« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »
October 29, 2007
Rudy's Red Sox
Congratulations to the Boston Red Sox for winning their second World Series since the curse has been broken. We all know how the curse was broke. In 2000, after the Yankees won their 27th Championship, New Yorkers elected Hillary Rodan Clinton and winning in New York has never been the same. The Mets can seem to get to the big game and while the Yankees have, they can't win. The Knicks went through an utter collapse and though many people want to blame Garden owner, James Dolan, I have to believe it's really the curse of Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton got some mud thrown at her when she professed to be a Yankee fan. How could a Chicago born cubs fan who lived many years in the land of Hope claim to be a fan of the Yankees? Well, recently we learned that diehard Bomber fan, Rudolph Giuliani, announced he was rooting for the Red Sox, the despised rival to the Yanks. This didn't sit well with some fans. Giuliani's argument was simply, "I'm a fan of the American League, so I root for the American League team in the World Series." I have one think to say about all this.
Get a life folks. Baseball isn't politics and it has nothing to do with budgets and taxes and national security. I completely understand Giuliani's rationale. Why? Because I'm the same way. I'm a Mets fan. I don't hate the Yankees and root for them when they play other teams. When the Mets play the Yanks, I, of course, root for the Mets. When it came to the World Series, I was rooting for the Rockies. Why? Because they are the NL team.
So the Sox won and pretty soon, Torre will be in LA and A-Rod will be in the windy city with Sweet Lou. Life will continue.
Posted by Daniel Peterson at 08:15 PM | Comments (0)
October 26, 2007
Church Sues for Right To Run Charter
Harlem Clergyman Wants To Establish a New School
BY GRACE RAUH - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 26, 2007
A Harlem church is suing the state in an attempt to overturn a law that bars religious organizations from running charter schools even if the schools don't teach religion, a move likely to prompt new debate about the separation between church and state.
The Reverend Michel Faulkner of New Horizon Church Ministry said he wants to open a charter school in Harlem or Washington Heights that would be affiliated with his church, but would not have a religious component to the curriculum. If successful, Rev. Faulkner could change the face of new charter schools, allowing churches, synagogues, and mosques to operate them in New York.
Across the country, church leaders can and do run such schools, but most are run through separate nonprofits or management organizations, not the churches directly.
Rev. Faulkner could apply to open a charter school through a nonprofit organization separate from his church, but he said yesterday he's not interested in that approach.
"I just feel like it's not fair," he said. "We, as a religious institution, can certainly uphold the values of separation between church and state."
He said he was galvanized to file the suit after seeing an Arabic-language school, the Khalil Gibran International Academy, open in Brooklyn this fall. The public school was founded by a devout Muslim, but is not affiliated with Islam or any religious institution. Rev. Faulkner said he saw a connection between his would-be charter school and Khalil Gibran.
Continue reading this story, click here to go to the NY Sun
Posted by NYYRC at 09:20 AM | Comments (0)
October 22, 2007
With Joe gone, Time for Yanks to make Big Changes
Joe Torre made the right move this past week by walking away from the New York Yankees on his own terms. Rather than get the axe from ownership, Joe was able to decide it wasn't worth continuing under the current conditions and leave like Mel Stottlemeyer before him and Don Zimmer before that.
As the New York Yankees now try to find another man to succeed Torre, they also have an opportunity to cut payroll and bring in role players instead of padding their roster with superstars. The teams that won from 1996 to 2000 were teams with star quality players, but mostly of everday workhorses who did the little things that made each game special. There wasn't one player to rely on. You felt comfortable that anyone who stepped up to the plate had a chance to get on base. It wasn't about clearing the bases, it was about keeping the inning alive and moving runners over.
Dare I say it, but let some of the big names go. Roger Clemens should be sent off to retire. Andy Pettitte is contemplating retiring and I feel the Yanks should let him take the option. Don't offer him a contract. Carl Pavano and Luis Vizcaino aren't Yankees beyond 2007 and I say let them walk. The only pitcher to consider throwing an offer to would be Mariano Rivera. I'd give him a three year deal worth something close to $40 million and hope he takes it. He may consider leaving with Torre gone, but I think remaining a Yankee is more important to him.
The team should focus on the young. Mike Musina has one more year and Kei Igawa has a contract. Igawa's role must be figured out for next year. Is he going to be a starter or is he a reliever. Make a decision and stick with it. Kyle Farnsworth should be dumped. I'd offer him to the Pirates. It's a perfect team for a veteran player who needs to pitch regularly and get his game back. He'd be given plenty of opportunities to pitch on a team like Pittsburgh.
