Battle in Brooks County - Part 1 of 2

Battle in Brooks County - Part 2 of 2

FALFURRIAS TEXAS - BORDER BANDITS

World Magazine


COVER STORY
Issue: "Border bandits" December 03, 2011

Border bandits

Illegal immigration may be down, but ranchers and farmers in south Texas say the influx continues and it's becoming more violent and criminal
Jamie Dean

FALFURRIAS, Texas—When Linda Vickers leaves home to feed the horses on her Texas ranch each morning, she takes three things: her dog, her cell phone, and her pistol.

For Vickers, these aren't just the trappings of a typical rural rancher: They're a way to guard against the potential danger of illegal aliens and to call U.S. Border Patrol agents if trouble erupts.
Though she hasn't used the gun, the dogs have warned her more than once: A few months ago, Vickers says the dogs "went ballistic" when she walked into the tack room. She discovered two illegal aliens sleeping on the floor.

On another morning, a large man with a pencil-thin mustache followed Vickers from the barn to her home. She called Border Patrol agents, and they apprehended the Brazilian who had split from a group of 40 other illegal aliens. From her back porch, Vickers has watched groups of 10 or more illegal immigrants tromp through her land, and she admits: "It does feel like an invasion."

Vickers' experience isn't unusual among Texas ranchers, but it is notable for at least one reason: She lives nearly 70 miles north of the U.S-Mexico border. The ranch she shares with her husband, Mike Vickers, sits just outside the rural town of Falfurrias in south Texas, and a few miles from the final U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint heading north on Highway 281.

To clear that checkpoint, illegal immigrants have two options: Try to pass through it or try to go around it. Many try to skirt the checkpoint by fanning into the hundreds of thousands of acres of surrounding farmland—including the Vickers' ranch. Human smugglers—known as coyotes—often drop illegal immigrants south of the checkpoint. Another coyote meets them in the brush for an often-treacherous journey to a waiting car north of the station.

Remarkably, thousands try to pass through the checkpoint, often hidden in trucks and cargo. By late October, agents at the Falfurrias checkpoint had apprehended 9,106 undocumented aliens since January. A sign outside the five-lane checkpoint offered another disturbing statistic that underscores a disturbing reality about some of the traffic moving through these rural areas: Since January, agents at the Falfurrias station had also seized 291,829 pounds of narcotics.
The U.S. Border Patrol reports a sharp drop in illegal immigration, and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano says the border has never been more secure—but local officials and residents in rural Texas tell a different story: Even if some numbers have dropped, illegal immigration remains a consistent problem, and cartel-related drug smuggling poses serious threats.

Indeed, better border security in some areas may be funneling illegal immigrants and drug smugglers to rural lands where the defenses are weaker. A February report from the Government Accountability Office found that the U.S. Border Patrol has achieved operational control of just 44 percent of the southern border. That reality leaves some locals in rural areas fending for themselves and creates national security concerns that extend far beyond border areas.

Examining problems with border security first requires acknowledging progress: The U.S. Border Patrol reported in July that the number of apprehensions of illegal aliens declined by 61 percent over a five-year period. The numbers dropped from 1,189,000 in 2005 to 463,000 in 2010.

The agency acknowledged that a struggling U.S. economy and a weak job market could be factors in the apparent drop in illegal immigration. But agency officials also touted better enforcement efforts, including nearly 700 miles of border fence along the southwestern border. (Many Texans question the effectiveness of the border fence and point to large gaps in many parts of the wall.)

In an El Paso speech in May, President Barack Obama touted the federal government's doubling of Border Patrol agents since 2004, an effort that began under President George W. Bush. Some 20,000 agents now patrol the southwest border. Two months earlier, Napolitano highlighted the low violent crime rates in Texas border towns. She declared: "The border is better now than it has ever been."

Don't tell that to Mike Vickers. On a hot afternoon in late October, the Falfurrias rancher and veterinarian pointed to a fresh set of footprints in the sandy ground on his 1,000-acre ranch. Boot prints followed sneaker prints and revealed last night's chase: Border Patrol agents pursued and apprehended 15 illegal immigrants crossing Vickers' ranch.

The agents had help: Volunteers from Vickers' group—Texas Border Volunteers (TBV)—spotted the illegal aliens during a night watch and called Border Patrol to respond. They gave agents a GPS location for the group and tracked their movements until the agents arrived.

For Vickers, it was a familiar scene. The native Texan has lived in Falfurrias for 37 years and started TBV five years ago to respond to increasing immigrant traffic across the ranches in the area. (The cattle ranches are vast: Vickers' neighbor owns 100,000 acres.) Aside from the trespassing, Vickers says he's suffered costly property damage from immigrants cutting fences and breaking wells.

The rancher runs two-week operations about once a month, and volunteers from all over the country come to patrol for illegal crossings across two counties. On a recent night, volunteers gathered under a shelter on Vickers' ranch ahead of a night patrol. Night vision equipment and binoculars covered folding tables where three men sat, decked in camouflage. Deer trophies hung on an outside wall near a sign with John Wayne's picture and a quote: "Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway."

These guys don't look scared. Rich David—a paramedic from Wisconsin—comes twice a year sporting a handlebar mustache and bringing Wisconsin cheese and beer. He volunteers for two-week stints during his vacation time and says he's provoked to help private landowners protect their property: "Everybody's got to do something." In the last three years, Vickers says the group has reported more than 1,400 illegal immigrants to authorities.

On a pre-dusk patrol the same evening, Vickers pointed to signs of some of those illegal immigrants under a sparse bush: Empty food and drink cans littered the patch of land where a group of illegal aliens had stopped to camp and snack on Vienna Sausages, canned fruit, and five-hour energy drinks.

Sadly, the journey usually takes far longer than five hours, and some immigrants don't make it: Vickers has found dead bodies of immigrants who likely succumbed to soaring temperatures and dehydration. The local sheriff's department has recovered 55 bodies on ranches around the area since January.

