# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stress is something that overtakes the lives of everyone whether it be the stress of school, work or even personal relationships it is prominent in the life of every living being. Stress has many health risks such as asthma, gastrointestinal problems, accelerated aging, depression, anxiety, obesity and also Alzheimer disease. The most recent issue linked to stress is heart disease, stress can play just as large of a role as high blood pressure and smoking. Harvard Medical School held a study, 300 subjects were tested for the rate of their amygdala, this is the part of the brain that prepares you for fight or flight. The amygdala are almond shaped cells that lie within the temporal lobe of the brain . Those with a more active amygdala were at a higher risk of developing heart disease and at a high risk of developing it sooner.

Although it is not completely understood why stress plays such a prominent role in developing heart disease scientists have developed a theory. When the amygdala becomes hyperactive it signals to the bone marrow to produce more white blood cells, these white blood cells act on the arteries causing them to become inflamed. Inflamed blood cells can cause heart attacks, strokes and angina. BBC news source doctor Tawakol "Eventually, chronic stress could be treated as an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which is routinely screened for and effectively managed like other major cardiovascular disease risk factors."

Doctors and scientists say that this condition can be managed and will lessen the risk of heart disease. Activities such as writing your feelings out, talking to someone such as a close friend or counselor, or setting time aside to partake in an activity that you enjoy such as gardening, sports, or crafts can help relieve the stress of everyday life. Nathan jones a Junior at MCHS said " When I am feeling over stressed with school I take to the gym and workout for a few hours until I am able to clear my head and make a set plan for my everyday responsibilities."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stress is something that overtakes the lives of everyone whether it be the stress of school, work or even personal relationships it is prominent in the life of every living being. Stress has many health risks such as asthma, gastrointestinal problems, accelerated aging, depression, anxiety, obesity and also Alzheimer disease.

# data[].attributes.headline
Falta de fondos para las escuelas publicas

# data[].attributes.subject
Falta de fondos para las escuelas publicas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Supreme Court Sides With Church In A Funding Battle

The Supreme Court appears to side with a church in a funding battle; the case is a reminder of how hard it can be to draw a line between church and state.

NEIL GORSUCH sat silently through much of his first oral argument on April 19th in a constitutional case, a church-state battle over funding for pre-school playgrounds in Missouri. But a string of questions he posed to the state's lawyer just before the end of the hour-long hearing suggests the 113th justice is sympathetic to Trinity Lutheran Church's claim that its rights were violated when, in 2012, Missouri rejected its bid for a grant to resurface its day-care centre's playground with used tire scraps. As our preview of the case noted, Trinity Lutheran's application for the programme was denied, despite being highly rated, because Missouri's constitution bars state funds from flowing, directly or indirectly, "in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion".

America's separation of church and state has never been a cinch to define. In Everson v Board of Education, the 1947 case first interpreting the First Amendment rule that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", a 5-4 majority saw no constitutional problem with a New Jersey law reimbursing parents for transporting their children to school, including Catholic schools. But Everson also cited James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in declaring that the establishment clause means that "[n]o tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called". In tandem with that somewhat mixed message are 39 state constitutions, including Missouri's, containing explicit bans on funding for religious institutions. The core question in Trinity Lutheran Church v Comer is whether Missouri's stricter-than-thou separation of church and state goes so far that it violates the other religion clause of the First Amendment: the ban on prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

4 Big Questions About Supreme Court's New Seperation of Church and State Case

Missouri's new governor introduced a fresh dynamic into what was set to be the leading religious freedom case argued before the Supreme Court this year, and the first major case that new Justice Neil Gorsuch will hear.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in the case ofTrinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley that could determine to what lengths the government may ban public funding for religious affiliated organizations in a state that has one of the most sweeping restrictions.
In a surprise move Thursday, Gov. Eric Greitens, a former Navy SEAL who took office in January, announced that religious organizations can qualify after all for state funds. In doing so, the Republican governor made an indirect reference to the case before the high court this week.

Judicial Tyranny Stolen Sovereignty

Daniel Horowitz's Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America (2016), published before the presidential election, is proving to be prescient-even prophetic. Horowitz is a columnist for Mark Levin's Conservative Review who writes frequently about constitutional issues. In Stolen Sovereignty he decries "a runaway judicial oligarchy and an unaccountable bureaucratic state." He is concerned that the Left "has irrevocably co-opted [the courts and bureaucracy] into serving as conduits for their radical and revolutionary ideas-to the point that even if we win back the presidency and elect only constitutional conservatives to Congress, . . . it won't matter." These words may have seemed like hyperbole at the time, but the federal courts' implacable opposition to President Trump's executive orders on immigration suggest that they were on the mark. In a recent post, I expressed dismay at the judicial resistance to the President's first executive order on immigration (E.O. 13769). Unelected federal judges blocked the President from fulfilling a campaign promise to the American electorate-without even citing the federal statute that expressly authorizes his action.[1] Some commentators saw the Ninth Circuit's ludicrous decision as nothing short of a judicial coup d'état. Rather than challenge it in the deadlocked U.S. Supreme Court, on March 6 President Trump issued a revised executive order (E.O. 13780), attempting to correct the alleged defects. Incredibly, the revised order has met with even stronger judicial resistance, spurring multiple lawsuits and injunctions: a limited temporary restraining order issued by Judge William Conley of the Western District of Wisconsin, a partial injunction issued by Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland, and a nationwide injunction issued by Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii. (All three were appointed by President Obama.)

ReadMore:
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2017/03/20/judicial-tyrannys-final-frontier/

Is the U.S. Supreme Court a court?

On the one hand, the answer seems obvious. It says so right in there in the name. Plus, the justices wear those funny robes. Strong evidence, I admit. On the other hand, see every Supreme Court decision involving constitutional law over the past century and a half. I could rest my case there, but I haven't gotten to the point yet. If the Supreme Court is a court, it is a weird one, and that often creates a great deal of confusion about how the Court does or should operate. Generally speaking, we might think that a key characteristic of a court is that it resolves disputes in accord with some pre-established set of legal rules. It is not clear that the Supreme Court actually does that. The justices have relatively little interest in resolving disputes, and they have little concern for pre-established legal rules. Let's unpack that a bit. The modern Supreme Court's job is to take "hard cases." Hard cases, in this sense, are those in which there are no clear legal answers. And they are inevitable. There will always be some legal questions for which the answers are unclear, and some difficult legal disputes that push the boundaries of established legal understandings. Some legal theorists think that judges effectively depart from their usual role of interpreters of the law in such circumstances and simply exercise discretion. The legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin famously argued that even in those hard cases, there was a right answer that could be determined by properly investigating the content and implications of the principles embedded in the law. What is striking about the Supreme Court is that it specializes in hard cases. This is why political scientists love the Supreme Court. Given a steady diet of hard cases, the justices display lots of behavior that looks like the exercise of policy-driven discretion. (Of course, the justices also benefit from occupying the court of last resort in the United States, which means that even apparently easy cases can be made hard by rendering the established legal rules no longer operative.) -

Department Of Education Sued Over Cover Up Of Increasing Student Loan Failure

Washington, DC) - Judicial Watch announced that it today filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Education seeking records relating to then Obama administration's "coding error" that resulted in masking that most borrowers are failing to pay down their federally-subsidized student loans (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Education (No. 1:17-cv-00501)). The Obama administration's Obamacare legislation also included provisions that resulted in the federal takeover of the student loan industry, which radically increased taxpayer subsidies of higher education loans. The Education Department acknowledged in early January that the coding error resulted in wildly inaccurate College Scorecard repayment rates. The significance is substantial, according to The Wall Street Journal: The department played down the mistake, but the new average three-year repayment rate has declined by 20 percentage points to 46%. This is huge. It means that fewer than half of undergraduate borrowers at the average college are paying down their debt. *** Last month the Government Accountability Office (GAO) projected that loan forgiveness for borrowers enrolled in the plans could cost upward of $108 billion. GAO rapped the department for underestimating the costs due to "insufficient quality controls" and "unreasonable assumptions." It's possible the putative "coding error" is connected to this ill-management. As the Journal notes, "The other scandal is that the Obama Administration used the inflated Scorecard repayment data as a pretext to single out for-profit colleges for punitive regulation." Judicial Watch filed today's lawsuit after the department failed to respond to a January 29, 2017, FOIA request for:

IRS Gives "After School Satan Club" Tax Exemption Status

While the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) makes conservative groups wait years for tax-exempt status an "After School Satan Club" launched to hinder Christian-based counterparts got its nonprofit ranking in just ten days, records obtained by Judicial Watch show. The classification is offered to charitable, religious and educational organizations that operate as nonprofits. Under the Obama administration IRS political appointees illegally targeted conservative groups, either making them wait up to seven years for tax-exempt status or denying their application altogether. Judicial Watch uncovered that scandal and has obtained piles of government records showing how the IRS illegally colluded with another federal agency to single out groups with conservative-sounding terms such as patriot and Tea Party in their titles when applying for tax-exempt status. In the meantime, leftist groups like the Satan club got fast tracked. The principle goal of establishing the Satan clubs in public schools throughout Washington State appears to be to counter existing enterprises operated by a Christian-based group. Documents obtained by Judicial Watch include the process of establishing an after-school Satan club at Point Defiance Elementary in Tacoma. The entity behind the club is a nonprofit called Reason Alliance, which is based in Somerville, Massachusetts, and operates in Washington State as the Satanic Temple of Seattle. Its director, Lilith X. Starr, established the Point Defiance Elementary Satanic club, the records show. In its application the club states that its purpose is "character development" and that adult instructors are vetted by the Satanic Temple's "Executive Ministry." Children ages 5-12 will develop basic critical reasoning, character qualities, problem solving and creative expression, according to the Satanic Temple filings included in the documents. The club logo is a pencil with devil's horns. Records obtained by Judicial Watch from the Treasury Department show that the Satanic cult applied for tax-exempt status on October 21, 2014 and received it on October 31, 2014.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court appears to side with a church in a funding battle; the case is a reminder of how hard it can be to draw a line between church and state. NEIL GORSUCH sat silently through much of his first oral argument on April 19th in a constitutional case, a church-state battle over funding for pre-school playgrounds in Missouri.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wealth inequality in the United States and many European countries, especially between the richest and the rest, has been a popular topic since Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century was published. Piketty and others argue that tax data shows that wealth inequality has increased in the U.S. since the late 1970s, as seen in the figure below from a paper by Emmanuel Saez-Picketty's frequent co-author- and Gabriel Zucman.

The figure shows the percentage of all U.S. household wealth that is owned by the top 0.1% of households, which as the note explains consists of about 160,000 families. The percentage fell from 25% in the late 1920s to about 7% in the late 1970s and then began to rise. Many people have used this and similar data to argue for higher marginal taxes on the rich and more income redistribution in order to close the wealth gap between the richest and the rest.

Modern occupational licensing is the legacy of these earlier, successful efforts to protect profits by limiting entry, often of "undesirables."

While politicians and pundits continue debating what should be done, if anything, about taxes and redistribution, many economists are trying to understand what factors can affect wealth and thus the wealth distribution over time. An important one that is not talked about enough is competition, specifically Joseph Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction.
Wealth Inequality and Creative Destruction
Charles Jones, a professor at Stanford, has discussed the connection between profits and creative destruction and their link with inequality. To help illustrate the connection, Mr. Jones uses the example of an entrepreneur who creates a new phone app. The app's creator will earn profits over time as the app's popularity and sales increase. However, her profits will eventually decline due to the process of creative destruction: a newer, better app will hit the market that pulls her customers away from her product, erodes her sales and forces her to adapt or fail. The longer she is able to differentiate her product from others, the longer she will be in business and the more money she will earn. This process is stylized in the figure below.
Restricting Entry to the Market
If the app maintains its popularity for the duration of firm life 1, the entrepreneur will earn profits P1. After that the firm is replaced by a new firm that also exists for firm life 1 and earns profit P1. The longer a firm is able to maintain its product's uniqueness, the more profit it will earn, as shown by firm life 2: In this case the firm earns profit P2. A lack of competition stretches out a firm's life cycle since the paucity of substitutes makes it costlier for consumers to switch products if the value of the firm's product declines.

In 1984, 99 people on the list inherited their fortune and were not actively growing it. By 2014 only 28 people were in the same position.

Higher profits can translate into greater inequality as well, especially if we broaden the discussion to include wages and sole-proprietor income. Maintaining market power for a long period of time by restricting entry not only increases corporate profits, it also allows doctors, lawyers, opticians, and a host of other workers who operate under a licensing regime that restricts entry to earn higher wages than they otherwise would. The higher wages obtained due to state restrictions on healthcare provision, restrictions on providing legal services and state-level occupational licensing can exacerbate inequality at the lower levels of the income distribution as well as the higher levels.

Workers and sole proprietors in the U.S. have been using government to restrict entry into occupations since the country was founded. In the past such restrictions were often drawn on racial or ethnic lines. In their Pulitzer Prize-winning history of New York City, Gotham, historians Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace write about New York City cartmen in the 1820s:

American-born carters complained to the city fathers that Irish immigrants, who had been licensed during the war [of 1812] while Anglo-Dutchmen were off soldiering, were undercutting established rates and stealing customers. Mayor Colden limited future alien licensing to dirt carting, a field the Irish quickly dominated. When they continued to challenge the Anglo-Americans in other areas, the Society of Cartmen petitioned the Common Council to reaffirm their "ancient privileges". The municipal government agreed, rejecting calls for the decontrol of carting, as the business and trade of the city depended on in it, and in 1826 the council banned aliens from carting, pawnbroking, and hackney-coach driving; soon all licensed trades were closed to them.
The Importance of a Dynamic Economy
Modern occupational licensing is the legacy of these earlier, successful efforts to protect profits by limiting entry, often of "undesirables." Today's occupational licensing is no longer a response to racial or ethnic prejudices, but it has similar results: It protects the earning power of established providers.

There are almost no good substitutes for EpiPen due to government policies that have insulated EpiPen's maker, Mylan, from market competition.

Throughout America's history the economy has been relatively dynamic, and this dynamism has made it difficult for businesses to earn profits for long periods of time; only 12% of the companies on the Fortune 500 in 1955 were still on the list in 2015. In a properly functioning capitalist economy, newer, poorer firms will regularly supplant older, richer firms and this economic churn tempers inequality.

The same churn occurs among the highest echelon of individuals as well. An increasing number of the Forbes 400 are self-made, often from humble beginnings. In 1984, 99 people on the list inherited their fortune and were not actively growing it. By 2014 only 28 people were in the same position. Meanwhile, the percentage of the Forbes 400 who are largely self-made increased from 43% to 69% over the same period.
Regulation and Competition
But this dynamism may be abating and excessive regulation is likely a factor. For example, the rate of new-bank formation from 1990 - 2010 was about 100 banks per year. Since 2010, the rate has fallen to about three per year. Researchers have attributed some of the decline of small banks to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, which increased compliance costs that disproportionately harm small banks. Fewer banks means less competition and higher prices.

Another recent example of how a lack of competition can increase profits and inequality is EpiPen. The price of EpiPen-a medicine used to treat severe allergic reactions to things like peanuts-has increased dramatically since 2011. This price increase was possible because there are almost no good substitutes for EpiPen, and the lack of substitutes can be attributed to the FDA and other government policies that have insulated EpiPen's maker, Mylan, from market competition. Meanwhile, the compensation of Mylan's CEO Heather Bresch increased by 671% from 2007 to 2015. I doubt that Bresch's compensation would have increased by such a large amount without the profits of EpiPen.

Letting firms and workers compete in the marketplace fosters economic growth and can help dampen inequality. To the extent that wealth inequality is an issue we don't need more regulation and redistribution to fix it: We need more competition.

Republished from The Mercatus Center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Regulations Widen Wealth Inequality | Adam Millsap

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wealth inequality in the United States and many European countries, especially between the richest and the rest, has been a popular topic since Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century was published. Piketty and others argue that tax data shows that wealth inequality has increased in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Image Interpretation of a dream "Peace" #01