Sunday, August 2, 2015

ORTIZ: WORK ON WASHINGTON’S SCHEDULE, OR ELSE

Washington politicos who keep to a predictable, 9-to-5 schedule seem unwilling to accept that a huge portion of the American workforce not working this way. In our increasingly service-based economy, characterized by such jobs as yoga instructors, restaurant servers, and Uber drivers, the workday of previous generations is gradually becoming a relic of it.

In fact, nearly one-third of Americans work on the weekends, more than one-fourth work at night, and one-fifth work“nonstandard” hours.
But politicians and regulators, beholden to labor unions threatened by this new economy, are waging a full-fledged assault on job creators who don’t conform to their concept of “work.” Their latest front is the so-called “Schedules That Work Act,” recently introduced in Congress.
This bill places limits on “on-call” and “split-shift” work. It would also require employers to post work schedules two weeks early, accommodate most of their employees’ scheduling requests, and limit changes to the work schedule within 24 hours of a shift. If only employers could demand this type of reliability from their customers.
But with the exception of government jobs, staffing needs vary with customer demand, not employee convenience. Trying to mandate scheduling consistency would place yet another burden on American small businesses and hurt the very people it intends to help.
“On-call,” “split,” and last-minute shifts, for instance, are staples of many industries where consumer demand fluctuates throughout the day and week. They allow restaurateurs, for example, to respond to a surge in diners from, say, a concert finishing nearby, and allow for appropriate staffing when the restaurant is busiest (i.e. mealtimes).
Limiting these shifts would lead businesses to understaff, meaning a less enjoyable experience for both the customer and the employee. It would also mean that employees miss out on the last-minute shift opportunity they otherwise would not have had the chance to take. And, where previously an employee could have worked eight hours over a “split-shift,” under this bill they may only have the opportunity to work one of the lunch or dinner rushes.
Too few hours is already a major problem for many American employees. There are 2.2 million employees in the country who receive 35 or fewer hours a week but who would like to work more. This bill would only exacerbate this trend.
Regarding the bill’s requirement to accommodate employees’ scheduling requests: The overwhelming majority of employers already attempt to do this. But guaranteeing them is not always possible. If such a mandate were passed, it would turn the scheduling process into a glorified logic problem, where employers try to match up which employees can work which hours and which days based on their countless scheduling conditions.
It’s not difficult to see who would be most hurt by such a mandate: those with the most onerous scheduling requests. Why provide job opportunities to employees whose scheduling demands create big headaches? In other words, like so many of the recently proposed workplace regulations ostensibly created to protect employees from the new economy, this bill would hurt the very people it is trying to help.
Alfredo Ortiz is CEO and President of Job Creators Network

