Sharpton’s debt issues resurface amid his political rise

Capture

The Rev. Al Sharpton has made a remarkable rise to national prominence, from community organizer to President Obama’s consultant, amid a long and lesser-known history of debt and tax obligations totaling millions of dollars.

Sharpton and his for-profit businesses owe more than $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens, according to The New York Times.

And his influential nonprofit group, National Action Network, the Times said, appears to be in a similar situation, saddled with years of unpaid travel and hotel expenses while apparently staying afloat by not paying federal payroll taxes for employees.

The newspaper also suggested that Sharpton is not paying enough or fast enough to reduce his obligation to the state of New York, a situation he sharply refuted Tuesday.

The 60-year-old civil rights leader told FoxNews.com that he has an agreement with the government to repay his personal and business-related taxes and that his payments are on time.

“We have a signed agreement,” he said. “And what is in the agreement has been kept. We’ve been up to date. This is the most bogus story in the world.”

He also made clear that the roughly $1 million raised at New York event to celebrate his 60th birthday, on which The Times reported, will go toward repaying his debts.

Sharpton also argued that his work ethic and determination are above reproach but acknowledged his shortcomings as an administrator.

To be sure, Sharpton has come a long way since his days as a robust preacher and activist working the streets of Brooklyn in a jogging suit.

The low point in his career likely came in the late 1980s when he accused a New York prosecutor of being part of a group of white men that abducted and raped teenager Tawana Brawley, an allegation that proved to be false.

The much slimmer and well-tailored Sharpton now has a show on MSNBC. He appeared on the streets of Ferguson, Mo., to appeal for justice and calm in the aftermath of a white police officer in August fatally shooting unarmed black teen Michael Brown.

More recently, Sharpton was at the White House when Obama announced that Loretta E. Lynch, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, who is black, would be his nominee to be the next U.S. attorney general.

And he has served as an informal adviser to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio.

“I have the support of the black community,” said Sharpton, who was on standby to fly back to Missouri should a grand jury announce whether to indict the officer in the shooting. “President Obama and (New York Gov. Andrew) Cuomo aren’t doing me a favor.”

He said that his rise to prominence has also increased his pay and that he is negotiating a deal with government officials to clear his debt by offering them 50 cents on the dollar.

“I’ll write a check tonight,” Sharpton said.

The Time also reported that Sharpton, a Democrat and former mayoral and Senate candidate, also had a history of delinquent rent payments to his friend, Bishop E. Bernard Jordan.

Sharpton asked why he would be responsible for back payments at the Jordan’s Brooklyn rental home in 2006 when he had separated two years earlier from his wife, who remained in the home while he lived in a Manhattan apartment.

“What is new is this story?” Sharpton asked.

New York Times caught contradicting self on Benghazi

Capture

Times attempts to stick with controlled narrative, whatever the cost

A defining, e-book length New York Times article on the Benghazi attack is filled with misleading information, including details negated by the U.S. government, Benghazi victims and numerous other previous news reports, a just-released book exposes.

The Dec. 28, 2013, New York Times piece by David D. Kirkpatrick was cited by White House officials and Hillary Clinton as confirming central aspects of the Obama administration’s claims about the Benghazi attack.

However, in his new book, “The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary don’t want you to know,” reporter, radio host and New York Times bestselling author Aaron Klein demonstrates Kirkpatrick’s piece is contradicted not only by the State Department and Benghazi witnesses but by Kirkpatrick’s own previous reporting.

In her memoir “Hard Choices,” Clinton relies on Kirkpatrick’s article, “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi,” to claim an obscure anti-Muhammad video was “indeed a factor” in what happened in Benghazi.

“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she continues. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”

The scandal may have been covered up, but the truth is revealed in “The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don’t Want You to Know.” Order it now at the WND Superstore!

Indeed, in his piece, Kirkpatrick contends that “contrary to claims by some members of Congress,” the Benghazi attack “was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

The Times claimed “there is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers.”

Another Times claim is that there is “no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.”

Kirkpatrick seeks to prove the Benghazi attack was largely not premeditated, although the article allows that some aspects of it were loosely planned the day of the attack.

In “The REAL Benghazi Story,” Klein dismantles Kirkpatrick’s reporting.

