The Republican party must pay attention to the Hispanic growth in Texas but also for Florida. There is no reason to disbelieve that Hispanics shall not travel to Florida via automobile through Texas and air and sea into the various ports of Florida. There are many reasons why Hispanics love to live in both states: just one is both states’ names are of Spanish origin. But aside from that fact on history, for assumption sake, people of Hispanic origin love to live in the United States, i.e., something about the United States makes them want to live and work in this country whether it be for profit, education, practice of religion or speech, and security. Those are some of the reasons why this country exists. So, how shall the Republican party pay attention to Hispanic growth? Here comes the hypothesis. As the article, Hispanic Growth in Texas is “Big,” Just Like the State,” suggests, there is a certain ideology that appeals to Hispanics. In two parts this ideology comes from both the Republican and the Democratic parties. On the ideas of economy and immigration, Hispanics tend to side with the Democrats; on the ideas of social issues like abortion they tend to side with the Republicans. The nexus on the great message to Hispanics for the Republican party has not been reached. The work lies for the best presentation possible for explaining why the issues on the economy and immigration are better served by the Republican party.
The best way for Republicans to explain the issues on the economy and immigration is to relate the two. The economy is dependent on immigration. This is a direct relationship on understanding why that the Republican party belief in conservatism is so important for the United States of America. This relationship means that it relies on people or the population. The article states that the population of Hispanics has increased faster than other ethnic groups. Hispanic population growth has always been the major human resource gift to this country. Where do these people come from? The answer is strictly that they have to come from families. And, here is where the hypothesis can easily break down. Republicans hardly that much mention about family integration and immigration. Because the family believes in having children than aborting them, the need for family integration is extremely important. But what about the culture? Now, because the family believes in the cultural ties to its country of origin, the need for family immigration is twice extremely important. No family may develop without strong roots.
Therefore, immigration policy should never be separated from economic policy, as economy depends directly on immigration. There are many ways to solve this problem, but one clear way is to immigrate whole families into the United States one at a time. For assumption sake, the policy shall be named Immigration For Families (IFF). The proposition is to allow the immigration easily through law and regulation with a condition that the family be able to immigrate. Again, the reason for this is that Hispanics depend on their family structure, the whole of the family. The whole family is the sum of its parts. The goal of immigration policy should be to make citizens of all the parts of the family, i.e., never seeking to make a citizen only one person at a time, but the whole of the family at one time. This is not a radical attempt. Most families, when they move or travel, travel and move together for reasons beyond a state’s understanding. Parents in family’s care for their children and the young and wiser relatives.
Immigration processing ideas shall be hypothesized in a later post.
Posted by Speaker of the House John Boehner on January 28, 2011
Law firms defend patients on medical liability. Frivolous lawsuits and the practice of defensive medicine encourage large banks and hedge funds to put their money behind these law firms to cash in on patients’ awards as investment vehicles. When Jerry Brown was governor of California 30 years ago, he recognized the saving of $200 billion annually on health care by passing a medical liability reform and patient safety law. Today, California is reaping the benefits of that law. The results have shown that medical errors have decreased in California. But, medical errors have increased in other states. Meaningful medical liability reform has the potential to cut the cost of health care on a larger basis. President Obama indicated in his State of the Union speech that he wants to lower costs in health care, especially in medical liability. Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA11), MD, has authored the H.R. 5, the Health Act, that follows the California law. Gingrey’s colleagues in introducing this law are Lamar Smith (R-TX21) and David Scott (D-GA13). The purpose of the California law was to make sure that patients are fairly compensated for their medical injuries, support medical care providers to stay practicing in the state, and limit the cost of health care overall. The Health Reform Report advises on health transformation issues.
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH8) and Chris Smith (R-NJ4) introduced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act as part of the Pledge to America by the majority GOP in the House of Representatives. The Speaker gave the bill one of the highest priorities: H.R. 3. H.R. 3 would permanently prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions in all federal programs. Congressman Smith provided the bipartisan leadership to codify the Hyde Amendment and similar policies to ban legislative funding of abortions in all federal programs.
Dear Human Events Reader,
Good news! On Feb. 3 we’re launching a new FREE e-letter especially for women and moms with a unique female perspective.
It’s called Family Events — and we’d like YOUR help in getting the word out to the special women in your life.
Thank you for supporting this effort to empower moms.
With Warm Regards,
Human Events Editors
P.S. Are you a mom and interested in content in raising children in today’s society from another mom’s perspective? Go here to sign up directly and join other moms.
Currently, some states are having financial crises. Instead of shooting from the hip, the federal government should allow states the option to declare bankruptcy, as do municipalities. The legislature should pass a law to add another chapter to the federal Bankruptcy Code for voluntary bankruptcy versus wasteful bailouts.
Jeff Riddenbach’s answer to the article, “The Trouble with Liberty,” by Christopher Beam of New York Magazine.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-N.V.) relinquished his plans to drastically change the rules of the Senate in order to pass his liberal agenda with a smaller majority.
Reid’s effort to kill the filibuster, which is the minority’s right to effect legislation, went down in flames in the final rules changes on Thursday.
“In the short term, this is a victory for conservatives. As part of the current minority party in the Senate, their rights will be preserved,” said Marty Gold, a former Senate leadership aide who is now an attorney at Covington and Burling.
“In addition, extreme mechanisms that had been proposed to advance new rules and limit filibusters came to nothing in the end,” said Gold.
The rules voted on the floor were less important than the gentleman’s agreements made between Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Both agreed to never try again to use the nuclear option, which is to change the rules of the Senate with only 51 votes, instead of the established 67 vote margin. McConnell and Reid also agreed to use the filibuster and amendment tree procedural maneuvers less often in the future.
“What we need most in the Senate is a change in behavior in addition to this change in rules. We need to preserve the Senate as a forum for minority rights. We need to preserve the 60-vote requirement for major votes. That will force consensus. That will cause us to work together,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) on Thursday.
Alexander negotiated the bipartisan deal with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) at the behest of McConnell and Reid.
All the presidential contenders for the Republican presidential nomination will lose except one: this is a zero-sum game. Who will win the Republican presidential nomination? It is anyone’s guess.