GOP Candidates On Equal Pay

The Preference Of Kentucky Voters For President

With a recent Public Policy Polling survey (done between June 18th and 23rd of 610 Democratic voters and 413 Republican voters) we get our first look at how the voters of that state view the presidential race. The margin of error is 4 points for Democrats and 4.8 points for Republicans.

Recent polls in New Hampshire have shown that Bernie Sanders is within 8 to 10 points of Hillary Clinton. Kentucky is different. It shows no real movement for Sanders, at least not yet, and he trails Clinton by 44 points.

Rand Paul leads the other GOP candidates in his home state, which is good news for him since he has not been doing real well in recent polls elsewhere. Still, he only registers about 19%. The surprise of this poll is Donald Trump, who finishes with 12% (and trailing only Paul and Bush.

Scalia

Political Cartoon is by Clay Jones at claytoonz.com.

21st Century Internet Use In The United States

This doesn't need much discussion from me. I just thought it was interesting. The Pew Research Center has been surveying Americans on whether they use the internet since 2000. The chart above shows how that usage has climbed from about 52% in 2000 to a current level of 84%. The usage seems to have leveled off, and has been at 84% for the last three years.

The chart below shows the usage by each demographic group. Generally, the usage rises as youth, wealth, and education.

Religion Only Matters When The GOP Says It Does

Political Cartoon is by Matt Wuerker at Politico.com.

Media Guide To Violent Offenders

A Helpful Guide

Public Gives Emphatic NO To Flying Confederate Flag

The state of South Carolina (and some other Southern States) displays the Confederate flag on state property -- and after the tragic murders in Charleston, this has once again become an issue across the country. Some still try to claim that flag is a symbol of Southern heritage -- neglecting the fact that the heritage represented is one of white supremacy, slavery, and hate.

So what does the country as a whole think about that flag being flown on government property? The YouGov Poll surveyed Americans to find out. Their survey was done between June 23rd and 25th of 1,000 randomly chosen national adults, and the survey has a margin of error of 4.7 points.

It turns out that the public is overwhelmingly against flying that flag on any government property. Only 20% think it should be permissible, while 65% say it should not happen. And that opinion holds across gender, race, political, and regional lines -- and that includes 53% of Republicans and 64% of Southerners.

It's time to take those flags down.

Toxic

Political Cartoon is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Texas Attorney General On Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Same-sex marriages have been legal in the state of Texas for four days now -- since Justice Kennedy read his opinion last Friday. Some may think there is a waiting period before it goes into effect. That is not true. No stay was issued, which means the ruling went into effect immediately -- and any county clerk's office that refuses to issue a license is breaking the law (since they are required to issue all licenses that are legal, and same-sex marriages are legal everywhere in the United States).

At least one county has already got itself in trouble. Smith County Clerk Karen Phillips has already refused to issue a marriage license to a lesbian couple. Her excuse was that she didn't have the proper forms. She said the forms her office had still listed spaces for a man and a woman -- and that she would be breaking the law to alter those forms.

That, of course, was an outrageous lie. Shortly after the decision, the Texas Department of State Health Services put the new form online, and it was available to all 254 County Clerks in Texas. All they had to do was go online and download and print the new form. The form is available at

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/vs/field/Local-Registrar-and-County-Clerk-Forms/

This county clerk has already had a lawsuit filed against her office -- and it is good, because she has violated the law. I suspect she was using the "forms excuse" as a delaying tactic, while hoping an opinion from the Texas Attorney General would allow her office to keep from issuing those licenses.
If so, she going to be disappointed. The Attorney General has issued his opinion, and it is not as all-compassing as some right-wingers had hoped. Her is the part of the opinion applying to County Clerks:

Marriage licenses in Texas are issued by county clerks, and one may obtain a marriage license from any county clerk regardless ofwhere the applicant resides. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 2.00I(a) (West 2006) ("A man and a woman desiring to enter into a ceremonial marriage must obtain a marriage license from the county clerk of any county of this state."). The Family Code provides that the "county clerk shall . . . execute the clerk's certificate on the application" if the application complies with the statutory requirements. Id. § 2.008(a). But the county clerk may delegate this duty to others. Under the Local Government Code, a deputy clerk "may perform all official acts that the county clerk may perform." TEX. Loe. Gov'T CODE ANN. § 82.005 (West 2008). Thus, under state law, a county clerk may delegate duties to deputy clerks, and deputy clerks have the authority but not the mandatory duty to perform the acts ofthe county clerk.2

