Today via Twitter Senator Claire Mccaskill points to a bill she’s sponsoring which will

Claire McCaskill ‏@clairecmc

Approved by Rex![….] @showme:”Good plan by McCaskill wants to ax office she says offers reports you can get elsewhere [….]” 1:59 PM – 18 Mar 2015

The article in the St, Louis Post-Dispatch:

McCaskill wants to ax office she says offers reports you can get elsewhere

By Chuck Raasch

WASHINGTON • Sen. Claire McCaskill  is introducing legislation this week to end a federal office she says exemplifies government waste and duplication.

The National Technical Information Service is supposed to help sell and make available government-funded scientific, technical, engineering and business information. But the Missouri Democrat said much of that is readily available in the public domain. She has informally dubbed her bill, “Let Me Google That For You.”

[….]

McCaskill cited a 2013 Government Accountability Office report saying that roughly three-fourths of the reports put out by the NTIS were available from other public sources.

[….]

Uh, what about the one-fourth that isn’t available from other sources? Just asking.

What happens to access to the information if Google pulls the plug? What then?

A million dollars here and a million dollars there and pretty soon it equals the total amount of political contributions made by a guy who’s political opinions we apparently all must care about.

Meanwhile:

House Republicans Propose Budget With Deep Cuts

By JONATHAN WEISMAN MARCH 17, 2015

[….]

….Without relying on tax increases, budget writers were forced into contortions to bring the budget into balance while placating defense hawks clamoring for increased military spending. They added nearly $40 billion in “emergency” war funding to the defense budget for next year, raising military spending without technically breaking strict caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act….

[….]

The logic (attributed) of Willie Sutton applies here.

Best quote of the day comes from economist Jared Bernstein’s blog:

House Republicans released their budget today, and I found it to be…um…how can I put this nicely?…orthogonal to reality

“Orthogonal to reality.” And here I thought we’d exhausted all the ways that there were to describe GOP delusions. Bernstein amplifies his remarks:

The policies put forth in this document suggest that America’s main problem is that the poor have too much and the wealthy, too little. The budget plan “corrects” this perceived imbalance by deeply cutting programs that help low- and middle-income people, and cutting taxes on those with high incomes, capital gains, multinational corporations and “pass through” business income.

Of course, as he notes, GOPers claim that this recipe results in growth that floats all our boats. Sadly, as Bernstein observes after pointing out the rather obvious problems with this logic:

I too believe in the American people and growth but I don’t believe in magic asterisks or tax cuts that pay for themselves. It’s great to have faith, but math is good too

Read the entire piece – it’s quite brief. And remember that part about the importance of math. I think that the observation is pertinent to the budget Missouri’s Republican-dominated legislature wants to impose on us. Something on the order of what is sinking Kansas, Wisconsin and a whole host of states with like-minded legislatures. That’s where the phrase “orthogonal to reality” becomes relevant to us as well. Just think, Scott Walker is destroying Wisconsin with this same mumbo-jumbo and, as a result, he’s a front-runner for GOP presidential candidate.

By now most Missourians who are even remotely tuned into state politics have heard that Lt. Governor Peter Kinder was contending that his $86,000 salary was not enough to stave off penury. His proposed solution: a per diem allowance of $103 for each day he spends in Jefferson city doing – wait for it – essentially nothing. But, hey, who can blame him? His cohorts in the legislature not only get that exact per diem allowance, but make out like bandits with gobs of lobbyist swag that likely doesn’t come his way that often.  

Unfortunately for Kinder’s endangered quality of life, it seems his peers in the legislature either didn’t take his situation seriously or were unwilling to risk the ire of constituents who are managing to eke out a living on considerably less than $86,000.  There’ll be no per diem for Lt. Governor Kinder. As a consequence, I surmise that he might be in a bad mood. He’s facing abject poverty, after all.

And bad mood might be the only way to explain his latest news-making move. The Lt. Governor has decided to weigh in on the topic of racism and the Ferguson uproar. And what he had to say either demonstrates the type of displaced anger that leaves one making ill-considered remarks that one regrets later when emotional and mental equilibrium are restored, or it’s just racist, dim-witted dribble. Judge for yourself:

The lieutenant governor of Missouri says “there is more racism in the Justice Department” than in the St. Louis area, pointing the finger at President Obama and the Justice Department who, he says, often incited “the mob” in the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown back in August of 2014.

“The whole blow up of this protest movement was based on the lie that never happened of ‘hands up don’t shoot,'” Peter Kinder, the Lt. governor told NewsMaxTV’s Steve Malzberg Show Monday. “But it’s bad enough the protestors were behaving that way but we have a right to expect more from the attorney general, the head of the Justice Department of the United States, and the president of the United States. And instead what we got too often from them was incitement of the mob, and, uh, encouraging disorder in Ferguson and distributing the peaceable going-about of our lives in the greater St. Louis region.”

Kinder added President Obama and Eric Holder “took one side” following the death of Michael Brown. Asked why, he said the Justice Department was “staffed with radical, hard-left radical, leftists lawyers.”

He called the Justice Department under Holder, “not like any Justice Department in American history” and “Eric Holder is unlike any previous attorney general.”

“Many of them have spent most of their careers defending Black Panthers and other violent radicals,” he added. “

So the entire “blow up” was the result of a “lie”? Evidently, Kinder didn’t read or lacks the capacity to process the Department of Justice (DoJ) report on Ferguson policing and justice systems. Nor does he seem to understand what a mere spark can do to a field that’s ready to burn. But, just as the mayor of Ferguson claimed that the thorough DoJ investigative report doesn’t constitute “proof” of racial misbehavior, Kinder thinks that we can disregard the well-substantiated facts recounted in the report because “Eric Holder is “unlike any previous attorney general” – which is to say, he’s black and, hence, ipso facto, in cahoots with radicals whose legal careers have been limited to “defending Black Panthers and other violent radicals.”

Is this resentment feeding on resentment? A sad, resentful man appealing in turn to the white resentment that fuels so much of the right wing? Do you think maybe Kinder wants a little appreciation from the types who think that the state of race relations leans a little too much toward those damned “takers.” Do you think he might be trying to erase the memory of the ridicule he excited the last time he stuck his head up into the light and demanded poverty relief?

I wonder, though, do you think that if people had to supply supporting evidence for such absurd claims before anyone would report on it, they’d think twice about what they had to say? What is the correct label for someone who puts ugly, unsubstantiated libels into the public record? And fails to take it back, apologise, explain that he was in a funk, had a headache, whatever, when he’s called on it (not too stringently, admittedly) by the media?

I recollect the efforts of St. Louis Post-Dispatch writer Tony Messenger to avoid, in his own words, contributing to “this state’s political problems, rather than elevating the discourse” after the dust-up about hateful political rhetoric that occurred in the wake of Tom Schweich’s recent suicide. Specifically, he apologised for calling a State Senator Kurt Schaeffer a fool when, he said, it would have sufficed to point out that one of Schaeffer’s legislative efforts was foolish. His mea culpa, no matter how admirable, bothered me – I hope to have more to say about it in the future – because if discourse is to be elevated, all the participants have to agree about the height of the plane on which they are going to get together and discuss. Otherwise, those who insist on going alone to the most elevated level will have nothing do do except shout into the wind.

Peter Kinder has revealed himself as one of those people who experience uncontrollable vertigo when confronted with the ladder that leads to that higher space. They confuse ideological labels with facts, the expedient with the good, their own good with that of everyone. Such people can do lots of harm – and are doing so daily in the Republican-dominated U.S. Congress and statehouses across the country. Such behavior is demonstrably foolish. And we call those who act foolishly fools, among other things. The correct label for Peter Kinder is fool, among other things. No apology will be offered.    

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C031159 03/17/2015 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Ameren Missouri P.O. Box 66892 St Louis MO 63166 3/16/2015 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Does anyone think the flood gate for the end of the quarter is about to open up?

