TiLTNews Network: Earth Watch - Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it ~ Dr. Ron Paul
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
White House bribing health insurance companies to keep rates down ahead of midterms | Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/white-house-bribing-health-insurance-companies-keep-rates-ahead-midterms/
Written by Allen West on July 16, 2014
It was the line from The Godfather that will never be forgotten: “I’m gonna make you an offer you can’t refuse.” The Chicago thugocracy of Barack Hussein Obama took that tactic with health insurance companies to make them swallow Obamacare in the first place, and is now quietly bribing them to “postpone” rate hikes scheduled to come out right before the midterms.
According to Forbes.com, ” Hidden in the midst of a 436-page regulatory update, and written in pure bureaucratese, the Department of Health and Human Services asked that insurance companies limit the looming premium increases for 2015 health plans. But don’t worry, HHS hinted: we’ll bail you out on the taxpayer’s dime if you lose money. No wonder there wasn’t a press release. The White House is playing politics with Americans’ health care—and they’re bribing health insurance companies to play along.”
Ok, let me clarify: the Obama administration has sneaked in a regulatory rule update asking health insurance companies not to do their job accurately if it means higher insurance premiums. After all Obama — aka Vito Corleone — stated Obamacare would bring about an average reduction of $2500 to healthcare premiums. Now, here is the offer the insurance companies can’t refuse: “even if you’re losing money, we’ll square it away for you” — with taxpayer dollars of course.
So in the long run, the hard-working American middle-income family gets screwed either way! Either they’ll have to pay higher premiums or pay the government through higher taxes — such as Obama’s desired higher gas taxes — in order to compensate the insurance companies. And here we thought Obama REALLY didn’t like those insurance companies.
Now, silly me, I thought bribery was a felony offense. Oops, there I go again using logic and common sense when assessing the Obama administration — heck, they’re having problems with computer hard drives, bribery is just par for the course.
And to think the Washington Post just gave President Obama three more “pinocchios” for lying. Nah, none of this matters – it’s certainly not “impeachable.” It’s just liberal progressive socialist politics as usual — fear, intimidation, coercion, lies and deception. Can you imagine what would be happening if this were a revelation occurring under a Republican president?
But be careful, you don’t want to be accused of racial animus because you’re questioning the president’s bribery policy. And I don’t think the U.S. Department of Justice will be investigating this, do you?
Why is all of this happening now? Why it’s simple. There’s an election coming in November 2014 and the last thing Obama, his personal consigliere Valerie Jarrett and the Democrats want is for 2015 healthcare insurance premium increases to be announced in September. And Obama accuses everyone else of playing politics.
As Forbes reports, “typically, insurance companies release their premium rates between summer and early fall—i.e., right before voters cast their ballots in November. If premiums skyrocket—which looks increasingly likely—then voters won’t look too kindly on Senators and Representatives who voted for Obamacare and created this problem. Hence the White House’s desperate damage control. It almost worked: No one noticed when the regulations were first released. In fact, it took days for any news outlet to find the language and then translate it into readable English. TownHall.com figured it out first. The Los Angeles Times then reported that “hold[ing] down premium increases for next year” is a “top priority” for President Obama since “rates will be announced ahead of this fall’s congressional elections.” Wow, give the LA Times a Scooby Snack for getting that one right!
Forbes says “even if the healthcare insurance industry doesn’t want to play along, it’s still in these companies’ best interests to assent to the administration’s “request.” Under Obamacare, insurers are so heavily regulated that they have to play nice with the bureaucrats who call the shots. The president isn’t the only government official who carries a big stick. If insurance companies don’t give in, regulators have powerful ways to make life hard for them. A shrewd CEO doesn’t need to look far to see what might happen if his company opts out. This administration already has a reputation for strong-arming dissenting businesses in other industries.”
Don’t believe how bad it could be? Just ask the coal industry and the small community banks. Of course, this will once again be dismissed and the White House may still get away with its attempted sleight of hand. Technically, the regulations don’t force health insurance companies to hold down their premium increases. But the White House isn’t asking nicely. Does it ever?
If the GOP can awake from its stupor and acknowledge the other side doesn’t play nice, perhaps they’ll start winning elections. This is the politics of Moose and Rocco, and exactly what Americans consented to when they voted to have Chicago come to Washington D.C.
P.S. Hillary is from Chicago too.
Tags: Obamacare
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/white-house-bribing-health-insurance-companies-keep-rates-ahead-midterms/#cVGlSKSsQPyfvk7c.99
via White House bribing health insurance companies to keep rates down ahead of midterms | Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com.
Written by Allen West on July 16, 2014
It was the line from The Godfather that will never be forgotten: “I’m gonna make you an offer you can’t refuse.” The Chicago thugocracy of Barack Hussein Obama took that tactic with health insurance companies to make them swallow Obamacare in the first place, and is now quietly bribing them to “postpone” rate hikes scheduled to come out right before the midterms.
