West Nile Virus Alert 2014

April marked the beginning of the mosquito breeding season, reports State Rep. Jim Cox (R-129). As such, public officials are reminding residents to take steps to protect themselves against West Nile virus.

West Nile virus is a mosquito-borne illness that can cause brain inflammation. The disease can be contracted from a single mosquito bite by an infected insect. Individuals over the age of 50 are at the highest risk of contracting the disease. Symptoms include fever, headache, and body aches, occasionally with a skin rash on the trunk of the body and swollen lymph glands. Although there is currently no vaccine, the virus usually clears up on its own.

The best way to reduce the risk is to eliminate potential mosquito breeding habitats, which are usually small areas of stagnant water. This can include anything from bird baths to trash cans. Other ways to reduce risk include wearing protective clothing and insect repellent.

For information on West Nile virus, click here.

West Nile Virus Alert

Angry Dems Leave Kane Hearing

Philadelphia Democrat (i.e. union tool) Mike O’Brien of the 175th District attempts to disrupt today’s impeachment hearing of Attorney General Kathleen Kane led to his physical removal which led to a walk-out by O’Brien’s fellow Democrats.

The hearing is chaired by Daryl Metcalfe (R-12) who is investigating whether Ms. Kane violated her oath of office to squelch investigations into prominent Democrats and her failure to uphold the state’s marriage law.

 

 

Angry Dems Leave Kane Hearing

 

Angry Dems Leave Kane Hearing

Democrats Attack First Amendment

By The Editors of National Review

Displeased with recent legal victories in which free speech has prevailed over limitations on political speech imposed by Congress, Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), Mark Udall (D., Colo.), and other Senate Democrats have introduced a constitutional amendment that would not only set aside the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence and invest Congress with virtually unlimited power to regulate the political activism of private citizens, alone or in groups, but would also give the federal government and the states the power to shut down newspapers, television stations, and radio networks that displease them. This is an all-out assault on the First Amendment and an act of vandalism against the Constitution.

The amendment is being put forward purportedly as a means of enabling campaign-finance regulations and limiting the allegedly corrupting power of money in politics. It is a direct response to the Supreme Court’s free-speech rulings in Citizens United and McCutcheon , cases that resulted from the federal government’s trying in the first instance to ban a film critical of a presidential candidate and in the second instance to prevent a private citizen from making small donations — in the symbolic amount of $1,776, to be precise — to twelve candidates he supported. Both times the Court sided with free speech, and both times Democrats howled in outrage.

American law has long held that the right to free speech, the right to free association, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances are to be read broadly, and that the exercise of those rights necessitates a hands-off approach to the means by which they are exercised. For example, the right to freedom of the press implies the right to own or operate a press, and any attempt to confiscate or control the machinery and equipment by which freedom of the press is exercised constitutes an attack on freedom of the press itself.

In the Citizens United dispute, those who would subjugate free speech to government power argued that corporations do not enjoy the same free-speech rights as individuals, and that the film in question, having been financed by a nonprofit corporation, should not be protected by the First Amendment. The problem with that line of reasoning is that American law does not distinguish between media corporations and other kinds of corporations; if Citizens United does not enjoy First Amendment protection, then neither does the New York Times Company or Penguin Books.

The Democrats’ proposed amendment would allow Congress to regulate not only money expenditures on behalf of political candidates and causes but also “in kind” contributions. Under the Democrats’ reasoning, an editorial endorsement from the Washington Post , the daily pronunciations of pundits on MSNBC or Fox News, or Barnes & Noble’s deciding to energetically market a political book that catches its attention would, as in-kind assistance to a political cause, fall under the same regulatory shadow as the advocacy of any other group. The Democrats say that this is not their intention, and maybe it isn’t, but the amendment they are contemplating would enable precisely that, in effect repealing the First Amendment.

