HR 875 (and S 425 in the US Senate) Needs to be read and then CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE

HR 875

This bill, HR 875, is sitting in committee. How many Representatives have read it? Have YOU read it? Is your representative going to vote on this based on what someone else is saying?

This legislation is so broad based that technically someone with a little backyard garden could get fined and have their property seized. It will affect anyone who produces food even if they do not sell but only consume it. A whole new government agency is being created just to police food (for our own protection - yeah, right.)

READ THIS LEGISLATION FOR YOURSELF. Contact Representative Dennis Rehberg and insist he read this legislation prior to it coming to a vote.

When you read HR875, pay special attention to

• Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill - read in it's entirety.
• section 103, 206 and 207 - read in it's entirety.

Some Red Flags that have been noted (you may find others - and if you do find others, please add them in the comment section of this post:

• HR875 legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines (taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept.)
• Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn't actually use the word organic.
• Affects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
• Affects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game.
• HR875 is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is.
• Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with?
• Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more.
• Section 207 requires that the state's agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. (Say, doesn't this take away the states power and violate the 10th amendment?)

S425 is the Senate's version of the bill. You might want to read that one too.

IF THE LINKS IN THE TEXT ABOVE DO NOT TAKE YOU TO THE CORRECT WEB PAGE FOR EACH BILL, you can link here: SEARCH BILL SUMMARY & STATUS where you can search for bills by number (HR875 or S425) Be sure to choose what kind of search you're doing (by bill number or by word/phrase)

Immigration bills having a tough time in session

Immigration bills having a tough time in session

From Wednesday, March 4, 2009 10:23 PM MST

Article By DANIEL PERSON Bozeman Chronicle Staff Writer

HELENA - State-level attempts at immigration reform are receiving some support this session, but the Montana Legislature is still a frosty place to attempt a crackdown on undocumented workers in the United States.

The Senate on Wednesday thwarted a bill that would have criminalized a number of interactions with illegal aliens in Montana, including knowingly transporting illegal aliens into the state and concealing them from detection, in some cases making the transgressions a felony. The bill also would have allowed the state to seize property connected to the violation.

The Senate voted 29-20 against Senate Bill 379, sponsored by Sen. Gary Perry, R-Manhattan.

In failing to pass, Perry’s bill joined most other immigration bills introduced this session.

In the Senate, bills attempting to keep vehicle registration and some workers compensation away from undocumented workers have failed to gain traction. In the House bills introduced by Rep. David Howard, R-Park City, have also been defeated.

Perry’s frustration was evident after Wednesday’s floor vote.

“My impression is that we, overall, don’t seem to be as law abiding as I thought we were,” he said. “Perhaps it’s idealistic to think we obey our laws. Instead, for social liberalism, we ignore our laws.”

But not everyone is taking a negative view of the votes.

“The biggest problem across the board with these bills is the racial-profiling aspect,” said Shahid Haque-Hausrath, a lawyer in Helena who has been lobbying against the legislation.

He said all of the bills would have required state agencies and employers to do more to verify whether someone is lawfully in the country. That’s not as easy as some think, he said, and he fears that non-whites or people with accents would have to jump through more hoops for government services than others.

Of the 10 bills Haque-Hausrath has been tracking, only two have made it out of their chambers, with another still to have a hearing. He commended lawmakers for looking into the full implications of the bills.

“The problem is, the bills are fairly complex and immigration laws are fairly complex. (Lawmakers) are hearing from people who tell them immigrants are taking their jobs. But I think you’re getting a lot of people who read these bills more carefully,” he said.

The Montana Human Rights Network has also opposed the legislation. Jamee Greer, a lobbyist for the group, said he has seen opposition to the bills come from many sides.

“People are opposing these bills for a lot of different reasons - farmers and ranchers concerned about how this will impact their operations, small businesses concerned about how this will affect their family businesses, concerns about racial profiling,” he said.

Sen. Jim Shockley, R-Victor, has also introduced a number of immigration bills this session. He said two bills passed out of the Senate this session is two better than in 2007 n and credited that to the Republicans having party control.

“The Democrats don’t want to do anything on illegal immigration,” he said.

MONTANA GOV POSTS STIMULUS BILL INFORMATION ONLINE

Check my gray column (at left) for this one under Links.
(It's the link, MONTANA GOV. STIMULUS FUNDS.)
Visit the link often. If it is what it seems, then it should inform the public about what our state legislature is thinking about doing with the stimulus. Personally, I'd rather they didn't accept the money. In the very least, I hope our state legislators examine very closely every strand and string attached to these funds and REJECT those funds that are or are even potentially back-door entry to our state affairs and government.
Email your legislators and tell them
they need to carefully SMELL THE TEA BEFORE DRINKING IT.

TEA CHEST

This is the "Tea Chest" -
Some items posted in Harbor Tea are posted as text entries and so there is no comment space. Anyone who wants to comment on a text entry is welcome to post their comments here. Just be sure to indicate what story/article you are commenting on.

And just when you think all's well on the home front . . .

Court: Montana law violated church's rights

By The Associated Press

HELENA - A federal appeals court says a Montana election law was unconstitutionally applied to a church in East Helena that supported a 2004 ballot initiative to define marriage.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the state violated the First Amendment rights of the Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church.

