MEXICO IS ANGRY !

Three cheers for Arizona!
The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from the State of Sonora, Mexico doesn't like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny. The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico. Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona 's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico.
It seems that many Mexican illegals are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off.
A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona 's new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.
At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, - Arizona's southern neighbor, - made up of mostly small towns, - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money.
The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.
The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government. 'How can Arizona pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales.
'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona,' she said, speaking in Spanish. 'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs,' she said. 'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.
Wrong!
The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico's citizens.
It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs.

Too bad that other states within the USA don't pass a law just like that passed by Arizona.
Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!

How public land grazing puts money back into the economy.

Many ranchers are from families who have lived here for over 100 years. They, with the miners who have been chased off, built this state and this country. They spend their money here. They employ people who spend their money here. They pay property taxes here. They keep food prices reasonable here. They donate time and money to their community, here. They own private land that is used as winter habitat for game animals, so hunters spend their money here. They pay grazing fees that help keep access to the national forests open for tourists here.
Think about it. If you kick the cattle off the range, as Western Watersheds wishes to do, the beef market will bottom out as ranchers sell off the animals they can no longer feed. The reduced beef value will cause all beef growers to cut back production. The cut back in beef production will cause a surplus of feed grains (corn, oats, barley etc.) Everyone knows a surplus of supply causes prices to drop. Grain farmers who go year to year just getting by will go out of business and only large, company run operations will remain. Once the surplus of beef has been exhausted the prices for the remaining beef will skyrocket as the demand will stay but the supply will be limited to beef produced in feedlots. The increase in beef prices will in turn cause an increase in the price of feed grains as beef growers attempt to keep up with demand using the depleted grain market. The increase in feed grain prices will cause a similar hardship to poultry and dairy production. How much can you afford to feed your family?
Grain fed beef is high in omega six while lacking the proper balance of omega 3, thus the cancer rate in humans will go up, Range fed beef is high in omega 3 with the proper balance of omega 6. The objective of the "environmental" groups is the destruction of all industrialism including those resources which support Industrialism.
If we fail, foreign corporations will come in and take over our public lands. They want to take our resources, gold, oil, timber, water, etc. etc. while we helplessly watch them do it. Every thing you have been led to believe in is straight out of UNICEP… a foreign think tank. Funny how connecting the dots places the world bank behind this scheme. Your lands, your resources, are their collateral for this National Debt, and, just like a mortgage, repossession or takeover is slowly occurring. Time to wake up. While we fight over our Public Land, and how to run it, or protect it, they are stealing it.
Do not support the U.N.'s agenda to abolish the Declaration of Independence as well as private property rights. Every thing Western Water Sheds supports is counter productive to a free society. The abolishing of Private Property Rights is the number one objective behind sustainable development agendas. By removing the most powerful users of our lands, "public" which is a legal term and does not refer to you or I, paves the way to removing casual use, as in hunting, fishing, hiking, skiing, wild life viewing, all of those activities are not sustainable. Once again, get educated. Start with the Earth Summit-Agenda 21- The United Nations Progamme Of Action From Rio… ISBN-92-1-100509-4.
Bill Clinton signed the executive order implementing this program, or as some so intelligently label it "Conspiracy Theory." It is a conspiracy and it is being implemented by your leaders.

Light of the Messiah?

Here come the scare words: Communist, Marxist, Socialist. Still can't see what "rights" he's trampled on?
Well... how about government takeover of banks, financial institutions, auto companies and the health care industry?
How about forcing people to buy health insurance and fining them if they don't, and putting them in jail if they don't pay the fine? How about a "health care reform" law that will tell you how much health care you can have, and portion it out according to if you're worthy of care?
How about massive taxes on energy, and trying to force people to stop using energy?
How about trying to force coal companies out of business?
How about an energy "smart grid" that will monitor your energy usage and cut you off if you use too much?
How about giving up our national sovereignty to control by the UN and third world countries to redistribute U.S. wealth by the proposed global cap and trade scheme?
How about bringing the mastermind of 9/11 to New York federal court for civilian criminal trial? How about refusal to recognize the Fort Hood massacre as Islamic jihad?
How about the Declaration of Independence declared God-given natural rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that are being trampled on daily by a "communist, marxist, socialist" oligarchy headed by Obama?
Is that enough light, or are you still blinded by the light of your messiah?

If you participate in a system
that oppresses and destroys,
sometimes people hit back,
and when they do
its considered a tragedy.

The future is in our hands

Our country's future now lies within our own hands -- yours, mine, all of us who comprise what the Washington insiders sneeringly call the grass roots. Good, because unless I'm very much mistaken the liberals have over-estimated their strength. There still are more of us than there are of them. I mean ordinary, decent Americans from across the political spectrum who may disagree about specific issues, but who understand who we are and how we became who we are; who love our country, have a genius for self-organizing, and won't let the United States go down without a fight.
We need to launch a counter-offensive, so to speak, and the place to start is at the local level. Working with our county and state political parties when we can -- or working around them when we must -- our objective will be to elect as many people as we can to public office who understand what a democracy is and how the free market works. This will include city council members, county commissioners, school board members, judges, sheriffs and even members of the local parks commission. With the strength and political momentum their elections will provide, we can surge to the state level and then -- before it's too late -- take back the power in Washington DC.
I know this isn't the kind of battle most of us want to fight; we would rather watch the talking heads slug it out on Fox News than stand on a street corner handing out campaign flyers. And given our country's history, for a while it will be uncomfortable to find ourselves fighting against the revolution and for the status quo. But we'll get used to this as we make our case over and over again -- to our friends, our neighbors, at barbeques and PTA meetings and at public rallies like those marvelous April tea parties that drove the liberals insane. And we'll draw strength as our ranks swell with new recruits.
The alternative to launching this kind of peaceful and political counter-attack is horrific. Right now sales of guns and ammunition are rising sharply. This reflects an intuitive grasp by grass-roots Americans of what history teaches may lie ahead. It was only after the Nazis had secured their grip on power in Germany, and only after the Bolsheviks had seized control of Russia, that they set out to disarm and destroy the vast numbers of ordinary citizens who - to the astonishment and fury of the revolutionaries -- just wouldn't go along.
That's when the real shooting started, and when blood began flowing in the streets.

The Story of First Bank of Idaho - Small Banks … or Big Government?

(REPRINTED BY PERMISSION OF "Save Community Banks" savecommunitybanks@gmail.com)

UPDATE 4/29/2009: The following sources should now be willing to confirm the details of the story:

• Wilson McElhinny, Chair, First Bank of Idaho Board of Directors
• Nancy Shauer, Director, First Bank of Idaho Board of Directors
• Karl Bick, Director, First Bank of Idaho Board of Directors
• Author still prefers to remain anonymous.
  
