The Ole Seagull owes an apology to all those children born in Stone and Taney County since 2000 for failing to grasp the significance of a wonderful program called “Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library.” It is a program started by Dolly Parton in 2000 that gives a free book to every child in Stone and Taney County, every month between birth and age five. That’s right, up to 60 books free, sent one per month to every eligible child regardless of income. With a little parental or other adult effort it could become the most important gift your child or grandchild ever received.

Those who know the Ole Seagull realize that there are a lot of brighter intellectual bulbs than he shining in the world and he would agree with them. What they will be hard pressed to find however, is someone who appreciates reading and, even in today’s technological world, what it can mean to ones image, confidence, chance of success and quality of life more than him.

And that’s what’s sad, that, although he had heard about the “Imagination Library Program” he was always doing something else and failed to take the time to connect the dots and to appreciate the scope and potential of the program. That changed during a recent interview with John Richardson, Director of Sales & Marketing for Dolly Parton’s Dixie Stampede Dinner Attraction in Branson about the exciting changes taking place in the Dixie Stampede show in 2010.

As the interview ended the Ole Seagull asked if there was anything else he wanted to add. When he said the words, “Every child in Stone and Taney County, between birth and age five, is eligible to get a book sent to them for FREE every month as part of the ‘Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library Program’” and the Ole Seagull realized it’s potential impact on the children of Stone and Taney County it literally blew his feathers off.

Richardson explained that the program has been in place since the year 2000. He said, “Dolly’s intention is to encourage children to use their imaginations through reading, build up pride and ownership in reading by letting every kid own their own good quality books with great stories, and to develop a love of reading.” Every eligible child in the household receives their own book so brothers and sisters do not have to share books with their siblings.

“All they need to do is fill out an enrollment form, there is no cost and they will receive a free book every month from birth until age 5,” he continued. “Every child gets those books without regard to family income, could receive up to 60 books and there is no income requirement or threshold. That is Dolly’s gift back to the community.”
He said, “In Stone and Taney County the program is funded by Dixie Stampede and services about 2600 kids on a rotating basis. New kids enter the program as other kids reach the age of 5 and graduate from the program or move from Stone and Taney County.” He called it a “a public endearment” and a program that Dolly is actively involved in and supports.

Richardson said, “Dolly picked the first book and the last book each child would received. The first book is “The Little Engine That Could” and the last is called “Kindergarten Here I Come.” When he gave her rationale for the selection of the first book “The Little Engine That Could,” it almost brought a tear to an Ole Seagull’s eye. He said that Dolly picked it because it’s her favorite book because she thinks it’s indicative of her career.

As he heard those words the Ole Seagull remembered himself as a little boy sitting in on the floor of the library in Roger Sherman School listening to the librarian read about the little engine that, in the face of almost insurmountable odds accepted the challenge and just kept on trying until it succeeded. Many times during his life over the last 60 plus years since he first heard and read the story, the simple message of “Little Engine That Could” and its “I think I can” attitude has served him well.

Dolly has said, “If we can help turn the dreams of a child into the promise of a bright future, then one of my biggest dreams will come true.” She’s done her part, all we have to do is deliver the gift to our children and grandchildren. For additional information or enrollment forms either visit Dixie Stampede or call (417) 337-9400.

It was a bad night last night and the Ole Seagull must have had one of his “dreams.” In the dream it’s a quiet night at the Branson Board of Alderman’s meeting as a middle aged professional woman, dressed in a business suit, approached the podium to address them during the “Public Comment” portion of the meeting. She introduces herself as Ima Robublind, an attorney from the law firm of “Dewey Cheatem and How,” representing the “Branson Dollars for Visitors Tour Bus Association (BDVTBA),” an association of about 500 tour bus companies who bring about 800,000 plus visitors to Branson each year.

Her initial statement was direct and simple as she said, “BDVTBA wants the same deal the Branson Airport has. That would be $8.24 for every passenger their busses bring to Branson except for those trips that originate in Branson or Springfield.” Although in a dream things can be surrealistic and blurry, the look of amazement on the board members faces was “priceless.”

In fact, one board member just blurted out, “We can’t do that. It could be viewed as a taxpayer subsidy of a private business.” Robublind simply responded, “And the Branson Airport deal is different how?” The board member quickly said, “But, we are trying to change all of that now to make it legal for us to make the payment that cannot legally be made under the current contract.”

“Now that’s the kind of flexibility and philosophy we love at Dewey Cheatem and How,” Robublind said. “Making what is illegal today legal tomorrow and paying for it with taxpayer funds.” She looked at the board and, in an excited voice, said, “Can it get any better than that?”

Another board member asked, “What are you going do for the $8.24 per passenger you are asking the city for?” She replied, “Bring people to Branson, all of whom will have purchased packages and lodging in Branson and will be spending money while in Branson?” She then asked, “With two limited exceptions, doesn’t the Branson Airport get $8.24 for every ‘inbound passenger arriving at the BA Airport on scheduled and charter flights’ to use unconditionally whatever way it wants whether or not those passengers actually every get into Branson?”

This time, she was quickly reminded that no questions may be asked from the board during the Public Comment portion of the meeting. With a twinkle in her eye she smiled and said, “I didn’t expect an answer, it was a rhetorical question.”
Another board member said, “Even if we wanted to we couldn’t afford it because there’s not enough money in the budget for the airport and your proposal.” Robublind said, “We handle this kind of stuff at Dewey Cheatem and How every day, but with the agreement the city has with the airport is a snap.”

“It’s the kind of one sided and unconscionable contract that our firm loves and even more so because it obligates no one to do anything and the city can get out of it anytime,” she said. “The agreement specifically says, ‘The city’s obligations under this agreement are expressly subject to annual appropriations’ and that ‘The City represents and warrants to BA that it intends to appropriate funds to meet its obligations under this Agreement on an annual basis.’”

Robublind then pointed out, “The parties entering the agreement either knew or should have known there was no consideration, the agreement was one sided and that if anyone really took a look at it from a legal perspective it would be shown up as the gift that it is. Even more important however, they knew they were dealing with an ever evolving political entity whose ‘intent’ could change from administration to administration and assumed that risk.”

With that she started dancing around to the tune of “Listen to the Music,” stripped off her suit jacket revealing a “We Love Branson” tee shirt and said, “Here’s the great part, the “Branson Dollars for Visitors Tour Bus Association” doesn’t want the money paid to it. Instead it wants the money paid to the “Tourism Community Enhancement District” to be used to market the entire Branson area. That will enable our members to fill their busses, which is good for them and for Branson. What more could anyone want?”

The Ole Seagull will never know the answer because he woke up, but he does wonder when the board is going to wake up to the reality of what the current Branson Airport Agreement is. When will it simply say, “Enough.” Hopefully before it costs the tax payers of the city of Branson millions of dollars.

Related:

Flawed Branson Airport contract taints board as it tries to launder funds

Are Branson officials flushing money down the airport drain?

Millions of visitors come to Branson each year. Last night [Feb 19] the Ole Seagull was reminded of the reason why. Simply put, it’s because a lot of people have invested their lives and resources in making Branson not only the wonderful place it is to visit, but to live, work, play and raise a family.

