Officials Stunned! Possible State-Wide “Act of Disobedience” by Connecticut Gun
Owners!
February 13 2014
This “Huge Act of Civil Disobedience” is a media blackout. 10,000′s are now felons overnight.
Will this initiate Phase 3 Martial Law when they can no longer keep a lid on others knowing
about this or when their stand catches on?
Are you prepared?
One former Marine and gun rights advocate, Adam Kokesh, was placed on two years probation
by the A D.C. Superior Court judge Friday, probation in connection with an Independence Day
incident in which he videotaped himself loading a shotgun in Freedom Plaza, near the White
House.
Kokesh, 31, spent nearly four months in D.C. jail after his arrest, but was released in November
after he pleaded guilty to carrying a rifle or shotgun, possession of an unregistered firearm, and
unlawful possession of ammunition.
At his sentencing Friday, Kokesh spoke of his right to protest, but apologized for his actions.
“I protest because I believe it is everyone's right,” he said, standing next to his attorney. “I made
an error in judgment. I am here because I take responsibility. I will be happy to refrain from civil
disobedience.”
According to court records, Kokesh posted a video on YouTube showing him holding a 12gauge, pump-action shotgun and loading what appeared to be live shells while speaking into the
camera July 4. Kokesh is then seen racking the slide of the shotgun.
Authorities said the drug charge was the result of a June incident in which police saw Kokesh
smoking marijuana near the White House.
The former Marine who spent time in Iraq told the judge he was not a violent person, he just
wanted to make a statement. “The only time I was violent was when I was a Marine,” he said.
Kokesh was facing a maximum of more than seven years in prison on all the charges.
Judge Patricia A. Broderick said she sentenced Kokesh to a year in jail, but suspended that time
in favor of probation because he had adhered to her orders since his release in November. She
also credited the 120 days he had spent in jail.
Kokesh has to register as a gun offender. He said he plans to move to California. About a dozen
of his supporters clapped softly when Kokesh was allowed to leave the courtroom.
About 50,000 residents dutifully followed the new law, standing in long lines to register their
firearms.
However, officials say that this is just a small percentage and that potentially 350,000 “assault
weapons” remain unregistered.
A number estimated to be anywhere from 100,000-180,000 people in Connecticut are now
committing a Class D felony. Some politicians believe that people failed to register because they
didn’t know about the law, while others believe this is a direct act of defiance, similar to the
resistance that took place in New York last January.
“I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register,” said Sen.
Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature’s public safety
committee. “If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then
you have a real problem.”
The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to compare the list of people who
underwent background checks to buy military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who
registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might want to know.
“A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it,” said Mike
Lawlor, the state’s top official in criminal justice. “They could send them a letter.”
An aggressive hunt isn’t going to happen, Lawlor said, but even the idea of letters is a scary
thought considering thousands of people are now in an uncomfortable position. At the least, the
legislature should reopen the registration period this year with an outreach campaign designed
to boost the numbers.
It could be a tough sell. On Thursday night, Guglielmo heard from a constituent at a meeting in
Ashford, who said most of his friends with military-style rifles such as AR-15s had not come
forward.
“He made the analogy to prohibition,” Guglielmo said. “I said, ‘You’re talking about civil
disobedience, and he said ‘Yes.’ ”
But it’s not just refusers. A reopened registration would help many who failed to come forward
out of ignorance.
“There are a lot of people, they just do not know about this law,” said Scott Wilson, president of
the 12,000-member Connecticut Citizens Defense League, a Second Amendment advocacy
group. “There are people finding out now after the fact.”
The law was widely covered in the media and Wilson said his group sent information to its
members. But gun owners can be an independent bunch.
Guglielmo, who voted against the sweeping gun control bill, said he intends to raise the concern
at the next meeting of the public safety committee. (source)
Yes, gun owners can indeed be “an independent bunch.” That’s because we know that
registration is only a step away from confiscation.
History has proven this time and time again. In a speech, Katie Worthman, who was an
eyewitness to Hitler’s occupation of Austria, said:
“We also had gun registration. All the Austrian people… had guns. But the government said,
‘the guns are very dangerous. Children are playing with guns. Hunting accidents happen and we
really have to have total controlled safety. And we had criminals again. And the only way that
we can trace the criminal was by the serial number of the gun.’
“So we dutifully went to the police station and we registered our guns. Not long after they said,
‘No, it didn’t help. The only way that we won’t have accidents and crimes [is] you bring the guns
to the police station and then we don’t have any crimes anymore and any accidents. And if you
don’t do that: capital punishment.’ (source)
This law is unconstitutional and it must be nullified every step of the way. I can tell you this. Not
one single one of the estimated 50 thousand who have registered their “assault rifles” was a
criminal. Now, there are 50 thousand less law abiding citizens who have this vital liberty
compared to the lawless agencies who seek to conquer them.
Meanwhile the Arms Continue to Flow
The president wants to disarm Americans. Who can deny this? I can tell you that history has
shown us that our covert actions have been to disarm our enemies and arm their enemies, even
if they are also our enemies. It is a matter of priorities. We are Iraq to fight Iran, and then we
take out Iraq, after they have served their purpose for us.
It also appears the our other enemies, who would help us wear down our other enemies, will
also get weapons one way or the other. It appears that Americans have now reached the top of
the list as enemies of the State of America. So, who do you think is going to be fed weapons,
money, and intelligence to defeat them? Well, enemies of course.
The closest enemy of the United States is Cuba. Who would be feeding them weapons, and
how would they get through to them? Well, some of you missed this story, so let me put the
pieces together and connect the dots.
A North Korean ship that was detained in July carrying undeclared arms after leaving Cuba has
left Panama City and is headed back to the Caribbean island.
Panama's Foreign Ministry said the ship left Saturday morning with 32 of its original 35 crew
members on board. The ship's captain and another two of the crew remain in Panama and will
be prosecuted for arms trafficking.
The ship was detained while preparing to cross the Panama Canal to the Pacific. Authorities
found missile parts, radar system components and other weapon pieces hidden amid bags of
sugar. Those parts and the sugar remain under Panamanian control
What were the weapons?
The Panama Canal Authority recently said the ship could leave, after Pyongyang paid a nearly
$700,000 (£425,000) fine.
Officials were alerted to the ship after It had disappeared from satellite tracking for a few days
as it approached the Cuban capital, Havana, having departed from Russia's eastern coast three
months earlier. This usually indicates the crew switched off the transponder for the ship,
showing satellites what ship is where on the water. The system that visibly watches any ship
and records its activity when the transponder is shut off mysteriously did not function at the time
this incident occurred. No one saw what they were doing, do authorities searched the ship on
grounds it might have connected with a drug boat while at sea.
On searching the vessel, Officials found 25 containers of military hardware, including two
Soviet-era MiG-21 fighter aircraft, air defense systems, missiles and command and control
vehicles.
The statement from the Panamanian public security ministry was released after the North
Korean diplomats - from the country's mission in Havana - visited the crew members at a former
military base
Cuban authorities said that the ship was carrying 240 tonnes of "obsolete" defensive weapons.
These were fully functional systems. It is hard to believe that supersonic fighter jets would be
considered defensive, as they do have sufficient range to attack targets inside the US from
Cuban air bases.
