Obamacare Implementation Postponed for Businesses

Treasury Department Delays Employer Shared Responsibility and Insurer Reporting Requirements by One Year

Late in the day on July 2nd, the Obama Administration stated that it will postpone the employer shared responsibility mandate and insurer reporting requirements for one year. As a result of the delay, any employer shared responsibility payments will not apply until 2015. The delay is based on the Administration’s recognition that the insurer reporting requirements – the steps businesses have to take to show they are complying with the rules — were complex. The reporting requirements are necessary to determine which employers would have been subject to an employer shared responsibility penalty. The Administration recognizes that it would be impractical for the employer mandate to go into effect before the reporting requirements are in place.

Source: <http://ajg.adobeconnect.com/hcr_070213a/>

 

 

Fixing Our Mismanaged Economy

Free Economy & the Gold Standard

Herman Talmadge III posted in New Georgia Republican Leadership for Principles above Politicians

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the

unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold

standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and
treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods.

The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

http://www.facebook.com/l/jAQFiDoGFAQFcl7h3M6Cj6OMqhSCQ9YqfECJDJSnlP9KahA/constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

Alan Greenspan, Gold and Economic Freedom (1966)

An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense — perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire — that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrume...

Reply to this email to comment on this post.

http://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2Fnewgagopleaders%2Fpermalink%2F483470498402718%2F&mid=83d01b2G2238f8faGbc29944G96&bcode=1.1372783748.AblqOKX35VzGCJ6o&n_m=ntl%40mindspring.com

=======================================

Reply to this email to add a comment. Change your notification settings:

http://www.facebook.com/n/?settings&tab=notifications&section=group_notification&mid=83d01b2G2238f8faGbc29944G96&bcode=1.1372783748.AblqOKX35VzGCJ6o&n_m=ntl%40mindspring.com

 

Headwind on Jobs

Manufacturing Grows at Slowest Pace in 8 Months as Hiring Stalls

U.S. manufacturing activity grew in June at its slowest pace in eight months as overseas demand dried up and firms took on the fewest new workers in more than three years, a survey showed on Monday.

Financial data firm Markit said its final U.S. Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index stood at 51.9 in June, below 52.3 in May and a preliminary June estimate of 52.2.

A reading above 50 indicates expansion in the sector.

Editor's Note: Economist Warns: 50% Unemployment, 100% Inflation Possible

The output index rose to 53.5 from 52.7 but domestic orders were little changed and orders from abroad fell at their fastest rate since the height of the financial crisis in mid-2009.

The employment sub-index fell to 49.9, the lowest since January 2010 and "consistent with roughly 30,000 jobs being lost per month in the manufacturing sector," according to Markit chief economist Chris Williamson said. It stood at 52.6 in May.

"Firms are responding to the increasingly worrying order book trend by pulling back on recruitment," Williamson said.

That could complicate things for the Federal Reserve, which said it could begin scaling back its massive stimulus program later this year provided the economy does not lose momentum.

Economists polled by Reuters expect growth in the broader U.S. economy to have slowed to 1.7 percent in the second quarter from 1.8 percent in the first, though most say it should pick up steam in the second half.

The U.S. jobless rate stood at 7.6 percent in May, the latest month for which figures were available. Fed officials recently said they expect it to fall to between 6.5 percent to 6.8 percent by the fourth quarter of next year.

Source: © 2013 Thomson/Reuters. Monday, 7-1-13
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/manufacturing-factory-hiring-markit/2013/07/01/id/512752#ixzz2XsnZPTM8

Comments:

Declining global demand adds to the elimination of full-time jobs due to Obamacare premium increases and fines.  Real unemployment is 25% due to excessive legal immigration at 1.8 million a year and systemic illegal immigration. It would be worse but for job gains in oil and gas fracking in the upper Midwest.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Tea Party called ‘top terror threat’ in U.S.

Poll: Obama supporters fear political movement more than radical Islam

(Rasmussen Reports) -  Half of all voters consider radical Muslims the bigger terrorist threat facing the nation, but supporters of President Obama consider the Tea Party to be as big a danger.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters consider radical Muslims to be the bigger threat to the United States today. Thirteen percent (13%) view the Tea Party that way, and another 13% consider other political and religious extremists to be the larger danger. Six percent (6%) point to local militia groups. Two percent (2%) see the Occupy Wall Street movement as the bigger terrorist threat.

