shared with the Mexican government. He added that the group's whereabouts also were identified by numerous media outlets.

However, the Mexican report also contains specific information on civilian groups operating much farther inside the United States.

For example, the document notes that 50 Minuteman volunteers work in Chicago, focusing mainly on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Minuteman volunteers said specific information -- such as the number of volunteers and their plans -- could have been provided only by law enforcement officials at that time. The document credits the various Mexican consul general offices in the U.S. with providing the information to the Mexican Foreign Secretary for the reports.

"How did they know the number of volunteers in Chicago? And why should the Mexican government care?" asked Connie Hair, spokeswoman for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps in Washington, D.C.

The three reports on the Mexican Web site documented the activities of the civilian groups based on concerns the Mexican government had about volunteer patrols on the border in 2005, said Rafael Laveaga, spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C.

"The Border Patrol does not report activity of the Minutemen to the Mexican consulate," Laveaga said. "But it's all a matter of perception. If a migrant requests to have counsel, which is their right under the Vienna Convention, then the information is provided to the counsel."

Throughout the Mexican government's reports on "vigilantes," it is noted that Mexican consulates in the U.S. contacted Border Patrol officials seeking U.S. cooperation in reporting instances of civilians monitoring the border. Among such requests:

The Mexican consul in Presidio, Texas, asked the Marfa Sector's Border Patrol chief to alert them if the U.S. detected any volunteer activity.

In Phoenix, consulate officials asked the Border Patrol to notify them if civilian groups apprehended any undocumented migrants so consulate representatives could interview them.

In San Diego, the document referred to a meeting with Border Patrol Chief Darryl Griffen stating that "Mr. Griffen reiterated to the undersecretary his promise to notify the General Consul right away when the vigilantes detain or participate in the detention of any undocumented migrant."

"It appears the border reports are the tip of the iceberg," said Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which began patrolling the border last April.

Such requests from Mexico, and U.S. officials acquiescing to them, are not new, say Border Patrol agents.

Scott James, a former Tucson agent, resigned after eight years of service in February, citing a lack of support for agents by the Department of Homeland Security.

He said that U.S. Border Patrol officials provided office space inside their headquarters to Mexican consulate officials, allowed the consulate to dictate the agents' activities, and gave the consulate information on ongoing investigations.

Such courtesies were not extended to consulate offices of other countries, James said.

Sara A. Carter can be reached by e-mail at sara.carter@dailybulletin.com or by phone at (909) 483-8552.

Can the News Leader be trusted?

2006-05-08T18:21:00.000-06:00

Last Friday our local talk show radio host held a rally described as a "Pro American Rally." I've been to a few of these events in the past and to be down right honest it consist of average people waving American flags and standing up for what is right.

Our local rag, which our talk show host calls the "fish wrapper" decided to pen this gathering of people as an "anti-immigration rally."
I'm not aware of to many people on this continent as being anti-immigrant, however when we discuss the laws of this nation and those that break the laws of coming here, then that is a different topic.

As a Libertarian I have no qualms with people trying to gain entry into this country to try to better themselves, after all it seems natural to do so. Every country has immigration laws which need to be abided by to make sure the element of people coming across the border are the type of individuals we want here. I'm not being picky but I don't want those that want to drain the generosity of the taxpayer in this country. We have enough welfare deadbeats and we shouldn't import more from other countries.

News Leader("fish wrapper") your completely off base with this story and you should make an official apology to those in attendance at the rally, I won't hold my breathe waiting on it to be published.

Tom Martz
candidate for 139 district

I chose to not allow government to think for me, I vote Libertarian.

When governments overstep there authority

2006-05-07T16:54:00.000-06:00

Is this possible? Some will tell you that our elected officials have the authority to do as they wish, after all we gave them the power through the ballot box.
In the private sector when an employee doesn't perform they end up losing their job.

What happens in the public sector? These people are given extreme job security and the voters have many loopholes that must be jumped through in order to get rid of incompetence.
Our very own city council has turned on the wishes of the people an instituted a ban on PitBull dogs. I've already written a blog that deals with this issue but now the voters are circulating a petition to get this measure on the ballot.
Eight members of a city council went against 50+ citizens of this city to show them who was the boss of the city.
Eight members passed an ordinance and it will require I believe 4000 signatures to get this measure placed on the ballot. Just doesn't seem right does it?
http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm#towardspeople

Are 'Pit Bulls' Naturally Aggressive Towards People?
Well, many of the fanciers of the breed would yell out a resounding, "No.", in spite of the fact that 'pit bulls' kill more humans than most of the other dog breeds combined.
"Oh, no. They were bred to be friendly towards humans." is the mantra one will often hear repeated. This idea flies in the face of the statistics. No other "breed" (although the term 'pit bull' is generally considered to be a group of breeds) has killed as many Americans as have 'pit bulls'. (NB: We have not yet confirmed an unprovoked dog-related fatality in Canada officially attributed to a 'pit bull'.)
Does this mean that 'pit bulls' are inherently dangerous towards people? Even if we believed all the myths about 'pit bulls', the statistics still point to the fact that only a tiny percentage of the 'pit bulls' in society are ever involved in biting incidents. For instance, if there are at least 50,000 'pit bulls' in Canada, and we theorized an astounding 25 'pit bull' attacks, that would still mean that 99.9% of 'pit bulls' are never involved in attacks. Surely 99.9% of a population shouldn't have to pay the price for the transgressions of such a tiny minority.
So, are 0.1% of 'pit bulls' inherently aggressive towards humans? No, again. Even those 'pit bulls' that have been involved in serious biting incidents can be rehabilitated through responsible ownership and ethical training techniques. Only those who have never been successful at re-training dogs believe it can't be done. (Read about Dr. C. W. Meisterfeld's documentary, "The Unique Nature of Man's Best Friend: Rehabilitated 'Pit Bulls'")

