Posts Tagged ‘OBAMA lies AGAIN’
FIRST IT WAS SUSAN RICE TELLING LIES, NOW THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT SENDS DAN PFEIFFER TO THE TALKS SHOWS TELLING LIES.
WHEN WILL THEY LEARN TO JUST TELL THE TRUTH?
Dan Pfeiffer staked out a defiant defense Sunday on a series of scandals that have hit the Obama administration, going so far as to say it was an “irrelevant fact” where the president was the night of the Benghazi terror attacks and saying the Obama administration wouldn’t cooperate in “partisan fishing expeditions” over IRS officials targeting Tea Party groups.
Dan Pfeiffer went on five Sunday talk shows where he tried to reverse the damage done to the Obama administration this week by a series of scandals. On “Fox News Sunday” he tried to hammer home that the president only heard that the IRS unfairly targeted Tea Party groups “when it came out in the news.”
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who appeared on CNN’s State of the Union, suggested there was a written policy to target political groups opposing the president but when pressed for proof, he was unable to provide details.
On ABC, Pfeiffer said the law governing the targeting of conservative groups was “irrelevant.”
“You don’t really mean the law is irrelevant do you?” host George Stephanopoulos asked.
Pfeiffer clarified his statement, “What I mean is that whether it’s legal, or illegal is — is not important to the fact that it — that, the conduct as a matter. The Department of Justice said they’re looking into the legality of this. The president is not going to wait for that. We have to make sure it doesn’t happen again regardless of how that turns out.”
Earlier this week, a Treasury Department inspector general report revealed that Tea Party and other groups that had been critical of Obama received extra scrutiny when applying for a tax-exempt status from the government. According to the report, IRS agents had not flagged similar liberal or progressive groups.
The incident was traced back to an Ohio IRS office that had singled out conservative groups and held up their applications or demanded information from them like donor information, which is illegal. Many groups would not or could not provide the confidential information and as a result had to suspend their applications.
Pfeiffer also took the bold step of demanding Republicans owe Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, an apology for alleging she played a part in formulating the White House’s response to the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed four Americans.
Pfeiffer said that the release of more than 100 pages of Benghazi emails and notes show “beyond a shadow of the doubt” that accusations she tried to change the narrative of what happened in the attacks were false.
“And, frankly, I think that many of the Republicans who have been talking about this, now that they have seen the emails, owe Ambassador Rice an apology for the things they said about her in the wake of the attack,” he said.
He claimed on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the issue of who changed the initial talking points on the attack is “largely irrelevant.” The Benghazi emails though did show top State Department officials involved in trying to water down the administration’s initial storyline to remove references to prior security incidents and warnings.
Another scandal hitting the White House this week involved the seizure of two months worth of telephone records of journalists at four Associated Press bureaus including Washington and New York.
AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt criticized the move Sunday, saying the Justice Department’s secret subpoenas sent a strong and negative message to sources and made them less willing to talk to AP journalists.
Pruitt said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” it was not only unconstitutional but also damaging to the ideal of a free press in the country.
“It will hurt,” he said. “We’re already seeing some impact. Officials are saying they’re reluctant to talk.”
The Justice Department disclosed the seizure of two months of phone records in a letter the AP received May 10. The letter didn’t say why the organization was targeted. Last week, Pruitt had said in a statement on the AP website that it was difficult to defend its actions since it was not told by the government what it did or what prompted the subpoenas.
Prosecutors later said they were looking into government leaks on a foiled Al Qaeda plot in Yemen before it was made public last year. Justice officials also alleged the AP’s story would have put Americans at risk, a claim the AP strongly refuted.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/19/top-obama-adviser-stakes-out-defiant-defense-on-irs-benghazi-ap-scandals/#ixzz2TpiM4NU3
WASHINGTON — Senior Treasury officials were made aware in June 2012 that investigators were looking into complaints from tea party groups that they were being harassed by the Internal Revenue Service, a Treasury inspector general said, disclosing that Obama administration officials knew there was a probe during the heat of the presidential campaign.
J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, testifying alongside ousted IRS head Steven Miller on Friday, said he had told the department’s general counsel about his investigation on June 4, 2012, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly thereafter.”
But, George cautioned, those discussions were “not to inform them of the results of the audit. It was to inform them of the fact that we were conducting the audit.”
After the hearing, inspector general spokeswoman Karen Kraushaar said George “informed Department of Treasury officials that we were looking into the IRS’ handling of applications for tax-exempt status, partly due to allegations raised by conservative organizations.”
Kraushaar said the disclosure was part of a routine briefing about the office’s activities.
The Treasury Department issued a statement Friday saying officials first became aware of the actual results of the investigation in March of this year, when they were provided a draft of George’s report, a standard practice.
George’s disclosure came before the House Ways and Means Committee in the first of several congressional hearings on the matter. He was joined by Miller, who spoke publicly about the controversy for the first time.
Miller was contrite as he apologized for the actions of agents who singled out conservative political groups for additional, often burdensome scrutiny.
“First and foremost, as acting commissioner, I want to apologize on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service for the mistakes that we made and the poor service we provided,” he told the committee. “The affected organizations and the American public deserve better.”
But the hearing turned prickly when Miller insisted he did not deceive Congress, though he repeatedly failed to reveal the controversy last year when he was asked about it by lawmakers — even after he had been briefed.
“I did not mislead Congress or the American people,” Miller said.
The administration is on the defensive for a trio of issues that are threatening to derail the president’s second-term agenda. In addition to the IRS case, President Barack Obama and other officials are being pressed about last September’s terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, and the government’s seizure of Associated Press telephone records as part of a leaks investigation.
“Listening to the nightly news, this appears to be just the latest example of a culture of cover-ups and political intimidation in this administration,” said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. “It seems like the truth is hidden from the American people just long enough to make it through an election.”
Committee Democrats were also critical of the IRS, but several took offense at Camp’s assertion that this matter is part of a wider problem within the administration. They noted that there has been no evidence so far that anyone outside the IRS was involved in targeting conservative groups.
“If this hearing becomes essentially a bootstrap to continue the campaign of 2012 and to prepare for 2014, we will be making a very, very serious mistake,” said Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the panel.
Levin said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that makes decisions about tax-exempt groups, “should be relieved of her duties.” Lerner is the IRS official who made the scandal public May 10 in what Miller said was a planned event at a legal conference.
Obama forced Miller to resign this week though he will remain on the job a few days until a new acting director takes over. Obama named Daniel Werfel, a top White House budget officer, to replace Miller and met with Werfel on Friday.
Miller is a 25-year IRS employee who was a deputy commissioner when the tea party groups were being targeted. In that job, Miller was over the division that dealt with tax-exempt organizations.
He became acting head of the agency in November, when IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman’s five-year term expired. Shulman had been appointed by President George W. Bush, a fact highlighted by several Democrats at Friday’s hearing.
Camp said Miller’s departure wouldn’t be enough.
“The reality is this is not a personnel problem. This is a problem of the IRS being too large, too powerful, too intrusive and too abusive of honest, hardworking taxpayers,” Camp said.
Two other committees have hearings scheduled for next week, and the Justice Department has launched its own criminal investigation. Miller is also scheduled to testify on Tuesday before the Senate Finance Committee. He will be joined by Shulman and George.
Underscoring the seriousness of his testimony Friday, Miller was sworn in as a witness, an unusual step for the Ways and Means panel.
He told committee members that before the episode became public, he had no contact with the Treasury Department, the White House or Obama’s re-election campaign about targeting conservative groups.
“Absolutely not,” Miller said.
He surprised committee members when he said “it is absolutely not illegal” for IRS agents to single out conservative groups for additional scrutiny.
“Please don’t get me wrong,” he added. “It should not happen.”
George, the inspector general, backed up Miller’s assertion when he said the yearlong investigation did not uncover illegal activity.
“It is not illegal, but it was inappropriate,” George said of targeting conservative groups.
George’s report concluded that an IRS office in Cincinnati, which screened applications for the tax exemptions, improperly singled out tea party and other conservative groups for tougher treatment. The report says the practice began in March 2010 and lasted in various forms until May 2012.
Agents did not flag similar progressive or liberal labels, though some liberal groups did receive additional scrutiny because their applications were singled out for other reasons, the report said.
The IG’s report blamed ineffective management in Washington for letting the inappropriate singling out occur for so long.
Miller said he was notified that conservative groups had been singled out for additional scrutiny on May 3, 2012. After he was briefed, members of Congress repeatedly asked the IRS about complaints from tea party groups that said they were being harassed by the IRS.
But Miller was not forthcoming back then about groups being targeted in at least two letters to members of Congress and in testimony before a Ways and Means subcommittee.
“Didn’t this committee have the right to know that groups were treated differently?” asked Rep. Dave Reichert R-Wash.
“I answered all the questions I was asked,” Miller replied.
“So your answer is a non-answer, once again,” Reichert retorted.
As the hearing drew to a close, Camp, the committee chairman, declared, “I promise the American people this investigation has just begun.”
Said Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa.: “I don’t know that I got any answers from you today. I am more concerned today than I was before.”
© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/irs-scandal-political-groups/2013/05/18/id/505159#ixzz2TfReGZMr
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
by Joseph Curl
Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.
With President Obama back in office and his life-saving “fiscal cliff” bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.
“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”
Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.
So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.
“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”
“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”
“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”
So let’s explain something to our ill-informed Democratic friends. In 2009, Mr. Obama enacted a “holiday” on the payroll tax deduction from employees’ paychecks, dropping the rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. But like the holidays, the drop ended, and like New Year‘s, the revelers woke up the next morning with a massive hangover and a pounding head.
“Bake,” who may have been trolling the site, jumped into the thread posted Friday. “My paycheck just went down. So did my wife’s. This hurts us. But everybody says it’s a good thing, so I guess we just suck it up and get used to it. I call it a tax increase on the middle class. I wonder what they call it. Somebody on this thread called it a ‘premium.’ Nope. It’s a tax, and it just went up.”
Some in the thread argued that the new tax — or the end of the “holiday,” which makes it a new tax — wouldn’t really amount to much. One calculated it would cost about $86 a month for most people. “Honeycombe8,” though, said that amount is nothing to sneeze at.
“$86 a month is a lot. That would pay for … Groceries for a week, as someone said. More than what I pay for parking every month, after my employer’s contribution to that. A new computer after a year. A new quality pair of shoes … every month. Months of my copay for my hormones. A new thick coat (on sale or at discount place). It would pay for what I spend on my dogs every month … food, vitamins, treats.”
The Twittersphere was even funnier.
“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”
“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?
Of course, dozens of posters on DemocraticUnderground sought to blame it all (as usual) on President George W. Bush. “Your taxes went up because the leaders need to dig us out of this criminal deficit hole we are in which has been caused because taxes were too low during the Bush years. Everyone has to help by spreading the wealth around a little. Power to the correct people!” posted “Orinoco.”
But in fact, it was Mr. Obama who enacted the “holiday,” and, to be clear, the tax cut that he pushed throughout the campaign — remember? 98 percent of Americans will get a cut under his plan? — was really the extension of the Bush tax suts. Thus, it was Mr. Obama who raised taxes on millions of Americans, not Mr. Bush.
How many Americans? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington put the total at 77.1 percent of all wage earners. In fact, “More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said,” according to a Bloomberg News article. Hilariously, the tax burden will rise more for someone making $30,000 a year (1.7 percent) than it does for someone earning $500,000 annually (1.3 percent).
A whole new wave of Obama supporters still don’t even know: They’ll get their first 2013 paychecks on the 15th of the month. So when you’re shooting the breeze in the lunchroom with your grumbling co-workers on the 16th, just ask them, “Who’d you vote for in November?” When they say Mr. Obama, just tell them: “Well, you got what you voted for. You did know he was going to raise taxes, right?”
The looks on their faces will be priceless.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/?page=2#ixzz2HIXNj7yy
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
by Jim CorsiThis is the second of a series of articles WND has developed from months of confidential in-person interviews with members of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago who have known Barack and Michelle Obama on a personal basis over many years. In the first story, members of the church claimed Barack Obama benefited from Wright’s “Down Low Club,” part of a documented underground subculture in which black men who engage in homosexual activity marry to maintain respectability in public. Because of the personal risk the sources perceived they were taking to speak candidly about the president and his family, their identities have been masked.
As a young single woman, Michelle Robinson was a fixture in the home of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, who along with Rev. Jeremiah Wright “arranged” her marriage to Barack Obama, according to sources in Chicago who know the couple.
“If you want to understand Michelle Obama, you’ve got to go back to Jesse Jackson,” a woman called “Robyn” for this article told WND.
Robyn, who spent several years working for Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition, explained to a WND investigator in Chicago that Michelle Obama “just about grew up in Jesse Jackson’s home.”
“Jesse should have charged her rent and board for the amount of time she spent in his home instead of her own,” she said.
Jackson’s daughter, Santita, is still one of Michelle’s best friends. Santita and Jesse Jr. call her “sis,” short for “sister.”
Santita Jackson said in an interview just before Obama took office in 2008 that she has known Michelle Obama since they car-pooled together as high school classmates. Santita was maid of honor at Michelle and Barack Obama’s wedding, and she is the godmother to the Obama’s older daughter, Malia.
Robyn also pointed out Jesse Jackson Jr., a Democratic Party member of the U.S. House from Illinois, served as the national co-chairman of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.
“It all relates back to Trinity and to the Jesse Jackson orbit of blacks here in Chicago who gave Obama legitimacy and helped him establish his identity as a black man,” Robyn explained.
“The political left wanted to push a black to the presidency, and the key operatives in the Democratic Party decided long ago it wouldn’t be Jesse Jackson (Sr.). Then Jesse wanted it to be his son, but Jesse Jr. has serious drug and mental problems that the world knows about now. These were also known about in the past, and Jesse Jr. was never going to be the black president. So, the political left then chose Obama.”
In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times in August, Sandi Jackson admitted her husband, Jesse Jr., was “completely debilitated by depression,” which has forced him to put his Washington home for sale to pay his medical bills, including his treatment at the Mayo Clinic. He has been absent from Congress since mid-June, putting his House seat at risk in the November election.
They met where?
Obama’s retelling of an event most spouses remember precisely for the rest of their lives has caused confusion. Exactly when and how did he first meet Michelle Robinson?
Before a speech at the New Economic School graduation in Moscow on July 7, 2009, Obama stated he first met Michelle in school.
“I don’t know if anybody else will meet their future wife or husband in class like I did, but I’m sure you’re all going to have wonderful careers,” he said, according to Newsweek.
The problem is that Michelle Obama earned her degree from Harvard Law School in 1988, and Obama did not arrive at Harvard Law School until that fall, graduating three years later in 1991.
The commonly accepted story is that they first met in Chicago in 1989, when Barack took a summer job as an intern at the Chicago law firm Sidley Austin, and Michelle, who was employed as a lawyer at the firm, was assigned to be his mentor.
WND has reported Allen Hulton, the U.S. postal carrier who delivered mail to the parents of Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers in a Chicago suburb, met Obama in the summer of 1989, while Obama was an intern at Sidley Austin.
In 1991, during their engagement to be married, top Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, then serving as the deputy chief of staff to Mayor Richard M. Daley, hired Michelle to a job in the mayor’s office.
“Michelle hated working for the city even more than she hated working at Sidley Austin,” Robyn told WND.
“At the law firm, she lasted so short of a time because they expected her to do work,” Robyn said. “At the City of Chicago, where she worked under Mayor Daley, Michelle had one of those ‘Jesse hires’ positions. These are patronage jobs where the recipients did nothing.”
Robyn claimed that while working for Daley, Michelle just collected a check, doing very little work.
“She sat at a desk and read the newspaper all day,” Robyn said. “Sometimes she read romance novel paperbacks. No one could say anything to her because she was a ‘Jesse hire.’ This meant if anyone did complain about her not working that Jesse Jackson would get mad at Daley over that, and there would be trouble.”
Robyn said Michelle was “essentially treated like she was Jesse’s daughter, and Michelle’s connections in Chicago were a key to Obama’s rise to power.”
Political connections played throughout Michelle’s young life in Chicago.
Her father, Fraser C. Robinson III, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in his 20s and eventually walked with the use of crutches, was a volunteer Democratic precinct captain in addition to his job in the boiler room at Chicago’s water purification plant.
As Democratic precinct captain, Robinson had power and influence, given his access to “street money” the Daley machine freely handed out at that time in Chicago’s South Side to make sure black voters turned out to vote for Democratic Party machine candidates.
The Chicago sources told WND the selection of Michelle Robinson for Obama was made by Jesse Jackson, and Jeremiah Wright agreed it would be a good combination.
“It all relates back to Trinity United and to the Jesse Jackson orbit of blacks here in Chicago who gave Obama legitimacy and helped him establish his identity as a black man ‘from Chicago,’” Robyn explained.
“Michelle came from a political family; she was intelligent even if she didn’t really like to work. Wright knew Obama was gay, but he needed the cover of a wife if he were to succeed in politics.”
A current member of Trinity church who has known the Obamas for 20 years, “Carolyn,” confirmed Trinity “helped a lot of blacks get successful and connected.”
“That’s what Wright did for Obama,” she claimed. “He connected Obama in the community, and he helped Obama hide his homosexuality.”
According to Robyn, Jackson explained to Michelle that she would live a life of luxury once Obama was president, and that she never again would have to worry about money.
“Michelle was nasty, and most straight guys would never be able to put up with her moods and temperament,” Robyn maintained. “But Obama really didn’t care. Michelle had the credentials and she looked the part. Obama wasn’t interested in her for sex.”
A source WND will identify as Hazel, a long-term member of the Trinity congregation, insisted Obama remained sexually involved with men after his marriage to Michelle.
“I remember being at this function at Reverend Wright’s house, one of the many parties Wright had, in 1996,” Hazel recalled.
“I went to the room where all the coats were on the bed, because I wanted to leave. I was surprised to find the light in the room was off and the coats were on the floor,” she said. “Then I realized there were two men hugging and kissing in there. One of those men was Obama. This was long before anybody knew Obama, before he became famous like he is today.”
Hazel has been telling this story in Chicago since 1996.
When Jarrett left Mayor Daley’s office to head Chicago’s Department of Planning and Development, she took Michelle with her.
Jarrett later became the chairwoman of the Chicago Medical Center, and Michelle again got “a cushy job at the Chicago Medical Center with a salary of $317,000,” as reported by Edward Klein on page 117 of his 2012 book “The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House.”
New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor wrote in 2008 that Jarrett would have to be at the top of a list of people who helped Barack and Michelle Obama.
“Nearly two decades ago, Ms. Jarrett swept the young lawyers under her wing, introduced them to a wealthier and better-connected Chicago than their own, and eventually secured contacts and money essential to Mr. Obama’s long-shot Senate victory,” Kantor wrote.
Klein, in an interview with Fox News, described Jarrett as the “de facto” president of the United States, “the best friend of the first lady and soul mate of the president.”
While everyone is talking about Obama’s revealing comments yesterday admitting defeat when it comes to changing Washington DC from the inside, what struck me most after watching his entire Univision interview was Obama’s condescending and deceitful answer when pressed on the issue of immigration reform.
And I’m not even talking about Obama declaring the lack of immigration reform “my biggest failure,” as opposed to creating jobs. I’m talking about this:Anyone who remembers the 2008 Saddleback Church forum knows that Obama just doesn’t do well in situations where he’s being questioned by someone who isn’t a part of his lapdog media. Throughout yesterday’s interview, Univision reporter Jorge Ramos pressed Obama, expecting truthful answers. Not being used to this kind of dogged intellectual honesty from anyone in media, Obama really fumbled his way through much of the session.
From where I stand, though, the worst part was the clip above. First off, Obama addresses Ramos and the audience as though they’re children in need of a history lesson: Let me sit here and explain to you children how the three branches of government works. You obviously don’t know this because if you did, you never would’ve asked such a stupid question.
Secondly, Obama’s brazenly misleading here. One fact Obama and the corrupt media would love for us to forget is that for two long years Obama enjoyed blank check approval in both chambers of Congress (including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate). But during this time, not once did Obama submit anything in the form of immigration reform, even though he most certainly could’ve gotten it passed. Which makes what he said about Republicans all the more outrageous:
The president said that he was also taken aback by the resistance he said he received from Republican lawmakers when he reached out to them about an immigration bill, especially from those who previously supported such measures.
“I am happy to take responsibility for being naive here,” he said.
What in the world do Republicans have to do with anything when you own the Executive and Legislative branches of government for two freakin’ years?
The Romney campaign has a real opportunity here. You take that clip above and intercut it with the facts and point out the insulting condescension and you just might have yourself something.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC