Conservative Media’s Lack of Diversity Contributed to the Rise of Trump

367F7A4000000578-0-image-a-8_1469180571446There have been many articles written by journalists and columnists about the issues surrounding the conservative media. With the rise of Donald Trump being aided and abetted by many in the conservative media, serious journalists and commentators are asking “how did this happen?”

John Zeigler and others have given us tremendous insight into the reasons why so many who claim to be true believers in conservatism sold out to someone who is not conservative. However I believe that there is another point that needs to be addressed. The alarming lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the audience of conservative media is one of the main contributors to the rise of Trump.

Those of us in the media understand that we have a responsibility to our audience. That is, after all, how we make money. Businesses, organizations and political candidates pay us for access to our audience. No audience, no money. So it is important to understand who your audience is and to cater to them in order to attract businesses that want to speak to that audience.

Too often, that does not include people of color. The audience of Fox News, conservative talk radio and most conservative media outlets is overwhelmingly white. Why does that matter? Because if your audience is even somewhat diverse, the cost-benefit analysis of going all in on someone like Donald Trump changes. Do we really think that Laura Ingraham would be worshipping at the altar of Trump if even 15 or 20 percent of her audience was Hispanic? Would the multitude of conservative news outlets that essentially serve as Trump’s Pravda be comfortable in that role if they knew that they could lose part of their audience? Conservative Media suffers the same demographic pitfalls as the Republican Party as a whole: its adherents are too old and too white.

Outlets and personalities do not even have to consider the sensibilities of a young or racially diverse audience because they are not in the fanbase. They rarely hear from non-activist members of those minority groups and as a result there is no cost to elevating a man that habitually says racist, sexist and xenophobic things. There is no threat of a listener backlash or protest (other than from committed liberals, who are agenda driven anyway). Unless white conservatives themselves revolt against Trump’s media sycophants, they will be free to do whatever they want without any fear of financial or audience repercussions. This development has contributed to the intellectual and ideological ghetto that these outlets and personalities have placed themselves in.

If we understand, then, that the conservative media is too racially and demographically homogenous, the natural next question is: what can be done about it? I believe there is nothing that one can do to diversify the audience of the current crop of super famous conservatives. They will live on their financial models until it falls apart (which may be coming sooner than they think). It is going to take new outlets, personalities and the development of a conservative media counter-culture, one that can still be right leaning, but with a different cost benefit analysis. A new conservative media culture that does not cater to demagogues and thinly veiled white supremacists is the only thing that can bring in new people.

Had the conservative media audience (and GOP primary voters) been more diverse, the rise of Donald Trump would have never happened in the first place. Imagine conservative talk show hosts or media outlets with even 20 percent of their audience being nonwhite. Now imagine how they would respond to a character like Trump. Would some risk alienating that 20 percent for the 80 percent who may like him? Sure, but many wouldn’t. An outlet with a diverse audience is also more likely to attract white people with different sensibilities, people who would be offended by Trump’s rhetoric and actions.

The conservative media runs the Republican Party in a way that we’ve never seen in American politics. If you’re concerned about the electoral futures of the GOP, job number one should be fixing and diversifying the media that controls it.

Darvio Morrow is the CEO of FCB Entertainment and co-host of The Outlaws Radio Show on iHeartRadio.

Why Isn’t Strickland Asked About $400 Million Iran Payoff? What (D)ifference Does It Make?

The media bias has been pretty remarkable this week, but it’s particularly obvious today.

News broke this week that the Obama Administration sent $400 million in foreign currency on an unmarked plane to Iran as they were releasing our hostages. This happened in January. And when President Obama announced the release of the prisoners, he didn’t mention anything about $400 million dollars.

It was a fly by night operation – literally. Not exactly something you would expect from someone who promised “the most transparent” administration in US History. Sending the better part of a billion dollars to an enemy is something that certainly demands transparency.

White House Press Secretary was asked about this very suspicious transaction that smells of a ransom payoff today. Given Iran’s funding of Hezbollah, he conceded that some of that Obama money may have ended up in the terrorist organization’s pockets.

“The president was quite forward-leaning in advance of the nuclear deal even being completed in acknowledging that we know that Iran supports terrorism,” Earnest said. “We know that Iran supports Hezbollah and the Assad regime, and it is certainly possible that some of the money that Iran has is being used for those purposes, too.”