The Ole Seagull took a lot of ribbing from some of his buddies when he said he was going to his very first “Branson/Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce Black Tie Celebration,” and honestly, he went with some trepidation. His wife actually dug his “wake suit” out of the closet for him to wear and she said he “cleaned up nice.”

Although he realizes that there is a great social organization to the universe and knows his place there was a common bond at the event, “A love for Branson, appreciation of its past and a confident hope for its future.” Branson just didn’t happen. many people have invested much of their lives to make it the wonderful place that those of us who live here enjoy and, probably take too much for granted.

The Ole Seagull was not there as a reporter so he was not taking notes. At his age that means the best that is going to happen is a recollection of high lights and not many at that. The four that come to mind are the humbleness of the honorees who received well deserved recognition for their contribution to our community or kids, their sincerity in giving the credit for their awards to someone else, a sense of their love of God and their appreciation for Branson and all that it represents.

Particularly meaningful to an Ole Seagull, was the recognition of Jack and Peter Herschend, who were presented with special recognition awards for not only their involvement with Silver Dollar City, celebrating its 50th birthday this year, but for over 50 years of committed service to Branson. From trees to education, charities benefiting the families and children of this area and so much more, Jack and Peter Herschend and the Herschend family have been involved with making Branson not only the wonderful place it is for the millions of visitors who visit each year, but for the thousands of us who work and live here.

Branson is the place where, about 24 years ago, the Ole Seagull picked to call home and moved to with his family. It is the place he loves and from which he will go to be with the Lord when it is his time although perhaps not soon enough for some. He has never regretted that decision and last night he was reminded of why that was a great decision for him 24 years ago and why it would be great decision for anyone today.

If there is a better place to live, with finer people, better educational systems, more to do or a better community than Branson an Ole Seagull isn’t aware of it. It was a wonderful experience to share an evening with people of like heart and be reminded just how wonderful Branson is and how blessed we who live here are to be able to call it “Home.”

Ever since the words “Where’s the beef” were first spoken by actress Clara Peller, in a Wendy’s commercial in 1984 to point out that a hamburger should be more beef than bun, they have taken on almost iconic status. An Ole Seagull would ask “Where’s the beef” for the following questions or statements that he has heard recently.  His opinion, follows each.

“Branson shows and attractions shoot themselves in the foot when they ‘dumb’ down their ticket prices.” “The beef” for this one is prevalent. It breaks an Ole Seagull’s heart when he sees tickets representing the personal cash investment, sweat, blood, anguish and talent of some of the greatest entertainers and talent he has ever seen being sold at places other than their theatres at prices far lower than the theatre providing the entertainment is selling the same tickets. It’s one thing to offer a couple of bucks off a ticket, but where’s “the beef” in terms of getting anywhere near the full ticket price if your show is advertised somewhere else on a list of shows with up to 50 percent off?

“With our airport now being serviced by Frontier and AirTran Airways over 100 cities can access this great destination [Branson] from around the country.” The Ole Seagull has lived in Branson for about 24 years now and one of the reasons he moved here initially was because Branson had air access to 100s of destinations. Whoops, bad Seagull, that access doesn’t count anymore because it was through the airport that he believes, with the blessing of the Branson community, was renamed the “Springfield Branson National Airport (SGF).” On April 20 there will be how many United flights to SFG and how many Frontier flights to the Branson Airport (BKG)?

“The taxpayers of the city of Branson are not legally responsible for the TIF indebtedness of Branson Landing.” It’s interesting how many people still believe that even though, as soon as a former Branson City Administrator said words to that effect in a public meeting, the city’s own bond attorney immediately and publicly pointed out the practical fallacy of the statement. An Ole Seagull believes that the lack of “beef” in that regard will soon become apparent to all.

“Would we have the increase in tourists after 2005 without the Landing?” A rhetorical question posed to the Ole Seagull. The Ole Seagulls answer would be “Such as it has been in these challenging economic times absolutely!” The Ole Seagull knows someone else asked first, but let’s rephrase the question, “Would we have the increase in tourists after 2005 if the voters had not approved the 1% retail sales tax for marketing in Nov. of 2005? As neat a place as Branson Landing is, how many people would get to Branson Landing or many of the Branson’s other great shows, attractions, and activities if they were not aware of and sold on “Branson” first?

Silver Dollar City and the other properties owned by the Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation (HFE), White Water and the Showboat Branson Belle and their superb marketing cause more people to chose Branson as their travel/vacation destination than Branson Landing, the Branson Convention Center and the new Branson Airport combined.” This is a compilation of comments of things that different people have said and the only “beef” the Ole Seagull has to back that up is his opinion and belief that the statement is true.

That’s sad. With the tens of millions that have been spent on market and research why isn’t there the “beef” showing more specific data about specific shows, attractions, and other things that cause people to decide to visit Branson? One thing for certain, Silver Dollar City, the Herschend family and organization have been doing it right for 50 years. Happy Birthday and thank you!

Let’s go with the good news first, the city of Branson got a clean bill of health on its handling of the Branson Landing flood plain issues from FEMA. Among other things FEMA said that Buildings 1 through 6 in Branson Landing “are reasonably safe from flooding.”

What then could the bad news be? Those are the building on the west side of Branson Landing. In fact there was some flooding to the lower levels of the building on the east side during the Spring 2008 Floods. It was the type of flooding that was anticipated when the Landing was built and it was basically handled as anticipated.

“Well, that’s not bad news that’s good news.” Absolutely, but the thing to keep in mind is that in terms of the water that could be released from Table Rock Dam’s 10 gates, only the equivalent of less than one of its ten gates was released during the 2008 Spring Floods. There is a capability of releasing 515,000 cubic feet of water per second (cfs) with all 10 gates and four generators. During the 2008 event less than 50,000 cfs was released yet, it flooded homes and the lower levels of the eastern side of Branson Landing.

Here we are two years and a “FEMA Scrutiny later” with buildings that “are reasonably safe from flooding” at Branson Landing, but a downtown Branson area and areas in the surrounding community that have no such assurances. What is “reasonably safe?”

Who really knows? One thing that could be done however, is have maps of Branson Landing, down town Branson including the Convention Center and the areas along Lake Taneycomo and its tributaries that clearly and simply show the areas that would be covered by water released from the dam at 50k cfs, 100k cfs, 150k cfs, 200k cfs, 250k cfs, 300k cfs, 350k cfs, 400k cfs 450k cfs, 500k cfs levels.

Will the water ever get that high? Who knows. Until April of 2008 the water had never been as high as it got since the dam was built, but it got there. There is a reason there are 10 gates and eight auxiliary gates at the dam. It would be interesting to see just how high the water would be in Branson Landing and other areas with a 300,000 cfs release.

Oh, and speaking of interesting, does anyone know what formal action the Branson Board of Aldermen, Hollister Board of Aldermen or Taney County Commission have taken to look into what, if anything, they can do to mitigate the consequences of future flooding like the 2008 event? Were an Ole Seagull a betting bird he would say that the answer would be pretty close to zero.

On the other hand, why be proactive when most people will settle for reactive? In the unlikely event of another flood like 2008, or worse, they’ll give us the same platitudes they did in 2008 and we’ll soon forget until the next time.

