An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch

Here is an article from in which the author, Virologist Steven Hatfill, explains the science and the studies on Hydroxychloroquine.  We are always lectured by the left about how we are “supposed to follow the science”…except when it does not fit their agenda.

An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch


Do not wait, email WI legislative leadership & tell them to call a special session & pass a joint resolution (authorized under 323.10) to end Evers’ mask mandate. 

Speaker Robin Vos: 

Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald:

Senator Nass Calls for Immediate Session of the Legislature to Block Evers’ Power GrabNew Emergency Declaration is Illegal and Unnecessary    

Senator Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) issued the following statement in response to Governor Tony Evers new emergency declaration (Executive Order 82) that allows for the Governor and DHS Secretary-Designee Andrea Palm to issue dictatorial public health edicts.  The first order issued is a statewide face mask mandate.

“I am calling on Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald to immediately call the Legislature back into session to pass a joint resolution ending Governor Evers’ new illegal and unnecessary emergency declaration.  The Legislature is empowered to end any emergency declaration issued by a Governor through the simple passage of a joint resolution that doesn’t require the Governor’s approval.

Governor Evers actions today are nothing more than a political stunt to create a partisan fight with the Legislature.  This is not about improving public health.  Today’s emergency declaration is all about the November election and the weak performance of Democrats in this state.

Since March, the actions of Governor Evers and Secretary-Designee Palm have solidified both of them as the two least trustful people that have served in state government in my entire time in the Legislature.  I can’t legally or morally trust either of these individuals with emergency powers.”

BEWARE – Communicable Disease Ordinances Being Proposed by WI Counties

Covid 19 has brought a whole new way of life for most people all across the world. Very recently a number of WI counties are being encouraged to enact an ordinance dealing with communicable diseases in preparation for what may happen in the near future. New laws are being proposed at the national level, the state level, the county level and city level of government. We must be aware and vigilant to have input on these issues.
Marathon County in Wausau is dealing with a proposed ordinance. Here is a link to information to that proposal.
Walworth County in Elkhorn has also been dealing with a proposed ordinance dealing with communicable diseases & were planning to vote on it June 18th. No update is available on this proposal.
Dodge County in Juneau had a meeting June 16 to discuss a proposed ordinance dealing with communicable diseases which was attended by a number of concerned people. This is a link to a summation by a gentleman in attendance of what took place at the meeting & how the county is proceeding.
LINK TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY – please read this proposal & understand the authority they are wanting to give to the health department and specifically the Jefferson County Health Officer.
This is a link to the Jefferson County June 19 press release relating to how they plan to proceed.
This is a link to section 252.03 of the state statutes referenced in the above press release.
This is a link to all Jefferson County Supervisors and you can click on the green check mark for each and get the contact information for each supervisor
If you live in Jefferson County please contact your Jefferson County Supervisor and express your concerns. If you live in another county please check with your county supervisor to see if such a proposal is pending there. These proposals will directly impact the citizens of each county.
BOTTOM LINEMuch of what is being proposed is unconstitutional.  The US Constitution and the WI Constitution protect our natural rights to peaceful assembly and to worship as we see fit.  Nowhere does either constitution clarify that these rights are lost in the event of a pandemic.
This ordinance empowers the County Health Officer to, in the name of fighting a disease, “close schools and forbid public gatherings in schools, churches, places of employment, public buildings, private property, and other places to control outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics” and “implement all emergency measures necessary to control communicable diseases and do what is reasonable and necessary for the prevention and suppression of disease including, but not limited to, prohibiting public and private gatherings when deemed necessary to control outbreaks, epidemics, or pandemics“.

While we understand that the government can apply some of these rules to public property and public gatherings, we believe it to be an overreach to apply this to private property.


Gov. Evers makes next move in allowing DHS to craft new emergency rule

Evers is proposing a new plan, a 150 day shutdown of the state (5 MONTHS!) followed by a 120 day extension. 270 days total. He is following Wisconsin state law here and this plan will get sent to the JCRAR (Joint Committee for Review on Administrative Rules). The 10 people on this committee (6 Republican and 4 Democrat) will literally hold the direction of our lives in their hands.

Contact them and let them know if you do not want this order imposed on us as a law. We need them to strike down all aspects of this plan.