Even the White House acknowledged that this money may have been redirected to Iran. This is terrifying and appalling.

While the press has been questioning the White House, where are the questions for elected officials and candidates who supported the Iran Deal? If a Republican was president, every Republican Senator and Congressman would be asked to weigh in on this. But, we don’t see that same accountability from the press with Democrats.

US Senate candidate and failed former governor Ted Strickland supported the Iran Deal. How does he feel about this $400 million and US taxpayers possibly funding Hezbollah? Does he think it’s shady to make this covert payoff and hide it for months? What about Sherrod Brown? He gave two big thumbs up to the deal?

Why aren’t their feet being held to the fire on these questions? Why is every Republican asked about Donald Trump, but the press doesn’t ask every Democrat about Hillary Clinton’s repeated lies and corruption? Why is he a source of angst to all Republicans but she isn’t to Democrats?

What (D)ifference does it make?

 

The Left Hates Your Rights

The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of American Democracy. Unlike most other Western Democracies, the Bill of Rights is not a document granting rights to citizens from the government, but instead stating the already existing rights of citizens before government. As the progressive-left in the United States loves big-brother style of government, it should be no surprise that they are continuing to show their utter disdain for the Constitution, with the Bill of Rights at forefront of their hissy-fits. Instead of speaking in generalities, it instead seemed more useful to go through the applicable amendments and discuss how the left has shown hate for that particular right in recent years, since they seem determined to undermine as many as they possibly can.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


This is most easily seen on the college campuses. Whether it is free-speech hating safe spaces, or persecuting students for supporting Donald Trump with campus wall demonstrations, the left continues to show their support of censorship. Of course they will say that they love free speech, but what that really means is free speech that they agree with. College campuses used to be an environment of learning, of being confronted with ideas that are new or the opposite of what you believe. By being exposed to other viewpoints you could grow, either more soundly into your own beliefs, or into new beliefs that you have been shown. Instead campuses have become an oppressive echo chamber for the left.

Sadly this is all happening not just on college campuses, but out in the real world as well. If you happen to be on the wrong side of the issue many leftists will shout you down, try to put you in the corner, or attack you when you are coming out of a Donald Trump rally. The media has been complicit here as well: instead of reporting on those wishing to silence their political opponents they have instead glorified the criminals involved. The irony here is that progressivism would have never grew without protection from the 1st amendment.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The left has hated the 2nd amendment for the last several decades. When the left gets what they claim they “want” they then move the goalposts. First we “needed” a ban on Assault Rifles. Then we “needed” a ban on “Assault Weapons”, an invented term that has no recognized meaning with the ATF. Thankfully we had a sensible congress that let the latter expire. Unfortunately we are currently fighting a battle on aesthetics: the progressive-left is fighting to ban AR-15s, a particular firearm who’s only crime is superficially resembling a military M-16/4. What many do not realize is that a ban on the AR-15 would absolutely lead to a ban on all semi-automatic weapons, most of which are commonly used as hunting weapons as well as defense weapons.

The most important fact, ignoring that owning firearms is a constitutional right, is that the firearm homicide rate is about half of what it was 20 years ago. This does not fit the narrative, so it is easily thrown aside. When the nation experiences a terrorist act, the left has at every opportunity pushed for more gun control, instead of actually addressing the root of the terrorism.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


This has been shown in connection with the left’s hatred of the 2nd. Recently, we have had Democratic Representatives occupy the House floor during recess because a bill they supported did not succeed. What they leave out of this narrative, however, is that this bill would have stripped due process away from anyone unfortunate enough to end up on the no-fly list. The same list that Senator Ted Kennedy, Actor David Nelson, and Representative Don Young have had the misfortune of appearing on by mistake.

Democrats in the House were offered a compromise bill that had a similar effect but allowed for due process hearings for those who contend they are on the list by mistake. House Democrats instead decided to sit on the House floor like children. They has also used this stunt for fundraising purposes with the DNC. The left frequently accuses the right of being obstructionists, but here they have shown that they only care about pandering and fundraising.

 

So please, next time you seen your Democratic Representative thank them for their hard work in taking away the rights that were so carefully named to you in our founding document.

