Thread: South Padre Island / Precinct One Corruption & Border Wa

South Padre Island Mayor Pinkerton step down. You are part of the problem. Step down now. You are a lame duck politician because you are no longer trusted, finally you need to think of your constituents instead of yourself: Step Down!

Precinct One Magistrate Ochoa Step Down Now! You are part of the problem! No one believes you knew nothing about the casino in your building you claim your father owns--step down. You are part of the problem.

Our local economy has been held back and oppressed for much too long with the "sum-but-not-all" enforcement of laws, ordinances, and codes--allowing criminal activities and preventing development and progress by developing naturally in a free market society; AND, especially where this forum is concerned: The lack of enforcement against the employment of illegal immigrants by wealthy resort and business owners.


We are tired of the corruption and uneven enforcement of the laws: This cannot go on forever. Up North the are learning how this is affecting their communities, and they will demand changes.

http://www.co.cameron.tx.us/sheriffs/bio_gus.htm






Â* Â* Gus Reyna, Jr. - Biography
Â*
Chief Deputy Gus Reyna, Jr.
Â* Â* Â*
Mission Statement: "to provide the highest degree of quality and professional protection and service to the citizens of Cameron County".

Gus Reyna, Jr., was born in Brownsville, Texas. He and his wife Martha, who has been in the banking business for about twenty (20) years, make their home in Brownsville . They are the proud parents of two (2) boys; Gus III age 16 and Gerardo, age 11.

Â*
Â* Â* Â* Â*
Law Enforcement/Education: Gus graduated from James Pace High School ; attended Texas Southmost College and is currently enrolled at the University of Texas at Brownsville . Currently serving as Chief Deputy for Sheriff Omar Lucio, Gus started his law enforcement career in October of 1983 as Deputy Sheriff in the Patrol Division. He was later assigned Investigator under the Criminal Investigations department, a position he served until August of 1990. From August 1990 through May 1994 he served as Lieutenant with the Civil Process Division.

From May 1994 through April 1997, he advanced his professional abilities and continued his career by being assigned as Major/Jail Administrator of the Cameron County Sheriff's Office. This position included the day-to-day supervision of 163 employees and a $5 million dollar jail budget. Being qualified and experienced, Gus was promoted to Chief Deputy of the Cameron County Sheriff's Office in February 1999. His responsibilities included the duties of being the Public Relations Officer and Media Spokesman and also administering the day-to-day operation of 261 employees and an annual budget of $8.5 million dollars plus the planning and development of the new $20 million dollar Carrizales-Rucker detention facility and law enforcement administration building which is located at 7300 Old Alice Road in Olmito, Texas. In January 2000, Gus became the Director of the Cameron County Park Rangers; a position he held until December 2004.

On January 1, 2005, Cameron County Sheriff Omar Lucio appointed Gus Reyna , Jr., as his Chief Deputy.

Â*

Â* Â* Â* Â*

This is the guy who has unsuccessfully tried to cover up and suppress the Cameron County corruption--even threatening to arrest people talking about different issues: He is a MexiCan't, in my opinion--not an AmeriCan!

(A MexiCan't speak freely in Mexico, without fear of retribution; A MexiCan't think and act patriotically, for Community and Country first; A MexiCan't think outside of the self imposed box of confining selfish desires--illussions always unfulfilled and internally degrading: Shed that skin of slavery.

AmeriCans and MexiCans choose to evolve to a higher consciousness overcoming cartels and corrupt career politicians.)

In Mexico, the government can arrest a person for expressing freedom of speech--and in Gus Renya's world as well, expressing freedom of speech is also a crime, if it is speech against the Cameron County Law Enforcement: my expression of my AmeriCan guaranteed right of freedom of speech is right now allowing me to ask you to please retire from Cameron County Law Enforcement:

I believe you are part of the problem--America's problems--please retire early: This is my opinion.

God bless America and Mexico--please bless all of our people and deliver us from temptation and corruption.

As we say in the South, went to market today, and picked up a little tea. . .


. . .down on San Jacinto Way.

That's right! We ain't lettin' the sell-outs, traitors, collaboraters, and Fanninites get away with it as easy as they used to: accountability.

When we relocate our troops from Iraq to Cameron County, send the accountants to the front lines: The Tee Shirt Shops.

Integrety
We, the people of the United States, who a little over 200 years ago ordained and established the Constitution, have a serious problem: Too many of us nowadays neither mean what we say nor say what we mean. Moreover, we hardly expect anybody else to mean what they say either. What we lack is integrity, a virtue that demands of each and every one of us that we discern what is right and what is wrong; that we act on what we have discerned, even at personal cost; and that we say openly that we are acting on our understanding of right from wrong. The eight principles that follow point toward a politics of integrity.

Â*

1. The nation exists for its people. Integrity requires that we try to live our ideals. What is foremost in the rhetoric of liberal democracy is the importance of the individual - not simply as a possessor of rights but as a full participant in the process of governance. Thus, the first principle of an integral politics is to remember our Kant: People are ends, not means. People, and people alone, are the reason there is a United States of America.

One of the reasons for the growing national disgust with politics, I suspect, is precisely that politicians (along with the activists who feed them money and position papers) tend to forget this. To them, people are means, not to be listened to but to be manipulated - persuaded to change their minds if possible, or controlled if not. This vision of the people of the United States as the clay rather than the potters is not unique to left or right in America; it is, rather, an elite mentality, the shared vision of people who have in common their certainty that they know all the answers, if they could but get those pig-headed American voters to come along.

Â*

2. Some things are more important than others. A politics of integrity is a politics that sets priorities, that does not tell the self-serving lie that every program preferred by a particular political movement is of equal value. In the political world toward which we are moving, priorities are essential. Ever since the 1970s voters have been electing presidents who promise a government that is smaller and, in the public mind (I suspect), more controllable. That is, the American people quite sensibly see government size as related to government accountability. Many elections that seem to be about something else are probably about this: People want a government they feel is reachable.

For this reason, the debate over the proper relative roles of the federal and state sovereignties - a debate that conservatives keep promising and liberals keep resisting - is actually a very useful one to have. As a nation, we have good historical reasons to be leery of the phrase "states' rights," for it has been used both to permit and to mask racial oppressions that are intolerable. But that is not the same as saying that it is obvious that anything worth doing well is worth doing only at the federal level. To the citizen, democracy most feels like democracy when the apparatus of government is something he or she feels capable of affecting.

Any political movement that expects to survive into the next century must make its peace with what a strong majority of voters seem to believe: The federal government (or government generally) cannot do everything that happens to be a good idea. Justifications, no matter how thoughtful, will no longer suffice as substitutes for the setting of priorities. Here, integrity becomes crucial because it is folly to pretend that all programs are equally important. Liberals (like everybody else) must begin to draw distinctions. One might say that federal funding for both the arts and school lunches is important, but is funding for the arts as important as funding for school lunches? I don't think so. Others might strike the balance the other way. The point is that in an era that demands priorities, balances of this kind must be struck.

Â*

3. Consistency matters. A politics of integrity requires that the principles for which our parties and institutions stand truly be treated as principles. Consider as an example the current assault on some aspects of the "welfare state." A central theme of the argument against treating government assistance as an entitlement is that reliance on aid supposedly cripples self-reliance. Perhaps it does. But integrity requires that the principles on which the government operates be applied consistently. If welfare programs have bad effects on individuals, they must also have bad effects on corporations, and corporate welfare should receive the same scrutiny - and be subject to the same dismissive rhetoric - as welfare for individuals.

The Progressive Policy Institute has pointed out that corporate subsidies are deeply regressive, providing benefits to a relatively small group of upper-income Americans, largely with money taxed from those earning far less. In other words, corporate welfare programs are like individual welfare programs, except that they transfer tax dollars from low- and middle-income people to Upper-income people.

Â*

4. Everybody gets to play. A politics of integrity does not draw arbitrary boundaries around the public square, screening out some citizens whose political views have been formed in ways of which various elites disapprove. A particular problem of our age has been the astonishing effort to craft a vision of public life in which America's religious traditions play no important roles, by ruling out of bounds political (and sometimes moral) arguments that rest on explicitly religious bases. Nowadays, one hears quite commonly the argument that it is morally wrong - perhaps even constitutionally wrong - for you to try to "impose" on me your religiously based moral understanding. Usually this argument is made in the context of the abortion battle. Of course, had this ever been a seriously defended principle of American public life, we would never have had the abolitionist or civil rights movements, to name only the most obvious two.

When I make this point in lecturing about politics and religion, I often get an answer that goes something like this: "But nobody can reason with these religionists. They say that so-and- so is God's will, and what can you say in return?"" I am always saddened by this answer, because, as a university professor, I run into many closed-minded people. But nobody tries to ban them from public debate for their closed-mindedness. Besides, this vision of how religious people reason is a caricature. That there are some who cannot be reached by reason is doubtless true. The notion that most religious people are that way seems to me a quite unfounded insult.

I am not suggesting that the pro-life religionists who demand access to the public square deserve to prevail. But I do believe in fair procedures. A politics of integrity must be consistent in its rules instead of fixing the rules so that one side gets to win. If religious advocacy in the public square is bad, then this is as true of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. as it is of the Reverend Pat Robertson.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how many thoughtful scholars and journalists argue that religious rhetoric is out of place in the public square. It is simply there. Millions of American citizens seem to have decided that the language of their faith is the language with which they feel most comfortable, and so we must, under our first principle of integral politics, take them as they are rather than commanding them to become something else.

Â*

5. We must be willing to talk about right and wrong without mentioning the Constitution. I say this as a longtime teacher of constitutional law and as one who truly loves our foundational document. A politics of integrity must certainly respect citizens' fundamental rights, and must be vigilant in protecting those rights, even when they are exercised by those we disdain: Nazis, for example. But we must never make the moral mistake of supposing that because I have the right to do something, you lack the right to criticize me for doing it.

Individual rights are a good thing, but to make a cult of individualism can lead to social disaster. It is no accident that the United States has among the highest rates of abortion and the highest rate of private ownership of firearms in the world. Our well-known national inability to engage in moral conversation means that once a right exists, nobody seems to feel comfortable urging that it not be exercised. Whatever the source of the moral critique of how we use our freedom, the existence of the Constitution should not be treated as a moral shield. For the Constitution is but a reminder that we possess freedom to choose; it does not tell us which choices are best.

Â*

6. Our politics must call us to our higher selves. The debasement of political language is particularly embarrassing when the negativity is being spread by our elected representatives. The matter is only made worse when we think that even the polite ones seem too often to be calling us to selfishness. In a politics of integrity, we must try to respond to politicians who call us to our highest rather than our lowest selves; in particular, we must respond to politicians who talk of the national interest and our shared obligations, not merely those who promise to enrich us.

The wealth with which politicians make their electoral purchases comes in a variety of forms, but nearly all of them play to our selfish instincts. Conservatives tend to promise tax cuts, which translate into more money for good, honest, hardworking Americans, and less for the despicable them, who may be demonized bureaucrats or welfare cheats, according to one's taste. Liberals promise entitlements and, better yet, constitutional rights, which translate into more freedoms for good, honest, hard-working Americans against the despicable them, who nowadays are likely to be what wealthy fat cats and liberals sadly persist in labeling the "religious right." Neither promise offers the vision of a better nation, except in the narrow sense that the nation is better when it gives us precisely what we desire. In other words, neither calls us to duty.

Â*

7. We must listen to one another. A politics of integrity is a politics in which all of us are willing to do the hard work of discernment, to test our views to be sure that we are right. As we have already seen, this in turn implies a dialogue, for in the course of our reflections, especially in a democracy, it is vital to listen to the views of our fellow citizens. If our discernment is genuine, then so must our listening be.

People on the right seem to think that the nastiness of our public discussions is the fault of people on the left; people on the left seem to think that it is the fault of people on the right. But there is plenty of blame for all of us. When we are told, as we often are, that affirmative action is as bad as Jim Crow, we are facing a cruel absurdity; when we are told, as we often are, that only a racist could be troubled by affirmative action, we are facing another. I struggle, hard, with my own habit of concluding that people who disagree with me on the important public issues of the day are obviously deserving of my condemnation. I struggle to understand their points of view - even, as Martin Buber urged us to do, to search for empathy. I do not claim to do it very well. What is depressing is how solidly that failure places me in the American mainstream.

Â*

9. Sometimes the other side wins. This is, perhaps, the most important principle of an integral democratic politics, yet little need be said about it. The point is simple: in the end, politics comes down to votes. Somebody wins and somebody loses. In practical terms, that means that the people have picked one and rejected the other. Integrity requires us to admit the possibility (indeed, the likelihood) that we lost not because of some shameless manipulation by our villainous opponents, and not because of some failure to get our message across, but because our fellow citizens, a basically rational bunch, considered both our views and those of the other side and decided that they liked the other side's better.

