Think you’ve had a rough day? Watch as the Mexican newsman starts to deliver his report in a standing position, then crouches as the gunfire starts, and finally attempts to tunnel beneath the pavement with his fingernails to escape the fusillade of deadly fire erupting all around him. This is what is happening in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, about 180 miles southwest of my hometown of Brownsville, Texas. And it scares the beegeezus out of me. It should scare you, too.
As you watch the video, try to think of a really good reason why we should suspend construction of the border fence.
You can advance conservative principles in civil government by attending your Republican Party Precinct Convention on Tuesday night, March 2, 2010, immediately after the polls close.
Steven F. Hotze, MD
President, Conservative Republicans of Texas
Even if you voted early you may still attend your precinct convention which will be held at the election day polling place in your precinct at 7:00 pm.
The precinct convention is a closely guarded secret of political insiders.
The Precinct Convention has two purposes:
The election of delegates to the Republican State Senatorial District Convention on March 20, 2010, which in turn elects delegates to the Republican Party State Convention, June 11-12, 2010. At the State Convention delegates will be elected to attend the National Convention. Make sure that you have someone nominate you and your supporters to be delegates to the State Senatorial District Convention.
The passage of resolutions which your precinct supports. These resolutions are then sent to the State Senatorial District Conventions and if passed there, then they are forwarded to the Republican Party State Convention, June 11-12, 2010. If adopted there, then your resolution may become part of the State Republican Party Platform and ultimately the National Republican Party Platform. PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS FOR 2010 – PDF
On this website you will find a 30 minute video which explains and portrays a mock precinct convention. Please call like minded friends, family, neighbors and fellow church members and ask them to attend their precinct conventions. Please show them a copy of the video or send them the link so that they can view it on their own.
Allow me to recommend for your consideration that you introduce these resolutions at your precinct convention on Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 7:00 pm.
Please take time to review and print out these resolutions. Give your fellow conservatives the opportunity to introduce several of the resolutions.
Take triplicate copies of the resolutions to your precinct convention.
The precinct convention is run by Robert’s Rules of Orders Revised, so consider purchasing a copy of this at a bookstore. It is always good to know the rules. If you cannot obtain a copy, then you will be okay.
Please be sure to attend your precinct convention after the polls close on Tuesday, March 2, 2010. Get elected to be a delegate to your Senatorial District Convention and pass the conservative resolutions which I have provided you at the websites listed above.
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
Please forward this information to your conservative friends.
Thanking you in advance for standing for conservative principles, I remain, as always,
Sincerely yours,
Steven F. Hotze, M.D.
President, Conservative Republicans of Texas
Apparently, $4.35 billion is not enough for education reform — at least, not the kind that President Obama and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan are pushing. With the first $4.35 billion coming from the stimulus package, Obama has asked for $1.53 billion more in his 2011 budget — all for Duncan’s Race to the Top competition. This educational experiment, designed “to dramatically reshape America’s educational system,” allows states to compete for a piece of the $5 billion in cash prizes by making educational reforms dictated by the Department of Education (DOE). The more DOE reforms they enact, the more money states “win.” Currently, 40 states have applied.
Despite the vast expansion of federal government mandates on state and local schools, Race to the Top has received relatively little resistance from proponents of smaller government. But the reality is that this plan not only usurps state rights; it also introduces a whole new program of indoctrination.
According to the DOE’s website, “integrity and transparency drive the process” of Race to the Top. In truth, it’s about as transparent as a blindfold, causing many school districts to opt out. Although states like Iowa, California, and Wisconsin applied for the grant money, many of their school districts are not choosing to participate. Citing an inability to get adequate information on the regulations that would be imposed on the schools, districts “struggled with unanswered questions about how tightly the funds would be tied to mandates.” Karl Paulson, a Missouri school district superintendent, wrote, “It is irresponsible for officials from the State Department of Education or State Board of Education to coerce local districts into a commitment through politics and press releases without the districts having the full design and requirements of that commitment being detailed.”
Texas Governor Rick Perry, one of the few staunch opponents of the program, stated that it would be “foolish and irresponsible to place our children’s future in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and special interest groups thousands of miles away in Washington, virtually eliminating parents’ participation in their children’s education.” He added that if Washington truly cared about education, it would give the money to the states with “no strings attached.” Among those “strings attached” is a commitment to abandon local curricula to adopt unproven, national curriculum standards.
