Tea Party Organizers -- A Troll-Free No Spin Zone!

Tea Party Organizers Educational Forum. Our Mission is to Educate & Organize.

For those subjects  that just don't quite fit any of the other ones--haha

Welcome to all Visitors.--

Please note:  If and when I use caps. or underscore any of my posts---

Please know that I am attempting to " emphasize " only, and am NOT HOLLERING--OK?

  Please show all links or sourses of your info--Let 'er Rip.   Thanks, Landel

Views: 107470

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Good. Salon is one of the worst lib sites on the planet. Probably one of Rachel MADDOWS FAVORITES.


  So, mexicans Are Mad About Illegal Immigrant Crime in Their City.

Republicans aren’t the only ones upset that illegal immigrants are bringing crime to their city.

Turns out residents of Tapachula, Mexico feel the same way.

Victorino Alvarez Fuentes, the leader of a local group called “For a Different mexico,” held a press conference recently about the crime illegal immigrants have brought to Tapachula, including sexual assault of women and minors as well as urinating in public, El Universal reports.

The city is dealing with illegal immigrants coming in from Central America as well as Africa, many with the hope of making their way to the U.S.

Fuentes said people in the community no longer want to leave their homes out of fear.

H/T: The DC

Female Leaders Say Google ‘Intolerant’ in Firing Engineer for Memo on Gender Differences.
Commentary Why Did Google Freak Out and Fire an Employee for Spurring 'Honest Discussion'?
The tolerance police at Google strike another blow against diversity in Silicon Valley by firing an employee who wrote a memo critiquing the tech giant's politically correct culture.
"This is another sad example of how afraid too many people—and companies, organizations, and even colleges—have become of actual discussion of ideas,” says Carrie Lukas of Google.
Women in leadership roles are among those expressing disappointment that tech giant Google fired a senior software engineer for writing and distributing a memo ruminating on evidence that men and women are different.
Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to City Journal, told The Daily Signal in an email that conclusions reached by the fired Google employee, James Damore, were fair.
“Google’s intolerance for scientific research bodes poorly for America’s long-term competitiveness,” Mac Donald said, adding: Damore’s memo was a reasoned, careful analysis of the emerging knowledge of gender differences, as well as a thoughtful call for a reassessment of Google’s monolithic political culture. And yet like Harvard’s former president, Larry Summers, he has lost his job because he dared to challenge the dominant narrative about absolute gender equality in every cognitive competence and emotional orientation.
Larry Summers, a past president of Harvard University, drew controversy in 2005 when he said men perform better than women in academic areas such as math and the sciences, and that mothers’ wariness of long office hours helps account for a shortage of women in senior positions in science and engineering.
Damore said men and women are especially gifted in various abilities due to biological makeup. In his memo, he wrote at one point:
The distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and … these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
Carrie Lukas, president of the Independent Women’s Forum, said in a statement sent to The Daily Signal that Google was wrong to fire Damore.
“This is another sad example of how afraid too many people—and companies, organizations, and even colleges—have become of actual discussion of ideas,” Lukas said. “This employee offered a thoughtful and entirely defensible perspective on a topic that needs honest debate, and was sadly punished for it.”
Video Commentary: Why Did Google Freak Out and Fire an Employee for Spurring ‘Honest Discussion’?
Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where she studies the politics of gender and feminism, told The Daily Signal in an email that Damore’s firing is political:
Google has excommunicated James Damore for crimes against the Pink Police State. Damore’s memo was awkward—but civil and mostly reasonable. Women who disagreed were free to shoot back a reply—or better yet, challenge him to a code-off. Instead, moral panic ensued.
“Google claims to welcome viewpoint diversity—but actually does so only as long as those viewpoints accord with their own,” Sommers said.
Damore, 28, had worked for Google since 2013 after receiving his doctorate in systems biology from Harvard.
In his memo, Damore said fewer women than men may work in technology because of different interests:
Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men, also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing. These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing.
In a prepared statement provided to The Daily Signal, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said parts of Damore’s circulated memo violated the company’s code of conduct because of its “harmful gender stereotypes”:
[W]e strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our code of conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.
Penny Nance, president and CEO of Concerned Women for America, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview that she expects Damore’s case to go to court.
“I am surprised that Google fired him … because I believe it is illegal,” Nance said, adding:
The Supreme Court under Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois in 1990 specifically said that viewpoint discrimination is illegal for employment purposes. And the other thing is I don’t think they are doing women any favors.
In Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, the high court held that “promotion, transfer, recall, and hiring decisions involving low-level public employees may be constitutionally based on party affiliation and support,” according to Cornell University Law School.
But Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, noted that a private company makes its own decisions on who to hire and fire.
This firing, suggested Anderson, author of the book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” highlights an inconsistency on the left.
“Google is free to operate in accordance with its anti-science androgynous belief system,” Anderson told The Daily Signal in an email.
“So, too, Americans who believe we are created male and female, and that male and female are created for each other, should be free to run their organizations in accordance with their beliefs.”
The Manhattan Institute’s Mac Donald said the story may have been different if Damore was a woman.
“Firing a female would put you further in the red, so you want to hold on to your females at all costs,” she said, adding:
"So it is a question of whether the diversity imperative here [that is] improving the female to male ratio trumps the imperative for ideological conformity. They certainly would have had to think more about their decision, but whether a female would have ultimately been spared the ax is difficult to predict. Maybe she would have been sent to re-education camp."


       Desperate Patients Shouldn’t Need Permission to Try to Save Their Own Lives.

State "right to try" laws allow terminally ill patients, under the care of their doctors, to seek investigational treatments that have passed the FDA's basic safety test.


The anguish experienced by Connie Yates and Chris Gard—parents of Charlie Gard—has sparked outrage and sympathy across the globe. Their 11-month-old son died in hospice care from a rare genetic disease after losing an extended legal battle.

The British National Health Service wanted to cease treatment for Charlie because it believed his case was hopeless. Against that argument, Charlie’s parents battled in court for permission to bring him to the U.S. to undergo an investigational treatment they hoped could help alleviate some of his symptoms. That request was denied, as was their wish to take Charlie home for his final hours. He died in a hospital after having his life support removed.

Some in Congress had supported legislation to grant Charlie U.S. residency in order to circumvent the U.K. courts.

But here’s the sad irony: The treatment Charlie’s parents sought in America might not even be available to all American children born with the exact same condition.

In the United States, terminally ill patients—children as well as adults—face government-imposed obstacles when they try to access investigational treatments that might help them, even when those treatments have already been deemed safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

Under federal law, most investigational treatments must go through a three-phase approval process. The first stage evaluates basic safety. The other two consist of efficacy, or whether the treatment works.

This process can take as long as a decade and cost more than $1 billion for just a single drug. And while the bureaucracy grinds along, dying patients aren’t allowed to use these treatments unless they’re one of the lucky few that qualifies for a clinical trial.

In recent years, however, state lawmakers and citizens across the country have countered this slow and restrictive system with state “right to try” laws. Now adopted in 37 states, these laws guarantee the right of terminally ill patients to decide for themselves, while under a physician’s care, whether to seek investigational treatments that have passed the first, basic safety test.

The Phase 1 safety test establishes that the investigational treatment is safe to use on humans for further investigation. These laws place the decision to seek investigational treatments where it rightfully belongs—in the hands of patients instead of government bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, the FDA has shown little interest in changing its cumbersome and restrictive rules. As a result, doctors and manufacturers often remain reluctant to participate in right to try for fear of FDA reprisals. But there’s new hope now, thanks to bills proposed in Congress that would prevent the federal government from punishing doctors or drugmakers who allow dying patients to use legal, investigational medicines under state right-to-try laws.

Simply put, the proposed federal right-to-try law would guarantee the right of patients and doctors to decide for themselves whether to seek investigational treatment, rather than being forced to beg federal bureaucrats for permission to try to save their own lives.

Critics of right-to-try laws argue that the FDA’s “compassionate use” program already provides access to investigational treatments for terminal patients. But the FDA granted fewer than 1,300 “compassionate use” requests in 2015.

That same year, more than 1.3 million died from the three leading killers of heart disease, cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease alone. Countless more fell victim to other devastating diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, ALS, and Parkinson’s.

A system that is so bureaucratic and time-consuming that fewer than one-tenth of 1 percent of terminal patients can access an investigational treatment that might save them is unacceptable. But the federal system allows the FDA to override the medical expertise of physicians—even though it has no legal authority to regulate the practice of medicine.

While it is heartening that U.S. lawmakers were willing to take extraordinary steps to help Charlie, one is left wondering why the same lawmakers have not been more enthusiastic in giving terminally ill American patients an opportunity to circumvent federal red tape and bureaucracy to seek potentially life-saving treatments.

Lawmakers in both chambers of Congress have the authority, as well as the legislative vehicles, to protect terminal patients’ right to medical self-preservation. It is time for them to act, making right to try the rule rather than the exception.

The lesson of Charlie’s case is tragic and crucial:

Patients and doctors should make medical decisions, not government bureaucrats.

In America today, no one should be forced to beg the federal government for permission to try to save their own lives.


                       Why the US Must Stay the Course in Afghanistan.

U.S. troops have held a steady presence in Afghanistan since 2001, when the Taliban was pushed out of power following 9/11.

The desire to “bring the boys home” after war’s end is deeply engrained in the American psyche.

Americans tend to get impatient with long-lasting military commitments overseas and like to see an end in sight. It is an understandable and noble impulse, and reflects the deep connection many Americans feel with family, friends, and neighbors serving in the military.

History has shown, however, that peace and stability often depends on America being willing to accept a presence on foreign soil, and to be committed there for decades into the future after wars have been won.

U.S. military bases in Europe are a case in point. So are the U.S. troops stationed in South Korea and Japan.

 These bases have been part of a 70-year commitment, begun directly after World War II. This commitment has kept the peace and formed the foundation for an unprecedented period of global prosperity.

Next week, the Pentagon is due to present President Donald Trump with its plan for future deployments in Afghanistan. The terrorist attack that killed 90 and wounded more than 400 people in Kabul on May 31 was a sobering reminder of the country’s fragile security situation.

The United States and its NATO allies currently have 12,500 troops stationed in the country, of which 8,500 are Americans. They are there to help train and shore up the Afghan military.

It is expected the Pentagon will recommend reinforcing the NATO mission with a deployment of an additional 5,000 to keep the Taliban from resurging. There is no doubt that it is in our interest—and the interest of the Afghan people—to remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.

As noted by the Heritage Foundation’s Luke Coffey, we have in fact made considerable progress in defanging the Taliban. Coffey writes:

Today, according to the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction’s most recent quarterly report to Congress, the Taliban has ‘control or influence’ in only 11 out of 407 districts across Afghanistan, equaling only 9 percent of the country’s population.

By contrast, 66 percent of Afghanistan’s population live under the ‘control or influence’ of the Afghan government. The remaining 25 percent of the population lives in ‘contested’ areas.

This is a far cry from the days when it harbored al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that launched the most lethal attack ever against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

Additionally, we have the painful, recent example of what happened in Iraq when President Barack Obama pulled U.S. troops out in 2011 to fulfill his campaign promise.

The Iraqi military on its own was in no way ready to contain the advance of ISIS out of Syria, the “JV team” as Obama dismissively called the terrorist group.

Today, the world is dealing with the consequences of the horribly misguided U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq (which obuma even had to partially reverse as the consequences became clear).

Let us remain steadfast in Afghanistan. It is in the interest of all that the United States remain committed to denying the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS another safe haven in that country.


                              Is College Education Worth The Cost?

August is the month when parents bid farewell to not only their college-bound youngsters but also a sizable chunk of cash for tuition.

More than 18 million students attend our more than 4,300 degree-granting institutions.

A question parents, their college-bound youngsters, and taxpayers should ask: Is college worth it?

Let’s look at some of the numbers.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, “when considering all first-time undergraduates, studies have found anywhere from 28% to 40% of students enroll in at least one remedial course. When looking at only community college students, several studies have found remediation rates surpassing 50%.”

Only 25% percent of students who took the ACT in 2012 met the test’s readiness benchmarks in all four subjects (English, reading, math, and science).

Just 5% of black students and 13% of mexican students met the readiness benchmarks in all four subjects.

The National Conference of State Legislatures report says, “A U.S. Department of Education study found that 58% of students who do not require remediation earn a bachelor’s degree, compared to only 17% of students enrolled in remedial reading and 27% of students enrolled in remedial math.”

The fact of business is that colleges admit a far greater number of students than those who test as being college-ready.

Why should students be admitted to college when they are not capable of academic performance at the college level? Admitting such students gets the nation’s high schools off the hook.

The nation’s high schools can continue to deliver grossly fraudulent education—namely, issue diplomas that attest that students can read, write, and compute at a 12th-grade level when they may not be able to perform at even an eighth- or ninth-grade level.

You say, “Hold it, Williams. No college would admit a student who couldn’t perform at an eighth- or ninth-grade level.”

During a recent University of North Carolina scandal, a learning specialist hired to help athletes found that during the period from 2004 to 2012, 60% of the 183 members of the football and basketball teams read between fourth- and eighth-grade levels. About 10% read below a third-grade level.

These were students with high school diplomas and admitted to the university. And it’s not likely that the University of North Carolina is the only university engaging in such gross fraud.

Many students who manage to graduate don’t have a lot to show for their time and money.

New York University professor Richard Arum, co-author of “Academically Adrift:

Limited Learning on College Campuses,” says his study shows that more than 1/3 of students showed no improvement in critical thinking skills after four years at a university.

That observation is confirmed by the many employers who complain that lots of recent graduates cannot seem to write an email that will not embarrass the company.

In 1970, only 11% of adult Americans held college degrees. These degree holders were viewed as the nation’s best and brightest.

Today, over 30% hold college degrees, with a significant portion of these graduates not demonstrably smarter or more disciplined than the average American.

Declining academic standards and grade inflation tend to confirm employer perceptions that college degrees say little about job readiness.

What happens to many of these ill-prepared college graduates? If they manage to become employed in the first place, their employment has little to do with their degree.

One estimate is that 1 in 3 college graduates have a job historically performed by those with a high school diploma or the equivalent.

According to Richard Vedder, who is a professor of economics at Ohio University and the director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, we had 115,000 janitors, 16,000 parking lot attendants, 83,000 bartenders, and about 35,000 taxi drivers with bachelor’s degrees in 2012.

The bottom line is that college is not for everyone.

There is absolutely no shame in a youngster’s graduating from high school and learning a trade.

Doing so might earn him much more money than many of his peers who attend college.

We have the constitution. islam has sharia law. We have separation of church and state.

islam has sharia law. With islam there is no separation of church from state. islam is the law of the land wherever it is allowed to take root.

This is why islam is not a religion, it's a datanic cult.

A true religion does not function as the law of the land. This is why we must reject all things islam!

I agree with you on that.

I also removed the other 4 or 5 comments that were the same as above!! <grin>

Thx. I have a connection strength issue from where i am. I couldn't get it to post and then I got about 5 and then I couldn't erase! Lol.

LOL you are welcome!!  I am headed for bed.  Been a busy day.  Good Night Ray, BHT, Mangus and everyone, sleep well and pleasant dreams!  Drive carefully Ray, Be Safe!!!

I have a "ning" issue.

 It takes me 3 or 4 attempts to get the site to open. And when it does, "Message", 'Edit'

and The "X' to remove, delete the post are not there-- have to refresh 3 or four more times!

Gets old!  Only this site does me this way.??

That WAS the issue I had Landel. It seems to have fixed itself now. The x is back on the post itself and it appears when you touch the upper right quadrant of the partial post column.


© 2017   Created by Ray1547.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service