On a billboard along U.S. Highway 50 in west central Missouri:

We can all probably guess who didn’t pay for it.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: total warfare, on all fronts (July 12, 2013)

Campaign Finance: be afraid, be very afraid (July 11, 2013)

There’s more.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C010081 07/12/2013 MO CHAMBER PAC Rex Sinquefield 244 Bent Walnut Westphalia MO 65085 retired 7/10/2013 $200,000.00

[emphasis added]

I can’t wait for the insipid television ads with characters wearing Leave It To Beaver pearls lecturing us all on the dangers of living in a state that isn’t last in the nation in tax liability.

Wouldn’t it be easier just to buy your own state? Oh, wait…

Associated Industries of Missouri?

Previously:

Campaign Finance: be afraid, be very afraid (July 11, 2013)

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission

C000865 07/12/2013 ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF MO-PAC Rex Sinquefield 244 Bent Walnut Westphalia MO 65085 Retired 7/10/2013 $100,000.00

[emphasis added]

Someone has a bee in their bonnet.

Missouri politics, where everyone is your friend and everything is all sweetness and light.

Governor Jay Nixon (D), in Warrensburg on the campus of the University of Central Missouri – July 11, 2013.

Yesterday morning in Warrensburg, on the campus of the University of Central Missouri, Governor Jay Nixon (D) signed SB 381 into law. The bill “officially defines in state statute an Innovation Campus as an educational partnership comprised of one or more Missouri public community colleges…one or more Missouri public or private four-year institution of higher education, one or more Missouri high schools or K-12 school districts, and at least one Missouri-based business.” In the scheme of things everyone involved in supporting the bill is patting themselves on the back that this is a good thing for education in the state. The amount of good varies with who you ask.

Governor Nixon (D) signing SB 381 into law – July 11, 2013.

These kinds of public self-congratulatory exercises are a magnet for state legislators in or near the districts where the bill signing takes place. The bill handlers from the Senate and the House tend to show up, too. Senator Will Kraus (r) and Representative Gary Cross (r) were in attendance and took the opportunity to heap praise. Senator David Pearce (r) and Representatives Denny Hoskins (r) and Dean Dohrman (r), who represent the districts most closely connected to the University of Central Missouri, were also in attendance. They, too, praised the bill and the institution.

An excerpt from Representative Dean Dohrman’s (r) brief remarks:

Ah, political science. That’s really interesting, considering that whole nullification thing was settled one hundred fifty years ago.

Representative Gary Cross (r) – July 11, 2013.

Representatives Dean Dohrman (r) (left) and Denny Hoskins (r) (right) – July 11, 2013.

Here’s the all too familiar Kabuki element in Missouri politics: on one hand they’ll show up for the photo op and glory in the credit for one bill which supports an institution in their district, all the while, voting for a more far reaching bill which seriously screws that same institution. They can get away with it because most of their constituents usually aren’t paying attention when the screwing actually happens. And that occurred with HB 253.  

What would HB 253 do to the University of Central Missouri, along with a whole bunch of other institutions and essential programs across the state?:

New Missouri Rule: if the governor governs right of center you can’t call him a “liberal” (July 1, 2013)

[….]

Governor Jay Nixon (D): With a price tag of at least eight hundred million dollars annually House Bill 253 would undermine our fiscal foundation now and for years to come. It’s the equivalent of cutting all support for higher education, all of it, closing all of our prisons, or shutting down the entire Department of mental Health. House Bill 253 is a dangerous experiment we simply cannot afford. These costs are real and immediate if my veto is not sustained.

[….]

“…These costs are real and immediate if my veto is not sustained…”

And how did those Representatives vote? The vote on HB 253, from the Journal of the House (2339) [pdf]:

[….]

On motion of Representative Berry, SS HB 253, as amended, was truly agreed to and finally

passed by the following vote:

AYES: 103

Allen Anderson Austin Bahr Barnes

Bernskoetter Berry Brattin Brown Burlison

Cierpiot Conway 104 Cookson Cornejo Cox

Crawford Cross Curtman Davis Diehl

Dohrman Dugger Elmer Engler Fitzpatrick

Fitzwater Flanigan Fraker Franklin Frederick

Gatschenberger Guernsey Haahr Haefner Hansen

Hicks Higdon Hinson Hodges Hoskins

Hough Houghton Hurst Johnson Jones 50

Justus Keeney Kelley 127 Koenig Kolkmeyer

Korman Lair Lant Lauer Leara

Love Lynch Marshall McCaherty McGaugh

Messenger Miller Molendorp Moon Morris

Muntzel Neely Neth Parkinson Pfautsch

Pike Pogue Redmon Rehder Reiboldt

Remole Rhoads Richardson Riddle Roorda

Ross Rowden Rowland Scharnhorst Schatz

Schieber Schieffer Shull Shumake Solon

Sommer Spencer Stream Swan Thomson

Torpey Walker White Wieland Wilson

Wood Zerr Mr Speaker

NOES: 051

Anders Black Burns Butler Carpenter

Colona Conway 10 Curtis Dunn Ellinger

Ellington English Englund Fowler Frame

Gannon Gardner Hampton Harris Hubbard

Hummel Kirkton Kratky LaFaver May

Mayfield McCann Beatty McDonald McKenna McManus

McNeil Meredith Mims Montecillo Morgan

Newman Nichols Norr Otto Pace

Peters Pierson Rizzo Runions Schupp

Smith 85 Swearingen Walton Gray Webb Webber

Wright

PRESENT: 000

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 009

Entlicher Funderburk Gosen Grisamore Kelly 45

Lichtenegger Mitten Phillips Smith 120

Representative Frederick declared the bill passed.[….]

[emphasis added]

Senator Will Kraus (r) – July 11, 2013.

And the vote [pdf], from the Journal of the Senate (1512):

[….]

Senator Schmitt moved that SS for HB 253, as amended, be called from the Informal Calendar and taken up for 3rd reading and final passage, which motion prevailed.

SS for HB 253, as amended, was read the 3rd time and passed by the following vote:

YEAS-Senators

Brown Cunningham Dempsey Dixon Emery Kehoe Kraus Lager

Lamping Libla McKenna Munzlinger Nieves Parson Richard Romine

Rupp Sater Schaaf Schaefer Schmitt Silvey Wallingford Wasson-24

NAYS-Senators

Chappelle-Nadal Curls Justus Keaveny LeVota Nasheed Pearce Sifton Walsh-9

Absent-Senators-None

Absent with leave-Senator Holsman-1

Vacancies-None

The President declared the bill passed.

[emphasis added]

Do you think they won’t vote to overturn the governor’s veto? Somebody’s spending big bucks to make sure they do overturn it.

They’re republicans, the outlook isn’t good for the rest of us.

A brand new PAC, with quite possibly an ironic name:

C131097 [pdf]: Grow Missouri

308 E High St Ste 301 Committee Type: Political Action

Jefferson City Mo 65101

[….] Established Date: 07/08/2013

[….]

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C131097 07/11/2013 GROW MISSOURI Rex Sinquefield 244 Bent Walnut Westphalia MO 65085 Retired 7/9/2013 $1,300,000.00

[emphasis added]

Yep, it’s ironic. Nope, that’s not a typo.

Ah, apparently it’s all about drumming up propaganda to promote overriding Governor Jay Nixon’s (D) veto of HB 253.

Gee, who would benefit from that?

It’s definitely not a fair fight.

United States Constitution, Article VI

….but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

United States Constitution, Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

On May 13, 2013, Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) signed on to letter addressed to the Secretary of Defense taking issue (“expressing concern”) with a meeting on religious freedom that Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, had with representatives of the Department of Defense. The exchange of letters was made available on Representative Hartzler’s congressional website yesterday. That meeting would probably fall under that pesky “redress of grievances” clause, plus a few others.

The letter [pdf], signed by Representative Hartzler (r):

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

May 13, 2013

The Honorable Chuck Hagel

Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301

Dear Secretary Hagel,

It has come to our attention that as recently as April 23, 2013, Pentagon officials met with Mr. Michael “Mikey” Weinstein, Founder and President of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), to discuss religious freedom in the military. As we have great concern regarding numerous inflammatory statements from Mr. Weinstein in recent weeks, we are seeking further clarification on the meeting that took place last month.

In a recent posting in his own words, Mr. Weinstein characterized men and women of the christian faith as, “monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans” and offered consent to labeling individual faith based family groups as “hate groups.” Mr. Weinstein also urged exposure of these “patholgically anti-gay, Islamaphobic, and rabidly intolerant agitators,” equating them as “die hard- enemies of the United States Constitution.” There are additional previous examples where Mr. Weinstein compares men and women of faith serving in the Pentagon to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and followers of the Christian faith to that of Hitler and Stalin. Also of Concern are statements equating spiritual expression to “spiritual rape” and sedition and treason in the military. Such sentiments are consistent throughout Mr. Weinstein’s printed and other media materials.

