4th Of July Trivia Facts 2015: 15 Fun Things To Know About Independence Day

Happy birthday, America! Picnics, barbeques, cold drinks and fireworks: These are just some of the staples of the Fourth of July. But without America’s Founding Fathers -- George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and James Monroe -- there wouldn’t be an Independence Day to celebrate.

While most Americans know that the U.S.’s birthday is celebrated on July 4, it’s a misconception that all the signers of the Declaration of Independence signed it on the Fourth of July. For more fun facts about America’s Independence Day, keep reading:

1. How many people signed the Declaration of Independence on July Fourth?

Two.

2. What day did most signers of the Declaration of Independence actually sign the document?

Aug. 2, 1776.

3. Did you know which president was born on July 4?

It was Calvin Coolidge, the 30th president, in 1872.

4. Which three presidents died on the Fourth of July:

They were three of the first five presidents: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe. The second president, Adams, and the third, Jefferson, both died in 1826, the 50th anniversary.

5. Most of the Founding Fathers agreed that July Fourth is the correct day to celebrate America’s independence from Great Britain -- except one. Who is it and why?

Adams thought July 2, the day the Second Continental Congress voted in Philadelphia to declare independence from Britain, would be the day patriots celebrated. “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America,” Adams wrote on July 3. “It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

6. When did the Fourth of July become a legal federal holiday?

1870. Then, in 1938, Congress reaffirmed the holiday to make sure all workers received full pay.

7. Is there something written on the back of the Declaration of Independence?  

Yes! It’s said the following is written upside down and backwards:  “Original Declaration of Independence dated 4th July 1776.” It’s not known who wrote it, or when. In Revolutionary War years, parchment was rolled up, so this probably served as a message.

8. The Nathan’s Fourth of July Hot Dog Contest has become an annual tradition. How did it start?

It’s a pretty cute story: Legend has it that four immigrants got into an argument over who was most patriotic. To prove themselves, they ate as many hot dogs as they could handle -- because nothing says America like excess.

9. America isn’t the only nation that celebrates the Fourth of July. Which other countries do, and why?

It might sound odd, but if you celebrate the Fourth of July outside the U.S., you still might see fireworks in Denmark, England, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. This is because thousands of people emigrated to the U.S. in the early 1900s. Some European celebrations on the Fourth take place near tourist destinations -- to attract U.S. travelers -- or near American military bases.

10. When were fireworks first used to celebrate July Fourth?

1777. Congress chose fireworks as a way to celebrate the first anniversary. They were ignited over Philadelphia. The celebration also included bonfires and bells.

11. How many people lived in the U.S. when the Declaration was signed?

2.5 million.

12. What baseball player threw a 4-0 no-hitter against the Boston Red Sox on July 4, 1983?

New York Yankees pitcher Dave Righetti. It was the first no-hitter in 27 years.

13. Which newspaper first printed the Declaration of Independence? 

The Pennsylvania Evening Post

14. Which president first held a Fourth of July celebration at the White House?

Thomas Jefferson

15. Which country gained independence from the United States on July Fourth?

The Philippines did in 1946.

Via: International Business Times

Continue Reading...

Whatever Happened To Those Middle Class Income Gains?

This year's Economic Report of the President has an interesting analysis of the sources of the slowdown in income gains among the middle class. Given all the attention given to the issue of growing inequality, especially between those at the top and the other 90 percent you might think that was the major economic problem facing the nation. But no, it turns out that the biggest source of the slowdown is the poor performance of productivity since 1995 compared to the earlier postwar period.

The question the President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) asks is what if productivity growth from 1973 to 2013 had continued at the rate of the previous 25 years from 1948-1973? The answer is that the typical household would have had an additional $30,000 in income. (CEA report, p. 33)

The CEA goes on to ask parallel "what if" questions about income inequality and female labor force participation. How much better off would the typical middle class household be if income gains had been broadly shared after 1973 and female labor force participation had not levelled off after 1995? These changes produce smaller effects on middle class incomes of $9,000 and $3,000 respectively. However, all three factors combined can explain a whopping $50,000 in income foregone by our typical family. In other words, these families would have almost twice as much income if it hadn't been for the decline in productivity growth, the rise in income inequality, and the levelling off of female participation rates.