Times contradicted by U.S. government

The Times’ contends that al-Qaida or international jihadi organizations played no role in the assault, a claim that clearly seeks to bolster the Obama administration’s talking points that infamously scrubbed Islamic terrorism as a motivating factor in the attacks.

Kirkpatrick asserts “Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests.”

Klein finds the U.S. government may take issue with Kirkpatrick’s claim.

One month before the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, a Library of Congress report detailed al-Qaida established a major base of operations in Libya in the aftermath of the U.S.-NATO campaign that deposed Muammar Gadhafi and his secular regime, writes Klein.

The report warned al-Qaida and affiliated organizations were establishing terrorist training camps and pushing Taliban-style Islamic law in Libya while the new, Western-backed Libyan government incorporated jihadists into its militias.

The document said scores of Islamic extremists were freed from Libyan prison after the U.S.-supported revolution in Libya.

Times reporter contradicts self repeatedly

Embarrassingly for Kirkpatrick, the claim of no al-Qaida infiltration in Benghazi is contradicted by a Times report from Benghazi to which Kirkpatrick contributed, Klein found.

An Oct. 29, 2012, New York Times article titled “Libya Warnings Were Plentiful, but Unspecific” reported “Al-Qaeda-leaning” Islamic extremists were establishing training camps in the mountains near Benghazi.

The article was by compiled by reporters Michael R. Gordon, Eric Schmidt and Michael S. Schmidt, with contributing reporting from Kirkpatrick in Benghazi.

The 2012 article states: “In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were ‘Al Qaeda-leaning,’ according to American and European officials.”

Continued the Times article:

Small-scale camps grew out of training areas created last year by militias fighting Libyan government security forces. After the government fell, these compounds continued to churn out fighters trained in marksmanship and explosives, American officials said.

Ansar al-Shariah, a local militant group some of whose members had ties to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, a local Qaeda affiliate, operated a militant training camp whose location was well known to Benghazi residents. On the Friday after the attack, demonstrators overran it.

American intelligence agencies had provided the administration with reports for much of the past year warning that the Libyan government was weakening and had little control over the militias, including Ansar al-Shariah.

Klein writes that things only get worse for Kirkpatrick.

In his “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi” article, the Times reporter claims the attacks were largely not premeditated, although, again, he does allow that some parts of it were loosely planned that day.

“Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started,” reported Kirkpatrick. “The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack.”

The journalist wrote: “Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.”

Both of Kirkpatrick’s major contentions – that al-Qaida was not involved and that the attack was largely not premeditated – are contradicted by a Kirkpatrick piece Sept. 12, 2012, titled “Libya Attack Brings Challenges for U.S.”

“That’s right,” relates Klein. “Kirkpatrick is so committed to his revisionist narrative he is willing to basically repudiate his own reporting without batting an eyebrow.”

In the Sept. 12, 2012 article, Kirkpatrick and co-author Steven Lee Myers reported: “Islamist militants armed with antiaircraft weapons and rocket-propelled grenades stormed a lightly defended United States diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.” The two reported “the assailants seemed organized, well trained and heavily armed, and they appeared to have at least some level of advance planning.”

Further contrasting with Kirkpatrick’s later piece, the Kirkpatrick of Sept. 12, 2012, quoted Col. Wolfgang Pusztai, Austria’s defense attaché to Libya, as saying he believed the attack “was ‘deliberately planned and executed’ by about a core group of 30 to 40 assailants who were ‘well trained and organized.’”

The same Sept. 12 Kirkpatrick piece also states that the “assault was led by a brigade of Islamist fighters known as Ansar al-Sharia, or the Supporters of Islamic Law. Brigade members emphasized at the time that they were not acting alone.” Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaida-linked group.

The Kirkpatrick of 2012 continued: “On Wednesday, perhaps apprehensive over Mr. Stevens’s death, the brigade said in a statement that its supporters ‘were not officially involved or were not ordered to be involved’ in the attack.

“At the same time, the brigade praised those who protested as ‘the best of the best’ of the Libyan people and supported their response to the video ‘in the strongest possible terms.’”

Times vs. State Department, Benghazi witnesses

More al-Qaida and organized extremist connections to the Benghazi attack were reported by the Daily Beast, which confirmed an October 2012 Wall Street Journal report that fighters affiliated with the Egypt-based, al-Qaida-linked Jamal Network participated in the Benghazi attack.