Congress has some power to regulate formal political campaigns, as Justice Roberts and other First Amendment defenders have noted. The purpose of campaign-finance laws is to prevent bribery, quid pro quo corruption. But the limits that were struck down in McCutcheon had nothing to do with how large a check a donor may write to a candidate; they had to do with how many candidates a donor may write a check to, and the Court ruled, correctly, that there was no constitutional basis for limiting that. Citizens United was not even about donations to a candidate, but whether private citizens could pool their money to criticize a public figure. Free speech won that time, too, and that has infuriated Democrats. Those who make the simpleminded argument that money and speech are different things should consider that a press of the sort necessary to compete with the New York Times costs hundreds of millions of dollars and that Dan Rather’s attempts to sabotage the election of George W. Bush were worth more in dollar terms than anything that Charles and David Koch or George Soros have contemplated.

Restrictions on what citizens may and may not do to advocate a candidate or a political position are fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment, the purpose of which is to protect political advocacy, and with the American notion of liberty. Such restrictions serve no purpose other than to let incumbents control the terms on which political contests are fought. Democrats have no principled objection to what they denounce, when convenient, as “big money” — see their relationships with the American Federation of Teachers or Tom Steyer, the hedge-fund billionaire who has promised to deliver $100 million to those who support global-warming legislation. What they object to, rather, is money moving through channels that do not confer advantages upon Democrats. The Left is comfortably ensconced in the unions, the public sector, the educational bureaucracies, and the traditional media, and groups such as Citizens United and True the Vote and thousands of others create new competition in the political marketplace. This amendment is not about cleaning up elections — it’s about the Democrats’ seeking to lock their critics out of the public square.

A constitutional amendment is a perfectly legitimate means of shaping public policy, and a number of them have caught conservatives’ attention over the years. The question here is not the idea of a constitutional amendment but the content of this proposed amendment, which would place virtually all political activism — and most political speech of any consequence — under federal regulation. It is a cynical and dangerous attack on the First Amendment, and should be met not only with resistance but with contempt — for the amendment itself, and for the sort of power-mad men who would propose it.

Democrats Attack First Amendment

Democrats Attack First Amendment

Health Care Spending Jump 30 Year High

Health care spending grew  9.9 percent in the first quarter of 2014,according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis,  Business Insider reported, April 30.

The jump is the biggest percent change in health care spending in more than 30 year.

In 1980, health care spending rose 10 percent in the third quarter of the year.  The United States is spending more on health care than ever before in history after adjusting for inflation.

Hat tip National Center for Policy Analysis for Health Care Spending Jump 30 Year High

Health Care Spending Jump 30 Year High

HB 2104 Limits Electric Rate Hikes

The House Consumer Affairs Committee, April 30, approved HB 2104, which would limit electric rate hikes for customers with variable rate plans to no more than 30 percent per billing cycle, reports State Rep. Jim Cox (R-129).

Many consumers experienced alarmingly high electric bills, after the harsh winter, said Cox. Most of these unusually high costs affected consumers with variable rate plans.

House Bill 2104 also would require switching requests to be completed within five business days; outline language all electric supplier contracts would contain to clearly explain terms; and give the Public Utility Commission (PUC) specific authority to investigate customer complaints related to the rates charged by electric generation suppliers.

The legislation now awaits additional consideration by the full House.
HB 2104 Limits Electric Rate Hikes

 

Lyme Disease Season Starts

House Resolution 757 designated May 2014 as Lyme Disease Awareness Month in Pennsylvania, reports State Rep. Jim Cox (R-129)

Lyme disease is a tick-borne illness, carried through the deer tick, that causes a general infection throughout the human body. If left untreated it can have serious consequences including nervous system damage and debilitating arthritis.

In Pennsylvania, the risk for contracting Lyme disease is highest during the months of April through July. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Health, roughly 4,000 cases have been reported in Pennsylvania annually, with the highest incidence in the southeastern parts of the Commonwealth.

Experts advise avoiding tick-infested habitats, including heavily wooded areas, tall grass and other areas where deer may frequent. If that is not possible, individuals should take precautions and wear protective clothing, including long sleeves and pants; use insect repellents; and check themselves, their children and their pets for ticks following outdoor activities.

While Lyme disease symptoms often manifest in the form of a bulls-eye rash at the site of the tick bite, the rash may not always appear. Other symptoms include fever, malaise, fatigue, headache, muscle aches and joint pain. Most cases of Lyme disease in their preliminary stages are readily treated with antibiotics.

Lyme Disease Season Starts

CorbettCott vs GasCott

Don Adams of the always brilliant Independence Hall Tea Party Association proposed a “GasCott” during a recent appearance on WHPT’s Dom Giordano show.

He’s encouraging Pennsylvanians to fill their tanks in New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware in response to the gas tax hike imposed last November by our Republican-led state government that will give our state the highest gas tax in the nation by 2018.

Don, by the time the full tax takes effect encouragement will not be needed to fill up in other states.

To  make our anger known in the short-term, we propose a CorbettCott. Leave Gov. Tom Corbett’s name unchecked during the May 20 primary election while voting for the down-ticket.  If enough Republicans do this, maybe a cleansing gale could be started to blow away the corrupt (insert an appropriate noun) who run the state party.

CorbettCott Final Insult

CorbettCott, The Final Insult

NBA Hypocrisy Reprised

By Chris Freind

He lunged, grabbed his boss and violently choked him. After being restrained and told to leave, the man returned, attacked his victim yet again by punching him in the face, and threatened to kill him. It was just the latest in a string of serious incidents involving the employee.

How much jail time did this violent offender receive? None.

Incomprehensibly, he wasn’t even fired, and for good reason: He played in that bastion of hypocrisy, the NBA.

Let’s get this straight. Latrell Sprewell, who played for the Golden State Warriors at the time of his assault, received a suspension and fine, with the NBA sending the message that a player physically attacking his coach will merely get slapped on the fingers. Compare that with the punishment handed out to Donald Sterling, the race-mongering owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, who gets banned from the NBA for life, fined millions, and may be forced to sell the team — for making incredibly racist comments during a private conversation, which, if Sterling didn’t give his consent to have recorded, may have been illegally obtained.

In handing down Sterling’s harsh sentence, the league has shown its immense hypocrisy, allowing criminal acts, but banning legal — no matter how repugnant — activity. Welcome to Amerika.

The biggest irony is that race relations, not to mention freedom, will take a hit because of the NBA’s actions. Consider:

1. First, let’s state the obvious: In the most elegant parlance, Donald Sterling is a scumbag. He has an unsavory past, possessing what clearly seems to be a discriminatory mindset. As a real estate mogul, he received a record $2.75 million fine for racial discrimination in renting. Sterling could even have faced criminal charges. But harboring racist tendencies, especially in private, isn’t a crime.

2. With such a checkered history, why didn’t the NBA address these issues over the years? It would be one thing if Sterling had been censored repeatedly, and this latest incident was the final straw, but clearly that wasn’t the case. Unfathomably, the NBA claimed it had no real knowledge of Sterling’s past.

3. The spectre of people willfully accepting their privacy rights being violated is terrifying. When commentators and politicians use phrases like, “There is no more privacy,” we might as well hang it up, for if that’s the case, America’s uniqueness is gone. Respect for freedom of speech and privacy rights — even for the most reviled — has set America apart from every other nation in history. If those things dissipate, the world’s last beacon of light will be extinguished. And at that point, we actually become worse than countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia, because we had greatness, but voluntarily gave it away, whereas those places have always been disdainful of individual rights.

4. Or — and this is by far the biggest issue — does an “offending” player or owner, who happens to be a particular ethnicity, get a free pass? If so, the NBA, and those cheering Sterling’s ban, should at least have the guts to state that such a double standard is acceptable.

