Author Archives: bbollmann

About bbollmann

A Missouri Conservative who like to rock... ...especially to the great music of Rush!

Right To Work Is “PRO” Union Member!

This is a great chance to stand up for the Missouri worker. This bill is PRO UNION MEMBER. If you’re more concerned about fat-cat Right To Work - Pro Union Member - 01union bosses, then we can’t help you.

Click here to let your House and Senate Members know that you support Right Freedom To Work.

Via Carl Bearden:

During the discussion of House Bill 116 (Right to Work (RTW)) both as it was being passed during session and leading up to the veto override on September 16th there has been a great deal of misleading and downright false statements made about RTW.

Missouri’s economic performance would improve with RTW Law!

United for Missouri has put together a True or False evaluation of the most often repeated claims and statements about RTW.

True or False – RTW will lower wage:

The answer is FALSE – Increased demand for workers raise worker wages; the percentage of real growth private-sector employee compensation grew 15.1% in Right to Work states from 2003 to 2013 as compared to just 8.2% in forced-union states. A Missouri specific economic study estimates that real per capita income (every man, woman and child in Missouri) would be $1,867 per year more today if RTW had been enacted 30 years ago. That’s over $5,600 more in the pockets of a Missouri family of three. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Confronting Missouri’s Growth Deficit

True or False – Workers make less in RTW states.

The answer is FALSE – Higher costs of living takes more income and leaves families with less; In 2013, when disposable personal income is adjusted, per capita for cost of living, workers actually made about $2,000.00 more per year in RTW states, as compared to forced-union states. MO Economics Research and Information center, BEA

True or False – RTW allows non-union members to freeload from union representation without paying the cost.

The answer is FALSE – Unions voluntarily represent non-members; The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the National Labor Relations Act allows unions to negotiate contracts covering only dues-paying members. As Justice Brennan wrote in Retail Clerks v. Dry Lion Goods (1962), “‘Members only’ contracts have long been recognized.” Unions represent non-members only when they act as “exclusive bargaining representatives,” which requires non-members to accept the union’s representation (forced union). In that case, the law requires unions to represent non-members fairly. They cannot negotiate high wages for their supporters and the minimum wage for non-members. Unions can avoid representing non-members by disclaiming exclusive representative status. Retail Clerks v. Dry Lion Goods (1962)

True or False – RTW interferes with a business owner’s right to contract or hire union workers.

The answer is FALSE – Employers can still require the same level of skills and training as they do today; HB116 does not prohibit any employer from hiring union workers or require the hiring or firing anyone not qualified to do the job the employer requires to be done. An employer can still negotiate a union contract. The only prohibition in HB116 is that the negotiated contract cannot require employees belong to the union in the contract. HB116

True or False – HB116 will criminalize business owners for inadvertent actions.

The answer is FALSE – HB116 has language intended to ensure compliance identical or similar to most of the other RTW states; these provisions are common features of labor laws and right-to-work laws passed in other states (as well as other types of statutes). Contrary to what others may claim, “damages” in this bill are not open-ended and would not create a spate of lawsuits. Though other states have similar provisions, there have not been dramatic increases in criminal prosecutions or civil lawsuits in those states. HB116 language is a Class C Misdemeanor, the very lowest order of criminal violation known to the law. It’s unlikely that a business person cannot be guilty of violating the provisions of HB116 without knowingly doing so. Letter from Rep Jay Barnes, RsMO’s, other state’s statutes

True or False – RTW will take our state backward.

The answer is FALSE – RTW moves a state forward by creating more jobs; Total private-sector, non-farm employment grew on average from 2003 to 2013 in RTW states by 16.2% and just 9.3% in forced-union states. Department of Commerce, BEA

True or False – RTW states are poor and have more people on welfare.

The answer is FALSE – More jobs equals more opportunity; In 2014, Right to Work states averaged 5 residents per 1,000 on welfare (TANF), while forced-union states had 12.5 residents per 1,000 on welfare. US Administration for Children and Families, Census Bureau

True or False – RTW states have a higher rate of occupational deaths.

