Not a Smidgen? Lois Lerner Again Refuses to Answer Questions Regarding Obama IRS’s Targeting of the Tea Party

Not a Smidgen? Lois Lerner Again Refuses to Answer Questions Regarding Obama IRS’s Targeting of the Tea Party

Ex-Obama IRS official in charge of tax-exempt organizations, Lois Lerner, again refused to answer questions regarding the Obama IRS’s illegal targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups. For the second time, Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, refusing to answer key questions from Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee. (watch video below)

*NOTE: THIS STORY HAS BEEN UPDATED TO INCLUDE FULL TEXT OF QUESTIONS LOIS LERNER REFUSED TO ANSWER

Issa had said on FOX News Sunday that Lerner’s attorney, William Taylor, informed him she would testify, however Lerner’s attorney disputed that claim, even though emails indicate she was at first willing to testify. The House Oversight Committee had previously voted that Lerner had waived her Fifth Amendment rights when she initially gave a brief testimony declaring her innocence, immediately prior to pleading the Fifth Amendment in her prior appearance before the committee last year.

After every question asked by Issa about the Obama IRS targeting the Tea Party, along with other groups considered political opponents of Obama, Lerner repeatedly responded, “On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question.”

At the beginning of today’s hearing, Issa said the committee may consider whether to hold Lerner in contempt. After Lerner refused to answer questions, Issa said that contempt “has to be considered.”

Lerner apologized for the Obama IRS’s “inappropriate” targeting of Tea Party groups in May of last year, admitting during a speech in which she answered a planted question, that Obama IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations because they had the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status.

At first, the Obama regime blamed the IRS targeting of the Tea Party on “low-level” Cincinnati employees, however, in June of 2013, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released transcripts of interviews with employees from Cincinnati indicating that their orders had came directly from Washington.”

On Super Bowl Sunday, Obama was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly, saying unequivocally that there was, “not even a smidgen” of corruption at the IRS, even though the so-called investigation was still supposedly underway.

In February of last year, Obama referred to his regime as having ‘the most transparent administration in history.” If there is not a “smidgen” of corruption, and if this is “the most transparent administration in history,” and if Lois Lerner has done nothing wrong, then why is she not revealing what she knows?

Please see full text of the questions Rep. Issa asked Lois Lerner:

Rep. Darrell Issa: Ms. Lerner, put up slide 1 please, on October 10th, in October 2010, you told a Duke University group, and I quote,

“The Supreme Court dealt a huge blow, overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn’t give directly to political campaigns. And everyone is up in arms because they don’t like it. The Federal Election Commission can’t do anything about it.”

– Lois Lerner, IRS EO Director, October 19, 2010

Ms. Lerner, what exactly does ‘wanted to fix the problem caused by Citizen United’? What exactly does that mean? Would you please turn the mic on?

Lois Lerner: My counsel has advised me that I have not waived my constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment and on his advice, I will decline to answer any question on the subject matter of this hearing.

Issa: So, you’re not going to tell us who wanted to fix the problem caused by Citizen United?

Lerner: On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.

Issa: Ms. Lerner, in February 2011, you emailed your colleagues in the IRS the following:

“Tea Party matter very dangerous. The could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether Citizen’s United overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules. Counsel and Judy Kindell need to be on this one please….Cincy should probably NOT have these cases – Holly please see exactly what they have, please.

Issa: “What did you mean by Cincy should not have these cases?”

Lerner: On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.

Issa: Ms. Lerner, why would you say Tea Party cases were very dangerous?

Lerner: On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.

Issa: In September 2010, you emailed your subordinates about initiating a ‘c4’ project and wrote ‘We need to be cautious so there isn’t a, per se, political project.” Why were you worried about this being perceived as a political project?

Lerner: On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.

Issa: Mike Seecho, manager of EO Technical in Washington, testified that you ordered Tea Party cases to undergo a multi-tier review. He testified, and I quote, “She sent me emails saying that when these cases need to go through multi-tier review, and they will eventually have to go to Ms. Kindell and the chief counsel’s office.” Why did you order Tea Party cases to undergo a multi-tier review?

Lerner: On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.