Behind Musina and Chien-Ming Wang, the three remaining starter slots should be given to the young guys: Chase Wright, Joba Chamberlain, Tyler Clippard, Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy. I would go with three of these guys and send the others back to triple A. Rather than bring in another veteran starter, I'd look for veterans to fill the relief staff. One veteran long reliever/spot starter to come in if a rookie faulters once in a while and two veteran arms, one lefty, one righty, to fill in the middle innings.
In the outfield, I would buy out Bobby Abreu's contract. The Yankees have too many big name players on their roster. Only nine men can be on the field at one time, so the other five or six bench players need to be role players. With Abreu gone, you'll still have Hideki Matsui, Melky Cabrera and Johnny Damon to patrol the outfield. The Yanks also have Shelley Duncan who could prove to be a valuable righty bat from the bench.
By setting up their outfield with three primary candidates and letting four or five players battle out for the final two back-up slots, the Yanks can begin rebuilding for the future. Cabrera is young and has shown he can take a full 162 game season. Duncan is also young and by giving him the fourth or fifth outfield spot, he has an opportunity to prove he can stay on the major league roster through an entire season. If one of the starting outfielders goes down, he can also be given the chance to work in the outfield full-time.
If I was Brian Cashman, I'd extend a contract to Bernie Williams to audition in spring training as a fourth or fifth outfielder. Williams is a switch hitter, has pop in his swing and is a fan favorite. A one year contract for his return would be a nice gesture after letting go of all the players I list in this entry.
Lastly, the infield can get a major payroll cut simply by letting Alex Rodriguez walk. I'm not too comfortable letting Wilson Betemit play third full time, so this is the one position the team will have to search for a replacement. Mike Lowell will be on the market and I see nothing wrong with the Yankees making a push to bring him back. It may be smart to bring in a Chone Figgins or an Alex Gordon. I'd also say if they can trade Jason Giambi, do it. If he stays, he should be back as full time DH. Also, with a posibility of no more A-Rod, it also makes Giambi the only "power bat" in the line-up, so keeping him may be a must.
Andy Philips should be the starting first basemen and either a Doug Mientkiewicz or another lefty hitting first basemen can fill in as back up (Let's not forget Shelley Duncan can also play some 1B). Robinson Cano & Derek Jeter will obviously remain in the middle infield. That leaves us with catcher. There isn't a catcher out there that could replace Jorge Posada. In addition to Rivera, Posada is the only other player with walking papers that I'd turn around and offer a deal to.
So that would be my new team. I haven't even thought of a batting order yet.
Posted by Daniel Peterson at 09:46 PM | Comments (0)
License Plan could lead to GOP victories this November
NYPOST
SPITZER STEERING US TOWARD A CRASH:
DEMS DOOMED PLAN PUTS POLS AT RISK
BY: Frerick U. Dicker
October 22, 2007 -- ALBANY - Top Democrats fear that Gov. Spitzer's controversial plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal aliens has endangered their party's candidates across the state -- and even threatens the presidential prospects of Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Post has learned.
A half-dozen senior Democrats told The Post that Spitzer's licensing plan is producing what one called "a mass exodus" away from the party's candidates that may lead to unexpected losses in November's local elections.
They are also warning that growing voter unhappiness with Spitzer on the licensing and other issues - illustrated in several recent polls - could carry into next year and end the Democrats' hope of winning control of the GOP-dominated state Senate.
"The driver's-license issue is a killer for us in the suburbs," a senior party strategist said.
"The Nassau County Legislature is in danger, and so are the big Buffalo races," said a prominent elected Democratic official, referring to election battles to retain slim, Democratic control in Nassau County and carry hotly fought contests for county executive and clerk in Erie County.
Another senior Democrat predicted that Sen. Clinton, who has repeatedly refused to say whether she backs Spitzer's plan, would soon be forced to reject it.
"The immigrant license issue is one of the most politically dangerous in the nation, and Hillary will have to come out against it," the Democrat said.
Posted by NYYRC at 09:24 AM | Comments (0)
October 20, 2007
November 8th Speaker Forum
The next New York Young Republican Club, Inc meeting will be held on Thursday, November 8, 2007.
Scheduled Speakers
Fred Siegel
is a senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Civic Innovation, and is an expert on market-friendly public-policy solutions for urban governance. He has made his intellectual home at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in New York City for over twenty years. As a senior advisor to Rudolph Giuliani's 1993 mayoral campaign, he wrote one of Mr. Giuliani's path-breaking speeches on quality of life. He is author of The Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life (Encounter Books 2005), which received a cover review in The New York Times Book Review.
Please R.S.V.P. to this meeting/event.
Meeting Location
Soldiers', Sailors', Marines' & Airmen's Club
283 Lexington Ave (bet 36th & 37th St), 2nd Floor
7:30 PM to 9:30 PM
Business Casual requested.
Please be on time.
For After-politics Socializing
Come join us afterwards for drinks at:
Margarita Murphy's
591 Third Avenue
Between 38th and 39th streets
Posted by NYYRC at 07:46 PM | Comments (0)
Can Buffalo Ever Come back?
The New York Sun
BY EDWARD L. GLAESER
October 19, 2007
Autumn 2007
At the onset of the Great Depression, Buffalo had 573,000 inhabitants, making it the 13th-largest city in America. In the 75 years that followed, this once-mighty metropolis lost 55% of its population, a decline most dramatic in its blighted inner city but also apparent in its broader metropolitan area, one of the 20 most quickly deteriorating such regions in the nation. 27% of Buffalo's residents are poor, more than twice the national average. The median family income is just $33,000, less than 60% of the nationwide figure of $55,000. Buffalo's collapse—and that of other troubled upstate New York cities like Syracuse and Rochester—seems to cry out for a policy response. Couldn't Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer use their influence on Capitol Hill to bring some needed relief?
The truth is, the federal government has already spent vast sums of taxpayer money over the past half-century to revitalize Buffalo, only to watch the city continue to decay. Future federal spending that tries to revive the city will likely prove equally futile. The federal government should instead pursue policies that help Buffalo's citizens, not the city as a geographical place. State and local policymakers could take steps that might—might—help Buffalo stave off its demise, if they avoid the errors of the past. But make no mistake: Buffalo faces long odds.
The history of Buffalo helps us understand why it continues to lose people and why it will be hard to reverse the trend. Historians often overstate the importance of the Erie Canal to New York City's expansion: Gotham grew just as quickly before the canal was dug. But there's no question that the canal, which connected Lake Erie to the Hudson River—and, therefore, the Great Lakes to the Atlantic—was a critical factor in the growth of upstate cities located on it, such as Buffalo. Before the canal, Buffalo had 2,500 residents and specialized in commerce along the Great Lakes. After the canal, the city's population exploded, reaching 8,600 people by 1830 and 18,000 by 1840. Many of those new residents helped transfer goods, especially wheat, from the large boats that plied the Great Lakes to the smaller, 50-ton barges that traveled eastward via the canal. By the early 1840s, Buffalo was moving 2 million bushels of grain a year from boat to barge. It was a revolution in transportation, even more dramatic than the railroads that later gave upstate New York towns vital access to eastern markets and the Atlantic seaboard.
At first, the grain moved by hand. But cities often foster innovation, and so it proved in Buffalo. In 1842, a local merchant, Joseph Dart, borrowed an idea from the brilliant Pittsburgh miller Oliver Evans, installing a steam-driven machine that scooped wheat out of cargo ships on Lake Erie and then dumped it into a silo. Dart's grain elevators could handle 1,000 bushels daily, allowing ships to unload in a single day. They became a noticeable part of Buffalo's skyline and a key element of the city's emergence as the world's leading grain port.
During the early twentieth century, Buffalo first challenged, and then surpassed, Minneapolis as a mill town, and the canal was the main reason. Since so much wheat flowed through Buffalo, it made sense to start milling it there and then to ship the flour onward. Almost half of Buffalo's wheat left the country, much of it sailing across the Atlantic to European markets. Over time, the city's water-based transportation advantages also encouraged heavy industrial development. The Lackawanna Steel and Iron Company, for instance, relocated its center of operations from Scranton, Pennsylvania, to Buffalo early in the twentieth century. The upstate city's canal location made it easy to ship iron there from the Lake Michigan area, and to turn it into steel with the aid of coal transported north from Pennsylvania.
Buffalo had an extra geographic advantage that helped make it an early-twentieth-century powerhouse: Niagara Falls. The rushing water was a potent source of energy, harnessed to produce the electricity that surged through an enormous underground tunnel to power the city. By 1901, Buffalo took to calling itself the City of Light, so abundant was the electricity delivered by the falls and Westinghouse generators. The electricity would be an added draw for firms, such as Union Carbide and the Aluminum Company of America, that needed plentiful power.