Breed specific legislation isn't a very good idea and neither is trying to define a vicious breed. Back in the 70's most people were terrified of Doberman Pinchers, to the extent that Hollywood bought into the hype an made quite a few movies with these killers dogs as the stars.
The 80's brought us to German Sheppard attacks; http://www.spdrdogs.org/breeds/gsd.html

"Children: Children are okay providing no roughhousing or chase games are permitted. Young children should ALWAYS be with an adult and NEVER left unattended with ANY dog.

This breed makes a great family pet when properly trained, and will love and protect your children almost to a fault. It can be suspicious of your children's friends, which could lead to a biting incident if the child shows fear or flight.

Other animals: The Shepherd may want to chase small animals, cars, bikes, joggers and may be dog-aggressive. It is essential to train and socialize a Shepherd with people, other dogs and all household pets".

The next link will take you to an actual website that talks about the different breeds of dogs that have been known to attack. From your lovable Pomerian to a Chihuahua, and and all dogs or most animals for that manner can attack and damage someone.
Like normal the city council knees jerked and without thinking of the better good of the city they done what was best for the city council.

I choose not to let government think for me, which is why I won't vote for a republican or democrat.

Tom Martz
candidate for the 139 district

Cinco de Mayo

2006-05-05T18:53:00.000-06:00

A thirst for information led me to research why this has become such a festive day here in the US. After all the significance of this day could and should be compared to any of the battles that led up to the final battle of the "War between the States" for those of you that are government educated that would be the Civil War.

Before you get to harsh I realize the difference between the two. The Mexican army was trying to prevent an invading French force from occupying Mexico. The French invasion was done with numbers that should've assured victory however the fighting force that stopped the aggresion was ill equipped and not very well trained compared to the French troops. In modern day we only need to look back to the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan to see how some governments can mistake a determined bunch of people.

My question is WHY is this considered a day of festivities here in the U.S.?

Do we as Americans celebrate the following battles

1. Battle of Antietam

2. Battle of Gettysburg

3. Battle of Fredericksburg

4. Battle of Shiloh

No we don't however we as Americans celebrate the quest for and success of our independence from England. Not some battles that led up to the blessed event

http://clnet.ucla.edu/cinco.html

Cinco de Mayo is a date of great importance for the Mexican and Chicano communities. It marks the victory of the Mexican Army over the French at the Battle of Puebla. Althought the Mexican army was eventually defeated, the "Batalla de Puebla" came to represent a symbol of Mexican unity and patriotism. With this victory, Mexico demonstrated to the world that Mexico and all of Latin America were willing to defend themselves of any foreign intervention. Especially those from imperialist states bent on world conquest.

Cinco de Mayo's history has its roots in the French Occupation of Mexico. The French occupation took shape in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48. With this war, Mexico entered a period of national crisis during the 1850's. Years of not only fighting the Americans but also a Civil War, had left Mexico devastated and bankrupt. On July 17, 1861, President Benito Juarez issued a moratorium in which all foreign debt payments would be suspended for a brief period of two years, with the promise that after this period, payments would resume.

The English, Spanish and French refused to allow president Juarez to do this, and instead decided to invade Mexico and get payments by whatever means necessary. The Spanish and English eventually withdrew, but the French refused to leave. Their intention was to create an Empire in Mexico under Napoleon III. Some have argued that the true French occupation was a response to growing American power and to the Monroe Doctrine (America for the Americans). Napoleon III believed that if the United States was allowed to prosper indescriminantly, it would eventually become a power in and of itself.

In 1862, the French army began its advance. Under General Ignacio Zaragoza, 5,000 ill-equipped Mestizo and Zapotec Indians defeated the French army in what came to be known as the "Batalla de Puebla" on the fifth of May.

In the United States, the "Batalla de Puebla" came to be known as simply "5 de Mayo" and unfortunately, many people wrongly equate it with Mexican Independence which was on September 16, 1810, nearly a fifty year difference. Over, the years Cinco de Mayo has become very commercialized and many people see this holiday as a time for fun and dance. Oddly enough, Cinco de Mayo has become more of Chicano holiday than a Mexican one. Cinco de Mayo is celebrated on a much larger scale here in the United States than it is in Mexico. People of Mexican descent in the United States celebrate this significant day by having parades, mariachi music, folklorico dancing and other types of festive activities.

There really is no reason why this day should be celebrated here in the U.S. Maybe we should hold a celebration on September 16 which IS the DAY that Mexico achieved independence.

