Obama, the Shutdown and the Troops

Barack Hussein Obama was gleeful that the Federal Government averted a shutdown. In his speech, he talked about the troops being able to be paid on time now. This man is DESPICABLE. On April 7, 2011 he signed a memo stating if there was a shutdown the troops would have their payments delayed, contrary to what was allowed in the past by other Presidents. Then again, what do you expect from a Community Agitator? Remember, Obama floated the idea that military personnel wounded in battle should have their private medical insurance pay for their medical bills. Our soldiers should be paid on time and soldiers who served in the military should have the best medical care provided to them as a benefit for serving and protecting this great country.

John Boehner and the Compromise

The Federal Government averted a shutdown and some people are calling it a historic event. How is it a historic event? Is it because Barack Hussein Obama, The Messiah, is President? The Federal Government has shut down in the past, and sometimes it has not shut down, so where is the historic event? A historic event would be a first time occurrence or something extraordinary. This was neither.

Anyway, it seems like Speaker John Boehner caved and the Federal Government will not shut down. He did not want to take a stand and compromised like he did when he signed onto the Stupak Amendment, which guaranteed the passage of Obamacare. As part of the compromise the Senate assured him they will take a vote on defunding Planned Parenthood and Obamacare. What? Democrats have the numbers in the Senate. Apparently, Boehner can't count.

As I stated, the Democrats control the Senate. They have the numbers. Claire McCaskill voted for Obamacare to get to the 60 votes, and then voted against it when they only needed a simple majority. So how do you think the vote is going to turn out? Does anyone honestly believe these Statists are going to vote to defund Obamacare and Planned Parenthood?

As for the troops Boehner should have thought about them when they did the first CR and attached the Rider then. Barack Hussein Obama, on the other hand is quite the despicable person, because he was willing to holdout paying the troops. He signed a memo on 4/7/2011 stating if there was a Government shutdown the troops would have their payments delayed. Obama is a Community Agitator, not a leader and from the looks of things Boehner is not much of a leader either.

Many people said this was a small battle and they are alright with the compromise stating wait till they get to the bigger fights. If they can not stand up and win the small fights, why would you think they could win the bigger ones.

It was the Democrat/Statists that were forcing the issue of a shutdown and Boehner blinked. Reiterating, we have Obamacare because Boehner signed onto the Stupak Amendment and got many other Republicans to go along, otherwise Obamacare would have went down to defeat. He showed his hand weeks ago when he said he would not want to shut down the Government.  Boehner better not play poker, because he shows his hand.

Statists Reid, Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama were derelict in their duties by not passing a budget in 2010. Now, they want to fault the Republicans for not passing the budget and are using scare tactics against the American people.

Some politicians and Tea-Partier’s were concerned with who would get the blame for a Government shutdown and they were concerned with what the so-called Mainstream Media and the Statists would say about them. The so-called Mainstream Media, aka. propaganda wing of the Obama Administration and the Statists will denigrate the Tea Party people and the Republicans no matter what. The Tea Party and Conservatives should not worry about what the MSM and Statists have to say about them, instead they should use alternate sites to get their message out.

This country has survived before living through a Government shutdown. The Statists complained about 800,000 to a million Federal employees would be furloughed due to the shutdown. Nevertheless, they did not mention the millions of people unemployed right now due to their rhetoric and policies.  

John Boehner took on the mantle of being Speaker of the House. It's unfortunate that people are put into leadership positions, because it's their turn, not necessarily because they are leaders. Boehner showed his true colors with the crying, but more importantly with his selections for Committee Chairmanships. Therefore, Boehner needs to stop the crying and lead. If he is incapable of leading he should step down.  

Air Claire

               According to an article written by Jo Mannies on March 21, 2011, in the St. Louis Beacon, US Senator Claire McCaskill said her family failed to pay $290,000 in personal property taxes on the family plane. She claims to have put on her Auditor hat and found the error. So, it had nothing to do with the controversy of her use of the plane for political functions? She said she did not violate any Senate ethics rules; however she paid the Federal Treasury Department almost $89,000 to reimburse the government. If she did nothing WRONG, why pay back the money. And where is the money coming from? Could it be from campaign contributions?  

             McCaskill said, the family was unaware of the personal property tax issue and added that if the family had been trying to avoid paying taxes, it would have left the plane in a hangar in Illinois. Oh really, that didn’t turn out so well for Russ Carnahan who was storing his boat there to avoid paying taxes, until he was caught. Then like all good statists, he paid the taxes just like Claire is doing. Isn’t it ironic that Democrat/Statists like to levy taxes on the American people, but do not like to pay the taxes themselves, unless and until they are caught?  

Then again, Claire is out for Claire. She will do and say anything to stay in power. While investigating abuses at nursing homes, Claire McCaskill met a rich owner of one, dropped that investigation and eventually married him.  She lobbied against bringing the Democrat National Convention to St. Louis for fear it would hurt her reelection effort, even though it would have been an economic boom to the region. She takes both sides of an issue for political expediency, like she did with Obamacare. She voted for it when they needed the sixty votes, then voted against it when only a simple majority was needed for passage.  

             McCaskill claims no personal property taxes had been paid the county because of an oversight as to the state and local laws regarding such taxes and she said, "I take full responsibility for the mistake." Nevertheless, later on in the article McCaskill said, “Missouri is among a minority of states that allow local governments to assess personal property taxes on planes kept in their jurisdiction.” It seems like there is a contradiction there. She said it was an oversight that she was unfamiliar with Missouri law on paying personal property taxes on planes, but then says Missouri is among a minority of states where you pay personal property taxes on planes. Which is it?  BTW planes are specifically address on the Assessment Form. So, is she saying she cannot read?

The Missouri Republican Party has filed a complaint against her regarding the plane. Hopefully, in 2012 the citizens of Missouri will have an answer to that complaint and FIRE her. After all Claire stated, “if my walk doesn’t match my talk, then shame on me and don’t ever vote for me again.” They should not have voted for her in the first place. 

Obama’s Popularity

The so called Mainstream Media, aka. Propaganda Wing of the Obama Administration tries to convince the public about the popularity of Barack Hussein Obama. So much so that many Republicans are afraid to speak out against him, like Mike Huckabee who said “there is no need for legislation to make future presidential candidates prove their birthplace to determine eligibility for office, fearing such a bill would be seen as a swipe at Barack Obama.” Never mind that it is a requirement of the Constitution to be a natural born Citizen to become President of the United States.  

Nevertheless, Obama’s popularity is waning as seen by the response of the Race to the Top Commencement Challenge, where President Obama would be the commencement speaker at the winning public high school. Last year there were over a thousand applications to the challenge, however, this year the White House had to beg to get applications for schools to participate in the program. Thus for they have received 68 applications and have extended the deadline to enter the challenge for another two weeks. According to CBS news there was an internal Whitehouse memo which stated, “Something isn’t working.” It called on staffers to ask “friendly congressional, gubernatorial and mayoral offices” to encourage schools to apply.

Barack Obama is a polarizing and divisive figure whose policies and rhetoric endangers Americans and it seems more people are becoming aware of that no matter what the Mainstream Media would try to have you believe. I have to agree with the Whitehouse that “Something isn’t working.” That something is Barack Obama as president and leader of the free world.

Top Ten Poorest and Dangerous American Cities led by Democrats

What do the top ten most dangerous cities in America have in common with the top ten poorest cities in America? They have been under Democrat leadership.


Top Ten Most Dangerous Cities in America

1. St. Louis: 530 Democrat

2. Atlanta: 484 Democrat

3. Birmingham Alabama (tie): 380 Democrat

3. Orlando (tie): 380 Democrat

5. Detroit: 369 Democrat

6. Memphis: 361 Democrat

7. Miami: 346 Democrat

8. Baltimore: 339 Democrat

9. Kansas City, Missouri: 337 Democrat

10. Minneapolis (tie): 331 Democrat

10. Cleveland (tie): 331 Democrat

America’s Top Ten Poorest Cities

1) Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1961;

2) Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t elected one since 1954;

3) Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… …………………..since 1984;

4) Cleveland, OH (4th)… …………………..since 1989;

5) Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

6) St. Louis, MO (6th)…. ……………………since 1949;

7) El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

8) Milwaukee, WI (8th)… ……………………since 1908;

9) Philadelphia, PA (9th)…………………….since 1952;

10) Newark, NJ (10th)… ……………………..since 1907.

No Need for Local Control of the SLPD

You’ve heard the saying. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” There has been a recent push by certain individuals to return the St. Louis Police Department (SLPD) to local control. Putting the SLPD under City Control is the first step towards STEALING the pension, because the City needs the revenue. The reason why the St. Louis Police Department’s Pension System is solvent and profitable is because it was not under City Control.  The proponents for local control give various reasons as to why the SLPD should be put back under local control such as crime statistics, corruption, accountability, taxpayer representation, but refuse to say it’s about the Police Pension Fund.  They claim it has nothing to do with the Police Pension Fund; however upon closer scrutiny it is always about the money. Anyone who can not see that needs better glasses.

Carl Bearden wrote, “The City of St. Louis does not control its own police department…there is a persistent and unrelenting crime problem in St. Louis. It’s no secret that St. Louis has unfortunately been ranked as the No. 1 crime-ridden city in the country…Your community would demand that action be taken to address the problem.” How does the police department being under City control change the crime problem?  What would the 28 Alderman do to change the crime problem?  Having the police department under City control would have no effect on the crime problem; in fact it may cause an increase in crime.

Carl says, the citizens/taxpayers of the City of St. Louis deserve City Control over the SLPD, because the people are not being represented. The police respond when people dial 911 for the police. The SLPD is working just fine under the current system, the people are being represented and protected.

   While Carl Bearden was a former state legislator it’s been said that he supported state control of the SLPD. When did Carl get this epiphany that the SLPD needs to be under local control? Was it when he became a lobbyist for Rex Sinquefield? Carl, how much are you being paid? Rex Sinquefield wants the SLPD to return to local control. Who is Rex Sinquefield? Why does he want the SLPD to be under local control? What’s in it for him?

Carl says another reason to return the SLPD to local control is corruption. There are corrupt people in the world and Carl points out the resignation of Vince Bommarito from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department's Board of Commissioners, after Bommarito made a special request to have his nephew let out of jail after being arrested for a DWI. Bommarito was one of five members of the Police Board and I guess Carl is calling him corrupt, however using that type of logic try multiplying the possibility of corruption by 28+. Carl wrote, “… I haven’t seen pictures of aldermen or the mayor being arrested for corruption.” Maybe that’s because they do not have control of the Police Department. 

Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives, Republican Steve Tilley favors returning the SLPD to local control. Ironically, he received two hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions from Rex Sinquefield. Could people say Rex Sinquefield is buying influence? Does anyone find this type of behavior troubling? I do.

Mayor Francis Slay said, “This is about accountability to the people of St. Louis. They elect their officials and the (police) department should be accountable to them.” When people have a complaint against the SLPD they contact the Mayor’s Office. Mr. Mayor, you do sit on the Board of Police Commissioners, therefore you do have some influence on the decisions made about the SLPD.

Furthermore, the  Board of Estimate and Apportionment, (E&A) comprised of the Mayor, the Comptroller and the President of the Board of Aldermen reviews the proposed budget, holds hearings with departments and citizens whom may voice their concerns. The Board of E&A may recommend changes to the proposed budget. It then goes to the Ways and Means Committee of the Board of Aldermen, before going to before the Board of Aldermen for consideration. The Board of Aldermen may reduce the amount of any item in a budget bill, except amounts fixed by statute or ordinance obligations.

According to an article in the St. Louis Business Journal dated February 18, 2009, Chief Dan Isom of the SLPD requested a budget of $168 million for fiscal year 2010. The City of St. Louis allocated $151 million for the SLPD 2010 budget. According to the city’s records the actual budget for FY 2010 was $128,887,662 for the police and $11,813,173 for the Police Retirement System, which totals $140,700,835. Therefore, the City does have some control over the police budget. The day to day operations of the SLPD would remain the same under the current system or under local control with Chief Isom running the department.  

