Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Steve Beshear's new ObamaCare decision
Leaders in both chambers of Kentucky's General Assembly have agreed to pass language protecting employer associations across the state from the mess we call ObamaCare. The bill will go to Governor Beshear as either HB 365 or as House Floor Amendment 1 to SB 152.
Either way, this legislation speeds up the implosion of the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange (KHBE). So the choice for Gov. Beshear is this: shut down the KHBE now -- or at least create a partnership with the federal government so they share more of the cost and blame -- or veto this language, harming more Kentuckians sooner directly as a result of the federal "Affordable Care Act."
All the more reason to join us this Thursday in Frankfort for the advisory board meeting of the KHBE. They should be talking about the massive new, illegal taxes on Kentuckians to pay for this ridiculous scheme. And by then, they may have to discuss how Gov. Beshear and the legislature just made their ride on the big government gravy train a much shorter one.
Friday, March 22, 2013
My tea party statement for Friday, March 22
"Interest in better political leadership representing Kentucky is exploding. Several potential candidates representing conservatives who respect all constitutional rights equally are looking at entering the U.S. Senate race for 2014 and some of us are creating a process to reduce that group to one candidate. That process must be completed by June 1 and it will be. I believe this process will give us a better candidate to not only win in November, but to represent Kentuckians better going forward."
Rand Paul is 100% pro-life, same as always
Another firestorm has resulted from another television interview with Senator Rand Paul in which people on both sides of the political spectrum have misunderstood his words and jumped immediately into attack mode. Despite the hysteria, this one will calm down very quickly and I think a very useful and productive conversation will come about as a result of it.
Rand was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN, who asked about Rand's proposed legislation defining personhood as beginning at the moment of conception. You will hear the question from Blitzer about whether or not Rand has changed his position on abortion, but what happens after that is, I think, the beginning of a real discussion that transcends the usual talking points on the issue.
Rand isn't even talking about abortion. That's the key point causing confusion. He's talking about defining the beginning of life in order to protect it. Watch the video and see if you can make that distinction. You may have to watch it twice to catch it.
It didn't take long for a reporter with Louisville's second-largest newspaper, LEO, to start the following email conversation which I've reproduced below with my replies:
Joe: Rand's switching his abortion position, too? Man, he's starting to act like McConnell.
Me: He has the same position he has had on abortion. Talking thoughtfully about the issue's unusual cases out on the margins as he was doing will always create a hubbub like this. It's just the nature of the beast. Here is what's different: Rand has introduced again a thoughtful approach to a thorny issue and, again, he will be given the stage long enough and often enough to try to move the country more to a pro-life position with a greater understanding of liberty. People can look all day long for a 'gotcha moment' here, but not only will they not find but Rand will come out of this with more fans and a higher profile. Keep swinging at him, though. That helps too.
Joe: How does advocating for no exceptions (public statements and candidate surveys), then saying there should be "thousands of exemptions" and "privacy between families and doctors" not a switch? conservatives are the ones swinging at him right now, fyi
Me: You have to view any proposed law way out on the margins in terms of the most extreme possible unintended consequence. If we define life as the very moment of sperm penetrating egg, that opens all kinds of problems with regard to the law. Without being too graphic, you can use your imagination to think of any number of privacy issues there that don't have anything to do with deciding to terminate a pregnancy. I know the response ultimately from the other side will be that this is why government should not be involved at all in any part of the reproductive process, but government has to be involved now because those same people are the ones who dreamed up the idea that it is okay to kill a child if he or she hasn't yet exited the birth canal.
Joe: Right, so he used to think there should be no exemptions, and now he does. That's an obvious change, David.
Me: This isn't about a woman going to her doctor and explaining that she has been raped or a victim of incest or learning that her pregnancy may put her own health or life at risk. If the law is to state that life begins at the first moment of conception, there will be many cases involving death that shouldn't involve the government but might with a law stating that it does. Fixing that weakness in such a law is a very complex topic of discussion. We'll get past the political gamesmanship soon on this and more people will discover that they agree with the pro-life position.
Joe: If Rand truly thinks that this is a private decision between a woman and her doctor, and is now open to exemptions for rape and incest, that would certainly be a welcome (and ideologically consistent) change. But you can't honestly think that this is the same position he's always had. A fertilized egg is either a person with rights, or it isn't, yes?
Me: He hasn't said that at all. According to his proposed legislation, a fertilized egg is a person which has been as position at least as long as he has been speaking publicly and answering candidate surveys.
Joe: Yes, and now he thinks there should be "exemptions" to "kill" this "person," in certain circumstances. Unless he didn't mean anything he said on CNN.
Me: No, he's not talking about "killing." Your mistake is that you are trying to turn this into a gotcha moment and it just isn't one unless you put words in his mouth. I see another round of attack ads with tiny sound-bites designed to create a false impression, but that's all this amounts too. Again, once we get past this distraction it will be a very interesting philosophical discussion and more people will come toward the pro-life position.
Joe: He either meant what he said and softened his position, or he didn't and hasn't changed. You can't have it both ways
Me: Slow down, Joe. Breathe. This isn't a discussion about abortion. This is a discussion about the moment life begins and how to protect that life without going to absurd lengths. Given that the entire "pro-choice" movement is based on the absurd idea that a baby deserves protection at some magical moment in which he or she suddenly becomes human but not before, it may take you a while to get here with us. We'll be waiting.
Joe: David, I may sound like a broken record on this, but if Rand now thinks there should be an exemption for rape, that is a clear an unambiguous switch from his previous position.
Me: You aren't a broken record, you are just playing on the wrong track. Blitzer's question was the standard one about when abortion should be allowed. Rand's answer, which he began with "I think that puts things in too small of a box," did not involve the standard way of looking at the issue. Again, this is about defining life at a precise moment and not about deciding to abort or not abort a pregnancy. Go back and watch the interview as if you are trying to understand his point of view rather than as if you are trying to find the next Todd Akin and I think you will get it pretty quickly.
Joe: you're in knots David.
Rand Paul 2010: no exemptions for rape (clear and unambiguous)
Rand Paul 2013: exemptions for rape (your words) and whoknowswhatselse (unless he doesn't really believe that)
you're the only one talking about gotchas and "philosophical" questions. This is a clear cut policy change.
Rand was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN, who asked about Rand's proposed legislation defining personhood as beginning at the moment of conception. You will hear the question from Blitzer about whether or not Rand has changed his position on abortion, but what happens after that is, I think, the beginning of a real discussion that transcends the usual talking points on the issue.
Rand isn't even talking about abortion. That's the key point causing confusion. He's talking about defining the beginning of life in order to protect it. Watch the video and see if you can make that distinction. You may have to watch it twice to catch it.
It didn't take long for a reporter with Louisville's second-largest newspaper, LEO, to start the following email conversation which I've reproduced below with my replies:
Joe: Rand's switching his abortion position, too? Man, he's starting to act like McConnell.
Me: He has the same position he has had on abortion. Talking thoughtfully about the issue's unusual cases out on the margins as he was doing will always create a hubbub like this. It's just the nature of the beast. Here is what's different: Rand has introduced again a thoughtful approach to a thorny issue and, again, he will be given the stage long enough and often enough to try to move the country more to a pro-life position with a greater understanding of liberty. People can look all day long for a 'gotcha moment' here, but not only will they not find but Rand will come out of this with more fans and a higher profile. Keep swinging at him, though. That helps too.
Joe: How does advocating for no exceptions (public statements and candidate surveys), then saying there should be "thousands of exemptions" and "privacy between families and doctors" not a switch? conservatives are the ones swinging at him right now, fyi
Me: You have to view any proposed law way out on the margins in terms of the most extreme possible unintended consequence. If we define life as the very moment of sperm penetrating egg, that opens all kinds of problems with regard to the law. Without being too graphic, you can use your imagination to think of any number of privacy issues there that don't have anything to do with deciding to terminate a pregnancy. I know the response ultimately from the other side will be that this is why government should not be involved at all in any part of the reproductive process, but government has to be involved now because those same people are the ones who dreamed up the idea that it is okay to kill a child if he or she hasn't yet exited the birth canal.
Joe: Right, so he used to think there should be no exemptions, and now he does. That's an obvious change, David.
Me: This isn't about a woman going to her doctor and explaining that she has been raped or a victim of incest or learning that her pregnancy may put her own health or life at risk. If the law is to state that life begins at the first moment of conception, there will be many cases involving death that shouldn't involve the government but might with a law stating that it does. Fixing that weakness in such a law is a very complex topic of discussion. We'll get past the political gamesmanship soon on this and more people will discover that they agree with the pro-life position.