However, among those who approve of the president’s job performance, just 29% see radical Muslims as the bigger threat. Twenty-six percent (26%) say it’s the Tea Party that concerns them most. Among those who Strongly Approve of the president, more fear the Tea Party than radical Muslims.

As for those who disapprove of Obama’s performance, 75% consider radical Muslims to be the bigger terrorist threat. Just one percent (1%) name the Tea Party.

How did you do in this week’s Rasmussen Challenge? Check the leaderboard  .

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on June 22-23, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Interestingly, while the Occupy movement was allegedly targeting the “one percent”, upper income Americans are more likely than others to see the Tea Party as the bigger terror threat. Among those who earn six-figure incomes, 21% consider the Tea Party the bigger threat, while just two percent (2%) say the same of the Occupy movement. Among Americans who earn less than $30,000 a year, 12% see the Tea Party as the bigger threat, and seven percent (7%) say that description best applies to the Occupy movement.

The Tea Party received a boost in popularity earlier this year following revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted it and other conservative groups. Most voters believe the targeting was politically motivated and that the decision was made in Washington.

Conservatives overwhelmingly see radical Muslims as the greater terror threat. Liberals are fairly evenly divided between radical Muslims and the Tea Party.

Twenty percent (20%) of government workers see the Tea Party as the nation’s bigger terror threat. Twelve percent (12%) of private sector workers hold that view.

Most voters today believe the federal government is a threat to individual rights.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters think it is at least somewhat likely that terrorist groups will soon gain access to nuclear weapons, including 34% who feel it is Very Likely.

However, 57% believe economic challenges represent the biggest threat to the United States. Half as many (27%) see terrorist attacks as the biggest threat.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

Source: Tea Party.org, Rasmussen Report  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2013/26_of_obama_supporters_view_tea_party_as_nation_s_top_terror_threat

Comments:

You will absolutely hate and fear the Tea Party at all if you’re a one-world-government Marxist or a global Bankster.  You won’t like the Tea Party at all if you think global warming is real, or the UN is our friend, or the Federal Reserve helps our economy.  You won’t like the Tea Party much if you profit from “big government” or don’t like the U.S Constitution as written.  You won’t like the Tea Party if you’re not too bright and somebody told you not to like the Tea Party.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

 

 

Obama’s ineligibility was widely known

Sharing from a Madison Forum Member:

All, thanks to Lee Norman, Madison Forum Member, for the below information.  We have long known that Barack Obama was and is not eligible to be President of the United States.  Please see the details below of what was known prior to his first election by both Parties.  All laws and nominations signed and issued by Obama are not legal and will have to be nullified.

David Welden, Madison Forum Member, challenged Obama's eligibility solely on the issue of "Natural Born Citizen."  The evidence was accepted in Georgia's Administrative Court, and Secretary of State Brian Kemp upheld that decision that Obama was eligible to be president, as did the Fulton County Superior Court and the Georgia Supreme Court.  Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen.  It is an open and shut case, but we could not obtain an honest ruling.  Those who ignored the evidence at all levels of government must be held accountable.  Please forward to your lists.

Michael Opitz, President                                    
http://www.themadisonforum.com                 "Knowledge is power... Ignorance is slavery."

---

CONGRESS KNEW OBAMA WAS INELIGIBLE...SIX YEARS BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED!

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/07/congress-knew-obama-was-ineligiblesix.html

Congressional records reveal a viral premeditation within the liberal ranks of our government to alter fundamental Constitutional eligibility protections in order to covertly assist an ineligible Obama candidacy and his usurpation of America's executive power.

Some diseases are so viral, so invasive, so insidious, so contagious...that they eventually infect what most would believe is the most sanitary part of any body. Even the once honored sovereignty of America's highest legislative body is now coming under the attack of the disease of multi-culturalism and liberal extremism.

Congressional records show that on eight separate occasions over six years, between 2003 and 2008, legislators attempted to eliminate or change the definition of the "Natural Born" eligibility clause of Article 2 of the Constitution in order to remove restrictions and, thereby, create legal justifications supporting Obama's unlawful candidacy for President.

We now know what members of congress knew about Obama's ineligibility, and when they knew it.