The North Korean government insisted the aging weapons were simply being transferred to
North Korea to be repaired, before returning them.
By the way, under direct orders from Obama, the southern low-altitude radar system was
dismantled at the same time these fighters were being delivered to Cuba. On January 17th,
2013, Exelis Systems Corporation notified its employees that on March 15th, 2013 all TARS Air
Defense Mission Operations will permanently cease. These TARS Air Defense sites were under
the control of the United States Air Force. On January 15th, 2013, the Air Force informed Exelis
(the defense contractor running the TARS sites) that the TARS sites will be shut down. Exelis
tried to then negotiate with the Department of Homeland Security to see if they would take over
the vital project, but it seems as though those negotiations have failed.
The entire southern border is now wide open to anything that wishes to fly under the radar, until
it reaches the 8-mile mark off our border. We no longer have over-the-horizon capabilities to
detect low-flying aircraft or missiles.
While the means to monitor immediately outside our borders has been dismantled by
presidential decree, the monitoring of the space inside the US has expanded with the same
leadership. Cell phones and email surveillance can now record, scan, categorize, and recall all
communications inside the US to be used as retroactive evidence against you in court of law.
You might as well be read your Miranda Rights at birth, because everything you say can and will
be used against you.
Don’t worry, help is on the way. Despite thousands of calls for you to call or write your
Congressman to stop Valerie Jarrett , The North Koreans are sending weapons to the Cubans
so that a quick and orderly transition can be made from a Republic to a dictatorship with Obama
in charge. With a 9% approval rating, it is a cinch that Congress can and will do absolutely
nothing to stop him. Congress has lost control of our government, as the balance of powers has
been shifted to the agencies run by the president. Your silence has indicated your consent for
this to happen as planned.
The Supremes Consider what Bear Means
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide this month whether to hear two cases
seeking clarification on what the Constitution’s framers intended in granting citizens the
right to not only own but also “bear” arms.
Lyle Denniston, a National Constitution Center adviser, writes on the Philadelphia
Inquirer’s website that the National Rifle Association has, of late, brought two cases
before the Supreme Court challenging prevailing legal wisdom that while the Second
Amendment grants U.S. citizens the right to own or “keep” arms, that right does not
necessarily extend to their ability to “bear” arms outside of their personal residences.
In one case, rooted in Texas, the NRA is reportedly challenging a state law permitting
minors to own guns, but stipulating all the same that they are, in fact, too young to apply
for -- and thus possess -- the license necessary to carry them in public.
“The explicit guarantee of the right to ‘bear’ arms would mean nothing,” the NRA’s filing
in the Texas matter reportedly argues, “if it did not protect the right to ‘bear’ arms
outside of the home, where the Amendment already guarantees that they may be
‘kept.’
“The most fundamental canons of construction forbid any interpretation that would
discard this language as meaningless surplus.”
In the other case, the NRA is reportedly challenging a decision rendered earlier by the
5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans that upheld federal and state laws
governing minors’ access to guns.
While the Supreme Court affirmed the right to “keep” a firearm six years ago, it has
reportedly refused in the ensuing epoch to take up the question of what exactly it means
to “bear” arms and where one can carry them.
Should the Supreme Court ultimately decide to hear the cases, the Inquirer reports the
matters will likely be held over until the court's next term in October.
Louisiana thinks New Jersey's concealed carry gun laws are too restrictive, and it wants
the U.S. Supreme Court and the nation to know.
In a petition filed with the Supreme Court this week, James "Buddy" Caldwell and the
attorneys general from 18 other states -- led by Wyoming's Peter Michael -- are
requesting the justices take a look at New Jersey's gun permitting laws, and determine
whether they could contravene and threaten to undo those of other states.
Last summer, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled against a New Jersey
resident who challenged his home state's concealed carry permitting law.
New Jersey does not issue such permits unless the applicant has "demonstrated a
justifiable need to carry a handgun" including providing evidence of "the urgent
necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks." Open
carry is allowed only with a concealed carry permit.
Lead petitioner John M. Drake filed suit, stating the law violates his Second Amendment
right to bear arms. But the court disagreed, saying it would defer to the original decision
of the state Legislature in passing the statute and pointing out the high court has never
determined how far outside the home the right to bear arms extends.
Now, Drake has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and is bringing the support of a
coalition of 19 states with him. The charge is being led by Wyoming, which has some of
the most permissive gun laws in the nation, including open carry without a permit.
According to court documents filed by Wyoming, Louisiana and the other states acting
in support of Drake's appeal, the states have concerns that failing to rule New Jersey's
permitting laws unconstitutional could blow back on other states with less restrictive
laws.
READ THE 19-STATE AMICUS HERE
READ THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS OPINION HERE
"If the right to keep and bear arms can constitutionally be so restricted as to require a
showing of 'justifiable need' in order for a citizen to exercise it, future federal regulations
could effectively preempt the carefully constructed permitting schemes of forty-three
states with less restrictive requirements," the petition reads.
Wyoming law names the right to bear arms "a fundamental right" protected in every part
of the state. But, Louisiana went a step further in 2012 by making it a fundamental right
in the state Constitution and subjecting it to the strictest reading of law. Concealed carry
is allowed in Louisiana with a permit, which is affordable and obtainable after the
applicant undergoes a background check and firearms course.
The Louisiana amendment and its implications for juveniles and convicted felons have
led to significant legal confusion, with the state Supreme Court ruling last month the
unfettered right to carry a concealed firearm does not extend to minors.
In their petition, the 19 states requested the Supreme Court hear Drake's appeal and
make a final determination as to whether the Second Amendment rights in the U.S.
Constitution apply to bringing firearms outside the home.
The 19 states whose attorneys general signed the petition were: Alabama, Alaska,
Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri,
Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia
and Wyoming.
By the way, Tennessee didn’t have to. They did one better. An expansion of the 2009
Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act was introduced yesterday by Senator Mae Beavers
(SB1607). The bill is designed to protect citizens of Tennessee against federal
violations of the 2nd Amendment and 10th Amendment restrictions on Congress.
Any elected official in Tennessee who works against this bill is frankly siding with
President Obama on gun control
Tennessee Firearms Association Executive Director John Harris notes.
If you don't vote to protect your own citizens and state from Obama's liberal gungrabbing agenda, then you are effectively supporting his gun control scheme and the
intentional destruction of the Bill of Rights.
The 2014 Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act legislation declares that the States
expressly prohibits the federal government from having any regulatory authority over
firearms in Tennessee based on the 2nd and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. As
a result no federal firearms laws in Tennessee are valid. The first provision of the bill will
mandate criminal penalties for any federal or state official attempting to enforce
unconstitutional federal firearms laws within the borders of Tennessee. The second
provision empowers citizens to pursue claims by defining federal firearms laws as
intentional civil rights violations
In fact, 9 States have passed Firearm Freedom Acts nullifying federal authority over the
possession of effective firearms. What’s more, there are 26 more States introducing such
legislation to put federal troops and agents in jail if they attempt to enforce federal laws in their
States.
California has addressed the problem of an overreaching, pen-wielding, majestic president and
his gang of ministers who have taken over this country.
