Corrupt Obama Regime Knew About VA’s Secret Wait Lists For Years

Obama Administration Knew About VA’s Secret Wait Lists For Years – Daily Caller

.

.
The Obama administration knew about allegations of secret waiting lists at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as early as 2010, The Daily Caller has learned.

The current VA scandal involving secret waiting lists that led to preventable veteran deaths at the Phoenix VA Medical Center claimed the scalp of Obama-appointed former VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, who resigned at the end of last month. Former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that President Obama only found about the VA wait-list scandal from watching the news.

But the Obama administration knew that an internal VA investigation into secret “paper” waiting lists was conducted in 2010 under Shinseki.

“We conducted this review to determine the validity of an allegation that senior officials in Veterans Integrated Service Network 20 (VISN) instructed employees at the Portland VA Medical Center to use unauthorized wait lists to hide access and scheduling problems,” according to an August 17, 2010 VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report entitled “Review of Alleged Use of Unauthorized Wait Lists at the Portland VA Medical Center,” which was obtained by TheDC.

The report was based on an OIG review conducted in Portland, Oregon between March and June 2010. The facility, like all VA medical centers, was prohibited from keeping paper waiting lists separate from the official electronic waiting-list system.

“OIG has reported problems since 2005 with schedulers not following established procedures for making or recording medical appointments. This practice has resulted in data integrity weaknesses that impacted the reliability of patient waiting times and facility waiting lists,” the report continued.

“The OIG received an anonymous e-mail alleging the use of unauthorized paper wait lists, and that the eye clinics had over 3,500 patients waiting more than 30 days for appointments,” according to the report.

The IG report noted that “We did not substantiate the allegation” about the unauthorized wait lists but nonetheless found that some staff did not notify more than 2,000 patients of follow-up appointments.

“No one admitted to either instructing or being instructed to use unauthorized paper wait lists,” the report stated. “We also conducted visual inspections of schedulers’ work areas and found no evidence of paper wait lists.”

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel is currently investigating claims of reprisal and abuse against VA whistleblowers in 19 different states.

“It’s not that people haven’t brought this up before, it’s just the word ‘secret’ lists blew it up in the media,” Vietnam Veterans of America’s Richard Weidman revealed in a recent interview, noting the long-known existence of “handwritten” VA wait lists separate from the electronic systems.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

At Least 80 White House Staffers Knew About Bergdahl Deal, But Obama “Couldn’t Tell Congress”

As Many As 90 Obama Regime Staffers Had Prior Knowledge Of Bergdahl Deal, But Obama “Couldn’t Tell Congress” – Weasel Zippers

.

.
Yeah, even the Democratic Congress folk aren’t buying this one…

Via Newsmax:

Between 80 and 90 administration staffers knew about the trade of five Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl even though Congress was kept in the dark, CNN reports, and members of both parties are unhappy about it.

During a classified briefing to the entire House of Representatives late Monday afternoon, White House officials said that up to 90 people had prior knowledge of the trade.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon called that news “disturbing,” partly because of the high number who knew and partly because the White House has been saying it didn’t inform Congress until after the swap was made because it feared Bergdahl’s life might be in danger if there had been a leak.

Keep reading

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

British Intelligence Specialist: Obama Born In Kenya; CIA, American Politicians Knew It Before ’08 Election



(see unedited version below)
.

Michael Shrimpton Résumé:

Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst ex-Soviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11.

He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and the Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.

His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib “hood” photograph as a fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a regular contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006.

.
Unedited Version

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related articles:

.
Barrister Michael Shrimpton: Obama Born in Mombasa Kenya In 1960, CIA DNA Testing Confirms Obama Dunham Grandparents Not Linked, Wikipedia Scrubs Shrimpton Profile, British Intelligence Files – Citizen Wells

Barrister Michael Shrimpton Obama born in Mombasa Kenya in 1960, CIA DNA testing confirms Obama Dunham grandparents not linked, Wikipedia scrubs Shrimpton profile, British intelligence files

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.” …Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” …George Orwell, “1984″

I had to treat this story with skepticism.

Barrister Michael Shrimpton is real.

Are his claims?

His profile was scrubbed on Wikipedia.

From Birther Report February 25, 2014. – Bombshell: British Intelligence Advisor Barrister Michael Shrimpton; Obama Born In Kenya In 1960; CIA DNA Test

“Shrimpton reported Obama’s purported mom was not pregnant in 1961 and that Obama was born in Kenya in 1960. He said Kenya was under British intelligence files and that Obama’s father ran guns for the Mau Mau. He then dropped a bombshell claiming the CIA did covert DNA testing on Obama at a fundraising dinner and the test came back with no match to the claimed grandparents.”

Read more:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/02/bombshell-british-intelligence-advisor.html

Wikipedia scrubbed the Michael Shrimpton profile.

User: Michael Shrimpton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

23:46, 11 August 2012 Uncle G (talk | contribs) deleted page User: Michael Shrimpton (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Michael Shrimpton)

Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Michael Shrimpton. If in doubt, please verify that “Michael Shrimpton” exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Shrimpton

From Wikipedia October 10, 2010.

User: Michael Shrimpton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Michael Shrimpton : A short resume

Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst ex-Soviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11.

He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and the Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.

His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib “hood” photograph as a fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a regular contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006.

Michael has a life-long interest in aviation which is informed by his knowledge of intelligence and defence affairs. His first solo was in 1979 on the British aerospace Bulldog T MK 1 aircraft, University of Wales Air Squadron. He is an Honorary Life Member Bomber Command Association, member of the Air League, member of Friends of the Royal Air Force Museum and RAF Historical Society. He has flown in many types of classic aircraft including a DC-3 (ex-RAF Dakota), Auster MK6 and a Stearman biplane.

He has contributed to aviation by combining intelligence related materials with original analysis of the history of various aircraft types. Notably Michael thinks he identified the covert programme of sabotage against de Havilland Comet airliners Yoke Peter and Yoke Uncle, which crashed in January and April 1954 off the Italian island of Elba (BOAC Flight 781) and in Stromboli (South African Airways Flight 201).

Michael also has other Defence interests and is a member of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the Defence and Security Forum, London, Military Commentator Circle, London and the United States Naval Institute. This wide range of high-level western defence, security and intelligence contacts has not only been of relevant to the War on Terror but has also taken him to some interesting locations.

In February 2006, Michael was flown to the nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65) at sea in the North Atlantic as part of the US Navy’s Distinguished Visitor Program. He completed his first arrested carrier landing and catapult take-off cycle. In June 2003 he was on the Israel / Lebanon border when he came to within 50 yards of operational Hezbollah terrorists.

He has also travelled extensively by rail, is one of AMTRAK’s few UK Guest Rewards members having crossed Canada by train on the Canadian from Toronto to Vancouver and on the Alaska Railroad from Fairbanks to Anchorage. Some other journeys include the Orient Express from Paris to Istambul, the Frederick Chopin from Warsaw to Berlin, the Moscow Express from Moscow to Berlin via Minsk and Warsaw, the Alpine Express in New Zealand and the Brisbane Limited and Sunlander in Australia. He has driven many thousands of miles by car in the USA, visiting over 30 states, twice driving coast to coast.

Michael’s reputation is not restricted to the aviation, intelligence and defence communities. With extensive media experience, including live radio and television, he has appeared on Tom Marr’s talkshow for WCBM Baltimore January 2004 and again in February 2006; on the John Batchelor Show; on BBC, ITV, Sky (UK), Danish, French, Italian, German, Swiss, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand television. He appeared in a CNN special on the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano for CNN’s Latin American service with a first appearance on Fox News March 2006. He was also Intelligence Consultant to BBC TV’s Spooks series, broadcast in the USA as MI5.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101010175917/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Shrimpton

More on Barrister Michael Shrimpton to come.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Barack Hussein Soebarkah? – Dr. Jason Kissner

One of the unexplained mysteries in the scanty documentation of the early life of the 44th President of the United States is the appearance of the name Soebarkah as his last name on an official document filled out by his mother.

In a recent contribution to American Thinker, Nick Chase offers very persuasive evidence that the long-form birth certificate released by Obama is a forgery.

While in the midst of developing an argument supporting the idea that Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Lolo Soetoro, Chase states:

Finally, we have Stanley Ann Soetoro’s 1968 application to extend her 1965 passport (now destroyed) for an additional two years, as shown in Figure PPA.

On the second page of the application, Ann moved to exclude her son Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) from her passport, but the item has been crossed out – perhaps on the advice of the consulate in Jakarta, as this would have left seven-year-old Barry passportless – so it didn’t happen.

The appendage “(Soebarkah)” has never been satisfactorily explained by anyone, and I certainly don’t know what “Soebarkah” means, but it does seem to indicate a name change or change in citizenship status for the boy.

Clearly, just what constitutes “a satisfactory explanation” varies with respect to persons, subject matter, context, and so forth.

And yet, there is a very good – and simple – explanation for the seemingly random appearance of the sobriquet “Soebarkah” on Mother Soetoro’s passport application.

Believe it or not, the reason may be linked to one Loretta Fuddy.

Yes, that Loretta Fuddy – the Hawaii state health director who approved the release of Obama’s long-form birth certificate and who has apparently succumbed to a nasty case of post random plane crash induced arrhythmia.

Ann Soetoro and Loretta Fuddy appear to have one very odd thing in common: both have been linked to the Subud cult, which originated in, of all places, Indonesia and was founded by the Javanese Muslim Muhammed Subuh.

The smallish cult appears to have had, at least circa 2001 and according to this profile of sorts in the Honolulu Advertiser, 20,000 members worldwide. Notice the picture of Deliana Fuddy, then “regional helper” and member of the faith? Let’s return to her Subud status in a second.

Note also that the World Subud organization seems to have been based in, of all cities… wait for it…Chicago. Indonesia… Chicago… Hawaii… three locales linked to Obama’s life.

Next, observe that the Advertiser article states that Subud was introduced to Hawai’i in the 1960s (more on this in the conclusion).

Now to Ann Soetoro. She was linked to Subud by her biographer (and New York Times reporter) Janny Scott (Harvard ’77) in the book A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” reviewed by the New York Times here.

Loretta Fuddy was more than merely a follower of Subud; she worked her way up the ranks and became chairwoman of Subud USA, based in Seattle from 2006 to 2008, and was known to Subud not merely as Loretta Fuddy, but as “Deliana” Loretta Fuddy. In fact, you can see that in its headline, the official Subud “memorial” page drops “Loretta” and refers simply to “Deliana” Fuddy.

Ann Soetoro’s close association with members of the Subud cult will be documented below. But first, note in passing that of all the persons – Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Hindu, or you-name-it – that could have been installed as Director of the State Department of Health in Hawaii, Hawaii alighted on Fuddy – a leader of a small cult with roots in Indonesia and connections to Ann Soetoro – Obama’s mother. Second, observe that Fuddy assumed the Director position in Hawaii in January 2011, just a few months before the release of Obama’s long form birth certificate.

Now to Ann Soetoro’s links with Subud and to a brief discussion of the Barry “Soebarkah” mystery associated with Ann Soetoro’s 1968 passport renewal application.

Read the following excerpt from SubudVoice in 2011 (and please note that I have italicized a couple of sentences to emphasize that the Subud “Staff Reporter” is drawing on material from Janny Scott’s biography of Ann Soetoro; they aren’t simply making an anonymous, empty assertion that can’t be substantiated.)

Obama’s mother and Subud

By Staff Reporter…

A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,a biography of the mother of US President Obama, Ann DunhamSutoro, contains several references to Subud. As is generally known Obama lived with his mother in Jakarta for some years…

Arianne (no second name) wrote to me to say, “Talked to Irin Poellot who is reading the book about Obama’s mother and has already run into several literal mentions of Subud!!! I remember the late Mansur Madeiros mentioning he knew her in Indonesia and he is mentioned in the book! I can’t help wondering if we will get inquiries about Subud since it is mentioned often in a book which probably will be widely read. It also is a delicious fact that our Subud sister, Ms Fuddy, just was appointed to her post in the Health Dept in Hawaii in time to be involved in the documentation of fact that Obama was born there.”

I wrote back asking for more specific information and Arianne replied, “Irin kindly supplied some quotes:In chapter 4 “Initiation in Java” the Subud members are quoted. And then (on page 116): “…she (Ann) was hired to start an English-language, business-communications department in one of the few private non profit management-training schools in the country.”

Ann “found a group of young Americans and Britons enrolled in an intensive course in Bahasa Indonesia, the national language, at the University of Indonesia recalled Irwan Holmes, (a member of the original group). She was looking for teachers. A half dozen of them accepted her invitation, many of them members of an international spiritual organization, Subud, with a residential compound in a suburb of Jakarta..”

And… Mohammad Mansur Madeiros, a reclusive and scholarly Subud member from Fall River, Massachusetts, and Harvard, whom Ann hired as a teacher, had immersed himself so deeply in Javanese culture, language and religion that friends nicknamed him Mansur Java. When he died in 2007, friends recalled his preference for the company of ordinary Indonesians – street vendors and becak drivers – over that of other Subud members and expatriates.”

But what might the Ann Soetoro, Deliana Fuddy, Subud links really have to do with the sobriquet Barry Soebarkah?

To help answer that, transport yourself backward in time and sit at the feet of the Indonesian Subud master Bapak circa 1963:

Question:1 Many people in Subud change their names. Is this necessary? Is it important? How does the change of a name affect us? Physically, spiritually or both?

Bapak: Brothers and sisters, whether it is necessary or not depends on what you want…

If changing one’s name for “spiritual reasons” was something frequently done by followers of Subud’s Bapak, and Stanley Ann Soetoro was in fact closely associated with Subud, it is reasonable to suppose that “Soebarkah” arose in the same way new names for others (like “Deliana” Loretta Fuddy?) associated with Subud did: as a matter of course depending on the case.

Readers might agree that the above is a quite reasonable account of the origin of Barry “Soebarkah.”

But there is something else. The above biographical material bonds Ann Soetoro to Subud members via an English language, business communications department post. According to the New York Times here, that would have been around 1970 or 1971. However, the passport renewal application with the name “Soebarkah” dates to 1968. This suggests that either the “Soebarkah” handle came from nowhere, or that matters are as we have discussed and that Ann Soetoro in fact came to Subud before 1970 – perhaps in Hawaii.

Clearly, we might want to recall that the above linked Honolulu Advertiser Subud profile indicates that Subud was introduced to Hawai’i in the 1960s.

In closing, the Ann Soetoro’s 1968 passport renewal application raises the spectre of possible Obama birth certificate fraud yet again. Have a look at page 2 of the document:

“Sorebarkah” appears in the section labeled “Amend to Include (Exclude) Children.”

The name Barack Hussein Obama (Sorebarkah) is crossed out.

Nick Chase has concluded that this signifies that Ann Soetoro had improvidently decided to exclude Barack from her passport renewal. Chase thinks that Soetoro changed her mind about exclusion after having been informed by the Consulate that doing so would leave Barack passportless.

But there is another possibility – one just as valid on its face.

What if Soetoro was trying to include Obama in the renewal, but she wasn’t able to produce a birth certificate, and the Subud name “Soebarkah” just didn’t do the trick? (hat tip Louise Hodges for the “inclusion” possibility; one can’t be certain why she did not link the inclusion possibility to Soebarkah).

That could explain why the name Subud name “Soebarkah” appears nowhere else (that we are aware of anyway),

Of course, we might then have to wonder exactly how Obama did his traveling at certain points in time, but then perhaps Subud is, at least at times, more than a mere cult?

Dr. Jason Kissner is associate professor of criminology at California State University, Fresno. You can reach him at crimprof2010@hotmail.com.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

President Asshat Knew Millions Would Lose Their Health Insurance Because Of Obamacare (Videos)

NBC Shock Report: Obama Administration Knew Millions Would Not Keep Their Health Insurance – Gateway Pundit

.

We heard it a hundred times before Obamacare was rammed through Congress. Barack Obama promised Americans that if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your plan.

.

.
It was all a lie. Period.

White House Admits: Some Will Lose Health Plans

Nearly 1.5 million cancellations so far

NBC is reporting that the Obama administration knew years ago that millions of Americans would lose their health insurance.

NBC Investigations reported:

President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date – the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example – the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

UPDATE: Valerie Jarrett: Obamacare doesn’t force you off your plan; your insurance company does, by complying with Obamacare!

The gall of these people!

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

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

Related video:

.

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

Related article:

.
NBC News Pulls Original Article About the President Lying About ObamaCare – Independent Journal Review

.

Lies may be temporary, but the Internet is forever. NBC News issued a blockbuster report (only in as much as the outfit is well-known for its sycophantic coverage of Obama) and then tried to scrub some of the more unsavory bits from its website.

Only… there’s this thing called Google cache. Weasel Zippers grabbed the news article – which was taken down and replaced on the NBC site under a new url.

First, what a reader will find at the old url:

.

Then, NBC News’ “excuse” for why the link was changed. Surprise, surprise – a “glitch”:

——————————————————————————————
NBC News
@NBCNews

EDITOR’S NOTE: A publishing glitch took down our story on policy cancellations under Obamacare. Republished here: nbcnews.to/1hoTtHH
12:52 AM – 29 Oct 2013

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health…
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or…

NBC Investigations@NBCInvestigates

142 Retweets – 29 favorites
——————————————————————————————

IJReview investigative reporter SooperMexican captured the edits:

.

Weasel Zippers noted that NBC posted a replacement article and made the original article available in a Google cache.

UPDATE: It appears that NBC News replaced the missing paragraph in yet another version. There is no explanation on the present article for the multiple edits; but just maybe NBC realized that it’s pointless and maybe even harmful to its image to redact the original published version.

UPDATE2: What one will find at the old (multiple-website-linked) url:

.

UPDATE3: The headline for this article was edited after publication, as well as the video and references to it.

UPDATE4: Another screenshot with the retracted paragraph can be downloaded in pdf here. (H/T IloiloKano)

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

San Diego News Media: Sure, We Knew Democrat Bob Filner Was A Sexual Predator, But We Decided To Ignore It

San Diego Media: We Knew About Filner And Said Nothing – Big Journalism

Doug Curlee, a San Diego reporter, admits in a Monday editorial that “San Diego news media reporters, editors, producers and writers pretty much knew who and what Bob Filner is and has been.” But except for talking about it over drinks, “we did nothing about it.” Worst of all, Curlee claims that the rumors around Filner were “incessant,” but no one bothered to confirm them, choosing instead to accept denials.

.

Curlee lists a few reasons for “why we had the chance – many chances over the years – to dig into the Filner story and find much of this out,” and didn’t.

Was it because Filner had established himself as a Democratic power here – for a long time, the only Democratic power here?

Was it because he had built his electoral power base generally south of Interstate 8, among the “minority” communities of African-Americans, Latinos, and Filipinos?

Was it because Filner totally controlled the votes and campaign funds of large and ever-growing organized labor groups, the unions?

Was it because economic pressure was brought to bear on TV station ownerships or newspaper ownerships, all of whom depend on advertising dollars as their prime source of revenue?

Naturally, the real reason is not listed there, which is why this kind of thing will happen again and again.

If Filner were a Republican, does anyone doubt he would not have gotten away with this for as long he did? And not just with the local media, but also with the national media?

Of course not.

If Mr. Curlee is truly interested in doing some soul searching, he should add this to his list:

Was it because those of us in the media can never bring ourselves to cover Democrats with the same energy, skepticism, and zeal that we do Republicans?

But the number of reporters capable of facing that truth are few and far between.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama: Everyone In Congress Knew About NSA Snooping – Congress: No We Didn’t

Lawmakers Rebut Obama’s Data Defense – Politico

President Barack Obama’s chief defense of his administration’s wide-ranging data-gathering programs Friday: Congress authorized them, with “every member” well aware of the details.

Not so, say many members of Congress – Democrats and Republicans alike.

.

Typically, members of Congress “don’t receive this kind of briefing,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told POLITICO Friday. They wouldn’t have known about the programs unless they were on an intelligence committee, attended special sessions last held in 2011 or specifically asked to be briefed – something they would only know to do if they were clued in by an colleague who was already aware.

Durbin said he learned about the two programs himself only after requesting a briefing under “classified circumstances” after being urged to do so by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Congressional leadership and intelligence committees had access to information about the programs, he said – but the “average member” of Congress likely wouldn’t have been aware of the breadth of the telephone and Internet surveillance.

There’s no public record of who has attended any of these sessions – and even the Obama administration couldn’t confirm the president’s claim that “every member of Congress” had been briefed.

The White House declined to comment for this story.

And Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) told POLITICO that the classified intelligence briefing sessions he’s attended haven’t disclosed details on the two data-gathering programs as were unveiled this week.

Schock, in Congress since 2009, said he had “no idea” about the phone data gathering, or any briefings for House members to discuss it, until news reports this week.

Like other members who said they learned of the data-gathering efforts when they were revealed in the Guardian and the Washington Post, Schock said the administration classified briefings he’s attended have revealed very little information.

“I can assure you the phone number tracking of non-criminal, non-terrorist suspects was not discussed,” he said. “Most members have stopped going to their classified briefings because they rarely tell us anything we don’t already know in the news. It really has become a charade.”

President Obama’s explanation allows him to sound a nothing-to-see-here note that paints the programs as both prosaic and innocuous. After all, if all 535 members of Congress knew about them, how bad could they really be?

“These are the folks you all vote for as your representatives in Congress, and they’re being fully briefed on these programs,” said Obama. “And if, in fact… there were abuses taking place, presumably those members of Congress could raise those issues very aggressively. They’re empowered to do so.”

But as Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) complained to Attorney General Eric Holder during a Thursday hearing, the idea that Congress has been “fully briefed” on these programs is coming as news to many of the lawmakers themselves.

“This ‘fully briefed’ is something that drives us up the wall, because often ‘fully briefed’ means a group of eight leadership; it does not necessarily mean relevant committees,” Mikulski said.

In theory, briefings on the electronic surveillance programs were available – and offered – to every member of Congress. In practice, they were regularly given to those on the House and Senate Intelligence committees – and haven’t been offered all members of Congress for the past two years, except by request.

Justice and intelligence officials conducted a dozen briefings for congressional committees and leadership between May 2009 and October 2011, and FBI Director Robert Mueller briefed the House GOP conference and House Democratic caucus in May 2011 ahead of the last the Patriot Act reauthorization. The administration also asked that classified white papers be made available to all members of the House and Senate in 2011, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was last re-authorized.

So senators not on the intelligence committee would only have learned of the program had they attended one of those classified briefings in 2010 or 2011. Then, the committee invited all 100 senators to read a classified report on “roving authority for electronic surveillance” in a secure location in the Hart Senate Office Building.

Asked Thursday if she knew how many senators had taken the time to read the report, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) responded: “I do not, certainly the Intelligence Committee should have.”

Congress last reauthorized the FISA provision of the Patriot Act in in May 2011, with the Senate voting 72-23 in favor, and the House approving the measure by a 250-153 count.

It is not known how many members reviewed the intelligence papers prior to those votes. And it’s not clear how many members of Congress have pursued classified briefings on their own. But it’s not hard to find members of Congress this week who say the latest reports are the first they’ve heard of these programs.

There are now nine senators and 61 congressmen who were not in office during the 2010 and 2011 briefing sessions – new members of Congress like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who have never been personally informed of either program unless they asked about it.

“Americans trusted President Obama when he came to office promising the most transparent administration in history,” Cruz said Friday. “But that trust has been broken and the only way to earn it back is to tell the truth.”

Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.) wrote “not quite” on Twitter in response to a reporter’s tweet about Obama’s remark that “every member” was aware of the data-gathering programs. Long wasn’t made available to explain his tweet Friday.

And Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) told MSNBC Friday that he received a briefing only because he “sought it out,” not because the Obama administration had offered it to him.

“I had to get special permission to find out about the program,” Merkley said. “It raised concerns for me… When I saw what was being done, I felt it was so out of sync with the plain language of the law and that it merited full public examination, and that’s why I called for the declassification.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

IRS Knew Tea Party Targeted In 2011

IRS Knew Tea Party Targeted In 2011 – Associated Press

Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general’s report obtained by The Associated Press that contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner.

.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner Douglas Shulman testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington before the House Oversight Committee

The IRS apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was “inappropriate” targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status. The agency blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware.

But on June 29, 2011, Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, learned at a meeting that groups were being targeted, according to the watchdog’s report. At the meeting, she was told that groups with “Tea Party,” ”Patriot” or “9/12 Project” in their names were being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny, the report says.

The 9/12 Project is a group started by conservative TV personality Glenn Beck. In a statement to the AP, Beck suggested that the revelations were hardly news to him and other conservatives.

“In February 2012, TheBlaze first reported what the IRS now admits to — that they unfairly targeted conservative groups including the 9/12 project,” Beck said, citing his website and TV network. “It is nice to see everyone else playing catch-up and finally asking the same questions that TheBlaze started raising over a year ago.”

Lerner instructed agents to change the criteria for flagging groups “immediately,” the report says.

The Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration is expected to release the results of a nearly yearlong investigation in the coming week. The AP obtained part of the draft report, which has been shared with congressional aides.

Among the other revelations, on Aug. 4, 2011, staffers in the IRS’ Rulings and Agreements office “held a meeting with chief counsel so that everyone would have the latest information on the issue.”

On Jan, 25, 2012, the criteria for flagging suspect groups was changed to, “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement,” the report says.

While this was happening, several committees in Congress were writing numerous letters IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman to express concern because tea party groups were complaining of IRS harassment.

In Shulman’s responses, he did not acknowledge targeting of tea party groups. At a congressional hearing March 22, 2012, Shulman was adamant in his denials.

“There’s absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people” who apply for tax-exempt status, Shulman said at the House Ways and Means subcommittee hearing.

The portion of the draft report reviewed by the AP does not say whether Shulman or anyone else in the Obama administration outside the IRS was informed of the targeting. It is standard procedure for agency heads to consult with staff before responding to congressional inquiries, but it is unclear how much information Shulman sought.

The IRS has not said when Shulman found out that Tea Party groups were targeted.

Shulman was appointed by President George W. Bush, a Republican. His 6-year term ended in November. President Barack Obama has yet to nominate a successor. The agency is now run by an acting commissioner, Steven Miller.

The IRS said in a statement Saturday that the agency believes the timeline in the IG’s report is correct, and supports what officials said Friday.

“IRS senior leadership was not aware of this level of specific details at the time of the March 2012 hearing,” the statement said. “The timeline does not contradict the commissioner’s testimony. While exempt organizations officials knew of the situation earlier, the timeline reflects that IRS senior leadership did not have this level of detail.”

Lerner’s position is three levels below the commissioner.

“The timeline supports what the IRS acknowledged on Friday that mistakes were made,” the statement continued. “There were not partisan reasons behind this.”

Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s oversight subcommittee, said the report “raises serious questions as to who at IRS, Treasury and in the administration knew about this, why this practice was allowed to continue for as long as it did, and how widespread it was.”

“This timeline reveals at least two extremely unethical actions by the IRS. One, as early as 2010, they targeted groups for political purposes. Two, they willfully and knowingly lied to Congress for years despite being aware that Congress was investigating this practice,” Boustany said.

“This is an outrageous abuse of power. Going after organizations for referencing the Bill of Rights or expressing the intent to make this country a better place is repugnant,” Boustany added. “There is no excuse for this behavior.”

Several congressional committees have promised investigations, including the Ways and Means Committee, which plans to hold a hearing.

“The admission by the agency that it targeted American taxpayers based on politics is both shocking and disappointing,” said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. “We will hold the IRS accountable for its actions.”

The group Tea Party Patriots said the revelation was proof that the IRS had lied to Congress and the public when Schulman said there had been no targeting of tea party groups.

“We must know how many more lies they have been telling and how high up the chain the cover-up goes,” Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for the group Tea Party Patriots, said in a statement Saturday.

“It appears the IRS committed crimes and violated our ability to exercise our First Amendment right to free speech. A simple apology is not sufficient reparation for violating the constitutional rights of United States citizens. Therefore, Tea Party Patriots rejects the apology from the Internal Revenue Service,” Martin said. “We are, however, encouraged to hear that Congress plans to investigate. Those responsible must be held accountable and resign or be terminated for their actions.”

On Friday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the administration expected the inspector general to conduct a thorough investigation, but he brushed aside calls for the White House itself to investigate.

Many conservative groups complained during the 2012 election that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.

The forms, which the groups have made available, sought information about group members’ political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members.

In some cases, the IRS acknowledged, agents inappropriately asked for lists of donors.

There has been a surge of politically active groups claiming tax-exempt status in recent elections – conservative and liberal. Among the highest profile are Republican Karl Rove’s group Crossroads GPS and the liberal Moveon.org.

These groups claim tax-exempt status under section 501 (c) (4) of the federal tax code, which is for social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these organizations are allowed to participate in political activities, but their primary activity must be social welfare.

That determination is up to the IRS.

The number of groups filing for this tax-exempt status more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, to more than 3,400. To handle the influx, the IRS centralized its review of these applications in an office in Cincinnati.

Lerner said on Friday this was done to develop expertise among staffers and consistency in their reviews. As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn’t the group’s primary activity.

As part of this process, agents in Cincinnati came up with a list of things to look for in an application. As part of the list, they included the words “tea party” and “patriot,” Lerner said.

“It’s the line people that did it without talking to managers,” Lerner told the AP on Friday. “They’re IRS workers, they’re revenue agents.”

In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review, Lerner said. Of those, about a quarter were singled out because they had “tea party” or “patriot” somewhere in their applications.

Lerner said 150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked, though some withdrew their applications.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

BenghaziGate: Obama Regime Knew Libyan Terrorists Had US-Provided Weapons

BenghaziGate: Obama Admin Knew Libyan Terrorists Had US-Provided Weapons – Big Peace

In a story that’s been largely buried by the media for years upon years – and was doubly buried in the aftermath of the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11 resulting in the death of four Americans – the New York Times is now reporting that US-approved arms that were supposed to go to Libya rebels went to Islamist terrorists. Even more importantly, the Obama administration knew about it before, during, and after the Benghazi attacks. The Times reports:

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government…

The United States, which had only small numbers of C.I.A. officers on the ground in Libya during the tumult of the rebellion, provided little oversight of the arms shipments. Within weeks of endorsing Qatar’s plan to send weapons there in spring 2011, the White House began receiving reports that they were going to Islamic militant groups

This was clearly a risk in arming the rebels in the first place. As Breitbart News reported, Benghazi was controlled by terrorist group Ansar Al-Shariah. And terrorists like Sufyan Ben Qumu, who was originally rumored to be the planner of the Benghazi attack (sources later denied he was the planner), were armed and supplied by the United States in their war against Muammar Qadaffi.

If, in fact, US-funneled weapons were used in the Benghazi attack and the administration knew about it, that would explain their initial attempt to position the Benghazi attack as a spontaneous riot gone amiss. It’s one thing to hand guns to Libyan rebels who later go crazy about a YouTube video – that’s at least mildly justifiable. It’s radically unjustifiable to hand over weapons to terrorists, who then go on to plan attacks against the United States.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story