Tom Martz
candidate for the 139th HoR district

VOTE for a true change and someone that won't let personal feelings come between me and the Constitution.

immigration

2006-05-03T13:17:00.000-06:00

Over the past several weeks this topic more then any other has captured the essence of the new media, the American public, the blogosphere, and the radio airwaves. I've been quite busy with political surveys in the recent couple of weeks so I haven't been able to make my position known.

I find nothing wrong with immigration, after all some where in my family tree there has to be some immigrants from either Germany or somewhere else within the continent of Europe.
I don't know how my relatives ended up here in the US of A, since I haven't NO way of following my family tree. I grew up in the foster care agencies so unknown parents tend to put a crimp in a family tree.

It is very possible but highly unlikely that they snuck into this nation. There is no common border with the european continent so one had to sail over here. The ports in those days were manned and generally one could work off there passage by performing labor duties on the ship.

The problem I have with the so-called "invasion" from the south, is that we as a nation have set laws on how to gain entry into the country, these laws need to be followed by one and all. As i see it our nation is a large melting pot of different cultures and ethnicities of people all trying to make better lives for ourselves. Is it to much to ask to follow a set of guidelines to not only gain entry into this country, but to also set standards for removal from this country if you snuck in through an unopened door?

The republicans and democrats are going to do anything about this issue, since they both think they benefit from it. The democrats think that Hispandering(a Neal Boortz term)will garner them votes at the polling booths which will finally allow them to garner back control of government. The republicans on the other hand see it as a way to continue to have large donations coming into the coffers by businesses which benefit from having a labor force which won't raise any issues regarding hiring practices or safety issues. The government on the other hand has massive amounts of cash following into the coffers which will never have to be recorded or shown on a balance sheet.

How would it look to have the same SS# collecting revenue by the thousands on an annual basis?

This is money that never has to be given back to the people from which it was taken from. No federal or state tax returns, no SSI benefits, and government can also show a need for entitlement expenditures. My how they have manipulated the general public into believing there is nothing that can be done to solve this issue.

I believe the solution is quite simple, any hispanic worker that wants to work here in the US of A and hasn't the means to pay his entry fee should be able to place their name on an employment list at the border. This database could be handled via an employment agency(private). Employers that need employees to work can submit a form that will allow these workers to gain an employment visa which will only be good for the duration of said project. If an employer should want to hire one of these individuals full time then between the worker and the employer all paperwork to gain citizenship can be filled out and submitted and streamlined so this system would benefit both the individual and the company.
The employer would also pay the employment agency for the hours worked and the employment agency would cut a check to the individual. This way all applicable taxes could be put in trust until the individual returns to his country of origin at the end of the employment visa at which time the money in trust would be returned to the worker. In this manner they wouldn't be paying for services or entitlements that they wouldn't have access to.

It is time that the federal government abides by the Constitution.

Vote 4 Tom
district 139
www.radiofreeliberty.com

Paying homage to the American taxpayer

2006-04-28T13:19:00.000-06:00

On April the 17th I joined others here in Hammondsville with the 'FairTax" rally. I arrived about an hour early so I could get set up for the petition drive to have the city audited. We gathered a few signatures in our effort to bring accountability to our elected leaders.

What I found amusing about this day was the worker ant mentality of the people as they circled the driveway to drop off the tax returns. There was no hostility towards one another and everyone was much maligned about getting in line for their turn at the dropbox. Apparently the government school system has done a rather well job on teaching conformity. On a day when aggression should've been at an all time high the population was rather well mannered.
To a degree I find this trend a little bothersome, has the population become so complacent that handing over 20% or more of your income is considered something that should and has to be done?

Have we become compliant to the HUGE leviathan(GOVERNMENT)?

In watching the display before me I wonder if the GREAT men and women of yesteryear would've had this attitude if government took almost half of what they earned?

Some people jump up and down and hollar and scream to get the attention of people. These types of people are in all political parties. Many people call these types "activist" and the sheer mention of that name has people backing away from the label because of the negative connotation.
We as citizens of this country can only redress government in this manner since trying to evict a sitting member of Congress has almost become impossible if not improbable.
When "we the people"become informed of what government is doing to us and then turn that anger towards our elected officials at the ballot box then we the citizenry will regain the "power" assured us in the Constitution.

With government in control of educating the masses have the people lost the will to fight for what is RIGHTFULLY THEIRS.
Is the endless bickering amoungest the two political parties bringing about an end that people are aware of what their representative is doing? So many people vote the party line with no regard to whether that individual person agrees with their ideology, that we are no longer a nation of individual ideas.

Who said we have a representative government

2006-04-25T16:09:00.000-06:00

In one corner we have the owners of a dog that has been deemed to be vicious.

You already have guessed who is in the other corner "City Government."

On the night that this topic came up on the city council docket there were over 50 people present to speak against this proposed ordinance, while the people in favor of this ordinance could be counted on one hand.

I don't know anyone that has a Pitbull that has attacked anyone, however we have had attacks in this city which got widespread attention with all the news media coverage. The last attack was an unattended child that had wandered off and into the back yard of the dog. I don't blame the dog for attacking the child since the dog probably assumed that the child was intruding into an area that it didn't belong in.
There will be those that will say the dog should've known that the intruder was only a child and the dog should've never attacked.
I wonder why the dog is at fault and not the parents that left their child unattended and unsupervised?
I'm not an uncompassionate person but I do believe there is enough blame in these stories to go around.
I've seen Pitbulls be as gentle as any other dog, and I've seen chihuahua become obsessed with attacking people, and yet these dogs are never labeled for RFiD chips.
As a citizen of Springfield, I'm sorry to say if I owned a Pitbull at this point I wouldn't lawfully turn over my dog to government.