Court tosses California's concealedweapons rules
A divided federal appeals court on Thursday struck down California concealed-weapons
rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The 2-1 ruling of a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said
California counties were wrong to require law-abiding applicants to show "good cause"
beyond self-defense to receive a concealed-weapons permit.
California prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without a concealedweapons permit. State law requires applicants to show good moral character, have
good cause and take a training course. It's generally up to the state's sheriffs and police
chiefs to issue the permits, and the vast majority require an applicant to demonstrate a
real danger or other reasons beyond simple self-defense to receive a permit. The 9th
Circuit on Thursday said that requirement violates the 2nd Amendment.
READ MORE: Long Island Top Stories
The San Francisco-based appeals court said those requirements were too strict and ran
afoul of a 5-4 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 that struck down a
Washington, D.C., handgun ban and said law-abiding citizens are allowed to have
handguns in their home for self-defense.
"The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home
for the lawful purpose of self-defense," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote for the
majority.
Chuck Michel, an attorney who represented several San Diego County residents who
were denied a permit and who filed a lawsuit in 2009, praised the 9th Circuit Court's
ruling.
"This decision is a very dramatic confirmation of the Supreme Court ruling," Michel said.
O'Scannlain wrote that the San Diego County Sheriff's Department's requirement that
applicants must provide documentation such as a restraining order to show a "special
need" for a permit "impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear
arms in lawful self-defense."
The ruling reversed a lower-court decision tossing out the lawsuit and ordered the judge
to rule in favor of the applicants.
San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore could let the ruling stand and change his policy; ask
that a special panel of 11 judges of the 9th Circuit rehear the case; or he could petition
the U.S. Supreme Court to take it.
The San Diego County Sheriff's Department said it was consulting with lawyers and
declined comment.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control advocacy group in
Washington D.C., said it hopes the decision will be overturned. It filed a "friend of the
court" brief in the case urging the court to keep the current permitting policy in place.
"Neither history or precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a
dangerous right of people to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom
law enforcement has determined that they have no good cause or qualifications to do
so," center spokesman Jonathan Lowy said.
Judge Sidney Thomas dissented, writing that the good-cause requirement limited the
number of people carrying concealed handguns in public to those legitimately in need.
"It limits the risk to public safety by reducing the number of guns in public circulation, but
allows those who will most likely need to defend themselves in public to carry a
handgun," Thomas wrote.
The ruling on Thursday also disagreed with three other federal appeals courts that have
upheld permit rules similar to the one in California.
The U.S. Supreme Court often takes cases when federal appeals courts issue
conflicting rulings.
Several other lawsuits have been filed across the nation, and Michel and others believe
the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue because of the conflicting rulings.
The State of Montana filed their version of the FFA. The law declares that firearms
manufactured in the state of Montana after October 1, 2009, and which remain in the
state, are exempt from United States federal firearms regulations, provided that these
items are clearly stamped "Made in Montana" on a central metallic part.
It applies to all firearms other than fully automatic weapons, firearms that cannot be
carried and used by one person, and firearms with a bore diameter greater than 1½ inch
which use smokeless powder. It also applies to ammunition (except exploding
projectiles), and accessories such as suppressors.[2]
The law has no requirements for registration, background checks or dealer licensing.
That did not stop William Withholder from taking action by writing a letter to the sovereign State
of Montana’s legislation.
On July 16, 2009, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives published
an open letter to Montana Federal Firearms Licensees, clarifying the bureau's position
on the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. According to this letter, "...because the Act
conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act,
and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their
corresponding regulations, continue to apply." The letter then summarizes ATF
requirements for FFL holders.
The next month, Plaintiffs filed suit in support of the law, in federal district court, on
October 1, 2009. These plaintiffs are the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the
Second Amendment Foundation, and MSSA president Gary Marbut. The legal
complaint states that Marbut "wishes to manufacture and sell small arms and small
arms ammunition to customers exclusively in Montana, pursuant to the MFFA, without
complying with the NFA or the GCA, or other applicable federal laws." [8][9][10][11]
On September 29, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy dismissed the suit "for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim."[12]
The Plaintiffs filed an appeal[13] with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. Oral arguments in MSSA v. William WithHolder were heard by the Ninth Circuit
on March 4, 2013, in Portland, Oregon and a ruling[14] was delivered on August 23, 2013
overturning the lower court's determination regarding lack of standing, but also stating
that existing Supreme Court precedent does not favor the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs
plan to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
North Carolina has an excellent clause in their law.
Section 30
of Article I
of the North Carolina Constitution and Declaration of Rights clearly secures to North Carolina
citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual North Carolina
citizens to keep and bear arms.
To wit, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing
armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military
shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
This constitutional protection is nearly unchanged from the original North Carolina
Constitution, which was approved by the Fifth Provincial Congress, and the right exists as it was
understood at the time that the United States Constitution was agreed upon and ratified by
North Carolina in 1789.
The Federalist Papers (specifically Madison #46 and Hamilton #29) as well as the entire history
of the ratification of the Second Amendment, reveal that the right to bear arms was primarily
intended as the sole means of defense and as a hedge against the potential tyranny of an
overreaching Federal Government. According to the natural law of logic, a right intentionally
enumerated in both the United States Constitution and within the North Carolina Constitution
specifically and directly intended as a hedge against the potential tyranny of an overreaching
Federal Government should not and cannot in any way be defined by nor regulated from the
very Federal Government being so guarded.
The Live Free or Die State
159-E:4 Penalty.
I. Any public servant of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 that enforces or
attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United
States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured
commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New
Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
II. Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a
corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts
to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States
upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially
or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be
guilty of a class B felony.
Now that is some teeth. I went looking for an altercation between the Obama’s royal guard and
the State of New Hampshire.
The Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act
The state Senate on Monday overwhelmingly passed a nullification bill that would prohibit
Kentucky from enforcing new federal gun control laws if they’re enacted, despite concerns about
the bill’s constitutionality.
The vote was 34-3. Three of the Senate’s 14 Democrats voted no, stating that the measure would
be trumped by the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
Sen. Jared Carpenter, a Berea Republican, sponsored the bill. He said the Supremacy Clause
applies only if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, which he
said wouldn’t apply to stricter gun measures.
“If I thought the bill would be symbolic, I would’ve written a resolution,” Carpenter told the
Associated Press. “I thought it needed more than that.”
The one-page bill deems unenforceable federal bans on gun ownership and registration. It
specifically mentions semiautomatic firearms and their magazines.
The bill applies to federal laws as well as federal rules, regulations and orders.
“A friend of mine said to me, ‘Would you be willing to give up a little bit to be safer?’” said Sen.
Ray S. Jones II, D-Pikeville, before he voted yes on the bill. “My answer to that is very simple.
No I will not.”
“I should not have to give up a single constitutional right that I have to be safer,” he continued.
“Because criminals choose to commit crimes. None of us in this room should have (their Second
Amendment rights limited) because criminals commit crimes.”
The idea behind Kentucky’s bill isn’t new. In 2009, Montana and Tennessee enacted legislation
that said guns sold within state borders are not subject to federal regulations or taxes, according
to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Bills in other statehouses this year would go much further. The Salt Lake Tribune reported this
month that more than 20 states are trying to pass bills similar to one in Utah that would give
local police the authority to arrest federal agents who try to take local residents’ guns.
