Sunday, December 1, 2013

Relaunch of most embarrassing gov’t website ever going about as well as you’d think!

Hotair ^ | 12/01/2013 | Ed Morrissey 

According to Fox News Sunday, the new site has not quite achieved the promised “fully functional” status by the November 30th deadline. In fact, the site still can’t verify identities for potential enrollees, which means that consumers can’t be sure they’re seeing the right information for coverage options. After forty-two months of development and nine weeks of futility and failure, this isn’t exactly a confidence-builder (via The Weekly Standard):


“Federal officials promised that would work smoothly for a vast majority of users starting today. But that has not been the case so far because this morning the critical verification system is unavailable. That’s the system that confirms identities and makes sure people are receiving proper coverage information.
“And applications cannot be submitted without this ant step. The site says this particular problem should be solved within 24 hours. And there is another error much earlier in the process as well. When the site asks if an insurance agent or navigator is assisting you with your application. Ater clicking none of these people are offering any guidance, the next screen incorrectly displays a message declaring the opposite. The banner says, you told us another person is helping you.
“Furthermore, an address associated with has sent several erroneous e-mails this morning with an alert suggesting that logging in at the website will reveal a new message, however no message ever appeared. Officials have said November 30th was not a magical relaunch date for, and that like any site, they predict there will be times moving forward when it does not perform optimally.”
A “magical relaunch date”? That was the administration’s initial promise — that all of the bugs would be worked out by December 1, a deadline that is more than just an arbitrary date on the calendar. In order to meet their January 1 deadline for the individual mandate, the site has to be able to enroll millions of people no later than December 23rd — and then the back-end issues have to be fixed, and an entire subsidy payment system launched to ensure that the coverage actually takes effect for those enrolled through
If they still can’t get the front end to verify an enrollee’s identity, just imagine the status of the 834 transmission and subsidy payment infrastructure. And this is after a month-long push to fix these very problems.

IRS Tightens Regs on “Anti-Government” Speech

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 29 Nov 2013 | John Semmens 

Concerned that “excessive opposition is impeding the Administration’s ability to govern the country,” the IRS has moved to tighten regulations on “right-leaning” political “education” organizations.
“The notion that anyone can organize to speak out against government policy and still get the same exemptions from taxes that those working to help the government is wrong-headed,” said Mark Mazur, Treasury Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy. “People should all be pulling together to help propel the ship of state toward the attainment of the greater common good. Those rowing with us deserve preferential tax treatment. Those rowing against us do not. It’s as simple as that.”
Mazur dismissed objections from Karl Rove, former adviser to President George W. Bush and current head of the Crossroads Grassroots Political Strategy, that the new regulations aim at stifling free speech. “Mr. Rove and his kind are still free to say whatever they want,” Mazur contended. “But there is no obligation on the government to abet these right deviationists by allowing them to be funded with tax-free donations.”

In an effort to protect tourists from violent crime, a map!


In an effort to protect tourists from violent crime, the State Department has released the following map. They advise tourists to stay away from any county which voted for Obama (blue) and particularly precincts which voted 80+% for Obama.

Believe in ME!

Obama Banard College REV

Iran does not trust us but we must trust them?

Dan Miller's Blog ^ | December 1, 2013 | Dan Miller 

Unexpected? President Obama is accustomed to the unexpected and He will deal with it? (sure)

Move forward
Peace-loving Iran
Here is a link to an article posted at Israeli News on December 1st. It concludes with this pearl:

The deal is designed to halt any further advances in Iran’s nuclear campaign and to buy time for negotiations on a final settlement aimed at ensuring Tehran’s nuclear activity is wholly peaceful in nature.Iran rejects suspicions that it has sought covertly to develop the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, saying it is enriching uranium solely for civilian energy purposes. [Emphasis added.]
Any such suspicions seem to have been dismissed by the P5+1 negotiators, who entered into a "deal" that omits mention of all warlike aspects of Iran's plans. With that assurance, how could any sane person suspect that Iran has tried to produce nuclear weapons? Of course she has not, is not and will not: her fear of the President of The United States of Obama is far too compelling. Accordingly, Her research and development of, and progress in constructing, nuclear warheads as well as warhead-capable missiles have been meant solely to get us to approve the rest of her peaceful nuclear ambitions. Once we do that, Iran obviously will convert any warheads and missiles into plowshares, or something. Perhaps she will use her marvelous scientific and medical technology to convert them into food, oil and even vaccines -- for the little children. Obama must be the only One wise enough to understand the logic, but then it seems consistent with his own.
However, suspicions are substantial on the Iranian side.

“The moment we feel that the opposite side is not meeting its obligations or its actions fall short, we will revert to our previous position and cease the process,” Fars quoted Araqchi, [Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister and] a senior member of Iran’s negotiating team, as saying. “We are in no way optimistic about the other side – we are pessimistic – and we have told them that we cannot trust you.” [Emphasis added.]
President Obama, in his address after the signing of the November 24th deal, said:
The burden is on Iran to prove to the world that its nuclear program will be for exclusively peaceful purposes. If Iran seizes this opportunity, the Iranian people will benefit from rejoining the international community, and we can begin to chip away at the mistrust between our two nations. This would provide Iran with a dignified path to forge a new beginning with the wider world based on mutual respect. But if Iran refuses, it will face growing pressure and isolation. [Emphasis added.]
Burden? What burden? Having yielded to Iran on every point thus far, Iran's claim of pessimism about the United States of Obama and P5+1 seems misplaced. There are at least these additional factors in Iran's favor:

It is becoming increasingly clear, that Iran has been an obsessive focus of the administration from the beginning and that the administration’s goal was not to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but rather to end its international isolation and create a new American-Iranian rapprochement. Lee Smith summarizes what has occurred this way: [Emphasis added.]
“The interim deal makes official what Obama has long been pursuing — a strategic realignment integrating Iran into a multipolar Middle East, where once-traditional American allies will no longer enjoy a privileged relationship with Washington. The signs pointing to Obama’s new configuration, downgrading Saudi Arabia and Israel and upgrading Iran, have long been apparent, if incredible.” [Emphasis added.]
That Iran might obtain nuclear weapons was a secondary issue, if a concern at all. After all, in a fairer world, if Israel had nuclear weapons, why shouldn’t Iran, a far larger and more important nation on the world stage (one of the seven world powers, John Kerry supposedly assured his Iranian interlocutors last weekend)? [Emphasis added.]
However, Israel must embrace the Pax Obama; it's best for all
President Obama and Secretary Kerry are also committed to bringing peace to the entire Middle East by coercing Israel into giving the Palestinians whatever they claim to want. As noted in the article linked immediately above,

American relations with Israel during the Obama years have been on two tracks — stopping Iran from going nuclear (Israel’s desire), and forcing an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians (Obama’s desire). With Israel visibly unhappy with the American deal with Iran, what does it signal for the Israeli-Palestinian track? Jonathan Freeland, the resident Israel-basher at The Guardian, thinks now is the time for Obama to ratchet up the pressure on Israel to finally get a deal done with the Palestinians. Freeland, his paper, The New York Times, Obama himself, and the other “great minds” with whom the president discusses grand strategy — Valerie Jarrett, Tom Friedman, and David Ignatius among them — are all convinced that nothing has prevented a deal in the past except for Israeli intransigence (which some of them can even spell), and Israeli settlement policy. The time has come for one more attempt to break Israel’s back (all for Israel’s own good, of course, as the encouragers of backbreaking will argue). [Emphasis added.]

I think the expectation that Obama will give Israel time to salve its wounds is misguided. This is a president who came to office determined to weaken the influence of the pro-Israel community, and “rebalance” Israel’s relationship with its neighbors, Iran and the Palestinians. Rebalancing of course, can be defined here as weakening Israel’s strategic position, since Israel’s relative strength is perceived to be unfair and some of its power (and wealth) needs to be redistributed. [Emphasis added.]

The president, a narcissist to the end, may think he is on a roll in the Middle East. His press clippings are certainly better these days on this front than for his health care reform. So with a bit of momentum, he may well think now is the time for him to slam down the hammer on the so-called “peace process,” or rather, slam it down once again on Israel. And if he needs a workman to do the job, he can count on John Kerry, who, once again, will be “reporting for duty." [Emphasis added.]
< p align="left">President Obama made His Israel - Palestine fixation clear in His March 20th, 2013 address to the U.N.

Iran for Palestine — those three words sum up the key message Barack Obama directed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his speech Tuesday to the United Nations General Assembly. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .

“In the near term, America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Obama said, opening the central, major section of his speech. “While these issues are not the cause of all the region’s problems, they have been a major source of instability for far too long, and resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace.”

