Former State Representative Cynthia Davis, an announced Constitution Party candidate for Lieutenant Governor, filed her January quarterly campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on January 9th.
Remember former state representative Cynthia Davis? Remember her special blend of naive, petit-bourgeois self-righteousness, triumphalist religiosity and general dimwittedness? Although the term-limited Davis seems to have been too much of a good thing for otherwise crazy-loving Missouri Republicans - she lost her state senate primary race to the more traditionally respectable Scott Rupp - those of us who have been paying attention to the GOP primaries may feel a bit of Davis-tinged deja vu right about now. This feeling is especially acute when we consider primary contender Rick Santorum who shares Davis' political DNA in spades.
Despite Davis' failure in Missouri, Santorum's current popularity in Iowa offers clear evidence that the GOP is far from forswearing his and Davis' special brand of looney-tunes. While the Missouri GOP realized that Davis lacked the qualities essential to successfully represent the party, and while nobody really thinks Santorum is presidential material, they both equally embody the authoritarian and exclusivist social and religious strains that serve to rev up a sizable segment of the GOP base.
An excellent example of this GOP cultural model is provided by the particular approach to the problem of resurgent poverty that both Santorum and Davis promote. They seem to think that if you could just force folks (men and women, that is, none of that gay stuff) to get married and stay married, no matter what, poverty would magically go away.
During her tenure as Chair of the Missouri House Interim Committee on Poverty, Davis' authored a report (pdf) that is full of gems gleaned from the testimony of exactly two witnesses, both from right-wing religious organizations, one of which, the Ruth Institute, touts marriage between "one man, one woman for life" as its raison d'etre, and from a tour of Sunshine Ministries, an evangelical, faith-based, anti-poverty organization. Not surprisingly, six of the nine conclusions offered in the report seemed to be based on the belief that to cure poverty we only need to promote marriage.
Santorum, for his part, is sure that a simple two-step process will end all poverty for all time:
Number one, graduate from high school. Number two, get married. Before you have children, [...] If you do those two things, you will be successful economically. What does that mean to a society if everybody did that? What that would mean is that poverty would be no more. If you want to have a strong economy, there are two basic things we can do.
There's nothing wrong with encouraging folks to get an education, nor can the importance of a strong family structure be underestimated; it only stands to reason that people working in tandem usually have twice the resources as those who try to go it alone. But conservatives like Santorum and Davis manage to get it all backwards. A recent report (pdf) from the Economic Policy Institute analyzes the available data on the relation between marriage and poverty in the African-American and Latino communities and concludes:
Continually high poverty rates among blacks and Latinos are the result of high unemployment and incarceration rates and declining shares of good jobs in the American economy. The decline of marriage in these groups is a collateral consequence of these negative economic conditions. We can address these problems with full-employment in good jobs and comprehensive criminal justice reform. These policies would not only lift large numbers of Latinos and blacks out of poverty, they would also provide significant benefits to all other racial groups. Additionally, these policies would provide more white, Latino, and black men with the economic security they need to get married.
In other words, instead of broken marriages and out-of-wedlock births leading to poverty, poverty leads to broken marriages and out-of-wedlock births which, in turn, reinforces the whole cycle. Forcing people to get married and stay married won't provide employment when all the jobs have been shipped off to foreign countries. But blaming the evils of poverty exclusively on individual marital choices does let the rest of us off the hook when it comes to addressing the conditions that make stable family relationships difficult to maintain. Plus, it's always so gratifying to tell other people what they should do - which is, of course, to be more like us.
It's probably worthwhile to note that Santorum and Davis are selective in their embrace of the miracle powers of marriage. They don't agree at all with the Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel, who notes that by the Santorum/Davis logic, allowing same-sex partners to marry would "increase the number of marriages in the country and theoretically lower the nation's poverty rate." Marriage champion Davis is now the executive director of by an anti-gay marriage group - and Santorum's position on the issue is notorious. They both argue that by increasing the scope of marriage and permitting even more people to share in its benefits, we will undermine the institution for those who are currently permitted to enter it. In their view of the world, there just doesn't seem to be enough marriage to go around and heterosexuals have dibs on what there is.
