meet tom corbett


running for Gov of PA against Alison Schwartz

Pro-life; supports state restrictions on abortion. (Nov 2010)

  • OpEd: Corbett knew federal LGBT laws; OK to change mind. (Dec 2013)
  • Supports anti-LGBT-discrimination bill, but not gay marriage. (Dec 2013)
  • Apologies for comparing gay marriage to incest. (Dec 2013)
  • Defines marriage as between a man and a woman. (Nov 2010)
  • End antiquated system of state-owned liquor stores. (Feb 2014)
  • Give up on privatizing state lottery program. (Jan 2014)
  • Justice Reinvestment: eligible offenders out of system. (Feb 2013)
  • 290 new state troopers plus 90 new civilian dispatchers. (Feb 2013)
  • Cancel unneeded expensive prison project in Fayette County. (Mar 2011)

I have to be honest his stance is too extreme for me to want to list so, like everything else regarding Midterms2014 …. do your research this guy is not a great Public Servant in my opinion and if you seek out the definition as well …

 

Top 10 Reasons We Need to Defeat Chris Christie :::::: repost


 chrischristie
   By Staff writer on
Emily’slist.org
Speculation is already running rampant around the 2016 presidential race and we’ve barely had a chance to think about the upcoming 2014 midterm elections. But before those come to pass, there are a few big races in 2013 that you need to know about — including the race for governor in New Jersey. Chris Christie is running for reelection, and we don’t need to tell you that what happens in this race could have major implications for the 2016 Republican primary, not to mention the general election. This could be the year we stop Chris Christie in his tracks. He’s been a disaster as governor, especially for New Jersey women and their families.

Here are the top 10 reasons we need to defeat Chris Christie this November.

10. Chris Christie Vetoed Same-Sex Marriage:  With the tide in America turning against bigotry and discrimination, and in one of the most solidly blue states in the country, Christie vetoed a bill sent to him by both houses of the New Jersey legislature that would enshrine marriage equality into law.

9. Chris Christie Is No Friend to Workers:  Christie has built himself a reputation as one of the most anti-union governors in the country, referring to public school teachers as “thugs” and supporting a bill that would “destroy collective bargaining.”

8. Chris Christie Doesn’t Believe in Universal Pre-K:  Not only does Christie oppose government-funded preschool for every child in his state, he attacked his predecessor’s plan as “simply wrong” and called it “government babysit[ting].”

7. Chris Christie Misuses State Funds:  At a cost of $2,500 an hour, Christie used a state helicopter for personal travel. Probably not the use taxpayers had in mind.

6. Chris Christie Supports the Ryan Budget:  Paul Ryan’s proposed federal budget would end Medicare as we know it, but Christie joined ultraconservative governors like Texas’s Rick Perry, Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, and Virginia’s Bob McDonnell to tell Ryan that his budget was what “voters clearly asked for.”

5. Chris Christie Vetoed a Hike in the Minimum Wage: Just last month, Christie vetoed a bill passed by the legislature that would raise the minimum wage in New Jersey — a state with the third-highest cost of living in the nation — from $7.25 an hour to $8.50, and index it to the consumer price index so it grows with inflation. Christie proposed a smaller increase, phased in over more time, which would not be indexed.

4. Chris Christie Vetoed Equal Pay Legislation : Christie isn’t shy about much, and that includes the use of his veto pen. He vetoed three of four bills passed by the legislature designed to outlaw pay discrimination against women in the workplace and called them “senseless bureaucracy.”

3. Chris Christie Targeted Poor Families in His Budget:  It’s no surprise that Christie is a fan of Paul Ryan’s budget once you look at his own. His budget cut aid for tuition, for a center for abused children, for legal services, and for transitional aid to some of New Jersey’s neediest communities. When asked about the cuts, he said “I don’t care.”

2. Chris Christie Cut Funding to Family Planning Organizations:  Christie got out his veto pen again for a budget that would have given $7.5 million to family planning organizations in the state, including Planned Parenthood. He blocked attempts to restore the funding, even using a line-item veto specifically to target women’s health in New Jersey.

1. Chris Christie Is Proudly:  Anti-Choice Christie has declared himself against the side of women’s reproductive rights and on the side of those who would deny them, saying “I am pro-life.” We can’t trust Chris Christie, not in New Jersey, and certainly not in the White House. This November may be our best chance to stop his ambitions.

since when is a Corporation a person ? Since the Roberts Court


By

The Roberts Court Sides With Corporations And CEOs Over Average Citizens

The Supreme Court’s final decisions of the term came today, and in the now established tradition of the Roberts Court, they strike another blow to working Americans. In Harris v. Quinn, the five conservative justices undermined public sector unions by barring homecare workers in Illinois from collecting fair share fees to ensure that everyone shares in the cost of bargaining. And in the closely watched Hobby Lobby case, the same five male justices gave unprecedented power to for-profit employers to make health care decisions for their female employees.

Both rulings were handed down from a split court along ideological lines. The majority opinions for both were authored by Justice Samuel Alito, who is considered to be the most business-friendly justice ever; number two is his colleague, Chief Justice John Roberts.