The newspaper quoted the NCSL as saying that these types of nullification laws fail to hold up in
the courts.
“This piece of legislation is meaningless,” Sen. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington, said before her no
vote. “Can we please rise above the temptation to pander to those who believe that something is
happening in this nation that is not happening. No one is coming to get your guns in this state.”
The Feds are Training the State’s Militia to go after your
guns.
The Ohio National Guard is training to fight a clear and present danger; the armed American.
Documents from an Ohio National Guard (ONG) training drill conducted last January
reveal the details of a mock disaster where Second Amendment supporters with “antigovernment” opinions were portrayed as domestic terrorists.
The Ohio National Guard’s Civil Support Team practices in a May 2013 drill at Put-inBay
The ONG 52nd Civil Support Team training scenario involved a plot from local school
district employees to use biological weapons in order to advance their beliefs about
“protecting Gun Rights and Second Amendment rights.”
Portsmouth Fire Chief Bill Raison told NBC 3 WSAZ-TV in Huntington, West
Virginia that the drill accurately represented “the reality of the world we live in,” adding
that such training “helps us all be prepared.”
Internal ONG documents provided to Media Trackers after repeated delays provide
further context to what WSAZ-TV reported last winter.
In the disaster-preparedness scenario, two Portsmouth Junior High School employees
poisoned school lunches with mustard gas, acting on orders from white-nationalist
leader William Pierce.
The ONG team discovered biological weapons being produced in the school, requiring
activation of containment and decontamination procedures.
Participants in the disaster drill located documents expressing the school employees’
“anti-government” sentiments, as well as a note identifying Pierce as the fictional rightwing terrorists’ leader.
ONG’s 52nd Civil Support Unit participated in a similar drill involving left-wing terrorists
with Athens County first responders last year; public officials apologized for that training
the next day in response to complaints from local environmentalist groups.
No apology to Ohioans who support limited government and the Second Amendment
appears to be forthcoming.
Scioto County Emergency Management Agency director Kim Carver refused to
comment, telling Media Trackers she was “not going to get into an Ohio Army National
Guard issue that you have with them.”
Ohio National Guard Communications Director James Sims II suggested Media
Trackers was “inferring” from the ONG document’s contents as opposed to “what’s
actually in the report.”
After excerpts of the report were read to him, Sims said it was “not relevant” to
understand why conservatives may feel unduly targeted by ONG’s training scenario.
“Okay, I’m gonna stop ya there. I’m going to quit this conversation,” Sims concluded.
“You have a good day.”
Buckeye Firearms Association spokesman Chad Baus told Media Trackers that “it is a
scary day indeed when law enforcement are being trained that Second Amendment
advocates are the enemy,”
“The revelation of this information is appalling to me, and to all citizens of Ohio who are
true conservatives and patriots, who don’t have guns for any other reason than that the
Second Amendment gives them that right,” Portage County TEA Party Executive
Director Tom Zawistowski said in a separate Media Trackers interview.
Media Trackers reached out to Portsmouth-area state legislators Representative Terry
Johnson and Senator Joe Uecker for comment about the drill, which took place within
their respective districts. Neither replied to phone calls or emails in time for publication.
ONG’s January 2013 training exercise is one of many instances where government
officials have identified those with limited-government or pro-Second Amendment
opinions as potential terror threats.
In 2009, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security warned law enforcement
agencies that a predicted rise in“right-wing extremism” would be fueled by “proposed
imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans” and “the election of the first
African American president.”
Throughout modern history, groups and individuals associated with left-wing causes
have proven far more likely to commit acts of domestic terror.
The Last Line of Defense Against the Fed: Sheriffs
Last month, at the Yreka fairgrounds in northern California, the sheriffs – who, of course, are
elected by the people – gathered with a large group to discuss what to do about Big Brother and
his consistent meddling in state and local affairs.
Speaking of the federal bureaucracy, Plumas County (California) Sheriff Greg Hagwood
declared, “A giant has been awakened, and they didn’t count on that.”
One by one the sheriffs recounted their experiences with an ever-encroaching federal
government, whether from the aspect of emergency management, the foisting upon local
jurisdictions of federal mandates, or the passage of federal statutes which many now feel run
roughshod over state and local governments, inhibiting their ability to mold their own laws and
policies around the needs of their respective populations.
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
Naval Marshal General Isoroku Yamamoto
“I had spent a good part of my life enforcing the penal code, but not understanding my oath of
office,” Sheriff Dean Wilson of Del Norte (Sacramento) County told the group.
“I was ignorant and naive, but now I know of the assault against our people by the
federal government,” he said, receiving some of the loudest and longest applause of the
gathering.
Event host Sheriff John Lopey of Siskiyou (California) County said one of his biggest pet peeves
was the federal government’s ever-increasing environmental regulations.
“I have told federal and state officials over and over that, yes, we want to preserve the
environment, but you care more about the fish, frogs, trees and birds than you do about the
human race. When will you start to balance your decisions to the needs of the people? We are
right now in a fight for our survival,” he said.
No one makes the case better that the county sheriff is the real supreme law of the land than
former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack. Speaking at the event, Mack says the word is beginning to
get around.
“It’s becoming a national movement now,” Mack said, noting he planned to announce in January
a national education movement that he anticipates will draw about 200 sheriffs from around the
country.
“The county sheriff is the last line of defense guarding our people’s liberty,” he said.
The Enemy of the State
The Department of Homeland Security is warning and arming all Agencies,
Departments, Bureaus, and Administrations in preparation for war against the American
people.
The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in
“rightwing extremist activity,” saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black
president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power
militias.
A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis
defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but
also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to
abortion or immigration,” the warning says.
• Click here to download a PDF of the report.
The White House has publicly distanced itself from the analysis, but is writing the script for the
entire military effort against the American people. When asked for comment on its contents,
White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said, “The President is focused not on politics but rather
taking the steps necessary to protect all Americans from the threat of violence and terrorism
regardless of its origins. He also believes those who serve represent the best of this country,
and he will continue to ensure that our veterans receive the respect and benefits they have
earned.”
Excuse me. I need to swallow some bile.
The nine-page document was sent to police and sheriff's departments across the United States
on April 7 under the headline, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate
Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”
It says the federal government “will be working with its state and local partners over the next
several months” to gather information on “rightwing extremist activity in the United States.”
The joint federal-state activities will have “a particular emphasis” on the causes of “rightwing
extremist radicalization.”
Homeland Security spokeswoman Sara Kuban said the report is one in an ongoing series of
assessments by the department to “facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of
violent radicalization in the U.S.”
The report, which was first disclosed to the public by nationally syndicated radio host Roger
Hedgecock, makes clear that the Homeland Security Department does not have “specific
information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.”It warns
that fringe organizations are gaining recruits, but it provides no numbers.
The report says extremist groups have used President Obama as a recruiting tool.
“Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the
election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action,” the
report says. “In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the
early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law
enforcement interceded.”
When asked about this passage, Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said, “We are
concerned about anybody who will try to harm or plan to harm any one of our protectees. We
don't have the luxury to focus on one particular group at the exclusion of others.”
Congressional debates about immigration and gun control also make extremist groups
suspicious and give them a rallying cry, the report says
“It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between
the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons
stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists,” the report said.
The FBI was quoted Monday as saying that, since November, more than 7 million people have
applied for criminal background checks in order to buy weapons.
The Homeland Security report added: “Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists,
including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to
action, rallying point, and recruiting tool.”
The report could signify a change in emphasis for Homeland Security under former Arizona
Gov. Janet Napolitano. A German magazine quoted Ms. Napolitano as rebranding “terrorism” as
“man-made disasters.” Since its inception in 2003, the department has focused primarily on
radicalization of Muslims and the prospect of homegrown Islamist terrorism. In the mean time,
the DHS has purchased billions of rounds of ammunition forbidden by the Geneva Convention
to place behind barrels of government guns aimed at the American people.
In January, the same DHS office released a report titled “Leftwing extremists likely to increase
use of cyber attacks over the coming decade.” “These types of reports are published all the
time. There have actually been some done on the other end of the spectrum, left-wing,” Ms.
Kuban said.
A similar headline was used in a report issued in January, Ms. Kuban said, although she could
not provide the content of the headline.
Ms. Kuban said she did not know how long the new report had been in the making, although the
president’s personal assassination list and his leadership of the IRS in an illegal assault on his
political enemies is part of the agenda as well.
“The purpose of the report is to identify risk. This is nothing unusual,” said Ms. Kuban, who
added that the Homeland Security Department did this “to prevent another Tim McVeigh from
ever happening again.” In the mean time, the president has personally expunged the most
experience battlefield leaders the nation has ever known in a stunning purge of the military.
The Homeland Security assessment specifically says that “rightwing extremists will attempt to
recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived
from military training and combat.” Since when is following and upholding the US Constitution
radical? Oh yeah. Since it was responsible for beating the monarchs more than 230 years ago.
Well, I suppose the direct descendant of the Queen of England is back to claim his throne.
Jerry Newberry, director of communications for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said the vast
majority of veterans are patriotic citizens who would not join anti-government militias.
“As far as our military members go, I think that the military is a melting pot of society. So you
might get a few, a fractional few, who are going to be attracted by militia groups and other rightwing extremists,” he said.
I have news for you, Mr. Newberry, the citizen militia of the US is more than 375 years old, and
it is the only force that has kept federal tyranny at bay for nearly that long. Only now, after the
president has fully seized control of the Agency Government that rules our nation, is that militia
at risk. Every passing day, that militia looks more and more like the people of Syria, who are
defending themselves street by street with hand-me-down weapons and old pickup trucks
against Obama’s well armed Al Qaeda fighters. The question each member considers when
they go to bed at night is, “Will I have the courage to stand and defend my neighborhood when
the president sends his troops to take our liberty away?”
“We have to remember that the people serving in our military are volunteers, they do it because
they love their country, and they believe in what our country stands for,” he said. What he forgot
to say was that these volunteers swear an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution, and
when they see what we are doing to more than 74 nations around the world, and when they are
forced to guard poppy fields of the Taliban, or launch drones into neighborhoods where innocent
people die in the president’s assassination attacks, and when they return home to see that they
are suspected of being extreme for supporting that Constitution, they pick up that gun one last
time and place it against their own head.
Post military suicide has claimed the lives of more American veterans that all the wars of the
past 30 years. This is the legacy of Barack Hussein Obama. It is time to turn our backs on him.
Obfuscate him. Treat him as though the election is already over, and he is no longer president.
Like it is often said on this radio network, “Silence is consent.”
The Homeland Security report cited a 2008 FBI report that noted that a small number of
returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.
The FBI report said that from October 2001 through May 2008 “a minuscule” number of
veterans, 203 out of 23,000, had joined groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, the
National Socialist Movement, the Creativity Movement, the National Alliance and some
skinhead groups. I wonder how many of Obama’s agents have joined those very same
organizations. I would say more than 203 in less than 5 years.
If you don’t think the Agency Government is at War with
Americans, Think Again
The Department of Homeland Security is set to activate a national license plate tracking system
that will be shared with law enforcement, allowing DHS officers to take photos of any license
plate using their smartphone and upload it to a database which will include a “hot list” of “target
vehicles”.
Image: License Plate Scanning Camera (Wikimedia Commons).
The details are included in a PDF attachment uploaded yesterday to the Federal Business
Opportunities website under a solicitation entitled “National License Plate Recognition
Database.”
The system will “track vehicle license plate numbers that pass through cameras or are
voluntarily entered into the system from a variety of sources (access control systems, asset
recovery specialists, etc.) and uploaded to share with law enforcement” in order to help locate
“criminal aliens and absconders.”
In other countries that have activated license plate tracking networks, such as the United
Kingdom, political activists have been targeted by having their vehicles added to a “hotlist” after
attending protests. One example led to a man being questioned under anti-terror laws after he
traveled to take part in an anti-war demonstration.
As the image above illustrates, the cameras are also used by local governments in Australia to
keep records of people who violate parking restrictions. Critics of the system in Australia have
condemned it as “a Pandora’s box for abuse of power, mistakes and illegal disclosure,”
stressing that the technology allows authorities to record “your number plate at a certain time
and location,” allowing police to “compile an extraordinary amount of data about you. This
includes your name, address, contact details, driving history and licence status.”
“Innocent people are increasingly being treated with suspicion due to the tiny chance that some
offence may be committed,” writes David Jancik.
The DHS’ database will allow authorities “to determine where and when the vehicle has
traveled,” using data compiled “from a variety of sources nationwide,” including “metropolitan
areas” within the United States, suggesting the system may be linked in with regular
surveillance cameras as it is in the UK.
The system will also allow DHS officials to take a picture of any license plate via their
smartphone, upload it to the database and immediately receive an alert if the plate is on the
watchlist.
“The NLPR data service should provide details on clarity of photos provided. The Government
would prefer a close-up of the plate and a zoomed out image of the vehicle,” states the
solicitation.
The system must also have the capability to “flag license plates and conduct searches
anonymously so that other law enforcement agencies may not have access.”
Given rampant concerns that the Department of Homeland Security, which is ostensibly
introducing this system in the name of catching illegal aliens, is in fact an increasingly bloated
federal bureaucracy designed to target the American people, the notion of the DHS enjoying
access to a fully integrated nationwide license plate tracking grid is chilling, especially given the
fact that the agency has funded reports which characterize “liberty lovers” as potential terrorists.
The DHS also recently awarded the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority $7 million
dollars to outfit its buses with high tech 360 degree surveillance cameras. The federal agency
is simultaneously supporting the rollout of ‘Intellistreets’ lighting systems that double as
surveillance hubs which can record conversations.
“Do not kid yourself. This is tracking of an individual that can be accessed at a whim,” writes
James Smith. “Yearly, officers are terminated for accessing the LEDS/NCIC database for
looking into the histories of ex-lovers, future spouses, and potential sons/daughters-in-law. And
with license plate tracking toy (not a tool), they will know where you are, as long as you have
driven into the cross hairs of this new weapon for tyranny.”
Joining with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA) and Mayors Against
Illegal Guns (MAIG) on February 12, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) charged Congress with
"complicity" in gun violence.
