Thursday, October 31, 2013

Obamacare website Halloween Horror Parody, President explains website - Video Parody version 2

President Obama explains how to use the Obamacare, website in this frightening Halloween horror parody.

An earlier parody of the President demonstrating the use of his website can be found by clicking here.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Obama administration's reluctance to capture Benghazi terrorist brings old questions to the fore

The Obama administration passed up an opportunity to capture an Al Qaeda terrorist facing charges in the Benghazi terror attack because the White House feared the raid to apprehend him would evoke a negative reaction from the Libyan people and possibly destabilize the fragile Libyan government, CNN reported on Tuesday, via anonymous U.S. officials - who undoubtedly work in the Obama administration.

Earlier this month, U.S. special operations forces seized another al Qaeda operative in Tripoli, and,  were just hours away from potentially launching an additional raid to capture Ahmed Abu Khattalah, the aforementioned terrorist involved in the Benghazi attacks, CNN reported.

However, U.S. officials [Obama administration cronies] told CNN that, "With the Libyan government dealing with public outcry about the U.S. incursion into Libya, the White House became worried any raid in Benghazi could destabilize, and potentially bring down the fragile Libyan government."

Mr. Khattalah had openly operated in Benghazi for months and was interviewed by CNN's Arwa Damon, CNN reported.

Of course, the Obama administration's anxiety about evoking a negative reaction from the Libyan people, and consequently its reluctance to send U.S. Special Ops to capture Ahmed Abu Khattalah, raises the old question of whether the White House' failure, last year, to rescue the four Americans killed in the Benghazi attacks, was also due to similar anxieties, including potential public outcry from the Libyan people, anger from the Libyan government, battling Al Qaeda terrorists in Benghazi in light of the President's promise that support of the Libyan rebellion would not entail sending boots on the ground - and a looming Presidential election.

Ultimately, the Obama administration's inaction during the 2012 Benghazi attacks raised a host of questions, which were never really answered.

Defense Department officials, the likes of former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, and U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, offered up contradictory statements - often contradicting their own statements - about the Benghazi debacle.

However, one of Panetta's contradictory statements is one of my all-time favorites from the Benghazi fiasco.

As I noted previously:
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta offered up two contradictory explanations as to why there was no military operation to rescue U.S. officials who were under attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

During an October 2012 press briefing, Panetta claimed he was lacking real-time information at the time, and as a result of not having this information, he felt he couldn't send the FAST platoons, and other forces that were deployed in the region, into "harm's way" in "that situation". Hence, he made the decision not to send the forces to Benghazi.

However, during a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of 2013, Panetta offered up a different excuse [prevarication]: There was no conscious decision, on his part, not to send forces to Benghazi, into "harm's way". But rather, the reason why U.S. forces did not head out to Benghazi was because the attack at the U.S. consulate had ended before they could get off the ground. And, Panetta added, there was no reason to assume that the CIA annex would later come under attack - despite the fact that there were two attacks on the annex, more than four hours apart.

Two different, contradictory, explanations from Panetta; par for the course, for this administration...

Benghazi terror attacks omitted Twice by State Department - 1) 'Rewards for Justice program' 2) Terror designation report

Republican lawmakers want to know why the Al Qaeda terrorists involved in the Benghazi attacks were excluded from the State Department’s Rewards for Justice program, a program which offers huge cash payments for tips leading to the capture of wanted terrorists.

Fox News reported that a ranking Republican lawmaker believes this is "more evidence that the Obama White House wants to minimize the terrorism angle in that attack."

In a related post on Thursday, I noted that Thomas Joscelyn of The Long War Journal reported that:
The UN, on Oct. 18, added Muhammad Jamal al Kashef - who previously served as a bodyguard to Al Qaeda chief, Ayman al Zawahiri - to its its list of individuals and entities subject to sanctions, including the freezing of assets, travel bans etc.

However, Mr.  Joscelyn  notes that, although the State Department - like the UN - added al Kashef to its list of designated terrorists, and although the State Department's report on al Kashef contains many of the details mentioned in the UN report, nevertheless two key elements in the UN report, pertaining to al Kashef's terrorist activities, were omitted from the State Department's report.

The UN report notes that al Kashef - who previously served as a bodyguard to Al Qaeda chief Ayman al Zawahiri - and members of al Kashef's terrorist network are "reported to be involved in the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 Sep. 2012."

But the State Department, in its report, blatantly omitted this fact.

But, as the honorable Hillary Clinton would say: "What difference does it make?" Lol.
Read the full post here.

Ultimately, 1) the Al Qaeda terrorists involved in the Benghazi attacks were excluded from the State Department’s Rewards for Justice program, and,  2) the terrorist attacks in Benghazi were omitted from the State Department's report on the Al Qaeda bodyguard, Muhammad Jamal al Kashef.

Interesting, to say the least......

Monday, October 28, 2013

ObamaCare sites fail to rate insurance plans

From Fox News:
Shopping for health insurance on the ObamaCare exchanges?