Israel did not get what she wanted -- and needs for her continued survival -- in the Iranian negotiations because there appears to have been no significant (or at least productive) focus on Iran's nuclear weapons. Any notion that the November 24th deal can encourage peace in the Middle East is risible. Therefore, it has to be up to Israel to bring regional peace by giving President Obama what He wants for Palestine. Q.E.D. That at least seems consistent with His notions of redistributive fairness and justice.

Fortunately, Palestinian negotiator Abbas does not demand much; merely everything he thinks he wants until he thinks of something additional to demand. Should Israel not yield, all blame for failed "negotiations" will be cast on her. A recent compilation of Abbas' demands is provided by Maggie's Notebook in a post titled Release Prisoners and Demand the Moon.

Wesley Pruden, writing at the Washington Times that Obama is a weak President in foreign affairs, is only partially correct. Although weak when dealing with our enemies, he can be strong when dealing with our traditional allies -- particularly Israel, the only reasonably free and democratic nation in the Middle East.

Barack Obama, resolute enough when he’s designing health care schemes, shows only irresolution abroad. Weakness and irresolution is the face he turns to the rest of the world, in hopes that if he hires a good speechwriter and bows deeply enough to whatever kings and potentates cross his path, that’s good enough.But of course it isn’t, and Mr. Obama is challenged now at every turn by friend and foe of the United States who need to see on what meat the man feeds, and of what stuff his promises and assurances are made. The mullahs in Tehran, who can’t believe how easy it was to roll the president and his counterparts in Geneva, had no sooner signed the agreement to preserve the Iranian pursuit of the bomb at a bargain price than the mullahs began dreaming up new demands. If the mullahs could roll him once, they could roll him twice. [Emphasis added.]
Of course they did, and will do the same repeatedly as and when it pleases them. President Obama has reserved His strength for Israel, to force her to yield to all demands of the unfairly poor, down trodden and rejected Palestinians. He evidently deems Israel's past failures in yielding to Palestine to be the principal if not only remaining impediments to the breakout of peace throughout the entire region.
If only Prime Minister Netenyahu and the rest of the vile Zionists in Israel will commit suicide, His legacy as the Great Maker and Bringer of Peace, Truth and Light will be assured.
Obama Banard College REV
Fortunately, a final solution remains.
Video link

This revamped homepage is hilarious ^ | 11/30/13 | Twitchy Staff 

Today is the administration’s self-imposed deadline to roll out a properly functioning website. Is the site now free of those “glitches” that kept so many from being able to sign up? Now that poor Splash Page Stock Photo Girl has long gone missing, here is the perfect replacement model.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama: 'The Taliban are Not Our Enemies and We Don't Want to Fight Them.'

front page ^ | 11/30/2009 | Daniel Greenfield 

It’s one compulsive liar who hates America and supports terrorists quoting another one. But it seem plausible enough.
' Karzai confirmed that the Obama Administration actually told him that the Taliban, which provided al Qaeda its base of support for September 11, was not an enemy of the U.S. He said:
Last year, during my visit to Washington, in a very important briefing a day before I met U.S. President [Barack Obama], his national security adviser Tom Donilon, and senior White House officials, generals, and intelligence officials, the national security adviser met with me. He told me: “The Taliban are not our enemies and we don’t want to fight them.”
If Obama really believes that, and certainly his willingness to negotiate with the Taliban and to release high-ranking Taliban prisoners, without at least exchanging them for Sgt Bowe Bergdahl still being held in captivity, suggests he does, why are we still there?
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Lies (documented)

Politico ^ | 11/30/2013 | GiantMess 

1 "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" - LIE
2 "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your healthcare plan, period" - LIE
3 "If you like your current insurance, you can keep your current insurance" = LIE
4 "Nobody is changing what you got if you're happy with it" - LIE
5 "Premiums will be reduced by $2,500" - LIE
6 "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our Deficits, either now, or in the future" LIE
7 "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or doctor you have" - LIE
8 "The plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years" - LIE
9 "It will not effect Medicare coverage" - LIE
10 "It's not about putting government in charge of your health insurance" - LIE
11 "It will not impose a single new burden on small businesses" - LIE
12 "It will reduce our deficit by $4 trillion dollars - LIE
13 "Cannot be denied for preexisting conditions" - LIE (enrollments are now rationed)
14 "Guarantees coverage for every American" - LIE
15. "We've turned the corner." - LIE
16. "Shovel ready jobs." - LIE
17. "I'll close Gitmo my 1st year in office." - LIE
18. "I'll not sleep till the Benghazi perps are prosecuted." - LIE
19. "I learned of the IRS abuse in the press." - LIE
20. "The most transparent admin in history." - LIE

‘Genderqueer’ rising: Colleges welcome kids who identify as neither male nor female!

