latest
In August of 1790, President George Washington visited Rhode Island, which a few months earlier had ratified the U.S. Constitution.
Read more(A column of opinion by Gary Reid, Publisher Emeritus)
Read moreAbsolutely, Dobbs was worth it
Read moreAs I pulled into the Eagle Stop last week to get a lottery ticket I heard chimes.
Read moreWhen it comes to energy independence – a key component of global stability – the America of 2022 could learn a lot from the America of 1942.
Read moreAmerica’s left continues to harp on the possibility of another civil war, blaming the possibility on Republicans.
Read moreWASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) joined a group of 12 Republican senators, led by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), to file a public comment on Department of Education’s recently proposed rule regarding Title IX compliance in schools and asking Secretary Miguel Cardona to withdraw the rule, citing that it undercuts the purpose of the law and promotes the left’s progressive gender ideology. Joining Inhofe and Lankford in sending the letter were U.S. Sens. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Roger Marshall, M.D., (R-Kan.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) is leading the letter in the House of Representatives. The members write in their letter, “Congress enacted Title IX 50 years ago to provide women with equal opportunities in educational programs and activities. The Proposed Rule’s interpretation of Title IX runs afoul of the clear parameters of the statute, as well as congressional intent. In fact, if finalized, it would actually have the opposite effect of the law’s intent and further erode women’s equality, privacy and safety. As Members of Congress, we have a constitutional obligation to weigh in to ensure that any rulemaking issued by agencies is consistent with the underlying statute, which this proposal certainly is not. Further, we have a significant and unique interest in representing the well-being and safety of our constituents, particularly women and children, who are put at risk by the regulations in the Proposed Rule.”
Read more