VA Retaliated Against Disabled Veteran Because He Tried To Get Them To Find His Lost Claims Folder

Independent Agency Confirms: VA Retaliated Against Whistleblower – Daily Caller


An independent federal agency has just determined that the Department of Veterans Affairs retaliated against whistleblower Bradie Frink because he tried to get the VA to find his lost claims folder.

According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), retaliation started after Frink, a disabled veteran and employee at the Baltimore Regional Office (BRO) of the Veterans Benefits Administration, contacted Congress when he realized that the VA couldn’t add one of his children as a beneficiary to his disability payments. The reason? Employees couldn’t even locate his claims folder.

As policy, a veteran’s claim folder cannot be stored at the same office where that veteran works, in order to maintain impartiality. When Frink was hired as a clerk in February 2013, the VA attempted to move the folder out to another regional office, but soon discovered that it was lost, even though it appeared in the computer system. Frink initially made several requests, asking the VA to try and locate his folder.

He tried for months. Nothing worked. That’s when Frink decided to contact Sen. Barbara Mikulski on June 5, 2013, with a complaint that the VA was unable to make important service-connected disability payments to him and his family. Mikulski launched an inquriy and forwarded the complaint letter over to BRO, which sparked near immediate retaliation. Incidentally, during the time when Mikulski sent the letter over, BRO was being watched for how it was processing benefits claims.

VA officials started discussing ways to terminate Frink. They succeeded in firing him on July 12, 2013, during his probationary period, despite a clean performance record. Officials alleged that Frink engaged in misconduct, but OSC didn’t buy it.

“OSC’s investigation determined that the VA’s allegations about Mr. Frink lacked evidentiary support; management’s testimony was inconsistent and lacked candor; other witnesses did not corroborate the agency’s version of the events; and termination was an excessive penalty for the alleged misconduct,” the OSC said in a statement. “Further, OSC found one of the VA officials involved in Mr. Frink’s termination showed animus and all three officials involved had a clear motive to retaliate against him.”

With the OSC investigation in hand, VA officials have reinstated Frink with back pay, as well as damages for emotional distress. After a long, hard fight, Frink starts work again Tuesday, over two years after he was fired by supervisors.

“The constitutional right to petition Congress must be guaranteed for all Americans. Federal agencies cannot deny their employees this right even if it leads to scrutiny of their operations,” said Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner in a statement.



Wall Street Expert Claims Clinton Foundation Is A Vast Criminal Conspiracy

Wall Street Expert: Clinton Foundation A ‘Vast Criminal Conspiracy’ – WorldNetDaily


Adding to Hillary Clinton’s concern that the FBI may open a criminal investigation into her use of a private email server is evidence among the emails recently released by the State Department that she maintained deep ties to the Clinton Foundation while serving as U.S. secretary of state.

In a new report, Wall Street analyst and investor Charles Ortel charges the Clintons and their associates have been engaged in a “vast criminal conspiracy to defraud the general public, enrich themselves and entrench their political influence.”

Ortel believes the evidence calls for a criminal investigation by the FBI as well as by attorneys general in four states where the Clinton Foundation is registered, maintains offices and/or has aggressively solicited individual donations: Arkansas, Massachusetts, California and New York.

He published on his website a new executive summary of his “First Foundation Report” of his continuing investigation into the operations of the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

“Since July 2002, the worst known example of flagrant and unpunished abuses by a U.S. domiciled, public charity is the record of voluminous flawed, inaccurate, false and misleading public disclosures made by representatives of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation (the “Clinton Foundation”), as trustees, executives and agents illegally solicited across state, and national boundaries and raised close to $2 billion from donors who were either willingly or unwillingly duped,” Ortel alleges.

Ortel has shared with WND his investigative files amounting to hundreds of pages of tables, exhibits and appendices. The documentation supports his claim that between 2002 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation solicited potential donors across state and national boundaries to raise close to $2 billion.

“The biggest unanswered questions concern why state, federal, and foreign government authorities have failed, so far, to prosecute trustees, executives, and agents of the Clinton Foundation and its constituent elements for ceaselessly promoting a global criminal enterprise in the guise of philanthropy,” Ortel writes.

“Known and unprosecuted felony and misdemeanor offenses of Clinton Foundation Trustees and others include taking donations under false pretenses, diverting donations from their intended purposes, failing to exercise required control over operations, creating substantial private gain, allowing insiders to appropriate illegally created private gains, and thereby corroding an otherwise well deserved reputation that many American charities rightfully have obtained over decades, for performing good works worldwide in conformity with applicable laws and regulations.”

Clintons admit to filing false financials

In his report, Ortel stresses the Clintons admitted to violating federal and state law by acknowledging in April that the foundation needed to withdraw error-ridden IRS Form 990s “for some years” and file corrected financials.

He cites an April 26 statement by Clinton Foundation acting CEO Maura Pally titled “A Commitment to Honesty Transparency, and Accountability.” Published on the Clinton Foundation website, it says that after a “voluntary external review is completed,” the foundation “will likely refile forms for some years.”

Pally tried to excuse the erroneous financial statements filed with the IRS by claiming that “mistakes” in incorrectly combining government grants with other donations were not uncommon for “organizations of our size.” She added that the foundation was “acting quickly to remedy” the problem and “to take steps” to make sure no more erroneous financials are filed with the IRS in the future.

For Ortel, that explanation does not excuse the various requirements under state and federal law specifying that charitable organizations must file truthful, complete and accurate financial statements with regulators, including the IRS, verified by competent, informed and independent auditing firms.

Ortel points out that since April 26, the Clintons have not filed or posted on their website corrected financial statements along with “thorough and granular explanations” of any and all amendments made to the erroneous financial statements.

Ortel puts the blame on federal and state regulators, including the IRS, for failing to hold the Clinton Foundation to standards regarding the operation of charitable organizations. In contrast, “smaller public charities, run by less august persons who are, less well trained professionally, and by less responsible principals who solicited fewer target donors and raised smaller sums of money have been aggressively prosecuted, and severely punished via criminal and civil legal proceedings.”

Meanwhile, Ortel alleges that despite the continued failure to post the promised corrected financial statements, “the Clinton Foundation and constituent elements recklessly continue to solicit donations on the basis of inaccurate, false, and misleading public filings in violation of state, federal, and foreign laws.”

‘Hillary culpable’

Ortel charges that because Hillary Clinton served as a trustee of the Clinton Foundation, she cannot escape legal responsibility for the erroneous statements the Clinton Foundation now admits having filed with the IRS. He contends she also is responsible for inconsistent, incomplete, materially misleading and outright false financial filings that invalidate audited financial statements since the foundation’s inception.

Ortel alleges that while Clinton served as trustee, from 2013 through April 2015, the Clinton Foundation “procured independent audits of financial statements and submitted public filings to government authorities that were false, materially misleading, and fraudulent, while actively soliciting donations across state and national boundaries.”

He charges that during Hillary’s tenure as trustee, the Clinton Foundation filed false and misleading financial forms concerning calendar years 2010 and 2011. Also, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, CHAI, aimed at combating HIV/AIDS in third world countries, filed amended financial forms for 2012 and 2013. Ortel takes that as an admission CHAI initially filed erroneous financial forms in apparent violation of state and federal law.

Ortel notes that while she was a trustee, Clinton never demanded any reexamination of Clinton Foundation financial filings for the years 2002 through 2013. He has concluded the audited statements for the Clinton Foundation for those years were inconsistently consolidated “in gross violation of relevant accounting standards and of applicable state, federal and foreign laws that require production of wholly accurate, truthful, and complete informational returns.”

“Legally mandated Clinton Foundation disclosures that are the responsibility of Clinton Foundation Trustees and must be wholly accurate, complete and, in the case of financial disclosures, verified by competent, informed, and independent accounting professionals,” Ortel writes.

