Latest
Maggie Jackson, former regional community engagement and health planning director for the health department who has ties to Kingfisher, has been promoted to regional administrative director.
Read moreThis year’s budget for Hennessey Public Schools is $14,552,768, and compares with $12,797,387 from last year.
Read moreWith no immediate ceiling in sight for skyrocketing utility costs, a local longtime oil and gas producer is urging those benefiting from higher energy prices to contribute to an assistance fund.
Read moreSeptember proved productive for many Kingfisher County towns with increases above sales tax collections last year.
Read moreWhen will low- income Americans stop looking to government?
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