Issa: Ms. Lerner, in June 2011, you requested that Holly Pause obtain a copy of the tax exempt application filed by Crossroads GPS so that your senior technical advisor, Judy Kindell, can review it and summarize the issues for you. Ms. Lerner, why did you want to personally order that they pull Crossroads GPS, Karl Rove’s organization’s, application.

Lerner: On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.

Issa: Ms. Lerner, in June 2012, you were part of an email exchange that appeared to be about writing new regulations on political speech for 501c4 groups and, in parenthesis, your quote ‘off plan’ in 2013. Ms. Lerner, what does ‘off plan’ mean?

Lerner: On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.

Issa: Ms. Lerner, in February of 2014, President Obama stated that there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS targeting. Ms. Lerner, do you believe that there is not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS targeting of conservatives?

Lerner: On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.

Issa: Ms. Lerner, on Saturday, our committee’s general counsel sent an email to your attorney saying, “I understand that Ms. Lerner is willing to testify and she is requesting a one week delay in talking to chairman wanted to make sure that was right. Your lawyer in response to that question gave a one word email response. “Yes.” Are you still seeking a one week delay in order to testify?

Lerner: On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.

Issa: Ladies and gentlemen, seeking the truth is the obligation of this committee. I can see no point in going further. I have no expectation Ms. Lerner will cooperate with this committee and therefore we adjourn.

Oh No, Racism Causes Obesity In Black Women

Oh No, Racism Causes Obesity In Black Women

Racism is an ugly thing but it is equally unattractive when it is used as an excuse. Racism causes black students to underachieve because the curriculum is culturally biased. The criminal justice system is racist because too many black men are convicted of crimes they committed. Now, racism is being blamed for making black women fat.

A study by the Slone Epidemiology Centre at Boston University claims to have found a relationship between racism and obesity. The research was based on the Black Women’s Health Study, which has followed 59,000 African-American women since 1995. What they have discovered is that black women who reported high incidences of racism were also likely to struggle with weight. Women who reported more lifetime racism were also at increased risk of obesity the study shows.

‘Experiences of racism may explain in part the high prevalence of obesity among African American women,’ said Yvette Cozier, the study’s lead researcher.

This is junk science at its finest. It finds a causal relationship between two things without showing how they are connected. Many black women are overweight, many black women reported instances of racisms, and therefore racism causes black women to be fat.

You can apply that formula to virtually anything, but it doesn’t make it a scientific fact. Many Southerners are overweight, many Southerners are NASCAR fans, and therefore NASCAR causes Southerners to be fat.

Make no mistake about it: obesity is caused by lifestyle and diet. This is something the study seems to ignore. It states that many of these black victims of racist obesity became overweight during their child-rearing years. Women gain weight when they are carrying a child. If they don’t work the weight off after birth they get fat. If they have multiple children and don’t work the weight off, they get fatter. The biology of childbirth is not racism.

Also, the study chooses to ignore that fact the obesity is on the rise in America across all racial lines. White people are getting larger. Latinos are increasing in size. Everyone is getting bigger, but only black women’s obesity is attributed to racism?

And what of black men? They are also getting fatter and presumably experience racism as much, if not more, than black women.

Even the study’s claim of racism is suspect. It doesn’t actually prove that any of the women experienced racism, just that they reported having experienced it. It asked participants if they had ever received poor service at a restaurant or been treated unfairly in their job or by the police. Who hasn’t had crappy service at a restaurant, had an asshole for a boss, or been treated with less than respect by the cops?

The study should have been called: People that perceive everyday life as racism tend to be chunky.

I could write all day about the flaws in this study, but since it is junk science I think I should blow it out of the water using more junk science:

Back in the 90’s when Al Sharpton was busy pushing the Tawana Brawley hoax, he was decidedly overweight. So much so, that he had to wear over-sized jogging suits as they were the only things he could comfortably fit into. Since that time, Sharpton has slimmed down considerably. The problem is, according to the good reverend, racism is more of a problem now that its ever been. If racism caused obesity, Al Sharpton should be Jabba The Hut with a pompadour. Therefore, racism does not cause obesity.

Obama Bans Critics of Ukraine Coup From Entering U.S.

Obama Bans Critics of Ukraine Coup From Entering U.S.

Executive order suspends entry rights of anyone who “undermines” Ukrainian “democracy”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 6, 2014

Under the sweeping language of President Barack Obama’s executive order issued today, critics of the US-backed coup in Ukraine could find themselves being banned from entering the United States.

The executive order suspends “entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons” who fulfil the following criteria;

“[A]ny person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

(i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:

(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine.

As CNS News’ Craig Bannister notes, this would effectively ban entry for anyone deemed to be a ‘Russian sympathizer’, or anyone who has expressed a view similar to Moscow, which was that the Kiev uprising was a violent coup d’état and not a democratic uprising, since that could easily be characterized as an indirect action or policy which undermines Ukraine’s post-coup government.

By extrapolation, this would mean anyone who has drawn attention to the mountain of evidence that the Kiev protest groups were funded by the U.S. State Department in concert with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US government-backed National Endowment for Democracy.

It would also ensnare anyone who has highlighted the leaked phone call in which US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Victoria Nuland was caught red handed plotting with top diplomat Geoffrey Pyatt to pick Ukraine’s future puppet leaders. Nuland specifically approved Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who later became Prime Minister after the coup.

The executive order could also target critics of the fact that both Nuland and John McCain met with the leader of the neo-nazi affiliated Svoboda Party before the election, an organization that was subsequently handed three top positions within the newly formed Ukrainian government despite its clear links to fascism and anti-Semitism.

The irony of Washington targeting anyone who took actions to “undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine” is painful given that the Kiev revolt led directly to the overthrow of a democratically elected government.

The broad language of the executive order is also a chilling move towards discriminating against people for their political opinions. Obama is seemingly intent on mirroring the United Kingdom, where people like radio host Michael Savage are banned from entering the country and labeled “extremists” for daring to dissent from political correctness.

Chicago’s credit rating takes a beating, Moody’s downgrades to just above junk

Chicago’s credit rating takes a beating, Moody’s downgrades to just above junk

Moody’s Investor Services has downgraded Chicago’s credit rating to the third-lowest level above “non-investment grade” based on pension liabilities, meaning the third-largest US municipality has the second-lowest credit score among major cities.

The agency announced Tuesday it was dropping Chicago’s rating on around $8 billion in debt by one level – from A3 to Baa1. The move follows a three-step downgrade for the city in July.

Dropping Chicago’s rating to three levels above junk-bond status “reflects the city’s massive and growing unfunded pension liabilities, which threaten the city’s fiscal solvency,” Moody’s analyst Matthew Butler said in a report on Tuesday. “The size of Chicago’s unfunded pension liabilities makes it an extreme outlier.”

Chicago’s pension debt is eight times more than its operating revenue, BusinessWeek reported. The city’s debt load tripled from 2002 to 2012.

Moody’s warned that the city’s outlook remains negative, meaning its rating could fall further if the pension debt is not addressed through revenue boosts and other budgetary modifications.

Chicago’s lowered rating means the city will pay a higher interest rate when it issues $405 million in general obligation bonds next week, according to Bloomberg.

“While we disagree with the action taken today by Moody’s, we do agree that the city’s pension challenges will have a direct impact on its long-term financial stability without reform,” Lois Scott, Chicago’s top financial officer, said in a statement.

In an October budget address, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel urged the Illinois Legislature to restructure the city’s pension funds.

“We will not preside over a city in which garbage is not picked up, graffiti is not removed, and libraries and other vital services must be shut down,” Emanuel said, adding that residents and businesses will leave the city if the state legislative body doesn’t act.

The city’s population went down by around seven percent from 2000 to 2010, according to US Census data. Meanwhile, New York and Los Angeles – the first- and second-largest US cities – saw at least a two percent population jump in that time.

Both New York and Los Angeles are rated Aa2 by Moody’s, the third-highest overall ranking and five levels above Chicago.

Illinois has the lowest Moody’s rating – A3 – of any US state, though it is still one ranking above Chicago.

Among major US cities, only Detroit has a worse Moody’s rating than Chicago.

Despite Moody’s downgrade of the Windy City, other credit rating agencies have not been as harsh. Standard & Poor’s recently reaffirmed Chicago’s A+ rating, which is three levels above Moody’s assessment.

Chicago has “solid credit quality, with support from a strong local economy,” S&P analysts wrote last week.

Fitch Ratings dropped Chicago to A- in November, citing pension debt. That rating equals one level higher than Moody’s ranking of Chicago.

Obama’s Favorite Union Just Raised The White Flag Of Surrender.​..

Obama's Favorite Union Just Raised The White Flag Of Surrender.​..

When the UAW (United Automobile Workers) union failed miserably in Chattanooga and was not able to unionize the Volkswagen plant, even with a staked deck, it started a chain reaction; and the next domino has fallen. The news that the AFL-CIO has decided to keep its money and not even try to save three Southern Democrat Senators comes as no real shock.

The powerful union reviewed the polls and the political climate in North Carolina, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and decided that backing the Democrats in these states would be throwing good money after bad. The decision left Democratic Senators Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, and Kay Hagan in North Carolina on their own, with little major union help as they try to hold on to their seats in a region that is increasingly hostile to Democrats (especially those who are backed by unions.)

Despite an AFL-CIO spokesman’s attempt to put the best face on the news, his words ring hollow. He said, “Those states are states where we have relatively low union density. I think you’ll see in other battleground Senate states like Michigan, Alaska, [and] Iowa a really vigorous union program.”

The numbers of union workers in the conservative right-to-work South show that while union membership nationwide is at roughly 11.3% of the workforce, in the three states, the AFL-CIO is conceding it stands at just 5 percent.

According to available records, the three Democrats have received only minimal financial support from labor unions. Pryor has received just $186,000; Landrieu has gotten $166,000; and Hagan’s war chest includes just $74,000. Even in small media markets, this is pocket change.

Grasping at straws, the president of Arkansas’s AFL-CIO offered nothing more than a numbers trick when he summed up Mark Pryor’s chances for union volunteers to work for his re-election: “I think if you go back and look at some of the numbers, how close the races are, we say we have 32,000 members but you could say it’s 64,000 because of spouses. I think we can still make an impact, especially doing ground work.”

Taking back America must start with a series of firm initial steps. Forcing Big Labor to run up a white flag over Dixie is an excellent beginning.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-favorite-union-just-raised-white-flag-surrender/#VAEJcCwx2zBzySbI.99

Obama Promises Illegals: ObamaCare Sign-Up Info Can’t Be Used to Deport You

In the 2009 State of the Union address, Rep. Joe Wilson famously shouted “You Lie!” at Barack Obama when the president claimed that ObamaCare would not cover illegal aliens.

We have seen example after example ever since that illegals are already receiving coverage under the ACA, from HHS-funded coverage for illegal alien “migrants”, to states like California and Oregon, which are openly bringing illegals into ObamaCare, to the new DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson last week publicized an open letter to families with illegal-alien relatives promising that no one would be deported for seeking Obamacare services.

Now the president himself has proven Joe Wilson was right by going on Spanish-language TV network Univision and made an explicit pledge that his administration will not use Obamacare sign up data to deport illegal aliens.

Cancer Patient Learns After Surgery He’s Not Covered Under Obamacare

(Free Beacon) – A New York man battling cancer was notified after his surgery that his Obamacare insurance does not cover his doctors’ bills and is now struggling to pay them.

Fred Rosamilia and his wife Lynne enrolled in the most expensive Horizon plan in the Obamacare system because they wanted their copays to be low. They pay $800 a month for gold Horizon BlueCross BlueShield plan. It was chosen specifically with Fred’s cancer doctors in mind.

The Rosamilia’s told Fred’s doctors that they had enrolled in the new plan. They were met with positive reactions from the doctors. The doctors told them that it was a great plan and that they accepted it.

After his surgery, the Rosamilia’s received their bills and were disappointed to find that their insurance company had only covered lower costing, high co-pay procedures.

Lynne then overheard the nurses saying that they would not be able to treat Fred for the next 60 days, now leaving them with huge medical bills.

Horizon eventually allowed the Rosamilia’s to switch to the silver insurance plan, but they still must pay the 60 days worth of medical bills.

The family is disheartened and worried about how they will pay the bills.
- See more at: http://m.teaparty.org/cancer-patient-learns-surgery-hes-covered-obamacare-36274/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=social#sthash.AYfm1dwA.dpuf