Covering Platte County, Missouri Weekly Since 1865

Legal Notices
County Foreclosures
Local News
Between the Lines
by Ivan Foley
The Rambling Moron
by Chris Kamler
The Right Stuff
by James Thomas
Straight from Stigall
by Chris Stigall
Parallax Look
by Brian Kubicki
KC Confidential
by Hearne Christopher
Off the Couch
by Greg Hall
Pleasantly Eccentric
by Aimee Patton
Pig Skin Picks
Letters to the Editor
"Send Your Letter"

Weekly publication dates are Wednesdays

252 Main Street0
P.O. Box 410
Platte City, Missouri 64079

Fax :816-858-2313

by email
Click Here!
by phone

Contact Lawmakers
by Congress
Click here to:
Find Federal Officials &
Find State Officials





I have given this a lot of thought lately and, although I may regret this, I think it is time to “ride off into the sunset” and stop writing a weekly column for Ivan.

A key reason I may regret not writing a weekly column is that my column is part of the therapy for my “Alexander Hamilton Disease.” That is just a “disease” that I made up. But, if you read the biographies of Alexander Hamilton (Ron Chernow has written an excellent one), one of the first things you will learn is that Hamilton was a prolific writer. He wrote many of the Federalist Papers. And, in the old days when political warfare was largely fought in the printed media often with scathing letters written under pseudonyms, Hamilton was attributed with a large number of such letters. So, I came up with the name “Alexander Hamilton Disease” to refer to someone who just can't seem to stop writing.

I have had “Alexander Hamilton Disease” really bad. Fortunately for me, Ivan called me back in 2007 and asked me to start writing a column for him. This gave me a weekly outlet for my urge to comment on the issues of the day. Given the general coverage of The Landmark and its circulation, those issues seemed to be most relevant when they were local in nature as opposed to national in nature.

The urge to comment on local issues was even greater when I was more closely tied to the things going on in the Platte County Administration Building. But, as Platte County has transitioned through several new county commissioners and other officeholders my phone has gone from ringing off the hook with complaints about “do you know what so and so is doing” to just an occasional request for advice. Now I sometimes have to read The Landmark to know what is going on in the Administration Building. Besides, my legal work for political committees, including multiple Super PACs and Congressional candidates all over the country, has caused my focus to shift to races all over the country and not just here locally.

I truly appreciate the outlet Ivan has given me. “The Right Stuff” has been my therapy for my Alexander Hamilton Disease. It has given me the opportunity to point out certain stupid policies or compliment political bravery.

I truly hope Ivan finds is someone who will champion “political bravery.” On the wall of my office I have an autographed version of Congressman J.C. Watts quote of “. . . Character is doing what's right when nobody's looking.” My wife actually has a modified version of this quote that says “. . . Character is doing what's right,when everybody's looking.” And, those of us who went through the “Budget Battle of 2004” know why she has that quote hanging on her office wall. Being a faithful public servant is hard. I hope Ivan finds someone who can be critical of the bad stuff, but who can also champion those who do “the right stuff.”

Who knows? My “Alexander Hamilton Disease” may flare up and require me to start writing for Ivan again as part of my treatment. But for now, let me just say “thank you” to Ivan for the opportunity to communicate ideas on a weekly basis, “thank you” to those who read and enjoyed by column, and “thank you” to those who read and hated my column. (Truthfully, my suspicion is that those of you in the last group were Ivan's favorite readers because those readers probably sold more papers and created more interesting dialogue and heated letters to the editor.)

Until I have a relapse of my Alexander Hamilton Disease, goodbye.

(James Thomas, Republican, is an attorney and veteran of state and local politics. We’ll miss his weekly contribution, and we thank him for his seven years of columns for The Landmark)




The week after the Nov. 4 election in which Republicans won control of the U.S. Senate and held control of the U.S. House, I wrote the following:

What now? Republicans have expanded their majority in the U.S. House. Republicans have seized a majority in the U.S. Senate. What are they going to do with it?

I expressed hope that Republicans would use the regaining of control of Congress to restore fiscal responsibility in the federal budgeting process and begin the process to put the federal government on the path to a balanced budget. However, I also expressed concern that despite multiple promises in the past, the Republicans have failed to collectively be fiscally responsible.

A headline from The Hill from last week read: “Reid backs Boehner on deal to avoid government shutdown.” So I guess I should start preparing now to be disappointed by Republicans in Congress.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has proposed that Republicans in the House agree to a continuing resolution that will fund all of the federal government's operations through the end of the fiscal year (i.e., September 30) except that Homeland Security's budget, which includes immigration enforcement, would only be funded for a few months into 2015. The “continuing resolution” is needed because Congress has repeatedly failed to meet its most basic obligation of adopting a budget before September 30 each year. The exclusion of funding for Homeland Security is to allow for an opportunity to discuss “defunding” Homeland Security if the President's ignoring of existing laws on illegal immigration is not addressed.

When this plan was rolled out by Boehner, some conservative Republicans balked at it. These Republicans want to continue the fight against spending by the federal government that is dramatically in excess of the revenues that are collected. Of course, efforts are already being made to discredit these Republicans by referring to them as “hardliners” and other less flattering names.

But here's the deal. Senate Majority Leader (for another month) Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has called Boehner's proposal “a big accomplishment.” Reid likes the idea. And why not? He gets almost all of what he wants immediately and then only has to fight over one piece of what he wants.

If I was a tax-and-spend liberal, I would absolutely be in favor of winning over 90% of the battle and then just fighting Republicans over the funding for Homeland Security. Republicans have some great arguments for not funding Homeland Security, including Obama's announced intention to ignore the law regarding deporting illegal immigrants. But, the wording of the ads run against Republicans in 2016 attacking them for “not funding Homeland Security” causes me a great deal of concern. It just sounds bad. And, if a tax-and-spend liberal like Reid thinks this is a great idea, how can it be good for Republicans or fiscally conservative Americans?

Of course, Boehner and other Republican leaders will likely lean hard on conservative Republicans to go along with this nine-month extension of the out of control spending policies. And what will they have to show for it? A big old “thank you” from Obama and the Democrats.

I'm not surprised that my dream of a fiscally-conservative, Republican-controlled Congress has been dashed. However, I am truly disappointed that those dreams were dashed before the newly-elected Republicans even had a chance to take their oaths of office. Very sad.

(James Thomas of Platte County is an attorney who has long been active in local and state politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




Obama has done a lot of things with which I disagree. That is to be expected. Politically speaking we are polar opposites. But, Obama won the election. He gets to drive the agenda. However, what I find outrageous is Obama's blatant disrespect for the Constitution.

Our forefathers created a truly unique system of government. We have three branches of government that serve as checks and balances on each other. Congress passes the laws. The President administers the laws. The courts interpret the laws.

These roles have been blurred from time to time. This has generally been because Congress has from time to time given broad rule making authority to administrative agencies. But, such delegation has been made Congress through the legislative process.

What Obama is proposing to do to address illegal immigration is outrageous. He has put forth an administrative policy that completely ignores the law of the land.

Do our immigration laws need some clean up? Probably. Has Congress been able to reach a compromise on exactly how to address the complex issues that exists with immigration and pass new laws? No. Does the failure of Congress to reach a compromise give the President authority to act on his own? Absolutely not.

Immigration is one of the major issues that needs to be tackled by Congress. If law abiding, hard-working people want to come to America, I say welcome them with open arms. But, there are people trying to do that legally every day. In coordinating with my clients and their immigration counsel, it is my understanding that immigrating to the U.S. is a cumbersome process. In fairness to those waiting to lawfully enter America, those who have illegally entered the country cannot be granted amnesty just because they have been breaking the law for a minimum period of time.

The theory behind “if you've been an illegal immigrant long enough, the President won't deport you” is just nuts! That is like saying that if a person was stealing from others for a minimum number of years then that person cannot be prosecuted for stealing at all. That sort of policy makes no sense at all.

But, let's say that common sense does not prevail and this moronic policy of “if you've broken the law long enough, then you are exempt from prosecution” becomes the new law of the land. Obama does not have unilateral authority to establish this policy. Such a policy needs to be adopted by Congress before it comes the new law of the land. Congress makes the laws. Obama is not the king. His authority is limited by the Constitution. He cannot unilaterally make up new rules because he doesn't like the rules that exist today.

I'm sympathetic with the immigration issue. I would like a system that makes it easier to lawfully come to work in America. But, the new rules should not reward the cheaters who have illegally entered the country. I don't care if there is a system that lets the cheaters slip out of America and immediately get in a line to lawfully come to work in America. But, the cheaters should not just get to stay here without taking any corrective action and the cheaters should not have an advantage over those playing by the rules.

But, regardless of what new rules are adopted, those new rules need to be adopted by Congress and not decreed by King Obama.

(James Thomas of Platte County is an attorney who has long been active in local and state politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




I've always been of the opinion that the Editorial Board of the St. Louis Post Dispatch is a bunch of pot smoking liberal crazies, but that was just my opinion. Well, my opinion is sure looking like an accurate assessment. Just check out the headline from one of last week's editorials: “Editorial: Could pot legalization make Missouri's 2016 ballot? Let's hope so.”

Yep. That's right. The Editorial Board of the St. Louis Post Dispatch is in favor of pot smoking. I'm not surprised by this, but it is a little stunning that a supposedly respectable business would officially come out in favor of pot smoking. Who would have ever thought that any business that intends to garner respect in the community would advocate for getting high?

The Editorial Board starts out with the usual arguments in favor of pot smoking: economic benefits. That's right. They want you to smoke pot and pay a lot of taxes on that pot.

Here is what they say “. . . [T]here might be no other state in the nation that could benefit more from a new tax on the sales of legal pot that could fund various state needs, such as Missouri's underfunded schools.” That's right. The Editorial Board wants you to smoke pot “for the children.”

Of course, don't get me started on the “underfunded” schools. Are you kidding me! These schools have multiple gyms and artificial turf athletic facilities. Underfunded?!? Apparently they don't recall what it was like when we were kids. But I digress.

Another argument that the Editorial Board makes for pot smoking is that legalizing pot would eliminate the unrest in Ferguson. Here's their logic. The ACLU issued a study that claims that blacks are four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession despite similar usage rates. The study claims the disparity in the City of St. Louis is 18 to 1. The Editorial Board claims that eliminating drug busts would reduce race issues. The Editorial Board further claims that these drug offenses are flooding our prisons with drug offenders so that the prisons get an ever increasing percentage of the state's budget while schools receive less growth in their funding than the prisons.

Wow! Let me note a couple of flaws. First, Michael Brown was noted to have had marijuana in his system at the time that he robbed a store and attacked a police officer and ultimately ended up getting shot. So, the Editorial Board thinks Brown and similar thugs should have legalized access to pot and that would make things better? Second, sometimes law enforcement stops criminals and can get an easy conviction on illegal drug possession while a conviction for a more serious offense might be more difficult. So, of course, law enforcement, takes an easier slam dunk case and gets the criminal behind bars rather than trying to prove other criminal conduct.

The Editorial Board does make an argument I find of merit. They talk about hemp production for bio mass energy and life sciences. This might make some sense. But, there is a huge difference between growing a product to use for agricultural or scientific purposes and growing it to smoke it and get high.

It is now confirmed. The Editorial Board of the St. Louis Post Dispatch is a bunch of pot smoking liberal crazies. Of course, deep down, we already knew that.

(James Thomas of Platte County is an attorney and a veteran of state and local politics. Email james@jct3law.com)




What now? Republicans have expanded their majority in the U.S. House. Republicans have seized a majority in the U.S. Senate. What are they going to do with it?

Unlike 1994, there were no grandiose unified promises made like in the Contract with America. But, still the themes of Republicans were relatively consistent.

One theme that was repeated over and over was “repeal ObamaCare.” One reason for this is that this message polled very well. However, another reason (and probably the reason this polled so well) is that ObamaCare contains a number of flaws. Efforts to fix ObamaCare will certainly be on the list. But, this will be a bloody fight that will likely be blocked by Obama's veto pen.

That brings me to a key point. For four years now, Republican House members have been saying “we're just one-half of one branch of the government, without the Senate we can't do anything.”

While this is technically true, it is somewhat of a copout. However, in fairness, the House has passed several pieces of legislation that have gone to the Senate to die on Harry Reid's desk.
Republican Senators, even though they are in the majority, will say that they don't have the votes to shut down a filibuster. That is technically true. But I don't care.

Make the Democrats take a vote on the key items that make up the conservative agenda. Most of those items will probably be able to get passed by the Republican majority in the House. Some will go to the Republican-controlled Senate to die from a filibuster. BUT, make the Democrats filibuster. Make the Democrats vote against the conservative agenda. And, even though Obama may veto the legislation that gets sent to him, make him do it. Send it to his desk. Make him reject it even though there are not enough votes for an override.

This will NOT be an exercise in futility. Americans overwhelmingly want conservative policies.

They want the government to stop spending money it doesn't have. They want common sense immigration reform. They want ObamaCare fixed or repealed and replaced. Pass a budget and the laws to do these things. Send them through the system. Let Obama or a handful of Democrat Senators be obstructionists that block the policies that Americans want. Then, shout from the highest roof tops about who is keeping conservative policies from happening.

Yes. The media is generally not the friend of conservative policies. Republican efforts to make things better will be distorted and obscured by the liberal members of the media. Much of the great efforts to put America on the right path will go untold.

But, Republicans in the House and Senate have to try. They have to be bold. They need to try again on a Balanced Budget Amendment. Even without an actual Balanced Budget Amendment, Republicans need to develop a budgetary plan designed to phase out deficit spending over a very short time period. Republicans need to propose common sense immigration reform that welcomes new immigrants while not granting amnesty to current law breakers and while effectively cracking down on illegal immigration. Drive the conservative agenda.

If Republicans want to keep their majorities in Congress and win back the White House in 2016 they have to show Americans that it really does make a difference to vote Republican. Will they?

Sadly, I don't have high hopes because Republicans have wasted previous opportunities. But, I do have hope. Maybe this time Republicans will do it right.




A trip to the polls on Tuesday was pretty uneventful. For most of Platte County, there was only one race on the ballot – state senator. But those in southeastern Platte County did have a second race to vote in – state representative. My press deadline is about seven hours before the polls close so you'll have to check out The Landmark's news articles for the outcomes of those races.
I did have my usual chuckle when I went to the polls. I walk in and start visiting with the election judge. We talk about what a great party we had on Saturday night to celebrate my parents' 50th wedding anniversary. (A HUGE thank you to my sister for doing an amazing job with the decorations and coordination. My main functions were just to write a couple of checks and get my parents there for the surprise.) The election judge asked about how my daughters are doing. Then she asked for my ID. Awesome! Even though Missouri doesn't technically have a voter ID program, Platte County does. And you know what, it didn't bother me a bit. It just makes me chuckle every time the Democrats moan and complain about how having to show ID when you vote is somehow a burden. It is only a burden if you want to cheat. If you are an honest voter it is simply no big deal.

Voting was somewhat uneventful since there was only race where the Republican was challenged by a Democrat. I normally fill in the circles for all the races even when the candidate is unopposed. However, as I went down my ballot I did skip at least one race where there was a Democrat who has chosen to run on the Republican ticket.

Voting was not just uneventful in Platte County. It was generally uneventful in large chunks of the state. The Missouri Times had an article last week that discussed the State House and State Senate races in the whole state.

The Missouri Times identified 24 unopposed Democrats and 19 safe Democrats and 51 unopposed Republicans and 54 safe Republicans. This puts the Republicans at 105 to 43 advantage before even considering any of the leaning or toss up races. It only takes 82 to reach a majority.So, a Republican majority is pretty safe. And, with only 109 votes needed to reach a two-thirds super majority, Republicans only need to win four more seats to have enough Republican votes to override any Gov. Jay Nixon vetoes.