Previously:

Campaign Finance: continuing… (March 1, 2015)

Campaign Finance: steady wins the race (March 4, 2015)

Campaign Finance: steady wins the race – part 2 (March 5, 2015)

Campaign Finance: from the four corners of Missouri (March 7, 2015)

Campaign Finance: from a different crowd (March 12, 2015)

I’m looking at a request from the Missouri Democratic State Committee for money.

The PO Box is in Washington, DC.

If I send them money, it will go to a processing center in Lexington, Kentucky.

What is going on here?

My county Democratic Party is having its most important fundraiser of the year.  I tell my friends all the money remains in the county.

Why can’t the state party have a PO Box in Missouri (preferably Jefferson City)?

More seriously, is it really that much cheaper to sent a contribution to the Missouri Democratic Party to Kentucky??????

Well, at least the mailing has a union bug.

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C151053 03/17/2015 GREITENS FOR MISSOURI Terry Scariot 116 Sunningdale Drive Georgetown KY 40324 Remington Partners 3/16/2015 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s at least $390,001.00 since February 24th.

It’s still an exploratory committee for statewide office in 2016.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: There is another? (February 25, 2015)

Campaign Finance: a little bit more (February 26, 2015)

Campaign Finance: A new bandwagon? (March 6, 2015)

Campaign Finance: but wait, there’s more (March 10, 2015)

Campaign Finance: that’ll help finance a whole lot of exploring (March 12, 2015)

Campaign Finance: it’s going to be a good quarter (March 16, 2015)

Some people really want to pull that trigger.

Representative Rick Brattin (r) [file photo].

A bill, introduced last Thursday by Representative Rick Brattin (r):

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1347 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE BRATTIN.

2701H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 546.720, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to the administration of the death penalty.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Section 546.720, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 546.720, to read as follows:

546.720. 1. The manner of inflicting the punishment of death shall be by firing squad, the administration of lethal gas or by means of the administration of lethal injection. [And for such purpose] The director of the department of corrections is hereby authorized and directed to provide a suitable and efficient room or place, enclosed from public view, within the walls of a correctional facility of the department of corrections, and the necessary appliances for carrying into execution the death penalty by means of the administration of lethal gas or by means of the administration of lethal injection.

2. If the judgment of death is to be carried out by firing squad, the director of the department of corrections shall select a five-person firing squad consisting of licensed peace officers.

3. If the judgment of death is to be carried out by the administration of lethal gas or by means of the administration of lethal injection, the director of the department of corrections shall select an execution team which shall consist of those persons who administer lethal gas or lethal chemicals and those persons, such as medical personnel, who provide direct support for the administration of lethal gas or lethal chemicals. The identities of members of the execution team, as defined in the execution protocol of the department of corrections, shall be kept confidential. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any portion of a record that could identify a person as being a current or former member of an execution team shall be privileged and shall not be subject to discovery, subpoena, or other means of legal compulsion for disclosure to any person or entity, the remainder of such record shall not be privileged or closed unless protected from disclosure by law. The section of an execution protocol that directly relates to the administration of lethal gas or lethal chemicals is an open record, the remainder of any execution protocol of the department of corrections is a closed record.

[3.] 4. A person may not, without the approval of the director of the department of corrections, knowingly disclose the identity of a current or former member of an execution team or disclose a record knowing that it could identify a person as being a current or former member of an execution team. Any person whose identity is disclosed in violation of this section shall:

(1) Have a civil cause of action against a person who violates this section;

(2) Be entitled to recover from any such person:

(a) Actual damages; and

(b) Punitive damages on a showing of a willful violation of this section.

[4.] 5. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, if a member of the execution team is licensed by a board or department, the licensing board or department shall not censure, reprimand, suspend, revoke, or take any other disciplinary action against the person’s license because of his or her participation in a lawful execution. All members of the execution team are entitled to coverage under the state legal expense fund established by section 105.711 for conduct of such execution team member arising out of and performed in connection with his or her official duties on behalf of the state or any agency of the state, provided that moneys in this fund shall not be available for payment of claims under chapter 287.

