My Personal Blog -

You can find my personal blog covering non-political topics at

Thursday, April 21, 2011

SB113 is not a Repeal of Prop B. Talking Points on SB113

Representative Kurt Bahr sent out the best explanation on SB113 one could read before calling Gov. Nixon (573-751-3222) to ask him to sign SB113. See below:


“What’s right isn’t always popular. What’s popular isn’t always right.” Howard Cosell

....Some claim SB113 repeals Prop B, ignores the will of the people, and the General Assembly has no right to change it.  They are wrong on all accounts.

First, SB113 is not a repeal of Prop B.  SB113.  SB113 is a compromise which respects the will of the people to protect dogs while also protecting the rights of the individuals who choose to breed them.  Last November 51.6% of the voters passed Prop B.  The stated reason for the bill was to protect dogs. SB113 actually increases the funding and enforcement of Prop B, and does not weaken any penalties for violating it.

What SB113 does repeal is the unconstitutional and arbitrary limitation of 50 dogs per breeder. This is the single most important aspect of the debate. SB113 brings up a bigger issue than the protection of dogs.  It asks the question “What is the proper role of government?”

According to Missouri’s constitution, “All persons have a natural right to the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry…that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design. (Art 1, Sec 2)”

The fundamental role of government is to “give security” to the rights of its individual citizens.  Prop B limits an individual’s right to own property.  No one, not the legislature, and not a majority of citizens, has the right to vote away the constitutional liberties of another individual.  It was my sworn duty, in order to uphold the constitution and to defend the individual rights of all Missourians, to vote in favor of SB113.

So, for those of you who voted for Prop B because you wanted to protect dogs, SB113 does exactly what you wanted, and it does a better job.

For those of you who voted against Prop B, SB113 is a good bill that protects both dogs and their breeders and will not harm the agricultural community in our state.

And for the few of you who voted for Prop B because you wanted to put dog breeders out of business with this unconstitutional provision – shame on you.  But rest assured I will vote to protect your individual rights just as I voted to protect the rights of the dog breeders.

If you need to communicate with me, you may call 573-753-9768 or email I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Should MO allow non-English speakers to use interpreters while taking the English driver’s exams?

Here's an alert from Pro-English:

Driver's license bill advances in MO Senate!
MO: Keep up the pressure until the full Senate votes and passes HB 167!
Take Action!
April 20, 2011
Your phone calls and emails into the state Senate must be working, because yesterday, the Senate Committee on General Laws voted 6 to 2 to pass the bill out of committee and send it directly to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote!
The committee did, however, adopt a bill-weakening amendment that would allow non-English speakers to use interpreters while taking the English driver’s exams.  This flawed amendment was offered by Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, and it was unfortunately agreed to by the committee. 
The House author of the bill, Rep. Jerry Nolte, R-Gladstone, was right to include a ban on interpreters in the original version of his bill.  The whole idea behind eliminating foreign language driver’s exams is that English proficiency should be a minimum requirement for motorists seeking to drive on U.S. roads where only one language is used—English.  Does this mean that the foreign language applicants who rely on interpreters to pass the test will promise to keep an interpreter with them at all times in their cars to translate the meaning of the road signs while they drive?  Of course not!  This amendment is a dangerous one and it jeopardizes public safety.  It should be corrected prior to final passage.

ProEnglish supports restoring the interpreter ban on the Senate floor before the final vote.  Please urge your state Senator to push to restore the prohibition on the use of interpreters during driver's exams!

HB 167 will simply require driver’s license written and skills/road test exams to be administered in no languages other than English.   Administering taxpayer-funded state driver’s license exams in foreign languages violates the official English law of Missouri (2008).  Missouri currently allows the test to be taken in 12 different languages.
Be sure to check out this video from KOMU News TV in Missouri summarizing the opposition arguments made during yesterday’s committee hearing. 
ProEnglish video
Stay tuned to ProEnglish email because we’ll have a detailed rebuttal to these opposition claims coming your way tomorrow!
Continue calling, emailing and writing to your state Senator to urge them to:
1.  Restore the ban on the use of interpreters,
 and then
2.  Vote YES on HB 167 on the Senate floor!