Joe: If Rand truly thinks that this is a private decision between a woman and her doctor, and is now open to exemptions for rape and incest, that would certainly be a welcome (and ideologically consistent) change. But you can't honestly think that this is the same position he's always had. A fertilized egg is either a person with rights, or it isn't, yes?
Me: He hasn't said that at all. According to his proposed legislation, a fertilized egg is a person which has been as position at least as long as he has been speaking publicly and answering candidate surveys.
Joe: Yes, and now he thinks there should be "exemptions" to "kill" this "person," in certain circumstances. Unless he didn't mean anything he said on CNN.
Me: No, he's not talking about "killing." Your mistake is that you are trying to turn this into a gotcha moment and it just isn't one unless you put words in his mouth. I see another round of attack ads with tiny sound-bites designed to create a false impression, but that's all this amounts too. Again, once we get past this distraction it will be a very interesting philosophical discussion and more people will come toward the pro-life position.
Joe: He either meant what he said and softened his position, or he didn't and hasn't changed. You can't have it both ways
Me: Slow down, Joe. Breathe. This isn't a discussion about abortion. This is a discussion about the moment life begins and how to protect that life without going to absurd lengths. Given that the entire "pro-choice" movement is based on the absurd idea that a baby deserves protection at some magical moment in which he or she suddenly becomes human but not before, it may take you a while to get here with us. We'll be waiting.
Joe: David, I may sound like a broken record on this, but if Rand now thinks there should be an exemption for rape, that is a clear an unambiguous switch from his previous position.
Me: You aren't a broken record, you are just playing on the wrong track. Blitzer's question was the standard one about when abortion should be allowed. Rand's answer, which he began with "I think that puts things in too small of a box," did not involve the standard way of looking at the issue. Again, this is about defining life at a precise moment and not about deciding to abort or not abort a pregnancy. Go back and watch the interview as if you are trying to understand his point of view rather than as if you are trying to find the next Todd Akin and I think you will get it pretty quickly.
Joe: you're in knots David.
Rand Paul 2010: no exemptions for rape (clear and unambiguous)
Rand Paul 2013: exemptions for rape (your words) and whoknowswhatselse (unless he doesn't really believe that)
you're the only one talking about gotchas and "philosophical" questions. This is a clear cut policy change.
Me: I hope you are going to blog this whole conversation. I am.
Joe: David, slow down and take a breath, you're getting really worked up. The point is not that he's suddenly "Todd Akin," because Rand Paul has always agreed with Todd Akin. The point is that he's no longer in the Todd Akin no rape exemption crowd, if he meant what he said. To quote Rand Paul: "Comprende?"
Me: I understand that you are trying to make the conversation about abortion procedures but that is not what it is. This is about the difficulty in defining the moment life becomes a thing for which protection is necessary and how we go about it. Difficult discussion made more so by people trying to score political points.
Joe: also, your contention that the discussion with Blitzer had nothing to do with abortion is hilarious
Me: Keep laughing. That's still my contention. The reductio ad absurdum argument is often applied to abortion, so let's apply it to this conversation. This one is about a personhood definition bill that specifies the beginning of personhood as beginning at conception. If we are to protect two-cell humans, there will be literally thousands of exceptions necessary in the law to protect people from all kinds of unusual circumstances unless we want law enforcement officials literally climbing in bed with couples checking for any signs of a productive coupling. Is that clearer?
Joe: David, I've never seen you so defensive, take a deep breath. l, for one, welcome Rand Paul's move towards the middle on abortion. You still agree with him on a lot of other things though, so don't be too mad at him.
Me: Now I'm laughing, Joe. Thanks
Joe: David, that position remains 100% clear. Just like it is 100% clear that Rand has switched to this position. Which I welcome! I hope he continues to move more towards my way of thinking in the future, as well.
Me: Not a chance.
Joe: Tell me how his new position is 100% consistent with this: http://c0469351.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/KYRTLresponse.pdf
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Massie and Paul have other 5 surrounded
The federal government won't be shut down next week in order to protect ObamaCare funding. And that's supposed to be the good news. At least that's the case if you get your Republican talking points from Senator Mitch McConnell.
It's a different story, however, if you ask Senator Rand Paul and Representative Thomas Massie.
In the last 24 hours, Senate and House bipartisan majorities both passed the Continuing Resolution to keep government operating through the end of the fiscal year on September 30. With a Democratic Senate and President, this power of the purse is the only congressional bargaining chip to stop ObamaCare.
Senator McConnell was joined by Reps. Ed Whitfield, Brett Guthrie, Hal Rogers and Andy Barr in throwing away this leverage. Sen. Paul and Rep. Massie did not follow suit. Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth also voted against the bill, but he is upset that it doesn't spend even more so he doesn't even count.
Kentuckians want ObamaCare repealed. Even more Kentuckians will want it gone when they start to feel more of the effects of it this fall. Those who played go-along-to-get-along on this may come to regret their trepidation pretty soon.
It's a different story, however, if you ask Senator Rand Paul and Representative Thomas Massie.
In the last 24 hours, Senate and House bipartisan majorities both passed the Continuing Resolution to keep government operating through the end of the fiscal year on September 30. With a Democratic Senate and President, this power of the purse is the only congressional bargaining chip to stop ObamaCare.
Senator McConnell was joined by Reps. Ed Whitfield, Brett Guthrie, Hal Rogers and Andy Barr in throwing away this leverage. Sen. Paul and Rep. Massie did not follow suit. Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth also voted against the bill, but he is upset that it doesn't spend even more so he doesn't even count.
Kentuckians want ObamaCare repealed. Even more Kentuckians will want it gone when they start to feel more of the effects of it this fall. Those who played go-along-to-get-along on this may come to regret their trepidation pretty soon.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
GOP should become party of cannabis
The late Gatewood Galbraith’s ardent advocacy of marijuana and hemp was easy to lampoon, but the endurance of his message can revolutionize American politics for those who now embrace it. In short, the Republican party should seek to become the party of cannabis.
Most opinions about repairing the Republican Party now focus on tweaking messaging or more aggressively courting various demographic groups. This approach reflects the current disconnect between much of the political class and the people.
The GOP can box out Democrats for temporary marginal gains with rhetorical tricks or outreach efforts, but a more fundamental shift is in order to really benefit the party and the country.
Republicans should focus more broadly on working to restore individual liberties to all people. In fact, they should visibly and repeatedly challenge Democrats to see which party can out-liberty the other and then run hard to win that race.
Government assaults on individual rights are often successful because most people haven’t learned to respond viscerally to attacks against the rights of others that don’t directly and immediately impact them. German holocaust survivor Martin Niemoller famously remarked in the 1950’s how apathy caused most people like him to ignore Nazi attacks on various groups of people, leaving no one to speak up when they came knocking on his door.
We are making that same mistake in this country presently and it shouldn‘t cause anyone a moment‘s comfort because the jackboots aren‘t coming for our neighbors just now. The destruction of liberty in America will have to be a more subtle effort than any before in history because we are an extraordinarily peculiar people. But the idea that “it can’t happen here” should have gone out the window with such liberty-destroying laws as the Patriot Act or NDAA. Such innocence dies slowly every time an innocent citizen is groped by a federal employee before boarding an airplane. Because of the increasingly brazen abuses against liberty in America, I suggest a specific mindset shift for our new age to pull us together despite our differences, elevating the individual over the bureaucracy and protecting the rights of the few from the appetites of the many.
Let us say, before it grows too late, that in 2013 we decided to end the massively wasteful and counterproductive “war on drugs” even though most of us are not recreational drug users. Let’s stop the colossally stupid prosecution and intensely counterproductive incentives of prohibition, lessons most learned nearly a century ago with regard to alcohol but haven’t managed to extend to our treatment of cannabis.
A tragically ironic joke among recreational pot users is that government expresses concern about marijuana ruining lives but devotes tremendous resources to beating weed to the punch by ruining young lives first with jail sentences and enforcement efforts leading to far worse crimes. Republicans stand to gain by first drawing down the exorbitant cost of the “war on drugs” at least as it applies to cannabis, for fiscal reasons. Next, they should move quickly toward protecting liberty in all its aspects and defining their positions in terms of how they help that effort.
We should dare Democrats to match our efforts in defense of liberty and meet voters where they live by giving them confidence our candidates consider leaving them alone to be our highest priority.
Politicians repeatedly like to declare big government dead, until their rhetoric puts them in charge of it. No one expects the Republican party to grasp the power of a shift toward competing for greater personal freedom, but that is exactly why it can work. Please spread the word.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Kentucky "drug warriors" play fast and loose
Lexington prosecutor Sam Finley may add prosecutorial misconduct to his list of courtroom adventures on Tuesday if he follows through on plans to take employees of Botany Bay to trial. The new law he is prosecuting them under specifies they can't be found guilty.
Worse, Judge Kim Wilkie will hear a motion from the owner of Botany Bay, Ginny Saville, to dismiss all charges against her based on the unconstitutionality of parts of the same law. It's all part of a clumsy attempt to lump an absurdly broad array of substances into the "war on drugs," ruin the lives of innocent people and fund further police-state activities with ill-gotten gains.
If the purpose of laws were to selectively and arbitrarily persecute anyone at any time and to impose outlandish punishments without due process or respect for individual rights, this sordid tale would make everyone in the legislature, the judicial system and law enforcement proud.
Worse, Judge Kim Wilkie will hear a motion from the owner of Botany Bay, Ginny Saville, to dismiss all charges against her based on the unconstitutionality of parts of the same law. It's all part of a clumsy attempt to lump an absurdly broad array of substances into the "war on drugs," ruin the lives of innocent people and fund further police-state activities with ill-gotten gains.
If the purpose of laws were to selectively and arbitrarily persecute anyone at any time and to impose outlandish punishments without due process or respect for individual rights, this sordid tale would make everyone in the legislature, the judicial system and law enforcement proud.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Challenge Kentucky educrats' fake Pop-Tart ban
A 7-year-old Maryland boy made national news a couple of weeks ago when school officials freaked out and suspended him because his Pop-Tart had been chewed into the shape of a gun. Kentucky law makes no mention of a "look-alike weapon," but that doesn't stop the Kentucky School Board Association from strictly forbidding them.
KSBA weapons policy banning Pop-Tart guns includes the following passage:
(Emphasis added.)
I'm starting to think we need a Pop-Tart Day in Kentucky schools. I'm particularly interested in how the conversation would go with law enforcement for visitors who showed up wielding their Pop-Tarts. Seriously, though, this policy needs to be challenged and changed. I'll look into that this next week and report back.
KSBA weapons policy banning Pop-Tart guns includes the following passage:
A
look-alike weapon refers to the following:
·
Any object
designed to look like or imitate a weapon; or
·
Any object
possessed or used by a student, employee or visitor to the school's facilities
or grounds to give the impression that the object is a weapon.
Violation of this policy by
staff members shall constitute reason for disciplinary action, including
possible termination.
Violation of this policy by students shall require that the Principal
immediately make a report to the Superintendent, who shall determine if charges
for expulsion from the District schools should be filed under Policy 09.435. In addition, when they have reasonable belief that a violation
has taken place, principals shall immediately report to law enforcement
officials when an act has occurred on school property or at a school-sponsored
function that involves student possession of a firearm in violation of the law
or assault involving the use of a weapon.
Violations by visitors shall be reported to a law enforcement agency. (Emphasis added.)
I'm starting to think we need a Pop-Tart Day in Kentucky schools. I'm particularly interested in how the conversation would go with law enforcement for visitors who showed up wielding their Pop-Tarts. Seriously, though, this policy needs to be challenged and changed. I'll look into that this next week and report back.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Fire Sharon Clark now
The 2013 Kentucky General Assembly has two days left, the 25th and 26th of this month, called veto days. We should make sure they are used to get rid of the state's biggest ObamaCare cheerleader.
Insurance Commissioner Sharon Clark is the only one of Governor Beshear's 51 appointees not confirmed by the Senate in the first 28 days of the session. That's not enough, but it is good. Please encourage your state Senator to make sure that her term draws to an ignominious, but decisive, end with the failure of Senate Resolution 181.
Clark has been the driving force behind forcing ObamaCare down Kentuckians' throats. We should return the favor by showing her the door.
Next up is the monthly meeting of Kentucky's Health Benefit Exchange advisory board. Please bring friends to 12 Mill Creek Park in Franfort at 1:30 pm ET on Thursday March 28 to help draw attention to the illegal activities of this destructive bureaucracy.