[emphasis in original, new material in bold, strikethrough emphasis added]

Where would one place such a firing squad? In the public square? Just asking.

Previously:

They took it as a challenge (January 7, 2014)

Rep. Rick Brattin (r): Ready! Fire! Aim! (January 16, 2014)

HB 1524: Could we still have a state ceremonial firing squad? (January 21, 2014)

HB 2082: lethal means (March 5, 2014)

Yesterday at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C151053 03/15/2015 GREITENS FOR MISSOURI Tim Noonan 26 Westmoreland Place St Louis MO 63108 Boeing 3/13/2015 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

A really good quarter. That’s at least $380,001.00 since February 24th.

It’s still an exploratory committee for statewide office in 2016.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: There is another? (February 25, 2015)

Campaign Finance: a little bit more (February 26, 2015)

Campaign Finance: A new bandwagon? (March 6, 2015)

Campaign Finance: but wait, there’s more (March 10, 2015)

Campaign Finance: that’ll help finance a whole lot of exploring (March 12, 2015)

What it lacks in rate of fire and accuracy it makes up for in ammo flexibility.

Yet another right wingnut federal nullification gun bill, this one introduced last Thursday by Representative Jeff Pogue (r):

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1341 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE POGUE.

2527L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 1.320, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof eight new sections relating to theSecond Amendment preservation act.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Section 1.320, RSMo, is repealed and eight new sections enacted in lieu

2 thereof, to be known as sections 1.410, 1.420, 1.430, 1.440, 1.450, 1.460, 1.470, and 1.480, to read as follows:

[1.320.] 1.410. 1. Sections 1.410 to 1.480 shall be known and may be cited as the “Second Amendment Preservation Act”.

2. The general assembly finds and declares that:

(1) The general assembly of the state of Missouri is firmly resolved to support and defend the United States Constitution against every aggression, either foreign or domestic, and is duty bound to oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the basis of the Union of the States because only a faithful observance of those principles can secure the nation’s existence and the public happiness;

(2) Acting through the United States Constitution, the people of the several states created the federal government to be their agent in the exercise of a few defined powers, while reserving to the state governments the power to legislate on matters which concern the lives, liberties, and properties of citizens in the ordinary course of affairs;

(3) The limitation of the federal government’s power is affirmed under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves;

(4) Whenever the federal government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the Constitution, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force;

(5) The several states of the United States of America respect the proper role of the federal government, but reject the proposition that such respect requires unlimited submission. If the government, created by compact among the states, was the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers granted to it by the states through the Constitution, the federal government’s discretion, and not the Constitution, would necessarily become the measure of those powers. To the contrary, as in all other cases of compacts among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself as to when infractions of the compact have occurred, as well as to determine the mode and measure of redress. Although the several states have granted supremacy to laws and treaties made pursuant to the powers granted in the Constitution, such supremacy does not extend to various federal statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, or other actions which restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the borders of Missouri; such statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, and other actions exceed the powers granted to the federal government except to the extent they are necessary and proper for governing and regulating land and naval forces of the United States or for organizing, arming, and disciplining militia forces actively employed in the service of the United States Armed Forces;

(6) The people of the several states have given Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states”, but “regulating commerce” does not include the power to limit citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in defense of their families, neighbors, persons, or property, or to dictate as to what sort of arms and accessories law-abiding Missourians may buy, sell, exchange, or otherwise possess within the borders of this state;

(7) The people of the several states have also granted Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof”. These constitutional provisions merely identify the means by which the federal government may execute its limited powers and ought not to be so construed as themselves to grant unlimited powers because to do so would be to destroy the carefully constructed equilibrium between the federal and state governments. Consequently, the general assembly rejects any claim that the taxing and spending powers of Congress can be used to diminish in any way the right of the people to keep and bear arms;

(8) The people of Missouri have vested the general assembly with the authority to regulate the manufacture, possession, exchange, and use of firearms within the borders of this state, subject only to the limits imposed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution; and

(9) The general assembly of the state of Missouri strongly promotes responsible gun ownership, including parental supervision of minors in the proper use, storage, and ownership of all firearms, the prompt reporting of stolen firearms, and the proper enforcement of all state gun laws. The general assembly of the state of Missouri hereby condemns any unlawful transfer of firearms and the use of any firearm in any criminal or unlawful activity.