The answer is FALSE to half-truth – workplace accidents have more to do with type of work than union vs RTW; RTW does not mean a state will have dangerous workplaces: the RTW states of Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina have lower rates of fatal occupational injuries than the national average. And allowing forced unionism does not guarantee safe workplaces; of the four states with the highest rate of fatal occupational injuries, only one, Wyoming, has a right-to-work law. The other three most dangerous states, Montana, Alaska, and West Virginia, do not have right-to-work. Department of Labor (DOL), BLS

The facts are clear:

There is no economic reason to oppose RTW just myths and personal feelings. Voting “NO” on veto override of HB116 is a vote in favor of the status quo of economic stagnation and loss for our state and working Missourians.

RTW will move Missouri’s economy forward making us more competitive and will create more opportunity for and put more money in the pockets of every Missourian!

Details of the study showing every man, woman and child would have $1,867 more per year each equaling over $5,600 more per family of three are available here:

Via Carl Bearden, Executive Director United for Missouri, (888) 332-3811

Click here to let your House and Senate Members know that you support Right Freedom To Work

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 14, 2015 in Miscellaneous


Kim Davis’ Opportunity To Win For Separation Of Church And State

Unlike most, I don’t subscribe to the modern notion of church / state separation and am fully informed that it is not a law or a matter of Constitutional principle.  It’s a note from Thomas Jefferson to someone else. Davis.Kim_[1]

However, here we are and Kim Davis is in jail for one simple reason:  the governments of and within the United States have stepped over the wall of separation between church and state especially in the area of marriage.

One thing we know is that Lance and Larry, in 1787, didn’t go with a Justice of the Peace to the sugar white sands of the beaches of Destin, FL and define marriage.  Marriage was a religious institution and was described in The Bible long before the creation of the United States; it certainly predates the notion of separation of church / state; and it was created without the assistance of and likely prior to the creation of any form government let alone the United States government with its 1st Amendment.

At some point in the short history of the United States (and certainly after the Civil War), state governments stepped onto the wall of separation and began getting involved in the religious institution of marriage in the appropriate area of protecting the rights to property – especially that of women.

Eventually, the state decided it would fully step over the wall of separation, declare itself a religious institution, and start performing government marriages (GMs) outside of the church’s involvement.

Now, it’s decided that it has the right to define and redefine marriage.

All of this (except for the protection of private property and offspring) is the government – not the church – crossing the line between church and state.

Kim Davis has taken a stand on that line, and with a little logic from our elected representatives, we can rightly put the governments of this nation back on the correct side of the church / state line.  Let’s start from the point that Kim Davis should have made her stand…

In Kentucky, ALL Marriage Laws have been declared null and void:

Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution declares, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”  Section 29 of the Kentucky State Constitution declares “THE legislative power shall be vested in a House of Representatives and a Senate, which, together, shall be styled the ‘General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.’” [Emphasis Added]

This, of course, means that no other branch of the Federal or State government, including SCOTUS, can make or change laws.  ALL powers for making or changing laws has been granted to Congress and the Kentucky Legislature.  Again, SCOTUS cannot make or change laws.  They can declare laws unconstitutional and have done so for laws excluding homosexuals from marriage.

Therefore, any law that has defined marriage as only between a man and a woman has been declared null and void.  SCOTUS can’t change the law to say something else; Article 1, Section 1 and KY Section 29 says they do not have the powers to do that.

Here is the Kentucky law defining marriage:

402.005 Definition of marriage.

As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

SCOTUS has declared this law null and void.  Therefore, since the law defining marriage is null and void, all activities, such as distributing licenses for marriage (something now undefined in Kentucky) are null and void.  How can you distribute licenses for something that is undefined?

Again, the activity of distributing ANY marriage license in Kentucky is illegal until the Legislature convenes to create a law that rightly defines marriage and the Governor signs such a law.

This is where Kim Davis must make her stand…

Remove marriage from government!

The words ‘marry’, ‘marrying’, ‘marriage’, et al should have never been allowed to enter the sphere of centralized governance and must be removed.  Government, in its bigoted ineptitude, having originally defined marriage (implicitly and explicitly) as between a man and a woman, has now defined marriage as including coupled homosexual marriages disregarding and excluding other types of marriages.  So naturally, the fight looms regarding multi-partner relationships or any other type of relationship that wants to be recognized by the government.

Government has no business in the area of civil relationships other than to protect the private property of those involved, ensure that government benefits and entitlements are properly distributed before and after death, and ensure terminations of such relationships are orderly and fair (especially to offspring).  Other than that, government is not a party to the relationship.  Therefore, it has no course to define or redefine the words used to describe that relationship.