Those who do make it follow paths that coyotes and immigrants have created during years of illegal crossings on the ranches. Vickers and his volunteers have given the paths names like "Smuggler's Row" and "Thorny Pipeline." They call another path "Bulls-Eye Crawl" after an elusive immigrant smuggler who wore cowboy boots emblazoned with a bulls-eye. (After years of trying, volunteers helped agents catch the coyote.)

Another path—"The Welcome Center"—got its name after a volunteer patrolman encountered a smuggler and 33 Chinese immigrants passing through the area. Vickers says that's not unusual: Though most of the immigrants are Mexicans, he says he's encountered Sudanese, Somalis, and Indians on his land. Authorities refer to these immigrants as OTMs, an acronym for "Other than Mexicans."

The U.S. Border Patrol reports that 87 percent of apprehended illegal immigrants come from Mexico. Another 11 percent come from South America. While a small percentage are from other countries, it's enough to alarm security hawks. The Border Patrol reported that OTMs apprehended in 2010 included illegal immigrants from four countries on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism: Cuba (712), Iran (14), Syria (5), and Sudan (5). Illegal immigrants came from other countries associated with terrorism, including Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.

Meanwhile, reports of Mexican cartel activity abound: The Texas Department of Public Safety reports that six Mexican drug cartels have set up operational command centers in cities across the state.

On the same October day that agents caught 15 immigrants on Vickers' ranch, federal authorities revealed a thwarted Iraqi plot with a disturbing twist: The plan to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States in a crowded D.C. restaurant hinged on an Iraqi national seeking help from a Mexican cartel based in Houston.

That didn't surprise Vickers. "The disposition of the traffic has changed," he says. "They're more violent and they're more combative. ... And there seems to be more and more coming from all over the world."

Danny Davila has similar worries. The lone investigator for the Brooks County Sheriff's Department in Falfurrias works with just six deputies covering 950 square miles of territory. Though much of that territory is sparsely populated, the small force is facing big challenges: Davila estimates that immigrant-related issues absorb about 65 percent of the force's time.

Sometimes that means apprehending illegal immigrants coming to the United States to join families or look for work. Other times it means intercepting drug smugglers carting loads of narcotics from Mexico. Sometimes, it's both: Davila says cartels often run both human and drug smuggling operations. A smuggler might surprise an illegal immigrant who's paying for passage to the United States by requiring that he carry a load of drugs.

In a tiny office that Davila shares with his assistant, photos covering the wood-paneled walls show the results of a two-year effort to crack down on drug smuggling: In one photo, officers stand next to a stash of 2,280 pounds of marijuana. Another picture shows piles of drug money that officers seized with smugglers on the way back to Mexico: The bundles of cash came about $30 short of $900,000.

The department won a federal grant to establish a brush crew in 2009: The two-man team spent the year combing nearby ranches to learn the paths the smugglers most often use and begin tracking routes. The progress of the small force in two years points to hard work and heavy drug traffic.

In a lot behind the office, Davila walks through rows of dozens of impounded cars. Some still bear the marks of smuggling: a small, square hole cut behind the front panel of a black sedan shows a spot where smugglers hid tens of thousands of dollars in cash. Davila opens a nearby trailer, revealing another stash: It's filled with seized marijuana, including a common smuggling device—bundles of marijuana taped together and fastened with homemade straps. Smugglers carry the 90-pound loads on their backs through the brush.

It didn't take long for the deputies to interrupt a major smuggling operation: Authorities say that Jose Maria Carbajal smuggled thousands of pounds of marijuana through local ranches for years. When Brooks County deputies identified the routes and started intercepting substantial loads of the drugs, federal authorities say Carbajal plotted revenge with the notorious Zetas drug cartel in Mexico.

In a 19-page criminal complaint, federal officials say Carbajal told an informant that members of the Zetas cartel traveled to Falfurrias after deputies intercepted 1,100 pounds of the Zetas' marijuana. Carbajal said he showed cartel members where two of the Brooks County deputies lived, and that the cartel planned to kidnap at least one of them. Federal authorities arrested Carbajal during a February raid.

On a recent morning, Mo Saavedra headed out for brush patrol. The two-year veteran was one of the deputies threatened by Carbajal. He says he changed some of his routines for safety, but he kept working just as hard. In an unmarked pickup truck, the deputy lumbers through the brush of a nearby ranch with a semi-automatic rifle next to him in the front seat.

When the federal grant for the brush crew expired, Saavedra began making patrols alone. (His partner patrols during other shifts.) Since the department receives very little outside funding, the deputy depends on instincts and a good memory—the truck doesn't have GPS technology or a digital radio for secure communication. He says he's learned most of the territory by spending hours in the brush: "It's all hands on."


On this morning, Saavedra looks for signs of immigrants hiding in bushes, and slows when he sees a vulture circling. This time it's a dead animal, but the deputy has found dead bodies of immigrants who died in the extreme heat.

That's what bothers Davila most. Back in his office, the investigator has two three-ring binders filled with photos of the 55 bodies the department has found this year. One photo shows a woman with a bloated face, but many are unidentifiable remains like skulls and teeth. One photo shows an intact skeleton lying face-up, still clothed in a blue jacket and brown pants.

If an illegal immigrant grows too sick or weak to stay with the group, the smuggler typically leaves him behind. "They don't care if you're the 28-year-old mother of two," says Davila. "They've got your money, and if you can't keep up you die."

Another binder holds pictures and descriptions of 23 people reported missing this year. If family members in Mexico don't hear from a loved one who attempted to cross the border, sometimes they call the sheriff's office.

They might fax or email a photo and send identifying information. One photo showed a pretty young woman leaning under an arched doorway. Another showed a man holding a young child. The description said he was born in 1973 and offered this tip: "Male was left behind three miles outside of Falfurrias as he was unable to walk."

Dying from the elements isn't the only consequence met by some immigrants: Women and girls face the threat of kidnapping for a thriving underground sex trade in the United States. Others are sometimes raped or murdered. It's a reality that disturbs Davila: "That's no way for anyone to die. I don't care where you're from."

The investigator wonders what his small team isn't catching in the brush, and says more resources would help them apprehend more smugglers and protect the surrounding community: "If you just ignore it, it's not going to go away."