Such observations, however, presuppose that the proponents of the miracle marriage cure actually care about logical consistency, which certainly, given their shared tendency to cast their arguments in terms of caricature, doesn't seem to be the case. However, the rest of us ought to care - one of these clowns is actually being taken seriously - more or less - as a possible candidate for President of the United States, and the more absurd his utterances, the more the the entire political theater will shift into the realm of the ridiculous. We managed to get rid of Davis, what will it take to exile the Santorums of the right from the political sphere?
The October 2011 quarterly campaign finance reports are showing up at the Missouri Ethics Commission. The active Lieutenant Governor campaign committees:
Since former State Auditor Susan Montee (D) just formed her campaign committee there isn't a quarterly report:
I finally got around to looking at the statement issued by former State Rep. and failed state senatorial candidate, Cynthia Davis, about her decision to leave the GOP and run for office on the Constitutional Party ticket. There are, as you might expect, lots of sour grapes. For instance, Davis seems aghast that political parties might show a preference for one primary candidate over another, essentially picking winners and losers before the election. (She claims less favored GOP primary candidates are not given access to vital polling information.) This observation is interesting because it suggests that Davis' off-the-wall extremism was as disquieting to the GOP establishment as to the rest of us. I suppose nobody likes setting themselves up for ridicule.
Be that as it may, what struck me most was Davis' new found awareness that money is the name of the game in GOP politics - although, to be fair, she strikes a "pox on both their houses" stance that, quite correctly, includes Democrats as well:
The existing political parties can't be reformed because there are just too many special interests with too much money to allow it. When I joined the Republican Party, it was to make our state better, not to be a member of some elite social club.
There are no doubt some sour grapes here too - whenever somebody says they don't want to join an "elite social club," you can bet they haven't been invited to do so - but, more importantly, one wonders just how Davis could have been involved in GOP politics for all those years without figuring out the role played by "big money." Has she just realized that, as she puts it, "legislative priorities are defined by the largest campaign donors." She adds, wide-eyed innocent that she is:
Giving leadership and chairmanship positions to those who donate the most money to the party is the common practice in both Washington D.C. and Jefferson City. This is similar to buying Senate seats and perverts the process of selecting the most qualified and competent people. This allows "Big Money" instead of better ideas to set the agenda.
I can't help wondering if Davis would have been quite so bitter if she had been able to raise the money to "buy" a Senate seat? But putting aside speculation about the behavior of women scorned, what I really want to know is whether or not this means that she is actually calling for campaign finance reform? And if so, how does she reconcile this position with her membership in Missouri's Constitutional Party? The Party's platform explicitly states, under "Election Reform," that:
We call for a repeal of all federal campaign finance laws (i.e. McCain-Feingold) due to their violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
So what exactly does Ms. Davis propose to do about the endemic corruption she describes, corruption she believes to be so pervasive that she can no longer be associated with the party in which she has served for at least a decade? Especially since lots of the abuse of money that she so decries is currently absolutely legal - the right-leaning judges of the Supreme Court have, after all, decided that money is speech. Does little Cynthia really think that the Constitutional Party Fairy is going to wave a wand and make all the naughty, old special interests go away? Or is she just bitching about the role of money in politics for the fun of it?
Cute kid in the video, right? Based on what Phyllis Schlafly has to say about feminism and marriage, she might just be her Schlafly's worst nightmare - a happy little girl who knows that she has a wide open future and that she needn't be defined by her marital status.
Hotflash recentlly posted several videos showing Schlafly, the Queen Mum of Missouri conservatism, in action (here, here and here). They present a frail-seeming, fact-challenged woman, absurdly flailing at the the Affordable Care Act. A Huffington Post interview on the topic of Schlafly's new book, The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know - And Men Can't Say, cowritten with Suzanne Venker, serves to reinforce one's sense that this woman is seriously out of touch with reality.