To that end, the words ‘marry’, ‘marrying’, ‘marriage’, et al must be removed from all federal, state, and local constitutions, laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances, and policies and immediately replaced with words such as Civil Relationship Unit(s) – or CRU, or cru.

Thus, if any number of consenting, capable adults want to be a cru, so be it.  If two men or two women want to be a cru, they go to their county clerk, ask for a contract, sign it, and they are a crued.  If three men and one women want to be a cru, here’s the forms.  If five adult women and Warren Jepps want to be a cru, so be it.  If seventy-two virgins want to cru-up w/ Mohammad Ali, so be it.  It’s contract on how to deal with property; it’s a contract to live within a certain system of laws.

Then, if any of those people can finMat_Staver_Liberty_University_School_of_Law[1]d a church or other organization that wants to hold a ceremony in honor of their Civil Relationship Unit and whatever name that may be called within that group (marriage / harriage / garriage / barriage), so be it.  And, if any church or other organization doesn’t want to engage in such a ceremony, so be it.


The problem is not that a religious person is in government; the problem is that government has long crossed the line of separation into religion.  And, it’s time to get it out.

Kim Davis has the opportunity with her lawyer, Mat Staver, to push government back over the line, keep her job, and become a hero of the religious community.  Help her friends and family help her pursue this course.


Posted by on September 7, 2015 in Congress, Courts And The Law, Marriage, SCOTUS


Tags: , , , , ,

Fairtax Smear Campaign Rebutted

This article, by John McMillen, is an excellent rebuttal to claims made against the Fair Tax (  Please read.  Anywhere you see the word ‘gentleman’, think ‘Democrat’:

I implore you to take the time to read this in its entirety to arm yourself with the facts, and to understand what a liberating opportunity American has, and can achieve with your support.

Below is a follow up to ‘The Right Voice’ blog radio interview I had Tuesday 8/18. It is an illustration of the misinformation we have to overcome in order to get your ‘support’ and the support of millions more Americans out there who don’t know what the Fairtax really is.

If you haven’t heard the interview, and have interest, here’s the archive link. After the audio starts to play, you will have to scroll horizontally on the time tracking bar to about the 18:40 time mark to get the beginning of my segment.

I followed up with the post below onFace book to set the record straight…

This is to illustrate what the Fairtax must overcome to get people to understand the truth about the Fairtax…………………………………….

I did a radio interview Tuesday night the 18th on a web radio called “The Right Voice.”

A fellow from West Palm Beach, Florida called in to filibuster and dominate the very limited amount of time I was allotted to try and get just a few simple facts out to your audience about the Fairtax bill in congress right now, House Bill HR-25 and senate bill S-155.

The gentleman called in and tried to make a case against the Fairtax with a made up scenario with the intent to totally disrupt, distract and destroy the Fairtax message I was attempting to convey.

He threw out the hypothetical example of a Billionaire with a taxable income of 1 Billion Dollars in the tax year 2014. He first made the false assertion that a billionaire would have paid a 40% tax rate on his on earnings of 1 billion dollar in 2014.

I called him on the 40% tax rate in his made up scenario, and pointed out that a Billionaire would not have filed his billion dollar income under the 40% tax rate rubric subject to an income tax, but those types of incomes are typically earned through investments, and they pay a much lower percentage rate under the capital gains tax provision of the IRS code.
So that was his first blatant misrepresentation purposely proposed to listeners in an attempt to deceive.

His whole point was to illustrate how ‘unfair’ the Fairtax is. So he continued his Billionaire example to try and make a point of unfairness of how the current lower income W-2 wage earning taxpayers would have the Fairtax tax burden unfairly dumped on their shoulders to provide the shortfall between what the Billionaire pays now, and what he would pay under the Fairtax. “Just another tax cut for the Rich, on the backs of the poor”…same ole rhetoric we always hear when a proposal to allow W-2 income earners to keep more of their hard-earned paycheck. It’s a diversionary tactic to prevent the busy public from understanding what a beneficial proposal the Fairtax really means to the average Joe.