While federal authorities insist they aren't ignoring border issues, Texas Commissioner of Agriculture Todd Staples says they're at a minimum denying the severity of the problem. Staples' department released an independent study in September that included testimony from Texas ranchers afraid of the traffic crossing their property. One rancher said he's watched smugglers carry drugs across his property right in front of him. Another said immigrants have come to his door in the middle of the night asking to borrow his phone and his truck.

From his office in Austin, Staples said that ranchers have pleaded with him to ask for more protection of rural farmland. The commissioner says he's been met by "denial and rebuff" from federal officials. While he applauds the Border Patrol's work, and says he's thankful the president has continued to send more agents, he says the pace needs to accelerate, not slow down. That's especially true, he says, in rural areas with far less protection than border crossings.

He warns that without securing these rural areas, and committing more resources to fighting cartels in Texas, drugs and drug-related violence will continue showing up across the country: "It's not the tooth fairy dropping off these drugs in Los Angeles and New Jersey and Dallas and cities across the country."

If protecting rural areas means preventing illegal immigrants from ever crossing the border, some Texans agree that a border fence alone won't do the job. The federal government has completed about 110 miles of fence in the state. Vickers says he's against the fence, calling it a waste of time and money. Others say some barrier is better than no barrier, but that a wall won't keep out illegal immigrants willing to climb over or dig under.

At the border fence in places like Brownsville, illegal immigrants have another option: Walk right through. The 18-foot-high fence has gaps at points large enough to walk or drive through. Officials say that the gaps allow Border Patrol agents to travel through if needed and may have gates in the future. On a recent sunny afternoon, I walked through one gap in Brownsville that had a Border Patrol truck nearby. The truck was empty.

The landscape in Texas makes building a uniform fence difficult. In towns like Brownsville, the Rio Grande River cuts so close to city limits, federal authorities built the fence nearly a mile north of the border. That means a slew of homeowners and businesses own property north of the border, but south of the border fence. They call it a no man's land and say their property values have plummeted.

Vickers and others call for more boots on the ground to respond to illegal crossings, and more internal enforcement of existing immigration laws to discourage illegal immigration. That adds front-burner urgency to the back-burner issue of immigration reform in Washington, D.C.

For now locals like Vickers and Davila say they'll keep protecting as much of their community as possible. In an early November email, Davila wrote about an Oct. 24 accident in Falfurrias: A red Ford pickup truck full of illegal aliens and 500 pounds of marijuana struck the vehicle of an elderly couple from a nearby town. The immigrants had backpacked the drugs through the brush. "All subjects involved were critical, but survived the accident," wrote Davila. "Five illegals were arrested, and two absconded into the brush."

UNMANNED TEXAS BORDER CROSSING AT BIG BEND

Two or three years ago, Ted Poe was on a tour of the SW border area (south of El Paso about 30 miles). There were some narrow metal bridges crossing the river and he threw a fit about those and I believe they were removed.


Now they want to open up this crossing again. Ever since this crossing was closed, the people (on both sides of the river in this area) have been complaining about having to travel 16 hours to get across. Apparently someone complained enough to get this opened up again. Bill Brooks, the public information officer at the BP Big Bend Sector (formerly called the Marfa Sector), is in favor of opening this crossing as are others. I think they have been talked into opening this crossing because of the remaining population of the little village on the other side and the hardships of those living there. Those Mexicans made their meager living on the tourists that would cross over and eat and buy handmade Mexican items and they would come across to the U.S. side to buy groceries.

Ordinarily the BP would not be allowed to patrol on National Park land...but the House Committee on Natural Resources passed H.R. 1505: National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act in October that has given the BP authority to patrol on NP land (within 100 miles of the border). Conservationists were not happy about it and complained about it being a form of government "land grabbing" and would cause a lot of damage to the parks...but apparently they haven't been to the borders in AZ and witnessed the tons of trash and garbage left by the illegals and smugglers!! I guess the Big Bend BP want to take advantage of this access to park land before the government changes its mind!!

I feel like a lot of others....that this is just going to open up another can of worms for the smugglers...and make it easier for the poor Mexicans to slip across with "a card" and then disappear into the U.S. like millions of others. The Mexicans have been coming across in this area for many years when the river is low enough to wade or walk across....which is probably dry now because of the drought. I believe the river between El Paso and Presidio is still being used by the smugglers....although it may have slowed down some after more and better armed agents were brought in.

I sent the article on this "plan" to Cornyn, AG Greg Abbott, our federal and state reps and senators. I would suggest contacting Perry's office and complaining about this. Since he is running for president...he will be more inclined to listen if he thinks he can get our support. He has been sounding very strong about securing the borders....and this would be a good time to complain to him about the crossing. The $2.3 million cost alone during a bad economy should be enough not to open it.

The Park Service started work on this facility the end of October and are saying it should be completed by spring (unless their plans are "changed")....so they are already building it. While it may be too late to stop the initial construction....complaints can be sent to:

William E. Wellman
Big Bend National Park Superintendent.
Big Bend National Park
P.O. Box 129
Big Bend National Park, TX 79834

Headquarters & Visitor Information
432-477-2251
432-477-1175 FAX
E-mail contact form at:
www.nps.gov/bibe/index.htm

John J. Smietana, Jr. is the Chief Patrol Agent at the Border Patrol Big Bend Sector (formerly called the Marfa Sector) in Marfa, TX, and can be reached at:


(432) 729-5200 or 1-888-536-6204

Bill Brooks is the public information officer for the BP Big Bend Sector and can be reached at: (432) 729-5200 or 1-888-536-6204

Mailing address:
Big Bend Border Patrol Sector
P.O. Box I
Marfa, TX 79843

From Pat Kennedy, WTCCC, Midland via e-mail


Read article here.

Obama Appoints La Raza Radical to Lead Our Domestic Policy

FOR YOUR INFORMATION.....Barack Hussein Obama continues stacking the deck of government leadership in favor of wide-open borders and amnesty for all. His latest move: appointing the former senior vice president of the National Council of La Raza, Cecilia Muñoz, to head the Domestic Policy Council.