In the interview, Schlafly describes a right wing fantasyland where flippant feminists set about destroying the American Way of Life just because they "love divorce":
... They wanted to be independent of men and liberated from the duties of marriage and motherhood. So, their first legislative goal was the adoption of easy-to-get divorce
She and her co-author, like many social conservatives, view divorce as something that superficial women, seduced by empty feminist platitudes, embrace simply because they can. Consequently, Schlafly and her ilk have devoted themselves to making sure that they can't. Here in Missouri, for example, Schlafly think-alike, Cynthia Davis, introduced legislation to eliminate no-fault divorce, and in her role as Chair of the House Interim Committee on Poverty issued a trumped-up report that reduced a complex, many-faceted issue to the scourge of unmarried motherhood. There seems to be no social pathology that these folks can't explain by reference to women's sexual behavior and marital status.
Social conservatives who want to meddle in people's marriage choices often claim that they do so because prohibiting divorce is in the best interest of children. Proponents of this view usually trot out various studies that purport to demonstrate the dire future outcomes for children of divorce and Schlafly doesn't disappoint, citing Judith Wallerstein's highly publicized, but questionable research.
It is interesting and typical of the conservative modus operandi that Schlafly does not point out any of the many criticisms of Wallerstein's methodology and conclusions, nor the many studies that reach different conclusions. If she were a fair disputant, she would certainly also discuss findings that show that children who remain in intact, high-conflict families have an equal or even higher rate of negative outcomes when compared to children from divorced families. As an analysis of such studies from the Cato Institute's Cato Unbound seriesconcludes, "the evidence that preventing divorce would benefit children is weak at best."
Based on the interview, I'm betting that Shclafly's book offers little more than the latest iteration of the perennial rightwing Kinder, Küche und Kirche propaganda - bolstered by the usual misrepresentation and twisted logic that we expect from the less thoughtful social conservatives. Schlafly can, on one hand, lambast the family court system, which often oversees custody disputes, as an example of government overreach, "an arm of government that exercises virtually unlimited power to dictate the private lives and income of millions of Americans." On the other hand, she openly asserts the right of government to legislate morality when it comes to limiting divorce. The question for us, of course, is do we want the Schlaflys of the world to be our moral arbiters? Do we want our children, children like the little girl above, bound by her view of female destiny?
Note:Steve Benen takes on possible GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee on the marriage issue. The money quote:
... if right-wing activists have thrown a months-long tantrum over Michelle Obama encouraging kids to eat healthier foods, how will these same activists perceive a presidential candidate who wants to press parents to get married, whether they want to or not?
I'm guessing that if they notice at all, they'll praise him to the skies.
....I became the target of several left wing blogs and frequently segments of my Capitol Reports would be quoted within hours of being e-mailed. People in other states would write me who read about what I am saying and accomplishing in Missouri.
The goal of the left wing bloggers is to shame and humiliate those who speak up for common sense America. It is possible that they are so surrounded by socialists that it shocks them to hear someone explain free-market ideology. More likely, they think making a martyr out of an honest mother of seven, grass-roots supported American will intimidate others from daring to state the obvious out of fear of the backlash. It may have worked were it not for the fact that I am defined by my Maker, not what the left-wing blogs say....
In her final newsletter as a State Representative, Rep. Cynthia Davis complains about "left wing bloggers" she believes are out "to shame and humiliate those who speak up for common sense America." Davis' list of evil librul bloggers presumably includes writers for Fired Up!, Show Me Progress, the Pitch, Riverfront Times, and the Turner Report, among others. No apologies here for reporting the things she said and did, and for calling out the allegedly reasonable leaders who put her in positions of leadership....
"...not what the left-wing blogs say..."
"We share our wisdom with those who seek it. It's a life of quiet dignity."
State Representative Cynthia Davis (r-let them eat McDonald's) is still in office through early January until the new Missouri General Assembly is sworn in. Our good friends at Fired Up! caught her latest newsletter, pointing out her inimitable views on cosmology.
We note her (lack of) constitutional scholarship in the same newsletter:
Our Missouri constitution has some parts that are better than our US Constitution. For example, Missouri's Bill of Rights states:
1. "Missouri is a free and independent state...all proposed amendments...affecting the individual liberties of the people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this state, should be submitted to the conventions of the people." (Section 4).
2. "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience;" (Section 5).
3. "No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech, no matter by what means communication; that every person shall be free to say, write or publish, or otherwise communicate whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuses of that liberty;" (Section 8)
4. "...The court shall excuse any woman who requests exemption there-from before being sworn as a juror." Section 22 (b)
5. "Private property shall not be taken for private use ...except for private ways of necessity, and except for drains and ditches across the lands of others for agricultural and sanitary purposes..." (Section 28)
6. "To be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman. (Section 33)....
"...Our Missouri constitution has some parts that are better than our US Constitution..."
Uh, there's a small matter of the supremacy clause in the United States Constitution:
....This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding....
[emphasis added]
"...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding..."
Cynthia Davis is an idiot.
The Bill of Rights?
While we're at it, the Missouri Constitution, has an establishment clause in, count 'em, two places:
Missouri Constitution
Article I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 7
Public aid for religious purposes--preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.
Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.
Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.
Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.
The concept is so important that it's in two places in the Missouri Constitution. Cynthia Davis (r) ignores that? How convenient.
Cynthia Davis I outlasted Keith Olbermann! I'm still in public office and he off the air. I owe him a debt of gratitude for propelling me to national fame and for getting me on the Steven Colbert Show. The lesson is that good people win in the end and mockers go by the wayside. He may never understand how God used him to demonstrate the truth of Proverbs 22:10.
I don't believe Cynthia Davis understands the premise of Stephen Colbert's show.
TPMnotes that among incoming House members, four unequivocally qualify for membership in that chamber's Crazy Caucus - among them, Missouri's Vicky Hartzler. In this very special group of congressional newbies, which includes such standard fringewing specimens as as a proud torturer of war prisoners (Allen West, R-FL), an hysterical anti-Muslim fanatic (Renee Elmers, R-NC), and a birther (Tim Walberg, R-MI), Hartzler occupies the requisite religious nut niche (although there will no doubt be lots of mutual holding of ideological hands):
Hartzler belongs to that particular branch of conservative politicians, such as Michele Bachmann, who have described their political careers as callings from God. In fact, she wrote a campaign handbook for similarly-minded aspiring politicians, Running God's Way.
This leaves me with just one question. Is Hartzler the price the powers that be are exacting in return for getting the queen of Christian scourges, Cynthia Davis, out of state government? If so, the tally is unbalanced - we still have Christian Dominionist Todd Akin (R-2nd) running untethered in Washington. One such embarrassment from Missouri should be enough, particularly in Washington where they can do big-time, national damage to Missouri's reputation if they're not watched carefully, which, given the new character makeup of the House of Representatives, is unlikely to be the case.
Those of you who read national political blogs and newsletters, have heard by now about the total craziness of Christine O'Donnell, the anti-sex crusader turned Tea Party candidate who won the Delaware GOP senatorial primary last night. It struck me that this would be the same thing as the Missouri GOP selecting dim-witted, God-Squadie Cynthia Davis as their candidate for national office. It seems, though, that Missouri Republicans aren't quite as addled as those in Delaware since they decided that they didn't even think Davis was ready for the state senate.
But wait, you say, the Missouri GOP still has time to prove that they are as over-the-bend in thrall to the Tea Party craziness as the good folk in Delaware (and Nevada, Alaska, and New York). Isn't nutty Ed Martin running on Tea Party gas? To which I respond that that might be true, but Ed Martin actually strikes me as slipperier than he is crazy - a opportunist who sees how the Republican party is beginning to roll and thinks Tea Party might be the way to the goodies if he plays his cards right.
Then, of course, you could pull out your pièce de résistance, super-looney Todd Akin who dreams of an overtly Christian state. Conservative but quite sane Republicans in the 2nd district keep sending him to Washington time and again. The usual response is that Todd keeps a low profile with his craziness - although you could also point out, if you were so inclined, that the Missouri Democratic party also seems content to write the 2nd district off.
You could probably say similar things about many of the Missouri Republican pols - I just picked my favorites. And in point of fact, Tea Party bassackwardness* may just be current GOP politics as usual in Missouri - certainly evidence exists that the Tea Party in general is no more than that part of the the hard right Republican base that likes to dress up in eighteenth century costumes. Certainly, for all their populist blather, the TP "patriots" here don't seem to have strong objections to corporate go-to boys like Roy Blunt.
However, I wonder if these primaries might not embolden folks like Akin to crawl out a little further into the light, while the rest of our GOP contingent gets just a little bit more shrill. Speaking about the impact on the GOP that the electoral success of the likes of O'Donnell might have, Ezra Klein seems right on the money:
Politicians are, by nature, a fearful species. But their nightmares became a lot more specific last night. The Tea Party, for all its unexpected successes, cannot topple every incumbent Republican in the country. But by toppling the right ones, it can make every incumbent Republican vote and speak and act with the Tea Party in mind. So though the Te Party isn't likely to send all that many of its own Republicans to Washington, the likely outcome of last night's primaries is that the Tea Party takes over the Republicans who are already in Washington, and don't want to be sent home.
I would add that Democrats aren't immune. I would suggest that we are already seeing the effect of the Tea Party on conservadems like Claire McCaskill who last summer, in spite of her town hall efforts at rationality, seems to have been roundly schooled by the Tea Party, and now runs away fast whenever confronted by real Democratic principles.
* Bassackward: The art and science of hurtling blindly in the wrong direction with no sense of the impending doom about to be inflicted on one's sorry ass. Usually applied to procedures, processes, or theories based on faulty logic, or faulty personnel.From the Urban Dictionary
Thanks to St. Louis Activitist Hub, I got my first real introduction to the strange mixture of hysteria and ignorance that is Dr. Gina Loudon, local Tea Party luminary. Adam at the Hub was having a little fun with her over the top spiel about the Burlington Coat Factory Muslim community center (known on Fox News as the Ground-Zero mosque), which she compared to a Nazi war memorial in the center of London. Enough said. What struck me, though, was Loudon's evocation of a tenet of "Sharia law"* to justify her bigotry.
Sharia law seems to have become one of the concepts that gets wingers salivating right now. Oklahomans will vote this November, for instance, on whether or not to ban Sharia law - in spite of the fact that there is not even the slightest indication that anyone would ever try to impose Sharia in Oklahoma.
Closer to home, winger William Teach wonders why those who have a problem with the religous overtones of Missouri's most recent anti-abortion legislation aren't fighting Sharia law instead. The fact that right-wing Christians rather than Muslims have a stranglehold on the Missouri legislature doesn't seem to strike him as germane to the topic.
Nevertheless, Teach's emphasis on religious law is suggestive. If you go to Loudon's Webpage, you will find, immediately following the mosque harangue, a post titled "A Call to Christians," the burden of which is the need to get Christians energized to take back the country.
Now, I'm not too keen on Sharia law, but neither am I keen on Christian theocracy. While I have no evidence that Muslims in the U.S. want to impose Sharia, there's lots of evidence that many in the Christian-leaning right-wing here in Missouri would just love, as Loudon suggests, to take back the country and stick me with their version of biblical law.
Consider Cynthia Davis, dogged purveyor of Christian Nation legislation. Davis takes her cues from people like David Barton, revisionist pseudo-historian and founder of the Wallbuilders, a group dedicated to establishing a Christian nation - or as Barton would prefer, returning the nation to its Christian roots.