If the JCRAR rejects Evers’ plan then it dies. We must make sure this happens. They are only going to know how you feel if you ACTUALLY CALL.

Our forefathers literally fought and agonized over decisions that affected their family, their livelihood, their health, and many of them sacrificed everything for FREEDOM. We can manage to make 10 phone calls and send 10 emails!

These are the 10 elected officials you should reach out to:


(R) Steve Nass 608-266-2635
(R) Duey Stroebel 608-266-7513
(R) Joan Ballweg 608-266-8077
(R) Adam Neylon 608-266-5120
(R) Senator Craig 608-266-5400
(R) Rep Quinn 608-266-2519
(D) Sen Larson (608) 266-7505
(D) Sen Wirch (608) 267-8979 (262) 694-7379
(D) Rep Hebl 608) 266-7678
(D) Rep Subeck (608) 266-7521


This past week the WI Supreme Court invalidated Gov. Evers’ Emergency Order 28 – Safer At Home.

You can read more here:

Wisconsin Supreme Court Says the State’s COVID-19 Lockdown Violated the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers

The Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidated the order in this ruling: WI Legislature vs Andrea Palm

This ruling is technical in some aspects, but worth reading.  What deserves commentary in this case is the concurring opinions by Justice Rebecca Bradley and Justice Daniel Kelly, and the dissent by Justice Brian Hagedorn.

Justices R. Bradley and Kelly, deal with the broad unconstitutionality of such an order.  We believe they are spot on.  We are saddened that the Republican Party didn’t do all it could to get the law abiding, conservatives, and church going public out to vote and re-elect Justice Dan Kelly.  What a difference his vote has made in this case, and why these elections matter.

Now we come to Justice Brian Hagedorn, and his dissent.  We know many of the RRP have met Justice Hagedorn when he was running for the WI Supreme Court.  He is a good person, who we thought held much of the same philosophical beliefs as many in the RRP.  However, it is apparent he spent too long as the legal counsel to Governor Walker, arguing for the State of Wisconsin, not seeing the forest for the trees.  This case, as Justices R. Bradley and Kelly write in their opinions, is not just about the definition of an “order”or “rule”, but about governmental overreach in authority.

Justice R. Bradley writes in her concurring opinion beginning on page 40:

“Under the Wisconsin Constitution, all governmental power derives “from the consent of the governed” and government officials may act only within the confines of the authority the people give them. Wis. Const. art. I, § 1. The people of Wisconsin never consented to any elected official, much less an unelected cabinet secretary, having the power to create law, execute it, and enforce it.”

In footnote 3 in her opinion on page 41:

“Spurning more than two centuries of fundamental constitutional law as well as the Wisconsin Constitution’s guarantee of liberty, Justice Brian Hagedorn shockingly proclaims “the judiciary must never cast aside our laws or the constitution itself in the name of liberty.” Justice Hagedorn’s dissent, ¶259. Setting aside the self-contradictory nature of that statement, Justice Hagedorn’s 53-page opinion contains no constitutional analysis whatsoever, affirmatively rejects the constitution, and subjugates liberty. The Wisconsin Constitution IS the law——and it reigns supreme over any statute. “The Constitution’s supremacy over legislation bears repeating: ‘the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law’ and ‘a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and . . . courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.’ See Marbury [v. Madison], 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) [137] at 178, 180 [1803].” Mayo v. Wis. Injured Patients and Families Comp. Fund, 2018 WI 78, ¶91, 383 Wis. 2d 1, 914 N.W.2d 678 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring).

The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).”


Justice Daniel Kelly writes in his concurring opinion on page 63:

“The court’s opinion ably describes why these provisions do not confer on her the authority necessary to support the Order, and I join it. My purpose in writing separately is to describe why, under our constitutional form of government, the Legislature cannot possibly have given the Secretary the authority she believes she has.”

Justice Kelly goes on to explain the view of DHS Secretary Andrea Palm and why she is wrong on page 63:

“¶89 In the Secretary’s view, the Legislature gave her plenary power to simply “act” without the need of any further statutory or regulatory policy. Her brief candidly asserts there are no statutory or regulatory limitations on her authority to address communicable diseases:

Wis. Stat. § 252.02 is not legislation “enforced or administered by” DHS through issuing Safer-at-Home [Order], and DHS’s actions here did not “implement, interpret, or make more specific” standards that the Legislature designed by statute. Unlike statutes that regulate certain conduct or activities, like food safety or traffic laws, section 252.02, as relevant here, simply empowers DHS to act. Thus, Safer-at-Home is not “enforc[ing]” any legislative requirement . . . .

(Emphasis added.) That is to say, she expressly disavows any suggestion that she is implementing statutory standards. And she not only acknowledges, but affirmatively asserts, that she is not enforcing any statutory requirement. This statute, she says, simply empowers her to “act.” When queried during oral arguments, her attorney said there are no limits on this power, saving only judicial or legislative intervention.

¶90 But our constitution does not confer on any governmental official, bureaucrat, or employee a generalized power to “act.” There are three powers on loan to our government——legislative, executive, and judicial. To the extent governmental officials may act at all, it is only within the context of one of those powers. Therefore, we must discern what type of authority the Secretary exercised when she issued her Order. And then, assuming Wis. Stat. § 252.02 granted the Secretary all the power necessary to issue the Order, we must compare that grant against our basic constitutional structure and the non-delegation doctrine to determine whether the statute impermissibly delegated part of the Legislature’s power to the Secretary.”


Justice Kelly goes on to explain the three branches of government and their respective roles.  Justice Kelly also provides the following analysis on Justice Hagedorn’s argument on page 79:

“If § 252.02 enables the Department to confer on itself the power to confine people to their homes, close businesses, etc., then it has quite obviously transferred no small amount of the legislature’s core authority to the executive branch, thereby enabling the Secretary to make up public policy decisions as she goes along. Without that understanding of the Secretary’s authority, the Order could not function. Justice Hagedorn mirrors this error, and even uses it as the organizing principle for his dissent. The whole of his statutory analysis is faulty because he has not discerned that the Order implicitly created, or assumed to exist, a host of public policy decisions.8  Under Justice Hagedorn’s rationale, an executive branch agency is free to make ad hoc policy decisions, so long as they are temporary and acted upon immediately. Nothing in our legal canon supports such an odd proposition.”

And footnote 8 from above:

“Justice Hagedorn’s statutory analysis might be perfectly serviceable if we were considering an executive order implementing previously established public policy decisions. But that is not this case. So, as a functional matter, his analysis is operating on a hypothetical set of facts.”

Justice Kelly addresses the two other arguments on page 82:

“¶116 The Order fares no better under the second principle of non-delegation: “[O]nce [the Legislature] prescribes the rule governing private conduct, it may make the application of that rule depend on executive fact-finding.” Id. Under this rationale, it could conceivably be appropriate for the Legislature to confer on the Secretary the power to confine people to their homes if she finds that such an action is necessary to control the spread of a communicable disease. But no statute or rule confers on her that authority, so the Order cannot be justified as the exercise of executive authority under this principle.

¶117 Nor is the Order salvageable under the third non-delegation principle, which provides that the legislature “may assign the executive and judicial branches certain non-legislative responsibilities.” Id. at 2137. The Secretary, however, insists that Wis. Stat. § 252.02 “simply empowers DHS to act,” and that the Order “embodies the quintessential executive task of deciding how to address, for the time being, the exigency caused by COVID-19,” and that her authority to address that exigency is limited only by judicial or legislative intervention. If accepted, this would work an intolerable inversion in the nature of executive authority, allowing it to swallow almost all of the Legislature’s power. Here’s why.

¶118 If Wis. Stat. § 252.02 makes the Order’s contents entirely executive, a few strategically written statutes would make the legislature a virtual non-entity. What if the legislature instructed the Department of Justice to “issue orders . . . for the control and suppression of [crime]”? Or it enacted a statute that “simply empower[ed] [the Department of Financial Institutions] to act” with respect to the subjects within its purview? Or it charged some agency or other with “the quintessential executive task of deciding how to address, for the time being, the exigency caused by” economic vicissitudes? If the executive’s authority under each of these hypothetical delegations was as staggeringly broad as the Secretary claims for herself under § 252.02, the whole of our lives could be governed exclusively from within the executive branch.