With this background in mind, the question is whether a clerk or a clerk's employees may refuse to issue a same-sex marriage license ifdoing so would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. Such a question necessarily involves a variety of rights. The Supreme Court has now declared a right under the Fourteenth Amendment for same-sex couples to be married on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex. County clerks· and their employees possess constitutional and statutory rights protecting their freedom of religion.3 And employees possess rights under state and federal law to be free from employment discrimination on the basis of religion.4 The statutory rights protecting freedom ofreligion are known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts and require the government to use the least restrictive means to further a compelling government interest when substantially burdening a person's free exercise of religion.5 Employment discrimination laws further provide that an employer must make a reasonable accommodation for an individual's religious beliefs or exercise so long as the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.6

A county clerk has a statutory right to delegate a duty to a deputy clerk, including the issuance of same-sex matTiage licenses that would violate the county clerk's sincerely held religious beliefs. Regarding deputy clerks and other employees, state and federal employment laws allow them to seek reasonable accommodation for a religious objection to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. And under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, deputy clerks and other employees may have a claim that forcing the employee to issue same-sex marriage licenses over their religious objections is not the government's least restrictive means of ensuring a marriage license is issued, particularly when available alternatives would not impose an undue burden on the individuals seeking a license. See Slater v. Douglas Cnty., 743 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1192-95 (D. Or. 2010) (refusing to grant summary judgment to a county that only offered to reassign an employee of a county clerk who refused on religious grounds to issue same-sex domestic partnership registrations rather than accommodating her request to not issue the registrations). Importantly, the strength of any claim under employment laws or the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts depends on the particular facts o f each case.

Courts have balanced similar competing rights in other contexts, and I believe they would likely do so here.7 See, e.g., Stormans Inc. v. Selecky, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1188-93 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (holding that a state law mandating the issuance of drugs violated pharmacists' religious beliefs, and that refusing to issue the drugs and referring to another pharmacist was a sufficient practice); Brady v. Dean, 790 A.2d 428, 435 (Vt. 2001) (holding that a town clerk appointing an assistant clerk to issue same-sex marriage licenses did not impose a substantial burden on the town clerk's religious beliefs).

Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution.

I f instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right ofthe applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer.

In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts. 

This does NOT give County Clerks offices the right to deny same-sex marriage licenses. It says that individual clerks may refuse to issue a license (quoting a religious exemption), but someone in that office must issue the license. There is little doubt that forcing a couple to go to another county would be considered an undue burden by any federal court.

This is NOT a blanket immunity. The office must issue all legal licenses, or they are violating the law. If there is no one in the office who will issue the license (due to all clerks claiming a religious exemption), then that office had better hire someone quickly who will issue the licenses. Failure to do so is a violation of both state and federal law.

Warning Labels

Political Cartoon is by Steve Sack in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Not The Same

God

Two More Polls Show Bernie Is Gaining Ground In N.H.

About 10 days ago, I brought you the results of a Suffolk University Poll. That survey showed Bernie Sanders is gaining ground in the state of New Hampshire. Now there are a couple of new surveys that show the same thing. None of them have Bernie beating Clinton, but they do show he may well be a player in that state -- and it's not belong comprehension that he could carry that state in the primary. The CNN/WMUR Poll shows Bernie within 8 points of Clinton. The Bloomberg/St. Anselm Poll doesn't have Bernie that close, but does show he has gained some support.

This is good news for Sanders and his supporters. The Northeast is his natural base, and New Hampshire borders his home state of Vermont. If he is to have a chance in the Democratic primary, then he must do well in New Hampshire.

Bloomberg also queried Democrats in Iowa, and there poll shows Sanders now gets about 24% of that's state's Democratic votes. That's only about half of what Clinton gets, but it does show some movement, and marks the first time Sanders has topped 20% in the state.

