TTTT Takeaway Activism and Notes – February 2015

Legislative Review

The Missouri Legislature began its session on January 7th in Jefferson City and have begun debating and passing bills.   At the last meeting, we split up into groups, reviewed the legislation that has been filed by our local representatives (as well as other high profile legislation), and quickly came up with thoughts and suggestions for their actions / votes in the House and Senate. Should they proceed, vote against, or junk the bill?!

Unfortunately, time ran short for the final discussion of the bills. So, we reconvened the discussion and finalized our suggestions for our representatives’ actions

.

Below are documents that will be used in helping with the discussion:

Meeting Calendar

Here is the calendar of meetings between now and the next TTTT

No Diehl

An effort is in action to prevent the ascension of Representative Diehl to the Missouri House Speakership.  CCTP doesn’t take positions on such issues, however, we pass this along for your information:

From Laura Hausladen:

Greetings,

The project is gaining some momentum, but it’s time to kick it into high gear as we have just 3 weeks until the November Election.  I would like to have a conference call tomorrow evening at 8:30 for anybody who wants to weigh in on strategy going forward.  I see it as less of an organized call, and more of a session for idea gathering and question asking/answering.  Let’s try this:  8:30-9:15 weigh in with ideas, etc.  9:15-9:35 or so call in for a a recap and a general outline of what needs to be done and projections on how it will be done.

Dial-in Number: 605-781-1000
Access Code: 733172

Time: Tues, Oct. 14th 8:30 or 9:15 for recap

Accomplished:

About to come on line:

  • The letter writing campaign!!  (Within 24 hours or so)
  • An additional on-line info-gram style web page  (soon!)

Please do the following now:

  1. Invite people you know to go to MoLeadershipProject.org to sign the petition.
  2. Invite your FaceBook friends to go to the FaceBook Page ‘The Missouri Leadership Project’  and LIKE it
  3. Let your representative know that you do not want them to vote for John Diehl.

 

Many thanks to all of you!  Please call or write any time with suggestions/questions/help.  (And if you call, please be sure to start talking on my answering machine.)

Blessings,

Laura / 573-732-3252

An Open Letter To Representative Mike Lair

By David Epps

Homogeneity is good for milk not for a population!

Nazi Germany goose stepped into oblivion because of their highly regimented and homogeneous society was unable to counter the innovation by the allies on the battlefield.

  • The USSR fell because they attempted to standardize the population’s thinking.
  • The USA is lagging because all children are being taught the same mistakes.

China’s and Russia’s economy are now booming because of the now permitted entrepreneurial and enterprising thinking.

Common core is just a way to homogenize the spirit.

If all milk was homogenized then where would we get creme and butter or cheese and yogurt?

Those MAP tests teach that it is OK to keep secrets from the parents. That advertising is propaganda like the posters and announcements and speeches that sent 6M Jews to the gas chambers in WWII was just good advertising… …and the environmental agenda espoused in the tests is just flat wrong.

Two examples of bad teaching on the environment

1. Dinosaurs were huge because of all the oxygen from all the plants sucking down all that CO2

Wrong – It was because the plants provided an abundant food supply. An organism must regulate its intake of oxygen because it is toxic in large quantities

2. Butterflies are rare because there is insufficient open space

Wrong – Butterflies are rare because they eat milk weed which is aggressively eradicated because the milk in the weed can cause blindness in children.

When it comes to centralized planning as with Common Core and MAP test materials the question is: Who watches the watchers?????

I would suggest sir that you take off the tinfoil hat and study the far ranging implications of standardizing the education in America.

Conformity is the hob-goblin of a small mind!

Vote To Override Nixon’s HB253 Veto

By Darrell Seabaugh:

Dear Rep. Hampton,
Dear Rep. Gannon,
Dear Rep. Fowler,

It has come to my attention in a recent news article that you were undecided on how you will vote in the next upcoming session regarding the Missouri Income Tax Cut bill (which initially you voted against) that passed both chambers of THE Missouri Legislature but was ultimately vetoed by Gov. J. Nixon.  While I understand your initial position, I nonetheless feH/T missouri.eduel you need to carefully reconsider what is ultimately at stake here.  This is not about our cutting taxes at the expense of our public school systems thereby degrading our children’s quality of education…nor is it about our having to cut or scale back on anything.  It is NOT even a Republican or Democrat partisan issue.  What is at stake here is simply this…JOBS!  And that’s a Missouri issue, no matter what stripe you are!