Pitbulls are chipped today and should I dare say juvenile deliquents will be next in line?

City embarks on pit bull PR campaign

Along with a litany of requirements, the dogs must be registered annually.

News-Leader staff

Springfield's new pit bull ordinance goes into full effect Oct. 16, the city announced Monday.

But the Springfield-Greene County Health Department has already begun a public information campaign about the new requirements for pit bull dogs living inside the city limits.

www.springfieldmove.com
According to the ordinance, city residents may keep pit bull dogs within the city limits only if they follow these regulations:

# Pit bulls must be registered annually with a $50 fee.

# Pit bulls must be vaccinated for rabies.

# Pit bulls must be spayed or neutered.

# Pit bulls must be microchipped.

# Pit bulls must be kept in a secure, fenced enclosure while on the owner's property.

# A sign at least 8 inches by 10 inches that reads "Pit Bull Dog" must be clearly displayed at all entrances to the owner's property.

# When off the owner's property, the pit bull must be leashed and muzzled.

# Owners must notify authorities within five days if the pit bull is lost, stolen, dies or has puppies.

# New litters of puppies must be registered following the same guidelines, in order to stay within the city limits.

The Springfield City Council approved the new law April 17.

Starting June 5, pit bull owners can begin registering their dogs with the city's health department, by appointment only. Scheduling for appointments begins May 15.

The appointments will take place at the Springfield Animal Shelter, 4002 N. Farmer Ave.

Dogs may be microchipped by health department staff, unless the owner provides proof the procedure has already been conducted by a veterinarian.

For more information, call the Pit Bull Information Line at 864-1166 or visit http://health.springfieldmogov.org.

For a more common sense approach to government

VOTE
MARTZ4MISSOURI

tom martz

What makes a good candidate

2006-04-24T19:49:00.000-06:00

I hear all the time people complaining about the lack of good candidates to run for school boards, city councils and the like.

I wonder what makes a good candidate?
could it be the little letter representing the political party at the end of their name?

We have some here in town that believe a good candidate has a "r" after their name. Most of our city council and school board members and the city leaders carry this "r" moniker, but yet the people still complain. I thought this is what they wanted someone with an "r" after the proper name.

I live in an area that is heavily populated with republicans and yet our city leaders are doing their damnest to allow the good ole boys network to prosper here in John Q Hammondville, and they do this with the acknowledgement of the democrats.
I'm sorry to say but the elephant and jackass has merged to become a premier spending socialist idealog. There is no TRUE difference between the two.

Both parties use subsidies to pay for the votes of voters.
Both parties spend money by the fistful then blame the other party for HUGE deficits.
Both parties proclaim to be in favor of the 2nd amendment(to an extent).
Both parties claim to be the party of the average joe, but when joe isn't paying attention they steal him blind.
Both parties proclaim to be in favor of the 1st amendment(to an extent).
One party wants religious beliefs to be taught by government educators, while the other party proclaims there is "a seperation of church and state" in the constitution.

Neither party understands;
The Tenth Amendment provides that powers the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from having are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The phrase "or to the people", somewhat puzzling as to its applicability, was included to prevent this clause from overriding limitations on State powers within the States' respective constitutions.

The people through the process of government education clearly have forgotten that we as a country are a representative republic and not a democracy.
Listen to our selected leaders both "left" and "right" and to a man or woman narily a one will mention that this country is a representative republic and it was set up this way by the founders of this nation so the people would retain the power of government.
A Google search of political speeches containing the word democracy will garner over a million hits.
It's your country and it is your choice to how we as a country are going to continue, I hope that many of you wake up in time.

VOTE,
MARTZ4MISSOURI

for the betterment of all missourians.

tom martz

putting caps on election spending

2006-04-16T18:53:00.000-06:00

Have you ever wondered why politicians will spend 20 to 30 times more money then the job actually pays?
Does it make sense for a person to spend 1 million dollars to get elected to a job that pays $35,000 annually?
Should there be spending caps placed on spending for an elected seat?

I believe there should!!!!

How else do the individuals get political power back from the politicians?
Imagine if you would a person running for office only being allowed to spend the equivalent of a years salary at that political job on their campaign?
Would other people be willing to or at least afford to be able to run a political campaign?

I would muster a guess at yes. The average person knows it cost at least 20 times more money to be elected then what they will make in a full term of their elected position.

Does the thirst for this POWER drive one to lose sanity of the obvious. In order to get this type of money into your political campaign coffers, YOU will OWE many favors to many people.
I won't be spending myself into oblivion just to get elected into the state HoR, but I can and will do my duty to state and individual just as well as the HIGH dollar candidates.
I don't believe money in campaigns does anything but make a candidate beholden to those that have filled the campaign coffers.