The 1920s were the last real growth period for Buffalo. During the thirties, the city's population began to level off, and after its 1950 high of 580,000, it began to fall precipitously—down 50,000 people by the end of the decade. Buffalo's worst decade was the 1970s, when it lost 100,000 residents and much of its middle class. Today, its population stands well under 300,000.
A major culprit in Buffalo's collapse was a shift in transportation technology, reducing the importance of the Erie Canal and of the cities that arose to take advantage of it. In the 1830s, you would have been mad to set up a manufacturing firm in New York State that didn't have access to the canal or some other waterway. Starting in the 1910s, though, trucks made it easy to deliver products and get deliveries—all you needed was a nearby highway. Rail became more efficient: the real cost of transporting a ton one mile by rail has fallen 90% since 1900. Then the Saint Lawrence Seaway opened in 1957, connecting the Great Lakes to the Atlantic and allowing grain shipments to bypass Buffalo altogether. These shocks didn't just hit the New York canal cities; every city on the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River, its water-based advantages eroded, lost industries to areas with cheaper labor costs.
Other trends compounded Buffalo's woes. Improvements in electricity transmission made companies' proximity to Niagara Falls increasingly irrelevant. Mechanization meant that the industry that did remain in the city needed fewer bodies. The appeal of the automobile induced many to leave the older center cities for the suburbs, where property was plentiful and cheaper, or to abandon the area altogether for cities like Los Angeles, built around the car. And Buffalo's dismal weather didn't help. January temperatures are one of the best predictors of urban success over the last half-century, with colder climes losing out—and Buffalo isn't just cold during the winter: blizzards regularly shut the city down completely. The invention of air conditioners and certain public health advances made warmer states even more alluring.
In general, when cities shrink, poverty isn't far behind, for two reasons—one obvious, the other subtler. The obvious reason: urban populations fall because of relocation of industry and drop in labor demand; as jobs vanish, people living in a city get poorer. The subtler reason: declining areas also become magnets for poor people, attracted by cheap housing. This is exactly what happened to Buffalo, whose median home value is just $61,000, far below the state average of $260,000. More than 10% of Buffalo's residents in 2000, it's worth noting, had moved there since 1995. The influx of the poor reinforces a city's downward spiral, since it drives up public expenditures while doing little to expand the local tax base.
State and local government did little to improve Buffalo's chances—in fact, they worsened things considerably. First, New York's high taxes, burdensome regulations, and pro-union laws made Buffalo less attractive to employers than its more successful southern competitors. In 1975, the Fantus Legislative Business Climate rankings sorted the American states based on corporate taxes, workers' compensation laws, and many other rules. New York was the least business-friendly of the 48 states in the continental U.S. Being antibusiness might have been feasible when New York enjoyed strong natural advantages, but not after those advantages eroded. Despite 50 years of population loss, Buffalo has one of the steepest metropolitan tax burdens in the country—including one of the nation's highest local property tax rates, according to a 2003 study.
Buffalo also suffered from lousy local politics. During the 1960s, the city government failed to deliver either safety or good schools. Race riots shook the area, and crime rose steadily. Fiscal crises became epidemic. Buffalo had difficulty recruiting police because of low wages and the dangers of the street. Leadership was especially dismal during the late sixties and early seventies, the city's worst years. Mayor Frank Sedita, who faced ceaseless fiscal problems and surging violence from 1966 to 1973, was a traditional urban politician, better at playing to the city's various ethnicities than at confronting its ongoing crisis.
As the 1970s went on, cities began to acknowledge, however grudgingly, that the high costs of concentrated poverty made it disastrous to keep repelling the well-off and attracting the poor. The exodus of the middle class and businesses led many cities to repudiate tax-and-spend left-liberal politicians, who had dominated urban politics in the sixties, in favor of pragmatic leaders promising a better deal for more prosperous residents. In 1977, for instance, New York City voters rejected left-liberals Abe Beame and Bella Abzug and elected reformer Ed Koch. And in Buffalo's mayoral race that year, voters rejected a left-leaning Democrat, Arthur Eve, and embraced James Griffin, the law-and-order candidate of the Conservative and Right-to-Life Parties. Like Mr. Koch, Mr. Griffin focused on improving basic city services, such as public safety, and encouraging business investment.
But while Mr. Koch presided over the first sparks of New York's eventual Giuliani-era renaissance, Buffalo remained mired in poverty and dysfunction because, unlike the Big Apple, it lacked a healthy private sector. Manhattan's financial-services sector created an engine of economic success, with innovation following innovation. During the 1960s, investors developed more accurate ways to assess risk, which in turn made it possible for Michael Milken to find a wider market for riskier bonds. Those high-risk bonds then enabled the corporate takeover movement of the 1980s, which created huge amounts of value by cutting managerial fat and forcing greater efficiencies on firms across America. Later still, the same finance-based innovation dynamo brought more economic success to Manhattan with mortgage-backed securities and hedge funds. New York City, in other words, transformed itself from a manufacturing center into a place that thrived on producing new ideas.
The other old, cold cities that staved off decline, like Boston and Minneapolis, similarly reinvented themselves, with the density that once served to move cargo onto ships now helping spread the latest ideas. The key ingredient: human capital. The cities that bounced back did so thanks to smart entrepreneurs, who figured out new ways for their cities to thrive. The share of the population possessing college degrees in the 1970s is the best predictor of which northeastern and midwestern cities have done well since then.
Buffalo wasn't a particularly skilled city in 1970, and it isn't one now. Fewer than 19% of the city's adults boast a college degree; the number in Manhattan is 57.5%. Whereas New York always had some industries, such as finance, that required brainpower, Buffalo's industries were invariably brawn-based. Buffalo wasn't a university town like Boston, and it didn't have Minneapolis's Scandinavian passion for good lower education. It had the right skill mix for making steel or flour, not for flourishing in the information age.
Since the 1950s, the federal government has showered billions upon billions of dollars on Buffalo and other failing cities, seeking to revitalize them. The spending reflected a natural, humane impulse. But none of it worked, as Buffalo's entrenched poverty and shrinking population testify. In 1957, for example, the federal Urban Renewal Association provided more than $9 million ($65 million in today's dollars) to rebuild the Ellicott district in the city's downtown area. The Ellicott rehabilitation followed what became the classic urban renewal script—replacing slums with middle-income housing, commercial development, and more open space. The program removed 2,000 residents, the majority of them black, and relocated many to new public-housing projects. Yet just ten years later, officials were describing the program as a "dismal failure." Despite millions spent, living conditions for the poor seemed no better, and the city certainly wasn't on the mend.
After Ellicott, Buffalo, with Washington's help, turned its attention to redeveloping its waterfront. In 1969, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development supported the construction of the 40-story Marine Midland Center, a bank headquarters designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. Twenty-seven years later, the public contributed more than $50 million to build the Marine Midland Arena nearby to house hockey's Buffalo Sabres. While the public money created splendid waterfront edifices, it did little to stem residents' flight from the city.
Buffalo's metropolitan rail system, which opened in 1985, is the most expensive of the city's revitalization efforts. The system took over six years and $500 million to build, with most of the money coming from Washington. Many have lauded the system for its cleanness and efficiency. But why sink so much money into rail lines when Buffalo has lots of highways and abundant parking? The system's ridership has been declining steadily for over a decade.
All this spending aimed at resurrecting Buffalo as a place—very different from government aid that seeks to help disadvantaged people, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit—was destined to fail. Urban migrations aren't random. America's deserts and mountain ranges aren't densely inhabited for a good reason: few people want to live in such harsh places. Similarly, people and firms are leaving Buffalo for the Sunbelt because the Sunbelt is a warmer, more pleasant, and more productive area to live. The federal government shouldn't be bribing them, in effect, to stay in the city.
Such bribes are notoriously ineffective. Scores of close to worthless urban projects have received government funding not because any cost-benefit analysis has justified them but because of hazy claims that they would make some once-great area thrive again. It's almost impossible to imagine that the billions already spent on Buffalo's urban-renewal projects would satisfy any reasonable cost-benefit analysis for helping to reverse the city's decline. The desire of people and firms to move is just too strong. For the government to tear down old houses and build new ones in a place like Buffalo is particularly misguided. The hallmark of declining cities is having an excess of housing relative to demand. Econ 101 teaches us that any further increases in housing supply will just push prices down more.
No mayor ever got reelected by making it easy for his citizens to move to Atlanta, of course, even when that might be a pretty good outcome for the movers themselves. But just because local politicians will eagerly seek federal place-based spending doesn't mean that the feds should comply. A sensible federal approach for upstate New York would invest in people-based policies that improve the economic futures of the children growing up there. Education is the best tool we have to fight poverty. If the children of upstate cities were better educated, then they would earn more as adults—whether they stayed in their hometowns or moved to Las Vegas. And people-based policies may actually motivate states and cities to spend more wisely, in order to retain their newly educated and mobile residents.
As for state and local politicians, reducing New York's unnecessary taxes and regulation would be a good idea, since if Buffalo is ever to rebound, even somewhat, private innovators, not government projects, will be the primary reason. Better schools and safe streets would also be key to improving Buffalo's chances of survival. Yet though such policies would improve things, they would not restore the boomtown of the early twentieth century; the economic trends working against such a prospect are simply too great. The best scenario would be for Buffalo to become a much smaller but more vibrant community—shrinking to greatness, in effect. Far better that outcome than wasting yet more effort and resources on the foolish project of restoring the City of Light's past glory.
Edward L. Glaeser is a professor of economics at Harvard University and a Manhattan Institute senior fellow. Adapted from the Autumn issue of City Journal.
Posted by NYYRC at 07:23 PM | Comments (0)
NYYRC Western Themed Halloween Party
The New York Young Republican Club will be holding a Halloween party at Johnny Utah's on Thursday, October 25th.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
7:00 PM
Johnny Utah's
25 West 51st Street
New York, NY
Bull-riding at 9pm
Please R.S.V.P. to this event so we can guarantee tables.
Posted by NYYRC at 07:12 PM | Comments (0)
Climate Change: Some Key Points to Remember
Several Points on Climate Change or Global Warming
1. The climate has been changing on earth ever since it was created weather you think that was 6,000 years ago or 6 Billion so why should now be different.
2. We know that the climate during the middle ages was much warmer than it is now.
3. We know that somewhere about 1650 to 1780 or so was a time called the little ice age
4. The UN put out it's list of the ten hottest years in the last century. The hottest year was 1936 in fact 5 of the hottest ten were before world War 2
5. During the 1970's we went through a cooling trend so much so that when earth day was started around that time the pundits were talking about global cooling even an instant ice age.
6. There is a lot of evidence that Mars, Jupiter and Venus are going through warming trends
7. Geologists tell us the heat on earth can be broken down as follows 90% comes from the sun, over 9% comes from magma inside the earth, man is responsible for less than 1/2 of a percent.
Posted by Cliff Dagrosa at 07:06 PM | Comments (2)
Sen. Arlon Spector doing Stand Up
Posted by Daniel Peterson at 07:01 PM | Comments (0)
October 10, 2007
NYS Party Registration Deadline - Oct 12
Anyone wishing to vote in the New York GOP presidential primary must be a registered Republican and be registered by Friday, October 12.
If you are a registered Democrat, or registered with any other political party, or a registered voter but NOT registered with any political party, you must change your registration and declare yourself a Republican by October 12th in order to vote in the February 5th Republican Presidential Primary. Undeclared/independent registered voters CANNOT vote in the Republican primary, you must change your registration to Republican by October 12th!
To register by mail:
1. Download and print this registration form
2. Fill out the registration form (for other forms, go here
3. Find your County Board of Elections
4. Put the address of your County Board of Elections in the "Mail To:" box
Mail it, and make sure it gets to the County Board of Elections by Friday, October 12th
If you are not registered Republican by Friday, you can't vote in the GOP primary.
Posted by NYYRC at 09:05 AM | Comments (0)
October 03, 2007
GOP rally against Spitzer Driver I.D. for Illegals
FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY
CONTACT: (917) 681-9302
October 2, 2007
Assemblyman Greg Ball (R-Carmel) and members of the Assembly Republican Conference will be hosting a forum to discuss the Governor’s new drivers’ license plan. Experts on homeland security and immigration will lead the discussions.
Also in attendance will be members of the Assembly Republican Conference, including Assemblyman Jim Bacalles (R,C-Corning), Assemblyman Phil Boyle (R,I,C-8th A.D.), Assemblyman Bill Reilich (R,C,I-Greece), and Assemblyman Lou Tobacco (R-South Shore), as well as Congressman and Republican Presidential hopeful, Tom Tancredo (6th District, Colorado).
A variety of homeland security and immigration experts will be attending, including: Immigration and national security expert Mike Cutler; founder of the 9/11 Families for a Secure America Peter Gadiel; President of the Boarder Patrol Council T.J. Bonner; James Staudenraus, a drivers’ license security expert; legal expert Mark W. Smith; President of the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License Brian Zimmer; and a representative from You Don’t Speak For Me (a Hispanic-American organization advocating for homeland security).
All media and members of the public are invited to attend.
250 Broadway, across City Hall between Murray and Park St.
19th Floor, NYS Senate Hearing Room
New York, NY 10007
Posted by NYYRC at 12:08 PM | Comments (0)