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Justice Stevens and another of the four dissenting justices in Heller, Justice David Souter, have since retired and been replaced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented from the majority's decision in McDonald, and Justice Elena Kagan, who joined the Court in August 2010 and who had a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

Permian Basin Republican Assembly Has Sheriff Painter as Speaker

You are invited to bring yourself, your friends, your neighbors and all other interested persons to the next meeting of the Permian Basin Republican Assembley this Thursday,


August 11 at the Midland Memorial Hospital West Campus Classroom 1 - 4214 Andrews Highway at 7:00 p.m. Thursday, August 11, 2011. Use the east entrance under the portico - the classroom is just beyond the gift shop on the right. Guest Speaker will be Sheriff Gary Painter; his topic will be Illegal Immigration. There will be a Q & A period to follow his presentation, so come prepared with questions. Don't miss this one!

Beverly Dyer
for the Permian Basin Republican Assembly



Come if you can to the PBRA meeting in Midland on Thursday evening...and be prepared to ask and/or tell Sheriff Painter any and everything!!!! We have been having too much crime in our area....and that is unacceptable!!!! We need to know what they are doing about it...and why they aren't doing more!!!


(The MMH West Campus is about one block east of Midland Dr. on Andrews Hwy, north side. If you need more detailed directions to the meeting location...let me know.)

Pat Kennedy
WTxCC

WAR DECLARED

You know, with the economic situation and the stupid stuff that is coming out on both sides at all levels, federal, state, and local plus the redistricting thing, plus the other stuff I know, I've just about had it.  I had planned to begin more active participation of Concerned Citizens closer to the elections.  But, this took the cake this morning:

"Trustee Fay Batch said she listens to administration advice when it comes to personnel matters.


“I go with what the experts we have here on staff like,” she said. “They have the plan.”

http://www.oaoa.com/news/positions-69622-new-ecisd.html

I'm sitting here wondering why we even need an ECISD school board at all.

Then, there's a lot of just general populace education to do.  And, we need candidates for offices.  I'm going to start putting out info...some very controversial, but we can't make decisions if people don't know about it.  In the meantime, start thinking of people who might be interested in running for offices. ~ Faye

I got to thinking about my use of the word controversial.  It's only controversial because they don't want you to know about it and, therefore, call anything that's negative "hate speech."  Well, I call it fact. ~ Faye

Update on Ector County Redistricting

There's two articles in today's (Sunday, July 24) Odessa American.  "Redistricting still up in air" reveals some very interesting info on just where Rodriguez's, LULAC's, Una Voz's, et al, collective head is.  The other article is the editorial and the OA doesn't have it on line yet.  I'll add a link to it when they do. 

It seems they're not happy with the Hispanic majority they now enjoy in Districts 1, 3, and 5.  It appears they also want District 4 and for the ratios to go up to as much as 75% Hispanic... "because, he says, those numbers are needed to overcome Hispanics’ lack of belief in the electoral system and their tendency not to vote."

Geeeeeez, seen the lack of belief in the electoral system in the general population here lately?  Exactly why do they think Congress's approval rating is so low?  This is like having a race and putting one contestant 3/4 of the way down the track.  PLUS!!!!  These groups get federal grants, TAXPAYER monies, to do whatever they want with it EVEN THOUGH they're SUPPOSED to be NON-PARTISAN (and they most certainly are NOT non-partisan) in order to get that money and then they underwrite each other.  In this case, Carol Uranga let it slip that MALDEF is behind this.  Yep.  Jason got it on tape.  It's at desertvision.net.  Then, I ran across a site that reports business info and Una Voz was reported as having 3 employees and a $70,000 income.  As far as I know, Una Voz has NOT obtained their 501(c)(3) status, IF they've even applied for it, so where did this money come from?  I know for a fact that he was soliciting donations (see "Una Voz Unida" posting on this site) but $70,000?  There's a lot to this story that isn't being told. ~ Faye



Redistricting still up in air:


http://www.oaoa.com/news/districts-69066-see-overcome.html

OK.  Here's the online OA editorial:
IN OUR VIEW: Redistricting fireworks fun to watch


http://www.oaoa.com/opinion/folks-69049-tackling-fun.html

CONAWAY CHRONICLE: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 4

GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO A SPECIAL "DEBT CEILING" EDITION OF THE CONAWAY CHRONICLE.

___________________________________________

Content

1. House vote on Cut, Cap, and Balance Act
2. Cut, Cap and Balance Background
3. Cut, Cap, and Balance Senate Action
4. Cut, Cap, and Balance Video
5. Extra Information

___________________________________________



1. House vote on Cut, Cap, and Balance

For months, the focus in Washington has been the debate over spending, entitlement reform and the debt limit. Without an increase in the debt ceiling before August 2nd, the federal government will default on 45% of its bills. I oppose any increase in the debt ceiling that does not come with significant spending cuts and a change to the out-of-control spending in Washington. That is why I voted against increasing the debt ceiling increase on May 31, 2011. We need to rein in spending, impose spending caps and add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise, politicians and bureaucrats in Washington will never change their ways.

Weeks ago, in an effort to find common ground on spending cuts and entitlement reform, Congressional leaders from the House and Senate traveled to the White House and met with the President to negotiate a deal to raise the debt ceiling without raising taxes – their efforts were unsuccessful. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress continually insist on raising taxes so they can carry on spending money our nation does not have.

With the August 2nd deadline rapidly approaching, House Republicans stopped waiting for the President to propose a deal, and moved forward with a plan of their own: the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. I cosponsored this legislation and voted in favor of it on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 where it passed the House 234-190.

On Friday, July 22, 2011 the Senate failed to pass the Cut, Cap, and balance Act, with a final vote of 51-46. Afterwards, Speaker Boehner sent a letter to President Obama notifying him that House Republicans would be ending discussions with the White House and beginning conversations with leaders in the Senate in an effort to find a path to enactment of legislation that will cut and cap government sending and pave a way for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in exchange for raising the national debt ceiling.

Click on these links to read the details, or keep reading this edition of the Conaway Chronicle for more background.

Full Bill text

GOP.gov Summary

Speaker Boehner's Letter to President Obama

Sincerely,
Rep. Mike Conaway, 11th District

There's a problem with the links for the Full Bill text, GOP.gov Summary, and Speaker Boehner's Letter in the original text of this newsletter from Mike Conaway.  I'll track 'em down and fix the links.  ~Faye

NAW...HE AIN'T GOING TO RAISE TAXES ON THE POOR OR THE MIDDLE CLASS

Keep in mind.... every deposit PLUS every withdrawal gets the 1 % hit. So.... your direct deposit pays a fee/tax for each action, costing you 2% of your financial activity: 1% when it comes in plusanother 1% when it goes out.


NOT A RUMOR...... HR 4646

1% tax on all bank transactions

Watch for this AFTER November elections; remember this BEFORE you VOTE ... in case you think Obama's looking out for your best interest.

1% tax on all bank transactions HR 4646

This government just cannot think of enough ways to hurt the American people! This Bill must die FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!

1% tax on all bank transactions HR 4646 - ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP.

Checked this on snopes, it's true! Check out HR 4646.
President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the radar.

This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution - banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc. Any deposit you make, or even a transfer within your account, will have a 1% tax charged.

~If your paycheck or your social security or whatever is direct deposit, it will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction.

~If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay Obama $10 just for the privilege of depositing your paycheck in your bank.

Even if you hand carry your paycheck or any check into your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be charged.

~You receive a $5,000 stock dividend from your broker, Obama takes $50 just to allow you to deposit that check in the bank.

~If you take $1,000 cash to deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged.

~ Mind you, this is from the man who promised that, if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy's under-the-table moves to increase the number of ways you are taxed.

~Oh, and by the way, you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you have it direct deposited or you walk in to deposit that check, you guessed it. You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank. Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from, you will pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank.

Some will say, oh well, it's just 1%. Are you kidding me? It's a 1% tax increase across the board. Remember, once the tax is there, they can also raise it at will. And if anyone protests, they will just say, "oh,that's not really a tax, it's a user fee"! Think this is no big deal? Go back and look at the transactions you made from last year's banking statements. Then add the total of all those transactions and deduct 1%.

Still think it's no big deal???

snopes.com : Debt Free America Act

ALERT: Congressional members e-mail addresses:

Senator John Cornyn

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

U.S. Represenative Mike Conaway

My letter to them:

Dear Honorable (Senator/Representative) ___________:

HR-4646, the Debt Free America Act, has been introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio (D-Oregon) and US Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).  This bill calls for the implementation of a scheme to pay down the deficit by again taxing the American public without making any provisions for our government to reduce their own out-of-control spending and has now moved beyond proposing studies with plans to pass it AFTER the November elections. HR 4646 would impose a 1 percent tax on ALL financial transactions, rich, poor, and middleclass Americans. 

Our debt situation is serious, but for our own government to again tax the American public while supporting undeclared wars, financial aid to countries that regard us as enemies, funding federal grants for such projects as studying shrimp on exercisers and to find out if South American prostitutes' libidos are affected by the ingestion of alcohol, and supporting the U.N. when it's obvious they hate our Republican form of government and intend to take it down, is absolutely outrageous.  The plan to present it AFTER the November elections is more of the game-playing in D.C. that has so offended the American public and resulted in the lowest opinion ever of Congress. 

I ask that you work against this bill and to take the credit card away from the screwy, spoiled brats in D.C. and try your utmost to restore adult fiscal responsibility.

Sincerely,
Faye Hall

UPDATE:



This is a prime example of why you ALWAYS have to check things out no matter where they came from. I did not check this out. Just skip anything on HR 4646. Look here: ~ Faye

H.R. 4646: Debt Free America Act

111th Congress: 2009-2010

To establish a fee on transactions which would eliminate the national debt and replace the income tax on individuals.

Sponsor: Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA2]

This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4646


Actually, it looks like a flat tax that supposedly would have progressively gotten rid of the IRS.  And sponsored by a Democrat, no less.  There were several things in it that I found suspect, however. ~Faye