With no less than five “Right-To-Work” states adjacent to Missouri’s borders, our state is getting killed in the jobs market.  As a state, we are not competitive: not in attracting new jobs, not even in retaining existing jobs.  Cape Girardeau recently got word we are losing over 400 jobs (NARS) and now another 90+ jobs when Spartech closes its door next year.  And that’s just one city with fewer than 38,000 people.  If this trend continues to be left unchecked, fewer Missourians will have jobs than ever before.  Tax revenue will be at an all time low.  How do you think that will impact OUR schools and our state overall?

Lowering Missouri Income Taxes & Corporate Business taxes will go along way in leveling the “jobs” playing field for our state.  I’d much rather prefer having more people having more jobs while paying less taxes (thereby having more to spend to spur growth and also sharing our state tax burden) to keep our state finances solvent rather than having fewer Missourians having fewer jobs having to pay more in taxes (stagflation)!  And do you really want your children coming out of schools only to find no jobs or only few part time jobs?  They will have little choice but to leave this state to look for work elsewhere.  Passing this bill will help to spur real personal growth, attract new businesses and create new jobs…REAL jobs!…and will help retain our existing jobs!

Therefore I urge you to vote FOR the State Income Tax Bill and OVERRIDE Gov. Nixon’s veto in this upcoming September’s legislative session.

Cordial regards,
Darrell W. Seabaugh.

TTTT Takeaway Activism and Notes – May 2013 (Candidate Forum)

The Meeting

.

In lieu of our regularly scheduled Third Tuesday Tea Time, the members of Cape County Tea Party organized and executed a 8th Congressional District Special Election Candidate Forum.  The six candidates for the office vacated by Jo Ann Emerson took part in the forum held on Wednesday May 22, 2013 at 6:30pm.

The normal meeting held on Tuesday night was canceled.

.

Here are still photos of the candidates:

Candidate Forum – 8th CD – Photos – 01

.

Here are the questions used by the moderator:

Candidate Forum – 8th CD – Questions – 02

.

Here are the questions as given to the audience:

Candidate Forum – 8th CD – Questions – 03

.

Here is the SEMO Activism Calendar distributed at the end of the meeting

Candidate Forum – 8th CD – SEMO Activism Calendar – 01

.

Video Evidence!

Below are the videos from the event:

.

 

Facts About the Missouri State Board of Education

http://dese.mo.gov/stateboard/stateboard.html#majorduties

According to the Missouri Constitution, “The supervision of instruction in the public schools shall be vested in a state board of education …” (Article IX, Section 2a). This provision gives the State Board of Education general authority for public education, within limits set by the General Assembly.

The Board is made up of eight citizens appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Members serve staggered, eight-year terms so that one term expires each year. No more than four members of the Board may belong to the same political party. No more than one member of the Board may reside in the same county or Congressional district. When terms expire, members continue to serve until being replaced or reappointed. The Board elects its own officers each year. Members receive $25 for each day of an official meeting.

The Board’s duties and responsibilities range from preschool to the postsecondary and adult levels. The Board does not have direct authority over higher education institutions. However, the Board sets standards for and approves courses and professional programs for teachers and school administrators in Missouri’s public and private higher education institutions.

Under federal law, the Board serves as the state-level governing body for career and technical education programs provided by local school districts, community colleges and four-year institutions.

The Board has no authority to regulate or accredit private, parochial or home schools in the state.

The Board’s major duties include:

MISSOURI STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

PRESIDENT

  • Peter F. Herschend, Branson, was first appointed to the State Board of Education in December 1991. He was re-appointed for new terms in November 1999 and October 2007. He is founder and co-owner of Herschend Family Entertainment Corp., which owns Silver Dollar City and other entertainment properties. Before his appointment to the State Board, Mr. Herschend served 12 years on the Branson Board of Education.

VICE PRESIDENT

  • Michael W. Jones, St. Louis, was appointed to the Board in March 2011. He is a senior policy adviser to the county executive in St. Louis County. Mr. Jones has more than 30 years of experience specializing in public policy development and implementation. A St. Louis native, he holds a bachelor’s degree in secondary education from the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