Still, the final truth bears repeating: We cannot expect our politicians to crete a politics that is better than we are. If we the citizens think only of our own narrow interests, whether they are expressed in terms of "our" tax dollars or "our" constitutional rights, we can hardly expect to find a government, at any level, that operates with a vision of national purpose. Instead, we will find a politics as parochial and selfish as we are. In a democracy, it is not only true that people tend to get the government they deserve; it is also true that people tend to get the politics they deserve.


Stephen L. Carter is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Yale University. Reprinted from America (Feb. 17, 1996). Subscriptions: $33/yr. (45 issues) from Box 693, Mt. Morris, IL 61054. Originally excerpted from Carter's new book, Integrity (Basic Books, 1996).

http://www.lightparty.com/Spirituality/Integrety.html
Copyright © 1996. The Light Party.

On South Padre Island we get the politicians and law enforcement we deserve:

Do we deserve to live in a culture of criminality?

Is this the kind of place we want to raise our children?

HOME » NEWS » CURRENTLY READING:
Border Wall Construction Begins
January 7, 2009 News Â* Â*Print Â* Â*Email this Article Â* 1 Comment

retweet
This article was published 1 year 4 months 7 days ago which may make its actuality or accuracy no longer valid. Foxrio2.com is not responsible for any misunderstanding.
The construction of the controversial border fence has started in Cameron County despite the efforts of many politicians and activist groups to prevent it from being placed in the lower valley. people who live in the river bend country club off of highway 281 in Cameron County, will soon get used to hearing the sound of pounding hammers and trucks passing by to transport material needed for the construction of the new border fence fields are already being cleared out and mounds of dirt are piling up
Carlos Cascos, Cameron County Judge: “The construction of the border wall is going to start very soon. You start moving dirt and developing the footprint for this wall, so it’s going to happenâ€

Moving dirt around and building a visible physical barrier is more symbolic than anything--like the Statue Of Liberty, She only reminds us of something: an ideal or belief;

But this wall is similar to applying cover-up on an AIDS leassion: Purely cosmetic, the body is still sick.

And, as with AIDS, for some it is more profitable to "treat" the sickness, rather than to find a cure.

Home Medical Marijuana Registry
Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry
Registry Home
Hot Topics
Forms
Statistics
Legal Documents/Resources
Many documents on this site are PDF files, which require the use of the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.

The Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry
Â*
Registry Home
Â*
ATTENTION MEDICAL MARIJUANA REGISTRY CUSTOMERS:
Â*
DUE TO THE HIGH VOLUME OF APPLICATIONS, THE OFFICE OF VITAL RECORDS WILL NO LONGER:
Â*
1) REVIEW APPLICATIONS
2) ISSUE RECEIPTS
3) ANSWER QUESTIONS AT WINDOW
Â*
OPTIONS FOR SUBMITTING APPLICATION:
Â*
A.) SEND APPLICATION BY CERTIFIED OR REGISTERED MAIL THROUGH THE POST OFFICE/UPS OR SIMILAR:
Certified/Registered Mail is now the only form of Proof of Submission
You can use a copy of your filed application plus certified/registered mail receipt as a temporary card if you have not received anything from the Department within 35 days of filing your application.
Â*
B.) DROP OFF YOUR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT IN A SEALED ENVELOPE AT THE VITAL RECORDS CUSTOMER SERVICE WINDOW AFTER TAKING A NUMBER.
You must provide your own envelope
Applications will not be reviewed
No receipt will be issued
Â*
C.) IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE REGISTRY PLEASE CALL 303-692-2184.
Â*
March 25, 2010: Medical Marijuana Registry Procedures for Drop-off Applications to Change
Â*
Notice of Postponement of Dec. 16, 2009, Medical Marijuana Registry Rulemaking Hearing
Â*
In the November 2000 general election, Coloradoans passed Amendment 20, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) was tasked with implementing and administering the Medical Marijuana Registry program. In March of 2001, the State of Colorado Board of Health approved the Rules and Regulations pertaining to the administration of the program, and on June 1st, 2001, the Registry began accepting and processing applications for Registry Identification cards.
Â*
Medical Marijuana Registry 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South (HSVRD-MMP-A1), Denver, CO 80246-1530Â*Â* medical.marijuana@state.co.us
Privacy & Security © 2010 State of Colorado, Denver, CO

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/medicalmarijuana/