Here’s a little chart that demonstrates how business interests are racking up the Supreme Court wins in the Roberts Court more than ever before:

scotus-chamber

Let’s go through each case where the court chose to trample on the rights of the people at the expense of the powerful:

Harris v. Quinn

Public sector unions bargain on behalf of all of their workers — even if a particular worker does not belong to the union. Typically, non-members pay a fair share fee to ensure all employees, regardless of whether they are members of the union, receive the collectively bargained-for benefits. In Harris v. Quinn, the Roberts court ruled 5-4 that some Illinois home-care workers who did not want to join the union but still saw their wages rise thanks to collective bargaining are exempt from having to pay those fees. The decision weakens the ability for public sector unions to bargain on behalf of their workers. When staffing and safety decisions are taken out of the hands of the first responders that know them best and put into the hands of politicians and corporate CEOs, that makes us all less safe.

The court did not go as far as to entirely agree with the anti-union plaintiffs; the plaintiffs sought to essentially end unions as we know them by arguing that it is unconstitutional to require any non-union members to pay to reimburse unions that bargain on their behalf. By contradicting previous rulings and acting in an activist manner, however, the court left the door open to future rulings that further weaken unions, hurt middle class workers and put more power in the hands of corporations and CEOs.

That makes it more important than ever for working Americans to stand up like they have at fast-food strikes around the country and negotiate for the rights, freedom and dignity they deserve. A single court ruling doesn’t negate our obligation to keep fighting to restore the American middle class.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Bosses should not be able to interfere with a woman’s access to affordable birth control. Period. But today, five men sitting on the Supreme Court decided that they do. The majority ruled 5-4 that owners of for-profit, secular businesses who have religious objections to birth control may defy federal rules requiring that they include contraceptive care in their employees’ health plans because it violates the employer’s religious liberty rights.

The decision is an example of judicial activism that benefits corporations at its worst. Think Progress Justice Editor Ian Millhiser explains:

For many years, the Supreme Court struck a careful balance between protecting religious liberty and maintaining the rule of law in a pluralistic society. Religious people enjoy a robust right to practice their own faith and to act according to the dictates of their own conscience, but they could not wield religious liberty claims as a sword to cut away the legal rights of others. This was especially true in the business context. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Lee, “[w]hen followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”

With Monday’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, however, this careful balance has been upended. …The rights of the employer now trump the rights of the employee.

Let us clarify: Religious liberty is the right to practice religion as you wish and the freedom to not have religion imposed on you by others, especially corporations.

The reality of the decision is that while it was celebrated on the right as protecting people of faith, it actually hurts them: a substantial majority of almost every major U.S. Christian group support the idea that corporations like Hobby Lobby should be required to provide employees with healthcare plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost. Moreover, Julia K. Stronks, an evangelical Christian and political science professor at Whitworth University, points out the irony that “although the owners of these for-profit corporations oppose the contraceptive requirement because of their pro-life religious beliefs, the requirement they oppose will dramatically reduce abortions.”

There is no doubting the slippery slope of the Hobby Lobby case when it comes to businesses using religious liberty to deny any number of rights to individuals. We must being to work now to re-establish a meaningful and appropriate religious liberty in America.

BOTTOM LINE: Today’s Supreme Court rulings from five conservative justices use judicial activism to benefit corporations and CEOs while hurting workers and women. The Roberts Court’s friendliness to corporate interests and the powerful at the expense of regular Americans is continues to be unprecedented, and it continues to be critical that progressives use every available avenue to fight back.

Make the pledge for Initiative 594 in Washington


wash_state_ferry_generic020
We’re gearing up for a fight this fall in Washington state.

Nine out of 10 Americans support expanding background checks. It’s the right thing to do. But because some members of Congress refuse to stand up to the gun lobby, OFA supporters are taking the fight to the state and local level wherever we can make real progress.

OFA-Washington volunteers are part of a progressive coalition that helped gather enough signatures to put Initiative 594 on the ballot this November, a common-sense gun violence prevention measure to expand background checks on gun sales.

Folks on the ground have been building momentum on this issue for months, and that’s huge — but it’s just the start.

Right now, we stand a real chance to make progress in Washington state, in spite of the powerful and well-funded special interests. The other side is banking on the hope that you won’t be coming out to support this, so we’re asking folks to simply make a pledge to vote for Initiative 594 this November to make sure this initiative passes.

Background checks save lives, plain and simple, so this is important — will you make the pledge to vote for Initiative 594?

We’re in for a showdown on this one — the gun lobby has introduced their own initiative that would roll back background checks to the federal minimum, reversing the progress we’ve already seen on this issue in Washington.

Let’s be clear: Initiative 594 shouldn’t be controversial — it’s a logical extension of the background check law currently in place. Right now, all retail gun dealers must run a simple background screening on folks looking to purchase guns.

But right now Washingtonians can buy guns at gun shows, online, or in private transactions with no background check of any kind.

Initiative 594 would close those loopholes and extend the same rule to all gun purchases. It’s common sense, and it’s something that most Washingtonians support.

You know as well as I do that we’re up against powerful, well-funded interests here. It’s going to take everyone who cares about this issue to do their part.

This is about keeping our families and communities safe — add your name today and pledge to vote for Initiative 594:

 

Thanks,

Kelly

Kelly Byrne
National Issues Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action

Ida B. Wells-Barnett Marched 100yrs ago for – Women’s voting rights


T437487_06
1913
100 years ago
Social activist Ida B. Wells-Barnett marches in Washington, D.C., with 5,000 suffragettes in a protest supporting women’s voting rights.
Read Ida B. Wells-Barnett’s biography >>