MEMBERS

  • Deborah L. Demien, Wentzville, was appointed to the State Board in March 2006. She is director of marketing for Demien Construction. She holds a bachelor’s degree in English and history from Southwest Missouri State University and a master’s degree in education from the University of Missouri-St. Louis.
  • J. Michael Ponder, Cape Girardeau, was appointed to the State Board in March 2009. Mr. Ponder is a partner in the Cape Girardeau law firm of Cook, Barrett, Maguire and Ponder.  He is a 1990 graduate of the University of Missouri School of Law.
  • Charlie W. Shields, St. Joseph, was appointed to the State Board in August 2012. He is Chief Operating Officer of Truman Medical Center (TMC) Lakewood. Mr. Shields joined TMC in July 2010, after serving 20 years in the Missouri General Assembly as part of the House of Representatives, a Republican member of the Senate and most recently as President Pro Tem. He earned his bachelor’s degree in marketing and his master’s of business administration from the University of Missouri.
  • Russell C. Still, Columbia, was appointed to the State Board in April 2010. He is a graduate of the University of Michigan and the University of Missouri School of Law. He has been a classroom teacher and a PTA president. Mr. Still also was a member of the Columbia Board of Education (1996-2005). He is a partner in the law firm of Harlan, Harlan & Still.

Agenda 21, Stealing Your Property

by Jan Farrar

Webster’s dictionary describes and defines Agenda as a noun, (a person, place or thing); 1. A list or outline of things to be considered or done, 2. An underlying, often ideological plan or program. The word ideological, a formulated thought or opinion, is individual and may or may not be accepted by others. Many of us have many ideas. As a mom, I many times have set an agenda for my day, for my children’s chores, for our vacations and as a nurse and a teacher, for my work day. Things we do, things we should have done and things that we want to see done. If you don’t have your agenda, no worries, the United Nations, US Federal Government and your local communities have one for you.

In 1992 the Earth Summit formulated a policy for the world environmental movement. They issued AGENDA 21.  This is a specific, intricate detailed book, for global biodiversity assessment for the 21st century. The General Secretary of the summit stated, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable.” The plan is to control eating, driving a vehicle, your personal lifestyle and where you live. This plan is to be implemented by every one person on the earth. In 1976 the United Nations reported, “Land, because of its unique nature, and the crucial role it plays in human settlements cannot be treated as ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the markets. Private ownership is also a principal instrument of the accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. If unchecked, it may become a major obstacle of the planning and implementation of the development schemes.”

The time is here, the time is now. Our former presidents signed on and our current administration is implementing numerous A21 executive orders. More is occurring at the state, city and local levels. Our own state of Missouri has been on board for some time and local communities are seeing this through “community betterment projects.” Other buzz words are, “sustainable development,” The three E’s: Environment, Economy and Social Equity, also known as the “Triple Bottom Line,” and “Smart growth.”

You might see your community supporting pedestrian and bicycle development, using public transit to lessen fossil fuel usage and lower carbon emissions, building community wide biking and pedestrian sidewalks,communities using the new “green” energy alternatives. You might see your community placing restrictions on private landowners in the name of environmental protection and conservation of natural resources. You will see Non-Governmental Organizations, gaining more control over private land to use as “green space.” You will have Earth Charter, the Sierra Club Cool Cities Initiative, the Audubon Society’s Sustainable Community Imitative or the Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement. You will hear the use of words, “transition town, or “livable community,” “Visioning,” and begin teaching through your local schools.

The United Nations programs has a plan to control over all human activity from what we eat and drink, our mode of transportation to what we teach our children and to our land ownership. This is taking place in our very on local area.  You may not have your own personal agenda, but not to worry, the United Nations, the United States Government and many local communities have one planned for “you”. And, by default you are accepting this agenda daily. We must wake up to what has happened over the past 23 years and become more vigilant in stopping the final takeover of our liberty.

http://www.icleiusa.org/about-iclei/members/member-list

Missouri

Consequences of misinterpreting the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

Fred Elbel.

Website by Fred Elbel, Elbel Consulting Services, LLC

Cost

Births to illegal alien mothers are adding more to the U.S. population each year than did immigration from all sources in an average year prior to 1965.

The Urban Institute estimates the cost of educating illegal alien children in the nation’s seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens was $3.1 billion in 1993 (which, with the growth of their population to 1.3 million, would be more like $5 billion in 2000). This estimate does not take into account the additional costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs.1

FAIR estimates there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and official estimates of the size of the illegal alien population – between 8.7 and 11 million. It should be noted that the Bear Stearns investment firm and others have concluded that the actual number of illegal aliens in the United States could be as high as 20 million.2,3 Using this higher number would roughly double FAIR’s estimate to approximately 574,000 to 726,000 children born to illegal aliens each year!