So the gentleman continued with his skewed made up example. He insisted that the Billionaire would only spend a minuscule amount (1/1000th) of his income buying goods and services; claiming out of a thousand million dollars in income the billionaire would only spend one million dollars in purchases of goods and services in a year…as if that is the universal absolute reality of what Billionaires does with his or her money.

First, of all it is none of that gentleman’s business, nor mine, or anyone else’s business how a billionaire spends money he or she has ‘earned’ or “how much” they choose to spend! It is none of his business ‘how I spend money that have earned or how much I spend.’ It is none of his business ‘how you spend money that you have earned, or how much you spend.’

The gentleman completely ignored the bigger picture. Billionaires like Donald Trump for instance, create 10’s of thousands, if not millions, of jobs for thousands, if not millions, of Americans.

That gentleman has no way of computing how much money a billionaire’s investments generates in salaries of those thousands if not millions of employees that gets poured into our economy that circulates, and circulates, getting turned over and over many, many times to the benefit of Thousands and Thousands of earnest hard working Americans and business owners.
There are Trillions of dollars that are controlled by ‘Billionaires’ and ‘Millionaires’ that have fled the shores of America’s immoral covetous, confiscatory, IRS Tax code.
The gentleman purposely ignores or is completely ignorant of the Trillions of dollars under the control of ‘Billionaires and Millionaires’ that would flood back to America’s shores if we got rid of the IRS tax code, and quite punishing success, and only tax what you spend instead of what you earn.

This repatriation to our American economy would provide thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of new jobs. This creation of more jobs would generate an increase in consumer spending, revive our American spirit and reinvigorate our economy.

The unshackling of what you do with you money would be a liberating, inspiring thing to the individual soul who alone would have the decision to purchase or not to purchase…or to save tax free tax penalties, or more confiscation from the interest income or capital gains. No more crippling regulations on investments. How much money you make and what you do with you own money is nobody’s business but yours.

You would get your paycheck; free of withholding that now amounts to 15, 20, 25% of a paycheck… The embedded tax that is currently in the cost you pay at retail right now is another significant amount…Fairtax analysts say it’s an avg. 22%…critics say it’s only 13%….who do you believe? I would welcome either one in a reduction in prices before the 23 cents on the dollar Fairtax is added back on…with 15% or 20% more in my take home pay to make purchase with! Add to that the fact that I will receive a little over $600 per month to pay the taxes on spending. That’s the amount for a family of 4. A family of 4 making 31,000 per year would pay zero in sales tax.

So, IT IS NOT REGRESSIVE… …as critics claim.

This is why we must abolish that immoral bureaucracy that dips into your earned paycheck to fund things you find abhorrent to you and your personal morals. Yet they add insult to injury by dictating how and what you do with your money.

The caller from West Palm Beach, FL attempted to launch a filibustering screed torpedo that he thought destroyed the Fairtax concept. He spewed misleading false assertions that without Billionaires paying the current amount to the Federal General Revenue fund under the current income tax, there is no way the Fairtax could be revenue neutral as we claim.
Let’s examine the facts and truth about that false and erroneous assumption.

A.) There are 2,089 Billionaires in in the world as of Feb. 5, 2015 today……/there-are-now-2089-billionai…

B.) In 2014 the tax year the gentleman from Florida used, of those 2,089 billionaires, there were 537 billionaires living in the United States. (Source, same link as above.)

C.) What would all of those 537 billionaires the gentleman was berating have paid to the IRS in 2014 using his one billion dollar earnings figure @ a 15% capital gains rate equate to collectively? … let’s see…537 X 1 Billion = 537 Billion dollars in collective earnings taxed at .15% = $80,550,000.00 (That’s 80 Billion, 550 Million Dollars) total revenue those billionaires would have paid into the total General Revenue fund using Dennis’ made up scenario and Dennis’ made up figures.

D.) In 2014, the total tax revenue collected by the IRS was $3,064,301,358,000.00…(that’s, 3 Trillion, 64 Billion, 3 Hundred and one Million, Three Hundred Fifty Eight Thousand Dollars.)

E.) Now, what percent of all those billionaires’ tax contribution equate to in the total Amount of revenue collected by the IRS in 2014? $80,550,000.00 contributions by Billionaires divided by the total $3,064,301,358,000.00 collected by the IRS = ONLY 3% of the Total!

The gentleman’s point is impotent — a seriously misleading distraction ploy.

