Tuesday, November 29, 2011

SS board member nominee advocates rationing; N. Dak defeats push to give state offical authority over a health insurance marketing agency; Obama said Americans should not be required to buy health insurance; Family caregivers in MI have union dues removed from Medicaid subsidy; Secret climate change headquarters for national security; Prince Philip declares windmills absolutely useless; Lead global warming alarmist forgot to report $1.6 million in outside income; Robert Kennedy Jr. got $1.4 billion loan for his energy company. Federal Reserve gave secret bailouts to worldwide banks; ABC slates new "occupy whatever" show

Expose Obama writes: Barack Obama has nominated Henry J. Aaron to head the Social Security Advisory Board,a panel that advises the president and Congress about the old age system. The choice is most dangerous,since Aaron has a decades-long record as an advocate of denying American patients health care along the lines of the British national health system.
Aaron,a Brookings Institution scholar,has devoted his entire career to creating an intellectual and economic basis for health care rationing. In 2000,Aaron wrote,“The problem is that in the real world of limited medical resources,denial of beneficial care is inescapable.”Aaron wrote in a 2009 paper it is necessary for the government “to develop protocols that enable providers to identify in advance patients in whom expected benefits of treatment are lower than costs [and] to design incentives that encourage providers to act on those protocols.”That is,government must provide “incentives”to assure doctors deny treatment to those whom the ruling class deems unworthy of life. http://www.exposeobama.com/2011/11/16/another-obama-advisor-favors-health-care-rationing/
Insurance Journal writes: Angered by a federal health care law that most of them despise, North Dakota House Republicans defeated legislation to give state officials authority over a health insurance marketing agency that the law requires states to establish.
They said endorsing state administration of the agency, which is called a health insurance exchange, would be tantamount to approving the federal health reform law itself.
“I certainly am not going to legitimize Obamacare with my vote,” said Rep. Wes Belter, R-Fargo. “We, as a state of North Dakota, need to follow some of the other states who have said no. … It is the law, but the fight should not be over.” http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2011/11/14/223960.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Barack NY Times writes: Obama battled Hillary Rodham Clinton over health care during the Democratic presidential primaries of 2008, he was adamant about one thing: Americans, he insisted, should not be required to buy health insurance. “If things were that easy,” Mr. Obama told the talk show host Ellen DeGeneres in February of that year, “I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.”  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/health/policy/insurance-mandate-may-be-health-bills-undoing.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper
The Blaze reports: Robert and Patricia Haynes take care of their two children, who at the ages of 30 and 34 are more like children in adult bodies. That’s because they both have cerebral palsy, and rely on their parents to feed and change them — and likely will for the rest of their lives.
The Haynes family receives monthly checks from the state of Michigan through Medicaid, allowing the parents to care for their son and daughter themselves instead of institutionalizing them. But because a Michigan law classifies Robert and Patricia as “home health care workers,” they are considered public workers and therefore automatic union members — meaning the SEIU gets a $30 cut of the family’s Medicaid subsidy as union dues.
“We’re not home health care providers — we’re parents taking care of our children,” Melissa Haynes told Detroit Fox affiliate WJBK-TV: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/forced-unionization-seiu-collects-union-dues-from-disabled-kids-medicaid-checks/

Judicial Watch writes: Although the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) already has a special center dedicated to global warming, a new government report claims the nation’s intelligence community needs yet another taxpayer-funded entity to better determine the impact of climate change on national security.
This is no joke, though it may sound like one. It was just a few years ago that the CIA opened its top-secret global warming headquarters, the Center on Climate Change and National Security. No one really knows what goes in in the exclusive unit because it operates under a cloak of secrecy that rejects all public-records requests, despite President Obama’s promise to run a transparent government. What we do know is that the unit is led by “senior specialists.”
We also know that the center, launched in 2009, does not address the science of climate change but rather the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts and heightened competition for natural resources. When it opened the new division was touted as an important tool that would bring together in a single place expertise on an important national security topic; the effect environmental factors can have on political, economic and social stability overseas.
Evidently the CIA outfit is not getting the job done because the Defense Science Board (DSB), a decades-old committee appointed to provide the Pentagon with scientific and technical advice, says the U.S. intelligence community needs an organization that can assess the impacts of climate change on national security. This means creating a new climate information system database, a whole government approach to mitigating the effects of climate change and engaging with international leaders in identifying global solutions.  http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/nov/dod-global-warming-intel-unit-could-be-works

The UK Daily Mail reports: Once again, Prince Philip has performed an invaluable national service by tilting at windmills — or to be more precise in this case, wind turbines.

In private remarks that found their way into the Press, he apparently said wind turbines were ‘absolutely useless’, completely reliant on subsidies and that those who claimed they were one of the most cost-effective forms of renewable energy believed  in ‘fairytales’.

The Prince’s outburst may have been impolitic but many will be cheering his words. Indeed, he understated his case. For the Government’s promotion of wind-farms is simply off-the-wall crazy from every conceivable point of view.

Not only are these turbines hugely expensive to build and operate but also — surprise, surprise — they produce zero energy if the wind is not blowing.

Conversely, when the wind blows too hard they have to be shut down. So wind power has to be supplemented by gas-fired power stations — which push into the atmosphere yet more of the dreaded carbon dioxide that the turbines are meant to help diminish.
Meanwhile, a government adviser has calculated that even if 10 per cent of the country were to be covered with wind turbines, they would still generate only one-sixth of the nation’s energy needs.

Does one laugh or weep at such a farce masquerading as government policy?

More ludicrous still, it is becoming clearer by the day that the premise upon which these wind-farms are based, that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are producing a catastrophic warming of the planet, has been shot to pieces.
Powerline Blog writes: It recently came out that James Hansen, one of the two or three most prominent global warming alarmists on whose work the IPCC reports rest, “forgot” to report $1.6 million in outside income, as required by his government contracts. Is that significant? Well, yes: A handful of scientists, including Hansen, have gotten wealthy on climate alarmism. They have an enormous financial interest in the faux science they have done so much to perpetrate. It is more likely that the Pope would renounce Christianity than that Hansen, Michael Mann, etc., would change their minds about global warming, regardless of the evidence. (I say that because the Pope has far more intellectual integrity than the climate alarmists.)
Beyond that handful of leading alarmists, if you are involved in any way in climate science, you have a financial interest in alarmism. Even minor climate scientists get consulting contracts and are invited to present papers in exotic locales. And if you are not an alarmist, you have little or no chance of cashing in on the billions of dollars in government grants for climate research. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/11/james-hansen-and-the-corruption-of-science.php
American Thinker writes: We learned that the Department of Energy blew even more money on a Robert Kennedy Jr. project, than it did on the already well-known Solyndra fiasco.
Kennedy's company Vantage Point Partners was the major shareholder in a solar energy company, Bright Source. One of Vantage's former principals, Sanjay Wagle, left to work at the Department of Energy, advising on energy grants. In that position he advanced through a $1.4 billion loan guarantee to Bright Source. It was a risky loan and any new jobs the project would have created would have cost us $1 million per job.
Bloomberg writes: The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing.
The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one call culated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
Michele Bachmann was the first GOP presidential candidate to demand Eric Holder’s resignation. Last Monday Rick Perry published an op-ed in The Washington Times demanding Mr. Holder’s resignation and yesterday morning Jon Huntsman also remarked that Mr. Holder should resign, yet the majority of the Old Media ignore them and the other congressmen who think Mr. Holder should resign.  http://bigjournalism.com/mchastain/2011/11/27/media-silent-as-three-presidential-contenders-and-51-congressmen-demand-eric-holders-resignation/?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BIG+AM+Report+for+November+28+-+Media+Silent+As+Three+Presidential+Contenders+And+51+Congressmen+Demand+Eric+Holder%E2%80%99s+Resignation&utm_campai
American Spectator writes: ABC television has just announced that it will unveil a new survivor reality series, "Occupy Whatever!" based on the popular Occupy movement that has popped up in scores of cities across America and is proving to have universal appeal -- not just in the U.S. but also London. (A new group calling itself Occupy Tahiti has just emerged in Papeete, protesting a 2.3 decline in orchid production. A further outrage is that a major Tahitian export, vanilla, is owned by one percent of Tahitians.)
"We think this thing has real legs," said Jarvis T. Bimstein, vice president of reality programming at ABC-TV. "We even test-marketed a couple of Occupy  Whatever! shows in Duluth, Minn., and Vallejo, Calif., that had great numbers. It's going to be the next big thing on TV." http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/28/last-protester-standing------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment