Category Archives: Ethics

CNN White-Noise News Conceals ‘Massive, Fraudulent,’ Indictable, Obama Scheme

Barack Obama, Ethics, Healthcare, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media

The thing that’s on every American’s mind—breaking news about the consequences of Obama’s devastating (developing) lies to their medical and financial well being—CNN has been concealing with the following white-noise news stories:

* A state senator’s stabbing
* George Zimmerman’s ongoing antics.
* JFK.
* The Jonestown massacre’s 30th anniversary.
* Ted Turner (“who,” you ask) turns 75, and CNN profiles him for hours on end.

National Review and Powerline have filled in the gap in reportage magnificently. In “Obama’s ‘5 Percent’ Con Job,” Andrew C. McCarthy expounds on the developing impeachable offenses of O:

… Unable to deny that millions of Americans have lost the coverage he vowed they could keep, Obama and other Democrats are now peddling what we might call the “5 percent” con job. The president asserts that these victims, whom he feels so terribly about, nevertheless constitute a tiny, insignificant minority in the greater scheme of things (“scheme” is used advisedly). They are limited, he maintains, to consumers in the individual health-insurance market, as opposed to the vastly greater number of Americans who get insurance through their employers. According to Obama, these individual-market consumers whose policies are being canceled make up only 5 percent of all health-insurance consumers.
Even this 5 percent figure is a deception. As Avik Roy points out, the individual market actually accounts for 8 percent of health-insurance consumers. Obama can’t help himself: He even minimizes his minimizations. So, if Obama were telling the truth in rationalizing that his broken promises affect only consumers in the individual-insurance market, we’d still be talking about up to 25 million Americans. While the president shrugs these victims off, 25 million exceeds the number of Americans who do not have health insurance because of poverty or preexisting conditions (as opposed to those who could, but choose not to, purchase insurance). Of course, far from cavalierly shrugging off that smaller number of people, Obama and Democrats used them to justify nationalizing a sixth of the U.S. economy. …

But that’s not the half of it. Obama’s claim that unwelcome cancellations are confined to the individual-insurance market is another brazen lie. In the weekend column, I link to the excellent work of Powerline’s John Hinderaker, who has demonstrated that, for over three years, the Obama administration’s internal estimates have shown that most Americans who are covered by “employer plans” will also lose their coverage under Obamacare. Mind you, 156 million Americans get health coverage through their jobs.
John cites the Federal Register, dated June 17, 2010, beginning at page 34,552 (Vol. 75, No. 116). It includes a chart that outlines the Obama administration’s projections. The chart indicates that somewhere between 39 and 69 percent of employer plans would lose their “grandfather” protection by 2013. In fact, for small-business employers, the high-end estimate is a staggering 80 percent (and even on the low end, it’s just a shade under half — 49 percent).
That is to say: During all these years, while Obama was repeatedly assuring Americans, “If you like your health-insurance plan, you can keep your health-insurance plan,” he actually expected as many as seven out of every ten Americans covered by employer plans to lose their coverage. For small business, he expected at least one out of every two Americans, or as many as four out of every five, to lose their coverage. …

… October 17, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Obama Justice Department, submitted a brief to the federal district court in Washington, opposing Priests for Life’s summary judgment motion. On page 27 of its brief, the Justice Department makes the following remarkable assertion:
The [ACA’s] grandfathering provision’s incremental transition does not undermine the government’s interests in a significant way. [Citing, among other sources, the Federal Register.] Even under the grandfathering provision, it is projected that more group health plans will transition to the requirements under the regulations as time goes on. Defendants have estimated that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013.
HHS and the Justice Department cite the same section of the Federal Register referred to by John Hinderaker, as well as an annual survey on “Employer Health Benefits” compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2012.
So, while the president has been telling us that, under the vaunted grandfathering provision, all Americans who like their health-insurance plans will be able to keep them, “period,” his administration has been representing in federal court that most health plans would lose their “grandfather status” by the end of this year. Not just the “5 percent” of individual-market consumers, but close to all consumers — including well over 100 million American workers who get coverage through their jobs — have been expected by the president swiftly to “transition to the requirements under the [Obamacare] regulations.” That is, their health-insurance plans would be eliminated. They would be forced into Obamacare-compliant plans, with all the prohibitive price hikes and coercive mandates that “transition” portends. …

MSNBC at least broaches the topic of healthcare today, but not to break the aforementioned news.

Fix News Falters, But Flatters

Conservatism, Ethics, Etiquette, Ilana Mercer, Media

When “‘Obama, Love Means Never Having To Say You’re Sorry’” was first published and circulated, Megyn Kelly led her show with the exact reference and column title, even cuing the music from “Love Story.” Did she or her producer have the decency to credit the column? You know the answer to that.

Our editor sent me this comment: “yep, par for the course—still kinda cool though.” He’s right.

Indeed, as documented in “Glenn Beck Awakens To The Color Of Hate Crime (But Fails To Credit Those Who Went Before),” this is not a first for big, conservative media—generally challenged in the originality department. Passing off the often-idiosyncratic ideas or references of others as their own is “par for the course” in these circles.

Personally, I experienced Sean Hannity as a cordial gentleman—disarmingly charming—who was generous on air in his praise for my work and controversial position. (Perhaps the only position I’ve taken that I’ve come to deeply regret, even though it is probably philosophically correct.)

Debbie Schlussel, however, has had a different experience, detailed in “Why is Sean Hannity Deliberately Ripping Me Off?”.

UPDATE III: ‘The World’s Smartest Birds, Set Free’ (And Made Happy)

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Ethics, Law, Lebanon

Just this once, a good-news story “in the fight against wildlife trafficking”: “The World’s Smartest Birds, Set Free,” by Charles Bergman, writing at Slate.com.

Libertarians know too well that legislation tends to have unintended consequences. For example, a prohibition on trade and trafficking in these sentient creatures has meant that their main predator—man—has proceeded to decimate the bird population’s habitat. For when the birds can’t be harvested, the supporting ecosystem loses its commercial value too. It’s an unending, heartbreaking quagmire.

Or, do we accept that some values are uniquely Western—like the worldview that wild life has its own intrinsic value independent of man? And if so, what is to be done about the kind of cruelty we in the West cannot abide? Clearly education is invaluable. Can demand be reduced through education? Markets for these magnificent, social creatures are, after all, fueled by demand.

This is a start:

… African Grey parrots are among the most heavily traded of all animals. Their popularity is fueled by recent research on their astonishing intelligence. In some ways, their cognitive abilities rival those of a 3-year-old child. Alex, the “genius” African Grey parrot studied by Irene Pepperberg, had a vocabulary of more than 100 words and a sassy tongue—a smart Alex.

They may be the smartest birds in the world.

According to Rowan Martin, the energetic ornithologist who managed our release of the parrots, about 2 million African Grey parrots have been captured from the wild for the global pet trade since 1975.

This figure is staggering. Most of the parrots were captured as part of a thriving legal trade in wild-caught parrots. It seems counterintuitive …

MORE.

UPDATE I (11/15): FACEBOOK THREAD:

“This is the paradox of parrots. We love them for being like us, for talking like us, and for bonding with us. But then we find ourselves unprepared for the challenges they present in our busy lives.” Another important, poignant piece by Dr. Charles Bergmen: “No-Fly Zone: Denied Their Natural Habits, Millions of Pet Parrots Lead Bleak, Lonely Lives.”

UPDATE II: As to John Paterson’s assertion that, “If you’re going to own a bird, you should always own two”:

Not so. Mark Anderson’s reply is the correct one. Anderson writes: “I love birds. It’s not necessary to own two as long as you give your bird attention. In fact, birds tend to be one person kind of spirits. My bird didn’t like to see anybody but me.”

Indeed. I work from home and can give my parrot what he needs. Provided you make the effort, parrots can fall deeply in love with their companion human, so much so as to regard him or her as a mate for life. This is how intense they are. So long as he is hugged, kissed, praised (OW actually displays his wing feathers each time I call him a “beautiful poi.” He can tell from the tone of my voice that I am admiring him), and respected. They must be let loose to fly in the house (the home must be safe), and they must seldom be caged. Like a 2-year-old child, OW is only sent to his room (caged) at bedtime, when his parronts go out, when he needs some quite, alone time. Thus, he puts himself to bed and goes in-and-out of his house at will, b/c it is no longer a prison cell. His cage is simply real estate he owns. One of many. The sacrifices are enormous. And we were unable to keep our other parrot, given the confines of our home and the stressors of work. That sadness over relinquishing a parrot never leaves me (ditto my husband).

UPDATE III (11/17): My husband corrected me, as to the above. Yes, to raise a parrot in an ideal way takes sacrifice. Not everyone can do it. Therefore, it is wrong to set unrealistic benchmarks. It takes a few years to bond with and gain the complete trust of these brilliant little individuals. While you are doing so, you will need probably to keep the parrot’s wing feathers clipped. If you work long hours, your bird will be caged, but make sure that you bring him into the family fold when you get home and let him loose then to bond and receive love from his flock. He may want one-on-one, as our parrot does with my husband when he gets home. That he must have. So, adopt discarded parrots, and work to bond with them, only through kindness and rewards. Never punish a parrot. They learn to hate. They will tolerate nothing but persuasion and calm, reasonable conduct. Walk away if parrot is being naughty. Once you bond with the animal, you can then cultivate flight. The other thing Sean mentioned is this: Provided you can cope, two parrots that like each other and can hang out is a good thing. If they don’t like each other—and in their affinities they are just like human beings—then more than one parrot will not enhance the two’s existence.

UPDATED: Obama, Love Means Never Having To Say You’re Sorry (Fix News)

Barack Obama, Bush, Ethics, Healthcare, Media

“Obama: Love Means Never having To Say You’re Sorry” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

So where do we stand in the health care chain reaction, cooked-up in the Barack Obama command-and-control centers? Let’s see. Having destroyed the market for health insurance, the president turned to another parlor game, hailed by the daytrippers at CNN and the New York Times as a “health fix” and a “fix for canceled plans.”

Yes, the fix is in. Parsed, the president’s advice to the millions who’ve lost coverage is, essentially, “I’ll let you keep your already canceled policies through 2014. Feel free to take it up with your insurance company.”

In the preceding weeks, and against the backdrop of polls in which 50 percent of voters said, “President Obama knowingly lied when he repeatedly told Americans they could keep their plans under his signature health care law,” the paper of record took a “different” view. Obama, the apple of their eye, “wrongly assured Americans that they could retain their health care plans.”

An “incorrect promise” was another euphemism used by NYT story tellers.

Quite the opposite, opined Patrick J. Buchanan:

WHO’S THE BIGGEST LIAR OF THEM ALL? In the grand scheme of history, Obama’s rank lie “now enters presidential history alongside George H.W. Bush’s ‘Read my lips! No new taxes,’ Bill Clinton’s ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,’ and George W. Bush’s tales of yellow cake in Niger and hidden arsenals of WMDs.”

As wrecking balls go, Obama and “W” are tied in ignominy. Christopher Conover of Duke University estimates that “129 million, or 68 percent of Americans, may not be able to keep their current health care plans once Obamacare is fully implemented. [Conover’s] study also suggests that 18 to 50 million people will lose their plans altogether.”

The butcher’s bill of human suffering—Bush’s—has been tallied. Obama’s is still to come. …

The complete column is “Obama: Love Means Never having To Say You’re Sorry.” Read it on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

On my Facebook page.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

UPDATE (11/15): FIX NEW. Megyn Kelly of Fox News uses the exact reference and title of my Friday, WND column, even cues the music from “Love Story” referenced. Did she or her producer have the decency to credit the column? You know the answer to that.