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

General / /

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?”

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

Are Branson officials flushing money down the airport drain?

General / /

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?

Are Branson officials flushing money down the airport drain? Read More »

Branson’s marketing is like the difference between a violin and a fiddle

Branson, Opinion / /

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?

Branson’s marketing is like the difference between a violin and a fiddle Read More »

Does Branson need more big named stars or better promotion of what it has?

Branson, Opinion / /

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?

Does Branson need more big named stars or better promotion of what it has? Read More »

Illegal Aliens should only get “back where you came from” benefits

General, Opinion / /

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?”

Illegal Aliens should only get “back where you came from” benefits Read More »

Can there be Christmas without CHRISTmas?

General, Opinion / /

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.

Can there be Christmas without CHRISTmas? Read More »

“Music City Game” can cost the loss of tens of millions in revenues to Branson and Missouri?

General / /

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?

“Music City Game” can cost the loss of tens of millions in revenues to Branson and Missouri? Read More »

U.S. Supreme Court says First Amendment applies only to the Federal government!

General, Government, Opinion / /

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.

U.S. Supreme Court says First Amendment applies only to the Federal government! Read More »

Is lack of traffic on Branson’s Highroad due to a conspiracy or irrelevance?

Branson, Opinion / /

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?

Is lack of traffic on Branson’s Highroad due to a conspiracy or irrelevance? Read More »

Thanksgiving is all about to whom the “Thanks” is “given!”

General, Opinion / /

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.”

Thanksgiving is all about to whom the “Thanks” is “given!” Read More »