01 Thursday Apr 2021
Posted in Missouri Senate, social media
Tags
anti-maskers, Corona virus, COVID-19, Denny Hoskins, missouri, pandemic, right wingnuts, social media, Twitter
Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].
This evening:
Is that a single mask in there?
Senator Denny Hoskins, CPA @DLHoskins
Another record-breaking, sold out crowd at 2021 Saline County Republican Lincoln Days! Rural MO is fired up and they are excited the MO Senate passed a prohibition on requiring a MO COVID vaccine passport this week!
[….]
7:28 PM · Apr 1, 2021
Science!
08 Tuesday Dec 2020
Posted in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate
On the other hand, it does make some sense since Governor Mike Parson (r) is so intent on gambling on our health and lives.
Caleb Rowden (r) [2016 file photo].
A bill, prefiled in the Senate:
SB 256
Authorizes sports wagering
Sponsor: Rowden
LR Number:1108S.01I
Committee:
Last Action:12/2/2020 – Prefiled[….]
Current Bill Summary
SB 256 – This act authorizes sports wagering, and modifies the definition of “gambling game” to include sports wagering. (Section 313.800)
Sports wagering shall only be authorized to be conducted on an excursion gambling boat or over the internet to persons physically located in this state. Such licensed facilities shall apply to the Missouri Gaming Commission for authorization to conduct sports wagering, and shall pay an application fee of $50,000. If granted a certificate of authority, a certificate holder shall be authorized to conduct sports wagering in a licensed facility or through an interactive sports wagering platform, as defined in the act. (Section 313.1006)
Certificate holders shall designate an area within the licensed facility for conducting sports wagering. (Section 313.1008)
Certificate holders shall ensure that the certificate holder’s surveillance system covers all areas in which sports wagering is conducted, allow the Commission to be present through gaming agents during the hours sports wagering is conducted, ensure that individuals under the age of 21 are not making sports wagers, provide certain information to sports wagering patrons, and post a sign indicating the minimum and maximum amounts that may be wagered. Certificate holder shall also establish house rules specifying the amounts to be paid on winning wagers, the effect of schedule changes, and the source of the information used to determine the outcome of wagers, as described in the act.
This act authorizes the Commission to enter into agreements with other juridictions to facilitate, administer, and regulate multi-jurisdictional sports betting. (Section 313.1004)
Subject to the approval of the Commission, a certificate holder may contract with a third party to conduct sports wagering at the certificate holder’s licensed facility. (Section 313.1008)
An interactive sports wagering platform, as defined in the act, may apply to the Commission for authority to offer sports wagering on behalf of a certificate holder. Such interactive sports wagering platform shall submit an application fee of $50,000. Each year after licensure, an interactive sports wagering platform shall submit an annual license renewal fee of $20,000. (Section 313.1010)
The Commission shall promulgate rules for a sports wagering self-exclusion program, as described in the act. The Commission shall also promulgate rules to ensure that advertisements for sports wagering do not target minors or other persons who are ineligible to place wagers, problem gamblers, or other vulnerable persons. (Section 313.1012)
The Commission shall conduct background checks on individuals seeking licenses under the act. Such background checks shall include a search for criminal history and any charges or convictions involving corruption or manipulation of sporting events.
A sports governing body may notify the Commission that it desires to restrict, limit, or exclude sports wagers, as defined in the act, on its sporting events. Such governing body shall demonstrate good cause that indicates a credible threat to the integrity of sports wagering that is beyond the control of the governing body to preemptively remedy or mitigate.
The Commission and certificate holders shall cooperate with investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies. (Section 313.1014)
A certificate holder shall maintain records of all bets and wagers placed through an interactive sports wagering platform, and all bets and wagers placed in person that exceed $10,000 in a 24-hour period, including personally identifiable information of the bettor, the amount and type of bet, the time the bet was placed, the location of the bet, the outcome of the bet, and records of abnormal betting activity for at least three years after the sporting event occurs. (Section 313.1016)
A tax is imposed at a rate of 6.75% on the adjusted gross receipts received from sports wagering conducted by a certificate holder. Such tax shall be remitted by the last business day of each month. Revenues received from the tax shall be deposited in the Gaming Proceeds for Education Fund.
A certificate holder shall also pay to the Commission an annual administrative fee of $20,000. In addition to such administrative fee, a certificate holder shall pay to the Commission a fee of $10,000 every five years for a reinvestigation of the certificate holder. Such fees shall be deposited in the Gaming Commission Fund. (Section 313.1021)
All sports wagers placed under this act shall be deemed to be initiated, received, and otherwise made on the property of an excursion gambling boat in this state. The intermediate routing of electronic data shall not determine the location or locations in which such wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made. (Section 313.1022)
[….]
Anything else important going on?
And:
Denny Hoskins (r) [2016 file photo].
SB 98
Modifies provisions relating to gaming
Sponsor: Hoskins
LR Number:0740S.02I
Committee:
Last Action:12/1/2020 – Prefiled[….]