According to Forbes.com, ” Hidden in the midst of a 436-page regulatory update, and written in pure bureaucratese, the Department of Health and Human Services asked that insurance companies limit the looming premium increases for 2015 health plans. But don’t worry, HHS hinted: we’ll bail you out on the taxpayer’s dime if you lose money. No wonder there wasn’t a press release. The White House is playing politics with Americans’ health care—and they’re bribing health insurance companies to play along.”
Ok, let me clarify: the Obama administration has sneaked in a regulatory rule update asking health insurance companies not to do their job accurately if it means higher insurance premiums. After all Obama — aka Vito Corleone — stated Obamacare would bring about an average reduction of $2500 to healthcare premiums. Now, here is the offer the insurance companies can’t refuse: “even if you’re losing money, we’ll square it away for you” — with taxpayer dollars of course.
So in the long run, the hard-working American middle-income family gets screwed either way! Either they’ll have to pay higher premiums or pay the government through higher taxes — such as Obama’s desired higher gas taxes — in order to compensate the insurance companies. And here we thought Obama REALLY didn’t like those insurance companies.
Now, silly me, I thought bribery was a felony offense. Oops, there I go again using logic and common sense when assessing the Obama administration — heck, they’re having problems with computer hard drives, bribery is just par for the course.
And to think the Washington Post just gave President Obama three more “pinocchios” for lying. Nah, none of this matters – it’s certainly not “impeachable.” It’s just liberal progressive socialist politics as usual — fear, intimidation, coercion, lies and deception. Can you imagine what would be happening if this were a revelation occurring under a Republican president?
But be careful, you don’t want to be accused of racial animus because you’re questioning the president’s bribery policy. And I don’t think the U.S. Department of Justice will be investigating this, do you?
Why is all of this happening now? Why it’s simple. There’s an election coming in November 2014 and the last thing Obama, his personal consigliere Valerie Jarrett and the Democrats want is for 2015 healthcare insurance premium increases to be announced in September. And Obama accuses everyone else of playing politics.
As Forbes reports, “typically, insurance companies release their premium rates between summer and early fall—i.e., right before voters cast their ballots in November. If premiums skyrocket—which looks increasingly likely—then voters won’t look too kindly on Senators and Representatives who voted for Obamacare and created this problem. Hence the White House’s desperate damage control. It almost worked: No one noticed when the regulations were first released. In fact, it took days for any news outlet to find the language and then translate it into readable English. TownHall.com figured it out first. The Los Angeles Times then reported that “hold[ing] down premium increases for next year” is a “top priority” for President Obama since “rates will be announced ahead of this fall’s congressional elections.” Wow, give the LA Times a Scooby Snack for getting that one right!
Forbes says “even if the healthcare insurance industry doesn’t want to play along, it’s still in these companies’ best interests to assent to the administration’s “request.” Under Obamacare, insurers are so heavily regulated that they have to play nice with the bureaucrats who call the shots. The president isn’t the only government official who carries a big stick. If insurance companies don’t give in, regulators have powerful ways to make life hard for them. A shrewd CEO doesn’t need to look far to see what might happen if his company opts out. This administration already has a reputation for strong-arming dissenting businesses in other industries.”
Don’t believe how bad it could be? Just ask the coal industry and the small community banks. Of course, this will once again be dismissed and the White House may still get away with its attempted sleight of hand. Technically, the regulations don’t force health insurance companies to hold down their premium increases. But the White House isn’t asking nicely. Does it ever?
If the GOP can awake from its stupor and acknowledge the other side doesn’t play nice, perhaps they’ll start winning elections. This is the politics of Moose and Rocco, and exactly what Americans consented to when they voted to have Chicago come to Washington D.C.
P.S. Hillary is from Chicago too.
Tags: Obamacare
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/white-house-bribing-health-insurance-companies-keep-rates-ahead-midterms/#cVGlSKSsQPyfvk7c.99
via White House bribing health insurance companies to keep rates down ahead of midterms | Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com.
Common Core "critical thinking" assignment leads 50 eighth graders to deny holocaust | Poor Richard's News
Common Core "critical thinking" assignment leads 50 eighth graders to deny holocaust | Poor Richard's News
"Holocaust is a propaganda tool so Israel can make money for Jews." That’s what one 8th grader in California’s Rialto school district wrote for his "critical thinking" exercise.
“A profitable hoax made by the Jews to obtain land, money and power” is how another eight grader describes the holocaust.
School district administration actually assigned holocaust denial reading materials as a part of the preparation for this assignment.
from Los Angeles Daily News (emphasis mine):
Dozens of Rialto eighth-graders questioned whether the Holocaust occurred in essays written for an in-class assignment this spring.
Rialto Unified School District administrators, besieged by criticism after the assignment became public in May, claimed at the time that none of the students who completed the assignment questioned or denied the Holocaust, but a survey of the students’ work by this news organization found numerous examples of students expressing doubt or flatly denying that the Holocaust occurred.