However, it would be interesting to know just how high the water would get in Branson Landing, Hollister, downtown Branson and other areas along Lake Taneycomo if 300,000 cfs were released from Table Rock Dam. On second thought, do we really want to know? Isn’t ignorance bliss?

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, the answers to most of the following questions should be of interest to many of the citizens and businesses of Branson and Taney County for what he believes are obvious reasons. But then, what does an Ole Seagull know?

1. Has the Branson Landing TIF raised enough revenue so that, on an annual basis, year to year, it can pay off its debt service for each of the years it has been open?

2. Is there a TIF funded reserve fund set aside for such payments?

3. If the answer to 2 is “Yes” 3-5 become pertinent if not skip down to 6. How is it funded?

4. What is the current balance of that fund and is there any danger of it running out in the near future?

5. If that fund has ever been used in full or in part to pay on the Branson Landing TIF debt because the TIF receipts were not sufficient, how much and when?

6. If the TIF receipts and the TIF reserve account, if in existence, aren’t enough to pay the debt service is there any possibility that the residents and businesses of Branson could have to pay it either directly or through a loss of services?

7. If the answer to 6 is “Yes” what specific revenue streams of the city are impacted first and how does it eventually flow through to the individual citizen or business?
8. Where is the specific consideration in the potentially $60 million dollar contract the city has with the Branson Airport?

9. Could the recent action of the Branson Board of Aldermen involving payments under Branson Airport Contract influence future legal actions or negotiations involving that contract.

10. Should the word “honor” be used in connection with anything involving the Branson Airport Contract from its inception to the boards recent action involving it?

11. Does the legislation authorizing the city of Branson to impose its city tourism tax permit the use of 75 percent of the tax authorized for infrastructure for the operation of such infrastructure as well as its construction?
12. How many water meters are there in the city of Branson?

13. What is the annual total of the funds, beside debt service, being paid to Branson Landing for maintenance, net operating loss at the Convention Center and the Branson Airport Contract etc.?

14. In addition to the increase in water bills that has been taking place over the last three year for Branson citizens and businesses it may still have to go higher because of what?

15. The average job created by the Branson Landing and Branson Hills TIFF actually pays how much per year?

16. The Federal Poverty Level for a family of two adults and two children is?

17. Is there actually a behind the scenes movement that encourages Branson tourism related businesses not to register with the state and pay the appropriate taxes on the sale of show and attraction tickets that the Missouri Supreme Court says the law requires them to pay?

18. Exactly what is the city of Branson’s position on that issue and what is it doing to insure that every penny it is owed in sales and tourism tax is collected and used for the benefit of the citizens and businesses of Branson?

19. Will the recent layoff of Taney County Road and Bridge personnel impact on the condition and safety of Taney County roads and bridges?
20 What other options or plans were seriously considered before they were laid off?

21. Is there a priority list of county services that would indicate those services that are more essential than others?

22. If not why not?

23. How much did Taney County spend fighting the Tax Assessor issue with the state?

24. Where did the millions of dollars that Taney County had committed to the building of the Taneycomo Bridge go when they didn’t have to spend it because Federal Stimulus money was used for the project instead?

25. Has there been any discussion of collecting a real estate property tax from the residents of Taney County for the purposes of running county government?

Whoops, missed one.

26. Does anyone besides an Ole Seagull really care?

At the outset, let’s make one thing perfectly clear, the issue is not about the Branson Airport whether its good or bad, should have been built or not etc. It’s about a contract that has the potential to cost the taxpayers of the city of Branson up to $2 million dollars per year for 30 years. A contract that is so one-sided and unconscionable on its face that most objective people looking at it would say, “Wow, what a gift for the airport. The city pays up to $60 million to the airport to spend without restrictions of any kind simply for running their business?” Others might ask, “How can I get the same type of deal?”

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, up until the Jan. 12 Branson Board of Aldermen meeting, the stench of the Branson Airport Contract, “negotiated” under the regime of former City Administrator Terry Dody and what the Ole Seagull refers to as his “merry band of men,” had not tainted the new administration and board that has developed since the 2007 elections. To an Ole Seagull that contract is the perfect illustration of the arrogance and attitude of a city leadership that, whether it was claiming the right to the name “Branson,” authorizing 25 story buildings, or using its power and authority to impede the rights of citizens to speak freely at public meetings, did what they wanted to and when they wanted to with impunity up until the 2007 elections.

There are relatively few times in a person’s life time when they have a second opportunity to right an obvious wrong. The current Mayor, staff, and Board of Aldermen were presented with just such an opportunity. While obviously only a judge can determine the legality of a contract and how it is being performed, the city recently paid tens of thousands of dollars to get two different legal opinions on the contract. In general they both agreed that the current contract was not legal or enforceable as written.

The current board and  administration had an opportunity to correct a wrong. One way would have been by simply telling the Branson Airport, “We don’t believe the agreement is legal or enforceable and do not intend to pay one red cent under its provisions.” Another could have been by saying “We don’t believe the agreement is legal or enforceable, but we would be willing to work with you to see if we can negotiate an agreement that would be fair to both parties, limit the payment of any city funds to the first time a passenger flies into Branson excluding subsequent trips and addressing other concerns the city or community might have.”

Instead, after about a year of closed door discussions on the matter and being informed of the legal opinions as to the illegality of the contract what does the board and mayor do? It passes a resolution reading, “The Board of Aldermen hereby authorizes payment in the amount of $77,101.68 for the first quarter billing as identified and recommended by the City’s Auditor, subject to the modification of the Pay for Performance agreement allowing payments to the Branson Airport Transportation Development District.”

By that simple action, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, the board and mayor chose to taint themselves with the stench from the Branson Airport Contract. Instead of doing the honorable thing and calling the Branson Airport Agreement the one-sided unconscionable and illegal agreement it is, the city appears to be trying to launder the payments through another entity, not a party to the contract, in an attempt to make something they have been advised is illegal legal and, in doing so, appears to give the appearance of ratifying the contract.

To their credit Alderman Rick Davis, Sandra Williams, and Chris Bohinc voted against the resolution while Aldermen Bob Simmons, Mike Booth, and Rick Todd voted for it and surprisingly, Mayor Raeanne Presley broke the tie by voting for it. It has been said this is just the beginning of the process and public discussion on the issue.

To an Ole Seagull, the resolution itself and the fact that the issue has been discussed for over a year without public participation speaks volumes about how close to the beginning of the process things and the value that was put on public input. Who was it that said, “The more things change the more they stay the same?”

When Branson residents flush their toilet they pay for it, but the opportunities for Branson residents to flush things away and pay doesn’t stop there. Without even getting to pull the handle on the stool, Branson residents get to pay $8.24 for every person getting off a plane at the Branson Airport who did not originally depart from that airport on their trip.

It’s actually kind of like flushing your toilet, the more you flush the more you pay. Well, the more passengers that fly into the airport the more the Branson residents pay. As a matter of fact, over the next 30 years, at $8.24 cents per passenger, $500,000 per quarter, and $2,000,000 per year that could  cost the residents of Branson $60 million dollars flushed away.

The requirement for the residents of Branson to pay the per passenger fee arises from a contract, created and entered into under the leadership of a past city administrator and the merry band of aldermen who, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, did what they wanted to do when they wanted to do it. For example, they wanted to give the airport up to $2 million a year merely for doing what they said they would do in the first place with no public money and for just doing what airports are supposed to do, fly people in and out. So they did.