Insurance Commissioner Sharon Clark is the only one of Governor Beshear's 51 appointees not confirmed by the Senate in the first 28 days of the session. That's not enough, but it is good. Please encourage your state Senator to make sure that her term draws to an ignominious, but decisive, end with the failure of Senate Resolution 181.
Clark has been the driving force behind forcing ObamaCare down Kentuckians' throats. We should return the favor by showing her the door.
Next up is the monthly meeting of Kentucky's Health Benefit Exchange advisory board. Please bring friends to 12 Mill Creek Park in Franfort at 1:30 pm ET on Thursday March 28 to help draw attention to the illegal activities of this destructive bureaucracy.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Muhlenberg KY Schools breaking state gun laws
Muhlenberg County Public Schools' current Employee Handbook contains the following passage which conflicts with state law:
This policy can be found on page 23 of the handbook. Specifically, this violates KRS 527.070(3)(a) which allows adults to possess weapons contained within a vehicle on school property, KRS 65.870 which forbids local government entities from regulating possession of weapons and KRS 237.016 which forbids disciplinary action against an employee for possessing a firearm in a vehicle on the property.
Any questions?
Muhlenberg County needs to fix this illegal policy to comply with state law without further delay. Please call Superintendent Dale Todd at (270) 338-2871 and tell him his gun policy breaks state laws, as he seems to be unaware.
Thanks for the heads up on this to Jarrod Douglas of 2A Squared -- Second Amendment Aware.
This policy can be found on page 23 of the handbook. Specifically, this violates KRS 527.070(3)(a) which allows adults to possess weapons contained within a vehicle on school property, KRS 65.870 which forbids local government entities from regulating possession of weapons and KRS 237.016 which forbids disciplinary action against an employee for possessing a firearm in a vehicle on the property.
Any questions?
Muhlenberg County needs to fix this illegal policy to comply with state law without further delay. Please call Superintendent Dale Todd at (270) 338-2871 and tell him his gun policy breaks state laws, as he seems to be unaware.
Thanks for the heads up on this to Jarrod Douglas of 2A Squared -- Second Amendment Aware.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
One victory coming today
Observers remarked on the hatred in Kentucky Insurance Commissioner Sharon Clark's eyes for me last week when I was the only person to testify against her re-appointment in the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee.
Good.
She is a huge proponent of ObamaCare with the power to inflict great harm on Kentuckians and she hasn't been shy about stating her desire to do so. Meanwhile, the religious health sharing bill, Senate Bill 3, looks like it will pass today through both chambers, providing at least a narrow escape for consumers when the ObamaCare hits the fan this fall.
This looks like the best we can get through for the 2013 General Assembly regular session. Lots more to do.
Good.
She is a huge proponent of ObamaCare with the power to inflict great harm on Kentuckians and she hasn't been shy about stating her desire to do so. Meanwhile, the religious health sharing bill, Senate Bill 3, looks like it will pass today through both chambers, providing at least a narrow escape for consumers when the ObamaCare hits the fan this fall.
This looks like the best we can get through for the 2013 General Assembly regular session. Lots more to do.
Saturday, March 09, 2013
Divide and conquer Louisville gun grabbers
A Lexington, Kentucky suburb opened up the 'guns in schools' debate this week with a proposal to change school policy on the district level in Jessamine County. A loophole in the state's most populous -- and most hostile -- school district, however, creates an unexpected urban opportunity for 2nd Amendment rights sure to attract national attention.
Jefferson County Public Schools' Conduct Code and Related Policies includes the following language on page ten: "Carrying, bringing, using or possessing a dangerous weapon in any school building, on school grounds, in any school vehicle or at any school-sponsored activity without the authorization of the school or the school district is prohibited."
That means the school board has delegated its authority from the state to change its weapons policy to the individual schools. I don't know if there is one school in Jefferson County with the courage and foresight to abandon its reckless 'gun free zone' status, but the effort to find one presents a can't lose opportunity.
Jefferson County Public Schools' Conduct Code and Related Policies includes the following language on page ten: "Carrying, bringing, using or possessing a dangerous weapon in any school building, on school grounds, in any school vehicle or at any school-sponsored activity without the authorization of the school or the school district is prohibited."
That means the school board has delegated its authority from the state to change its weapons policy to the individual schools. I don't know if there is one school in Jefferson County with the courage and foresight to abandon its reckless 'gun free zone' status, but the effort to find one presents a can't lose opportunity.
Friday, March 08, 2013
Will Kentucky House GOP go nuclear on Dems?
Conservatives waiting for House Republicans in Frankfort to assert themselves in the 2013 General Assembly may have missed the quiet signal of a shift in the last ten days.
In that time, House Republicans have filed discharge petitions on two bills. Senate Bill 5, which would levy enormous fines on doctors who fail to perform an "informed consent" ultrasound on a pregnant woman prior to performing an abortion, on February 27. On Thursday, March 7, a discharge petition was filed on Senate Bill 129, which seeks to limit federal efforts to infringe on 2nd Amendment rights of Kentuckians.
The purpose of discharge petitions is to force a bill past an attempt by a chamber's leadership to bottle it up in committee. House Democrats have procedural tools available to them to beat back a discharge petition, but Republicans have absolutely nothing to lose by expanding the fight to other crucial bills like the ObamaCare repeal bills -- SB 39 and SB 40 -- and turning up the volume.
In what remains of the 2013 General Assembly, let's hope so. Meanwhile, intransigent House committee chairs Tom Burch and John Tilley deserve to be bombarded with telephone calls.
In that time, House Republicans have filed discharge petitions on two bills. Senate Bill 5, which would levy enormous fines on doctors who fail to perform an "informed consent" ultrasound on a pregnant woman prior to performing an abortion, on February 27. On Thursday, March 7, a discharge petition was filed on Senate Bill 129, which seeks to limit federal efforts to infringe on 2nd Amendment rights of Kentuckians.
The purpose of discharge petitions is to force a bill past an attempt by a chamber's leadership to bottle it up in committee. House Democrats have procedural tools available to them to beat back a discharge petition, but Republicans have absolutely nothing to lose by expanding the fight to other crucial bills like the ObamaCare repeal bills -- SB 39 and SB 40 -- and turning up the volume.
In what remains of the 2013 General Assembly, let's hope so. Meanwhile, intransigent House committee chairs Tom Burch and John Tilley deserve to be bombarded with telephone calls.
Thursday, March 07, 2013
Jessamine mom takes on gun-free zones
"The people I've talked to are in favor of it," Day said.
Mrs. Day has two 10th grade daughters at East Jessamine High School. She is working on gaining support to make the change as authorized under Kentucky law to improve campus safety beyond the state suggestion which consists almost entirely of signs posted at school entrances informing would-be attackers that possession of a gun in schools breaks state law.
Jessamine County School Board members heard a presentation at their January meeting about making schools safer with this simple policy change. The next board meeting is at 7pm ET on March 25, 2013 at 871 Wilmore Road in Nicholasville.
This Christian battle is for everyone
Lunchtime today in Frankfort will pass quietly for all but a very few Kentuckians while a key constitutional struggle comes to a head.
At noon, the House Banking and Insurance Committee will vote on Senate Bill 3, the religious health sharing bill. The bill would simply move Kentucky into compliance with an exemption for Christians written into the ObamaCare law. As current Kentucky law stands, the freedom to contract privately among fellow followers of Christ to mutually cover healthcare expenses is punishable as a felony.
Leaving this kind of power in the hands of state insurance bureaucrats makes no sense. More than half a century of bureaucratic bungling has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we need more freedom and less government in healthcare. ObamaCare will start to blow up in the faces of consumers later this fall. What happens today should determine how much of a disaster that will be.
At noon, the House Banking and Insurance Committee will vote on Senate Bill 3, the religious health sharing bill. The bill would simply move Kentucky into compliance with an exemption for Christians written into the ObamaCare law. As current Kentucky law stands, the freedom to contract privately among fellow followers of Christ to mutually cover healthcare expenses is punishable as a felony.
Leaving this kind of power in the hands of state insurance bureaucrats makes no sense. More than half a century of bureaucratic bungling has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we need more freedom and less government in healthcare. ObamaCare will start to blow up in the faces of consumers later this fall. What happens today should determine how much of a disaster that will be.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Christians bust through logjam in Kentucky
Grassroots activists in Kentucky burned up the phone lines in Frankfort to force a committee hearing to the Christian health sharing bill, Senate Bill 3, legislative staff confirmed late Wednesday.
The House Banking and Insurance Committee will hold a vote to allow Christians in Kentucky greater freedom in escaping ObamaCare when the federal healthcare takeover goes into effect fully next year. The committee hearing will be Thursday at noon in the Capitol Annex Room 129. Senate Bill 3 is the only bill on the committee's agenda.
The House Banking and Insurance Committee will hold a vote to allow Christians in Kentucky greater freedom in escaping ObamaCare when the federal healthcare takeover goes into effect fully next year. The committee hearing will be Thursday at noon in the Capitol Annex Room 129. Senate Bill 3 is the only bill on the committee's agenda.
Kentucky's filibuster: Robert Stivers?
As U.S. Senator Rand Paul makes serious headlines for holding up an Obama appointee, Kentucky state Senate President toils in relative anonymity while doing the same thing to the biggest ObamaCare cheerleader in Frankfort.
Please call 502-564-8100 and tell Sen. Stivers you appreciate him standing up for Kentuckians and against ObamaCare. Refusing to allow the re-confirmation of Sharon Clark to the position of Kentucky Insurance Commissioner could have the most significant impact of anything this General Assembly does. Shutting down ObamaCare is on Sen. Stivers' shoulders now. He needs our encouragement to end Kentucky's involvement in the federal takeover of our healthcare system now.
Please call 502-564-8100 and tell Sen. Stivers you appreciate him standing up for Kentuckians and against ObamaCare. Refusing to allow the re-confirmation of Sharon Clark to the position of Kentucky Insurance Commissioner could have the most significant impact of anything this General Assembly does. Shutting down ObamaCare is on Sen. Stivers' shoulders now. He needs our encouragement to end Kentucky's involvement in the federal takeover of our healthcare system now.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Crushing Frankfort's war against Christians
Kentucky's Senate Banking and Insurance Committee attached all of the religious health sharing bill to House Bill 365 this morning, practically ensuring an end to the Department of Insurance's decade-long jihad against Christian Medi-Share in particular and Christian citizens in general.
House Bill 365 will very likely have no opposition in the full Senate and then will go back to the House in its amended form for a floor vote there. Please contact your state Representative and urge support for House Bill 365 as amended by the Senate.
This will allow Christian Medi-Share back into the state and limit the Kentucky Department of Insurance in their ability to harass and penalize Christians seeking to avoid the ObamaCare debacle. Non-Christians would do well to demand that the federal exemption to ObamaCare available to Christians must be expanded to protect them too.
House Bill 365 will very likely have no opposition in the full Senate and then will go back to the House in its amended form for a floor vote there. Please contact your state Representative and urge support for House Bill 365 as amended by the Senate.
This will allow Christian Medi-Share back into the state and limit the Kentucky Department of Insurance in their ability to harass and penalize Christians seeking to avoid the ObamaCare debacle. Non-Christians would do well to demand that the federal exemption to ObamaCare available to Christians must be expanded to protect them too.
Monday, March 04, 2013
Taking out the trash in Frankfort
Thank you to everyone who called your Kentucky state senator over the last two weeks demanding they hold up re-confirmation of Kentucky's leading ObamaCare cheerleader, Insurance Commissioner Sharon Clark. Allowing her to keep her job while forcing Kentucky over the ObamaCare cliff is not acceptable.
Senate staff confirmed this morning that Commissioner Clark is not on the list for tomorrow's confirmations, signally a significant shift. Please call your senator and thank him or her for not supporting Commissioner Clark until after Senate Bills 3, 39 and 40 are signed into law by Governor Beshear.
Your support in this has been invaluable. Turning back ObamaCare is the least we can do for our country and for future generations of Americans.
Senate staff confirmed this morning that Commissioner Clark is not on the list for tomorrow's confirmations, signally a significant shift. Please call your senator and thank him or her for not supporting Commissioner Clark until after Senate Bills 3, 39 and 40 are signed into law by Governor Beshear.
Your support in this has been invaluable. Turning back ObamaCare is the least we can do for our country and for future generations of Americans.
Kentucky leads nation in this, too
President Barack Obama is right about one thing: the "sequester" is a manufactured crisis. Of course, he made it, in conjunction with congressional leaders of both parties looking for an easy way out of the debt ceiling fight of 2011. This is Obama addressing the nation on Saturday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)