Missouri Common Grant Application: Fill & Download for Free

They certainly have a case, though as others have pointed out they are unlikely to take it.Chick-fil-A does not have the right to be a vendor in the San Antonio airport. The City council could have denied them for any number of reasons. But there are a few reasons you can’t.The San Antonio City Council, which is currently up for re-election, was very clear about their reasons for kicking out Chick-fil-A, because of the donations to groups many identify as anti-LGBT+. Other council members spoke of a general “legacy” of anti-LGBT values associated with the company.Is that a legal reason to not work with Chick-fil-A?One important precedent is the 2017 case Trinity v. Comer. In this case, the state of Missouri had an open application for grants for safer playgrounds. The grants were available to all government or non-profit organizations, except for churches.In a 7–2 ruling the court found that you cannot withhold a government benefit from a group simply because they are religious.So while San Antonio does not owe Chick-fil-A a spot in the airport, they cannot withhold that spot from the company simply because of their religious beliefs.However, the San Antonio City Council did not say they were withholding the position because of their religious beliefs but because of their discrimination against LGBT+ individuals. Are those the same things?Well, they wouldn’t be the same thing if there was actual discrimination against LGBT+ individuals. However, Chick-fil-A has never been accused of discriminating against LGBT+ customers. But what about those donations? Let’s look at them.Chick-fil-A is accused of discriminating against LGBT+ causes for donating to three organizations:The Salvation ArmyThe Paul Anderson Youth Home - A Christian rehab for troubled youthFellowship of Christian Athletes - An interdenominational organization that connects various Christian athletes.None of these groups have the mission of addressing LGBT+ causes at all. What they do have in common is their Christian faith.What ThinkProgress, the progressive advocacy organization that made the donations public, did was frame these groups as anti-LGBT+. They are not anti-LGBT+ groups as you would ordinarily think of them. Not even the SPLC who has been criticized for including moderates in their anti-LGBT hate groups list included any of those groups. They are run-of-the-mill charities who still include anti-LGBT+ teachings or policies.Did you donate to someone ringing the bell outside Wal-Mart this Christmas? Did you do it because you wanted to discriminate against LGBT+ people, or because you share their Christian values of helping those in need?Then why did Chick-fil-A donate? They said the donations were used to fund sports camps and children’s programs.What do those three organizations that ThinkProgress targeted have in common? Their faith.I don’t think it’s difficult to argue that Chick-Fil-A was targeted because of the faith of its owners, because that faith is clearly what led to its donation priorities.And if the City of San Antonio truly withheld a government benefit from Chick-fil-A just because its owners are Christians and donate to Christian causes then there is a real first amendment concern.

This is a very good question! This actually is a phenomenon that is indeed concentrated within a lot of old colonial families with Anglo or Scotch-Irish backgrounds.And there are reasons for this.But, first, I have to mention something up front…in order to counter the most common misunderstanding of this issue.This is as follows: no, the high rate of such stories in this particular population is not because there is an actual increased level of Native ancestry, or that it’s just a reflection of some legitimate prevalence rate. The reality is, there is not an elevated degree of Native ancestry in this population, and this phenomenon is propelled by false claims or bogus family lore.The average level of non-European admixture in the non-Hispanic White population is incredibly low. It’s also approximately the same for African and Native Americans admixture, at 0.19 and 0.18%, respectively. The level of Native admixture in this population could only be said to be as follows: a certain low single digit percentage have a very low level of Native ancestry. And it is actually lower in areas that traditionally claim this ancestry at higher rates, such as in Appalachian states.ScienceDirectThis above map comes from an extremely large study using 23andme data. You’ll notice in graph B, it shows the percentage of White populations (by state) that have at least 2% Native admixture. See how it is lower in GA, AL, TN, WW, and still low in KY and NC? These are the states where a rather significant number of families claim to be “part-Indian” or have some level of Native American ancestry. And this can be compared to the African admixture graph, to the left. Notice how those states have a slightly elevated level of African admixture there? Well, it’s almost never claimed by White families (the way “Indian blood” is, anyway).Maps: Showing areas with highest concentration of Scot-Irish ancestry, and historic settlement patterns.Or, we might use the self-categorized “American” ethnicity, to identity these very old colonial lineages (mostly of this British Isles background).Okay, now the question is really about why?Well, this really has to do with history and demography and the disposition of this population, particularly settlement patterns and social and cultural dynamics.Anglos and Scotch Irish were among the first wave of colonists, and they were the primary groups that pushed west form the Atlantic seaboard settlements. Those that pushed west from the Virginia and Carolina settlements moved in cluster patterns and pushing out the frontier settlements. This also meant they frequently pushed into tribal lands or freshly ceded lands. They were often Indian fighters and received land grants, or they were squatters in some cases.These Anglo and Scotch-Irish families that were pushing the frontier forward also weren’t leaving a lot of records. They weren’t living in highly settled and bureaucratic towns and cities. A male might have just a few land transaction or court records, and they might be listed as a head of household on census records from the late 1700 thru the early 1800s. And females left even fewer records, sometime no records exist for them at all. Marriage records were spotty or non-existent in that early colonial era. Also, the illiteracy rate was rather high, and the families didn’t really keep very good family records. Some might try to maintain a family bible, and record births and deaths. But, it often just spanned a few generations. So, knowledge about deeper lineage could be lost by these descendants in rather short order.It is within this cultural milieu that the stories of Indian blood grew. The families just new basic facts, and often these got skewed over time. And female ancestors could be rather mysterious or nebulous figures. So, stories got more romantic and fanciful with the retelling. Or, what started out as simply theories or speculation were retold to point where the details got solidified as “fact.”In particular, I can just tell you the standard patterns I see over and over again.In some cases, you’ll see where a family like this (old Anglo/Scot-Irish roots) will come from early 1700s eastern seaboard settlements. They push into the central parts of VA and NC, SC and eastern GA by the mid to latter half of the 1700s. By the time of the American Revolution to about 1800s they were pushing into the western parts of those states, and into northeast Tennessee and eastern Kentucky. Also, pushing further into GA and Alabama, and parts of MS. Then, by the 1830s, the southeast tribes are all removed, and the population moves into the last portion of ceded Indian lands. And the families live in these locations for generations.Fast forward to the late 1800s to early 1900s, the descendants have been in the area for a long time and they’ve built up tall tales and stories about their family roots and ancestry. Some of the details that are claimed are broadly true, and others are totally bogus. They tend to think of themselves or there families as always being from eastern Tennessee or northern Georgia. And they know there were Cherokee in that area (the lands on which they now reside). So, they like to speculate that they got some of that Cherokee blood.One of the most common claims is that a grandparent was “part-Cherokee” or “Indian.” Usually this was through a maternal line, such as a great-grandmother being full blood or half blood. Something to that effect. But, as was explained above, the details are scant for this female ancestors. They don’t even know her maiden name or who her parents were. To fill in the gaps, they come up with fanciful stories about her being a chief’s daughter, or there was some scandal in the marriage, so she had to run away. Or, the family had to hide out, pass for white, etc.A lot of these additional details are constructions that have an emotional or psychological element. They allow the claimant to enhance their authenticity and genuine link to the land. It gives them a quasi-indigenous standing. They weren’t just descendants of settlers that fought Indians or took their lands. No, they are “part-Indian.”They also often ascribe various attributes to it, such as: “That’s why I’m so feisty/can’t hold my liquor/can walk so quietly in the woods/have vivid dreams/ feel a connection with nature/etc./etc., it’s that Indian blood!” So, it’s is a romanticized notion, used for individualistic purposes. An actual link to a tribal community or verified ancestry is unimportant.Beyond that, there was an eastern Cherokee land claims settlement that took place in the early 1900s, and this was widely publicized, that if you had some Cherokee blood, you could get some money. So, a lot of poor whites from this particular population put in fraudulent applications claiming to be part-Cherokee.Additionally, many branches of these old settler families continued moving west from Appalachia and pushed into Arkansas, Missouri, Texas and even Kansas by the 1840s and 1850s. Then, by