Later on, the 88-page Senate report on the Benghazi attacks released Jan. 2-14 would confirm Jamal’s involvement.

Klein found Kirkpatrick’s claim the attacks were mostly not premeditated doesn’t fit with the State ARB investigation into Benghazi, either.

The ARB described a well-orchestrated attack by militants who apparently had specific knowledge of the compound. The State Department investigation focused on “men armed with AK rifles” who “started to destroy the living room contents and then approached the safe area gate and started banging on it.”

In another detail bespeaking a plan, Klein writes, the ARB states the intruders smoked up Villa C, likely to make breathing so difficult that anyone inside the safe room where Stevens was holed up would need to come out.

Continued Klein: “It further may be difficult for keen observers to swallow the Times’ claim of unplanned looters in light of events that demonstrated the attackers knew the location of the nearby CIA Annex, or that they set up checkpoints, as they did, to ensure against the escape by Americans inside the Special Mission.”

Fox News reported the late Florida Rep. Bill Young said he spoke for 90 minutes with David Ubben, one of the security agents severely injured in the attack. Young said the agent revealed to him the intruders knew the exact location of Stevens’ safe room.

“He (Ubben) emphasized the fact that it was a very, very military type of operation [in that] they had knowledge of almost everything in the compound,” stated Young. “They knew where the gasoline was, they knew where the generators were, they knew where the safe room was, they knew more than they should have about that compound.”

Muhammad film?

Klein dismantles Kirkpatrick’s claim, repeated by Clinton, that the Benghazi attack was motivated by an anti-Muhammad film.

The storyline doesn’t jibe with an independent investigation that reportedly found no mention of the film on social media in Libya in the three days leading up to the attack.

A review of more than 4,000 postings by the leading social media monitoring firm, Agincourt Solutions, found that the first reference to the film was not detected on social media until the day after the attack.

The Times claim of popular protests against the Muhammad film doesn’t hold up to logic, adds Klein.

The U.S. special mission was not a permanent facility, nor was its existence widely known by the public in Libya. Indeed, The State Department’s ARB report on the Benghazi attack itself documented the facility was set up secretively and without the knowledge of the new Libyan government.

Kirkpatrick may not have realized, writes Klein, but he undermined his own claims about the Muhammad film later in the article, where he may have inadvertently alluded to some of the real motivation for the attackers.

Kirkpatrick’s article seeks to link the Benghazi attack to protests planned outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Reads the Times piece: “[O]n Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.”

However, the Cairo protest on Sept. 11 was announced days in advance as part of a movement to free the so-called “blind sheik,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, held in the U.S. for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

The State Department’s ARB report described a group acting to free Rahman was involved in previous attacks against diplomatic facilities in Benghazi. Kirkpatrick fails to report the anti-U.S. protest movement outside the Cairo embassy was a long-term project about freeing Rahman.

On the day of the Sept. 11, 2012, protests in Cairo, CNN’s Nic Robertson interviewed the son of Rahman, who described the protest as being about freeing his father. No Muhammad film was mentioned. A big banner calling for Rahman’s release could be seen as Robertson walked to the embassy protests.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/new-york-times-caught-contradicting-self-on-benghazi/#5JUKoH3S33zaHWrQ.99

THE PLAN TO KILL THE INTERNET UNCOVERED

THE PLAN TO KILL THE INTERNET UNCOVERED

10 ways web freedom is being butchered worldwide

The Plan to Kill the Internet Uncovered
by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON & ALEX JONES | MAY 20, 2014

The Internet has emerged as the most empowering tool of individual freedom since the Gutenberg’s press, affording billions of people worldwide not only the tool of instant communication, but access to a wealth of liberating information, freedom from the chains of received consensus, and the opportunity to become their own media platform.

This represents an ever increasing threat to the status quo of the elite, which is why the establishment is working feverishly to dismantle the freedom granted by the world wide web in its current form.

1) The Death of Net Neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently gave the green light for large Internet Service Providers to create a two-tier Internet system which would allow large corporations to buy up dedicated faster bandwidth, ending net neutrality and potentially leaving smaller websites in the dust.

If passed this will allow the “televization” of the Internet, resulting in large companies forming monopolies and restricting consumer choice.

“[S]maller companies that can’t afford to pay for faster delivery would likely face additional obstacles against bigger rivals. And consumers could see a trickle-down effect of higher prices as Web sites try to pass along new costs of doing business with Internet service providers,”reports the Washington Post.