According to the Turner Report, Cynthia Davis believes that she would not have lost her race for the State Senate if only people outside her district were not "unfamiliar with me and were easily misled by all the negative campaigning." But I think Cynthia might have missed the point here. I bet most Missourians know lots about Cynthia and many are pretty turned off by what they know - particularly when it comes to her vendetta against children, especially poor children.
While we know that Cynthia really cares about fetal life, we also know that she thinks poor school children don't deserve free school lunches, but should instead rely on McDonalds. We surely all remember her outrage that funds from marriage license fees might be used to assist childen and mothers fleeing domestic abuse. Or her belief that that it's unacceptable government intrusion to close down unlicensed day-care providers accused of criminal child abuse - although when government intrudes into individuals' reproductive and sexual lives in order to impose minority religious values, it's just the ticket.
Her bitterness at her loss aside, there is a silver lining for Cynthia given her high opinion of fast foods and the general level of her skills. As one commenter on the Turner Report suggested, when her term expires in December, McDonalds will probably be hiring.
It's almost 11:30 and after looking at today's election results, it's clear that what we all knew would happen has happened and Propostion C is winning in the range of 70% to 30%. I promise, I'll try not to fall into a mad rage every time I hear some wannabe media wise man solemnly talking out of his nether anatomy about what this means for Democratic electoral hopes. I've actually got no problem with Tea Party gloating - these fools know as well as I do that they won this one because they're the biggest part of the tiny fraction that turned out to vote - and they have every right to stick it to us, since we gave it away. Anyway, there's no way they can be more outrageous and dishonest than they already are.
Of course, there's always a silver lining - and today it's the fact that Cynthia Davis went down in her primary, losing to Scott Rupp 45% to his 55%. I'm sure that Rupp is a total ass, but I can't possibly believe that he could be as offensive as Davis. The only problem with Davis' defeat is that it means that we lose the most perversely amusing member of the Missouri version of the Insane Clown Posse, also known as our Republican-led state legislature. I'm sure, though, that somehow, someway, she'll keep right on performing her own special brand of horrorcore in order to change our evil ways - but not, thank God, in Jefferson City.
MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION
CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR - TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION
Bernie Davis
O'Fallon MO
Back to Basics Christian Bookstore
6/30/2010
$26,000.00
[emphasis added]
That's a lot more than the perks you get from working at a national fast food chain franchise, don't you think?
Yes, one of the most incomprehensible right wingnut members of the Missouri House (and that's saying a lot) is running for the seat in the 2nd Senate District, challenging a republican incumbent in the primary. The candidates on the August 3rd primary ballot:
State Rep. Cynthia Davis and Rep. Todd Akin are, predictably, wringing their hands about the ruling by a U.S. District Judge in Wisconsin that found the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. How can they possibly worship their God if they can't let non-Christians know who's boss? Sister Cynthia, never one to let the grass grow under her feet, is taking action:
... I am preparing a Missouri Resolution that will join our state with the national effort to stand strong against those who seek to strip us of our traditions, our heritage and our acknowledgement of God Almighty, Creator and sustainer of the universe, author of all civility and source of mercy, grace and charity.
Akin is, of course, equally concerned about this victimization of innocent Christians:
This decision flies in the face of reason as well as our nation's traditions and is yet another attempt by an activist court to subvert our national spiritual heritage
Both bible thumpers cite historical justification for the National Day of Prayer - and it does have historical antecedents, although the record is not as clear as they claim. For instance those in attendance at the Constitutional Congress of 1776 not only rejected repeated requests by Benjamin Franklin for prayer, but:
...there is no record of a resolution providing for prayer. Franklin himself wrote afterwards that "the Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary.
James Madison also proclaimed a day of prayer, but later repudiated such events because "they seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion." Or take Thomas Jefferson, who explicitly opposed such public prayer events, believing that faith was the province of the individual, not the state:
I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.