 

 

Congress Needs To Continue Protecting Medicare Part D

 

Generally government intervention into the market results in higher costs to the consumer. Most recently this can be seen in various sections of Obamacare: new rules and taxes have increased premiums for many people. A few weeks ago I wrote about the HIT tax and its negative impact on the healthcare market. This is due to its nature of picking winners and losers in that particular market.

However, this does not mean that every foray the federal government has taken into healthcare is negative. A successful program that has been operating for some time, Medicare Part D, is an example of how a program run by the government can be successful. For those who are not very familiar with Medicare Part D, it is a prescription drug benefits plan that allows the free-market competition which has led to affordable prices and easy access for prescription drugs and premiums for our seniors.

Part D has been very successful for over 10 years.

Part D in a way is a stark contrast to the HIT; instead of inserting itself into the market to pick winners and losers, Part D allows the consumer the freedom to choose in the marketplace. This drives competition and allows the free market to continue to function instead of (an attempt) to control of the market by artificial government means. The choice for the government to be involved in healthcare via Medicare and Medicaid was made long ago: supporting an aspect of these programs that still allows for competition in the marketplace is commonsense.

Unsurprisingly Part D has come under negative attention from the left who want to change the fundamental aspect of why this program works so well. These are the same politicians who will not be happy until every aspect of life is controlled from Washington DC. Instead of allowing market choice to continue, some policy makers are calling for direct governmental control of Part D prescriptions. Part D is popular among seniors and has consistently comes in under budget projections. Hillary Clinton, who is more likely than not the Democratic nominee, has specifically stated her intents to change Part D into another government run, Obamacare-like failure. Thank God we have had Republicans in Congress use commonsense to protect the program from ideologically based changes proposed by the Obama Administration. So my question to both Clinton and Obama: why change a program that is obviously working?

Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama care more about liberal ideology than what is best for our seniors.

Leave it to liberal politicians to change a popular program that actually works. Meanwhile the VA is a national disgrace they would rather sweep under the rug. Hopefully our Ohio delegation will push Congress to continue to protect our seniors by ensuring that Medicare Part D does not become another over budget, government controlled healthcare nightmare.

It’s Time To Stop Obamacare’s HIT Tax

Even though the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has been in effect for some time, both the intended and unintended consequences of the law continue to negatively impact consumers. The sheer number of taxes added by the law is rather staggering: from the Individual Mandate, the Surtax on Investment Income, and the Health Insurance Tax Excise (HIT), the law was itself half tax increases by design. The backers of the bill missed the irony of “The Affordable Care Act”; making healthcare more costly to over half of the country due to its overabundance of tax increases.

Back in December of 2015, Congress passed a temporary one-year hold on the Health Insurance Excise Tax (HIT). The HIT is a tax on health insurance companies based on its share of the insured marketplace – but exempts the large employer and corporations that are self-insured.  Economists predict that this cost will be passed directly on to small businesses in the form of higher premiums.  When Obamacare was getting shoved through congress (“but we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”) the law was hailed as aimed at increasing the pool of covered people. By enacting a tax such as the HIT, Obamacare is essentially pressuring both providers and companies that offer insurance to their employees to eliminate certain plans simply because they cover too much.

Just as is the case with other liberal economic policies, the HIT picks winners and losers. By its design the winners are health insurance plans with just the “right” amount of coverage, as well as high-cost plans by large corporations that are in the self-insured market that are exempt from the tax. Because of this the HIT unfairly affects small businesses and individuals whose only mistake was choosing a more comprehensive plan for their own comfort.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the HITx would cost small business owners an additional $530 per employee per year. Much of this cost will be passed on to employees in higher premium costs. Wages are stagnant, healthcare costs have already increased, and the HIT would be responsible for yet another increase in healthcare premiums.

As if those reasons weren’t enough, another group has weighed in with a final, highly impactful repercussion from the HIT. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) has estimated that job growth will be stunted if the tax is implemented. The NFIB has estimated that private sector job growth will be reduced by 125,000 simply from the implementation of the HIT.

Let’s recap the Health Insurance Tax:

  1. It unfairly affects small businesses and individuals over large corporations
  2. It picks winners and losers in insurance plans by arbitrary ideal coverage
  3. It will cost small businesses millions of dollars each year
  4. It will cost families about $500 more per year in higher premiums
  5. It will negatively impact economic growth to the tune of 125,000 jobs lost.

 

The HIT costs employees, employers, and jobs. Another temporary one-year hold is not enough. Congress needs to permanently stop the Health Insurance Tax. Our Ohio delegation needs to step up and drive the fight for this repeal.

Sherrod Brown and the Cincinnati Enquirer are spreading misinformation on SCOTUS nominees

sherrod-brownA guest post by Tyler Herrmann

Senator Sherrod Brown recently wrote to the Cincinnati Enquirer about the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. His letter demonstrates either a fundamental misreading of the Constitution or the purposeful distribution of misinformation – neither of which reflects well upon a U.S. Senator.

Sen. Brown likens the decision not to hold a hearing for Judge Garland to a fry-cook deciding to serve raw eggs to customers rather than the fully-cooked omelets promised on the menu. However, Sen. Brown leaves out the fact that diner cooks do not get to cook whatever kind of omelet they desire, but are given recipes which they are expected to follow. When preparing an omelet, the recipe tells a cook how many eggs to use, what other ingredients to include, and even how long it should be cooked. The Constitution provides no such recipe for the Senate to follow when it comes to considering a Supreme Court nomination.

Unfortunately, the Enquirer too is putting out misinformation on the issue. The editorial board spoke on the issue saying “the Senate is constitutionally bound to hold hearings on [President Obama’s] nominee.” I challenge the Enquirer’s editorial board to point me to the language in the Constitution mandating confirmation hearings. Of course, I’ll be waiting for a while since no such language exists.

What the Constitution does say on the issue can be found in Article II, Section 2. It states that the president “shall” nominate Supreme Court Justices, and that only with the advice and consent of the Senate shall those nominees be appointed. In fact, the only action which the Constitution requires is that the president seek the Senate’s advisement and consent. There is no language which purports to instruct the Senate as to how it must go about providing that advisement and consent (or lack thereof).

While it is true that the Senate often holds hearing as a part of this process, the Constitution most certainly does not require it. If Senate leadership decides that the best way to express their opinion is through inaction, then that is their Constitutional prerogative.

Happily, Sen. Brown, other national Democrats, and the Enquirer’s editorial board need not take my word for it – they can turn to the Supreme Court itself for clarification. The Court held in Nixon v. United States 506 U.S. 224 (1993) that the Constitution’s grant of power to the Senate to hold impeachment trials “lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review of the Senate’s actions.” In light of this lack of standards, the Court determined it was up to the Senate alone to decide how it goes about fulfilling this Constitutional duty. In this instance, the Constitution again grants the Senate sole responsibility for providing advisement and consent (or lack thereof) to the president regarding his nominations, but is silent as to process. Therefore, the Senate may, in full accordance with the Constitution, choose to express its opinion through inaction.

If Senator Brown and the Enquirer editorial board are still unconvinced, they need only look to the rest of the state for information. The Columbus dispatch said in an editorial that “the Constitution does not require the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate to hold hearings on President Barack Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.” A member of the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s editorial board states that “none of the current fulminating has anything to do with the Constitution.” Even the unabashed liberals at Plunderbund have conceded that “it’s well within the right of the Senate Majority to do this.”

Whether or not the Senate’s current course of action is the most preferable is a question that should certainly be discussed. I happen to agree with Leader McConnell, Senator Portman, and other Senate Republicans that confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice should wait until after the general election, but there is room for healthy debate on this issue and both sides have convincing arguments. There is, however, no room to simply claim that the Senate is not doing its job or that it is somehow neglecting its constitutional duty. Such claims take this argument outside the realm of what should happen and into the realm of what must happen, and the Constitution does not tell the Senate how it must proceed. The Senate may fulfill its role in any way it sees fit because, after all, there is more than one way to cook an omelet.

Candidate Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Trump

It’s Mid-April and both the Republican and Democratic primaries are still contested. We have such a slate of disappointment on both sides it is rather remarkable to watch. What conservatives are left with is a choice between a solid conservative who is pretty easy to dislike, and someone even more unlikable: a businessman-turned-TV entertainer-turned-politician who the left (as well as many on the right) just can’t help but attack on a daily basis.

 

Donald Trump loves it. Trump THRIVES on it. And he has proven to be able to turn the tables and often have the last laugh. How did we get here?