For almost a decade, we have warned of plans to create an ‘Internet 2′ under which the old Internet would be left to crumble and die, eviscerating the world wide web as a tool of free speech that allows independent voices to be heard amongst the cacophony of corporate and statist propaganda.

2) Intelligence Agencies are Manipulating the Internet With Deliberate Disinformation

Documents recently released by whistleblower Edward Snowden confirm that western intelligence agencies are deliberately flooding the web with disinformation in order to, “inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets.”

These techniques are intended to “control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse,” which has the effect of, “compromising the integrity of the internet itself,” according to journalist Glenn Greenwald.

3) Governments are Paying Trolls to Sway Public Opinion

In 2010, Canada’s CTV News reported on how federal authorities were paying companies to “correct misinformation” on web forums.

The Turkish, Israeli and Chinese governments along with a host of others have also implemented similar programs, while the U.S. Air Force hired data security firm HBGary to create large numbers of fake social media profiles that could be used to spread propaganda while countering anti-U.S. rhetoric online. Raw Story reported that the obvious function of the program was to “manipulate public opinion on key information, such as news reports,” thereby creating, “the illusion of consensus.”

4) Mainstream News Websites are Killing Comment Sections

Although this remains a relatively rare phenomenon, increasing numbers of mainstream news websites are killing or severely restricting comment sections in order to drown out dissident voices that challenge the prevailing status quo.

Studies confirm that article comment sections – for better or worse – are heavily swaying public opinion. Popular Science recently announced its decision to kill comment sections on their website in order to silence global warming skeptics. BoingBoing.net is following a similar track. The New York Times also recently indicated that it is scaling back comments and removing them from some articles altogether.

The effort to kill comments is part of the establishment media’s desperate effort to dictate reality and maintain a grip on manufacturing consensus in the face of a burgeoning independent media and the Internet as a vehicle of free speech in general.

5) The Obama Administration’s “Cognitive Infiltration” of the Internet

In 2010, a White House program was revealed that centered around infiltrating conspiracy groups in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks. Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, spearheaded this “cognitive infiltration” of the web and has been heralding its success ever since.

Sunstein pointed out that simply having people in government refute conspiracy theories wouldn’t work because they are inherently untrustworthy, making it necessary to, “Enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories.”

Sunstein suggested that “government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”

6) False Flag Cybersecurity Attacks as a Pretext to Increase Web Regulation

While constantly repeating the necessity for restrictive cybersecurity regulations to be applied to the Internet in the name of preventing cyber attacks, the United States has itself been behind all the recent major cyber attacks.

After Alex Jones pointed the finger at Washington and Tel Aviv for being behind Stuxnet during a September 27, 2010 broadcast, the likes of CNN, the Economist and others followed up by ridiculing the claim as a baseless conspiracy theory. Months later in January 2011, the New York Times reported, “US and Israeli intelligence services collaborated to develop a destructive computer worm to sabotage Iran’s efforts to make a nuclear bomb,” acknowledging the “conspiracy theory” to be true.

As the Washington Post reported, the United States and Israel were also responsible for jointly developing the Flame virus.

Stuxnet’s appearance was dovetailed by an aggressive PR campaign during which Joe Lieberman and others called for the government to be allowed to, “disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war,” just as China did. What Lieberman failed to mention is the fact that China’s Internet censorship program was and continues to be based around crushing dissent against the state and has nothing to do with cybersecurity.

7) Fairness Doctrine for the Internet

While working to end net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission is also serving to facilitate the implementation of something akin to the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.

According to Tim Cavanaugh, under a plan entitled “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs, “The airwaves regulator would subject news producers in all media to invasive questioning about their work and content,” a move which could lead to policing of political content on the web.

Although the study was widely derided in the media and now appears to have been derailed, the fact that the FCC is pursuing such programs illustrates the feds’ contempt for free speech on the Internet.

8) Homeland Security’s Internet Kill Switch

While fears of a government kill switch for the Internet have been mooted for years, under Standard Operating Procedure 303 or SOP 303, the Department of Homeland Security has given itself the power to oversee “the termination of private wireless network connections, both within a localized area, such as a tunnel or bridge, and within an entire metropolitan area,” in the event of a declared emergency.

When privacy rights group the Electronic Privacy Information Center attempted to obtain more information on the plan last year, the DHS claimed that it could not locate any further details regarding the program.

The White House also still claims that it retains Internet kill switch powers under the law that created the Federal Communications Commission in 1934. This law states that if a “state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency” exists, the president may “authorize the use or control of any…station or device.”

9) New Taxes and Regulations Set to Stifle Communication & Sales on the Web

A blizzard of new taxes and regulations could herald “Internet freedom’s expiration date,” according to a recent Wall Street Journal piece which points to efforts by lawmakers to weaken the Internet Tax Freedom Act in order, “to punish all American consumers with new taxes on communication.”

Lobbyists for giant retailers are leaning on Congress to empower some 9,600 state and local governments with more authority over e-commerce, including a potential e-mail tax which could dissuade millions of Americans from communicating online.

10) SOPA, CISPA & The FBI’s Internet Backdoor

Legislative assaults under the banner of SOPA and CISPA, which were advanced in the name of stopping online copyright theft, yet were soundly defeated when it emerged they were actually designed to impose oppressive censorship and surveillance on the Internet, will continue to be advanced by those who seek to centralize power over the web into fewer and fewer hands at the top of the pyramid.

In addition, the FBI’s attempt to amend the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act in order to build backdoors into all Internet Service Providers, email clients and social media sites, is another effort to chill free speech by indoctrinating people with the notion that everything they do online is being permanently watched and recorded, making them less likely to express their freedoms due to fears of official oppression.

Only by aggressively opposing these onerous threats to the freedom of the Internet can we hope to preserve the world wide web in its current incarnation and continue to see informed and empowered people the world over embrace it as the tool of individual liberation it has truly become.

Leaked New York Times Memo Admits MSM Being Made Redundant by New Media

Leaked New York Times Memo Admits MSM Being Made Redundant by New Media

But report ignores the elephant in the living room

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 15, 2014

A leaked New York Times memo admits that the newspaper, a bastion of the mainstream press, is being made redundant by new media, but the report ignores the elephant in the living room – that trust in the establishment media is collapsing because of its refusal to act in an adversarial role against the state.

The 96-page internal New York Times report, obtained by Buzzfeed, bemoans the fact that the newspaper “is hampered primarily by its own storied culture” because it is staffed by “a cadre of editors who remain unfamiliar with the web” and social media.

Although the report lists a number of organizational failures at the Times which have left it trailing new media startups, the memo completely fails to mention the primary factor why establishment outlets like the NYT are losing their audience – because of a complete collapse in trust on behalf of the public.

From infamous lies about weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq to more recent embarrassments regarding fabricated anti-Russian propaganda, the newspaper is emblematic of a widespread perception that the mainstream press has become de facto state media.

As former New York Times correspondent Daniel Simpson revealed after he resigned in 2012, the newspaper is a “propaganda megaphone” for the ruling elite.

“It seemed pretty glaringly obvious to me that the ‘news fit to print’ was pretty much the news that’s fit to serve the powerful,” Simpson remarked, adding, “The way that the paper’s senior staff think is exactly like those in power — in fact, it’s their job to become their friends.”

The new memo isn’t the only indication that the New York Times, and by extension the dinosaur media as a whole, is on the ropes.

Back in February the New York Observer interviewed more than two dozen current and former NY Times writers, virtually all of whom were unanimous in acknowledging that the Old Gray Lady is becoming increasingly insignificant.

“I think the editorials are viewed by most reporters as largely irrelevant, and there’s not a lot of respect for the editorial page,” one source told the newspaper. “The editorials are dull, and that’s a cardinal sin.”

The NY Times’ editorial content is increasingly seen as “utterly predictable, usually poorly written and totally ineffectual,” according to another source.

On the whole, faith in the accuracy of mainstream media is rapidly on the decline, with a recent Gallup poll finding that just 23 per cent of Americans trust the institution of television news.

From November 2012 to November 2013, MSNBC lost almost half its viewers over the course of just 12 months, shedding 45 per cent of its audience. CNN also lost 48 per cent of its viewers over the same time period.

The figures make bad reading not just for the networks and newspapers, but also for the White House given that large portions of the establishment media now serve as little more than regurgitators of the official narrative, routinely failing to challenge the Washington consensus.

As Glenn Greenwald outlined in a recent interview, the mass media is increasingly becoming “neutered,” “impotent” and “obsolete” because most reporters only seek to “amplify mindlessly claims of the government,” which is why the corporate press is losing its audience to new media outlets that are more dynamic and at least attempt to get to the truth of an issue while taking an adversarial stance against authority in the public interest.

‘Pilot program’ revealed: Washington sends missiles to Syrian rebels

‘Pilot program’ revealed: Washington sends missiles to Syrian rebels

The US is sending missiles to Syrian rebels as part of a “pilot program” to strengthen the opposition, American media reveals. Addressing criticism the US is arming extremist militants, Washington claims its weapons will not “fall into the wrong hands.”

Washington’s new initiative aims to find out whether it can supply opposition forces in Syria with weapons without them falling into the hands of Islamist extremists, American officials told USA Today on condition of anonymity.

“They will try this first and see how it goes” before expanding it, said a former official. According to reports, rebel groups have already received anti-tank missiles, known as TOWs, which are specially designed to destroy tanks and pierce reinforced bunkers.

Rebel fighters prepare to launch an anti-tank missile towards forces loyal to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad in Maaret al-Naaman village, in Idlib April 30, 2014. (Reuters / Rasem Ghareeb)
Rebel fighters prepare to launch an anti-tank missile towards forces loyal to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad in Maaret al-Naaman village, in Idlib April 30, 2014. (Reuters / Rasem Ghareeb)

This latest move by the US comes as the head of the Syrian National Coalition for Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, Ahmad Al-Jarba, visits Washington to lobby for more support. Al-Jarba will push for Washington to supply rebel forces with anti-aircraft missiles, the New York Times reports.

In a meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry, Al-Jarba emphasized that his coalition was “moderate and inclusive.”

“The coalition’s goal is to build a pluralistic, civil state where the majority can live together with the minority in peace,” he said.

Washington has thrown its support behind the Syrian National Coalition, granting the body official foreign mission status in the US. The US government suspended the Syrian embassy, representing the Assad government, earlier in March. In addition, the White House has pledged an extra $27 million to helping the cause of the rebels in Syria.

However, Brian Becker of the anti-war ANSWER coalition, says this money will only go to help the spread of terrorism in the country.

“The opposition in Syria includes notorious terrorist forces and they have used terrorism, of course supported by the United States through proxy forces in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to finance it and arm them, but they have been carrying out terrorist actions,” the anti-war activist mentioned.

“The idea that there is a dichotomy between a good opposition and a bad opposition is just a myth in the face of rising public and media attention in the US about the nature of the terrorist organizations that are fighting the Assad government,” Becker concluded.

A road sign is seen as Syrian government forces walk in a street on May 9, 2014 in the Christian neighborhood of Hamidiyeh in the old city of Homs after Syrian government forces regained control of rebel-controlled areas. (AFP Photo / Youssef Karwashan)
A road sign is seen as Syrian government forces walk in a street on May 9, 2014 in the Christian neighborhood of Hamidiyeh in the old city of Homs after Syrian government forces regained control of rebel-controlled areas. (AFP Photo / Youssef Karwashan)

As the US steps up its support for the opposition, the Assad government has scheduled presidential elections for June 3. Bashar Assad will run for re-election against rival candidates Maher Abdul-Hafiz Hajjar, 46, and Hassan bin Abdullah al-Nouri, 54. Elements of the Syrian opposition and Washington have already leveled criticism at the vote, branding it a “farce.”

One senior US administration official denounced the Syrian election as “a parody of democracy,” AFP reports. Assad’s decision to hold the elections “rings particularly hollow given that the regime is continuing to attack and massacre the very electorate that is purporting to represent,” the official said.

Washington believes the conflict in Syria can only be solved if Assad steps down as president.

Syria was plunged into civil war in 2011 when peaceful uprisings against Assad descended into violence. As a result of the conflict, at least 150,000 people have died and millions more have been displaced and gone into exile. The international community made significant progress last year, when the US and Russia agreed that Syria should destroy its chemical weapons stockpile following an attack in Damascus on August 21 last year.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-UN task force confirmed last week that 92 percent of the weapons stockpile had been removed from the war-torn nation.

The Debate Over Obamacare Is Not Over… What Obama Doesn’t Want You To Know

The Debate Over Obamacare Is Not Over… What Obama Doesn’t Want You To Know

The president is either a liar, or he’s completely out of touch with reality.
“The debate over repealing this law is over. The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”

That’s what Barack Obama has declared, so I guess we’re supposed to agree.