SB 98 – This act modifies several provisions relating to gaming.
MISSOURI VIDEO LOTTERY CONTROL ACT
This act establishes the Missouri Video Lottery Control Act.
This act allows the State Lottery Commission to implement a system of video lottery game terminals and to issue licenses to video lottery game manufacturers, distributors, operators, handlers, and retailers, as defined in the act. The Commission shall not allow a single vendor or licensee to be responsible for implementing the program, nor shall it allow a single vendor or licensee to control or operate more than twenty-five percent of video lottery game terminals in the state after December 31, 2026. (313.429.1 and .2)
Video lottery game terminals may be placed in fraternal organizations, veterans’ organizations, truck stops, as defined in the act, and retail establishments licensed to sell liquor, beer, or wine for on-premise consumption. (Section 313.427)
Video lottery game terminals shall be connected to a centralized computer system developed or procured by the Commission. No video lottery game terminal shall be placed in operation without first connecting to such centralized computer system.
The Commission may impose a non-refundable application fee, as described in the act. The initial license shall be for a period of one year. Thereafter, the license renewal period shall be four years with the applicable license renewal fee paid for each year such license is renewed, as described in the act. In addition to such license fees, video lottery game operators shall pay the Commission an annual license fee of $200 for each video lottery game terminal placed in service. No license shall be issued to any person who has been convicted of a felony or crime involving illegal gambling. Sales agents shall register with the Commission and may not solicit or enter into any agreement with a retailer or retail establishment prior to such registration with the Commission. (Section 313.429.3 and .4)
Video lottery game operators shall pay winning tickets using a video lottery game ticket redemption terminal, which shall be located within the video lottery game retailer’s establishment in direct proximity of where such video lottery games are offered. Video lottery game operators shall pay to the Commission thirty-two percent of any unclaimed cash prizes associated with winning tickets that have not been redeemed within 180 days of issue.
Video lottery game operators and video lottery game retailers shall enter into a written agreement for the placement of video lottery game terminals. The agreement shall specify an equal division of adjusted gross receipts between the operator and retailer after adjustments for taxes and administrative fees are made. Video lottery game operators and video lottery game retailers are prohibited from offering anything of value other than the percentage of adjusted gross receipts for the placement of video lottery terminals. Persons violating such prohibition forfeit the right to operate video lottery game terminals for a one-year period. (Section 313.429.7)
The cost of video lottery game terminal credits shall be $0.01, $0.05, $0.10, or $0.25, and the maximum wager played per video lottery game shall not exceed $5.00. No cash award for the maximum wager played on any individual lottery game shall exceed $1,000.
Operators shall not operate more than ten terminals at any one fraternal organization, veterans organization, or truck-stop, and not more than five terminals in any one establishment licensed to sell liquor by the drink for on-premise consumption. (Section 313.429.8)
A person under the age of twenty-one shall not play video lottery games, and such video lottery game terminals shall be under the supervision of a person that is at least twenty-one years of age. Video lottery game terminals shall be placed in a fully enclosed room that is continually monitored by video surveillance and where access to persons under the age of twenty-one is prohibited. Recorded video surveillance shall be made available as reasonably and specifically requested by the Commission. An operator that fails to review such video and report any known violation of law may be subject to an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000. Any operator or retailer found to have knowingly committed a violation of provisions governing the conduct of video lottery games may be subject to a fine of $5,000, the suspension of such operator’s retailer’s license for up to thirty days, or, in the case of repeated violations, the revocation of such operator’s or retailer’s license for up to one year. (Section 313.429.9)
Video lottery game operators shall pay to the Commission thirty-six percent of the video lottery game adjusted gross receipts. The net proceeds of the sale of video lottery game tickets shall be appropriated equally to public elementary and secondary education and public institutions of higher education, with an emphasis on funding elementary and secondary education student transportation costs and public institutions of higher education workforce development programs. The Commission shall compensate the administrative costs of the city or county in which a video lottery retailer maintains an establishment in an amount equal to four percent of the video lottery game adjusted gross receipts.
The remainder of video lottery game adjusted gross receipts, after the cost of the centralized computer system and administrative costs are paid and apportioned, shall be retained by video lottery game operators and shall be split evenly between video lottery game operators and video lottery game retailers as provided under an agreement. (Section 313.429.10)
All revenues collected by the Commission from license renewal fees and any reimbursements associated with the enforcement of the act shall be appropriated for administrative expenses associated with supervising and enforcing the provisions of the act. (Section 313.429.11)
The Commission shall contract with a state law enforcement entity to assist in conducting investigations into applicants for licenses and to investigate violations of the provisions of the act. (Section 313.429.12)
The use or possession of any video gaming terminal, gambling machine, or device capable of simulating lottery games, games of chance, or gambling games, and that is not licensed by the Lottery Commission or Gaming Commission shall be punishable under the provisions of Chapter 572 relating to illegal gambling. Any lottery vendor or licensee violating such provisions shall be guilty of a Class D felony and fined up to $10,000 per occurrence. The Commission shall suspend or revoke the license of any vendor or licensee that allows the use of any prohibited video gaming terminal. (Section 313.429.13)
Participation in the state lottery under this act shall not be construed to be a lottery or gift enterprise in violation of Article III, Section 39 of the Constitution of Missouri, and shall not constitute a valid reason for the denial or revocation of a permit to sell liquor. (Section 313.433)
This act allows a municipality or county to adopt an ordinance within one hundred eighty days of the effective date of this act prohibiting video lottery game terminals within the municipality or county. (Section 313.435)
These provisions are substantially similar to SB 566 (2020), SB 43 (2019), and SB 452 (2017), and to provisions contained in SS#3/SCS/SB 44 (2019) and SS/SCS/SB 767 (2018), and are similar to HB 990 (2017).
