Report: Blue Jays Hire Shane Farrell as Amateur Scouting Director

H2: Blue Jays Hire Shane Farrell

The Toronto Blue Jays have hired Shane Farrell as their new amateur scouting director, according to a report from Sportsnet’s Shi Davidi. Farrell, who has been with the Blue Jays organization since 2005, most recently served as the team’s director of international scouting.

H3: Farrell’s Career with the Blue Jays

Farrell began his career with the Blue Jays as an intern in 2005. He quickly rose through the ranks, and by 2011, he was named the team’s director of international scouting. In that role, he oversaw the team’s international scouting efforts, and was responsible for signing such players as Vladimir Guerrero Jr., Bo Bichette, and Cavan Biggio.

H3: Farrell’s New Role as Amateur Scouting Director

In his new role as amateur scouting director, Farrell will be responsible for overseeing the team’s scouting efforts in North America. He will also be responsible for working with the team’s general manager, Ross Atkins, and president of baseball operations, Mark Shapiro, to develop the team’s long-term strategy.

H3: Farrell’s Impact on the Blue Jays

Farrell is widely regarded as one of the best scouting directors in baseball. He has a proven track record of identifying and developing top talent, and his hiring is a major coup for the Blue Jays. Farrell is expected to play a key role in helping the Blue Jays build a championship-caliber team.

H2: Blue Jays Fans React to Farrell’s Hiring

Blue Jays fans have been overwhelmingly positive about Farrell’s hiring. They believe that he is the right person to lead the team’s scouting efforts, and they are excited to see what he can do to help the team win.

H3: What’s Next for the Blue Jays?

The Blue Jays have a lot of work to do to build a championship-caliber team. However, with Farrell at the helm of their scouting efforts, they are in a good position to make the necessary improvements. The Blue Jays are poised for a bright future, and Farrell is a major reason for that.

No, the Federal Government Should Not Force States Into Pension Reform Through Bailout Conditions

H2: The Dangers of Federal Pension Reform

The federal government has proposed a number of measures that would force states to make changes to their pension plans. These measures include:

• Imposing a new federal pension funding standard. The current federal funding standard requires states to contribute enough to their pension plans to ensure that they are 100% funded over a 75-year period. The proposed new standard would require states to contribute enough to their pension plans to ensure that they are 100% funded over a 50-year period. This would significantly increase the amount that states would have to contribute to their pension plans, and it would make it more difficult for states to meet their other financial obligations.
• Requiring states to adopt new pension investment rules. The federal government has proposed a number of new rules that would govern how states invest their pension funds. These rules would make it more difficult for states to generate the returns that they need to meet their pension obligations.
• Providing financial assistance to states only if they agree to make changes to their pension plans. The federal government has proposed providing financial assistance to states that are struggling to meet their pension obligations. However, this assistance would only be available if states agree to make changes to their pension plans that the federal government deems to be necessary.

These proposed measures would have a number of negative consequences for states. They would make it more difficult for states to meet their other financial obligations, such as providing education and public services. They would also make it more difficult for states to attract and retain businesses and residents.

H2: The Alternatives to Federal Pension Reform

There are a number of alternatives to federal pension reform that would be more effective and less harmful to states. These alternatives include:

• Allowing states to choose their own pension funding standards. States should be allowed to choose the pension funding standard that is most appropriate for their individual circumstances. This would allow states to make the necessary contributions to their pension plans without having to make drastic changes to their other financial priorities.
• Giving states more flexibility in how they invest their pension funds. States should be given more flexibility in how they invest their pension funds. This would allow them to generate the returns that they need to meet their pension obligations without taking on too much risk.
• Providing financial assistance to states that are struggling to meet their pension obligations. The federal government should provide financial assistance to states that are struggling to meet their pension obligations. However, this assistance should be provided without any strings attached. States should be free to use the assistance in a way that they see fit.

These alternatives would be more effective and less harmful to states than the proposed federal pension reforms. They would allow states to meet their pension obligations without having to make drastic changes to their other financial priorities. They would also allow states to retain their flexibility and control over their pension plans.

H2: Conclusion

The federal government should not force states into pension reform through bailout conditions. The proposed federal pension reforms would have a number of negative consequences for states, and they would be less effective than the alternatives. States should be allowed to choose their own pension funding standards, invest their pension funds in a way that makes sense for their individual circumstances, and receive financial assistance without any strings attached.

The COVID-19 Immigration Moratorium: Reasonable, Not Racist

H2: The Moratorium Is a Reasonable Response to a Public Health Crisis

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global emergency that has claimed the lives of millions of people. In the United States, the pandemic has caused a surge in hospitalizations and deaths, and it has strained the healthcare system to its limits.

In order to slow the spread of the virus and protect public health, the Trump administration imposed a temporary moratorium on immigration. The moratorium, which went into effect on March 20, 2020, applies to all non-immigrant visas, including tourist visas, student visas, and work visas.

The moratorium has been criticized by some as being racist, but there is no evidence to support this claim. The moratorium is not based on race or nationality, but rather on public health concerns.

The moratorium is a temporary measure that is designed to protect the health of the American people. It is a reasonable and necessary response to a public health crisis.

H3: The Moratorium Is Not Affecting Legal Immigration

The moratorium does not apply to legal immigration. Immigrants who are already in the United States and have valid visas are not affected by the moratorium.

The moratorium also does not apply to immigrants who are seeking asylum or refugee status. These immigrants are still eligible to apply for visas and enter the United States.

The moratorium is only affecting those who are seeking to come to the United States for non-immigrant purposes, such as tourism, work, or study.

H3: The Moratorium Is Necessary to Protect Public Health

The COVID-19 pandemic is a serious public health crisis. The virus is highly contagious, and it can spread rapidly through communities.

The moratorium is necessary to slow the spread of the virus and prevent it from overwhelming the healthcare system. By limiting the number of people who are coming into the country, the moratorium can help to reduce the risk of transmission.

The moratorium is also necessary to protect the health of frontline healthcare workers. These workers are already at high risk of exposure to the virus, and the moratorium can help to reduce their risk of infection.

H2: The Moratorium Is a Temporary Measure

The moratorium is a temporary measure that is designed to last for 60 days. The moratorium will be reviewed on a monthly basis, and it will be lifted as soon as the public health crisis has abated.

The moratorium is a necessary and reasonable response to a public health crisis. It is not racist, and it is not affecting legal immigration. The moratorium is a temporary measure that will be lifted as soon as the public health crisis has abated.

The Far Left Now Wants to Release Immigration Detainees

The far-left has long been a vocal opponent of immigration detention, arguing that it is a cruel and unnecessary practice that separates families and deprives immigrants of their due process rights. In recent months, this opposition has intensified, with some far-left activists and politicians calling for the immediate release of all immigration detainees.

Why the Far Left Wants to Release Immigration Detainees

There are a number of reasons why the far left is calling for the release of immigration detainees. First, they argue that immigration detention is a form of punishment that is not warranted for the vast majority of immigrants who are detained. Most immigrants who are detained are not criminals; they are simply seeking asylum or trying to reunite with their families. Second, they argue that immigration detention is inhumane and that it poses a serious risk to the health and safety of detainees. Third, they argue that immigration detention is ineffective and that it does not deter undocumented immigration.

The Consequences of Releasing Immigration Detainees

If the far left’s demands are met, it would have a number of significant consequences. First, it would likely lead to a surge in undocumented immigration. Deterrence is a key factor in preventing undocumented immigration, and the release of immigration detainees would send a message that the United States is not serious about enforcing its immigration laws. Second, it would likely lead to an increase in crime. Studies have shown that immigrants who are detained are less likely to commit crimes than the general population. Third, it would likely lead to an increase in the spread of infectious diseases. Immigration detention facilities are often overcrowded and unsanitary, and they provide a breeding ground for infectious diseases.

The Debate over Immigration Detention

The debate over immigration detention is a complex one with no easy answers. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. However, it is important to remember that immigration detention is a serious issue with far-reaching consequences. Before making any decisions about immigration detention, it is important to weigh the costs and benefits carefully.

H2: The Far Left’s Argument for Releasing Immigration Detainees

The far left argues that immigration detention is a cruel and unnecessary practice that violates the due process rights of immigrants. They also argue that immigration detention is ineffective and that it does not deter undocumented immigration.

H3: The Far Left’s Claims About Immigration Detention

The far left claims that immigration detention is:

• Cruel and inhumane
• Unnecessary
• Ineffective
• A violation of due process rights

H3: The Far Left’s Evidence for These Claims

The far left cites a number of studies and reports to support their claims about immigration detention. These studies and reports show that:

• Immigration detention is often overcrowded and unsanitary, leading to health problems for detainees.
• Immigration detention can lead to mental health problems for detainees.
• Immigration detention can lead to separation of families.
• Immigration detention does not deter undocumented immigration.

H2: The Consequences of Releasing Immigration Detainees

If the far left’s demands are met, it would have a number of significant consequences. These consequences include:

• A surge in undocumented immigration
• An increase in crime
• An increase in the spread of infectious diseases

H3: The Debate over Immigration Detention

The debate over immigration detention is a complex one with no easy answers. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. However, it is important to remember that immigration detention is a serious issue with far-reaching consequences. Before making any decisions about immigration detention, it is important to weigh the costs and benefits carefully.

Immigration Reform News: March 23, 2020 – ¿Qué pasa en inmigración?

The latest news on immigration reform in the United States is as follows:

• The House of Representatives passed a bill to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. The bill, which passed by a vote of 237-187, would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for at least 10 years, have a clean criminal record, and pay taxes. The bill would also provide funding for border security and enforcement.
• The Senate is unlikely to take up the House bill. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that he does not support the bill, and it is unlikely to get the 60 votes needed to pass.
• President Trump has threatened to veto the House bill. President Trump has said that he would veto the House bill, calling it “amnesty.”

The future of immigration reform in the United States is uncertain. It is unclear whether the House and Senate will be able to come to an agreement on a bill, and it is also unclear whether President Trump would sign a bill that provides a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Here are some additional details about the House bill:

• The bill would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for at least 10 years, have a clean criminal record, and pay taxes.
• The bill would also provide funding for border security and enforcement.
• The bill would create a new visa category for undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for at least 10 years. These immigrants would be able to apply for a green card after 5 years, and they would be eligible for citizenship after 8 years.
• The bill would also provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are DREAMers, TPS holders, and farmworkers.

Here are some additional details about the Senate:

• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that he does not support the House bill.
• Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said that he is willing to work with Republicans to come up with a compromise bill.
• There are a number of different bills being considered in the Senate, but it is unclear whether any of them will have the support of enough senators to pass.

Here are some additional details about President Trump:

• President Trump has said that he would veto the House bill.
• President Trump has said that he supports a “border wall” and increased border security.
• President Trump has said that he is open to providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but he has not said what that pathway would look like.

The future of immigration reform in the United States is uncertain. It is unclear whether the House and Senate will be able to come to an agreement on a bill, and it is also unclear whether President Trump would sign a bill that provides a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Stay tuned for updates on the latest immigration reform news.

As COVID-19 Exposes the Defects of Globalism, America Must Rediscover National Self-Reliance

H2: The Defects of Globalism

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the many defects of globalism. A globalized economy has made it easier for diseases to spread from one country to another, and it has also made it more difficult for countries to respond to crises. For example, when the pandemic first hit China, it took months for the virus to reach the United States. By the time it did, it had already spread to many other countries, making it more difficult to contain.

In addition, a globalized economy has made it more difficult for countries to protect their own industries. For example, when the pandemic hit, many countries were forced to rely on foreign suppliers for essential goods, such as medical supplies and personal protective equipment. This made it difficult for these countries to respond to the crisis, and it also put them at a disadvantage compared to countries that were able to produce these goods domestically.

H3: The Need for National Self-Reliance

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that America needs to become more self-reliant. We need to be able to produce essential goods domestically, and we need to be able to respond to crises without relying on other countries.

There are a number of ways that America can become more self-reliant. We can invest in our own industries, we can diversify our supply chains, and we can build up our own stockpiles of essential goods. We can also work with our allies to ensure that we are prepared for future crises.

H2: The Benefits of National Self-Reliance

There are many benefits to national self-reliance. First, it makes us more resilient to crises. If we are able to produce essential goods domestically, we will not be as vulnerable to disruptions in the global supply chain. We will also be able to respond to crises more quickly and effectively.

Second, national self-reliance creates jobs. When we invest in our own industries, we are creating jobs for American workers. This helps to boost our economy and it also helps to reduce poverty.

Third, national self-reliance makes us more independent. When we are not reliant on other countries for essential goods, we are less likely to be influenced by their interests. This gives us more freedom to pursue our own policies and to make our own decisions.

H3: Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that America needs to become more self-reliant. We need to be able to produce essential goods domestically, we need to be able to respond to crises without relying on other countries, and we need to be more independent. By investing in our own industries, diversifying our supply chains, and building up our own stockpiles of essential goods, we can become a more resilient, prosperous, and independent nation.

Call to Action

If you believe that America needs to become more self-reliant, please take action. Contact your representatives and let them know that you support policies that will make America more independent. You can also support businesses that are committed to making America more self-reliant.

New Analysis Confirms the Social Security Trust Fund Is in Trouble

[H2] The Social Security Trust Fund Is Running Out of Money

The Social Security Trust Fund is a government-run program that provides retirement benefits to millions of Americans. The fund is financed by a payroll tax on workers, and it is designed to pay out benefits to retirees until 2035. However, a new analysis by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (CRR) finds that the trust fund is in worse shape than previously thought.

The CRR analysis projects that the trust fund will be depleted by 2033, two years earlier than previously estimated. This is due to a number of factors, including the rising cost of living, the declining birth rate, and the increasing number of people who are living longer.

[H3] The Implications of a Social Security Crisis

If the Social Security Trust Fund runs out of money, it will have a number of serious implications for retirees. First, it will mean that benefits will have to be cut. This could mean that retirees will receive smaller checks, or that they will have to work longer to qualify for benefits. Second, it could lead to higher taxes. In order to make up for the lost revenue from the trust fund, the government may have to raise taxes on workers.

[H2] What Can Be Done to Save Social Security?

There are a number of things that can be done to save Social Security. One option is to raise the payroll tax. This would increase the amount of money that is flowing into the trust fund, and it would help to delay the day when it runs out of money. Another option is to reduce the benefits that are paid out to retirees. This would save money in the short term, but it would also hurt retirees in the long term.

A third option is to invest the trust fund in stocks and bonds. This would allow the trust fund to grow over time, and it would help to ensure that it has enough money to pay out benefits in the future.

[H3] The Future of Social Security

The future of Social Security is uncertain. The program is facing a number of challenges, and it is unclear how it will be able to meet the needs of retirees in the future. However, there are a number of options available to save Social Security, and it is important to consider these options in order to ensure that the program remains solvent for future generations.

[H2] Conclusion

The Social Security Trust Fund is in trouble, and it is important to take action to save the program. There are a number of options available, and it is important to consider these options in order to ensure that Social Security remains solvent for future generations.

Californians Fighting Governor’s Cash Handouts to Illegal Aliens

H2: Californians File Lawsuit Against Governor Gavin Newsom

A group of California taxpayers have filed a lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, alleging that his plan to provide undocumented immigrants with driver’s licenses violates the state constitution. The lawsuit, which was filed in Alameda County Superior Court, claims that the governor’s executive order violates the state’s Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, which prohibits the state from providing undocumented immigrants with public benefits.

The plaintiffs argue that the governor’s order is an illegal attempt to circumvent the will of the voters, who overwhelmingly voted against providing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants in 2018. They also argue that the order will cost taxpayers millions of dollars, as undocumented immigrants are more likely to be involved in traffic accidents than U.S. citizens.

H3: Governor Newsom Defends His Order

Governor Newsom has defended his order, arguing that it is necessary to ensure the safety of all Californians. He has said that the order will help undocumented immigrants get to work and school, and that it will make the roads safer for everyone. He has also said that the order is consistent with the state’s constitution, and that it does not violate the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights.

H2: The Legal Battle Over Driver’s Licenses for Undocumented Immigrants Is Just Beginning

The lawsuit against Governor Newsom is just the latest in a series of legal challenges to the state’s efforts to provide undocumented immigrants with driver’s licenses. In 2018, the Trump administration sued California over its “AB 60” law, which allows undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses. The case is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The legal battle over driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants is likely to continue for years to come. The outcome of these cases will have a significant impact on the lives of millions of undocumented immigrants in California and across the country.

H3: What You Can Do to Help

If you are a California taxpayer, you can help fight Governor Newsom’s illegal order by supporting the lawsuit against him. You can also contact your state legislators and urge them to oppose the governor’s order. You can also donate to organizations that are fighting to protect the rights of undocumented immigrants.