¶119 But none of those hypotheticals would be consistent with the separation of powers for the same reason the Order is not. An agency cannot confer on itself the power to dictate the lives of law-abiding individuals as comprehensively as the Order does without reaching beyond the executive branch’s authority.9

(Footnote) 9 Justice Hagedorn suggests my attention to constitutional boundaries is merely an effort to “try to get around” his observation that “[w]e do not enjoin particular enforcement actions under a facially constitutional statute simply because the statute could be deployed in ways that violate the constitution.” Justice Hagedorn’s dissent, ¶¶249, 248. I have no need to “get around” this observation because in this court we don’t let the tail wag the dog. Justice Hagedorn is concerned about remedies when what we are concerned about is enforcing a structural limitation on the branches’ powers. It would be irresponsible of us not to consider constitutional limitations when we declare what the law is.”

Finally Justice Kelly concludes:

“¶120 The Order may be a brilliantly conceived and executed response to COVID-19. Or maybe it’s not. Either way, that is not the question before the court. Brilliance does not confer authority. Nor does necessity. Our only task in this case was to determine whether Secretary Palm has the authority to issue the Order. We had an unavoidable, non-discretionary, obligatory responsibility to decide that question. And so we have.10 Because I agree with that declaration, I join the court’s opinion. I wrote separately because it is important to establish that, if we agreed with the Secretary’s reading of Wis. Stat. § 252.02, we would have to conclude the statute violated the separation of powers by conferring on the Secretary the power to make laws without going through the rule-making process.11”


OPPOSE LRB-0312/1: Eliminating personal conviction exemption from immunizations

There is currently a proposal being circulated in the WI state legislature that would take away the rights of parents to refuse vaccines based on personal convictions. It has support from both Democrats and Republicans. Legislators are asking other legislators to sign onto this proposal before it becomes a bill. The more support it has the faster it will move through the legislature.

Everyone wants to turn this into a debate about vaccines (which it’s not…make your own decision on vaccination).  HOWEVER…this is a wolf in sheep’s clothing

This is 100% a parental rights issue.


1. Parents should have the rights to choose the best care for their children without having the government forcibly take over. This bill sets the precedent that the GOVERNMENT now gets control over the heath of your child.

2. Some would say…”They are still keeping the religious exemption so what’s the big deal?” This is another distraction from what is actually happening. The GOVERNMENT is setting the precedent that it gets to control the heath of your child against your will.

3. Setting this precedent is not small issue. It will only grow.  Lawmakers will be opening the door to change other laws.  Maybe in the future they will determine how you school your child. What must be taught to your child. Where you child has to go to school. Other healthcare choices for your child, especially if they aren’t deemed viable, or useful to society. (Look to other countries in Europe who already have taken away parents rights on all of the above issues)

Contact your state Assembly person and State Senator immediately!  Tell them you are staunchly opposed to LRB-0312/1: Eliminating personal conviction exemption from immunizations.  This bill is authored by Representatives Hintz, Vorpagel, Kolste, Brostoff, Myers and Riemer and Sen. Carpenter.   

Type in your home address to find the contact info for your legislators here:  Contacting them directly is the best option but you can also use the Legislative Hotline at: 1-800-362-9472


Speaker Vos Wants Toll Roads In Wisconsin…THEY ARE A BAD IDEA!!!

“Wisconsin has a major funding shortage for its road building and repair needs. The state’s assembly speaker says he prefers using toll roads if necessary.”
“That’s my preferred option,” Speaker Robin Vos (R-Burlington) told WTMJ’s “Wisconsin’s Afternoon News” Thursday.

Speaker Vos wants toll roads in Wisconsin….This article (link below) spells out some of the problems when Michigan looked at having toll roads for transportation funding.

Questions about the toll roads:

1. The proposed toll between the Stateline to Milwaukee on I-94 is a federal interstate. The federal government just spent millions to redo much of that stretch. Under current federal law, most or all of that aid would have to be paid back to the feds. How is this being paid for? Long term debt? Has this been factored into the toll solution?
2. Future federal aid will no longer be available for projects related to that stretch. Generally, only 10% is funded by the state. With tolls, the state is on the hook for 100%. Has this 10 fold increase in expense been factored into the toll solution?
3. Any revenue generated by the tolls used for other projects will eliminate any federal funding for those projects. Has this been factored into the toll solution?
4. Tolls will include new infrastructure costs that will be funded solely by the state. Has the increase in new infrastructure been factored into the toll solution?
This idea has been floating around in other states. They have come to the conclusion that the cons far outweigh the pros. One only needs to look at Texas Tollways 130, which was privately funded and constructed, as is being proposed in Wisconsin. They went bankrupt in March 2016, 10 years after being awarded the contract.
A crisis scenario is being presented for our state roads and that there is not enough revenue to support our roads. Then why is the legislature taking on new costs that will eliminate a revenue source? How is funding 10% considered a problem but 100% not? What will the toll solution do to our long term debt?


If you are Pro-Life and truly want to see government reform, call Robin Vos’ office and demand they pass the Baby Body Parts bill this session.  Tell him we don’t need new taxes and increased spending on roads.
Republican State Representative Andre Jacque tells Media Trackers that he has been stripped of his Assembly committee chairmanships by Speaker Robin Vos as punishment for holding a hearing on prevailing wage reform legislation in the Labor Committee this past legislative session. A news release issued by Vos’ office Wednesday afternoon showed that Jacque was the only committee chair not to retain a chairmanship for the next session.”
It was also because Rep. Jacque was going to bring up the Baby Body Parts bill again this session.  So much for a Republican being Pro-Life!  Where are all the supposed Pro-Life groups demanding that the Baby Body Parts Bill is passed this session by Vos?
Call Robin Vos and demand the baby body parts bill is passed this session.  Demand that Rep. Jacque is restored to his committee Chairmanship.  Demand no new taxes for roads.

Robin Vos

Telephone: (608) 266-9171 / (888) 534-0063
District Phone:(262) 514-2597

The Danger of Vouchers

The Dangers of vouchers…Trump’s voucher plan.

Below is a link to a 38 minute podcast on vouchers and their danger by KrisAnne Hall, lawyer and Constitutional advocate. There is a full all out push coming and it will be led by DeVos.  If successful it will accomplish putting parents under control of federal gov. This will increase money spent by the feds on education from $540,000,000 to $130 billion ($20B from the feds and $110B from the states) if the Trump plan is implemented.  This will be a mechanism of control of all parents/children under the poverty level if they sign on to new voucher programs. If they take the money, they will have to take the mandates of national curriculum and national methodology.  

#StopDeVos #Trump #StopCommnonCore #WakeUpAmerica #KellyanneConway #TCOT #CCOT #CommonCore

Violence In Milwaukee…Big Surprise

If you have not been paying attention, Milwaukee has had a violent weekend with 9 shootings, 5 homicides, and one Officer Involved Shooting (OIS) on an armed man.  In response to the OIS shooting, cars and businesses were torched.  White people were targeted for “beat downs” by Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters.  Even the media was targeted who were simply trying to cover the story.  The firefighters were forced to withdraw for their own safety because the loser rioters were throwing rocks and bricks at them.   Chants of “Black Power” can be heard in the video below.

Video: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Rioters Target Whites For Beat Downs

 Milwaukee Crowd Turns Violent After Police Fatally Shoot Armed Man

BTW…Thank you Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party for creating and fomenting the hatred we see here.  BLM once again proves they are nothing but a bunch of street thug agitators.

This violence came after just a day or two after Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Police Chief Ed Flynn continued with their usual whining about stopping the violence.  They continue to preach that the violence is all because of their being so many guns on the streets and the need for more gun laws.  Really?  I guess given the torching of vehicles and a gas station, we better also now restrict cigarette lighters and matches.

If it’s really all about the guns, why does every other part of the state, with collectively more guns than Milwaukee, not see this type of violence?  We really only see this type of behavior throughout the country in the urban centers controlled by liberals.

Funny how the liberal excuse is always to take away the natural right of people to defend themselves.  Watch the first video and tell me that you don’t need to be carrying a gun when you venture into Milwaukee.  At any moment you are a potential target because of the color of your skin, what you drive, or what you have.  Decades of liberal policies have made Milwaukee unsafe, and Madison is on the way there too.

This all has escalated as a result of the coordinated actions of the Nobel Peace Prize winning President and BLM, who have brought us anything but peace and don’t really care about the lives of black people.  We were well on our way to becoming a post racial society before Obama and BLM came along.  Race relations have been set back decades.  Expect nothing less from the community organizer and student of Saul Alinsky.  He is playing by his “Radical Rule Book”.

If you are not a gun owner, consider becoming one.  Obtain the training with your firearm you need to protect yourself.