IRS to pay back-refunds to illegal immigrants who didn’t pay taxes

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress on Wednesday that even illegal immigrants who didn’t pay taxes will be able to claim back-refunds once they get Social Security numbers under President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty.

The revelation — which contradicts what he told Congress last week — comes as lawmakers also raised concerns Mr. Obama’s amnesty could open a window to illegal immigrants finding ways to vote, despite it being against the law.

“While we may disagree about whether your deferred action programs were lawfully created and implemented, we are confident that we can all agree that these programs cannot be permitted to impair the integrity of our elections,” Republican members of Congress from Ohio wrote in a letter to Mr. Obama Wednesday, ahead of a hearing on the issue in the House on Thursday.

Mr. Obama’s new deportation policies, which carve most illegal immigrants out of danger of being removed, and could proactively grant as many as 4 million illegal immigrants work permits and Social Security numbers, are increasingly under fire for ancillary consequences such as tax credits and competition for jobs.

Mr. Koskinen, testifying to the House oversight committee, said the White House never asked him or anyone else at the IRS about the potential tax effects of his amnesty policy.

“I haven’t talked to the White House about this at all,” he said.

Sure he didn't. This is the guy who thought Lois Lerner was Superman's girlfriend and uses Mr Clean on IRS hard drives.

No lie...he actually said this. 

He also clarified his testimony to the Senate last week, where he acknowledged illegal immigrants who had paid taxes using substitute Social Security numbers but who gain real Social Security numbers when they are approved for the amnesty can apply for back-refunds of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

On Wednesday, he said even illegal immigrants who didn’t pay taxes will be able to apply for back-credits once they get Social Security numbers.

The EITC is a refundable tax credit, which means those who don’t have any tax liability can still get money back from the government.

“Under the new program, if you get a Social Security number and you work, you’ll be eligible to apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit,” Mr. Koskinensaid.

He said that would apply even “if you did not file” taxes, as long as the illegal immigrant could demonstrate having worked off-the-books during those years.

That expands the universe of people eligible for the tax credit by millions. He said only about 700,000 illegal immigrants currently work and pay taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, but as many as 4 million illegal immigrants could get a stay of deportation and work permits under the temporary amnesty, which would mean they would be eligible to claim back-refunds if they worked those years.

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, the South Carolina Republican who grilled Mr. Koskinenon the tax credits, said he was stunned the White House never checked with the IRS on the tax implications of its move.

“That’s just outrageous,” he said. “If Congress had passed a law doing exactly what the president did, we would have had not only an estimate of the costs, but we would have also been required to propose ways to pay for the programs. This is just another example of the administration operating outside the rule of law.”

Mr. Koskinen said he didn’t know how much money the tax refunds would cost, and said the White House never checked with him before announcing the amnesty. He said the maximum annual credit is between $500 and $600 for an individual.

Meanwhile, the concerns over voting are beginning to bubble up.

Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, will hold a hearing on the issue Thursday.

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, who has told Mr. Obama that illegal immigrants could find ways to vote thanks to his policy, is slated to testify.

That was the plan all along.

IRS to pay back-refunds to illegal immigrants who didn’t pay taxes

Climate Change a Greater Threat Than Terrorism, White House Says

In his interview with Vox, President Obama said the media “absolutely” overstates the threat of terrorism in comparison to the threat of climate change.

Vox asked Obama, "Do you think the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism and this kind of chaos, as opposed to a longer-term problem of climate change and epidemic disease?"

White House Asking Authorization for Military to Fight ISIS

The president responded in the interview released this week: "Absolutely. And I don't blame the media for that. What's the famous saying about local newscasts, right? If it bleeds, it leads, right? You show crime stories and you show fires, because that's what folks watch, and it's all about ratings. And, you know, the problems of terrorism and dysfunction and chaos, along with plane crashes and a few other things, that's the equivalent when it comes to covering international affairs. … And climate change is one that is happening at such a broad scale and at such a complex system, it's a hard story for the media to tell on a day-to-day basis."

In today’s White House briefing, Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained why the White House views climate change as a greater threat than terrorism.

KARL: [The president] was asked if the media overstate the level of alarm people should have about terrorism, as opposed to longer-term problems of climate change and epidemic disease. He said absolutely. So, let me just clarify. Is the president saying, as he seems to be implying here, that the threat of climate change is greater than the threat of terrorism?

EARNEST: I think, Jon, the point that the president is making is that there are many more people on -- on an annual basis who have to confront the impact -- the direct impact on their lives -- of climate change, or on the spread of a disease, than on terrorism.

KARL: So, the answer is yes? The president thinks that climate change...

EARNEST: Well...

KARL: ... is a greater threat than terrorism?

EARNEST: ... I think the -- the point that the president is making is that when you're talking about the direct daily impact of these kind of challenges on the daily lives of Americans, particularly Americans living in this country, that that direct impact is more -- that more people are directly affected by those things than by terrorism.

KARL: So -- so, climate change is more of a clear and present danger to the United States than terrorism?

EARNEST: Well, I think even the Department of Defense has spoken to the significant threat that climate change poses to our national securityinterests. Principally because of the impact that it can have on countries with less well developed infrastructure than we have.

KARL: I'm not asking if it's a significant, but I'm asking if it's a greater threat.

EARNEST: Well, again, I -- I wouldn't have a whole lot more to say about what the president has said in that interview.

Climate Change a Greater Threat Than Terrorism, White House Says

Rev. Wright's Star Pupil

Pat Buchanan brought up some good points in the article below especially about slavery and Barry tip-toeing around the name Muhammad. I can't imagine, nor have I heard, any other president come up with this garbage. Barry's a very complex guy. He has Muslim blood flowing through his veins, calls waterboarding torture, wants to close Gitmo which now appears by attrition… but occasionally he drones a terrorist. I suggest the latter is to keep up appearances. His record speaks for itself.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula The Egyptian-born Coptic Christian who shot a video was to blame for Benghazi not the Muslims who actually perpetrated it.

Nadal Hasan the Ft. Hood admitted terrorist killed 13 people shouting Allah Akbar. The atrocity was quickly rebranded by this administration as Workplace Violence.

Not long ago a Muslim cut off a woman's head in Oklahoma and again they called it Workplace Violence.

(Good thing the Tsarnaev brothers didn't have jobs)

Recently this administration tried to downplay the Taliban as terrorists preferring to call them armed insurgents.

Wasn't it Barry who supported the overthrow of Mubarak so the Muslim Brotherhood could rise to power in Egypt?

Barry does a 5 for 1 trade exchanging 5 top Taliban operatives for a worthless deserter... and does it behind the back of Congress.

As the rest of the world stood with France over the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Barry didn't attend and sent no one.

This administration goes berserk and threatens to boycott our only ally in the Middle East Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu from speaking before Congress. This is after Barry said they should go back to the 1967 borders.

Ask yourself this. Has he done more to help or hinder the onslaught of Islam?

---------------------------------------------------

On a tip from Ed Kilbane

Rev. Wright’s Star Pupil

By Pat Buchanan

“A steady patriot of the world alone, The friend of every country — but his own.”

George Canning’s couplet about the Englishmen who professed love for all the world except their own native land comes to mind on reading Obama’s remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast.

After listing the horrors of ISIS, al-Qaida and Boko Haram, the president decided his recital of crimes committed in the name of Islam would be unbalanced, if he did not backhand those smug Christians sitting right in front of him.

“And lest we get on our high horse … remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Why did he do it? He had to know that dredging up and dragging in real or imagined crimes of Christianity from centuries ago would anger Christians and obliterate whatever else he had to say.

Was it Edgar Allen Poe’s “Imp of the Perverse” prodding him to stick it to the Christians? Was it the voice of his old pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah “God damn America!” Wright muttering in his ear?

I believe this betrays something deeper. Obama revels in reciting the sins of Christianity and the West because he does not see himself as a loyal son of the civilization Christianity produced.

He sees himself as a citizen of the world who rejects the idea that our cradle faith Christianity is superior or that our civilization is superior. For he seems to seize every opportunity to point up the sins of Christianity and the West and the contributions of other faiths and civilizations.

Consider the bill of particulars in Obama’s indictment of crimes committed “in the name of Christ.”

Slavery was not invented by Christians. It existed when Christ was born. Fifth century Athens and the Roman republic had slaves. African slaves were brought not only to the New World in the 17th and 18th centuries but to Arabia and the Islamic world. Black African chieftains produced the captives for the slave trade.