SPORTS WAGERING
This act allows the Missouri Lottery Commission to offer games based on the outcomes of sporting events. (Section 313.230)
This act also authorizes sports wagering, and modifies the definition of “gambling game” to include sports wagering.
Sports wagering shall only be authorized to be conducted on an excursion gambling boat or over the internet to persons physically located in this state. Such licensed facilities shall apply to the Missouri Gaming Commission for authorization to conduct sports wagering, and shall pay an application fee of $25,000. If granted a certificate of authority, a certificate holder shall be authorized to conduct sports wagering in a licensed facility or through an interactive sports wagering platform, as defined in the act. (Section 313.1006)
Certificate holders shall designate an area within the licensed facility for conducting sports wagering. (Section 313.1008)
Certificate holders shall ensure that the certificate holder’s surveillance system covers all areas in which sports wagering is conducted, allow the Commission to be present through gaming agents during the hours sports wagering is conducted, ensure that individuals under the age of 21 are not making sports wagers, provide certain information to sports wagering patrons, and post a sign indicating the minimum and maximum amounts that may be wagered. (Section 313.1004)
Subject to the approval of the Commission, a certificate holder may contract with a third party to conduct sports wagering at the certificate holder’s licensed facility. (Section 313.1008)
An interactive sports wagering platform, as defined in the act, may apply to the Commission for authority to offer sports wagering on behalf of a certificate holder. Such interactive sports wagering platform shall submit an application fee of $25,000. Each year after licensure, an interactive sports wagering platform shall submit an annual license renewal fee of $50,000. (Section 313.1010)
The Commission shall promulgate rules for a sports wagering self-exclusion program, as described in the act. The Commission shall also promulgate rules to ensure that advertisements for sports wagering do not target minors or other persons who are ineligible to place wagers, problem gamblers, or other vulnerable persons. (Section 313.1012)
The Commission shall conduct background checks on individuals seeking licenses under the act. Such background checks shall include a search for criminal history and any charges or convictions involving corruption or manipulation of sporting events.
A sports governing body may notify the Commission that it desires to restrict, limit, or exclude sports wagers, as defined in the act, on its sporting events, including restrictions on sources of data and associated video upon which an operator may rely in offering and paying wagers. The Commission may deny such request if it determines that it is arbitrary and capricious. Except in certain emergency situations, such restrictions shall not apply to tier one sports wagers on non-exhibition games or events of professional sports organizations, as defined in the act.
Certificate holders may use any data source to determine the results of sports wagers, provided the data is not obtained directly or indirectly from live event attendees or through automated computer programs. However, within thirty days of a sports governing body notifying the Commission of its desire to supply official league data to certificate holders for determining the results of tier two wagers, as defined in the act, certificate holders shall only use official league data to determine the results of such wagers. Certificate holders shall not purchase or utilize any personal biometric data of an athlete, as defined in the act, without written permission from the athlete’s exclusive bargaining representative.
The Commission and certificate holders shall cooperate with investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies. (Section 313.1014)
A certificate holder shall maintain records of all bets and wagers placed through an interactive sports wagering platform, and all bets and wagers placed in person that exceed $10,000 in a 24-hour period, including personally identifiable information of the bettor, the amount and type of bet, the time the bet was placed, the location of the bet, the outcome of the bet, and records of abnormal betting activity for at least three years after the sporting event occurs. (Section 313.1016)
Any person who knowingly violates any procedure implemented under this act shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation, not to exceed $50,000 for violations arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. Such person shall also be subject to actions and penalties provided under current law, provided that any such financial penalties shall not exceed those provided for in the act.