Jeff Rainford, Chief of Staff to Mayor Slay in St Louis wrote an editorial on the 24^th State’s blog criticizing the Tea Party’s opposition to local control of the SLPD. He wrote, “The third reason is the most puzzling. The Tea Party used to be against bailouts. It was against the Wall Street bailouts, the auto company bailouts, and the mortgage bailouts. But, apparently, it is willing to live with the possibility of a state bailout of the City of St. Louis. Because the police department is a state agency, it is likely that if the City of St. Louis were to become insolvent, the state would have to bail out the city.”  The City of St. Louis is having financial problems. Is Rainford suggesting the City of St. Louis is becoming insolvent? The proponents of local control say it is not about the money in the Police Pension Fund, yet one would have to become suspicious of the City’s intentions when one hears comments like Rainfords’ or Alderman Quincy Troupe’s regarding St. Louis’s financial shape.

Alderman Quincy Troupe said, “I get tired of people saying we (City of St. Louis) don’t have money and we don’t have police. We may not have money and we may not have police, and that may be due to the fact of the police pension fund, because the police pension fund has all of the money. The State Legislature gives them the authority to have unfettered access to the money. Right now the greatest love on the City of St. Louis is the police pension fund. And the pension fund is over - over funded in my opinion and the benefits are unbelievable and unrealistic and exceeds anything in the Metropolitan St. Lois area. So how you gonna sit and tell me we don’t have any money for crime prevention, but the State makes us pay unrealistic numbers to the police pension fund.”  

When Troupe said … “because the police pension fund has all of the money”… “gives them the authority to have unfettered access to the money”… “the greatest love on the City of St. Louis is the police pension fund.”  … “the benefits are unbelievable and unrealistic”…sounds to me like he wants to have control over the money to use as he sees fit.

The proponents of local control say that experts have testified that the City could not raid the Police Pension Fund; it is written in the bill to prevent that from happening. It depends on what side of the argument one takes and who is paying them, when it comes to expert testimony. Laws can be changed. There is a process in gaining access to the Police Pension Fund and the first step is City Control. It is always about the money!  The St. Louis Police Departments’ Pension System is solvent and profitable, because it was not under City Control and it should not be penalized for good management. The SLPD is working just fine under the current system, the people are being represented and protected. There is no need for it to be put under local control.

Say No to Claire in 2012

The 2008 Democratic convention in Denver generated $266 million in regional economic benefit and brought in 50000 people according to Denver officials. Even though bringing the Democrat National Convention to St. Louis would be an economic boom to the region Senator Claire McCaskill lobbied against bringing the convention here, because it would hurt her reelection effort. It is one thing to sit silently by and hope the Convention does not come to St. Louis, because of the perceived threat that it may hurt your campaign, but it is reprehensible as a sitting Senator to actively lobby against the Convention, which brings an economic benefit to the region. Of course, Claire denies that she lobbied against bringing the DNC Convention to St. Louis.

Nevertheless Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times contradicts McCaskill’s denial and reported the following: “Ms. McCaskill, one of the president’s closest friends in the Senate, took her concerns directly to the White House, according to party leaders familiar with the selection process. She argued that her re-election could be complicated if the convention was held in St. Louis, because the Democratic gathering will almost certainly attract protesters and compete for fund-raising.”

Who are we to believe? Should you believe Claire McCaskill or a New York Times reporter? A tough call, however, if you look into Claire’s past you may give the benefit of the doubt to the reporter. While investigating abuses at nursing homes, Claire McCaskill met a rich owner of one, dropped that investigation and eventually married him.

Claire is out for Claire. She will do and say anything to stay in power. She will take both sides of an issue for political expediency, like she did with Obamacare. She voted for it when they needed the sixty votes, then voted against it when only a simple majority was needed for passage.

As an elected official, you are supposed to be a representative for your constituents and do what is in the best interests of the people. Lobbying against a convention that would benefit the region economically is not in the best interests of the people. The citizens of Missouri do not need someone like Claire McCaskill, who puts her self interests ahead of the people to be their representative in the United States Senate, anymore. People of Missouri wake up and FIRE Claire McCaskill in 2012.