Wednesday, July 31, 2013

HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? (DP: Worth the time to read the linked pieces!)

HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? (CONT’D): Only 47% of Adults Have Full-Time Job. “If today the same proportion of Americans worked as just a decade ago, there would by almost nine million more people working. Just in the last year, almost two million Americans have left the labor force. With a majority of the population not holding a full-time job, it isn’t surprising that economic growth has been so weak.”

Romney’s 47% number keeps coming up. They’ll turn us all into beggars ’cause they’re easier to please. . . .

Related: 54 Months: Record Stretch of 7.5%+ Unemployment Continues. “Since January 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated as president, the United States has seen 54 straight months with the unemployment rate at 7.5 percent or higher, which is the longest stretch of unemployment at or above that rate since 1948, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics started calculating the national unemployment rate.”

by Glenn Reynolds

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/171965/

A false charge of “phony” scandals

by Scott Johnson in Benghazigate, IRS, Obama Administration Scandals

In his soporific Galesburg speech earlier this week, President Obama criticized attention to the scandals that seem to have something to do with his administration. He asserted that the scandals are “phony.”
He wasn’t naming names or getting specific, but I’m pretty sure he included Benghazigate and the IRS targeting of conservative groups. Obama brought all his characteristic eloquence to bear: “With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball.” Sensing he was short a cliche, Obama threw in a condemnation of “gridlock.” He asserted that the “gridlock” has gotten worse in the past six month. He added: “I am here to say this needs to stop.”
Jay Carney previewed the “phony” line with Joe Scarborough and got a little pushback from Scarborough. Scarborough asked: How can you say the IRS scandal is phony? Carney’s answer: It depends on the meaning of “phony.” (Transcript here.)

Carney noted that the IRS scandal hadn’t reached the White House. It hasn’t reached the White House yet. The congressional investigations are ongoing. They have made substantial progress. The scandal has reached the IRS Office of Chief Counsel. No wonder Obama wants to shut down further investigation.

And note how Carney cites the behavior of the clueless.compliant mainstream media as proof that the IRS scandal is “phony.” If CNN falls for the Democratic line of the day, well, then, there’s no scandal!

Speaking of scandal, the media’s pitiful performance by itself warrants comment. by Mike Hashimoto of the Dallas Morning News noted the obvious.

And Benghazigae remains shrouded in secrecy. We know that the administration peddled a — what’s the word? — “phony” story about a video inspiring the the attack until the story collapsed. We haven’t yet heard from any of the survivors. We still don’t know what Obama was doing as our fellow citizens were killed, although we have a pretty good idea. Noah Rothman has more here.

As for the comprehensive dishonesty of the Obama administration, is there anyone here to say this needs to stop?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/it-depends-on-the-meaning-of-phony.php

10 ObamaCare fumbles

By Sam Baker and Elise Viebeck

This week’s stunning delay in the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) employer mandate was hardly the first time that ObamaCare's implementation effort has stumbled, as the president's signature domestic policy initiative has suffered several self-inflicted wounds on the path toward full implementation.

Democrats say the law will work well once it's fully implemented, and President Obama has acknowledged that there will be more “glitches and bumps” as key provisions start to take effect.

While many of the administration’s challenges stem from entrenched Republican opposition to anything that would help the law function better, plenty of the bumps in the road so far have also arisen from the law itself.
As officials work to implement the law's biggest provisions, which also happen to be the policies that provide the clearest and most direct benefits to consumers, here is a recap of some of ObamaCare's biggest stumbles so far.
1. The CLASS Act
The healthcare law included a new insurance program for long-term care, known as the CLASS Act. The problem? It couldn’t be implemented as written. In October, 2011, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced she would indefinitely suspend work on the program, stating that it could not be financially viable.
With the death of CLASS, the law lost about 40 percent of its total deficit reduction. And Republicans criticized the program as an accounting gimmick, noting that budget analysts predicted before the law was passed that CLASS wouldn’t work.
It was formally repealed last year.
2. The federal insurance exchange
The ACA provides a literally unlimited budget to help states set up their own insurance exchanges — and no budget whatsoever for the federally run backup. So while HHS has shelled out billions of dollars to help 17 states build their own exchanges, it has had to scrape together money from other programs so that it can build the remaining 33 marketplaces.
Most observers say the lack of funding was simply an oversight. But the implications are real. HHS has come under fire from congressional Democrats for some of the cuts to programs to help pay for the federal marketplace, and it has said it needs another $1.5 billion for the exchanges — money Congress is highly unlikely to provide.
3. The employer mandate
The most recent stumble came on Tuesday, when the White House announced that it would delay enforcement of ObamaCare's employer mandate by one year. The mandate isn’t especially important to the law’s coverage expansion, but the delay fueled questions about whether the overall implementation effort is on track.
4. The small-business exchange
Before delaying the employer mandate, the administration pushed back another provision for business owners. HHS delayed by one year a part of the new insurance exchanges for small business. Although the exchanges will be up and running next year as planned, employers will have to wait another year before they can let their workers choose from a range of plans, rather than selecting just one for the entire company.
5. Waivers
Once again, a political headache for the administration stemmed from an effort to give businesses more flexibility.
HHS approved more than 1,200 waivers from a provision of the healthcare law that gradually eliminated annual caps on benefits. The waivers themselves weren't scandalous — they were specifically authorized by the statute, and they dealt with a relatively minor requirement. But they turned into a messaging problem as Republicans used each new batch of waivers to argue that the law was unworkable.
HHS updated its waiver figure every month until last year, prompting a political firestorm each time. Finally, it quit the monthly updates and granted a long extension that put the issue to rest.
6. 1099
This widely criticized “1099” reporting requirement, named for the tax form it would have used, was the first ObamaCare provision to be repealed. The mandate compelled businesses to report nearly all transactions worth more than $600 to the IRS.
Business groups characterized the provision as red tape, and lawmakers worked for nearly eight months to kill it. Repeal passed with broad bipartisan support in both chambers, and as Obama signed it, he said the provision was an example of a problem in the healthcare law that Republicans and Democrats could work together to fix.
7. Child-only plans
A glitch in the healthcare law prompted insurance companies to quit selling policies in several states that only covered children. Starting in 2010, insurance companies had to cover children’s pre-existing conditions if they sold child-only plans — but they weren’t required to sell child-only policies in the first place. So, rather than take on the additional cost, some insurers quit writing new policies just for children.
Again, state insurance regulators said the gap in children’s coverage looked like an oversight — the kind Congress might have fixed in conference, if there had been a conference on the healthcare bill.
8. PCIP
The $5 billion Pre-Existing Conditions Insurance Plan (PCIP) offered health coverage to sick patients waiting for full implementation of ObamaCare. But the program initially failed to enroll as many people as expected, and was plagued by high costs. In February, HHS stopped accepting new applicants into the program to ensure it would have enough money to cover the people already enrolled.
"Running out of money before the end of the year is something we're trying to avoid," said Gary Cohen, director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, in congressional testimony.
9. The Basic Health Plan
Democrats and state-level advocates were incredibly frustrated with HHS’s decision to delay a program known as the Basic Health Plan. The provision would let states bargain directly with insurance companies to create a scaled-down plan for people who aren’t eligible for Medicaid but might not be able to afford the more expensive private plans sold through the exchanges.
Its implementation was pushed to 2015 — another casualty of the intense focus on exchanges and the Medicaid expansion. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) had threatened to block a top healthcare nominee until HHS answered her questions about the delay and pledged to have the program up and running in 2015.
10. ObamaCare for congressional staff
During the legislative debate, Democrats accepted a GOP amendment saying members of Congress and their staffs had to use ObamaCare. But no one is quite sure how to implement the provision without putting staffers at a huge disadvantage.
The federal government, like all large employers that offer health benefits, pays for a portion of its employees’ healthcare costs. The question now is whether staff can put that contribution toward the purchase of an ObamaCare-compliant policy.
Forcing staffers to lose their employer contribution would treat them as if they didn’t work for an employer that offers health benefits, even though they do, and it would make jobs on the Hill much less attractive to young and mid-level staffers. But Republicans say they won’t help staff keep their employer contributions, even to buy a policy through an ObamaCare exchange.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Shale Gas Is Fracking Green

Shale Gas Is Fracking Green

Ask a green what he or she thinks about fracking, and you’re likely to get an earful of criticism about methane leaks, poisoned groundwater, and climate change disaster. But a new report from the ecologically minded Breakthrough Institute (BI) makes the case that shale gas actually has a net environmental benefit. Nevermind the boosts to our energy security, and economy that fracking provides; the controversial drilling process is worth embracing on green merits alone.
Natural gas’s biggest green qualification is the extent to which it displaces coal as an energy source. Burning coal emits roughly twice as much greenhouse gas into the air as natural gas. Thanks to the shale boom, we’re getting less of our electricity from coal-fired power plants and more from natural gas. The BI notes, “From 2008 to 2012, annual coal consumption for US electric power declined, on average, by 50 million tons.” That’s something greens should be cheering, and it’s mostly thanks to fracking.
But natural gas doesn’t just beat coal on carbon emissions. The BI explains why, at the local level, shale gas does less harm than coal:

The environmental and community impacts of shale fracking are reliably far more modest than those created by coal mining and production. Whereas coal mining removes entire mountains and contaminates streams with hazardous waste, natural gas drill pads occupy only a few hundred square feet, and there are only a handful of cases of groundwater contamination by fracking chemicals. Whereas innovation in coal mining resulted in greater landscape degradation, innovation in gas fracking has resulted in less-toxic fracking chemicals, fewer drill pads, and better drilling practices.

It seems pretty straightforward at this point: the more natural gas we burn, the less coal we burn. That leads to lower carbon emissions and less harm to the environment and local communities.
Many greens have one final quibble: that the increased share of shale gas in our energy mix will come at the expense of the fledgling solar and wind industries.
Breakthrough has an answer for that as well. Gas plants are a lot cheaper to build than coal plants, and cheaper to scale up if needed. Surprisingly, this is actually good news for solar and wind energy. When the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, we need other sources of energy. Coal plants have high capital costs: they’re generally much more expensive than natural gas plants, which means, once built, they’re going to stay online as long as possible to recoup that initial investment. Natural gas plants are cheaper to build, so there’s less of a need to keep them on when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. In that sense, natural gas makes our power supply more flexible and boosts the viability of renewable energy sources.
Despite all of this, the green camp is firmly entrenched in its opposition to shale gas. No matter that shale gas displaces dirty-burning coal; it’s still a fossil fuel, and its emissions aren’t zero. But the world isn’t black and white, and the fact that greens can’t see in shades of gray means that they will continue to be forced to sit out serious energy policy debates. In a perfect world, we would be able to harness the power of the wind and the sun cheaply, consistently, and efficiently, but the technology isn’t there yet. Shale gas is a viable option, and a relatively green one at that.
[Oil rig image and plant image courtesy of Shutterstock]

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/07/05/shale-gas-is-fracking-green/

Don's Tuesday column

THE WAY I SEE IT by Don Polson Red Bluff Daily News 7/30/2013

Voting integrity; sorting race/racists out

July’s columns were written in June so as to allow for writing-free travels; I was remiss in not letting readers know about local Tea Party Patriots’ meeting presentations. Limited email access and column length left no room to spare. Tonight’s (6 PM, Westside Grange) agenda involves an update on the Voter Integrity Project (VIP) by Patty and Mike from Corning Patriots; even if you can’t personally participate in the Project, come and listen.

Together with True the Vote efforts across the country, the Tea Party and others are finding that ordinary citizens are empowered by election laws to act as observers. They monitor the application of the legal framework put in place to assure us all that elections are fair and proper with votes cast only by those qualified and still breathing. Such efforts are not willy-nilly or seat-of-the-pants, but specific and detailed in order to present findings to authorities that stand up under scrutiny.

Those findings, I’ve read, were presented to officials in Sacramento, such that hundreds of thousands of nonexistent voters, and many flawed election practices, were identified. There is, understandably, resistance and resentment in some quarters over such findings, obviously from folks benefiting from both the process and inaccurate rolls. Perhaps because it can be, and has been, manipulated to allow the very kinds of shenanigans election laws are supposed to prevent. The August 6 and 13 TPP schedules will be included in those columns.

The verdict handed down in the trial of George Zimmerman—not guilty on all counts due to a legal and legitimate claim of self-defense—has produced a reaction out of all proportion to the established facts and the criminal justice system. Impartial legal experts such as Alan Derschowitz rightfully decried a prosecution that was politicized and manipulated to satisfy the trumped up demands for vengeance by (mostly) African-American mobs goaded by race hustlers such as Al Sharpton. A national news media couldn’t resist jumping onto the latest phony crusade by this charlatan (look up Tawana Brawley). A black, thug, punk kid got justifiably killed by a Hispanic he was mercilessly pounding into unconsciousness; it was little more than a regional story.

Anyone doubting my “thug, punk kid” characterization is welcome to ask for an elaboration; I’ll happily oblige. Trayvon wasn’t born as such, and he might have corrected his wayward, criminal ways and turned into a worthwhile young adult, like the many African-Americans I hired and managed in restaurants, often in their first job and the first to work at my stores. Just be aware that his friend, Rachel Jeantel, in both testimony and a subsequent interview, confirmed that he initiated what she called an “ass whooping,” and a “bashing,” to send a lesson to this “creepy ass cracker,” that they convinced themselves over the phone was a likely sexual predator. You see, this “cracker” couldn’t be allowed to follow him, Trayvon, back to the house where his younger sibling lived.

That, folks, is real profiling that justified, in young Martin’s mind, the beating that he was inflicting on Zimmerman. That’s called “felony assault,” the only actual crime committed that night. This is a truthful re-creation based on actual facts and evidence, not the myths written in another column, myths perpetrated by the prosecution and their MSM tools. Some of those mythical assertions were refuted and deconstructed on this page by Ken Say last Friday (“Trayvon’s innocence”). Young, physically superior Martin started something he would not have considered finished short of Zimmerman’s unconsciousness or death. Given that fact, he got what he deserved, to his tragic misfortune and demise.

A shamelessly biased and inaccurate cartoon appeared on this page—a get-out-of-jail-free card for Zimmerman due to being a neighborhood watch volunteer—and was properly criticized in a letter titled “Cartoon off base.” I’ve reviewed my two columns from April 3 and 17, 2012 and will post them at “Polecat News and Views” (DonPolson.blogspot.com), where you can read for yourself that I got nothing wrong then; I’ve gotten nothing wrong here.

You can easily look up “Fire Created and Stoked by the Left,” by Dennis Prager, and find numerous sources that begin with the sub-title: “The George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin issue has been manufactured by the left—the black left and the white left—and by the left-wing (mainstream) media.” It’s also posted this morning at my blog. Also worthwhile reading is a short post at Powerlineblog.com, “Irrationality Runs Amok in Black Perceptions of the Zimmerman Case,” with links to a Washington Post/ABC News poll that “finds that 86 percent of African-Americans disapprove of the jury verdict in the George Zimmerman trial. By contrast, 51 percent of whites say they approve of the verdict while just 31 percent disapprove. However, only 30 percent of white Democrats approve.”

Also, look up a Rasmussen Reports poll that found “More Americans view Blacks As Racist Than Whites, Hispanics”. Find out that “37% of American Adults think most black Americans are racist …” which breaks down to 49 % of conservatives and Republicans, 38% of whites and, surprisingly, 31% of black Americans that think “most blacks are racist.” I’ve personally interacted with racist and non-racist people of all colors.

By the way, if the white, racist, punk thugs that racially insulted and injured a young, black woman (July 2, Daily News), were tied to a hitching post, I’d gladly horsewhip them myself until they repented of their ways; being cowards, it wouldn’t take long.

Don's April 3, 2012 column on Martin/Zimmerman (DP: I don't read anything I have to take back, a year later)

THE WAY I SEE IT by Don Polson Red Bluff Daily News 4/03/2012

Self-defense; shameless race-baiting; facts?

I’ve never hesitated to wade into controversy; I’ve seen the appearance of the Butte County NAACP on the tube, as well as “hoodie” wearing politicians (Democrats, of course) on the legislative floor in Sacramento, exploiting a tragedy. The way I see it, a young man, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, reportedly a “neighborhood watch captain,” under unclear circumstances. Readers have undoubtedly seen and heard more than they need to. However, from the coverage I’ve seen on mainstream broadcasts and print reports, there seems to be a bit of a slant or bias favoring one narrative – that the shooting was an unjustified crime borne of racial animus or profiling, conclusions not supported by the facts presently known. Presumption of innocence, anyone?

Such counterfactual conclusions have inspired shameless race mongering, exploitation and calls for lawless vigilantism by some of the same race hucksters who charge Mr. Zimmerman with acting as a vigilante, absent any proof. Aspersions of race hatred against Hispanic Zimmerman, who selflessly helped young, African American children with his time and heart, and who counted African Americans among his relatives and friends, have been hatefully and maliciously hurled at him, Sanford’s police, prosecutors and leaders.

Sheer blood lust motivates some being led by such frauds and race-mongers as Al Sharpton (promoted racist lies over Tawany Brawley), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (quoted expressing his relief that the approaching footsteps behind him in Washington, DC, were those of a white man), and the racist New Black Panthers (“kill the crackers”). Hey, don’t take my word for it. An article, “Former NAACP leader accuses Sharpton and Jackson of ‘exploiting’ Trayvon Martin,” from the Daily Caller, 3/16, quotes “the conservative black pastor who was once the chapter president of the Garlan, Texas NAACP (who) called Jackson and Sharpton ‘race hustlers’ and said they are ‘acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy’ (to) racially divide this country.” He goes on to state “The epidemic is truly black on black crime. The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.”

Let’s check off the rights people have, shall we? Young Mr. Martin had every right to travel on foot from a convenience store to his father’s home, newly arrived at after being suspended for having an empty marijuana baggie, among other minor offences. Reports surfacing so far fail to suggest any criminal mischief; however, the mixed-race neighborhood had suffered from numerous break-ins and crime. Martin had every right not to be molested or accosted although if, in fact, he was wandering off of sidewalks, residents like Zimmerman had every right to take note and inquire what he was doing in the middle of the night.

We’ll never know the nature of the interactions between the two in their initial encounter absent witnesses or cameras, but Zimmerman described his actions in a way that seems reasonable. Although he failed to follow the advice of the non-emergency responder to discontinue following the young man, he proceeded to where he could at least ascertain a street name to provide to police.

Here’s where it gets murky, leaving us to speculate how they became physically involved. Both men – the 6 foot 3 inch football player in prime condition, reactions and aggressiveness, as well as the 5 foot 9 inch out of shape couch potato – had an inherent right to self-defense. We all do; only fools and pacifists would deny the obvious. If Zimmerman started something, he couldn’t complain about being on the losing end, but I don’t think it went that way. Young Martin certainly had a right to object to being followed but not to assault; his right to take a swing stopped short of Zimmerman’s face.

There is nothing but ignorant, disgusting supposition to support the outrageous conclusion of Martin being hunted down in cold-blooded murder. Witnesses, injuries and police reports support the narrative that Zimmerman was at a disadvantage and was mercilessly, unrelentingly pummeled by Martin. Zimmerman felt it would not stop short of unconsciousness, major injury and/or death. Therefore, Zimmerman exercised his inherent right to defend himself while he could, with the only weapon he had, his handgun. It doesn’t help when lawyers for the distraught family try to spin and lie about police video of Zimmerman, saying that it didn’t show the gash to his head; likewise, when ABC deceitfully hid that same gash with an overlay, or NBC edited the 911 call to make Zimmerman seem to be profiling.

I subscribe to the tenet that it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six; the legal examination may or may not support further action against Zimmerman. Both he and Trayvon Martin could well have acted differently at various points in that series of events, leaving Martin alive, and Zimmerman unaccused. However, recently 1) a 17-year-old black man murdered two British tourist/students in Sarasota, Florida; 2) three African-American suspects fled a Mississippi State University dorm after a white student was shot and killed, and 3) in Congressman Bobby Rush’s Chicago district (he of the “hoodie” stunt in Congress), “hoodie-wearing” gunmen killed 1 and wounded 5 (6 hour total of 13 shot, 2 dead in Chicago). Anything to say, Sharpton or Jackson?

Don's April 17, 2012 column on Martin/Zimmerman (DP: the second column on the subject, also with nothing I wrote then that I have to take back)

THE WAY I SEE IT by Don Polson Red Bluff Daily News 4/17/2012

Justice: Pursued goal or miscarriage?

Please note that former state senator and candidate for Congress, Dr. Sam Aanestad, will appear at tonight’s Tea Party Patriots meeting, 6 PM, Westside Grange.

It seemed little deserved further attention in the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida, until I heard the overdone press conference by the prosecutor, Angela Corey, complete with a heart-tugging recitation of having prayed with young Martin’s family. Not a peep from the usual liberal suspects about the supposed “separation of church and state,” just like the stunning silence over Attorney General Eric Holder’s asking race hustler Al Sharpton for his prayers when Holder glowingly praised Sharpton’s “Action Network.”

I found the whole spectacle remarkable and unnerving, considering that the first prosecutor found no grounds for filing charges, meaning Zimmerman justifiably defended himself, while the second prosecutor leaped all the way to “second degree murder.” The verbiage used by Corey, i.e. “justice for Trayvon,” hardly suggested impartiality in the pursuit of Zimmerman for murder. It all came across as an excessive and choreographed example of misplaced prosecutorial resources, most likely in response to the very same public outcry and staged protests that Ms. Corey denied as her motivation.

I even found the predictable objections by my nemesis, R. Mazzucchi, in online comments (“your column is far more incendiary than the wearing of hoodies …”) easily dismissed as shamelessly partisan observations from someone having no concept of the “presumption of innocence.” So, Zimmerman was culpable because he didn’t follow “the instructions of police”; however, the dispatcher on the non-emergency line didn’t “instruct” anything, only saying “you don’t need to do that” (follow Martin). The “watch volunteer” Zimmerman had every right to determine if a young man, acting oddly, was about to engage in mischief in his crime-suffering community.

He also had a legal right to own, and carry, a handgun, without the use of which he might have suffered serious injuries, a concussion, or even been left in a coma, by the physically superior Martin. R.M.’s contention that Zimmerman “created a volatile situation” and “apparently assassinated” Martin is unsupportable by facts we know, including that Martin cold-cocked him, broke his nose, and drove him to the ground.

We do know of several miscarriages of truth by media and bloggers, all to the detriment of Zimmerman: 1) His injuries, questioned by them, were visible and proven by video and witnesses; 2) He had no opportunity to retreat, observed a witness, making the “stand your ground” law irrelevant and self-defense paramount; 3) NBC edited the audio phone call to make it sound as if Zimmerman was offering that Martin “looked black,” when it was the police dispatcher asking what race the suspect was; 4) CNN and amateur analysis of recordings couldn’t prove that Zimmerman used any racial epithets, or that screams heard were Martin’s, meaning failed narrative on their part.

Let’s allow the legal process its due, ok? Zimmerman may find that he’s being railroaded to assuage outrage by parts of the public seeking not justice but vengeance. He may have to wait years for vindication; however, he may be guilty – but he’s innocent until it’s proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Much presuming of guilt is emanating from the same crowd cheering every attempt to free convicted murderers. I say that legal gun owners are more law-abiding than the general population simply by virtue of not having stolen their weapons; legally permitted gun-carrying citizens commit a quantifiably lower rate of gun crimes than the general population. Had Zimmerman not defended himself, he might well have been left to languish or die; at least he is alive to have his day in court.

Also, such neighborhood “watchers” would be well advised to travel in pairs, and possess non-lethal means to defend themselves if confronted. Remember, it is a heavy burden to take another life, even an intruder in your own home. If a threat or intruder can be commanded to cease moving, lay a weapon down and slowly hit the floor, law enforcement will be on your side. You have every right to your own self-defense, but not to escape the ramifications of your decisions.

I am reminded of several gross miscarriages of justice by a “Today in History” entry from last Wednesday, April 11: “Five years ago: North Carolina’s top prosecutor dropped all charges against three former Duke University lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting a stripper at a party, saying the athletes were innocent victims of a ‘tragic rush to accuse.’” Those innocent young men were dragged through the mud of public accusation for months before being exonerated.

Also, never forget the role Al Sharpton played in sullying the reputations of six white men, including peace officers, for a year while he shamelessly beat racial drums over what ultimately turned out to be a completely phony story of rape and abuse by a black girl, Tawaney Brawley.

Finally, never forget the living hell that Richard Jewell, a peace officer and security guard at the 1996 Summer Olympics, endured for months while the media and public rushed to judgment, turning his heroic efforts to spare injury and death to many people from a bomb in Centennial Park, into suspicion that he planted it himself.

Fire Created and Stoked by the Left

Fire Created and Stoked by the Left

The George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin issue has been manufactured by the left -- the black left and the white left -- and by the left-wing (mainstream) media.For most Americans, their entire informational and intellectual universe is shaped by the left -- from elementary school through graduate school, and of course, in the news media. They rarely, if ever, encounter non-left viewpoints. As Diana Mutz, a professor of communication and political science at the University of Pennsylvania, has written: "Those with the highest levels of education have the lowest exposure to people with conflicting points of view."
Which brings us to the killing of Trayvon Martin.
With regard to race, the left's portrayal of America consists of the following postulates:
--The United States is a racist country -- meaning, specifically, white hostility to blacks.
--The reason black males make up a highly disproportionate percentage of the prison population is not that black makes commit a highly disproportionate percentage of violent crime, but that the American justice system is racist.
--All whites in America have the immeasurable advantage of "white privilege." This is taught to students in most American universities.
--When non-blacks score higher than blacks on academic or civil service exams, the exams are racist.
--Conservative opposition to Barack Obama is due in large measure to racism.
None of the above is true. But truth is less important to the left than advancing these postulates. Therefore, the left uses every opportunity to depict an event as evidence of white racism.
In Jena, La., in 2006, six black high school students, in the words of the Associated Press, "severely beat" a white student, who was left unconscious. They were charged with attempted murder, a charge that led to national demonstrations, instigated by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the NAACP, on behalf of the black students, thereafter known as the "Jena Six." Several months prior to the beating, nooses were found hanging from a tree on the Jena High School campus, and after the beating a national outcry by the media and left-wing groups ensued against the alleged racism of the whites of Jena. It turned out that the nooses had nothing to do with blacks or lynching. The nooses were a prank by three students aimed at white members of the school rodeo team.
The same year, the New York Times and Duke University led a national campaign against white members of the Duke lacrosse team for allegedly gang raping a black stripper. It was all a lie, so much so that the local North Carolina district attorney, Mike Nifong, who brought criminal charges against the team members, was eventually disbarred.
The left knocks on every possible door in the hope that it will prove how racist whites are. Most of the time, the charges are untrue. Meanwhile horrific attacks against whites, such as the 2012 dousing with gasoline and setting on fire a white 13 year-old Kansas City boy by two black teens ("You get what you deserve, white boy," they said) or the 2007 kidnapping and torture-murders by five blacks of Channon Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom, 23, both white, are ignored by the left and the media. Newsom was repeatedly sodomized by objects, and shot to death. Channon Christian was gang-raped vaginally, anally, and orally for days, had her genitals beaten, was urinated on, and, while alive, bleach was poured down her throat and scrubbed over her body. She was then stuffed into a garbage can with bags tied around her head and slowly suffocated to death.
One can imagine the media attention if whites had done those things to a black 13 year-old or to a black woman and her boyfriend.
Just this past weekend scores of young blacks - "bash mobs" - rampaged through various Southern California cities, knocking people over, and vandalizing and stealing from stores. Though the accompanying video shows only black youths doing these things, the Los Angeles Times report only identifies them as "thieves," "participants," and "unruly young people."
The George Zimmerman case is one of those doors that the left knocks on to show how racist America is. In order to portray the Florida shooting as an example of racism, the media obscured, omitted, distorted, and sometimes lied.
The media:
--Transformed George Zimmerman into a white. The New York Times, as in the Duke lacrosse case, led the way, first identifying Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic," then as "half-Peruvian," then as a man "who identifies himself as Hispanic."
--At the outset, when people's perceptions were being formed, published photos of Trayvon Martin as a cherubic boy, not as the less than cherubic teenager, and rarely mentioned or showed the photos of George Zimmerman's injuries.
--Rarely, if ever, noted how much of Zimmerman's life had been spent with blacks (including two black girls who were like stepsisters) and standing up for and mentoring blacks.
--Rarely, if ever, mentioned the checkered past of Trayvon Martin, who had been caught with stolen jewelry and a burglary tool in his backpack; been suspended from his school three times; defaced a school door with the letters "WTF"; and had marijuana in his system the night of the confrontation with George Zimmerman.
--Fabricated the "iced tea" part of the "iced tea and Skittles" narrative. This is important because the drink he was actually carrying was AriZona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. According to a popular recipe, that is the favored drink to combine with Skittles and prescription, or Robitussin, cough syrup to produce a potion for getting high known as "lean" and "purple drank" (and known among some as "the poor man's PCP"). On his Facebook page, Trayvon Martin had discussed making lean.
--Rarely, if ever, noted that the best-known law professor in the country, a prominent liberal, Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, not only argued that the Zimmerman trial should never have taken place, but that the special prosecutor, Angela Corey, who brought the charges, should be disbarred (just as Mike Nifong was) for distorting justice for political reasons.
And on Friday, the president of the United States, the quintessential man of the left, poured gasoline into the left-wing-made fire.

http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=6ad7fc0a-27c1-4dc6-9b34-ac90efacd761&url=fire-created-and-stoked-by-the-left-n1646684

Monday, July 29, 2013

UNSUNG BLACK PEOPLE

It must be hard for young black males to always be viewed as criminals by people who notice crime statistics. We've jawboned that sad story for 40 years. Last week, President Obama ran it around the block again in another speech about himself in reaction to the George Zimmerman verdict.
Let's give that beloved chestnut a rest for a day and consider another way blacks have it harder than whites. Only black people are expected to never speak against their community. Might we spend five minutes admiring the courage of blacks who step forward and tell the truth to cops, juries and reporters in the middle of our periodic racial Armageddons? This one is never discussed at all.
In December 1984, Bernie Goetz shot four black men who were trying to mug him on the New York City subway. (About a year later, one youth admitted that, yes, in fact, they "were goin' to rob him." They thought he looked like "easy bait.")
A few days after the shooting, The New York Times got the racism ball rolling with its "beneath the surface" reporting technique: "Just beneath the surface of last week's debate was the question of whether the shooting may have been racially motivated."Hoping for support for its below-the-surface thesis, the Times visited the mother of Darrell Cabey, the young man paralyzed from the shooting. As the Times summarized the feeling at the Claremont housing project where Cabey lived, "many people said the four teen-agers were troublemakers and probably got what they deserved."Cabey's mother had received one letter that said: "[Y]ou get no sympathy from us peace-loving, law-abiding blacks. We will even contribute to support the guy who taught you a lesson, every way we can ... P.S. I hope your wheelchair has a flat tire."The Washington Post also interviewed Cabey's neighbors. Eighteen-year-old Yvette Green said: "If I'd had a gun, I would have shot him." Darryl Singleton, 24 years old, called Cabey, "a sweet person," but added, "if I had a gun, I would have shot the guy."As white liberals (and Al Sharpton) screamed "racism!" how'd you like to be the black woman called by the defense at Goetz's trial? Andrea Reid, who was on the subway car during the shooting, testified: Those "punks were bothering the white man ... those punks got what they deserved."Reid had met the mother and brother of one of Goetz's muggers at a party. But she took the stand and told the truth.
Juror Robert Leach, a black bus driver from Harlem, was one of Goetz's most vehement defenders in the jury room, even persuading the others not to convict Goetz for unlawful possession of any guns, other than the one he used in the shooting. In the end, three blacks and one Hispanic on the jury voted to acquit Goetz of all 13 charges except for the minor one of carrying an illegal firearm.
More brave blacks stepped forward in the Edmund Perry case a year later.
Perry, a black teenager from Phillips Exeter Academy, along with his brother, mugged a cop and ended up getting himself killed. When Perry's brother Jonah was prosecuted for the mugging, two of the witnesses against Jonah were his black neighbors.
One neighbor testified that Jonah told him the night of the incident that his brother was shot when they were mugging someone. Another neighbor said Jonah told her that night that he tried to beat up a guy who turned out to be a cop. This was in a courtroom full of rabble-rousers, amen-ing everything defense lawyer Alton Maddox said.
They told the truth knowing they'd have to go back to the neighborhood. Whatever happened to them? Why aren't they the heroes? Where's their Hollywood movie? There was a movie about the Perry case. It was titled: "Murder Without Motive: The Edmund Perry Story." (The grand jury had no difficulty finding the motive: The cop was being mugged.)
In the middle of one of these racial passion plays, it takes enormous courage for a black person to step forward and say, "Yeah, I heard him say he mugged the cop," "If I had been Bernie Goetz, I would have shot them, too," or "I know George, he's my friend."That last one was Elouise Dilligard, George Zimmerman's final defense witness. Clear as a bell, this black woman spoke warmly about "my neighbor George" and went on to describe his nose being disfigured and bloody right after the shooting.
You won't see her on CNN, though. In fact, you'll never hear a peep about any of these courageous black people, unless you obsessively research every "race" case of the last 30 years, as I did for my book "Mugged." (All these black heroes appear in my book.)
Whites never need to be brave this way. There's absolutely no pressure on white people to root for their race. In fact, there's often pressure to root against their race. Instead of being asked to weep over President Obama's ever having been looked at suspiciously (probably by Jesse Jackson), could we reflect on the fortitude of ordinary black citizens who resist "racial solidarity" and speak the truth?
COPYRIGHT 2013 ANN COULTER

http://news.yahoo.com/unsung-black-people-220113695.html

Two Americans Added to Food Stamp Rolls for Every Job Administration Says It Created

By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said yesterday that the Obama administration has pulled the nation from the depths of the "Great Recession" with the creation of 7.2 million private sector jobs.

"And what is absolutely true is that we have come a long way since the depths of the Great Recession. We've created over 7.2 million private sector jobs," Carney told reporters at a press briefing.
Here's what Mr. Carney didn't say:
Since February of 2009, the first full month of Obama's presidency, 9.5 million Americans have dropped out of the labor force. Nearly 90 million Americans are not working today!
That means that 1.3 Americans have dropped out of the labor force for every one job the administration claims to have created.
There are 15 million more Americans on food stamps today than when Obama assumed office.
At the end of January 2009, 32,204,859 Americans received aid from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. As of April 2013, there were 47,548,694 Americans on food stamps.
That means that more than two Americans have been added to the food stamp rolls for every one job the administration says it has created.
Under Obama, 1.6 million more Americans are collecting disability insurance. In February 2009, 9,334,369 Americans received disability payments. Today, that number is 10,953,733.

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/two-americans-added-food-stamp-rolls-every-job-administration#sthash.UjdGofqR.dpuf

Obamacare’s Branch of the NSA

Obamacare’s Branch of the NSA
Community organizers will use a Federal Data Hub to sign up people for subsidies — and even ballots.

By John Fund

HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius stands behind President Barack Obama

John Fund

President Obama has had a poor record of job creation, but at least one small economic sector is doing well: community organizing.
The Department of Health and Human Services is about to hire an army of “patient navigators” to inform Americans about the subsidized insurance promised by Obamacare and assist them in enrolling. These organizers will be guided by the new Federal Data Hub, which will give them access to reams of personal information compiled by federal agencies ranging from the IRS to the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration. “The federal government is planning to quietly enact what could be the largest consolidation of personal data in the history of the republic,” Paul Howard of the Manhattan Institute and Stephen T. Parente, a University of Minnesota finance professor, wrote in USA Today. No wonder that there are concerns about everything from identity theft to the ability of navigators to use the system to register Obamacare participants to vote.
HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius wasn’t satisfied with the $54 million in public funds allocated for navigators this year, so she tried to raise money from health-industry executives for Enroll America, the liberal nonprofit group leading the PR push for Obamacare. She had to retreat under withering criticism that she was shaking down companies that were dependent on government, a clear conflict of interest.
Because 34 states have declined to set up their own insurance “exchanges,” the job of guiding exchange enrollees in those states has been left to Washington. The identity of the groups who will get the Sebelius grants isn’t yet known, but Politico reports they are likely to include Planned Parenthood, senior-citizen advocacy organizations, and churches.
So far everything we’ve learned indicates the navigators will be flying blind, or could well be “unsafe at any speed.” In June, the Government Accountability Office reported that HHS is considering allowing navigators to assist with outreach and enrollment tasks even before completing their formal training. The reason? Like so much of Obamacare, the navigators program is behind schedule and drowning in its own complexity.

This spring, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee lawyers were also told by HHS that, despite the fact that navigators will have access to sensitive data such as Social Security numbers and tax returns, there will be no criminal background checks required for them. Indeed, they won’t even have to have high-school diplomas. Both U.S. Census Bureau and IRS employees must meet those minimum standards, if only because no one wants someone who has been convicted of identity theft getting near Americans’ personal records. But HHS is unconcerned. It points out that navigators will have to take a 20–30 hour online course about how the 1,200-page law works, which, given its demonstrated complexity, is like giving someone a first-aid course and then making him a med-school professor. “I want to assure you and all Americans that, when they fill out their [health-insurance] marketplace applications, they can trust the information they’re providing is protected,” said Marilyn Tavenner, head of HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, at a congressional hearing last week. In the age of Wikileaks and IRS abuses, somehow that isn’t very comforting. “The standards proposed by your department could result in a convicted felon receiving federal dollars and gaining access to confidential taxpayer information,” a group of nine Republican senators led by Utah’s Orrin Hatch wrote to Secretary Sebelius last month. “The same standards allow any individual who has registered with the exchange and completed two days of training to facilitate enrollment, as if the decision to purchase health insurance is similar to the decision of registering to vote.”
Indeed, voter registration is among the goals of the folks hawking Obamacare. The People’s World newspaper reports: “California’s Secretary of State Debra Bowen is designating the state’s new Health Benefit Exchange, Covered California, as a voter registration agency under the National Voter Registration Act. That means Covered California will be incorporating voter registration into every transaction — online, in-person and by phone — it has with consumers.” It seems as if some Obama supporters have found a new way to fill the void left by the bankruptcy of ACORN, the notorious left-wing voter-registration group that saw dozens of its employees in multiple states convicted of fraud.
At least the pay will be better. ACORN was infamous for stiffing its employees and even once sued the state of California to ask for an exemption from its minimum-wage law. But early reports are that the federal government will be offering navigators between $20 and $48 an hour. In many states, that’s far more than many private-sector workers with corresponding responsibilities earn.
If there is a silver lining in all of this, it is that the potential failure of the navigators program could further convince voters that Obamacare is simply unworkable. “The Obama administration wants something the federal government has never done: a computer system that connects HHS, the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, Homeland Security and perhaps other departments,” John Goodman, a health-care expert with the National Center for Policy Analysis, wrote in the Wall Street Journal in May. “For perspective, consider that the Veterans Administration converted to electronic medical records in 1998 and the VA and the Defense Department tried without success to share records until February [2013] when then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the plan would be abandoned.”
But the consensus is that, if Obamacare isn’t repealed, the government can, with enough effort and money, get the Data Hub up and running. That concerns many members of Congress.
“Giving community organizers access to the Federal Data Hub is bad policy and potentially a danger to civil liberties,” House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan told me recently. “But it’s one of the most underreported stories I’ve seen. If people only knew about this Data Hub program, it would touch off a huge public outcry.”
— John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.

http://nationalreview.com/article/354031/obamacares-branch-nsa-john-fund

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Midlands Voices: Stop Obamacare in its tracks

Midlands Voices: Stop Obamacare in its tracks

By Ben Sasse

The author has served as chief of staff for the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy and as assistant U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush. Currently president of Midland University, he has been exploring a U.S. Senate candidacy.

Obamacare is a ticking time bomb for Democrats in the 2014 elections. Nobody knows this better than President Barack Obama, which is why over the Fourth of July holiday weekend he unilaterally decided to delay its controversial employer mandate provision until after the midterm elections.
No wonder: The $2,000 per-worker fine is disastrously unpopular. Already, employers are laying off workers and dramatically cutting others’ hours in an effort to skirt the new penalty. The fact that this perfectly predictable development surprises many in Washington only underscores that they didn’t really read this 2,300-page monstrosity before they passed it.
Desperate for any appearance of victory, Republican leaders have decided to match the president’s delay with one of their own: proposing legislation to delay for a year the mandate for individuals. Perhaps useful, perhaps not. Well-meaning people can differ about legislative strategy.
But if Republicans don’t have a larger plan to actually oppose this unprecedented power grab in a way the American people will understand, then they will have given up the ghost on actually turning back the slew of new job-killing bureaucracies.
Congress should completely defund Obamacare by October, when the government next runs out of money. To paraphrase Ecclesiastes, there are times for half-measures, and there are times to get the job done. If Republican leaders intend to vote only on an individual mandate delay, then this half-measure will serve only to keep Obamacare limping along now to wreak its havoc and ruin on the economy later.
Republican leaders are understandably wary of being blamed for a government shutdown at the next showdown about running out of money (yet again).
But Congress must not do anything to prop up this faltering law. For the moment the Obama administration declared the employer mandate would be delayed until after a tough election, this debate transcended a fight over health care and became a fight about transforming our constitutional system of separate but equal branches of government.
This is now about ceding power to a runaway executive branch that the Constitution simply does not allow.
Just because that law bears Obama’s fingerprints and in slang bears his name does not mean that he has the imperial power to curtail it, any more than he could expand it. If he could, what would stop him from simply expanding it to outlaw, say, large Slurpies? Or unilaterally expanding it to mandate that all Americans cough up membership fees for gyms?
By enforcing only the provisions he finds politically expedient or tolerable, the president decided he could make the law what he desires it to be rather than what the words on the page actually say. He essentially granted himself the line item veto.
From the plain reading of the Constitution that the president’s fundamental duty is to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3); to the U.S. Supreme Court’s unequivocal judgment in Kendall v. United States (1838) that the president may not claim a power to “control the legislation of Congress”; to the court’s resounding rejection of a mere statutory line-item veto in Clinton v. City of New York (1998) — there is no uncertainty about the president’s duty to either enforce a law entirely or to ask the duly authorized Congress to amend it. He does not have the power of amendment himself.
The Constitution nowhere empowers the president to ask that Congress pass unknowably large laws and then to muck around inside them until he finds portions to choose to implement and enforce.
Sadly, few Democrats in Congress are standing up to express outrage at such a blatant attempt by a president to usurp the powers of the other two branches of government. And it’s downright terrifying that many Republican leaders in Congress appear willing to softly baptize this extraordinary power grab by settling merely for a fig leaf of quid pro quo modification of a different portion of this unpopular law.
If they are serious about their duty to uphold the Constitution, they will stick with defunding the law that the president has just refused to implement in a lawful manner.
The time to fully stop Obamacare is now, for it is suddenly about so much more than health care.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130721/NEWS08/130729979/1677

Feeling the heat on climate change

Commentary: What not to say about global warming

By Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Would you like to know where to find a succinct statement of liberals’ climate change policy? It is not at the White House website nor the Environmental Protection Agency’s website. Instead, it can be found in a memo distributed by Kenneth Berlin of the “Energy & Environment Team.”

It is a fascinating read for those who want an insider’s guide as to what to say and not to say about climate change to support the Administration. It is supported by focus groups and polls. For example, don’t “lead with straight economic arguments.” The literal reader can only assume that the Administration will lead with crooked economic arguments, or more likely, none at all.

In a conversation on Friday, Berlin explained that he distributed the memo written by the Climate Action Campaign. He believes economics is critical, but judged that other aspects of climate change were more important when the president gave his speech on environmental regulations at Georgetown University on June 25.

Why even bankruptcy can't save Motown. Plus, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio on 'extremist' Thomas Perez's confirmation as Labor Secretary, how the IRS scandal reached Washington and, Virginia Gov. McDonnell's undisclosed gifts.

In the speech, President Obama called for regulatory measures to reduce greenhouse gases. He announced that he will use his executive powers to reduce greenhouse emissions from existing power plants, as well as future plants. He also plans to increase efficiency standards for appliances and authorize the placement of wind farms and solar power plants on federal lands. He asked the Department of Defense to install 3 gigawatts of renewable power on bases. He announced that over the next 7 years, 20 percent of the energy the federal government will consume will come from renewable sources. He mentioned plans for federal tax dollars to fund building infrastructure, such as seawalls for communities.

CITIES IN THE NEWS
• Detroit’s bankruptcy may lift housing market
• Detroit bankruptcy ups costs for other cities
• 5 reasons not to give up on Detroit
• 10 markets with most vacant homes
• 13 cities where fans are ignoring pro teams

The memo states that in supporting the president’s climate change agenda, don’t “try to suggest net job increases.” If there is no straight economic argument for climate change, and if there are no net job increases, why should the American public support the Obama’s climate change agenda?

One might have sought an answer to that question Thursday at a hearing at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, chaired by California Democrat Barbara Boxer. The hearing, at which the memorandum was discussed, held in the ornate Dirksen Senate Office Building, was entitled “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now.” I was one of the witnesses at the hearing.

One could listen to the majority’s witnesses and not hear a whisper about economics or jobs resulting from the president’s climate change policy. Rather than economics or jobs or even hope, the Senate Democrats offer morality and fear. Consider the memo’s “simple 3-part message formulation:”

1. We have a moral obligation to act.

2. Communities all over America are already being harmed.

3. The president’s climate plan is full of common sense solutions including first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants.

The memo states that Americans are being harmed by extreme weather, drought, flooding, and wildfires. The Senate committee hearing was intended to provide ammunition.

The SEC filed civil charges against hedge-fund manager Steven Cohen. Apple acquires Locationary, a location data start-up. Governor Rick Snyder defends Detroit's bankruptcy. Joanne Po reports. Photo: AP

Only one problem: testimony from some of the witnesses shows that climate change is not happening as fast as the Democratic senators would like. Some, such as Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, are trying to prove that climate change is happening so that they can implement a tax on carbon dioxide, enabling them to exert more control over the economy. Whitehouse proposed such a tax on March 22, which failed to pass the Senate by 41 to 58.

With global temperatures apparently reaching a plateau since 2003, global warming activists are channeling their energies into climate change.

They suggest that the world is seeing an increased risk of hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and cyclones. The benefit from reducing these events, they say, justifies the new costly regulations that could mean the end of coal-fired power plants, from which America gets almost 40% of its electricity.

For instance, Heidi Cullen, chief climatologist of Climate Central, a research organization, stated that “there were 11 extreme weather and climate disasters in 2012 each costing upwards of $1 billion.”

But the scientific evidence shows that hurricanes have not increased in America in frequency or damage since 1900. Cyclones have not increased since 1970. Floods have not increased since 1950.

Professor Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, said that “it is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts have increased in climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

If extreme weather events were happening, it is to be expected that insurance companies would be concerned. Franklin W. Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, testified that adverse climate events are of substantial concern to insurance and reinsurance companies. The Association recommends that Congress provides tax credits — no doubt refundable — to Americans to mitigate extreme weather and climate change. This will reduce claims.

Nutter did not mention Lloyd’s Risk Index for 2013, published every two years, which puts climate change at 32nd place in terms of business risks. Climate change came after piracy, sovereign debt, and pollution and environmental liability.

Topping the 2013 risks in the Lloyd’s Risk Index is high taxation, up from 13th place in 2011. Fifth on the list is “excessively strict regulation.” So President Obama and senators who hope to solve the problems of climate change through regulation and a carbon tax are increasing risk, rather than reducing it.

A carbon tax would raise electricity rates, both because of the tax on carbon, and because utility companies would switch to expensive alternative fuels such as wind and solar power. Households have far higher utility bills using alternative energy than natural gas.

Higher energy prices disproportionately affect low-income Americans, who spend a higher share of their income on energy. Data from the Labor Department released September 2012 show those in the lowest fifth of the income distribution spend an average of 24% of income on energy, compared to 10% of income for those in the middle fifth, and 4% of income for those in the top fifth.

If greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change, what should the United States do? Since U.S. emissions only represent 17% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, and emissions from China and India are increasing, American measures for greenhouse gas control would have only small effect.

To reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in a less costly manner, America could assist China and India develop shale gas from hydrofracturing and build natural-gas fired plants to reduce their reliance on coal. Or, America could ship coal to China, because U.S. coal burns cleaner than Chinese coal. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the majority of China’s coal (54%) is bituminous, which has a carbon content ranging from 45% to 86%. On the other hand, 47% of America’s coal, a plurality, is subbituminous, which contains a carbon content of only 35% to 45%.

In addition, Congress could fund research into geoengineering measures to cool the earth. More needs to be done to study solar radiation management, which could potentially diminishes the warmth caused by the sun’s rays. This could be done by injecting fine sulfur particles or other reflective aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect incoming radiation, or spraying clouds with salt water to increase their reflectance.

It is vital to look at the economic arguments and determine what is best for the United States in the climate change debate.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/feeling-the-heat-on-climate-change-2013-07-22?siteid=yhoof2

Move over NSA, here comes the Obamacare Big Brother database

by James S. Robbins

Would you trust thousands of low-level Federal bureaucrats and contractors with one-touch access to your private financial and medical information? Under Obamacare you won’t have any choice.

As the Obamacare train-wreck begins to gather steam, there is increasing concern in Congress over something called the Federal Data Services Hub. The Data Hub is a comprehensive database of personal information being established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement the federally facilitated health insurance exchanges. The purpose of the Data Hub, according to a June 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, is to provide “electronic, near real-time access to federal data” and “access to state and third party data sources needed to verify consumer-eligibility information.” In these days of secret domestic surveillance by the intelligence community, rogue IRS officials and state tax agencies using private information for political purposes, and police electronically logging every license plate that passes by, the idea of the centralized Data Hub is making lawmakers and citizens nervous.
They certainly should be; the potential for abuse is enormous. The massive, centralized database will include comprehensive personal information such as income and financial data, family size, citizenship and immigration status, incarceration status, social security numbers, and private health information. It will compile dossiers based on information obtained from the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Social Security Administration, state Medicaid databases, and for some reason the Peace Corps. The Data Hub will provide web-based, one-stop shopping for prying into people’s personal affairs.
Not to fear, HHS says, the Data Hub will be completely secure. Really? Secure like all the information that has been made public in the Wikileaks era? These days no government agency can realistically claim that private information will be kept private, especially when it is being made so accessible. Putting everyone’s personal information in once place only simplifies the challenge for those looking to hack into the system.
However, the hacker threat is the least of the Data Hub worries. The hub will be used on a daily basis by so-called Navigators, which according to the GAO are “community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups, to which exchanges award grants to provide fair and impartial public education” and “refer consumers as appropriate for further assistance.” Thousands of such people will have unfettered access to the Data Hub, but there are only sketchy guidelines on how they will be hired, trained and monitored. Given the slap-dash, incoherent way Obamacare is being implemented the prospect for quality control is low. And the Obama administration’s track record of sweetheart deals, no-bid, sole-source contracting and other means of rewarding people with insider access means the Data Hub will be firmly in the hands of trusted White House loyalists.
So if you think the IRS targeting Tea Party groups was bad, just wait for the Obamacare Navigators to be unleashed. “Trust us,” the administration says, no one will abuse the Data Hub. Sure, because that has worked out so well in the past.
James S. Robbins is Deputy Editor of Rare and author of Native Americans: Patriotism, Exceptionalism, and the New American Identity. Follow him on Twitter @James_Robbins

- See more at: http://rare.us/story/move-over-nsa-here-comes-the-obamacare-big-brother-database/#sthash.73y7ouBs.dpuf

Saturday, July 27, 2013

About Those Phony Scandals…

by John Hinderaker in Obama Administration Scandals

Remember when bumper stickers said, “No one died at the Watergate”? Or something like that. One can debate how major a scandal Watergate was, but I don’t really understand how anyone can try to minimize the significance of the Obama administration scandals, let alone allege that they are all “phony,” as Obama did. Michael Ramirez comments:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/about-those-phony-scandals.php

Bad Day at Black Rock for the Climate Alarmists

by John Hinderaker in Climate

Not exactly Black Rock, but the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which conducted a hearing today titled: “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now.” That title alone will prompt a snicker from all knowledgeable people; climate change has been happening for millions of years, and will continue for as long as the Earth exists. Watts Up With That has a roundup; the stars of the show were Roger Pielke Jr. and Roy Spencer. You can watch the proceedings here if you’ve a mind to; they go on for close to four hours. (Be aware that there is a fair amount of dead air at the beginning; otherwise you might think that the link isn’t active.)
One of the highlights was when the assembled panel of experts was asked whether any of them could support Barack Obama’s claim that global warming has been accelerating over the last decade:

Warmists were asked: “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?” For several seconds, nobody said a word. Sitting just a few rows behind the expert witnesses, I thought I might have heard a few crickets chirping.

Heh. You can count on Obama to be wrong about pretty much everything.
You can read Pielke’s prepared testimony here and Spencer’s here. This is from Dr. Spencer’s testimony:

The most indefensible claim regarding climate change from an observational point of view is that severe weather has increased. Meteorologists like me have long known that public perception of weather is skewed by short memories and increasing media sensationalizing of weather disasters.
During globally cool conditions in 1970 a tropical cyclone (hurricane) killed 500,000 people in Bangladesh. Records of such storms killing hundreds of thousands of people extend back to 1582. In contrast, as of this writing, it has been a record 7+ years since a major (Cat 3 or stronger) hurricane has hit the U.S. mainland. New research from northwest Florida, based upon coastal sediments, suggest that the past 600 years has been a period of weaker hurricane activity compared to the 1,000 years before that (Brandon et al., 2013). All of these facts indicate the huge amount of natural variability in tropical cyclones which exists and confounds attempts to determine whether tiny global energy imbalances caused by humans have any noticeable effect. …
There is little or no observational evidence that severe weather of any type has worsened over the last 30, 50, or 100 years, irrespective of whether any such changes could be blamed on human activities, anyway. Long-term measurements of droughts, floods, strong tornadoes, hurricanes, severe thunderstorms etc. all show no obvious trends, but do show large variability from one decade to the next, or even one year to the next. While the 2003 heat wave in France and the 2010 heat wave in Russia were exceptional, so were the heat waves of the 1930s in the U.S., which cannot be blamed on our greenhouse gas emissions.
While it is true that storm damage of manmade structures increases over time, this is due to socioeconomic reasons: there are simply more manmade targets for severe storms to hit.

From Dr. Pielke’s testimony:

Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900.

Much more at the links.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/bad-day-at-black-rock-for-the-climate-alarmists.php