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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

The Ole Seagull was blessed to see one of Branson’s many live shows, “Noah the Musical,” at the fabulous Sight & Sound Theatre, the afternoon of October 16. Now he might not go to church every week, but he knows the Noah story, respects Noah’s God and humbly accepts the salvation from his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

At the start of the show the audience is told that it is a fictional presentation of a factual event but, there is nothing fictional about the main thrust of the show and why Noah was doing what he was doing. God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.” He told Noah to build an Ark, how to do it and what to put on it and Scripture records “Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did.”

“Noah the Musical” dramatically illustrates the shows interpretation of ways in which the people of the time had separated themselves from God and worshipped their own God and the way of life he provided. Why he even built a tower the people could go into to protect themselves in the case Noah was right and the waters rose. The factual truth that resonates throughout was that God’s people had chosen to forsake Him and His ways for something else.

As the Ole Seagull sat there and watched how far the people of that day had turned from God and His ways and thought about today and how far our Nation has drifted down that same path. The government will take care of us, we have to take prayer out of the schools and Christmas out of anything that can be remotely construed to be governmental because of the U.S. Constitution and its alleged separation of Church and can worship God and practice our faith as long as it is socially acceptable.

It has been said that one woman got prayer out of the schools and that one man is trying to get “Under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” removed from out money. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, prayer is out of our schools and, if “God” is taken out of the pledge and off our currency it will not be because of the action of one person it will be because of the inaction of millions of Gods people who simply stood by and let it happen.

It almost makes the Ole Seagull sick when people say, “Oh well what can you do, it’s what the U.S. Constitution says.” It’s not what the constitution says, it is an interpretation of what the federal judiciary says it says, and regardless, as a general rule, the created, forefathers and judges included, cannot change the laws of the Creator.

Since the days of Moses, God’s law has said, “You shall have no other god before me,” “You shall not make for yourself an idol” and “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house ….or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Yet today it seems that God’s people have put the constitution before God and are building a whole society based on coveting and actually taking from their neighbors that which they have earned and giving it to themselves in benefits they have not earned.

As a nation, when was America the most successful? Was it when God, His precepts and power were an integral part of our daily lives from both a national and a personal perspective? Or, is it now when seemingly as a nation, and in a lot of cases from a personal perspective, the U.S. Constitution and the Federal government has been substituted for the precepts and power of God?

Hunting of Canada Geese off of Branson Landing “Goosed.”

The sound of shot gun blasts got the attention of Lamar Patton, the owner of Scotty’s Trout Dock, late on the afternoon of Sep.26. When he looked downstream off his dock he noticed some nit wits in a boat located just downstream from the Business Highway Bridge apparently enjoying a challenging day of hunting. They were shooting the almost domesticated Canada Geese just off the Branson Landing Parking lot within the city limits of Branson.

Several calls to local law enforcement agencies resulted in not only in no one responding to the call, but telling Lamar “It’s a conservation issue.” It wasn’t a “discharging a firearm inside the city limits issue,” but a “conservation issue” and, to the best of Lamar’s knowledge, no law enforcement officer responded to the call.

Does that mean it’s open season on Canada Geese in the Branson City limits waters between the Branson Landing shoreline and the center of Lake Taneycomo? Not hardly! City of Branson Police Chief Carroll McCullough said that, if the situation transpired as described, it was more than “a conservation issue” it was a violation of a city ordinance against the discharging a firearm within the city limits. Does that mean that those wanting to shoot ducks and geese on Lake Taneycomo should find somewhere else to do it other than within the waters of the city limits of Branson? Absolutely!

WOW, do Branson Airport Visitors Spend More?

Those attending the annual meeting of the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District on Sep. 24 were given information by Branson Lakes/Lakes Area Convention and Visitors Bureau that the average spending “per party” was $919.34 for the 2009 reporting period up from $799.99 for the 2008 reporting period. That was good, but nothing compared to the report given by Jeff Bourke, Executive Director of the Branson Airport. A published report in this week’s Taney County Times on that report states “The Branson Airport has generated $92 million in visitor spending…” and that “At least 41 percent of the more than 10,000 people who have flown to Branson via the airport are first time visitors.” Using Ole Seagull math and assuming that it’s not much more than 10,000 people, that amounts to an incredible $9,200 per person or $18,400 for a “party” of two.

$680 K for ADA mandated ramps not one penny for cross walks.

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) is currently installing 393 sidewalk ramps at street and driveway entrances along West Highway 76 between Roark Valley and Gretna Roads “to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).” The $680,000 in funding for the project is stimulus money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Interestingly, between the west side of the junction of Fall Creek Road and Gretna Road there is not one cross walk for pedestrians, with or without a disability,  to use to get afely from one side of Highway 76 to the other. Well the good news is that when they are built the sidewalk ramps will be there and until then those trying to cross Highway 76 will at least have a target to aim for.

Taney County Transportation Committee should win “Most Useless Award.”

What is the Taney County’s priority for the southern end of Fall Creek Road as the city of Branson is about to open the Fall Creek Road extension which will create the opportunity for a main north south corridor road from Highway 165 to Highway 248? Maybe the “Shadow knows,” but no one else knows because there is no list of Taney County transportation priorities. What a pathetic situation for a Class 1 county, transportation planning by osmosis, influence, or “pluck.” Based on what they have accomplished so far the Ole Seagull just has to nominate those on the “Taney County Transportation Committee,” or whatever it is currently being called, for his first annual “Transportation’s Most Useless Award.” The award has as much influence and value as their contribution to solving the transportation problems of Taney County has had thus far.

(Note: The Ole Seagull has a “mind block” this week and would share a special column from the past. Come to think of it, in terms of overall good to our community, this column is of much more value than the one he has been “fighting with” for the past four hours.)

Character can be defined as “moral or ethical strength” or “the combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another.” It is not a matter of whether or not a person, group or thing is going to have character, they are; it’s just a matter of what type of character they are going to have good, bad, or indifferent.

Very few, if any, people are born “good” or “bad.” From an individual perspective, character is acquired. It is learned and developed on a daily basis based on environmental factors and the choices that individuals make about how they live their lives and what they fill their minds with.

Proverbs said it first, “For as he thinks within himself, so he is.” In an Ole Seagulls life this basic truth has evolved into a simple irrefutable master guide line, “We will become what we think we are and that is controlled by what we have placed in our minds.”

That’s why the Ole Seagull took note as Sue Head from College of the Ozarks and Cindy Raines from White River Electric explained the First PLACE, “Partners, Linking Arms for Character Education,” program at the Jul. 11 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen. The simple program uses a combination of our areas schools, the community, and family to fill the minds of our children with positive character traits that can forever change their lives.

The program is elegant in its operational simplicity. Each month of the school year, the schools will emphasis and intentionally teach one character trait. That trait will be constantly reinforced during the month not only at school but throughout the community as “partners,” and family reinforce the trait by committing to demonstrate one visible action each month that ties into the trait.

Our areas schools and teachers have been preparing for this program and are committed to it. Our community and families must also do their part so that the traits being taught in school are reinforced throughout the month. The only thing those outside the school have to do is commit to demonstrating one visible action each month that ties into the character trait of the month.

As an example, the trait of the month for September is, “Respect - treating others with courtesy and honor.” What an impact it could have if that trait was specifically mentioned during Sunday school, in sermons, in newspaper stories or columns, on radio shows, or appeared on various marquees around town. How about banks and utility companies sending out a little card or message tying in the trait of the month that customers could share with their children or grandchildren? Just think of the impact that a simple hand painted sign or poster or 8 x 11 inch piece of paper with the trait of the month displayed in businesses and offices throughout our community could have!

The neat thing is that the possibilities are endless and require so little, just the commitment to demonstrate one visible action each month that ties into the character trait of the month. Aren’t our community’s children and grandchildren worth the effort?

From a family perspective it could be as simple as writing the character trait of the month on a piece of paper and putting it on the door of the refrigerator or simply asking the children in the family what the character trait of the month is and what it means to them. Again, simple is good and the possibilities are endless.

In terms of becoming a partner in the program, The Ole Seagull is committing to incorporate the trait of the month into each column he writes during the school year. Further, the first column of each month will be based on the trait of the month.

The character traits for each month are as follows: September - Respect - treating others with courtesy and honor; October - Responsibility - taking ownership of what you say and do; November - Citizenship - being loyal to your country; December - Compassion/Kindness - caring for others; January - Commitment - being true to your word; February - Honesty - being truthful in what you say and do; March - Cooperation - working together toward a common goal; April - Perseverance - demonstrating persistent determination; May - Self-discipline - training and control of yourself.

The Ole Seagulls favorite verse of scripture is, “Whatever is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, of excellence, or worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” As a community and as individuals, the First Place program provides the opportunity to not only “dwell on these things” but make them a vital part of the lives of our children and grandchildren, ourselves, and the very community that we call home.

The Ole Seagull has heard variations of the following quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln many times. This quote is verbatim from the “The National Park Service web site’s “Lincoln Home Historical Site’s Page” entitled: “Fourth Debate Charleston Illinois:”

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

To provide context for the above quote, the whole section of Lincoln’s speech covering the quote, as contained on the same site and page mentioned above is included:

“LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It will be very difficult for an audience so large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as possible.While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness-and that is the case of Judge Douglas’s old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.] I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature-not in the Congress of the United States-and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. [Uproarious laughter and applause.] I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject.”

Occasionally, someone asks, “Why don’t you run for office?” To that the Ole Seagull most often replies that he is unelectable. The next question is, “Why?” The answer to that is simple, call it a brain defect or whatever, but the Ole Seagull does not have the ability or self control to substitute being politically correct or saying what people want to hear from what he believes.

Now ask yourself could you honestly vote for a person who has these views:

1. Not one more penny of Taney county funds should be spent on the East West Corridor Road in Taney County, or any other major transportation project until there is at least a 10 year plan in place prioritizing Taney County’s transportation needs.

2. The period between Nov. 1 and Dec. 31 each year should be declared “Merry Christmas” days at both the Taney county and city of Branson levels. Both should do everything in their power to make Branson the place to come for those wanting to celebrate a traditional Christmas. We market “Christmas” because we want the tourist dollars, but when it comes to standing up for “Christmas” our elected leaders tremble with political correctness and fear of a lawsuit from the ACLU.

3. Believes that Branson’s live shows should be declared as an “economic foundational industry” and, at a minimum, require that at least 33 percent of all publically funded marketing be used to promote Branson shows that operate at least two weeks a month for eight months out of the year.

4. Believes that 25 percent of the portion of the Branson Tourism Infrastructure Tax, which may be used the building, maintenance, and operation of the city’s infrastructure should be used to subsidize the water and sewer rates of all Branson residents and businesses except the Ole Seagull’s.

5. The representation on the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District (TCED) should be changed to one representative from Stone County, and six from the Taney County Branson area, two appointed by Taney County and four by Branson. Currently, on the seven person board, there are two from Indian Point and another from Stone Country for a total of three which is ridiculously disproportional to the actual taxes Indian Point and the portion of Stone County in the TCED pay.

6. Believes the definition of “alien,” stated in “The Merriam Webster OnLine Dictionary” defined as “relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government” is accurate.

7. Would work to expand the opportunities for aliens complying with the documentation and other applicable requirements to come into the country and work for a specific employer for a period of eight months after which they would be required to leave the country for a period of at least 60 days before being eligible to reapply.

8. Believes that the tax dollars of U.S. Citizens should not be spent on the medical care or the giving of any other benefit that a U.S. Citizen is entitled to any illegal alien except as is required save their life in the event of a medical emergency.

9. Believes that English should be the National language and the only language used on ballots, government forms, etc.

10. See what he means, no need to go on, politically the Ole Seagull’s toast

At the outset an Ole Seagull would point out that he is a personal friend of Steve Monroe, the owner of Gas Buster Tours. Too he would admit to being disappointed and angry. The question he must answer before writing this column however is, “Would he have written it even if the city had granted the sign permit and he believed the process was still flawed?” The answer is “Yes.” It is not about Monroe’s sign; it is about the process and what happens to the next business or person who finds themselves in a similar situation.

Monroe, initially erected a directional sign authorized under subsection 70-10(10) of the Branson Municipal Code (BMC) entitled, “Private traffic entrance and directional signs.” The BMC reads, “Signs directing traffic movement onto premises or within premises, not exceeding six square feet in area for each sign, shall be allowed. Advertising logos are allowed, but are limited to no more than 25 percent of the total sign area of each sign. One entrance sign and one exit sign shall be allowed for each public street entrance. Each sign shall be a maximum of three feet in height to the top of the sign, and each sign shall be a maximum of three feet in width. Horizontal signs on and flush with paved areas are exempt from these standards.”

If read exactly the way it is written, should it take a highly paid bureaucrat or legal Solomon to determine what the purpose of the sign is and what a person or business has to do to be in compliance with its provisions? To an Ole Seagull, if a law prescribes something a business or person has to do, that law should be straight forward enough so that most people with a fifth grade reading comprehension level could read it and know what they had to do.

Having misread the scope of the exception provided in 70-10(10), Monroe put a directional sign up directing traffic into the parking lot for his primary business operation “Casino Day Trips,” which he designed, had built and believed was in accordance with 70-10(10). There was an initial problem with the fact that the scope of the exception did not cover “permitting” and the city’s Planning & Development Department enforcement folks were on him in a flash and removed the sign because he had no permit.

This is where the Ole Seagull got involved because to him it appeared that the odds were being stacked against Monroe in terms of arbitrary and selective enforcement. An Ole Seagull wondered how much of a gamble it would be to bet that similar directional signs, prominently displayed on Branson Landing Boulevard, directing traffic into the parking lot of Bass Pro’s Tracker Boat “Service Department” didn’t have a permit. Sure enough, shortly after it was alluded to in his July 26 column, the signs came down, Bass Pro applied for a permit on July 30 and it was granted within about 24 hours.

An Ole Seagull would bet, that there is no better illustration of the arbitrariness, selectivity, and the “we write the law so it means what we say it does regardless of the way it reads mentality” used by the city of Branson’s Planning & Development Department than the way the “Tracker Boat” sign was handled. From beginning to end, it testifies as to what appears to be the double standard that department uses in enforcing its regulations. However, before entering into that discussion maybe the city would be kind enough to answer a few questions.

What is the specific name appearing on the application for the permit for the “Tracker Boats Service Department” sign?” Has a city business license been issued to “Tracker Boats?” Was the “Tracker Boats” logo on the sign “authorized” or required by 70-10(10)? Is there anything in 70-10(10) prohibiting the use of language on the sign describing the specific business operation the traffic is being directed into such as, was used in the “Tracker Boat” sign, “Service Department?” Is the definition of “Logo” as contained in the BMC different from the normally accepted definition of “Logo?” If a term is defined in an ordinance is the definition of that term incorporated by reference wherever that term is subsequently used in the ordinance?

Imagine being trapped on a small airplane for over 8 hours! That something like this can happen after all the publicity there has been about treating airline passengers this way is truly amazing. Even more amazing is Continental’s reaction or, more appropriately, lack of reactions.

Click here for full story.