Any person who places, or causes to be placed, a bet or wager on the basis of material nonpublic information relating to that bet or wager, or who knowingly engages in, facilitates, or conceals conduct that intends to improperly influence a betting outcome of a sporting event for purposes of financial gain in connection with betting or wagering on a sporting event shall be guilty of a Class E felony. The term “material nonpublic information” shall include personal biometric data. (Section 313.1018)
Within thirty days of the end of each calendar quarter, a certificate holder shall remit to the Commission a royalty fee of 0.25% of the amount wagered on sporting events conducted during the previous calendar quarter by sports governing bodies that have registered with the Commission, as described in the act. No later than April 30 of each year, a registered sports governing body may submit a request for disbursement of funds remitted by certificate holders in the previous calendar year. The Commission shall disburse the funds to the registered sports governing body in pro rata proportion of the total amount wagered on its sporting events. Any unclaimed royalty fees shall be distributed to certificate holders that timely remitted such fees. (Section 313.1019)
Within thirty days of the end of each calendar quarter, a certificate holder shall remit to the Commission a royalty fee of 0.25% of the amount wagered on sporting events involving at least one NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision football team or at least one NCAA Division I basketball team. No later than April 30 of each year, the Commission shall disburse such royalty fees evenly among the public universities in this state that sponsor an NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision football team or NCAA Division I basketball team. The royalty fees received by public universities under this act shall be used solely for athletics compliance. (Section 313.1020)
A tax is imposed at a rate of 9.0% on the adjusted gross receipts received from sports wagering conducted by a certificate holder. Such tax shall be remitted by the last business day of each month. Revenues received from the tax shall be deposited in the Gaming Proceeds for Education Fund.
A certificate holder shall also pay to the Commission an annual administrative fee of $50,000. In addition to such administrative fee, a certificate holder shall pay to the Commission a fee of $10,000 every five years for a reinvestigation of the certificate holder. Such fees shall be deposited in the Gaming Commission Fund. (Section 313.1021)
All sports wagers placed under this act shall be deemed to be initiated, received, and otherwise made on the property of an excursion gambling boat in this state. The intermediate routing of electronic data shall not determine the location or locations in which such wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made. (Section 313.1022)
The Commission shall establish a hotline or other method of communication that allows any person to confidentially report information about any conduct that the person believes is a violation of the provisions of this act. The Commission shall investigate all reasonable allegations and shall refer allegations that it deems credible to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
Sports wagering operators, sports governing bodies, professional sports franchises, and higher education institutions shall not discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee because of any lawful act performed by the employee to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of the provisions of this act. An employee may bring an action at law or equity for relief from a violation of this provision, as described in the act. Such action shall be commenced not later than one hundred eighty days from the later of the date on which the violation occurs or the date on which the employee became aware of the violation. (Section 313.1024)
[….]
What are the odds?
07 Monday Dec 2020
Posted in Missouri Senate, social media
Tags
21st Senate District, community spread, Corona virus, COVID-19, Denny Hoskins, missouri, pandemic, social media, Twitter
Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].
Today:
Senator Denny Hoskins, CPA @DLHoskins
MONDAY UPDATES: Boone County reports triple-digit case increases over weekend…..How is this possible since Columbia has a mandatory mask order?
[….]
12:36 PM · Dec 7, 2020
Think about that for just a second.
Previously:
Denny Hoskins (r) in the 121st District: unhappy constituents write letters to the editor (November 24, 2009)
Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): Shall we all take a tour around the 21st Senate District? (July 28, 2019)
Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): regulated land use is evil, until it isn’t (August 12, 2019)
Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): uninformed and selective outrage (September 18, 2019)
12 Tuesday May 2020
Posted in Missouri Senate, social media
Tags
21st Senate District, Corona virus, COVID-19, Denny Hoskins, General Assembly, missouri, pandemic, right wingnut
Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].
Today:
Senator Denny Hoskins, CPA @DLHoskins
COVID-19: What we have learned so far…
[….]
2:02 PM · May 12, 2020
Imagine, a CPA who doesn’t understand math…and science:
Churches Could be the Deadliest Places in the COVID-19 Pandemic
By Kevin Kavanagh, MD
April 3, 2020One of the cruelest characteristics of the coronavirus epidemic is that it strikes fear in the hearts and minds of many causing them to ask for comfort and protection from the God they believe in. And at the same time this virus has made a church service one of the most deadliest places to be in. The combination of singing in close quarters and decreased ventilation is nothing short of a petri dish (or cell plate) for viral growth.
Observed infection rates can be astronomical. In Washington State, a choir practice of 60 individuals who practiced social distancing resulted in 45 infections, 3 hospitalizations and 2 deaths….
Wear a damn mask. And while you’re at it, wear some damn gloves.
Stay Home. Wash your hands. Don’t touch your face. Good luck to us all.
#FlattenTheCurve
Previously:
Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): regulated land use is evil, until it isn’t (August 12, 2019)
15 Friday Nov 2019
Posted in social media
Tags
corruption, Denny Hoskins, Donald Trump, impeachment, missouri, Putin's Puppet, social media, sychophant, Twitter
Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].
[….]
Q: And since that is really U.S. policy to further the rule of law and to discourage political investigations, having the President of the United States effectively ask for a political investigation of his opponent would run directly contrary to all of the anticorruption efforts that we were making. Is that a fair statement?A: I would say that request does not align with what has been our policy towards Ukraine and many other countries, yes….
A: I believe it is a matter of U.S. policy and practice, particularly since I have worked in the area of promoting the rule of law, that politically related prosecutions are not the way of promoting the rule of law, they undermine the rule of law.
Q: But is that written as a policy somewhere or is that just standard practice?
A: I have never been in a position or a meeting where I’ve heard somebody suggest that politically motivated prosecutions are in the U.S. national interest.
[….]
Yet another Trump sycophant from Missouri weighs in on behalf of Vladimir Putin’s puppet:
Senator Denny Hoskins, CPA @DLHoskins
These hearings appear to be an impeachment looking for a problem. I support our President. #SchiffShow
2:05 PM · Nov 15, 2019
Yeah, sure. Heh.
“Make America Great Again” – in Russian.
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
18 Wednesday Sep 2019
Posted in Missouri Senate, social media
“…the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings…”
Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].
This morning, via Twitter:
Senator Denny Hoskins, CPA @DLHoskins
Yes, it’s ridiculous that high school cheerleaders are disciplined for supporting the President of the United States. What’s next, banning our National Anthem before HS sporting events? Banning the Pledge of Allegiance at school?
[….]
9:50 AM · Sep 18, 2019
Apparently some moron showed up with a large Trump campaign banner at a public high school football game and prevailed upon some high school cheerleaders who were in uniform in front of the stands at the game to hold up the banner. The high school activities association admonished the school’s cheerleaders that this type of political activity did not conform with the standards of the association.
The cheerleaders were in uniform, representing their school.
Meanwhile, right wingnuttia has had a cow.
“…Banning the Pledge of Allegiance at school?”
Res judicata. Actually, stare decisis, in 1943:
WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BARNETTE ET AL., 319 U.S. 624
[….]
….To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual’s right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind.
Whether the First Amendment to the Constitution will permit officials to order observance of ritual of this nature does not depend upon whether as a voluntary exercise we would think it to be good, bad or merely innocuous. Any credo of nationalism is likely to include what some disapprove or to omit what others think essential, and to give off different overtones as it takes on different accents or interpretations. If official power exists to coerce acceptance of any patriotic creed, what it shall contain cannot be decided by courts, but must be largely discretionary with the ordaining authority, whose power to prescribe would no doubt include power to amend. Hence validity of the asserted power to force an American citizen publicly to profess any statement of belief or to engage in any ceremony of assent to one presents questions of power that must be considered independently of any idea we may have as to the utility of the ceremony in question….
[….]
….Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. [319 U.S. 624, 641] As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.
The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism [319 U.S. 624, 642] and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us….
[….]
That was about compulsory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools. Since 1943, in the United States, no individual can be compelled by the government to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In any setting.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist minister, in the late 19th century for a children’s magazine with the intent that it was to be used by children in ceremonies celebrating the Columbian Exposition. The original text: “I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Subsequent additions were made by others in the 1920s during the red scare (so immigrant children would know which flag they were saluting?) and during the Eisenhower Administration (because of fears of godless communism).
The U.S. Flag Code people keep citing as a point of law? It has the same force as Congressional resolutions commemorating motherhood, apple pie, and National Groundhog Day. By the way, that same flag code states that the image of the flag not be used as clothing or on disposable paper products (like napkins and plates) or on advertising. Good luck with that one, huh.
“…What’s next, banning our National Anthem before HS sporting events…?”
The Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court have long ago decided the primacy of the First Amendment.
So, why have the national anthem sung or performed at sporting events? As if there’s originalist intent expressed in the Constitution? Join in or not, it’s up to you. No one else. If you want to take knee, it’s up to you.
So, some questions of Senator Hoskins (r) and his uninformed and selective outrage.
Does this mean you support the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v Des Moines 393 U.S. 503 (1969)?:
…It is also relevant that the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance. The record shows that students in some of the schools wore buttons relating to national political campaigns, and some even wore the Iron Cross, traditionally a symbol of Nazism. The order prohibiting the wearing of armbands did not extend to these. Instead, a particular symbol — black armbands worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation’s involvement in Vietnam — was singled out for prohibition. Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not constitutionally permissible…
…In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school, as well as out of school, are “persons” under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views…
…The principle of these cases is not confined to the supervised and ordained discussion which takes place in the classroom. The principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to accommodate students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types of activities. Among those activities is personal intercommunication among the students. This is not only an inevitable part of the process of attending school; it is also an important part of the educational process. A student’s rights, therefore, do not embrace merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without “materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” and without colliding with the rights of others. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason — whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior — materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech…
…As we have discussed, the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred. These petitioners merely went about their ordained rounds in school. Their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth, not more than two inches wide. They wore it to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them. They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny their form of expression.
Note that the students were acting as individuals, not as representatives of the school.
Does this mean that you disagree with the court in Bong Hits 4 Jesus?:
…We need not resolve this debate to decide this case. For present purposes, it is enough to distill from Fraser two basic principles. First, Fraser’s holding demonstrates that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” Id., at 682. Had Fraser delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the school context, it would have been protected. See Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15 (1971) ; Fraser, supra, at 682–683. In school, however, Fraser’s First Amendment rights were circumscribed “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Tinker, supra, at 506. Second, Fraser established that the mode of analysis set forth in Tinker is not absolute. Whatever approach Fraser employed, it certainly did not conduct the “substantial disruption” analysis prescribed by Tinker, supra, at 514. See Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S., at 271, n. 4 (disagreeing with the proposition that there is “no difference between the First Amendment analysis applied in Tinker and that applied in Fraser,” and noting that the holding in Fraser was not based on any showing of substantial disruption).
Our most recent student speech case, Kuhlmeier, concerned “expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school.” 484 U. S., at 271. Staff members of a high school newspaper sued their school when it chose not to publish two of their articles. The Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Tinker, ruling in favor of the students because it found no evidence of material disruption to classwork or school discipline. 795 F. 2d 1368, 1375 (CA8 1986). This Court reversed, holding that “educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Kuhlmeier, supra, at 273.
Kuhlmeier does not control this case because no one would reasonably believe that Frederick’s banner bore the school’s imprimatur. The case is nevertheless instructive because it confirms both principles cited above. Kuhlmeier acknowledged that schools may regulate some speech “even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.” Id., at 266. And, like Fraser, it confirms that the rule of Tinker is not the only basis for restricting student speech…
So, if you skip school and hold up a banner at a school event, you can be suspended. What do you think about cheerleaders in uniform, representing their school, holding up a partisan political banner?
Finally, let’s test the selective outrage. If the cheerleaders had been approached in similar circumstances and held up a sign promoting the candidacy of one of Donald Trump’s (r) Democratic Party opponents, do you think that Senator Hoskins (r) would hold the same opinion? Most probably not.
Next time, do some homework.
Republican outrage is funny that way.
Obama’s tan suit. I rest my case.
12 Monday Aug 2019
Posted in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate
Tags
21st Senate District, CAFO, Denny Hoskins, Hypocrisy, Johnson County, missouri, planning and zoning, Valley Oaks, Warrensburg, Warrensburg City Council
Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].
In March:
Senate bill aims to prohibit county restrictions on agricultural enterprises
By Sue Sterling sue.sterling@dsjnow.com Mar 18, 2019
[….]
Hoskins said he believes the bill has a chance to pass in the Senate.He said he voted for the bill because he is “frustrated with the constant attacks on agriculture,” not just in Missouri but nationally, such as the Green New Deal proposed by some congressional Democrats.
“I’m definitely a supporter of agriculture,” he said.
Some counties, Hoskins said, have passed such restrictive regulations that “you can’t farm.”
While the regulations do not affect existing farms, he said, they could limit expansion of those farms.
[….]
He noted that voters in Johnson County have consistently voted against planning and zoning.Industrialized agriculture is needed, he said, because small farmers cannot afford the cost of land and equipment and feed.
[….]
And now? The expansion of a pre-existing convenience store on to two adjacent residential lots (which would need to be rezoned) (if approved, with, as it was explained to me this morning, a thirty foot planted buffer between the business and the remaining residential lots) is being challenged by some neighboring Warrensburg residents. The city planning and zoning commission has already approved the rezoning, 5-1. The Warrensburg City Council will vote on approval at a meeting this month.
One letter in opposition to the rezoning:
July 28,2019
Dear Warrensburg Planning and Zoning Commission:
We are writing to you today concerning the proposed change in zoning of the property at 310 East Gay Street and 309 East Market Street from residential to general business. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the Planning and Zoning meeting, but will be in attendance for the City Council meeting on August 12.
We live at 314 East Gay Street and also own the house next door at 312 East Gay Street. When we purchased our property almost 3 years ago, we knew the lot at 310 East Gay Street was zoned residential R-2. We felt comfort knowing that a residential home could be built on the lot at 310 East Gay, but a commercial building could not be built on the lot.
We have no concerns with keeping the properties zoned residential R-2. However, our realtor as well as another realtor on City Council have expressed their concern to us our home property value will decrease if the request for a change in zoning from residential to general business is approved by planning and zoning and the city council. If the change in zoning is approved, a commercial building could be a mere 30 feet away from our property versus the 96 feet distance under the current zoning requirements.
We have put a lot of time, sweat and tears in remodeling our home which was built in 1905. It would be beyond frustrating to see all of our hard-work and money spent updating and improving our home disappear due to a change in zoning from residential to general business.
We humbly ask that you consider the negative effect on our homes property value if the change in zoning is approved and ask you for your vote against the zoning change.
Sincerely,
s/
Senator Denny and Michelle Hoskins
Capital letter “L” libertarianism at the statewide level meets “but my quality of life and property values” at the local level. It is a very rare thing to witness karma and the closure of a circle of hypocrisy wrapped up in such a neat little package, all within such a short amount of time.
28 Sunday Jul 2019
Posted in social media
Tags
21st Senate District, Baltimore, Denny Hoskins, Donald Trump, Elijah Cummings, gaslighting, missouri, racism, social media, Twitter
From Donald Trump, yesterday:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
….As proven last week during a Congressional tour, the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded. Cumming District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place
4:14 AM · Jul 27, 2019
Well, look at that, openly racist. Not that anyone is surprised.
His consistent behavior gets normalized.
The reality:
More about Elijah Cummings’ 7th congressional district in Maryland
…Using data from the “Biggest US Cities” website, Nate Sliver…point[ed] out that Cummings’ district has “above-average college education rates and home prices, along with a pretty good mix of urban and suburban area (even some rural), and well-off, working-class and middle-class areas”
Silver also pointed out the district is the second-wealthiest majority-black district in the country, with a $58,000 median household income, trailing Maryland’s 4th Congressional District, which includes Prince George’s and Anne Arundel counties. Cummings’ district is also the second-most-well-educated majority-black district because 37% of the residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher, trailing Georgia’s 4th District, Silver added…
Senator Denny Hoskins (r) just couldn’t resist retweeting republican propaganda:
So, shall we compare?
Shall we take a photographic tour around Missouri’s 21st Senate District? Just asking.
Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].
17 Friday May 2019
Posted in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate
Tags
Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].
From Senator Denny Hoskin’s (r) post session e-mail:
….Nothing can compare to my satisfaction with the passage of House Bill 126. The “Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act” is the strongest pro-life measure ever enacted in Missouri. This legislation, passed in the final hours of the 2019 legislative session, will outlaw the killing of an unborn child after eight weeks of fetal development. The bill also prohibits abortion at a number of stages of development, with the last threshold being the point when a baby can feel pain inside his or her mother’s womb. By enacting protections at various stages of the child’s development, the bill is intended to withstand judicial challenges and ensure the greatest defense of unborn children possible.
The bill contains a number of provisions to discourage abortions and provide expectant mothers every opportunity to reconsider their choices. Language that I proposed in separate legislation to require notification of all custodial parents or guardians when minors seek an abortion was incorporated into the bill, though this provision was weakened in the final compromise. There were also provisions that prevent selective abortions for reasons of disability or race and gender selection.
I consider House Bill 126 to be the most important accomplishment of the 2019 legislative session. I am proud of the General Assembly for taking a stand for life….
Interestingly, Senator Hoskins (r) did nothing to support Medicaid expansion in Missouri. Or, to abolish the death penalty.
The bill summary:
SS SCS HB 126 — ABORTION
This bill modifies provisions relating to abortion.
PREGNANCY RESOURCE CENTERS The bill modifies the definition of a pregnancy resource center for the purposes of the pregnancy resource center tax credit to include facilities that provide assistance to women and families with crisis pregnancies or unplanned pregnancies by offering services specified in the bill and services provided under the Missouri Alternatives to Abortion Services Program in Section 188.325, RSMo. The tax credit is increased from 50% of the amount contributed to 70% beginning January 1, 2021, removes the cumulative amount of tax credits claimed by all taxpayers in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021, and removes the sunset provision (Section 135.630).
THE “RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE UNBORN CHILD ACT” Additionally, an abortion performed or induced upon a woman, unless in cases of medical emergencies, shall be a class B felony and shall subject the person performing or inducing the abortion to suspension or revocation of his or her professional license. This provision has a contingent effective date based on federal law and court rulings (Sections 188.017).
PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATORY ABORTIONS These sections assert that the general assembly finds that it is a legitimate purpose of government to remove vestiges of past bias or discrimination against pregnant women, their partners, and their family members, including unborn children. The bill prohibits any person from performing or inducing an abortion on a woman if the person knows that the woman is seeking the abortion solely because of a prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating Down Syndrome or the potential of Down Syndrome in an unborn child, or because of the sex or race of the unborn child. Currently, any attending physician must complete an abortion report for each abortion performed. This bill requires the physician to include a certification that the physician does not have any knowledge that the woman sought the abortion solely because of a prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating Down Syndrome or the potential of Down Syndrome in an unborn child, as well as a certification that the physician does not have any knowledge that the woman sought the abortion solely because of the sex or race of the unborn child. Any physician or other person who violates these provisions shall
be subject to civil liability and revocation of his or her professional license (Sections 188.038 and 188.052).THE “MISSOURI STANDS FOR THE UNBORN ACT” This bill specifies that an abortion shall not be performed or induced upon a woman at eight weeks, 14 weeks, or 18 weeks gestational age or later, except in cases of medical emergency. A person who knowingly violates these provisions shall be guilty of a class B felony, as well as subject to suspension or revocation of his or her professional license. A pregnant woman upon whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of these provisions shall not be prosecuted (Sections 188.026 188.056, 188.057, and 188.058).
PARENTAL NOTIFICATION IN CASES OF ABORTION UPON A MINOR Currently, an abortion on a minor shall not be knowingly performed until the attending physician has secured the written informed consent of the minor and one parent or guardian, unless a specified exception applies. This provision requires that the consenting parent or guardian first notify any other parent or guardian in writing, except under certain circumstances (Section 188.028). This provision has an emergency clause.
MATERIALS PROVIDED TO PERSONS RECEIVING REFERRALS FOR OUT-OF-STATE ABORTIONS The bill requires in-state abortion facilities or family planning agencies to provide specified printed materials when providing a woman an out-of-state abortion referral. If the referral is not made in person, the facility or agency shall offer the printed materials to the woman and send them either electronically or through the U.S. mail at no cost to the woman (Section 188.033).
ABORTION PROVIDER INSURANCE This bill changes the medical malpractice insurance an abortion provider is required to have from $500,000 to $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the annual aggregate. Additionally, the bill requires a person performing or inducing an abortion to carry tail insurance of at least $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the annual aggregate for personal injury to or death of a child who survives an abortion induced by a drug or chemical that carries a Food and Drug Administration warning that the chemical may cause birth defects, disability, or other injury in a child who survives the abortion (Sections 188.043 and 188.044).
THE “LATE-TERM PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT” The bill establishes the “Late-Term Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” prohibiting any abortion, except in the case of a medical emergency, from being performed or induced on a woman carrying a late-term pain-capable unborn child, defined as an unborn child at 20 weeks gestational age or later. It adds more detailed requirements for information provided to the mother prior to the procedure. If a physician performs or induces an abortion upon a woman in her third trimester carrying a late-term pain-capable unborn child in cases of a medical emergency, the physician shall utilize the available method or technique that provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, or if such method is not available, the method or technique that offers less risk to the life and health of the mother. The physician shall document in writing the method or technique utilized and the reason it was selected. In such cases of medical emergency, there shall be another physician in attendance other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall provide immediate care for a child born as a result of the abortion. Any physician who violates these provisions shall be guilty of a Class D felony and subject to suspension or revocation of his or her license (Section 188.375).
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS The General Assembly declares its intention that the state and its political subdivisions shall be a “sanctuary of life” to protect pregnant women and their unborn children (Section 188.010). Makes all of the provisions of Chapter 188 severable if any section is found to be unenforceable or unconstitutional (Section 188.018). The bill modifies the written information provided to a woman regarding the pain capability of an unborn child (Section 188.027).
“Sanctuary of life” – without any understanding of the irony, of course.
Pre 1973 2019 medical instruments.
Previously:
HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)
Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)
Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)
Medieval (May 17, 2019)
12 Tuesday Feb 2019
Posted in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate
Tags
chutzpah, cinema, Denny Hoskins, film, General Assembly, Hypocrisy, missouri, SB 366
Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].
A bill, introduced by Senator Denny Hoskins (r):
SB 366
Establishes the Show Missouri Film and Digital Media Act
Sponsor: Hoskins
LR Number: 1846S.01I
Committee:
Last Action: 2/7/2019 – S First Read–SB 366-Hoskins
Journal Page: S214
[….]Current Bill Summary
SB 366 – This act creates the “Show Missouri Film and Digital Media Act”.
This act reauthorizes a tax credit for certain expenses related to the production of qualified film production projects in this state, as defined in the act. Tax credits for such expenses under previous law expired on November 28, 2013.
For all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, this act authorizes a tax credit equal to 20% of qualifying in-state expenses, as defined in the act, and 10% of qualifying out-of-state expenses, as defined in the act, associated with the production of a qualified film production project. An additional 5% may be awarded for both qualifying in-state and out-of-state expenses if at least 50% of the qualified film production project is filmed in Missouri.
This act shall sunset on December 31 six years from the effective date of the act, unless reauthorized by the General Assembly.
This act is substantially similar to HB 1661 (2018).
[….]
Oh, that’s rich. Remember this, almost nine years ago?:
…My own questions were based on those I received from constituents concerning the film festival. As you can see, I did not request funding be withheld or rescinded. I simply asked how people who need assistance would be helped by the film festival. Since the film festival was held, I have received even more questions from constituents. The idea of a film festival or similar event to shine a spotlight on the Warrensburg community is not in itself a bad idea. How to pay for this event is what concerns me…
Ah, the benefits of a long memory and a blog archive.
Apparently, supporting the art form of cinema is back in vogue.
Previously:
Suppose you held a film festival and right wingnuts didn’t want anyone to attend (September 10, 2010)
The show must go on (September 10, 2010)
Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder (r): The review is in – two thumbs down (September 14, 2010)
Veto Session Reviews for Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): great potential for a Razzie (September 15, 2010)
Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: because the arts never generate economic activity? (September 17, 2010)
Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: demagoguery, not oversight (September 18, 2010)
Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: that was then, this is now (September 20, 2010)
Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: no one knew about it… (September 21, 2010)
A short film about a film festival… (September 22, 2010)
Ky Dickens, the film festival, the Chicago Reader, and teabaggers (September 23, 2010)
We get film festival hate mail (September 28, 2010)
Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: that was then, this is now – part 2 (September 28, 2010)
Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: what the teabaggers say (October 4, 2010)