Chicago Teachers Want More, Again : Taxpayers Tapped out, But So What!

Here's something to think about, since it was just in 2012 that the teachers got more money and benefits, and now they are back for even more money and more benefits.

Now, in the light of what's happening with the Chicago school teacher coming back to the public trough, what do you think will happen when the minimum wages goes nation wide like it is in California, to $15 per hour and how long do you think it will take before the unions will be back in the streets saying $15 isn't enough for a 'living wage'??? 

How much is enough? $20 per hour? $25 maybe? Oh wait, $30 per hour will actually be the magic number. Everyone will be glade to pay $10 for a BigMac, right? How cool will this be, as the commercial rolls out, you can get change back at McDonalds for your $50.

So paying the teachers more is a losing proposition and not only in Chicago, this a proven fact around the country. The teachers say if you pay us more we will perform better. What ever happened to perform better and we will pay you more? That the Chicago school system is a failure even with outrageous salaries that teachers are getting now but want more, is the story, and their failure to perform is front page, not in the fine print of their contracts.

Chicago Teachers to Walk Out Again on 400,000 Schoolchildren
Leah Jessen / @_LeahKay_ / March 28, 2016    

Chicago teachers voted to approve a one-day strike this Friday in protest of “unfair” labor practices, an action that affects about 400,000 public school students as schools plan to shut down for the day.  Administrators call the move illegal. “As you may have heard, the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) has declared a ‘Day of Action’ on April 1, 2016,” Forrest Claypool, CEO of the Chicago school system, and Janice K. Jackson, the district’s chief education officer, wrote in a letter to the families of students. They added:

While there are still unanswered questions about what this day will look like, we know that CTU leadership has proposed an illegal one-day strike, asking teachers to leave their classrooms empty and take to the streets. To explain this divisive action, CTU President Karen Lewis asked teachers and families to think of this one-day strike as ‘an extra holiday.’

The school district plans to staff 250 sites where students can go Friday, ABC 7 News Chicago reported.  “The CTU is using its power to hold the city’s schools hostage and is demanding policy changes that will do nothing to fix the deeply rooted inefficiencies in the school system,” Mary Clare Reim, a research associate in education at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

The teachers union said it demands a “fair contract” with the school system, including more revenue for the schools and students.

“Our kids should be at their desks in the classroom, and our teachers should be there giving them the essential education that they chose as a profession,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat, told reporters last week.  In July 2015, Emanuel appointed Claypool to head the public schools and Jackson as chief education officer.

According to the Illinois Policy Institute, a contract proposed by the Chicago school board “includes bans on teacher layoffs, caps on charter schools, and pay increases for teachers. The proposal also includes requiring teachers to pay more toward their own pension and health care costs.”
The union’s contract expired June 30.  

The latest action follows a contentious teacher strike by Chicago teachers in 2012, during Emanuel’s first term. The union first called for an April 1 classroom walkout over teacher pensions.
“Chicagoans can’t bear more tax hikes,” Ted Dabrowski, vice president of policy at the Illinois Policy Institute, wrote, adding:

Not only do Chicagoans already pay more in taxes and fees than residents in any other major Illinois city, they’ve just been hit with a record property-tax and fee increase of more than $700 million annually.

Chicago teachers’ pension benefits have increased by 400 percent since 1987, according to the think tank.
In a contract offered in January, the district sought to phase out a 7-percent pension payment that the school district pays toward a teacher’s required 9-percent pension. The union did not accept the offer, the Chicago Tribune reported.


According to the union, the threat to cut payment gave the union legal grounds for a strike.
“Chicago spends almost $20,000 per student in the public school system, yet students’ academic achievements are subpar,” Heritage’s Reim said. “The city needs to get its fiscal house in order before artificially raising wages for teachers.”  Reim says teachers in Chicago are paid well above the national average for teachers and above the average household income in Chicago. “Chicago teachers are already the nation’s highest-paid teachers when compared with teachers in the 10 largest school districts in the U.S.,” the Illinois Policy Institute’s Dabrowski wrote.

The Chicago school system has a $1.1 billion budget deficit, ABC News reported. The schools currently aren’t getting money from the state due to an unpassed budget.  Neither the school district nor the teachers union is “blameless,” the institute said in a press release,“but students are being forced to pay the price.” Furthermore:

In 2012, teachers walked out of the classroom for more than a week to demand unaffordable salary and benefit increases. Now, the [school system] budget is in worse shape, but CTU is exploiting the needs of students to demand even further concessions.

The school district put in place three unpaid “furlough” days (March 25, June 22, and June 23), on which teachers do not have to work, in an effort to save $30 million. Some teachers, although not getting paid, planned to take students on an already scheduled field trip this past Friday, DNAinfo.com reported.

“All of these cuts, reductions, and actions by the mayor’s hand-picked Board of Education are punitive,” Lewis, the union’s president, said in a formal statement. “They do nothing to improve the quality of education we are able to offer more than 350,000 schoolchildren each day. These budget cuts, furloughs, layoffs, and a refusal to honor steps and lanes are all short-term fixes.”  “April 1 is a showdown for equitable funding and good governance,” she said. “April 1 is a showdown for education justice.”

Solar $2.2 Billion Project Falls Short of Projections : California & DOE Double Down

Looking for a definition for "feel good politics", look no further then California, where else? But hey, why not have taxpayer foot the bill for something that is and has been known to be a failure to deliver on projections, all solar and wind energy projects as well, but this solar project is so steeped in cronyism that even the most committed to renewables have to step back a little to reevaluate the entire government energy mandate.

Will this actually happen, not much chance in that those that support programs that are failures like Ogbjma and now Trump, don't have time to filter out fact from fiction, it's all about the narrative.

In the case of renewables, the agenda and the ideology of the progressives believes that progress and prosperity are not options that can be allowed a citizens that is deemed unable to make good decisions on their own behalf.  Good decisions can only come from an all powerful government.

Citizens believe they need and want cheap and adequate energy to become prosperous. But having adequate energy resources for citizens does not fit the narrative of energy independence as defined by progressive mandates to eliminate fossil fuel energy for our electricity that seeks to use energy as a tool for control. Why is this so hard to understand by so many?


Taxpayers Are Footing Bill for Solar Project That Doesn’t Work
David Kreutzer / @dwkreutzer / March 29, 2016    

As every 10-year-old who ever got a sweater for a birthday present has been told, “it’s the thought that counts.” That seems to be the guiding principle at the Department of Energy and the California Public Utilities Commission when it comes to solar power.