The first time the Ole Seagull saw the contract he was amazed at how one sided it was even considering the city leadership that authorized it. Basically, the residents of the city of Branson are obligated, in accordance with the contract, to pay the airport up to $2 million per year for the next 30 years without the airport doing anything other than run an airport. To an Ole Seagull the contract, more a gift from the city of Branson to the airport developers, is the most “unconscionable” contract he has ever seen.

In a general legal sense, a contract could be considered “unconscionable” if, among other things, it is so one-sided as to be considered oppressively unfair. In this contract one even wonders if the airport is obligated to do anything it was not already doing except collect the money from the city. It’s so ludicrous and one sided that if Visitor A and his Wife flew into the Branson Airport, even though they had been flying into Branson through the Springfield Branson Regional airport twice a year for the last five years, the residents of the city of Branson would have to pay $16.48 for the first and each subsequent time they fly into the Branson airport. That’s right folks each time, twice a year $32.96, twice a year for the next ten years $329.60.

The city has spent over $67,000 for legal reviews of the contract and, if published reports on those reviews are accurate there are legal problems and issues with the contract. Indeed, the city’s staff has recommended that no payments be made under the original contract until it is amended.

One of the newly appointed aldermen is quoted as saying, “We have an obligation like it or not. I have to stand up and honor the decision. The intent is to support the airport if funds are available…Don’t want to put out the message we don’t support their airport.” May an Ole Seagull ask, “What is there to honor and at what expense to the residents of the city of Branson?”  It was an unconscionable agreement from its inception, city lawyers have indicated its illegal and not paying the money indicates no more than the city is not going to allow its tax payers money be flushed down the drain in an illegal or unconscionable manner whether it’s paid to the airport or any another entity.

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion the word “honor” is dishonored when used in connection with the airport agreement. He believes there was no honor in its inception; can be no honor in any attempt to flush money from the residents of the city of Branson to the airport whether flushed directly or through some other legal entity in a pitiful attempt to circumvent state law and there is no honor if a legal and conscionable means is available to renegotiate a fairer more audit friendly contract and is not pursued to the maximum extent possible. As a starter, how about just paying the airport for the first time a passenger comes in and not every subsequent time?

Last week’s column entitled “Does Branson need more big named stars or better promotion of what it has?” has generated some interest and comment. Its objective was to point out that Branson’s stages have an under recognized and underappreciated talent that, if recognized and marketed by the powers that control Branson’s marketing, could do for Branson well into its next 50 years what Shoji Tabuchi has done over the last 20 plus years.

It wasn’t intended to be about what we shouldn’t be doing or even an all inclusive piece about what we should be doing. It was a straight forward piece expressing one old man’s opinion about one thing we could be doing.

The comments on the “Ole Seagull Forum” under the “Living in Branson Forums” on www.1Branson.com were very interesting. They provide a varied perspective of peoples perception on the issue.

BransonBluesman said, “I’ve been here 22 years, and IMHO…Branson needs a few more “stars” to draw people here. Neal McCoy seems to have found a niche in Branson and will be appearing here on at least a semi-regular basis.” As to Neal McCoy and the other national stars that come to Branson, an Ole Seagull would say “Amen,” it adds to the breadth of the types of live shows Branson provides, has been taking place for at least the last two decades and doesn’t change the main point of the column.

Suselit said, “Branson has some young, ambitious Entertainers with their own Theaters who are working hard to get Audiences to come to Branson. The Duttons and The Haygoods are using TV to promote not only their shows but Branson as a tourist destination. It would seem logical for Branson to get behind their efforts and work as a team to accomplish the goal of Publicity for Branson.”
DalmationDad said, “Beyond about 600 miles or so, the marketing message is not effective IMO [In My Opinion]. People generally have heard of Branson, but misunderstand it terribly in the negative sense.” In referring to Suselit’s post, BransonBluesman said, “I think you are missing the point a bit. People who have never been to Branson have more than likely never heard of the The Duttons and The Haygoods.”

That was the major point of the column. Why haven’t people who have never been to Branson heard of these shows and Branson’s other under recognized and underappreciated shows who are performing day in and day out all during the season, not just for limited engagements or during the “plum part” of the season? Why are they not used as a marketing tool to help people make the decision to come to Branson because they are here?

BransonBluesman goes on to say, “Honestly - (and I’m not saying this is my opinion) most of the “family” acts in Branson are considered second rate when it comes to other entertainment areas like Vegas, etc.” All an Ole Seagull can say to that is “Honestly, Branson is a different type of entertainment “area,” than Las Vegas. “Areas like Vegas, etc.” don’t entertain, “entertainers” entertain and there is absolutely nothing “second rate” about the caliber of entertainment that family shows such as, but not limited to the Haygoods, Duttons, Six, the Hughes Brothers, Presleys’, Balknobbers and others provide Branson visitors. Weren’t the Dutton’s one of the top ten finalists on the nationally televised NBC hit show “America’s Got Talent” based on the votes of millions of Americans?

National stars, those on limited engagements, extended stays as well as those who chose to stay in Branson and become foundational shows are an important part of what Branson is today and will be in the future. What came first however, the national stars or the millions of visitors already coming to Branson to, among other things, be entertained by Branson’s foundational family acts such as the Baldknobbers, Braschlers, Plummers and Presleys?

At the end of the day marketing is like the difference between a violin and a fiddle. It’s all about how you play around with it that determines the result. From a marketing standpoint, why haven’t people who have never been to Branson heard about “The Duttons and The Haygoods” or Branson’s other under recognized and underappreciated shows?

Most were probably expecting a column about the headline story of 2009 or something along those lines. Actually, although the story was never written, the question should have been a headline in 2009, 2008, 2007, prior years and should be a major story during 2010, but it wasn’t and it won’t. That’s sad because the answer to Branson’s future could lie in the balance.

Shoji Tabuchi is one of the most popular acts in Branson and justly so for a lot of reasons. Yet, prior to 1991 Shoji had been working in Branson, and around the country during the off season, and had just recently started his own show. After his appearance on the 1991 CBS Show “60 Minutes,” where Branson was declared as the “Live Music Capital of the Entire Universe,” and the attendant publicity and marketing accompanying that show and Shoji, he rose like a meteor to a justly deserved place as one of Branson’s must see shows.

Now the Ole Seagull realizes that there was a lot more involved than the 60 Minutes Show. There was a new theatre, productions numbers like Branson stages had never seen before, good internal marketing, a huge influx of new people coming to Branson, and of course the talent, wit and audience appeal of one of the Ole Seagull’s favorite entertainers and people, the incomparable Shoji Tabuchi.

However, the reality of the situation at that time was that in 1991 “Shoji Tabuchi” was not a big named national star. His was not the name on the lips of those who were saying, “What Branson needs to do is get more big named stars.” Yet, over the last 20 years, unless the Ole Seagull misses his bet, Shoji Tabuchi has been responsible for consistently, year after year, month after month, entertaining more Branson visitors than any other star or act that has ever come to Branson.

What the Ole Seagull is trying to say is that in 1991, even as some were saying, “Woe is Branson if we don’t bring in big named national stars” one of its biggest stars of the next two decades was already performing on a Branson stage right under their noses. The publicity of 60 minutes helped them realize what was available, it was capitalized on and the rest is history.
It seems like someone is always saying, “Branson entertainment needs new this or that and woe is Branson if we don’t bring in big named national stars.” To that an Ole Seagull would say, “Bull roar.”

In terms of Branson’s marketing effort, and strictly in the Ole Seagull’s opinion, Branson’s stages have an under recognized and under appreciated talent that, if recognized and marketed by the powers that control the marketing, could do for Branson well into its next 50 years what Shoji Tabuchi has done over the last 20. The first question a lot of people would ask is, “What shows would those be?” Although he is certain there are others, of the shows he considers “under appreciated and under recognized,” that he has had personal involvement with during the last year the Duttons, Haygoods, Magnificent Variety, Six, Hughes Brothers, George Dyre, Clay Cooper, Liver Pool Legends and the “Country Tonite cast” portion of the “Country Tonite” show come to mind.

The Ole Seagull will wonder until the day he dies, why the marketing gurus of this town didn’t jump on the chance to market Branson and the Dutton Show to take maximum advantage of its prime time appearances and top ten performances on the top rated NBC hit show “America’s Got Talent.” There was the ideal chance for Branson to help create its own new star. For whatever reason, it didn’t happen and we are still complaining that we have nothing coming up to replace our maturing acts that will, more than likely sooner than later, be retiring.
For what it matters, an Ole Seagull believes we have the talent, shows and entertainers performing on Branson stages right now that can provide quality, diversity, stability and longevity for Branson’s entertainment scene for a long time to come. All we have to do is recognize it and promote it.

Isn’t that what marketing is for? Very few people come to Branson for no reason. Why not make that reason something that will be providing quality Branson based season long family entertainment in Branson for the next ten to twenty years?

The title on the email the Ole Seagull received from a close friend was “What is wrong?.” It is published below as received.

In the for what it’s worth department, the Ole Seagull believes that the only benefits an illegal alien should receive should are those necessary and directly connected with providing the health care, sustenance, and travel assistance necessary to send them back where they came from as quickly as possible.

“Let’s See if I have this RIGHT!
If you cross the border from South Korea into North Korea you get 12 Years hard labor
If you cross the Iranian border you are detained indefinitely.
If you cross the Afghan border you get shot.
If you cross the Saudi Arabian border you will be jailed.
If you cross the Chinese border you may never be heard from again.
If you cross the Venezuelan border you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed.
If you cross the border into Cuba you will be thrown into political prison to rot.
If you illegally cross the United Stated border you get —-
A Job (sure politicians will say it’s a job Americans don’t want to do but with 10% unemployment I’m sure we can find someone)
A Drivers License (but why bother drive without one, and don’t bother with insurance either)
A Social Security Card (collect social security, but don’t bother paying any taxes)
Welfare
Food Stamps
Free Education
Credit Cards
Subsidized Rent (or just get a govt loan for a house)
Free Health Care (especially for those nice diseases you weren’t inoculated for)
A Lobbyist working for you in Washington
Government Documents printed in your native language costing Billions of Dollars
The right to carry the flag of the country you left while you protest your treatment in this country which you entered illegally
And in many instances you can VOTE (thank you ACORN)
Just wanted to be clear on how our representatives that are supposed to be working for us are spending our tax dollars. Any questions?”

This column was originally written over 12 years ago and is modified and republished each year as an Ole Seagull’s testimony as to what Christmas means to him. The political correctness of “Merry Christmas” may change but the true meaning of CHRISTmas will never change.

The “Grinch” never came any closer to stealing the true meaning of Christmas than has trying to be “politically correct.” In recent years there has been a strong move to change the traditional Christmas greeting of “Merry Christmas” to the “politically correct” terminology of “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings.”

“But one wouldn’t want to offend those who are celebrating Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, or something else would they?” Absolutely not, but most people are not offended by the use of the term “Merry Christmas.” Yet, it is important to the vast majority of Americans to whom the celebration of Christmas is so significant and special and to those who want to preserve the spirit, history and tradition of the “Christmas” that the U.S. Congress designated as a legal holiday on June 26, 1870.

What do “Happy Holidays,” and “Seasons Greetings,” have in common with “_ _ _ _ _ _ mas?” They both leave “Christ” out. So what? What does “Christ” have to do with the celebration of Kwanza, Hanukkah, Santa Claus, presents, office parties, red nosed reindeer, decorating trees, wreaths, holly, sleigh bells, retail sales, booze, atheism and feasting? Not much.

What does Christ have to do with CHRISTmas? Everything! Without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas. There can be a holiday, a season, festivals, and religious observations of every persuasion, but without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas, in either fact or spirit. One cannot even say or spell the word “CHRISTmas,” let alone explain its actual history, meaning or origins, as it is celebrated in the United States, without Christ.

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia states that Christmas is “Christ’s Mass in the Christian calendar, the feast of the nativity of Jesus.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “Christmas” as “A Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus.” Jesus who? Jesus, the Christ Child, the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem over 2000 years ago.
First there was Jesus Christ and because of Christ there is the celebration of His birth, CHRISTmas. Secular customs and traditions have developed since; but, first there was Christ.

Even the greatest current secular symbol, the “Ho, Ho, Ho” jolly old Santa Claus seen everywhere during the Christmas season, was first made popular in New York during the 19th century. And before that the European traditions of “Sinterklaas,” and Saint Nicholas can be traced back hundreds of years; but, first there was “Christ.”

Why, there are even some who would try to replace the bright guiding light of the Star of Bethlehem with the red glow of the nose of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” Rudolph’s nose has been guiding Santa’s sleigh since 1939 when Robert May wrote a verse for a Montgomery Ward promotional comic book. In the late 1940’s his brother-in-law adapted the verse and used it in the song “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer;” and the cowboy crooner, Gene Autry, made Rudolph famous but, first there was “Christ.”

When someone says “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings,” rather than “Merry Christmas,” those wanting to share the gift of Christmas could ask, “What Holiday?” or “What Season?” What better way to create or reinforce an awareness of the “reason for the season,” that very first Christmas when “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life?”
If we keep the spirit of the Christ Child and His love in our hearts and share it with others, Christmas, in its truest sense, will be with us every day of the year, Merry Christmas folks, Merry Christmas.

An Ole Seagull, and the rest of the Groman Family would take this opportunity to wish you and yours a blessed Merry Christmas.

An August opinion of the Missouri Supreme Court (Court), “Music City Management, LLC v Director of Revenue” (Music City), changes the way that retail sales taxes on show tickets are collected and paid and authorized huge refunds of taxes already paid back to the plaintiff theatres. In doing so it created a situation that can potentially cost the city of Branson and the state of Missouri tens of millions of dollars in lost revenues and cost the taxpayers of Branson hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Prior to the Music City case, if theatre “TA” sold a Ticket Reseller a ticket that retailed for $40.00 for the wholesale (FIT) rate of $30.00 and the retail sales tax rate on the ticket, including city of Branson, state, ambulance districts, etc, was 10 percent, TA would have collected and remitted $3.00 in retail sales taxes to the Missouri Department of Revenue (MDOR). When the Ticket Reseller sold the ticket at retail to a customer for the full $40.00 they would collect and remit to MDOR an additional $1.00 in retail sales taxes, for a total tax collected and remitted of $4.00. At its simplest level, after the Music City case, the Ticket Resellers is responsible for collecting and remitting the total sales tax due, in this case $4.00.

In implementing the Courts decision MDOR has said that every Ticket Reseller must register for Missouri sales tax for each place of amusement, entertainment or recreation and collect and remit the tax based on the tax rate applicable to the place “for which the admission is sold.” The registration appears important because the “Sales/Use Exemption Tax Certificate (Form 149)” that must be presented to the theatre at the time the Ticket Reseller Purchases tickets for resale by Missouri businesses is required to have the Missouri Tax ID Number. One can only wonder how many Ticket Resellers have applied to register with the state, just how long such registration takes and if there is a public list of Ticket Resellers who have registered.

The Ole Seagull finds the Courts authorization for a refund particularly onerous. The theatres in the Music City case appear to getting a refund of money that was paid by the Resellers that bought the tickets from them. Too, an Ole Seagull believes there is a strong likely hood that the State of Missouri will go against the City of Branson and the other taxing entities for a refund of the taxes the state paid to them and is having to refund to the Music City plaintiffs. What a strain that could put on already stretched budgets.

Why is some sort of class action not being taken to have the “Music City” money held in escrow until it can be determined who actually paid how much for what? Once it’s given back to the “Music City” plaintiffs and their attorney(s), for all practical purposes, it is gone absent legal action by each entity against each theatre getting a “Music City” refund. One can only wonder about the possibility that the ramifications of this decision could cost the city of Branson, and for that matter, the state of Missouri,millions of dollars in lost revenues from tour companies and others that might choose to go somewhere else rather than play the “Music City Game?

In a column a couple of weeks ago entitled “Ouch and sorry, but our Forefathers didn’t prohibit Nativity scenes on public land, prayer in school, etc.” the Ole Seagull made some comments and asked some questions based on a Letter to the Editor by Bill Stephenson. For the most part they related the truthfulness and accuracy of some of Stephenson’s comments relating to what our “Founding Fathers” did or meant by putting the words “an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”  in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Stephenson responded to that column with another Letter to the Editor. Because of the Ole Seagull’s sincere belief that this discussion transcends religion and goes to the core of how the Federal Government has become so involved in our daily lives, on an ever increasing level, he believes it timely and appropriate to continue the dialogue. Comments made by Bill Stephenson from his letter are preceded by his initials “BS” and the response of The Ole Seagull by the initials “TOSG.”

BS:“This time he wanted us to believe that the First Amendment to the Constitution was only intended to apply to ‘Congress.’”

TOSG: That has to be a Freudian Slip because what the Ole Seagull actually did was point out, that as written “the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits ‘Congress,’ from making a law ‘respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” He then asked two questions, “Who does it apply to, local school districts, cities, states, counties” or “Congress?” and “Isn’t that the same Congress defined in Section 1 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution?”

One can only assume that BS read the First Amendment and Section 1 of Article I and reached the same logical conclusion most reasonable persons reading those words would reach. That conclusion, using the words of BS himself is “that the First Amendment to the Constitution was only intended to apply to ‘Congress.’”

BS: “Now, I don’t want to spread ‘misinformation’ here, but I’m pretty sure the ‘Ole Seagull’ was also asking us to believe that State and Local governments were never intended by our ‘Founding Fathers’ to respect any of those rights as well.”

TOSG: Absolutely.

BS: “I certainly hope I’m wrong about this because who knows how many might ask, ‘That can’t be right, can it?’”

TOSG: It doesn’t make any difference how many ask because the answer is still the same, “Of course it’s right;” that is, if the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court has any bearing on the issue. In terms of “those rights,” as evidenced by its decision in the 1833 case “Barron v City of Baltimore,” the Supreme Court held that “These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.”

BS: “It would serve the ‘Ole Seagull’ well to finish reading the First Amendment, and while he has the Constitution out he might read the Fourteenth Amendment too… “Congress added it [14th amendment] about one hundred and fifty years ago to make sure that no one would get confused again about where your rights as a U.S. citizen are protected…”

TOSG: The 14th amendment, ratified in 1868, had nothing to do with what the “Founding Fathers” did or did not do. They were in their graves.

Nor was there any “confusion” at the time of its ratification about who the Bill of Rights, the first amendment in this case, applied to. The U.S. supreme court in the case of “United States v. Cruikshank,” held that “The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging ‘the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’ This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone.” (Underline added)

To an Ole Seagull there doesn’t appear to be any confusion at all, only consistency. It’s probably appropriate to note that this decision was delivered in 1875 about seven years after the 14th amendment was ratified.

Some might ask, “Then how did we get from there to the National government’s growing infringement into our local government, churches, schools, and daily lives?” That’s an article for another day.

A recent column entitled “Seagulestions’ on the Highroad and Branson Landing show things haven’t changed much,” published in this paper and on line at www.OleSeagull.Com” made comparisons to the political environment in which the Ozark Mountain Highroad (Highroad) and Branson Landing were authorized to be built. In the case of the Highroad, then governor Ashcroft used a power that, according to published reports, had never been used before to authorize building the Highroad on a priority basis to relieve traffic congestion in downtown Branson.

The road, named the “Ozark Mountain High Road” is Missouri State Highway 465. It runs seven miles southwest from its northern terminus with Highway 65 north of Branson to its southwestern terminus with Highway 76 just east of Silver Dollar City. Locally the road is referred to under various names including “Pete’s Pike,” out of respect for all the effort Peter Herschend, one of the owners of Silver Dollar City made to get the road built, “Silver Dollar Highway” for obvious reason and “Maytag Repairman Way” because people traveling on it are normally as lonely as the Maytag repair man.

When the column was posted on the Ole Seagull’s Forum on the “1Branson.Com” message board, one of the Posters, Hunters Friend said, “All joking aside, Gary should now be able to at least understand the issue is not the highroad, but rather Branson’s enormous (and successful) attempts to hide its existence”. It’s actually kind of funny, a lot of folks, including The Ole Seagull, believe there was a political conspiracy to get the Highroad built initially and now there’s an allegation of a conspiracy about “Branson’s enormous (and successful) attempts to hide its existence.”

In his initial response The Ole Seagull said, “Is there just the possibility that the low use of the Highroad is more dependent on the fact that most people coming to Branson are staying in Branson proper and that the Highroad doesn’t help get them to their hotels or the majority of the other places they might want to go? How does the Highroad help get someone [those people already in Branson], to Branson Landing, Branson’s Theatre district, Titanic, major shopping malls, downtown, etc.”

Hunters Friend supported his conspiracy theory with a series of maps published by Branson businesses that, for the most part, are intended to be handed out to people already in Branson. These maps either don’t show the Highroad or show it to his satisfaction. Hunter’s Friend kind of summed it up by saying, “All of these are fairly pathetic, but I still maintain that the Best Read Guide’s attempt to bury the highroad is the best I have seen. 5 foldout pages and in the uppermost left-hand corner is a smidgen of a line for 465. Pathetic and comical all at the same time.”

The Ole Seagull responded, “The Ole Seagull doesn’t find the maps either pathetic or comical. He finds them filled with relevant information that most Branson visitors would want to use to get from place to place while they are in Branson. It is his personal opinion that the Highroad doesn’t show on most of the local Branson Maps for the same reason Highway 86 and 13 aren’t shown; it is irrelevant for most Branson visitors.”

Interestingly, although the two threads have garnered over 100 comments and 2065 views since being posted, no one, not one person has answered the Ole Seagulls original questions on the initial rational for building the Highroad, “Precisely how much has the building of the Highroad done for lowering the amount of traffic on Highway 76 or downtown Branson? Why would any business person, theatre, shop or restaurant owner on Highway 76, with half of an ounce of brains, want less traffic on Highway 76 in the mid 1990s or now?” While we are at it maybe one more would be appropriate, “Do you believe there is a Branson conspiracy to hide the existence of the Highroad?

This annual Thanksgiving reprint is a wish from the Bthe Ole Seagull and the entire Groman family that you and yours will have a Blessed and Happy Thanksgiving.

Common sense tells an Ole Seagull that something celebrated as “Thanksgiving Day” should be a day of “giving thanks.”  Generally speaking, who among us says “thank you” to “no one?” When thanks is given it is for something and is “given” to the person or entity believed to have provided that something.

Yet, even as some would take “CHRIST” out of CHRISTmas they would take the “Giving” out of Thanksgiving. To whom are we giving thanks? From Coronado’s 1541 Thanksgiving in Palo Duro Canyon, in what is now West Texas, through the 1600 Puritan Thanksgivings in New England, history testifies to the fact that our modern day Thanksgiving is rooted on giving thanks to God for blessings bestowed.

The true meaning of “Thanksgiving,” and its involvement with the very foundation of our Nation can be readily gleaned from the Proclamations establishing it and history itself. One of the “First Thanksgiving Proclamations,” issued in 1676, by the Governing Council of Charlestown, Massachusetts proclaimed, “a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favor …”

On December 18, 1777, after the victory over the British at Saratoga, the Congress recommended, “That at one time, and with one voice, the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that, together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings they may join the penitent confession of their sins; and supplications for such further blessings as they stand in need of.”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation stating, “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln, in his 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation said it best. “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things.  They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.  It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.  I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

Particularly at this time in our Nation’s history, it would seem appropriate, during our Thanksgiving celebrations, to stop and give “thanks” to Almighty God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon this Nation and its people. As Lincoln so beautifully said, “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God.”

In a recent “Letter to the Editor,” published in the Taney County Times, Bill Stephenson of Kirbyville said, “Both Betty Edwards and Gary Groman [a.k.a. the Ole Seagull] recently opined that my and everyone else’s children should be taught in our public schools to be Christians according to what I must suppose is their personal interpretation of what that means.” As to Stephenson’s assertion that the Ole Seagull wrote that his “and everyone else’s children should be taught in our public schools to be Christians according to what I must suppose is their personal interpretation,” put in its kindest light, the Ole Seagull would suggest that Stephenson is inaccurate.

In a recent column entitled, “An Ole Seagull’s ‘Separation of Church and State 101” The Ole Seagull stated “his basic belief that the ‘created’ have no power or authority to change the laws of the ‘Creator.’” He continued, “The created either follow the laws of the Creator or don’t and must live with the result(s)”

The word “school” was mentioned in the column twice, the first being in connection with a rhetorical question and its answer. The question was, “If the U.S. Constitution, the document upon which our government is based, says there should be no prayer in schools, no nativity scenes on public property, that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public buildings, Christmas should be called ‘Winter Solstice,’ etc., shouldn’t that be the law of the land?” The immediate answer was “Absolutely, and if a frog had wings it should be able to fly but a frog doesn’t have wings and the Constitution contains no such language!”

The second mention of the word “school” was contained in the following paragraph, “Can any reasonably thinking person really believe that the same Congress that encouraged the ‘people of the United States’ to acknowledge ‘with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God,’ intended that the First Amendment they had proposed, not two months prior, be used as a tool to take prayer out of schools, remove the ten commandments from the walls of all public buildings etc.? It flies in the face of logic.”

It really takes a special thought process to get from those two paragraphs, or anything else in the column, to the point of saying the Ole Seagull wrote that Stephenson’s “and everyone else’s children should be taught in our public schools to be Christians according to what I must suppose is their personal interpretation of what that means.” From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, as illustrated in the instant situation, the results from that type of process are based on “A fountain bubbling over with misinformation.”

And the “bubbling over with misinformation” doesn’t stop there. Stephenson goes on to say, “Our nations forefathers knew this was a problem too. Who could they possibly appoint to determine what must be taught, and how?… The only right answer to religious teaching is for government to stay out of it. Completely out of it. So they addressed it in the very first amendment to our Constitution with this law of our land: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Wow, so that was the rational for the first amendment? That’s the first time the Ole Seagull has ever heard that rational expressed and, for what it matters, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion it is about as valid as what Stephenson said the Ole Seagull wrote.

As originally written and specifically stated, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits “Congress,” from making a law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Who does it apply to, local school districts, cities, states, counties” or “Congress?”

Isn’t that the same Congress defined in Section 1 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution? Some might ask, “How did we get from a prohibition against the Congress of the United States doing something down to local government entities, taking prayer out of local schools, removing the Ten Commandments from city buildings, or prohibiting the display of Nativity scenes on public land or a public prayer at a meeting or football game? Come to think of it, why does it make any difference? One thing is for sure though; if that was the intention of our Nations Forefathers it was well hidden and not adhered to for well over the first 100 years of our Nation’s history.

Dedication: The republication of this evolving tribute is respectfully dedicated to the Branson entertainment industry for its steadfast support and honoring of America’s Veterans, active duty Military personnel and their families.

It is a sad fact of life that the politicians, and those in power, start wars and that the people of the nations involved bleed, die, suffer, and otherwise pay the price of war. Even in today’s world of terrorist attacks, as the people of countries or ideologies make war on each other they fall into two general categories, “Military” and “Civilian.” The “Military,” the fighters, generally kill each other and the civilians they believe are making war on them, the old fashioned way, directly, with bullets, rockets and bombs either delivered directly, by suicide bomber, plane, drone, etc. History testifies to the fact that they, and the civilians their actions impact on, are generally the first to bleed, suffer, and die.

The Civilians of warring nations provide the means for the military to kill each other and the bodies to replace those that are killed or maimed. History records that the bullets, bombs, torpedoes, planes, ships and other implements of war, used by Japan, to destroy the peace at Pearl Harbor and by America, to reestablish that peace in WW II, were made by civilians.

Prior to December 7, 1941 there was peace between the United States and Japan. At approximately 7:55 a.m. Hawaii time, on Sunday, December 7, 1941, while Japanese diplomats were in the process of negotiating to maintain that peace with Secretary of State Cordell Hull in Washington, DC, and without warning, the country of Japan shattered that peace by spilling American blood in a cowardly surprise attack on the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. The attack killed over 2,400 and wounded over 1,175. On Monday December 8, 1941 President Roosevelt went before Congress and declared December 7, 1941 as, “A date that will live in infamy.” Congress declared war against Japan on that date.

Upon the death of President Roosevelt on April 12, 1945, over three years and 200,000 American lives later, Harry S. Truman, became the 33rd President of the United States. He was a Missourian known for honesty and one of the most respected politicians of his time. The war in Europe was over and the Axis Powers of Italy and Germany had been defeated. All that remained between war and peace was the fanatical and kamikaze like resistance of the Japanese people and their army of over 2,500,000. In spite of the repeated warnings to surrender and that the alternative “was complete and utter destruction,” Japan refused to surrender and continued to fight.

Truman had served as an Artillery Officer in France during World War I and, prior to becoming President, was not aware of the “Manhattan Project” and its Atom Bomb. His advisors estimated the war could be shortened by a year and that 1 million Allied casualties, 500,000 of them American lives, could be saved if the Atomic Bomb was used on Japan. He decided that enough American blood had been spilled in trying to reestablish the peace that Japan had shattered. Truman said, “Let there be no mistake about it, I regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubt that it should be used.”

At approximately 9:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945, after repeated warnings for Japan to surrender, the Atomic Bomb was dropped from the “Enola Gay” on Hiroshima. In spite of the horrific carnage and destruction that resulted Japan did not capitulate. On August 9, 1945, another Atomic Bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Japan sued for peace the next day and the formal surrender papers were signed, on the deck of the Battleship U.S.S. Missouri, on September 2, 1945. Peace had been restored.

Some say America owes Japan an apology for using the Atomic Bomb. The lives sacrificed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved many times the lives, Japanese, American, as well as others, that would have been spent if the war had continued. Without Pearl Harbor and the refusal of Japan to end the war that they had started, not only would there have been no Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but millions of people, Japanese as well as others, would not have died. If the people of Japan are due an apology it more appropriately should come from their own government.

Some say that Japan owes us an apology for Pearl Harbor. No apology can undo history, the treacherous cowardice of that attack, or bring back the lives that were lost. Rather than seek useless insincere apologies let us thank God that the nuclear power used to end a terrible war, has never been used in war since. At the end of the day, the blood of her sons, and ours, staining the sands of remote Pacific Islands such as Peleliu, Okinawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and others, solemnly testify to the futility of such an apology.

A recent headline in this paper, “Financial reports show decreases across the board” got the Ole Seagull thinking about history, the present and the future. As he did so what came to mind is the old adage “The more things change the more they stay the same.” To illustrate his thoughts on these issues he is going to use the power of the “Seagulestion,” a rhetorical Seagull question that he thinks he knows the answer to, but is not as positive as he would like to be as to the answer.

The first paragraph of the story reports, “Monthly reports reflected a 9.3 percent decline in sales tax revenues for August as bond payments on the Branson Landing exceed revenues.” Hey that’s good news because it indicates the city is getting revenues from its investment in Branson Landing. Would someone from the city send out a press release explaining in plain English, that most of us could understand, a clear precise list and explanation of exactly what revenues are generated from the Branson Landing that the city is getting and can use for its day to day operations?”

In like manner, it would be helpful if the city of Branson could publish a list of the precise expenditures it makes on an annual basis regarding Branson Landing for both operations and bond and other debt retirement. Hey, while they are at it why don’t they come up with a simple one page report that the normal citizen can look at and determine how much more, or less, the city is paying than they are taking in from Branson Landing?

Other “Seagulestions” come to mind. How much of the city of Branson’s city retail sales taxes collected at Branson Landing can actually be used by the city for current city operational costs? What percentage of the city’s Tourism Tax, the one where 75% goes for infrastructure and its operation and maintenance and 25% for the marketing of Branson, collected at Branson Landing does the city actually get to use for those purposes?

Were the citizens of Branson ever told by a past City Administrator in a public meeting that the city would have no legal responsibility to pay anything on the TIF Bonds should revenues from the project not be sufficient to do so? But wait, weren’t the citizens of Branson all a glitter in the mid 90’s about how the Highroad should be built on an emergency basis to help eliminate the traffic in downtown Branson and on Highway 76?

Now here’s a couple “Seagulestions” for the ages, “Precisely how much has the building of the Highroad done for lowering the amount of traffic on Highway 76 or downtown Branson? Why would any business person, theatre, shop or restaurant owner on Highway 76, with a half of an ounce of brains, want less traffic on Highway 76 in the mid 1990s or now?

Maybe someone from the city, even though they were not the ones who put the city in its current situation, could explain why the article appears to be reporting that the city has an obligation to cover the shortfall on the bond payments and how we got from having no responsibility to pay anything on the TIF bonds to this point? On the other hand, at the end of the day it isn’t going to make a lot of difference, like the Highroad before it, those who have the power and influence will continue to do what they want when they want and the rest of us should just keep our mouths shut and be thankful. “Yup, the more things change the more they stay the same.”

From the get-go, the Ole Seagull must state his basic belief that the “created” have no power or authority to change the laws of the “Creator.” The created either follow the laws of the Creator or don’t and must live with the result(s) of their decision.

Obviously, who or what the “Creator” is plays a critical role. To an Ole Seagull, even one in the winter of his years and with all his glaring faults, the answer is contained within the words, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” That “Creator” is God.

“Come on Seagull, do you really believe that God created everything?” Absolutely! Through the spring, summer, fall, and into the winter of his years, from the sun coming up every morning to its setting every evening, and all that naturally transpires in between, he has observed an orderliness to the universe that continually testifies to the certainty of God’s creation and His blessing.

“Next you’re going to tell us that you believe that “the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” From an Ole Seagull’s perspective it sure beats the alternative of a Godless “inbreeding monkey evolution” left to itself without God’s hand to direct it.

“Well, God didn’t create this country?” Actually He did. Relatively speaking, it just took a “few years” for Columbus, to “discover” that which God had created and which, at the time of his discovery, was occupied by “Native Americans” who had discovered it centuries before.

“Come on Seagull, what I meant is that God didn’t fight the Revolutionary War which established us as an independent nation or write the U.S. Constitution upon which its government is based.” As an Ole Seagull understands it, that war like all others before it and since, was fought by beings that God created as they exercised their option of free choice. In like manner the U.S. Constitution was written.
“If the U.S. Constitution, the document upon which our government is based, says there should be no prayer in schools, no nativity scenes on public property, that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public buildings, Christmas should be called “Winter Solstice,” etc., shouldn’t that be the law of the land?” Absolutely, and if a frog had wings it should be able to fly but a frog doesn’t have wings and the Constitution contains no such language!

“Gotcha there Seagull, how about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says, among other things, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ ” Are we talking about the same First Amendment that Congress proposed, as part of the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789? “That’s the one.” Was that same Congress still in session, not two months later, on November 16, 1789? “Sure it was.  Why?”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation.  In that proclamation he stated, “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.’”

Can any reasonably thinking person really believe that the same Congress that encouraged the “people of the United States” to acknowledge “with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God,” intended that the First Amendment they had proposed, not two months prior, be used as a tool to take prayer out of schools, remove the ten commandments from the walls of all public buildings etc.? It flies in the face of logic.

“Well, the Supreme Court of the United States says it does!” Is that the same “Supreme Court” that issued the Dred Scott Decision? “I guess so. What was that decision about?” The fallibility of mans law, the imperfection of those who interpret it, and a testimony to what can happen when the created change the laws of the Creator.