  By Save Community Banks
  Monday, April 27, 2009

Small Banks … or Big Government?The Story of First Bank of Idaho The following information tells the story of how an excellent locally-owned community bank was intentionally destroyed by government agencies who – through inappropriate use of their powers – used technicalities to seize valuable bank assets and – in effect – give them to a large, TARP-funded bank. In 1997, a group of Sun Valley/Ketchum business leaders and bankers determined that the large regional and national banks operating in the community were not able to adequately respond to the challenging nature of the community’s unique mountain resort environment. As is typical of all resort communities, activity fluctuates significantly with the seasons. Approximately 90 shareholders invested $8 million, 10 staff members were hired, and First Bank of Idaho was opened. Within the first year, the bank had $20 million in assets. Since that first year, the bank has accomplished the following:
* Grew from one branch to three in the Sun Valley/Ketchum area;* Expanded into the Jackson Hole, Wyoming area with three branches in Jackson Hole, a branch in Driggs, Idaho, and a branch in Victor, Idaho;* Increased assets to $480 million;* Raised approximately an additional $30 million in capital;* Generated $8 million in net profits;* Became the market leader in the Sun Valley/Ketchum area (38% market share);* Created over 140 new jobs.As important, the bank became a vital community partner, donating over $500,000 to Sun Valley/Ketchum non-profit organizations, supporting local events with employee volunteers, and providing leadership to a number of organizations including Rotary, the Chamber of Commerce, and many non-profits. First Bank of Idaho represents the true essence of a “community bank” – one that is able to help community members achieve their dreams and become active participants in creating a vibrant economy. At no time did the bank participate in the sub-prime mortgage market or invest in risky real estate loans or securities. Unfortunately, due to the national economic downturn, which has affected the communities in which it operates, the bank experienced the same challenges as most American banks. At the time this document was drafted, First Bank of Idaho was threatened with being sold to another bank by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). This is the story of a board of directors that did not act quickly enough to raise capital during the precipitous downturn in the national and local economy, and of good loans that were made to responsible people based on the most accurate data available at the time. It is, however, also the story of big government agencies that claimed to be protecting bank customers and taxpayers, but who in fact have aggressively destroyed an organization that was only committed to protecting the interests of its customers, its shareholders and its communities. While it is undeniable that the bank was suffering from liquidity issues, the actions taken by the government agencies were not necessary to protect customers or taxpayers and purposely impeded the bank’s ability to recover its sound footing. The decline started last fall, when dropping real estate values affected the viability of a number of large loans. The bank aggressively identified these problem loans (unlike most large banks nationwide) and shared their concerns and their management plans for these loans with the OTS (also unlike most large banks nationwide). This proactive approach, in a good faith attempt to comply with mark to market accounting requirements and “subsequent transaction” rules established by the Financial Account Standards Board (FASB), resulted in the bank reporting a loss of $4.5 million in 2008. This was the first loss for the bank in nine years. As part of its efforts to bring its capital ratios back into balance, the bank set a goal to shrink its loan portfolio by $50 million. In general, a 10% capital ratio is required to maintain a bank’s rating as “well capitalized”. When (in early 2009) the loss for 2008 was accounted for, the bank’s ratio fell to 9.83% - hardly a draconian situation. At that time, the OTS presented a memo of understanding to the bank that offered the bank time - through June 30, 2009 - to raise an additional $10 million in capital to bring its capital ratio up to 12%. The OTS also informed the bank that it could qualify for a matching amount in TARP funds should it raise that equity. Had the bank been given until June 30, 2009, to raise this capital (as promised by the OTS), the new equity and TARP funds would have resulted in its having a capital ratio in the 14% range, well in excess of the OTS requirement. The additional capital also would have been sufficient to help the bank weather the remainder of the economic downturn. An investment banking firm was hired in January, 2009, to solicit capital. In late March, meetings were held with eight potential investors. However, during the time that the board was soliciting additional capital, the government agencies took two unexpected and unnecessary actions that severely restricted the bank’s liquidity: 1. The Federal Reserve reduced the bank’s line of credit from $140 million to $86 million, which was the amount the bank had outstanding at the time. In other words, this action effectively prevented the bank from making further loans of any kind. The bank’s advance rate also was reduced from 70% - 80% to 20% - 40%. This also impaired the amount of funds available to make loans and support operations.2. The OTS and FDIC downgraded the bank’s rating and eliminated its access to brokered CD markets including the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry (CDARS) program. This significantly limited the bank’s ability to borrow funds or to accept deposits for the program.These two actions by the government agencies put a severe strain on the bank’s liquidity as it no longer had access to traditional sources of money to fund the shortfall between deposits and loans. In an effort to provide insurance to as many of its clients as possible, the bank had moved approximately $13 million into the CDARS program. These funds comprised core deposits that had been held by the bank for years. In early/mid April, the bank was forced to send at least $9 million in its CDARS deposits that had matured to other lbanks because they were no longer insured by the FDIC. In addition, it had to turn away another $5 million which customers wanted to deposit. Just as the bank was expecting offers from potential investors, the FDIC/OTS placed the bank under a Cease and Desist order. This effectively meant that the bank could not increase or grow its loan portfolio. Simultaneously, local newspapers learned of the Cease and Desist order and announced it to the community (the bank did not release this information, which means that government agencies probably “leaked” the news of their own actions). The only possible result of leaking this information would be to prevent the bank from saving itself. In response to the local news articles, a number of bank clients have understandably pulled deposits, further affecting liquidity. On April 15, the bank received an offer from potential investors that would put it back into a “well capitalized” position in return for controlling interest. This, with FDIC approval, would allow the bank to once again participate in the brokered CD market and the CDARS program and effectively solve its liquidity issues. But instead of helping the bank, the OTS indicated that it would be unlikely that TARP funds would be provided. There was no explanation to the bank of why the OTS might renege on its earlier promise of $10 million in TARP matching funds if the bank found $10 million in additional investments. It then informed the bank that an OTS marketing team was being sent to Ketchum to prepare the bank for an assisted sale to another bank. OTS refused to identify the purchasing bank. Sources have indicated that this recommendation for the assisted sale was sitting on FDIC Chairman Sheila Baer’s desk as the bank was working to obtain the necessary capital, proving that the government never intended to allow the bank to save itself. The OTS indicated that an assisted sale would “protect” customers of the bank, even though those customers were largely already protected by FDIC insurance. The alarming alacrity with which the OTS moved toward the assisted sale virtually guaranteed the destruction of this once highly successful, and still potentially viable, community-based institution. Jobs will be lost, businesses that were supported by the bank during down times will suffer, and strong independent community spirit will be compromised. In addition, all 284 investors who believed in establishing a local community bank will lose almost all of their investments. So, while it is undeniable that the bank board might not have acted quickly enough to bring in capital, it also is clear that the OTS targeted this bank for sale to a larger bank and had no intention of allowing it to save itself, an action that would save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. In effect, government agencies have used banking technicalities to take over an essentially viable community bank and effectively sell its assets to a large bank for far less than they are worth. Worse, these same government agencies have used their powers to prevent this community bank from saving itself through outside private investment that was willing and ready to come to the rescue. We believe that First Bank is not the only community bank suffering this fate. In fact, some community bankers are predicting that the regulatory agencies’ current actions will lead to the dissolution of hundreds – if not thousands – of community banks. It appears that the government agencies are targeting banks that have potential future strength, while others that have been under Cease and Desist Orders for months are being left alone. Examples of banks in that are perhaps in worse condition than First Bank of Idaho that are being left alone include Syringa Bank in Boise, West Sound Bank in Seattle, and America West in Spokane. We share this story not in an effort to save First Bank of Idaho; it is already too late for that. We share this story because we believe it is a much larger story and that the impact is severe for the future of our communities, and our country. This is, in reality, the story of big government pursuing the destruction of small institutions to benefit the larger institutions that contributed to the start of the economic decline. Is this what our new administration supports? Is this what President Obama meant is his State of the Union address when he said, “It’s not about helping banks – it’s about helping people. Because when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home. And then some company will hire workers to build it. And then those workers will have money to spend, and if they can get a loan too, maybe they’ll finally buy that car, or open their own business. Investors will return to the market, and American families will see their retirement secured once more. Slowly, but surely, confidence will return, and our economy will recover.” Is sacrificing small banks for the benefit of larger, government-supported banks really in the best interests in our communities? Will the banks who wouldn’t, and couldn’t, help our community 12 years ago really supply the financial support necessary to help our unique communities thrive? While the regulators may not have technically done anything outside of their authority, the spirit of the power they are granted by law has unquestionably been violated in this situation.(postscript)This story does not have a happy ending.On Friday, April 24, the OTS sold off First Bank of Idaho to US Bank, even though the board and management had viable options to support the continued operations of the bank. The shareholders have lost millions of dollars of their investments, the community has lost an important advocate for its economy, and also lost a source of pride. Employees who gave their all to save the bank are devastated, and possibly unemployed. Potential investors who were working steadfastly to save the bank will direct their money elsewhere.The FDIC’s press release stated: “The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund will be $191.2 million.” (No one at First Bank of Idaho knows anything about a $191.2 million FDIC loss. Indeed, if the OTS had waited three or four more days to allow outside investors to bail out the bank, taxpayers would not have lost a dime! The OTS was well aware that such an investor was ready and willing to act.)According to the press release, “U.S. Bank's acquisition of the deposits of First Bank of Idaho was the ‘least costly’ resolution for the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund compared to alternatives. Was it really the least costly resolution given that the bank was within days of regaining liquidity?A review of the FDIC’s Failed Bank List indicates that three other small community banks were closed on the 24th: First Bank of Beverly Hills in Calabasas, California; Heritage Bank in Farmington Hills, Michigan; and American Southern Bank in Kennesaw, Georgia.
QUESTIONS: The most obvious questions the public should have answered about their government’s actions in regard to First Bank of Idaho are the following:
1. Why did the FDIC and the OTS aggressively come after a small community bank that was experiencing far less dangerous problems than many other banks and dishonestly report to the public that they were taking over and selling the bank in order to save taxpayers money? After all, there were hundreds of banks around the country (and some in Idaho) that were in far worse shape. Is it because First Bank of Idaho had tens of millions of dollars in assets that could be virtually given to TARP-supported super banks that are controlled by the government?
2. Why did FDIC/OTS repeatedly assure First Bank of Idaho that it could get TARP funds if it could find $10 million in private investment and then renege on this assurance when the bank actually found the investors? Is it because FDIC/OTS had already targeted the bank’s assets on behalf of TARP-supported, government-controlled banks? If so, is the government literally stealing private assets from American citizens?
3. Why did FDIC/OTS refuse to allow First Bank of Idaho to receive some $17 million in private investment that would have completely solved the bank’s problems at no cost to the taxpayer and instead – upon learning that the investors were prepared to act – suddenly ignore the June 30, 2009, deadline it had given the bank and immediately fly 40 people into Sun Valley from around the country, take over the bank, sell its assets for an undisclosed price to US Bank, and put out a press release stating that the closure of this bank would cost taxpayers over $191 million? If FDIC/OTS knew (they did) that private investors were ready to act and that this action would both save the bank and save the taxpayers $191 million, why did they seize the bank?

Internet Link :
http://sunvalleyonline.com/information/linkexchange_view.asp?I=&LinkName=

HR 45 VS HR 17

HR 45 Gun Control Amendment
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
Prohibits:
(1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions;
(2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act;
(3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours;
(4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or
(5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to:
(1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse;
(2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and
(3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Rush seems blind to what has happened in Nazi Germany, Russia, China, North Korea and nearly all countries that have given up their guns and rights to defend themselves. This bill is against the law-abiding citizen, not the criminal. If he really wants to stop violence, let him introduce a bill that would allow a private law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed weapon in every state and the District of Columbia.
Guns have no legs, no hands, no brain -- humans do. Regulating guns has no place in this Republic. Aside from the general non-application , the specifics are worse. Note that the government is not under the same restrictions as citizens. An age old fascist approach is to disarm the populace, arm the government, and control the people. This is another attempt to socially engineer a population and we neither need it nor should we accept it.

"A government that fears arms in the hands of its people should also fear the rope".- Nathan Bedford Forrest

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government". – James Madison

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them". – George Mason

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man". - Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book,"

The 2nd and 14th Amendments go hand-in-hand. The 14th Amendment states "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". Guns are property. Any attempt to confiscate firearms is a violation of both amendments

HR 17 Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009 - A better alternative

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.

SUMMARY:
Declares that a person not prohibited under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act from receiving a firearm shall have the right to obtain firearms for security and to use firearms in defense of:
(1) self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;
(2) self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and
(3) the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.
Authorizes persons whose rights under this Act have been violated to bring an action in U.S. district court against the United States, any state, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.