The case arose out of the church's efforts in support of CI-96, the 2004 amendment to the Montana Constitution, approved by voters, that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The court found that Montana unconstitutionally sought to require the church to register as an incidental ballot committee. The 9th Circuit said the law violated the church's constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Montana loading another shot for state's rights with proposal to eliminate background checks
Posted on Feb. 22
By KAHRIN DEINES of the Associated Press

HELENA - Montana lawmakers are betting the words ‘Made in Montana’ might be able to trigger a court showdown with the federal government, while also freeing some gun owners and dealers from background checks and licensing requirements.
Under a proposed law before the Legislature, firearms, weapons components and ammunition made in Montana and kept in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation, potentially releasing some Montanans from national gun registration and licensing laws. The legislation could also free gun purchasers in the state from background checks. Still, the bill’s proponents say the measure has much bigger prey in its sights.
“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” said Republican Rep. Joel Boniek, the bill’s sponsor. “But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It’s about state rights.”
Gun rights and state’s rights both play well in Montana. The state’s leading gun rights organization boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature in half as many years. And bills bucking federal control over wolf management, marijuana and wetland protection are also being considered. Unlike these others, though, the ‘Made in Montana’ measure has been intentionally drafted to draw the feds into court.
“The primary purpose is to set up a legal challenge, but also to say we have a lot of really good people in Montana who do the right thing,” said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
Montana gun manufacturers, known for specialty rifles that mirror models used in the 1800s to settle the West, are welcoming the bid for independence. The House has endorsed it with a 64-36 vote, and the Republican-controlled Senate could pass it easily.
State police associations, though, are watching this latest effort to thwart federal regulation with quiet concern. While they are not opposing the measure in a risky political stance in a gun-loving, big-sky, open-space kind of place n they are wondering just when the authorities the bill spurns might take a stand.
“I think the local elected officials I work for would certainly like to hear from the federal agency with responsibility in this area,” said Jim Smith, director of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has not offered a position on the bill and did not return calls for comment.
“The bill clearly raises constitutional issues,” said Kevin O’Brien of the state attorney general’s office. “I think that’s something that both proponents and opponents can agree on.”
The measure would require the office to file a one-time declaratory judgment representing the new law on behalf of a Montana manufacturer. At issue in any such court case would be federal authority over interstate commerce, the legal basis for gun regulation in the United States. Through the Constitution, Congress has authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states. The U.S. Supreme Court has handled past efforts to bypass what’s known as the Commerce Clause, most recently in 2005 when the court upheld federal authority to regulate marijuana in California, even if its use is limited to noncommercial purposes n such as medical reasons n and it is grown and used within a state’s borders.
Montana’s current bid for sovereignty over guns, however, could fare better with the added firepower of being linked to a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms, say its proponents.
“It’s only done because the firearms are a stronger case than, say, making doilies,” Boniek said. “Knitting is not a constitutionally protected right.”
However, Randy Barnett, the lawyer and constitutional scholar who represented the plaintiff in the California case, said gun rights may not have much bearing on the bill’s constitutional mettle. More important, he said, may be the “Made in Montana’ stamp and stay in Montana guideline that lawmakers are proposing for the state’s firearms.
In the Gonzalez v. Raich case argued by Barnett, the court said that because marijuana produced within and outside of California are essentially indistinguishable, the government must regulate both to enforce national drug laws. Montana, though, could potentially argue that its guns are sufficiently unique and segregated as to lie outside of overarching federal regulatory schemes, Barnett said. The actual economic impact of the bill, pitched in part as a stimulus, is uncertain. The number of firearms made here lock, stock and barrel are limited, as are the number of Montanans available to buy them. For example, the gunmaker Shilo Sharps Rifles in Big Timber estimates that of the 800 or so custom guns it builds in a year, only between 20 and 30 are sold to state residents. But the proponents say no matter n unregulate it, and they will come. “We tend to break trail here in Montana,” Marbut said.

Texas State Senator Dan Patrick Interview with Glenn Beck

What Happens to the U.S. if Mexico Collapses?

Tuesday, February 17, 2009
EXCERPT . . . .

SEN. DAN PATRICK (R), TEXAS STATE SENATOR: . . . . . . Well, Glenn, we had hearings a couple of weeks ago. And I asked our Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw of Texas if he feared the collapse of Mexico and did we have a plan. And he didn't deny the fact that it is a concern. . . . . . . . .The United States has a plan called "mass migration" as opposed to the collapse of Mexico. And we need a plan here in Texas because there are two scenarios, Glenn. One is a slow collapse, an economic collapse of Mexico in which hundreds of thousands would come here over a period of time. The second is what I call a Colombian collapse of Mexico, an assassination of the president, the drug cartels taking over the country, civil war breaking out on the streets, people fleeing for their lives, not for a job. . . . .We have to be prepared in the United States for both and Texas must be prepared. . . . .We're already seeing violence on the border, on our side. . . . . .we found 1,000 bodies on the border in our last reporting year, by the way, Glenn. And what we're going to do is - what we need to do is we need the Federal Government to do their job and enforce the border, number one. . . . . . . . We have 19 border crossings with Mexico. Number two, Texas - we should be calling out our national guard. We should be calling out Texas guard. We should be beefing up our sheriffs on the border. We should be beefing up our Department of Public Safety on the border. . . . . . . . . . READ the Complete Transcript or watch the Interview Video (click here)