Tag: Lied

Armstrong Williams: Erick Erickson Lied About Reason For Snubbing Ben Carson

Senior Ben Carson Adviser On Red State Snub: This ‘Smear And Outright Lie’ Will Not Stand – Big Government

.

.
GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson’s long-time business manager and friend told Breitbart News that Erick Erickson lied about his reasoning for not inviting Carson to the RedState event in Atlanta over the weekend.

RedState is a wholly owned subsidiary of Salem Communications, although overseen by Erickson – who is a Fox News Contributor. Salem Communications radio host Hugh Hewitt will be co-hosting the next GOP primary debate in California at the Reagan Library.

Erickson told the Washington Examiner he did not invite Carson because he allegedly saw Carson speak at a veteran’s event where Erickson is saying Carson only talked about himself and President Obama.

“I was at two different events for military non-profits in the last year,” Erickson stated. “They were non-profits that had asked Dr. Carson to speak about military veterans and the work he did with the disabled and both times he spent the entire time talking about himself and his battle with the president and it just struck me wrong. And when we were putting together a list of RedState speakers we had a limited selection and I chose not to put Dr. Carson on the list unless the other spots didn’t fill up. The other spots filled up so I didn’t ask him. I was impressed with his debate performance the other night and his closing statement but I just, it left a bad taste in my mouth. Here’s someone that’s supposed to speak on disabled veterans, [speaking] on himself so that’s why I didn’t do it.”

A long time confidant of Carson charged that Erickson is not telling the truth.

Contacted in London, where he has traveled on business, Armstrong Williams, Dr. Carson’s longtime business manager and confidant said, “This is an outrage. When I heard what Erick Erickson said about his justification for not inviting Dr. Carson, I immediately thought it was a smear and outright lie. I dare Erick Erickson to show transcripts where Dr. Ben Carson appears in front of two groups of veterans and speaks solely about himself and President Obama. On the occasions when Dr. Carson uses stories from his personal narrative, it is to illustrate how one can overcome difficult situations. Dr. Carson took time away from his busy campaign schedule in the state of Iowa to emphatically communicate his grave disappointment with Erickson and perplexed to understand his true hidden agenda. Dr. Carson holds our troops and veterans in the highest esteem, and would never give a speech to a group of them without specifically addressing their concerns.”

“What’s more, you would think that the RedState audience would want to hear from someone like Dr. Carson because he has taken on President Obama directly while some of his opponents in the Republican primary have been on the sidelines for the past eight years,” Williams added. “I don’t know what Erickson’s motivations are – but there is something here far deeper than he didn’t like what he heard at two speeches.”

It appears Williams is correct about Erickson pushing his own agenda. In a previous interview, Erickson labeled himself an “activist” rather than a “reporter” and previously said on Carson, “I don’t see a rationale for his candidacy.”

“I’m certainly in the media. I guess you could say I’m a journalist, as long as you don’t make that a synonym with ‘reporter,’” Erickson stated. “Analyst, pundit, commentator – however you see that. At heart, I still feel like I’m an activist.”

Erickson did not respond to a request for comment when Breitbart News sent him Williams’ quote on Sunday evening.

In addition to Carson, Erickson did not invite former Sen. Rick Santorum, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Gov. John Kasich (R-OH). Erickson also disinvited GOP frontrunner Donald Trump at the 11th hour, as Trump was about to appear at the event.

.

.

Shocker! #BlackLivesMatter Activist Apparently Lied About Being The Victim Of A Hate Crime

#BlackLivesMatter Leader Shaun King’s Claims Of ‘Hate Crime’ Beating Exposed As Fraud – Weasel Zippers

.

.
Bassem Masri goes to jail, Shaun King gets exposed. It’s Christmas in summer, as Black Lives Matter folks implode.

Via Daily Caller:

Shaun King, the so-called “Facebook pastor” who has become one of the leading activists in the Black Lives Matter movement, has often told the story of a brutal, racially-motivated beating he suffered in 1995 as a sophomore at a rural Kentucky high school. King, 35, has related the story of the hate crime on his blogs and in his recent self-help book, seemingly to bolster his credibility as an activist and as a self-help guru.

But King’s telling of the assault does not match up with a police report from the case. Details provided to The Daily Caller by the detective who investigated the incident, which occurred at Woodford County High School in Versailles on March 1, 1995, cast even more doubt on King’s claims.

While King has said that he was attacked by up to a dozen “racist” and “redneck” students, official records show that the altercation involved only one other student. And while King has claimed that he suffered a “brutal” beating that left him clinging to life, the police report characterized King’s injuries as “minor.”

At least two profiles written about King have asserted that the assault was one of Kentucky’s first registered hate crimes. But Keith Broughton, the former Versailles police detective, told TheDC that the case was never classified as a hate incident.