It’s great for leaders and the media to publicly chastise Sterling — as they should — stating that bigotry and ignorance won’t be tolerated. But how many of these folks are consistent? How many cut off all ties to Jesse Jackson when he disparaged Jews by calling them “Hymies” and referring to New York City as “Hymietown,” or the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the president’s pastor, after his virulent racist and anti-American outbursts? Not many. Both still operate free of protest and condemnation.

Incredibly, one “sports expert” told CBS that even though the “N” word is often used during NBA games (virtually always by black players) the league shouldn’t try to stop such language or levy penalties. “The ‘N’ word is always going to have a negative image associated with it, but it doesn’t compare to the racist remarks by Sterling,” stated Ronald Oswalt, CEO of Sports Marketing Experts, which operates one of the nation’s largest NBA blogs. “Being around NBA players, the ‘N’ word is just second nature and habit for some of them.“

What they’re actually saying is that certain language (the N-word) should be tolerated for a particular group of people.

Sorry. Wrong, wrong, wrong. That apologist mentality is just warped. Sure, there are varying degrees of racism, but ultimately, racism is racism. You can’t excuse and justify it in some cases, but not others. Doing so will never move society ahead. Never.

The quickest way to widen the gulf between races is for leaders on both sides to espouse blatant hypocrisy, picking and choosing which racist comments — and by whom they are said — to criticize. In the same way the “average” American increasingly believes politicians favor the well-connected, resulting in an all-time high mistrust of government, selectively meting out condemnation for racial incidents only builds a powder keg of resentment. People may not agree with how something is done, but if they feel it is done equally and without favoritism, they can live with it. That’s the whole point of the Equal Protection Clause — the law is applied equally. When that concept falters, so do people’s inclination to work together.

5. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is attempting to gain the support of three-quarters of NBA owners to force Sterling to sell the Clippers. Two points:

If the NBA has any guts, every owner voting against Sterling should personally put up a share of the team’s $575 million value, and, upon buying it, donate all the proceeds to nonprofit organizations fighting racism (in all its forms) and advocating fairness in housing, and establish scholarship funds for minority children. Following that, they should sell the team to the highest bidder, with the proceeds again going to charity. Of course, they won’t do that.

» Assuming the NBA gets the votes, and that Sterling fights the decision in court, the NBA will almost certainly settle, for good reason. Sterling’s lawyers will, during the discovery phase of the case, uncover many skeletons in the closets of hypocritical owners. They should be mindful of the proverb, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

This issue is infinitely bigger than Donald Sterling and the NBA. It is about how we view each other as Americans, and more important, as people. It is about how we tackle difficult issues, and how solutions can only be realized if all are treated equally, with special privilege for none. It’s time, once and for all, to stop seeing things in black and white, and start living in a colorblind society, since we are all members of the only “race” that matters — the human race.

 

NBA Hypocrisy Reprised

Guzzardi Announcing Write-in Campaign

Guzzardi Announcing Write-in CampaignGuzzardi Announcing Write-in Campaign

Bob Guzzardi will be appearing on The Robert Mangino Show on KDKA in Pittsburgh, 8 tonight,  May 2, where he is expected to announce a write-in campaign for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.

The state Supreme Court, yesterday, overturned a Commonwealth Court decision and threw Guzzardi off the ballot on a rather bizarre technicality.

Many counties are distributing absentee ballots with Guzzardi’s name due as the delay in the Supreme Court’s decision forced them to go to press.

Votes for Guzzardi on those ballots will be counted as write-in votes.

The show’s call-in number is 866-391-1020. It can be listed to live at this link.

Guzzardi Announcing Write-in Campaign

CBS Paycheck Protection Report

CBS Paycheck Protection Report

One of the CBS affiliates in the state did an excellent job reporting on the “paycheck protection” issue. If this was the norm in old media, old media would not be in the trouble it is.