Thursday, May 15, 2014

Man Behind Obama Assassination Plot Sentenced To Death

Man Behind Obama Assassination Plot Sentenced To Death

“I don’t have a lot to say here...”


The North Dakota trial of a 44-year-old man who claimed to have killed a woman as part of a larger plot to assassinate Barack Obama ended this week with the imposition of his sentence.
After pleading guilty to the charge he fatally stabbed a 75-year-old woman in 2011, James McVay presented the argument that he is mentally ill. Nevertheless, a jury unanimously voted this week to sentence him to death for the crime.
Circuit Judge Peter Lieberman upheld the decision during formal sentencing.
“I don’t have a lot to say here,” the judge said following the trial. “This is a situation where a jury’s verdict has a lot more weight than what I could say.”
During the trial, McVay’s account of the crime included his assertion that he murdered Maybelle Schein to steal her car and drive to Washington, D.C. to kill Obama. Authorities reportedly caught up with him in Madison, Wis. and took him into custody.
McVay’s lawyer, Traci Smith, urged Lieberman to withdraw the sentence in a last-minute appeal. The public defender argued that comments made during the prosecution’s closing arguments “inflamed the passions” of jury members. Lieberman, however, decided against the motion, asserting the decision was made after careful consideration of the facts presented during trial.
Nevertheless, the sentence is now set to go before the state Supreme Court for consideration. According to ABC News, the purpose of the review will be to determine three key aspects of McVay’s sentence.
“They include whether the sentence was affected by passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; whether the evidence supports the finding of a judge or jury of a statutory aggravating circumstance, and whether the sentence of death is out of line with the penalty imposed in other, similar cases.”

Why Is The USDA Ordering Up .40 Caliber Sub Machine Guns? See Purchase Order HERE

Since when does the Department of Agriculture need large capacity “short burst” assault weapons with night sights? Whatever the answer, it continues an ongoing trend within the Obama government of agency after agency arming itself to the teeth, buying up both weapons and ammo at a never before seen pace.  Scary sh*t…
usda guns
H/T to Guns Saves Lives.
_____________________________________
MAC WALKER’S 40,000 FEET
Mac Walker’s 40,000 feet is a “taught, suspenseful drama that will keep any fan of the suspense/thriller genre on the edge of their seats.” -Marlow 

MAC WALKER’S 40,000 FEET
NO WAY OUT.
ONLY ONE WAY DOWN.
A plane hijacked by fanatics, and a plot to use a horrific biological weapon against the Vatican.
Former Navy SEAL Mac Walker finds himself in an uneasy alliance with the beautiful and mysterious Vatican operative Stasia as they fight to save the plane’s passengers, and defeat the would be terrorists and their plot to kill tens of thousands.
GET THE NEWEST NOVEL FROM D.W. ULSTERMAN – AVAILABLE NO

New IRS e-mails: Yep, direction came from D.C. and yep, it was political

New IRS e-mails: Yep, direction came from D.C. and yep, it was political

posted at 9:21 pm on May 14, 2014 by Mary Katharine Ham

A tranche of new Internal Revenue Service e-mails refute the White House’s longtime defense of the agency’s actions in the IRS targeting scandal. The e-mails, uncovered by a Judicial Watch FOIA request, reveal there was direction coming from the Washington headquarters of the IRS and that the targeting of Tea Party groups was indeed political.

The Washington Examiner‘s Mark Tapscott excerpts:

In a July 2012 email, Holly Paz, who was then director of the IRS Rulings and Agreements division, asked IRS lawyer Steven Grodnitzky “to let Cindy and Sharon know how we have been handling Tea Party applications in the last few months.”
Cindy Thomas is the former director of the IRS Exempt Organizations office in Cincinnati, and Sharon Camarillo was a senior manager in its Los Angeles office.
The email conflicts with claims by Obama administration officials that the targeting effort was done exclusively by the government workers in the Cincinnati IRS office.
Grodnitzky worked in the IRS headquarters’ Exempt Organizations Technical Unit. In his response to Paz, he said his colleagues were “working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy. We are developing a few applications here in D.C. and providing copies of our development letters with the agent to use as examples in the development of their cases.”
The Blaze quotes a 2010 e-mail:
Thomas instructed a colleague to “let ‘Washington’ know about this potentially politically embarrassing case involving a ‘Tea Party’ organization.”
“Recent media attention to this type of organization indicates to me that this is a ‘high profile’ case. In addition to 501(c)(4) typical legislative activities, application indicates possible future political candidate support,” the memo added.
The e-mails pertain to scrutiny of Tea Party groups over two election cycles, in 2010 and 2012. Some of them are the same e-mails released to Congress but without redactions. The entire batch is here.
They also include some lovely back-and-forth between Sen. Carl Levin and the IRS about how best to use the IRS’ power to target conservative groups. Because democracy.
As the 2012 presidential election drew nearer, Levin sent a series of letters to the IRS intensifying his campaign against predominantly conservative nonprofit groups:
September 27, 2012: Levin asks for copies of the answers to IRS exemption application question 15 – a question about planned political expenditures – from four specific groups: Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, Priorities USA, Americans for Prosperity, and Patriot Majority USA.
October 17, 2012: Miller informs Levin, “As discussed in our previous responses dated June 4, 2012, and August 24, 2012, the IRS cannot legally disclose whether the organizations on your list have applied for tax exemptions unless and until such application is approved.” Miller, however, then informs Levin that Americans for Prosperity and Patriot Majority have been approved, but the IRS has no records for Crossroads and Priorities USA.
October 23, 2012: Levin writes to again express his dissatisfaction with the IRS handling of “social welfare” (501(c)(4) organizations insisting that IRS guidance “misinterprets the law” by allowing any political activity. He again demands an answer as to whether the four organizations he listed in his previous letter were primarily engaged in the promotion of social welfare. He also seeks copies of tax exempt revocation letters sent due to c4 political activities, as well as statistics on how many c4s have been notified that they may be in violation due to political activities.
In perhaps the most revealing letter from the IRS to Levin, Miller on June 4, 2012, takes 16 pages to explain to the senator what IRS regulations and policies may and may not be used to evaluate political groups and assures him that the agency has considerable leeway in picking and choosing which groups would be subject to additional scrutiny:
There is no standard questionnaire used to obtain information about political activities. Although there is a template development letter that describes the general information on the case development process, the letter does not specify the information to be requested from any particular organization … Consequently, revenue agents prepare individualized questions and requests for documents relevant to the application. . .
The “Special Report” panel weighed in on the newly released documents tonight. It’s a good segment, with Steve Hayes running down all the ways this information refutes everything the White House claims and claims to stand for, Kirsten Powers suggesting maybe Congress should just file FOIAs instead of requesting documents from the most transparent administration in history, and Charles Krauthammer just calling them liars. Now, to paraphrase Krauthammer, will the press cover it? After all, dude, it’s been more than two years.
Click to watch.

7th U.S. Circuit Court Says: ‘It’s Legal For Police To Kick In Your Door And Take Your Guns’

7th U.S. Circuit Court Says: ‘It’s Legal For Police To Kick In Your Door And Take Your Guns’

May 15, 2014

Binaryloop | I've lived all over the US and found that most Americans love liberty but, get fooled into partisan politics. My goal is to wake people up and help them see it's not about left or right -- it's about freedom!


Opinions from Liberty Crier contributors and members are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Liberty Crier.

By Bruce Vielmetti
Wisconsin police can kick in your door, arrest you, and take your gunsMilwaukee police who forced their way into a gun rights advocate’s home without a warrant, took her for an emergency mental evaluation and seized her gun were justified under the circumstances and protected from her civil rights claims, a federal appeals court has ruled.
Krysta Sutterfield, who twice made news because of her practice of openly carrying a handgun — at a Brookfield church and outside a Sherman Park coffee shop — drew police attention in 2011 after her psychiatrist reported a suicidal remark Sutterfield made during an appointment (She casually remarked that she “might as well go home and blow her brains out”).
Sutterfield, 45, claimed police violated her rights against unreasonable search and seizure and Second Amendment rights to keep a gun, but a district judge dismissed the case.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 75-page opinion analyzing existing law about when police may act without search warrants, upheld the decision but suggested there might be better ways to balance personal privacy rights in the context of emergency mental health evaluations.
7th U.S. Circuit Court says: ‘It’s legal for police to kick in your door and take your guns’ [continued]




The Liberty Crier is delivered to tens of thousands of subscribers daily.
Get your FREE copy by subscribing below!

