http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/
( Another case of threats and intimidation .... )
Clinton sought end-run around counterterrorism bureau on night of Benghazi attack, witness will say
Published May 06, 2013
FoxNews.com
On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a "whistle-blower" witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.
That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau -- independently of Thompson -- voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.
Extremists linked to Al Qaeda stormed the American consulate and a nearby annex on Sept. 11, in a heavily armed and well-coordinated eight-hour assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.
Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson's lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.
Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to -- and characterize -- the Benghazi attacks.
"You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night," the second official in State's counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October. Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson's forthcoming testimony.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the counterterrorism officials' allegation "100 percent false." A spokesman for Clinton said tersely that the charge is not true.
Thompson's attorney, diGenova, would not comment for this article.
Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, first published in the May 13 edition of "The Weekly Standard," showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda's known involvement in them from "talking points" being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly.
Those talking points -- and indeed, the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks -- sought instead to depict the Americans' deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest, as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks. The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points, but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process. Among those involved in prodding the deletions, the documents published by "The Weekly Standard" show, was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy "my building's leadership."
The allegations of the two counterterrorism officials stand to return the former secretary of state to the center of the Benghazi story. Widely regarded as a leading potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, Clinton has insisted she was not privy to decisions made by underlings about the inadequate security for the U.S. installations in Benghazi that were made in the run-up to the attacks. And she has portrayed her role -- once the attacks became known in Washington -- as that of a determined fact-finder who worked with colleagues to fashion the best possible response to the crisis.
Clinton testified about Benghazi for the first and only time in January of this year, shortly before leaving office. She had long delayed her testimony, at first because she cited the need for the ARB to complete its report, and then because she suffered a series of untimely health problems that included a stomach virus, a concussion sustained during a fall at home, and a blood clot near her brain, from which she has since recovered. However, Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB she convened.
Fox News disclosed last week that the conduct of the ARB is itself now under review by the State Department's Office of Inspector General. A department spokesman said the OIG probe is examining all prior ARBs, not just the one established after Benghazi.
The counterterrorism officials, however, concluded that Clinton and Kennedy were immediately wary of the attacks being portrayed as acts of terrorism, and accordingly worked to prevent the counterterrorism bureau from having a role in the department's early decision-making relating to them.
Also appearing before the oversight committee on Wednesday will be Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Like Thompson, Hicks is a career State Department official who considers himself a Benghazi whistle-blower. His attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, has charged that Hicks, too, has faced threats of reprisal from unnamed superiors at State. (Toensing and diGenova, who are representing their respective clients pro bono, are married.)
Portions of the forthcoming testimony of Hicks -- who was one of the last people to speak to Stevens, and who upon the ambassador's death became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya -- were made public by Rep. Issa during an appearance on the CBS News program "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
Hicks told the committee that he and his colleagues on the ground in Libya that night knew instantly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and that he was astonished that no one drafting the administration's talking points consulted with him before finalizing them, or before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice delivered them on the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 16.
Hicks was interviewed by the ARB but Thompson was not, sources close to the committee's investigation tell Fox News.
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/05/rep-tremblay-receiving-death-threats-after-publicly-calling-for-investigation-of-boston-marathon-bombing-2636708.html
Lawmaker Receiving Death Threats After Publicly Calling For Investigation Of Boston Marathon Bombing
Friday, May 3, 2013 3:31
by Susannah Cole (and Pete Santilli)
Investigative Reporter and Co-Host of The Pete Santilli Show
Just one day after her interview with Pete Santilli, NH Representative Stella Tremblay has started receiving death threats. Last week the brave New Hampshire State Representative came out with a controversial statement regarding the Boston Marathon Bombing investigation which caused a backlash from New Hampshire residents calling for her resignation, and has been grossly taken out of context by the main stream media. Alarmingly, the extreme left and right wing factions of New Hampshire politics is starting to call for more than her resignation, they want her dead, and the main stream media is feeding the frenzy with false or incomplete information, sensationalized so as to maintain the cover-up.
A lynch mob mentality rules in New Hampshire as a concerted effort is being formed to take Stella Tremblay out for good simply because she dared question the official story about the Boston Marathon Bombing — a story being forced on her constituents by the FBI. Comments being posted from the irate public by both Democrats and Republicans are starting to sound more and more dangerous and Stella Tremblay has begun to fear she is being targeted by outraged, main stream media brainwashed citizens who are calling for her execution.
In comment threads associated to articles accusing the New Hampshire representative of being a conspiracy theorist and anti-American, the language is becoming more and more violent as readers of this propaganda become agitated and filled with bloodlust — calling for her death. Every “false flag” terror event needs a political scapegoat and it is evident Stella Tremblay may have unwittingly opened herself up for the role, as zombified Americans are beginning to offer her up as their official sacrifice to the “Gods of Government.”
Stella Tremblay has openly admitted that up until the bombings in Boston which occurred on April 15, 2013, she had never heard the term black-ops and she had no idea that her remarks about the event possibly being a pre-staged “false-flag” would end up with her life being threatened. Supporters of the Representative are rushing to her defense calling for her enemies to be calm and allow Ms. Tremblay to exercise her responsibility as an elected New Hampshire Representative to publicly state her awareness that something is terribly wrong with the circumstances surrounding the event that took the life of three American citizens and reportedly injured and maimed dozens of others.
Rep. Tremblay has obviously not formed her opinions and made her controversial remarks based on conspiracy theory. She has publicly stated that she watched a YouTube presentation by Former US Army LTC Roy Potter who she found to be credible and credentialed to discuss the high probability that the Boston Marathon bombing was a “Black Op”. On April 17, 2013, LTC Potter published the following video titled Boston Black Ops Operatives:
This is a serious story that won't be covered by the msm....
DHS Whistleblower: War On Terror a Charade
by Tim Brown
Julia Davis, a former Customs and Border Protections Officer, was falsely declared a domestic terrorist and subjected to retaliatory efforts against her by theDepartment of Homeland Security. Her home was raided by a 27 man “special response team.” She was twice falsely arrested and imprisoned, but later exonerated.
She is now anational security expert and has put out a historical documentary titled, Top Priority: The Terror Within. She claims that the “War On Terror” by the Department of Homeland Security is a charade and that the agency seems to be targeting concerned American patriots.
Davis says her documentary is about her time with DHS in dealing with applicants from countries with ties to terrorism, who are seeking to come into the United States. [Editor's note: Of course, the whole "War on Terror" is a fraud, but what she is exposing is that NOT EVEN DHS BELIEVES THAT IT'S REAL!]
She says that they had “very specific alerts” that on July 4, 2004, members of Al-Qaeda [Editor's note: which is itself a creation of the CIA] would be attempting to cross the border from Mexico into the US. The land port where Ms. Davis worked is the largest and busiest land port in the world, San Ysidro Port. She says that Islamic clerics say this is the best place to breech the US border because of the large number of people coming through.
She says that she began to input the information into the DHS database, which she was required to do as a supervisor, and she noticed that she had a high number of people from terrorist countries set to come through her port on July 4. She says there were 23 people from terrorist countries who were to be admitted into the US on that day. She said the average number of people coming from terrorist countries would normally be 5-10 per month. So to have 23 in a ten hour span was “alarming.”
But it goes further. Davis says that none of these people were subjected to routine checks that were in place for applicants from terrorist countries. According to Davis, “They were supposed to be fingerprinted. They were supposed to be asked why they left the US, why they were coming back, where they were living… all these different procedures that would have taken approximately an hour for each person. None of it was done.”
In fact, in some of the cases, the individuals didn’t fill out the paperwork or provide the documents they were supposed to in order to come into the United States.
No one would listen
Davis indicated that the Port Director was not informed about the situation and that when she went higher up to Intel and she said she “nearly fell down” when she found a “closed door.” The entire Intel office was “given the day off so that they could Bar-B-Q on the Fourth of July.” Ultimately there was no one that she could report her findings to. Coincidence? I think not.
The Port Director wasn’t worried either. He simply told her to put it in their box and they would get to it when they had opportunity. This was in direct opposition to what their manual stated was to happen, according to Ms. Davis. They were to get the information to a joint terrorism task force.
That night, since she was no longer under the Port Director’s orders, she contacted the FBI to inform them of the situation. In her mind, she was simply being patriotic and informing people who should be able to use the information to deal with a very real threat. She simply wanted to make sure that while others were barbequing that nothing was going to be blown up in the United States.
From that time on, every day when she came to work she was being investigated for one thing or another. She says everything they brought up to here was frivolous and ridiculous and she believes it was an attempt to get her fired to discredit anything she would say. All of this was because the FBI knew the information and DHS was embarrassed that the information came to them the way it did.
Retaliation by the DHS
Within a period of two weeks, Davis was the subject of 19 investigations. By the time she sued Homeland Security there had been 54 investigations! On top of that, she wasdeclared a domestic terrorist! My fellow Americans, this is a woman that sought to ensure the safety of our border! She was vigilant at her job and according to what she is saying, our government, if the allegations are true, has acted not only negligently against the American people, but criminally against her.
Davis’ home was raided by a 27 man SWAT team in a Blackhawk helicopter. She said they spent more time and utilized more man power raiding her home without a warrant than the government used to raid the alleged compound of Osama bin Laden.
Davis believes that no one dealt with the issue she brought forward because either they were derelict of duty or, more likely, there was corruption. She said that the Customs Department is historically one of the most corrupt agencies, especially the land port where she worked. In fact, she said that her border crossing had a Port Director who was caught taking bribes to allow people to come across. She also said there were intel reports that came up later which indicated that Arab nationals were offering $5,000 per person to allow individuals across the border without facing any scrutiny.
When asked what she thought about DHS and their priorities, Davis said:
“It makes me think that he so-called ‘War on Terror’ is more of a charade and that the priority of the agency seems to be to target concerned citizens and whistleblowers because in my case… they sent an airplane to follow me… they had eight agents at a time following me… they used airplanes, vehicles, helicopters… they used OnStar to listen to what was being said in our cars.”
As her lawsuit progressed, she says she obtained documentation of why DHS said she was a domestic terrorist. According to the documentation, DHS labeled David a domestic terrorist “for derogatory statements made in her filings and in her articles about the Department of Homeland Security.” Well I guess I know what I’m labeled then, eh?
Whistleblower as “domestic terrorist”
Davis believes that DHS acts in this way so that they don’t have to follow the laws (something people like Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain agree with) and not have to follow the Constitution. Keep in mind though that we are not talking about the DHS under Barack Obama [Editor's note: which is actually even worse], but the DHS under George W. Bush.
Since the release of her film, their Fleur De Lis (the producer of the film) family stores have been raided by DHS and they are under continual surveillance. She also has a number of electronic interruptions as well. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audited them along with their attorneys who assisted her as she prevailed against DHS.
There is more in the video, which you will want to see. However, even after she is exonerated, DHS continues to hound her. This is not freedom. This is not liberty. This is not justice. This is the face of tyranny and yes, it’s here in the US.
and.....
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/05/dhs-whistleblower-censored-from-60-minutes-uncensored-version-here-video-2636730.html
DHS Whistleblower Censored From 60 Minutes, Uncensored Version Here! (Video)
To answer some of those questions, you seriously want to watch this. Once this gal starts talking you won’t stop listening.
The worst part is the obvious control of the media. You will not hear this on cbs, nbc, abc, cnn, or msm.
When the government acts beyond the law, like in the recent Fast and Furious, don’t “we the people” have a right to ask questions of our government?
Is asking questions of your government a crime?
Why is the government now labeling people anti government just because they ask legitimate question, on specific issues to hold the government responsible?
Now in Florida they are asking citizens to turn people into Law Enforcement if a person appears to be anti-government, why?
What is the definition anti- government?
To answer some of those questions, you will want to watch this. Once this gal starts talking you won’t stop listening.
Excerpted from Fox News: Their identities have been a well-guarded secret, known only to their high-powered lawyers and a handful of House lawmakers and staff. But now Fox News has learned the names of the self-described Benghazi “whistleblowers” who are set to testify before a widely anticipated congressional hearing on Wednesday.
Appearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be three career State Department officials: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya.
Hicks was at the time of the highest-ranking American diplomat in the country.
Nordstrom previously testified before the oversight committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in October 2012. Of the three witnesses, he is the only one who does not consider himself a whistleblower. At last fall’s hearing, however, Nordstrom made headlines by detailing for lawmakers the series of requests that he, Ambassador Stevens, and others had made for enhanced security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in the period preceding the attacks, requests mostly rejected by State Department superiors.
“For me the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department] building,” Nordstrom testified, angry over inadequate staffing at a time when the threat environment in Benghazi was deteriorating,
The other two witnesses have not been heard from publicly before.
Hicks is a veteran Foreign Service officer whose overseas postings have also included Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican and committee member, said Hicks was in Tripoli at 9:40 p.m. local time when he received one of Stevens’ earliest phone calls amid the crisis.
“We’re under attack! We’re under attack!” the ambassador reportedly shouted into his cell phone at Hicks.
Chaffetz, who subsequently debriefed Hicks, also said the deputy “immediately called into Washington to trigger all the mechanisms” for an inter-agency response.
“The real-life trauma that [Hicks] went through,” Chaffetz recalled to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, “I mean, I really felt it in his voice. It was hard to listen to. He’s gone through a lot, but he did a great job.”
According to the State Department website, Thompson “advises senior leadership on operational counterterrorism matters, and ensures that the United States can rapidly respond to global terrorism crises.”
Five years before the Benghazi attacks, he lectured at a symposium hosted by the University of Central Florida and titled “The Global Terrorism Challenge: Answers to Key Questions.”
Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, and wife Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee — Republicans — disclosed this week that in their private practice in the nation’s capital, they now represent pro bono two career State Department employees who regard themselves as “whistleblowers” and would be testifying before Issa’s committee at its next Benghazi hearing, on May 8.
The other two witnesses have not been heard from publicly before.
Hicks is a veteran Foreign Service officer whose overseas postings have also included Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican and committee member, said Hicks was in Tripoli at 9:40 p.m. local time when he received one of Stevens’ earliest phone calls amid the crisis.
“We’re under attack! We’re under attack!” the ambassador reportedly shouted into his cell phone at Hicks.
Chaffetz, who subsequently debriefed Hicks, also said the deputy “immediately called into Washington to trigger all the mechanisms” for an inter-agency response.
“The real-life trauma that [Hicks] went through,” Chaffetz recalled to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, “I mean, I really felt it in his voice. It was hard to listen to. He’s gone through a lot, but he did a great job.”
According to the State Department website, Thompson “advises senior leadership on operational counterterrorism matters, and ensures that the United States can rapidly respond to global terrorism crises.”
Five years before the Benghazi attacks, he lectured at a symposium hosted by the University of Central Florida and titled “The Global Terrorism Challenge: Answers to Key Questions.”
Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, and wife Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee — Republicans — disclosed this week that in their private practice in the nation’s capital, they now represent pro bono two career State Department employees who regard themselves as “whistleblowers” and would be testifying before Issa’s committee at its next Benghazi hearing, on May 8.
The lawyers said their clients believe their accounts of Benghazi were spurned by the Accountability Review board (ARB), the official investigative body convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to review the terrorist attacks, and that the two employees have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors.
“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi — that people have been threatened,” Toensing told Fox News on Wednesday. “And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA….It’s frightening….They’re taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.”
Keep reading…
Excerpted from The Hill: Three State Department officials described by Republicans as “whistleblowers” with damning insider knowledge about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi will testify next week.
The House Oversight Committee identified the three witnesses as Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli during the attack; Mark Thompson, the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.
They are expected to testify before Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) panel on Wednesday.
“I applaud these individuals for answering our call to testify in front of the Committee,” Issa said in a statement. “They have critical information about what occurred before, during, and after the Benghazi terrorist attacks that differs on key points from what Administration officials – including those on the Accountability Review Board – have portrayed.”
“Our committee has been contacted by numerous other individuals who have direct knowledge of the Benghazi terrorist attack, but are not yet prepared to testify,” he added. “In many cases their principal reticence of appearing in public is their concern of retaliation at the hands of their respective employers. While we may yet add additional witnesses, this panel will certainly answer some questions and leave us with many new ones.”
“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi — that people have been threatened,” Toensing told Fox News on Wednesday. “And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA….It’s frightening….They’re taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.”
Keep reading…
Excerpted from The Hill: Three State Department officials described by Republicans as “whistleblowers” with damning insider knowledge about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi will testify next week.
The House Oversight Committee identified the three witnesses as Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli during the attack; Mark Thompson, the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.
They are expected to testify before Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) panel on Wednesday.
“I applaud these individuals for answering our call to testify in front of the Committee,” Issa said in a statement. “They have critical information about what occurred before, during, and after the Benghazi terrorist attacks that differs on key points from what Administration officials – including those on the Accountability Review Board – have portrayed.”
“Our committee has been contacted by numerous other individuals who have direct knowledge of the Benghazi terrorist attack, but are not yet prepared to testify,” he added. “In many cases their principal reticence of appearing in public is their concern of retaliation at the hands of their respective employers. While we may yet add additional witnesses, this panel will certainly answer some questions and leave us with many new ones.”
Nordstrom offered some of the most pointed criticism of the security deficiencies in Libya when he testified before Issa’s committee last year that State Department officials in Washington denied repeated requests for more protection for the mission. The other two officials have not been heard from publicly before.
“The takeaway … for me and my staff, was abundantly clear — we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident,” Nordstrom testified in October. “And the question that we would ask is: How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?”
“For me,” he said, “the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department].”
The hearing comes as House Republicans are refocusing their attention on the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans amid calls by more than half the Republican Conference to create a select committee to investigate the Obama administration’s actions before, during and after the events of last Sept. 11. House Republicans say the Obama administration has threatened whistleblowers with retaliation and prevented them from coming forward, something the State Department has strongly denied.
Keep reading…
“The takeaway … for me and my staff, was abundantly clear — we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident,” Nordstrom testified in October. “And the question that we would ask is: How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?”
“For me,” he said, “the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department].”
The hearing comes as House Republicans are refocusing their attention on the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans amid calls by more than half the Republican Conference to create a select committee to investigate the Obama administration’s actions before, during and after the events of last Sept. 11. House Republicans say the Obama administration has threatened whistleblowers with retaliation and prevented them from coming forward, something the State Department has strongly denied.
Keep reading…
Some States push back against the US Federal Government as noted below....
South Carolina bill criminalizes Obamacare
Published time: May 03, 2013 18:43
South Carolina’s state House has passed a bill that would nullify President Obama’s Affordable Care Act and make its implementation a crime.
The South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act, also known as the “nullification bill”, was passed 65-39 by the Republican-dominated House on Wednesday. The bill would “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for enforcing this article.”
Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, the state legislation would declare the federal law “null and void” and prosecute those who try to implement it.
Under the nullification bill, the South Carolina State Attorney General would be able “to restrain by temporary retraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction” anyone who is believed to be“causing harm” by violating public interest and trying to implement the federal law.
South Carolina residents who are forced to pay Obamacare taxes “shall receive a deduction in the exact amount of the taxes or penalty paid the federal government,” the bill states. The measure would also outlaw local governments from creating or working with non-profit health care exchanges, which the Obama administration designed in order to help small businesses provide insurance.
Obamacare has been heavily criticized by in South Carolina, with Gov. Nikki Haley promising that the state will not allow its implementation.
“Connecticut expanded early under ‘Obamacare’ and just reported a $190 million Medicaid deficit – in spite of subjecting their citizens to a massive tax increase,” she said during her State of the State address. “California just raised taxes in part to cover their Medicaid deficit and yet needs $350 million more to pay for ‘Obamacare’ next year. That’s not us. That’s not South Carolina.”
The Affordable Care Act, Haley explained, will simply cause South Carolina taxpayers to spend money they cannot afford, “not now, not ever.”
“To that end, we will not pursue the type of government-run health exchanges being forced on us by Washington,” she said. “Despite the rose-colored rhetoric coming out of DC, these exchanges are nothing more than a way to make the state do the federal government’s bidding in spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on insurance subsidies that we can’t afford.”
The Greenville Tea Party has hailed the House passage of the nullification bill as a triumph in their fight against the Affordable Care Act, with spokesman Chris Lawton expressing his pride for the move.
“This kind of victory occurs when the grassroots across the State come together and coalesce,” he told The Greenville Post. “I could not be prouder.”
The nullification bill will now move to the state Senate, where the Republican Party is also the majority. Most major provisions of the Affordable Care Act are scheduled to go in effect by January 2014.
and....
The bill, introduced by Rep. Steve Toth, R-The Woodlands, would ban all state agencies and employees from enforcing any new federal laws that attempt to override Texas citizens second amendment right. If the bill becomes law it will stop any federal bans or restrictions on firearms, accessories, ammo, etc.
At a hearing this past Wednesday supporters cited religious and constitutional rights to gun ownership. Several people referenced the Nazi era and the erosion of civil liberties. The proposal drove the renowned libertarian, Judge Andrew Napolitano, to say that such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce”
Another bill also in the Texas legislature also deals with gun control. House Bill 553 would enact Class A misdemeanor charges for federal public servants, and Class B for state, local or county agents who enforce the federal gun laws. The Texas Department of Public Safety would also be required to report any attempted enforcement of the federal gun laws. The bill is authored by state Reps. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland; John Otto, R-Dayton; Jimmie Don Aycock, R-Killeen; Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie; and Drew Darby, R-San Angelo.
Opponents of the bills believe the Sandy Hook shooting is being politicized. Many believe the federal government has the authority to order sovereign states to do as they please. However, as the Tenth Amendment Center reports, history is actually on the side of the states rights activists:
“Even the Supreme Court has affirmed this multiple times.
In the 1992 case, New York v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
In the 1997 case, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.
In the 2012 case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that a significant expansion of Medicaid was not a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding.
In each of these cases, the Supreme Court made is quite clear that their opinion is that the federal government cannot require states to act, or even coerce them to act through a threat to lose funding. Their opinion is correct. If the feds pass a law, they can sure try to enforce it if they want. But the states absolutely do NOT have to help them in any way.”
In the wake of the Boston Bombing it should be increasingly obvious to all aware Americans that the federal government will use an opportunity it can to catalogue, track, and monitor innocent citizens. As many begin to wake to this reality the federal government is doing it’s part to take away any defense the public may have,this includes gun rights.
Now is the time to prepare in what ever ways suit you and your families needs. Continue to ask questions and seek truth. Oppose any efforts by the government, federal or local, to limit your freedom.
If you still work in political channel and live in Texas, call your STATE rep today and ask them to vote YES on HB1076. Check below for your representatives information and the full text of the bill.
In the 2012 case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that a significant expansion of Medicaid was not a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding.
In each of these cases, the Supreme Court made is quite clear that their opinion is that the federal government cannot require states to act, or even coerce them to act through a threat to lose funding. Their opinion is correct. If the feds pass a law, they can sure try to enforce it if they want. But the states absolutely do NOT have to help them in any way.”
In the wake of the Boston Bombing it should be increasingly obvious to all aware Americans that the federal government will use an opportunity it can to catalogue, track, and monitor innocent citizens. As many begin to wake to this reality the federal government is doing it’s part to take away any defense the public may have,this includes gun rights.
Now is the time to prepare in what ever ways suit you and your families needs. Continue to ask questions and seek truth. Oppose any efforts by the government, federal or local, to limit your freedom.
If you still work in political channel and live in Texas, call your STATE rep today and ask them to vote YES on HB1076. Check below for your representatives information and the full text of the bill.
and.....
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/05/kansas-secretary-of-state-smacks-down-holder-over-gun-law-2637428.html
On April 4th, the Kansas legislature passed SB 102 — The Second Amendment Protection Act. The law excludes gun owners from federal regulation any personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas.
The law also authorizes Kansas law enforcement to arrest and prosecute any federal agents seeking to enforce unconstitutional laws within the borders of Kansas.
The law states:
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas
This did not sit well with US Attorney General Eric Holder who sent a threatening letter to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback a day after the law went into affect, claiming “In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.”
The Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach, wasted little time in responding to Holder’s letter to let the Feds know that they will not be backing down and said the legislation was drafted to “withstand any legal challenge” by the feds and said “we will happily meet Mr. Holder in court.”
Kobach also fiercely defends the legislation against Holder’s allegations of being unconstitutional because it directly conflicts with federal law.
He writes; “In his letter, Holder makes the simplistic and incorrect claim that ‘SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.’ He rests his claim on the Supremacy Clause VI. However, what he fails to mention is the basic constitutional rule that a federal law that exceeds Congress’s power has absolutely no ability to preempt a contrary state law.”
Kobach concludes the letter by accusing the Obama administration of repeatedly violating the Constitution and states “That abuse cannot continue.”
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/05/floridians-encouraged-to-report-neighbors-who-hate-government-2635738.html
Floridians Encouraged To Report Neighbors Who “Hate Government”
Thursday, May 2, 2013 4:51
A new $1 million dollar program led by Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw aimed at “violence prevention” is encouraging Floridians to report their neighbors for making hateful comments about the government, a chilling reminder of how dissent is being characterized as an extremist threat.
“Bradshaw plans to use the extra $1 million to launch “prevention intervention” units featuring specially trained deputies, mental health professionals and caseworkers. The teams will respond to citizen phone calls to a 24-hour hotline with a knock on the door and a referral to services, if needed,” reports the Palm Beach Post.
Bradshaw makes it clear that the kind of behavior which could prompt a visit from the authorities includes anti-government political statements that may be deemed a prelude to violent action. “We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him,” Bradshaw said. “What does it hurt to have somebody knock on a door and ask, ‘Hey, is everything OK?’”
This sheriff is also NOT on this list. I think the keyword here however is kill, not hate government. So the headline is a little misleading but just a little. -Mort
Boston - the future police state of America put on display
http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-victims-of-boston-police-state-lockdown-speak-out/
Exclusive: Victims Of Boston Police State Lockdown Speak Out
Infowars.com
May 3, 2013
May 3, 2013
On the heels of prestitute Lawrence O’Donnell labeling Ron Paul a “liar” when he called the manhunt and door-to-door searches in Watertown, Mass. a martial law exercise, Infowars reporter Dan “The Kraken” Bidondi went to interview residents who were forced from their homes.
No comments:
Post a Comment