Washington Times ^ | AP 

OAKLAND, Calif. — The weekly meetings of Mouthing Off!, a group for students at Mills College in Oakland, Calif., who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, always start the same way. Members take turns going around the room saying their names and the personal pronouns they want others to use when referring to them — she, he or something else.

It’s an exercise that might seem superfluous given that Mills, a small and leafy liberal arts school historically referred to as the Vassar of the West, only admits women as undergraduates. Yet increasingly, the “shes” and “hers” that dominate the introductions are keeping third-person company with “they,” ”ze” and other neutral alternatives meant to convey a more generous notion of gender.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Democrats can't hide from Obamacare's middle-class pinch

Washington Examiner ^ | 11/30/2013 | DAVID FREDDOSO 

“Conservatives are operating on the assumption that [Obamacare is] an irredeemable disaster that they can ride all the way to 2016,” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote on his blog last week, “but the facts on the ground are getting better by the day.”
He went on: “Obamacare will turn into a Benghazi-type affair where Republicans are screaming about a scandal nobody else cares about.”
The evidence behind Krugman's optimism is not terribly convincing – he bases it on the Obama administration's sunny tone (really) and media coverage of the law that he thinks is improving. He could still eventually be proven right, but a miracle will be needed, and it's not quite clear where that miracle can come from.
Exchange enrollment has been well below projections, even in states not affected by glitches. That suggests not only technical problems but also a lack of demand. By a wide margin, the stories of sticker shock and lost health plans seem to outnumber the happy endings, and there's no reason so far to think that 2015 premiums, when they are announced in the spring, won't be even higher than the 2014 premiums. That's why, as good a face as the White House puts on it, Democratic insiders are already panicking over losing the Senate.
But where Obamacare defenses are a dime a dozen, Krugman's is unique for the analogy he chose – Benghazi, the site where four Americans serving their country died in 2012 amid numerous preventable mistakes by government officials. There seems to be no accountability for those failures, and no punishment for anyone but the whistleblowers.
Krugman correctly observes that Benghazi is nearly forgotten for all but the most anti-Obama partisans. It did not cause widespread public anger or a major loss of prestige for the White House. Yet Obamacare has. Why is this? It's a simple extension of the adage that all politics is local. It's even more local when it's affecting you personally.
Most Americans weren’t there in Benghazi when the September 11 attack occurred, and most don’t know anyone directly affected by it. Contrast that with the Affordable Care Act. Its victims are not dead, nor even close, but they are legion and they live among us. Many of them took President Obama at his word, when he explicitly promised this would not happen to them. Now that it has, they face a new world in which health insurance costs more and pays for less – and as many with employer insurance realize they have also been deceived, their ranks will grow still further.
Krugman has never had trouble in his column empathizing with the uninsurable and the very poor, who in many cases will benefit from Obamacare. But it is harder to empathize with the millions of Americans who are not poor, yet must constantly worry about money. These are the people most affected by and angriest about Obamacare now – and they also have little or nothing to gain from it.
Those inflated Obamacare premiums won’t make these people homeless. But they will put a lot of extra pressure on their household budgets. Obamacare will cancel date nights and trips to visit family; it will force less generous Christmases for children. It will mean that for all your hard work, you'll still be driving that piece of junk a few more years before you can afford to replace it with something more reliable.
To some writers, the experiences and aspirations of this entire “middle class” are so foreign that these people might as well all live half a world away in Benghazi. But they are real, and they vote. And if the media tried to ignore their story, the very stones would cry out.

Very Sad!

The Lowest!


The Conspiracy

We thought so!

More Time!


Run by IDIOTS!

Secret Service agent’s book hits best-seller list

By Page Six Team

The book by Dan Bongino, the former Secret Service agent who protected President Obama but is now running for Congress citing the administration’s “toxic” nature, has hit The New York Times best-seller list.
Bongino’s “Life Inside the Bubble: Why a Top-Ranked Secret Service Agent Walked Away From It All,” published by WND Books, is ranked No. 13 on the e-book non-fiction list, ahead of Anjelica Huston’s memoir “A Story Lately Told,” and “Let Me Off at the Top,” a memoir in the voice of Will Ferrell’s “Anchorman” character Ron Burgundy.
Bongino is running for Congress in Maryland. He began his career in law enforcement with the NYPD in 1995, joining the ranks of the Secret Service in 1999 as a special agent. In 2006, he entered the elite Presidential Protective Division, working for the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He resigned from the Secret Service in 2011 to run for a US Senate seat in Maryland.
Bongino told Page Six he believes the “toxic” administration is “using government as a weapon exclusively to intimidate enemies.” He added, “We’re in a very dangerous place right now. There are so many scandals going on right now with this administration, any one of them in my opinion could be absolutely catastrophic for what this country stands for.”