Why then does Obama single out Christianity for indictment, when it was Christians and their teachings about human dignity, and Christian moral leaders and Christian nations that abolished the slave trade and slavery itself, which endured in the Islamic world into the 20th century?

Though he brought up crimes committed “in the name of Christ,” Obama did not mention the name of Muhammad. An oversight?

As for the Crusades, there were indeed atrocities on both sides during these expeditions and wars from the end of the 11th to the end of the 13th century, with the fall of Acre in 1291.

But were the Crusades, military expeditions by Christian knights to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims who had overrun these lands where Jesus had walked, preached, and died, unjust wars?

Obama seems to see the Crusades from the Saracen point of view.

But does he really believe that when Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade at Clermont in 1095 to have Christian knights relieve the siege of Byzantium and liberate the Holy Land, this was the moral equivalent of Bin Laden declaring war to rid the Islamic Middle East of Americans?

Not long go, our popular culture portrayed Crusaders as heroes, their cause as noble. Among the most famous was Richard the Lionhearted who led the Third Crusade. Gen. Eisenhower entitled his war memoirs “Crusade in Europe.”

Like his derisive remarks about Middle Pennsylvanians, that they cling with bitterness to their bibles, guns and antipathy to immigrants, Obama’s Prayer Breakfast digression reveals much more about who the man is.

He dragged in the Inquisition. Yet, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn noted, Vladimir Lenin ordered more people executed in his first days in power than did the Spanish Inquisition in 300 years.

In drawing parallels between Christianity and Islam, Obama misses a basic point. Unlike Islam, which, in one century, conquered Arabia, the Middle and Near East, the Holy Land, North Africa and Spain, until the Muslim advance was halted by Charles Martel at Poitiers in France, Christianity did not conquer with the sword, but with the Word.

Only after 300 years of persecution and martyrdom were the Christians, through the Edict of Milan, allowed to practice their faith.

Christianity was not imposed on the Old World, but embraced.

America’s problem: With Islamic fanaticism surging, with ISIS using the term “Crusader” as a curse word equivalent to “Nazi,” we have as leader of the West a man who partly shares the enemy’s views about the Christian Crusades, and who seems at best ambivalent about the superiority of the civilization that he leads.

Again, Canning’s words come to mind:

“No narrow bigot he; — his reason’d view Thy interests, England, ranks with thine, Peru!

France at our doors, he sees no danger nigh, But heaves for Turkey’s woes the impartial sigh;

A steady patriot of the world alone, The friend of every country — but his own.”

Rev. Wright's Star Pupil

Oh No...We just killed an "armed insurgent"

Taliban commander who returned to Afghanistan as recruiter for ISIS after he was freed from Guantánamo Bay is killed in drone strike

Initially I thought this was one of the Taliban 5… it's not. But I guarantee you one day you'll be reading about them. This guy was captured during the Bush administration and turned over to Afghan authorities where he later escaped "house arrest".

 Over the years we listened to Lib's bitch and moan about waterboarding and how cruel it is... while infidels are beheaded and set afire in the Muslim world. We don't have the balls to try them in a military tribunal which would in all likelihood end with the death penalty. So what to do? Release them so ultimately they can be killed by a drone. As you can see a lot of planning went into this. 

BTW...they should have checked with Eric Shultz to find out if you pledge allegiance to ISIS if you're still considered an "armed insurgent".

---------------------------------------------------------

Mullah Abdul Rauf, 33, killed by NATO drone strike along with son-in-law

The former Guantánamo Bay detainee recently pledged allegiance to ISIS

The ex-Taliban commander claimed to be recruiting fighters for ISIS

By Thomas Burrows for MailOnline

Published: 07:57 EST, 9 February 2015 | Updated: 18:09 EST, 9 February 2015

Mullah Abdul Rauf, 33, was killed by a NATO drone

A former Guantánamo Bay detainee who recently pledged allegiance to ISIS has been killed in Afghanistan.

Mullah Abdul Rauf, 33, was killed by a NATO drone strike along with his son-in-law and six others as they drove through Kajaki district in the volatile southern province of Helmand, Afghan officials said. 

Rauf, an ex-Taliban commander, declared allegiance to Isis in January, and claimed to be recruiting fighters on behalf of the group which holds large swaths of Syria and Iraq.