And none of the sources that keep track of hate crimes, such as the FBI, have records of one having occurred at the high school at that time.

Keep reading

.

.

President Asshat Lied: There Are No Ballistic Missile Restrictions In Iran Deal

Obama Lied: There Are No Ballistic Missile Restrictions In Iran Deal – Big Government

.

.
President Barack Obama boasted last week that his administration forced Iran to accept an eight-year delay in the lifting of ballistic missile sanctions, when Iran wanted those restrictions canceled immediately. (Never mind that Iran made the demand at the last minute, raising a “non-nuclear” issue of the sort Obama says the U.S. could not make with regard to American captives.) Now, Obama’s brag turns out to have been a lie. There are no effective ballistic missile restrictions in the deal: Iran is merely “called upon” to refrain, voluntarily, from such technology.

The old text of UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010), reads:

…Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities…

The Iran deal, as formalized by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), reads:

Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

In his press conference last week, President Obama claimed that he had insisted, and won, an eight-year concession from the Iranians:

But what I said to our negotiators was, given that Iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about Iran’s activities, let’s press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missile prohibitions. And we got that.

We got five years in which, under this new agreement, arms coming in and out of Iran are prohibited, and we got eight years for the respective ballistic missiles.

Yet since the deal was passed, Iranian leaders have claimed that it agreed to no restrictions on ballistic missiles, or that the UN Security Council resolution did not apply to its missile programs, since they are ostensibly not related to nuclear weapons.

As ridiculous as that sounds, it is closer to the truth than what President Obama has been telling the American people and the world.

.

.

*VIDEO* Obama Lied About Benghazi Terrorist Attacks – Weapons Moved Through Benghazi To Syria


.

.

Federal Judge Not A Happy Camper After Being Lied To About Executive Amnesty By Obama Regime

Federal Judge Admonished DOJ Over Apparent Deception: ‘I Was Made To Look Like An Idiot’ – Breitbart

.

.
The U.S. Government lied to a federal judge, misrepresented facts and illegally gave 100,081 illegal aliens immigration status despite a pending lawsuit and an injunction. That is the argument that attorneys representing Texas and more than two dozen other states made.

During the heated court hearing Andrew Hanen, a U.S. District Court Judge, said that the apparent violation had made him look like an idiot since he initially believed the U.S. Government.

In a heated court hearing Angela Colmonero from the Texas Attorney General’s office stated that Texas had acted promptly in November 2014 upon learning of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty and had followed all the timelines set forth with a sense of urgency.

“This was done to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable damage to the state,” Colmonero said referring to the cost that the individuals would bring and to the incentive for further illegal immigration. “You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube.”

During the hearings leading to an injunction handed down by Judge Hanen, attorney’s with the Department of Justice claimed that if an injunction was filed nothing would be done. That wasn’t the case, the Texas attorney said.

“The defendant did the exact opposite and gave 100,000 renewals for a term of three years under the expanded DACA,” Colmonero said. “The defendant didn’t inform the court until March 3 – 15 days after the injunction was filed.”

According to Colmonero’s statements, the program known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) was implemented in 2012; however in November 2014 it was expanded, changing the time of the permits from two years to three years. Therefore the permits issued by the U.S. Government are a violation.

The coalition of states asked the court to give them early access as to the defendant’s documents and files since they couldn’t be taken at their word, Colmonero said.

DOJ attorney Kathleen Hardeck appeared nervous as she stuttered her response saying it was the terminology used that led to confusion, but once they saw that things could be misinterpreted they had tried to notify the court.

“When I asked you what would happen and you said nothing I took it to heart,” Hanen said. “I was made to look like an idiot. I believed your word that nothing would happen.”

During the hearing Hanen talked about possible penalties if, in fact, the evidence proved that the government had lied. He said it would probably not be financial since the taxpayer would be footing the bill over damages already made to them.

After hearing the arguments from both sides Hanen said he would issue a ruling in the near future.

.

.

Obama Regime Ordered Back To Federal Court To Explain Why It Lied About Executive Amnesty

WH Ordered Back To Court To Explain Alleged False Facts In Amnesty Case – Big Government

.

.
The judge who blocked President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration has ordered the Justice Department to answer allegations the government misled him about part of the plan.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has ordered federal government lawyers to appear in his court March 19 in Brownsville. The hearing is in response to a filing last week in which the government acknowledged some deportation reprieves were granted before Hanen’s Feb. 16 injunction.

Government attorneys had previously said officials wouldn’t accept such requests under Obama’s action until Feb. 18.

The government said in its filing that the 100,000 immigrants who were granted three-year reprieves and work permits were already eligible under a previous immigration plan from 2012.

The 26 states suing over Obama’s plan requested more information.

.

.

Obamacare Architect Caught On 3 Different Videos Admitting The Regime Lied, And Calling Americans Stupid (Videos)

Megyn Kelly Shows 2nd Video Of Obamacare Architect Calling Americans “Too Stupid” – Right Scoop

Last night Megyn Kelly showed a 2nd video of Obama architect Jonathan Gruber talking about how Obamacare passed because Americans are “too stupid”:

.

.
Clearly Gruber thinks he knows what’s best for us stupid Americans, just like Obama and Democrats believe they are our betters. So much so that they’d hide important information about a bill just to shove it down our throats.

Republicans have ammunition to fight this thing in the court of public opinion but so far I don’t see them doing much about it.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
Video: Interview Gets Tense In A Hurry When TV Hosts Confront Senator Over Obamacare Architect’s Revealing Comments – The Blaze

The hosts of “Fox & Friends” confronted Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) on Tuesday over one of the Obamacare architects’ controversial assertion that the health care law made it through Congress thanks to a “lack of transparency” and the “stupidity of the American voter.” The video of MIT professor Jonathan Gruber making the revealing comments at a University of Pennsylvania event in October of 2013 went viral this week.

King said he was unsure of what Gruber was talking about and made it clear he doesn’t “endorse those kinds of comments.” He then defended the way Obamacare was passed.

“Everybody knew that there were going to be additional taxes required to support the premiums under the Affordable Care Act. I don’t see it as any deep dark conspiracy,” he added.

“Really? Senator, he said he wasn’t transparent. He wasn’t telling the truth,” host Brian Kilmeade responded.

.

.
The senator then seemingly downplayed Gruber’s role in crafting Obamacare. King was not in the Senate when the law was voted on.

“Who was he? I don’t know where he was in the process,” King said.

When co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle argued Gruber’s comments confirm the American people were purposefully not informed that Obamacare would “tax and penalize” people, King went slightly off topic and stressed the importance of having insurance.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Tax and penalize? Hold it, hold it, hold it,” King interjected. “We’ve got eight million people that have insurance now that didn’t before and don’t lecture me about this because 40 years ago, I had insurance. If I hadn’t had it, it caught a cancer that saved my life. If I hadn’t had insurance I’d be dead.”

“What does that have to do with it?” Kilmeade asked.

“It has to do with having insurance, man. If you don’t have insurance, it’s a high risk,” King shot back.

Confronted again with claims that Gruber’s remarks show “they lied about a health plan to the American people,” King asserted he was only “one guy” involved in the creation and passage of Obamacare. He then suggested the TV hosts believe “people shouldn’t have health insurance.”

“Are you that cruel? That is what you’re saying,” the senator added.

“Oh, my goodness,” a frustrated Kilmeade reacted.

Watch the video via Fox News below:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
In Third Video, Obamacare Architect Talks About ‘Basic Exploitation’ Of American Voters – Daily Caller

A third video has surfaced of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber bragging about pulling the wool over the eyes of the American public in order to help implement Obamacare.

“It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said during a speech at the University of Rhode Island in November 2012.

He was discussing what is known as the Cadillac tax and how it came into being.

In an effort to add a cost-control measure to Obamacare, former Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who Gruber called a “hero,” successfully pushed through a 40 percent excise tax on insurance companies for plans that cost more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,000 for families.

This was an alternative to putting a cap on tax breaks employers provide employees for health insurance plans, which, according to Gruber, the public mistook for a tax increase rather than the removal of a tax break.

“You just can’t get through, it’s just politically impossible,” Gruber said during his talk.

The purpose of the Cadillac tax is to force the “overinsured” – people with expensive health insurance plans – to cut back on “excess benefits.” Many economists believe that such plans cause inefficiencies in the health-care system. The Cadillac tax, which will be implemented in 2018, is projected to save $250 billion.

Gruber has made remarks before in which he espouses a dim view of the American public while discussing the deception behind passing both the Cadillac tax and Obamacare in general.

The first instance came to light on Sunday when a video was published showing Gruber telling a University of Pennsylvania health-care panel that Obamacare was “written in a tortured way” and that it passed, in part, because it was difficult to understand.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass,” Gruber said at the November 2013 event.

The discoverer of the video was not a journalist or a political operative, but, rather, a financial planner who was one of the millions of Americans who lost his insurance plan last year despite President Obama’s pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it, period.”

Gruber, who was paid $400,000 to consult on Obamacare, backtracked from those remarks on MSNBC on Tuesday, saying that they were “off the cuff.”

But the randomness of Gruber’s remarks was cast into doubt Tuesday night when Fox News’ Megyn Kelly revealed a second video that also shows the professor discussing the Cadillac tax in a speech at Washington University in St. Louis in October 2013.

Gruber said that the kludge worked because “the American people are too stupid to understand the difference” between capping subsidies and taxing insurance companies.

Watch:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Meet The Guy Who Found All Those Jonathan Gruber Obamacare Clips – American Thinker

The story about Rich Weinstein, an unknown investment advisor who poured through hours and hours of YouTube videos, radio interviews, and other media featuring Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber is both incredible and inspiring.

It is Weinstein who is responsible for ferreting out Gruber’s toxic comments about the “stupidity of the American people” and, more importantly, Gruber’s insistence that Obamacare subsidies were limited to state exchanges and should not be made available at the federal level.

Bloomberg:

A few days ago, Weinstein pulled a short clip from Gruber’s year-old appearance at a University of Pennsylvania health care conference. As a crowd murmured with laughter, Gruber explained that the process that created the ACA was, by necessity, obfuscated to pull one over on voters.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes,” said Gruber. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Call it the stupidity of the America voter, or whatever.”

Weinstein’s scoop went around the world in a hurry. American Commitment, a conservative 501(c)(4) founded by Americans for Prosperity veteran Phil Kerpen, published the clip on its YouTube channel. Kerpen promoted it through tweets, which quickly became live coverage of the media outlets discovering Gruber.

The University of Pennsylvania actually pulled the clip for a few hours before a Tsunami of outrage forced them to put it back up.

Weinstein’s activism is the result of him losing his insurance in 2013:

Weinstein dates his accidental citizen journalism back to the end of 2013 and the first run of insurance cancellations or policy changes. He was among the people who got a letter informing him that his old policy did not meet ACA standards.

“When Obama said ‘If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period’—frankly, I believed him,” says Weinstein. “He very often speaks with qualifiers. When he said ‘period,’ there were no qualifiers. You can understand that when I lost my own plan, and the replacement cost twice as much, I wasn’t happy. So I’m watching the news, and at that time I was thinking: Hey, the administration was not telling people the truth, and the media was doing nothing!”

So Weinstein, new plan in hand, started watching the news. “These people were showing up on the shows, calling themselves architects of the law,” he recalls. “I saw David Cutler, Zeke Emanuel, Jonathan Gruber, people like that. I wondered if these guys had some type of paper trail. So I looked into what Dr. Cutler had said and written, and it was generally all about cost control. After I finished with Cutler, I went to Dr. Gruber. I assume I went through every video, every radio interview, every podcast. Every everything.”

His second shot across the bow of Obamacare was an even bigger coup:

Weinstein dug and dug and eventually discovered the first Gruber quote, known in conservative circles as the “speak-o.” Gruber had been on TV arguing that the case against subsidies in non-exchange states was ludicrous. Yet at a January 2012 symposium, Gruber seemed to be making the conservatives’ argument. “What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits – but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill,” said Gruber. “So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country.”

The investment advisor e-mailed this around. Nobody cared. Nobody noticed the clip until after the D.C. circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of plaintiffs who were suing to stop the subsidies. Weinstein clicked around for articles about the decision, and left a comment on The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, pointing to the clip. In short order, Ryan Radia of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute noticed the clip and promoted it. Within hours, Gruber’s “speak-o” had greatly muddied the liberal argument.

SCOTUS now has not only evidence of congressional intent to limit the subsidies, but also evidence that the people who wrote the law had the same intent. It’s going to be very hard for John Roberts to finesse this one, which probably means SCOTUS will uphold King and the subsidies gotten through the federal website will end.

That doesn’t mean the end of Obamacare. It is pssible that many states without exchanges will set them up to prevent the disruption in coverage for those in their states who got insurance through healthcare.gov. But Weinstein’s efforts have thrown a monkey wrench into Obamacare’s inner workings and whether the program can survive is open to question.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.

.

.

Ebola Doctor Craig Spencer Lied To Authorities About NYC Travels

Ebola Doctor ‘Lied’ About NYC Travels – New York Post

The city’s first Ebola patient initially lied to authorities about his travels around the city following his return from treating disease victims in Africa, law-enforcement sources said.

.

.
Dr. Craig Spencer at first told officials that he isolated himself in his Harlem apartment – and didn’t admit he rode the subways, dined out and went bowling until cops looked at his MetroCard the sources said.

“He told the authorities that he self-quarantined. Detectives then reviewed his credit-card statement and MetroCard and found that he went over here, over there, up and down and all around,” a source said.

Spencer finally ’fessed up when a cop “got on the phone and had to relay questions to him through the Health Department,” a source said.

Officials then retraced Spencer’s steps, which included dining at The Meatball Shop in Greenwich Village and bowling at The Gutter in Brooklyn.

.

.

New IRS Form Proves President Asshat Lied About Obamacare Tax (Video)

New IRS Form Proves Obama Lied About Individual Mandate Tax – ATR

On Thursday the IRS released a slew of draft 2014 tax forms. The new draft Form 1040 shows a new surtax line has been created for the payment of the individual mandate surtax – see line 61 of the 1040:

.

.
President Obama has repeatedly denied that the surtax is in fact actually a tax. The most prominent example was a heated exchange on ABC’s This Week in Sept. 2009, when George Stephanopoulos confronted Obama with a dictionary:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I – I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax – “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that.

Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion. [Transcript]

.

.
It was always obvious that the penalty for not complying with Obamacare’s individual mandate was just another surtax:

* The surtax is collected by, and enforced by, the IRS.
* As shown by the newly released draft Form 1040, the surtax is paid as part of normal income tax filing by taxpayers.
* The individual mandate surtax was written into tax law itself by the Obamacare statute.
* Revenues derived from the individual mandate surtax have always been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as tax revenue.

Famously, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the individual mandate surtax is in fact a tax. However, that does not compel conservatives to agree that Obamacare’s individual mandate is Constitutional. The same decision declared the individual mandate unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Conservatives can accept that this surtax is a tax increase without accepting the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

The Obamacare individual mandate non-compliance surtax is one of at least seven Obamacare taxes that violate the President’s “firm pledge” not to raise any tax on any American making less than $250,000 per year. Thorough documentation of Obama’s promise can be found here.

.

.

Senator Vitter: Hitlery’s State Department Broke Law, Lied About Boko Haram Terror Threat

Senator: Clinton State Dept. Broke Law, Lied About Boko Haram Terror Threat – Washington Free Beacon

A leading senator has charged that Hillary Clinton’s State Department broke the law by intentionally obfuscating and downplaying to Congress the terror threat posed by the Nigerian extremist group Boko Haram, which recently gained international infamy for violently kidnapping more than 200 schoolgirls.

.

.
Sen. David Vitter (R., La.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, petitioned Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday to explain why Clinton’s State Department misrepresented and downplayed key information about Boko Haram’s terrorist activities in its annual reports to Congress.

Former Secretary of State Clinton lied to Congress when she said that the State Department lacked the necessary information to designate Boko Haram as a terror group, according to Vitter’s letter, which presents new information about the State Department’s purported efforts to downplay the terror group’s impact.

Clinton’s State Department fought against efforts to designate Boko Haram for nearly two years, a move that likely limited U.S. efforts to confront the group earlier and allowed it to grow in strength.

Vitter charges that officials working under Clinton intentionally manipulated words and mislead Congress in its annual reports to create the impression that Boko Haram posed little to no threat.

Clinton’s State Department “repeatedly stated in the year leading up to the designation that it did not have data available or the necessary understanding to make the determination,” Vitter wrote to Kerry, according to a copy of unreleased letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

However, “recent evidence suggests Secretary Hillary Clinton and the State Departments not only knew of the extent, but also deliberately attempted to obfuscate the issue in order to avoid having to make the designation of Boko Haram as a [Foreign Terrorist Organization], including downplaying the State Department’s own Country Reports on Terrorism (CRT),” Vitter writes.

“Inaccuracies within official documents make it clear that the State Department misled Congress and the American people,” the letter states. “Evidence suggests that there was an internal decision by the Office of Coordinator for Counterterrorism to downplay official, legally required, intelligence data in order to purposefully avoid making the determination.”

Vitter demands in a series of questions that Kerry provide answers as to why the State Department “ignored data and misrepresented its legal requirements to Congress.”

U.S. law stipulates that the State Department provides Congress with “statistical information supported by data” in its annual reports on terrorist activities in foreign countries.

Officials in Clinton’s State Department failed to uphold this mandate, Vitter charges, citing evidence that reports of Boko Haram’s activity by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) were intentionally ignored.

The NCTC in 2011 “provided the State Department with the statistical information necessary to determine that Boko Haram was engaged in terrorist activity,” Vitter writes. “However, in completing the official annual CRT provided to Congress” at that time “the State Department chose not to include this information.”

New evidence suggests that NCTC information about Boko Haram’s terrorist activities was intentionally left out of the State Department’s reports to Congress, a move that effectively left lawmakers in the dark about the extremist group’s growing influence.

“In multiple cases, where the NCTC clearly labeled and claimed that Boko Haram was engaged in terrorist activity against foreign nations, Secretary Clinton’s office in their own report minimized the attack and separated the issue from Boko Haram,” according to Vitter’s letter.

A 2012 NCTC report, for instance, stated that Africa experienced 978 attacks in 2011, representing an 11.5 percent increase from 2010 levels.

This uptick was attributed “in large part to the more aggressive attack tempo of the Nigeria-based terrorist group Boko Haram,” according to a portion of the NCTC report included in Vitter’s letter.

The NCTC further reported in that year that Boko Haram had conducted a terror attack against Western targets, accounting for “the largest terrorist attack in the country to date,” according to the report.

Yet Clinton’s State Department deemphasized this data and “only chose to include loose evidence” in its own terrorism report to Congress, Vitter states.

“The conflict in Nigeria continued throughout the northern part of the country with hundreds of casualties as indigenous terrorist attacks increased,” the State Department wrote in its report to Congress at the time. “The Nigerian extremist group, Boko Haram, claimed responsibility for some of these attacks.”

Vitter says that this phrasing is proof of the State Department’s bid to create the impression that Boko Haram was a minimal threat.

“It appears that this variation in wording fails to meet the legal requirements based on information it received, and inserts a higher degree of doubt about whether Boko Haram is directly engaged in terrorist activity,” Vitter writes.

The State Department report issued under Clinton “ignores the NCTC labeling Boko Haram as a ‘terrorist group,’ instead suggesting that there may be a loose connection,” Vitter further adds.

“These facts are troubling considering multiple official reports between 2010 and 2012, including the Global Terrorism Database, concluded that Boko Haram was improving their capability to coordinate on an operational level with al Qaeda affiliates, including al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and al-Shabaab.”

Boko Haram has a long history of terrorism, having detonated a car bomb at a United Nations headquarters in Abuja, an attack that killed 23 and injured 81 others.

The State Department’s own reports from 2009 to 2013 further demonstrate that Boko Haram “steadily increased in deadliness and its connectivity to terrorist organizations,” according to Vitter’s letter.

Boko Haram has even gone on to top al-Shabaab and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as the leading regional terrorist group, having killed nearly 4,000 people from 2009 to 2013.

Independent terrorism analysts have determined that Boko Haram and al Qaeda have been linked for more than a decade, and that the extremist group has ties to a least six al Qaeda affiliates, according to a recent report by the Henry Jackson Society (HJS).

There is also evidence that Boko Haram has taken direct orders from al Qaeda, according to HJS.

Yet the annual report to Congress “goes out of its way to downplay the effectiveness or lethality of the group.” Boko Haram’s connections to al Qeada were clear to U.S. authorities from at least 2010 on, according to information from the NCTC.

Following Boko Haram’s successful and deadly attack on the U.N. – an incident the NCTC dubbed “the largest terrorist attack in the country to date – Clinton’s State Department “largely dismissed the events and that data, claiming” in its report to Congress that “no terrorist attacks occurred in the Southern states of Nigeria.”

Independent terrorism analyst Olivier Guitta, research director for HJS, warned in a recent statement that “the international community has been underestimating Boko Haram, even though it is in the top 3 of the bloodiest terrorist groups in the world.”

Vitter is seeking answers as to why the State Department “manipulated words” and misled Congress.

“The State Department’s documents may have failed to explicitly label Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, in almost complete disregard of specific [National Counterterrorism Center] data, but my concern goes deeper to address the internal decision to manipulate words and mislead Congress,” he states in the letter to Kerry.

“The evidence suggests that the office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism may have intentionally exploited the statistical information provided to them by law in an attempt to neglect Boko Haram’s terrorist activity,” he adds.

Vitter has given Kerry until July 10 to respond to his queries about the issue.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Newest IRS Targeting Scandal Documents Show Obama Regime Lied… Again (Video)

New IRS Revelations, And What The Obama Administration Is Doing Behind The Scenes – The Foundry

Could the IRS do anything to make itself more unpopular? Apparently, things are far from over with the agency’s targeting of conservative political groups.

Emails obtained by Judicial Watch and released yesterday indicate that the Obama administration lied when it tried to pin the scandal on IRS employees in an Ohio branch office. In fact, the Washington, D.C., office of the IRS was coordinating with the employees to hold up tea party groups’ applications for nonprofit status and subject them to extra scrutiny.

At the heart of the controversy is Lois Lerner, who was head of the division that approved nonprofit applications at the time.

“This latest revelation by Judicial Watch showing that the IRS targeting of conservative organizations was being run by its Washington office demonstrates that the House acted correctly when it held Lois Lerner in contempt,” said Heritage legal expert Hans von Spakovsky.

The House voted last week to hold Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about the IRS scandal. But it’s up to Attorney General Eric Holder to take any action – the first step of which would be forcing her to testify – and that hasn’t happened.

Von Spakovsky said:

Lerner claimed that this problem originated in the Cincinnati office of the IRS, so it is pretty clear she was misleading the public and congressional investigators. The contempt citation needs to be enforced and if the Justice Department refuses to do so, it will be another example of unethical behavior by a law enforcement agency that has repeatedly failed to adhere to its duty to enforce the law on an objective, nonpartisan basis.

In other words, the odds aren’t great that Lerner will face real consequences.

But perhaps the worst news is that the Obama administration has been working behind the scenes to change the rules for political activism – permanently.

In a new paper, von Spakovsky details how the administration has proposed rules for the IRS that “appear to be an attempt to implement the ‘inappropriate criteria’ used by the IRS to target tea party and other conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status.”

Turning the IRS’s targeting of these organizations into actual rules, he explains, would:

* ignore Supreme Court precedents and the Internal Revenue Code;
* fail to provide clear guidance to citizens and organizations attempting to comply with the Code and accompanying regulations; and
* threaten to restrict or violate the First Amendment rights of Americans.

The IRS scandal has become a bipartisan concern, as evidenced by a number of Democrats voting to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress and voting to appoint a special counsel to investigate the scandal.

But the administration’s effort to rewrite the rules for political activity is an even more serious threat that must be stopped.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

Benghazi-gate Update: Obama Regime Lied BEFORE They Lied

Benghazi: Obama Administration Lied Before They Lied – Pajamas Media

.

.
Another interesting turn reported by Fox, that the rest of the media will ignore in favor or running a zillion more stories on Bridgegate. Or maybe they’ll spend some time discussing the ins and outs of the Justin Bieber egg-throwing scandal:

On the eve of the terrorist attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, the Obama White House may have exaggerated the scope and depth of President Obama’s preparation for such attacks, newly declassified documents show.

On Sept. 10, 2012 – the day before Al Qaeda-linked terrorists carried out the bloody assault on the U.S. consulate and a related annex in Benghazi – the White House Press Office issued a press release entitled “Readout of the President’s Meeting with Senior Administration Officials on Our Preparedness and Security Posture on the Eleventh Anniversary of September 11th.”

A set of “Top Secret” documents obtained by Fox News reveals that the nation’s highest-ranking uniformed military officer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to Congress in executive session last year that the Sept. 10 meeting “was actually a conference call.” Moreover, Dempsey testified, Libya was never even discussed during the call, despite a persistent and increasingly worrisome stream of threat reporting from that country, and from Benghazi in particular.

The Sept. 10 press release stated that the session had covered the “specific measures we are taking” and “steps taken” to protect Americans and U.S. facilities abroad. It also related an order from President Obama for all agencies to “do everything possible to protect the American people, both at home and abroad.”

Yet the declassified documents show that Dempsey testified to the Congress last year that not a single directive had been issued by him or Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to adjust American military force posture anywhere in the world as the 9/11 anniversary loomed just hours away.

This is becoming easier to understand and explain. It doesn’t even need a gun-running component, though one may be involved.

In the fall of 2012, the Obama White House was focused on re-election to the point that it was shutting its real duties out. President Obama was shutting his own real duties out, campaigning far more than governing. He hadn’t met with his jobs council in months. He was skipping his daily security intel briefings. The Sept. 10 release was sent out to make him look presidential, without actually performing the duties of president. There was no security meeting, and no forces were actually moved around anywhere to gear up for the 9-11 anniversary. There was a conference call, a conversation, and a press release.

The administration had been warned that security in Benghazi was deteriorating and an attack was likely and would be deadly, repeatedly. The black flag of Islam was already flying over government buildings in Benghazi. Ansar al-Sharia, al Qaeda’s affiliate in Libya, was gaining power. Terrorists had already attacked the Red Cross and the British embassy in Benghazi, forcing both to abandon the city. The last remaining target of three that al Qaeda had stated its intent to attack was the US facility. But Clinton’s State Department consistently denied requests to beef up security, and Obama couldn’t be bothered to give a damn about anything but winning re-election.

The attack happens. It’s clear from the beginning that it was an attack, the military briefed administration officials that it was an attack, but the State Department had been denying field requests from Benghazi to beef up security, and there’s a paper trail of those denials. Obama hasn’t been attending to his daily intel briefings. Obama, derelict in his duty every bit as much as Clinton, has been campaigning on the theme that “al Qaeda is defeated and on the run.” Well, here they are to spoil that particular campaign line and re-write their own in the blood of four Americans.

The inconvenience of four dead Americans could not be allowed to become speedbumps slowing Obama’s path to re-election.

The White House has never disclosed where Obama was during most of the attack. His spokesman consistently deflects questions regarding Obama’s whereabouts that night. It’s likely that he spent at least part of the duration of the attack not acting as commander in chief with Americans’ lives on the line, but as campaigner in chief with his campaign on the line. The outcome of that meeting was tasking the political people with coming up with some kind of story – any kind of story – to preserve the “al Qaeda is on the run” line and deflect from the State Department’s abandonment of security at the facility. They had a problem of duty on their hands, and approached it as a problem of politics. The “Innocence of Muslims” film had been a minor factor in the pre-planned Cairo riot, so they latched on that.

We know that the State Department’s Victoria Nuland and deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes were involved in re-working the talking points that President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, spokesman Jay Carney and Ambassador Susan Rice used – the talking points blaming a movie and mischaracterizing the attack as a riot gone bad. Rhodes came to the job with no foreign policy experience. He is a long-time Obama loyalist whose specialty is not foreign policy, but strategic communications. He’s a speechwriter. Politics, basically. Spin.

Nuland is a career State officer but she and Rhodes were both political appointees to the jobs they held at that time (Nuland has been promoted since Benghazi), one answering to Clinton, the other, ultimately, to Obama. The political team, on Obama’s and Clinton’s orders and under their direction, comes up with the fairy tale that a movie caused the violence, Rhodes and Nuland get the job of transmitting that fairy tale to the officials who are crafting the administration’s response, and a massive lie is rolled out and defended for weeks, by the president who most stood to benefit from that lie’s existence.

Once told, the lie can never be un-told.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Big Surprise! Obama Lied About Number Of Uninsured Too

Obama Misled Public About Number Of Uninsured Too – Investors Business Daily

.

Just 18% of the uninsured have bothered to go on an ObamaCare exchange website, according to a recent Gallup survey. And only 22% say they will buy an exchange plan next year.

That same week, a Reuters poll found that 56% of the uninsured oppose ObamaCare. Just 44% view it favorably. In other words, the uninsured are, if anything, more opposed to the law than are the public at large.

Given the mounting fury over millions of policy cancellations and the federal exchange website debacle, these findings garnered little public attention.

But they should.

They are evidence that, in addition to Obama’s “keep your plan” promise, he appears to have misled the public about the scale of the uninsured problem and ObamaCare’s ability to help. In fact, there’s increasing reason to believe that ObamaCare could actually swell the ranks of the uninsured next year.

‘Underlying Moral Basis’

When President Obama was selling the Affordable Care Act back in 2009, he repeatedly claimed that the “underlying moral basis” for reform was to help the uninsured.

“We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured,” he said in a June 2009 speech before the American Medical Association. Later that year at a town hall, he promised that “if you’re one of the nearly 46 million people who don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options.”

Just this Thursday, Obama said that “I’m not going to walk away from 40 million people who have the chance to get health insurance for the first time.”

But early indications are that the uninsured are unenthusiastic about the law meant to help them. Even those states running their own exchange websites – which generally have suffered fewer glitches than the federal Healthcare.gov site – have seen few people signing up.

In Maryland, which has 785,000 uninsured and was one of the first states to enthusiastically embrace ObamaCare, just 4,700 had enrolled as of Nov. 10, according to Avalere Health. Connecticut’s exchange has enrolled only 4,100, although it has more than 340,000 uninsured. Washington, D.C., home to 63,000 uninsured, has signed up just 300 people since Oct. 1.

Uninsured Figure Inflated

Experts have long known that the number of uninsured bandied about by reformers was misleading. But a careful look at the uninsured populations also reveals that ObamaCare may not help them much.

First, most uninsured spells are relatively short. A Congressional Budget Office report found that 71% regain coverage they’ve lost within a year, and almost half get it back in four months or less. Only 16% of those went more than two years.

Such short-term gaps will likely continue under ObamaCare, since people will still be prone to lose coverage between jobs, and can go up to three months without insurance and still avoid paying the mandate penalty.

In addition, the young and healthy are far more likely to be uninsured than any other age group. According to the Census Bureau’s latest report, more than 27% of those between 19 and 34 are uninsured, compared with 16% of those 45 to 64.

These are the “young invincibles” that Obama needs to sign up for ObamaCare to keep rates from spiraling upward. But those not buying relatively cheap insurance available today aren’t likely to pay more for it in the exchanges.

Census data also show that almost a quarter of the uninsured have household incomes of more than $50,000, which means that many of them won’t be eligible for ObamaCare’s tax subsidies.

What’s more, the official number of uninsured is exaggerated.

As many as 6 million who claim to lack coverage are actually enrolled in Medicaid, and another 4 million are eligible for Medicaid but haven’t enrolled, according to one analysis. And 9.5 million aren’t even U.S. citizens, according to the Census Bureau.

Combined, these groups account for 42% of the 46 million said to be uninsured. And none of them will benefit from ObamaCare.

The law is expected, however, to cover many currently uninsured through Medicaid in the 25 states that agreed to expand eligibility for that program. ObamaCare tried to force every state to sharply raise the Medicaid income threshold, but the Supreme Court ruled the mandate unconstitutional.

Even the White House has admitted that the 46 million figure was an exaggeration, saying at one point it was more like 30 million.

ObamaCare will still leave about 30 million uninsured by 2023 despite spending $1.8 trillion in subsidies, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

While ObamaCare may not do a very good job of covering the uninsured, it could very well increase their ranks.

By some estimates, 11 million people nationwide will have their individual policies canceled. In California alone – a state with 7 million uninsured – more than 1 million are getting cancellation notices, according to the state’s insurance commissioner.

And 40-plus million workers could find their rates leap upward because their employers had existing insurance policies canceled and had to buy more expensive ObamaCare-approved plans.

In other words, far more people could lose their current plans this year than are officially counted as uninsured. If only a fraction of these opt not to buy because of high costs – as many are telling the press they will – there could be millions more without insurance next year.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.