Good luck. Not only will you have to navigate the technical problems that have plagued the site -- but in most states, those running the exchanges are not posting ratings that could give shoppers a clear sense of how good the plans are.

The consumer ratings are called for in the Affordable Care Act. They would be provided by a respected independent company, allowing consumers to judge health plans by treatment outcome, service and consumer satisfaction.

Federal and state officials, though, largely decided it would reflect poorly on the insurance exchanges if some companies were rated and others were not -- and have not yet published them...

The controversy arose last week in California, when Western Advantage and two other highly rated providers -- Kaiser Permanente and Sharp Health Care -- complained the state failed to post their ratings because of opposition from lower-rated plans...

Last week, [California] officials reversed that decision and said the state will begin adding quality scores in 2015.

"To make a smart choice, we need more information, that is why this rating system is so important," said health care analyst Betsy McCaughey. "Otherwise choosing a plan on these exchanges is just a shot in the dark."

The National Council on Quality Assurance rates almost every health plan available nationwide on treatment, prevention and customer service. Each category is scored on a scale of 1 to 5, and then plans are ranked from best to worst.

Eighty percent of insurers nationwide are rated by the NCQA. But only eight states are posting those ratings. The rest, including the 34 state health care exchanges managed by the federal government, do not...

Under the law, the health care exchanges have until 2016 to display quality-of-care data.
Related Post: NBC News: Obama lied, he knew millions could not keep their health insurance

NBC News: Obama lied, he knew millions could not keep their health insurance

From NBC News:
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today...

For months, Laszewski has warned that some consumers will face sticker shock. He recently got his own notice that he and his wife cannot keep their current policy, which he described as one of the best, so-called "Cadillac" plans offered for 2013. Now, he said, the best comparable plan he found for 2014 has a smaller doctor network, larger out-of-pocket costs, and a 66 percent premium increase.

“Mr. President, I like the coverage I have," Laszweski said. "It is the best health insurance policy you can buy."

Sebelius lied; she said the law required health insurance sign-ups to start Oct. 1, whether the system was ready or not - Not true, the decision was hers! says the AP

From the AP:
Misstating the health care law she is responsible for administering, Kathleen Sebelius has asserted that the law required health insurance sign-ups to start Oct. 1, whether the system was ready or not. In fact, the decision when to launch the sign-up website was hers.

The troubled debut of the government's health insurance enrollment website has raised questions about whether its start date should have been delayed to allow testing and repairs before it went live. Asked last week whether that might have been the wiser course, Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, said that wasn't possible because the law required an Oct. 1 launch.

In a visit to a community health center in Austin, Texas, on Friday, Sebelius acknowledged more testing would have been preferable. "In an ideal world there would have been a lot more testing, but we did not have the luxury of that and the law said the go-time was Oct. 1," she said.

But the law imposed no legal requirement to open the website Oct 1. The law says only that the enrollment period shall be "as determined by the secretary." The launch date was set not in the law, but in regulations her department had issued. Agencies routinely allow themselves flexibility on self-imposed deadlines...

"I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it", says California woman upset with Obamacare's 50% rate hike

From the LA Times:
Thousands of Californians are discovering what Obamacare will cost them — and many don't like what they see.

These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market...

Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.

"She said, 'I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'" Kehaly said...
Several hundred thousand [Californians] are losing their health plans in a matter of weeks.

Blue Shield of California sent termination letters to 119,000 customers last month whose plans don't meet the new federal requirements. About two-thirds of those people will experience a rate increase from switching to a new health plan, according to the company.....

Benghazi: 60 Minutes & 60 Minutes Overtime

In case you missed the 60 Minutes report on Benghazi, which aired on Sunday, you can watch the video below.

But first, here's a few excerpts from a Q & A session with 60 Minutes Overtime, where Lara Logan and 60 Minutes producer Max McClellan discuss the Benghazi report.

It's worthwhile to note what Lara Logan says at the onset of the Q & A:

"We left about 98 percent of what we learned on the floor - didn't even report it," Logan said, "because unless we could substantiate it with primary sources that we truly trusted and whose motivations we trusted, then we didn't even go there."

Hence, there's no way of knowing how much damaging information 60 Minutes received but didn't report - all in the name of so-called "honest journalism." Bear in mind, this is CBS we're talking about. And while I do believe that, over the last couple of years, Lara Logan has become ever-so-slightly disillusioned with the Obama administration's foreign policy, her disillusionment is, nevertheless, minuscule, for ultimately eradicating years and years of entrenched Liberal bias is extremely difficult.

Excerpts from the Q & A:
Q: What kind of obstacles did you encounter along the way?

Lara Logan: An extraordinary amount of pressure on the people involved not to talk. And an extraordinary amount of pressure on anyone in the government--the military side, the political side--not to say anything outside of official channels. I mean, to the point where people that we've known for years would call people who were no longer in their positions, and they would call someone else that we knew, and messages would be delivered like that because there couldn't be any trail linking you directly to our story.

The administration is cracking down so hard on leakers: no one wants to put anything in writing, everybody is scared to talk over the phone, people want to meet in person - all of that makes it that much harder to investigate anything...