“Instead, Clinton Foundation public disclosures concerning the period July 2002 to present are false, incomplete, inaccurate, and not appropriately verified by independent auditors.”



Former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Claims Obama Allowed ISIS To Form So It Would Overthrow Syrian Government

Former DIA Director Gen Flynn Says Obama Created ISIS, Supposedly To Overthrow Syrian Government – Universal Free Press


Retired Army Lt. Gen Michael Flynn, the former director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is accusing the Obama regime of lying about the rise of ISIS and the assertion that they were somehow caught off guard. He says that far from being surprised by ISIS, the Obama regime allowed them to form in a deliberate act intended to unite Sunni Muslims against the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria.

According to a report in WND, the circumstances surrounding the rise of ISIS are similar to those claimed by Iran and other Arab nations, which state that it was the United States government that created ISIS. They sponsored, which means at a minimum organized and funded and most probably trained as well, radical jihadists who later became the Jabhad al-Nusra and ISIS, supposedly as forces to be used in fighting the Syrian government.

Flynn also verified the authenticity of a 2012 DIA document that was recently obtained by Judicial Watch through a FOIA request which had previously been classified with no foreign access but was now declassified in a heavily redacted form. WND quoted that text as stating, “This is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

Interviewed by Al Jazeera, Flynn left no room for doubt, stating, “It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.”

In support of the General’s claims, Peter Vincent Pry, a former CIA analyst who is now the director of the Congressional Advisory Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, describe Flynn, saying, “Gen. Michael Flynn is very honorable and honest, indeed, courageous; so I credit what he says.” In other words, he’s everything that Hussein Obama is not, so who are you going to believe?

“The Obama administration should not have been surprised by the rapid rise of ISIS, since it was anticipated by DIA.” Pry attributed whatever surprise may have existed as being the result of Obama’s Ego, arrogance, stubbornness, and possibly anti-Americanism, saying, “Incompetence and ideology probably account for why the administration was surprised. This will not be the first time the administration has ignored the advice of military and intelligence professionals.”

According to the WND article, the report actually detailed the anticipated actions of what would later be called ISIS in Iraq. It stated that ISIS, at the time called the opposition forces, “will try to use the Iraqi territory as a safe haven for its forces taking advantage of the sympathy of the Iraqi border population, meanwhile trying to recruit fighters and train them on the Iraqi side, in addition to harboring [Syrian] refugees.

It also stated, “If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). Those supporting powers included and were most prominently the United States.”

It further predicted the development of ISIS, stating, “This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters.

As if looking into a crystal ball, the document continued, “ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

General Flynn’s version of events explains the public “confusion” and failure to recognize the threat posed by ISIS and to a large degree the unwillingness of the Obama regime to engage the terrorist organization in any meaningful way. It also explains how John McCain happened to end up mugging in photographs with known ISIS affiliated terrorists prior to the group self-identifying as the Islamic State. They could have been called McCain’s Army or Johnny’s jihadists.

Could this have been what Hussein Obama was talking about when he said, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” The devil lies in knowing the details of just what those national security objectives were.

There’s no reason to believe that Obama would actively be attempting to destroy American in every other manner imaginable, as we have witnessed, but would work to enhance our national security in this one specific area. His national security objectives clearly must also be to weaken and destroy the United States. Creating ISIS and then importing them into the United States as Syrian refugees or across our now porous southern border would be a logical and efficient way of achieving that goal.

ISIS is becoming increasingly powerful, they’ve got Iraqi oil so they’re well-funded, and they’re well armed with American equipment that was supposedly abandoned by the Iraqi Army after the first shot was fired.

It would also help to explain why we deposed Saddam Hussein in spite of the fact that he had no weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with 9/11. Chaos had to be fomented to create a terrorist breeding and training ground. Maybe Saddam had to go to make way for ISIS.



President Asshat Claims Republican Critics Are Making “Common Cause” With Iranian Hardliners

Obama’s Terrible Iran Speech: My Republican Critics Are Making “Common Cause” With Iranian Hardliners – Hot Air


The lowest moment from what was probably the lowest speech of his presidency – so far. David Harsanyi, watching this, asks a good question:

David Harsanyi

Imagine what would have happened if Bush had said that Democrats were caucusing with Saddam Hussein?

12:50 PM – 5 Aug 2015

The GOP opposes the nuclear deal because they think it’s too favorable to Iran and not favorable enough to America. The hardliners in Iran’s parliament oppose the deal for the opposite reason. Insofar as they both want the deal to fail, I suppose that’s “common cause.” But then, as Harsanyi says, it must also be true that Barack Obama made “common cause” with Saddam Hussein since both of them thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. Obama thought it was a bad idea for U.S. and Iraqi security whereas Saddam thought it was a bad idea for his own personal security, but the reasoning is immaterial apparently. All that matters to “common cause” is how the parties to an issue align. Or at least, 12 years after the invasion of Iraq, that’s all that matters now. I wonder what Democrats like Steve Israel, who came out against the Iran deal yesterday, thought when they found out today that they’re on the same side as the worst fanatics in Iran’s government.

Actually, Obama’s insult may be worse than it at first appears. The major theme of this speech, as it always, always is – and always disingenuously – when Obama talks about diplomacy with Iran is that the only alternative is war. Reportedly he went so far today in a private meeting with Jewish leaders as to claim that Iranian rockets will rain down on Tel Aviv if the GOP-led Congress blocks the deal, because that will lead to war with Iran and war will lead to Iranian reprisals against Israel. Never mind that Iranian-made rockets already rain down on Israel every few years thanks to Hezbollah and that the sanctions relief Iran is getting from this deal will help pay for more of them. Never mind too that Israel’s own prime minister seems to think reprisals are a risk worth taking in the name of stopping an Iranian atomic bomb. The point, at least to Obama, is that only a warmonger would oppose this terrible deal, which all but endorses an Iranian bomb 10 years from now. Equating the Republicans in Congress with Iran’s hardliners was his way of suggesting, I think, that both of those groups actually seek war with each other in the name of advancing their own political interests. There’s no such thing as good-faith opposition to an Obama policy, at least outside the Democratic caucus. If GOP hawks hate his nuclear deal, it can only be because they’ve got Gulf War III on the brain and refuse to let some master stroke of diplomacy deter them.

In fact, that’s basically an Iranian talking point coming out of the president’s mouth, that some elements of the U.S. government are stone-cold fanatics who’ll accept nothing short of war with Iran. You hear a lot of Iranian talking points coming from the White House lately, curiously enough: Ed wrote this morning about John Kerry warning his former colleagues in Congress not to “screw” the country’s lunatic supreme leader by torpedoing a deal he kinda sorta supports. Here’s another choice bit from the same interview when Kerry was asked why we would agree to advanced enrichment 10 years from now by a country that’s sworn it’ll destroy Israel:

Though he says he is in tune with this set of Israeli fears, he does not endorse a view widely shared by Israelis – and by many Americans – that Iran’s leaders, who have often said that they seek the destruction of Israel, mean what they say. “I think they have a fundamental ideological confrontation with Israel at this particular moment. Whether or not that translates into active steps to, quote, ‘Wipe it,’ you know…” Here I interjected: “Wipe it off the map.” Kerry continued: “I don’t know the answer to that. I haven’t seen anything that says to me – they’ve got 80,000 rockets in Hezbollah pointed at Israel, and any number of choices could have been made. They didn’t make the bomb when they had enough material for 10 to 12. They’ve signed on to an agreement where they say they’ll never try and make one and we have a mechanism in place where we can prove that. So I don’t want to get locked into that debate. I think it’s a waste of time here.”

That’s some fine PR for the mullahs: They haven’t tried to destroy Israel yet, and as far as what the future holds, who knows? And yet it’s the GOP, according to this guy’s boss, that’s making common cause with Iranian lunatics, not the White House. Over to you, Michael Weiss:

Michael Weiss

Please posit these two news stories, conveniently placed side by side.

2:03 PM – 5 Aug 2015

Two clips for you here, one about “common cause” and the other of Obama acknowledging that, sure, some of the money Iran gets after sanctions are lifted will go towards funding terror. This too he defends as if his deal was the only possible outcome of the negotiations: Sanctions relief was always going to be part of a nuclear agreement, he notes, so if you oppose that, you oppose diplomacy altogether. That would be a fair point if the agreement had produced something more meaningful for the U.S., like a permanent end to Iranian nuclearization. If the program had been “dismantled” rather than simply slowed down for 10 years, even Netanyahu could have gone along with it; the benefit would have been worth the cost of some extra cash in Iran’s terror treasury. Instead they got the money and we got nothing more than a 10-year respite from having to decide what to do about a fanatic Shiite regime with nuclear “breakout” capacity. And you know what the weirdest part of all of this is? For all their demagoguery and desperation in pushing this deal, Obama and Kerry don’t need to sell it at all. There’s nothing the GOP can do to stop it. The purchase has already been made in Congress. Obama and Kerry are getting nasty here not because they think it’s essential to getting Democrats to buy in but because, I think, they simply resent having their diplomatic master work criticized so sharply. It’s personal.




Related video:



Related article:

Barack Obama’s Lowest Moment Yet? – John Hinderaker

Today President Obama gave a speech at American University, urging acceptance of his nuclear deal with Iran. It was the usual exercise in deception and demagoguery, and he skated up to the edge of accusing opponents of the deal – a majority of Americans, apparently – of treason.

After some initial reminiscence about the Cold War, Obama leaped right into misrepresenting the agreement’s terms:

After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The “prohibition” consists of a pious declaration by Iran which it can repudiate at any time. The agreement contains no provisions that will permanently impede Iran’s ability to acquire nuclear weapons. The provisions that (if adhered to) would materially impede Iran’s nuclear weapons program expire in no more than 15 years.

Next, the president offered up a revisionist history of the war in Iraq–a topic of dubious relevance at best:

[M]any of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.

Whereas others who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case in favor of the Iran deal–Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, for example. So what? Next comes a breathtaking series of lies:

I said that America didn’t just have to end that war – we had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place. It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy; a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus; a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.

No American administration has ever preferred war to diplomacy. The war in Iraq was anything but unilateral, as more than 20 countries participated in the U.S.-led coalition. And the intelligence on Iraq’s WMDs was not exaggerated, as we know from the now-public October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. (Nor, as we now know, was that intelligence entirely wrong.)

Obama recites Iraq’s recent history, but leaves out a key point:

Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al Qaeda in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL. And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein.

Obama neglects to mention his own role: in 2011 he prematurely withdrew all American troops from Iraq, crowing that Iraq was then “sovereign, stable and self-reliant,” a fact that Vice-President Joe Biden hailed as one of Obama’s “great achievements.” Iraq was sovereign and stable but not, as military leaders warned, entirely self-reliant. It was Obama’s needless withdrawal of the last American troops that allowed Iraq to spiral toward chaos and permitted ISIS – the Islamic State in Syria – to move into Iraq. But Obama has never once in his life taken responsibility for anything.

Who is to blame for Iran’s nuclear program? Why, President Bush, of course!

When the Bush administration took office, Iran had no centrifuges – the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb – that were spinning to enrich uranium. But despite repeated warnings from the United States government, by the time I took office, Iran had installed several thousand centrifuges…

IAEA reports indicate that Iran’s Natanz facility had around 5,500 centrifuges when Obama took office, and over 15,000 by May 2015. With the Fordow facility, Iran now has around 19,000 centrifuges operating. But it’s all Bush’s fault!

As always, Obama misrepresented the terms of the agreement. These are issues we have written about many times, so I won’t address those misrepresentations in detail. But here are a couple:

If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won’t need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council; America can trigger snapback on our own.

Sheer fantasy. Much of the sanctions relief that Iran most craves can never be taken back–most notably, the $100 billion to $150 billion in frozen funds that will soon flow to Tehran. Further, all commercial deals that are entered into during the period of sanctions relief are excepted from future sanctions.

Even with those huge loopholes, the “snap back” is a fiction. Even U.S. sanctions will not “snap back” automatically; they will have to be reimposed by Congress and implemented over a period of time. We will have no control over whether the E.U. reimposes sanctions. The supposed “snap back” mechanism is limited to U.N. sanctions, and, as I wrote here, it is doubtful whether paragraph 37 of the agreement, the purported snap back provision, would actually cause U.N. sanctions to be reimposed based on the vote of one member of the Security Council.

It is true that if Iran lives up to its commitments, it will gain access to roughly $56 billion of its own money – revenue frozen overseas by other countries.

This is a very recent and highly dubious talking point. Until the last week or two, as I wrote here, every source I am aware of has long estimated Iran’s frozen assets at $100 billon to $150 billion. In fact, the Treasury Department, which John Kerry cited as the source for the administration’s new number, pegged the frozen assets at “approximately $100 billion” in sworn testimony before a Congressional committee in January of this year. And that is just a down payment on the economic benefit that Iran’s mullahs will receive from the end of sanctions.

No doubt the worst portion of Obama’s speech is the one that has gotten the most attention. Note how Obama walks right up to the line of accusing Republicans in Congress of treason:

Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. (Applause.)

No, but it is what Iran’s rulers believe. Iran’s Supreme Leader frequently leads mobs in chants of “Death to America.” Does Obama think he is kidding?

In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus. (Laughter and applause.)

If Obama had said that the Republican caucus is making common cause with Iran’s hardliners, it would have been an unambiguous accusation of treason. By phrasing it the other way around–the hardliners are making common cause with Republicans–Obama gives himself a slight margin of deniability. But either way, it is a disgusting slander.

It is also delusional. Iran’s hardliners are the regime in power. The mullahs are not aligning themselves with Republicans; on the contrary, they are trumpeting the fact that they got everything they wanted in their negotiations with John Kerry and Barack Obama. But Obama can’t, and won’t, confront that reality. He will just go on slandering his political opponents and lying to the American people.

Barack Obama is a terrible president, but he is a worse man.


Related video:



Related article:

State Department Unaware Of Reports Iran Is Sanitizing Nuclear Sites – Washington Free Beacon

State Department spokesperson Mark Toner said he was unaware of reports that claim Iran is sanitizing a suspected nuclear site on Wednesday.

Bloomberg reported that Congress has received evidence from the intelligence community that Iran is sanitizing a suspected nuclear military site at Parchin.

Toner was asked if the State Department has seen the report.

“The U.S. intelligence community has informed of evidence that Iran was sanitizing its suspected nuclear military site at Parchin in broad daylight days after agreeing to the nuclear deal with world powers,” the reporter said. “The new evidence, which is classified, satellite imagery picked up by U.S. government assets in mid and late July showed that Iran had moved bulldozers and other heavy machinery.”

“I’ve not seen those reports until you just spoke to them,” Toner said. “But, you know, we’ve been very clear that the joint agreement that we plan that you can’t hide nuclear activity. There are traces that remain.”

Toner clarified, saying that he could not elaborate.

“But I can’t speak to that specific instance you’re talking about,” Toner said.

Skeptics of the nuclear agreement have concerns about confidential side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency that detail the inspection procedures into Iran’s suspected nuclear sites like Parchin.


Related video:


……………………….Click on image above to watch video.



Nuclear Iran Update: Obama Regime Claims Two Secret Side Deals Are Not Secret Side Deals

WH Says 2 Secret Side Deals Are Not ‘Secret Side Deals’ – Sweetness & Light


These deals are literally secret and they are certainly on the side from the main agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations. So what else is the White House lying to us about?