We question the Pentagon’s judgment and reasoning in accepting a meeting from someone with a history of such statements and sentiments like Mr. Weinstein. We would respectfully request clarification on the nature of the meeting and detailed information regarding the following items:

1. Confirmation of a meeting between Pentagon officials and representatives from MRFF, as well as a list of attendees, both military and civilian;

2. The purpose of the meeting, specifically whether the meeting was organized to inform deliberative policy for the Armed Forces, as well as a summary of the meeting’s discussion;

3. Prior to arranging this meeting, were Pentagon officials aware of Mr. Weinstein’s previous statements, including those referenced above?

4. In addition to any meeting already held, are there additional meetings scheduled?

Noting that this is a particularly critical time for the Department of Defense as they finalize regulations protecting the moral and religious convictions of service members and military chaplains, we would appreciate your attention to this matter.

Thank you and we look forward to the favor of a reply.

Sincerely,

[signed – 68 members, including:]

VICKY HARTZLER

Member of Congress

[emphasis added]

“….Noting that this is a particularly critical time for the Department of Defense as they finalize regulations protecting the moral and religious convictions of service members and military chaplains, we would appreciate your attention to this matter….”

Is this about possible restrictions on proselytizing others in the Armed Forces who don’t want it? Just asking.

Mikey Weinstein is a graduate of the Air Force Academy, served with distinction, is a Republican, is an attorney, and served in the Reagan Administration.

A 2008 interview with Mikey Weinstein:

….I was at the Academy for a conference, when my younger son (who had just finished the arduous one-month combat survival training) asked me if it would be possible to sit down and talk. It was June 29, 2004, and he was very troubled. He told me he had been called a “fucking Jew,” and that he and the Jewish people had total complicity in the execution of Jesus Christ by numerous people up and down the chain of command at numerous places around the Academy….

That’s a very special kind of proselytizing, isn’t it? And:

….Later, I found out this kind of harassment was not limited to the Air Force Academy – that this contagion of unbridled right-wing, Christian fundamentalism had spread not just to the Air Force Academy but throughout the entirety of the United States Air Force, United States Marine Corp, United States Navy and the United States Army.

The proselytizing mission has gone so far that there are formal organizations among officers and enlisted men. For the officers, it’s called the Officers’ Christian Fellowship; for the enlisted folks, it’s called the Christian Military Fellowship. And they have a three-level, or a tripartite goal, which goals they view as far more critically important than the oath, the blood oath, they all swore out to protect and preserve, support and defend the Constitution of the United States. There are now 737 U.S. military official installations — it’s actually closer to 1,000 — in 132 countries and we have variances of this Christian Taliban and the Christian al-Qaeda on every one of them….

And:

….Now, I remind you, Hitler never had more than eight percent of the German citizenry in the Nazi party; I don’t think Stalin ever had more than 2.9 percent of his closest association. So, this is plenty, particularly when you are talking about a command and control structure like the U.S. military. The frightening prospect that our conventional and nuclear forces–technologically the most lethal organization ever created by humankind-was falling into the hands of a Christian Taliban. There was nobody focusing directly there….

Go. Read the entire interview.

I see how that could upset Representative Vicky Hartzler (r).

The response [pdf], dated as received on June 27, 2013, from the Acting Secretary of the Air Force (listed on Representative Hartzler’s website as “Response from Secretary Hagel on Religious Liberties.pdf”) was relatively bland. It was signed by Eric Fanning who became Acting Secretary of the Air Force on June 21, 2013.

You think the previous Secretary might have had other more pressing concerns? Just asking.

Really.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C091068 07/10/2013 HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, INC Friends of Tilley 100 S Jackson Perryville MO 63775 7/8/2013 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

All is forgiven.

Yesterday, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler 18h

POTUS delays #Obmacare for biz, but not individuals. We want answers on why he won’t protect ALL Americans. RT if you agree 12:45 PM – 9 Jul 13

Interesting, that “protect” word. Is that protecting “ALL Americans” from stuff like this?:

Children’s Pre-Existing Conditions

Under the Affordable Care Act, health plans cannot limit or deny benefits or deny coverage for a child younger than age 19 simply because the child has a “pre-existing condition” – that is, a health problem that developed before the child applied to join the plan….

Young Adult Coverage

Under the Affordable Care Act, if your plan covers children, you can now add or keep your children on your health insurance policy until they turn 26 years old….