The latest example is the $2.2 billion Ivanpah solar thermal plant in California. (Note: Solar thermal plants do not use solar panels to directly convert sunshine to electricity; they use sunshine to boil water that then drives conventional turbines.)

Here’s the story so far. Ivanpah…

• is owned by Google, NRG Energy, and Brightsource, who have a market cap in excess of $500 billion.
• received $1.6 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy.
• is paid four to five times as much per megawatt-hour as natural gas-powered plants.
• is paid two to three times as much per megawatt-hour as other solar power producers.
• has burned thousands of birds to death.
• has delayed loan repayments.
• is seeking over $500 million in grants to help pay off the guaranteed loans.
• burns natural gas for 4.5 hours each morning to get its mojo going.

Brightsource, which is privately held, is owned by a virtual who’s who of those who don’t need subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers.

In spite of all this, Ivanpah has fallen woefully short of its production targets. The managers’ explanation for why production came up 32 percent below expected output is the weather. In addition to raising questions about planning for uncertainty, it is not all that clear how a nine-percent drop in sunshine causes a 32-percent drop in production.

More bizarrely, the natural gas used to get the plant all warmed up and ready each day would be enough to generate over one quarter of the power actually produced from the solar energy. Sorry, let’s not be haters.

The problem for Ivanpah’s customers (California power utilities) is that they planned on all those solar watt-hours to meet California’s renewable power mandates, which require that renewables produce a large and rising fraction of California’s electricity. That is why they pay so much more for Ivanpah’s output than for conventionally powered electricity.

Breaching their contracts with these California utilities threatened to shut down Ivanpah. More likely than permanently shutting Ivanpah down would have been a change of ownership at a price that came closer to reflecting reality. But this would have been bothersome for Ivanpah’s investors and the Department of Energy’s ridiculous Section 1703 Loan Program, so the California Public Utilities Commission saved the day (for the fat-cat owners, of course, not for actual the electricity consumers) by granting the company an extension to meet the production targets.

The best part of the ruling is the section on the cost—it’s pretty succinct.
Here it is in its entirety:

But hey, Ivanpah’s plant is a shiny new technological marvel. That’s what counts, right?

Bernie's & Hillary's Progressive Socialism : The ''New Wave" or Not?

The question that remains is why is there so much enthusiasm for Bernie in this country? Bernie is an admitted socialist, if not a new communist, also known as a 'neo-communist' that defines his new world as those that are productive must share their good fortune with those that aren't as productive.

Bernie's agenda and ideology is similar if not identical to a failed historical  philosophical ideology that stated, "From each according to his abilities and to each according to his need."

And as Hillary is so fond of saying 'it takes an entire village to raise a child', can she be defined as other then just a democrat? Remember Hillary saying while she was running for the senate in New York that she didn't want to be thought of as a democrat but rather a 'progressive'? It seems she has gotten her wish and more.

Can Bernie be seen as just progressive socialist as Hillary wants to be seen? Or are they both progressive socialists, and do I dare say they are both the new definition of progressive socialism, neo-communists', in that they both want to continue the decline of a free society that Mr Ogbjma stated 7 years ago, and has for the most part succeed in driving his ideology of subsistence as a new way for America, can Bernie and Hillary both fit the political definition of the 'new wave' left liberalism? The few dictating to the many?

If this election in November can be seen if nothing else, it will be an election that defines our country of who we are and what we can expect to become for the next several generations to come, not just decades, entire generations.

It's time to decide what you believe is the right path for prosperity and our individual freedom to chose. Failing this will to the determinant of us all.

The Last 9/11 Rescue Dog Celebrates Birthday In New York : A Heartwarming Video

Even if you aren't a dog lover but understand what happened in New York on September 11, 2001, you will find this video of a celebration of a rescue dog on her birthday in New York that worked the ruins of the twin towers looking for survivors and helping with the mental health of those that survived that day to restore life in this great city.

Take a few minutes out or your busy day to appreciate these great animals the are here just to serve us and bring so much joy and friendship.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ezcHy8DkrmE?rel=0

Rush Eplaining Trump to The Masses? : Some Believe, Others Confused

Is it possible that we are going to have endure 7 more months of election stories totting Trump as our political savior? Even Rush Limbaugh falling into the grip of Trump mania?

I have been a Rush listener for more the twelve years, but lately I have had to turn him off.

It's sad when Rush has to go on the air to explain to his vast audience what Trump really said, what he really meant on some campaign stop that appears to most of us as off color or just wrong headed.

But now Rush is in a funk as many of his listeners are calling him out on his stand on Trump as being the answer to the feckless Republican party. It's a fact the Republicans are stogy, directionless, mostly unprincipled and lack the courage to take a stand on most any subject.

Maybe the problem is the country is really more divided then even Rush understands, or maybe he knows how divided we are and is trying to explain why. Still, I am trying to come to grips with Rush's way to explain the phenomena that is Trump.

Hillary & Bernie Are Different? : Their Ideologies ARE the Same

Now even to the totally ignorant and or just he misinformed, how does this level with our Constitution that states the most important aspects of life must be personal liberty and fundamental freedom to chose?

The question that remains is how much different is Hillary then Bernie Sanders, a admitted socialist and communist?

Remember, they both believe, "To each according to ones needs, and From each according to ones abilities." It's manifesto of the progressive democrats, now and always been.

The Ogbjma Lagecy - A Cuban Hero For All Time : The Ogbjma Partners in Jihad

Always remember, the history of Mr Ogbjma will be written by college professors witch means Mr Ogbjma will be portrayed as a heroic figure in the history our country. Just as the historian are now change, rewriting the history of our founding, detailing how the founding fathers are cruel and inhuman slave owners, tyrants, it won't be a stretch to believe the Progressive socialist liberal elites in our colleges and universities will deliver an Ogbjma large then life.

The Ogbjma of the progressive socialist ideology age for brining "fundamental change to America", and if the truth is known, much worse, will be no where to be found, lost in transition and translation.

Obama’s Legacy Will Be Marked by His Silence on Human Rights in Cuba
Ana Quintana / @Ana_R_Quintana / Ricardo Pita / March 25, 2016

The president’s decision to visit Cuba was a great mistake from the start. Back in 2015, long before his trip was announced, President Barack Obama stated that he would travel to Cuba only if he saw “some progress in the liberty and freedom.” But such assurance was clearly just another one of the president’s “red-lines,” like the one on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and Gen. Raúl Castro knew it. Since the thaw began, the Cuban government has doubled down on its repressive tactics, with political and religious persecution levels increasing drastically.

 

Ogbjma and Castro - Partners and friends in life and ideology

It is now clear that there is nothing that the Cuban regime can do to draw Obama’s criticism. Just a few hours shy of Air Force One’s landing in Havana, the Ladies in White were assaulted by government agents, a local pastor and a journalist were brutally arrested, and more than three hundred dissidents were detained.

There were plenty who hoped Obama would pivot and stand up to Castro once in the island. They assumed that the president would see the light and, through public diplomacy, would attempt to improve the lives of the people of Cuba. Any such hopes were crushed by Obama’s joint press conference with Castro. While there were moments when Obama spoke of basic rights like freedom of speech, he spent the majority of the time being lectured by Castro.

Instead of taking the despot to task for his countless crimes, or at the very least defending the country he represents, Obama chose to welcome a butcher’s criticism without offering any in return.

While Castro’s attacks were predictable, the president’s submissiveness shouldn’t have been. This was Obama’s best opportunity to condemn the Cuban regime for its countless human rights abuses and take a public stand in favor of the Cuban people.

In an appalling absence of courage, Obama went on to defer the task of confronting Castro to two journalists. In a display of the very best virtues that underwrite their profession, both of them looked Castro in the eye and did what Obama failed to do: They took him to task. The exchange that ensued put Castro’s pettiness in full display, as he proceeded to lose his temper after being challenged on the status of political prisoners. It was a small win, and one that the president will undoubtedly take credit for in his memoirs someday. After all, he called on those journalists, right?

But the truth is that throughout his trip, Obama cowered at every opportunity to reject the abuses of the Cuban regime. By failing to condemn Castro’s abuses in front of him and the people he oppresses, Obama has effectively appeased a murderous regime and enabled it to continue its crimes.
The president’s silence is a tacit approval of the Cuban regime’s crimes. Through this visit, Obama officially joins the shameful ranks of other hemispheric leaders who have turned a blind eye to human rights abuses in the region—choosing to sell out the Cuban people in the name of good economic relations with their oppressor.

Obama’s visit will be remembered not for the business deals he brokered with the Cuban military, nor for his first pitch in for the Tampa Bay Rays, nor even for his awkward handshake with Castro, but for the deafening sound of his silence.

His betrayal of the Cuban people will live in infamy, and like his hosts, history will not absolve him.

Republicans will Cave to Ogbjma? : Still Time to Fail On Principle(SCOTUS)

Is this just the first shot across the bow of the Republicans stand on not confirming a Supreme Court nominee until after the election of 2017? This has always been the fear among gun owners that the Republicans would cave to pressure to vote on a nominee from the progressive socialists liberals.

Four NRA democrats senators signal to Republicans to give the Ogbjma nominee  to the Supreme Court, Garland,  a hearing.

I believe the fears of not only gun owners, but anyone that believe personal freedom is important should be scared as the history of Republicans caving at the first signs of real pressure at election time is legend.

That the Republicans standing strong against the media and the progressive democrats would be a welcome fundamental change to their strategy.

4 Pro-Gun Democrats Call for Hearing on Supreme Court Nominee
Philip Wegmann / @PhilipWegmann / March 28, 2016    

Criticism of Merrick Garland’s record on the Second Amendment hasn’t stopped four pro-gun Senate Democrats from calling on Republicans to begin the confirmation process for the Supreme Court nominee. If he is confirmed, conservatives fear that Garland could shift the court to the left for decades and potentially provide the deciding vote to overturn landmark gun rights decisions.

Before President Obama named the longtime federal appeals judge as his nominee, the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee pledged to pause the confirmation process until after the November election. Garland’s past rulings on guns have reinforced that resolve among most GOP senators.
But that same record hasn’t blunted enthusiasm for the nominee among these four pro-gun Democrats. Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Jon Tester of Montana want the confirmation process to continue.

All four have earned above an “A-” rating from the National Rifle Association in the past. All face tough re-election races in red states come 2018. And all have called for the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings for Garland, a candidate the NRA labeled “the most anti-gun nominee in history.”
But while the four Democrats all released statements saying the confirmation process should continue, it’s unclear whether they plan to support the nominee on the Senate floor. None of the offices clarified that position when The Daily Signal sought comment.

Manchin registered concern that West Virginia voters wouldn’t welcome Garland to the Supreme Court.  “If they think he’s going to be voting pro-abortion all the time, anti-gun all the time, it’d be a big problem,” the West Virginia Democrat told the Associated Press last Wednesday.

Republicans have stayed on message for the most part, arguing that their opposition to Garland stems not from his judicial philosophy, but from the principle that the president elected in November should make the choice.  Still, on “Fox News Sunday,” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he “can’t imagine” Republican senators supporting “a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association.”

Appointed to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 1997 by Bill Clinton, Garland has attracted the ire of conservatives for two separate decisions. In 2007, Garland joined with three other judges who voted to rehear the Parker v. District of Columbia case rather than let it advance. That effort failed, and the case advanced to the Supreme Court.

The high court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, into which the Parker case was wrapped, overturned the D.C. handgun ban as unconstitutional. Garland also attracted criticism for his decision in a 2000 case, National Rifle Association v. Reno. In that case, the NRA charged that the Clinton administration was violating a 1968 law prohibiting federal gun registration.
Garland voted in favor of Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, and against the NRA.

OgbjmaCare Will Cost You EVEN More : Insurance Regulations Defined

The operative word is not just cost you but cost you more, and then still more. And to suggest the way to fix this catastrophe is to just change the law to remedy the problems. Have we lost all sense of reality? OgbjmaCare cannot be fixed, it's like the battle with Dracula, the only way to kill the monster is to drive a stake thought the heart. Defund it and then repeal it.

3 Ways Obamacare’s Insurance Regulations Could Cost You
Drew Gonshorowski / Edmund Haislmaier / March 28, 2016

The price tag for the Affordable Care Act includes not only the additional tax dollars spent on expanding Medicaid and providing new subsidies for exchange coverage, but also the costs imposed, in the form of higher health insurance premiums, by the law’s new regulations. While sound health care policy would have focused on finding ways to make health insurance less expensive, the Affordable Care Act instead made it more expensive.

In total, we found that in the median cost state, the three most costly regulations collectively increased premiums for younger adults by 44 percent, and for pre-retirement-age adults by 7 percent, relative to the previously available least expensive plans.  When we examined independent analyses of the effects of the law’s new insurance regulations, we found that the three most costly ones—age rating restrictions, benefit mandates, and minimum actuarial value requirements—increased the cost of the previously available least expensive plans in a state by 41 percent to 51 percent for younger adults (the group most likely to be uninsured), and by 1 percent to 18 percent for pre-retirement-age adults.

Age Rating Restrictions
The Affordable Care Act limits age variation of premiums for adults to a ratio of three to one. That means an insurer is not permitted to charge a 64-year-old a rate that is more than three times the rate it charges a 21-year-old for the same plan. Yet the natural age variation in medical costs among adults is about five to one. This means that the mandated “rate compression” forces insurers to artificially underprice coverage for older adults and artificially overprice coverage for younger adults.
Our review found that the three-to-one limitation increased premiums for younger adults by about one-third.

Benefit Mandates
The Affordable Care Act requires health plans to cover a set of “essential health benefits,” as well as a list of “preventive services” for which plans are prohibited from charging enrollees any copayments. Our review found that the law’s new benefit mandates increased premiums by an average of 9 percent.

The majority of the average premium increase (about seven to eight of the nine percentage points) was attributable to the essential health benefits requirement, with the remainder (about one to two of the nine percentage points) attributable to the preventive services mandate.

Minimum Actuarial Value Requirement
Actuarial value is the share of the covered health expenses for a standard population that the plan will pay for, with the remaining share paid by enrollees through some combination of deductibles, copays, and coinsurance.

The Affordable Care Act’s minimum actuarial value requirement effectively establishes a floor, set at 60 percent, for what plans must pay toward the cost of covered services. Thus, the higher the actuarial value, the less patient cost-sharing the plan will have on average, but the higher the plan’s claims costs and premiums will be.

Our review found that this increased the cost of the least expensive plans by an average of 8 percent. The independent analyses also found that the affected plans typically had actuarial values in the range of 50 percent to 60 percent. That is noteworthy, as in response to complaints about the law’s higher premiums, even some supporters have suggested amending it to create a new class of plans with a 50-percent actuarial value.

NFL, NCAA, Disney & Apple Attack Religous Freedom : The Constitution Be Damed!

That the NFL, the NCAA and other large corporation decided to become involved in Frist Amendment religious rights of Christians begs comprehension. What could these organizations be thinking when they have decided take the side denying of one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution, the right of religious freedom.

This is despicable action that reveals an intent to deny basic rights of personal freedom to a majority of citizens in America. And worse a Republican governor folding to the progressive socialist monsters that believe they have the ultimate power to do what they want by using their financial positions to force compliance to agendas and ideologies the majority citizens do not want or believe.

Our history is riff with such situations where the powerful few dictate what can seen and believe to be the truth. The result of such demagoguery has been total failure, even entire nations have succumbed to this nightmare and are now on the ash heap of history.

Georgia Governor Caves to Big Business, Vetoes Religious Freedom Bill
Ryan T. Anderson / @ryantand / March 28, 2016    

Georgia’s Republican Governor Nathan Deal has caved to pressure from big business and special interests and vetoed a very modest religious liberty bill. This shows the lack of courage of many in the political class, and it also highlights the extreme nature of the left and the business community. To these groups, even mild religious liberty protections are unacceptable.

The economic threats made by big businesses to get the government to do their bidding at the expense of the common good are examples of a vicious form of cultural cronyism. The Georgia religious freedom bill that Deal vetoed would have safeguarded clergy from having to officiate same-sex weddings, prevented faith-based organizations from being forced to hire someone who publicly undermines their mission, and prohibited the state government from discriminating against churches and their affiliated ministries because they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The bill that the Deal vetoed was the result of a series of compromises that significantly watered down the original version. It did not offer protections to bakers, florists, and similar wedding professionals, and it adopted a very narrow definition of faith-based organizations, covering only churches, religious schools, and “integrated auxiliaries”—the same unacceptable definition used by the Obama administration to exclude the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Yet liberals demagogued these very limited protections—and got the governor to veto them. As the Atlanta Journal Constitution reports:

Executives from dozens of big-name companies, including Disney, Apple, Time Warner, Intel and Salesforce, called on the governor to veto the bill. The NFL warned it could risk Atlanta’s bid for the Super Bowl and the NCAA hinted it could influence the state’s ability to host championship games.

That’s right: Big business threatened boycotts and used its outsized economic pressure to force the governor to act against the common good. Do the NFL and the NCAA, Disney and Apple have a zero-tolerance policy for religious freedom bills? Even a bill that didn’t protect the Little Sisters is too much for the left to tolerate. And the governor swallowed this nonsense hook, line, and sinker.

 In explaining his veto, Deal argued that the religious liberty bill “doesn’t reflect the character of our state or the character of its people.” Leaving people free to act on their deepest religious convictions apparently isn’t one of those values. Most remarkably, Deal concluded that states simply shouldn’t pass any religious freedom laws, for religious freedom “is best left to the broad protections of the First Amendment.” This is nonsensical.

There is a reason why President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—and why it passed unanimously in the U.S. House of Representatives and with 97 votes in the U.S. Senate. There is a reason why over 20 states have adopted their own state religious freedom restoration acts, and why 11 more have constitutional religious liberty protections that provide a similar level of protection. Religious Freedom Restoration Acts and other religious freedom protections are needed against our contemporary overactive progressive government. In addition to the First Amendment, both the federal government and the states must act to protect religious freedom—in broad measures like Religious Freedom Restoration Acts and in more specific measures like the First Amendment Defense Act.

Americans need both broad protections and specific protections. So, in addition to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress has passed a variety of laws that protect pro-life conscience. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court invented a right to an abortion. But after Roe, Congress made clear that government cannot require a pro-life doctor or nurse to perform an abortion—that they, too, have rights that require specific protections from hostile judges and bureaucrats. Likewise, in the Obergefell decision, the Supreme Court redefined marriage throughout America by mandating that government entities treat same-sex relationships as marriages. The Supreme Court did not say that private schools, charities, businesses, or individuals must abandon their beliefs if they disagree.
We need laws protecting these rights.

Indeed, protecting minority rights after major social change is also a hallmark of American tolerance and pluralism. But Deal seems unwilling to do anything that might protect such people and their rights. And big business and special interests on the left seem intent on doing everything to make sure people are coerced by the government into violating their beliefs.

This is yet another example of cultural cronyism. Businesses in Georgia were always free to embrace gay marriage—to bake wedding cakes for gay marriages and make floral arrangements for same-sex nuptials—and many do. But now activists want the government to force everyone in Georgia to do it. And they’ve attacked religious freedom for everyone in the process.

America is in a time of transition. Courts have redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. During this time, it is critical to protect the right to disagree and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.

Good public policy is needed at the local, state, and federal levels to protect cherished American values. These policies would help achieve civil peace amid disagreement, maintain pluralism, and protect the rights of all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice.

California's Minimum Wage Increases : A Progressive Wage Disaster

If you are looking for a definition of insanity, look no further then California. Raising the minimum wage will cost the state $billions in lost revenue and increase the unemployment rate permanently as small business convert to automation to save on labor costs that would ultimately destroy their businesses if they do nothing.

Who are these people? Where do they come from? Oh wait, they're progressive socialist democrats. Case closed. The prosecution rests.

Here Is California’s Economic Future After Huge Minimum Wage Hike
Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97 / March 28, 2016
                                                                        
California lawmakers and labor leaders are cheering a new deal that, if passed, raises the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour, making the Golden State the first in the country to do so.
But labor experts are already warning that such a wage hike could lead to higher prices for consumers, more automation, and a drop in employment.

According to media reports, lawmakers and labor unions reached a deal this weekend raising the statewide minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022. Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, formally announced the proposal Monday.
“California is proving once again that it can get things done and help people get ahead,” Brown said. “This plan raises the minimum wage in a careful and responsible way and provides some flexibility if economic and budgetary conditions change.”

The deal would raise the minimum wage to $10.50 an hour next year, with increases of $1 per hour taking place annually until the minimum wage hits $15 an hour. Businesses with fewer than 25 employees have until 2023 to comply. According to the Los Angeles Times, state lawmakers could vote on the proposal as early as this week.

Though the new proposal has labor unions and Democratic state lawmakers cheering, labor experts are already forecasting increased prices for consumers and more transitions to automation for business owners. James Sherk, a research fellow in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation, said a $15-an-hour minimum wage is unprecedented for any state in the U.S., and the long-term impacts are therefore unknown. Sherk said such a wage hike is likely to lead to a reduction in employment, specifically for manufacturing companies that sell products across state lines. Those businesses, he told The Daily Signal, don’t have the opportunity to raise prices, and the industry employs 1.6 million Californians, 37 percent of which make less than $15 an hour.

“A lot of those jobs will move to other states and countries,” Sherk said.

Sherk also warned that in the fast food and hospitality industries, consumers can expect to see prices increase to compensate for increased labor costs. “For industries like fast food or hotels or anything like that, the only place they can get money is by raising their prices,” he said. “This will cause consumers to purchase less goods and services. It’ll hurt consumers in their wallets.”

Some cities in California like San Francisco and Los Angeles have already enacted minimum wage increases above the statewide $10 an hour. Though many advocates argue that such wage hikes are intended to help workers struggling to make ends meet, particularly in cities with high costs of living, Marc Joffe, a policy analyst at the California Policy Center, fears that a wage hike could hurt the very people it’s intended to help.

According to an analysis of how a $15-an-hour minimum wage would impact the state, Joffe found that such a wage hike would negatively affect areas of the state that have higher unemployment rates and weaker economies, such as the Central Valley. “A place like San Francisco can probably absorb [a wage increase], but the problem is that California is a really very diverse state in terms of income levels, levels of prosperity, productivity, and so forth,” Joffe told The Daily Signal. “When you put a one-size-fits-all solution like that in, you’re really hurting less affluent counties.”

In the wake of the most recent minimum wage hike from $9 an hour to $10 an hour, Joffe said that areas are already turning to automation as a way to cut down on labor costs. Self-checkouts are replacing cashiers in supermarkets, he said, and customers place restaurant orders on kiosks in San Francisco restaurants. “Even in downtown San Francisco, which could sustain higher prices, they’re doing things to substitute for workers,” he said. “When you take these differences in cost of living and economic vitality, [raising the minimum wage] becomes a real problem in areas that are less affluent.”

Sherk, too, warned that more and more places could turn to automation to cut down on labor costs and employment substitution, which occurs when employers opt to hire more skilled workers.
“Companies will be choosier,” he said. “What we’ve seen in other cases is, you have more disadvantaged workers losing out. Those with more skills begin to get disproportionately favored and hired.”

Though Brown announced Monday the deal with state lawmakers and labor leaders, he previously said he was hesitant to raise the minimum wage beyond $10 an hour. “Raise the minimum wage too much and you put a lot of poor people out of work,” he told reporters in January. “There won’t be a lot of jobs. It’s a matter of balance.”

According to Brown’s budget summary for 2016, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would cost the state $4 billion annually by 2021. Additionally, the state warned that not only would such a wage hike return the state budget to annual deficits, but it would also “exacerbate” a recession and add to job losses. Similarly, the California Department of Finance warned against raising the minimum wage to beyond $10 an hour in a legislative analysis conducted in March. According to its analysis, which looked at a bill raising the minimum wage to $13 an hour in July 2017, the Department of Finance warned that such a wage hike would cost the state more than $4.7 billion over a three-year span. The agency also stressed that the increased minimum wage would have a negative impact on California’s economy and lead to slower employment growth.

Brown said Monday the wage hike will cost the state $20 million in 2016. “Small businesses in California are still struggling to cope with the 25 percent minimum wage hike over just the past two years,” Tom Scott, director of the California National Federation of Independent Business, said in a statement opposing the proposal. “Proposing a 50-percent increase on top of that is reckless and ignores serious negative consequences including job loss and increased costs to job creators, senior citizens, and nonprofits.”

The minimum wage proposal unveiled Monday comes days after an initiative backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West qualified for the state’s Nov. 8 ballot. The proposal would have raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2021. A second proposal, also backed by the SEIU, is still being circulated for signatures, according to The Los Angeles Times. In addition to raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, the measure also requires businesses to provide employees three new sick days annually.

Fantastic Ride Trough Time : Video of Classic Cars

Okay here is a short video on just how cool the 60's and 70's were. This video about the fantastic cars of the age and how this organization laid them out to express the meaning of the times. This is especially fun if you were there back then to see them first hand remember how most everyone lusted to own one.

Enjoy the ride!!

http://www.okobojicc.com/the-occ-experience.php

Congressional Bill to Stop Ogbjma's Last Year's Destruction

Given the amount of destruction that Mr Ogbjma has brought on our country, and his agenda and ideology of allowing the world to burn as it sees fit, little wonder congress has enacted a bill that will hopefully, at least slow the destruction of our country that is believed to accelerate in Mr Ogbjma's last year in office.

If you can imagine what catastrophic destruction that Mr Ogbjma can bring to us relative to what he has done already over the last 7 years, we have to be very scared of what is to come from Mr Ogbjma and the other progressive socialist liberal left democrats.

And now here comes Hillary, a serial criminal that the FBI is hot pursuit for legal and moral crimes against the people on so many levels, even many democrats are running for cover. Yet millions are lining up in support of her. What ever happened to the common sense of good judgement?

Congress Should Prevent ‘Midnight Regulations’ in Obama’s Last Year
John-Michael Seibler / @JSeibler / March 14, 2016

As President Barack Obama’s term of office comes to a close, a new issue percolates in Washington: What end-of-term rules (also known as midnight regulations) will his administration produce?
Given the president’s prolific executive lawmaking, will Congress be able to stop them?
“The federal lawmaking process should be simple,” says Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla. “The legislative branch writes the laws, and the executive branch enforces them”—emphasis on “should be simple.” Federal agencies under Obama have added scads of new regulations that dwarf Congress’ annual output of new federal laws. During Obama’s first five years in office, federal agencies added 17,522 pages of regulations, an average of 3,504 per year (compared with an average of 2,490 during the Bush administration).

Looking to the end of Obama’s term, scholars at the Mercatus Center have identified at least 50 potential midnight regulations, each of which could have an impact on the economy exceeding $100 million. This list alone shows an alphabet soup of several federal agencies that are all potentially seeking to rush out rules before Obama leaves office:

• Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB)
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
• Department of the Interior (DOI)
• Department of Energy (DOE)
• Department of Labor (DOL)
• Department of Transportation (DOT)
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)

These range from the Department of Transportation’s “Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan” and more emissions regulations to the Department of Energy regulations on everything from ceiling fans to residential dishwashers, furnaces, dehumidifiers—even “Certain Small Diameter, Elliptical Reflector, and Bulged Reflector Incandescent Reflector Lamps.”

Last year was a record-setting year for new regulations, and 2016 could easily top that if Congress does not reclaim its legislative supremacy over the administrative state. The 2015 Federal Register, where federal agencies’ proposed and final rules are published, boasts 82,035 pages. This is more than any year since 1936—when President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s massive regulatory expansion, The New Deal, was at its peak. Last year also saw 3,408 agency regulations, far outdoing Congress’ output of 87 bills “by of a factor of 39.” It has been estimated (although no one really knows for sure) that there are more than 300,000 federal regulations that carry potential criminal penalties for violations.

There is no telling what new last-minute criminal regulations will be adopted as Obama prepares to leave office. If history is any guide, though, the end of a presidential tenure is likely to produce some unwelcome surprises. Much to the relief of the average residential dishwasher owner or small business owner, Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., introduced The Midnight Rule Relief Bill in late February, which would set a moratorium on agency rulemaking from the day after the election of a new president until after inauguration day. The bill would pre-empt any rulemaking unless it is proven not to result in any of four outcomes:

(1) An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more. (2) A major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. (3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. (4) A significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

The bill includes exceptions for cases in which the president issues an executive order asserting that the rule is necessary “because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency; … for the enforcement of criminal laws; … national security,” or for “implementing an international trade agreement.”

Obama might veto a bill that limits his administration’s ability to promulgate regulations—but a veto would not necessarily kill the bill. The U.S. Constitution provides that before a bill can become law, it must pass both houses of Congress and be sent to the president for approval. If the president vetoes the bill, Congress can override that veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress.

Even if it is vetoed, The Midnight Rule Relief Bill gives voters one if not two opportunities to see their representatives vote on a bill that would curtail the executive branch’s power to write law.
Voters can use that to gauge how their representatives value the Constitution’s separation of powers—specifically, the value of protecting their prerogative to exercise “all legislative powers [t]herein granted,” rather than delegating that prerogative to agencies.

The Midnight Rule Relief Bill presents Congress with an opportunity to begin to reclaim its authority to consider new regulations, which have the full force and effect of laws, that will have a dramatic impact on our economy, and to consider these laws in due course, not as the president packs his bags and vacates the White House. In either case, the bill is worthy of consideration.

Weapon Silencers for Ear Protection : Earmuff Are Cheaper

This is extremely interesting in that allowing silencers for weapons on the premise it's for hearing protection is thin at best. I'm a shooter and have no intention to purchase a silencer to save my hearing as I have a good ear protection with tactical electronic head phones.

As this article points out, it usually only the bad guys that want to silence a weapon. 

And as of now, I have never seen a silencer at the range, and I believe they will be the few and far between , the exception and not the rule which means most everyone else will still have to have earmuffs. And who would want to spend $200 extra for something that is of little or no use to the everyday shooter? A good earmuff costs about $50.

This Bill Would Make It Easier to Buy a Silencer. And Protect Your Hearing, Too.
Philip Wegmann / @PhilipWegmann / March 11, 2016    

In the movies, it’s the hitman who carries a silencer while slinking around the shadows. In real life, sportsmen use sound suppressors for their firearms at the shooting range, Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., says. The heavily regulated suppressors remain lawful in 41 of 50 states. But current law makes obtaining one difficult. Before purchasing the silencing devices, consumers must pay a $200 tax and undergo a strict background check.

Now Salmon wants to make sound suppressors accessible across the country. His Hearing Protection Act would eliminate the tax while simplifying the background checks. And if passed, the bill would do more than rebrand the image of suppressors for firearms. It could dramatically change the way shooters protect their hearing, Salmon said.

“It just makes sense,” Salmon told The Daily Signal, “because suppressors make a big difference, so that guys like me can shoot and keep their hearing.” Salmon’s father, a World War II veteran, introduced him to shooting as a sport when he was a boy. More than 50 years later, shooting has left Salmon wearing hearing aids.

Sort of a muffler for rifles and pistols, suppressors can reduce sound, flash, and recoil significantly during a gunshot. And though they don’t completely silence the noise, the devices make guns quieter and safer, gun advocates say. “Suppressors significantly reduce the chance of hearing loss for anyone who enjoys the shooting sports,” Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “On behalf of the NRA and our 5 million members, I want to thank Rep. Salmon for his leadership on this important bill.” Silencers haven’t always received that sort of praise.

In response to Prohibition-era violence, the 1934 National Firearms Act strictly regulated their use. Using a silenced firearm during a crime carries a mandatory prison sentence of at least 30 years.
And today, while a standard instant background check takes less than an hour, the permit process for obtaining a silencer can take up to 10 months. Salmon described that process as “antiquated” and said the rules “just don’t make sense.” The Arizona Republican points out that criminals aren’t packing quieter heat.

A Western Criminology Review article from 2007 reports that of 80,000 federal criminal prosecutions over 10 years, only 30 to 40 involved someone using silencers. Still, getting the legislation through Congress and into law will be a long shot. In the last year of his term, President Obama has made stricter gun control an increased priority. In January, the White House revealed a new package of executive orders designed to curb what it calls gun violence.
Salmon remains bullish about his bill’s chances.

By framing the issue around a safety measure, by “couching this the way I have,” Salmon said, “I don’t know why [Obama] would be against protecting people’s hearing. I don’t know why anybody would.” The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence did not respond to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence declined to comment.

Little Sisters Want Freedom to Chose : Progressives Say No!

What this is about is the fundamental freedom to chose being denied by a government dictate. OgbjmaCare is an abortion of our Constitution and should crushed completely out of existence. It is Unconstitutional on so many levels but yet the progressives passed it into law, along with help from the Chief Justice on the Supreme Court legislating from the bench.

Just where does a citizen get justice if even the high court is compromised?

Given just how intrusively catastrophic OgbjmaCare is to basic personal freedom to chose, little is left to know about the agenda and ideology of the progressive socialist liberal left democrat's intentions for our country.

The Little Sisters’ Case Isn’t Just About Providing Birth Control
Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness / March 25, 2016    

While group of nuns have become the de facto face of the Supreme Court case challenging the Affordable Care Act’s so-called “contraceptive mandate,” another community is set to be similarly affected by the court’s ruling: religiously affiliated colleges and universities. Schools like Oklahoma Wesleyan University, an evangelical Christian university of the Wesleyan Church, are also parties to the Zubik v. Burwell case. The case, which went before the high court March 23 for oral arguments, challenges the Obamacare requirement that nonprofit employers offer their employees health care coverage that includes birth control, Plan B, ella, and other potentially life-ending drugs and devices.

Oklahoma Wesleyan University
The schools that are part of Zubik v. Burwell come from diverse backgrounds. Some are Catholic and oppose providing through their health care plans all forms of contraceptives. Others, like Oklahoma Wesleyan University, for example, only oppose drugs and devices that can lead to the termination of a pregnancy, not providing birth control.

 

Students from Oklahoma Wesleyan University and Geneva College join hands with nuns in opposing what’s been coined the “Obamacare contraceptive mandate.” Both schools are being represented before the Supreme Court by the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. (Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom)

“We’re pro-life. So Plan B and ella would be off the table for the Wesleyan church because there are times when it can terminate a fertilized egg,” Dr. Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, told The Daily Signal. “That’s intervening into God’s power to define life, to give life, and to later on take it at his choosing.”

While Dr. Piper has no religious objection to birth control, he believes that Catholic universities and nonprofits like the Little Sisters of the Poor have a constitutional right to object themselves.
“Wesleyans wouldn’t presuppose or be arrogant enough to tell Catholics that they have to live their life the way we do. And Catholics don’t suggest that they can tell Wesleyans that they can live their lives the way we do,” he said. “The Catholic church has chosen to prohibit all contraception. The Wesleyan church has chosen to prohibit abortifacients because it takes a human life … and that’s OK.”


Setting Precedent
Zubik v. Burwell will set precedent for “roughly 1,000 religiously affiliated schools that object to birth control,” said Alison Tanner, co-editor-in-chief of the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.

Tanner, who’s a student at Georgetown University, submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of 240 students, faculty, and staff from 11 religiously affiliated universities arguing that if the current mandate is struck down, “serious obstacles” to contraceptive access would arise. “I am not Catholic; I’m Jewish,” Tanner said on Wednesday as the Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments. “I am still a Georgetown student, and I still deserve access to no-cost birth control, not just because I don’t want to have a family right now, but because birth control is an essential health care for me. And it is essential health care for many of my friends.”

Some schools like Georgetown University offer student health care plans, which could also be impacted by the court’s decision. Georgetown University, however, has offered free birth control to students since 2013. The Independent Journal Review noted that the school’s policy states: “UnitedHealthcare StudentResources will accommodate Georgetown University and pay for your birth control as required by law … with no out-of-pocket expense.”

Part of the Obama administration’s goal with the health care law was to provide women access to comprehensive coverage of contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs and devices. Churches and church-controlled ministries were granted exemptions from this mandate (along with large corporations such as Exxon and Visa, who were grandfathered in), but religious nonprofits, schools, and other organizations were left out of that arrangement. Instead, the Obama administration granted these groups a form of accommodation that allows them to sign a piece of paper stating their objection.

“Anyone who has a religious objection … doesn’t have to pay for, refer, doesn’t have to organize, doesn’t have to accommodate that contraception coverage for his or her employees,” said former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, according to NPR. “What they are required to do is provide notification to the government or their insurer that they are opting out. That’s it.”


“Permission Slip” for Abortion
Religious institutions and nonprofits like the Little Sisters of the Poor say this accommodation falls short of protecting their pro-life beliefs. They’ve equated the arrangement to the government coercing them to sign a “permission slip” that results in their formal cooperation with abortion. The Wesleyan Church, Piper said, demands that “you practice what you preach.” “You don’t just worship God in the four walls of the church. You actually leave the church and do something about it.” Signing a “permission slip” that authorizes abortion, he added, is hypocritical to their very core.

“We don’t segregate the private and the public, we integrate private life and public life into an integrated life that represents integrity. We would argue the opposite of that would be hypocrisy.”
Elsa Spear, a student at Geneva College—another party to the case—said the government shouldn’t “force me and my college” to act against their belief that life begins at conception. “The government is trying to force Geneva College to dehumanize an extremely vulnerable group of people, to force Geneva College to be a participant in what we believe is the intentional killing of these people,” she said. “The choice Geneva College faces—abandon your religious principles or undergo severe punishment—is a clear assault on religious freedom.”

Spear attended a rally in front of the Supreme Court last Wednesday to speak out on behalf of Geneva students.  Losing, she said, “would be another blow” to students, who believe that abortion is a “consequence of de-humanization.”

Awaiting an Answer
Religious institutions and nonprofits face millions of dollars in fines if they do not comply with the accommodation as it stands. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the opt-out process poses a “substantial burden” on the rights of religious groups and whether or not the government has a compelling interest in forcing them to abide by the current accommodation.

With the passing of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia last month, a total of eight justices sit on the Supreme Court. If a tie occurs, the decisions of the lower appeals courts will stand. In those decisions, nearly all appeals courts sided with the Obama administration, meaning the mandate will essentially stand.

Environmentalists Continue Attacks On Fracking : It's Still About Options

I don't know how many time we have to address this issue of 'fracking', laying out the evidence on every occasion when attackers demands fracking cease, as all of the scientific proof that there is now and has been here for years, shows there is no evidence of ground water contamination.

But there is no amount of evidence that can be produced to satisfy the anal environmentalists to relent their attacks.

In reality, the attacks aren't about ground water contamination, the attacks are about the options available for prosperity. Progressive socialist cannot win the fight for control if the population has the option for increased individual wealth. Individual wealth kills socialism, and environmentalists are if nothing else socialist and probably much worse.

