Kristi Noem On The Record

PAF

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
13,559
Kristi Noem On The Record


Governor Kristi Noem Signed HB 1076 into Law - https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2024/03/06/bill-combatting-antisemitism-signed-into-law/


Lifetime Freedom Index Score: 62%


Voted YES on H.R. 6 - Opioid Abuse Prevention and Health Programs
We Oppose. Medicare and Medicaid are both unconstitutional programs. The U.S. Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to pay people’s medical expenses, no matter how poor or disabled they are. Such assistance should be handled by states, charity, or the free market. Any expansion of Medicare or Medicaid, which is what this bill authorizes, should be voted against.


Voted YES on H.R. 302 - FAA Reauthorization and Supplemental Disaster Appropriations
We Oppose. The bill is comprised of unconstitutional federal overreach in both aviation and disaster relief. One example is the TSA, which is known for groping and violating air travelers in the name of providing security. Instead of relying on an inefficient federal bureaucracy, security should be provided by the airlines, which have a vested interest in keeping their customers safe. Another area the feds should stay out of is the regulation of private-sector drones, which instead should be managed by local ordinances or (at most) state laws. And the market, not the feds, should determine such issues as the dimensions of seats on passenger airliners. Regarding disaster relief, this should be handled by private charitable efforts, not the federal government.

Voted YES on H.R. 6157 - Appropriations for Defense, Labor-HHS-Education, and Continuing Appropriations
We Oppose. Social welfare spending falls outside the enumerated powers of the federal government, and lumping multiple appropriations bills into one mega bill reduces lawmakers’ accountability to their constituents. Moreover, even though defense spending is constitutional, the “defense” budget is bloated with funding for overseas military operations that have not contributed to the defense of our own country.

Voted NO on H.R. 2 - Agricultural Crop Subsidies - We Support. No warrant for the appropriation of crop subsidies is found in the Constitution, and subsidies disrupt the free market economy. During consideration of the farm bill (H.R. 2), Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) introduced an amendment that would have phased out agricultural crop subsidies by fiscal year 2030.

Voted YES on H.R. 4909 - School Violence - We Oppose. School safety is not a proper function of the federal government. School safety should be addressed at the local level. The nationalizing of local police and school security, as well as any other gun-control measures contained in the bill, are all strictly unconstitutional.

The STOP School Violence Act of 2018 (H.R. 4909) would authorize $75 million a year through fiscal year 2028 for the Justice Department’s Secure Our Schools grant program. SOS is a grant program of the Justice Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which has been instrumental in laying the foundations for nationalizing local police by providing federal “assistance” in the form of funds, equipment, training, and development of guidelines to local law-enforcement agencies.

In a podcast interview with Conservative Review, Representative Thomas Massie (RKy.) said the “STOP School Violence Act was bad enough for nationalizing defense of our schools,” but he further revealed, “There is money in that bill that is going to go to gun control groups. It literally says in there you can give it to the 501-C3s, and then it also says in there it can’t go to train anybody on gun safety. It’s got to go for all the liberal sort of agendas.”

Voted NO on S.139 - Warrantless Surveillance - We Support. This amendment is an attempt to limit NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is unconstitutional, and NSA surveillance certainly falls under this category. Amash’s amendment would require the FBI to obtain a warrant, rather than merely FISA Court approval, in order to access the NSA’s database. During consideration of the bill (S. 139) reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.) introduced an amendment to end NSA collection of communications data that is neither to nor from an approved foreign target, but rather communications “about” a foreign target entirely between American citizens. It would prohibit the FBI and intelligence agencies from searching the NSA database for information on U.S. citizens without first obtaining a warrant, except in certain circumstances. The amendment would also end “reverse targeting,” in which an American citizen communicating with a foreign target is also subject to surveillance.

Voted YES on S.139 - Warrantless Surveillance - We Oppose. FISA, while supposedly put in place to gather intelligence on foreign targets, has been used to spy on U.S. citizens. The bill does provide provisions to, ostensibly, protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, but given the track record of intelligence agencies, it is unlikely that they would actually follow these rules. The FISA Court gives a green light to just about any surveillance request that comes its way, and FISA-approved NSA warrantless surveillance of American citizens has become common knowledge. This bill (S. 139) would reauthorize for six years, through 2023, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The bill would require the development of procedures for searching the NSA database that would protect the Fourth Amendment-guaranteed rights of U.S. citizens, while allowing the FBI to access information with an order from the secret FISA Court, in certain cases.

Voted YES on H R 2824 - Home Visitations - We Oppose. Going into homes to check up on the physical, emotional, and economic “wellness” of families not only goes way beyond the few and defined federal powers authorized by the Constitution, but also is part of a dangerous trend of government further interjecting itself into the family. The Increasing Opportunity and Success for Children and Parents Through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act (H.R. 2824) would authorize $400 million a year through 2022 for the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program, which was created under ObamaCare. Under ObamaCare, the MIECHV Program is intended as a wellness and prevention program for homes in poor communities and is to serve as the basis for developing and implementing a national strategy. MIECHV mandates home visits by nurses and other workers to test both the children and parents in order to make improvements in the following extensive list of areas: prenatal; maternal; newborn health; child health and development; children’s cognitive, language, social, emotional, and physical development; parenting skills; school readiness; child academic achievement; reduction in crime; reduction in domestic violence; improvements in family economic self sufficiency; and more.

Voted YES on H.R. 3180 - Intelligence Authorization - We Oppose. The very idea of Congress authorizing classified amounts of spending is unconstitutional, as well as frightening. Furthermore, some of the agencies that this “classified” spending is funding are themselves engaged in unconstitutional activities, such as spying on and gathering data from U.S. citizens without a warrant. While assessing (dubious) Russian influence in U.S. politics is an acceptable use of federal funds, much of this bill’s spending is unconstitutional and should be rejected.

Voted YES on H.Res.397 - NATO - We Oppose. The United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, which undermine the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. This legislation (H. Res. 397) “solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them … shall be considered an attack against them all.”

Voted YES on H.R. 1616 - National Computer Forensics Institute Authorization - We Oppose. Providing federal equipment and training to state and local law-enforcement officers not only is unconstitutional, but also further federalizes the police system. The Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime Fighting Act of 2017 (H.R. 1616) would, according to the bill, authorize “within the United States Secret Service a National Computer Forensics Institute” for fiscal years 2017 through 2022. According to the bill, “The Institute shall disseminate information related to the investigation and prevention of cyber and electronic crime and related threats, and educate, train, and equip State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges.” (Emphasis added.) In the name of combating cyber crime, this bill would further erode the distinction between local law enforcement and federal policing.

Voted YES on H.R. 1628 - ObamaCare Replacement - We Oppose. We have assigned pluses to the nays because ObamaCare should be repealed, not replaced with a Republican variant of unconstitutional government healthcare that more liberty-minded lawmakers have referred to as "ObamaCare Lite" and "ObamaCare 2.0." Rather than voting to repeal ObamaCare, the House voted instead to retain much of ObamaCare under the guise of “repeal and replace.” The legislation (H.R. 1628), known as the American Health Care Act (AHCA), was strongly backed by President Trump and the Republican congressional leadership. Consequently most Republicans voted for the bill, but 20 voted against it. Liberty-minded Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) noted that the AHCA entailed “replacing mandates, subsidies and penalties with mandates, subsidies and penalties.” Another Republican lawmaker, Representative Andy Biggs (Ariz.), while “applaud[ing] all the hard work of the House Freedom Caucus, which has made every effort … to improve this legislation,” nonetheless concluded that the “final bill … does not meet the promises I made to my constituents.” Biggs added, “I remain committed to a full repeal of ObamaCare.”

Voted YES on H.R. 1238 - Homeland Security Defense of Agriculture - We Oppose. This bill expands the "War on Terror" to include the fictitious and non-existent threat of "agro-terrorism" in the American homeland, thereby further interjecting the U.S. government into the agriculture sector, despite the absence of any constitutional power to manage this or any other sector of the American economy.
 
[MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION] What the hell? How did she vote yes and no on the same bill?

Voted NO on S.139 - Warrantless Surveillance - We Support. This amendment is an attempt to limit NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is unconstitutional, and NSA surveillance certainly falls under this category. Amash’s amendment would require the FBI to obtain a warrant, rather than merely FISA Court approval, in order to access the NSA’s database. During consideration of the bill (S. 139) reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.) introduced an amendment to end NSA collection of communications data that is neither to nor from an approved foreign target, but rather communications “about” a foreign target entirely between American citizens. It would prohibit the FBI and intelligence agencies from searching the NSA database for information on U.S. citizens without first obtaining a warrant, except in certain circumstances. The amendment would also end “reverse targeting,” in which an American citizen communicating with a foreign target is also subject to surveillance.

Voted YES on S.139 - Warrantless Surveillance - We Oppose. FISA, while supposedly put in place to gather intelligence on foreign targets, has been used to spy on U.S. citizens. The bill does provide provisions to, ostensibly, protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, but given the track record of intelligence agencies, it is unlikely that they would actually follow these rules. The FISA Court gives a green light to just about any surveillance request that comes its way, and FISA-approved NSA warrantless surveillance of American citizens has become common knowledge. This bill (S. 139) would reauthorize for six years, through 2023, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The bill would require the development of procedures for searching the NSA database that would protect the Fourth Amendment-guaranteed rights of U.S. citizens, while allowing the FBI to access information with an order from the secret FISA Court, in certain cases.
 
[MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION] What the hell? How did she vote yes and no on the same bill?

Voted NO on S.139 - Warrantless Surveillance - We Support. This amendment is an attempt to limit NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is unconstitutional, and NSA surveillance certainly falls under this category. Amash’s amendment would require the FBI to obtain a warrant, rather than merely FISA Court approval, in order to access the NSA’s database. During consideration of the bill (S. 139) reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.) introduced an amendment to end NSA collection of communications data that is neither to nor from an approved foreign target, but rather communications “about” a foreign target entirely between American citizens. It would prohibit the FBI and intelligence agencies from searching the NSA database for information on U.S. citizens without first obtaining a warrant, except in certain circumstances. The amendment would also end “reverse targeting,” in which an American citizen communicating with a foreign target is also subject to surveillance.

Voted YES on S.139 - Warrantless Surveillance - We Oppose. FISA, while supposedly put in place to gather intelligence on foreign targets, has been used to spy on U.S. citizens. The bill does provide provisions to, ostensibly, protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, but given the track record of intelligence agencies, it is unlikely that they would actually follow these rules. The FISA Court gives a green light to just about any surveillance request that comes its way, and FISA-approved NSA warrantless surveillance of American citizens has become common knowledge. This bill (S. 139) would reauthorize for six years, through 2023, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The bill would require the development of procedures for searching the NSA database that would protect the Fourth Amendment-guaranteed rights of U.S. citizens, while allowing the FBI to access information with an order from the secret FISA Court, in certain cases.

Top one is Amash's amendment, bottom one is the final bill
 
Thanks! So....now I'm confused again. Why would they oppose Amash's attempt to limit a bill that they ultimately opposed?

I assume the "correct" vote is to vote "Yes" on Amash's amendment, and "No" on the bill, and Kristi would seem by the above to have voted the opposite, "No" on the amendment, and "Yes" on the bill.
 
I assume the "correct" vote is to vote "Yes" on Amash's amendment, and "No" on the bill, and Kristi would seem by the above to have voted the opposite, "No" on the amendment, and "Yes" on the bill.

Re-reading it, I think you're right. So Kristi Noem didn't want any limits on warrantless surveilance.
 
I know not much about Kristi. I think during Pandemic she didn't close down. She had Sturges event. I think her State is doing good. There are many people I would criticize before throwing stones at her. I like her.
 
I know not much about Kristi.
explains
There are many people I would criticize before throwing stones at her. I like her.

GcK1kNdaoAAv5v3
 
Back
Top