Lara Logan: To us, it was staggering that the U.S. diplomat who was coordinating the response in Libya knew an hour into the attack - which still lasted another six hours - that there was no help coming. And that had a huge impact for the guys on the ground...

And it became evident to us during the course of our research that very little is known publicly about the true nature of al Qaeda's network in Libya. And that has consequences beyond Benghazi and beyond Libya. It has consequences that speak to the national security interests of the United States of America. That is important - it's more important to us than rehashing old ground over who should have done what. [Editor's Note: That last several words in the previous sentence is indicative of Logan's inability to discard her entrenched Liberal bias.]

Q: Why did your sources - Andy Wood, Morgan Jones, and Greg Hicks - decide to talk to 60 Minutes on camera about the attack in Benghazi?

Lara Logan: .... Andy Wood has an extraordinary amount of guilt because he served with Amb. Stevens for a long time and warned him - warned the Department of Defense, reported it back to Washington repeatedly - that he saw this attack coming. [And] he wasn't able to do anything about it...

Greg Hicks, his motivation is a sense of duty to Amb. Stevens to correct the record. He said he had to break 22 years of tradition in order to talk [to us] because it's ingrained in officials from the State Department not to speak to the public. And he's paid for that, of course, because he certainly doesn't have a sparkling diplomatic future, but that was a price he was willing to pay to set the record straight on Amb. Chris Stevens.
And, here's a few excerpts from the 60 Minutes Overtime interviews - excerpt which were not aired on Sunday - with the video links:

Morgan Jones, an eyewitness, British citizen and security officer at the Benghazi compound, who uses the pseudonym Morgan Jones to protect his safety:
"When I got into work that morning, September 11, the guard got a hold of me and said, "we caught somebody taking photos of the compound." So they told me what happened: It was a guy dressed as a policeman. So they went out and confronted him... and they asked him what he was doing. And he just said it has nothing to do with you. He was armed, my guys obviously weren't. And he just got in his police car and left. [My guys] were worried sick and they wanted answers. They [called] the Chief of Police in Benghazi wanting answers to find out who this guy was, and what he was doing. And they never got any answers.... We all knew it was a bad sign....."
Morgan Jones:
"There were actually two [security] incidents [at the U.S compound prior to the September 11 attacks]. One happened April 6. One of the guards who previously worked at the mission threw a grenade over the wall. He was arrested, but not charged. Even though he was caught doing it, the police let him go. [In a second incident], around June time, somebody put up an IED against the front of the mission wall, near the gate... It blew up and blew a large section of the wall down. And apparently [the bomber] got got out of the car, dressed in an original Afghan dishdasha [robe] - which you don't see much of that in Libya - and he shouted "Alla Akbar". He probably knew that the guards weren't armed because he would have known he stood a good chance of getting shot. So they probably had been watching us for a while."
Morgan Jones:
"[On my first drive through Benghazi, I saw] quite a few pickup vehicles with black [Al Qaeda] flags on the back... So I asked the driver, "who are these guys?" He mentioned a couple of militias and he said, "Don't worry about it, they're no problem..." But, having worked where I've worked [in Iraq and Afghanistan], it didn't feel right. [The black flags meant] Al Qaeda, terrorists... If you saw a black flag like that in Afghanistan and Iraq, you would turn around. You wouldn't drive past that; You'd go back... You don't go near a black flag."
Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, was the commander of a 16-member group of special operations soldiers who left Libya in August of 2012. Wood has said that that he wanted to stay in Libya, and that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens – one of the four Americans killed – wanted him to stay as well. Wood also testified at a congressional hearing, earlier this year, that requests for more diplomatic security in Libya had been made prior to the September 11 attacks, but that the State Department told Americans stationed in Libya to stop requesting additional security.

Wood on 60 Minutes Overtime:
"I felt like our adversaries had gotten a jump on us... Where we were trying to figure them out and block their work there, they were able to get ahead of us and attack us before we were able to get them. [It was a significant defeat for the U.S] and a huge recruiting [tool] for the enemy as well. [It was a huge win for Al Qaeda worldwide.] They'll all run this through all their little cells and networks everywhere. They'll be able to talk about how they accomplished this. And that's my biggest fear [that they'll do it again]. I don't want to see this perpetrated again. An ambassador is the President's personal representative; he is the Commander-in-Chief while we're in Libya. There isn't anybody that outranks him. He's a four-star general equivalent in military protocol. That speaks a lot to a military man. And to lose a man of that rank and stature... I think we were set back 25 years when we lost him. That's a huge blow to U.S. diplomatic relations... I think Al Qaeda is more established in Libya than America. Our influence wanes, while theirs grows stronger."

The regular version of 60 Minutes which aired on Sunday - Video:

Afghanistan: Roadside explosion kills 18 civilians, mostly women & Children, returning from a wedding, as US hands over security to Afghan forces

From the AP:
A roadside bomb killed 18 civilians Sunday, mostly women and children, after it struck a small bus coming from a wedding in a lawless district of eastern Afghanistan’s Ghazni province, police said... The blast [also] wounded five women and two were in critical condition...

The U.N. said in the first six months of this year, 1,319 civilians were killed and 2,533 were wounded in the ongoing 12-year Afghan conflict...

Earlier Sunday, a bomb apparently targeting a group of soldiers killed a civilian in a market in the capital, Kabul... A man who identified himself as Ziaudin said his 10-year-old daughter was killed...  Four civilians were wounded in addition to the soldiers... The bomb was placed under vegetables in a shop.

There has been a spike in violence around Afghanistan in recent months as the insurgents try to take advantage of a security handover from foreign forces to the Afghans. The handover is the latest step in the gradual withdrawal of troops from the U.S.-led international military coalition, which will be completed at the end of 2014.

Sunday, October 27, 2013 isn't secure, says Rep. Mike Rogers, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman

House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, told CNN on Sunday that he has serious concerns about the security of the Obamacare website.
CNN's Candy Crowley: On the subject of health care..., you expressed again your real fear about the security of Obamacare as we call it, especially with the hub with seven sort of federal entities gathering information in one place.

We're now told that they should have the computer system and the software fixed by the end of November. Can they fix the security problems by the end of November?

Rep. Mike Rogers: Boy, I don't - this worries me a lot, Candy. The fact that they have different segments of people controlling pieces of information and they say, "well, we don't store information." But they have to store your application at some point. And that's a lot of your very personal information. And it was very clear to me in the hearing that they do not have an overarching solid cybersecurity plan to prevent the loss of private information.

I'm even more concerned today than I was even last week. I know that they've called in another private entity to try to help with the security of it. The problem is they may have to redesign the entire system. The way the system is designed, it is not secure. It is something called a "boundary". So every time one agency goes to another agency with a piece of information, that is called a "boundary". That's the most - that's the weakest, most vulnerable part of that conversation. And it was clear to me that they don't have those boundaries secure. And that's what I'm concerned about.

Reagan's Daughter, Patti Davis: Why Am I Losing My Health Insurance?

In a twitter posting on Friday, liberal activist, Patti Davis, the daughter of former President Ronald Reagan, echoed the sentiment of thousands upon thousands of American citizens, when she tweeted the following question: "Could the president please explain why I and others are losing our health ins. plans? Wasn't supposed to happen!" Newsmax reported on Sunday.

Ms. Davis, who is known for her rebellious, liberal streak, had been estranged from her parents for a number of years, Newsmax noted, but she later reconciled with both of them, despite her staunch Liberal views and free-spirited nature.

In recent weeks, Ms. Davis has expressed disappointment with President Obama, particularly with the way he handled the recent government shutdown, Newsmax noted. And, while Davis remains a staunch Liberal activist, who blames the shutdown primarily on Republicans, she nevertheless had some harsh words for President Obama.

In an open letter to President Obama, she wrote:
[Excerpts from the letter] Dear Mr. President.

Since you have quoted my father on a number of occasions, always strategically, always with a political goal in mind, I thought you might like to know something about him as a man... You’re the president. And if you are going to quote my father, you might want to learn from him.

We all remember your campaign tag of “no drama Obama.” Interesting that there has been one drama after another in your presidency, this last one [the government shutdown] really tipping the scales. My father would never have thought to announce he wasn’t about drama. He just wasn’t. It was how he lived, how he conducted himself. If you live it, you don’t need to talk about it. He believed with all his heart that he was given a destiny to fulfill, that whatever he did as president was for the good of all Americans. That’s why he talked to the American people in the heartfelt way that garnered him the title of the Great Communicator.

Mr. President, when you talk to us — on the few occasions that you do — you seem annoyed, as if this job you campaigned for is keeping you from something else you’d rather be doing. It seems like you don’t like us very much [Editors Note: Chris Matthews made the same point last year during an interview], and whether people agreed with my father or disagreed with him, they always came away believing that he liked them...

Announcing that you won’t negotiate is not showing leadership, it’s showing a pouting face to the country and the world. My father understood leadership. He understood that it’s a mix of strength, gentleness, and humor. He would never have frozen out the opposing party...

You have talked often about reaching across the aisle.But do you extend your hand with kindness, with an understanding that the person you’re reaching toward believes as fervently as you do that he is right? Or are you just following a political map?...

[My father] could negotiate successfully with those from the other side of the aisle. He saw their humanity even if he thought they were wrong. He would never have insulted them, or frozen them out. He understood that Americans elect a president... who can handle things better than they do, not someone who complains and grumbles in the same ways they do.

Mr. President..., my father... had humility, and in that humility was great strength. He had a kindness toward other human beings that transcended political boundaries. That’s what brought this country to a standstill when he died. Maybe people are born with those attributes, maybe they can learn them. I don’t know. I’m trying hard every day to learn from the man whose DNA runs through my veins. Maybe you could try a little harder to learn from him too.
Sorry to shatter your dreams, Patti, and I'm sorry that I can't draw upon your father's spirit of optimism in this instance. But Mr. Obama will always remain who he is, and he will never, ever learn from your father the attributes of humility, kindness or any of the other noble character traits that your father possessed.

I'm sorry to shatter your dreams, but what can I do? The truth can be shattering.

Merkel cell phone tap - Obama: 'I know nothing!'; NSA Official: 'The President knows everything!'

President Obama claims he didn't know that the NSA was eavesdropping on the cell phone conversations, and text messages, of German chancellor Angela Merkel; an NSA official, however, refuted the President's assertion.

The economic Times reported that the NSA official is a “high-ranking” official.

This post does not delve into the question of whether eavesdropping on the cell phones of foreign leaders is judicious or not, but rather this post is about 1) hypocrisy and the 2) President's propensity to deny knowledge of the myriad of scandals that have plagued his administration, or any, and all, matters that might be politically damaging to him, if he were to have prior knowledge of these matters.

During the 2012 Presidential campaign, when Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, criticized President Obama for being too soft with Russia, the latter mocked Mr. Romney. "The Cold War's been over for 20 years," the President said. But of course, while the cold war may be officially over, Russia's current relationship with the U.S is anything but warm; and Russia's current foreign policy clearly evokes a cold war sentiment.

Nevertheless, the Politician-in-Chief buried his head in the sand and asserted, "The Cold War's been over for 20 years." Which brings us to the following related news item about eavesdropping on foreign leaders, and consequently, Obama's hypocrisy
A German newspaper said on Sunday that U.S. President Barack Obama knew his intelligence service was eavesdropping on Angela Merkel as long ago as 2010, contradicting reports that he had told the German leader he did not know.

Germany received information this week that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had bugged Merkel's mobile phone, prompting Berlin to summon the U.S. ambassador, a move unprecedented in post-war relations between the close allies.

The [German newspaper], citing a "U.S. intelligence worker involved in the NSA operation against Merkel", said NSA chief General Keith Alexander informed Obama in person about it in 2010.

"Obama didn't stop the operation back then but let it continue," the mass-market paper quoted the source as saying. The [newspaper] said Obama in fact wanted more material on Merkel, and ordered the NSA to compile a "comprehensive dossier" on her. "Obama, according to the NSA man, did not trust Merkel and wanted to know everything about the German," the paper said.

White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden declined to comment and reiterated the standard policy line that the United States gathers foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations.

[The German Newspaper] said the NSA had increased its surveillance, including the contents of Merkel's text messages and phone calls, on Obama's initiative and had started tapping a new, supposedly bug-proof mobile she acquired this summer, a sign the spying continued into the "recent past"...

[The newspaper] said some NSA officials were becoming annoyed with the White House for creating the impression that U.S. spies had gone beyond what they had been ordered to do...
Nevertheless, like Sergeant Schultz of Hogans Heroes, Obama apparently "knows nothing" about any or all matters that might be politically damaging to him, if he were to have prior knowledge of these matters. However, in all other matters, he is by far the most knowledgeable person on the planet.
The rift over U.S. surveillance activities first emerged this year with reports that Washington had bugged European Union offices and tapped half a billion phone calls, emails and text messages in Germany in a typical month.

Merkel's government said in August - just weeks before a German election - that the United States had given sufficient assurances it was complying with German law.
A similar assurance was given to the American people, in the summer, regarding the NSA's domestic spying program, when President Obama asserted that the NSA was complying with American law.

"I am comfortable that the program currently is not being abused," Obama said. "I am comfortable that if the American people examined exactly what was taking place..., that they would say, `You know what? These folks are following the law.'"

Obama added, "If you are outside of the intelligence community, if you are the ordinary person and you start seeing a bunch of headlines saying, U.S., Big Brother, looking down on you, collecting telephone records, et cetra, well, understandably people would be concerned. I would be too if I wasn't inside the government." Heh......

CBS reported in July:
Responding to reports that the United States has been spying on the European Union, President Obama... suggested that every nation engages in that kind of covert intelligence gathering.

"They're going to be trying to understand the world better and what's going on in world capitals around the world, from sources that aren't available through the New York Times or NBC News," Mr. Obama said. "I guarantee you that in European capitals, there are people who are interested in, if not what I had for breakfast, at least what my talking points might be should I end up meeting with their leaders."

Mr. Obama stressed that European nations remain "some of the closest allies that we have in the world" and that he maintains close, constructive relationships with European leaders.

"I'm the end user of this kind of intelligence," he said. "And if I want to know what Chancellor Merkel is thinking, I will call Chancellor Merkel."
But of course, the President would be too embarrassed to ask Angela Merkel what she had for breakfast, hence, there was no other option but to tap her cell phone.......

Friday, October 25, 2013

Avid screamer, Hillary Clinton, tells heckler to stop yelling, University of Buffalo - Video Remix, Parody

During a speech at the University of Buffalo on Wednesday night, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - an avid and passionate screamer - told a heckler to stop yelling. Heh..........

Video Remix below - Parody:

Obamacare Roll Out, Definition = Heads Roll?

There have been calls from both Democrats and Republicans for heads to start rolling in the Obama administration due to the disastrous implementation of Obamacare and the myriad of problems inherent in the Affordable Care Act.

I was just wondering whether the head-rolling aspect of Obamacare is the reason why the Obamacare implementation has been referred to as the Obamacare ROLL OUT, as in 'roll out the heads'. Just wondering. I'm not really sure.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Comical - Howard Dean blames Republicans for Obamacare roll out, website woes - Video Remix, Parody

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman, Howard Dean, on Thursday blamed Republicans for the disastrous roll out of Obamacare, and the broken Healthcare.Gov website - during an appearance on the the Morning Joe program.

Of course, the Republican opposition to Obamacare has no connection whatsoever to the inoperative, crooked and misleading website - which the Obama administration had over three years to set up. Moreover, the postponement of the employer mandate, the skyrocketing costs of health insurance and the thousands upon thousands of Americans who are losing their current healthcare insurance are huge problems that are completely unrelated to the Republican opposition to Obamacare.

But, Howard Dean is first and foremost a politician, and disingenuously blaming the GOP for the disastrous roll out of Obamacare is right up his alley.

Al Qaeda terrorist's involvement in Benghazi attack omitted from State Department report. But why?

Why did a State Department report omit the involvement of an Al Qaeda terrorist in the Benghazi terrorist attacks?

There's no need to answer that question; the answer is obvious to anyone who followed the Obama administration's cover-up scheme in the days, weeks and months after the Benghazi attack.

Nevertheless it's worthwhile to point out the blatant omission.

Thomas Joscelyn of the The Long War Journal reports that the UN, on Oct. 18, added Muhammad Jamal al Kashef - who previously served as a bodyguard to Al Qaeda chief, Ayman al Zawahiri - to its its list of individuals and entities subject to sanctions, including the freezing of assets, travel bans etc.

However, Mr. Joscelyn notes that, although the State Department - like the UN - added al Kashef to its list of designated terrorists, and although the State Department's report on al Kashef contains many of the details mentioned in the UN report, nevertheless two key elements in the UN report, pertaining to al Kashef's terrorist activities, were omitted from the State Department's report.

The UN report notes that al Kashef - who previously served as a bodyguard to Al Qaeda chief Ayman al Zawahiri - and members of al Kashef's terrorist network are "reported to be involved in the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 Sep. 2012."

But the State Department, in its report, blatantly omitted this fact.

But, as the honorable Hillary Clinton would say: "What difference does it make?" Lol.

Al Kashef's involvement in an Egyptian terrorist cell [Nasr City terrorist cell] was also omitted from the State Department's report.

But why, you ask?

Answer: Mr. Joscelyn notes that al Kashef, who previously served as an Al Qaeda bodyguard, and another leader of the Egyptian Nasr City cell, "had been imprisoned prior to the Egyptian revolution but [were] released in 2011." They were re-arrested in November 2012. And, as Mr. Joscelyn notes in a separate post: "After his release from prison in 2011, Kashef established training camps in Egypt and Libya. Some of Kashef’s trainees took part in the Benghazi attack, according to multiple reports."

That explains why  the involvement of al Kashef - the al Qaeda bodyguard - in the Egyptian terrorist cell was omitted from the State Department report. But "what difference does it make anyway?".............

Related Post, that is unrelated to al Kashef: Key suspects in Benghazi attack Linked to Top al-Qaida Leaders

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Key suspects in Benghazi attack Linked to Top al-Qaida Leaders

From Newsmax:
At least two suspects in the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi had worked with senior al-Qaida leaders, Fox News reported Wednesday.

Citing two unnamed sources, Fox reported one suspect was believed to be a courier for the al-Qaida network, and the other a bodyguard in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 terror strikes.

The direct ties to the terror group's senior leadership undercut early White House characterizations that attackers in the Libya seige were isolated “extremists" with no organizational structure or affiliation.

Counterterrorism expert Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News investigators are finding "more and more ties -- not just to al-Qaida's branch in North Africa ... but al-Qaida senior leadership in Pakistan."

A year ago, Fox [News] reported a former Guantanamo detainee, Sufian bin Qumu, was suspected of training jihadists in eastern Libya for the attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Fox reported Wednesday that Benghazi suspect Faraj al-Chalabi, also a Libyan national whose ties to Osama bin Laden date back to 1998, is believed to be a former bodyguard who was with the al-Qaida leadership in Afghanistan in 2001.

After the Benghazi attack, al-Chalabi fled to Pakistan where reports suggest he was held, then later returned to Libyan custody and eventually released, Fox News said.

“Our sources say al-Chalabi is suspected of bringing materials from the compound to Benghazi to al-Qaida senior leadership in Pakistan," Joscelyn told Fox. "It's not clear what those materials consisted of but he is known to have gone back to Pakistan immediately after the attack."

[Related post: Al Qaeda terrorist's involvement in Benghazi attack omitted from State Department report]

Separately, and for the first time, [the head of the House Intelligence Committee, Chairman Mike] Rogers [R-Mich] laid out a timeline for the attack that suggests significant advance planning, Fox News reported.

According to the congressman, there was an “aspirational phase” several months out, where the idea of an attack was thrown around, followed by “weeks” of operational planning, and then the ramp up to the assault that lasted up to several days...

"And so this notion that they just showed up and decided this was a spontaneous act does not comport with the information at least with what we have seen in the intelligence community," Rogers told Fox News

Initial White House statements said the attack was “spontaneous” and achieved with little planning.

The CIA and the National Counter-terrorism Center declined to comment; the FBI didn't immediately comment.

Healthcare.Gov: President Obama explains the Obamacare Website - Parody, Video

President Obama demonstrates to the American people how to use the disastrous [albeit, comical] Obamacare website:

Obamacare website giving misleading and false price estimates

From CBS News:
The new "shop and browse" feature [on the Obamacare website] often comes with the wrong price tags.[Par for the course.]

Industry analysts, such as Jonathan Wu, point to how the website lumps people only into two broad categories: "49 or under" and "50 or older." Wu said it's "incredibly misleading for people that are trying to get a sense of what they're paying."

Prices for everyone in the 49-or-under group are based on what a 27-year-old would pay. In the 50-or-older group, prices are based on what a 50-year-old would pay.

CBS News ran the numbers for a 48-year-old in Charlotte, N.C., ineligible for subsidies. According to, she would pay $231 a month, but the actual plan on Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina's website costs $360, more than 50 percent higher. The difference: Blue Cross and Blue Shield requests your birthday before providing more accurate estimates.

The numbers for older Americans are even more striking. A 62-year-old in Charlotte looking for the same basic plan would get a price estimate on the government website of $394. The actual price is $634...

Chini Krishnan is the chief executive officer of His company helped design California's new health-care-exchange website. It requires people to enter their birthdays to get a real price quote. Krishnan said, "It's important that the users have a proper, trustworthy, honest brand experience when they interact with, and I think providing accurate prices is an integral component of that."

Industry executives CBS News spoke with could not believe the government is providing these estimates, which they said were useless and could easily mislead consumers. They also said that the website repeatedly states the actual prices could be lower, but it makes no mention that they could be higher
Not surprising at all. Par for the course...........

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Obamacare Website Debacle: Obama hides the real truth, offers excuse, but says there's no excuse

During a press conference, on October 1, the day the Obamacare website was launched, President Obama offered up an excuse to explain why the website was malfunctioning: The sheer volume of unexpected traffic, he claimed, was the source of the problem. On October 5, in an interview with the AP, Obama offered up the same excuse.

But, on October 21, with the Obamacare website still malfunctioning, Obama was forced to change course.

"There's no excuse for the problems", he admitted [reluctantly]. "There's no sugarcoating it."

However, the President - in typical fashion - refused to reveal the real truth.

What he omitted from his remarks - and what he is still covering up - is the fact, that, in a test run, days before was launched, the website crashed with just a few hundred people logging on simultaneously. Moreover, a testing group begged for a delay in the launching of the website because it was still riddled with problems.

But Obama, ever the politician that he is, chose to launch the faulty website rather than postpone its debut, because he was not prepared to suffer the political embarrassment of having to delay his prized healthcare exchange debacle.

Par for the course..........

Friday, October 18, 2013

Sebelius unavailable to attend congressional hearing on Obamacare tech problems, but available for Comedy Central interview

From Reuters:
Republicans in Congress chastised President Barack Obama's top health adviser, [Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius], on Thursday for declining to testify before an oversight panel about problems in rolling out the president's signature healthcare program known as Obamacare.

Less than a day after Congress ended a 16-day partial government..., they sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius demanding she make officials available for the October 24 hearing.

The online insurance exchanges that are a central part of Obamacare rolled out on October 1 despite the shutdown but have been hobbled by technical difficulties...

The letter from majority members of the committee said they invited Sebelius on October 11 to appear at the hearing, only to learn on Wednesday that she would not attend. The administration has not agreed to provide other administration officials, the letter added.

"It's well past time for the administration to be straight and transparent with the American people," said a separate statement by Republican Representative Fred Upton, who chairs the panel...

Sebelius recently [last week] appeared on the cable-television comedy program, "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" for an interview that focused on the website's problems.

But HHS and the White House have largely declined to disclose information about the problems plaguing the federal marketplace's information technology system, which cost nearly $400 million to build, according to a report by the watchdog Government Accountability Office.

"This is wholly unacceptable. Secretary Sebelius had time for Jon Stewart, and we expect her to have time for Congress," Upton said.
In defense of Secretary Sebelius, however, it is worthy to note that Comedy Central is a comedy news network, and thus it the most appropriate venue to discuss the rollout of President Obama's comedic, albeit disastrous, health care law. A congressional hearing, on the other hand, is a more serious venue, which makes it an unsuitable setting to discuss comical matters the likes of Obamacare, despite the serious effect that this new side-splitting legislation will have on the American people.

Hence, Sebelius prefers Comedy Central over a congressional hearing.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

When did Obama learn military families were being denied death benefits?

Fox News reported earlier today:
The Pentagon announced Wednesday that a charity will step in to pay death benefits [$100,000 payments] to the families of fallen soldiers, in response to widespread outrage over the payments being cut off amid the partial government shutdown...

The House voted Wednesday afternoon to restore the $100,000 payments. But in a rapid turn of events, the Pentagon announced minutes later that it had entered into an agreement with the non-profit Fisher House Foundation to keep the payments flowing to families -- without the need for congressional action.

GOP leaders... say legislation approved last week to pay the military should have given the Pentagon the ability to pay death benefits...
During a White House press briefing on Wednesday, Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that President Obama was "very disturbed to learn of this problem" and directed the Pentagon to work with the White House budget office to correct it. This prompted FOX News Chief White House Correspondent Ed Henry to ask Mr. Carney when the President actually learned of the problem. Mr. Carney, however, danced around the issue, and refused to give a straight answer. Instead, he resorted to an old political trick of turning the tables around, feigning indignation, and accussing Mr. Henry of partisanship.

Reuters reported on Wednesday: "A senior administration official said Obama raised his concerns about the stoppage in payments Tuesday night during an evening walk around the White House grounds with his chief of staff, Denis McDonough. He directed McDonough to get the problem solved within 24 hours."

On Wednesday evening, however, Mr. Henry "did some more digging" and discovered that White House aids were cognizant of the problem at least a few days ago.

"I did some more digging tonight," Mr. Henry told Fox News anchor Megan Kelly. "And inside the administration people are saying unofficially that aids around here knew about this a few days ago. Now, how quickly that filtered to the President, we still don't know; they haven't answered that question. But if the President knew about it 2, 3 days ago, that would suggest maybe it would be politically embarrassing for them if they were to say that he knew back then, but didn't actually move quickly to issue an executive order, or whatever may be the case."

And that would explain why Mr. Carney refused to answer Mr. Henry's question.

However, in the President's defense, it's important to note the following: Even if Obama did learn about the problem a few days ago - Sunday is usually his golf outing day, Sunday evening he likely was watching the MLB playoff games, Monday he had to review his golf score and the MLB playoff standings, Tuesday morning he gave a press conference, Tuesday afternoon he was busy assessing his press conference remarks. Hence, Tuesday evening was the first moment in time that he was actually free to address the problem of paying death benefits to the families of fallen soldiers.

Do the math; it all adds up......

Of course, as Mr. Henry pointed out to Megan Kelly, reporters already discussed the death benefit problem a couple of weeks ago - but Obama is not a reporter, hence there's no way he would have been aware of this problem. Moreover, he had more serious problems to deal with: the malfunctioning of the Obamacare websites..........

Violence in Iraq, Obama's "No residual U.S. force" policy, and Afghanistan

From Fox News:
5,740 Iraqis have been killed so far this year. Almost 1,000 died during the past month... In the last year, Al-Qaeda has resurged in Iraq, carrying out attacks in Baghdad and surrounding provinces...

“This reflects the general deterioration of the security situation in Iraq over the past several years since the Obama Administration pulled American forces out,” said John Bolton, the former United States Ambassador to the UN... "Many people thought they [the Obama administration] could have worked out an agreement with the al-Maliki regime to keep [a residual U.S. force] there, but they didn't want to... So... the country itself is again becoming destabilized. And Al Qaeda has returned despite being defeated in the surge of 2006 and 2007.”
From Polisite:
When the NATO combat mission in Afghanistan concludes at the end of 2014 there is a distinct possibility that the US will have no option for a residual force in the war torn nation. The talks to get a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)... have reached an impasse... The impasse, after a year of talks, has increased the prospect of what the Americans call the zero option — complete withdrawal — when the NATO combat mission concludes at the end of 2014.

This is... a situation which is similar to the problematic Iraq withdrawal two years ago. The absence of a treaty, and thus a US residual force, has permitted Al Qaeda to infiltrate Iraq, and Iran is currently overflying Iraqi territory to deliver weapons and possibly fighters to Assad’s forces in Syria
Good grief.........

Female suicide bomber & Booby trap IED's kill 4 U.S. Service Members, Injure 13

From Fox News:
As the coffins of four U.S. service members returned to Dover, Del. Wednesday..., Fox News has learned new details about the attack in which they died Sunday in Afghanistan...

Fox News has learned that 13 other service members were also severely injured in the assault...

A Ranger regiment that included 36 troops and a canine unit were attempting to capture a high value target in Panjwai in southern Afghanistan. When the troops arrived at the home, U.S. military officials said, the unit did a typical “call out” asking for those inside to come out.

One man appeared. Reports from the battlefield suggest he dropped to his knees and lifted his shirt to show the U.S. forces that he was not wearing a suicide bomb vest.

As several members of the Ranger unit moved toward the man to begin questioning him, a woman wearing a suicide vest emerged from the house and blew herself up, killing several members of the unit instantly, along with the dog, and injuring others.

Another Afghan male tried to escape from the compound.

As U.S. army medics, explosives specialists and others in the unit moved in to help the wounded, 13 improvised explosive devices went off, killing and injuring more U.S. forces.