Cecilia Muñoz is a LaRaza radical amnesty advocate!!! My definition of an "amnesty advocate" is a demanding, arm-twisting behind closed doors, open borders lobbyist, that will stop at nothing to get their way in Washington....and National Council of LaRaza has produced some of the most outspoken radicals and determined amnesty advocates.

In 2008, LaRaza helped to register nearly 200,000 new Hispanic voters and helped more than 1.5 million eligible immigrants apply for citizenship. The actions of LaRaza will be as strong in the 2012 elections. LaRaza demands and is fighting for open borders and rights for all legal and illegal Latinos.

Janet Murgia, current president and CEO of National Council of LaRaza (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil-rights and advocacy organization in the United States, was a deputy assistant to Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000. Murguia served as deputy director of legislative affairs, managing the legislative staff and acting as a senior White House liaison to Congress. Clinton granted six amnesties during his eight years in office.

Obama is granting his promised amnesties to the open borders activists...but through the back door of the White House!!! (Sneaky little devils aren't they!!)

Pat Kennedy
WTxCC

Read article here.

The New Republican Primary Rules Make It Possible for the Republican Establishment To Steal the Nomination From a Candidate They Don’t Like

From:  End of the American Dream


"New Republican primary rules are going to make it basically impossible for any candidate to wrap up the Republican nomination very early in 2012. In fact, the new Republican primary rules make a "brokered convention" much more likely and they also make it much more likely that the Republican establishment will attempt to steal the nomination away from a candidate that they do not like. How exactly they would do this will be discussed later in the article. The key is that most Republican primaries and caucuses will now allocate delegates using a proportional system rather than a "winner take all" system. Back in 2008, John McCain did very well in early "winner take all" primaries and wrapped up the Republican nomination very, very quickly. Nothing like that will happen in 2012. In fact, if the field remains crowded it is going to be very difficult for any candidate to accumulate more than 50 percent of the delegates by the time the Republican national convention rolls around. As will be discussed later on in this article, that would move the power into the hands of the Republican establishment.

First, let's try to understand what these new changes are. Sadly, it appears that even most Republican voters do not understand how things have changed.

The following rule was adopted by the Republican Party back in August 2010....

"Any presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting held for the purpose of selecting delegates to the national convention which occurs prior to the first day of April in the year in which the national convention is held, shall provide for the allocation of delegates on a proportional basis."

This new rule means that delegates will be apportioned to candidates on a proportional basis in Republican caucuses and primaries that are conducted prior to April 1st. One notable exception to this rule is Florida, which got approval to remain a "winner take all" state. So Florida will be very important.

In addition, all of the states that are now using "proportional representation" do not allocate delegates the exact same way. Each state has slightly different election rules.

But in general, in most of the primaries and caucuses held before April 1st, delegates will be awarded to multiple candidates instead of to just a single candidate.

Therefore, it now becomes much less important who wins each individual state. Instead, the key is how many delegates a candidate picks up in each state.

The Republicans decided to go to such a system after watching the extended battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008. The following comes from a recent Huffington Post article....

Don't look for a quick winner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. After watching Democrats successfully ride their historic primary battle between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama all the way to the White House in 2008, the Republicans quietly adopted a new rule designed to extend their nominating process this time around.

The rule limits the ability of candidates to win large numbers of delegates in early primaries and caucuses – those held before April – because delegates must be awarded in proportion to the votes a candidate receives.

If proportional representation would have been used back in 2008, the Republican race would have looked much different. John McCain would have had to battle much, much longer to secure the nomination.

The following comes from fairvote.org....

Consider the 2008 Republican nomination contest. John McCain secured an essentially insurmountable lead on February 5, Super Tuesday. Sen. McCain had become the frontrunner heading into Super Tuesday by winning three key primaries: South Carolina, Florida and New Hampshire. His average percentage share in those contests was just 34.5%, and he never even broke the 40% threshold. Even on February 5, he won only 3 states with a majority of the vote.

Although McCain on Super Tuesday did not capture a majority of the popular vote (and did not, in fact, ever reach a majority of 50% of votes cast in primaries), McCain’s disproportionately large delegate count forced his leading opponents to drop out of the race.

Some even believe that an extended three way race between McCain, Romney and Huckabee could have resulted in a "brokered convention" back in 2008. The following analysis comes from a recent Daily Kos article....

In 2008, the Republican primary contest was decided quickly and relatively painlessly only because there were winner-take-all rules at the time. Those rules have been changed. If you take the current proportional delegate rules and apply them to the results of the 2008 race through Feb 5th, when the race was still heavily contested, something very surprising happens. John McCain, who took a commanding lead under the winner-take-all rules in effect in most states, instead ends up behind Mitt Romney by eight delegates (with a confidence factor of plus or minus 5 delegates.) The standings, with more than half the delegates decided, would have been as follows.

Romney 439McCain 431Huckabee 247Other 114

This year, there will be very few "winner take all" primaries, and most of those will be at the end of the schedule.

This is going to encourage candidates to stick around longer. The more delegates that a candidate can accumulate, the more leverage that candidate will have moving into the convention.

Right now, the Republican field is very crowded and nobody has been able to take a commanding lead in the polls. The possibility that no candidate will be able to accumulate more than 50% of the delegates by the time of the Republican convention seems to grow by the day.

If no candidate has won more than 50% of the delegates by convention time, then it is likely that we will have a brokered convention.

So exactly what is a brokered convention?

The following is how Wikipedia defines a brokered convention....:

A brokered convention is a situation in United States politics in which there are not enough delegates 'won' during the presidential primary and caucus elections for a single candidate to have a pre-existing majority, during the first official vote for a political party's presidential-candidate at its nominating convention.
Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse-trading, and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who, previously, were pledged to the candidate who had won their respective state's primary or caucus election) are "released," and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this 'freedom' will result in a re-vote resulting in a clear majority of delegates for one candidate.

Okay, so how does all of this make it possible for the Republican establishment to steal the nomination from a candidate that they do not like?

It is actually very easy.

If the Republican establishment does not like the candidate that is leading in the delegate count, they can try to shoot for a brokered convention.

They can do this by encouraging candidates to stay in the race longer in order to water down the vote.

They can also do this by encouraging late entrants into the race in order to steal some delegates away.

In fact, there are persistent rumors that the Republican establishment is already lining up late entrants to enter the race. The following comes from a recent Wall Street Journal article....

Efforts are underway by some wealthy Republican donors and a group of conservative leaders to investigate whether a new Republican candidate could still get into the presidential race. The talk is still preliminary and somewhat wishful, but it reflects dissatisfaction with the two leading candidates, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.
Conservative leaders are looking into whether it is feasible for a dark horse to get on the ballot in select states. The deadline to qualifying for the ballot has passed in Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, and New Hampshire. But a candidate could still get on the ballot in states like Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Michigan and Texas. At the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, voters write in their choice, so there is no formal filing deadline.
The chatter about potential new entrants include former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, businessman Donald Trump, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.

If a candidate that the Republican establishment does not like gets out to an early lead, the Republican establishment will move heaven and earth in an attempt to keep that candidate from accumulating 50 percent of the delegates.

The goal would be to cause a brokered convention which would enable the Republican establishment to hand pick whatever candidate that they want.

In fact, if a brokered convention happens the Republicans could end up selecting someone that is not even running.

It certainly does not sound very American, but this is a very real possibility.

The Republican establishment is only going to go along with the will of the people as long as they pick the "correct" candidate.

         
That is why any anti-establishment candidate is going to be facing a huge uphill battle this year. It would be way too easy for the Republican establishment to force a brokered convention.

Any candidate that wants to avoid a brokered convention is going to have to accumulate more than 50 percent of the delegates before the convention, and that is going to be very difficult to do under the new rules."

~Lordhawke

WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?

From Unfiltered News December 21, 2011 By Sid Preskitt

What is Sustainable Development?
“Sustainable Development” is the UN Agenda 21 “Plan For The 21st Century”
It is the UN plan to manage and control ALL human activity under Marxist/socialist principles.
Re-distribution of wealth is a built in feature of it.
In practicality, it is a direct economic attack on the United States.
In fact, Maurice Strong was the Chair of the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit in Rio where Agenda 21 was introduced. He made the intent clear when he was quoted saying that it was their responsibility to bring about the collapse of the industrialized countries.
It has been incorporated into federal policy with a series of Executive Orders starting with #12982 in 1994 and continuing this year with more creating the Rural and Ocean Council’s.
It is the primary reason that we can’t meet our energy needs with production from our vast natural resources whether it be petroleum, coal or timber.
It is the reason that the vital Keystone Pipeline project is being opposed.
It is the reason we export almost a trillion dollars annually buying imported oil when we have proven reserves totaling more than all the mid-east countries combined.
It is the reason American’s are exhorted to cut back energy use to 1990′s levels further crippling the economy while China and other countries are exempt. All based on a fraudulent premise put forth by the U.N. IPCC.
It is the reason that over 600 local governments in the U.S. are dues paying members of ICLEI which directs the local implementation of Agenda 21 and other U.N. policies that Congress never approved. (see: ICLEI.org)
It is the reason that the Secretary of Transportation announced that promoting motorized transportation is no longer their priority.
It is the reason that our seafood production is severely restricted with only limited access allowed to abundant marine resources.
It is the reason that some of the most productive areas of the oceans around the coast are being closed off in “Marine Protected Areas”
It is the reason that NOAA Director, Dr. Jane Lubchenco has made implementing the Agenda 21, Catch Share allocation system in every American fishery a top priority. In New England and Florida the results are American fishermen out of work and the Governor of Massachusetts declaring an economic disaster with a request for $21 million in federal aid.
Dr. Lubchenco’s response was asking for $54 million in additional funds to expand the program.
It is a primary reason that we import 84% of our seafood and export (re-distribute) nearly $11 billion to foreign countries like China and Vietnam in a seafood trade deficit.
It is the reason that our manufacturing base has been moved to foreign countries starting with NAFTA which had the goal of “promoting Sustainable Development”.
It is the reason that the Federal, State and local governments have been buying land in an effort to create the “system of protected areas” called for in the un-ratified U.N. Agenda 21 treaty.
It is the reason the U.S. Senate refused to even vote on the treaty when maps of The Wildlands Project were displayed on the floor of the Senate. The stated goal is “50% of the land in Core Wilderness areas with little or no human use” interconnected with Wildlife Corridors surrounded with Buffer Zones.
It is the reason that Volusia County, Florida now owns approximately 40% of the land in the County creating a “Conservation Corridor”.
When you put it all together it is a primary reason for the collapse of the American economy just as U.N. official, Maurice Strong wanted in 1993 when it all started.
Now, what are we going to do about it?   ~Lordhawke

National Defense Authorization Act

Conaway Chronicle Volume 6, Issue 10


National Defense Authorization Act

In Congress this week the National Defense Authorization Act passed the House and Senate, whereupon it was sent to the President for his signature. This bill is important because it provides pay and benefits for our troops, buys the weapons and equipment they need to do their job, and funds research to help meet future threats to our national security.

While this bill is central to a functioning national security, there was a misunderstanding regarding the detainee provisions. This provision does not address or extend new authority to detain U.S. Citizens. What it does do is affirm that the military may lawfully detain individuals who are engaged in armed conflict with the United States, as stated by the Authorization of the Use of Military Force. The bill adds explicit protections for American citizens as well as a prohibition against the President waving such protections.

This bill strengthens our ability to fight the War on Terror and enables a continued, steadfast national security plan.

Read the Bill*
*Detainee provision exempting U.S. citizens: page 655 & 657


Mike Conaway voted for the bill.  So did John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison.  I've dug into the background on the bill but there's too much legaleze for me.  When I read the page indicated by Mike Conaway above, it seems rather straightforward that this will not pertain to American citizens or legal  residents and that the President would also be resticted from  using the waiver option against American citizens or legal residents.

But since when was anything straightforward coming out of D.C.?  So I got to looking at who was objecting and what they were objecting to. 

• Montana has initiated a recall of their representatives who voted for the bill. " Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens."   Source here.  Oathkeepers,  of course,  has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).  Now,  the SPLC is a hate group unto itself; however,  DHS is using them  as a resource and published the directives sent out to all law enforcement indicating returning veterans,  people believing in the Constitution or pro-life,  people having Ron Paul bumper stickers,  people wanting our borders secure,  people with beliefs againt homosexuality, etc.,  might be terrorists based on the info given them  by SPLC.
• Here's a video of a Judge Napolitano report on it.
• And,  here's what Ron Paul has to say on it.  No matter what you think about Ron Paul,  you can't argue with his 100% adherance to voting Constitutionally in all his years as a Congressman. 
• Personally,  I don't know what to think about this bill.  Viscerally,  I don't like it.

MEChA motto

I was just watching a few MEChA members out in California..of course, they were busy calling everyone else a racist.  Then somebody brought up the MEChA motto.

Por la raza todo.  Fuera de la raza nada.  Literal translation:  For the race all.  Outside the race nothing.

For the past few years, they've been trying to convince us that we misinpret this.  That la raza means "people,"  "community," etc., etc., etc.  Really focusing on the first part.  You know, I hate to bring this up, but what about the latter part?  If, in fact, we have misinterpreted what the saying means, then is MEChA for people but against animals, plants, extra-terrestrials?    If they're for the community, does this mean one community will not help or associate with another community? 

Logic just fails me here.  It still seems that a Chicano organization with a motto like this is talking Chicano...not people, not community.  Especially in view of this MEChA statement:  "Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot...Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny." (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)

Joe Arpaio in the "Hotseat" again for doing his job!

From Reuters via Internet:

A federal judge on Friday barred high profile Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio from detaining people simply for being in the country illegally, in a ruling that faulted the local lawman for enforcing federal immigration law.

The 40-page written opinion by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow came on the same day he issued legal sanctions against Arpaio over destroyed documents.

The decisions come as a further blow for the controversial sheriff, who already has faced rebukes from the U.S. Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

Both rulings by Snow stemmed from a 2007 civil lawsuit against Arpaio and his agency, which accuses his officers of racial profiling of Latinos in traffic stops the judge found were conducted as immigration sweeps.

The judge also said officers with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department (MCSO), which covers Phoenix and surrounding areas, circulated emails that "compared Mexicans to dogs" and portrayed them "as drunks."

"Local law enforcement agencies, such as MCSO, may not enforce civil federal immigration law," Snow said in his written opinion.

He added that the sheriff's agency was "hereby enjoined" from detaining "any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States."

In his ruling, Snow also granted a request by plaintiffs to certify the lawsuit as a class action.

He defined the class action as encompassing all Latinos "stopped, detained, questioned or searched" by Arpaio's officers "while driving or sitting in a vehicle" on roads or parking areas in Maricopa County.

EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION

Snow also cited the admitted destruction of emails and patrol records by Arpaio's office related to the case. He noted the sheriff's agency never contested those documents were shredded rather than lost.

Further proceedings in the case are expected to be decided by Snow rather than a jury because the plaintiffs have not requested a jury trial.

Snow's sanctions against Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office were outlined in written opinions issued a day after the judge heard oral arguments on the matter.

Separately last week, the U.S. Justice Department issued a scathing report accusing Arpaio and his deputies of engaging in a "pervasive culture of discriminatory bias" and violating civil rights laws by singling out Latinos for unlawful detention and arrests.

The same day, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security barred Arpaio's deputies from screening jail inmates for their immigration status.

Arpaio was given until January 4 to agree to negotiations addressing the abuses cited by the Justice Department or face a request for a court order requiring compliance.

The Justice Department's report and the similar allegations raised in the lawsuit relate to Arpaio's controversial efforts to crack down on illegal immigration in Maricopa County.

Those efforts have earned him accolades in conservative political circles. Several candidates for the Republican presidential nomination sought his endorsement, which ultimately went to Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Arpaio has denied that his department engages in racial profiling and accused the Justice Department under President Barack Obama of undermining immigration enforcement.

A lawyer for Arpaio was not available for comment.

The sheriff was a strong supporter of controversial new Arizona law SB 1070, requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain and suspect of being in the country illegally.

That law is under challenge by the Obama administration in a case the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide next year.

Aside from the allegation of racial profiling, Arpaio also faces a firestorm over media reports that his office might have given short shrift to hundreds of sex-crime investigations.

~Lordhawke

Obama and Holder taking on Arizona's SB1070

Permian Basin Republican Assembly Next Meeting

Patriots!


NO December meeting for Permian Basin Republican Assembly.

Mark your NEW Calendars for January 12, 2012. Randy Rivas, who is running against Seliger for the Texas US Senate, and Scott Dufford, Midland At-large City Councilman up for re-election will speak and answer your questions.

Address Reminder: Midland Memorial West Campus Classroom 1 - 4214 Andrews Highway at 7:00 p.m. Thursday, January 12, 2011. Use the east entrance under the portico - the classroom is just beyond the gift shop on the right.

Don't know Randy Rives? Here is his website and he can also be found on Facebook.

http://www.randyrives.com/

Have a Merry Christmas. May your New Year also be the best ever! See you next year!

Joyce Petrich

Permian Basin Republican Assembly, Treas.

EPA using Obama tactics to make an "end run" around Constitutional Law, and Congress

Well, here they go again, sticking their filthy little noses where they don't belong!  Take away a person's right to property, which the founders believed was the root of liberty, and you destroy his or her freedom!
These filthy beaureaucrats MUST be stopped from helping to destroy America!

 

Prepare To Have That Puddle in Your Back Yard Regulated!