NFL, NBA, NHL, just about every major sporting series has spending caps in place to make the playing field more competitive. I disagree with this thought process for individual sports but it seems to work and the owners of each team have agreed to these demands and therefore it wasn't demanded of them to be compliant. Even NASCAR is limited teams to ownership of 4 cars and they are actually going to tell the teams what type of car body will be used. I'm a huge NASCAR fan and I can see how NASCAR, the sanctioning body, is starting to mirror the federal government. Be compliant or else, imagine the NFL telling teams how many of each individual position they must carry on the roster.

Sorry for the off track. I believe spending caps on campaigns would be a good idea and it would allow the individual to have more control over the elected official. An elected official can raise as much money as they want, however there would be strict guidelines on how much could be spent on a campaign depending on the position the individual is seeking.

I don't have the hardcore numbers for this idea yet but it is gathering steam inside my head.

Granted I firmly realize that the 1st amendment and the SCOTUS has ruled that spending money is the equivalent to free speech. I've also come to realize that term limits aren't defined in the Constitution and then should therefore be ruled unconstitutional.
The people of the United States need to rise up and make there voices heard.

only you can change the politics of normalcy VOTE

tom martz

Congratulations Tulsa

2006-04-16T10:04:00.000-06:00

It appears that the city of Tulsa,OK can now go into the record books along side Washington D.C.
Yes the citizenry of the District of Criminals placed Marion Berry back into power after he had served time for cocaine possession.
The citizenry of Tulsa has elected a person that it has been proven, she voted twice during the presidential campaign of 2000. Yes my friends the Bush/Gore fiasco. Kathy Taylor, newly elected mayor of Tulsa, voted absentee for Mr. Gore in her residency state of Fl. Then she turns around and votes for Mr. Bush in her home state of OK. Could say she was making sure she had her bases covered. It is clearly against the law to cast two ballots during one election, but if you are a member of the highly maligned then these simple rules don't apply to you. Ms. Taylor won by 51% to 47%. A third party candidate came in third with 2% of the votes cast.
One could say that a Bush operative voted for Mr. Bush and then signed on the line of Ms. Taylor. Highly unlikely since Ms. Taylor lives in a rather well to do area and these types of mistakes don't happen. Being a democrat though she has certain priviledges that others of us don't have.

Most people of any decency would've recussed themselves in this matter, but one shouldn't expect this of anyone in the major two political parties, because after all they are the ruling class of American.

Mayor's Race: Voting Complaints: Taylor's eligibility being challenged
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
3/3/2006

A top campaign staffer for mayoral candidate Don McCorkell helped a Tulsa woman draft voting complaints filed Thursday at the Tulsa County Election Board against McCorkell's Democratic opponent, Kathy Taylor.

The complaints come only four days ahead of Tuesday's primary election as a Oklahoma Poll indicates McCorkell is trailing Taylor by a sizeable 22 percent margin.

Taylor's eligibility to hold the mayor's seat is being challenged because she allegedly wasn't a "qualified elector" in Tulsa at the time she filed for office because she was registered to vote in two states.

Taylor is accused of giving false information on her Tulsa County voter registration. A probe also is being sought into whether she voted twice in the 2000 presidential election.

Veretta Carter said she was told by McCorkell's campaign manager, Marvin Branham, how to write the complaints and what state laws to cite.

Branham said Carter was having trouble drafting a complaint and sought help from the McCorkell office.

"Here he goes again," Taylor said about McCorkell.

"This is just another campaign attack orchestrated by a desperate politician," she said. "My opponent seems intent on engaging in the politics of personal destruction, and I simply will not play at that level."

Tulsa County Assistant District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler said any complaint must go through an investigative agency before being presented to the District Attorney's Office.

Carter said she filed the complaints because of comments that Taylor made earlier this week that "really ticked me off."

On Tuesday, McCorkell held a news conference in which he revealed records that indicated Taylor voted twice in the 2000 presidential election.

Taylor not only vehemently denied that charge, but questioned why she would jeopardize her legal career to cast a second presidential vote in Oklahoma that would not have changed the outcome of the race.

Taylor said she voted by absentee ballot in Florida and can't explain a 2000 voting-history record that indicates she voted in person in Tulsa.

Polling books that could clear up the discrepancy have been destroyed.

Tulsa County Election Board Secretary Gene Pace said that errors do occur on voter histories because of the "human factor," but he figures it is a less than 5 percent margin of error.

Oklahoma State Election Secretary Michael Clingman said there are three possibilities for how Taylor got credited for voting -- a mistake in the data transfer, another person inadvertently signed the wrong line in the polling book or Taylor voted.

Carter said she got angry when Taylor questioned why a person like herself would try to vote twice.

"I'm trying to figure out what that means, a person like her," Carter said. "Just because she has money does it make you above the law?"

Carter, a black woman, said to say that one vote wouldn't make a difference "was disrespectful. Our people have had to fight and struggle to vote."

Carter is the executive director of Neighborhood Housing Services. In 2005, the city was ordered to use taxpayer money to pay back $496,811 in Community Development Block Grant program funds that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development determined were owed by Neighborhood Housing Services.

Carter's complaint questions why Taylor didn't list Florida as her last place of residency when she registered to vote in Tulsa in January 2004. The complaint claims Taylor instead listed a former Tulsa home.

Taylor moved back to Tulsa from Florida in late 2002.

Although the three-year statute of limitations has expired on investigating whether she voted twice in 2000, the complaint seeks to have that extended to seven years because Taylor allegedly voted in Oklahoma while still being registered in Florida.

You can make a difference by Voting your conscience and not a political party.

I am the only candidate in the 139th district that will FIGHT for smaller government, spending caps, and the freedoms and liberties of the people of the state of Missouri.

to make a political contribution please make checks payable to "Vote4Tom" and send them to 334 East Kearney St. Suite #135 Springfield, MO 65803

the city audit buzz

2006-04-14T14:56:00.000-06:00

It seems like we are now firing on all cylinders. Peoples from many different organizations are rallying around this effort to have the city of Springfield audited.

Why you may ask would people want to have the city entity audited?

It seems the leaders of the city have made numerous promises in the past, by delaying pay raises or trading pay raises for other like minded services. These promises are now due and the city doesn't have the money to pay for these promises.
City Utilities which operates the local water treatment plant has had three pumps fail in the recent weeks that has put the water suppply system in jeopardy. The failure of these pumps can be narrowed down to be overworked equipment or lack of proper maintenance.
Both of these scenarios could've been avoided by having a spare pump or replacement parts on hand in case of an emergency.

I own a water treatment company in town and I have spare parts and equipment in case I have a customer which has a unit that fails to work. To my way of thinking this makes sense and hopefully this would also make sense to CU. Apparently not!!!!!!

And you wonder why we want to have the city audit. Where is this almost $213 million dollars going?
The cost of this audit is going to cost every man, woman, and child living in Springfield a grand total of $.53, to not have this audit done is costing over $24,000 an hour.

The city leaders will have you believing that the city is audited by KPMG every single year and everything is just fine. What the city doesn't tell you is that this so called "audit" is only balancing the checkbook. The city supplies the numbers and the receipts so therefore the books should balance.
The state will actually start asking the city leaders WHY this money is being spend in certain areas.
I ponder to think WHY the city leaders are so opposed to this audit? They say it is a waste of $$$$$$$$$$, but anytime the bureaucracy of government is questioned the better the people are.
These very same people that don't want the books opened for all to see would tell us that we should be open to the city leaders after all the only people that scoff at these ideas are people that are hiding something.
Sorry city leaders you can't play both sides of the court at the same time.

Only you can change politics by VOTING
"I choose to think for myself, therefore I vote Libertarian.

Tom Martz
Candidate for 139th

What is a conspiracy

2006-04-12T17:20:00.000-06:00

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspiracy
conÂ·spirÂ·aÂ·cy Audio pronunciation of "conspiracy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sp�r-s)
n. pl. conÂ·spirÂ·aÂ·cies

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

First we have to define it before we can discuss it. You might ask WHAT does a conspiracy have to do with a campaign? I thought the same thing the other day while listening to our local talk radio show and local host.
It seems like our local host believes that anyone that doesn't BUY the "official" government story about 9-11 is a conspiracy minded liberal. Now I know our mystery host means well in his terminology since he is striving to become the next Sean Hannity, but really do we have to paint such a broad brush over everyone.
Our government being involved in cover-ups isn't really anything new and therefore when people question governments "official" story it should be expected. Questioning our government doesn't make a person a conspiracy nut or a liberal, however it will make a personknowledgeabledgable of how the system works.

One only need to read the following article to see how easy it is for government officials to cover-up information. I'm sure the people that swore the government was covering something up in this article was also known as a conspiracy nut.

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment The U.S. government's 40-year experiment on black men with syphilis

by Borgna Brunner

"The United States government did something that was wrongÂdeeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens... clearly racist." ÂPresident Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997

For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for Âbad blood,Â their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.

The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilisÂwhich can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. ÂAs I see it,Â one of the doctors involved explained, Âwe have no further interest in these patients until they die.Â
Using Human Beings as Laboratory Animals

The true nature of the experiment had to be kept from the subjects to ensure their cooperation. The sharecroppers' grossly disadvantaged lot in life made them easy to manipulate. Pleased at the prospect of free medical careÂalmost none of them had ever seen a doctor beforeÂthese unsophisticated and trusting men became the pawns in what James Jones, author of the excellent history on the subject, Bad Blood, identified as Âthe longest nontherapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history.Â

The study was meant to discover how syphilis affected blacks as opposed to whitesÂthe theory being that whites experienced more neurological complications from syphilis, whereas blacks were more susceptible to cardiovascular damage. How this knowledge would have changed clinical treatment of syphilis is uncertain.

Although the PHS touted the study as one of great scientific merit, from the outset its actual benefits were hazy. It took almost forty years before someone involved in the study took a hard and honest look at the end results, reporting that Ânothing learned will prevent, find, or cure a single case of infectious syphilis or bring us closer to our basic mission of controlling venereal disease in the United States.Â

When the experiment was brought to the attention of the media in 1972, news anchor Harry Reasoner described it as an experiment that Âused human beings as laboratory animals in a long and inefficient study of how long it takes syphilis to kill someone.Â

A Heavy Price in the Name of Bad Science

To ensure that the men would show up for a painful and potentially dangerous spinal tap, the PHS doctors misled them with a letter full of promotional hype: ÂLast Chance for Special Free Treatment.Â

The fact that autopsies would eventually be required was also concealed.
By the end of the experiment, 28 of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis. How had these men been induced to endure a fatal disease in the name of science?

To persuade the community to support the experiment, one of the original doctors admitted it Âwas necessary to carry on this study under the guise of a demonstration and provide treatment.Â At first, the men were prescribed the syphilis remedies of the dayÂbismuth, neoarsphenamine, and mercuryÂ but in such small amounts that only 3 percent showed any improvement.

These token doses of medicine were good public relations and did not interfere with the true aims of the study. Eventually, all syphilis treatment was replaced with Âpink medicineÂÂaspirin.

To ensure that the men would show up for a painful and potentially dangerous spinal tap, the PHS doctors misled them with a letter full of promotional hype: ÂLast Chance for Special Free Treatment.Â The fact that autopsies would eventually be required was also concealed.

As a doctor explained, ÂIf the colored population becomes aware that accepting free hospital care means a post-mortem, every darky will leave Macon County...Â Even the Surgeon General of the United States participated in enticing the men to remain in the experiment, sending them certificates of appreciation after 25 years in the study.

Following Doctors' Orders

It takes little imagination to ascribe racist attitudes to the white government officials who ran the experiment, but what can one make of the numerous African Americans who collaborated with them? The experiment's name comes from the Tuskegee Institute, the black university founded by Booker T. Washington. Its affiliated hospital lent the PHS its medical facilities for the study, and other predominantly black institutions as well as local black doctors also participated. A black nurse, Eunice Rivers, was a central figure in the experiment for most of its forty years.

The promise of recognition by a prestigious government agency may have obscured the troubling aspects of the study for some. A Tuskegee doctor, for example, praised Âthe educational advantages offered our interns and nurses as well as the added standing it will give the hospital.Â Nurse Rivers explained her role as one of passive obedience: Âwe were taught that we never diagnosed, we never prescribed; we followed the doctor's instructions!Â

It is clear that the men in the experiment trusted her and that she sincerely cared about their well-being, but her unquestioning submission to authority eclipsed her moral judgment. Even after the experiment was exposed to public scrutiny, she genuinely felt nothing ethical had been amiss.

One of the most chilling aspects of the experiment was how zealously the PHS kept these men from receiving treatment. When several nationwide campaigns to eradicate venereal disease came to Macon County, the men were prevented from participating. Even when penicillinÂthe first real cure for syphilisÂwas discovered in the 1940s, the Tuskegee men were deliberately denied the medication.

During World War II, 250 of the men registered for the draft and were consequently ordered to get treatment for syphilis, only to have the PHS exempt them. Pleased at their success, the PHS representative announced: ÂSo far, we are keeping the known positive patients from getting treatment.Â The experiment continued in spite of the Henderson Act (1943), a public health law requiring testing and treatment for venereal disease, and in spite of the World Health Organization's Declaration of Helsinki (1964), which specified that Âinformed consentÂ was needed for experiments involving human beings.

Blowing the Whistle

The PHS did not accept the media's comparison of Tuskegee with the experiments performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish victims during World War II. Yet the PHS offered the same defense offered at the Nuremberg trials Â they were just carrying out orders.
The story finally broke in the Washington Star on July 25, 1972, in an article by Jean Heller of the Associated Press. Her source was Peter Buxtun, a former PHS venereal disease interviewer and one of the few whistle blowers over the years. The PHS, however, remained unrepentant, claiming the men had been ÂvolunteersÂ and Âwere always happy to see the doctors,Â and an Alabama state health officer who had been involved claimed Âsomebody is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.Â

Under the glare of publicity, the government ended their experiment, and for the first time provided the men with effective medical treatment for syphilis. Fred Gray, a lawyer who had previously defended Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, filed a class action suit that provided a $10 million out-of-court settlement for the men and their families. Gray, however, named only whites and white organizations as defendants in the suit, portraying Tuskegee as a black and white case when it was in fact more complex than thatÂblack doctors and institutions had been involved from beginning to end.

The PHS did not accept the media's comparison of Tuskegee with the appalling experiments performed by Nazi doctors on their Jewish victims during World War II. Yet in addition to the medical and racist parallels, the PHS offered the same morally bankrupt defense offered at the Nuremberg trials: they claimed they were just carrying out orders, mere cogs in the wheel of the PHS bureaucracy, exempt from personal responsibility.

The study's other justificationÂfor the greater good of scienceÂis equally spurious. Scientific protocol had been shoddy from the start. Since the men had in fact received some medication for syphilis in the beginning of the study, however inadequate, it thereby corrupted the outcome of a study of Âuntreated syphilis.Â

You see Mr talk radio show host a person that questions government at all levels will never fall prey to swallowing the "official" story hook, line, and sinker. If questioning my government on the events of 9-11 make me a liberal then I guess I'll wear that label proudly. Unlike others I have viewed some aspects of the 9-11 footage that others choose to ignore because it doesn't fit into the agenda from which they speak. I will continue to keep my eyes open and not allow my mind to close, after all the mind is like a parachute it only works when open.

"I choose to think for myself, therefore I vote Libertarian"

remember only you can change the face of politics VOTE.

tom martz
HoR District 139 candidate

it's for the children

2006-04-11T17:31:00.000-06:00

to set the stage it was quite a quiet election and not a lot of hoopla over any of the ballot measures.

The voters have approved a 96.5 MILLION DOLLAR bond measure for repairs to be made to the schools and air conditioning. The benefactors of this measure were so quiet leading up to this election that you wouldn't have even know there was a tax increase measure on the ballot. Yes, I call it a tax increase; because, when the payments come due we will be hit with a tax increase to pay for it. I watched it happen year after year in California.
The voters would get talked into a ballot measure for a bond issue, after all it isn't a tax increase, to support pet projects then when the bill came due a tax increase was implemented to cover the cost. It took a few years but the populace started to figure this bait and switch out and told the politicians NO MORE TAXES. The politicians figured out how to get around this as well. They would ONLY apply this new levy to newly built homes in the area. The masses jumped at the chance to pass a tax increase on unsuspecting home buyers, to the point that large developers were asking for back room deals so the newly instituted tax wouldn't effect thier development.

The voters of John Q Hammondsville were snuckered by the silence and passed a measure that they believed was for the benefit of the children that wouldn't come back and hit them in the pocketbook. I long for the day when the electorate takes the job of these votes more seriously and actually researches how this is going to effect not only them, but the neighbors and the children that aren't quite tax paying age yet.
Almost by a two to one margin this went through. in a few years when the people complain about paying higher taxes NO ONE will remember this "bond measure" and what actually happened to the money.

If you are happy with the status quo, vote for your republican and democrat candidates. If you want CHANGE

VOTE4TOM Martz

next post will contain my views on the so-called conspiracy theories and those that disagree with the "official" government story.

If you would like to help my campaign donations can be mailed to
334 East Kearney Street #135
Springfield, MO 65803

a campaign none the less

2006-04-01T23:50:00.000-07:00

Well I have to admit there is more to a political campaign then I ever imagined. Is it any wonder why people that aspire to become politicians join either the democrat or republican party?
These two parties are so well funded that most of the leg work has already been done for the eventual winner of the primary. What fun is that?
What happened to the days when someone that aspired to be a politician actually went out on their own and proceeded to do the legwork portion of the campaign? This is a new experience for me, not being a honed politician and all but I'm looking forward to meeting with as many people as I can that reside within this district. Taking the pulse of the local people to find out what bugs them the most.
I stand for Constitutional government and let the chips fall where they may.

On a side note we are getting closer to having the required signatures to get the city of Springfield audited. The more people become aware of the real issues the more they want to become involved in the process. I can see the city council right now trying to explain away the "good ole boy" practices that have been going on for years. The city leaders have made promises to the police, and the firefighters and then reneged on it. How can one trust the word of someone that continiously tries to stab you in the back?
When I first heard of this problem I tended to believe the city leaders, after all the police and firefighters unions will do anything to get "perks" for the men and women in blue.
Upon futher investigation I found my thought process to be flawed and found that the city leaders made many promises that are now being swept under the table.

Our downtown district is BOOMING but of course with the influx of taxpayers dollars it should be, but does the city have the justification to ignore the rest of the city while it concentrates on the downtown area????
Our Mayor seems to want to have us known as the "city of public parks" or that just might be his legacy that he saddles the taxpayers with when he finally leaves office. We have neighborhoods with NO sidewalks, streets with no crosswalks, areas where people can cross the street that have neither a crosswalk or a light to allow such a manuever, we also have sidewalks that don't allow handicap access. This is hardly the legacy of a "good" mayor or city council for that matter. How many millions of dollars has the ice arena lost since its inception into the city?

One per peeve of mine is the limited bike riding areas in and around town. For any bicycle riding enthusiasts riding on the north end of Springfield can be a lesson in vehicle dodging. Granted bicycles don't pay taxes nor do they collect taxes on the fuel consumption of a bicycle, but as a business owner, and homeowner here in Springfield I would expect that I or anyone else that chooses to do so could ride a bike in this city without the fear of being run over or off the road. After all I do pay my share of taxes to see to such. The south end of town has some nice walking/bike paths, but in order to get to them from the northend of town you take your life into your own hands to get to them.

It's going to be a great year and I look forward to hearing from the people to see if I can address their concerns.

Remember only you can change the status quo of government

VOTE

tom martz for 139th

only the beginning

2006-03-31T10:36:00.000-07:00

Well it has finally happened "hell froze over" no not that just kidding. I made the trek last week and filed to run in congressional district 139.
I'm not a spit and polished politician, but I do have one item the other candidates may not have. What you may ask? I've never been a politicain. Some say you have to place experienced people in office in order to accomplish anything, but we've had experienced people in both state and federal government and all that has happened is the people have become COMPLIANT to the elected leaders. By my reading of the Constitution this isn't what the founding fathers had in mind when they formed this republic. YES a representative republic not a Democracy The citizenry was supposed to be able to communicate to the politicians and they in turn were supposed to be able to offer solutions to the peoples problems or concerns.
I've contacted my elected representative many times to express my desire for the "FairTax Act"(H.R. 25) to be implemented on the federal level so our nation can once again prosper and businesses will bring back the jobs to the United States. I don't believe my representative has even once heard my voice since he himself doesn't answer any calls.
Ever get the inclination you're being ignored? Welcome to the politics of the status quo. As a representative for the 139th I will answer the concerns of the constituents personally. That is a pledge to the people that elect me.

only YOU can change the direction of politics

VOTE

tom martz