SPECIAL REPORT: Sleeper Cells In Alabama

SPECIAL REPORT: Sleeper Cells In Alabama



Posted: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:00 pm | Updated: 8:53 am, Thu May 15, 2014.
HUNTSVILLE, Ala.(WAAY)-It’s a scenario many find hard to fathom. Seemingly everyday men and women on the outside who are secretly planning to unleash a terrorist attack So are sleeper cells among us here in north Alabama? And if so, how big of a threat could they pose? “The unfortunate reality is that there are plenty of targets in Alabama,” said Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst with the Clarion Project. “A sleeper cell is a group of terrorists that hide in the darkness, and they wait until the time is right…they’ll go after a shopping mall, they’ll go after a school, they’ll go after any target that will scare Americans.” Mauro and other analysts say the number of sleeper cells that are linked with radical Islamic groups in the U.S. has gradually grown since 9-11, with many spreading beyond traditionally targeted sites like New York and Washington in favor of new ground in the Southeast. Many of the newer terror targets are fast-growing areas with a high number of transplants, including those who contract with, or are directly employed, by the U.S. military. The kind of place very much like Huntsville.
“One of the hardest things for Americans to understand is how someone with radical beliefs and a terrorist agenda can on a day-to-day basis be a genuinely nice person,” said Mauro. “I think a member of a sleeper cell that’s looking to carry out an attack could look for such a site in Huntsville. It’s not that far of a step for them to say there’s a military installation near me, that’s where I’m going to go and impress Allah. We’ve seen penetration of the military, it’s been going on for quite some time.”
Mauro said his research has turned up reliable evidence of radicalized cells operating in Alabama, with Huntsville a prime target due to the abundance of work involving national security. There’s been no evidence of actual penetration on Redstone Arsenal, but FBI Special Agent Philip Celestini said it’s a concern law enforcement is constantly monitoring.
“It’s always a source of concern for us, it’s the thought that keeps us awake at night,” said Celestini, who helps oversee national security operations for the FBI’s Birmingham division. “Redstone Arsenal, the greater Huntsville area, is a very attractive target…We’ve had multiple instances across the country in Maryland, in Texas, in Virginia, in other states, where would-be terrorists have openly and actively plotted to attack military facilities.”
The ongoing threat posed by potential sleeper cells is serious enough for the FBI to conduct mock terrorist attack drills at military bases, with one recent exercise at Redstone Arsenal simulating an active shooter scenario.
There are differing opinions on which sleeper cells pose the greatest threat, but many national security analysts point to those who may be affiliated with Hezbollah.
“It’s been said that Hezbollah, the terrorist group sponsored by Iran, is the “A” team while Al-Qaeda is actually the “B” team,” said Mauro. “The only thing holding Hezbollah back from carrying out an attack on the United States is they believe it’s counterproductive. But if there were a strike on Iran, their thinking would probably change.”
The FBI says it takes every tip on potential sleeper cells seriously.
“If there’s something that makes you uneasy, that makes your hair stand up on end, trust your instincts,” said Celestini. “No matter what it is, in this age of potential terrorism plots we want to hear from them. We want to hear from the public.”

The End Of Hillary Clinton’s Political Career – guilty of criminal neglect in her capacity of Secretary of State

The End Of Hillary Clinton’s Political Career – guilty of criminal neglect in her capacity of Secretary of State