“I believe the event was fake, according to source 2 the event was exhaggerated,” one student wrote. (Students’ and teachers’ original spelling and grammar are retained throughout this story.) “I felt that was strong enogh evidence to persuade me the event was a hoax.”
In some cases, students earned high marks and praise for arguing the Holocaust never occurred, with teachers praising their well-reasoned arguments:
“you did well using the evidence to support your claim,” the above student’s teacher wrote on his assignment.
[…]
The complete archive of the essays was provided to the Los Angeles News Group in the form of 45 PDF files, some of which contain hundreds of pages of student assignments. An examination of the essays by newsroom staff found that at least 50 essays denied or doubted the Holocaust occurred. Even many students who agreed the Holocaust occurred said there were good reasons to believe it had not or that elements of the historical record were actually hoaxes.
The argument-style writing assignment was developed by district English Language Arts teachers and was coordinated by staff at the district headquarters level.
read the rest
California adopted the federal Common Core standards in August 2010. ”Critical thinking” exercises like these are a primary component of the centralized public school program that passed as a part of Obama’s stimulus package.
- See more at: http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/91857429443/common-core-critical-thinking-assignment-leads-50#sthash.HFYYCVhm.dpuf
"Holocaust is a propaganda tool so Israel can make money for Jews." That’s what one 8th grader in California’s Rialto school district wrote for his "critical thinking" exercise.
“A profitable hoax made by the Jews to obtain land, money and power” is how another eight grader describes the holocaust.
School district administration actually assigned holocaust denial reading materials as a part of the preparation for this assignment.
from Los Angeles Daily News (emphasis mine):
Dozens of Rialto eighth-graders questioned whether the Holocaust occurred in essays written for an in-class assignment this spring.
Rialto Unified School District administrators, besieged by criticism after the assignment became public in May, claimed at the time that none of the students who completed the assignment questioned or denied the Holocaust, but a survey of the students’ work by this news organization found numerous examples of students expressing doubt or flatly denying that the Holocaust occurred.
“I believe the event was fake, according to source 2 the event was exhaggerated,” one student wrote. (Students’ and teachers’ original spelling and grammar are retained throughout this story.) “I felt that was strong enogh evidence to persuade me the event was a hoax.”
In some cases, students earned high marks and praise for arguing the Holocaust never occurred, with teachers praising their well-reasoned arguments:
“you did well using the evidence to support your claim,” the above student’s teacher wrote on his assignment.
[…]
The complete archive of the essays was provided to the Los Angeles News Group in the form of 45 PDF files, some of which contain hundreds of pages of student assignments. An examination of the essays by newsroom staff found that at least 50 essays denied or doubted the Holocaust occurred. Even many students who agreed the Holocaust occurred said there were good reasons to believe it had not or that elements of the historical record were actually hoaxes.
The argument-style writing assignment was developed by district English Language Arts teachers and was coordinated by staff at the district headquarters level.
read the rest
California adopted the federal Common Core standards in August 2010. ”Critical thinking” exercises like these are a primary component of the centralized public school program that passed as a part of Obama’s stimulus package.
- See more at: http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/91857429443/common-core-critical-thinking-assignment-leads-50#sthash.HFYYCVhm.dpuf
Iowa Governor: I Do Not Want To House Immigrant Children In My State « CBS DC
Iowa Governor: I Do Not Want To House Immigrant Children In My State « CBS DC
July 14, 2014 1:23 PM
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad speaks at the annual Ronald Reagan Commemorative Dinner on Oct. 25, 2013 in Des Moines, Iowa. (credit: Steve Pope/Getty Images)
Related Tags: Central America, Gov. Terry Branstad, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell, Immigration, Iowa, U.S.-Mexico border
During a news conference, Branstad said he was not aware of any of the children currently living in Iowa and that state has not been contacted by the federal government about housing any immigrant children. He said the government’s focus should be on securing the borders.
Michelle Obama: ‘We Have To Keep Fighting As Hard As We Can On Immigration’
“The first thing we need to do is secure the border. I do have empathy for these kids,” Branstad said. “But I also don’t want to send the signal that (you) send your kids to America illegally. That’s not the right message.”
Branstad was among a group of governors that met Sunday with Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell as the Obama administration sought support from states that could host the children.
Under current law, immigrant children from countries that do not border the United States and who cross into the U.S. by themselves are turned over to federal authorities. Then, they often are reunited with parents or placed with other relatives already living here while they wait for an immigration court to decide their future. The court process can take years.
GOP Senator Demands Criminal Background Checks On Illegal Immigrant Children
Branstad was critical Sunday of the fact that there is no review of the immigration status of relatives who take custody of the children.
Since Oct. 1, more than 57,000 children have crossed the border. Most are from Honduras, El Salvador or Guatemala.
President Barack Obama has vowed to use executive actions in an effort to help fix the immigration system.
