Benghazi and Boko Haram: the common delineator is Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton at senate hearingBenghazi proved to be a terrible tragedy involving the deaths of four good Americans, as is the current Boko Haram kidnapping of the 270+ girls in Nigeria.

Hillary Clinton, the smartest woman in politics, got both of those issues wrong.  She is the common delineator between these two disastrous events.  She had choices to make and she chose poorly; people died as a result of her decisions.

First, Islamists and al Qaeda were responsible for Benghazi but the Obama Administration could not admit their failure because they had just touted that Mr Obama had al Qaeda “on the run,” “decimated” and “on the path to defeat.”

[Another reason I love events immured in YouTube.  You can’t fudge the facts.]

Then came Benghazi and four Americans were sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and Demorat coverups.  Susan Rice, former UN Ambassador, said:

A bald-faced lie by the duplicitous to the addled and soft-brained amongst us.

Next: the lie by Mr Obama whilst speaking at the United Nations:

I’m sure that, at the time, al Qaeda was wondering: “just what the hell are you talking about?”  It determined: thanks; you’re playing right into our hands.  We salute you.

Hillary Rodham Clinton continued to enable the duplicitous Benghazi Meme:

Whilst Demorats did their best to minimize the importance of the Benghazi deaths, Conservatives continued to insist that those four deaths had importance and that we as a nation and government needed to understand and recognize our mistakes in order that those mistake not reoccur and that the four deaths were not meaningless or in vain.

My posts:

And some base questions: just who told Hillary Rodham Clinton to blame the video?  Where was she at the time of the attack?  Where was Barack Hussein Obama?  Why the so very long response time for our citizens?

Perhaps now — with this Select Committee — there might be a slight opportunity for the truth to unveil itself?  Because, after all, the more people try to stonewall, the more there must be to know.

Now that Boko Haram has revealed its true Islamist and Sharia Law bent, people in the United States are starting to become “upset.”

But let’s go back, shall we, to the nexus of Boko Haram and Hillary Rodham Clinton, in terms of her refusing — as Secretary of State — to quantify Boko Haram as an FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization).

Josh Rogin at TheDailyBeast.com wrote:

Hillary’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.

But whose inaction spurred on the attackers?  Her own in 2012.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”

In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

Who actually placed Boko Haram on the FTO list?  Of all people, John Kerry, after a series of Christian church bombings in Nigeria.

Let me unequivocally state that the kidnapping occurred roughly one month ago, on April 14th.  One month.  Yet the dainty sensibilities of Leftists weren’t upset until last week.

When Leftists do something, they are being good.  When Conservatives do something they are being “partisan.”

Further (you’ll love this): here’s a long forgotten point from MoveOn.org: their poll to urge then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not to declare Boko Haram a terrorist group:

MoveOn.org Petition Boko HaramThis is an amazing bit of defeatist pussified crap from people who are predominantly cowards.  They advocate “dialogue.”  There is no “dialogue” with terrorists or Islamists or criminals or psychopaths.  They want what they want when they want it and couldn’t care less about “dialogue.”  They only care about two things: 1) their strength and 2) your weakness.

Cowardly Leftist EmosA “hashtag” #BringBackOurGirls won’t bring back anyone, much less the girls — including Christian girls — at all.  It merely serves to dupe and assuage the senseless Emos amongst us.

Michelle Obama -- Bring Back Our GirlsMichelle Obama holding up a sign won’t bring back anyone, much less the girls, at all.

A nice discussion between John Kerry and Boko Haram leaders around a nice ebon table and some soothing cups of tea won’t bring back anyone, much less the girls, at all.

How can the Leftists decry Boko Haram and yet refuse to let Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak at Brandeis University — a woman who is a clear critic of Boko Haram, al Qaeda and Islamists?  Muslims who in turn believe in female genital mutilation and honor killings?  By Muslims who think that women are nothing more than chattel?  How hypocritical can that be?  How insane can that be?  Boko Haram is only worth criticism when young girls are threatened?

On that note: apparently the killing of fifty-nine little boys by Boko Haram in February of this year doesn’t count at all.  I don’t see Michelle Obama holding up a sign saying #bringbackourboys.  Nor do I see celebrities all a-twitter on Twitter even mentioning that horrible incident.

Why?  I submit because it’s about little boys, not little girls.  Little girls kidnapped = Huge Deal.  Little boys killed and burned to the bone = no deal at all.

Thank you Leftists.

Thank you Hillary Clinton.

BZ

P.S.

Everything You Need To Know About The Schoolgirl Kidnapping In Nigeria is here.

 

Progressive Insurance: “Snapshot” = Big Brother

Progressive Snapshot Big BrotherI happened to be watching a commercial today involving Progressive Insurance and decided that it was time to call bull___ on its “wonderful” Snapshot hardware piece which is, in fact, nothing more than one further step into the implantation of an RFID chip under your skin, beyond your vehicle’s.

Cutting to the chase: “Snapshot” uses your automobile’s electronics to testify against your driving habits should they stray one molecule from strictly lawful parameters.  Parameters that will be constantly monitored via the loving “Snapshot.”

Big Brother B&WNewer automobiles already possess their own version of an airliner’s “black box” — an EDR — which records various forms of input and can be accessed following a traffic collision, as it logs up to 15 to 30 seconds of input prior to impact, manufacturer-dependent.  First, very few people realize these devices exist in their cars.  Second, that data should belong to you and no one elseThird, the computer codes in those devices are not open source.  They are proprietary.  Fourth, can you tinker with or disable your EDR?  Even the ACLU raises these very important issues.  Once.

One thing you need to realize: Progressive Insurance came upon that name for a very specific reason.  It is the third largest auto insurer in the United States.  Its revenues top $13 billion dollars per year.

Peter Lewis, former CEO and now Chairman of the Board, inherited cash from his father who co-created Progressive in 1937.  Lewis has a wealth rating of one billion dollars.  It is no shock that he has contributed $7 million and $8 million to the ACLU in 2001 and 2003.

It is also no shock that he contributed $3 million to America Coming Together and $2.5 million to MoveOn.org.  That is your Progressive Insurance — being, in fact, progressive — another word for Leftist.

Progressive buys ads on, say, Fox News, and makes additional millions from these ads.  Flo is cute; her company is not.  Their ads are, however, extremely well planned and effective.  How could you not like her, no matter what she suggests?

That said, focus closely on Snapshot.

Some excellent questions and issues from CannonFire:

The question is: How much info are you sending to them? Are they tracking your location via GPS? Are they keeping track of how fast you go?

Progressive insists that they don’t collect location and speed info. In the video embedded above, you’ll see a Progressive commercial in which the lady with the stoplight lips assures you that the company doesn’t want to know where you go or how fast you get there. All they want to know is the amount of driving you do, how hard you hit the brakes, and what time of day you travel.

 

But here is the crux of the biscuit:

Even if that were all there were to it, I still would advise you to steer clear of Snapshot. Insurance companies have a financial incentive to deny claims. The more info you give them, the more reasons they have for issuing a denial.

But the real problem is this: I’ve uncovered evidence that Progressive Insurance is lying about Snapshot.

I’m sure that Ms. StoplightLips — whose real name is Stephanie Courtney, and who is surely a decent and well-meaning person — would not knowingly tell lies. Nevertheless, there are strange discrepancies between the things that lovely Stephanie is being paid to say on TV and the things we learn if we do a little research.

The small print says:

Data We Collect

The Snapshot device records vehicle speed and time of day, and when the device is connected and disconnected from the vehicle. It also records the Vehicle Identification Number upon installation. Other information, such as miles driven and rates of acceleration and braking, is derived from the speed and time information recorded by the device.

Data We Don’t Collect

Snapshot focuses on how safely, how often, how far, and when you drive, NOT where you drive. The Snapshot device does not contain GPS technology and does not track vehicle location or whether you’re exceeding the speed limit.

But wait; there’s more!

A close reading of the above text reveals the truth: Of course Snapshot transmits info about “vehicle speed.” The device simply doesn’t reveal whether or not you were exceeding the speed limit at any given time.

But if the company collects speed data, investigators can easily discover whether you were going over the limit after the fact. They may even be able to do so in real time. (Has someone written software which collates the speed limits on all of America’s roads? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the insurance companies have an app for that.)

So: If you put in a claim, Progressive will know if you were traveling 42 miles per hour in a 40 mph zone. Claim denied!

Please read the rest of the article.

Stupid Americans are signing up for Progressive’s “Snapshot.”  They apparently want their privacy violated on not just a daily basis but a second-by-second basis.

Because Snapshot isn’t tracking you.  Except:

Snapshot is an example of what the industry calls a telematics device, defined here as…

…a type of machine-to-machine (M2M) communication that combines GPS, mobile computing and cellular communication.

Hmm. If telematics involve GPS by definition, can we trust Progressive?

Drivers plug a device, the “Snapshot,” into the car’s onboard diagnostic port, or OBD-II, typically found near the steering wheel. [The OBD-II is a standardized digital communications port which was made mandatory in 1996 for all cars sold in the United States.] Using telematics and mobile technology, as they drive, information is shared wirelessly, via AT&T’s network, with Progressive.

(Emphasis in original.) If the company uses ATT’s network, then they can triangulate location. That’s the key part they’re not telling you.

Further:

Moreover, Progressive’s claim that Snapshot contains no GPS data is in direct conflict with what we read in this Wikipedia article on telematics:

Telematic auto insurance was independently invented and patented[12] by a major U.S. auto insurance company, Progressive Auto Insurance U.S. Patent 5,797,134 and a Spanish independent inventor, Salvador Minguijon Perez (European Patent EP0700009B1). The Progressive patents cover the use of a cell phone and GPS to track movements of a car. The Perez patents cover monitoring the car’s engine control computer to determine distance driven, speed, time of day, braking force, etc. Ironically, Progressive is developing the Perez technology in the US and European auto insurer Norwich Union is developing the Progressive technology for Europe.

Imagine that.  An insurance company lying to you in order to — in the end game — deny claims and save money.  The ultimate End Game?

Progressive is not the only company getting into the telematics business. Pretty soon, these devices will be standard.

Welcome to the new world of Big Brother climbing up your arshole and invading your car.

BZ