So no, Todd and Cynthia, the founding fathers, were they Christian, deist, or whatever, don't really seem to have supported your brand of Christian triumphalism, but rather preferred to establish a democratic republic where individuals are free to take responsibility for their own worship in the confines of their homes and churches. Perhaps the Bible says it best in Mark, Chapter 6, verse 5:
And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men.
There is no trope so worn out, dishonest, or silly that some right-wing hack won't revive it when subjected to the appropriate Pavlovian stimulus - such as, for instance, taxes. Which brings me to Cynthia Davis who, in her latest Capitol Report, has resorted to pushing the Tax Foundation's old Tax Freedom Day chestnut:
Tax Freedom Day answers the basic question, "What price is the nation paying for government?" An official government figure for total tax collections is divided by the nation's total income. The answer this year is that taxes will amount to 26.89 percent of our income, and the stretch of 99 days from January 1 to April 9 is 26.89 percent of the year. Overall, Americans will pay more taxes in 2010 than they will spend on food, clothing and shelter combined.
I'll refrain from overmuch commiseration since I strongly suspect that most of those Americans who made enough money to pay taxes are still getting plenty of food, clothing and shelter - while enjoying the physical, educational and social infrastructure their taxes purchased. Additionally, except for a very few, "tax freedom day" came and went long before the April 1 date cited above. The Center on Budget and Policy Policies publishes an annual analysis of the ways that the Tax Freedom Day percentage misleads:
No, we're not making this up. And we can't really venture to call this an elaborate "April Fools" joke because it is coming from the poster child for the batshit crazy wingnut segment of the Missouri body politic.
HB 2468 Creates the Missouri Freedom to Own Lightbulbs Act
Sponsor: Davis, Cynthia L. (19) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010
CoSponsor: LR Number: 5509L.01I
Last Action: 04/01/2010 - Introduced and Read First Time (H)
HB2468
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING
Yes, you read that correctly, the "the Missouri Freedom to Own Lightbulbs Act". From Representative Cynthia Davis (r). Yes, that Representative Cynthia Davis.
HB1778 (Organ Donor Awareness Day) passed 141-7 with 7 Republicans (Cynthia Davis, Ed Emery, Doug Ervin, Tim Flook, David Sater, Rodney Schad, Bryan Stevenson) voting Nay.
There's diminishing returns and all in the reaction for these things. But apparently that was the time to make a stand against the tyranny of the government making people aware of organ donation.
Located in the heart of Westport --
The Original Kansas City
Californo's: Elegant dining in a delightful atmosphere,
located in the heart of Westport
Remember former state representative Cynthia Davis? Remember her special blend of naive, petit-bourgeois self-righteousness, triumphalist religiosity and general dimwittedness? Although the term-limited Davis seems to have been too much of a good thing for otherwise crazy-loving Missouri Republicans - she lost her state senate primary race to the more traditionally respectable Scott Rupp - those of us who have been paying attention to the GOP primaries may feel a bit of Davis-tinged deja vu right about now. This feeling is especially acute when we consider primary contender Rick Santorum who shares Davis' political DNA in spades.
I can't help wondering if Davis would have been quite so bitter if she had been able to raise the money to "buy" a Senate seat? But putting aside speculation about the behavior of women scorned, what I really want to know is whether or not this means that she is actually calling for campaign finance reform? And if so, how does she reconcile this position with her membership in Missouri's Constitutional Party? The Party's platform 
TPM 
Now, I'm not too keen on Sharia law, but neither am I keen on Christian theocracy. While I have no evidence that Muslims in the U.S. want to impose Sharia, there's lots of evidence that many in the Christian-leaning right-wing here in Missouri would just love, as Loudon suggests, to take back the country and stick me with their version of biblical law.
While we know that Cynthia 
State Rep. Cynthia Davis and Rep. Todd Akin are, predictably, wringing their hands about the 