The problem is that the president is either a liar, or he’s completely out of touch with reality. In actuality, the Obamacare program is more unpopular with the public than ever; and rather than being finished, the debate is just beginning.

For example, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius may have resigned in disgrace… but Americans remain unhappy with the effects of her Frankenstein creation, the Obamacare website.

And to demonstrate just how disconnected he is from reality, Obama continues to crow about this “achievement.”

The Year of the Lie

All of this posturing is intended to cover up the administration’s countless lies. In fact, the healthcare team has told so many by now that one Congressman is calling 2014 “The Year of the Lie.”

Not surprisingly, a recent poll found that American citizens also believe Obama to be a liar. After all, this is the man who had the audacity to say that “you can keep your doctor,” and “you can keep your plan.”

Obama has also claimed at various times that 7.1 million Americans have signed up for private insurance plans through the Obamacare marketplaces.

But even The New York Times says that this statistic is misleading. To get that figure, Obama is counting everyone who selected a plan on the website, regardless of whether they actually became a customer. But that’s incredibly inaccurate, as The New York Times is reporting that at least 20% of enrollees aren’t paying the first month’s premium.

On top of that, Obama continually distorts reality by inferring that people who signed up didn’t have insurance before. But that doesn’t jive with the fact that no fewer than five million people had their plans killed by Obamacare.

And how about the doozy that Obamacare is holding down costs? Most experts believe premium prices have tripled as a result of Obamacare. And that makes sense, since many plans with caps or exclusions and co-pays outside of the Obamacare framework cost less for insurance companies. But if, for example, birth control pills are now free instead of being offered at a nominal cost, you’d expect the plans to cost more.

Don’t tell that to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, though. He says that even though Obama’s statements have been proven to be untrue, they weren’t actually lies. You see, the president believed them to be true when he said them, so it’s okay!

Of course, this is truly a disingenuous defense. Ask any criminal prosecutor… detachment from reality is not a valid excuse. Prisons are full of con artists who swore at trial that they believed the stories they told. The law requires people to check the truth before making claims.

Meanwhile, Obama’s claims might be excusable if he was more humble. But listen to his words carefully… he never offers an apology. American families have been tragically hurt by paying greatly increased premiums or losing insurance entirely. Folks have lost access to their longtime doctors. People are unable to go to the hospitals closest to their homes. These are real damages.

The least Obama could offer the affected is a little solace.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/is-obama-responsible-for-this-lie-of-the-year/#k69Oh7kfAf72RAth.99

Facebook: ‘Cliven Bundy Must Die’ Page ‘Doesn’t Violate our Community Standards’

Facebook: ‘Cliven Bundy Must Die’ Page ‘Doesn’t Violate our Community Standards’

A new Facebook page titled “Cliven Bundy Must Die,” that depicts a picture a drone running into the head of the last standing rancher in Clark County, Nevada, has been created, sending the message that the Obama regime should hit Mr. Bundy with a drone strike.

Facebook, which has taken down pages for much less incited violence, is, at least at the time of this writing, refusing to remove the page, specifically saying that the page “doesn’t violate our community standards.”

Even though the page’s message and intention is clearly one of inciting violence against the Nevada rancher, a victim of an armed invasion from the Obama BLM and a smear campaign by George Soros-funded Media Matters and the NY Times, the Facebook page’s creator is hiding behind the deceptively crafted wording that says, “This page in no way condones violence of any kind. This page exists only for the awareness of the scientific fact that Cliven Bundy Must Die.”

Of course, everyone knows that everyone will eventually die, so why was this Facebook page created with the message, “Cliven Bundy Must Die” with his face superimposed over the picture of a drone, if for no other reason to incite violence, an act that is clearly against Facebook’s standards?

Less than two weeks ago, Facebook censored and removed a message from Fox Radio’s Todd Starnes, a Christian conservative, who wrote, mockingly tying together the Bundy Ranch invasion with the debate over amnesty:

“Rancher Bundy should’ve told the feds that those were Mexican cows – who came across the border illegally to seek better grazing opportunities. It was an act of love.”

Meanwhile, Cliven Bundy had to hire a bodyguard to protect himself against hateful and violent progressives.