Thursday, May 30, 2013

Obamacare: Insurance premiums skyrocket. Rates will more than double!

Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare to Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums by 64-146%

One of the most serious flaws with Obamacare is that its blizzard of regulations and mandates drives up the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own. This problem will be especially acute when the law’s main provisions kick in on January 1, 2014, leading many to worry about health insurance “rate shock.”

Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange.

But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.

Lee’s claims that there won’t be rate shock in California were repeated uncritically in some quarters. “Despite the political naysayers,” writes my Forbes colleague Rick Ungar, “the healthcare exchange concept appears to be working very well indeed in states like California.” A bit more analysis would have prevented Rick from falling for California’s sleight-of-hand.
Aetna CEO Bertolini: Get Ready for 'Rate Shock' as Some Health Insurance Premiums to Double in 2014 Avik Roy Avik Roy Contributor
Insurance Analysts: Obamacare to Increase Out-of-Pocket Premium Costs, Despite Lavish Subsidies Avik Roy Avik Roy Contributor
CMS on Obamacare's Health Insurance Exchanges: 'Let's Just Make Sure It's Not a Third-World Experience' Avik Roy Avik Roy Contributor

Here’s what happened. Last week, Covered California—the name for the state’s Obamacare-compatible insurance exchange—released the rates that Californians will have to pay to enroll in the exchange. “The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.”

That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.

Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.

Obamacare to double individual-market premiums

If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (That’s the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)

The next cheapest plan, the “bronze” comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on (NASDAQ:EHTH), the average cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92. In other words, for the average 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.

Under Obamacare, only people under the age of 30 can participate in the slightly cheaper catastrophic plan. So if you’re 40, your cheapest option is the bronze plan. In California, the median price of a bronze plan for a 40-year-old male non-smoker will be $261. But on eHealthInsurance, the average cost of the five cheapest plans was $121. That is, Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by an average of 116 percent.

For both 25-year-olds and 40-year-olds, then, Californians under Obamacare who buy insurance for themselves will see their insurance premiums double.

I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there

I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the coming implementation of the health care bill.

I could not finish my breakfast.

At that table was a diverse group of several races and both sexes.

I heard a young man exclaim: "Isn't Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick."

A young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, "Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market wouldn't work for health care."

Another said, "The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate."

At this, I had more than enough. I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table.

"Please excuse me;may I impose upon you for one moment?"

They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.

"I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?"

They looked at each other in astonishment.

"Why would you do something like that?" asked a young man, "There isn't anything for free in this world."

They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point.

"I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money whatsoever. Anyone interested?"

In unison, a resounding "Yeah" fills the room. "

Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money-free bargain"

I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust.

 "I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules"

Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces.

The perky young woman asked, "What are the rules?"

I smiled and said, "I don't know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you."

They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, "What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man"

I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further.

"I am serious, this is a legitimate offer"

They gaped at me for a moment.

"I'll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?" boasted the youngest among them.

"Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?" I asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table.

"Oh yeah! Where do I sign up?"

I took a napkin and wrote, "I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction." I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature.

"Where are the keys to my new house?" he asked in a mocking tone of voice.

All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.

"Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere to from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys."

I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.

"Are you out of your mind?  Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?" the young man appeared irritated.

"You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement"

The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him.

I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people.

"You can shove that stupid deal up your a** old man. I want no part of it!" exclaimed the now infuriated young man.

"You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends.You cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master."

At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.

After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent.

"What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn, and for that which you did not earn, you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you.

A freedom that is given can also be taken away. Therefore, it is not freedom at all."

With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. "This is the nature of your new health care legislation." I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation -- and was surprised by applause.

The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, "Thank you, Sir. These kids don't understand Liberty."

He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, "You earned this one. It is an honor to pick up the tab." I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.

Remember... Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

We don't need no stinking new gun control laws!

Folks, here is a listing of federal firearms laws currently on the books, along with the punishments for violation of said laws.

Anyone that thinks we need more laws that will not be enforced is seriously deluded.

Offense Section Description Statutory Maximum
18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1) Willful engagement in firearms business without a license (cf. 26 U.S.C. § 5861(a)) 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))
18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(2) Willful shipment or transport of firearm to unlicensed recipient 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))
18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3) Willful receipt of firearm from out of state by unlicensed person 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))
18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4) Knowing interstate transport of certain weapons by unlicensed person 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(B))
18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5) Willful transfer, sale, or transport of weapon by unlicensed person to another unlicensed, out-of-state person 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))
18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) Knowing making of false statement in connection with purchase of firearm (cf. § 924(a)(1)(A), 26 U.S.C. § 5861(l)) 10 years (§ 924(a)(2))
18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(7) Willful manufacture or importation of armor-piercing ammunition 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))
18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(8) Willful sale or delivery of armor-piercing ammunition 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))
18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) Willful sale by licensee to juvenile (cf. § 922(x)(1)) 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))
18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(2) Willful sale by licensee to person in violation of state law 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))
18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3) Willful sale by licensee to out-of-state recipient 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))
18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4) Willful sale by licensee of certain prohibited weapons 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))
18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(5) Willful sale by licensee without proper record-keeping 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))
18 U.S.C. § 922(d) Knowing sale to prohibited person 10 years (§ 924(a)(2))
18 U.S.C. § 922(e) Willful delivery of firearm to common carrier without written notice 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))
18 U.S.C. § 922(g) Knowing possession of firearm by prohibited person 10 years (§ 924(a)(2))
18 U.S.C. § 922(i) Knowing shipment or transport of stolen firearm 10 years (§ 924(a)(2))
18 U.S.C. § 922(j) Knowing possession, etc., of stolen firearm (cf. § 922(u), § 924(l), (m)) 10 years (§ 924(a)(2))
18 U.S.C. § 922(k) Knowing possession, receipt, shipment, or transport of firearm with altered or obliterated serial number (cf. 26 U.S.C. § 5861(g), (h), (i)) 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(B))
18 U.S.C. § 922(l) Knowing importation or receipt of firearms (cf. 26 U.S.C. § 5861(k)) 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(C))
18 U.S.C. § 922(m) Knowing falsification of records by licensee (cf. 26 U.S.C. § 5861(l)) 1 year (§ 924(a)(3))
18 U.S.C. § 922(n) Knowing shipment, transport, or receipt of firearm by person under felony indictment 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))
18 U.S.C. § 922(o) Knowing possession of machine gun 10 years (§ 924(a)(2))
18 U.S.C. § 922(p) Knowing manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, or possession of firearms designed to avoid detection 5 years (§ 924(f))
18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2), (3) Knowing possession or knowing or reckless discharge of firearm in school zone 5 years consecutive (§ 924(a)(4))
18 U.S.C. § 922(r) Knowing assembly of shotgun or semiautomatic rifle from imported parts 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(B))
18 U.S.C. § 922(s) Knowing sale or transfer of handgun without background check 1 year (§ 924(a)(5))
18 U.S.C. § 922(t) Knowing transfer of firearm without background check 1 year (§ 924(a)(5))
18 U.S.C. § 922(u) Knowing theft of firearms from licensee (cf. § 922(j), § 924(l), (m)) 10 years (§ 924(i))
18 U.S.C. § 922(v) Knowing possession, transfer, or manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapon 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(B))
18 U.S.C. § 922(w) Knowing possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding device 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(B))
18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(1) Sale or transfer of handgun to juvenile (mens rea varies) (cf. § 922(b)(1)) 1 or 10 years (§ 924(a)(6)(B))
18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2) Knowing possession of handgun by juvenile 1 year (§ 924(a)(6)(A))
18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) Knowing making of false statements (cf. § 922(a)(6), 26 U.S.C. § 5861(l)) 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(A))
18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(3)(A) Knowing making of false statements by licensee (cf. § 922(m)) 1 year (§ 924(a)(3))
18 U.S.C. § 924(b) Shipping, transport, or receipt of firearm with intent to commit felony 10 years (§ 924(b))
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) Carrying, using, or possessing firearm in connection with crime of violence or drug trafficking crime 5, 7, 10, 25, or 30 year consecutive mandatory minimum
18 U.S.C. § 924(e) Armed Career Criminal Act: person convicted under § 922(g) who has three prior convictions for serious drug offenses or violent felonies 15 years mandatory minimum (§ 924(e))
18 U.S.C. § 924(g) Interstate travel to acquire or transfer firearm with intent to commit specified offenses 10 years (§ 924(g))
18 U.S.C. § 924(h) Transfer of firearm knowing it will be used to commit specified offenses 10 years (§ 924(h))
18 U.S.C. § 924(j) Causing death during § 924(c) violation Death, life, or any term of years (§ 924(j))
18 U.S.C. § 924(k) Smuggling firearm into U.S. with intent to commit specified offenses 10 years (§ 924(k))
18 U.S.C. § 924(l) Theft of firearm (cf. § 922(j), (u), § 924(m)) 10 years (§ 924(l))
18 U.S.C. § 924(m) Theft of firearm from licensee (cf. § 922(j), (u), § 924(l)) 10 years (§ 924(m))
18 U.S.C. § 924(n) Travel into or within U.S. with intent to violate § 922(a)(1)(A) 10 years (§ 924(n))
18 U.S.C. § 924(o) Conspiracy to violate § 924(c) 20 years or more (§ 924(o))
18 U.S.C. § 929(a) § 924(c) violation while in possession of armor-piercing ammunition 5 years consecutive mandatory minimum
18 U.S.C. § 930(a) Knowing possession of firearm in federal facility 1 year (§ 930(a))
26 U.S.C. § 5861(a) Failure to register as dealer, manufacturer, or importer, or to pay required tax (cf. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)) 10 years (§ 5871)
26 U.S.C. § 5861(b) Receipt or possession of firearm transferred in violation of chapter 10 years (§ 5871)
26 U.S.C. § 5861(c) Receipt or possession of firearm made in violation of chapter 10 years (§ 5871)
26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) Receipt or possession of unregistered firearm 10 years (§ 5871)
26 U.S.C. § 5861(e) Transfer of firearm in violation of chapter 10 years (§ 5871)
26 U.S.C. § 5861(f) Making of firearm in violation of chapter 10 years (§ 5871)
26 U.S.C. § 5861(g) Obliteration, alteration or removal of serial number (cf. 18 U.S.C. § 922(k)) 10 years (§ 5871)
26 U.S.C. § 5861(h) Receipt or possession of firearm with obliterated, removed, or altered serial number (cf. 18 U.S.C. § 922(k)) 10 years (§ 5871)
26 U.S.C. § 5861(i) Receipt or possession of firearm unidentified by serial number (cf. 18 U.S.C. § 922(k)) 10 years (§ 5871)
26 U.S.C. § 5861(j) Transport, delivery, or receipt of unregistered firearm 10 years (§ 5871)
26 U.S.C. § 5861(k) Receipt or possession of unlawfully imported firearm (cf. 18 U.S.C. § 922(l)) 10 years (§ 5871)
26 U.S.C. § 5861(l) Knowingly making false entry on application or record (cf. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(m), 924(a)(1)(A), 924(a)(3)) 10 years (§ 5871)

Got a medical marijuana card? Got a gun? Go to jail!

Yup. Federal law prohibits the sale of firearms to medical marijuana card holders.
No only that, but if you have one of each already you are just asking for a bunk at the nearest Federal Penitentiary.

“A Sept. 21 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, issued in response to numerous inquiries from gun dealers, clarifies that medical marijuana patients are included in that definition. ‘There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law,’ said the letter by Arthur Herbert, the ATF’s assistant director for enforcement programs and services.”

To wit: the ATF’s decision to ban guns for residents with medical marijuana cards. It’s a potential flash point for a surprisingly large number of states. Sixteen in fact. Not to mention all the gun buyers within their boundaries.

Applying the ATF’s decision that a medical marijuana card establishes an addiction to Form 4473, if a [state] legal pot smokers ticks “yes” on the little box that asks “Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to, marijuana or any other depressant, stimulant or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” they can’t buy a gun. If they tick “no” they’d be lying.

Lying on form 4473 is a federal beef. As in fines, prison and the permanent loss of gun rights. It’s also a federal crime for a drug addict to possess a firearm. Section 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) of the Gun Control Act of 1968 bans firearms possession for anyone ”who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

FYI Here is a link to the ATF open letter to all Federal Firearm Licencees regarding marijuana for medicinal purposes

Folks, here is a listing of federal firearms laws currently on the books, along with the punishments for violation of said laws.

Anyone that thinks we need more laws that will not be enforced is seriously deluded.

Almost half of US moms are their families' main or sole breadwinners - NY Daily News

 Another bunch of deceptive reporting propaganda.

Consider that the bread that is being won by a very large percentage of these "breadwinners" is in the form of food stamps, welfare, alms, relief, etc. courtesy of the dwindling number of actual workers that PAY taxes instead of spending them.

From: - NY Daily News

Taliban Big Wig Killed by "Suspected US Drone" attack

What's the poop on the description of the attack as by a "Suspected" US drone?  Do the meatheads at the Washington Post think it may have been from a Canadian Drone?  There is a better chance that it was a Eric Holder drone - but he's not talking.

And get this:  the Post is reporting that only 14 drone attacks have taken place this year.  Considering the great success, why then is this only a fraction of last year's number?

 Maybe the Obama Administration is being kinder and gentler to the enemy in deference to the bleeding heart liberals that elected him and his ilk.

This from the Washington Post

Taliban commander believed dead in U.S. drone strike in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan —The Pakistani Taliban’s second-in-command was killed in a suspected U.S. drone strike early Wednesday in the tribal North Waziristan region, two Pakistani intelligence officials and a local Pakistani Taliban commander in the region said.

An official spokesman for the insurgent group, however, said he had no confirmation of the leader’s death. “I have no such information,” Ehsanullah Ehsan said in a phone interview from an undisclosed location in the tribal region.

Pakistani officials: missiles apparently fired from a drone killed 4 alleged militants near Afghan border.

The officials in North Waziristan, who did not want their names used, said at least four people were killed in the drone strike, including Wali ur-Rehman, a top deputy to Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud.

Rehman’s death would be a major blow to the Pakistani Taliban insurgency, which is waging war against the state to impose harsh Islamic law and has been linked to thousands of civilian and military deaths. In the past, however, numerous militant leaders — including Mehsud — have been falsely reported as being killed by drones or other strikes, only to quickly resurface.

The attack, covered extensively by Pakistani news outlets, comes at a sensitive time, as Pakistan’s newly elected government prepares to take office and debate continues both here and in the United States about the CIA-operated drone program. The number of drone strikes in Pakistan has declined sharply over the last four years, from a high of 117 in 2010 to 14 so far this year, according to statistics maintained by The Long War Journal.

Arming the Patriots / Rebels / Gang-Bangers (oh, by the way; Death to America)

So which way is it gonna be folks?

On one hand the Obama Administration has supported Libyan rebels in hopes of throwing out the government.  The tyrannical despot was subsequently murdered and dragged through the streets. As part of the fallout, the American Ambassador was murdered as well, and his body was subsequently dragged through the streets by Islamic Terrorists.  (oh - by the way;  Death to America).

In Egypt Obama's support for the Islamic Brotherhood similarly resulted in ouster of the duly elected, albeit tyrannical government - as a result, thousands of mush-for-brains members of the Islamic Brotherhood rampaged through the streets killing and looting as homage to Muhammad.  (oh - by the way; Death to America).

Now, “European foreign ministers have lifted an arms embargo on Syria, paving the way for individual EU member states to provide weapons to the Syrian rebels,” reports. “The foreign ministers met in Brussels on Monday to bridge their differences over the issue, with Britain and France pushing to allow European governments to deliver arms.”


Aside from the fact that both the U.S. and the Eurozone are arming “rebels” who could easily turn out to be even less friendly to U.S. interests than the Assad regime, does it strike anyone as ironic that the President who chided American gun owners for being wary of their own government is now putting guns into the hands of Syrians attempting the violent overthrow of their country’s official, UN-recognized government? Just wonderin’ . . .

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

FBI Shoots and Kills Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect

Looks like Eric Holder is tying up some more loose ends.

A Chechen man with ties to Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was shot and killed by an FBI agent in Orlando early today when the man attacked the agent, the FBI said in a statement.

Ibragim Todashev (Reuters)

The FBI identified the person shot and killed as Ibragim Todashev, 27.

Two Massachusetts State Police troopers were also participating in the questioning at the time of the fatal shooting, the FBI said. State Police spokesman David Procopio had no comment.

According to the FBI and local news accounts, the shooting took place in an apartment on Peregrine Avenue while Todashev was being questioned about the bombings and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

“The agent along with two Massachusetts State Police troopers and other law enforcement personnel were interviewing an individual in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing investigation when a violent confrontation was initiated by the individual,’’ the FBI said in an updated summary of the incident released around 10:30 a.m.

The FBI had not previously disclosed that State Police were part of the interviewing team.

“During the confrontation, the individual was killed and the agent sustained non-life threatening injuries,’’ the FBI said. “As this incident is under review, we have no further details at this time.”

Khusen Taramiv, a friend of Todashev, told WESH-TV in Orlando that both he and Todashev were questioned about his ties to Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed after a shootout in Watertown with police on April 19. Tamerlan

Tsarnaev’s younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is in federal custody and facing charges that could bring the death penalty. The bombings on April 15 near the Marathon finish line killed three people and wounded more than 260. MIT Police Officer Sean Collier was also allegedly murdered by the brothers.

The FBI said today that a Washington-based deadly force investigative team is being sent to Orlando to investigate the shooting on Peregrine Avenue.

Taramiv said he was released by the FBI, but Todashev was still being questioned by the agents.

Taramiv said Todashev met Tsarnaev when both lived in Massachusetts, and that the two men spoke with each other “months before” the Marathon bombings.

Taramiv said his friend was not close to Tsarnaev. “They were not best friends,’’ Taramiv told the Orlando station.

Taramiv insisted that Todashev was not a radicalized Muslim, and that he had no role in, nor did he know anything about, the Marathon terrorist attack.

“He was not a radical. He was a Muslim,’’ Taramiv said. “I’m a Muslim. That’s it. ... He never had a gun. ... He was shocked’’ by the attacks.

Taramiv said Todashev was worried about the direction of the questioning by the FBI agents, that he was going to be “set up’’ by the law enforcement agency.

“He had a bad feeling,’’ said Taramiv, who quoted Todashev as telling him that the FBI was “making up this crazy stuff’’ that there was a connection between the terror suspect and himself.

Taramiv said that Tsarnaev and Todashev spoke recently, likely via Skype, but had only limited contact with each other since Todashev moved to Florida.