From The Hill:

White House: Iran-IAEA pacts are not ‘side deals’

By Jordan Fabian | July 23, 2015

Agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are not secret “side deals” to the main nuclear pact between Tehran and six world powers, the White House said Thursday. “This does not represent some sort of side deal,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

They are separate deals from the agreement between the P5+1 nations and they are secret. So they are secret side deals. Why try to lie about it? And if the White House is willing to lie to us about this, what else are they about?]

Republicans have seized on the existence of what they call “side deals” between Iran and the IAEA to build support against the deal in Congress…

It’s not just Republicans. Several Democrats have also expressed concerns about these secret side deals. Including Democrat Senator Ben Cardin (Md.), who, along with Senator Corker, sent a letter to Kerry demanding the text of these two side deals.

Earnest dismissed those concerns, saying lawmakers have all the information necessary to judge the deal, which limits Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

“I know there has been a suggestion by some Republicans [sic] that there are some agreements that were cut off to the side,” Earnest said. “The fact is, this is a critical part of the agreement.”…

So Earnest admits these deals are a critical part of the Iran agreement. Even though they were not negotiated by the US. And, in fact, the US will not eve be allowed to see the deals between the IAEA and Iran.

Earnest acknowledged that information regarding the Iran-IAEA pacts was not provided to lawmakers Wednesday during classified briefings for House and Senate members held by Secretary of State John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

And never mind that on Wednesday Susan Rice has specifically promised that Congress would be given that information at that classified briefing. From The Hill: “Rice said the documents between Iran and the IAEA are not public, but the administration has been informed on their contents and will share details with members of Congress in a classified briefing on Capitol Hill.”

But Earnest pledged that lawmakers will receive classified briefings on the bilateral pacts. “Our negotiators will, in a classified setting, have a conversation with those members of Congress about what exactly the IAEA is seeking,” he said.

Some day.



Egypt Claims That Turkey Has Provided 10,000 Passports To ISIS

Shock Claim: Turkey Provided 10,000 Passports To ISIS – WorldNetDaily


Egypt is accusing Turkey of providing more than 10,000 Turkish passports to members of ISIS, the Islamic State, to facilitate travel of fighters across the region.

An Egyptian intelligence official who asked not to be named told WND his country delivered a report to the U.S. documenting the astonishing claim.

The official further charged that Istanbul is serving as the “headquarters” for ISIS planning.

“Turkey continues to allow free passage to Iraq and Syria to IS fighters,” the official added.

If the Turkish passport charge is true, it would present a worldwide ISIS travel threat.

Already, there have been major passport concerns regarding ISIS and its sympathizers.

Earlier this month, a French senate report showed about 47 percent of European jihadists known to have traveled to ISIS-held territory hold French passports.

Scores of British citizens are also known to have joined ISIS. Last month, nine British medical students reportedly travel`ed to Syria to work in hospitals in areas held by ISIS.

In a move that clearly is part of the terrorist group’s symbolic creation of a caliphate, ISIS militants themselves reportedly started issuing their own international ISIS passports.

There are concerns ISIS plans to expand beyond the Middle East to Europe.

In February, WND reported documents released by ISIS supporters and propagandists revealed ISIS is planning to use Libya as a “gateway” to Europe.

The documents, obtained by the Quilliam Foundation, a Britain-based think tank that focuses on counter-extremism, raised the possibility of storming southern European cities to cause “pandemonium” or closing international shipping lines in the Mediterranean Sea.

The purported ISIS documents, obtained and reviewed by WND, received widespread news coverage.

However, some of the more sensational possibilities described within the pages were largely overlooked.

The documents indicate ISIS views Libya as not just fertile ground for a headquarters but as a staging base to infiltrate Europe by boat along with the hundreds of migrants who daily attempt to flee to Italy.

One ISIS document recognized Libya has a “long coastline” that “looks upon the southern Crusader states, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat.”

The document notes “the number of ‘illegal immigration’ trips from this coast is massive, estimated to be as high as 500 people a day, as a low estimate.”

It states that “according to many [of these immigrants], it is easily possible to pass through Maritime Security Checkpoints and arrive in [European] cities.”

“If this was even partially exploited and developed strategically, pandemonium could be wrought in the southern Europe. It is even possible that there could be a closure of shipping lines because of the targeting of Crusader ships and tankers.”

The Quillium Foundation warns: “Therefore, the opportunities that lie in the exploitation of human trafficking rings make Libya unparalleled as a launching platform for attacking European states and shipping lines.”

The ISIS documents extensively discuss what they claim are massive caches of light, medium and heavy munitions in Libya. Jihadists are urged to make their way to Libya to help expand the caliphate.

“Not only will pressure on the land of the Caliphate in ash-Sham be relieved, but the territories of the Caliphate in ash-Sham, Iraq and Hijaz will be linked with those of their brothers in Libya and the Islamic Maghreb and the defeat of all regimes and tyrants in their way will be enabled.”

How real are ISIS’s claims of migrant boats flooding Europe?

In February, Italy reportedly rescued some 2,164 migrants coming from Libya on about a dozen boats. The incident took place the same day Italian coast guard members were reportedly threatened by four armed men who approached them by speedboat from the Libyan coast.

The U.N. refugee organization, UNHCR, estimates that at least 218,000 migrants from North Africa crossed the Mediterranean by boat last year, with some 3,500 dying on the way.

Italy’s defense minister, Roberta Pinotti, told the country’s Il Messaggero newspaper in February the potential for terrorists infiltrating Italy in boats carrying immigrants from Libya “could not be ruled out.”



Amazing Douchebaggery: Defense Department Claims Bible, Constitution And Declaration Of Independence Perpetuate Sexism

Defense Department: The Bible, Constitution And Declaration Of Independence All Perpetuate Sexism – Daily Caller

According to a Defense Department approved “sexism course,” the Bible, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence all contribute to modern sexism.

Those three cherished texts all count as “historical influences that allow sexism to continue,” according to a presentation prepared by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, whose mission is to give a ”world-class human relations education.”


According to the course, the Bible has “quotes” which can be interpreted as sexist by readers.

The Declaration of Independence is also an historical cause of sexism, as the document refers only to “all men” – not “men and women.”

And the Constitution, the Pentagon argues, is an historical source of sexism because “slaves and women were not included until later in history.”

Of course, members of the Armed Forces take an oath to defend the Constitution – which is, according to the DEOMI course, an “historical influence that allows sexism to continue.”

“The content of the lesson is provided to generate academic discussion concerning how these historical documents have been included in discussions about the topic of sexism,” Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman, told The Daily Caller.

But following TheDC’s request for comment, the sexism course – as well as two other courses listed on DEOMI’s website, entitled “Prejudice & Discrimination” and “Racism” – were taken offline.

“This course is currently offline and under revision,” a notice says under all three courses.


Asked about the sudden update, Christensen replied, “DEOMI online materials are periodically pulled to review to ensure accuracy and relevance. The racism, sexism and Prejudice & Discrimination are currently undergoing that review process.”

TheDC obtained copies of all three courses prior to their removal.

The “Prejudice & Discrimination” course was recently required for some Navy personnel who work in hospitals and clinics.

In the course, discrimination is divided into two categories: institutional and individual. Institutions can be a source of discrimination, as well as actions – or inaction – made by individuals.

Institutional discrimination, according to the DEOMI course, can be found in employment, education, housing and the military.

Examples of institutional discrimination in employment, according to DEOMI, are education requirements for employment:


The course teaches, “Individuals who have been segregated to inferior schools cannot find employment in businesses that hire according to specified credentials that inferior schools do not offer.”

Therefore, when employers institute education qualifications for prospective employees, they are engaging in a form of discrimination.

The DEOMI states more examples of institutional discrimination can be found in education:


Academic tests “may have inherent cultural bias,” the presentation argues.

Textbooks also perpetuate discrimination since they “provide little or no information on minority groups, especially minority histories and the contributions that minorities have made to American culture.”

DEOMI teaches students that they can also contribute to discrimination on an individual level.

The presentation asserts individuals can perpetrate discrimination through both active and inactive ways, including “refusing to acknowledge one’s own privilege.”


Active contributions to discrimination include verbal and physical assault, as well as “considering prejudices and discrimination to be a thing of a past.”

Inactive discrimination, according to DEOMI, includes failing to acknowledge personal “privilege.”

In the glossary provided by the course, “privilege” is defined as “a special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.”


By an individual refusing to believe that he is inherently better off than another person as a result of his race or gender, DEOMI teaches that the individual is engaging in an act of discrimination.

At the same time, it is also viewed as inactive discrimination if an individual believes “you have experienced and fully understand the oppression of the target group.”

In addition to the presentation on “Prejudice & Discrimination,” DEOMI offers a broader course on the topic of “Racism.”

In the “Racism” presentation, individuals are cautioned against using “antilocution” — or using phrases that could have a racial connotation.

The graphic which accompanies the slide lists an array of naughty words, including “white men can’t jump” and “Jew.”

According to the presentation, the Defense Department also bans the word ”Redskin” — pitting the Pentagon against its hometown NFL team.


Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen said information in the DEOMI courses accurately reflects Department of Defense policy: “The Department of Defense Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity [ODMEO] in collaboration with the Military services review DEOMI’s education and training materials designed for Equal Opportunity Advisors [EOAs] to ensure that DoD policy is accurately reflected. DEOMI staff develops, in coordination with the ODMEO and the Military Services, standardized training templates to ensure only approved training materials are used during local training sessions.”

“While there is no DoD Policy that requires persons to take these online courses,” Christensen told TheDC, since 2011, 2,075 Department of Defense personnel took the “Sexism” course, 3,448 took the “Prejudice & Discrimination” course, and 3,028 took the “Racism” course.



Veterans Affairs Secretary Falsely Claims He Served In Special Forces (Video)

VA Chief Told A Homeless Vet He Served In Special Forces Even Though He Didn’t – Daily Caller


Veterans Affairs Sec. Robert McDonald falsely told a homeless veteran last month that he had served in special forces during his five-year stint in the Army.

McDonald, appointed to head the scandal-ridden VA last year, served as a captain in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division between 1975 and 1980. And though he completed Army Ranger training, the former Procter & Gamble CEO was never a member of a special forces.

The Huffington Post flagged the fib, which McDonald uttered in front of a CBS News camera in Los Angeles last month.

As he was out canvassing the area for homeless vets, McDonald came across a man who said he had been in the military and that he had been in special forces.

“Special forces? What years? I was in special forces!” McDonald exclaimed.


Except that wasn’t true, as McDonald admitted to the Huffington Post.

“I have no excuse,” McDonald told the website after being confronted with the false claim. “I was not in special forces.”

He said he “wanted to clear up the confusion I probably created – I did create,” explaining, “I reacted spontaneously and I reacted wrongly, [with] no intent in any way to describe my record any different than it is.”

Several retired military officers informed the Huffington Post about McDonald’s claim, spurred by the recent scandal involving NBC anchor Brian William and his claims to have been in a helicopter downed by an RPG during the Iraq War.

“I thought, ‘What a boneheaded statement – is this what we want from our senior government officials?’” retired Army Col. Gary Bloomberg, a former special forces commander, told the Post after seeing video of McDonald’s comments.

Bloomberg circulated the video among other retired special forces members.

“I can see [other former special forces soldiers] going, ‘Hey, check out this boneheaded remark,’ but I don’t see the gravitas that I would with a guy wearing medals he didn’t earn,” Bloomberg said.

The White House told the Post that it accepted McDonald’s explanation for the false statement.

“Secretary McDonald has apologized for the misstatement and noted that he never intended to misrepresent his military service,” the White House said. “We take him at his word and expect that this will not impact the important work he’s doing to promote the health and well-being of our nation’s veterans.”

McDonald was criticized last week for inaccurate statements he made in an entirely different matter.

“Nine hundred people have been fired since I became secretary,” McDonald told NBC “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd on Feb. 15. “We’ve got 60 people that we fired who have manipulated wait times.”

McDonald aimed to shine a light on the moves he’s made to clean up the beleaguered agency. But as Washington Post’s fact checker noted, McDonald’s claim was false. Only eight employees have been removed for manipulating wait times. And a large number of the 900 fired employees were recent hires, some of whom may not have been hired after McDonald took the post.



10 States Respond To Leftist Claims Of College Rape Epidemic With Push To Legalize Guns On Campuses

10 States Want To Permit Guns On Campus To Stop Rape – Sweetness & Light


From the New York Times:

A Bid for Guns on Campuses to Deter Rape

By ALAN SCHWARZ | February 18, 2015

As gun rights advocates push to legalize firearms on college campuses, an argument is taking shape: Arming female students will help reduce sexual assaults… [L]awmakers in 10 states who are pushing bills that would permit the carrying of firearms on campus are hoping that the national spotlight on sexual assault will help them win passage of their measures. “If you’ve got a person that’s raped because you wouldn’t let them carry a firearm to defend themselves, I think you’re responsible,” State Representative Dennis K. Baxley of Florida said during debate in a House subcommittee last month. The bill passed.

Talk about being hoisted on your own canard [sic]. This is the kind of jujitsu that conservatives should do more often.

The sponsor of a bill in Nevada, Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, said in a telephone interview: “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.”

“Hot little girls”? That isn’t very PC. Ms. Fiore must not be a card-carrying feminist. Therefore her opinions on such matters are meaningless – even mockable.

In addition to those in Florida and Nevada, bills that would allow guns on campus have been introduced in Indiana, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

So only red (neck) states really want to protect young women? How telling.

Opponents contend that university campuses should remain havens from the gun-related risks that exist elsewhere, and that college students, with high rates of binge drinking and other recklessness, would be particularly prone to gun accidents.

And yet we let them vote.

Some experts in sexual assault said that college women were typically assaulted by someone they knew, sometimes a friend, so even if they had access to their gun, they would rarely be tempted to use it…

Huh? Then it doesn’t sound like rape rape. (To quote the political sage, Whoopie Goldberg.)

Other objectors to the bills say that advocates of the campus carry laws, predominantly Republicans with well-established pro-gun stances, are merely exploiting a hot-button issue. “The gun lobby has seized on this tactic, this subject of sexual assault,” said Andy Pelosi, the executive director of the Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus. “It resonates with lawmakers.” …

How dare conservatives seize upon a made up crisis to advance their agenda? Only Democrats are allowed to do that.



Appeals Court Rules Against Ohio Teacher Who Claims To Have Irrational Fear Of Children

Ohio Teacher Who Fears Children Sues School District For Transferring Her – Inquisitr

If a teacher fears children, they might be best served looking for another profession. However, for Maria Waltherr-Willard, it was a reason to sue.


A judge ruled on Waltherr-Willard’s case this week, siding with the defendants, Mariemont City Schools in Cincinnati. The U.S. District Court had previously reached the same decision, but Thursday’s decision was from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the previous findings.

Waltherr-Willard charged that the district was in breach of contract when it decided to move her to a middle school, where seventh and eighth-grade students reportedly triggered her phobia. This led to high blood pressure and forced an early retirement during the middle of the 2010-2011 School Year. The lawsuit was seeking unspecified damages.

On the alleged breach of contract, the court said Waltherr-Willard “contended that her correspondence with several unidentified school officials created a contract that required Mariemont to keep her at the high school.”