As of 2001, the cost of having a baby in the U.S. ranged from $6,000 to $8,000 for a normal delivery and $10,000 to $12,000 for a cesarean birth (to as much as $14,000 in certain parts of the country).10 Assuming that an average birth in the year 2007 now costs $8,000, the total cost for 363,000 anchor babies would be approximately $3 billion. Assuming the more realistic number of 726,000 anchor babies, the total cost would be nearly $6 billion. American taxpayers pay a substantial part of this cost.

In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year.1 A survey conducted under the auspices of the University of California, found that of new Hispanic mothers in California border hospitals, 15 percent had crossed the border specifically to give birth. Two-thirds of births in Los Angeles County hospitals are to illegal alien mothers who are in the U.S. in violation of our existing immigration laws.

Illegal aliens are not eligible for welfare benefits, but their citizen children qualify for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and other benefits granted to US citizens. Based on data collected in California for AFDC’s “children only” cases, the California Department of Social Services estimated that in fiscal 1994-1995, 193,800 children of illegal aliens received welfare, costing $553 million.

By not addressing this abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment and enforcing immigration law, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.

Rule of Law

By deliberately not addressing this loophole, Congress in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally.

The 14th Amendment stipulates that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions by enactment of legislation, and the power to enforce a law is necessarily accompanied by the authority to interpret that law. Therefore, an act of Congress stating its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as not to include the offspring of illegal aliens, would fall within Congress’s prerogative.

One Man, One Vote

Congressional district reapportionment weighted by the presence of illegal alien noncitizens is notably unfair to American citizens (both natural-born and naturalized), and clearly violates the principle of “one man, one vote”.

As the number of US House seats is fixed at 435, reapportionment means that if a given state gains a House district, another state must lose one. If non-citizens (illegal aliens) are counted in the decennial Census upon which districts are apportioned, then states with larger illegal alien populations are likely to end up with more districts and therefore more representation in the House. This effectively dilutes the votes citizens in states having relatively low proportions of illegal aliens.

United States Sovereignty

The Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”8

The Mexican government recently provided dual nationality to its citizens who naturalize in the United States. No longer looked upon by their countrymen with contempt, those who emigrate (and sneak in) to the United States are seen by Mexico as advocates for its presumed territorial claims to the American Southwest. Mass immigration, while acting as an overpopulation safety valve for Mexico, simultaneously strengthens Mexico’s political presence inside the United States. Mexican dual nationality serves to retain the allegiance of its citizens who become United States citizens, and to discourage assimilation – in spite of the oath of allegiance they take to America.

Unconstrained illegal immigration and disregard for the rule of law are not conducive toward maintaining US sovereignty. Special corporate and political interests want all the cheap foreign labor they can get. Misinterpreting the 14th Amendment and granting automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens is but one aspect of the dismantling of America.

In April, 2005, President Bush signed the Security Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico, with the stated objective of ensuring the free movement of goods and people across the US border. This treaty, never ratified by Congress, is a significant step towards the North American Union where a sovereign United States will be merely a memory.

Population and environmental consequences

United States population is at roughly 300 million and is projected to double within the lifetimes of children born today.4 Approximately two-thirds of this population growth will be due to mass immigration – that is, immigrants, illegal aliens, and their descendents.5

The United States is past the point of environmental sustainability. Scientists have noted that a sustainable population at today’s consumption levels would be approximately 100 to 150 million people.6 A good and readable overview of the population-environment connection can be found at SUSPS. A visual presentation of the damage illegal immigration does to the environment near our southern border can be seen at DesertInvasion.US.

Other countries

The United Kingdom, for example, formerly allowed Birthright citizenship. In 1981, because of immigration pressures, they restricted it to now require that one parent be a legal resident. In France birthright citizenship has been changed — now children between the ages of 16 and 22 of illegal alien parents must actively seek French citizenship.

It should be noted that on June 11, 2004 Irish voters voted in a national referendum to end automatic citizenship for any child born in Ireland regardless of the parents’ residence status. Ireland was the last member of the European Union to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and welfare benefits as a result of birth in the country. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 13, 2004.)

Millions of Americans

Millions of Americans have served in defense of the United States of America. Many have died to preserve the freedoms that we take for granted – freedoms granted to United States citizens by the US Constitution. Granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens whose first act in coming here is to break our laws, cheapens beyond recognition the meaning of our Constitution and the value of the lives lost fighting to preserve it.

Notes and more information:

1.   Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens (Federation for American Immigration Reform)

2.   Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA, The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface (Bear Stearns, January 3, 2005)

3.   Fred Elbel, Illegal immigration invasion numbers (DesertInvasion.US, August, 2004). Published in the Social Contract under the title How Many Illegals Are There in the U.S.? (A New Methodology) (Fall, 2005)

4.   US Census Bureau.

5.   NumbersUSA.com resources on Birthright Citizenship

6.   SUSPS

7.   James R. Edwards, Jr., Two Sides of the Same Coin – The Connection Between Legal and Illegal Immigration, (Center for Immigration Studies, February, 2006)

8.   Anthony Beilenson, Case for Correction By Constitutional Amendment, The Social Contract (Fall, 1996)

9.   US Citizenship and Immigration Services

10.   The Cost of Having a Baby Dr. Greenfield (Dr. Spock, July 18, 2001)

Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

Fred Elbel.

Website by Fred Elbel, Elbel Consulting Services, LLC

Quite simply, the Fourteenth Amendment currently is being interpreted to grant automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States of illegal alien parents (called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency). This clearly is contrary to the original intent of Congress and the States in ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment.

While it has been the practice to bestow citizenship to children of illegal aliens, this has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith have noted1 that:

“The present guarantee under American law of automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens can operate…as one more incentive to illegal migration and violation by nonimmigrant aliens already here [.] When this attraction is combined with the powerful lure of the expanded entitlements conferred upon citizen children and their families by the modern welfare state, the total incentive effect of birthright citizenship may well become significant.”

References

1.   Professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith, “Consensual Citizenship” (Chronicles, July 1992)

Any tax without prior voter approval is a bad tax

For those Missourians contemplating buying or selling a motor vehicle to another person, the purchase of that vehicle just became more expensive.  On February 18, 2013 the Missouri Senate passed Senate Bill 182, a bill regarding levying a local sales tax on all motor vehicles sales.

SB 182 stops counties and municipalities from collecting a local use tax on the sale of motor vehicles, trailers, boats, or outboard motors. Instead of a use tax, local government entities will impose a local sales tax on the sale of all of the aforementioned items, regardless of whether they were purchased in Missouri. The home address of the buyer is used in determining what local tax rates apply.

The total sales tax for motor vehicles, trailers, boats, or outboard motors sold at retail is the sum of the state sales tax (4.225%) plus the local sales tax (varies according to locality). The sales tax for all non-retail sales of the preceding items is the sum of the state highway use tax (4.00%) plus the local sales tax (varies according to locality).

All counties and municipalities that did not previously approve a local use tax must put to a vote of the people whether to discontinue collecting sales tax on non-retail sales of motor vehicles. If a local government does not hold such a vote before November 2016, the taxing jurisdiction must stop collecting the sales tax. Counties or cities may at any time hold a vote to repeal the tax. Language repealing the tax must also be put to a vote of the people any time 15% of the registered voters in a taxing jurisdiction sign a petition requesting such.

Why did the Missouri Senate pass this bill?

Quotes from several state and local elected government officials, business advocacy organizations, and local car dealers in a Southeast Missourian article titled “Sales tax fallout hits dealers, others” dated February 21, 2013,  stated a “level playing field” is needed between the car dealers in Illinois and Missouri. Whenever officials allude to fairness, bad things happen. One can conclude these officials support a statist approach to concentrating economic controls in the hands of the government. Being “fair” to all car dealers in Missouri can encourage an overall centralization of economic control at the state level.

The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things. This bill violates the rights of local governments by intruding upon the taxing authority a local government has with its citizenry. The state senators want to dictate to locally elected officials of Missouri how to run their communities. This is a huge usurpation of power of the state from the counties and cities.

Each local government in Missouri has made a social contract with its citizens. The contract provides for public order, protection of property, and access to public services such as highways, roads, and sewer. The citizens and their local governments determine the limiting of rights and the duties of each other.  The Missouri Senate overstepped its authority by directing local governments to collect sales tax on the purchase of vehicles without a vote of the people at the local level. Although there is a requirement to put the measure on the ballot of counties and municipalities that did not have a use tax prior to the passage of SB 182, it is a deep-rooted “Principle of Liberty” to get voter approval before imposition of a new tax. The Senate’s action in regards to the SB 182 smacks of governing at their whim rather than by law.

Even though SB 182 has passed in the Senate, the bill must go to the House. The Senate and House need to agree to the final language of the bill before sending it to the governor for his signature. The governor can veto the bill or sign it into law. But that is not the end of it. At any time, with 15% of the registered voter in a taxing authority’s jurisdiction signing a petition to put it on a ballot, the voters can nullify the tax.

It is time we send a strong message to the Missouri Senate by directing our local elected officials and our state representatives to kill this power- grabbing bill before rather than after it becomes law.