He was branded by the Washington Post last month as 'the shadowy figure recruiting for the Islamic State in Afghanistan.'

A Pakistani militant commander said Rauf had been an important liaison between various factions which have broken away from the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban movements in recent months. 

His defection had caused deadly infighting and raised fears the movement was gaining footholds in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A statement from Resolute Support, the new name for the NATO mission in Afghanistan, said 'coalition forces conducted a precision strike in Helmand province today, resulting in the death of eight individuals threatening the force'. 

Mohammad Jan Rasulyar, the deputy governor of Helmand, said the strike hit the militants' vehicle at around 10am.

Mullah Abdul Rauf, 33, was killed by a NATO drone strike along with his son-in-law and six others as they drove through Kajaki district in the volatile southern province of Helmand

Rauf was detained by the US in 2001 and spent six years in Guantánamo Bay, in Cuba (pictured) 

Rauf, also known as Abdul Rauf Aliza, had a long history of insurgency. 

He was detained by the US in 2001 and spent six years in Guantánamo, where he claimed he was nothing more than a bread delivery man for the Taliban.

According to a document released by WikiLeaks, American interrogators suspected at the time Rauf had more influence than he claimed. 

But he was released to Afghanistan for further detention in 2007. 

In Kabul, he managed to escape from house arrest and in 2011 acted as the Taliban's shadow governor in Uruzgan province

Rauf then formed a splinter group of fighters after falling out with the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, and recently clashed with a Taliban unit in Helmand's Sangin district.

Locals say Rauf's men, numbering around 300, were often in conflict with Taliban officials in Helmand. 

There have been fears of ISIS making inroads in Afghanistan since US-led NATO forces ended their combat mission in late December, after 13 years of fighting.

Oh No...We just killed an "armed insurgent"

He never had any credibility to begin with

If you listened to NBC Nightly News you would have thought Ben Ghazi was closer to a character in the Sopranos then a terrorist attack.

Not to worry NBC has Lester Holt warming up on the bench.

He never had any credibility to begin with

Famous Presidential Lies Contest

LBJ:

We were attacked (in the Gulf of Tonkin)

Nixon:

I am not a crook

GHW Bush:

Read my lips - No New Taxes

Clinton:

I did not have sex with that woman... Miss Lewinski

GW Bush:

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction

Obama:

I will have the most transparent administration in history.

ObamaCare will be discussed on C-Span. 

The stimulus will fund shovel-ready jobs. 

I am focused like a laser on creating jobs. 

The IRS is not targeting anyone. 

It was a spontaneous riot about a movie. 

I will put an end to the type of politics that "breeds division, conflict and cynicism".

You didn't build that! 

I will restore trust in Government. 

The Cambridge cops acted stupidly. 

The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk. 

It's not my red line - it is the world's red line. 

Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration. 

We got back every dime we used to rescue the banks and auto companies, with interest.

I'll cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term (this was one of his biggest whoppers instead of $5.3 trillion in debt we are now at $18trillion)

I am not spying on American citizens. 

Obama Care will be good for America.

I never heard of Jonathan Gruber.  

You can keep your family doctor. 

Premiums will be lowered by $2500.

ObamaCare is not a tax. 

If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan. 

It's just like shopping at Amazon. 

I knew nothing about "Fast and Furious" gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels. 

I knew nothing about IRS targeting conservative groups. 

I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi.

I heard it on the news. 

I have never known my uncle from Kenya who is in the country illegally and that was arrested and told to leave the country over 20 years ago.

And, I have never lived with that uncle. He finally admitted (12-05-2013) that he DID know his uncle and that he DID live with him.

If elected I promise not to renew the Patriot Act. 

If elected I will end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan within the 1st 9 months of my term.

I will close Guantanamo within the first 6 months of my term. 

I will bridge the gap between black and white and between America and other countries.

The Taliban is not a terrorist organization. (They just protected Bin Laden for the hell of it)

And the biggest one of all:

"I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."

Looks like we have a clear winner.

Famous Presidential Lies Contest

Never did understand why Barry got the Jewish vote in the second go around

Four things about Barry you can take to the bank. 