July 14, 2014 1:23 PM
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad speaks at the annual Ronald Reagan Commemorative Dinner on Oct. 25, 2013 in Des Moines, Iowa. (credit: Steve Pope/Getty Images)
Related Tags: Central America, Gov. Terry Branstad, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell, Immigration, Iowa, U.S.-Mexico border
During a news conference, Branstad said he was not aware of any of the children currently living in Iowa and that state has not been contacted by the federal government about housing any immigrant children. He said the government’s focus should be on securing the borders.
Michelle Obama: ‘We Have To Keep Fighting As Hard As We Can On Immigration’
“The first thing we need to do is secure the border. I do have empathy for these kids,” Branstad said. “But I also don’t want to send the signal that (you) send your kids to America illegally. That’s not the right message.”
Branstad was among a group of governors that met Sunday with Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell as the Obama administration sought support from states that could host the children.
Under current law, immigrant children from countries that do not border the United States and who cross into the U.S. by themselves are turned over to federal authorities. Then, they often are reunited with parents or placed with other relatives already living here while they wait for an immigration court to decide their future. The court process can take years.
GOP Senator Demands Criminal Background Checks On Illegal Immigrant Children
Branstad was critical Sunday of the fact that there is no review of the immigration status of relatives who take custody of the children.
Since Oct. 1, more than 57,000 children have crossed the border. Most are from Honduras, El Salvador or Guatemala.
President Barack Obama has vowed to use executive actions in an effort to help fix the immigration system.
Immoral hypocrisy of Democrat’s late-term abortion bill | Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
Written by Allen West on July 16, 2014
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/immoral-hypocrisy-democrats-late-term-abortion-bill/#V4IyT5o7ofDvpjmp.99
If there is any indicator that the Democrats are concerned about the impending midterm elections, look no further than their recent legislative endeavor. When in doubt, they go for a divisive issue, especially one aligned with the faux War on Women.
Funny how Democrats are using the compassion argument when it comes to the flood of illegal immigrant children into America. Yet they have no compassion for the thriving, healthy, but unborn American child who they support being butchered. What immoral hypocrisy — but all for political gain. It’s despicable.
As Chris Stirewalt writes for Foxnews.com, ” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., is leading a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, a vote probably to be taken this week, on his bill that would override the laws banning late-term abortions and imposing regulations on abortion clinics in an increasing number of states.”
Stirewalt says “of course what Blumenthal doesn’t to address is that many of these “restrictions” were put in place after the horrific Dr. Kermit Gosnell case in Philadelphia, which the mainstream media didn’t seem to want to cover.” And these “restrictions” do offer support for women and protection.
We reported here about the drive for late-term abortions by a state representative in New York and what it entails. It basically amounts to brutal infanticide — that means killing babies.
According to Stirewalt, “Blumenthal’s bill, which already has the support of nearly two-thirds of Senate Democrats, would eradicate the restrictions in at least a dozen states where abortions have been banned after the start of the sixth month of pregnancy and rules in many more states that regulate the conditions at abortion clinics.”
Leave it to these liberal progressive socialists to do anything to save their own political skin – including murder ala Gosnell.
Stirewalt says “even the New York Times editorial board is enthused as are others on the Left who have seen access to elective abortions restricted in the aftermath of the discovery of a house of horrors at the Philadelphia abortion clinic operated by Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Blumenthal’s anti-anti-Gosnell bill takes Democrats into some very dangerous political territory.”
But with the support of a complicit media who will aid in the promulgation of their true intent and lies, the Democrats feel emboldened to take such an action.
Stirewalt posits that “Blumenthal’s hearing and legislation certainly is part of Democratic efforts to shift the election narrative and to frighten suburban women about Todd Akin-ite boogeymen lurking in every doctor’s office, it’s also evidence of the power of the left wing in the Democratic Party. One would have to imagine this hearing is designed to placate the vocal, well-funded pro-choice crusaders in the Democratic base and not designed to proceed even to a show vote.” We’ve already seen fundraising emails distorting the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case decision.
But ponder this: Democrats and liberal progressives are so very staunch in their support of women’s choice in killing babies — but why are they so against women’s choice in educating their children? Oops, that’s right, they’re “owned” by the far left radical abortionists and the teachers unions.
So in the end, it’s not about the future of our children, it is all about politics, and placating their devoted leftist base. It’s about degrading women into nothing more than hapless victims whose basic need is to kill babies — not about greater opportunities for their future — just killing the future of life.
And the progressive socialists are masters of the lexicon as they have reframed this debate as fighting for women’s reproductive health — which should mean defeating cervical, uterine, ovarian cancers and fibroid tumor threats. Instead they’ve successfully changed language to mask their true intent — killing babies — as a means to achieve political power.
We all know where Barack Hussein Obama stands on this issue — after all when he was a state Senator he advocated for and supported legislation that a child surviving an abortion still deserved death. What type of demonic mind thinks that? Even worse, what does it say about our moral compass to have such a person as our president?
Look into the eyes of the people advocating this legislation — Richard Blumenthal, Tammy Baldwin, and others — and ask, what do you see within their souls?
Tags: abortion, Richard Blumenthal
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/immoral-hypocrisy-democrats-late-term-abortion-bill/#V4IyT5o7ofDvpjmp.99
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/immoral-hypocrisy-democrats-late-term-abortion-bill/#V4IyT5o7ofDvpjmp.99
If there is any indicator that the Democrats are concerned about the impending midterm elections, look no further than their recent legislative endeavor. When in doubt, they go for a divisive issue, especially one aligned with the faux War on Women.
Funny how Democrats are using the compassion argument when it comes to the flood of illegal immigrant children into America. Yet they have no compassion for the thriving, healthy, but unborn American child who they support being butchered. What immoral hypocrisy — but all for political gain. It’s despicable.
As Chris Stirewalt writes for Foxnews.com, ” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., is leading a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, a vote probably to be taken this week, on his bill that would override the laws banning late-term abortions and imposing regulations on abortion clinics in an increasing number of states.”
Stirewalt says “of course what Blumenthal doesn’t to address is that many of these “restrictions” were put in place after the horrific Dr. Kermit Gosnell case in Philadelphia, which the mainstream media didn’t seem to want to cover.” And these “restrictions” do offer support for women and protection.
We reported here about the drive for late-term abortions by a state representative in New York and what it entails. It basically amounts to brutal infanticide — that means killing babies.
According to Stirewalt, “Blumenthal’s bill, which already has the support of nearly two-thirds of Senate Democrats, would eradicate the restrictions in at least a dozen states where abortions have been banned after the start of the sixth month of pregnancy and rules in many more states that regulate the conditions at abortion clinics.”
Leave it to these liberal progressive socialists to do anything to save their own political skin – including murder ala Gosnell.
Stirewalt says “even the New York Times editorial board is enthused as are others on the Left who have seen access to elective abortions restricted in the aftermath of the discovery of a house of horrors at the Philadelphia abortion clinic operated by Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Blumenthal’s anti-anti-Gosnell bill takes Democrats into some very dangerous political territory.”
But with the support of a complicit media who will aid in the promulgation of their true intent and lies, the Democrats feel emboldened to take such an action.
Stirewalt posits that “Blumenthal’s hearing and legislation certainly is part of Democratic efforts to shift the election narrative and to frighten suburban women about Todd Akin-ite boogeymen lurking in every doctor’s office, it’s also evidence of the power of the left wing in the Democratic Party. One would have to imagine this hearing is designed to placate the vocal, well-funded pro-choice crusaders in the Democratic base and not designed to proceed even to a show vote.” We’ve already seen fundraising emails distorting the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case decision.
But ponder this: Democrats and liberal progressives are so very staunch in their support of women’s choice in killing babies — but why are they so against women’s choice in educating their children? Oops, that’s right, they’re “owned” by the far left radical abortionists and the teachers unions.
So in the end, it’s not about the future of our children, it is all about politics, and placating their devoted leftist base. It’s about degrading women into nothing more than hapless victims whose basic need is to kill babies — not about greater opportunities for their future — just killing the future of life.
And the progressive socialists are masters of the lexicon as they have reframed this debate as fighting for women’s reproductive health — which should mean defeating cervical, uterine, ovarian cancers and fibroid tumor threats. Instead they’ve successfully changed language to mask their true intent — killing babies — as a means to achieve political power.
We all know where Barack Hussein Obama stands on this issue — after all when he was a state Senator he advocated for and supported legislation that a child surviving an abortion still deserved death. What type of demonic mind thinks that? Even worse, what does it say about our moral compass to have such a person as our president?
Look into the eyes of the people advocating this legislation — Richard Blumenthal, Tammy Baldwin, and others — and ask, what do you see within their souls?
Tags: abortion, Richard Blumenthal
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/immoral-hypocrisy-democrats-late-term-abortion-bill/#V4IyT5o7ofDvpjmp.99
Monday, July 14, 2014
AND NOW FOR YOUR READING ENTERTAINMENT - A FAIRY TALE IN GORE'S HEAD - Turning up the Heat on Gore - Jonah Goldberg
Turning up the Heat on Gore - Jonah Goldberg
Jonah Goldberg | Mar 23, 2007
As fate would have it, the same week Al Gore was testifying before Congress, I was doing a little testifying myself. Admittedly, there were a tad fewer paparazzi in the Madison, Wis., classroom where I was giving a talk on global warming (sponsored by Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT). The debate in Washington offered some familiar echoes.
One student asked a long and rambling question that went basically as follows: He understood why I think Al Gore is dishonest and misleading. But how can I criticize Gore when all he wants to do is make people change their behavior and take care of this planet?
Translation: Gore is on the side of the angels and therefore it's mean-spirited to throw inconvenient truths back at the Oscar winner for "An Inconvenient Truth". "Yeah, exactly," the kid responded when I rephrased the question thusly.
