USSC Shuts Down Obama’s Attempt To Force Christian Groups To Pay For Their Employees’ Abortion-Inducing Drugs

The Supreme Court Just Gave Obama Some Very Bad News – Tell Me Now

.

.
The Supreme Court just ruled against a major Obama agenda in a decision that is sure to leave the president devastated.

The highest court in the land just ruled against Obama’s attempt to force Christian organizations to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees. This is the fifth time the Supreme Court has ruled against President Obama.

Christians everywhere rejoiced at the decision and were thankful that their religious freedoms were being protected.

“How many times must the government lose in court before it gets the message?” asked Lori Windham, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “For years now the government has been claiming that places like Catholic Charities and the Little Sisters of the Poor are not ‘religious employers’ worthy of an exemption.”

“That argument has always been absurd. Every time a religious plaintiff has gone to the Supreme Court for protection from the government’s discriminatory mandate the Court has protected them,” she added. “That’s what happened to the Little Sisters of the Poor, Wheaton College, Notre Dame, and Hobby Lobby.”

“The government really needs to give up on its illegal and unnecessary mandate,” Windham concluded. “The federal bureaucracy has lots of options for distributing contraceptives–they don’t need to coerce nuns and priests to do it for them.”

The Supreme Court has told Obama no time and time again, yet he just can’t seem to get the message. Hopefully, this time he finally will.

.

.

FL Governor: Obama Resorting To Extortion In Attempt To Force State Further Into Obamacare

Fla. Gov. Suing Administration For Trying To ‘Force Our State Further Into Obamacare’ – CNS

.

.
“It is appalling that President Obama would cut off federal healthcare dollars to Florida in an effort to force our state further into Obamacare,” a furious Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) said Thursday as he announced that he plans to sue the Obama administration.

“It’s outrageous,” Scott told Fox News Thursday night.”The federal government started a program in our state in 2006. It’s called the Low Income Pool. It’s (health care) for low income families,” Scott explained. “Now, what they are saying is they are not going to keep that program going unless the state expands Obamacare (Medicaid). So this, first off, is horrible.”

.

.
“It sounds like extortion,” Fox News’s Kimberly Guilfoyle told Scott.

“Absolutely,” the governor agreed. “First off, you think about the families in our state that are relying on this. Second, (Supreme Court Chief) Justice Roberts said…that it’s not lawful for the federal government, for the Obama administration, to use coercion tactics, basically held a gun to our head, if we don’t expand Obamacare. They say they can’t do that.”

The Supreme Court in 2012 upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate, but it also said the federal government could not compel the states to expand Medicaid coverage for low-income people. As of this writing, 28 states and the District of Columbia have ageed to expand Medicaid. The federal government has agreed to pay 100 percent of the expansion costs through 2016, but after that, the states must pick up a larger share of the costs, and that’s what worries Scott and other governors.

In July 2012, shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, Gov. Scott announced that Florida would “opt out of spending approximately $1.9 billion more taxpayer dollars required to implement a massive entitlement expansion of the Medicaid program.”

“Floridians are interested in jobs and economic growth, a quality education for their children, and keeping the cost of living low,” Governor Scott said at the time. “Neither of these major provisions in Obamacare will achieve those goals, and since Florida is legally allowed to opt out, that’s the right decision for our citizens.”

He also noted that “Florida already has health care safety net programs for those with the greatest need.”

Scott told Fox News on Thursday that he and his attorney general are working on a lawsuit right now.

He questioned whether President Obama really cares about the low-income families in Florida for whom the federal government created the LIP program in the first place.

“And doesn’t everybody now understand that this is an administration that’s going to use coercion tactics, and when it’s appropriate, they’ll cut back funding if you don’t do another program they want?”

“One, they don’t care about the low income families because they are willing to walk away from a program. And then, two, they are using bully – this is a Sopranos. They are using bullying tactics to attack our state. It’s wrong. It’s outrageous just that they’re doing this.”

A White House spokesman, asked for his reaction to the anticipated Florida lawsuit, said he hadn’t seen “specific details.”

“But what is true is that expanding Medicaid in the State of Florida would ensure that 800,000 Floridians would get access to quality health-care coverage,” Josh Earnest said on Thursday.

Earnest noted that under Obamacare, the federal government picks up the full cost of expanding Medicaid through 2016.

“So there’s not a good reason why anybody in Florida would be in a situation of trying to block a policy that would benefit 800,000 Floridians. In fact, they would have a positive impact on the finances in the State of Florida.

“And it’s difficult to explain why somebody would think that their political situation and their political interest is somehow more important than the livelihood and health of 800,000 people that they were elected to lead.”

In a message on his website Thursday, Scott said the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sent him a letter this week, saying that “the furture of LIP’ and “Medicaid expansion are linked.”

“We will fight to protect the healthcare of Floridians, and their right to be free from federal overreach,” Scott said. “Our citizens already pay federal taxes that go into the federal LIP program. Now, President Obama has decided that the state must take on a larger Medicaid program, forcing our taxpayers to pay even more to government, before they get their own federal tax dollars back. This is outrageous, and specifically what the Supreme Court warned against.”

.

.

Iran “Deal”: West’s Surrender Triggering War (Guy Millière)

Iran “Deal”: West’s Surrender Triggering War – Guy Millière

Russia and China have also agreed to build nuclear plants for Iran. And North Korea has also been supplying Iran with technology, a “minor detail” hidden from the UN by U.S. President Barack Obama. And the U.S. thinks that if Iran is caught cheating, sanctions can be re-imposed?

Other countries in the region have already started scheduling delivery for their nuclear weapons. They have made it clear they will not sit idly by while Iran goes nuclear.

Iran has already bragged that it will sell “enriched uranium” on the open market, and will be “hopefully making some money” from it, said Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

No agreement was signed between Iran and the P5+1 group [1] on April 2; no agreement will be signed on June 30.

The text defining the “framework” of some agreement to be signed in June was immediately challenged by Iran. Western leaders speak and act as if they have no idea what Iran is saying or doing.

Western leaders wanted something akin to an agreement. They got something akin to an agreement.

Iran’s leaders seem to have spotted pretty soon that Western leaders would willingly concede everything – and possibly more – to get any “agreement”; so that is what Western leaders got.

Western leaders not only failed to reach an agreement; they capitulated. The reason for the talks was to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. When, according to Western reports, they saw that Iran would not agree to stop, they “flipped” and instead became complicit.

All signs indicate that the West is planning to give a lawless, expansionist, terrorist regime nuclear weapons capability – as a reward for violating international treaties again and again. What message are other rogue nations to take from that?

.

.
Not only have Western leaders given the Iranian regime the opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons; they have let Iran initiate and sanctify a nuclear arms race to destabilize an already volatile region. They have also given Iran the opportunity to get billions of dollars to accelerate its nuclear weapons programs – and they are negotiating to lift all sanctions either early or late so that Iran can get still more.

They also allowed Iran to keep four American hostages: Jason Rezaian, Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati and Robert Levinson, who has not been heard from for years and may be dead. The State Department has said that “their freedom should not be linked to negotiations,” so their release was not even discussed. Their immediate release was the first matter that should have been discussed.

What Western leaders have deliberately ignored is the nature of the Iranian regime: Totalitarian regimes never abide by the agreements they sign. Islamists often refer to Muhammad’s treaty of Hudaybiyyah. In 628, Muhammad agreed to a 10-year truce with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. Two years later, when Muslim forces had gathered strength, Muhammad broke the treaty and marched into Mecca. [2] Since then, in Islam, no treaty can be made for more than ten years, and even then, it is not a treaty, it is a truce – to be broken again if Islam’s side is strong.

This spring, while negotiations were held in Lausanne, Ali Khamenei, the “supreme leader” of Iran, led huge crowds, shouting “Death to America.” Every year, he promises a “world free of infidels” as well as the Messianic return of the “Twelfth Imam,” the Mahdi, a descendant of Muhammad who will guide martyrs during a “final battle”.

Western leaders act as if all important decisions in Iran are made by its President, Hassan Rouhani. They know perfectly well, however, that nothing happens in Iran without the approval of Ali Khamenei, and no one else. Perhaps Western leaders are hoping that Rouhani will unseat Khamenei, a succession scarcely conceivable. The Iranian leadership is not accountable to its people.

Moreover, based on Rouhani’s account of how he duped the West in previous negotiations, it is doubtful if Rouhani unseating Khamenei would be any more desirable for the West. Since Rouhani was elected President in June 2013, the number of executions carried out by the regime has soared compared to the number under his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Reportedly, 753 persons were executed in 2014, a 10% increase over 2013. Just 291 of these cases (39%) were announced officially. “The aim of these executions is not to fight crime, but to spread fear among the population,” according to Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, director of Iran Human Rights.

To paraphrase Natan Sharansky, [3] if a government does not treat its own people well, it is not likely to treat anyone else any better.

Iran is clearly interested in all oil producing regions. It has taken over four Arab capitals — Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and Sana’a – while the U.S. has fled from three countries: Iraq, Libya and Yemen. Iran now surrounds all the oilfields of the Middle East.

Iran is also trying to take over the Middle East’s major sea lanes – the Strait of Hormuz, the choke point of the Persian Gulf, and the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait at the mouth of the Suez Canal. If Iran succeeds, it will be able to control most of the oil trade in the Middle East.

Iran also continues to repeat its threats of genocide against Israel. In late March, Mohammad Reza Naqdi, commander of Iran’s Basij paramilitary force, announced that “the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable.”

Hamas is still on the terrorist list maintained by the State Department but was removed from the list of the European Union in December 2014. No Western leader seems to know that Iran has been helping Hamas to build over 100 new tunnels and replenish its weapon stockpiles.

Although many of the terms of the “framework” are, we are told, known only to the negotiators, what we do know so far about what Iran wanted and got includes:

* Retaining its enriched uranium stockpile, not having to ship it abroad.
* Keeping thousands (at least 6000) centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium, and modernizing its Arak plutonium reactor.
* Continuing its operations at the Fordow plant, under a mountain, in bunkers designed to withstand aerial attacks.
* A massive lifting of sanctions. It wants still more, “immediately.”
* Continuing to develop its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program

Iran’s ICBM program was not even mentioned during discussions.

Also not included in discussions was Iran’s ongoing funding of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, was just removed by the U.S. State Department from its list of terrorist threats; and Iran was removed from its list of states that sponsor terrorism.

The “armed wing” of Hezbollah is still on the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations, but Hezbollah’s “political wing” is not. Iran can tell European leaders that the Iranian regime supports the political wing of Hezbollah, but not its military branch. There is no doubt that European leaders, pressured by companies eager to do business in Iran, will pretend they received a satisfying answer.

On April 12, Russia lifted its ban on the delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Russia and China have also agreed to build nuclear power plants for Iran. And North Korea has also been supplying Iran with technology, “including components for a long-range nuclear missile,” a “minor detail” hidden from the UN by U.S. President Barack Obama. And the U.S. thinks that if Iran is caught cheating, sanctions can be re-imposed?

Iran says it will accept only scheduled visits by IAEA inspectors, and it can endlessly contest any findings. The IAEA in the past never found anything anyway. All the illegal nuclear facilities that Iran wanted to hide were discovered by Iranian dissidents, and American and Israeli intelligence agencies – not by the IAEA.

Senator Mark Kirk has said that Neville Chamberlain got a lot more out of Adolf Hitler at the Munich Conference. British commentators noted that the difference between Chamberlain and those who negotiated with Iran is that Chamberlain had never encountered that kind of duplicity before, and was the head of a weakened, and largely disarmed, Britain.

Iran supports Shiite militias fighting ISIS in Iraq, where the Shiite militias behave as wildly as ISIS.

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and other Arab leaders have realized that they are facing a clear and present danger. At the Arab League summit on March 29, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi announced the creation of a joint Arab military force. The positions of Iranian-backed Houthi militias in Yemen are being bombarded, but the Houthis do not retreat. Other countries in the region have already started scheduling delivery for their nuclear weapons. They have made it clear that they will not sit idly by while Iran goes nuclear. Iran has already bragged that it will sell “enriched uranium” on the open market, and will be “hopefully making some money” from it, said Iran’s Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Benjamin Netanyahu knows that Israel faces an equally obvious danger. He said that “the agreement” would be a “threat to the survival of Israel.” Yesterday, on April 15, speaking at the state ceremony commemorating “Yom Hashoah” (the day of remembrance of the Holocaust), he stated, “The danger is there for all to see… and yet the blindness is vast. Even if we are forced to stand alone, we will not falter… We will not allow the State of Israel to become a passing phase in the history of our people.”

The U.S. President who cut off military supplies to Israel during the Gaza war, who has interfered in the Israeli elections to an unprecedented degree, and who wants to force Israel to return to indefensible borders, said he would “defend” Israel. It is not at all certain that Netanyahu can trust him.

Iran’s Defense Minister, Hossein Dehghan, hailed the framework as a step towards “establishing stability and security in the region.” Israel’s Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said: “This is a direct result of the legitimacy that Iran obtained from the emerging deal.”

On the evening of April 3, Western leaders were smiling. Mohammad Javad Zarif, was smiling too. He was the only one who had good reason to.

.

.

Thanks Barack… Over Half A Million Illegals Have Received Social Security Numbers Since 2012 Executive Order

Senators Ask Gov’t How Many Illegals Got Social Security; The Number Is Almost Unbelievable – The Blaze

.
…………

.
The Social Security Administration has told Congress that more than half a million illegal immigrants have received new Social Security numbers, under President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive action allowing younger immigrants to stay in the United States and work.

Obama imposed his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals plan, also known as DACA, in 2012, and in doing so gave younger illegal immigrants legal protection and the ability to work. More than 600,000 immigrants have applied under the program, and in March, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) asked how many of these immigrants also received Social Security numbers.

The Social Security Administration has told Congress that more than half a million illegal immigrants have received new Social Security numbers, under President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive action allowing younger immigrants to stay in the United States and work.

Obama imposed his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals plan, also known as DACA, in 2012, and in doing so gave younger illegal immigrants legal protection and the ability to work. More than 600,000 immigrants have applied under the program, and in March, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) asked how many of these immigrants also received Social Security numbers.

The Obama administration says about 541,000 illegal immigrants now have Social Security numbers under President Obama’s 2012 executive action on immigration. Image via Shutterstock

At the time, they thought as many as 90,000 had received Social Security numbers, but Acting Social Security Administration Commissioner Carolyn Colvin said it was several multiples of that number.

“By the end of fiscal year 2014, we had issued approximately 541,000 original SSNs to individuals authorized to work under the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy since its inception,” she wrote.

Colvin said her agency did not have any data on how many immigrants might have applied for Social Security numbers who did not get one.

Colvin said her agency has “rigorous procedures” for processing these requests, and that applicants must show proof of identity and the ability to work. “We will not issue an SSN if an individual has insufficient or unacceptable documentation,” she wrote.

The two senators also asked how many illegal immigrants have received Social Security numbers under Obama’s more recent immigration action late last year. That action expanded DACA, and created a new program to let parents and legal guardians of legal residents stay in the country and work.

But Colvin said the answer to that question is, “none,” because a federal court has shut down that program for now. “We would only issue SSNs to these individuals if DHS began to accept and adjudicate applications and grant work authorization and documentation evidencing such authorization,” she wrote.

Still, her answers will likely draw criticism from Republican opponents of Obama’s actions, since they show that more than half a million illegal immigrants now have access to federal benefits like retirement and disability benefits.

Critics of Obama’s plan have criticized the plan because low-income immigrants with no net tax liability could gain as much as $3 in Social Security benefits for every $1 they pay into the system, which means Americans will now be subsidizing these immigrants.

.

.

Leftist Liar Update: Hillary’s Iowa Coffee Shop Campaign Stop Staged From Beginning To End

Campaign Staff Drove ‘Ordinary’ Iowans To Hillary’s First Campaign Stop, Including Health Care ‘Lobbyist In Training’ Who Was An Obama Campaign Intern And Biden Chauffeur – Daily Mail

Hillary Clinton’s astroturf candidacy is in full swing in Iowa.

Her Tuesday morning visit to a coffee shop in LeClaire, Iowa was staged from beginning to end, according to Austin Bird, one of the men pictured sitting at the table with Mrs. Clinton.

Bird told Daily Mail Online that campaign staffer Troy Price called and asked him and two other young people to meet him Tuesday morning at a restaurant in Davenport, a nearby city.

Price then drove them to the coffee house to meet Clinton after vetting them for about a half-hour.

The three got the lion’s share of Mrs. Clinton’s time and participated in what breathless news reports described as a ’roundtable’ – the first of many in her brief Iowa campaign swing.

Bird himself is a frequent participant in Iowa Democratic Party events. He interned with President Obama’s 2012 presidential re-election campaign, and was tapped to chauffeur Vice President Joe Biden in October 2014 when he visited Davenport.

‘What happened is, we were just asked to be there by Troy,’ Bird said Wednesday in a phone interview.

.

STAGED: Clinton sat to talk with three young Iowans at a coffee shop on Tuesday – all of whom were driven to the event by her Iowa campaign’s political director

.

NOT SO ORDINARY: Austin Bird is a Democratic Party insider who chauffeured Vice President Joe Biden around Davenport, Iowa in October during a pre-election campaign trip

.
‘We were asked to come to a meeting with Troy, the three of us, at the Village Inn.’

The other two, he confirmed, were University of Iowa College Democrats president Carter Bell and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland employee Sara Sedlacek.

‘It was supposed to be a strategy meeting,’ Bird recalled, ‘to get our thoughts about issues. But then all of a sudden he says, “Hey, we have Secretary Clinton coming in, would you like to go meet her?”‘

‘And then we got in a car – Troy’s car – and we went up to the coffee house, and we sat at a table and then Hillary just came up and talked with us.’

Bird said ‘we all were called.’

‘I mean, Troy asked us all to do – to go to a meeting with him. And we didn’t really know what it was about. I mean, he did. He knew.’

It’s unclear how many Iowans featured in photographs with Clinton that rocketed around the country on Tuesday were planted.

‘The mayor of LeClaire was there, and his wife was there,’ Bird said, recalling the scene at the coffee shop.

Price was executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party until a month ago. Clinton’s team tapped him last week to be its political director in Iowa.

He did not respond to a request for comment.

Bird is a government and community relations coordinator at Genesis Health System in Davenport, Iowa, according to his LinkedIn profile.

A coworker at Genesis said Wednesday that Bird is ‘basically a lobbyist in training. That’s what he wants to do.’

Bird disagreed, saying his role was ‘more public relations.’

.

ASTROTURF: Setting up faux events for news cameras is nothing new in politics, but Iowans take presidential contests seriously and could punish Clinton for the deception

.
He’s also an outspoken progressive whose Facebook wall shows he ordered a ‘Hillary For President’ bumper sticker 22 months ago. ‘Is it 2016 yet?’ he wrote in May 2013.

Clinton’s nascent campaign has carefully coordinated her image as a spontaneous, handshaking populist in her first days as a candidate, posing with Pennsylvanians at a gas station and venturing into an Ohio Chipotle restaurant for lunch.

When no one recognized the former first lady – she was wearing sunglasses – the campaign leaked information to The New York Times so its reporters could get security-camera footage to prove she had tried to mingle with voters.

.
…………
THE FIXER: Bird said Troy Prince (pictured), who was executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party until he left last week ago to help Clinton’s statewide political effort, recruited him and others to attend the ‘spontaneous’ coffee meeting

.
Scripting supposedly off-the-cuff appearances is common in presidential politics but could hurt Clinton especially hard since her gonzo road-trip journey to America’s broad midwest is designed to counter her image as cold, calculating and politically venomous.

And planting party insiders in place of typical Iowans won’t go over well in the Hawkeye State, where pressing the flesh and collecting caucus votes is a quadrennial full-contact sport.

Clinton’s campaign has already taken heat for depicting at least three people in her campaign launch video as ‘everyday’ Americans who were actually partisans with political connections.

One was even a former campaign manager for Wendy Davis, the Texas Democrat who mounted a failed bid for Texas governor last year.

In LeClaire on Tuesday, Bloomberg and other outlets referred to Bird as a ‘student’ at St. Ambrose University, not as a hospital government-affairs staffer with Democratic party street-cred.

He does study at St. Ambrose – part-time.

But Bird’s ties to the party are deep enough that his Facebook wall includes a photo of him standing in front of Joe Biden’s limousine in Davenport.

‘I was driving the Vice President when he was in town in October,’ Bird noted in a Facebook comment.

Biden was not there on official government business, but for a campaign stop in support of Democrat Bruce Braley.

‘The Vice President will attend a grassroots event for Braley for Iowa with Representative David Loebsack,’ according to White House press guidance for his October 27, 2014 schedule.

.

.

Phony Fans – Hillary Clinton Paying For Fake Social Media Followers

More Than 2 Million Of Hillary Clinton’s Twitter Followers Are Fake Or Never Tweet, And She’s Already Under Fire For ‘Buying’ Fake Facebook Fans – Daily Mail

Although Hillary Clinton boasts a robust 3.6 million Twitter followers, not even a vast right-wing conspiracy would be able to interact with 2 million of them.

According to two popular online measuring tools, no more than 44 per cent of her Twitter fan base consists of real people who are active in using the social media platform.

And at least 15 per cent – more than 544,000 – are completely fake.

StatusPeople.com, the oldest publicly available Twitter-auditing tool, reports that 44 per cent of the former secretary of state’s followers are ‘good'; 15 per cent are ‘fake'; and 41 per cent are ‘inactive,’ meaning that they never tweet or reply to any tweets.

.

FAKERS: According to one popular online audit tool, only 44 per cent of Hillary Clinton’s Twitter followers are real people who participate on the social media platform

.

‘I’M RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT': Clinton has cast herself as a champion of ‘everyday Americans’

.

Another Twitter sleuthing website sampled more than 320,000 of Clinton’s followers and found that a much larger number of them were ‘fake’

.
Just 4 per cent of President Barack Obama’s Twitter followers, by comparison, are considered fake.

The White House worked overtime to purge most of them after a September 2013 report found that more than half of his followers didn’t really exist.

Michelle Obama’s Twitter audience is 25 per cent fake, according to StatusPeople, along with 21 per cent of Vice President Joe Biden’s.

Another tool, TwitterAudit.com, sampled 320,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s followers and found that 18 per cent were fake.

The new measurements will add to the Clinton presidential campaign’s embarrassment following news on Tuesday that a large number of her Facebook fans may represent ‘likes’ that were purchased rather than earned.

.

REALLY? Hillary Clinton’s Twitter follower-count appears to be significantly inflated

.

FACEBOOK FAKERY: Clinton boasts two-thirds of a million Facebook ‘likes,’ but more than 46,000 of them list ‘Baghdad’ as their hometown

.
Vocativ reported that at least 7 per cent of them listed Baghdad, Iraq as their hometown, a larger number than any U.S. city.

That would represent more than 46,000 people.

Additional evidence of digital astroturfing is that while most of her U.S. Facebook fans are older than 55, most of the Baghdad contingent is in the 18-34 age range.

While Clinton was America’s top diplomat, her State Department was buying Facebook ‘likes,’ according to an Associated Press report from last year.

‘In 2013, the State Department, which has more than 400,000 likes and was recently most popular in Cairo, said it would stop buying Facebook fans after its inspector general criticized the agency for spending $630,000 to boost the numbers,’ the wire service reported.

Clinton left the agency while the inspector general was investigating.

.

ASTROTURF? A woman cast as a kindly, gardening grandma in Clinton’s campaign launch video is actually a former abortion lobbyist who once helmed a campaign for Texas state Senator Wendy Davis

.

WHERE’S SCOOBY? Clinton’s caravan was spotted in Maumee, Ohio on Monday when she lunched at Chipotle, but no one recognized her

.
Facebook says it has entire teams of employees tasked with rooting out schemes to artificially boost statistics.

‘When we catch fraudulent activity, we work to counter and prevent it – including blocking accounts and removing fake likes,’ the company reports on its website.

Clinton is in Monticello, Iowa on Tuesday for the first stop on her nascent presidential ‘listening’ tour.

She was driven from New York in a van that her campaign aides have dubbed ‘Scooby,’ after the ‘Mystery Machine’ van in the Scooby-Doo cartoon series.

Daily Mail Online visited Kirkwood Community College on Monday, the site of the event, and heard from students that the former first lady is a ‘control freak’ who may be pursuing legal status for illegal immigrants because the Democratic Party needs a new pool of loyal voters.

.

.

Hillary Deleted Emails After Congressman Issa Asked Her About Private Email Addresses In 2012

Issa Asked Hillary In 2012 About Private Email Address, Clinton Deleted Emails After Inquiry – Big Government

.

.
Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was asked in an official congressional inquiry from former House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) about whether she used a private email for government work as far back as 2012.

The letter from Issa to Clinton, sent on Dec. 13, 2012 and obtained by Breitbart News after an explosive New York Times expose on it late Tuesday evening, specifically asks eight detailed questions about government record-keeping.

“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal e-mail account to conduct official business?” the first question reads. “If so, please identify the account used.”

The next two questions asked about whether she or other senior agency officials used text messages or alias email accounts to send or receive government work messages – and the fourth question asks for specific details on the agency’s policies on such accounts.

“Please provide written documentation of the agency’s policies regarding the use of non-official e-mail accounts to conduct official business, including, but not limited to, archiving and record keeping procedures, as well as disciplinary proceedings for employees in violation of these policies,” Issa asked Clinton.

The next question follows up on that. “Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using non-official accounts?” Issa asked Clinton.

The next question asks about social media accounts before the final two of the eight questions to Clinton hone in yet again on agency policies.

“What agency policies and procedures are currently in place to ensure that all messages related to official business sent or received by federal employees and contractors on private, non-governmental e-mail accounts or social networking platforms are properly categorized as federal records?” the seventh question to Clinton from Issa reads.

“Have any agency employees been subject to disciplinary proceedings for using non-official e-mail accounts to conduct official business since January 20, 2009?” the final question from Issa to Clinton reads. “If so, please provide a list of names, dates of proceedings, and final outcomes.”

An identical version of Issa’s letter to Clinton was also sent to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Attorney General Eric Holder, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, NASA administrator Charles Bolden, GSA administrator Daniel Tangherlini, Small Business Administration administrator Karen Mills, and Office of Management and Budget director Jeffrey Zients.

At this time, it is unclear if any other of the agencies responded to Issa’s inquiry. But thanks to a New York Times report from Michael S. Schmidt on Tuesday evening, it is now known that the State Department – through Thomas B. Gibbons, the acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs – responded to Issa’s letter after Clinton left office.

Clinton resigned from the State Department on Feb. 1, 2013 – as Schmidt wrote on Tuesday evening, “seven weeks after the letter [from Issa] was sent to her.”

Gibbons waited several more weeks, until March 27, 2013, to respond to Issa’s letter on the State Department’s behalf. Gibbons did not answer in that letter whether Clinton used a personal email address, and it’s unclear based on the Times report – which does not include the full text of the letter Gibbons sent back to Issa – how specific he was in answering any of the other questions Issa had for Clinton and her State Department.

“When Mr. Issa received a response from the State Department on March 27, all he got was a description of the department’s email policies,” Schmidt wrote.

From the two sections of the letter Schmidt did quote in his piece, however, it is clear that Clinton was in violation of the State Department policy that employees should not be using personal email addresses to conduct official business.

Any employee who had a personal account, Gibbons wrote in the letter according to Schmidt’s report, “should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.”

Gibbons added, according to Schmidt, that “employees may use personal email on personal time for matters not directly related to official business, and any employee using personal email ‘should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.’”

Schmidt also paraphrased another portion Gibbons’ letter by writing that the “State Department offered training on its record management programs to its employees.”

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach on Tuesday, Schmidt wrote, “declined” to “answer questions about why it had not addressed Mr. Issa’s question about whether Mrs. Clinton or senior officials used personal email accounts.”

“The department responds to thousands of congressional inquiries and requests for information each year,” Gerlach told Schmidt instead of answering specific questions. “In its March 2013 letter, the department responded to the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry into the department’s ‘policies and practices regarding the use of personal email and other forms of electronic communications’ with a letter that described those policies in detail.”

There are several major takeaways from this development, as it breathes brand new life into the scandal rocking Clinton as she just launched her 2016 presidential campaign this week.

The first is that she was clearly aware that her private email account was a serious issue as far back as during her time at the State Department.

Secondly, she deliberately decided to not respond to the inquiry – waiting for officials at the State Department to do so well after she resigned, and even further after the deadline for a response. The actual deadline was Jan. 7, 2013.

The third major takeaway is that after Clinton was made aware this was an issue, she deleted upwards of 30,000 emails that she or her staff deemed to be private and not government-related. Since the full text of Gibbons’ response to Issa at this time is unavailable, it’s unclear what the official policy was – according to him – for preserving or archiving such records, or ensuring as Issa put it proper categorization of such messages.

At her widely panned press conference at the United Nations last month, Clinton herself claimed that it is a government official’s personal responsibility to determine what messages are worthy of keeping records of and which ones are not.

“In going through the emails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to the State Department and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work,” she said in response to a question about that angle of the scandal. “I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the State Department request was clear. For any government employee, it is that government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s work-related. I am very confident of the process that we conducted and the e-mails that were produced. And I feel like once the American public begins to see the e- mails, they will have an unprecedented insight into a high government official’s daily communications, which I think will be quite interesting.”

It’s absolutely clear at this time, however, that she deleted emails after receiving Issa’s inquiry.

In fact, in a document released in early March 2015 – in response to the widespread media scrutiny she was receiving – the “Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton” made clear the decisions about which emails to delete and which ones to keep was made after a 2014 correspondence with senior State Department officials, well after Issa’s letter.

“Following conversations with Department officials and in response to the Department’s October 28, 2014 letter to former Secretaries requesting assistance in meeting the Department’s record-keeping requirements, Secretary Clinton directed her attorneys to assist by identifying and preserving all emails that could potentially be federal records,” the Clinton document reads. “This entailed a multi-step process to provide printed copies of the Secretary’s work-related emails to the Department, erring on the side of including anything that might potentially be a federal record. As the State Department has said, Secretary Clinton was the first to respond to this letter.”

Kurt Bardella, a former senior adviser to Issa when he was chairman of the committee–who, in the interest of full disclosure, now serves as a communications aide for Breitbart News Network–but served with Issa at the time this letter was sent to Clinton, said there are more questions than answers that are coming from this development.

“The fact is in December of 2012, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was directly asked if she used a private e-mail account,” Bardella said. “Why did the State Department wait until after Secretary Clinton left office to respond to the Issa letter? Were Secretary Clinton’s efforts to deliberately conceal her official activities through use of her private e-mail prompted by then-Chairman Issa’s request? As is status-quo with the Clintons, there are far more questions than answers and it’s likely that these revelations of her secrecy are just the tip of the iceberg.”

Clinton has been oddly secretive in her first few days as a presidential candidate. In an interview with Breitbart News earlier on Tuesday, Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Reince Priebus argued that Clinton’s campaign rollout has been deliberately underwhelming, and she is “hiding” because she is afraid of answering any real questions from press or voters about her email scandal.

“The reason why she didn’t give a speech is because she can’t avail herself to the media,” Priebus said. “She cannot get herself in a situation where she’s going to have to deal with a question about Benghazi or about the emails or about her speeches or about the Clinton Foundation or about her disastrous tenure as Secretary of State. She wants to be able to have a few days and a couple weeks of peace and change the subject from what’s been plaguing her and the only way she can do that is by hiding and that’s what she’s doing: Hiding.”

.

.