Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

May 19, 2014 in Government, MassGOP

“THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT CAN GET ME OUT OF THIS RACE”

               – Mark Fisher May 8, 2014

David-And-Goliath-550x711As the MA GOP moves to silence Conservative voices like Mark Fisher in the Commonwealth, Jeff Kuhner in an exclusive interview with Mark brought in a paid party consultant into the dialogue,  who attacked Mark viscously and uncontrollably in support of a GOP runner and mutual  acquaintance who from all accounts was an unwitting pawn in the alleged pay off scheme. A person that that Mark consistently stated was nothing more than a messenger. In  her attempt to discredit Mark Fisher and thereby his allegations, Holly Robichaud,  continuously overspoke Mark  and wouldn’t allow him  to get a word edgewise. Jeff had to repeatedly asked her to be “Fair”. Not once during the entire interview did Jeff bother to broach any of the disturbing MassGOP Convention irregularities and probable illegalities that go directly to the credibility of the hierarchy in control of the MassGOP. Meanwhile, the conversation has moved away from disenfranchising  convention delegate’s vote’s, to personal attacks on Mark to discredit him and his Conservative with a capital C, messaging hat sought to have the Convention ballots unsealed so that his unfair and  possible illegal election ordeal would not be perpetrated against any future GOP Candidate. “There’s no question that they’re on a mission to keep Fisher off the ballot,” said Richard Howell, a delegate from Wilbraham. “What you’re looking at is the fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party,” Howell added. “They don’t want Tea Party people. . . . They want that old country club progressive . . . half-Democrat-half-Republican that we’ve been running since the Bill Weld days.” – Boston Globe March 28 Steve Zykofsky, a longtime state committee member and chairman of the rules committee that developed the regulations for the GOP convention, said blank ballots should not have been counted in the final tally of votes that delegates cast to decide which candidates can run for governor. “I don’t think the rules were followed precisely,’’ said Stephen Zykofsky, a strong Baker supporter who is also a veteran state committeeman and an authority on party rules. “You have to follow the rules, and, from what I saw, Mr. Fisher received more than 15 percent of the vote.” “Separately, another Republican volunteer filed an anonymous complaint with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance, alleging that a paid GOP staff member had been working directly for Baker’s campaign for months, when he still faced a challenge from Fisher. The party’s bylaws prohibit the GOP from helping a particular candidate if another Republican is in the race. The complainant, who spoke with the Globe but refused to identify himself, said that he was motivated by a sense of fairness for Fisher, rather than by an allegiance to him. “If you’re unfair, people rally to an underdog,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if you agree with him or not.” His complaint to the Political Finance Office indicate that the GOP aide, Ryan Coleman, was paid by the state party’s federal account since last fall. But e-mails included in the complaint show that Coleman had a Baker campaign e-mail address, a phone line at Baker headquarters, and held the official title of political director. Baker campaign manager Jim Conroy maintained that Coleman had been working for the campaign only as a contractor before Baker became the party nominee in March. “Ryan Coleman has worked for the campaign first as a contractor and later as an employee,” Conroy said. “His engagement with the campaign has been transparent and publicly reported, as is the case with all campaign expenditures.” The Baker campaign, however, shows no payments to Coleman as a contractor when he was being paid by the state party. – Boston Globe May 4th

Why was the MassGOP forced to put Mark Fisher on the ballot and why must they now discredit his candidacy? Perhaps the following letter from Mark Fisher’s attorney to the Mass GOP, explains…why!

April 13, 2014 General Counsel Massachusetts Republican State Committee 85 Merrimac Street – Suit 400 Boston, MA 02114 Re: Fisher v. Mass. Republican Party et al Suffolk Superior Court C.A.14-1072A Dear General Counsel: I represent Mark Fisher in the above referenced lawsuit against the Massachusetts Republican State Committee, Chairman Kirsten Hughes and Executive Director Robert Cunningham. This concerns what occurred at the Massachusetts Republican State Convention on March 22, 2014. I send this letter to you via the Defendants’ attorney and in compliance with Rule 9.3 of the Rules of the 2014 Massachusetts Republican State Convention. Rule 9.3 provides as follows: “Legal Issues. Any legal issues arising in connection with the Convention shall be referred to the General Counsel of the State Committee.” From Mr. Fisher’s perspective, there are multiple legal issues that arose at the Convention. In this regard, I enclose three affidavits for your review which have been filed with the court. These are: Affidavit of Spencer Kimball, Second Affidavit of Spencer Kimball, and Affidavit of Deborah McCarthy. The first legal issue is whether it was appropriate to include blanks in the final vote count. Mr. Fisher’s representatives were told by Mr. Cunningham on the day prior to the convention that they would not be counted. Convention Rule 11 states: “The Party Chair shall determine the method and order of voting for each vote or election during the Convention.” The Defendants might argue that Rule 11 could be interpreted to mean that Ms. Hughes, the Party Chair, determined whether blanks were to be included in the final vote count. That would seem to be a stretch of an interpretation. Whether blanks were to be included in the final vote count can hardly be considered part of the “method and order of voting.” Regardless, Ms. Hughes was quoted by the news media as saying that blanks do not get counted. Subsequent to the convention, State Committee Member Steven Zykofsky, the Chairman of the Rules Committee, who developed the Convention Rules, also stated unequivocally to the news media that blanks should not have been counted in the final tally of votes in determining whether a candidate received 15% of the votes. Yet, 64 blanks were counted in the final vote count. Because of them, Mr. Fisher was prevented from obtaining the 15% Convention vote which would have permitted him, pursuant to Rule 6.1, to have his name on the gubernatorial Republican primary ballot in September. Mr. Fisher’s position is that the blanks should not have been counted in the final vote. Mr. Fisher’s representative, Spencer Kimball, made numerous timely objections to the appropriate authorities at the Convention in this regard. The Convention Rules are silent on the issue of the blanks. But Rule 23 provides, in part: “Parliamentary Authority. The parliamentary authority for the Convention in any and all matters not covered by these Rules shall be the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order.” In the Robert’s Rules of Order section on voting, Article VIII, section 46, states in part: “When a quorum is present, a majority vote, that is a majority of the votes cast, ignoring blanks, is sufficient for the adoption of the motion……;” “All blanks are ignored as simply waste paper, and are not reported….;” “In reporting the number of votes cast and the number necessary for election, all votes except blanks must be counted.” Moreover, nowhere in Robert’s Rules of Order does it say that there are occasions when blanks should be counted toward the total vote. The reference to Roberts Rules of Order would seem to resolve the issue. Blanks should not have been counted. And Convention Rule 17 would appear to provide additional evidence that blanks should not have been counted. That rule states: “Disqualified Votes. A vote cast for any ineligible candidate or for any candidate who was not nominated and seconded in accordance with these Rules, or for any candidate who is removed from further consideration in accordance with these Rules, shall not be considered as a vote cast by a delegate present and voting, and shall not be included in determining the whole number of votes cast for any purpose of these Rules.” Rule 17 shows that when a voter indicates no intent to vote for an eligible candidate, then that vote is not to be used in determining the whole number of votes cast. It follows that voting “blank,” which similarly indicates no intent to vote for an eligible candidate, should also not be used in determining the whole number of votes cast. The second legal issue regards whether blank votes were improperly counted for those delegates who were not present at the time of the voting. The roll call vote, broadcast throughout the Convention hall, showed that there were 2,095 votes for Charlie Baker, 376 votes for Mark Fisher and 10 blank votes. Subsequently, in the back room, where the tally sheets were being reviewed, it became evident that two different districts had mistakenly included blank votes for delegates who had not been present at the Convention. In the first instance, one tally sheet stated right on it that the blanks were for those who were not present. In the second instance, State Representative Vincent DeMacedo stated that he included blank votes for delegates who were not present because he thought that was what was supposed to be done. Rule 11 states, in part, “There shall be no voting by proxy…” and both Rule 16 and Rule 17 refer to delegates “present and voting.” The parliamentarian properly excluded those blanks as votes at Mr. Kimball’s request and over Attorney Vincent DeVito’s objections. But, among all the tally sheets, those were the only ones that Kimball was ever permitted to see. Those incidents were red flags indicating that there was some confusion among district representatives about the proper accounting of blanks. Accordingly, Republican officials overseeing the election should have been wary of additional problems in that regard. Yet, when the final counting of the tally sheets showed that Baker received 2,095 votes, Fisher received 374 votes, and there were 64 blanks – 54 more blanks than was stated in the roll call vote – alarm bells should have gone off. Monitors, and possibly delegates, should have been called in and questioned regarding the blanks. Certainly, despite Mr. DeVito’s objections, Mr. Kimball’s reasonable request to see the paperwork which was the source of the 54 additional blank votes should have been honored. But it was not. The vote was not by secret ballot so there is no apparent reason why Mr. Kimball’s request was denied. Fisher’s position is that, under the circumstances, the Republican State Committee officials overseeing the election should have allowed Kimball to inspect the documentation that was the source of the 54 additional blank votes. The third legal issue concerns Kimball’s request for a re-count or reconsideration. At the time he was first informed of the final vote count, which showed that there were 54 more blanks than there were in the roll call vote, the convention had already closed. When he then asked for a re-count or reconsideration, the parliamentarian denied his request, stating that a recount or reconsideration required a 2/3 vote of the delegates present and that was impossible because the convention had already closed. Rule 21 provides, in part: “No vote shall be reconsidered during the Convention except after the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the delegates present and voting upon a motion for reconsideration of the vote.” Kimball was not provided the opportunity to have the Convention consider his request for a recount because when he was told of the final vote count, the Convention had already closed. The Republican State Committee’s closing of the convention before informing Kimball, Fisher’s representative, of the vote total, and thus effectively preventing him from seeking a reconsideration of the vote, was a violation of the Convention Rules. The fourth legal issue regards chain of custody. According to Debora McCarthy’s affidavit, tally sheets were taken off the convention floor during the voting. Mr. Kimball registered timely objections regarding this and requested that another vote be taken from that district. His reasonable request was denied. The fifth issue pertains to the activities of Attorney Vincent DeVito at the Convention and whether they were legal. He was sitting on stage during the Convention and during Fisher’s speech and appeared to be a neutral Republican Party official. It was known that he was General Counsel of the Republican State Committee and may have still been so on the day of the Convention. Yet later that day, in the back room, he was making objections on behalf of the Charlie Baker campaign. Mr. DeVito is now an employee of the Baker campaign and perhaps he was so on the day of the Convention. It is true that Mr. DeVito announced himself as a Baker representative when he first entered the back room, but an investigation should be undertaken regarding his conduct. Was he earlier involved in making any legal rulings? Did he participate in transferring the tally sheets to the back room? When was he first hired by the Baker campaign? Was he a paid employee of the Baker campaign on the day of the Convention? A sixth legal issue concerns the timing of the Republican State Committee’s decision to use blanks in the final count. If the Executive Director thought they would not be used in the final vote tally, and if the Chairman thought they would not be used, then who made the decision to count them? And when was that decision made? And what was the authority for that decision? Was Mr. DeVito, as an official of the Massachusetts State Republican Party, involved in that decision? Or, was he involved in that decision as an employee of the Baker campaign? An investigation should be conducted in this regard. In sum, Mr. Fisher’s position is as follows: 1. The vote was invalid because blanks were included in the total vote count when they should not have been. There was no rule that authorized it and Robert’s Rules of Order prohibits it. The State Committee did not follow its own rules. 2. The vote was invalid because delegates who were not present were counted as blanks. That would account for the huge differential between the roll call vote and the count from the final review. By counting as blank votes those delegates who were not present at the convention, the State Committee again did not follow its own rules. 3. The vote was invalid because the Fisher was effectively deprived of his right under Convention Rule to seek a reconsideration of the vote under Rule 21. This was yet another instance of the State Committee not following its own rules. 4. The vote was invalid because proper chain of custody procedures were violated. 5. The vote was invalid because of Attorney DeVito’s involvement in the process. 6. The vote was invalid because the decision to use blanks in the vote total was not timely announced to Fisher’s representatives and was contrary to what they had been told on the previous day. Article IX, Section 1, of the Bylaws of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee states: “The State Committee shall have final approval of all matters relating to the conduct of the convention.” Based on that provision, it is clear that the Massachusetts Republican State Committee is authorized to take corrective measures regarding the vote. In addition, the counting of the votes which, in violation of the Convention Rules, improperly included blanks in the total vote count, was still occurring after the Convention closed. Thus, the counting was not a part of the Convention’s activities. A new count can therefore now be taken without counting the blanks. Consequently, Mark Fisher requests that you counsel the State Committee that, because of multiple violations of its own rules, and/or because Mr. Fisher did obtain 15% or greater of the Convention vote pursuant to Rule 6.1, it should certify to the Secretary of State’s Office that Mark Fisher is entitled to have his name placed on statewide ballots in a Republican primary election for the office of Governor in September, 2014.. Please advise me, through Defendants’ counsel, of the intentions of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee regarding the issues raised in this letter. Thank you. Very truly yours, Thomas M. Harvey

Chinese Company Buys “Green” U.S. Car Maker Fisker; Taxpayers On The Hook For $139 Million Forbes On Fox

February 22, 2014 in Climate Change, Debt Crisis, Energy, Environmental Hoax, Gas Price, Global Warming, Government, Obama's America 2016, Taxiation with Representation

ChineseChinese Company  Buys “Green” U.S. Car Maker Fisker; Taxpayers On The Hook For $139 Million Forbes On Fox

When Will We Learn? Obama Nation

National Average For Gallon Of Regular Unleaded 1 Year Ago: $3.78

Chinese Company  Buys “Green” U.S. Car Maker Fisker For $150 Million; Taxpayers On The Hook For $139 Million Forbes On Fox

==============================­=========­=­===
**Please Click Below to SUBSCRIBE for More “Mass Tea Party” Videos:
http://goo.gl/Z5ShLs

Senator Ted Cruz Slams GOP Leadership Over Debt Ceiling Show Vote – The Real Story

February 20, 2014 in Accountability, America's Collapse, Constitution, Debt Crisis, Government, Politics, President Obama, Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz

Sen Cruz Beats Back Critics Over Debt Ceiling Filibuster
Senator Ted Cruz Slams GOP Leadership Over Debt Ceiling Show Vote – The Real Story
Cruz: “I Don’t Want To Throw Any Republican Under The Bus”
CPAC Welcomes Gay-Rights Groups For The First Time In Years

Here Comes The ObamaCare Tax Bill – New Year’s New Obamacare Taxes – More Obamacare Fee Increases To Begin In 2014 – Charles Payne

December 26, 2013 in Government, ObamaCare, Politics, President Obama, White House Fraud

obamacare feeNew Year’s New Obamacare Taxes – More Obamacare Fee Increases To Begin In 2014 – Charles Payne

The cost of President Obama’s massive health-care law will hit Americans in 2014 as new taxes pile up on their insurance premiums and on their income-tax bills.

Most insurers aren’t advertising the ObamaCare taxes that are added on to premiums, opting instead to discretely pass them on to customers while quietly lobbying lawmakers for a break.
But one insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, laid bare the taxes on its bills with a separate line item for “Affordable Care Act Fees and Taxes.”


The new taxes on one customer’s bill added up to $23.14 a month, or $277.68 annually, according to Kaiser Health News. It boosted the monthly premium from $322.26 to $345.40 for that individual.
The new taxes and fees include a 2 percent levy on every health plan, which is expected to net about $8 billion for the government in 2014 and increase to $14.3 billion in 2018.
There’s also a $2 fee per policy that goes into a new medical-research trust fund called the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Insurers pay a 3.5 percent user fee to sell medical plans on the HealthCare.gov Web site.
ObamaCare supporters argue that federal subsidies for many low-income Americans will not only cover the taxes, but pay a big chunk of the premiums.
But ObamaCare taxes don’t stop with health-plan premiums.
Americans also will pay hidden taxes, such as the 2.3 percent medical-device tax that will inflate the cost of items such as pacemakers, stents and prosthetic limbs.
Those with high out-of-pocket medical expenses also will get smaller income-tax deductions.
Americans are currently allowed to deduct expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of their annual income. The threshold jumps to 10 percent under ObamaCare, costing taxpayers about $15 billion over 10 years.
Then there’s the new Medicare tax.
Under ObamaCare, individual tax filers earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 will pay an added 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on top of the existing 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax. They’ll also pay an extra 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income, such as investment dividends, rental income and capital gains.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration touted a surge of more than 2 million visitors Monday at HealthCare.gov, plus about 250,000 calls to ObamaCare call centers.
“Volumes remain high but not equal to [Monday] and we have not had to deploy our queuing system on the site,” said Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, referring to a virtual waiting room that is activated when the site is overloaded.
“We are taking thousands of calls at our call centers, which remain open until midnight, and we are seeing thousands of visitors complete enrollment online,” she said.
It wasn’t smooth sailing for everyone on the troubled site.
Software techie Jeff Karaaro tweeted in frustration: “Got three different codes trying to submit plan choices. No [one] can tell me what they mean. I nor call center can complete my application due to error.”

http://nypost.com/2013/12/25/new-obamacare-fees-coming-in-2014/

 

Fed Judge Orders Obama Admin To Release Secret Foreign Aid Document – Judge Andrew Napolitano

December 18, 2013 in "Bill of Rights", Anarchy, Congress, Constitution, dictator, DICTATORSHIP, Foreign Policy, Government, Homeland Security, Justice, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's America 2016, Obamanation, President Obama, Propaganda, Supreme Court

JudgeFOIA Case Ruling On Obama admin Document “Branch Without The Public Oversight, To Engage In What Is In Effect Governance By ‘Secret Law.'” -Ellen Segal Huvelle Judge, U.S. District Court December 17, 2013
Bill Clinton Appointee Fed Judge Orders Obama Admin To Release Secret Foreign Aid Document – Judge Andrew Napolitano – The Kelly File

Obama Admin Masters Of Pain! – Making Shutdown Hurt Americans As Much As Possible – Lou Dobbs

October 5, 2013 in Abuse of Power, America's Collapse, Anarchist, Anarchy, Congress, Debt Crisis, Debt Limit, dictator, DICTATORSHIP, Fiscal Cliff, Freedom, Generational Theft, Government, Homeland Security, Hope and Change, Politics, President Obama, Propaganda, United States Constitution, United States Sovereignty, Veterans

masterObama Admin Masters Of Pain! – Making Shutdown Hurt Americans As Much As Possible – Lou Dobbs
Workers Are Being Order To Make It As Painfull As Possible To Americans

Open Air Memorials, Monuments Remain Close As Government Shutdown Hits Day 4

Obama Admin Is Also Forcing 100 Of Privately Operated Businesses On Federal Land To Close!

WHY IS Our GOVERNMENT STOCKPILING GUNS, AMMO?

February 4, 2013 in Abuse of Power, Constitutional, dictator, DICTATORSHIP, Freedom, Government, National Security, Obama's America 2016, President Obama

Hollow Point AmmoLou Dobbs Video update added today February 9, 2013

On May 16 2012, we posted  a  story  Michael Savage: Why DHS needs 450 Million rounds of ammunition? . In this post we explained that the millions of  rounds of hollow point ammunition being purchased cannot be used by our military outside of the United States, because by International Law, it is prohibited. If used by a country, it subjects them to “War Crimes”.  It appears that Joseph Farah editor of  World Net Daily, has now also reached a  conclusion similar to Michael Savage.. Folks its time to be alarmed. Recently we reported that as part of a new loyalty Litmus test, Barack Hussein Obama

 has Asked his  Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens”

Lou Dobb’s Video update February 9, 2013

 

BETWEEN THE LINES

WHY IS GOVERNMENT STOCKPILING GUNS, AMMO?

Exclusive: Joseph Farah examines Obama’s plan for ‘civilian national security force’

by JOSEPH FARAH

 

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, “The Tea Party Manifesto,” and his classic, “Taking America Back,” now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento

Union and other major-market dailies.

 

 

Is the U.S. government getting ready for a war we don’t know about?

And, if that’s why Washington is stockpiling massive amounts of ammunition (hollow points, by the way), why is Homeland Security doing the buying instead of the Defense Department?

I have some theories.

Many of you will remember a story I broke a long time ago – about presidential candidate Barack Obama’s little-noticed announcement that, if elected in 2008, he wanted to create a “civilian national security force” as big, as strong and as well-funded as the Defense Department.

Here’s what he actually said at a campaign stop in Colorado July 2, 2008: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Want to make sure you and your family are fully protected? Check out our self-defense section in WND’s Superstore.

Could what we see happening now in the Department of Homeland Security be the beginning of Obama’s dream and our constitutional nightmare?

We’ve learned more about Obama’s vision since then. Maybe it’s time for a review:

  • He made the campaign promise to build this $439 billion domestic army, but all references to the initiative were inexplicably deleted from the copy of his speech posted on his website while others mysteriously disappeared from transcripts of the speech distributed by the campaign. That was strange – and ominous.
  • At the time, I had never heard anyone use the phrase “civilian national security force” before. But I did a little homework and found out where it originated. It was first proposed by then Bush administration Defense Secretary Robert Gates. On that basis alone, I accurately predicted that, if elected, Obama would name Gates as his own defense secretary. Needless to say, when that appointment came to pass, no media outlet bothered to interview me about my foresight.
  • Still during the campaign of 2008, I suggested that what Obama had in mind might be something very sinister indeed – perhaps “some kind of domestic Big Brother program.”

We never heard another mention of Obama’s “civilian national security force” again. Not in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012.

But that brings us up to 2013 and the highly unusual stockpiling of firearms and ammo by Homeland Security – firearms and ammo that Obama would like to deny to ordinary citizens who are not members of his domestic army.

Well, I hate to say it, but I may have predicted this, too.

In a Halloween column last fall, I stated that, if re-elected, Obama would “declare a full-scale war on his domestic opposition.”

I wasn’t joking. I was deadly serious – so serious, in fact, that I did something I pledged I would never do: Vote for Mitt Romney. It was a matter of self-defense and self-preservation. I said then that a second term of Obama might mean we would never see another free and fair election in America. (I’m not even sure we saw one in 2012.) I suggested due process would go the way of the horse and buggy. I said I expected Obama would move to shut down or destroy all independent media. I even speculated that his biggest critics would eventually be rounded up in the name of national security.

Think about it.

Why does the civilian Department of Homeland Security need billions of rounds of ammunition?

This is the agency that is responsible for policing the border. But it doesn’t.

This is the agency that is responsible for catching terrorists. But it doesn’t.

So why does Homeland Security need so many weapons and enough hollow-point rounds to plug every American six times?

Maybe this is the “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the Defense Department.

These words – “civilian national security force” – have haunted me ever since I first read them.

Obama has never explained what he meant.

He’s never been called to account for that remark.

Doesn’t this sound like police-state talk to you?

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. defense budget was $439 billion. No one knows what the budget is today because Congress stopped passing budgets when Obama took office.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? Is this part of his second-term agenda?

He has also set up, as I have reported, a new homeland security bureaucracy to operate under his own direction.

I think it’s worth recalling here that just over a year ago both houses of Congress unwisely passed the defense reauthorization bill that killed the concept of habeas corpus – legislation that authorized the president to use the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial.

That legislation would empower a lame-duck Obama to use all of the power of the federal government – constitutional and unconstitutional – to target his political enemies.

If any Republican, conservative, independent journalist, pro-life activist, returning veteran, gun-rights activist, constitutionalist, Bible believer or critic of Obama thinks they will be safe in a second term under this would-be despot, they had better think again – real fast.

The “civilian national security force” is not here to protect any of them. It’s here to destroy the opposition. It’s here to destroy liberty. It’s here to destroy the Constitution.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/why-is-government-stockpiling-guns-ammo/#xWQhfhuK0IzQxE2W.99

A Lesson On Firearms – Jessie Duff World Champion Shooter On The Range – Hannity

January 19, 2013 in "Bill of Rights", 2nd Amendment, Freedom, Government, Gun Control, United States Constitution, United States Sovereignty

Jessie DuffA Lesson On Firearms – Jessie Duff World Champion Shooter On The Range – Hannity

Jessie Duff is recognized as one of the most accomplished competition shooters in the world. Competing – and excelling – in five different shooting disciplines, Jessie has won both world and national championship titles, included among them are the prestigious Bianchi Cup and the Steel Challenge World Speed Shooting Championships. Over the last couple years Jessie has been a fixture in the shooting sports industry representing her many sponsors, chief among them Taurus.

In addition to her numerous duties for the Taurus Shooting Team, Jessie, along with husband Matt, co-hosts the popular Friends of NRA television show on the Outdoor Channel, where the the couple help promote the fun and excitement of the shooting sports to legions of new shooters.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html

Joint Resolution HJ 15 Introduced on the Second Day of the 2013 Legislative session To Provide Barack Hussein Obama with a 3d Term!

January 7, 2013 in 22nd Amendment, Abuse of Power, Anarchy, Congress, Government, Liberty in Jeopardy, President Obama, United States Constitution

On June30, 2009, Rush Limbaugh warned  that, “… I wouldn’t put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016…”   Incredulous pundits attacked Limbaugh’s prognostication with statements like,  “…Limbaugh, as usual, plays on the prejudices of his audience.”

In an October 2, 2012 Washington Post article, Why attacking Iran may give Obama a third term in the White House , Faheem Younus theorizes  that if we were to attack Iran to remove their Nuclear threat and it leads to a wider conflict, then:

“Wartime presidents can sell a Double Whopper to a vegetarian. As the festinate decision of bombing Iran turns into a global conflict, don’t expect our constitutional law professor turned president to decline his party’s suggestion: if it can be ratified; it [22nd Amendment] can be repealed.”

“He can’t do that; we have the 22nd Amendment,” you quip. Yes, we do. But imagine the destabilization the Iranian war will cause in a region which is home to a nuclear Pakistan, a bleeding Syria, and a wounded Russia. Add to it the perpetual Arab-Israeli conflict, with China and Japan posturing over deserted islands to its right and a mercurial Arab Spring to its left and all you have is red meat.”

Will Rep. Jose Serrano’s  legislative attempts to repeal our 22nd Amendment be a future model for its eventual adoption?  

President Obama could get 3 terms if H.J.Res 15 abolishes term limits

Barack Obama   January 5, 2013   By: Angel Clark

 

Americans around the nation were shocked Friday as they heard about H.J.Res. 15. H.J.Res 15 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment. This would remove the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. Rep. José Serrano (D- NY15) introduced the controversial joint resolution on Friday, the second day of the 2013 legislative session.

The last President to serve more than two terms was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt served three full terms as President and was elected to a fourth term. Roosevelt died 83 days into his fourth term in office.

Congress passed the Twenty-second Amendment on March 21, 1947. The required number of states ratified it in 1951. There have been numerous attempts to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, including a previous attempt by Rep. José Serrano. Rep. Serrano attempted to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment with H.J.Res. 5 in 2009.

Opponents of H.J.Res. 15 are being urged to inform their representatives of their opinions and to voice their opinion on PopVox.com.

Read more at:    http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obama-could-get-3-terms-if-h-j-res-15-abolishes-term-limits

 

When You Are a Bumbling Incompetent MA Democrat “Do Bee” and Resign What’s Your Next Job?

January 5, 2013 in Abuse of Power, Deval Patrick, Government, Immigration, MA, MA Political Machine, Political Incompetence

If you were to ask Mary Beth Heffernan who resigned before being fired for malfeasance as Secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety, she would say a bump Up to a Judgeship.

HeffernanHerffernan fronted Governor Patrick ‘s anti-Secure Communities hearings around the state in an attempt to provide political cover for the hi decision to re-neg on a campaign promise to implement the program. Push back from the Illegal Alien community placed his administration in jeopardy of  angering them and losing their votes! 

The first hearing was not advertised to the general public and Leftist organizations like the ACLU and the Socialist Party dominated the hearing. By the second hearing, outraged MA citizens testified about their experiences with Illegal Criminal Aliens.  The pro-Secure Communities crowd dominated subsequent hearings so well that Heffernan cancelled several hearings. Her appearance at these hearings were marked by readily apparent unskilled, bumbling and incompetence.

In June 2011 Governor Patrick, of course despite the overwhelming and competent testimony by Pro Secure Communities advocates ,  reneged on his promise of early implementation.

Folks, despite  Heffernan’s bubbling incompetence, a single Republican Lawmaker has come to her defense to make the appointment appear bipartisan, namely, Rep. Daniel B. Winslow of the 9th Norfolk.

According tho the Boston Herald, Heffernan has donated the prescribed political contributions to assure her new appointment! ”

Departing Public Safety Secretary Mary Beth Heffernan — given a nod by Gov. Deval Patrick yesterday as someone who’d make a “great judge” — has donated thousands of dollars to Democratic campaigns over the years, campaign finance records show.

Heffernan has contributed $875 to Gov. Deval Patrick and $525 to Lt. Gov. Tim Murray. She has also written checks for former House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, current House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, Senate President Therese Murray and the Democratic State Committee.”

THIS IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF A 1-PARTY STATE.  IT IS A CORRUPT MACHINE THAT AFFECTS ALL OF OUR LIVES AND  IT’S UP TO YOU TO CHANGE IT!

Patrick backs former public safety head as district judge

By Stephanie Ebbert

|  GLOBE STAFF  JANUARY 04, 2013

Governor Deval Patrick nominated his outgoing public safety director to become a district court judge Friday, just weeks after she announced her resignation from his administration amid controversy.

In a news conference, Patrick lauded Mary Beth Heffernan’s work as secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety, her longtime record as a prosecutor, and her temperament.

“She has, I think, really just the right touch for the district court, which is a neighborhood court; it’s very people-oriented,” the governor said, pointing out that her father was also a judge. “It’s something I know she’s had an ambition to do for a long, long time.”

Heffernan, the state’s public safety secretary since 2010, was one of several Cabinet members who stepped down in mid-December as Patrick ­entered the final two years of his second term. Patrick told reporters that no one was being forced out.

But Heffernan had been embroiled in the controversy surrounding Sheila Burgess, the state’s highway safety ­director, after the Globe reported in November that she had been hired by Heffernan and others in 2007 despite a lengthy driving record that included six crashes and several speeding violations. Heffernan, who was under­secretary at the time of the hiring, acknowledged that Burgess, a longtime Democratic consultant and fund-raiser, should not have won the post.

The governor, when asked about the hiring controversy Friday, told reporters it was “an embarrassment, no doubt about it.” However, he sought to distance Heffernan from it by adding, “She did a great job in her role.”

Some backers, including a prominent Republican, lauded Heffernan’s longtime public service and work as a lawyer and said her work for the ­Patrick administration should not ­exclude her from service.

“Having a role in public life should never be the sole reason that somebody achieves appointment to the bench, but it never should be a bar,” said state Representative Daniel B. Winslow, a Norfolk Republican and former judge who worked with Heffernan on her criminal justice commission and praised her work and good regard in the legal community.

“Certainly the confirmation process is the opportunity for appropriate inquiry to be made of questions anyone has — including the Burgess situation,” Winslow added. “I would fully expect governor’s councilors to embrace their roles as vetting agents.”

A spokesman for the Massachusetts Republican Party, however, immediately issued a derisive statement about the nomination.

“Let’s hope she is a more competent judge than she was at running the Department of Public Safety, where she was ­responsible for hiring a reckless driver as highway safety chief,” GOP spokesman Tim Buckley said.

State Representative Eugene O’Flaherty, a Charlestown ­Democrat who until recently chaired the Legislature’s Joint Committee on the Judiciary, called ­Heffernan courteous and professional and said she “took her role very seriously.”

O’Flaherty said he did not know enough about the controversy to comment.

“But in terms of what is ­required to be on the bench and to be a good judge, the qualities I think are important for that position in terms of temperament and judgment, I think that she is overflowing with those qualities,” he said.

As public safety secretary, Heffernan was responsible for policy and budget oversight of agencies, programs, and boards that work in crime prevention and homeland security. She previously worked in the executive office as undersecretary of criminal justice, supervising the Department of Correction, Sex Offender Registry, and ­Parole Board, and working as a liasion to county sheriffs.

She previously was an assistant district attorney for ­Middlesex County; executive ­director of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association; associate general counsel and director of intergovernmental and regulatory affairs at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; and corporate director of government relations for ­CareGroup Health Care Systems.

The Governor’s Council, an elected, eight-member panel that reviews judicial appointments, has been increasingly active in recent years in pushing back against the governor’s nominations. Last year, it was deadlocked on the nomination of Michael J. McCarthy, a lawyer, to become a district judge.

But yesterday, Patrick nominated him again. McCarthy, a private practitioner since 1989, had previously served as city ­solicitor in Pittsfield and as a prosecutor in Berkshire County and Portland, Maine. A resident of Pittsfield, he is a graduate of Assumption College and University of Maine Law School, the governor’s office said.

The governor also tapped an up-and-coming Democrat Friday to become his communications director. Jesse Mermell, a Brookline selectwoman and party activist, previously served as a vice president of external affairs for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and as executive director of the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus.

Mermell issued a statement calling it an honor to be part of Patrick’s team and noting that she will resign from her selectwoman’s job this month.

Glen Johnson of the Globe staff ontributed to this report. Stephanie Ebbert can be reached at ebbert@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @StephanieEbbert.