The very large role of slower productivity growth is surprising. After all, we have seen an explosion in technology fed by the increasing power of computers. Smart phones, driverless cars, computer-assisted design and manufacturing, robots, drones, and the innovations they have made possible should have boosted productivity smartly. But as Nobel-prize winning economist Robert Solow once quipped, " You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics." So what's going on here?

According to the CEA, starting in 1973, labor productivity growth slowed dramatically to only 1.4 percent annually from its earlier pace of 2.8 percent from 1948-1973. (It has recovered somewhat over the last two decades but has not matched its earlier high levels.) They cite the exhaustion of pent-up innovations from World War II, reduced public investment, dislocations associated with a new international monetary system, and the oil shocks of the 1970s.

Other experts might add other factors to the list. Economist Robert Gordon believes that the technological breakthroughs of the late twentieth century cannot match earlier innovations such as those represented by electricity, cars, the telephone, and radio. It's also possible that we have not yet seen the full effects of the computer revolution. My colleague,Barry Bosworth, has shown that a lot of productivity gains are occurring in the service sector and that it isn't just capital deepening that is producing these gains. It is everything from better management to human capital investment and organizational innovation - all the things we cannot measure very well but which show up in the data as an unexplained residual.

In the meantime, the new technologies are contributing to growing income inequality. Because these technologies are replacing unskilled and even some medium-skilled jobs, we are left with the worst of both worlds - disappointing increases in productivity and declining opportunities for those without the education and skills to benefit from the new technologies.

The solution cannot be to slow down the pace of technology. It must be to encourage innovation, retrain workers, invest in the next generation, and help those dislocated by the changes. Yet we are not investing in research, in education, and in infrastructure in the same way we did in earlier decades. Taxes need to be reformed to provide greater simplicity, fairness, and growth. Policies such as paid leave, child care, and more flexible work places would encourage more second earners to join the labor force. Most innovation, to be sure, occurs in the private sector, but it has little incentive to invest as long as overall demand is constrained by policies that fail to mitigate financial instability or that are focused on short-term spending cuts in public investments combined with a longer-term explosion of consumption-oriented spending on the big entitlement programs. Until elected officials act to recreate these underpinnings of growth, any permanent improvements in middle class incomes are unlikely to be realized.

Via: RealClearMarkets

Continue Reading....

[EDITORIAL] Editorial: A promising BP settlement

Getty Images

Nearly eight months after the April 2010 BP oil spill, workers in Waveland, Miss., remove tar balls from along the Gulf Coast. Under a settlement Thursday, BP will pay $18.7 billion to resolve nearly all outstanding claims.

The settlement announced Thursday in the 2010 BP oil spill marks a major turning point for the federal-state effort to repair the Gulf of Mexico after the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. The $18.7 billion that BP has agreed to pay is substantial enough to help the gulf, punitive enough to send a message to the industry and affordable enough to keep a major player active in the vital energy sector. Florida fares well at first glance, but it will be up to regulators and the courts to ensure that this framework agreement actually fulfills its promise.

The settlement would resolve nearly all outstanding claims resulting from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, which sank off the coast of Louisiana on April 20, 2010, killing 11 workers and causing millions of barrels of oil to spew into the Gulf of Mexico. BP would pay $18.7 billion in damages and fines, including $7.1 billion for environmental restoration, $5.9 billion for economic claims from the five gulf states and a record $5.5 billion in penalties under the Clean Water Act (80 percent of which will be directed to gulf restoration projects), plus other costs.

State and federal officials could have held out for more, and U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said he would have liked to have seen larger damages. The federal court in New Orleans overseeing the case was expected to rule on damages any day, and BP lost its bid this week to have the U.S. Supreme Court consider its appeal on damages. But this deal is a reasonable effort to end years of litigation, provide certainty for all sides and bring serious money to the table for economic losses and restoration. And it's on top of $1 billion the company fronted early on for restoration projects (several of which are under way in Florida). BP also committed another $1 billion to resolve local government claims; Tampa announced Thursday it would receive $27 million. And BP will set aside an additional $600 million to cover any future environmental damage and any outstanding response costs.

Via: Tampa Bay Times

Continue Reading....

NYC Cop Throws Fists To Protect Female Partner From Knife-Wielding Suspect

A video surfaced Thursday of an NYPD officer using force to protect his female partner from a hostile-suspect resisting arrest.

Police officers had stopped Saykou George whom, according to the New York Post, they had seen carrying a blade in plain-sight. After having his ID checked by the officers, George — who had two outstanding warrants and a history of violence — began to grow increasingly belligerent, eventually lashing out at the female officer when she tried to place him in handcuffs.