    

Posted by Ben Howe (Diary)

Monday, November 21st at 5:00PM EST

Just as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has used the Clean Air Act to broaden the scope of their authority way beyond its original intention with rules like MACT and CSAPR, the Clean Water Act is becoming a tool of overreach by the out of control agency.
Barack Obama and the EPA’s Lisa Jackson have made it clear through their actions that they will circumvent the legislature by using regulatory enforcement to enact Obama’s green dreams, and now it seems that circumvention includes the Supreme Court of the United States.
During the Bush presidency, a series of Supreme Court decisions acknowledged the limits of reach for the Clean Water Act. Most notably, the Supreme Court clarified that federal jurisdiction did not extend to wetlands and other “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.  Through the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Country v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001) and Raponos v. U.S. (2006) the Supreme Court established that private property rights still mattered even in light of the Clean Water Act and that the federal government did not have authority over them.
This of course isn’t stopping Barack Obama and Lisa Jackson from moving forward anyway.
It’s important to remember the original purpose of the Clean Water Act (1972).  It gives the federal government and the EPA the authority to regulate “navigable waterways.”  In other words, not a ditch out front with a lot of water in it and certainly not acres upon acres of private or state owned wetlands.  Yet, regulating these types of waters is precisely what the EPA is in the midst of doing.
The Army Corps (pronounced core) of Engineers and the EPA are in the process of finalizing “Draft Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act,” which is a fancy way of saying “we’re going to go out and change the definition of certain bodies of water so that we can pretend they fall within the Supreme Court’s definitions.”
The Barrasso-Heller Amendment, introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), was created to prevent the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA from incorporating those Obama changes into the regulatory guidelines, which serves the purpose of distinguishing precisely what the Supreme Court had already covered when it established the clear limitations of the Act.
The Property Rights Alliance and the American Farm Bureau Federation support the amendment, although its been met with predictable opposition from the left who have branded the amendment a “destructive measure.” One such bit of opposition is coming from the editorial page of the New York Times who incredibly claims that upholding the Supreme Courts decisions on the limitations of the Clean Water Act is somehow a “subversion” of its mandate.

Republicans just won’t give up on their misguided attempts to subvert the Clean Water Act. Senators John Barrasso of Wyoming and Dean Heller of Nevada plan to offer a rider denying protections to one-fifth of the nation’s wetlands and as many as two million miles of small streams. The House has approved a similarly destructive measure, so it is crucial that the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, and his Democratic colleagues block this legislation.

In April, the Obama administration proposed new guidelines restoring inclusive protections and promised to codify them in permanent regulations. This infuriated home builders and anyone else with an interest in filling in streams and wetlands. The House then voted to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers from carrying out the new guidance. The Senate bill would permanently prevent action to clarify the law. As always, the legislators driving these campaigns say their goal is to remove regulatory barriers to job creation. But the real issue is whether the country gets the clean water it wants and needs.

Of course. Believing that certain waters should either be at the discretion of the property owner or (gasp!) the state is exactly equivalent to wanting all Americans to drown in dirty water. Because let’s face it: without interference by the federal government, there’s no chance that we as mindless citizens could figure it out on our own.
Want to see how the EPA can use this type of authority to mess with law-abiding, tax-paying citizens?

Four years ago the Sacketts were filling in their lot with dirt and rock, preparing to build a simple three-bedroom home in a neighborhood where other houses have stood for years. Then three federal officials showed up and demanded they stop construction. The agency claimed the .63-acre lot was a wetland, protected under the Clean Water Act.
The Sacketts say they were stunned. The owners of an excavation company, they had secured all the necessary local permits. And Chantell Sackett says that before work began, she drove two hours to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, to consult with an Army Corps of Engineers official. She says the official told her orally, though not in writing, that she didn’t need a federal permit. “We did all the right things,” she says.
The EPA issued an order requiring the Sacketts to put the land back the way it was, removing the piles of fill material and replanting the vegetation they had cleared away. The property was to be fenced off and the Sacketts would be required to submit annual reports about its condition to the EPA. The agency threatened to fine them up to $32,500 a day until they complied.

But this is about clean water, not federal land grabs, right?  Tell that to the Sacketts.
Lost in all of this is the fact that, since the introduction of the Clean Water Act (which yes, was needed at the time), our drinking water is remarkably clean. Consider how important it is that when visiting 3rd world countries (or most infamously, Mexico) that you don’t even drink the water there because an American’s body is il-prepared for the ravages of dirty water. Our water is so clean, we can’t even drink dirty water anymore or we’ll die! That’s saying something.
Yet, the government thinks it’s not good enough. And it won’t be until they have control over all water in America.
A few years ago, President Obama scolded the Supreme Court in front of the world during his State of the Union Address. I suppose it’s not shocking that he has such little respect for the division of powers in our government that he’d use the regulatory to trump the two out of three of them.

This is a shameful abuse of power by an unelected bureaucracy!  ~Lordhawke

What has become of America?

Good Morning;  I found this at "Unfiltered News", a site produced by G. Edward Griffin, author of the book: "The Creature from Jekyll Island".  It seems to describe the "norm" in America today.


WHAT HAS AMERICA BECOME? 2011 Nov 14 from Ken Huber, Tawas City, Michigan
Has America become the land of the special interest and home of the double standard?

Let’s see, if we lie to the Congress it’s a felony, and if the Congress lies to us it’s just politics; if we dislike a black person we’re racist, and if blacks dislike other races, it’s their First Amendment right; the government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and they do almost nothing for the victims; in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK but you better not use the word God in the process; you can kill an unborn child, but it is wrong to execute a mass murderer; we don’t burn books in America, we now rewrite them; we got rid of the threat from communists and socialists by renaming them progressives; we are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea; if you protest against president Obama’s policies you’re a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag, it’s your first-Amendment right.

You can have pornography on your TV or internet, but you better not have a Nativity Scene in a public park during Christmas; we have eliminated all criminals in America, they are now called sick people; we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it’s wrong to use an animal.

We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who do not want to work; we all support the Constitution but only when it supports our political ideology; we still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct; parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games; the land of opportunity is now the land of handouts; the similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the Gulf oil spill is neither President did anything to help.

And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who’s at fault, then threatens them, passes another law, raises our taxes; tells us the problem is solved.

What has happened to the land of the free and home of the brave?


I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I think this needs to be in every one's mail box.  Maybe it will wake up more  people to the problems we face.  One can only hope!  About the only things that were not mentioned, are the necessities of ousting the United Nations from our political process (and our land), and the dismemberment of the Federal Reserve and all it's associated "little" banks throughout America.  Return to our Constitutional Republican form of government by putting staunch Constitutionalists into our halls of government.
~Lordhawke

"Soft" Corruption

It's called "soft" corruption when Congress members do it.  The rest of us would go to jail.

REMEMBER THIS WHEN YOU VOTE!

From NRA-ILA Alerts: Thank you, Justice Stevens and Mrs. Obama Friday, October 28, 2011 In case any reader of our weekly Grassroots Alert has not decided how to vote in the 2012 presidential election, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and First Lady Michelle Obama have volunteered to help him make up his mind. Recently, Time magazine asked Stevens what he would fix about the American judicial system. Stevens' response:  "I would make all my dissents into majority opinions."  Fair enough, since he's entitled to think he is right, even when a majority of his former colleagues and a larger majority of the American citizenry disagree. But then Time asked Stevens to single out one issue in particular, and he said, "I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment." Referring to the Court's decisions in the Heller and McDonald cases that the Second Amendment protects individuals from federal, state and local infringements on their right to possess and carry arms, he added "The court got that quite wrong." In his dissent in Heller, Stevens claimed that "there is no indication that the Framers of the [Second] Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution." And in his dissent in McDonald, he claimed that even if one assumed the Fourteenth Amendment protects a general right to self-defense, that didn't mean that a person has a right to have a handgun. As if to suggest some logic to his theory, Stevens said "while some might favor handguns, it is not clear that they are a superior weapon for lawful self-defense." We have earlier noted the comment of another of the four justices who dissented from the majority's Heller and McDonald opinions, Stephen Breyer, to the effect that District of Columbia residents who don't like the city's onerous gun laws should go to Maryland. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, another of the Heller and McDonald dissenters, has publicly indicated her hope that a "future, wiser court" will reconsider the Heller decision. Of course, Justice Stevens and another of the four dissenting justices in Heller, Justice David Souter, have since retired and been replaced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented from the majority's decision in McDonald, and Justice Elena Kagan, who joined the Court in August 2010 and who had a clear anti-gun record during her service in the Clinton White house. Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated to the Court by President Barack Obama, of course. And not long ago, during a pre-2012 campaign event, First Lady Michelle Obama asked some of the president's most ardent supporters to remember the Court's two newest justices when they go into the voting booth next year. In the upcoming election, she said, "we're going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come . . . let's not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices . . . let's not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come." Obama supporters will not forget, and neither should supporters of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment's margin of safety on the Court remains intact by merely one vote. Given the likelihood of at least one retirement from the Court during the next presidential term, the future of the amendment could easily hinge on Election Day 2012.

Copyright 2011, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. ~Lordhawke

GAO Finds Serious Conflicts at the Fed

October 19, 2011




WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - A new audit of the Federal Reserve released today detailed widespread conflicts of interest involving directors of its regional banks.



"The most powerful entity in the United States is riddled with conflicts of interest," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said after reviewing the Government Accountability Office report. The study required by a Sanders Amendment to last year's Wall Street reform law examined Fed practices never before subjected to such independent, expert scrutiny.

The GAO detailed instance after instance of top executives of corporations and financial institutions using their influence as Federal Reserve directors to financially benefit their firms, and, in at least one instance, themselves. "Clearly it is unacceptable for so few people to wield so much unchecked power," Sanders said. "Not only do they run the banks, they run the institutions that regulate the banks."

Sanders said he will work with leading economists to develop legislation to restructure the Fed and bar the banking industry from picking Fed directors. "This is exactly the kind of outrageous behavior by the big banks and Wall Street that is infuriating so many Americans," Sanders said.

The corporate affiliations of Fed directors from such banking and industry giants as General Electric, JP Morgan Chase, and Lehman Brothers pose "reputational risks" to the Federal Reserve System, the report said. Giving the banking industry the power to both elect and serve as Fed directors creates "an appearance of a conflict of interest," the report added.

The 108-page report found that at least 18 specific current and former Fed board members were affiliated with banks and companies that received emergency loans from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis.

In the dry and understated language of auditors, the report noted that there are no restrictions in Fed rules on directors communicating concerns about their respective banks to the staff of the Federal Reserve. It also said many directors own stock or work directly for banks that are supervised and regulated by the Federal Reserve. The rules, which the Fed has kept secret, let directors tied to banks participate in decisions involving how much interest to charge financial institutions and how much credit to provide healthy banks and institutions in "hazardous" condition. Even when situations arise that run afoul of Fed's conflict rules and waivers are granted, the GAO said the waivers are kept hidden from the public.

The report by the non-partisan research arm of Congress did not name but unambiguously described several individual cases involving Fed directors that created the appearance of a conflict of interest, including:

•Stephen Friedman In 2008, the New York Fed approved an application from Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company giving it access to cheap Fed loans. During the same period, Friedman, chairman of the New York Fed, sat on the Goldman Sachs board of directors and owned Goldman stock, something the Fed's rules prohibited. He received a waiver in late 2008 that was not made public. After Friedman received the waiver, he continued to purchase stock in Goldman from November 2008 through January of 2009 unbeknownst to the Fed, according to the GAO.

•Jeffrey Immelt The Federal Reserve Bank of New York consulted with General Electric on the creation of the Commercial Paper Funding Facility. The Fed later provided $16 billion in financing for GE under the emergency lending program while Immelt, GE's CEO, served as a director on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

•Jamie Dimon The CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the same time that his bank received emergency loans from the Fed and was used by the Fed as a clearing bank for the Fed's emergency lending programs. In 2008, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with $29 billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns.At the time, Dimon persuaded the Fed to provide JP Morgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. He also convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired this troubled investment bank.

To read a more detailed analysis of the GAO report prepared for Sen. Sanders, click here.

To read the full GAO report, click here.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=70c40aba-736c-4716-97d1-45f1a1af10a0

Allen West, Once Again. This guy is Great!!!

Heee, hee. I really like this man

WOOOOHOOOO!!!!

I like Adam West...maybe as much as I like Jeff Sessions.  Real men.  Real Americans.