Conclusion

The fight over driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants is a complex and controversial issue. There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue. However, one thing is clear: Governor Newsom’s executive order is an illegal attempt to circumvent the will of the voters. The lawsuit against him is a step in the right direction, and it is important that we all do our part to support it.

Bankruptcy or Bailout? McConnell and Pritzker Give Their Answers for Illinois Pensions

Illinois’ pension crisis is one of the worst in the country. The state’s unfunded pension liability is over $130 billion, and its annual pension payments are set to grow by more than 50% over the next decade.

The state has tried a number of different approaches to address the crisis, but none have been successful. In 2017, Governor Bruce Rauner signed a law that increased the state’s contribution to its pension funds, but this has only served to exacerbate the state’s budget problems.

In recent months, two new proposals have been put forward to address the crisis. One proposal, from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, would allow states to declare bankruptcy in order to restructure their pension obligations. The other proposal, from Governor JB Pritzker, would provide a bailout to Illinois’ pension funds in exchange for reforms to the state’s pension system.

Bankruptcy

McConnell’s proposal would allow states to declare bankruptcy in order to restructure their pension obligations. This would allow states to reduce the amount of money they owe to their pensioners, and it would also allow them to avoid making large, unsustainable pension payments.

However, there are a number of problems with McConnell’s proposal. First, it is not clear that the federal government has the authority to allow states to declare bankruptcy. Second, even if the federal government did have the authority to allow states to declare bankruptcy, it is not clear that it would be a good idea. Bankruptcy would likely have a negative impact on the state’s economy, and it could also lead to a decrease in the value of pensioners’ retirement savings.

Bailout

Pritzker’s proposal would provide a bailout to Illinois’ pension funds in exchange for reforms to the state’s pension system. The bailout would provide the state with enough money to make its pension payments for the next few years. This would allow the state to avoid defaulting on its pension obligations, and it would also give the state time to implement reforms to its pension system.

However, there are a number of problems with Pritzker’s proposal. First, the bailout would be very expensive. It is estimated that the bailout would cost the state over $100 billion. Second, the bailout would not solve the underlying problem of Illinois’ pension crisis. The state would still need to make large, unsustainable pension payments in the future.

The Way Forward

Neither McConnell’s nor Pritzker’s proposal is a perfect solution to Illinois’ pension crisis. However, both proposals offer some potential solutions. McConnell’s proposal could provide states with a way to restructure their pension obligations, and Pritzker’s proposal could provide the state with the time it needs to implement reforms to its pension system.

Ultimately, the best way to address Illinois’ pension crisis is through a combination of reforms. The state needs to make changes to its pension system, and it also needs to find ways to reduce the amount of money it owes to its pensioners. By working together, the state and its pensioners can find a solution that is fair to both sides.

Frequent Flier Gilbert Ott Is Giving Away Upgrades to Anyone That Recognizes Him at an Airport

H2: Gilbert Ott is a self-proclaimed “frequent flyer” who has racked up millions of miles on his travels. He’s been to over 100 countries and has written a book about his experiences.

H3: Ott is known for his expertise in the airline industry and is often called upon to give advice to travelers. He’s also a frequent guest on talk shows and podcasts.

H2: Ott recently announced that he’s giving away free upgrades to anyone who recognizes him at an airport. He says he’s doing this to reward loyal customers and to show his appreciation for the airline industry.

H3: To enter the contest, simply find Ott at an airport and tell him your name. He’ll then give you a free upgrade to your next flight.

H2: Ott says he’s given away over 100 upgrades so far and plans to continue the contest for the foreseeable future. He says he’s excited to meet new people and to share his love of travel.

H3: If you’re an avid traveler, be sure to keep an eye out for Ott at your next airport. You might just be lucky enough to score a free upgrade!

Here are some tips for recognizing Ott at an airport:

• He’s usually wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase.
• He’s often seen reading a book or magazine about travel.
• He’s always willing to chat with fellow travelers.

If you do recognize Ott, be sure to introduce yourself and tell him your name. He’ll be happy to give you a free upgrade to your next flight.

This is a great opportunity to meet a travel expert and get some tips on how to save money on your next trip. So be sure to keep an eye out for Ott at your next airport!