But Bloomberg also asked survey respondents another question -- who do you think can beat the Republican nominee in November 2016. Sanders got only 12% in both states, while Clinton got 71% in New Hampshire and 72% in Iowa. Sanders is going to have to do much better than that. A lot of Democrats like Sanders (and so do I), but most of them are going to vote for the nominee they think can keep a Republican out of the White House -- and so far, most Democrats think that would be Hillary Clinton.

Equality

Political Cartoon is by Nick Anderson in the Houston Chronicle.

Krugman: GOP Nightmare Comes True (Obamacare Works)

Last week, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) dodged a big bullet in the Supreme Court. Many had thought the court would declare subsidies could not be given through the federal exchange, but only through state insurance exchanges. That could have been disastrous, since nearly half the states did not create a health insurance exchange of their own.

If that had happened, somewhere between 6 and 8.5 million people would have lost their insurance. That's because they would no longer be able to afford it without a subsidy. It would have required Congress to "fix" the law -- and the Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, have shown no ability or desire to do that.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court backed Obamacare and kept the subsidies in place. So, with Obamacare in place for the long-haul now, the question arises -- how is the program working?

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman (caricatured above by DonkeyHotey) answers that question in his column in the New York Times. Here's what he had to say:

 The Affordable Care Act is now in its second year of full operation; how’s it doing?

The answer is, better than even many supporters realize.

Start with the act’s most basic purpose, to cover the previously uninsured. Opponents of the law insisted that it would actually reduce coverage; in reality, around 15 million Americans have gained insurance.

But isn’t that a very partial success, with millions still uncovered? Well, many of those still uninsured are in that position because their state governments have refused to let the federal government enroll them in Medicaid.

Beyond that, you need to realize that the law was never intended or expected to cover everyone. Undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible, and any system that doesn’t enroll people automatically will see some of the population fall through the cracks. Massachusetts has had guaranteed health coverage for almost a decade, but 5 percent of its nonelderly adult population remains uninsured.

Suppose we use 5 percent uninsured as a benchmark. How much progress have we made toward getting there? In states that have implemented the act in full and expanded Medicaid, data from the Urban Institute show the uninsured falling from more than 16 percent to just 7.5 percent — that is, in year two we’re already around 80 percent of the way there. Most of the way with the A.C.A.!

But how good is that coverage? Cheaper plans under the law do have relatively large deductibles and impose significant out-of-pocket costs. Still, the plans are vastly better than no coverage at all, or the bare-bones plans that the act made illegal. The newly insured have seen a sharp drop in health-related financial distress, and report a high degree of satisfaction with their coverage.

What about costs? In 2013 there were dire warnings about a looming “rate shock”; instead, premiums came in well below expectations. In 2014 the usual suspects declared that huge premium increases were looming for 2015; the actual rise was just 2 percent. There was another flurry of scare stories about rate hikes earlier this year, but as more information comes in it looks as if premium increases for 2016 will be bigger than for this year but still modest by historical standards — which means that premiums remain much lower than expected.

And there has also been a sharp slowdown in the growth of overall health spending, which is probably due in part to the cost-control measures, largely aimed at Medicare, that were also an important part of health reform.

What about economic side effects? One of the many, many Republican votes against Obamacare involved passing something called the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, and opponents have consistently warned that helping Americans afford health care would lead to economic doom. But there’s no job-killing in the data: The U.S. economy has added more than 240,000 jobs a month on average since Obamacare went into effect, its biggest gains since the 1990s.

Finally, what about claims that health reform would cause the budget deficit to explode? In reality, the deficit has continued to decline, and the Congressional Budget Office recently reaffirmed its conclusionthat repealing Obamacare would increase, not reduce, the deficit.

Put all these things together, and what you have is a portrait of policy triumph — a law that, despite everything its opponents have done to undermine it, is achieving its goals, costing less than expected, and making the lives of millions of Americans better and more secure.

Now, you might wonder why a law that works so well and does so much good is the object of so much political venom — venom that is, by the way, on full display in Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion, with its rants against “interpretive jiggery-pokery.” But what conservatives have always feared about health reform is the possibility that it might succeed, and in so doing remind voters that sometimes government action can improve ordinary Americans’ lives.

That’s why the right went all out to destroy the Clinton health plan in 1993, and tried to do the same to the Affordable Care Act. But Obamacare has survived, it’s here, and it’s working. The great conservative nightmare has come true. And it’s a beautiful thing.

Unsuccessful

Political Cartoon is by Rob Rogers in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Greatest Hate Crime

Marriage Is Not Owned By Christians

Supreme Court Defends Equal Rights In Its Decision

The image above is from the Texas Democratic Party. I have not used it before, because even though a federal court had declared Texas' ban on same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional, the state was still not allowing those marriages (in the hope the decision would be overturned by the Supreme Court). But I proudly use the image today. The Supreme Court has made its decision -- and it came down on the side of equal rights for all citizens.

I have to admit I was nervous waiting for the decision, but not really surprised. I have said several times on this blog that I thought the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia demanded the Supreme Court make this decision. In that decision, the court said marriage was a "constitutional right" -- and therefore could not be denied to interracial couples. If interracial couples had the constitutional right to be married, how could that constitutional right be denied to same-sex couples?

It couldn't, and Justice Kennedy used the Loving v. Virginia decision as the basis of this Supreme Court decision. As he wrote, constitutional rights cannot be decided by state legislatures or by a vote of the majority in any state. These rights are guaranteed, and therefore must be protected by the court.

Some states, ruled by teabagger politicians, will probably try to delay the implementation of this decision, but that doesn't matter. It is now LAW, and the federal courts will quickly bring them into compliance. And that will happen quickly, because there is no legitimate reason for delay.

I know some are complaining the this decision tramples on their religious freedom rights. That is ludicrous. No one is being forced into a same-sex marriage, no minister or church is being forced to perform those marriages, and someone else's same-sex marriage does nothing to harm anyone's marriage (or the institution of marriage). The only thing this decision does is give same-sex couples the same rights that opposite-sex couples have in this country.

This decision was a giant step toward the granting of equal rights to all U.S. citizens -- but it is not the end of the fight for those rights. There is still much work to be done in assuring equal rights for the LGBT community, as well as minorities and women. Now we must finish the job.

Whining

Political Cartoon is by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Quotes from Justice Kennedy's Opinion

Here are some excerpts from the Supreme Court ruling on marriage rights (written by Justice Kennedy):

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it
in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified
the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not
presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we
learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord
between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
Applying these established tenets, the Court has long
held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.
In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held
marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to
the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” The Court
reaffirmed that holding in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S.
374, 384 (1978), which held the right to marry was burdened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on
child support from marrying. The Court again applied
this principle in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987),
which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations
limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry. Over
time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that
the right to marry is fundamental under the Due Process
Clause. See, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 116
(1996); Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632,
639–640 (1974); Griswold, supra, at 486; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942); Meyer
v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923).

This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sexcouples may exercise the right to marry.

...the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or  she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943). This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.

Win Some, Lose Some

Political Cartoon is by Lalo Alcaraz.

Let'em Die (The GOP's Mantra)

Thanks George !

Code Words

Political Cartoon is by Mike Thompson in the Detroit Free Press.

Obamacare Wins And Republicans Dodge A Bullet

I don't think anyone expected Obamacare to win the Supreme Court decision by the margin it did. Most thought it would be a 5 to 4 decision regardless of which way it went, but it wasn't. The court voted 6 to 3 (with Kennedy and Roberts joining liberals Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor) to uphold the giving of government subsidies in all states instead of just the states with a state insurance exchange. The court, in an opinion written by Roberts, said it was obvious that Congress meant to give the subsidies to people in all states.

And after the court decision, congressional Republicans and GOP presidential candidates were quick to condemn the decision as terrible and claim they would resume their effort to repeal the ACA (Obamacare). They haven't been saying much lately, because they were afraid they might actually win this court case -- and have to go into the next election after taking health insurance away from as many as 8,5 million people.

But they dodged that bullet, so they can now resume the political theater aimed at their base teabaggers -- secure in the knowledge that they can't possibly succeed (and get in the same kind of electoral trouble winning the court case would have caused). I can't believe any but the stupidest of them actually want to repeal Obamacare. Winning the court case would have taken insurance away from 8.5 million people, while repealing Obamacare would take health insurance away from around 19 million people. They say they would replace Obamacare with something of their own, a better plan -- but not a single Republican has come up with a plan so far.

This court case was a good thing, because it once again stamped the program as legal and constitutional. Now maybe we can get bust fixing Obamacare -- because while it was a big improvement over what we had before, it is far from perfect.

----------------------------------------------------------------

A new CBS News / New York Times Poll shows the court ruled the way most Americans wanted them to rule. About 70% of poll respondents said they wanted the court to allow subsidies in all states. And for the first time since that poll has been taken, more people approve of Obamacare than disapprove. People are starting to realize that, while Obamacare is not perfect, it is better -- and most want it improved, not repealed.

It's Only A Small Victory

Political Cartoon is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Eminem

Good Wages = Good Economy

Not Feeling Well

I apologize for the light posting, but I seem to have caught some kind of bug -- either a bad cold or the flu. I will resume full posting when I'm able to shake it off.

U.S. Public Says Take The Flag Down

After the racist shootings in Charleston, many people were offended that the state of South Carolina continued to fly the Confederate battle flag in front of the state capitol building. It was a slap in the face, not only to the victims of the shooting, but to decent Americans everywhere.

Right-Wingers tried to defend the flag being flown on state property at first, using the old "heritage" argument. But that's not working anymore (except for the racists). Most people understand the heritage being defended is one of hate and racism.

Now Walmart has taken all the Confederate flag memorabilia off their store shelves -- and the governors of South Carolina and Alabama have come out in favor of ceasing to fly that flag, while the governor of Mississippi says it should be removed from their state flag. I say it's about time. No state should be flying that symbol of hate -- a symbol that can't help but offend many of their citizens.

And that seems to be the opinion of a substantial majority of Americans. The Rasmussen Poll asked 1,000 likely voters nationally on June 22nd and 23rd (with a margin of error of 3 points) if the flag should be taken down, and 60% said yes, while only 21% said no. I agree. The Civil War has been over for more than 150 years, and decent people in every state understand that slavery was evil. It's time to stop flying that flag, and put it in the history museums (which is the only proper place for it now). Maybe then we can get busy eliminating the racism that still exists in this country.

(NOTE -- The image at the top of this post is from a Kayne West T-shirt being sold on his latest tour, and was found at The Huffington Post.)

Rubio / Cruz

Political Cartoon is by Lalo Alcaraz.

Wall Street Does Far More Damage

Clinton On Voting Rights

Hillary Clinton Is Viewed As A Moderate By Most

These charts show the results of the presidential preference survey done by the NBC News / Wall Street Journal -- between June 14th and 18th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of 3.1 points (margin of error for Democrats is 6.24 points and Republicans is 6.38 points).

The really good news is in the chart above. It seems that a significant majority of Americans (58%) view Hillary Clinton as a moderate. I know those on both the left and the right want to think most Americans agree with them, but the truth is that most voters are moderates and they want to vote for moderates. Candidates viewed as extremists (on both the left and right) scare them.

Hillary Clinton needs to still be viewed as a moderate when the primaries are over. That will help her in the general election, since the Republican candidates will all probably brand themselves as extremists in order to please their base (the teabaggers and evangelicals).

I know many on the left are hoping if Bernie Sanders can't win, that he will at least much Clinton to the left. But she needs to be very careful about that, because she shouldn't enter the general election labeled a leftist. She should only embrace those progressive ideas that a majority of the population supports.

The charts below show the support for the candidates in each party. Bush seems to have gotten a small bump since declaring his candidacy, but several others are still within striking distance of him. For the Democrats, this poll shows Clinton still has a huge lead (60 points over Sanders, who is in second place).

NRA Poster Boy

Political Cartoon is by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Spring Of 2015 Was The Hottest On Record

The chart above is from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It shows what the Republicans continue to deny -- that global warming (global climate change) continues, and is getting worse. Here is how Sara Goddard at Wonk Wire describes it:

Eco Watch: “This past May was the hottest on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ‘The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for May in the 136-year period of record, at 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F),’ said NOAA. This breaks the previous record, which was set last May.”

It was also the hottest March to May on record and the hottest January to May on record as well. So, if trends continue, as they are predicted to, this year will surpass last year as the hottest on record.

How long are we going to let the politicians ignore this problem? Have we become the first generation that doesn't want to leave a better world for our children and grandchildren? Do we really believe now that corporate profits are more important than saving the only planet we have?