1. Barry hates Israel

2. He hates the military

3. He's a Muslim at worse, an atheist at best

4. When he says the Pledge of Allegiance he has his fingers crossed

---------------------------------------------------

Angry over Netanyahu's planned speech, Dems hope to limit harm

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming speech to Congress without President Barack Obama's blessing has angered Democratic lawmakers, but they see little remedy except to hope for minimal damage to their party and to US-Israel relations.

Democrats simmered in frustration last week as they faced a thankless choice between defending their president and defending the Jewish state they consider a crucial ally.

Some gleeful Republicans predicted Democrats' complaints about Benjamin Netanyahu's March 3 speech will drive Jewish voters to their party. Rep. Joe Wilson, a Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Democrats are making a "catastrophic mistake" by protesting Netanyahu's plans. 

Netanyahu, flanked by then-House Minority Leader John Boehner and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaks to media on Capitol Hill in 2013 (Photo: AP

"Traditionally, supporters of Israel have been really even-handed in supporting candidates of both parties," Wilson said, but now "Democrats are slapping the friends of Israel in the face." Democrats reject such talk, saying Republicans have repeatedly overstated their appeal to Jewish voters. Obama got 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008, and 69 percent in 2012, according to exit polls. Congressional Democrats won two-thirds of Jewish votes in last fall's midterm elections, an especially bad year for their party. 

Republicans want to portray Democrats as less supportive of Israel, "but no matter how much they try, they can't move Jewish voters on this issue," said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the liberal pro-Israel group J Street. 

House Democrats say Republican Speaker John Boehner showed disrespect to the president – and perhaps cynical political goals – when he invited Netanyahu to address a House-Senate gathering next month. Presidents can't veto congressional speakers, but they usually are consulted. 

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington (Photo: AP)

Many Democrats object for three reasons: The invitation rebukes Obama; the speech, scheduled three weeks before Israel's elections, might be designed to boost Netanyahu's re-election hopes; and Netanyahu is certain to back new sanctions on Iran that the administration and Western powers argue could scuttle sensitive negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. 

The speech comes three weeks before the deadline for the US and its international partners to reach a framework nuclear agreement with Iran, one that could provide an outline for a more comprehensive deal to be finalized by late June. 

Related story:

Biden to miss Netanyahu speech to US Congress

Netanyahu says an accord could make it easier for Iran eventually to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Obama says he will reject any deal that doesn't safeguard Israel and other countries. Nonetheless, some congressional Democrats want tougher sanctions against Iran. But they weren't pleased by Netanyahu's acceptance of Boehner's invitation. Soon after its announcement, several Democratic senators postponed their push for new sanctions against Iran, giving Obama and the negotiators more time. Obama's chief concern about the break in protocol, his spokesman Josh Earnest said, "is to ensure that the strong relationship between the United States and Israel is protected from partisan politics." 

In the House, some Democrats say they won't attend Netanyahu's address. The way it was scheduled was "an affront to the president and the State Department," said Rep. John Lewis of Georgia. 

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga. speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington (Photo: AP)
(Used to have a Goldfish that made that same face)

Rep. GK Butterfield of North Carolina called Boehner's actions unprecedented, and said Netanyahu has "politicized" his US visit. 

The speaker of the House and the vice president traditionally sit behind the featured guest during a congressional address. But the White House said Friday that Vice President Joe Biden will be traveling abroad that day. Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York, Congress' only Jewish Republican, said if lawmakers boycott Netanyahu's speech, "it's a horrendous, irresponsible message to send to Israel." He called Israel "a free, democratic society thriving in an area of the world where radical Islamic extremism is growing most rapidly." Zeldin predicted many more Jewish voters will embrace Republicans because of Obama's policies regarding Israel. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, another critic of the speech's arrangements, says she will attend. Lawmakers often skip such addresses for different reasons, she said, so even if some seats are empty, "don't even think in terms of the word 'boycott.' Members will go or they won't go, as they usually go or don't go." Pelosi and other top Democrats have hinted they want Netanyahu to postpone his speech until after Israel's elections, and/or hold it somewhere other than Congress. Conservatives see little incentive to do that. Boehner is happy to have Democrats grouse while Israel's leader addresses a Republican-run Congress, they say. And Netanyahu probably benefits politically by speaking to Congress and criticizing Iran. Obama and Netanyahu have clashed repeatedly over the years, even though both say a close US-Israel alliance is essential. Only days ago, the White House again criticized Israel's policy of building Jewish settlements on West Bank and East Jerusalem areas that Palestinians claim. Obama says a Mideast peace deal must include a Palestinian state based on territory Israel captured in 1967, with "mutually agreed upon swaps" to ensure Israel's security. Netanyahu rejects a return to those borders, and the Jewish settlements complicate efforts to divide territory. 