Terror Trends: 40 Years' Data on International and Domestic Terrorism

Abstract: A decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, looking back is as important as looking forward in order to learn from the past and to examine the current and future threats facing the U.S. This survey aggregates international data on global and domestic terrorism from the past 40 years. Combined with new intelligence, this data can better inform U.S. counterterrorism decisions and continue the process of delineating enhanced homeland security policies for the future. From 1969 to 2009, almost 5,600 people lost their lives and more than 16,300 people suffered injuries due to international terrorism directed at the United States. The onus is now on the President and Congress to ensure that the U.S. continues to hone and sharpen its counterterrorism capabilities and adapt them to evolving 21st-century threats.
On September 10, 2001, Osama bin Laden’s name was well known to the U.S. intelligence community. By that point, bin Laden had directed various attacks against the U.S. through the al-Qaeda terror network, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. Yet, despite the fact that “the threat of transnational terrorism was widely recognized by the IC [intelligence community] and policymakers, virtually no initiatives were taken to address the deep-seated limitations of U.S. strategic intelligence that made it an inadequate instrument for meeting its threat.”[1]
The 9/11 attacks, and the subsequent publication of The 9/11 Commission Report served as a tremendous catalyst for a much-needed and robust debate over the nature of the threat facing the United States. The report also drew significant attention to the nation’s intelligence failures and lack of a framework for preventing, preparing for, and responding to acts of terrorism.
The national conversation that followed, specifically about the lessons learned from 9/11, continues to play a significant role in discussions related to the very definition of terrorism, the extent and severity of the threat, and the best methods for stopping future attacks. In many ways, the U.S. has taken this information and acted on it—drastically reforming the federal effort on homeland security, breaking down communication walls between law enforcement and intelligence, providing law enforcement with better intelligence-gathering tools, and forging a national homeland security enterprise composed of federal, state, and local assets, as well as private citizens.
As a result, law enforcement has foiled at least 39 terror plots since 9/11.[2] Simply put, the intelligence and law enforcement communities are better able to track down leads in local communities than they were on September 10, 2001.
A decade later and shortly after the demise of Osama bin Laden, it is as important to look backward as it is to look forward in order to keep learning from the past and to examine the threats now facing the U.S. The survey presented in this paper aggregates international data on terrorism around the world from the past 40 years. Combined with new intelligence, such data can better inform counterterrorism decisions and continue the process of delineating enhanced homeland security policies for the future. The onus is now on the President and Congress to continue to hone and sharpen U.S. counterterrorism capabilities and adapt them to evolving 21st-century threats.

Summary of Research

Between 1969 and 2009, there were 38,345 terrorist incidents around the world. Of these attacks, 7.8 percent (2,981) were directed against the United States, while 92.2 percent (35,364) were directed at other nations of the world:
  • Nearly 5,600 people lost their lives and more than 16,300 people suffered injuries due to international terrorism directed at the United States;
  • While terrorist attacks against the U.S. tend to be slightly deadlier (2.01 fatalities per incident) than attacks against other nations (1.74 fatalities per incident), the higher number of average fatalities for the United States is a consequence of 9/11;
  • Terrorism directed at the United States accounts for only 7.8 percent of all terrorism worldwide, but almost 43 percent of all attacks against military institutions are leveled against U.S. institutions; and
  • Furthermore, 28.4 percent and 24.2 percent of all worldwide terrorist attacks against diplomatic offices and businesses, respectively, are aimed at U.S. institutions.
Between 2001 and 2009:
  • There were 91 homegrown terrorist attacks of all kinds against the United States, while there were 380 international terrorist attacks against the United States;
  • The two most prevalent U.S. targets of international terrorism were businesses (26.6 percent) and diplomatic offices (16.6 percent);
  • The two most prevalent U.S. targets of domestic terrorism were businesses (42.9 percent) and private citizens and property (24.2 percent); and
  • The preferred method of attack against the United States for international terrorists was bombings (68.3 percent), while the preferred method for domestic terrorists was arson (46.2 percent).

The Data

The data used in this descriptive analysis by The Heritage Foundation stem from the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (RDWTI).[3] The version of the RDWTI used in this analysis contains information on nearly 38,700 terrorist incidents from across the globe between February 1968 and January 2010. For this analysis, terrorist incidents were counted only if the recorded incidents were officially confirmed as a terrorist incident by RAND in the database. In addition, state-sponsored terrorist attacks are excluded from the analysis. The data are limited to incidents that occurred during a 40-year time span from 1969 to 2009. However, this figure underestimates the number of terrorist incidents because the last entries are not complete for all countries.[4]
To keep the RDWTI up-to-date, RAND staff with regional and language expertise review incidents around the world that can be potentially defined as terrorism.[5] In addition, terrorist incidents must be confirmed as such through press reports before they can be officially counted. While the version of RDWTI used by The Heritage Foundation covers terrorist incidents through January 2010, not all cases of recent terrorism are included in this analysis (such as the November 2009 massacre at Fort Hood perpetrated by U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan). As with any database that tries to contain the most current information, there are necessary delays in confirming cases of terrorism to ensure the incidents are correctly recorded.
An important attribute of the RDWTI is the consistent application of its definition of terrorism, as described by Professor Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University:
[T]he deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence. Terrorism is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of the terrorist attack. It is meant to instill fear within, and thereby intimidate, a wider “target audience” that might include a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country, a national government or political party, or public opinion in general. Terrorism is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either local or international scale.[6]
According to this definition, terrorism is defined by the nature of the incident, not by the identity of the perpetrators.[7] The fundamentals of terrorism include:
  • “Violence or the threat of violence;
  • “Calculated to create fear and alarm;
  • “Intended to coerce certain actions;
  • “Motive must include a political objective;
  • “Generally directed against civilian targets; and
  • “It can be [carried out by] a group or an individual.”[8]
Essentially, terrorism can be summarized as violent acts that are “calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm to coerce others into actions they would not otherwise undertake, or refrain from actions they desired to take.”[9] Further, regular criminal acts are not counted as terrorism. So, while drug-trafficking conducted by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) is not counted as terrorism,[10] FARC’s attacks against Colombian citizens are.[11]

A Descriptive Analysis of Worldwide Terrorism

Between 1969 and 2009, there were 38,345 terrorist incidents around the world. Of these attacks 7.8 percent (2,981) were against the United States, while 92.2 percent (35,364) were against the rest of the world. (See Chart 1.)
Which Countries are Targeted?
Global Terrorist Attacks: Fatalities and Injuries
From 1969 to 2009, the average number of fatalities per terrorist attack against a nation other than the United States yielded 1.74 fatalities. (See Chart 2.) When the data are limited to incidents against the United States, the average terrorist attack yielded 2.01 fatalities per incident. These fatalities represent all individuals killed, not only Americans. Without 9/11, the average falls to 0.97 fatalities per attack.
Chart 2 also includes the mean for the number of injuries per terrorist incident. On average, terrorist attacks against nations other than the United States yielded 3.85 injuries. Attacks against the United States averaged 5.88 injuries. As with fatalities, the mean for injuries resulting from attacks against the United States is tied closely to 9/11. Without 9/11, the mean drops to 5.07 injuries per incident.
Four of 10 Terror Attacks on Military Targets Are Against the US
Chart 3 breaks down terrorism by type of institution targeted. The United States comprises a large share. Almost 43 percent of terrorist attacks against military institutions are against the U.S. Armed Forces. The United States also accounted for 28.4 percent and 24.2 percent of all terrorist attacks against diplomatic and business institutions, respectively. Alternately, the United States accounted for only a small percentage of attacks against police (0.3 percent), private citizens and property (1.1 percent), transportation systems (1.4 percent), and government institutions (1.5 percent).

Terror Against the U.S.

International terrorist attacks against the United States have fluctuated. (See Chart 4.) From 1969 to 1991, despite a few down flows, international terrorism against the U.S. was on the rise. In 1991, the trend peaked at 150 terror acts committed against U.S. interests. After 1991, international terror declined sharply until reaching its lowest low point of 14 incidents in 2000. In 2001, the trend reversed and rapidly increased until peaking in 2005 with 87 incidents. The number of attacks decreased until reaching the lowest point in 40 years in 2009 with five recorded international terrorist attacks against the United States. This number, however, needs to be interpreted with caution. While the record of terrorist incidents in the RDWTI for 2009 was completed for North America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Europe, data collection for Africa, the Middle East, and Asia stopped in January 2009. Afghanistan incidents for 2009 were recorded through August. In addition, the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on December 25, 2009, by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, known as the “Underwear Bomber,” was not yet confirmed as a terrorist incident in the RDWTI.

Levin: Republican Leaders ‘Smother’ The ‘Few Voices Of Liberty’ In Congress

Talk show host and bestselling author Mark Levin believes the “ineffective” leadership of congressional Republicans is alienating conservatives and pushing some of them to embrace Donald Trump.
In the first installment of a three-part interview with The Daily Caller over his new book, “Plunder and Deceit,” Levin shared his views on the latest actions of the Republican-controlled Congress and how it’s affecting presidential politics.
In his opinion, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knocking down Sen. Ted Cruz’s amendments to a highway bill — which included measures to defund Planned Parenthood and the Export-Import Bank — Sunday night was Washington at its worst. (RELATED: McConnell Angers Conservatives By Blocking Defunding Planned Parenthood, Kate’s Law)
“Those who are paying attention and are informed would be more repulsed by what McConnell, Lamar Alexander, Orin Hatch, John Cornyn et al. have done to the few voices of liberty in the Senate,” Levin told The Daily Caller. “They smother them and try to silence them and then go to liberal media outlets to trash them.”
“I think what McConell tried to do with the highway bill and the Export-Import Bank is quintessential Washington, which is to lie through your teeth,” the radio host added.
With these acts in mind, Levin believes it should be the task of conservatives like Cruz and Utah Senator Mike Lee to expose the Republican establishment’s supposed misdeeds.
“They’re called the establishment for a reason. They have established an ineffective and out of control government and they continue to feed it and to protect it,” the commentator told TheDC. “I really feel conservatives have an opportunity to expose this and to battle this and that we also need to make sure that our children and grandchildren — the next generation the generation after that — are protected from this.”
Considering, in Levin’s view, that this establishment is doing little to prevent the “coming catastrophe” of “out-of-control government,” it’s no surprise to the talk show host that many conservatives are flocking to the candidacy of Donald Trump.

Obama Will Investigate Death of Cecil the Lion, Ignores Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Babies

The killing of Cecil the lion has been at the forefront of international outrage regarding big game hunting and now the Obama administration says they will join in helping investigate his death. The Hill reports that the administration is “ready to take action” and offer support to the Zimbabwean government. Earlier this month, American dentist Walter Palmer killed Cecil outside a Zimbabwean park.
Laury Parramore, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service said, “The Service is deeply concerned about the recent killing of Cecil the lion. We are currently gathering facts about the issue and will assist Zimbabwe officials in whatever manner requested. It is up to all of us — not just the people of Africa — to ensure that healthy, wild populations of animals continue to roam the savanna for generations to come.”
Although it is wonderful that the Obama administration has strong convictions about the killing of animals, it is unbelievable that this concern outweighs the trafficking of baby body parts by Planned Parenthood.
As LifeNews previously reported, President Obama has been virtually silent on the abortion giant’s videos showing their top executives negotiating the sale of aborted babies and sharing how they alter their procedures to obtain salable organs.
However, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest said today that the President does not believe there is evidence of Planned Parenthood acting unethically and wouldn’t support legislation to defund them. He said, “On balance, the president would not be supportive of such congressional action. This is a tactic we have seen used before. The president obviously does not support that ongoing effort.”
Unfortunately, this is not surprising since President Obama and Planned Parenthood are best friends.
In 2013, Marjorie Dannenfeiser, the president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, said the following about Obama’s support for Planned Parenthood: “There is no industry that President Obama is more willing to protect than the abortion industry and particularly Planned Parenthood, the nation’s biggest abortion provider, which in a single year performed more than 333,000 abortions. The president has defended federal funding for Planned Parenthood to the point of being willing to shut down the government over the continuing resolution battle, and in return they spent a record amount to reelect him in November.”
In 2013, President Obama praised the abortion giant and said he wanted God to bless them. He said, “As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way. Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”
Most recently, President Obama has showed his extreme abortion views by threatening to veto the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would protect babies after 20-weeks from abortion based on the concept that they can feel pain. In January, the Obama administration said in a press release: “The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 36, which would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to choose. Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor.”
barackobama25

TV legend Norman Lear gives 6 strong opinions about American life

Legendary TV producer Norman Lear stopped by the Televisison Critics Association’s press tour in Beverly Hills to promote an upcoming PBS documentary covering his career that’s set to debut next year. But what seemed to most impress reporters was the 93-year-old’s opinionated tangents, covering politics, TV, America and mindfullness. Below are six highlights from a press conference with the creator of hits like All in the FamilyThe Jeffersons and One Day at a Time:   
— On politics: “Everybody knows me to be a progressive or a liberal or lefty or whatever. I think of myself as a bleeding-heart conservative. You will not f— with my Bill of Rights, my Constitution, my guarantees of political justice for all. But does my heart bleed for those who need help and aren’t getting the justice that the country promises them and the equal opportunity the country promises? Yes. I’m a bleeding heart, but I think myself to be a total social conservative. The people who are running just don’t seem to have America on their minds, not the America I think about. When I was a kid we were in love with America. As early as I can remember, there was a civics class in my public school. And I was in love with those things that guaranteed freedom before I learned that there were people who hated me because I was Jewish. I had a Bill of Rights and a Constitution, those words out of the Declaration that protected me. And I knew about that because we had civics in class. We don’t have that much in the country anymore. So before World War II or shortly after, we were in love with America because we understood what it was about and that’s what we were in love with. I believe everybody’s patriotic today. Everybody loves America. But I don’t need their flag plans to prove it. I’d like to go back to civics lessons.”
—  On waking up: “I want to wake up feeling as I usually do, loving the day. The title of my book is Even This I Get to Experience, and that’s the way I basically look at life moment to moment. And now I’m looking out at you. I was 93 on Monday. So it took me 93 [years] and five days to get here. It took you every split second of each of your lives to get here for me. So I’m way ahead of you. It took all your lives to get here, so this moment is the moment. Even this we get to experience.”
— On the Golden Age of television: “I think this is the Golden Age. I understand what the Golden Age was when I was coming into television, and it was those years of Playhouse 90 and Philco Playhouse. But there’s great drama and some great comedy on television today. I can’t see it all.”
— On excess: “Our greatest export in America is excess. We are so excessive. There is so much to watch, so much to buy, so much they’re selling. I wish they would sell the value of the country as hard as they sell the rest of it.”
— On living in the moment: “There are two words that are under-recognized: ‘over’ and ‘next.’ When something is over, it’s over. And we’re always on to ‘next.’ And the hammock, the imaginary hammock in the middle is what I think is meant by living in the moment. I’m living in the moment waiting for next.”
— On perspective: I’ve learned introspectively how much each of us matters and how little we understand how much we matter in the course of our day. I’m impressed with the way we all affect each other in small ways and the good we do in terms of relationships that would otherwise seem meaningless, or certainly easy to overlook, that we don’t take credit for, each of us, all of us. If I could make anything clear, it would be that. 

Wide Political Fallout Expected From Massive Nuclear Bomber Deal


Sessions called the deal "a huge procurement."
In a few weeks, the Pentagon will announce the companies picked to develop America’s next bomber jet, sparking a budget war that will last for years and reshape the defense industry, experts say.
The Long Range Strike Bomber, which will probably be called the B-3, will provide more bang for the buck than several fighter jets. But it won’t be cheap. It is likely to cost at least $111 billion to acquire 100 planes, says Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. That’s almost twice the amount the Air Force has quoted before, and it assumes no cost overruns. The higher price tag is due to the service previously understating the costs, not to any real hike in expenses, Harrison says.
Adding the cost to operate the planes more than doubles the price tag yet again to in excess of $200 billion, experts say. Plus, the B-3s are expected to only replace the oldest U.S. bombers, the B-1s and B-52s. An additional program will probably be required in a couple of decades to replace the younger bombers, the B-2s, the experts say.
“It’s a huge procurement,” says Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. “We will pay much more attention to it as we move forward.”
The B-3 bomber is just one of several multi-billion-dollar weapons to be produced in the 2020s, and advocates for those ships and planes will fight each other tooth and nail, analysts say. The bomber program will also be a test case on Capitol Hill for whether the Pentagon can buy major weapons without massive cost overruns and schedule delays.
The bomber contract decision will lead to changes in the companies bidding for it. If the team that includes Lockheed Martin Corp. wins, it could give that one company unrivaled—and perhaps unhealthy—power as a central player in all three of the newest U.S. warplane programs—the bomber plus the F-22 and F-35 fighter jets—on top of the company’s newly expanded role in the military helicopter market.
What’s more, the bomber award may result in the losing bidder being purchased by another company or at least entering new markets or selling parts of its business. That in turn could reorder which politicians are champions of which companies in the coming budget battles.
“We shouldn’t underestimate how consequential this contract award is going to be for the future of this sector of the aerospace industry,” says Harrison.

Obama revokes 22 illegal immigrants’ amnesties; unclear if they will be deported

President Barack Obama speaks during a Cinco de Mayo reception in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, May 5, 2015. Obama says that when it comes to achieving a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws progress is 'not always a straight line.' He says that despite his executive actions on immigration, Congress still needs to pass legislation to make more permanent changes.  (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) ** FILE **
President Barack Obama speaks during a Cinco de Mayo reception in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, May 5, 2015. Obama says that when it comes to achieving a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws progress is ... more 
Homeland Security has punished 22 illegal immigrant Dreamers who refused to give up their three-year deportation amnesties and exchange them for two-year permits, and has instead revoked them entirely, officials told a federal court late Friday.
And the department has agreed to turn over sensitive information on about 2,600 other Dreamers who were issued three-year amnesties in violation of Judge Andrew S. Hanen’s order, so 26 states can decide whether they want to take action against the illegal immigrants, such as potentially canceling or changing their driver’s licenses.

Detroit teachers livid as they go unpaid, shortchanged

DETROIT – While some teachers might complain about the size of their paycheck, Detroit Public School teachers are hardly surprised when they don’t get a check at all.


“We need something that will effectively, regularly pay the teachers what they’re owed. They do the work. They need the pay. They need it on-time, with bills to pay. All they get now is a runaround,” Detroit Federation of Teachers President Steve Conn told Click on Detroit.

Conn raised a ruckus in the media this week after some of his members were shorted hundreds of dollars in their paychecks, while others didn’t receive a pay check at all. And it’s not the first time.
The socialist union boss blames Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, of course, because Snyder has sent in emergency financial managers to divert DPS from its crash course with total financial and academic failure, though the first EFM was sent in by former Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm.
“There’s been nothing but a steady degrading and dismantling of any kind of structures within the system, including just regularly and accurately paying our teachers,” Conn told Michigan Radio. “There’s no fairness for the teachers in the DPS payroll system, and it’s continuing to drive teachers out of the district.”
Conn said that when district officials do resolve payment issues, teachers are paid on debt cards, which “are even harder to deal with” because of withdrawal limits and fees, according to the radio station.
“When I went online to look at my pay stub, I saw it was short by a whole week,” Regina Dixon, a teacher at Coleman A. Young Elementary, told The Detroit News.
“I was upset because I have obligations I need to meet. So I went down there today and was told they had to put the money on a debit card, so I have to go back on Friday after 3 p.m. But it’s inconvenient to have to go back, and there may be a long line,” she said.
“It’s a shame we have to go through this, especially with the so-called transformation of the schools.”

“It’s disheartening because I worked for my money and I want it,” Charles Wright Academy teacher Marcie Taylor said. “I’m calculating how much to pay for bills, and I help my mother, who is sick, but now my check is short.”
Taylor said it’s at least the second time the district has paid her on a debit card because of payroll problems.
“A lot of us are working paycheck to paycheck because our pay has decreased,” she said. “We’re getting paid less because our health insurance went up. I’m paying $200 per paycheck for insurance. Now I have to call about my bills and ask if I can pay them on Friday because I wasn’t paid all my money on time.”
DPS spokeswoman Michelle Zdrodowski told the News “a variety of technical issues arose that affected a cross-section of DPS employees” but did not elaborate on the problems.
Zdrodowski contends the pay issues are not tied the district’s massive money problems.
DPS “has run a deficit in nine of the past 11 fiscal years, with a net accumulated deficit of $1.28 billion during that period. Four state-appointed emergency managers have been named in the past six years, with Darnell Earley being appointed in January,” the News reports.
Zdrodowski also disputed Conn’s claim that some teachers did not receive any pay check, and said district officials are addressing pay problems on a case-by-case basis. DPS employs about 3,000 teachers.
“I don’t know the exact number (affected); we’re still calculating,” Zdrodowski told CBS Detroit Tuesday. “But we’ve been, you know, working with the coalition of unions and with our employees to resolve the payroll issues as quickly as we can.”
“We’re confident that we’ll have them all addressed between today and Friday,” she said.
In a DFT press release on “more payroll foul-ups,” Conn contends that there’s a lot more pending payroll issues than the most recent snafu.
“This is at least the second major payroll problem in that many weeks. And on top of those problems, DPS still owes hundreds of teachers numerous special payments for workshops and earned bonuses,” he wrote, according to the News.

[VIDEO] Why Congress Could Face a Government Shutdown This Fall

The House and Senate are set to leave Washington, D.C., for a month-long summer break. But they are leaving behind unfinished business.
When lawmakers return in September, they will have little time to tackle legislative priorities like the Iran nuclear deal, transportation funding and the debt ceiling.
However, the major fight could be over Planned Parenthood’s federal funding—possibly leading to another government shutdown.
Watch the video above to learn more why these 11th-hour issues will test the ability of congressional leaders to avoid a government shutdown.

[VIDEO] Ben Carson: ‘I Used to Be a Flaming Liberal’

I had the chance to speak with Dr. Ben Carson recently about the Planned Parenthood scandal, his views on America’s growing debt and something I’ve always wanted to ask a brain surgeon…how do you explain the liberal brain?
You can watch the full video or jump to specific topics via the time codes below:
0:05 – Carson discusses how he hopes the current scandal surrounding Planned Parenthood will cause the black community to explore the organization’s history.
1:02 – As a doctor, Carson is well-known for his views opposing Obamacare, but I asked him what he believes are the other most pressing issues facing the country.
1:56 – How does Carson, a neurosurgeon, explain the liberal brain? He begins his answer by explaining he used to have one.
3:39 – Carson explains that most of what he talks about are not really “Republican” or “Democrat” things, but instead are American things—and he goes on to explain his view on American exceptionalism.


Arizona border hospital closes after Medicare payments stop


Residents of two rural communities in the Southwest face limited options to obtain convenient medical care after services were completely or partially shuttered.

The Cochise Regional Hospital, the only one serving the Arizona border city of Douglas, closed Friday after losing Medicare funding weeks ago.

The Crownpoint Health Care Facility in northwestern New Mexico recently reopened its emergency room but has been without labor and delivery services for months.

Both of the 25-bed hospitals served communities of about 20,000 people, who now must drive farther to get healthcare.

"Often when the main part of that safety net — the hospital in a rural community — goes by the wayside, you basically unraveled those strands and even access to primary care and preventative services go away," said Daniel Derksen of the University of Arizona Center for Rural Health. "People aren't able to get their routine health maintenance."

The hospital in Douglas sought a temporary restraining order to reinstate Medicare funding that was cut off July 10, but a federal court denied the request Thursday. Government surveys found serious deficiencies at the hospital, including not having properly trained staff, failing to administer medication to a patient with high-risk pregnancy, and not properly monitoring a patient who was admitted for congestive heart failure and renal disease, according to court documents. The latter patient died after being airlifted to Tucson.

The court said the hospital had about a year to correct deficiencies and could not point to anything that would entitle it to have more time to bring its nursing care into compliance.

The hospital didn't dispute the deficiencies. It asked for an administrative hearing but did not ask that it be expedited.

Harley Goldstein, whose law firm represents the hospital and its manager, People's Choice Hospital, said a substantive administrative hearing wouldn't be held before September. He said Friday that once the hospital closes, it won't reopen.