Murphy specifically took aim at those in Congress who have been critical of gun-free zones and
have sought ways to allow citizens to arm themselves for self-defense in such zones. Murphy
said, "It's complicity when in the face of increased shootings on public property, some in
Congress want to make it easier to bring guns on public property."
According to CBS News, Murphy also said Congress was "exacerbating" the "problem of gun
violence" by debating rules to allow "people to bring guns onto post office grounds."
Murphy cited "at least 44 school shootings" since the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary,
which took place in December 2012. He did not explain how he reached the figure of 44,
but Breitbart News has shown that some of these "shootings" are often murders in which one
individual purposely seeks out another individual with the intent of killing that one person. Such
was the case in the January 21 murder at Purdue University, a murder which gun control
activists quickly labeled a "shooting."
In May, as Breitbart News reported, Senator Murphy said the right to keep and bear arms "is not
an absolute right, is not a God-given right."
Bankster Update
Many banks are now refusing to allow customers to make large withdraws.
Account holders at HSBC banks, the second largest bank in the world, have been met with
surprising resistance when attempting to withdraw money from their own accounts, for example.
It’s unclear exactly what is going on, but some experts believe banks are starting to take
desperate measures to hoard their customers’ cash in case of a potential crisis.
The Washington Times, for example, reports the story of Stephen C., who tried to withdraw
cash from his HSBC savings account to pay back a $11,500 loan from his mother. 1
The bank refused his request—saying they needed proof of what the money was being used
for.
He was then forced to negotiate with the bank in order to access his own money, and could only
withdraw a fraction of his money. 2
Perhaps even worse, HSBC admitted in a statement, reported by the BBC, that it did not inform
customers of this change in policy.
While the bank argues such policies are for the protection of their clients, others believe there
may be ulterior motives.
Banks limiting cash withdrawals is often a sign of an insolvent banking system. Historically,
banks institute capital controls like this when cash on hand isn’t sufficient to supply withdrawals.
Reports of banks refusing to customers to withdraw large sums of cash are quietly trickling in…
In Atlanta, for example, a Bank of America branch reportedly refused one customers’ request of
an $11,800 withdrawal. They would only allow him to withdraw $2,000. 3
JP Morgan Chase enacted a similar policy of limiting cash withdrawals. 4
Dr. Steve Sjuggerud, financial analyst at Stansberry & Associates, wonders whether or not
these are the beginning signs of another banking crisis.
Dr. Sjuggerud reported the same problems when he tried to withdraw money from his
hometown bank near Jacksonville, FL.
He went to his local branch of a major national bank to withdraw $15,000 in cash. The teller
looked confused.
She then excused herself to confer with another teller and then the bank manager—all in
hushed tones.
Finally, the told Dr. Sjuggerud, “Sir, we can’t do this.”
The most the bank was prepared to/could give him right then: A paltry $2,000.
I had the same thing happen to me with a $12,500
My advice is the same as it has been for the past year. If you are directly depositing your
checks, make weekly withdrawals in cash. Only leave enough money in your account to cover
a couple of months worth of the essential bills like you home and your car. If there is a crisis,
you won’t need cable TV or the other crap like credit cards. Just add up your car payment and
house payment, and leave two payments in the bank. You will only need one month’s worth of
everything else. Withdraw the rest and put it into a safe place in cash.
Also, liquidate your holdings in your 401k. Turn it all into cash. When that is done, use no more
than 4 withdrawals remove that money to a safe place. I recommend turning some of this into
small increments of silver metal, like bars or coins. Silver metal is a very affordable storage
metal, but it is not easily traded right now. The rest should remain cash. If you do not get your
401k money out of the bank, it will be confiscated by the US government and turned into an IOU
along with your social security benefits. The government will claim they can manage the money
better than you, because you are stupid and will squander it.
And, you may squander it. The point is that it is your right to do so.
The FDA: We Shall Treat at all Costs
The FDA has been killing Women for more than 50 years, but now the truth is coming out.
Multi-billion dollar global corporations have staffed the FDA approval Panel for decades and
stopped with prejudice the introduction of new technologies that would detect illnesses years
earlier, and with many times the accuracy, than the medical equipment these giants have been
selling to hospitals and clinics all over the world.
It is widely believed in the realm of medicine that annual mammography is a vital
preventative tool against breast cancer. But in a recently reported long-term study of
women age 40-59 conducted in Canada, the practice was found not to appreciably reduce
cancer death rates after all.
"We found absolutely no benefit in terms of reduction of deaths from the use of mammography,"
said study leader Dr. Anthony Miller of the University of Toronto.
The results of the study, as reported Tuesday in the British Medical Journal, may bolster the
argument raised by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2009 that most women under 50
could safely forego the test. This position was based on the finding that the chances of a 40year-old woman contracting and dying from invasive breast cancer were well below 1%.
The data from the Canadian study suggests that about half of cancers detected by
mammography are so small that they would never have become dangerous if left alone; thus
the phenomenon of "overdiagnosis."
I say that the problem has been a deep seated business philosophy that has been at the core of
the FDA for the past 30 years, and more particularly for the past 10 years. Their militant attack
on the use of vitamins, exercise, and diet management to prevent and control disease is
legendary. Millions of Americans have lost their lives because they have kept cures off the
market. The criminality is that the equipment and supplements that could have saved those
lives were invented and proven, but were blocked from being provided for patients by this
tyrannical corporate authority under the direct control of the president. In fact, Congress is
excluded from communicating with them unless they are hauled into special hearings. Hey, that
is just like the IRS.
The mammogram study sampled 89,835 women over a period of 25 years. The entire sample
received annual physical breast examinations, while half of them received yearly mammogram
screenings for five of those years. The number of breast cancer diagnoses in each group, as
well as the number of subsequent deaths, were nearly equal. The mammography arm of the
study was somewhat more likely to be diagnosed but no more likely to survive the disease. The
research team calculated a whopping 22% rate of overdiagnosis.
According to Dr. Miller, "Modern treatment is so much more effective now that the lead time
gained by mammography has little impact on the outcome."
Dr. H. Gilbert Welch at Dartmouth College's Geisel School of Medicine co-wrote a book titled
"Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health." Welch applauded the evidence
presented in the Canadian study: "People in the cancer community and the cancer surgery
community are aware of the problem of overdiagnosis. They're aware that mammography was
oversold–that its benefits were exaggerated and its harms were kind of downplayed. Oversold
by whom? Downplayed by whom? Ah, yes. The pharmaceutical and instrument giants who
have 100% control over every single thing we put down our throats.
The excited push to use 3D tomosynthesis is little more than a last-ditch attempt to avoid
having to admit mammograms are useless and don’t result in reduced mortality rates. In fact,
the increased exposure to x-rays may exacerbate the uncontrolled division of cancerous
tissues, resulting in a measurable increase in deaths.
The non-invasive and radiation-free technology was invented and proven back in 2005 and then
again in 2007. Well now, UE Life Sciences Inc. (UELS), the latest in medical device
manufacturers focused on providing novel breast cancer screening solutions, announced today
that it has received market clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its
NoTouch BreastScan™ device. NoTouch BreastScan™ is a contactless breast-imaging tool
cleared by the FDA specifically for adjunctive diagnostic screening for the detection of breast
cancer.
“NoTouch BreastScan™ does not discriminate dense breast tissue, which is good news for tens
of millions of women in America” NoTouch BreastScan™ is the first fully computerized
functional infrared imaging system that incorporates patent pending dual-infrared detector
design. Unlike most breast thermography solutions, NoTouch BreastScan™ does not require
manual interpretation of thermal data; instead, it dynamically analyzes temperature pixels from
various infrared frames to create a real-time objective report for the doctor.
New York and New Jersey are the first 2 target clinic areas for distribution by Life Sciences for
the NoTouch BreastScan device, and the company is also working on a hand held sensor to
detect early breast cancer. This looks to be very well designed and no woman going in for a
mammogram is going to miss the smashed pancake routine that we all go through now. One
other real benefit is not having to worry about radiation exposure as this technology can be used
as many times as needed without any harmful effects. It is a passive scanner, imaging only the
heat put off by the human body.
The doctor who worked at the FDA who blocked most of the new technologies from reaching
the market was Doctor Robert C. Smith. He was employed as a Food and Drug Administration
scientist, and he blocked the approval of potentially more precise digital mammography
machines for several years. The FDA’s corporate moguls did not like this, so elements inside
the FDA tapped his computer and hacked his emails.
Robert C. Smith is being criticized by some breast-cancer doctors as well as some in the FDA
for not approving the new machines during his nearly four-year tenure as a medical officer in the
agency's radiological-devices branch.
According to FDA records, 13 machines have been approved since Dr. Smith left his position.
Dr. Smith's lawyer, Stephen Kohn, leveled his own criticism on behalf of his client: that the FDA
is too quick to push through such approvals.
Mr. Kohn said Dr. Smith "was just upholding the law, being an honest and rigorous regulator.
Industry has a cozy relationship with many at the FDA, but they did not have a cozy relationship
with Dr. Smith."
Both Dr. Smith, who has sued the agency and alleges retaliation by it, and those who have
spoken out against him are arguing they made their decisions with women's safety in mind.
The matter has come to light after Dr. Smith and some other FDA scientists were the subject of
an internal investigation into leaks that led to a monitoring of their emails. That has led members
of Congress to express concern that the agency may have retaliated against dissenters who
raised safety issues.
But the attention on Dr. Smith has also revived the ire long felt toward him by breast-cancer
specialists over his role while he worked as medical officer in the radiological-devices branch
from September 2006 to July 2010.
"He began putting in obstacles to approval that were unreasonable," said Etta D. Pisano, a
breast imaging expert and dean of the college of medicine at the Medical University of South
Carolina. Because of Dr. Smith, she said, "new machines didn't get on the market."
Dr. Pisano was the lead researcher on a landmark study demonstrating the accuracy of digital
mammography and also has represented imaging companies seeking to gain FDA approval for
the machines.
Five mammography machines using digital technology were approved by the FDA's radiological
devices branch before Dr. Smith joined it. None were approved during his tenure. Six were up
for approval in that time. There is no way of knowing whether any women had cancers advance
because of the delays of digital technology
As the use of digital mammography spreads, most of the questions have focused not on safety
or effectiveness—the criteria the FDA considers—but on cost. A federal task force in 2009
concluded that potential harms from digital mammography are similar to those of film
mammography but observed that the digital test is often more expensive.
Supporters of the digital technology say it may detect more cases of cancer, and the images are
easier for doctors to share as digital files.
Dr. Smith became the de facto leader of a group of nine FDA scientists who in 2008 and 2009
began writing letters alleging safety problems with a range of devices up for review at the FDA.
Some complaints were borne out, such as when FDA leaders took the unusual step in October
2010 of withdrawing the 2008 approval of a knee-surgery device.
Dr. Smith joined the FDA after stints at Yale-New Haven Hospital and New York-Presbyterian
Hospital/Weill Cornell, both of which he had sued over alleged retaliation and other issues. He
won a jury verdict against Yale for alleged retaliation, but his claims of fraud against both
hospitals were dismissed by federal judges.
By the time Dr. Smith was let go by the FDA in 2010, he had brought the work of the
radiological-devices branch to a near-standstill with his accusations about colleagues and
managers, according to current and former FDA officials.
Mr. Kohn said that a group of scientists, not just Dr. Smith, raised concerns about device safety
and that "the FDA refused to make needed reforms and instead spent hours on surveillance of
emails."
In 2005, the New England Journal of Medicine published a 42,760-patient study by Dr. Pisano
and colleagues funded by the National Cancer Institute concluding that "the diagnostic accuracy
of digital and film mammography was similar." They said digital imaging was "significantly
better" than film in finding cancer in women under 50 and those before or during menopause.
Persuaded by this evidence, a 2006 outside advisory committee to the FDA told the agency it
should allow the entire class of digital-mammography devices to go through a simplified process
of FDA approval. That process would allow the new devices on the market if makers could show
they were similar to already-marketed devices.
But simplified approvals of any sort didn't happen for years. The main reason was Dr. Smith,
according to FDA and industry officials as well as academic radiologists. In November 2009, the
committee of outside medical advisers again told the FDA it should simplify the approval
process.
That committee's chairman, Carl D'Orsi, director of breast-imaging research at Emory
University, said Dr. Smith "kept bringing up issues that weren't useful on efficacy or safety.
There were absolutely no safety issues involved." Dr. D'Orsi said he has stock options with one
imaging company and a grant to Emory from another to evaluate a new form of mammography.
Dr. Smith's lawyer, Mr. Kohn, said that "if anyone on the panel had a question for Dr. Smith, why
didn't he ask it?"
Among other things, Dr. Smith pointed out in the 2009 hearing that the landmark study didn't
evaluate all the devices that later came before the FDA.
In late 2010, the FDA did issue a document allowing the digital mammogram makers to get onto
the market through a simplified process, and approvals resumed.
One device that got held up is called Giotto Image, made by Giotto USA LLC. Robert Rusk,
Giotto's then-president, said Dr. Smith asked Giotto for more clinical studies.
"Robert Smith said our tests didn't reflect the same demographics as" the landmark 2005 study,
said Mr. Rusk. "But we submitted our data before it was published. How can you hold us to that
standard?"
Morgan Nields, then a consultant for Giotto, said of Dr. Smith, "His arrogance was dripping. We
made zero progress." The latest version of Giotto's device won FDA approval in October 2011.
Dr. Smith's attorney, Mr. Kohn, said, "There was an FDA rule at the time requiring some human
testing, and he had to enforce it."
This month, F.D.A. officials came under fire from Congress after disclosures that they had
begun a surveillance operation monitoring the e-mail of Dr. Smith and four other employees as
they wrote to their lawyers, lawmakers and even President Obama. Dr. Smith’s scorched-earth
tactics had so unnerved managers that they, too, resorted to extreme measures, and the
monitors ended up producing a sort of enemies list of 21 agency critics, including Congressional
officials, academics and journalists.
Some 80,000 pages of documents intercepted in the spy operation — many of them e-mails
from Dr. Smith seeking help from scientists, politicians, reporters, academics and others —
detail his campaign to expose what he claimed were harmful practices at the F.D.A. The
documents, accidentally posted online by an F.D.A. contractor, reveal a four-year process of
estrangement between Dr. Smith and his bosses.
At first, F.D.A. managers sought to appease him by restructuring his office, calling in mediators
and pledging reforms. But he responded with more sweeping charges of wrongdoing, accusing
agency officials and manufacturers of a criminal conspiracy to market unsafe devices. An
outside consultant said his vitriolic attacks created a toxic workplace.
Dr. Smith stood to profit from his accusations: he and other disgruntled F.D.A. scientists had
filed a lawsuit, kept secret under court seal by law, against manufacturers of imaging devices.
After discovering the suit, F.D.A. officials began to suspect his motives. Those suspicions
intensified when they learned that he had filed similar whistle-blowing lawsuits against two
previous employers, Yale and Cornell.
The Brooklyn-born Dr. Smith, 52, who left the drug agency in 2010 and is now working as a
radiologist at a private practice in Great Neck, N.Y., does not apologize for his aggressive style.
“I’m not the kind of guy who ever in his life turns a blind eye to things,” he said in an interview.
His concerns about the effectiveness of certain imaging devices for detecting breast and colon
cancer are shared by some medical experts. But potential allies were driven off by his abrasive
style. “He got annoying, he got obstructive in nature,” said Dr. Carl D’Orsi, a mammography
expert at Emory University who worked on an F.D.A. review panel and also served as a
consultant for a manufacturer. Fellow employees went further, complaining to the consultant
that Dr. Smith was “disruptive,” “adversarial” and “confrontational.”
Staff members for three Congressional committees that often criticize the F.D.A. reviewed Dr.
Smith’s complaints and chose not to pursue them. The inspector general of the Department of
Health and Human Services examined his claim that the agency was violating the law in
reviewing medical devices and concluded that he was wrong.
Dr. Smith maintains that many imaging devices do not work as advertised by their
manufacturers, produce many false positives and subject patients to needless rounds of
potentially harmful radiological testing. Moreover, he says they waste enormous amounts of
federal Medicare aid. Dr. Smith said that his sole goal in making his complaints was to protect
Americans from harmful medical devices and that money was not a motive.
His concerns are now getting another look. The Office of Special Counsel, which investigates
whistle-blower grievances, found in a confidential review this spring that Dr. Smith’s allegations
raised a “substantial likelihood” of serious problems and required a full review.
New Orleans shows the Way
Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, best remembered for his impassioned pleas for
help after the levees broke during Hurricane Katrina, was convicted Wednesday of
accepting bribes in exchange for helping businessmen secure millions of dollars in city
work, including after the devastating storm.
The federal jury found Nagin guilty of 20 of 21 counts against him, involving a string of
crimes before and after the storm. He sat quietly at the defense table after the verdict
was read and his wife, Seletha, was being consoled in the front row.
Before the verdict, the 57-year-old Ray Nagin said outside the New Orleans courtroom:
"I've been at peace with this for a long time. I'm good."
Sentencing was set for June 11, Nagin's 58th birthday. Nagin left the courthouse more
than an hour after the verdict was read, and after U.S. District Judge Helen Berrigan
ordered that his bond be modified to provide for "additional conditions of electronic
monitoring and home confinement."
The Democrat, who left office in 2010 after eight years, was indicted in January 2013 on
charges he accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes — money, free vacation
trips and truckloads of free granite for his family business — from businessmen who
wanted work from the city or Nagin's support for various projects.
The charges carry a variety of maximum sentences ranging from three to 20 years, but
how long he would serve was unclear and will depend on a pre-sentence investigation
and various sentencing guidelines.
The granite and some of the money came from developer Frank Fradella. More came
from another contractor, Rodney Williams, for Nagin's help in securing city contracts.
Convicted former city vendor Mark St. Pierre, who got a no-bid contract with the city in
Nagin's first term, provided trips to Jamaica and Hawaii.
A movie theater owner seeking tax breaks provided a trip to New York, prosecutors
said. In a conspiracy count, prosecutors also said Nagin sought and got granite work for
his business from a major retailer, identified in court as The Home Depot, while helping
the retailer work out details related to the opening of a new store in post-Katrina new
Orleans. The company was not accused of any wrongdoing.
Nagin vehemently denied it all during several hours of testimony that spanned two days
of trial. But the jury didn't believe him. The only not-guilty verdict came on one count of
bribery involving a portion of the money from Williams.
Nagin had testified that key witnesses lied and prosecutors misinterpreted evidence
including emails, checks and pages from his appointment calendar linking him to
businessmen who said they bribed him.
As Nagin and defense attorney Robert Jenkins left the courthouse Wednesday, walking
with a throng of media, photographers and video cameras, Nagin could be heard
saying: "I maintain my innocence."
The defense repeatedly said prosecutors overstated Nagin's authority to approve
contracts. His lawyer said there is no proof money and material given to the granite
business owned by Nagin and his sons, Stone Age LLC, was tied to city business.
The charges against Nagin included one overarching conspiracy count along with six
counts of bribery, nine counts of wire fraud, one count of money laundering conspiracy
and four counts of filing false tax returns.
Jenkins said Nagin's testimony didn't hurt the case and that an appeal would be filed
after sentencing.
The conviction wasn't a surprise to Rainelle Smith, 64, of New Orleans, who said she
voted for Nagin.
"I don't believe he served the city as well as he should have," she said. "He was
supposed to come in and prevent the corruption the city was known for. We, in my
family, thought of him as the 'cleanup man.' Instead he gets in office and he soiled it
more."
The charges resulted from a City Hall corruption investigation that had resulted in
several convictions or guilty pleas by former Nagin associates by the time trial started
on Jan. 27.
Fradella and Williams, both awaiting sentencing for their roles in separate bribery
schemes alleged in the case, each testified that they bribed Nagin.
Nagin's former technology chief, Greg Meffert, who also is awaiting sentencing after a
plea deal, told jurors he helped St. Pierre, bribe Nagin with lavish vacation trips. St.
Pierre did not testify. He was convicted in the case in 2011.
Since the US Department of Justice will not enforce the laws of this land, per haps we
should call on the States and cities of this country to prosecute the gang or criminals
who occupy the white house and its cabinet.
The Rand Paul Revolution
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul and a large group of Tea Party conservatives
have filed a lawsuit against President Obama over the National Security Agency’s
controversial surveillance tactics.
Paul’s suit, filed in conjunction with conservative group FreedomWorks, alleges that the
NSA’s bulk collection program, under which the agency has collected the telephone
metadata of many Americans, violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which
protects against unreasonable searches.
RELATED: ANGRY BIRDS, OTHER ‘LEAKY’ CELLPHONE APPS ALLOW NSA TO
COLLECT DATA: REPORT
“There's a huge and growing swell of protest in this country of people who are outraged
that their records would be taken without suspicion, without a judge's warrant and
without individualization,” Paul said Wednesday morning at a Washington press
conference where he unveiled the suit.
Paul’s legal action, formally titled “Rand Paul v. Barack Obama,” reportedly lists at least
350,000 plaintiffs. Former Virginia Attorney General, who unsuccessfully ran for his
state’s governorship last year, will represent the group as the lead counsel in the case.
RELATED: EDWARD SNOWDEN: U.S. WANTS TO ASSASSINATE ME
In addition to President Obama, the suit also names Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper, NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander and FBI Director James Comey as
defendants.