The Nightmare ObamaCare Wants to Unleash Here

The Nightmare ObamaCare Wants to Unleash
Here

January 19th, 2011

Susan Stamper Brown, FloydReports.com
Another dreamer quietly joined the Obama administration last
summer without
Congressional approval
. Despite resolute promises that Obamacare would not
include rationing or result in a single-payer system, please give a hearty and
belated welcome to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services director, Dr.
Donald Berwick.
Berwick’s unobtrusive entrance could not muffle his history of being a very
loud proponent of the troubled British National Healthcare System (NHS). During
the NHS’s 60th anniversary meeting in 2008, Berwick scorned America’s ho-hum,
less superior, lower quality, fragmented, capitalistic, supply-driven medical
system – and praised NHS’s socialized system saying,
“Excellent health care is by definition [wealth] redistribution,” and told NHS
leaders that “Britain chose well.”
An increasing number of NHS patients may not concur with Dr. Berwick’s
assessment. According to the UK Guardian, not long after Berwick’s
appointment last year, written complaints ranging from “neglect and
misdiagnosis” to a “distinct lack of care and compassion” from caregivers rose
13.4 percent.
Patient complaints along with various audits expose insufficiencies within
the NHS. On January 17, 2011, the UK Daily Mail told of an
investigation into 15 UK West Midlands hospitals that used “substandard”
maternity care including delivery delays, inadequate resuscitation attempts, and
failure to properly monitor patients that may have resulted in the unexplained
deaths of 21 babies.
A striking 2009 audit found many NHS health care managers prioritized cost
cutting over patient care and cited that “appalling standards of care” may have
attributed to the deaths of up to 1200 people at one hospital in
Mid-Staffordshire where poorly trained and overworked nurses turned off
equipment they didn’t know how to work and inexperienced doctors were left alone
with post-surgery patients while receptionists were tasked with triage
assessment.
In order to meet an NHS-imposed four-hour waiting room limit, doctors left
blood-covered, seriously ill patients without pain medication to
treat….

 

Climate change study had ‘significant error’: experts

Climate change study had ‘significant error’: experts

by Kerry Sheridan                    Kerry SheridanWed Jan 19, 11:33 am ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in temperature and massive worldwide food shortages in the next decade was seriously flawed, scientists said Wednesday.

The study was posted on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and was written about by numerous international news agencies, including AFP.

But AAAS later retracted the study as experts cited numerous errors in its approach.

“A reporter with The Guardian alerted us yesterday to concerns about the news release submitted by Hoffman & Hoffman public relations,” said AAAS spokeswoman Ginger Pinholster in an email to AFP.

“We immediately contacted a climate change expert, who confirmed that the information raised many questions in his mind, too. We swiftly removed the news release from our Web site and contacted the submitting organization.”

Scientist Osvaldo Canziani, who was part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was listed as the scientific advisor to the report.

The IPCC, whose figures were cited as the basis for the study’s projections, and Al Gore jointly won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007 “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change,” the prize committee said at the time.

Canziani’s spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews.

The study cited the UN group’s figures for its projections, combined with “the business-as-usual path the world is currently following,” said lead author Liliana Hisas of the Universal Ecological Fund (UEF), a non-profit group headquartered in Argentina.

But climate scientist Rey Weymann told AFP that the “study contains a significant error in that it confuses ‘equilibrium’ temperature rise with ‘transient temperature rise.'”

He also noted that study author Hisas was told of the problems in advance of the report’s release.

“The author of the study was told by several of us about this error but she said it was too late to change it,” said Weymann.

Scientist Scott Mandia forwarded to AFP an email he said he sent to Hisas ahead of publication explaining why her figures did not add up, and noting that it would take “quite a few decades” to reach a warming level of 2.4 degrees Celsius.

“Even if we assume the higher end of the current warming rate, we should only be 0.2C warmer by 2020 than today,” Mandia wrote.

“To get to +2.4C the current trend would have to immediately increase almost ten-fold.”

Mandia described the mishap as an “honest and common mistake,” but said the matter would certainly give fuel to skeptics of humans’ role in climate change.

“More alarmism,” said Mandia. “Don’t get me wrong. We are headed to 2.4, it is just not going to happen in 2020.”

Many people do not understand the cumulative effect of carbon emissions and how they impact climate change, Mandia said.

“This is something that people don’t appreciate. We tied a record in 2010 (for temperature records) globally. That is primarily from the C02 we put in the atmosphere in the 70s and early 80s, and we have been ramping up since then,” he said.

“So it is not good. We are seeing the response from a mistake we were making 20 years ago, and we are making bigger mistakes today.”

The public relations firm that issued the report on the UEF’s behalf said the group stands by the study and would issue a statement to that effect.

The Hate Speech Inquisition

Lead Story

The Hate Speech Inquisition

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 19, 2011 08:36 AM


Tucson massacre + Red Queen politics = Hate Speech Inquisition.

I noticed a new game the blamestream media is playing this week. It’s the same game they played with Sarah Palin last week: Blame the victim. After a slew of Democrat leaders issued open threats against talk radio, conservative radio hosts rose up to defend themselves. And now, the BSM is deriding those who work in talk radio for inserting themselves into the Tucson massacre story and for having a “persecution complex.”  No, really.

This week’s column also spotlights the repeated attempts by Red Queen open-borders radicals to insert themselves into the Tucson shooting rampage that had no more to do with illegal immigration than it did with talk radio.

On a related note: The worst sheriff in America is still mugging for the cameras.

***

The Hate Speech Inquisition
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

There isn’t a shred of evidence that deranged Tucson massacre suspect Jared Loughner ever listened to talk radio or cared about illegal immigration. Indeed, after 300 exhaustive interviews, the feds “remain stumped” about his motives, according to Tuesday’s Washington Post. But that hasn’t stopped a coalition of power-grabbing politicians, progressive activists and open-borders lobbyists from plying their quack cure for the American body politic: government-sponsored speech suppression.

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting rampage, Democratic leaders mused openly about reintroducing the Orwellian “Fairness Doctrine” – a legislative sledgehammer targeting conservative viewpoints on public airwaves. New York Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter assailed the Federal Communications Commission for failing to police broadcast content and vowed to “look into” more aggressive language monitoring. Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ed Markey blamed “incendiary rhetoric” for triggering “unstable individuals to take violent action.” In his own manifesto calling for resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, Democratic Rep. James Clyburn pressed public officials to “rethink parameters on free speech.”

This week’s fashionable new media meme is to deride talk radio hosts for taking these speech-squelching threats seriously. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jay Bookman sneered at the “persecution complex” of conservative broadcasters who reacted to Slaughter and company. Politico’s Keach Hagey dismissed concerns about the Democrats’ chilling campaign against right-leaning media outlets and knocked conservative talkers’ “defensive posture.” (Sound familiar? This is the same tactic they used against Sarah Palin and all those on the right falsely accused of being accessories to the Tucson massacre: Attack ‘em. Attack ‘em for responding. Accuse the smear victims of playing the victim card. Repeat.)

Make no mistake: The Hate Speech Inquisition is real. And it’s being fought on all fronts. Last week, using the non-radio-inspired Tucson massacre as fuel, the National Hispanic Media Coalition called on the FCC to gather evidence for the left’s preconceived conclusion that conservative talk radio “hate speech” causes violence. It’s Red Queen science — sentence first, research validation later.

The head of the NHMC is Alex Nogales, who has filed more than 50 petitions to deny broadcast licenses and has led anti-corporate crusades to “force” broadcast stations across the country “to hire Latino reporters and anchors” and adopt “diversity initiatives.” Grabbing the Tucson shooting limelight, Nogales told Broadcasting and Cable magazine last week:

“We can’t stand there with our arms crossed and make like there isn’t a reason why this is happening. … We started this dialog(ue) in the last immigration debate four years ago. We could see that it was just out of control. It started with just an issue of immigration, then every pundit on radio and TV who wanted an audience started talking about it and started using the worst of language, and now it has spilled out into mainstream.”

Loughner’s wild Internet rants and creepy campus meltdowns clearly demonstrate that crazy doesn’t need a motive. But progressive censors need their bogeymen, and Nogales isn’t about to give them up for reality’s sake. The NHMC first filed a petition in October 2009 demanding that the FCC collect data, seek public comment and “explore options” for combating “hate speech” from staunch critics of illegal immigration. The petition followed on National Council of La Raza President Janet Murguia’s call for media outlets to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves “even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights.”

Nogales’ group is part of a larger “media justice” coalition dedicated to curtailing and redistributing conservatives’ political speech under the guise of diversity and decency. As left-wing philanthropists at the Media Justice Fund put it: The movement “is grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies.” But, hey, we better just ignore these communications control freaks lest we be accused of suffering a “persecution complex.”

The Praetorian Guards of civility keep telling us that “words matter.” Threats should be taken seriously, they insist. Except, of course, when those words and threats are uttered by those hell-bent on regulating their opponents’ discourse out of existence.

Hawaii Gov Can’t Find Obama Birth Certificate

Hawaii Gov Can’t Find Obama Birth
Certificate

January 19th, 2011

Jerome Corsi, WorldNetDaily

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a
long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist
within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Abercrombie told the Honolulu
Star Advertiser
he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to
find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because
the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of
re-election in 2012.
Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie’s spokeswoman in Honolulu, ignored again today
another in a series of repeated requests made by WND for an interview with the
governor.
Toward the end of the interview, the newspaper asked Abercrombie: “You
stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your
plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama’s birth
certificate. How is that coming?”
In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will
have “political implications” for the next presidential election “that we simply
cannot have.”
Read
more
.