By   /   May 10, 2014  /   1 Comment
    Print       Email
There are very ‘good’ reasons why the House Democrats are making threats of boycotting the recently approved commission on the Benghazi attack.  All of them know that President Obama and the Secretary of State at the time, Hillary Clinton, did not properly discharge their duties during the attack.
“Unforeseen consequences” and “unpredictable twists and turns” had nothing to do with her failure to secure the compound or to send adequate security to protect it. Rather, she got every sort of warning from her own ambassador, the State Department, the CIA and the Defense Department. She just failed to act on them.”
hillary-will-testify-about-benghazi-coverup-after-all-concussion-blood-clot-500x392
https://secure.avangate.com/affiliate.php?ACCOUNT=USDECEPT&AFFILIATE=39149&PATH=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usdeception.com%2Fvsl%2Findex.php&AFFSRC=pndaFour Americans may have died needlessly including John Christopher Stevens, an American diplomat and lawyer who served as the U.S. Ambassador to Libya from June 2012 to September 12, 2012.  His death was not only a humiliating defeat for the USA, it was a violent spectacle which most Americans do not understand how it could have happened.
Happen it did on Hillary Clinton’s watch, a prospective presidential candidate who just could become the Commander-in Chief.  Her reaction to cross examination during the first Senate inquiry by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) is perhaps the best evidence that something very wrong happened during that fateful evening of September 11, 2012.  Her behavior does not seem to be demonstrative of a future leader of the US Armed Forces.  The following YouTube video captures the heart of her testimony which will surely
Anyone watching this video can easily see the dissembling and evasion by which Secretary Clinton answered the questions put forth to her. Many of her former Senate colleagues were mortified by her conduct in light of the seriousness of the investigation. The Republican side is now fully aware that evidence exists which will incriminate Ms. Clinton in the mishandling of the whole affair.  And that the ensuing cover-up is always what does the most political damage.
The Benghazi debacle is much more serious than the media has reported.
Time does have a way of revealing the truth of the matter, and the slow drip of Benghazi revelations will only increase until the midterm elections. Because Ms. Clinton has not come clean since the very beginning, she now sits in a very awkward and vulnerable position. How so?
Any political pundit would objectively observe that Ms. Clinton, based on all the information that is available in the public domain, appears to be guilty of criminal neglect in her capacity of Secretary of State. That verdict is based on the fact that the predicament was allowed to occur in the first place. Simply put, a US Ambassador’s many solicitations for protection were ignored by his boss in DC.
“When you read the various pieces and bits of information she received in the weeks and months prior to the attack, it is hard to see how they could have been any more blunt or explicit in warning of the likelihood of future terror attacks in Benghazi.”[1]
And that is the best case scenario for Secretary Clinton. The worst case is where she and her office ignored every plea for help up to and including the night of the attack on the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya. Someone going even so far as to order available units to stand down makes this situation even worse.
Of course, the cover-up is where things have really gotten messy for Secretary Clinton. Which is why her Republican inquisitors are so determined to get to the bottom of things.  They can only tolerate so much obfuscation, non-compliance and irresponsible behavior on the part of the White House before the American people start to call them on it. The longer this whole sordid affair drags on, the worse it’s going to be for everyone involved in the Obama Adminstration, especially Hillary Clinton.
Benghazi Hearing Promises to be Clinton’s Political Waterloo
As an aspiring presidential nominee, candidate Clinton will necessarily be held up to a much higher standard than she has been in her previous roles. Her stint at State is the only one she can point to as demonstrating her abilities to handle foreign affairs. In light of President Obama’s string of foreign affair fiascos, she will be hard-pressed to bring the necessary gravitas to the role of president in this particular regard.
Even for diehard Democrats, there is the distinct sentiment that Ms Clinton is not up to the task. Her responses to so many challenges, both personal and political, over the years reveal a woman who is often petty, vindictive and unaccountable. Truly, her place in the White House is as an ex First Lady who gave it her best.
“For Clinton now to say that she did the best she could on the basis of “imperfect information” and to blame the tragic outcome on “unforeseen consequences and unpredictable twists and turns” is such an act of distortion of the record that it takes one’s breath away.”[1]
Ms. Clinton ought to look at the Benghazi hearing as an opportunity to listen to the many reasons she should not even consider running for president. Undoubtedly, she will hear things that will embarrass her and her office at State. Truly, so many things happened that should not have under her watch.  Just as many things did not occur in Benghazi that should have for the protection of four Americans who died.
Things have made much worse by the White House response.
Subsequent attempts to acquire pertinent correspondence from the White House about the Benghazi attack and US Government response have been met with continual stonewalling and denial. The Press Secretary has lost all credibility with the both the Press Corp and the public. The key players have only acted in a way which would lead those investigating this serious matter that a full scale cover-up has been operative since day one.
At the end of the day, both Secretary Clinton and President Obama will be held directly responsible for this cover-up, as well as the obvious negligence up to and including the attacks. Each ought to be held accountable for their actions by the Congress and the Mainstream Media (MSM). Unfortunately the MSM has both supported Secretary Clinton’s narrative and enabled her reprehensible conduct at every turn.
However, with the midterm elections around the corner pointing to a GOP landslide, the political chessboard is about to be rearranged in a way that will not bode well for Candidate Clinton. The US electorate is not so clueless that they would elect a nominee who has baggage of this serious nature.  Truly, the whole Benghazi affair does not reflect well on anyone in the Obama Administration, especially the Secretary of State.
The question remains: Does Hillary Clinton understand that the powers that be are using the Benghazi Commission to send her a message? Perhaps she will get it before her first answers are rendered before a congressional inquiry that promises to be bigger and badder than Watergate.  How do you spell C O V E R – U P ?
usc13
source: stateofthenation2012.com
www.patriotnetdaily.com

To Me He's Become Everything - Donna Carline

Hillary’s “Hard Choices”


MEMORANDUM
FROM: RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer @SeanSpicer
TO: Interested Parties
RE: Hillary’s “Hard Choices”
As the publication of Hillary Clinton’s memoir Hard Choices nears, let’s reflect on some of the major choices Clinton has faced in recent years.

Of course, most Americans probably wouldn’t think these were really that “hard.” When choosing between jobs and billionaires or school kids and special interests, the decision seems pretty obvious. When deciding whether to grant an ambassador’s request for more security and whether to support a law that increases healthcare costs, most Americans would make the obvious decision.

But not Hillary Clinton. These “hard choices” resulted in wrong decisions:

1. BENGHAZI

The choice: Whether to increase security in Benghazi.

Clinton’s State Department had to decide whether to send more security to the mission in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the September 11, 2012 attacks. Ambassador Stevens, who was killed in the attacks, had asked for that extra security.

The decision: No added security.

Clinton’s State Department did not increase security in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the September 11 terrorist attack.

2. BOKO HARAM

The choice: Whether to label Boko Haram terrorists.

As Secretary of State, Clinton had to decide whether to designate Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, which the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department encouraged her to do.

Her decision: They’re not a terrorist organization.

She chose not to designate them a terrorist organization, making it harder for the U.S. to go after the group or thwart their attacks. Last month, Boko Haram kidnapped over 200 Nigerian schoolgirls. They are threatening to sell them.

3. OBAMACARE

The choice: Whether to support the unpopular healthcare law.

Clinton had to decide whether to give her support to ObamaCare.

Her decision: Support cost increases and job loss.

She gave it her endorsement, even though Americans have lost jobs, insurance plans, and doctors thanks to the law. Today, families are seeing their premiums rise thanks to the law’s provisions, and the economy is struggling under its onerous regulations.

4. DONORS

The choice: Whether to give back money from an illegal shadow campaign

After recent revelations that Clinton adviser Minyon Moore had personally secured money from embattled D.C. businessman Jeffrey Thompson for an illegal 2008 shadow campaign on Clinton’s behalf, Hillary Clinton had to decide whether to give the money back.

Her decision: $$$$

She chose not to give the money back, indicating she’s not above illegal campaign activity.

5. SHADOW SUPERPAC CAMPAIGN

The choice: Whether to let an army of pro-Hillary SuperPACs do her bidding, while profiting from being a “private citizen.”

Candidate-in-denial Clinton had to decide whether she would give her approval to an army of “unaffiliated” SuperPACs and other groups laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign while she crisscrossed the country raking in massive speaking fees, free of any the restrictions of being a candidate.

Her decision: Have it both ways.

Clinton chose money over transparency, giving her blessing—directly or indirectly—to SuperPACs run by her loyalists. She gets all the benefits of being a candidate without any of the responsibility.

6. SCHOOL CHOICE IN NYC

The choice: Whether to stand up for disadvantaged kids.

Clinton had to decide whether to speak out against New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, her former Senate campaign manager, for his attacks on school choice, charter schools, and the needy students they serve.

Her decision: Stand up for left-wing special interests.

She chose to be silent, even as de Blasio, bowing to pressure from the teachers unions to shut down charter schools in New York city, depriving underprivileged children of schools that were helping them and that they and their parents chose and liked.

7. KEYSTONE JOBS

The choice: Whether to support job creation.

Clinton had to decide whether to endorse the Keystone pipeline construction, a project that would create jobs and to which the State Department found “no major environmental objections.”

Her decision: Support Tom Steyer.

Clinton has thus far chosen not to support Keystone, leaving Americans who could work on the project unemployed. Her failure to support Keystone certainly pleases leftwing donor-activist  and ally Tom Steyer, who’s bankrolling candidates who oppose Keystone and would have plenty of money to support a Clinton campaign.

***
Most Americans would probably agree she made the wrong decisions.  The more Americans learn about “hard choices” like these, the less likely they will be to choose Clinton in any future election. A book isn’t going to change that.        

###

Shamed: MoveOn.org drops petition backing girls' kidnappers Major Democrat-campaign funder's site demanded U.S. not label them terrorists

Shamed: MoveOn.org drops petition backing girls' kidnappers

Major Democrat-campaign funder's site demanded U.S. not label them terrorists

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Boko Haram
WASHINGTON – Leftist website MoveOn.org has replaced a petition supporting the terrorist group that kidnapped hundreds of girls in Nigeria with a scathing attack on Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, for telling the world about the petition.
This is just the latest in a series of abrupt and contradictory changes MoveOn has made in less than 24 hours.
Early Friday evening, WND reported MoveOn still had an active petition calling on the U.S. government not to designate the jihadist group Boko Haram a terrorist organization. Boko Haram is the very same radical Muslim group that has enraged the world by kidnapping more than 200 schoolgirls in Nigeria and threatening to sell them into slavery.
Shortly after WND posted its story exposing the petition, MoveOn added a disclaimer to its website reading: “MoveOn volunteers reviewed this petition and determined that it may not reflect MoveOn members’ progressive values. MoveOn will not promote the petition beyond hosting it on our site. Click here if you think MoveOn should support this petition.”
Two hours later, the petition was yanked and the page where it had been for two years suddenly read: “Petition Not Available. The content of this petition is under review.”
By Saturday morning, the page featured an assault on Stockman’s character written by an Anna Galland, who said, “Rep. Stockman’s ‘MoveOn supports terrorists’ attack is ridiculous on its face. This kind of dishonest attack is exactly the reason Steve Stockman has zero credibility.”
The statement condemned Stockman’s defense of traditional marriage, his criticism of the General Motors bailout and his questioning the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.
Galland also claimed that MoveOn really condemns Boko Haram and prays for the speedy return of the kidnapped girls, while noting that anyone may post a petition on its website.
However, something caused MoveOn to change its mind about hosting the petition overnight.
At about 6:00 p.m. ET on Friday, MoveOn felt compelled to respond to Stockman’s charge by posting the disclaimer that it was reviewing the petition.
After a few years of hosting the petition, MoveOn had suddenly decided that calling for a terrorist group to not be labeled a terrorist group “may not reflect MoveOn members’ progressive values.”
Then, a few hours later, MoveOn removed the petition entirely. The next morning, Galland’s attack on Stockman appeared.
The petition – which received its first signature on June 20, 2012, and continued to be signed by Friday evening – was uncovered by Stockman, who asked MoveOn to apologize for hosting an online petition opposing a terrorist designation for Boko Haram, whose name translates as “western education is a sin.”
Before it was yanked, the petition had well more than 100 signatures, with more than a dozen people signing it just on Friday.
MoveOn did not feel compelled to review the petition and whether it reflected progressive values after Boko Haram murdered up to 50 Nigerian boys on February 25, slitting their throats, gunning them down or burning them alive.
MoveOn also did not feel compelled to condemn Boko Haram or remove the petition after the jihadists had killed 1,000 people by March.
MoveOn only removed the petition after condemnation of Boko Haram became a cause celebre this week among liberal politicians such as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, feminists such as film star Anne Hathaway and First Lady Michelle Obama.
In fact, the petition reflected the same apparent stance Hilary Clinton had taken until a few days ago, when she, too, suddenly joined the chorus condemning the terrorists.
Before that, the former secretary of state had steadfastly refused to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group, even after it bombed United Nations headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria, in 2011. Only under John Kerry did the State Department designate the group as a terrorist organization, in November 2013.
“Boko Haram has murdered thousands and kidnapped hundreds of little girls to sell into sexual slavery. It is beyond despicable for Democratic Party groups to support a terrorist organization,” Stockman said.
Even though MoveOn.org did have a disclaimer stating it does not necessarily endorse the contents of petitions posted on its site, Stockman was amazed the group still had not taken down the petition, saying, “The Democratic Party group MoveOn should apologize for hosting supporters of kidnappers and terrorists.”
Stockman said the petition, “Reject ‘Terrorist’ Designation for Boko Haram,” posted in 2012, began gaining more signatures from Democratic Party activists after the group kidnapped 230 Nigerian girls to sell into sexual slavery.
According to Stockman’s office, MoveOn.org is one of the biggest bankrollers of Democratic Party campaigns, spending $21.6 million on its programs in 2012, with 100 percent of its PAC contributions going to Democrats.
Concerned individuals may contact MoveOn.org.
Here’s what the petition said before MoveOn.org took it down:
Reject “Terrorist” Designation for Boko Haram
Petition by AfricaFocus Bulletin (William Minter)
To be delivered to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Eric Holder, Attorney General, Rep. Henry Waxman (CA-33), Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS-2), Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-4) and 6 other targets (click here to see more)
Petition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama and Members of Congress
We urge you not to support the formal designation of Boko Haram in Nigeria as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” (FTO). Such a move would be a counterproductive mistake with far-reaching negative consequences for both Americans and Nigerians.
It is correct for the United States to join the vast majority of Nigerians in condemning the group for the brutal violence it has inflicted on innocent civilians in Nigeria and their threats to national unity and security in that country.
But U.S. government designation of the group as a FTO, as currently proposed by several Members of Congress and some officials in the the Department of Justice, would increase rather than diminish the threat from Boko Haram. It would give the group additional visibility and credibility among international terrorist networks. It would increase the chances that the group would direct its attacks against U.S. targets.
Most significantly, it would reinforce militarization of Nigerian government actions against the group. Repressive actions by Nigerian security forces in the past have already contributed to increasing support for Boko Haram among those affected. What is needed instead is a multifaceted strategy. Such a strategy must include not only security measures to protect civilians but also flexible diplomacy and serious attention to development issues, particularly in the disadvantaged North of Nigeria where Boko Haram finds support.
FTO designation would also cause enormous collateral damage, making it difficult for both the U.S. government and non-profit groups to address humanitarian and development issues, particularly in the North. It would hamper any efforts by third parties to encourage dialogue and it would introduce new tensions into U.S.-Nigerian relations. It would also pose serious bureaucratic obstacles to travel and family remittances for Nigerian Americans and other Nigerians resident in the United States.
The Nigerian government is well aware of the counterproductive effects of a FTO designation for Boko Haram and has expressed its opposition. So have more than 20 of the top U.S. scholars on Nigeria. We urge you to heed their informed advice.
To endorse this petition as an organization, please send the name of your organization and contact details to africafocus@igc.org. For more information, visit http://www.africafocus.org/docs12/mil1206.php#bh
There are currently 110 signatures. NEW goal – We need 200 signatures!
  • Text smaller
    Reject "Terrorist" Designation for Boko Haram
    Petition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama and Members of Congress

    We urge you not to support the formal designation of Boko Haram in Nigeria as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" (FTO). Such a move would be a counterproductive mistake with far-reaching negative consequences for both Americans and Nigerians.

    It is correct for the United States to join the vast majority of Nigerians in condemning the group for the brutal violence it has inflicted on innocent civilians in Nigeria and their threats to national unity and security in that country.

    But U.S. government designation of the group as a FTO, as currently proposed by several Members of Congress and some officials in the the Department of Justice, would increase rather than diminish the threat from Boko Haram. It would give the group additional visibility and credibility among international terrorist networks. It would increase the chances that the group would direct its attacks against U.S. targets.

    Most significantly, it would reinforce militarization of Nigerian government actions against the group. Repressive actions by Nigerian security forces in the past have already contributed to increasing support for Boko Haram among those affected. What is needed instead is a multifaceted strategy. Such a strategy must include not only security measures to protect civilians but also flexible diplomacy and serious attention to development issues, particularly in the disadvantaged North of Nigeria where Boko Haram finds support.

    FTO designation would also cause enormous collateral damage, making it difficult for both the U.S. government and non-profit groups to address humanitarian and development issues, particularly in the North. It would hamper any efforts by third
  •  

Boko Haram was supported & aided by Obama & HRC; MoveOn,org petitions them to 'REJECT' Terrorist designation also Rep H Waxman & Chris Smith

MoveOn Petition: 'Reject Terrorist Designation for Boko Haram'

Created in 2012, the petition is still up and people have signed the petition as recently as May 9th, well after the terrorists kidnapped over 300 young female students

Former Secretary of State Clinton was criticized earlier this week when it was revealed her State Department refused to designate Boko Harem, the Islamist group that is kidnapping girls in Nigeria, as a terrorist group.  But Ms. Clinton had support; MoveOn.org, a progressive group founded by George Soros, ran a petition asking the Obama administration to "Reject Terrorist Designation for Boko Haram" in 2012. The petition is still up and people have signed the petition as recently as May 9th, well after the terrorists kidnapped over 300 young female students. The petition reads as follows:
To be delivered to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Eric Holder, Attorney General, Rep. Henry Waxman (CA-33), Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS-2), Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-4) and 6 other targets (click here to see more)
Petition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama and Members of Congress
We urge you not to support the formal designation of Boko Haram in Nigeria as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" (FTO). Such a move would be a counterproductive mistake with far-reaching negative consequences for both Americans and Nigerians.
It is correct for the United States to join the vast majority of Nigerians in condemning the group for the brutal violence it has inflicted on innocent civilians in Nigeria and their threats to national unity and security in that country.
But U.S. government designation of the group as a FTO, as currently proposed by several Members of Congress and some officials in the the Department of Justice, would increase rather than diminish the threat from Boko Haram. It would give the group additional visibility and credibility among international terrorist networks. It would increase the chances that the group would direct its attacks against U.S. targets.
Most significantly, it would reinforce militarization of Nigerian government actions against the group. Repressive actions by Nigerian security forces in the past have already contributed to increasing support for Boko Haram among those affected. What is needed instead is a multifaceted strategy. Such a strategy must include not only security measures to protect civilians but also flexible diplomacy and serious attention to development issues, particularly in the disadvantaged North of Nigeria where Boko Haram finds support.
FTO designation would also cause enormous collateral damage, making it difficult for both the U.S. government and non-profit groups to address humanitarian and development issues, particularly in the North. It would hamper any efforts by third parties to encourage dialogue and it would introduce new tensions into U.S.-Nigerian relations. It would also pose serious bureaucratic obstacles to travel and family remittances for Nigerian Americans and other Nigerians resident in the United States.
The Nigerian government is well aware of the counterproductive effects of a FTO designation for Boko Haram and has expressed its opposition. So have more than 20 of the top U.S. scholars on Nigeria. We urge you to heed their informed advice.
At the time this petition was posted the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen were urging the State Department to make the designation. John Kerry added Boko Haram to the terrorist list in 2013.
As of this writing, not only is the petition still up but it is still getting signatures:

Veterans' Non-Service Connected Disability Pension

Clinton Insider Makes Claim About Hillary That Will Likely Have Her Seething

Clinton Insider Makes Claim About Hillary That Will Likely Have Her Seething

Another blow to Hillary's 2016 chances?


YouTube/The National Press Club
During a recent interview, former Bill Clinton aide Mike McCurry expressed doubt regarding the common assumption that Hillary Clinton will seek the presidency in 2016. His comments came the same week as Republican strategist Karl Rove’s suggestion that the former first lady has not been forthcoming about an injury she received in 2012.
“I’d like to say I’m the only person left … in Washington who’d be willing to take some bet that she might not run,” McCurry said.
He concluded that she is “doing terrific work” with the nonprofit Clinton Foundation and might decide to forego the difficult process of mounting a campaign.
“We all know what running for president is like,” he continued, describing the need to interact with “a lot of sometimes less-than-interesting local political people.”
McCurry insinuated that Clinton might not be up for such an ordeal at her age, especially “when she could be doing all this great stuff on a global stage.”
He also suggested the arrival of her first grandchild could be a deciding factor.
Remaining faithful to the Clinton camp, however, McCurry asserted Clinton would be “unbeatable” as a presidential nominee and “would do the job very well.”
He said personal criticisms would take a backseat to her supposed qualifications as a candidate. Of course, considering he served as White House press secretary during Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, McCurry admitted the scandal would likely have an impact on a Hillary candidacy.
“You can’t put oral sex and Oval Office in the same sentence without getting the attention of a young person,” he concluded.
On the other hand, he suggested many people who might otherwise be turned off by another Clinton returning to the White House are not old enough to even remember the first Clinton administration.
Far from a definitive assertion, McCurry’s insights are nonetheless noteworthy given his position of prominence alongside Bill Clinton. Combined with Rove’s recent allegations, this week seems to have offered among the clearest evidence that a presidential bid heretofore considered imminent might not be a guarantee after all.
Photo Credit: YouTube/The National Press Club

The Person Who Leaked the Jay Z Elevator Video Got Caught Today and thats because he is obamas gay lover

The Person Who Leaked the Jay Z Elevator Video Got Caught Today

166,424
13
The Person Who Leaked the Jay Z Elevator Video Got Caught TodayExpand
A spokesperson for the Standard Hotel said on Wednesday that they identified and fired the employee who sold the now-infamous Met Brawl video to TMZ.
According to the AP, the perpetrator was terminated for "breaching the security polices of the hotel and recording the confidential CCTV video" from one of the hotel's elevators. As the Washington Post points out, these cell phone videos of surveillance tapes have become commonplace.
A rep for the Standard told reporters the hotel turned over "all available information to criminal authorities," after firing the employee earlier today.
But whoever the leak is, he or she can probably spring for a good defense attorney—according to Page Six, TMZ shelled out around a quarter-million for the footage.