1.420. The following federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations shall be considered infringements on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution, within the borders of this state, including, but not limited to:

(1) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(2) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(3) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(4) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and

(5) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

1.430. All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

1.440. It shall be the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies of this state to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms within the borders of this state and to protect these rights from the infringements defined in section 1.420.

1.450. No person, including any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, shall have authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances, infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

1.460. No person, including any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, shall have authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances, infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as defined in section 1.420.

1.470. 1. Any entity or person who knowingly, as defined in section 562.016, violates section 1.450 or 1.460 or otherwise knowingly deprives a citizen of Missouri of the rights or privileges ensured by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution, while acting under the color of any state or federal law, shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

2. In such actions, the court may award the prevailing party, other than the state of Missouri or any political subdivision of the state, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

3. Sovereign, official, or qualified immunity shall not be an affirmative defense in such cases.

1.480. For the purposes of sections 1.410 to 1.480, the term “law-abiding citizen” shall mean a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm and shall not be construed to include anyone who is not legally present in the United States or the state of Missouri.

[emphasis in original, bold text is new material]

Uh, that nullification thing was taken care of one hundred fifty years ago. Yeah, you and what air force?

Extra right wingnut bonus points for including tenther drivel!

“…All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state…”

Who decides? Why, that’s already been decided, a long time ago. Through over two hundred years of American history:

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

[….]

….It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178]   So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty….

[….]

In the United States Constitution:

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[emphasis added]

It’s also called “the supremacy clause”.

If you’re batshit crazy is that considered “not legally present” for the purposes of this legislation? Just asking.

President Barack Obama [2013 file photo].

A petition at the White House site:

We petition the Obama Administration to:

Bring charges of treason upon Barack Hussein Obama

1. Surrendering sovereign U.S. war-making to foreign powers and international authorities by attacking Libya without consulting Congress, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 and U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 33:1541-1548;

2. Refusing to secure our broken borders from illegal alien invasion, international criminal incursion, and terrorist cadre penetration, in violation of U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 and Article IV, Section 4

3. Adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, as witnessed by consorting with, supporting and installing to powerful Federal positions persons who in writing, word and deed have called for and promoted the overthrow of America’s constitutionally guaranteed Republican form of government, and the overthrow [sic]

Published Date: Mar 11, 2015

Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Homeland Security and Disaster Relief, Veterans and Military Families

Signatures needed by April 10, 2015 to reach goal of 100,000 94,160

Total signatures on this petition 5,840

[emphasis added]

“We petition the Obama Administration to: Bring charges of treason upon Barack Hussein Obama…”

“…consorting with, supporting and installing to powerful Federal positions persons who in writing, word and deed have called for and promoted the overthrow of America’s constitutionally guaranteed Republican form of government…”

Think about that for a second.

So, does Congress have a petition web site? Just asking.

I guess people who signed this feel secure in the knowledge that the government is non-despotic enough that they can sign up at a government web site to say that the head of state is a despot. Or, the government is despotic and they’re really stupid.

Meanwhile:

We petition the Obama Administration to:

File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement.

[….]

Published Date: Mar 09, 2015

Issues: Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement, Foreign Policy, Government Reform

Signatures needed by April 08, 2015 to reach goal of 100,000 0

Total signatures on this petition 289,417

[emphasis added]

Now, if people would actually bother to turn out to vote in off year elections…

Previously:

Sen. Roy Blunt (r): Next! (March 9, 2015)

Is Roy Blunt a “traitor,” “reckless and feckless,” or simply an embarrassment? (March 10, 2015)

Well, that went over like a lead balloon (March 10, 2015)

Sen. Roy Blunt (r): “It was a joke” as an excuse? (March 12, 2015)