The Missouri Times breaks down the remaining races as seven leaning Republican, three leaning Democrat and five toss-ups. So, less than 10% of the State House seats were even considered to be in play.

The Democrats weren't positioned to fare much better in the State Senate. Between the Senators who are not up and unopposed, Republicans have a 20 to 7 advantage, which is two more votes than a majority. Add in the “safe” races, Republicans climb to a 24 to 8 advantage with only 23 seats needed for a veto proof State Senate majority. The Missouri Times only identified two toss-up State Senate races.

The lack of races to play in might be why the Democrats chose to pour a significant portion of their resources into our State Senate race, Schaaf vs. Stuber, in the last month, even though Schaaf had a 10-point polling advantage a few weeks ago. By the time you read this, you'll know if that effort paid off or if it was just wasted money.

While I like it when my team wins, it really is up to the political parties to identify and support quality candidates who offer good ideas for our state and local communities. The Democrats just chose to mostly sit out for this election cycle.

(James Thomas is an attorney in Platte County who has long been active in state and local politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




I had a dream. No. Not the dream of Marin Luther King. I do wholeheartedly share King's dream, but he had it first. So, that can be his dream that I support rather than me co-opting his dream as my own. No. My dream is and has been a little different. Since I was in my late teens my dream has been that the federal government would be forced to operate under a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Ronald Reagan advocating for the government not spending more than it takes in is probably what excited me the most about him when I was a kid. His election gave me hope that maybe the federal government might really attack its spending problem. At the time, the federal government had about a $1 trillion debt. The thought was that if the government would stop spending more than it takes in and dedicate $50 billion a year to deficit reduction that the interest savings alone by year ten would actually fund the principal reduction.

Reagan was a champion of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Many Republicans joined with him in this endeavor. But, sadly, no Balanced Budget Amendment was ever passed and the deficit continued to grow. Then Newt Gingrich came along with his Contract With America in 1994. A key component of the Contract was a commitment to bring a Balanced Budget Amendment to a vote in the House. Gingrich kept that promise. And, the House passed a Balanced Budget Amendment more than once. However, the Balanced Budget Amendment has always died in the Senate.

On Monday I got an e-mail from Congressman Graves' office. Graves promised to continue to fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment. But, where are we? The $1 trillion deficit has ballooned to $18 trillion. Now the fear is that a 1% increase in interest rates will cost the federal government $180 billion in additional interest cost thereby eating up about 6% of actual revenues. Ouch!

I know Congressman Graves is just one guy. I also know that he has been faithful in his commitment to a Balanced Budget Amendment. BUT, when are we ever going to do something about the out of control spending?

As Reagan noted more than three decades ago, the reason we have this mess is a spending problem. I have personal preferences on how the federal government spends its money. I want the money spent on national defense and infrastructure. I disagree with the endless handouts that have created a society filled with government-dependent people. BUT, let's ignore whether I win or lose on how the money gets spent. Let's start with the proposition that the federal government will not spend more than it takes in.

Eliminating deficit spending and slowly reducing the national debt have been dreams of mine since I was a teenager. I have given my time and treasure to try to elect candidates that will implement this policy. Today we are no closer to curbing spending than we were over thirty years ago. Truthfully, I have experienced serious “political burnout.” I work and sweat to get the right candidates elected, but nothing changes. Truthfully, I will go to the polls next week with a heavy heart knowing that I will again cast my ballot for the “less spending” candidates, but at the end of the day there won't really be any less spending. So, I guess a balanced budget will still just be a dream.

(James Thomas is an attorney who has long been active in Platte County and Missouri politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




Last week I noted the irritating effort to blame the enforcement of traffic laws for the rioting and a general disrespect for the police. There is a second irritating twist that has come out of Ferguson. Some people are seeking to justify the rioting and a general disrespect for the police on the fact that the percentage of minorities on the police force is smaller than the percentage of minorities in the community.

The disproportionality is real. The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports that “67 percent of Ferguson's residents are African-American, but only 7 percent of the city's commissioned police officers are black.” The Dispatch further notes that “the disparity is common among communities in St. Louis County with significant black populations. Many police departments do not reflect the community they serve.”

My first response is “So what!” If I have contact with the “boys in blue” it doesn't matter whether the officer is white, black, brown, red or yellow. When the officer has contact with me, the color of his (or her) skin is irrelevant. The officer is “blue” as far as I'm concerned. (I realize that some law enforcement officers actually wear brown, but be patient with me here and let me illustrate a point.) I owe the officer respect because of the badge and uniform he (or she) wears. My need to show respect for the officer is not dependent on the color of his/her skin.

Second, some members of the minority community refuse to respect similarly-skinned officers. The St. Louis Post Dispatch had a story entitled “Black and in blue: A Ferguson police sergeant reflects on a tough time” that discussed how it is even harder to be a black officer in the face of the Ferguson protesters. The article notes that black officers trying to keep the peace had to endure “racial slurs shouted by people of [their] own race.” The article notes that “most of the insults . . . heard on the line that day are too graphic to print.” Some of the “more polite” insults were “sellout” and “Uncle Tom.”

These kinds of insults are very disturbing to the black officers. One officer noted “it's hard to hear that from the minority group that you are representing . . . . You tune it out, but psychologically you're dealing with scars.” The officer notes that he can't respond because as soon as he says something “it will be all over the news.” But, I loved the officer's description of why saying anything wouldn't make any difference: “Don't address ignorance with ignorance.”

The negative attitude towards minorities who become police officers has got to make it difficult to recruit minorities to join the force. One minority officer described “having a Ferguson police car parked in front of your house right now . . . [is] like walking around with a scarlet letter.”

Notwithstanding this lack of respect from part of the minority community, some minorities are willing to serve their communities and join the police force. As painful as the disrespect is, the disrespect for the police is not universal. The officer noted that he waved at a black man mowing his lawn and he waved back “and had all his fingers up.” He said “I consider that a positive thing.”

The bottom line is that even if the percentage of the police force that is made of minorities is disproportionate to the minority population of the community such disproportionate percentage is absolutely no justification for rioting, looting or burning down a QuikTrip.

(James Thomas of Platte County is an attorney who has long been active in state and local politics. Email james@jct3law.com)




One irritating twist that has come out of Ferguson is that some people are seeking to blame the enforcement of traffic laws for the rioting and a general disrespect for the police.

I understand that no one likes to get a ticket and no one likes to be harassed by the police. As a middle-aged white guy, I'm not a likely target for harassment any more, but I know that a few officers can be a little overzealous in their enforcement and occasionally stretch to the level of harassment. When I was in high school, I got pulled over by some county deputies while I was driving around some back country roads. I explained that I was taking my girlfriend (who is now my wife) to her house which was nearby. They called it in and checked me out but sent me on my way. However, they did follow me until I turned into her driveway a couple of miles away. That was somewhat embarrassing because in my small town, my stop was picked up on the scanner and a bunch of folks knew about it at school on Monday. This probably wasn't a technically “clean” stop, but no harm was done. In fact, as an adult, I think it is great that law enforcement checks out slow moving vehicles on back country roads. That is one way to keep crime down in the rural areas.

But some folks don't see it that way. The St. Louis Post Dispatch featured a woman in an article that was “hunkered down” and hiding from the police because she has two unpaid traffic tickets. She also has failed to appear in court so an arrest warrant will be issued for her and her license will be suspended.

This is the wrong focus. The woman broke the law and did not deny it. She further broke the law by failing to show up in court. That is not the system's problem. It is her problem.

There is the potential for abuse. St. Louis County is filled with numerous tiny municipalities. In some cases these municipalities are heavily dependent upon traffic ticket revenue to fund their operations. One of the most egregious cases is St. Ann. In 2005 St. Ann took in nearly $2.4 million in sales taxes and $437,000 in court costs and fines. A major shopping venue closed so St. Ann turned to tickets to raise revenue. By 2013, sales tax revenue fell to $1.1 million and court costs and fines rose to $3.1 million.

The St. Ann situation sounds abusive. So, some fix is needed. We also have the same problem in a few communities here, but at least it is not as wide spread. But, there is a simple fix to this. Don't break the law. Just ease up on the accelerator when driving through “ticket happy” communities.

As a general rule, I don't think law enforcement is overzealous, but I know it does happen from time to time. But it is absolutely ridiculous to try to justify rioting and general disrespect of the police because people don't like to get traffic tickets for breaking the law. Police officers have a tough job. Respect them. And when you get a ticket for doing something wrong don't blame the officer who gave you the ticket or burn down a Quik Trip. You're the one that broke the law, not the police officer or the Quik Trip owner.

(James Thomas of Platte County is an attorney who has long been active in state and local politics. Reach him by email to james@jct3law.com)




The bicycle lobby strikes again. Yep. That's right the City Council of Kansas City has passed a new ordinance at the behest of the bicycle lobby.

On the surface the ordinance might not seem so bad. The ordinance prohibits anyone from “intimidating” a pedestrian, cyclist or others by threatening the person, throwing an object, swerving a vehicle in the person's direction or placing the victim in apprehension of immediate physical injury.

Based upon standards of courteous conduct, the ordinance doesn't seem so bad. At least it is not as bad as the original version of the ordinance which would have prohibited “frightening” a cyclist or pedestrian. Fortunately, that version of the ordinance was changed because it would seem to be far more subjective.

While the new “intimidation” ordinance just seems an extension of common driving courtesy, there are three things that really hack me off about this new ordinance.

First, the ordinance seems unnecessary. There are already plenty of laws on the books that should cover any of these issues.

Second, the ridiculousness of the influence of the bicyclist lobby at City Hall is outrageous. The bicyclists that make up a tiny percentage of the population are always at City Hall trying to get something. Often that “something” is a bigger chunk of the very limited city budget for the benefit of bicyclists. Other times, the bicyclists are trying to get new government regulations to benefit them.

One proposal was to require shower facilities for the benefit of bikers as part of the building codes. That's nuts! At least this particular request was just a legitimate safety issue.

Third, and this is really what hacks me off the most about this, many bicyclists want to ride on the roads but fail to follow the rules of the road. I can't tell you how many times I have been driving along and stop at a stop sign or red light only to have a bicyclist blow through without bothering to stop. Or, cars will be stacked up on the road and a bicyclist will roll up alongside the cars IN THE SAME CAR LANE I AM SITTING IN. Now I understand that even though I would like to slap the bicyclists who fail to follow the rules of the road while riding on them, I know that I just need to take a deep breath and not act on my frustration. Of course, I know some folks may not be as calm as I am so the bicyclist lobby has gotten a new ordinance to make this obvious driving courtesy part of the law.

BUT, bicyclists have to understand something that is very important. Rude behavior by drivers is wrong, BUT bicyclists should not ask for rude behavior by being rude bicyclists. If bicyclists want to drive on the roads FOR CARS, then they can follow the same rules as we do. Don't fail to stop at stop signs or red lights. Don't crowd into the car lanes alongside cars. And, most importantly, keep in mind that drivers may have trouble seeing you, especially when you are darting in between the other LEGITIMATE car lane traffic. If bicyclists want to be respected, they have to respect the rules of the road.

Here's a thought. Maybe to make things fair and even we need an ordinance that prohibits “jerk” behavior by bicyclists.

(James Thomas is a local attorney who has long been active in state and local politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




The Missouri Bar adamantly asserts that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the “Missouri Plan,” Missouri's system of selecting all appellate-level judges and the circuit and associate circuit court-level judges in large counties, including Platte County. I disagree. While I am not among those that propose completely abandoning the Missouri Plan, the plan could certainly use a few tweaks.

The Missouri Plan provides for a nominating committee made up of two lay people, two lawyers selected by the local bar and a judge. This nominating committee interviews applicants for judicial positions and then the recommends three candidates to the governor. The governor must pick one of the three nominees. If the governor doesn't pick one of the three nominees, the nominating committee gets to decide which nominee becomes a judge.

One of my key concerns about the Missouri Plan is that most of the work of the nominating committee has been done in secret. Some practices have changed so less of the nominating committee's work is secret. However, there is still a limited amount of “sunshine” on the nominating committee's work.

Other than the limited openness of nominating committee's work, I have two other major concerns. My main concern is that the governor is forced to pick one of the three nominees or surrender his power to choose a judge to the nominating committee. I don't recommend that the governor be given unlimited opportunities to reject slates of candidates, but the governor should be able to reject a slate or two of candidates before the appointment power shifts to the nominating committee. My secondary concern is that the lawyers make up a majority of the nominating committee. This gives far too much power to the lawyers in the judicial selection process.

Another concern with the Missouri Plan is the apparent unwillingness of the Missouri Bar to call for a judge to not be retained. Those judges chosen through the nominating committee process (judges in most of Missouri's counties are elected) must stand for a retention vote every few years. The Missouri Bar almost never says that a judge should not retained. And, this refusal to say more judges should not be retained is a huge credibility problem for the Missouri Bar's defense of the Missouri Plan.

This has never been clearer than the Missouri Bar's stance on the retention vote with respect to Judge Barbara Peebles in St. Louis. In 2012 Peebles was disciplined for letting a clerk handle her duties while Peebles was vacationing in China, destroying a court document that complained about the clerk, starting court late and discussing a pending case with a reporter. The Missouri Supreme Court suspended Peebles from her position for six months. When the Missouri Bar had an opportunity to recommend that Peebles not be retained, they declined to do so.

This is a huge credibility problem. By refusing to recommend that Peebles not be retained, the Missouri Bar is undermining the credibility of the Missouri Plan, which it so adamantly defends.

We've been lucky in Platte County. The two most recent associate circuit judge vacancies in Platte County were filled by high quality individuals. The system worked. BUT, sometimes it doesn't. The Missouri Bar needs to be more open minded about discussing “tweaks” to the system so we keep the good parts of the Missouri Plan and eliminate the bad.

(James Thomas is a lawyer who is a veteran of state and local politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




Scotland will not be seceding from the United Kingdom. A recent vote on Scottish independence failed by a 45% to 55% vote.

This potential breakup of the United Kingdom was handled in a far more mature manner than when the southern states sought their independence from the United States or when Lithuania sought to leave the Soviet Union. The Scotts were given the opportunity to have a vote. The secession by the southern states prompted an invasion of those southern states at the direction of Abraham Lincoln. The ensuing war was the saddest war America has ever been involved in because essentially all the casualties were American. The proposed independence of Lithuania prompted an invasion by Gorbachev as he rolled tanks into Lithuania to try to keep the tiny country in the U.S.S.R.

The attitude about self-determination has changed over the years. From 1861 to 1865 President Lincoln used military force to prevent states from leaving the Union. However, when Gorbachev attempted to use force to prevent Lithuania from leaving the Soviet Union, he was chastised by the international community, including President George H. W. Bush. Just last week, the Scotts were allowed to have a vote. This comes after years of the United Nations advocating for votes of self-determination that allow a group of people to decide whether they want to be part of a particular nation-state.

Reuters conducted polling to gauge the appetite for secession in America. Nearly 24% of Americans polled said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of a state breaking away from the United States. Interestingly, less than 54 percent of the poll respondents were strongly opposed to a state seceding. While this 54 percent is a majority, it isn't exactly a dominating majority in opposition to secession.

Rueters reported that Republicans were slightly more inclined to support secession, with almost 30% favoring it while only 21% of Democrats supported secession. Attitudes towards secession also varied by region. In the New England area only 17.4% or respondents supported secession. In the southwest area more than 34% of respondents supported secession. Rueters did not indicate whether the variance in support was tied to the New England area's rich history with the American Revolution or its predominant Democrat population or whether the southwest area's greater support of secession was tied to the general attitude of self-reliance and independence of those who settled in the west or the fact that there is a higher Republican population.

The question of a state leaving the United States was settled nearly 150 years ago by invaders that used military force to compel the citizens of the southern states to remain part of the United States. So, any consideration of the idea of a state seceding is purely an academic exercise. Besides, the massive expansion of the federal government's budget and the intertwining of federal dollars in state government (e.g., transportation funding, etc.) and individual citizens' lives (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) has probably made any potential independence impractical or at least highly unlikely.

Given the current role of Scotland in the United Kingdom, I'm not sure independence was really necessary to protect the rights of the Scotsmen, but the thought of Scottish independence does make you want to cheer for William Wallace in a battle for freedom against Edward the Longshanks. Whether you like Mel Gibson or not, Braveheart was an awesome movie.

James Thomas, a Platte County attorney, can be reached by email at james@jct3law.com




Something new for the “What were they thinking?!?” list. The general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board recently determined that officials at the NLRB should include McDonald's as a defendant alongside with franchisees running the stores where a variety of labor violations are claimed to occur. Huh?

I could see this conclusion being reached by a panel of people not trained in the law and particularly not trained in some of the subtleties of the franchisor/franchisee relationship. However, this was not a bunch of lay people. This was the head lawyer at the NLRB who reached this conclusion.

The franchisor/franchisee relationship is a unique one under the law. McDonald's, the big publicly traded corporation, does not own all the local restaurants. The local restaurants we eat at are independently owned small businesses. It is certainly true that McDonald's imposes all kinds of requirements on the local restaurant owner. The building typically has to meet a certain design. The interior typically has to have certain aspects. The food has to be prepared a specific way. But, despite all these requirements from McDonald's, the local restaurant owner hires and fires employees, sets their hours and deals with their compensation. These are not functions of the “big corporate” McDonald's. So, if the alleged employment law violations are true, these are issues for the individual restaurants, the franchisees, and not issues involving “big corporate” McDonald's, the franchisor.

This decision to drag McDonald's into the investigation of these alleged labor violations by the local restaurants is not a done deal. The general counsel's conclusion will go before the presidentially appointed members of the NLRB for review. And even after that the issue is certain to be headed to the courts for judicial review. But, the basic problem is that money is being wasted on something that clearly seems wrong.

Why is this money and time being wasted? My suspicion – although supported by no real facts – is that the general counsel wants to “stick it to” big corporate America and make McDonald's suffer by dragging it into what are clearly local restaurant employment law issues. It seems consistent with the model of Obama and his friends who seem to just want to mess with business owners. One business writer suspects that this harassment is part of a bigger plan to force big corporate McDonald's into union negotiations that McDonald's will eventually force on its franchisees.

The picketing of McDonald's franchisees has continued through the country. I have written before about the silliness of this picketing so I won't repeat myself today. But, I will say this. My younger daughter volunteered at Vacation Bible School for a week in mid-July. Since I was so proud of her for volunteering, I would take her out to lunch after I picked her up every day. Usually we would go to some place where you sit down and they bring you your food, but one day I had a client coming in at 1:00 so we had to do something quick. At my daughter's request, we went to McDonald's. Surprisingly, that was the day when we got the best service of the week. And, unlike the burger I had at a sit down restaurant earlier in the week, my burger was cooked properly. So, good job local franchisee. And good luck, big corporate McDonald's, at not being dragged in to litigation over the local restaurants.

(James Thomas of Platte County is an attorney who has been active in state and local television. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




Leave it to the Editorial Board of the St. Louis Post Dispatch to get it wrong. AGAIN! Their headline from last week read “Editorial: Live in poverty? Need health care? Don't come to Missouri.”

The Editorial Board starts out being wrong by looking at an incorrect metric of what is “good.” The Editorial Board cites a report that shows that the uninsured rate in the country has dropped from 17.3 percent to 13.4 percent with about 7.3 million more Americans having “access to quality health care coverage thanks to expanded Medicaid coverage tied to the Affordable Care Act.”

Reducing the uninsured rate is good, but putting more people on Medicaid is NOT a good thing. All that expanding the Medicaid rolls means is that the government (really the 50 percent of us that pay taxes in this country) are providing free insurance coverage to 7.3 million more people. Don't get me wrong. Everyone needs access to health care, but simply having the hard working taxpayers foot the bill for more people to have access to health care is not a measure of success.

The Editorial Board expresses outrage that the refusal of the Missouri General Assembly to expand Medicaid eligibility has caused the uninsured rate to only drop by one-tenth of one percent in Missouri. What the Editorial Board seems to forget is that Missouri was on a path to bankruptcy with the expansions of Medicaid made under Governors Carnahan and Holden. In the mid-2000s then-Republican Chris Koster traveled the state with a chart that showed that if the expanded Medicaid eligibility was not curtailed that in just a few years the cost of Medicaid would consume the bulk of Missouri's budget requiring drastic cuts to other state expenditures, including education. Reversing some of these expansions during Governor Matt Blunt's term prevented the overwhelming of Missouri's budget by Medicaid expenses.

The Editorial Board is also upset that Missouri is one of only four states in the nation to show negative growth in the Medicaid population. In fact, the drop in Missouri's Medicaid population by 4.4% is second only to Nebraska and the largest by actual number of people dropped from the Medicaid rolls.

Huh? Again this is backward thinking. Measuring success of a government program based upon whether more people are added to the program is just plain stupid! The goal is to get more people working and more people paying in to fund the government's functions. Expanding the Medicaid rolls is NOT a legitimate measure of success.

The Editorial Board is angered because some neighboring states have expanded their Medicaid rolls leaving Missouri “less friendly” to the poor and in essence telling the poor “don't come to Missouri.” My question is “How is discouraging immigration to Missouri by people who will live off government programs a bad thing?” Yes. There needs to be a safety net for those who are in transition between employment and those who legitimately can't work (as opposed to those who are just too lazy to work). But, at the end of the day we want people to get jobs and get OFF the Medicaid rolls. Missouri does not need to adopt policies that will encourage people “living off the taxpayers” to move here. We already have enough people who need help. Adding more subsidized people just increases the burden on the half of us who pay taxes.

But, it's the Editorial Board of a “big city” newspaper. So, of course they're wrong.

(James Thomas is an attorney who has long been active in Platte County politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)



Road trip! Thanks to my daughter's request, I got to see “my boys,” BK (Brian Kelley) and Tyler (Hubbard) of Florida Georgia Line, for the third time in 10 months.

FGL was playing at the State Fair. My daughter wanted me to take her and two of her classmates/sports teammates on an early Senior Trip. That wouldn't have been a hard sell since I love FGL except that the concert was the night before school started. So, I sadly had to say “No.”

But, I knew that FGL was touring with Jason Aldean as the headliner and Tyler Farr as the opening act and would be in St. Louis on a Friday and Saturday soon after their State Fair appearance so I thought I would see what I could do.

My daughter's request was too late to get the good fan club tickets I'm usually able to get in the first few rows so we were about 30 rows back. And, even those further back tickets came with more than a 100% premium over face value, but at least they weren't five times face value that the closer resale tickets were.

At one point during the concert I leaned over and asked my wife if she thought the girls were having a good time. Her response was “Are you kidding?!? Just look at them.” They were dancing around, waving their hands and singing along.

Sort of one of those Master Card commercial moments . . . two tanks of gas $160, meals $300, two hotel rooms $250, tickets $1,100, overpriced concert waters and lemonades $90, concert t-shirts $150 . . . watching your daughter rock out with her sister and two of her friends on a Senior Trip . . . priceless.

Of course, what only my wife knows is that I was so excited about seeing FGL again that I was actually up at 4:30 on the morning we left. I was like a kid at Christmas anticipating a live performance of FGL's new hit single “Dirt.” The chorus goes like this:

It's that elm shade red rust clay you grew up on
That plowed up ground that your dad damned his luck on
That post game party field you circle up on
And when it rains you get stuck on
Drift a cloud back behind county roads that you run up
The mud on her jeans that she peeled off and hung up
Her blue eyed summer time smile looks so good that it hurts
Makes you wanna build a 10 percent down
White picket fence house on this dirt

Great stuff!

With a daughter that's a high school senior, our household is less than a year away from a drastic, permanent change. And as volleyball season transitions into basketball season and that transitions into soccer season, the ride with this one will fly by and soon be over.

I used to tell myself that the political fights we engaged in to promote conservatism were to protect my daughters' futures. Well, it won't be long and my daughters will be the ones leading those fights. Until then, I'm just going to try and enjoy the ride.

(James Thomas, Republican of Platte County, is an attorney who has long been active in local and state politics. Email him at james @jct3law.com)




This is an important reminder to always read your Landmark as soon as it hits your mailbox! A couple of weeks ago it was Saturday before I had time to sit down and read my Landmark from beginning to end. When I did, I found this little jewel on page B-4: “Democrats plan trivia challenge.”

Dang! This little fundraiser was the night before! And it was only five bucks! This could have been a real hoot! And I would be really good at Platte County Democrat trivia.

If you missed it, too, I thought it might be fun to share some Platte County Democrat trivia with you. (I don't know if these were actual questions at the Democrat Trivia Night, but they are still fun Platte County Democrat trivia questions.)

1. When was the last time a Democrat was elected to a county office?

2. When was the last time a non-incumbent Democrat was elected to a county office?

3. When was the last time a Democrat defeated a Republican incumbent for a county office?

4. When was the last time a Democrat was elected prosecutor?

5. When was the last time a Democrat was elected sheriff?


1. 2008. Terry Edwards and Bonnie Brown were re-elected as public administrator and county treasurer, respectively. (This does not count a particular candidate from the 2014 cycle who was on the ballot as a “Republican,” but who had known Democrats, including Platte County Democrat Party Chair Pauli Kendrick, working the polls for her. I still don't think she is a “Republican” but she did run as a Republican so I don't think the Democrats should get to count her unless she filed to run as a Democrat.)

2. 2006. Siobhann Williams was elected county auditor.

3. 1990. Bob Griffith defeated Fred Pouche to become County Auditor.

4. 1990. Vic Peters. Tammy Glick was appointed in 2001 to fill out the remainder of Todd Graves' term when he was appointed as U.S. District Attorney but Glick was defeated by Eric Zahnd when she stood for election in 2002.

5. 1964. Tom Thomas was the first Republican elected county-wide in 1968. Thank you, Tom!

Also, thank you to Bill Honeycutt, who was also elected in 1968 to what is today called a county commissioner. But Honeycutt's position only represented half the county's population so Thomas is still the first Republican elected county-wide.

Did you get them all right? Even if you didn't, it's still fun! The Democrats haven't defeated a Republican incumbent in 24 years.

As I mentioned in a prior article, I'm not sure why Democrats are raising money. They failed to field any county-level candidates. Maybe they plan to give their money to Democrats who file for office to run as Republicans. I know they have at least one because they were out working for her on Election Day!

(James Thomas is an attorney who has long been active in Platte County politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




Ferguson, Missouri is now the site of two tragedies.

The first tragedy is the shooting of an “unarmed teenage boy.” That reference is somewhat of a misnomer. By the calendar, the decedent might have been a teenager. However, video of the “boy” shows that he was a mountain of a physical specimen even if he was not technically an adult. The description of him as “unarmed” is also somewhat deceptive. The decedent may not have brandished a gun or a knife, but a video shows him as an intimidating figure who only minutes before the shooting physically assaulted a store manager.

The “unarmed teenage boy” is also a misnomer because it implies that this was just an innocent kid. That is far from the truth. A store video clearly shows the “teenage boy” stealing cigars mere moments before his fatal encounter with a police officer. And, as part of that theft, the “boy” intimidated the store manager with his physical size alone and a firm shove.

The facts have not become entirely clear. One version involves the “boy” shoving a police officer back into his patrol car. Another version says the officer shot the “boy” in the street with his arms above his head in surrender. If this is like most situations, the truth is probably somewhere in between the two versions. Even if the shooting was fully justified it is still a tragedy. The “boy” may have been a mountainous thug, but his death leaves no prospect for him to change his life and choose a more productive and responsible path.

This “boy's” death is not the only tragedy. The second and far more far reaching tragedy is the negative impact on the community of Ferguson and similar communities across America. I'm sure there are decent, hard-working, law-abiding citizens in Ferguson, but the criminal conduct of a few individuals has brought shame to this town and similarly situated communities throughout America.

Even if the police officer was totally unjustified in shooting this “boy” that in no way justifies protestors robbing and burning down a Quick Trip or looting a beauty shop or other stores. And, it also in no way justifies throwing Molotov cocktails at police. Of course law enforcement responds to this violence military-style with tear gas and much heavier and more lethal weapons as backups.

I share Martin Luther King's dream that someday everyone “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” BUT, that will NEVER be possible as long as certain segments of our society (even if arguably a small number of representatives of that segment of our society) loot, steal and burn in response to an incident. March in the streets. Demand justice. But looting and burning only shows bad character and will not get you justice and respect.

There are two tragedies in Ferguson. One is that a mother and father have lost a son. Even if the son was less than an upstanding citizen, his death of a child is always a tragedy. But an even bigger tragedy is the damage done to race relations in our country by the response to the shooting being irrational, misplaced violence.

The protestors chant “No Justice, No Peace.” A horrible slogan. As long as there is “No Peace” this segment of our society will never gain the respect that the vast majority of its members deserve.

(James Thomas is an attorney and a veteran of Republican politics in Platte County and Missouri. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




Every week when I choose a topic I usually know that my column will make someone or even several “someones” mad. Well, this week I have an unusual someone that I might make mad: my dad.

You see my topic for this week is NASCAR driver Tony Stewart. I'm only a casual NASCAR fan. I only watch two or three races a year. But, every Monday I go online and check out who won the weekend's Sprint Series race and who are the top few drivers in the Sprint Cup chase. Why? Because my dad is a big NASCAR fan. Keeping up on the NASCAR results and standings gives us something to visit about.

Although my dad likes lots of drivers, one of his favorites is Tony Stewart. My dad is still on his way back from an out-of-town weekend wedding as I write this so I don't know if he'll be upset with me or not, but here it goes.

On Sunday the Sprint Cup circuit was at Watkins Glen International in Watkins Glen, New York. But, before the race Tony Stewart took a little detour to Canandaigua Motorsports Park for a little dirt track racing. During the course of that race, Stewart collided with another vehicle. The driver of that vehicle jumped out of his vehicle while the race was continuing under a yellow flag. As Stewart came around the track again the upset driver walked on to the track and approached Stewart's moving vehicle. The driver was hit by Stewart's vehicle. Tragically, the driver died.

I don't know what really happened. The video I saw on-line deleted the footage from right before the car-less driver was hit. The driver certainly has some culpability for walking on the track during the race, but I don't know if Stewart was also at fault. But, responsibility for the tragedy is not my issue. My issue is “What in the world was Stewart doing racing on a dirt track the day before a Sprint Cup race?” That is just dumb and irresponsible.

What does Stewart gain by racing at a dirt track event? Stewart is a three-time NASCAR Sprint Cup Champion. There is nothing to be gained by him at the dirt-track level of racing. If he wins, so what. If he loses, it's major bragging rights for the driver(s) that beat him. So, what is he doing?

I have an ever bigger issue with Stewart being involved in dirt track racing. He isn't just a driver. He owns his own racing team. That racing team employs a lot of people. These people are dependent on Stewart managing the team and driving the car on Sundays. It is irresponsible for Stewart to engage in any more risk than he already faces with his driving at the NASCAR level. Sure, the NASCAR race itself is dangerous, but it's part of his job. There is no reason to take on the extra risk of the dirt track racing.

After the crash, the media was showing earlier interviews where Stewart talked about his love of racing at all levels both NASCAR and dirt track. I love the passion, but once you reach the “big time” you have to start using better judgment about what risk you'll take. No big-time NASCAR driver should be doing dirt track racing the day before a race. It's irresponsible.

This should hit Dad's mailbox about the time he gets back. I know Ivan likes it when I upset someone enough that they write a letter to the editor. Well Dad, you can just call me if you don't like me criticizing your boy.

(James Thomas is an attorney in Platte County and has long been active in local politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




Obama held a press conference earlier this month in which he said the U.S. “tortured some folks” after 9-11. These “folks” happened to be captured members of Al Qaida. So we aren't necessarily talking about “nice” people being tortured, but this still raises the question of whether torture is appropriate.

This very real issue has been put in front of us in a TV show, “24.” I did not start watching 24, or “Jack” as we called it when we started watching it. However, a friend recommended I check it out. I watched a couple of episodes on TV and then went out and bought the previous seasons on DVD. It was a riveting story with a truly unique format with events “taking place in real time” as the clock ticked off the seconds in a 24 hour period.

My wife and I would watch an episode or two every night after we put the kids to bed. The main character, Jack Bauer, a government agent, was always under some sort of intense pressure to stop a terrorist event within a 24 hour window. This would inevitably lead to Jack having to torture some player in the terrorist plot into giving up critical information for continuing to pursue the terrorists. Even though it was just a TV show, we'd have to look away from the TV as Jack tortured the guy.

At the time it seemed that Jack was just doing what was necessary to protect thousands, maybe millions, of innocent civilians. But, when you take this out of a fictional setting that makes for a nail biting story, is it really appropriate for Americans to resort to torture?

Soon after 9-11, my first thought would be “absolutely YES!” But, is that the morally correct thing to do?

After Obama first took office, he placed a ban on “so-called enhanced interrogation techniques” and “brutal methods.” However, Obama also said that he preferred to “look forward, not backwards” on the issue of torturing captured terrorists to get information. Obama's announcement at the time was that “no CIA officer who was following legal guidance -- however flawed that guidance turned out to be -- should be prosecuted.” Now, with a new Senate report coming out, there is more speculation on the course the government will take.

When Jack is torturing some bad guy on TV, you get it. Lots of people are exposed to great risk. Jack is trying to protect them. And, the guy IS a “bad guy.” But, real life is not TV. How do we know that the subject really is a bad guy? Could we or other innocent people mistakenly be in the position of the torture subjects?

Although the situation raises a moral dilemma, the way to look at this may be like a father. If one my girls is in danger and a captured guy has information that will save her, I would be open to doing to him whatever it takes to get her back safely. And, once my daughter is back safely, I would be subject to whatever consequences to me there are for my actions. Would my actions be morally right? No. But they would be morally necessary as a father and that is my first concern.

My daughters just better not get in any big trouble. I'm not as tough as Jack.

(James Thomas is an attorney who has long been active in local and state politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




The saying goes “Be careful what you wish for.” And, as sayings go, there is always some truth to them.

I know twenty years ago when I went from an interest in politics to an active participant in politics and, in particular, Platte County politics, I had one goal: Drive the Democrats from every elected office in Platte County.

Well with a lot of hard work by people who came before me, people who worked with me and people who came after me, it has finally happened. There are no Democrat elected officials left in Platte County.

Truthfully, it's even better than that on the county-level. There aren't even any Democrat CANDIDATES at the county level. (There are some Democrats on the ballot for state representative and state senate.) Yep. When people go to the polls on Aug. 5 to vote in the primary election, every county office will be decided with no Democrat opposition in the November general election.

Now for the “be careful for what you wish for” part. It is great that the organization and execution by the Platte County Republican Party and the Platte County Republican candidates has become so effective that the Democrat Party doesn't even bother fielding any candidates. However, there is a side effect that has come from this. There are now candidates/officeholders who in reality are Democrats who now run on the Republican ticket.

This trend started a few years ago when one candidate said that she was running as a Republican because the local Republican Party “will do more for you.” That has certainly been true about the local Republican Party over the last few years. More surprising was a candidate from a couple of years ago who was recruited by one of the last remaining Democrat officeholders but who ran as a Republican. Just another example of a practical decision to make it easier to win an election by hiding one's true identity and running as a Republican.

The local Democrat Party sure gives many outward signs of being on its last breath. However, the Platte County Democrats did have a recent fundraiser at which they raised a nice sum of money for a county political committee. Not a bad accomplishment. But two things are odd about this.

First, the Democrats raised a little money, but didn't bother to recruit any county candidates. So, what is the Democrats' plan? Raise a little money and give it to Democrats running as Republicans? Or, do the Democrats just plan to only participate in state representative and state senate races?

Second, and maybe even more telling, seventy percent of the donors to the Platte County Democrat Party in the last quarter were listed as “retired” for their employer/occupation on the filings with the Missouri Ethics Commission. Having a team with a lot of retired folks can be great. They don't have to “punch the clock” at the factory or go to the office and take care of clients or patients. So, retired folks have the potential to be great volunteers. But, does this donor base represent the next generation of the local Democrat Party or the last?

After many years of work, it is great that the Republicans have driven the Democrats from the courthouse. The problem is whether some of those Republican officeholders/candidates are really just Democrats claiming to be Republicans because it is an easier path to office.

(James Thomas of Platte County, an attorney, has long been active in local and state Republican politics. Email james@jct3law.com)




Politics has been known to make for strange bedfellows. And politics sometimes brings out changes that you never anticipated.

I go back to the 2006 election cycle. A visit from the Governor caused a detour in my life that saw me spend most of the next eight months as a single parent and a substantial disruption of my plans, including the cancellation of the 20th wedding anniversary trip that my wife and I had been planning since our 10th wedding anniversary. Sure there was a lot of fun had along the way. There was also some growth from my young daughters, 6 and 9 at the time, as they took on more responsibility and even worked on their public speaking skills. A few regrets, some great experiences, but no matter how you look at it a disruptive – even if mostly positive – eight months.

Well there is one fallout from those eight months that has changed my life. For Christmas in 2006 my wife gave me a CD from Rodney Atkins. A somewhat unusual gift. I grew up on what is considered “classic rock” today – Styx, Journey, Foreigner, etc. But, by soon after law school I moved from 101 the Fox to talk radio – mostly 980 or 810. I had never been big on country music. So, to give me a CD as a gift was a little unusual. To give me a country CD was even more unusual. But, during the 06 campaign my wife had spent a lot of time in the car and had developed an appreciation for a lot of country music so she wanted me to try it.

Rodney Atkins' “If You're Going Through Hell” CD was a pretty good collection of songs. The title track gave a great message of staying true to your faith even in tough times. “These Are My People” and “About the South” were a great tie back to your country roots. “Watching You” was a great reminder that our kids are watching and emulating the good and the bad things we do. And what father of a daughter doesn't absolutely love the lyrics “Cleaning This Gun (Come On In Boy)” where a father makes sure a boy who wants to spend time with his daughter appreciates how important his daughter is to him as he cleans his gun in the boy's presence. Just a little subtle reminder of how serious dad is about the boy respecting his daughter.

I loved the CD. I wasn't entirely hooked. My wife begged for tickets to a concert to see some fella named Brad Paisley for our 21st anniversary. I bought them, but then tried to convince her to take a friend instead of me by the time the concert rolled around three months later. Boy was I wrong. Paisley is an amazing musician who tells great stories (some funny, some sad) with his music. Now I have seen him six or seven times in four different states.

Now I am fully hooked. My radio in my Silverado crew cab is now always tuned to “The Highway,” the Sirius radio station for new country music. I've been to nine concerts already this year, including seven concerts last month. (I count the Country Stampede as four because it was held over four days in Manhattan, Kansas.) And, I'm road tripping to Nebraska to get that CD I got for Christmas autographed by Rodney Atkins.

Yep. The ‘06 campaign had some incidental consequences that have changed my life. And, I couldn't be happier about it. Thirty, even 20, years ago, I would never have predicted that I would become a pickup driving, boot wearing, country music loving kind of guy. But, sometimes political campaigns happen to change people.




The “Affordable Care Act.” That is the legal name for what is commonly referred to as ObamaCare. But, the question is whether “ObamaCare” has made insurance more “affordable.”
According to a study by the Manhattan Institute reported in Forbes, ObamaCare has not made health insurance more affordable. In fact, the study shows that ObamaCare and its multitude of new federal mandates has made health insurance much more expensive for most of the country.
The study shows that the cost of individually purchased health insurance rose dramatically. An initial study looked at a state-by-state analysis. This showed an increase from 2013 to 2014 of 41% in the average state. The study was then expanded to analyze the data on a county-by-county basis based upon 27-year-olds, 40-year-olds and 64-year-olds.

The big “winner” for the greatest increase in insurance prices for men from 2013 to 2014 is our neighbors to the north – Buchanan County. Men their saw an increase in insurance prices of 271% according to Forbes. Ouch!

The women of Buchanan County did not get “top honors” for the greatest increase in insurance prices. That went to the women of Goodhue County, Minnesota, which is located an hour southwest of Minneapolis. These women saw a 200% increase in the cost of their insurance.
While Platte Countians were not hit as hard as neighbors to the north, Platte Countians did not escape unscathed. The increase in insurance costs for women ages 27, 40 and 64 were 70%, 45% and 101%, respectively. The men of Platte County got zinged as well. The insurance costs for men ages 27, 40 and 64 jumped 219%, 127% and 65%, respectively.

Some citizens did see a drop in their insurance costs. This is mainly in states that have some dumb rules about how insurance rates are set. For example, New York adopted a law in 1992 that prohibits an insurance company from having different rates based upon age, gender, health or smoking. The end result is that people who might qualify for lower insurance rates based upon good health or healthy habits are actually paying much higher rates to help out the old, the sick and the smokers.

That is one of the dumbest rules ever made. The cost of insurance is intentionally designed to deal with risk factors (e.g., do you smoke, are you overweight, etc.). Having a policy that ignores these factors is going to increase the cost of insurance.

Government mandates on what health insurance has to cover are dumb. It takes the consumer out of the decision making process. Health insurance should really be set up to cover big stuff. You have an accident. You get really sick (e.g, cancer, heart attack). Health insurance should not cover the little stuff (sinus infection or other things you just need an antibiotic, fluids and rest to recover from). The idea of a doctor visit with a $10 or $25 co-pay is just silly. Let the consumer pay for the little stuff until the little stuff adds up to a few thousand dollars. Then let the insurance kick in. If you do this, the insurance could cost a LOT less.

Men in 91% and women in 82% of the counties in the U.S. have been hit with increases in the cost of insurance. It doesn't sound like the Affordable Care Act is all that “affordable.”

(James Thomas is an attorney who lives in Platte County. He is a veteran of state and local politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




Last week the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby and held that the corporation's health insurance coverage did not have to include all forms of Food and Drug Administration approved forms of birth control. As one would expect this decision set off a fire storm of misinformation and manipulation.

The Affordable Care Act (i.e., ObamaCare) included many mandated provisions that needed to be included in employer provided health insurance. It should come as no surprise that ObamaCare included a great deal of liberal overreaching when setting these mandates.

One of these mandates was that employer sponsored health insurance plans had to include all forms of FDA approved birth control. These FDA approved forms of birth control included a few forms of FDA approved birth control that are considered to be “abortion-inducing” medicines as opposed to birth control mechanisms that prevent conception in the first place.

Pre-ObamaCare, Hobby Lobby's health insurance plans covered most forms of birth control. However, Hobby Lobby objected to adding these “abortion-inducing” forms of birth control to its health insurance plan. Hobby Lobby sought a religious exemption from this ObamaCare requirement.

At issue was the application Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The RFRA was adopted by Congress in response to a prior court ruling that refused to recognize that an entity could have religious rights under the First Amendment. In practical terms, the RFRA treats an organization like Hobby Lobby as a “person” entitled to the constitutionally protected religious freedoms under the First Amendment.

A professor from the University of Missouri was involved in the case. He spoke to the Federalist Society in Kansas City a few months ago and pointed out some of the serious problems that the government had with its case. A key element in determining whether the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is whether the government action is really necessary to protect a government interest. Since the Obama Administration has given numerous exemptions and exceptions to the application of ObamaCare to numerous organizations, the government was really hard pressed to support imposing the “abortion-inducing” birth control mandate on Hobby Lobby.

There has been a great deal of misreporting about the position taken by Hobby Lobby and the result of the decision. Many media outlets have misstated that Hobby Lobby was objecting to all forms of birth control being included in its health insurance plans. This is not true. Hobby Lobby's insurance plans cover nearly all forms of birth control. The exceptions are the forms of birth control that are considered “abortion inducing.”

Democrats, such as Senator Harry Reid have started grandstanding and saying “If the Supreme Court will not protect women's access to health care, then Democrats will.” A few folks who consider abortion a method of birth control have taken to picketing at Hobby Lobby. Some media outlets have failed to clearly delineate the subtle distinction between all forms of birth control and the narrow list of forms of birth control objected to by Hobby Lobby. Of course, why let the facts get in the way.

The discussion of the Hobby Lobby case will be distorted in many media outlets by focusing on the fact that the underlying issue was an abortion-related topic. However, the real issue was whether the owners of Hobby Lobby had to surrender their religious beliefs if they operate a business entity. For now the Supreme Court says your religious freedom does not disappear if you start a business.

(James Thomas of Platte County is an attorney who has long been active in local and state politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




It has long been true that the voters hate Congress, but love their own Congressperson. Well, recent polling shows a new twist. A poll from Rasmussen Reports shows that only 20% think their representative in Congress is the best person for the job. Even worse, only 25% of voters think their Congressperson deserves re-election.

Wow! Imagine if you went to work every day and four out of five of the people that you work for didn't think you were the best person for the job. And, how about if when you went to work three of the four people you answer to thought you should be fired.

Now the results probably aren't quite as bad as this poll. Despite the poll being of “likely U.S. voters,” the questions were still asked in a generic fashion about “your representative in Congress” and not “Congressman So and So.” So, the poll results are certainly skewed lower than if the questions were asked about re-electing a particular Congressperson. And, since an election ultimately comes down to being between specific candidates, folks may not like who they have, but that doesn't mean they will like the alternatives on the ballot any better. But, it is still a troubling development.

Folks in Congress do have some perception problems. Sixty-nine percent think most members of Congress don't care what their constituents think. Fifty-three percent say their Congressperson doesn't care what they think.

Republicans seem particularly disgruntled with their Congresspeople. Fifty-nine percent of Republican voters think their representatives in Congress have lost touch with the party's base. And, only 29% of likely Republican voters think Republicans in Congress have done a good job representing Republican values over the last several years.

Amen to that. Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 because they had become “watered-down Democrats” spending money we didn't have. It only took two terms of Democrat control to realize how bad the out of control spending by Democrats really was and create the Republican wave of 2010, but after their victories Republicans have still failed to hold the line of spending, illegal immigration and a host of other issues important to the folks that gave Republicans a second chance at leadership.

Despite the occasional success of some conservative candidates, I don't have high hopes that enough of the incumbent Republicans are going to wake up and do what we elected them to do. Every time a few Republicans try to hold the line on spending and national debt increases, the Democrats and their allies in the media create an “end of the world” firestorm that makes many Republicans too scared to hold the line on responsible spending practices and debt limits.

As we prepare to celebrate another Independence Day, I just have to think that our Founding Fathers must be ashamed of what has become of America. The “oppressive” taxes that King George imposed were insignificant compared to the tax burdens that those of us who actually pay taxes have to bear. The government intrusions imposed by Parliament were insignificant compared to the regulatory intrusions imposed by the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies that exist today.

Interestingly, it was a Democrat, Thomas Jefferson, who said that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Maybe it is simply time for more “blood letting” of the electoral variety at the polls.

(James Thomas, Republican is an attorney who has long been active in state and local politics. Email james@jct3law.com)




The Missouri Republican Party lost a political giant this week. Hillard Selck died Saturday at his Boonville home. Hillard “who?” you might ask.

I understand. Selck was not a famous political figure that most people will have heard of. In fact, except for real political insiders, most people would not have had reason to cross paths with him. Furthermore, he was probably two or three “political generations” ago so those new to the political scene (i.e., only involved in the last 10 years or so) would not have likely ever met him. But, he was a political powerhouse in his day.

I wasn't necessarily a fan of the “older” Selck. By the time I came upon the political scene, he was part of the “old guard” trying to keep the “rebels” from taking over the party. However, I'm pretty sure I would have been right by his side in his early days.

Earlier in his political life, Selck was a member of a group dubbed the “Dirty Dozen.” This bunch were the “rebels” of their day. They stood against their sitting governor, Kit Bond, and sitting president, Gerald Ford, to support another “rebel,” Ronald Reagan, in his 1976 bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

This was a HUGE deal at the time. Yes. Reagan was a solid candidate for the presidential nomination in '76. Yes. Reagan got very close to pulling off the nomination at the national convention in Kansas City. And, after Reagan's concession speech at the convention, many a delegate has expressed the comment of “We just picked the wrong guy” when choosing Ford over Reagan. But, the bottom line is that while Reagan was a major political player in ‘76, he was still the outsider and standing with the outsider is a problem if you want to “make nice” with the political establishment.

Selck may not have backed the winner in '76, but his political service wasn't over. After Reagan won in 1980 Selck went on to chair the Missouri Republican Party from 1983 to 1988 and served as Missouri's Republican National Committeeman from 1988 to 1990. He also went to five Republican National Conventions as a delegate.

One of Selck's fights to go to a Republican National Convention is where we first crossed paths. He was fighting to go to another convention. I was fighting to send my friends. It is interesting how things change. In that battle, I was the “rebel” and Selck was the “establishment.” Of course, I know this is how it goes. You are a “rebel” until you win, and then you become the “establishment.” For example, during the 1996 and 2000 Congressional District Conventions, I was one of the “rebels,” but I'm sure I looked like the “establishment” as I chaired the 2004, 2008 and 2012 Congressional District Conventions.

Regardless of the turning of Selck from being a “rebel” to being the “establishment,” I still respect his efforts. He was a “Reagan man” before every Republican started worshiping Reagan. He was a champion against the insiders in his own party for the right guy. I choose to remember Selck as a “rebel” and a champion of Reagan and conservatism. And, at his passing I want to salute his efforts and the efforts of some of the other rebels from '76 like my friend, Ron Muck from Clay County, who nearly 40 years later is still a hard charging political dynamo.

Selck's service to the Republican Party is appreciated. He will be missed.

(James Thomas of Platte County is an attorney who has long been active in state and local politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




The big news last week was the defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Republican Congressman in Virginia, by David Brat, an economics professor. Cantor's defeat represents flawed campaign planning and execution as well as some flawed policy positions for a Republican primary.

One of the first steps to start a campaign is to build a vote model that predicts the number of votes that will be cast and where your candidate will get those votes. This is certainly guesswork, but for experienced political operatives it is usually very thoughtful and sophisticated guesswork. Once a campaign has identified its vote model, the next step is to identify the candidate's favorable voters and get them to the polls. It appears that the Cantor campaign took some of these basic campaign considerations too lightly.

Only 65,000 people voted in the Cantor-Brat primary race in a district of nearly 760,000 residents. To put this in context, one media outlet reported that 381,000 people voted in the 2012 Congressional race and 223,000 of those voted for Cantor. Compare that to last week's primary. Only 65,022 people voted in the Republican primary and those voters broke down 36,120 (55.55% for Brat) and 28,902 (44.45%) for Cantor. That means that less than 13% of the people that voted for Cantor in the 2012 general election voted for him in the 2014 primary election.

Now a lot of this is just a simple turnout consideration. Voting in the general election is generally significantly higher than voting in a primary election. Also, 2012 was a presidential election year and 2014 is an “off” year election. But, the bottom line is that Cantor's turn out machine, the most basic grassroots component of a campaign, was unsuccessful at getting Cantor supporters to the polls.

Of course, Cantor's campaign team and policy folks mishandled several things. Cantor's campaign staff offended a pro-Second Amendment group by failing to respond to its candidate questionnaire. Cantor's campaign ran attack ads gave Brat name ID by referring to him by name. And, Cantor created a great deal of policy confusion over illegal immigration by at one point saying he was opposed to “amnesty” while supporting a bill that some say was a form of “amnesty.”

Of course, the biggest downfall of the campaign seems to be one that eventually dooms most Congressmen. Many citizens who were interviewed said that Cantor had “lost touch with the people” and “didn't spend enough time in the district.” In fairness to Cantor, as majority leader, he has to spend a lot of time on the road helping candidates with events to raise money so the Republicans can maintain the majority. However, since Cantor's district in the Richmond, Virginia area isn't that far geographically from D.C., you would think that he would have found the time to make it back to this district more frequently.

Cantor's loss is probably the result of a variety of things: Cantor losing touch with the district, a poorly run campaign and a frustration with the failure of Republican leadership to promote conservative policies. The last is particularly troubling. Republicans gained a House majority with a conservative message, but Republicans collectively don't seem willing to stand up for conservative policies. Maybe Cantor's loss will serve as a reminder to other Republican incumbents to stick with their conservative campaign promises.

(James Thomas of Platte County is an attorney who has long been active in state and local politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




Took a break from politics last week to focus on high school girls' soccer. The high school team of my older daughter, Shannon, played in the Class 1A final four of the state championship tournament.

Lutheran High opened the season with a loss to Maryville. But, the girls won the next game, tied the next game and then didn't lose or tie until reaching the final four.

What these girls accomplished is a pretty amazing feat. LHS is small: 135 students in the high school. There are only three divisions in soccer. So, even the smallest division of girls' soccer means the schools are typically four to eight times the size of LHS. The team also includes no current club soccer players.

Most of the girls are like my daughter. Shannon has no current plans to play sports in college. She has chosen not to focus on playing one particular sport that she can get really good at, but rather to play for her school. I describe it that she plays for the team name on the front of her jersey instead of her name on the back of her jersey. (Our girls' don't really have their names on the back of their jerseys, but you know what I mean.) Our girls played volleyball until the district championship game. The next day they started basketball practice. Our girls played basketball until the district championship game in March. Then two days later (they had Sunday off) they started soccer practice.

The other interesting thing is that many of the girls are also like my daughter in that they have little soccer experience. My daughter had played almost no soccer before she was a freshman in high school. During the spring in junior high my daughter participated in track, primarily the shot put and discus. However, at the end of basketball season of her freshman year the other girls begged her to play soccer so they could field a team. The girls eventually ended up with a roster of 13. Despite her limited soccer experience Shannon played almost every minute of every game during her freshman and sophomore years because the roster was so thin. While she didn't have traditional soccer skills her broad shoulders and her “not going to get pushed around” attitude served her well as a defender.

Since the roster ballooned to 15 players this year, Shannon gave up a little playing time, but still got to start in both final four games. Due to an injury she even had to move up and play an offensive position that led to a shot on goal in the third place game. (She'll probably tell you it was a pass to our star player that she overshot a little bit, but the MSHSAA stats show it as a shot on goal and a save by the goalie.)

It has been a lot of fun to watch the girls over the last three years. I just had no idea how rough soccer is. At the end of her freshman year, Shannon had bruises up and down both arms. She had several new scuff marks after this weekend. This season was a particularly fun ride including regular season wins over Chillicothe, Pembroke Hill, Cameron, Barstow, Savannah and Bishop LeBlond, the district championship win over Barstow, the sectional win over Summit Christian and the quarterfinal win over St. Pius to advance to the final four.

LHS faced a daunting challenge in the first semifinal game facing a team that had been to the final four for the last six years. However, the girls faced the challenge bravely and started quickly. LHS' star player, Sierra Grimm, ricocheted a shot off the post in the first 20 seconds. I'm sure this near miss gave the opposing team a little scare. The girls were within a goal until the last three minutes when the pressure to tie the game left an opening that allowed the other team to go up by two. It was an exciting battle against a team seeking its third title in five years. In the semifinal game they had to face a team in the third place game that had been to the final four for the last three years. They played hard, but just didn't have enough to pull out a win.

Despite the fact that Lutheran High finished school on May 22 I have told my daughter she wouldn't be a senior until soccer ended. Well, as of about 4 p.m. on Saturday, she is now a senior. It would have been a great memory to have fought passed the six consecutive final four team for a shot at a state championship or to have defeated a third consecutive final four team for third place, but just making the final four should still be a great memory of camaraderie and sportsmanship for these girls. I hope they will focus on the season as a whole in the future rather than the two tough losses to end the season. They represented the school well not only with success on the field, but, more importantly, a consistent display of good sportsmanship. Congratulations to them on a great season!

(James Thomas is an attorney who has long been active in state and local politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




Big newspapers have been struggling. Fewer and fewer people subscribe to daily newspapers and more and more people are getting their news on-line.

(This hasn't impacted small newspapers like The Landmark the same way because The Landmark offers unique coverage that you don't get anywhere else. Just try to find hardly any Platte County-related news in the Kansas City Star.)

Some newspapers responded to the on-line preference by forcing potential readers to pay a fee to access news content. Other media outlets flood their on-line access points with advertisements.
This created an interesting problem for political junkies. Those interested in politics and particularly state-wide politics can't really rely on The Kansas City Star for coverage. Their coverage is intermittent at best.

Most folks interested in state-wide politics check johncombest.com on a daily basis. John Combest does a huge favor for Missouri's political junkies by pulling together political stories from newspapers from all over the state. This is an amazing service because coverage by the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Columbia Missourian, Jefferson County News Tribune and Southeast Missourian are far more extensive than The Star's limited covering of what happens in Jeff City.

There was a time right after these bigger newspapers began putting up their “pay walls” to limit on-line access without a fee that daily readers of johncombest.com had less news available. However, most of these newspapers either decided to give access to readers through a link on johncombest.com or to at least to give readers a free opportunity to read a limited number of stories.

Well the johncombest.com link to the Columbia Missourian has revealed a new plan. Instead of making readers pay a fee or sit through an advertisement video, the Columbia Missourian will now have a survey before a reader can access a story. (Those who continue to pay the $5.95 per month fee will not be subject to these surveys.) These surveys are conducted by Google. Apparently Google collects 10 cents from market research firms for every completed survey. Google then pays a nickel to the newspaper for each of these surveys. Then, the newspaper gives the reader “free” access.

I appreciate that a newspaper is a business just like any other. The newspaper has to bring in revenue to be able to pay the reporters that research and write the stories or there will be no stories. Like any other business, a newspaper has to have enough money to pay for the operating costs and leave some profit for the owners who invested their capital in the business. However, despite my appreciation of the business purpose of the “pay walls,' I would just choose to not read a story when I hit such a roadblock. I always thought that the newspaper needed to find a way to make sure people were still reading their news stories – even if only on-line and free – if the newspaper was going to remain relevant.

The Columbia Missourian is not one of the sources I would go to very often. I certainly wasn't going to pay a subscription to read their stories. (The Southeast Missourian actually has some of the very best Jeff City coverage in the state.) However, if these surveys aren't too onerous, I might go there more often. I guess we'll have to wait and see whether this new money making scheme works out.

(James Thomas of Platte County is an attorney who is a veteran of state and local politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)



It's over! The Missouri legislature has concluded its regular session. You can breathe a little easier, but only a little.

Like most legislative sessions this one saw a wide range of bills work their way through the legislative process and on to the governor's desk. Many of the bills that were passed still have to be signed by the governor before they will become law.

One of the big issues before the legislature was how to deal with the “school transfer law.” A law was passed several years ago that lets students from school districts that have lost their accreditation transfer to another school district and have their home school district pay the tuition to the other school district. In some ways this makes logical sense. If the student's home school district has lost its accreditation it is obviously not doing its job. If “free public education” is going to mean anything, a student needs to be able to attend an accredited school. However, it is an expensive proposition when an entire school district of students has a right to pack up and go to school outside the home district and have the unaccredited school district foot the bill. In working through this issue, the legislature passed a bill that actually may add new controversy. The bill that has been passed allows a student to transfer not only to a nearby public school, but also to a private school. The public education establishment will go crazy over this. So, the fight is certainly not over yet.

On another education note, a bill was passed that will set up a panel to rewrite the student achievement standards for English, math, science and history. This is in response to the outrage over the Common Core Standards. We'll have to wait and see how this plays out. It is very possible that these new standards will simply be the Common Core Standards with a different label.

Another education bill creates a two-tiered funding plan for education in the 2015 budget. The plan includes a $115 million increase and potentially a $278 million increase in state revenues assuming that the State's revenues reach Governor Nixon's projections. Of course, since no matter how much of an increase in funding the public education advocates get it is never enough, this may not be happily accepted by the public education establishment.

A major event was a massive rewrite of the criminal code. I haven't paid much attention to this because I don't practice that kind of law. However, lots of lawyers who are experts in criminal law have been working on this project for years.

Some important legislation did not get addressed. Those wanting to bankrupt the state with more government handouts failed to get an expansion of Medicaid through the legislature. Neither making Missouri a right to work state nor requiring unions to get annual written consent to the automatic paycheck deduction of union fees passed. Attempts to require a photo ID to vote didn't pass either. (I'm not sure why the Democrats are unwilling to show idea to vote. Oh, wait. Now I remember.)

A “biggie” that did pass is the putting of a three-fourths cent statewide transportation sales tax on the ballot. More on that later.

For now, you don't have to hold on to your wallets as tightly, but do be vigilant. Those in government still think your money is their money.

(James Thomas of Platte County is an attorney who has long been active in local politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




As tornadoes touch down across the Midwest there is another whirlwind you need to be worried about. This week is the last week of the Missouri General Assembly's legislative session. As usual, there is a whirlwind of activity as legislators rush to pass or kill bills as the close of session approaches on Friday.

Last week's big news was the legislature's override of Gov. Jay Nixon's veto of the tax cut. The tax but bill may have been a strong political gesture, but the new tax rates do not take effect until 2017 are phased in over five years so no money will show up in taxpayers' wallets for a while. Also, the tax cuts are subject to certain conditions precedent that have the potential to never cause the tax cuts to take effect. However, the passage of the tax cuts, although watered-down, futuristic and uncertain, was certainly a symbolic gesture.

The legislative sessions typically runs into the wee hours of the morning during this week. In fact, one of my friends told me he stayed in the Senate gallery until they closed Monday's session at around 2 a.m. on Tuesday morning. The debate on Monday was over a bill to extend the abortion waiting period from 24 hours to 72 hours. The Democrat Senators apparently ended their opposition in exchange for Republicans dropping their voter ID and paycheck protection efforts. It is interesting that Republicans, who have an overwhelming majority in the Senate, couldn't get enough votes together to “call the previous question” and end debate on the abortion waiting period bill.

A lot of important issues are still being debated as the clock winds down: revisions to the 1993 school transfer law, a statewide transportation sales tax, tax credit reform, and restoring caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases.

My greatest fear is actually the last minute passage of bills without them being thought completely through. One particular example was a campaign finance bill rammed through by Senator Charlie Shields at the very end of the 2010 legislative session. Many very knowledgeable folks tried to point out defects in the bill to Shields even as late as the day before the last day of session. However, Shields was adamant that he wanted to pass some form of campaign finance reform whether flawed or not. In fact, Shields commented that “we'll fix it later.” (Of course, he was at the end of his term and not running for re-election so he wouldn't have been part of that “we” that would be fixing anything.) The end result was that a flawed bill was passed at the very end of the legislative session and that bill was later thrown out by the Missouri Supreme Court as unconstitutional. This was clearly a problem that could have been avoided with more thoughtful drafting and less of a last minute rush to pass something notwithstanding its obvious flaws.

This time of year we need to fear not just the real tornadoes, but also the legislative tornadoes that come as the legislative session comes to a close. But, to fight the legislative cyclone, don't hide in your cellar. Instead, pick up your phone and keep pressure on your legislators to pass good, common sense laws or, maybe more importantly, not to pass dumb laws.

Our efforts don't always work, but, if you do nothing, who knows what we'll get.

(James Thomas is an attorney who has long been active in politics in Platte County and throughout the state. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




As has long been anticipated, Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the legislature's tax cut bill last week. It was thought that the Republican-led legislature might not have enough votes to override the veto. However, the Senate voted 23-8 and the House voted 109-46 to override Nixon's veto this week.

Don't get too excited. Most of the tax cut bill provisions are phased in so it will be a while before you can keep more of your money.

The tax cuts are phased in from 2017 to 2021. The highest individual rate is currently 6%. This rate will apply through 2016. Then, starting in 2017, the rate is slated to come down slowly: 5.9% in 2017, 5.8% in 2018, 5.7% in 2019, 5.6% in 2020 and 5.5% in 2012.

Missouri actually has a relatively flat set of tax brackets. Taxpayers reach the highest bracket with taxable income over $9,000.

The tax cuts are not automatic. Before the tax rate adjustments will take effect, the state's revenues must increase by at least $150 million a year compared to the highest revenue amount in the previous three years. So, there is certainly a risk that the lower rates will never take effect.

While any tax savings is nice, it isn't a huge savings to any individual taxpayer. For example, a taxpayer with $100,000 of Missouri taxable income would see the Missouri income tax bill drop from $5,775 to $5,320 as a result of the rate adjustment. The extra $455 isn't going to make a huge difference to a taxpayer, but every little bit helps.

The more significant tax savings will be for taxpayers with income from sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations. If the revenue growth trigger is met, a taxpayer with this sort of income can exclude 25% of income from these sources. This exclusion is actually phased in so the exclusion is zero through 2016, 5% in 2017, 10% in 2018, 15% in 2019, 20% in 2020 and 25% in 2021. So, a taxpayer with $100,000 of income from a sole proprietorship in 2021 would see a savings of about $1,375. Once again, not earth shattering, but it sure is better for the taxpayer to have money in his pocket rather than forking it over to the government.

The tax cut law also increases the personal exemption amount for low income taxpayers. Currently, the personal exemption is $2,100 per person. The personal exemption will increase to $2,600 for taxpayers with Missouri adjusted gross income of less than $20,000.

I was a little surprised the veto was overridden. In a previous legislative session. a tax cut bill was vetoed and the legislators could not get enough votes for an override. The groups that fought that previous bill have been putting on a full court press claiming “the world will end” if the state income tax rate is reduced. Okay. Maybe I have exaggerated their position a little. But, those groups that spend our tax dollars have been saying that they can't live without more.

There is an interesting twist in the works. While the income tax cut has been pushed through, there has simultaneously been a proposal to create a state-wide sales tax to fund transportation improvements. So, while the legislature has been trying to let us keep more of our money with one hand, the legislature has simultaneously been working to take more of our money from us.

(James Thomas is a Platte County attorney who has long been active in state and local politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)




One of two things is true: Either American's public education system is awful or the mechanisms for reporting the measurement of student performance is awful.

What caught my eye this week was a story about the best and worst states for public education. The article examined a variety of factors in ranking public education in each state. One of the factors was the performance of students on standardized tests.

The national average for the proficiency of fourth graders in reading is about 35%. In the best states in the country for public education, the proficiency of fourth graders in reading is about 45%. The proficiency rankings in mathematics for fourth graders and eighth graders are about the same. The national average is about 35% proficiency with the best states reach into the 40 to 45% proficiency range. The worst states for public education tended to be less than the 35% proficiency rating in math and reading.

Something is terribly wrong here. If only 35% to 45% of public school kids are proficient in math and reading, what does that say about the other 55% to 65% who are NOT proficient?

There should be near 100% proficiency. Of course, maybe the education system is using the wrong nomenclature. Does “proficient” not mean “meets the minimum standard” for the particular grade level? Does it mean something else?

I was strongly opposed to President Bush's “No Child Left Behind” initiative. I wholeheartedly supported Bush's idea that every single kid in America should get a certain minimum level of education from the public education system. My objection had to do with whether this was a federal issue or a state issue. As Governor of Texas, Bush had some responsibility for the performance of public education. However, when he became president, Bush was no longer responsible for elementary and secondary education. These are state issues and not federal issues. But, the concept, while contrary to notions of federalism, was a good one. Every kid needs to meet the standards of proficiency for a particular grade level before being promoted to the next grade level. And, schools, that don't see that students meet the standard should lose their funding until they do help students meet the standard.

“No Child Left Behind” was sadly an example of “you just can't help some people.” Bush pushed through greater increases in federal funding for public education in his first two years in office than Clinton did in all eight years in office. Bush tried to make education a priority. He even reached across the aisle to partner with ultra-liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy to push this initiative. What thanks did he get? Bush was ridiculed by the liberal left for promoting minimum standards of achievement for students and for not giving enough money. Thus, he again proved that you simply just can't help some people because even if you give them more than they have ever gotten before, you can never give them enough.

But, I digress. My key concern is that there are tests out there that establish a measurement of “proficiency,” which is implied to be the minimum standard of performance, but the average proficiency is in the mid-30 percent range. If this means that only this dismal percentage of students is meeting the minimum standard of performance, then that is awful. If it means something else, then the education establishment needs to provide some clarity on what “proficiency” really measures.

(James Thomas, Republican, is an attorney who is active in local politics. Email james@jct3law.com)




State Rep. Scott Fitzpatrick of Shell Knob (i.e., southwest Missouri) is drawing fire over his proposal to require Missouri's public colleges to charge students who are “not lawfully present” international tuition rates. The question that first comes to mind is “Why aren't Missouri's public colleges already doing that?” Well that is really the second question that comes to mind. The first question that comes to mind is “How are students who are 'not lawfully present' even enrolling in Missouri's public colleges?”

No. Seriously! How is a student that is “not lawfully present” able to enroll in any college in Missouri?!

If a student is not lawfully in this country, shouldn't the student be expelled from the country? How can someone who is “not lawfully present” not only be allowed to continue to be “unlawfully present,” but also be allowed to attend a publicly funded college?

Don't get me wrong. I am a huge advocate for LEGAL immigration. We are essentially all immigrants whether we or our ancestors came here after we were born or whether our ancestors came to America in the 1600s. America is a nation of immigrants. America is made better by its diverse mix of people from a variety of cultures. (Of course, in the past what has made the diverse mix work is that the immigrants want to become “Americans” and not “hyphenated Americans” whose loyalties first lie to what is before the hyphen rather than what is after the hyphen, but that is a subject for another day.) It is a huge compliment to America that people want to come here. We should be proud and welcome those who come here legally.

Furthermore, there needs to be a serious discussion about the process to legally immigrate to America. I absolutely do not support amnesty for any illegal immigrants. However, I would be open to a discussion of a less strenuous entry process that give folks here illegally a modest window (say 90 to 180 days) to exit and re-enter legally. However, in exchange for giving an easy re-entry process I would expect the laws and the enforcement process to deal harshly with anyone caught here illegally after that reentry opportunity. I know forcing illegal immigrants to leave and then letting them almost instantly come back might seem trivial, but to me it is what is necessary to satisfy the requirement of “legal entry.”

I am also sympathetic to the fact a lot of the students who are “not lawfully present” must have been brought here by their parents when they were small children. It is not their fault that their parents smuggled them across the border from their native land. You don't really want to punish these kids for the crimes of their parents, especially when the parents were probably just trying to make their kids' lives better. However, the problem remains that the students we are talking about are “not lawfully present.” How can someone who is “not lawfully present” be entitled to any government benefits, including in-state tuition at a public college?

The immigration issue is a difficult one. We want America to continue to welcome immigrants and be the place where people come to escape oppression and build better lives for their families. BUT, we still need to uphold respect for the law. If someone is not “legally present” he or she should not be entitled to the benefits set aside for those are “legally present.”

(James Thomas, an attorney, is active in local Republican politics. He can be reached at james@jct3law.com)




Last week Dave Helling from the Kansas City Star wrote a column bemoaning the role of “big money donors” in the political process. He does make some very good points, but he also misses the point that money is spent on politics because the media typically does such an awful job of giving important information to the voters.

Helling wrote:

The biggest threat to democracy may be unlimited campaign donations, but the best defense is an energetic, informed electorate making up its own mind.

I would wholeheartedly concur with Helling that “an energetic, informed electorate making up its own mind” is the best defense to any threats to democracy. The problem is that candidates end up having to raise lots of money to share their message with the voters because the media typically does such an awful job of giving important information to the voters.

The cost to reach the voters is very expensive. Big races use TV to reach the voters. A statewide TV buy with decent penetration will cost $500,000 or more a week. In a more local race, such as a county office, a candidate will spent $5,000 to $10,000 on a countywide mailer. The bottom line is that it takes a lot of money for candidates to reach the voters with a message. To fund a one week $500,000 TV campaign requires 20,000 $25 contributions. To fund one $10,000 countywide mailer requires 400 $25 contributions.

Don't get me wrong. I love $25 contributions. A person that parts with 25 of their hard earned dollars is absolutely with your candidate. However, $25 only pays for five yard signs or five thousandths of one percent of one week state-wide TV buy. The only way to hit the campaign budget is to get lots of $25 contributions and some much larger contributions.

One question Helling doesn't address is whether his criticism of “big-money donors” also extends to labor unions. Unions force workers to give them money to spend on candidates that large portions of their membership (about 40% according to most polls) don't support. I find that process far more offensive than a person giving his or her own money to support candidates with similar ideas.

Sadly, Helling criticizes patriotic campaign donors and fails to discuss the role the media plays in this whole process. The media has the ability to make the TV ads funded by “rich guys' cash” irrelevant by simply providing more, better and fairer information to the electorate so that they can be informed. If the truth is out there, no TV ad or piece of junk mail will overcome the truth. However, one of the key problems is that many media types are not neutral sharers of the truth. Many media types have an axe to grind or a particular political leaning that comes through their “reporting.” (I actually have rarely seen that from Helling, but I'm talking about the media-types as a collective.) This failure by the media is why candidates have to raise lots of money to share their own message.

Helling is right. An “energetic, informed electorate” does control the outcome of elections. The problem is the media has failed to keep the electorate informed. So, candidates have to raise lots of money, including both lots of small contributions as well as larger chunks from a few donors, to be able to share their message with the voters.

(James Thomas is a veteran of local Republican politics. Reach him by email to james@jct3law.com)




Lobbying. Some people think that is a dirty word. Generally, I disagree. Lobbying is simply communicating with an elected official or governing body about some topic up for consideration. There is certainly nothing wrong with lobbying. In fact we all should lobby from time to time.

I know I have “lobbied” (not in a legal sense, but in a practical sense) from time to time. When former Rep. Tim Flook and former Sen. Charlie Shields were working on campaign finance reform, I tried to explain to them the meaning of the words in the bill they had proposed and the practical implications of the language in the bill. They refused to listen and rushed the bill through the legislature without proper consideration. A few months later the Missouri Supreme Court threw out the bill based on the concerns about which I tried to warn them. (This wasn't really lobbying, more like “constructive commenting,” but you get the idea.)

The point is that sharing information with our elected officials is not a bad thing. We all should do it. How will our elected officials know how we feel if we don't talk to them? However, what can be a problem is when a very small group lobbies for something and thereby exerts an inordinate amount of influence over our governing bodies.

One particular instance caught my eye this past week: the bicycling lobby. Yep. Those irritating people that drive their bicycles on roads MADE FOR CARS have a very vocal and active lobbying group even though they are a very small percentage of the population.

Right now the Missouri General Assembly is considering a state-wide sales tax to fund Missouri's transportation needs. One legislator proposed an amendment that would prohibit using any of this sales tax money for “bicycle” transportation. That brought the bicyclists out of the woodwork. Yep. They want money that is supposed to be used for roads to also be used for bicyclists.

I am not sure how much clout the bicyclist lobby really has in Jefferson City, but I can tell you that they have WAY too much clout in the City of Kansas City. The bicyclist lobby wanted a dedicated crossing of the Missouri River and the City Council gave it to them! Where did this come from? A car lane was eliminated from the Heart of American Bridge. Yep. That's right. There are fewer driving lanes to cross the Missouri River so the bicyclists can have a dedicated lane.

This is where lobbying can be a bad thing. The bicyclists in Kansas City are a tiny portion of the population, but they got a huge concession because they are extremely vocal. Did the City Council consider the overwhelming majority who would oppose losing a car lane across the Missouri River? No. They never heard from us.

Just be glad that the bicyclists didn't get the last thing they wanted. When revisions to the planning codes were being discussed, the bicyclists were wanting the code to mandate that bicycle parking spaces and shower facilities be part of the code. Bicycle parking is so burdensome, but shower facilities? Are they nuts?!?!?

No. Lobbying is not necessarily a bad thing. However, when a small group becomes a vocal lobbying force and the vast majority of us are silent, the results of lobbying can be bad.

(James Thomas, a Republican, has long been active in Platte County politics. Lobby him at james@jct3law.com)




Poverty in America is a tragedy. We are the wealthiest nation in the world. To have poverty existing in America is a sad state of affairs. However, it is almost impossible to have an honest discussion about fixing poverty because certain interest groups have a tendency to get their noses out of joint. Of course, when tiptoeing around such a sensitive area, it is really important to choose one's words carefully. Congressman (and 2012 vice presidential nominee) Paul Ryan failed to do that recently.

Ryan recently said that “there was a tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value of work.”
As you might guess, the Congressional Black Caucus was upset with him.

The Congressional Black Caucus said the remarks were “highly offensive.” Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California said Ryan's remarks were a “thinly veiled racial attack.” Lee stated in a press release that “Let's be clear, when Mr. Ryan says 'inner city,' when he says 'culture,' these are simply code words for what he really means: 'black'.”

Ryan's inclusion of a reference to “the inner cities in particular” was probably not the best choice of words. He tried to backpedal a little bit to address his less than ideal word choice. He issued a follow- up statement in which he said “I was not implicating the culture of one community, but of society as a whole. We have allowed our society to isolate or quarantine the poor rather than integrate people into our communities. The predictable result has been multi-generational poverty and little opportunity.”

Ryan's follow-up comments are certainly a little more delicate way of addressing the issue. But his reference to “the inner cities in particular” seemed to be supported by reality. Kansas City is a prime example. The once proud core of Kansas City has been in steady decline for generations. And, if it wasn't for the massive land grab by Kansas City that makes Kansas City both the inner city and the areas stretching all the way to Platte City and down into Cass County, Kansas City would be losing population and its tax base.

Poor people aren't just in the inner city. In fact, a study would likely find more poor people in rural America than in the inner city. However, with the inner city there is a concentration of poverty that you just don't see anywhere else.

This isn't an easy problem to fix. In fact, it can never be entirely fixed. “The poor will always be with us.” Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7 and John 12:8. However, “. . . the needy will not always be forgotten, nor the hope of the afflicted perish forever.” Psalm 9:18.

Ryan wants to work toward a solution that truly reduces poverty. The problem is that the Congresspeople who happen to have a lot of poor people in their districts aren't willing to get over being offended and have an honest discussion about solutions to poverty.

Sadly, the losers as a result of these Congresspeople's indignation are those people that Ryan is trying to help. Of course, if the constituents of these offended Congresspeople did get out of poverty, they might stop being Democrat voters. The offended Congresspeople certainly wouldn't want that.

(James Thomas is an attorney and a veteran of local Republican politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)



Poverty in America is a tragedy. We are the wealthiest nation in the world. To have poverty existing in America is a sad state of affairs. However, it is almost impossible to have an honest discussion about fixing poverty because certain interest groups have a tendency to get their noses out of joint. Of course, when tiptoeing around such a sensitive area, it is really important to choose one's words carefully. Congressman (and 2012 vice presidential nominee) Paul Ryan failed to do that recently.

Ryan recently said that “there was a tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value of work.”
As you might guess, the Congressional Black Caucus was upset with him.

The Congressional Black Caucus said the remarks were “highly offensive.” Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California said Ryan's remarks were a “thinly veiled racial attack.” Lee stated in a press release that “Let's be clear, when Mr. Ryan says 'inner city,' when he says 'culture,' these are simply code words for what he really means: 'black'.”

Ryan's inclusion of a reference to “the inner cities in particular” was probably not the best choice of words. He tried to backpedal a little bit to address his less than ideal word choice. He issued a follow- up statement in which he said “I was not implicating the culture of one community, but of society as a whole. We have allowed our society to isolate or quarantine the poor rather than integrate people into our communities. The predictable result has been multi-generational poverty and little opportunity.”

Ryan's follow-up comments are certainly a little more delicate way of addressing the issue. But his reference to “the inner cities in particular” seemed to be supported by reality. Kansas City is a prime example. The once proud core of Kansas City has been in steady decline for generations. And, if it wasn't for the massive land grab by Kansas City that makes Kansas City both the inner city and the areas stretching all the way to Platte City and down into Cass County, Kansas City would be losing population and its tax base.

Poor people aren't just in the inner city. In fact, a study would likely find more poor people in rural America than in the inner city. However, with the inner city there is a concentration of poverty that you just don't see anywhere else.

This isn't an easy problem to fix. In fact, it can never be entirely fixed. “The poor will always be with us.” Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7 and John 12:8. However, “. . . the needy will not always be forgotten, nor the hope of the afflicted perish forever.” Psalm 9:18.

Ryan wants to work toward a solution that truly reduces poverty. The problem is that the Congresspeople who happen to have a lot of poor people in their districts aren't willing to get over being offended and have an honest discussion about solutions to poverty.
Sadly, the losers as a result of these Congresspeople's indignation are those people that Ryan is trying to help. Of course, if the constituents of these offended Congresspeople did get out of poverty, they might stop being Democrat voters. The offended Congresspeople certainly wouldn't want that.
(James Thomas is an attorney and a veteran of local Republican politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)



The Missouri General Assembly has reached their spring break. It seems a little odd that a group that didn't start work until after the first of the year is already taking a week off, but when we are talking about a group of people looking for new ways to spend your money, it isn't a bad thing that they don't show up for work for a few days. I know I breathe easier when the legislature is out of session instead of in session.

As always, there are lots of bills working their way through the legislative process. Some of the bills that come up have no real prospect of becoming law, but instead are merely an attempt to get opposing legislators on the record as being for or against something. Other bills are serious discussions of policy issues.

Of course, many bills have the potential to get through the legislative process only to face a likely veto by Gov. Jay Nixon. For example, various tax cut bills have being proposed. However, none of these bills seem to be something that Nixon will approve.

There is one interesting bill that does not seem to be a burning hot issue, but is at least something worthy of debate. State Rep. Tony Dugger (R-Hartville) has proposed that the state primary elections be moved earlier in the year.

Currently, the primary election is held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in August. Since the general election is held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, this means that the time between the primary and the general election is typically only about 12 weeks. Rep. Dugger is proposing to move the primary election up to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June. That would lengthen the time between the primary and the general election to around 20 weeks.

I'm not sure how I feel about this proposal. In some ways having more time between the primary and general election is good. Sometimes there are post-primary clean-up items (e.g., a meaningless recount) that it would be good to have more time after those are resolved to move forward with the general election.

Also, if you are in a bigger race (e.g., a down ballot state-wide race) that needs to raise $2 million for TV for the last four weeks before the election, the extra approximately eight weeks cuts your weekly fund raising goal from $166,000 per week to $100,000 per week. Still a hefty goal, but an easier goal to reach. However, the current situation is that the big push to November typically starts after Labor Day.

Would moving the primary earlier mean the big push starts even earlier and drags on longer? Also, would the June primary simply move the pre-primary process up earlier? Would the filing period need to be moved up earlier because the time from the close of filing until the primary was just shortened by eight weeks?

I don't have a strong opinion on this proposal yet, but this is a good issue to debate around the dinner table or over your favorite adult beverage. It is certainly a “more friendly” debate topic because it doesn't involve social or fiscal issues.

Maybe you could kick the idea around while you watch NCAA Tournament games this week.

(James Thomas has long been active in local Platte County politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)



The end is near! America is doomed!

Okay that is a little bit of an exaggeration, but America is on the wrong path. A January poll by Rasmussen Reports found that only 34 percent think America's best days are still to come. Forty-six percent think the nation's best days are in the past. Twenty percent are unsure.

There is a certain amount of pessimism to any generation, but a look at a Pew Research Center study of the millennial generation does indicate there are strong reasons for concern. The study identifies the millennial generation as those who are now between ages 18 and 33. The study indicates that the millennials and all of their friends are on Facebook and don't think twice about posting a selfie on Instagram. (If I didn't have two teenage daughters I would not know what “Instagram” or a “selfie” are.)

Interestingly, the typical millennials do not have a college degree, but they do have $27,000 in student loan debt. Ouch! A majority of millenials are white, unmarried, but hoping to get married someday.
Their social values lean liberal. Sixty-eight percent support gay marriage. A majority support legalized marijuana. Eighty percent favor citizenship for illegal immigrants. Interestingly, the study shows that 19 percent of the millennials “can loosely be characterized as an immigrant.”

They generally claim to be independent, but lean Democratic. They prefer more government spending to fewer government services and think the government should be spending more money on them. However, they seem somewhat suspect about ObamaCare. They also don't think Social Security will be around for them.

If you look at all this data, it certainly appears that America -- or at least America as our parents and grandparents knew it – will soon – in the next generation or two – be coming to an end. As the millennials become the primary working age generation and their children and grandchildren develop even more liberal values, the decline will continue. Not only will America look very different in the future with liberal values spreading, such as pot smokers sitting around everywhere, the work ethic will continue to decline with the future generations sitting around with their hands out waiting for the government to send them money.

Or course, what the liberals just don't seem to understand is that the government can't spend money it doesn't have forever. Eventually the system will collapse on itself. Endless handouts are just bad policy. It is simply a math problem.

Just as the legalized pot craze spreads across the country, America is going to pot. With some real leadership we might reverse ourselves from this downward spiral. However, given the pool of leaders we have seen in the last few years, it doesn't seem promising.

My only hope is that a lot of parents have read The Lorax to their kids and that those kids have taken the words of Dr. Suess, as conveyed by the Once-ler, to heart:

“But now," says the Once-ler, "now that you're here, the word of the Lorax seems perfectly clear. UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.”

Looking at the collective data on the millennials, the future looks dim. But, maybe, enough of those millennials will heed the “UNLESS” call and rescue the future generations.

(A veteran of local politics, James Thomas can be reached via email to james @jct3law.com)



Once again, there are rumblings in Jefferson City about putting caps on campaign contributions. However, some of the thoughts on contribution limits are simply misguided.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch, which is a big fan of contribution limits, had an article this week that analyzed the contribution history from 2011 to 2013. The article said there were more than 150,000 donations to Missouri candidate committees and ballot measure committees. However, the article bemoans that a “tiny percentage” of the contributions has accounted for an “outsize (sic) share of the money raised.” The article claims that more than half of the money raised came from donations of $5,000 or more despite those contributions representing 2.8% of the total contributions raised. The article further claims that contributions of more than $10,000 account for roughly 42 percent of the amounts raised although these contributions constitute only 1.1 percent of all contributions.

At first blush this might sound bad. However, it isn't really all that surprising. I love small contributions to campaigns. A person that writes a $25 check may only be funding five yard signs, but that person is committed to your campaign. But, while I love those $25 checks, it takes 200 $25 checks to raise $5,000, which isn't enough to send even a single county-wide mailer in Platte County. So, while $25 checks are greatly appreciated, it takes far more of them than exist to fund a campaign.

The fact that a few contributions make up the bulk of the dollars raised really should not come as a surprise. It is as true with charitable fundraising as it is with the political campaigns.

When I put together a fundraising plan for the gym floor and basketball and volleyball equipment for my kids' school gym, I developed a tiered funding plan to raise the $55,000 we needed. I projected one donor at approximately $13,000, three donors at $2,000, ten donors at $1,000, 15 donors at $700, 20 donors at $350, 25 donors at $175, 50 donors at $70 and 50 donors at $7. I REALLY wanted the $7 donors because I wanted as many people as possible to have a sense of ownership and pride regarding the gym improvements. However, while those $7 contributions made up 28% of the desired contributors, they were projected to make up less than 1% of the amount of dollars we needed to raise.

The $1,000 and up donors were projected to be less than 9% of the donors, but over 50% of the amount to be raised. Sadly, we didn't have nearly as many small donors as we hoped and ended up raising the bulk of the money we needed in $1,000 to $5,000 chunks.

Political fund raising operates much the same way as charitable fund raising. There tend to be “chunks” of money raised from a relatively few donors while lots of donors give small amounts. That's just the way it is. The Post Dispatch's study overlooks this reality. However, the study does have one really cool aspect: The Post Dispatch staff was able to research this story by using on-line reporting tools.

There is one important thought that seems to be overlooked by those complaining about money in political campaigns. Money doesn't always win. I have seen lots of candidates whether at the county level or state-wide outspend their opponents and lose.

An honest debate about campaign finance laws is appropriate, but ‘caps for the sake of caps’ doesn’t really make sense.

(James Thomas is a veteran of politics in Platte County. Reach him at james@jct3law.com)



Filing for state and local offices opened this week. There is always a great deal of anxiety among political officeholders, candidates and activists from the date of the opening of filing through the date of the close of filing in the last week of March. Politicians and political junkies are always wondering about what candidates will “come out of the woodwork.”

Some of this is a real concern. There have been candidates that have just showed up on the last day of filing unrecruited and unannounced who “throw their hat in the ring.” On a few occasions these surprise candidates build a team and go on to win the election. But, some of this is just silly. Most serious candidates – even those running for smaller offices such as county offices or state representative – started raising money and putting their infrastructure in place weeks ago. Their candidacy should be a surprise to no one.

Candidates running for bigger offices really need to start much earlier if possible. If a candidate is running for governor, they will need millions of dollars for TV and radio buys, printing and postage. A candidate just can't raise five or six million dollars in the period from the opening of filing until the November election date. The candidate has to start months or even years before filing opens. The new trend seems to be to start more than two years before the election date.

Even candidates for county offices or state representative could really use a few more weeks to raise money, put a team together and do the work to build a successful campaign. But a county or state representative race is still small enough from both a geographic and population standpoint to allow a last day filer to be successful.

Regardless, there are usually a few surprises as filing opens and even a few more surprises as filing closes. However, those surprises at the end of filing have become fewer since the adoption of the “Gary Witt Rule.” It used to be that a few incumbents would say they were running until the last day of filing, withdraw on the last day of filing and then have their preferred successor file at the same time. This left members of the opposing party no time to find a replacement.

After Gary Witt pulled this stunt to end his career as a state representative, the legislature adopted a new law (a statute that I like to call the “Gary Witt Rule) that extends filing for a few days if there are these last minute withdrawals. So, at least there are a few days to find another candidate if there are last minute withdrawals.

What looked like a quiet election cycle has developed at least a little excitement over the last few weeks. New presiding commissioner candidates have announced their candidacies. The fact that at least one of Platte County's state representatives is not running for re-election has gone from quiet backroom talk to public knowledge. I'm sure more interesting news will become public as the filing deadline approaches.

For now, if you want to make an incumbent sweat, ask them “Did you hear that 'such and so' is thinking about running against you?”

Well, don't really do that. It would be kind of mean.

(James Thomas is a local political veteran who can be reached via email to james@jct3law.com)


Do you remember that old anti-littering commercial from the 70s with an Indian with a tear slowly rolling down his cheek as he looks out across a littered landscape? Well, America had a similar tearful moment last week as Congress passed an increase in the debt ceiling for the federal government.

For all practical purposes, the federal government had to increase the debt ceiling to keep pace with its out of control spending. The difference between this debt ceiling increase and some of the more recent debt ceiling increases is that the federal government's borrowing limit was raised without any conditions. Placing no conditions on the debt ceiling increase seems to indicate that Congress – at least the Democrats and the Republican leadership – have “thrown in the towel” on slowing the growth of the size of the federal government.

Some pundits have praised the raising of the debt ceiling to a level that should be sufficient to March of 2015 as a brilliant strategy to take away the negativity created for Republican Congressmen/women and Congressional candidates that arises from a potential shutdown of the federal government. The New York Times had this quote from Senator John McCain “It was not an easy exercise, but it keeps the focus on the issues we want to be on . . . We dodged a bullet here.” McCain argues that avoiding a pre-election fight over the debt ceiling robs Democrats of the opportunity to portray Republicans as reckless.

McCain's position leaves me scratching my head. What bigger issue should Republicans want to talk about than curbing the out of control spending by the federal government? What bigger issue should Republicans want to address?

Just look at who praised the Republicans' “courage” in passing a debt limit increase. The White House press secretary issued a statement saying raising the debt ceiling “is a positive step in moving away from political brinkmanship.” Democrat Senator Harry Reid said “We're happy to see the House is legislating the way they should have legislated for a long time.”

It would be nice if Congress operated in a cordial and professional manner with our representatives debating issues in an intelligent, well thought-out manner rather than merely engaging in a war of sound bites. Courtesy in the debate process is not only appropriate, but it should be heartily encouraged.

However, when those with complete opposite political ideologies start rolling out the platitudes for you, you really should re-think your strategy. Is giving your political opponents everything they want without a fight a good strategy?

I have wanted a balanced budget amendment since Reagan ran for president, but I am not totally naive. The debt ceiling was going to have to be increased. We can't stop the deficit spending overnight.

However, to allow the deficit spending to go on with no attempt to reign in the magnitude of that spending is simply irresponsible.

Some pundits think the Republican Congressional leadership has made a brilliant move that will free Republicans of the debt ceiling/potential government shutdown debate and make it more likely that Republicans can hold the House and win back the Senate. I don't share the opinion of the pundits. I think the Republican leadership just told their fiscal conservative base that we don't care about you so don't bother working to get us elected/re-elected because we'll only disappoint you. And that is why this debt ceiling vote leaves me with a tear slowly running down my cheek.

(James Thomas has long been active in local Republican politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)



A power struggle started unfolding in Jefferson City last week. Missouri government has a lot of boards and commissions and department heads that are appointed by the governor. However, these appointments frequently require the consent of the state senate. Last week a key appointment was blocked and new legislation proposed.

Typically if the governor wants to appoint someone to a position, the governor's office will clear the appointment with that person's state senator. The person's state senator will then sponsor that person through the approval process. If the state senator doesn't approve of the proposed appointment, the governor will typically withdraw the proposed appointment, but most appointments go through without a lot of controversy.

That was not the case this week. Gov. Jay Nixon had nominated Tim Dollar to be added to the Conservation Commission. Some of the state senators balked at this appointment because the governor had supposedly made a commitment that the next appointment to the Conservation Commission would be from northern Missouri. Typically when an appointment is not going to be approved by the state senate, the governor will withdraw the nomination. However, in this case, the state senate held up action on the appointment until the governor's right to withdraw the nomination expired. The blocked appointment leaves Dollar banned for life from serving on the Conservation Commission.

After blocking Dollar's appointment, the state senate adopted new legislation that would limit the amount of time temporary leaders can head state agencies and that would force the governor to call special elections to fill vacant seats in the legislature within 30 days. Both of these issues have been a real problem.

Some departments are often headed by “acting directors” for a substantial period of time. Under the proposed legislation, an acting director could lead an agency for no more than 120 days. This time limit could be a little bit complicated because the state senate is only in session from January through May. However, the state senate proposes to fix this problem by implementing a constitutional amendment that would allow the lieutenant governor to fill vacancies in state boards and departments if the governor doesn't fill the vacancies within 90 days.

The long delay in calling special elections to fill vacancies in the legislature is a trick that has been used for a long time. A governor will “pick off” a legislator from the opposing party by appointing that legislator to a cushy state appointment. Then, the governor will take a long time to call the special election to fill that vacancy so that the opposing party has one less person on its team. This has been particularly important for Gov. Nixon because his team is dramatically outnumbered in the state legislature. Nixon has manipulated this process well by waiting until earlier this month to call a special election for August 2014 for a House seat that has been vacant since June of 2013. Nixon also set August 2014 as the election date of two other long-vacant House seats. Conveniently (for Nixon), this date is months after the end of the session.

The state senate's “muscle flexing” is just that at this point. The proposed legislation and constitutional amendment have to go to the state house for approval before they can progress further towards becoming law, but it appears that the state senate is “ready to rumble.”

(James Thomas is a veteran of local Republican politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)


February 6 is a great day for America – Ronald Reagan's birthday.

Reagan gave many great speeches in his day. One of those great speeches was given at the CPAC Convention in 1977 and typically referred to as “The New Republican Party.” In that speech, Reagan talked about how conservative ideals were held by a large majority of Americans with only 18% of American identifying themselves as liberals. He also called for a merger of the “social conservatives” and “economic conservatives” into “one politically effective whole.”

Another memorable Reagan speech called “A Time for Choosing” was a televised speech given by him in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign. Reagan talked about how the choice was not about choosing “left or right,” but instead about choosing “up or down” as in “Up to man's age-old dream--the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order--or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”

His speech pointed out many flawed policies such as the misconception that government can do more good than the private sector or the flaw of a radically progressive tax structure. He implored Americans to study the issues and choose wisely. He pleaded:

“Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.”

I don't have the word count flexibility to give you the whole speech, but you can find it here:

http://reagan2020.us/speeches/A_Time_for_Choosing.asp. Let me just share his closing:

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

I only met the man in person once and that was actually in a room at the White House with 103 other high school seniors, their military chaperones and members of the Hearst family. But the man has inspired me with his writings and televised speeches since he first ran for president in 1976.

So far, we have failed in the mission to re-direct America away from its downward path into “a thousand years of darkness.” America is worse off today than it was 40 years ago. But, there is still at least a glimmer of hope. Maybe. Just maybe. Enough people can be inspired by this great man so that “. . . with God's help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.”

I sure hope so.

Until then, let me just say “Happy birthday, Ronald Reagan.” Even a decade after your death, your words are still inspiring.

(James Thomas is an attorney who is a veteran of local Republican politics. Reach him at james@jct3law.com)



“I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful one hundred percent.”

This chorus from Horton Hatches the Egg has always been one of my favorite lines from Dr. Seuss. Despite a substantial amount of adversity, Horton the elephant stands firm in his commitment to protect the egg of Mayzie, a lazy bird who convinces Horton to sit on her egg while she takes a “short break,” which turns into a permanent vacation in Palm Beach.

Unfortunately so many politicians just don't understand the very simplistic concept of meaning what they say. Just last week the newly-elected Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring, who just took office less than two weeks ago, came out and said that despite the fact that he campaigned on and previously voted against gay marriage, he was not going to uphold Virginia's ban on gay marriage.

I feel differently than Mr. Herring on this issue. However, that isn't the point. This column isn't about the appropriateness of gay marriage. No. This column is about politicians saying one thing on the campaign trail and then doing exactly the opposite of what they said once in office.

Mr. Herring isn't the first politician backtrack on a campaign commitment. One such instance that I remember well is Bill Clinton's campaign for the presidency in 1992. Many of the things Clinton talked about on the campaign trail almost made him sound like a conservative Republican. For example, a key element of his campaign platform was a “middle class tax cut.” Unfortunately, between the day he was elected President and the day he took the Oath of Office, his middle class tax cut disappeared and was replaced by one of the largest tax increases in history. Of course, Clinton is well known for being loose with the truth – even when he is under oath. So, I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

Democrats aren't the only ones to go back on their stated positions. For example, President George H.W. Bush pledged “Read my lips. No new taxes” in his acceptance speech at the 1988 Republican National Convention. But, early in his term he was pressured by the Democrats in Congress to agree to some significant tax increases in order to keep funding for the Gulf War in place. Sometimes you have to give a little to get what you want, but in this case Bush's giving on this issue severely undermined his credibility and probably cost him his re-election bid.

Frustration with politicians who aren't true to their word is enough to make people want to completely “wash their hands” of the political process. But when you feel that way, try to remember another line from Dr. Seuss. At the end of The Lorax, the Once-Ler tells a young boy “Now that you're here, the word of the Lorax seems perfectly clear. UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.”

So the next time a politician goes back on his word, it is up to you to “hold the politician's feet to the fire.” If a politician tells you one thing, but does the opposite, encourage that politician to remain true to his or her word. If they refuse, make it your mission to throw that person out of office because “UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.”

(James Thomas is a veteran of local Republican politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)



Why? Why? Why?

Why do officeholders' staff and sometimes the officeholders themselves do stupid things?

The latest fiasco involves New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in what the media is calling “Bridgegate.” (A name that is a throwback to one of the all-time stupid decisions: the Watergate break in followed by the Watergate cover up.) The facts are still being gathered, but essentially what is believed to have happened is that Bridget Anne Kelly, Christie's deputy chief of staff, sent an e-mail to David Wildstein, a political appointee of Christie at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, that included the phrase “time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.” Wildstein responded “Got it.”

Then, apparently as a “we'll show you gesture” to the Mayor of Fort Lee who had refused to endorse Christie's re-election campaign for governor, a previously unscheduled traffic study was commenced on a very busy bridge during the first week of school. This study closed lanes of traffic and caused massive traffic jams.

Three problems here: First, like Nixon back in 1972, Christie was wildly popular and almost certain to win re-election in a landslide. So, why do something stupid? Second, how does this really hurt the mayor of Fort Lee? Sure it means phone calls to his office from angry citizens, but at the end of the day, the mayor can deflect these phone calls to the Port Authority. So, why do it? All it does is create a hacked off citizenry who wouldn't necessarily even be hacked off at your target. Third--and this is a biggie–why do you ever put your vindictive political attacks in an e-mail that can easily be traced back to you? The actions of Ms. Kelly were clearly wrong and she should not have done them, but at least if you are going to do something wrong (and incredibly stupid), don't leave a clear trail back to yourself.

Do I think Governor Christie was personally involved in the decision to create traffic jams on this bridge? Absolutely not! I can't believe he would be that stupid.

Do I think Governor Christie should be responsible for the actions of his staff? Yes, to some extent. But, a governor runs a huge operation. That size of an organization is bound to have a few folks who “get off the reservation.” A governor needs to react responsibly to dumb things people under his control do, but the governor's political career should not be ended by such staff errors.

Governor Christie's real failure here is in who he has chosen to put around him in important positions. I don't know for sure that Ms. Kelly was a campaign staffer prior to being on the official staff, but my guess is that she was. This happens all the time. A candidate wins and his or her political campaign staff becomes his or her governing staff. However, what so many politicians seem to miss is that folks that are good at “political campaigns” are not necessarily good with “public service.” The necessary skill sets and appropriate temperaments for getting the job are very different than those for doing the job.

Will this end Christie's bid for president in 2016? Maybe. Regardless, I'm sure Hillary Clinton isn't shedding any tears over the stupidity of Christie's staff.

(James Thomas is a veteran of local GOP politics who can be reached at james@jct3law.com)


Posted 1/15/14

Rasmussen Reports did a poll to gauge reaction to a new report that says for the first time ever, more than half the members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are millionaires. Seventy percent of those polled thought it was bad for the country that most members of Congress were millionaires. Only four percent thought having millionaires make up a majority of Congress was a good thing. Another twenty-one percent did not see that a majority of Congress being millionaires had any impact on the country. My reaction to this report is driven more by how did so many in Congress become millionaires rather than the fact that they are millionaires.

As a starting point, someone being wealthy isn't necessarily a bad thing. Isn't being financially independent a goal of most people? Also, while one can have a career where success does not equate with a decent income, a lot of success, especially in business, is still measured in dollars. Bear with me here. I am not espousing wealth accumulation as this amazing virtue. It is still true that the worth of a man is often best measured not by what he has, but by what he gives away. But, the critical point is that wealth accumulation is not evil, but is often a measure of success in a chosen field.

Truthfully, wise and patient wealth accumulation through savings is a virtue. The point of the Dave Ramsey model is to pay off your debts and accumulate assets so that you are independent and so that you can do good things for other people.

Another benefit of having elected leaders with their own wealth should also dramatically reduce the risk of corruption. I have long been of the belief that what led Rod Jetton astray was that fact that he rose from being on welfare to being the Speaker of the House, the second most powerful office in Missouri government. He skyrocketed from nothing to a position of power and influence and hanging out with some well off and influential folks. That has to create a lot of temptation to try to continue to enjoy the so called “good life.” Someone would be best equipped to avoid the temptation of corruption by being BOTH well grounded in their moral values AND financially secure on their own.

Being financially secure is also a key element of being able to pursue public service. I have often discouraged potential candidates from running for office because of concerns over whether they can adequately provide for their families on the potential public servant pay check. It is virtuous to perform public service, but one does need to make sure they take care of their own family first.

So, I guess, my concern with this report on the wealth of those in Congress is not the fact that they have money, but instead is based upon where did they get their money? Was it from hard work, success in their business or profession, responsible saving or even inheritance? Or was it money from corrupt activities? Corruption is a huge concern. Wealth by itself doesn't bother me. In fact, it is probably the first defense against corruption. Having Congressfolks who got their wealth from corrupt activities DOES concern me. In fact, it should concern us all.

(James Thomas is a veteran of local Republican politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)


Posted 1/8/14

The start of a new year offers political columnists an opportunity to look into their “crystal balls” and predict the future. What do I see in my crystal ball? Nothing.

Huh? Why nothing?

Well 2014 will be a truly unique year. This will be the first time since 1990 that the only state-wide office on the ballot is the state auditor's office. And, I can tell you from active personal involvement in the state auditor's race in 1994, 1998, 2002 and 2006 that it is almost impossible to get anyone excited about that race.

Don't get me wrong. I personally think the state auditor's office is the second most important state-wide office in state government. However, it is just hard to get folks excited about that office. Also, the current Republican occupant of the office has been raising money for his re-election and the Democrats are supposedly having trouble finding a quality candidate to run against him. So, that race has the potential to be a real snoozer.

I have heard one rumor that could make the race interesting. Supposedly, Democrats are trying to convince State Treasurer Clint Zweifel to run for State Auditor. Zweifel could run without jeopardizing his remaining two years as state treasurer and, if he wins, he could move from an office that he will be term limited out of in 2016 to an office without term limits. Gov. Jay Nixon could then appoint Zweifel's replacement, who could run for re-election in 2016 as an incumbent. Interesting, but I'm not sure Zweifel will do it.

The rumor is that 2014 will be the “Year of the Ballot Initiative.” These ballot initiatives could come from the General Assembly putting issues before the voters or from petition drives that get an issue on a state-wide ballot. A couple of issues that are being widely talked about as potential ballot issues are “Right to Work” and tax reform. A transportation tax might also make the ballot.

Our Congressional race won't be interesting. Congressman Sam Graves will crush all opponents. So far, no quality candidate has come forward to challenge our incumbent State Senator Rob Schaaf. There could be one interesting state representative race. We'll just have to wait and see who files and who doesn't file.

Platte County offices up in 2014 include presiding commissioner, prosecutor, county clerk, collector, recorder and auditor. Republican incumbents hold all of these offices. Given the ineptness of the Democrat Party to recruit quality candidates for open seats, I would not anticipate much of a challenge to any of these incumbents by the Democrats. Of course, the new trend seems to be a greater risk of an incumbent being knocked off by a Republican or “quasi-Republican.” I have not heard any big rumors, but those kinds of challengers often don't show up until filing opens or is about to close. But, absent any internal broo-ha-ha in the local Republican Party, I would not anticipate any county races that will be all that exciting.

So, that brings me back to my original prediction. Other than a potentially big year for ballot initiatives, it may be a relatively quiet year for politics in Platte County. Maybe one or two local races heat up, but otherwise not much excitement. Of course, a lot could happen between now and the close of filing at the end of March.

(James Thomas is an attorney who has long been active in local Republican politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)

Posted 1/1/14

As discussed last week, Phil Robertson was suspended from the TV show Duck Dynasty for paraphrasing a passage found in The Bible. There needs to be great caution when one starts paraphrasing The Bible. There also needs to be great caution when quoting a passage from The Bible out of context. But what this is really about is an effort of the gay-promoting, Christian-hating crowd to shove their agenda down our throats (no pun intended).

The media reports have twisted the words of Phil Robertson. You really have to read all of each of the articles to see what Phil said. But, the headlines of most of the articles say things like “'Duck Dynasty' Star Bashes Gays.” No he didn't. He said that gays “won't inherit the kingdom of God.” Those aren't his words. They come straight out of The Bible.

In that same interview, Phil went on to say “We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job . . . . Of course, we just love 'em, give 'em the Good News about Jesus – whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?”

Phil clearly does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle. But, he never advocated chaining gays to the back of a pickup truck and dragging them down the road. (Phil is from Louisiana, not Texas.) But, as usual, the media and the advocates for the gay lifestyle interpret disapproval of their lifestyle choices as “bashing.”

A gay-promoting group, GLAAD, has come out and attacked Phil. GLAAD's spokesman said “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe.” Huh? I know some “Christian” denominations have “gone soft” (no pun intended) on being gay being a sin, but has GLAAD or these so-called “Christian” denominations actually read The Bible? The statements in The Bible are pretty clear on this subject. That's not me talking or Phil talking. Just read it for yourself.

We are all sinners. We have all fallen short of the standard God sets for us by what we have done and by what we have left undone. In his book Happy, Happy, Happy, Phil even describes his own sin filled days before he “found Jesus.” The difference here is that the gay-promoting groups want to deny that conduct The Bible clearly describes as sinful is in fact sinful. They obviously just don't like hearing what The Bible has to say.

This story has been evolving over the last week. A&E executives announced the suspension of Phil from the show. The Robertson family responded with a statement of its own. From the statement it is pretty clear that the Robertson family is supporting Phil. The statement says “While some of Phil's unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of The Bible.” If push comes to shove, it looks like the family would give up the show on A&E before it would not back Phil. As the statement says “We have a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty.”

Gay-promoting groups have been beating the drum to try to drive Duck Dynasty from the airwaves. Their success in getting Phil suspended from the show seems to be a small victory. However, their efforts may have backfired on them. The vice president of communications for GLAAD said that “I've never received so many violently angry phone calls and social media posts attacking GLAAD for us speaking out against these comments.” Good! Maybe there is still hope for America.

(James Thomas is an attorney who has long been active in local Republican politics. Email him at james@jct3law.com)

For earlier columns, click here