Progressive Change on the Way

By Xavier Miranda

El Paso has been a forgone conclusion in legislative matters; in a state that has been marginalizing a large segment of our community. No need to look further than to Monday’s local headlines:  Health, schools lag in El Paso: City weathers recession, but grim data emerge (El Paso Times)

Perhaps the xenophobia that is prevalent in our country not yet knocked on our cocoon; perhaps we’ve grown accustomed to being disregarded by the rest of Texas; perhaps we’re too busy making ends meet, that  our family is sacrificed. What is certain is that we are complacent in being third-tier in health care, education, and environmental issues.

I’ve had the privilege of learning of the progressive change implemented by independent community groups. However, the change seems to challenge the status quo: our U.S. Representative is not aware of solar developments that could spur our local economy with local labor and resources; our Texas legislature disregards the toxicity of our water, soil, and air; our school districts face state-budget cuts that will be devastating to our children; and the rising costs associated with health insurance and health care continue to reap profits on corporate interests. Yet, community organizations offset the financial cuts with a dedicated service that epitomizes compassion and dignity. Our community spirit thrives, sustaining our perseverance and dignity.     

Democrats and Republicans alike have taken for granted El Paso will deliver a measly 60,000 votes in the mid-term election, thus maintaining the Texas legislature that has longed overlooked us. The thought is, that the newly found Democrats in North Texas, will be offset by the East Texas conservative voting bloc, and the apathetic turnout in El Paso. This is why a handful of us knock on doors, to bring out the voters of the ’08 election. But to ask for more is found to be too intrusive. A local politico suggested I stop imposing expectations of financial contributors knocking on doors or phone banking. Their rationale was, to paraphrase, their influence is felt on levels that are beneath them. This axiom, “money talks,” is at the core of our situation. Business as usual—ironic. I’m not much of a fan of the straight-ticket vote, for it allows corrupt officials in through the front door. Our faith in local partisan groups is now faced with a healthy skepticism, but low levels of engagement.

All said and done, lack of leadership, compounded by apathy, will most likely keep things as they are for El Paso. But if you grow weary of the status quo, join us throughout the month of October in “being the change we’ve been waiting for.” By actually talking to neighbors, you may find a common bond. Your struggles and frustrations are the same as theirs’. More importantly, the solution is in our hands, and that results from utilizing our most powerful tool: OUR VOTE. Please come and join us in being the change. Remember the results inspired by your direct involvement back in 2008.

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized

Not Buying Your Particular Flavor of Garbage

By Brian Edwards

Nope, sorry Jaime.  I don’t buy your particular line of B.S.  What you are complaining about is a political tactic used by both sides of the aisle in Congress.  When one party wants to get something killed they will maneuver (mostly in committee) to have some very unpopular items attached as amendments.  Many times these unpopular items are unpopular to all politicians (or the vast majority) and the primary bill is rejected just to kill the amendment.
 
How in the world do you think most of the pork on Capitol Hill is grown?  In just this fashion.  Along comes a very popular piece of proposed legislation and everyone and their brother is looking to attach their own pork to it so “they can get theirs”.  This is how the political game is played.
 
You almost had me to where I read your entire article but when you started this three card Monty version of the “blame game” I quit reading for the most part.  I just glossed over the rest of your literary whining.
 
I am neither Democrat nor Republican.  I am, however, conservative in my nature.   I also personally believe that every piece of legislation should be presented and pass/fail on its own merits.  That is unreasonable I know because then Congress would not have any time to enjoy their numerous vacations.  There would also be a lot less “A-ha, Gotcha!” moments for political pundits and observers.  It is far easier to find something popular or unpopular when it is sent to the floor for a vote when it is there al by itself instead of buried in 2,000 pages of other amendments.

Posted in Uncategorized

Republicans Block Funding of the Military

By Jaime Abeytia

In a somewhat stunning move, 100% of the Republicans in the United States Senate voted to withhold funding to our entire military forces because of partisan politics, something that hasn’t happened in almost half a century.

For some reason, local talk radio host Hector H. Lopez chose to blame the Democrats and the administration for the move by the GOP. I don’t know if its because he didn’t understand the political subtext, the congressional process, or maybe the substance of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Amendments or the DREAM Act Amendment.

Or maybe Lopez thinks the more popular play is to blame Democrats and give the Republicans a pass for the vote.

Saying the right thing, even if its unpopular isn’t an easy thing to do and some people just don’t have the courage to do so. I can’t really fault him for that.

But let’s get some things straight here.

The Republicans are the ones that are at fault here. I’m hoping that every Republican member of the United States Senate went home after that vote and peeled off their “Support our Troops” sticker off of their vehicles, because their hypocrisy is an embarrassment.

The same party that attempts to strike fear in the hearts of Americans by using the word security in everything from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the immigration problems this country faces is now okay with making our country less secure by withholding the funding for our entire military.

The two provisions of the funding bill that have Hector H. Lopez and his friends in the GOP and Tea Party movement up in arms are the repeal of DADT and the Dream Act.

Lopez, the Republicans and the Tea Party think those issues don’t belong in the bill.

I find it ironic that group of people have a problem with the inclusion of those two provisions considering some of the amendments that the Republicans have tried to put in to spending bills, including provisions relating to internet gambling, concealed weapons, and campaign finance issues.

None of which have anything to do with our military or how it functions.

Both amendments proposed by the Democrats do! Not only are they related to the military, they are issues that actually make our military stronger and by extension, our country more secure.

Republicans have no place to hide on this one. The bottom line here is that they voted down funding for our military because of bigotry. No matter what kind of spin or window dressing that is applied here, that’s what this turns out to be, plain and simple.

Some of the Republican leadership like Arizona Republican Senator John McCain and others are saying that we should wait to repeal this regulation until we have heard from the men and women in the military. I know that Arizona’s senior senator is a decorated veteran, but maybe things were different in the Navy and Army. I seem to recall hearing the phrase “The Army is not a democracy” pretty regularly during my service.

Its weird that we would be compelled to take a vaccine for Anthrax despite the fact that many soldiers didn’t want to take it, but the military is going to send out a survey to find out how they feel about gay service members?

Senator McCain, was it necessary to send out a survey to desegregate our military? It was very controversial and unpopular at the time, but history has shown that it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Think about how ridiculous it was for our country to have perpetuated such an ignorant policy as segregation. Our country will eventually look at our current policy of DADT as equally ignorant.

But perhaps the most shameful part of the Republicans’ argument against passage of the bill is the fact that they say they are opposed to the repeal of DADT until the military has had a chance to weigh in. That’s interesting because the bill doesn’t call for the immediate repeal of DADT. It calls for allowing the military to change their policy after they’ve surveyed the service members!

That means that the Republican’s opposition to the funding bill is about their bigotry towards homosexuals. The Party of Lincoln in continuing to perpetuate bigotry while wrapping themselves in the American flag and rallying in front of the Lincoln Memorial. 

The DREAM Act provides for people who are undocumented to EARN their citizenship through military service. What rational people would oppose something like the DREAM Act? But again, the Republicans show their true colors. Its not about being rational for them. Its not about the troops either. It’s about xenophobia plain and simple.

Its important that the American people understand the real people at fault here. It’s important that the American people not lose sight of the fact that the Republicans are acting in a manner that is distinctly un-American.

Posted in Uncategorized

Response to “Ignorance is Fort Bliss”

Mr Ramsey,

I agree with your comments concerning the issue of military installations not creating wealth. I also agree with you that City and County Leaders need to plan along the lines of there being no Ft Bliss. We should not become dependant upon its existence. We need to break the cycle of entitlement…

I do, however, disagree with you on your follow-on statements where El Paso would double in size and become a high tech and manufacturing hub. I believe that El Paso would revert to nothing more than a improved version of a ‘stage coach’ stop over for cargo travelling between the two coasts and maybe between Mexico and Canada. Our ‘leaders’ have proven time and time again that the only thing they really know how to accomplish is to drive away any potential business to nearby Santa Teresa and Las Cruces. And El Paso is (I guess) happy to pick up the scraps of some sale tax and property taxes of persons employed there but happen to live in El Paso county.

I can see the former Ft Bliss having been carved up by housing developers and other business types where there is nothing more than a glut of over priced homes and an expanded industrial park area that consists of nothing more than semi-trailer trans-shipping points for DHL, UPS, FED Ex, Walmart, and a handful of nation-wide transportation companies. I can even see the politicking to get large swaths of currently residential areas confiscated through ‘eminent domain’ in order to build a massive rail yard.

I’ve been told that I am too pessimistic; but these are my positive outlook visions.

Brian Edwards

Posted in Uncategorized

Ch ch ch chaaanges

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”

Benjamin Franklin

by Christopher Bailey

    A little while back, just after Obama was elected, I made a “let’s see” post on an old blog that I had been keeping. It pertained to the new Obama administration and its stance regarding ‘change’ and what that will look like.  I initially thought that there will be a lot less lives lost -say that three times fast -now that was occupying  the office of the presidency but, as I look back on past liberals who have been in office, I have also noticed a pattern:  While the GOP legislators and ‘executors’ often market their solutions to problems regarding national security (eg. warehousing terror suspects and the like) overtly thereby allowing the public a full frontal of what ‘safety and security looks like’, the Dems, on the other hand, have, in the past, chosen to make these kinds of solutions a more secretive endeavor or, if they are in fact made public, they paint a big yellow happy face on it. I refer here to our inroads,  under Democrat leadership, into the ‘southern cone’ of South America and the Carter administration’s silent complicity in the maintenance of the ‘School of Americas’ ( famous now, in Mexico at the very least, for being a training ground for the first Zetas of cartel fame).  Like all good political parties, and in the best tradition of the Dems, it seems that the Obama administration is following suit.  While they tarred and feathered the Bush administration in the press whilst closing Guantanamo -an act that “deeply worries’ our resident Sith-Lord Darth Cheney – it is now becoming apparent that the Obama administration was really waging a PR campaign.

    Let me un pack this line of thought a bit: you see, Guantanamo was a publicity ‘roadside bomb’ for the GOP amongst many Americans. It embodied the shared characteristics of the immanent death, fear, torture, arbitrariness, the loss of liberty, the loss of human rights, for many of those concerned Americans (and I was indeed one of those) and if it was left unattended it was going to blow.  “Fair enough” Obama said “let’s close it”.’Well fine Mr President’, the camp is closing (because it really hasn’t closed just yet) and many Americans are still rejoicing at the redress of this horrid “mistake” in policy. You have satisfied a boodle (yes, I used ‘boodle’) of  naive Americans who think that we have never been capable of ‘that kind of thing’ [meaning torture].  Now, we have our happy faces painted on because this is all the press has given us, but I have a few questions that might wipe the self-satisfied smile off of some of our happy little faces.

What about that horrible practice that we used to hear about from the press and then they stopped talking about it? What about the real threat to, not just the ‘detainees’ liberty, but ours as well? What about ‘extraordinary rendition’?  What about the degradation of our democracy that was due to the emergence of the so-called “Unitary Presidency”? Many of us said “Please say that you are going to change that, Mr. President!”

    Well we are well into the Obama presidency. The economy is tanking, we have a do nothing Congress that seems to like playing gridlock more than tete-a-tete and some real legislation – after all we have yet to see a spending/budget bill come through congress and we are on the verge of the midterm elections. But what really irks me my little change monkeys? What really gets my goat? Is that there has been virtually no coverage of the continuation of the systematic erosion of our civil liberties by the Federal Government, no judicial protections for citizens suspected of links to terrorists, nor do they have to be anywhere near a combat area. Indeed the last question, posed above, is more relevant than ever!

    And what is this change? It has been the change from empty campaign promises to the proliferation of civil rights-eroding legislation and policy. This is what should be, and has been asked – though not covered by the press – of the Obama administration. And how did they respond my dear change-junkies? This is how they responded.

 In a press release from the ACLU, dated 2/9/2009, Eric Holder’s justice department was quoted as having reiterated Bush administration appeals to “state secrets” in a lawsuit against a Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen DataPlan, for its complicity and collusion in the Extraordinary rendition program.  The initial suit, titled Mohamed et al V. Jeppesen, was “brought on behalf of five men who were kidnapped and secretly transferred to U.S. run prisons or intelligence agencies [emphasis added] where they were interrogated under torture [emphasis added].” During the suit the Bush administration intervened citing, inappropriately, an appeal to “State Secrets” privilege by which they claimed that the case would “undermine national security”.  On the date of the press release the ACLU presented oral arguments that appealed the Bush “State Secret” dismissal, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice and the Obama administration responded by opting not to change the government position in the case. Indeed! They actually had the gall to maintain that the “entire subject matter of the case is a state secret“! [emphasis added]

    The ACLU’s  Executive director, Anthony D. Romero, said that the Obama administration and the “Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it  would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s Justice Department has  disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a  harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again Obama Justice Department Stands Behind Bush Secrecy In Extraordinary Rendition Case.”

    So this is what ‘change’ looks like my dears. The “change you can believe in” is really change that is not directly perceived, but is treated as such in spite of an obvious lack of supporting empirical evidence. It is the public “closure” of Gitmo, but the maintenance of prisons that are far worse in secret. It is the “end of combat operations in Iraq”, removing uniformed men and women from the theater all the while maintaining a very sizable and healthy mercenary force….more faux happy faces for the American people. However, the subterfuge doesn’t stop there.

    Remember all those attacks Obama made on the Bush administration for the aggregation and the exceeding of executive power, what is now called a “Unitary Presidency”? Remember how Obama lambasted the Republicans and the Bush administration for this? You just have to search Google to find piles of quotes and videos of all the racket coming out of the Obama camp with regard to this. Well, the “change”, in this regard, wasn’t much of a change. Shocked? Change junkies should be.

    I’m writing this for everyone really, but mainly for Republicans and Obama loving Dems and indys (Obama-girl I’m looking at you!)  If you’re a Republican who loved the Bush Unitary presidency, you are going to LOVE Obama. If you are an Obama loving Dem, you might come out of this ready to vomit all over yourself. A recent, late July, ACLU report ( found here: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/establishing-new-normal) set about documenting the permanent “enshrinement” of the Bush/Cheney definition of the Unitary Executive by the Obama administration. Indeed, the Congress (both houses) quietly and complicity accepted that the balance of power continues to tilt heavily toward the Executive branch of the government. The link, given in parenthesis above, details and assess the first eighteen months of the Obama presidency. And by “details and assesses” I mean “eviscerates all the empty campaign promises” Obama made prior to the election and I promise you, you won’t regret reading it for yourselves. But for those short on time I will give you a run down on just a few of these gems..

    Remember that whole history lesson above about happy faces? Remember all Obama’s promises about Transparency?

Obama’s TRANSPARENCY:

“…the administration has fought to keep secret hundreds of records relating to the Bush administration’s rendition, detention, and interrogation policies. To take just a few of many possible examples, it has fought to keep secret a directive in which President Bush authorized the CIA to establish secret prisons overseas; the Combatant Status Review Transcripts in which former CIA prisoners describe the abuse they suffered in the CIA’s secret prisons […] the administration has also fought to withhold information about prisoners held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Indeed, the Obama administration has released less information about prisoners held at Bagram Air Base than the Bush administration released about prisoners held at Guantánamo.”  [emphasis added]

    How about all that caterwhaling on torture during the election?

Obama and TORTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

“The truth is that the Obama administration has gradually become an obstacle to accountability for torture. It is not simply that, as discussed above, the administration has fought to keep secret some of the documents that would allow the public to better understand how the torture program was conceived, developed, and implemented. It has also sought to extinguish lawsuits brought by torture survivors [many of whom, incidentally, have been found innocent “after the fact”—denying them recognition as victims, compensation for their injuries, and even the opportunity to present their cases.”

    Flash back to the comments I made above about detention and rendition.

Obama on DETENTION

“Of far greater significance than the administration’s failure to meet its own one-year deadline is its embrace [sic] of the theory underlying the Guantánamo detention regime: that the Executive Branch can detain militarily—without charge or trial—terrorism suspects captured far from a conventional battlefield… we fear that if a precedent is established that terrorism suspects can be held without trial within the United States, this administration and future administrations will be tempted to bypass routinely the constitutional restraints of the criminal justice system in favor of indefinite military detention. [This is actually a potential consequence in the USAPATRIOT ACT II] This is a danger that far exceeds the disappointment of seeing the Guantánamo prison stay open past the one-year deadline. To be sure, Guantánamo should be closed, but not at the cost of enshrining the principle of indefinite detention in a global war without end.”

    Numerous presidents have been quoted as saying “we don’t assassinate”, which is a total lie, but what about targeted killing? The only reason I bring this up is that Obama was quite vocal about the subject during the election whilst trying to energize his “base”.

Obama on TARGETED KILLING

“President Obama has authorized a program that contemplates the killing of suspected terrorists—including U.S. citizens —located far away from zones of actual armed conflict. If accurately described, this program violates international law and, at least insofar as it affects U.S. citizens, it is also unconstitutional… the government has failed to prove the lawfulness of imprisoning individual Guantánamo detainees in some three quarters of the cases cases that have been reviewed by the federal courts thus far, even though the government had years to gather and analyze evidence for those cases and had itself determined that those prisoners were detainable. This experience should lead the administration—and all Americans—to reject out of hand a program that would invest the CIA or the U.S. military with the unchecked authority to impose an extrajudicial death sentence on U.S. citizens and others found far from any actual battlefield.”

    This one is in regard to Military commissions used to try prisoners, foreign and potentially civilian. My question to you all and Obama is: Our legal system is designed to handle every possible case, in theory. If it can’t handle the worst of us why should we trust it to handle the rest of us?!

Obama on MILITARY COMMISSIONS

“The administration’s embrace of military commission trials at Guantánamo, albeit with procedural improvements, has been a major disappointment. Instead of calling a permanent halt to the failed effort to create an entirely new court system for Guantánamo detainees, President Obama encouraged an effort to redraft the legislation creating the commissions and signed that bill into law… the existence of a second-class system of justice with a poor track record and no international legitimacy undermines the entire enterprise of prosecuting terrorism suspects. So long as the federal government can choose between two systems of justice, one of which (the federal criminal courts) is fair and legitimate, while the other (the military commissions) tips the scales in favor of the prosecution, both systems will be tainted…”

    This little jewel is, in my opinion, one of the most egregious trouncings of the constitution. It is in regard to Spying on Civilians and is obviously not beyond the pale, despite Obama’s happy face commitment to the preservation of the constitution and his empty shirt rhetoric lambasting of Bush and his cronies for the very thing he now defends. And Republicans, those vaunted champions of the constitution? They have been suspiciously evasive about dealing with this issue honestly as well.

Obama on SPEECH AND SURVEILLANCE

“…over the last eighteen months, President Obama’s administration has defended the FISA Amendments Act in the same way that the last administration did so: by insisting that the statute is effectively immune from judicial review. Individuals can challenge the statute’s statute’s constitutionality, the administration has proposed, only if they can prove that their own communications were monitored under the statute; since the administration refuses to disclose whose communications have been monitored, the statute cannot be challenged at all. In some ways, the administration’s defense of the statute is as troubling as the statute itself. The Obama administration has been reluctant to yield any of the expansive surveillance powers claimed by the last administration. It has pushed for the re-authorization of some of the Patriot Act’s most problematic surveillance provisions.”

    Many of us have seen the news stories about six-year-old kids and elderly folk, not to mention upstanding 20-50 somethings, being stopped at the airport and being told that the can’t fly. Why? Because their name is on a watch list. We’ve also heard or seen the stories about how next-to-impossible it is to get your name off of this list.

Obama on WATCH LISTS

“…rather than reform the watch lists the Obama administration has expanded their use and resisted the introduction of minimal due process safeguards to prevent abuse and protect civil liberties. The Obama administration has added thousands of names to the No Fly List, sweeping up many innocent individuals. As a result, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents have been stranded abroad, unable to return to the United States. Others are unable to visit family on the opposite end of the country or abroad. Individuals on the list are not told why they are on the list and thus have no meaningful opportunity to object or to rebut the government’s allegations. The result is an unconstitutional scheme under which an individual’s right to travel and, in some cases, a citizen’s ability to return to the United States, is under the complete control of entirely unaccountable bureaucrats relying on secret evidence and using secret standards.”

    The ACLU brief brings it all home with this short and not so sweet conclusion:

“…if the Obama administration does not effect a fundamental break with the Bush administration’s policies on detention, accountability, and other issues, but instead creates a lasting legal architecture in support of those policies, then it will have ratified, rather than rejected, the dangerous notion that America is in a permanent state of emergency and that core liberties must be surrendered forever.”

Indeed, the Obama administration, while it tries to hide the ugly truth with happy faces, is facing a mid-term election that will more than likely see a coup d’etat in the congress. And this might be a good thing, but really, what differentiates Republicans and Democrats isn’t their position on taxation, it isn’t their positions on “big government” or fiscal responsibility or security or anything else for that matter (immigration, abortion, and where they spend tax dollars are, perhaps, one exception to this rule). The thing that differentiates them is the happy face that Dems like to paint on everything. In asking these questions of you, my dears, I ask not for you to merely ponder and think but to ask these questions yourselves and others no matter what side of the political fence you come down on. For as the famous monkey wrencher Ed Abbey said, “Society is like a stew. If you don’t keep it stirred up, you get a lot of scum on top”, and when that scum rises to the top our rights, our liberties, our way of life is choked nearly to its death. So stir the pot, dears, stir the pot and for God’s remember: when you paint a happy face on a turd, it’s still a turd…and it still smells!

Posted in Uncategorized

Ignorance is Fort Bliss

By Oliver Ramsey

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

The brave men and women of the United States Army serve to defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They do not serve, as the Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce and El Paso REDCo would like to have you believe, as engines of economic development. Whatever effects, if any, of economic productivity created are secondary.

Fort Bliss is one of the largest Army’s largest military installations. Many El Pasoans breathed a sigh of relief that the Base Realignment and Closure Commission did not move to close the base. Then El Pasoans were then just down right giddy when BRAC moved to increase the number of troops at the fort. But was this relief and excitement a result of leaders in the region genuinely interested in protecting the Constitution or because they feared without Fort Bliss there is just nothing else in El Paso to create job growth?

In some ways, Fort Bliss has handicapped the vision and thought process of leaders in the region. Fort Bliss’ expansion has just bought more time or postponed the inevitable. El Paso has not yet generated a strong enough economic sector that is relatively independent of government procurement. Even one of El Paso’s most political active and wealthiest citizens did not make his wealth in the marketplace. He made it in defense procurement.

The ugly truth though is that military installations do not create wealth. If that were the case, San Antonio, not Houston or Dallas/Fort Worth, would have been Texas’ leading economic metro. El Paso leaders need to assume an El Paso without Fort Bliss. What would it look like? What could happen?

For starters, the City of El Paso would nearly double in size. Sure, there would probably be the need for some soil remediation efforts, but this vast area could be become a high-tech manufacturing and logistical hub. El Paso is halfway between some of the busiest ports in the world: the Port of Houston and Port of Los Angeles. With relatively quick access to Asian and European markets as well as lower labor costs El Paso could once again reposition itself as a manufacturing hub. An expanded or new airport could compete with other cities for airline hub activity. Last I checked El Paso does not have as many snow days as Salt Lake City.

These are just a couple things that could happen if Fort Bliss were to close. But this could easily happen if Fort Bliss were to merely reduce its footprint in Texas to the New Mexico border. With that El Paso would be able to have its cake and eat it too.

So El Paso, do not fear the day of a smaller or non-existent Fort Bliss. You can still win. If you do not believe me, look no further than the Rio Grande Valley, which is a region made of many municipalities located a 150 miles away from the nearest Interstate highway and lacks a military installation.

Posted in Uncategorized

Brownfield’s Proposed New City Ordinance

Hello friends of the BROWNFIELD EMPIRE LLC! My crack legal team has
drafted a proposed city ordinance that should help with the corruption
issue. Unfortunately the county cannot adopt a similar ordinance
because the CORRUPT state of TEXAS will not allow it, no matter how
much I have offered Governor Perry to bribe him. My proposal is below
and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me at
brownfieldempire.gmail.com or visit my blog at
http://www.brownfieldempire.blogspot.com

EL PASO CITY ORDINANCE 1070

– 1 –

1 Be it enacted by the City Council of the City of El Paso

2 Section 1. Intent

3 The city council finds that there is a compelling interest in the

4 cooperative enforcement of federal corruption and honest services
laws throughout all of

5 El Paso. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make

6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local

7 government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to

8 work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of

9 lobbyists and corrupt economic activity by persons who act unlawfully while

10 present in the city of El Paso.

11 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, El Paso City Charter, is amended by

12 adding article 8, to read:

13 ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF CORRUPTION AND HONEST SERVICES LAWS

14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of

15 ENFORCEMENT OF CORRUPTION AND HONEST SERVICES LAWS

16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS CITY, OR

17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS CITY MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR

18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT OF CORRUPTION AND HONEST

19 SERVICES LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21 OF THIS CITY, OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

22 CITY WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN LOBBYIST

23 WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE CITY OF EL PASO, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT

24 SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE INTEGRITY STATUS OF THE

25 PERSON. THE PERSON’S INTEGRITY STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL

26 GOVERNMENT (FBI) PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

27 C. IF AN LOBBYIST WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE CITY OF EL PASO IS

28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM

29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE LOBBYIST SHALL BE

30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL

31 BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION OR THE CIA FOR WATERBOARDING.

32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY

33 SECRETLY TRANSPORT AN LOBBYIST WHO IS UNLAWFULLY OPERATING IN THE CITY

34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY’S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN CUBA OR TO

35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE

36 JURISDICTION (EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION) OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON

38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED

39 ANY PUBLIC CORRUPTION OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE CITY.

40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS

41 CITY AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE CITY OF EL PASO

42 MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,

43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE INTEGRITY STATUS OF

44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE

45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

PAGE 2 EL PASO CITY ORDINANCE 1070

1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE

2 PROVIDED BY ANY PART OF THE CITY OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE

3 CITY OF EL PASO.

4 2. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY LOBBYIST WHO IS DETAINED.

5. 3. IF THE PERSON IS AN LOBBYIST, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN

6. COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER

7. 7 OF THE FEDERAL CORRUPTION AND HONEST SERVICES ACT.

8. 4. ATTORNEY FEES ARE HEREBY BANNED FOR POLITICAL CONSULTATION.

9. ALL PERSON(S) WHO APPEAR BEFORE A TAXING ENTITY ASKING FOR ANYTHING

10 WHILE WEARING BUSINESS ATTIRE SHALL BE IMMEDIATLEY FRISKED AND THEN

11. SENT TO THE EL PASO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TO GO THROUGH THE NUDIE SCANNER.

12. UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE PATRIOT ACT ALL PERSON(S) SEEKING

13. BUSINESS WITH THE TAXPAYER SHALL BE WIRETAPPED, BUGGED AND ANY OTHER

14. KIND OF SURVEILLANCE DEEMED NECESSARY TO PROVE YOUR HONESTY. IF YOU

15. HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE THIS WILL NOT BE A PROBLEM.

PAGE 3 EL PASO CITY ORDINANCE 1070

1. ALL ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS WHO HAVE ACCESS TO TAX DOLLARS WILL BE

2. REQUIRED TO WEAR AND ANKLE BRACELET AT ALL TIMES.

3. ALL COMMUNICTION DEVICE(S) USED BY ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS WHO

4. HAVE ACCESS TO TAX DOLLARS SHALL BE MONITORED AND RECORDED AND AVAILABLE

5. ON THE CITY WEBSITE FOR REVIEW BY ANYONE.

6. ALL ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS WHO HAVE ACCESS TO TAX DOLLARS WILL BE

7. REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE ALL FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN 2 DAYS

8. OF TAKING OFFICE. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN IMMEDIATE
DEPORTATION TO JUAREZ

9. WEARING A “I LOVE CHAPO” T SHIRT AND HAT. ELECTED AND APPOINTED
OFFICIALS WHO

10. HAVE ACCESS TO TAX DOLLARS WILL HAVE TO WEAR NASCAR STYLE CLOTHING WITH

11. LOGO(S) SIZED TO MATCH THE AMOUNT OF LIFETIME CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM

12. EACH SOURCE.

Posted in Uncategorized