the late 1800s they began to push into Indian Territory. In the 1890s, thru 1907, the tribal lands were being allotted to tribal members and surplus lands were opened up to settlements. Again, there was this notion that claiming to be part-Cherokee or Native might get you some free land or money. So, hundreds of thousands of poor and shady whites again put in fraudulent applications. With a few exceptions that involved scheming and payoffs, the majority of these applications were rejected.But, just think about how modern descendants would typically react when they discover their ancestors’ applications. Most will not believe they were lying or incorrect. This is a natural thing too. We don’t like to arrive at the conclusion that our family, our ancestors, were shady or lying. Consequently, the majority will assume there was at least some basis for the claim and that there was actually some validity to it, but it was just that they couldn’t prove it by the record trail or it was perhaps a matter of silly bureaucracy.So, think about how many such descendants exist today, whose ancestors put in these fraudulent or bogus Eastern Claims Settlements and Dawes (Allotment) Rolls applications. The vast majority will indeed still be claiming to be “part-Cherokee/Native” today, and it’s all based on this ancestral fraud attempt that took place in the late 1800s to early 1900s. It ripples through the generations.I see this all the time.Another hallmark of this population is that they dramatically overestimate the level of Indian-White intermarriages, or they think that a significant number of such marriages took place in White society, or that there was a large number of individual Indians that stayed in White society when the eastern tribes were removed (which wasn’t the case)> So, they have a skewed and incorrect sense of American and Native history.You can see in much of my content, I try to show specific examples of how this lore is usually incorrect. But, often people are gun-shy about really vetting their stories. A good majority actually just like the myth or lore, rather than verifying the ancestry. Just the recitation of the lore becomes the “heritage.” Researching the claims runs the risk of spoiling this.But, I always invite people with such claims to share their stories and see where they go. It’s been my experience that if you have 100 such stories (of “Cherokee blood”) that 99 will be bogus. Maybe 1 might have some grain of truth. However, it’s fascinating to run across accurate claims. It’s almost like a needle in a haystack, or finding buried treasure. And it’s a rather cool thing to discover.If anyone has such stories and wants to explore it further, please comment below.

It really depends on what age demographic you’re talking about. It’s very rare that working individuals move solely because of taxes without any other considerations (corporations may move their operations from one place to another for such a reason and retirees may do so to minimize their tax burden with lots of planning).The people leaving a lot of those states tend to be older and, after 55+, there isn’t much of a reason to live in NY, NJ or IL. The biggest draw of those places, higher income potential, is either not currently applicable to you or soon will no longer be. So, as baby boomers retire, moving to Florida becomes more appealing and lower taxes is a draw for them.I became a millionaire from living in one of those three states (NY). Most of my friends in NYC are millionaires. Virtually none of us are over 40 years old. This is somewhat common in NYC (granted, I do realize my perspective is skewed since most of most of my friends and I are Ivy League grads). The opportunities in NYC far exceed anything you’ll find in almost all Florida cities. To give you an idea, if you start out in my field in Florida, given the salaries here, you’d be lucky to be making half as much as what you would make in the northeast. I would NOT be a millionaire if I started my career in Florida.I moved to Florida from NYC because it’s where I was admitted to medical school. I would have gone to a SUNY school in a heartbeat if I had been accepted. My med school choices were Nevada, Florida or Missouri so I picked Florida. Although, eventually, life had other plans for me that was my initial motivation for moving to Florida.During my time in Florida, I’ve found that there is a certain type of person that absolutely loves Florida: usually the person is 55+, has limited sources of future income, is not seeking to maximize income via future job opportunities and is sick of colder weather. That is the demographic that moves to Florida from the aforementioned states for lower taxes. Also, there is a thriving community of elderly folks in Florida which is great for social activities for seniors. For everyone else, there are many other considerations aside from taxes.Because of the youthfulness, career opportunities, networking opportunities, relationship opportunities and chance to make more money, I’m planning to go in the other direction and move back to NY after having spent 5 years in Florida.