How I Will Vote:
I’ve been asked multiple times; here’s how I will vote on various candidates and issues in this election (does not reflect CCTP):
I will not be casting any votes for members of any parties who remove God from their platforms or believe in murdering unborn human babies.
President Mitt Romney / Vice President Paul Ryan
U.S. Senator Todd Akin
- Imagine this headline as you cast a protest vote against Todd Akin for his inarticulate comments, “Senator Claire McCaskill Casts 51st Vote To Prevent Repeal Of Obamacare”
Governor Dave Spence
Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder
- Again, a 10% vote against Kinder for a 3rd party candidate will result in this title being assigned, “Lieutenant Governor Susan Montee”
Secretary Of State Shane Schoeller
State Treasurer Cole McNary
Attorney General Ed Martin
U.S. Representative District 8 Jo Ann Emerson
Cape Girardeau County Public Administrator Lisa Reitzel
Remaining Unopposed Candidates: Yes
Official Judicial Ballot: No on all
- Remember this headline?
- Missouri Supreme Court: Government May Criminalize Truthful, Harmless Speech
- St. Louis, Missouri—On July 19 the Missouri Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kansas City Premier Apartments v. Missouri Real Estate Commission, in which it upheld a state law that criminalizes the communication of truthful, harmless information. Although at trial the government’s own expert witness had testified that KCPA’s speech was both truthful and unlikely to cause any harm to the public, five of the high court’s seven judges ruled that Missouri citizens may not tell others about real estate unless the government has given them special permission to do so.
- Shall Judge George W. Draper… …be retained in office? No
- Shall Judge Gary M. Gaertner, Jr… …be retained in office? No
- Shall Judge Sherri B. Sullivan… …be retained in office? No
- Shall Judge Robert Clayton… …be retained in office? No
- Shall Judge Lawrence E. Mooney… …be retained in office? No
Constitutional Amendment 3: Yes
- Simply put, under the current ‘Missouri Plan’, three lawyers from the Missouri Bar, three citizens appointed by the governor, and the Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice submit three names to the Governor for his/her approval.
- Constitutional Amendment 3 increases to four the number of names presented to the Governor for approval, removes the active Supreme Court Justice in lieu of a retired justice, and increases to four the number citizens that the governor appoints to the non-partisan judicial nominating panel. It removes the requirement that the citizen be a non-lawyer.
- It’s much more complicated, but that’s the gist.
- It’s a good step in the right direction
- On Proposition A – Local Control of the St. Louis Police Department: No
- Yesterday, I read the entire piece of legislation behind the proposition and the ballot language. Simply based on that reading, I have serious questions about the legislation, and I will vote ‘No’. But, there is also another nagging problem I have with the issue.
- First, regarding the reading… …I’m a computer geek, and have spent 25 years turning human words into computer logic. When I read the 1stsentence of the legislation, I was stunned at the illogic of the phrasing. Its haughty language (http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2012ballot/PropA.asp ) can be boiled down to this paraphrase:
~ No one shall act or refrain from acting to… ~
- Huh?! Did anyone read this thing? I seriously doubt that many of the proponents of the legislation actually read that sentence. That sentence alone is illogical and ripe for generating law suits – especially since the sentence is designed prevent the Mayor, Alderman, and other well-connected St. Louis politicks from exerting pressure on the St. Louis Police Department to get their son, little Johnny, released from jail after his 5th DWI arrest.
- Second, throughout the debate on this proposition, I have had a related issue in the back of my mind: The City of St. Louis, its leaders, and its citizens were stripped of the right and responsibility to control and manage their schools due to poor performance, corruption, and negligence.
- Third, it’s rare that I agree with the ACLU, but I see no specific language that ensures public scrutiny of an investigation to charges of police malfeasance. I do see language that assigns disciplinary action to the St. Louis Civil Service Commission. I do see language that states “that records prepared for disciplinary purposes shall be confidential, closed records”. And, after a quick check of the Civil Service Commission’s web site, it seems the main agenda for their meetings is to 1) approve prior meeting minutes and 2) to go into closed session to deal with disciplinary issues.
- And finally, there was also claims that those of us outside the City of St. Louis have no ‘say’ in their local matters – that we should not be urging people with our opinions and debate. That’s just fine if that also means that the City of St. Louis is no longer going to be pickpocketing my tax dollars for the Edward Jones Domes, roads to Busch Stadium, and innumerable other projects that seem to need the attention of my wallet. I do have a say over what St. Louis does because they keep coming to me as a citizen of Missouri for my Tax Dollars.
- On Proposition B – Cigarette Tax for More Government Spending: No
- Yet again, just like the Casinos, we’re supposed to trust the Missouri Government with another sin tax that will save our people from themselves. The tax is intended to stop a bad habit and increase revenues at the same time. This doesn’t make sense.
- We’ll soon be fighting an epic battle in Congress not to raise the taxes during a recession especially targeted towards lower income families. We undermine our position of argument if we raise taxes at the state level during a recession targeted towards lower income families.
- On Proposition E – Stopping NixonCare: Yes
- In 2011, Governor Nixon, against the will of 70% of Missourians, attempted an end-around the Missouri Legislature to install ObamaCare’s Health Care Exchanges. This proposition will put a halt to such future attempts
Jackson Proposition 1: No
- We just spent big $$$ for major high school improvements, we just raised taxes to pay for a needed Fire Station, we extended our credit line 20 years(?) to build a new needed school, put a giant awful median to scare business off half our town, and now we ‘need’ a community center?
- What we ‘need’ are businesses out at the new interchange to increase revenues and pay for such improvements around this town. That’s what we ‘need’.
- I think this country has a firm misunderstanding of need vs. want at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
- I’m not saying, “Don’t build it.” I’m saying ‘No’ because we need to combine it with the new school for economies of scale and discounts on construction and labor. Schools, churches, and administration buildings dot the city and spend more time unused than used. They waste valuable opportunities to bring our community together by leaving the space empty. Use those options for the community center activity along with improvements to the new school to satisfy this community ‘want’.
- So, for now, invest the donated funds, redesign the community center building to be combined with the new school, and resubmit the question in four years if the businesses added at the I-55 Interchange are not providing enough tax revenue to offset the expense of the center.