According to police commissioner Bill Bratton, Internal Affairs is currently reviewing the video of the Wednesday arrest, but in his, “preliminary review of [the video], [he] saw nothing inappropriate with the officers’ behavior.”

George was slapped with a variety of charges, including resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer and criminal possession of a weapon.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Trump wins battle against Political Correctness

Political correctness is a very serious affliction that has done incredible damage to our country. It will eventually destroy America if it is not pulled up by the roots and finally eradicated

When Donald Trump announced for President, he made some strong statements about the immigration problems facing our nation. He said that Mexico was “bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.” In essence, Trump noted that Mexico was not sending their scientists and scholars to America.

In his speech, he mentioned that while immigrants are taking jobs in this country; corporations like Ford are setting up plants in Mexico. To deal with the crisis, Trump vowed to build a border fence and have Mexico pay for it.

This kind of tough talk resonated with millions of Americans who have seen no action on illegal immigration for decades. In the latest New Hampshire, Iowa and national GOP polls, Trump has rocketed to second place. This shows that Americans are tired of the influx of illegal immigrants and the non-existent border security. They are tired of illegal aliens committing crimes, receiving federal benefits and taking jobs away from law abiding citizens.

It is an outrage that our borders are not secure. In fact, no other nation in the world has both wide open borders coupled with generous benefits for illegal aliens. Donald Trump wants this giveaway of American jobs and federal incentives to end. He wants to secure our border and improve our national security. These are goals that all Americans should applaud; however, in our politically correct society, such goals are too controversial.

In the aftermath of Trump’s comments, Macy’s dropped his clothing line; NBC “fired” him from the show “Celebrity Apprentice” and said they would not air the Miss USA or Miss Universe pageants. The illegal immigration comments were also too controversial for Univision, another leftist network which dropped the beauty pageants from their broadcast schedule. Fortunately, the Miss USA pageant was picked up by the Reelz channel, so Americans will still be able to watch a show with a 64-year broadcasting tradition.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

Senator wants public to vote on Confederate flag bill proposal

Lawmakers will debate Monday on what to do with the Confederate flag at the State House.

To take down the flag, it requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to vote for it and enough lawmakers to meet that quota say they're going to vote to take it down.

COLUMBUS, SC: If both the House and Senate vote quickly on the bill, it could make it to Gov. Haley's desk by the end of the week. Some lawmakers said they're going to make that happen but it still has to clear a lot of legislative hurdles.

Any bill has to get three readings or votes in a chamber to pass.

The Confederate Flag bill already got a reading in the Senate; it's up for its second reading Monday, and could move to the House of Representatives by Tuesday.

If it gets a vote a day, it could be on Governor Haley's desk by late Thursday or Friday but if the bill gets sent to a committee, or lawmakers add several amendments, it means more debate.

Right now, two lawmakers have amendments prepared - Senator John Courson wants a South Carolina State flag to go up on the flag pole behind the monument, he says as a symbol of state unity.

Senator Lee Bright wants the question to put to a referendum saying South Carolinians need to weigh in.

"There's conversation about putting other Confederate flags that are less offensive out there, but let's just move forward and put a South Carolina flag and say 'I'm ok, you're ok' and show the world what we are. I think we've done that very well the past two weeks," Courson said.

Bright contends the flag is a symbol of the state’s history.

"To me and many others, this flag represents the Confederate soldier that fought under it,” Bright said. “It's a part of history. I think the way a majority of South Carolinians feel. But they're not being intimidated by the national media."

Before lawmakers can take up the Confederate flag debate, they've got to get budget vetoes out of the way.

The House will take them up first on Monday.

And while Senator Courson says he's hoping to knock them out fast- however long it takes lawmakers to tackle vetoes- will set the pace for the flag debate.

Via: WISTV

Continue Reading.....

Mitch McConnell Outsourcing Everything, Including His Job

No, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) didn’t officially resign from the Senate.  He will still engage in all legislative activities that advance Obama’s agenda, such as Obamatrade, the highway trust fund bailout, Export-Import Bank, and reauthorizing No Child Left Behind.  But he did publicly outsource the last vestige of constitutional checks on the two unelected branches of government.  So what is the purpose of serving in the legislative branch of government other than to enrich your friends with pay-for-play favors? 

We already know that McConnell doesn’t believe in the congressional power of the purse under any circumstance – no matter how unlawful and harmful this Administration grows in its final two years.  Now he is surrendering every remaining legislative check on the Judiciary as well, and worse, he is openly welcoming the extremists in the Judicial Branch to serve as judge, jury, and executioner over religious liberty.  

McConnell builds up the straw-man option of a constitutional amendment only to knock it down by observing that it will never pass.

McConnell is one of those GOP leaders who would successfully secure the support of credulous and ineffective social conservatives groups for years by saying he was for traditional values.  Yet over the past decade he has remained stone silent in the face of the most unconstitutional assaults on natural law and religious liberty, including the assault on federalism, when his own hand-picked judge illegally tossed out his state’s marriage law. A law, which passed with the support of 75% of the people.  Now he is emphatically saying that the lawless Supreme Court decision, which is precluded by the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and precedent from several recent court cases, is the “law of the land.” He told Politico that they are out of legislative options and that it’s time to move on, presumably, to more important things…like reauthorizing No Child Left Behind.   

McConnell builds up the straw-man option of a constitutional amendment only to knock it down by observing that it will never pass.  But he refuses to even recognize the Article III powers that Congress has to strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over these issues and to completely regulate and remake the lower courts.  These are initiatives that can pass with a GOP president the same way he plans to pass his K Street agenda.

But it gets worse.

While offering a parsimonious recognition of the need to protect religious liberty, McConnell outsources our most inherent founding rights to…you guessed it…the very same courts that don’t believe in them and are even ripping replicas of the Ten Commandments from state capitals as we speak.

“There’s the possibility of legislation, but I think most of this is going to be in the courts.” With these words, McConnell has just granted the courts the authority to regulate the very foundational inherent rights we celebrate this year in marking the 239^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. 

Sadly, this is nothing new.  McConnell refused to nullify the D.C. anti-religious liberty laws, which he could have done with a simple-majority vote.  Yet, he says his hands are tied in responding to last week’s bloodless revolution.

Via: Conservative Review

Continue Reading.....

EXCLUSIVE: FORAMERICA’S BRENT BOZELL: CONGRESS AN ‘UNHOLY MESS,’ MOST REPUBLICANS ARE REALLY DEMOCRATS

Every conservative who cares about the unholy mess known as Congress should visit conservativereview.com (CR) and examine the “Liberty Score.” Every liberal who wonders how conservatives view their elected leaders should examine it as well.

The “Liberty Score” is refreshingly (and painfully) honest, as opposed to other scorecards that have been known to be compromised. It separates the wheat from the chaff and the frauds from the champions. It tells you who the real conservative heroes are, who comes close, and who doesn’t deserve to be in the same sentence with that word.

It also blows the whistle on the charlatans who campaign for re-election as red-hot conservatives, having deceived their constituency by covering up a voting record that is anything but; after being rewarded with another term, they cynically proceed to betray voters yet again by returning to their liberal ways.

The voting analysis here is no meatball surgery. You cannot be more comprehensive than when you analyze 6,382 votes, selecting the top 50 for incumbents over a six-year period.

Let’s look at the Republicans in the Senate. “Liberty Score” tells you everything you need to know about the GOP majority – and what to expect from a body that almost universally champions itself as “conservative.” But the scores, pulled in June 2015, tell a different tale.

Start with the “A” grades, those with voting records between 90% and 100%. There is only one Republican – Sen. Mike  Lee of Utah – who registers a perfect 100%. (Two others, Ben  Sasse and David  Perdue, also score perfectly, but they are brand-new and have cast only a handful of major votes.) There are only two other Republicans in the entire body who receive an “A” — Cruz (96%) and Paul (93%).

Three veterans and two rookies. That’s it for the conservative GOP “A” team.

Surely, then, the lengthy list of “B” grade conservatives will at least alleviate concerns, correct?

There are only four Republicans who merit a “B.” Tim  Scott (88%) is the best, followed by Marco  Rubio at a surprisingly weak 81%, Jeff  Sessions at an equally head-scratching 80% and Jim  Risch, also at 80%.

For me, that’s it. No one below this grade can qualify as a conservative. So there are seven veteran conservatives and two rookies – period.

The remaining are moderates or liberals. Their records do not lie. They do.

We drop to the “C”s and there are no fewer than 10 Republicans here. Some are real surprises: Jim  Inhofe (79%), James  Lankford (75%), and rookies Joni  Ernst and Tom  Cotton (both also at a worrisome 75%). The rest long ago deserted their conservative bona fides (Chuck  Grassley, David  Vitter, Mike  Crapo) or never had them to begin with (Bill  Cassidy, Dan  Sullivan, Steve  Daines).

Now to the charlatans—those who will tell the media, their constituents and their friends what committed conservatives they are and then do the opposite, over and over, when it comes time to vote.

They are the ones who despise the idea of the “Liberty Score.” It is the flashlight that found them cowering in the corner and has exposed them for all to see. These incumbents do not deserve re-election. They should be primaried and thrown out of Washington.

First, the seven who have compiled horrific “D” scores.

Jerry  Moran (64%) and Richard  Shelby (66%) are perhaps the ones who least claim conservative allegiances, so give them that. Mike  Enzi (66%) has done a terrific job pulling the wool over the eyes of conservative Wyoming voters. John  Cornyn (61%) has betrayed conservatives so many times I’m surprised they even let him return to Texas.

Then there are the two shockers. I wish they weren’t here because they are such monumental disappointments. Conservatives expected them not only to vote right but also to lead conservatives in the Senate. They excited the conservative movement when they arrived in Washington. Happy days were here again.

Ron  Johnson at 69% must stop calling himself a conservative.

Pat  Toomey is the man who brought the Club for Growth to national prominence as the one group that vowed not just to support only conservative Republicans, but also to aggressively challenge impostors. Sadly, the Club needs to consider challenging its former boss.  At 64%, Toomey is a conservative in name only.

Finally, to the GOP disgraces, the men and women who may as well be Democrats, except Democrats are more intellectually honest.

In the “F” category you’ll find the rogues. Every single one, with the possible exception of Thom  Tillis (50%) and Mike  Rounds (25%), both freshmen, needs to go.

Deb  Fischer (58%) and Jeff  Flake (40%) owe their elections to the Tea Party. Theirs was blatant false advertising.

Some have been here so long, utterly violating the spirit of the Founders, they’ve long forgotten – or stopped caring about – what their constituents want. John  McCain has been in Congress 32 years, Pat  Roberts 34 years, Orrin  Hatch 38 years, and Thad  Cochran 43 years. That is truly obnoxious. Their conservative voting records – 45%, 57%, 54%, and 33% respectively – are even worse.

Then there are the blatant hypocrites, those who so predictably and cynically wrap themselves with the conservative flag when facing the voters only to laugh and rip it to shreds the moment they succeed at what can be described only as a political con.

We know who we’re talking about. It’s the same story, one election cycle after the next. It’s Hatch and McCain. It’s Richard  Burr (51%). It’s Dan  Coats (49%). It’s Lindsey  Graham (49%). It’s Johnny  Isakson (42%). It’s Roy  Blunt (39%). It’s Roger  Wicker (32%).

The rest – Portman, Heller, Thune, Corker, Boozman, Ayotte, Kirk, Hoeven, Gardner, Rounds, Capito, Alexander, Murkowski, Collins – might as well be Democrats. Someone tell me of a single conservative cause any one of them has ever championed in the United States Senate.

To put things in their proper perspective: There are eight Republicans whose voting records are, at best, only 15 points higher than Bernie  Sanders (14%), the body’s only Socialist.

And there are more Republicans with an “F” rating – 28 of them — than all other gradescombined.

And leading this charge? Mitch  McConnell (54%). The Republican Majority Leader ranks an “F.”

How many times do you think these scoundrels have promised to defund Obamacare, stop executive amnesty, cut the size of government, balance the budget, secure the border, cut taxes, end the funding of Planned Parenthood, PBS, the NEA and God knows what else, honor the Constitution, rebuild our national defenses, end abortion, restore prayer in school, and blah, blah, blah. How many TV ads? Radio ads? Speeches? Press releases? Facebook and Twitter posts?

It is fashionable to say that these Republicans have surrendered their conservative principles. Not so. As the record – not the rhetoric, the record – shows, the overwhelming majority aren’t conservatives, and many were never conservatives.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

12 SHOT, 5 FATALLY, IN CHICAGO AS JULY 4TH HOLIDAY WEEKEND BEGINS

CHICAGO (WLS) --

The Fourth of July holiday weekend is already shaping up to be a violent one. Twelve people were shot, five fatally, across Chicago in the last 24 hours. Thelatest shooting took place Friday evening at a park in Bronzeville, wounding a 17-year-old and 19-year-old. The 17-year-old was taken to Stroger Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

The violence started Thursday morning when a 22-year-old man was killed during a drive-by in the 13200-block of South Greenwood. He was taken to Christ Medical Center, where he later was pronounced dead.

Later than night, a 20-year-old man was killed while he was riding his bike in the 2700-block of South Karlov, where police say a gunman shot him several times. He died after being taken to Mt. Sinai Hospital.

Two deadly shootings happened overnight; one of them in the Back of the Yards neighborhood near 49th and Justine. Police say just after midnight, a 26-year-old man was sitting on his porch when a man walked up and fatally shot him.

About an hour later near 92nd and Ashland, a man and woman were walking in an alley when someone in a white van shot both of them. The 46-year-old man was shot in the head and died. The 43-year-old woman is recovering in the hospital.

Chicago police will be visible this weekend, and are working 12-hour shifts to try and combat the violence over the long holiday weekend.

That rule was put into effect after last year's deadly Fourth of July weekend, when 82 people were shot. Fourteen of those people died.

But there are also everyday people like the "Moms on Patrol" who are trying to help keep the peace.

The Moms on Patrol are encouraging other mothers to get involved. While the volunteer effort is based in Englewood, not all the moms are; there is a mom from Bronzeville and another from south suburban Hazel Crest.

"I think it is absolutely heartbreaking, but I know that it's preventable," says Tamar Manasseh about the violence.

"They love us," says Katina Neely about the communities they're protecting. "They want us here, they want our help."

"These kids that are shooting each other known each other," says Lasondra Essex. "They grew up together. There are ways it can be solved, but it's going to take the community."

So the moms gather across the street from a memorial to a woman who was buried today after being shot. They realize it's a pivotal time, a time to be pro-active and volunteer in hopes of changing the statistics.

Via: ABC7 Chicago

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Man arrested in connection with San Francisco killing had been deported several times, officials say

The man arrested in connection with the seemingly random killing of a woman who was out for a stroll with her father along the San Francisco waterfront is an illegal immigrant who previously had been deported five times, federal immigration officials say. 

Further, Immigration and Customs Enforcement says San Francisco had him in their custody earlier this year but failed to notify ICE when he was released. 

"DHS records indicate ICE lodged an immigration detainer on the subject at that time, requesting notification prior to his release so ICE officers could make arrangements to take custody. The detainer was not honored," ICE said in a statement Friday afternoon. 

Kathryn Steinle was killed Wednesday evening at Pier 14 -- one of the busiest tourist destinations in the city. 

Police said Thursday they arrested Francisco Sanchez in the shooting an hour after it occurred. 

On Friday, ICE revealed their records indicate the individual has been previously deported five times, most recently in 2009, and is from Mexico. 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading.....

CALIFORNIA: Will Union Members Stay if Friedrichs Wins Case against CTA?

The United States Supreme Court announcement that it will consider the Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association case next fall produced handwringing and dire predictions that this could result in the end of public unions. Those who make those statements must think that the public unions are not offering representation that their members want. If the court sides with teacher Rebecca Friedrichs who opposes mandatory union dues, mandatory dues would end but voluntary union dues can continue. If the union does what the members want they will continue to get support.

David Savage’s article in the Los Angeles Times, which covers the circumstances around the case well, quotes Friedrichs, “I don’t have a voice or vote in the union, and I’m opposed to forced fees and forced unionism.”

Friedrichs and other teachers involved in the lawsuit do not approve of positions the union takes and object to their dues paid into the CTA treasury for positions with which they disagree. While teachers can opt out of dues directed to the union for political purposes, many have argued that the line is blurred between the union’s political activities and work-related representation.

Not wanting to pay money for issues with which one disagrees is a reasonable position. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”

While this bit of wisdom appeared in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom the sentiment can clearly apply to the protesting teachers situation.

If the case is successful – something that is far from certain – there is no telling how many union members will call it quits. CTA is certainly concerned with the outcome. Last year, CTA prepared a working paper titled, “Not if, but when: Living in a World without Fair Share.” The document predicted loss of revenue and membership if the system titled “Fair Share” requiring mandatory dues was overturned by a court.

In such a circumstance, members would have a choice on whether to support the union. Then the union will have to prove its worth to members.

Originally posted on Fox and Hounds Daily.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....