Obama has no plans to meet with Netanyahu during his US trip.

Never did understand why Barry got the Jewish vote in the second go around

Wonder why they call him the Messiah...

Recently Barry gave a speech at The National Prayer Breakfast Conference expounding on religion... a subject he has little knowledge of unless you consider Reverend's Wright and Sharpton "men of the cloth". To be fair he did make some remarks criticizing radical Islam but instead of making ISIS the primary target and the rest of the Muslim terrorists he had to revisit the Crusades and Jim Crow laws trying to compare/justify the atrocities committed by Islam in the here and now. In todays world does anyone really care what happened hundreds of years ago during the Crusades? By the time he finished your left with the sense he considers himself to be  the only true religion. 

Video 103

This is the same guy who treats Iran better than Israel. Pelosi all but said yesterday the Dem’s are going to boycott Netanyahu when he speaks before Congress. These are the same liberals who loved OWS and had no problem with Ahmadinejad giving a speech at Columbia. 

Speaking of Columbia these are some of their more notable left-wing progressives..and a few to the left of that! 

 Barry

FDR

Allen Ginsburg

 Eric Holder

 Howard Dean

 Howard Zinn

 Bill de Blasio

Wonder why they call him the Messiah...

Brian Williams forced to admit he was NOT shot down in the Iraq War:

First Hillary and now Williams

Liberal Déjà vu

Lies...It runs in their blood

Hillary Clinton describing her 1996 Bosnia visit: 

"When we arrived in Bosnia on March 25, 1996, I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Several news outlets disputed the claim and a video of the trip, showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter.

They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger.

In 2008 when she was running against Barry she said, "I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently," Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania where she was campaigning before the state's April 22 primary. She said she had a "different memory" about the landing.

"So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I'm human, which, you know, for some people, is a revelation."

My revelation is this. How in the f---could anyone POSSIBLY make a mistake as to whether or not you were shot at?

Congrats to Williams for joining the Liars Club. Can't say I'm surprised.

------------------------------------------------

Brian Williams forced to admit he was NOT shot down in the Iraq War: NBC anchor apologizes after angry soldiers reveal he LIED in Nightly News about 2003 helicopter ambush story

On Friday Brian Williams claimed during a news item that he was aboard a helicopter that was hit during the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Soldiers who were present during the incident have denied that the NBC anchor was anywhere near the aircraft

In fact Williams arrived about an hour later on another helicopter after the crippled craft had made an emergency landing

'Sorry dude, I don't remember you being on my aircraft,' responded one ex-soldier on the Nightly News' Facebook page

Another man, who claimed to be on Williams' aircraft said he had been 'calling him out on this for a long time with no response'

Williams has been quick to deny that he is attempting to 'steal anyone's valor' and has blamed the 'fog of memory over 12 years' for his mistake

He apologized on the air during Wednesday's program and called his mistake a 'bungled attempt' to honor a soldier

This isn't the first time Williams has lied about the incident - in 2013 he told Letterman that he was on one of two helicopters that were hit 

By David Mccormack For Dailymail.com

Published: 17:45 EST, 4 February 2015 | Updated: 06:32 EST, 5 February 2015

NBC news anchor Brian Williams has been forced to admit that he wasn't aboard a helicopter hit and forced down by enemy fire during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The Nightly News anchor has often repeated the war story over the past 12 years about how the aircraft he was on was forced down by enemy fire. 

During a report on Friday, Williams went further and said that the aircraft he was on had actually been hit - a claim that quickly prompted denials from soldiers who were present.

On Wednesday, Williams apologized during his NBC Nightly News bulletin and said that he was 'mistaken'. Later that evening he didn't seem too worried about the furor as he enjoyed a New York Rangers game with his good friend Tom Hanks.

Brian Williams forced to admit he was NOT shot down in the Iraq War: