The debate on a city wide ban on smoking in closed air facilities is being fueled by a barrage of press releases from activist group Clean Air St. Joe, but in the opinion of MCV-PAC, their plans to infringe on the rights of business owners should go up in smoke.
Recently, Clean Air St. Joe spokeswoman Sara Summers said in a St. Joseph Post article that a new ordinance banning smoking indoors doesn’t prevent smokers from smoking, it’s a matter of public safety, and therefore is not an issue of big brother smothering individuals.
Summers’ comment is only a half truth. She is correct that it does not dictate that individuals can’t smoke, but it does dictate how businesses can operate as they see fit. It prevents a business, namely restaurants, from setting their own policy based upon the demands of the clientele they serve.
Let’s be honest, if a local pub thought it was more profitable to go smoke free, they would. Individuals have the right to patronize or boycott a business based upon the atmosphere the ownership, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, dictate. By speaking with their wallets, they can affect the change they desire, not by adding another intrusive government mandate.
While the press has thrown softball questions to Clean Air St. Joe regarding this issue, MCV-PAC is anxious for to hear the answers to the tough questions. Let’s start with this one: Will the St. Joe Frontier Casino be exempt from this ordinance? If so, why will they have a free pass and not our small businesses?

Apparently, President Obama found a job that wasn’t shovel ready. Check out this story from Politico.

Early on we found out the GOP candidate was Not Palin and Not Christy. Not Giuliani and Not Trump. Not Ryan and Not West.

We now know it’s Not Bachman and Not Cain. It looks like it’s Not Perry and Not Huntsman.
Is it Not Gingrich or Not Santorum?

What if Republicans are left with a choice between Not Romney or Not Paul?

Hopefully conservatives won’t forget that they need to be sure it’s Not Obama.

According to the AP: “No president since World War II has won re-election when the unemployment rate was 8 percent or higher. In October 2009, that number was reported at Obama’s highest: 10.1%!! The corresponding workforce size or people available to work (that would be the total employed and unemployed) was 153.82 million. Therefore, job #1 for Obama and the mainstream media has been to GET THAT NUMBER DOWN! There are 2 ways to do that: increase the number of jobs so more people become employed (duh) or decrease the number of people available to work (in other words - just say THEY DON’T COUNT).

Obama has claimed creating 2.6 million jobs in 2011 alone! U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that in 2010 the economy saw an increase of 1.1 million jobs. That is supposedly an increase of 3.7 million jobs. Now, granted, jobs are lost and jobs are added, so not all of them are “brand new” jobs — some are “replacements” for jobs lost. But certainly we could expect SOME were brand-new jobs. Maybe those “Green” jobs we spent so much money on. Maybe 10 %? An actual expansion of 370,000 in the workforce?

Now bear in mind that the number of working-age adults has increased 7.2 million people since the beginning of 2008. Adjusting to only the past 2 years, that would be a potential increase in the labor force of 4.8 million just by population change.

Looking at the most recent December 2011 unemployment figures, which claim 8.5% unemployment, the workforce has increased to …… 153.89 million. An increase of ONLY 70,000 WORKERS in 2 YEARS!!

Yes, despite 4.8 million more working age adults, somehow only 70,000 new workers are calculated into the unemployment figures.

The accompanying chart shows the stagnant (flat) level of the workforce (despite a supposedly improving employment market) during Obama’s worst unemployment years…

chart courtesy of LIBERTY WORKS
… and the corresponding chart during Reagan’s (showing the expected expansion of the employment market).

chart courtesy of LIBERTY WORKS

Clearly there is something amiss. Remember when the mantra of Obama-Biden was “Jobs created or saved?” Apparently there was little of either. MCVPAC wonders, where ARE Obama’s jobs?

Is Ron Paul the political equivalent of Carrie White?

In the movie Carrie, the well-meaning act of getting a prom date for strange, mousy Carrie White turns into an evil plan to “get even” by arranging for her to win the election for Prom Queen. In a cruel about-face, the conspirators then dump (pig blood) on her. But that is just build-up for when Carrie snaps and imagines that all of the students and faculty are actually laughing at her. In her revenge she essentially causes an apocalypse and destroys the town, school and the entire student body. In effect, she never would / should have had a chance at winning, and the subsequent act of ridicule comes when she realizes that she was just a tool of others.

Ron Paul’s sudden rise in the polls (primarily in Iowa and New Hampshire) is being largely attributed to (a) “protest” votes against the Romney railroad by the Republican establishment and (b) “Blue Republicans” voting for Paul to create chaos within the Republican primary process. In both cases, these new Ron Paul “supporters” don’t EXPECT Paul to ultimately win the nomination. The protest voters just want to make a statement and don’t WANT him to win, although the infiltrators wouldn’t mind if he did!

The danger, just as with Carrie, is what the consequences will be when Paul is dumped on and he (and his supporters) realize it was all a big joke on him. The fear already exists that if he fails in this bid to be the nominee, Paul would run as a third party candidate. And many of his true supporters have threatened that they would not vote for any other candidate if he doesn’t.

Considering that most Ron Paul fans (that’s short for fanatics, by the way) already believe as one of their conspiracies that Romney has already been designated (and will be) the nominee by virtue of some New World Order appointment, one has to wonder why they are going through the motions of trying to get him nominated. Especially since the only way to disprove their conspiracy theory is for him to win (otherwise it was always fixed).

So what will Ron Paul’s Carrie revenge moment be when the realization that he was always being laughed at — even as he got the votes of support he so desperately wanted?
Will it be the destruction of the Republican Party and its chances in 2012 when he runs third party?
Or, should he actually become President, will it be the destruction of conservative social standards (beyond what Obama has already done) with his liberal attitudes toward drugs, morality, and same-sex marriage; and destruction of our longstanding military alliances and national security as a result of his naive non-intervention/just-leave-them-alone foreign policy.

Win or lose, despite issues where Ron Paul is right, where he is wrong is certainly likely to create havoc. Let’s hope it isn’t Carrie-size.

File this as stuff you can’t make up.
Christine O’Donnell On Mitt Romney: “He’s Been Consistent Since He Changed His Mind”
It’s only a 38 second clip, but it is an explanation that is as muddled as Romney’s positions.
But judge for yourself…..

Another Republican candidate for President has had allegations of marital infidelity charged against him. Certainly, those wishing to derail any Republican candidate surging to the top of the polls (especially against Romney) are continuing to follow the sexual allegation play-book that worked so well at derailing Herman Cain. And, if it was Romney, or Paul, or Perry, or Santorum, such “shocking” news could certainly have that effect. Unfortunately for the Liberals and establishment Republicans pushing Romney upon us, it doesn’t appear to be working. The problem this time is that it is against Newt Gingrich.

Rick Perry has been married 30 years,but has stumbled publicly by failing to forcefully and effectively express his ideas.
Ron Paul has been married 50 years, but has turned off many with his Libertarian positions on foreign affairs, drugs, and most social issues, while displaying an acerbic side when projecting his positions.
Rick Santorum, who boasts 20 years of marriage, has failed to inspire or excite voters with his personality, despite a strong, Conservative social and fiscal record.
Romney, regardless of his 40 yr marriage, has a record of taking positions for political expediency (ie. flip-flopping).

Newt Gingrich has been married nearly 50 years — although not to one woman. So why isn’t this sex scandal working?
First, the allegation is OLD — thirty-five years old to be exact!
Second, Newt has already had two divorces and is on his third wife — not typical for a social Conservative.
Third, Newt has never claimed to be pure and has shown his infidelity side before — see item two.
Fourth, perhaps it is that Newt is seen as the last alternative to Romney.
Or fifth, despite his known “moral faults”, it is Newts knowledge and ideas — and his ability to express them in a cohesive manner — that attract so many to him.

Why is it that John Edward, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and NUMEROUS other Liberals all survived so long in politics despite their well-documented moral failings? Perhaps it’s because we didn’t expect them to be morally pure (nor did they claim to be). In that respect, Newt has already made it past that hurdle — not that we advocate infidelity as a desirable trait.

BUT NOW, maybe we can focus on candidates for their ideas (or lack of them) … and their ability to express them … and the knowledge to explain them. And if they change their mind, they can see if they can satisfactorily explain why it isn’t just a flip-flop for political expediency.

So far Gingrich fits that mold. Time will tell if he has the right ideas to overcome personal shortcomings.

Today, Mitt Romney said, “I’m a man of steadiness and constancy. I don’t think you’re going to find somebody who has more of those attributes than I do.” Really? Your stance on abortion says otherwise. See the video here, again in his own words….

Since Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney seems to be the favorite pick of our media, MCV-PAC feels obligated to show you why. In the first of our series on Romney’s positions, he states his support for Cap and Trade policies…

The “Occupy” groups took an interesting turn on Wednesday, October 26th, when a group of “Occupiers” gathered in the office of a Buchanan County MO elected official demanding that they be heard and their demands met. They even went so far as to contact local media  so that their demands would get the most attention possible — and naturally the local media obliged them.

Were they demanding an end to corporate welfare? Income redistribution and an end to unequal economic outcome? Homes and low interest home loans for unqualified indigents? Social Justice? Free benefits and collective bargaining for public workers? No. Actually it’s not real clear what they really wanted — which is not unusual for “Occupy” groups.

The “Occupiers” in this case were members of the Buchanan County Democratic Central Committee, who (according to reports in the St Joseph News Press and on KQTV) were upset about a potential change in a north-side voting location. As a result, about a dozen people crowded into the County Commissioners office to confront County Clerk Mary Baack-Garvey over her “outrageous” plan to move voters from Humboldt School to Savannah Avenue Baptist Church, five blocks away.

The group was apparently upset over the confusion it would cause voters ….. in the presidential election over a year from now! NOT in the special bond election and Presidential Primary in February. NOT in municipal elections in March or April. NOT in the State Primary elections in August of next year. NO! Only in the Presidential election IN NOVEMBER 2012! All this hand-wringing by the suggestion that a poll be moved less than a thousand feet to a more convenient location! What makes their outrage so confusing is that they indicated it was okay the poll was moved “across the street”, amounting to what would be about a 100 foot move. Apparently just moving is not confusing, just where — and who suggests the move.

Perhaps it’s the fact that it is now a Republican holding the office of County Clerk, that so (politically) motivates the Democrats. Humboldt is a terrible voting location, especially when compared to the more convenient Savannah Avenue Baptist Church.

The current location, Humboldt School, has VERY POOR PARKING (very limited, on-street only, and no handicapped spaces), VERY POOR BUILDING ACCESS (no handicap access and multiple stairs), and UNSAFE FOR CHILDREN (being contrary to the Safe Schools Act which has the goal of keeping school children safe by controlling/limiting unauthorized entry into schools).  In contrast, Savannah Avenue Baptist Church has plenty of off-street, handicap-accessible parking and is already a successful voting location with plenty of room. Moving out of Humboldt School would continue a process by previous County Clerk Pat Conway (a Democrat) to consolidate polls and move them out of schools.

Since the last Presidential election — even since 2010 –  many polling locations have moved (from schools into neighborhood community rooms) and/or been consolidated with other polling locations. Are we to now assume that THOSE are also going to be just too confusing for voters because the location has changed since 2008?

MCVPAC therefore asks the question: Is this just partisan nit-picking? Or is it really that Democratic voters can’t figure out how to find a poll when directed to it — only five blocks away — with over a year to find it — and three elections before the Presidential Election?