Still, the focus on charter schools has duped many on the right to support the program. But before cheering for charter schools, parents need to be reminded that the camouflage-clad, militant youth chanting and praising President Obama came from a Kansas City, Missouri, charter school. In reality, that school’s model much more closely resembles the vision of both Obama and Duncan.
Charter schools by definition are free from many of the rules and regulations of public schools. Although they have accountability standards, they set their own curricula and programs. But since the foundation of Race to the Top is setting a core curriculum determined by Washington, the reality is that these so-called charter schools will not set their own curriculum. The DOE is simply redefining the term “charter school” with the hopes that its program can sail through with little right-wing opposition.
With their newly defined charters, they’ll not only be able to change what students are learning, but more easily change who is teaching them. Traditionally, charter schools have been free from the burdens of teachers’ unions so that they can more easily fire and replace bad teachers. When a school becomes a charter school, its teachers even have to reapply for their jobs; enter AmeriCorps.
One of the most startling facets of Race to the Top is its attempt to get rid of as many traditionally educated teachers — i.e., those who go to a college to earn a master’s degree in education — and replace them with “alternatively” certified teachers; and, not just any alternatively certified teachers, but those certified by AmeriCorps’ Teach for America (TFA) and Teaching Fellows, which it runs jointly with the New Teacher Project (TNTP).
Feb 24, 2010 3:00 PM, By Matt Hudgins, contributing write
Uncertainties over taxes and access to credit are driving U.S. businesses to hoard cash rather than lead the economy into recovery by spending and hiring, according to a prominent real estate researcher.
The private sector has squirreled away trillions of dollars that could revitalize the economy, but businesses are reluctant to part with cash they may need for operating capital in the absence of credit, and to pay higher tax bills at all levels of government, according to Dr. Mark Dotzour, chief economist at the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University.
“We are used to thinking of the federal government as the solution to these problems for economic growth and they have rapidly become the source of the problem because of the uncertainty that they have created for business people,” says Dotzour, who was one of several presenters at a symposium hosted by the CCIM Central Texas chapter on Feb. 23 in Austin.
What uncertainty? Taxes, for one. Early proposals to raise the capital gains tax from the current 15% to 24% have been scaled back to 20%, but even that hike would reduce initial returns on investments in commercial real estate, Dotzour says. That threat of a bigger tax hit will influence many potential buyers to postpone acquisitions until a definite rate is set and can be factored into purchase prices.
Similar worries about higher income tax rates, increasing energy costs as a result of cap and trade legislation, and health-care reform proposals that leave members of the medical and insurance industries guessing as to what their incomes will be next year are collectively weighing on the minds of business owners and would-be entrepreneurs.
Just as tight credit and tax hikes by President Herbert Hoover’s administration exacerbated a recession to create the Great Depression in the 1930s, which Dotzour dubs “the Hoover maneuver,” a lack of credit and potential tax hikes will stifle business growth as the nation struggles to climb out of the current downturn.
Washington’s response to the recession with stimulus dollars has served to prop up ailing financial institutions and state governments without doing enough to correct underlying problems that brought on the credit crunch and banking crisis, Dotzour contends.
By allowing banks to extend loans that are covering their debt service payments but that are underwater, meaning the value of the asset has fallen below the remaining loan balance, the federal government is postponing the inevitable write-downs — and bank failures — that must occur in order for surviving banks with healthy balance sheets to resume lending to small businesses.
Today, the administration will put on another show for the American people. The nationalized healthcare naysayers have been summoned to the White House to give their ideas on healthcare reform. Yet, the President announced his newly packaged plan days ago. So what’s the point?
Is this a meeting to exchange ideas and move forward in a bipartisan manner or a meeting to say this is my plan, get on board or get out of the way?
The American people see this meeting for what it is. But, what I don’t understand is how this administration can continue to think that the people aren’t smart enough to see that for themselves. We keep hearing that the White House has an open door and that this is the most transparent Congress in the history of our country. The door may be ceremonially open, but the window to hear the people must be closed. The public has overwhelmingly rejected the idea that the government knows what is best for the rest of us.
Patrick Henry so eloquently stated: “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of the rulers may be concealed from them.” Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening. The leadership in both chambers of Congress penned their bills under lock and key and far from the eye of not only the public, but the rank and file members of their own party. And after a public scolding for those that disagreed and promises that our path forward would be different, the President rolled out his bill written again by a secret select few.
So one has to wonder, what is this meeting all about? Is bipartisanship really on the table at this point? I guess that depends on your definition. In this case, bipartisan means anyone who disagrees with the White House gives in.
And after this so-called olive branch is extended, the Republicans will continue to be chastised for somehow stonewalling the process. Which is an amazing political feat; given the Democrats have a clear majority and a direct path to the President’s desk. But, it’s those pesky Americans that just won’t let that happen. You see, the White House may not be listening, but those members of Congress that have to go back home are.
Most of the American people oppose the government plan to take over healthcare. It costs too much; it borrows too much; it taxes too much; it’s inefficient; and it gives government bureaucrats the control of our personal medical decisions.
But aside from the obvious, it also goes far beyond the restraints set forth in the Constitution. The Constitution sets limits on what dictates of pain the federal government is allowed to inflict on the rest of us. The people decide what is best for themselves and our country, not the government.
When our forefathers set forth to create a free and democratic republic, they wanted to make sure that they created checks and balances within our government to prevent one party or one body of government from having absolute power over the people. Our leaders would be wise to remember this.
As legislators are being summoned by the executive body this week, one cannot help but recognize the irony. The laws in our country originate in the legislative body, not the executive. While the president certainly has the authority to propose ideas for legislation, it is far beyond his constitutional power to create it.
The American people are tired of having their voices ignored and their constitutional rights trampled on and set aside to further the political agenda of a few. The secret backroom deals, payoffs, paybacks, all reminiscent of the British Secret Star Chamber, were the final arrogant acts of a government out-of-control that caused the people from all over the political spectrum to act.
America is a representative republic. That means the people talk, the government listens; and acts on the people’s ideas. That is the way it works. The American people are not going to get on board when it comes to giving up their healthcare to the government — or any other decision over their personal lives. If you missed the second shot heard ‘round the world in Massachusetts, there will be plenty more where that came from. And that’s the way it is.
Mr. Poe represents the 2nd District of Texas. He previously served as a judge in Harris County, Tex.
The Washington Post’s“The Root” blog posted a piece on “Black Folks We’d Like to Remove From Black History.” The list lumps noted mass murderers Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe and John Allen Muhammad along with Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes and Michael Steele. They forgot about Condi.
Via Free Republic:
From The Root: Clarence Thomas
Although he’s only the second man of color to serve in the Supreme Court, the Backstreet Boys have more standing in the black community than Clarence Thomas. That’s because he looks to the Constitution as “colorblind,” says he’s a man who just happens to be black and opposes government programs intended to help minorities. I’m not sure if the late Thurgood Marshall would want to pop Clarence ’side his head with his gavel, but there are plenty of blacks who would volunteer to do it for him.
The fact that Thomas views the Constitution as “colorblind” is very upsetting to these Constitutionally-illiterate racists.
How sad.
It should come as no surprise that this venomous ‘The Root” is the brainchild of Post Chairman Donald Graham and Harvard University professor and Obama pal Henry Louis Gates Jr.
[I wonder how he feels about Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, Mychal Massie, George Washington Carver, J.C. Watts, Barbara Jordan (although not a Conservative she was a leader and trail blazer) and on and on. The Roots link is here. ]
Back in August 2009 BB (Before Scott Brown) CNN was frantically producing infomercials for Obama’s healthcare plan. Luckily for them, Michael Moore had a handy supply of valuable footage from his infomercials for Castro’s healthcare plan.
So on the August 6 edition of CNN’s “Newsroom,” while Morgan Neil “reported” on location from a Potemkin Havana hospital, gushing about Cuban healthcare’s “impressive statistics!” the broadcast included clips from Michael Moore’s Sicko, adding muchoomph to the propaganda montage.CNN’s “Cuba’s infant mortality rates” reported Neil, “are the lowest in the hemisphere, in line with those of Canada!”
“Amazing!” probably gasped the type of person who watches CNN nowadays “No wonder Colin Powell said “Castro had done some good things for his people!” No wonder Barbara Walters hailed Castro for “bringing great healthcare to his people!” No wonder Michael Moore catches so much grief from those insufferable Miami Cubans! Before Castro only they could afford doctors, as Cuba’s huddled masses languished in sickness and poverty!”
And indeed, according to UN figures, Cuba’s current infant mortality rate places her 44th from the top in worldwide ranking, right next to Canada. (The lower the rate the higher the ranking.) What CNN left out is that according to those same UN figures, in 1958 (the year prior to the glorious revolution), Cuba ranked 13th from the top, worldwide.
This meant that robustly capitalist Cuba had the 13thlowest infant-mortality rate in the world. This put her not only at the top in Latin America but atop most of Western Europe, ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Today all of these countries leave Communist Cuba in the dust, with much lower infant mortality rates.
And even plummeting from 13th (capitalist) to 44th (communist), Cuba’s “impressive” infant mortality rate is kept artificially low by Communist chicanery with statistics and by a truly appalling abortion rate of 0.71 abortions per live birth. This is the hemisphere’s highest, by far. Any Cuban pregnancy that even hints at trouble gets “terminated.”
In April 2001, Dr. Juan Felipe García, MD, of Jacksonville, Fla., interviewed several recent doctor defectors from Cuba. Based on what he heard, he reported the following:
The official Cuban infant-mortality figure is a farce. Cuban pediatricians constantly falsify figures for the regime. If an infant dies during its first year, the doctors often report he was older. Otherwise, such lapses could cost him severe penalties and his job.
This might lead a few people to question Cuba’s official infant-mortality figures. But such people would not get a Havana bureau for their news agency, much less a visa to film a documentary.
According to a report by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, more than 75% of “doctors” with Cuban “medical degrees” flunk the exam given by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates for licensing in the U.S. Most Cuba-certified doctors even flunk the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates’ exam for certification as “physician assistants,” making them unfit even as nurses. None of this is meant to disparage these hapless men and women who were simply cursed by fate to be born under a Stalinist tyranny.
Ninety-nine percent of Cubans have no more experience with hospitals like the one Michael Moore featured in Sicko and CNN’s Morgan Neill visited, than Moore has with a Soloflex machine. Most Cubans view these hospitals the way teenage boys used to view Playboy magazine and husbands view a “Victoria’s Secret” catalog: “Wow! If only. . .”
The Castroite propaganda in Sicko so outraged people cursed by fate to live in Castro’s fiefdom that they risked their lives by using hidden cameras to film conditions in genuine Cuban hospitals, hoping they could alert the world to Moore’s swinishness as a propaganda operative for a Stalinist regime.
At enormous risk, two hours of shocking, often revolting, footage was obtained with tiny hidden cameras and smuggled out of Cuba to Cuban-exile George Utset, who runs the superb and revelatory website The Real Cuba. The man who assumed most of the risk during the filming and smuggling was Cuban dissident — a medical doctor himself — Dr Darsi Ferrer, who was also willing to talk on camera, narrating much of the video’s revelations. Dr Ferrer worked in these genuinely Cuban hospitals daily, witnessing the truth. More importantly, he wasn’t cowed from revealing this truth to America and the world. (A recent samizdat reports that the black Dr Ferrer is currently languishing in a Cuban prison cell –not far from Gitmo, btw– undergoing frequent beatings.
Originally, ABC’s John Stossel planned to show the shocking smuggled videos in their entirety, during a 20/20 show. Alas, on Sept. 12th 2007, the show ran only a tiny segment on Cuba’s “real” healthcare, barely five minutes long and with almost none of the smuggled video footage. What happened?
With national unemployment hovering around 10 percent and black male unemployment at a staggering 17.6 percent, it’s just not true that undocumented workers are doing the jobs that we won’t do.
In October 2008, amidst claims that one of its subsidiaries was knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, North Carolina poultry producer House of Raeford Farms initiated a systematic conversion of its workforce.
Following a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid that nabbed 300 undocumented workers at a Columbia Farms processing plant in Columbia, S.C., a spooked House of Raeford quietly began replacing immigrants with native-born labor at all of its plants. Less than a year later, House of Raeford’s flagship production line in Raeford, N.C., had been transformed, going from more than 80 percent Latino to 70 percent African-American, according to a report by the Charlotte Observer.
Under President George W. Bush, showy workplace raids like the one that befell Raeford were standard—if widely despised—fare. And though the Obama administration has committed itself to dialing down the practice, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has occasionally found herself the bearer of bad news to immigration activists who expected the raids to end entirely under her watch.
For the most part, the workplace crackdowns themselves are unremarkable—gaudy, ad hoc things that mitigate America’s immigration problem the way a water balloon might a forest fire. Increasingly however, their immediate aftermaths—in which dozens of eager African-American job applicants line up to fill vacancies—call into question a familiar refrain from the nation’s more vocal immigration proponents: Illegal immigrants do work American citizens won’t. Even former Mexican President Vicente Fox fell victim to the hype, infamously declaring in 2006 that Mexican immigrants perform the jobs that “not even blacks want to do.”
Four years later, with national unemployment hovering around 10 percent and black male unemployment at a staggering 17.6 percent, it seems even less likely that immigrants are filling only those jobs that Americans won’t deign to do. Just ask Delonta Spriggs, a 24-year-old black man profiled in a November Washington Post piece on joblessness, who pleaded, “Give me a chance to show that I can work. Just give me a chance.”
Spriggs has a difficult road ahead. In this recessed United States, competition for all work is dog-eat-dog. But that holds especially true for low-skilled jobs, jobs for which high school dropouts (like Spriggs) and reformed criminals (also like Spriggs) must now vie against nearly 12 million illegal immigrants, 80 percent of whom are from Latin America. What’s more, it seems that, in many cases, the immigrants are winning. From 2007 to 2008, though Latino immigrants reported significant job losses, black unemployment, the worst in the nation, remained 3.5 points higher.
“I don’t believe there are any jobs that Americans won’t take, and that includes agricultural jobs,” says Carol Swain, professor of law at Vanderbilt University and author of Debating Immigration. “[Illegal immigration] hurts low-skilled, low-wage workers of all races, but blacks are harmed the most because they’re disproportionately low-skilled.”
Despite President Fox’s assertion, of the Pew Hispanic Center’s top six occupational sectors for undocumented immigrants (farming, maintenance, construction, food service, production and material moving), all six employed hundreds of thousands of blacks in 2008. That year, almost 15 percent of meat-processing workers were black, as were more than 18 percent of janitors. And although blacks on the whole aren’t involved in agriculture at anywhere near the rates of illegal immigrants—a quarter of whom work in farming—about 14 percent of fruit and vegetable sorters are African-American.
For their efforts, African Americans were paid a median household income of $32,000 in 2007. In the same year, the median household income for illegal immigrants was $37,000.
Patients were routinely neglected or left “sobbing and humiliated” by staff at an NHS trust where at least 400 deaths have been linked to appalling care.
An independent inquiry found that managers at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs.
The inquiry report, published yesterday by Robert Francis, QC, included proposals for tough new regulations that could lead to managers at failing NHS trusts being struck off.
Staff shortages at Stafford Hospital meant that patients went unwashed for weeks, were left without food or drink and were even unable to get to the lavatory. Some lay in soiled sheets that relatives had to take home to wash, others developed infections or had falls, occasionally fatal. Many staff did their best but the attitude of some nurses “left a lot to be desired”.
The report, which follows reviews by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health, said that “unimaginable” suffering had been caused. Regulators said last year that between 400 and 1,200 more patients than expected may have died at the hospital from 2005 to 2008.
Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, said there could be “no excuses” for the failures and added that the board that presided over the scandal had been replaced. An undisclosed number of doctors and at least one nurse are being investigated by the General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Mr Burnham said it was a “longstanding anomaly” that the NHS did not have a robust way of regulating managers or banning them from working, as it does with doctors or nurses. “We must end the situation where a senior NHS manager who has failed in one job can simply move to another elsewhere,” he added. “This is not acceptable to the public and not conducive to promoting accountability and high professional standards.”
A system of professional accreditation for senior managers would be considered and the Mid Staffordshire trust might lose its foundation status.