Calls for Fracking Bans Ignore Sound Science
Nicolas Loris / @NiconomistLoris / Andrew Wilford / March 21, 2016    

Some politicians and environmental activists have been quick to call for blanket bans on hydraulic fracturing under claims that the process is poisoning America’s drinking water. Scientific evidence, from both government agencies and independent analyses, proves otherwise.

For instance, The Environmental Protection Agency’s last study, released in June of 2015 and the most comprehensive government study on fracking’s impact so far, clearly states that “we did not find evidence … [of] widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.”
The EPA’s analysis is hardly the first study to refute the oft-repeated myth that fracking poses a serious threat to American drinking water. In 2009, the Department of Energy conducted a report that declared fracking “safe and effective.” In 2014, the Department of Energy released another study of the Marcellus Shale that found no evidence of fracking contaminating water supplies. Again in 2014, the National Academy of Sciences released a a report finding that the contamination of water resources in Pennsylvania and Texas were attributable to well leaks, not hydraulic fracturing.

Groundwater aquifers sit thousands of feet above the level at which fracking takes place, and energy companies construct wells with steel-surface casings and cement barriers to prevent gas migration If any leaks or contamination does occur, companies should pay for the economic and environmental damages they cause from such well leaks. But these leaks are not a systemic problem of the industry, much less something that causes widespread polluted water.

Such statements by progressives and environmental activists, manifestly in conflict with actual experience and the science of the issue, pose a serious threat to the vast economic benefits of fracking. Scholars of all stripes agree that fracking is excellent for the economy, providing Americans with jobs, communities near fracking wells with economic booms, and U.S. households with significant energy savings. According a recent Energy Information Administration report:

Wholesale electricity prices at major trading hubs on a monthly average basis for on-peak hours were down 27 to 37 percent across the nation in 2015 compared with 2014, driven largely by lower natural gas prices.

Prices at the pump are down significantly, too, allowing American families to keep more of their money to use for other purposes. The current average price of regular gasoline is less than $2 per gallon. Many factors contribute to the price of gas, but domestic supply is a key component.
We save money not only through lower energy bills and cheaper gasoline, but through cheaper goods and services, because energy is a necessary component for just about all we do. Lower gas prices also reduce input and transportation costs for businesses around the country, savings that are also passed on to consumers through reduced prices in other sectors of the economy.

Moreover, hydraulic fracturing benefits low-income families most of all, which is why the Wall Street Journal termed fracking “America’s best antipoverty program.” Such an energy revolution should be embraced, not rejected out of hand. Anti-fracking rhetoric not only conflicts with experience and science, but ignores the effective state-based regulatory system in place. The process has been regulated successfully at the state level for decades.

States have the most to gain when they permits fracking to take place, but also the most to lose if the process is done irresponsibly. The states’ effective regulation underscores the need for members of Congress to prevent duplicative federal intervention that would unnecessarily stall the oil and gas boom and drive up costs for producers and therefore consumers.

Fracking has safely provided a much needed boon to the American economy. Attacking it with unfounded rhetoric is an assault not just on the industry itself, but on American businesses and families who benefit from the influx of domestic natural gas and oil fracking companies supply. Congress should resist the demands of the environmental lobby and put more authority in the hands of the states, not less.

Wisconsin's Supreme Court Race : What Is Reality & Common Sense?

The problem for Wisconsin voters in the Supreme Court race is content of on the job quality and production. Unfortunately Wisconsin has a nasty record of lock step voting when it comes to high profile contests. Wisconsin voted twice for Mr Ogbjma twice even in the face of overwhelming evidence he was not fit to lead.

The only saving grace here for common sense and logic to prevail is what happened in the recall election of Scott Walker where the voters actually did the right thing, shut down the recall by reelecting Walker and as a  result  the state has prospered.

But that was then and this is now, most Republican and Conservative voters will understand something that happened more then twenty years ago is not relevant to what has happened in to the court in recent history. But what is important, the Conservative judge running for reelection has a sterling record of accomplishments that have benefitted the state and the rule of law.

But the opposition to the incumbent judge, the liberal democrats, demand she must  drop out of the race due to her writings that were opinions twenty five years ago as a student, show a lack of sensitivity needed to be a supreme court judge. Her sterling accomplishments in recent history are of no consequence.

And the opposing judge supported by the liberals has a recent and historical record actually showing a lack of common sense, logic and sensitivity. Who knew?

Democrats Issue Identical Smear Press Releases

Josh Denton | Media Trackers

12:52 PM, Mar 23, 2016

Liberal Wisconsin Democrats are attempting to smear Rebecca Bradley’s campaign for WI State Supreme Court by issuing press releases that are nearly identical.  The press releases reference insensitive remarks that Bradley wrote as a young college student for her student newspaper nearly a quarter century ago. Bradley faces liberal judge JoAnne Kloppenburg in the election.

Though it’s unclear whether Fair Wisconsin is responsible for the press releases and pushing them to Wisconsin Democrats. It is no secret that One Wisconsin Now has been attacking Bradley’s record. Democrats have not voiced any opposition to One Wisconsin Now bringing up writings from nearly a quarter century ago, so to be consistent they should not object to Wisconsin Alliance for Reform examining the record of Kloppenburg.

Liberal WI Democrats Mark Pocan and JoCasta Zamarripa jumped at the chance to publicly bash WI Supreme Court Justice, Rebecca Bradley over material that she wrote for her student newspaper nearly twenty-five years ago. The titles of both press releases are nearly identical. Both press releases contain three paragraphs of identical content, with Pocan and Zamarripa claiming to say the exact same word-for-word personal statement about Rebecca Bradley. Observe how their talking points both copy each other verbatim.

 

“I wholeheartedly support this effort by Fair Wisconsin to expose these backers of hate-speech, as transparency is the only way to root out the dark money that continues to perpetuate anti-equality rhetoric to win votes.”

Clearly, either one is plagiarizing the other, or someone is giving them talking points. These press releases demonstrate that Pocan and Zamarripa are not articulating their original own ideas, but merely replicating information supplied to them by groups like Fair Wisconsin and One Wisconsin Now.

Bradley has publicly apologized on multiple occasions for her remarks as a college student. Liberal groups like Fair Wisconsin, One Wisconsin Now, and even JoAnne Kloppenburg have refused to accept her apology as sufficient or sincere. Kloppenburg herself has said what Bradley wrote nearly a quarter of a century ago is fair game, but in a recent candidate forum Kloppenburg insisted a statement she herself made 5 years ago as judicial candidate is old material that shouldn’t come up.