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