The press and the Democrats seem to share this kid's sensibility. Covering Gore's congressional testimony, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank portrayed Gore as a man of science versus a bunch of creationist nutjobs. Milbank wrote: "... instead of giving another screening of 'An Inconvenient Truth,' the former vice president found himself playing the Clarence Darrow character in 'Inherit the Wind.'" It's an unintentionally accurate comparison, because the movie completely distorted the reality of the Scopes trial. The real Clarence Darrow contentedly lost the open-and-shut case after a nine-minute jury deliberation. The movie was about something bigger than the facts. So is Al Gore. And that's why his fans love him.
Gore says global warming is "a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth." It's graver than any war. He compares it to the asteroid that allegedly killed the dinosaurs.
But here's the thing. If there were an asteroid barreling toward earth, we wouldn't be talking about changing our lifestyles, nor would we be preaching about reducing, reusing and recycling. We would be building giant wicked-cool lasers and bomb-carrying spaceships to go out and destroy the thing. But Gore doesn't want to explore geo-engineering (whereby, for example, we'd add sulfate aerosols or other substances to the atmosphere to mitigate global warming). Why? Because solving the problem isn't really the point. As Gore makes it clear in his book, "Earth in the Balance," he wants to change attitudes more than he wants to solve problems.
Indeed, he wants to change attitudes about government as much as he wants to preach environmentalism. Global warming is what William James called a "moral equivalent of war" that gives political officials the power to do things they could never do without a crisis. As liberal journalist James Ridgeway wrote in the early 1970s: "Ecology offered liberal-minded people what they had longed for, a safe, rational and above all peaceful way of remaking society ... (and) developing a more coherent central state."
This explains Gore's relentless talk of "consensus," his ugly moral bullying of "deniers" and, most of all, his insistence that because there's no time left to argue, everyone should do what he says.
Isn't it interesting how the same people who think "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" when it comes to the war think that dissent when it comes to global warming is evil and troglodytic?
"If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor," Gore said this week. "If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it's not a problem.' If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action."
True enough. But if your baby's crib is on fire, you don't run to a politician for help either.
You can tell that Gore's schtick is about something more than the moderate and manageable challenge of global warming when he talks of sacrifice. On the one hand he wants everybody to change their lifestyles dramatically. These are the sacrifices the voracious energy user Al Gore won't have to make because he can buy "carbon credits" for his many homes and his jet-setting.
But when asked this week about the enormous and unwise costs his plan would impose on the U.S. economy (according to the global consensus of economists), Gore said that his draconian emissions cuts are "going to save you money, and it's going to make the economy stronger."
Wait a second. This is the gravest crisis we've ever faced, but if we do exactly as Gore says (but not as he does), we'll get richer in the process as we heal Mother Earth of her fever? Gore's faith-based initiative is a win-win. No wonder so many people think it's mean to disagree.
via Turning up the Heat on Gore - Jonah Goldberg
Jonah Goldberg | Mar 23, 2007
As fate would have it, the same week Al Gore was testifying before Congress, I was doing a little testifying myself. Admittedly, there were a tad fewer paparazzi in the Madison, Wis., classroom where I was giving a talk on global warming (sponsored by Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT). The debate in Washington offered some familiar echoes.
One student asked a long and rambling question that went basically as follows: He understood why I think Al Gore is dishonest and misleading. But how can I criticize Gore when all he wants to do is make people change their behavior and take care of this planet?
Translation: Gore is on the side of the angels and therefore it's mean-spirited to throw inconvenient truths back at the Oscar winner for "An Inconvenient Truth". "Yeah, exactly," the kid responded when I rephrased the question thusly.
The press and the Democrats seem to share this kid's sensibility. Covering Gore's congressional testimony, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank portrayed Gore as a man of science versus a bunch of creationist nutjobs. Milbank wrote: "... instead of giving another screening of 'An Inconvenient Truth,' the former vice president found himself playing the Clarence Darrow character in 'Inherit the Wind.'" It's an unintentionally accurate comparison, because the movie completely distorted the reality of the Scopes trial. The real Clarence Darrow contentedly lost the open-and-shut case after a nine-minute jury deliberation. The movie was about something bigger than the facts. So is Al Gore. And that's why his fans love him.
Gore says global warming is "a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth." It's graver than any war. He compares it to the asteroid that allegedly killed the dinosaurs.
But here's the thing. If there were an asteroid barreling toward earth, we wouldn't be talking about changing our lifestyles, nor would we be preaching about reducing, reusing and recycling. We would be building giant wicked-cool lasers and bomb-carrying spaceships to go out and destroy the thing. But Gore doesn't want to explore geo-engineering (whereby, for example, we'd add sulfate aerosols or other substances to the atmosphere to mitigate global warming). Why? Because solving the problem isn't really the point. As Gore makes it clear in his book, "Earth in the Balance," he wants to change attitudes more than he wants to solve problems.
Indeed, he wants to change attitudes about government as much as he wants to preach environmentalism. Global warming is what William James called a "moral equivalent of war" that gives political officials the power to do things they could never do without a crisis. As liberal journalist James Ridgeway wrote in the early 1970s: "Ecology offered liberal-minded people what they had longed for, a safe, rational and above all peaceful way of remaking society ... (and) developing a more coherent central state."
This explains Gore's relentless talk of "consensus," his ugly moral bullying of "deniers" and, most of all, his insistence that because there's no time left to argue, everyone should do what he says.
Isn't it interesting how the same people who think "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" when it comes to the war think that dissent when it comes to global warming is evil and troglodytic?
"If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor," Gore said this week. "If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it's not a problem.' If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action."
True enough. But if your baby's crib is on fire, you don't run to a politician for help either.
You can tell that Gore's schtick is about something more than the moderate and manageable challenge of global warming when he talks of sacrifice. On the one hand he wants everybody to change their lifestyles dramatically. These are the sacrifices the voracious energy user Al Gore won't have to make because he can buy "carbon credits" for his many homes and his jet-setting.
But when asked this week about the enormous and unwise costs his plan would impose on the U.S. economy (according to the global consensus of economists), Gore said that his draconian emissions cuts are "going to save you money, and it's going to make the economy stronger."
Wait a second. This is the gravest crisis we've ever faced, but if we do exactly as Gore says (but not as he does), we'll get richer in the process as we heal Mother Earth of her fever? Gore's faith-based initiative is a win-win. No wonder so many people think it's mean to disagree.
via Turning up the Heat on Gore - Jonah Goldberg
UNBELIEVABLE!!! - TRAITOR - Bowe Bergdahl Headed Back to Active Duty, Taking Job at Fort Sam Houston - Katie Pavlich
Bowe Bergdahl Headed Back to Active Duty, Taking Job at Fort Sam Houston - Katie Pavlich
THEY SAY HE IS STILL ON ACTIVE DUTY???? HE WASN'T SUPPORTING AMERICA ACTIVELY WHEN HE DESERTED HIS POST! HE IS A TRAITOR AND THE HIGH RANKING IDIOTS WHO ARE LICKING HIS BOOTS NEED TO BE DISHONORABLY DISCHARGED! WHAT A SHAM!
Katie Pavlich | Jul 14, 2014
Yes, you read that headline correctly. Bowe Bergdahl, the Army Sgt. accused by his fellow platoon members of desertion and possible collaboration with the Taliban against the United States, is headed back to active duty. More from CNN:
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has finished undergoing medical care and counseling at an Army hospital in San Antonio and could return to an Army unit on a Texas post as early as Monday, a defense official tells CNN.
Bergdahl was held captive by militants for five years before he was released in May in exchange for five senior Taliban members held by the U.S. military. He has always maintained his active duty status. He cannot retire from the service or be discharged until the investigation concerning his disappearance and captivity in Afghanistan is complete.
For about three weeks, Bergdahl has been an outpatient at the San Antonio hospital, and military officials have interviewed him about his time in captivity.
Bergdahl is set to take a job at Fort Sam Houston, the Army post in San Antonio, according to an Army statement Monday. He will return to "regular duty within the command where he can contribute to the mission," the statement said.
At this point, not a single soldier from Bergdahl's platoon has come forward to defend him or to justify his disappearance. Army Spc. Cody Full, who testified in front of Congress last month about Berghdahl's disappearance, is not impressed.
Full will be on with Sean Hannity tonight at 10 pm et on Fox News to discuss this latest development.
THEY SAY HE IS STILL ON ACTIVE DUTY???? HE WASN'T SUPPORTING AMERICA ACTIVELY WHEN HE DESERTED HIS POST! HE IS A TRAITOR AND THE HIGH RANKING IDIOTS WHO ARE LICKING HIS BOOTS NEED TO BE DISHONORABLY DISCHARGED! WHAT A SHAM!
Katie Pavlich | Jul 14, 2014
Yes, you read that headline correctly. Bowe Bergdahl, the Army Sgt. accused by his fellow platoon members of desertion and possible collaboration with the Taliban against the United States, is headed back to active duty. More from CNN:
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has finished undergoing medical care and counseling at an Army hospital in San Antonio and could return to an Army unit on a Texas post as early as Monday, a defense official tells CNN.
Bergdahl was held captive by militants for five years before he was released in May in exchange for five senior Taliban members held by the U.S. military. He has always maintained his active duty status. He cannot retire from the service or be discharged until the investigation concerning his disappearance and captivity in Afghanistan is complete.
For about three weeks, Bergdahl has been an outpatient at the San Antonio hospital, and military officials have interviewed him about his time in captivity.
Bergdahl is set to take a job at Fort Sam Houston, the Army post in San Antonio, according to an Army statement Monday. He will return to "regular duty within the command where he can contribute to the mission," the statement said.
At this point, not a single soldier from Bergdahl's platoon has come forward to defend him or to justify his disappearance. Army Spc. Cody Full, who testified in front of Congress last month about Berghdahl's disappearance, is not impressed.
Full will be on with Sean Hannity tonight at 10 pm et on Fox News to discuss this latest development.
DNI extends its Alberta SBH Property over fracsand targets
DNI extends its Alberta SBH Property over fracsand targets
DNI
METALS INC. (DNI : TSX-Ven)(DG7 : Frankfurt)
TORONTO, July 11, 2014 /CNW/
- DNI Metals Inc. (DNI:TSX-Ven)(DG7:FSE) announces that it has
recently concluded acquisition of additional metallic and industrial mineral
permits over 61,440 hectares adjoining its Alberta SBH Property to secure
strategic locations over exposures of the Pelican sandstone Formation which is
known elsewhere in Alberta to
contain sections of sand suitable for use as a natural sand proppant (fracsand)
by the oil/gas industry.
Compelled
by growing demand in fracsand to supply fast growing tight oil/gas plays in
western Canada, and the
scarcity of local deposits, DNI has decided to test the Pelican Formation
sandstone on its Property for suitability as fracsand. DNI's field program to
sample and test this Formation on the Property will start shortly.
The
Pelican Formation sandstone contains poorly cemented, hard, clean white coarse
sand with relatively smooth round grains. Fracsand is currently being produced
from the stratigraphic equivalent of this Formation in the Peace River region,
in west-central Alberta. In
addition, high silica (98%+) coarse and smooth grained sand sections have been
reported by others from exposures of the Formation from locations adjacent to
the Property which are being evaluated as a source for fracsand. Similar
outcrop exposures on DNI's Property have not yet been sampled and their
suitability as fracsand has not been determined.
DNI's subsurface geological and stratigraphic
database, based on nearly 600 oil/gas wells drilled over its Property by
others, confirms that the Pelican Formation sandstone extends under the entire
Property with thicknesses typically ranging 30m-60m. Downhole geophysical logs
from a random selection of the wells confirm the presence of porous clean sand
sections within the Formation.
The Pelican Formation is under thin overburden cover
throughout most of the eastern parts of the Property, and it is intermittently
exposed in valley walls along the 100km trace marking erosional edge of the
Birch Mountains on the Property. This Formation is eroded away to the east of
the Property. The Pelican Formation is poorly consolidated and would lend
itself well to free-dig extraction.
Four large areas have been identified on the Property
offering ~1km-2km long outcrop exposures of the Pelican Formation some of which
are accessible by road. These areas provide primary targets for sampling.
DNI
has been exploring metal enriched zones in polymetallic black shales at its SBH
Property since 2007 and has successfully delineated two mineral resources at
the Property, one of which (the Buckton Deposit) has advanced through a Preliminary
Economic Assessment for the production of base metals, Uranium and REE
(announced inDecember 2013).
The Pelican sandstone Formation at the Property lies beneath the flat-lying
metal enriched black shales, and offers new targets with potential to add
further value to the Property. DNI's planned exploration program to test this
Formation will be an adjunct to its ongoing work to continue advancing its
polymetallic shale resources toward pilot demonstration.
The
Alberta SBH Property previously consisted of 2,720 sq km held under 36 permits,
and provided coverage over six mineralized areas. Through ongoing
rationalization of its land position, DNI allowed a large portion of its prior
land position, being non-strategic areas over remote lower priority permits, to
lapse in March 2014. These
permits contained three early stage blind targets, namely; the McIvor West and
North Lily Anomalies, and the Eaglenest Target Area. These targets are
challenged by remote field access, lack of outcrop exposures and seasonal field
activity constraints. DNI has not previously carried out any work on these
areas other than compilation of historic work, and has instead prioritized the
eastern parts of the Property where the shales are accessible and exposed.
DNI recently acquired additional permits adjoining the
northeast and southeast parts of the SBH Property to secure localities over new
targets which have potential for hosting large volumes of sand which might be
suited for use as fracsand in the oil/gas industry. The SBH Property currently
comprises 1,812 sq km held under 25 permits, and contains three drill-tested
polymetallic mineralized zones or resources, namely; the Buckton Deposit, the
Buckton South mineral resource and the Asphalt Zone. The foregoing comprise DNI's
black shale hosted strategic polymetallic assets.
DNI's
Qualified Person in respect of its Alberta polymetallic
black shale projects, and this announcement, is Mr. Shahé F.Sabag
P.Geo., President and CEO of DNI.
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation
Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture
Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
DNI
- TSX Venture
DG7 - Frankfurt
Issued: 74,857,022
DG7 - Frankfurt
Issued: 74,857,022
SOURCE DNI Metals Inc.
For further information: DNI Metals Inc. - Shahe Sabag,
President & CEO or Denis Clement, Chairman - 416-595-1195, email ir@dnimetals.com.
Also visit www.dnimetals.com
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)