 

The factors behind Trump’s rise and popularity are finally clear to me. Until recently I was in denial about how we got to this point in the Republican Party. I kept asking myself: why do people like this guy? At events I would laugh and joke with other GOP friends: we would amuse ourselves by calling him a buffoon, would make fun of his hair, and frequently interject little quips about his YUGE WALL. We thought we were just hilarious, because there was no way he is serious… right? How wrong I was.

 

The best part of Trump’s ascension has been to figure out that fighting it is simply very not effective. Quite literally, Resistance is Futile. Because no matter what Trump does, a majority of his supporters simply do not care. My peers in the party either refuse to see this, or will simply not allow themselves. They, as well as the media, continue to belittle Trump. Their efforts are simply useless at this point.

 

“Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room.”

 

Well here we are folks. There is a better than not chance that Trump is the Republican nominee. As I am writing this I am waiting for the results from New York, but an easy prediction is that Trump takes most, if not all of the delegates in that state. So in a few months we will have Trump on one side and Hillary on another. Curiously enough both have their respective party’s establishment to thank for their ascension.  Yes, I am claiming that Trump has the Republican Establishment to thank for his (moderately) successful campaign. While the Democrats intentionally stacked their Super Delegates to allow a Hillary win, the Republicans have inadvertently given Trump a path by abusing their own party supporters.  

 

The Republican Establishment created the environment that allowed Trump to be a legitimate candidate. If we look back at the last 8 years of the Obama Presidency all the signs are present. The GOP took over the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. During those years what came out of Congress that was requested by grassroots conservatives? Not a thing. The last budget deal is a perfect example of the complete lack of concern that the Republican Establishment has for the grassroots. The only winner from the budget deal was the donor class of the party. What did your regular GOP voter get out of the deal? Lower taxes? NOPE. Defund Planned Parenthood? NOPE. Legitimate spending cuts? NOPE. More southern border security? NOPE.

 

So it should come as no surprise that Trump is building his campaign on a list of everything the grassroots has wanted, but has not been taken care of by the GOP higher-ups. Trump has consolidated his base with a sizable portion of the GOP voting base, as well as attracting independents and some blue-collar democrats into voting in the primary. I observed his attraction of blue collar Democrats in my home county in northeast Ohio just a month ago.

 

His supporters love him, and they love that he doesn’t play the politics that they themselves are so tired of. 

 

There’s only one option left: let’s all sit back, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all of this to blow over.

Cuyahoga County BOE would be wise to learn from Hamilton County’s problems with vendor Tenex

Last November, you probably recall that we had a controversial statewide ballot issue in an otherwise tame off-year election. The full legalization of marijuana, both for recreational and medical use, was up for vote, and it drove a lot more people to the polls than usual in an odd year.

Unless you’re from the Cincinnati area, what you may not have heard is that there were technical problems in Hamilton County. A judge eventually ordered that the polls stay open an extra 90 minutes so that no one was denied the opportunity to vote.

Judge Robert Ruehlman argued everyone should have a chance to vote even when system glitches happen. “I think just to be fair make sure everybody gets a chance to vote that’s the right decision, that’s what I’m going to do, alright,” said Ruehlman in court.

The Hamilton County BOE was already looking ahead to this year and expressing worry over getting it right for the presidential election.

The delays, mistakes and technological glitches that plagued Tuesday’s vote caused headaches for everyone involved in the process. But election officials know that’s nothing compared to the epic migraine they’d get if those errors are repeated next fall, during a presidential election that could hinge on Ohio and Hamilton County.

“We’re in a crucial state in a presidential election year and we’ve got to get it right,” said Alex Triantafilou, a board of elections member and the chairman of the county GOP.

“There’s no sugarcoating it,” he said of Tuesday’s vote. “Last night was a disaster, and we need to fix it.”

Hamilton County was using a new system of electronic poll books and sign-ins from a company called Tenex that was supposed to make the process faster. Unfortunately, it appears that neither the BOE nor Tenex was completely prepared. In a post-election report to the Secretary of State, the BOE stated that:

  • 65% of voting locations reported problems with router to printer connectivity.
  • 43% of voting locations had problems finding voters in the new e-Poll books. Those voters had to vote provisionally.
  • 2,764 voters were told by the system that they had “registered too late” and were forced to vote provisionally. In actuality, they had registered in time, but Tenex had failed to update a key database that was left over from a special election in August.

From WVXU,

Ravi Kallem, the president of the software company Tenex, apologized to the board, the poll workers and the voting public for the problems.

Kallem assured the board that the problems would be “a simple fix” and could be accomplished in plenty of time for the March 2016 presidential primary.

One of the biggest problems encountered was that a programming error by Tenex set a wrong date. Voters who had registered after the August special election and before the Oct. 5 voter registration deadline were not showing up as registered voters when their IDs were scanned.

That probably accounted for several thousand voters being forced to cast provisional ballots – which will be counted before the election results are certified by the board Nov. 24.

“Change of this magnitude is going to come with problems, big or small,’’ Kallem said.

There were other problems as well, but these were some of the bigger issues that caused so many delays that day.

Now Cuyahoga County is in the process of converting to electronic poll books, and Tenex is one of the vendors they are considering.

Since it’s a presidential year, and Ohio is always a key state, the upcoming election in November will have much much greater turnout than we saw in 2015. Does Ohio’s largest county want to risk having the same type of problems that Hamilton County did?

Let’s pray that both Hamilton and Cuyahoga County get it right and that Ohio’s election results this November don’t come into question because of the same type of problems we saw in 2015.

The EPA Is Trying To Its Flex Muscle But Ohio Should Continue Saying NO!

The federal government has grown into something it was never intended to be. Its lust for power and control continues to snowball over the rights of the states and local control. And this is incredibly prevalent in the EPA’s overreach.

This overreach is a real problem for states like Ohio. We are fortunate enough to have a bounty of coal here. This keeps our energy rates lower. But, the Obama Administration has made attempts to choke and cripple the coal industry in the name of climate control. That will have a massive impact on those of us who rely on coal to keep our lights on.

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan intends to reduce carbon dioxide from coal and gas fired power plants in 47 states. But, this plan’s effect on global warming is meaningless. It is simply an attempt to take down a cheap source of energy.

Ohio is one of those states the EPA has targeted. Along with 26 other states, Ohio sued the EPA to stop the Power Plan. And the Supreme Court took an unprecedented step of staying the plan on February 9. This stay means the plan cannot be enforced until SCOTUS has a final ruling on the legality. So, states are not obligated to implement these cumbersome regulations. The court will not likely rule for another year or two.

But, the EPA continues trying to put the screws to the states and encourage them to enact the Clean Power Plan. There is no reason for Ohio or any other state to do this, especially at this time. In a time when so many of us are crunched for cash, we cannot handle the undue burden of higher energy bills.

The EPA is likely pushing this because they want it to be part of the Obama legacy. SCOTUS will give a final ruling after Obama’s second term ends. But, Ohioans have no reason to unnecessarily pay higher energy bills simply to help provide a checkmark for Obama’s agenda.

Imagine one of the roughly 2 million families in Ohio that bring home around $1,900 a month and spend 17% of their income on energy. If those prices are increased, as this plan will absolutely do, it will devastate these people, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck. But, this is the effect the EPA would have with its plan. Our rates are projected to increase by double digits if these regulations are put into place.

It would be a waste of money, time and resources to enact this plan that may very well be deemed to be illegal. And we have no reason to enact it at this time. So, why should we gamble on it? We cannot demand Ohio families sacrifice for the greater good of the climate change police and offer next to no rewards on the environment.

Hopefully, Ohio stays the course and doesn’t move forward with this EPA overreach. We can’t afford these choking regulations.

 

 

Kasich keeps Ohio’s 66 delegates from Trump

160315_vod_mar15_johnkasich_speech4_16x9_992I admit it, I didn’t think John Kasich would make it to Ohio’s primary. But he did, mainly by focusing only on a couple of states, staying out of the crossfire between the frontrunners and keeping his powder dry for Ohio.

Yesterday he soundly defeated Donald Trump. That makes it more difficult, but not impossible, for Trump to earn a majority of the delegates needed to avoid a contested convention. (A little education for Donald here: A majority is not “some random number”. It’s 50% of the delegates plus 1. Someone with “a great brain” like you should know that.)

Kasich cannot mathematically win the nomination outright. But if he has a couple hundred delegates at a contested convention, he may indeed play a role.

Obviously, Governor Kasich was not my first choice, but he and his team deserve congratulations for a hard-earned win.