Under the Hammer: will the mainstream media finally vet Obama?

Rhino Times ^ | 11/21/13 | John Hammer 

Maybe with the complete and utter failure of Obamacare – an initiative that the mainstream media swallowed hook, line and sinker – the mainstream media will finally vet Obama.

We don’t know much about the man. We knew what Bush’s grade point average was at Yale, and that his grade point average was actually higher than that of Secretary of State John Kerry, who ran against Bush in 2004. We know all about Bush’s record in the Texas Air National Guard, including records that are supposed to be confidential, such as how often he made it to roll call.
We have no idea how well Obama did at Occidental College. We don’t even know if he played basketball there. The coach says he did. Some players who have been interviewed have said that he may have played but they don’t remember.
Wouldn’t it be nice just to know?
It would be interesting to know how he got from Occidental to Columbia University. He says that he wasn’t much of a student at Occidental, so how did he manage to get in one of the top universities in the country?
The New York Times spent three months investigating whether or not Sen. John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. The final report was that McCain’s staff thought he spent too much time with this lobbyist, but they couldn’t come up with any evidence of an affair. The New York Times ran the story on the front page anyway.
But it doesn’t appear that any of the mainstream media that have the resources to devote to really digging into a rumor to find out if it is a story or not has ever delved into Obama’s background. Most of what we know about Obama comes from his books about himself, and even Obama admits that he made up characters and situations. In other words, it’s not really an autobiography as much as it is a novel about himself.
Why is there no curiosity by the mainstream media about this man who has been president for more than four years and still has more than three left in the White House?
How did Obama get in Harvard Law School? He certainly didn’t light any fires when he was at Columbia. According to the news reports, it’s hard to find anyone who even remembers him at Columbia. Most of the people who get into Harvard Law School did more during their college careers than just attend classes and make decent grades. What did Obama do that caused his application to go into the accepted pile rather than the pile of straight-A students who didn’t get in?
If he has such a great legal mind, where are the publications where he proves that he does? He was a law professor who didn’t spend much time at the law school and didn’t publish any papers.
We don’t even know what religion Obama is, other than he says that he is a Christian. But he wasn’t raised a Christian and he has completely rejected the pastor and the teachings of the only Christian church he ever attended for any length of time. We do know that while he claimed to be an active member of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church, he didn’t contribute to the church in any meaningful way. He and his wife were making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and then millions of dollars a year, yet his church contributions were miniscule.
He completely rejects the religion preached by Wright, he didn’t contribute to the church, and yet he claims that he was an active member of the church. Couldn’t somebody do a little research and find out if Obama is telling the truth about being an active member of Trinity United Church of Christ.
Obama’s mother was an atheist and his father and his stepfather were both Muslims. It is a huge deviation from his upbringing if Obama really is a Christian, but we don’t even know that about him, other than what Obama says.
Why is it wrong to ask questions about the president of the United States? We know these things about past presidents, and even about people who ran for president, but if you ask any questions about Obama then it means you are a “birther,” which means you are some kind of nut. Why did he refuse to release his birth certificate for so long? It is not a document that most people consider confidential.
Even the story of his parents’ relationship is most often inaccurately reported in the press. Most reports state that after they were married for two years his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., left the family and went to Harvard. What is not reported is that his mother had already left his father and was attending school in Washington State. His mother only moved back to Hawaii, where Obama was born, after his father left for Harvard. How could his father leave his mother by leaving Hawaii when she wasn’t even in Hawaii? It may be that the two never lived together. If they did, it was for a very short time.
Marriages break up all the time. It certainly doesn’t reflect badly on President Obama if his parents married and immediately split up. Today most likely they wouldn’t bother to get married at all, but the 1960s was a different era.
Why doesn’t some journalist do what journalists do and find the documentation that would give the American people some information on the background of their president that doesn’t come from the president’s own fictionalized account of his life?