Services including cardiology, oncology, obstetrics, physical therapy and pediatric emergency medicine had been unavailable for at least a week. The emergency room and laboratory, radiology, nursing and pharmacy services were available up until the hospital's closure, Goldstein said.

The Arizona Department of Health, which conducted the investigation, did not respond to a message seeking comment.

The federal Indian Health Service runs the Crownpoint hospital on the Navajo Nation. Inpatient and emergency room services were available around the clock until June 8 when a shortage of physicians and nurses shut down those services, the agency's Navajo-area director, John Hubbard Jr., told tribal officials earlier this month. The hospital expanded its urgent care hours before reopening the emergency room last month with contract workers. Patients still cannot be admitted to the hospital. Labor and delivery services have been shut down since January.

Hubbard said the hospital is working to ensure it has enough physicians to cover emergency care in August.

Navajo Nation Council Delegate Leonard Tsosie said his constituents on the eastern side of the reservation in New Mexico contacted him about the lack of services at the hospital.

He said the Indian Health Service has been responsive to concerns about not having enough housing to attract physicians to the reservation and the need for hospital services to not be curtailed.



Blind, stubborn ideology, gross incompetence caused capitulation to Iranian totalitarian theocracy

It looks as if the president and his secretary of state are on a mission to praise, protect and defend their enemies, to despise and punish their allies, and to diminish America

Almost two years of “negotiations,“the final “deal"appears as a total surrender of the Obama government to all the demands of the Ayatollahs who boasted that all their red lines have been met. The deal will put them on the path to become a nuclear power, not as a pariah but legitimized by the US and Europe;they will continue to enrich uranium and to develop their ICBM program; the lifting of the sanctions will give them 150 billion dollars to improve their economy and their military capabilities which include, of course, strengthening Hizbollah, Hamas, and other purveyors of terror in the troubled Middle-East.

The bazaar merchants have trounced the feeble and naïve negotiators led by the team Obama-Kerry. You would think they have defeated America militarily and are now dictating their terms, as the allies in Versailles with Germany or McArthur in Japan. Years ago, Obama asked the Iranian mullahs to “unclench their fists ” and normalize relations with America. They didn’t but he did; he opened his hands, he raised his hands and said “Don’t shoot ! We give you what you want.”

The flaws in the preliminaries:


Some observers think that the original sin was not to limit the negotiators to US vs Iran but to include what is called P5+1 with Russia and China a sort of fifth column siding with Iran.

This was, indeed, a flaw, but a deliberate one, not a mistake.I think the Obama team knew in advance that they wanted a deal at any price, and intentionally enlarged the forum so that they could use the “other partners” as excuses for the multiple concessions they knew they had to make . How many times we heard Kerry say, apologetically, that “we are not alone;we had no choice if we wanted to keep our partners…”

Another flaw was pointed out by James Jeffrey , former ambassador to Iraq, who said after the “Interim agreement:” Those who studied the art of negotiating found two big mistakes that should be avoided :never show that you are desperate to obtain a deal and never take off the table a credible threat of use of military force if the talks collapse.” The shrewd Iranians knew that Obama was desperate for a deal and swore off the use of force, and they ratched up their demands.

Rather than set a time limit, the negotiations continued on and off indefinitely. The give-and-take which is the essence of any negotiation, was a one-way activity: we gave and they took, slowly but surely, extension after extension, concession after concession, red line after red line crossed. That is a huge flaw, for what is in discussion here? Obama started with bombastic declarations, often repeated, that “we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon…I don’t mean to only contain ...” It was a very simple proposition:  First Iran should dismantle her nuclear paraphernalia, (as did Qaddafi of Libya after America attacked Iraq), and then discuss the modalities and the compensations. But Iran never said it would dismantle the nuclear facilities, above and underground—known and secret—in Natanz, Fordow, Parchin and other places. So they negotiated the “time line,” when and how it will be permitted to acquire the bomb.



Popular Posts