Curbing Insurance Cancellations

The Affordable Care Act stops health plans from retroactively canceling your insurance coverage solely because you or your employer made an honest mistake on your insurance application….

….Now, an insurer cannot rescind your coverage simply because you made an honest mistake or left out information that has little bearing on your health….

Appealing Health Plan Decisions

The Affordable Care Act ensures your right to appeal health insurance plan decisions–to ask that your plan reconsider its decision to deny payment for a service or treatment. New rules that apply to health plans created after March 23, 2010 spell out how your plan must handle your appeal (usually called an “internal appeal”). If your plan still denies payment after considering your appeal, the law permits you to have an independent review organization decide whether to uphold or overturn the plan’s decision. This final check is often referred to as an “external review….”

Lifetime & Annual Limits

The Affordable Care Act prohibits health plans from putting a lifetime dollar limit on most benefits you receive. The law also restricts and phases out the annual dollar limits a health plan can place on most of your benefits – and does away with these limits entirely in 2014….

Rate Review

The Affordable Care Act creates a Rate Review program in your state to help protect individuals and small businesses from unreasonable health insurance rate increases. Starting on September 1, 2011, health insurers must justify any rate increase of 10% or more before the increase takes effect….

Value for Your Premium Dollar: 80/20 Rule and MLR

The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to spend your premium dollars primarily on health care. It does this by enforcing a policy called the “80/20 rule” to hold insurance companies accountable.

ER Access & Doctor Choice

The Affordable Care Act helps preserve your choice of doctors by guaranteeing that you can choose the primary care doctor or pediatrician you want from your health plan’s provider network. It guarantees that you can see an OB-GYN doctor without needing a referral from another doctor. The law also ensures that you can seek emergency care at a hospital outside your plan’s network without prior approval from your health plan.

Just asking.

The right wingnut republican controlled House has voted to repeal the health care law thirty-seven times. And plans on another vote:

Surprise! Boehner says ‘count on’ another Obamacare repeal vote

2:31 PM on 07/09/2013

House Speaker John Boehner promised Tuesday to hold yet another vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act following the Obama administration’s announcement to delay the law’s employer mandate….

And we don’t hear “repeal and replace” much from republicans anymore (from a year ago):

Republicans focus on repealing, not replacing, ‘Obamacare’

Their retreat from a 2010 campaign promise to deal with the nation’s healthcare problems their own way has even some conservative experts saying voters deserve better.

July 11, 2012|By Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON – Congressional Republicans, who once promised to “repeal and replace” President Obama’s healthcare law, for now have all but given up pushing alternatives to the sweeping legislation the president signed in 2010….

….Republicans say they will not try to move a replacement plan until 2013 at the earliest. “There might be a chance for us to do this next year,” House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-San Dimas) said Tuesday….

….the retreat from a central 2010 campaign promise to deal with the nation’s healthcare problems has prompted even some conservative healthcare experts to say Republicans owe voters more detail about how they would control costs and protect sick and poor Americans….

[emphasis added]

That must have gone well. We’re still waiting for their replacement plan, aren’t we? Maybe they don’t want to include all those protections (to appropriate their phrase) in the ACA. In that case, they just need to repeal and leave us all to the mercy of the good old days. Oh, wait…

At the White House petition site:

We petition the Obama Administration to:

Rename the 10+ Military Bases Named After Confederate Generals

Today we have over 10 US military bases named for generals of the Confederate States of America.

For example, Fort Polk is named after a plantation master of several hundred slaves. Fort Pickett’s namesake was accused of war crimes in executing 22 Union prisoners.

Forts Benning, Bragg, Polk, A.P. Hill, Rucker, Beauregard, Lee, Hood all carry similar tales.

When these bases were built, during the World Wars, it may have made sense to name them after local heroes. Now, with over 20% of our forces African-American why do we insult them by asking them to serve at a base named after defenders of slavery WHO KILLED AMERICAN TROOPS?

Would we have a Goering Air Base or Camp Cornwallis?

There are so many honorable people who upheld our American ideals, can’t we find 10 to honor?

Created: Jul 06, 2013

Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Defense, Veterans and Military Families

Signatures needed by August 05, 2013 to reach goal of 100,000 99,742

Total signatures on this petition 258

[emphasis added]

Sometimes I wonder if they actually did.

Today, on a vehicle in central Missouri:

Why, is that a Mitt Romney (r) bumper sticker beneath the snake? Just asking.

Another warped consequence of orginalism.