“But the Mariemont School Board undisputedly never ratified such a contract, which means for our purposes that there was not one,” the ruling stated.

The Inquisitr previously reported on this case in January. At that time, it was noted that Waltherr-Willard began having problems in 2009, when she discussed with parents the likelihood that the district would eliminate teacher-led French courses at the school, instead moving them to the online format.

When parents complained in December, Superintendent Paul Imhoff and high school principal James Renner reprimanded Waltherr-Willard, warning her that if she continued talking to parents about the change, she could risk her job and they would put a memo in her personnel file, according to the Cincinnati News.

By Janaury 2011, Waltherr-Willard had successfully rebuilt Mariemont Junior High’s Spanish program, but her blood pressure was often at dangerous levels. She requested, in writing, to return to high school teaching. Imhoff responded in writing that there was no open position, but he’d keep her request on file. Waltherr-Willard retired in March 2011, and in July she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint. The commission dismissed her complaint a year later, giving her the right to sue the district, which she did in June.

Unfortunately for Waltherr-Willard, the right to sue guarantees nothing, and that’s what she walked away with after this week’s ruling.



*VIDEOS* Even Noted Leftist Douchebags Agree That Obama’s SOTU Foreign Policy Claims Were Bogus






Traitor John Kerry Claims The Bible Tells Us To Protect Muslim Countries From Global Warming (Video)

John Kerry: Bible Tells Us To Protect Muslim Countries From Global Warming – Gateway Pundit

On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry told his audience the Bible tells us to protect Muslim majority countries from global warming.

Breitbart reported:

Wednesday at a ceremony to appoint Texas lawyer Shaarik Zafar to be special representative to Muslim communities, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was the United States’ Biblical “responsibility” to “confront climate change,” including to protect “vulnerable Muslim majority counties.”



In February, John Kerry insisted that global warming was as big a threat as terrorism.



Rep. Issa Claims That More Than 20 Obama Officials ‘Lost Or Destroyed’ E-Mails After House Launched Probes

Issa: More Than 20 Obama Officials ‘Lost Or Destroyed’ E-Mails After House Launched Probes – National Review


The revelation that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator Marilynn Tavenner did not retain her e-mails means that more than 20 witness in the Obama administration to lose or delete e-mails without notifying Congress, according to the top House investigator.

“The Obama administration has lost or destroyed e-mails for more than 20 witnesses, and in each case, the loss wasn’t disclosed to the National Archives or Congress for months or years, in violation of federal law,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) said of Tavenner’s lost e-mails.

“It defies logic that so many senior Administration officials were found to have ignored federal recordkeeping requirements only after Congress asked to see their e-mails,” he continued. “Just this week, my staff followed up with HHS, who has failed to comply with a subpoena from ten months ago. Even at that point, the administration did not inform us that there was a problem with Ms. Tavenner’s e-mail history. Yet again, we discover that this administration will not be forthright with the American people unless cornered.”

From February of 2010 to November of 2013 – one month after the launch of the website, as the Daily Caller’s Patrick Howley noted – Tavenner didn’t maintain copies of her e-mails as required.

“During her entire tenure at CMS, Ms. Tavenner’s CMS e-mail address, which is accessible to both colleagues and the public, has been subject to write-in campaigns involving thousands of e-mails from the public,” CMS wrote to the National Archives and Records Administration, per Howley.

“Therefore, she receives an extremely high volume of e-mails that she manages daily. To keep an orderly e-mail box and to stay within the agency’s e-mail system capacity limits, the administrator generally copied or forwarded e-mails to immediate staff for retention and retrieval, and did not maintain her own copies,” CMS said.

Issa subpoenaed the missing e-mails ten months ago. “The evidence is mounting that the website did not go through proper testing, including critical security testing, and that the Administration ignored repeated warnings from contractors about ongoing problems,” he said at the time. “The American people deserve to know why the administration spent significant taxpayer money on a product that is entirely dysfunctional and puts their personal information at risk.”



Senate Candidate Chris McDaniel Claims He Beat Thad Cochran By 25,000 Votes

Chris McDaniel: I Beat Thad Cochran By 25,000 Votes – Big Government


Six weeks after the primary runoff election, Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel is launching his formal legal challenge of the election results, saying the evidence is so conclusive that he will be calling for courts to recognize him as the true victor of the race rather than calling for a new election.

“Chris McDaniel clearly, clearly won the Republican vote in the runoff,” McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner said at a Monday press conference. “I say that very assuredly because that’s what the mathematics show. It’s not what I’m arguing. After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election. When you take those polling numbers and you go in and do the mathematical regressions, you can see that Chris McDaniel clearly won the runoff by 25,000 votes.”

“The short answer is we’re not asking for a new election,” Tyner continued. “We’re simply asking that the Republican Party recognize the person who won the runoff election.”

The campaign of incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), who was certified by the Mississippi Republican Party as having won the runoff by 7,667 votes on July 7, fired back, saying McDaniel had “made repeated and baseless allegations of fraud and misconduct” since the election.

“We look forward to holding the McDaniel campaign to the burden of proof that the law requires – and, we are dedicated to the defense of the votes of those Mississippians who voted on June 24 for Thad Cochran as their United States Senator, an election which has been as thoroughly reviewed and examined as any in modern Mississippi history,” said Mark Garriga, an attorney for Cochran.

The evidence, presented to the public in the form of affidavits that will be used in McDaniel’s forthcoming official challenge of election results, is hundreds of pages long and encompasses nearly every one of Mississippi’s 82 counties.

At the press conference, McDaniel announced he will be using such evidence to file a formal challenge of the runoff results with the state GOP executive committee. Ten days after he files the challenge with that body – which, given its extensive ties to the GOP establishment in the state, is expected to rule against the Tea Party-backed McDaniel or just simply ignore the challenge – McDaniel can take the challenge into state court.

“It’s been an interesting six weeks since the 24th. We’ve been very, very busy. We’ve covered the state as well as we could with hundreds of volunteers, but justice has no time table, and yet here we stand. They asked us to put up or shut up – well, here we are. Here we are with the evidence,” McDaniel said.

“We know that the conservative movement is passionate about this issue,” McDaniel said. “We know right now that the conservative movement is very angry about what’s occurred. We all witnessed what a segment of our party did leading up to the 24th. We saw despicable acts of race-baiting. We saw despicable allegations from those who are supposed to be leaders in our party. There is no place in the Republican Party for those that would race bait. There is no place in the Republican Party for racism of any kind, and that’s exactly what we saw on those evenings and mornings leading up to the 24th. That has to end. We watched it. We witnessed it. We saw the dirty money coming in from D.C., whether it was from Bloomberg or other Republican United States senators. We saw what they did here in Mississippi.”

McDaniel noted that the actions the GOP establishment took “moved more than 40,000 Democrats into the Republican primary, and in so doing mistakes were made.”

“Some of those weren’t even mistakes – some of it was very intentional,” McDaniel said. “What we’re going to show is a pattern of conduct on the part of a number of people that demonstrates a problem with this election. The evidence is clear.”

McDaniel said activists need to review the evidence dispassionately, looking at just the facts. “We feel that anger, and we feel that frustration, but that’s not what this challenge is about,” McDaniel said. “The reason I hire good lawyers is so I can walk away from it and ask their opinion objectively: What does the evidence show? We have to be dispassionate about the facts. But the facts – they’re on our side. The law is on our side. And these lawyers after several weeks of research will tell you just that.”

McDaniel’s team is specifically pressuring the Republican executive committee in the state to give the evidence a fair shake. “We look forward to our venue in front of the Republican executive committee – they’re colleagues of mine, some of which I’ve known for years,” McDaniel said. “This is an opportunity for our party to take the lead on honest, good and transparent government.”

Tyner, McDaniel’s attorney, said that McDaniel is not seeking a new election, that the evidence is so overwhelming that anyone reviewing it will come to the same conclusion: McDaniel won on June 24.

“Once the state executive committee has had an opportunity to go through the evidence that we have included in this challenge, then they will see that they have no choice but to recognize Chris McDaniel as the nominee of the Republican Party of the state of Mississippi for the United States Senate,” Tyner said, to a loud round of applause from the audience.



Governor Perry Claims Record Number Of Illegals From Syria, Pakistan And Afghanistan Being Caught At Border

Rick Perry: Record Number Of Illegals From Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan Being Caught At Border – Big Government

Texas Governor Rick Perry said a record number of illegal immigrants from Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border.


On Sunday’s State of the Union on CNN, Perry said the “historic record highs” of individuals from “countries that have substantial terrorist ties” threaten America’s national security.

Later on the program, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), the House Homeland Security Committee Chair, said Iranian terrorists have had plans to sneak across the border. He also said that others who want to do harm are seeking to exploit America’s porous border.

Perry also said that since 2008, 203,000 illegal immigrants have been put in Texas’ jails, and those illegal immigrants “have been responsible for 3,000 homicides and almost 8,000 sexual assaults.”

“I wish the President would respect that desire of Texans and the citizens of this country to secure the border,” Perry said. “That’s the real issue here—and one that all too often gets deflected by the conversation about unaccompanied minor children.”



Issa Subpoenas Obama Lackey Over Claims Staffers Are Doing Campaign Work With Taxpayer Money

GOP House Committee Chairman Subpoenas White House Political Chief Over Claims Obama Staffers Are Doing Campaign Work With Taxpayer Funds – Daily Mail

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chair Rep. Darrell Issa sent his latest subpoena to the Obama administration on Friday, demanding testimony from the director of a controversial White House office reportedly tasked with political work on taxpayers’ dime.

David Simas, the director of the White House Office of Political Strategy and Outreach, has refused to testify voluntarily but will be required to answer questions in a July 16 hearing on Capitol Hill.

President Barack Obama closed the White House Office of Political Affairs in 2011, just days before an Office of Special Counsel report warned that it risked ‘transforming from an official government office into a partisan political operation.’

But the president reopened the office six months ago under a new name as Democrats began to gear up for a contentious midterm election fight.

The New York Times reported then that the White House was ‘serious about defending Democratic control of the Senate and taking back the House from Republicans.’



‘White House officials,’ according to the Times, ‘said it makes more sense to have a political office during a congressional election year to focus attention on candidate needs, including fund-raising.’

Issa, a hard-charging California Republican who has pressed the administration on alleged IRS abuses, said Friday that the White House’s reboot of its Office of Political Affairs was an ‘effort to appease its political allies’ by ‘assist[ing] in partisan election efforts and fundraising.’

Former Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius Issa said, ‘were faulted by the Office of Special Counsel for inappropriately using their offices in violation of the Hatch Act.

That federal law prohibits most executive branch employees from engaging in political activity while on duty, or at any time in their workplaces. It also prohibits them from soliciting or receiving political contributions, according to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.

In 2012 Sebelius slipped a political message into a speech to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group. The Office of Special Counsel later accused her of violating the Hatch Act.

She later said she had made a ‘technical’ error, and pledged not to repeat it.

The initial move to shutter the White House’s political office was spearheaded by California Rep. Henry Waxman in 2007, when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives and Waxman chaired the committee now run by Issa.

At the time it was seen as a partisan move to prohibit the George W. Bush White House from using the president’s bully pulpit to affect the 2008 presidential election.


Waxman’s staffers interviewed 20 political appointees and pored over nearly 70,000 documents. They issued a report one month before Obama defeated Republican Mitt Romney, declaring that ‘American taxpayers should not pay the salaries of White House officials when they are engaged in helping members of the president’s political party.’

The Obama White House did not respond to a request for comment.

But newly minted White House Counsel W. Neil Eggleston wrote to Issa in June to insist that the new incarnation of the political office operates without violating the Hatch Act.

Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner, however, wrote in March that the Obama administration reopened the office without consulting ith her to determine if it was legal.

Lerner will testify in the June 16 hearing, along with Simas and Scott Coffina, a former Associate Counsel to the President during the Bush Administration.

In March, Issa asked the White House to provide copies of all its documents related to the 2014 reopening. To date, it has provided none.



Ukrainian Army Claims Significant Victory Against Pro-Russian Forces

Ukraine Claims Victory Against Rebels – Durango Herald


Ukrainian troops forced pro-Russian insurgents out of a key stronghold in the country’s embattled east on Saturday, a significant success that suggests the government may finally be making gains in a months-long battle against a spreading separatist insurgency.

As rebels fled from Slovyansk, vowing to regroup elsewhere and fight on, President Petro Poroshenko hailed the recapture of the city as “the start of a turning point” in a battle that has killed more than 400 people since April.

After a night of heavy fighting that saw heavy artillery fire from Ukraine’s troops, government soldiers were in full control of rebel headquarters in Slovyansk, a city of about 100,000 that has been a center of the fighting between Kiev’s troops and the pro-Russian insurgents.

Soldiers raised the Ukrainian flag over the city council building, while troops carried stockpiles of weapons out of the city’s administrative and police buildings, which have been under rebel control since early April.

“It’s not a total victory. But the purging of Slovyansk of these bands, made up of people armed to the teeth, has incredible symbolic importance,” Poroshenko said in a statement posted on his official website.

Artillery fire on rebel forces began late on Friday and lasted into the night. On Saturday, fighting could still be heard on the northern outskirts of the city.

Ukraine’s newly appointed Minister of Defense, Valery Heletey, was milling around with troops in the city center. He said three planes with food and other supplies will soon arrive in Slovyansk.

A spokesman for the National Security and Defense Council said earlier that mopping-up operations were continuing.

“Slovyansk is under siege. Now an operation is going on to neutralize small groups hiding in buildings where peaceful citizens are living,” Andriy Lysenko told journalists in Kiev.

Andrei Purgin of the separatist Donetsk People’s Republic told The Associated Press that rebels were evacuating, but claimed the army’s campaign had left the city “in ruins.”

The capture of Slovyansk represented the government’s biggest victory since it abandoned a shaky cease-fire this week and launched an offensive against the separatists. Until now, the Ukrainian army had often appeared feckless in the months-long campaign against the rebels. On Thursday, Poroshenko shook up his defense team, appointing Ukraine’s third defense minister since the former president was ousted in February.

It was not yet clear whether the latest advance has permanently crippled the rebels, many of whom are relocating to other cities.

In the city of Donetsk, streets were deserted on Saturday as local officials urged people to stay at home. They said a battle was ongoing near the Donetsk city airport, but did not provide details.

“Militants from Slovyansk and Kramatorsk have arrived in Donetsk,” said Maxim Rovinsky, spokesman for the city council.

Purgin claimed 150 fighters injured in Slovyansk were in Donetsk for treatment.

“More than a hundred militiamen have been killed in the last three days,” said Viktor, a 35-year-old Slovyansk native who had a shrapnel wound in his leg. “The mood is very bad. It seems that we’ve lost this war. And Russia isn’t in a hurry to help.”



Statist Disaster Update: Hundreds Of Thousands Of VA Electronic Disability Claims Go Unprocessed

Hundreds Of Thousands Of VA Electronic Disability Claims Not Processed – Nextgov

Hundreds of thousands of disability claims filed with the Department of Veterans Affairs’ eBenefits portal launched in February 2013 are incomplete and could start to expire this month, Nextgov has learned.


VA Undersecretary for Benefits Allison Hickey touted the new portal in June 2013 as simple as filing taxes online and a way to whittle down the claims backlog.

“Veterans can now file their claims online through eBenefits like they might do their taxes online,” she said, including the documentation needed for a fully developed claim in cooperation with Veterans Service Organizations, or VSOs, such as the American Legion or Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Gerald Manar, deputy director of the National Veterans Service at VFW, told Nextgov the Veterans Benefits Administration on June 26 briefed VSOs on problems with the eBenefits portal, including the fact that only 72,000 claims filed through eBenefits have been completed and approved since last June, with another 228,000 incomplete.

VA spokeswoman Meagan Lutz said since February 2013, just over 445,000 online applications have been initiated. Of those, approximately 70,000 compensation claims have been submitted and another 70,000 nonrating (add a dependent, etc.) have been submitted, leaving a total of 300,000 incomplete claims. Because a number of claims started are more than 365 days old, they have now expired, totaling an estimated 230,000 unprocessed claims.

Manar said he still is trying to understand why so many vets did not complete their online claims and whether they opted to file a paper claim. Lutz said an important element of the electronic claim submission process is the ability for veterans to start a claim online with limited information to hold a date of claim, while simultaneously providing 365 days to collect data, treatment records and other related information.

Lutz said a veteran simply hits “save” and any information provided is saved in temporary tables. During that 365-day period, a veteran may add additional data or upload documents associated with that specific claim. At any point during that timeframe, a veteran can hit the “submit” button and a claim will be automatically established within the Veterans Benefits Management System, designed to entirely automate claims processing by next year, and documents will be uploaded to the veteran’s e-folder.

Claims submitted in eBenefits may be incomplete because “many users can potentially start a claim as part of their exploration of the system… The VA eBenefits team has no way of actually knowing which claims that might be started within eBenefits are valid and or have been abandoned for any number of reasons

After 365 days, Lutz said, the data is made inaccessible and the initiated claim date is removed from the system. The system was designed to provide the veteran as much flexibility as possible in preserving that start date as well as support the Fully Developed Claim initiative, which gives the veteran the opportunity to accrue additional benefits for providing all the data needed to rate the claim.

Lutz said if vets try to submit electronically hundreds of documents, such as PDFs of medical records, “that volume of documents makes electronic submission very difficult, and we always recommend that they work with a Veterans Service Organization, as the VSOs have the expertise to ensure that the right information is gathered and submitted.”

VSOs have little visibility into the claims filed to date through the eBenefits portal because of design problems with the information technology system set up, the Stakeholder Enterprise Portal, Manar said. That portal only allows for broad searches for claims at the state and the VBA regional office level, and limits any search to 1,000 claims. If the search results in more than 1,000 records, SEP returns a message that the system is not available, rather than the search went over the 1,000 file limit, Manar said.

SEP is also not set up to notify VSOs when a claim is filed through eBenefits, nor does it provide alerts when claims are due to expire, Manar said and urged VA to fix SEP to provide such notifications.

SEP, Manar said, was not “well thought-out” when fielded and “the whole system was not ready for prime time.”

Lutz said VA SEP design team is working as quickly as possible to help VSOs to review more than 1,000 files in SEP without getting an incorrect error message.

She said VA plans a new release of SEP this month to VSOs, which will allow VSOs to submit claims directly to VBMS for veterans who hold power of attorney. This update would eliminate the need for the veteran to submit from the eBenefits portal.

“This, we believe, will be a major milestone in the VSO community that will accelerate acceptance of the electronic process,” Lutz said.



Rep. Frank Lucas Is A Robot Body Double Claims ‘Human’ Primary Challenger Timothy Ray Murray

Oklahoma Congressman Is A Robot Body Double, Claims ‘Human’ Challenger – Washington Post


…………………………….Timothy Ray Murray, human

The robot takeover has begun, at least according to Timothy Ray Murray, who lost the election for Oklahoma’s 3rd district (obtaining just 5.2 percent of the vote) to incumbent Frank Lucas (R). Murray is now planning to challenge the election results, on the grounds that his opponent has been replaced by a robot body double.

Murray’s Web site notes that “The election for U.S. House for Oklahoma’s 3rd District will be contested by the Candidate, Timothy Ray Murray. I will be stating that his votes are switched with Rep. Lucas votes, because it is widely known Rep. Frank D. Lucas is no longer alive and has been displayed by a look alike. Rep. Lucas’ look alike was depicted as sentenced on a white stage in southern Ukraine on or about Jan. 11, 2011.”

(Lucas told news channel KFOR that he had never in fact been to Ukraine. He also observed: “Many things have been said about me, said to me during course of my campaigns. This is the first time I’ve ever been accused of being a body double or a robot.”)

Murray’s Web site goes on to reassure us that: “I, Timothy Ray Murray, am a human, born in Oklahoma, and obtained and continue to fully meet the requirements to serve as U.S. Representative when honored to so. I will never use a look alike…” This makes me wonder. “I’m definitely a human,” like “I am very suave and good at talking to people,” is the sort of statement that seems untrue the instant you say it.



Obama-Loving Union Claims Obamacare Will Slash Worker Wages By Up To $5 An Hour, Reduce Hours

300,000-Member Union Drops Bombshell Obamacare Report – Big Government

The 300,000-member union that was the first to endorse then-Senator Barack Obama has released a devastating Obamacare report that says Obama’s controversial healthcare program will slash worker wages by up to $5 an hour, reduce worker hours, and exacerbate income inequality.


The report by Unite Here – a North American labor union that represents workers in the hotel, gaming, food service, manufacturing, textile, distribution, laundry, and airport industries – is titled: “The Irony of ObamaCare: Making Inequality Worse.”

“Ironically, the Administration’s own signature healthcare victory poses one of the most immediate challenges to redressing inequality,” states the 12-page report. “We take seriously the promise that ‘if you like your health plan, you can keep it. Period.’ UNITE HERE members like their health plans.”

The report features first-person testimonials and photos of union members describing how Obamacare is personally hurting them and their families – the same kinds of stories that Majority Senator Harry Reid said are “all untrue” and that progressive New York Times columnist Paul Krugman mocked as”nonexistent” in his piece “Health Care Horror Hooey.”

Arturo Marquez, a single father with two children who works as a cook, explains how Obamacare is hurting him:

“I’m a single dad and need every penny for my kids. The best deal Obamacare could offer me would take $1,908 more than our union plan. That’s like a dollar an hour pay cut. If I get really sick and wind up in the hospital, they can charge me $3,700 more out of pocket. I can’t imagine taking care of my son and daughter while taking a $2.70 an hour pay cut,” says Marquez.

Another union member, housekeeper Angela Portillo explained how Obamacare is hurting she and her husband:

“Housekeeping is a tough job – many of us suffer serious injuries doing this work. And Obamacare would cause my husband and I even more pain. The Obamacare website says we would have to pay $8,057.04 a year more to keep the great insurance we have now. That’s a $3.87 per hour pay cut. We work hard for our insurance. Why should we have to take a cut in pay for it?” says Portillo.

Food service worker Earl Baskerville feels the same way, according to the report:

“The health care crisis hit our workplace hard. We tried three different plans in a three year contract. When the for-profit insurance companies were going through the roof, we switched our union’s plan to keep good benefits. But Obamacare will give government money to those plans and not ours. Obamacare would cost me $4,855.20 a year more, or a $2.33 an hour pay cut. That’s not right. We just want to be treated like everyone else,” says Baskerville.

Last week, Unite Here Donald Taylor discussed the possibility of a union worker strike over Obamacare and said, “Even though the president and Congress promised we could keep our health plan, the reality is, unless the law is fixed, that won’t be true.”

The Unite Here report further exacerbates Democrats’ already daunting electoral hurdles heading into the midterm elections, now less than eight months away.

Union members are not alone in opposing Obamacare. According to the latest RealClearPolitics average of polls, just 38% of Americans now support Obamacare.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story