The lower income Americans will not have to make up an ungodly percentage left void by the shortfall in revenue collected under the draconian Income Tax Code vs what would be collected under the Fairtax as the gentleman so desperately attempted to illustrate with bogus numbers.

As you can see if the 537 Billionaires in the United States didn’t spend one dollar in the United States, we only have to make up $80,550.000.00 (80 and a half billion dollars) in revenue to be revenue neutral (raise the same amount of revenue as the IRS Income Tax code is raising currently) …and that’s if those billionaires didn’t contribute one dollar to the general revenue fund, which we know darn well they will.

F.) How does that $80,550,000.00 compare to the taxes owed under the income tax, but are not paid? Depending on which article you read, that amount is $280 billion/year, $410 billion/year or $500 billion/year… …and rising!

G.) Tax-refund fraud is expected to soar again this tax season, and hit a whopping $21 billion by 2016, from just $6.5 billion two years ago, according to the Internal Revenue Service. Source:…/tax-refund-fraud-to-hit-21-billion-an…

H.) Scrapping those two sources of Fraud alone would equate to 3.7 times more money in collected revenue than the $80,550,000.00, because we know these people an millions more who are currently paying no federal income tax, will be purchasing daily. So the revenue stream will be there daily. And that even if those Billionaires in America didn’t spend a single dime! That money would sure be welcomed to shore up Veteran’s benefits, or Social Security, or Medicare.

Why do people come onto talk shows to deceive the people with talking points they’ve read on a hit piece blog somewhere, without figuring things out for themselves to verify that false information?

That gentleman from Florida appears to be far less intelligent and sincere than he tried to present himself to be.

I cannot understand, why? Why do people want to keep such a corrupt system as the IRS INCOME TAX?

Why do they want to call into a show to muddy the waters and distract from people’s understanding of the true facts with their misleading fabricated scenarios to demonize the Fairtax?

Why do we want to keep allowing one of the largest behemoth agencies of Government to be used to steal from those who produce and give to a constituency of non-producers dependent on politicians for their sustenance?

Go to and learn the truth about the Fairtax

There was some editing for clarity.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 21, 2015 in Amendments, Taxes


Tags: , , , ,


Babies Lives Matter - 01

Leave a comment

Posted by on June 22, 2015 in Abortion



GOP and Obama vs Democrats: TPP / TPA / TAA

From our friend Aaron in Virginia:

Hi everyone,

A short while ago, I participated in a conference call on the Fast-Track/TPP/TPA/TAA legislation that is currently under consideration by the House of Representatives. As with the conference call last Thursday evening, this one was organized by Mark Lloyd (new Chairman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation); and also featured Richard Manning (President of Americans for Limited Government), who has been in DC full-time since last week lobbying congressmen to educate them on the destructive consequences of passing this legislation.

From tonight’s call, I gleaned the following significant points. You may already know some of them, but I want to make sure!

1. As you probaPaul Ryan - We Have To Pass It - 01bly already know, the TAA was first defeated by a wide margin last Friday; and then the TPA was passed by a small margin. Because the TPA requires passage of the TAA, the TPA’s passage was of no consequence. HOWEVER, Boehner has arranged for a 2nd vote on TAA; and that is expected either late tomorrow (Monday), or, more likely, on Tuesday. Between now and then, Boehner will continue to twist arms to try to get the votes he needs for passage. The rumor is that he has already succeeded in getting some congressmen, who voted NO the first time, to switch their votes to YES!!!

2. Even if Boehner’s effort to get TAA passed is unsuccessful, it is likely that he will “repackage” both the TPA and TAA legislation into a single bill; and that will then be voted on sometime soon (probably after Tuesday). Knowing only that, there should be ZERO doubt in anyone’s mind that Boehner is hell-bent on giving Obama more unconstitutional authority!!

3. Remember: If this legislation is passed, it will give Obama unilateral authority to also “reconcile” existing US law with whatever these trade agreements stipulate. In essence, he would finally have the authority to “fundamentally transform America” — which was one of his statements on election night in 2008!!!

4. If you need any extra motivation to call your congressman (Hurt for most of you) to try to get him to change his prior TAA vote from YES to NO, you can find it in a statement made within a Washington Post opinion article by Lawrence Summers(see “The repudiation of the TPP would neuter the U.S. presidency for the next 19 months.” I believe I speak for everyone on the conference call tonight when I say that this would be an absolutely wonderful thing!!!!

If you live in Hurt’s district, call any of his offices and/or email/talk to anyone to whom you think he might listen. If you live in Brat’s or Goodlatte’s districts, call them and let them know you appreciated their NO vote on TAA the last time; and to hold firm on that position. You need to ensure that theirs (ESPECIALLY Goodlattee’s) aren’t two of the votes that get changed by Boehner’s current arm-twisting!!!! If none of the three above is your congressman, then find out how he/she previously voted on TAA and take the appropriate action.

In summary, to me this feels a lot like the 2010 struggle to pass Obamacare all over again — only this time it is the blankety-blank Republicans that are trying to ram this through congress, not the Democrats!! If this legislation gets passed, it will likely ruin any hope of a near-term recovery of the American economy — not to mention giving Obama even more unilateral power to circumvent existing immigration law and grant amnesty/visas to more foreigners!

Oh, and don’t forget “climate change”:

– Aaron

Leave a comment

Posted by on June 15, 2015 in Miscellaneous


Real Work Force – 05/31/15

Graph - General - Decreasing - 01

The FedGov released its unemployment propaganda for May 2015 showing a slight uptick in the unemployment rate from 5.4% to 5.5% with 280,000  jobs created.

At Forbes, a cautiously optimistic tone:

Currently 8.7 million Americans are unemployed. At issue for months, however, has been the large percentage of people who are working part-time not by choice but because they had no better option. The U-6 rate, which measures under-employment, came in at 10.8% in May unchanged from a month earlier but down from 12.1% a year earlier. “These are elevated numbers compared to what a normal labor market looks like but they are declining rapidly.” says Robin Anderson, senior economist Principal Global Investors

FedGov calculations still don’t really show the true picture of employment in America.  They don’t answer this question:

Ignoring all demographics, who is in the wagon versus who is pulling the wagon?

How many people are working as a percent of all the people in the United States?  Here’s the trend…


RWF - 20150531 - Real Work Force - 01


After a dismal 2014, the rate is struggling to rise back to the levels of 2013.  There was little change in the labor force number this month, so while 280,000 jobs is a good headline, only 289,000 net jobs have been added since the beginning of the year.

At the end of Clinton’s administration, over 50% of the population in America were in the labor force!  That number stayed mostly the same and then increased through through the early parts of 2007.  That percentage has decreased since the beginning of 2007 and is now down by fully 2%.  You’re welcome to comment below as to what happened in early 2007 to turn the trend around.

In today’s numbers, that’s a reduction of almost 6,000,000 jobs.

Below is the percentage of change from month-to-month


RWF - 20150531 - Real Work Force (Percent Change) - 01


Labor Force Data from


RWF - 20150531 - Labor Force - 01


Population Estimate from


RWF - 20150531 - Population Estimate - 01


Things won’t get better in this country until millions more people are pulling the wagon!

Leave a comment

Posted by on June 12, 2015 in Economy, Unemployment


Tags: , , ,

Freedom To Work

Dear Missouri Senator,

It’s been interesting as the debate has raged on Right To Work that Union Members and Bosses have felt comfortable fighting against a “Right”… …the right of an employer and employee to define the terms of their association.

I support the workers’ right to form a union, but I do not support special legislation that tells workers that they must join the union, have their dues used to benefit a political party, and see their labors used to enrich union bosses.

The worker must be allowed to exercise the right of free association with the employer (notice I didn’t say “given the right”).  The union fights to take away that right.

h/t dailykos.comThat’s why I call it the Freedom To Work instead.  Imagine all those bumper stickers that say “Right To Work Wrong For Missouri” now saying “Freedom To Work Wrong For Missouri”.  That would make the most apolitical Missourian cock their head and raise an eyebrow.

Please vote YES on Right To Work.  Make the state of Missouri attractive to businesses, so we don’t have to run back to Jeff City for more special sessions to create the Boeing Bribe!

In some states, like Indiana, union membership has increased after Freedom To Work has become law.

The bottom line is this question:  If unions are so great, why do we need a law that forces people to join?

Thanks and please vote Yes!

1 Comment

Posted by on May 11, 2015 in Miscellaneous


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,213 other followers