In a recently produced documentary, Carl Gallups, a senior pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church for more than two decades with a ten year professional background in law enforcement, presents documented evidence showing that members of congress submitted repetitive, coordinated proposals to alter the 'natural-born' eligibility clause.

Gallups also serves on the board of regents at the University of Mobile and hosts several weekly radio programs in the northwest Florida region.

Gallups' documentary shows that between June 11, 2003 until Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight attempts to circumvent the Natural-born eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution.

1. On June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Arkansas, introduced House Joint Resolution 59 (HJR 59) which attempted to Constitutionally change the understood historical definition of a 'natural-born' eligibility for the U.S. Presidency in order to "permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president." The resolution did not make it to a senate vote at that time.

2. Then, on Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, introduced HJR67, which would have defined presidential eligibility the same as Snyder's proposal, only the requirement to be a citizen in Conyers' bill was actually lowered to 20 years, not the more stringent 35 years. Conyers' bill was also rebuffed prior to an official vote. However, the introduction of two such proposals within a mere four month period reveals that Congressional leadership was conscious of the issue of Presidential eligibility prior to Obama's candidacy. Whether these acts were put into motion at this time specifically for the benefit of Obama, exclusively, is unclear, but highly suspicious.

3. Then, in an attempt to contend with the obvious attack against the natural born citizenship clause, on Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, introduced Senate Bill 2128 which also failed to hit the eligibility requirement target. It defined a 'natural-born citizen' as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States." This was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution. Exhibiting the same ignorance as other legislators, Nickles failed to acknowledge that the intended purpose of the natural-born eligibility clause was to ensure that the sovereignty, identity and loyalty of a presidential candidate was measured by not only a geographic birth under the protection of the U.S. Constitution but also the possession of natural natal biology afforded by birth to TWO parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of conception AND the preservation of the continuity of that citizenship status until election.

Five months later, on July 27, 2004, Barack Obama delivered his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention which essentially and suddenly made America aware of him at a national level.

4. Then, just two months later, on Sept. 15, 2004, House Representative Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, submitted HJR 104, which audaciously attempted "to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years." Rohrabacher's fallow resolution attempted to completely ignore the Constitution's requirement that a president had to be a natural born citizen. The resolution was rejected on its face.

5. Four months later, on Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers pushed yet another unwanted attempt to change the definition of 'natural born citizen' in HJR 02, which was the exact same as Rohrabacher's.

6. Just one month later, on Feb. 1, 2005, Rohrabacher submitted a revised version of her previous resolution in HJR 15 which would require only 20 years of citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.

7. Two months later, on April 14, 2005, Snyder resubmitted his bill under another proposal, HJR42, requiring 35 years of U.S. citizenship to be eligible. Interestingly, it has long since been established that Barack Obama's return to the U.S. from Indonesia took place in approximately 1970-1971.

At that time, if Obama had re-naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, this resolution would have made him just eligible in 2005.

Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the U.S. presidency on February 10, 2007.  The Iowa Caucus is held on January 3, 2008.

8. Finally, in Feb. 28, 2008, after seven failures to change the natural-born eligibility requirement, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., attempted to parasite SB 2678 with the Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what "natural-born citizen" includes. Obama and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors of this bill.     Liberal democrats in Congress were in an obvious array to push against this long-standing Constitutional mandate at the time, coincidentally, when the first unnatural born presidential candidate, Barack Obama, began his political career at the national level.

Why?

Who or what was pulling their strings?

As reported by Bob Unruh of World Net Daily, Gallups' documentary then demonstrates that "..on April 10, 2008, being "unable to alter or remove" the natural-born eligibility requirement for Barack Obama..", the Senate engaged an active deception by distracting the growing consciousness of Obama's ineligibility by introducing Senate Resolution 511, which addressed Sen. John McCain's qualifications as a 'natural-born citizen.'

Overcompensating for their failure to validate Obama, the Senate feigned generosity for McCain in hopes of making his eligibility the target of attention, but not criticism, by declaring him eligible as a "natural born citizen".

Senate leadership desired to avoid making McCain's eligibility the subject of criticism because they knew that if McCain was not eligible, Barack Obama was certainly not eligible.

The weight of scrutiny against a worthier McCain would have caused Obama's campaign to fail, politically, if not legally.

However, in what can only be described as complete legislative incompetence, SR511 writers and sponsors specifically stated McCain was eligible because he was "...born in a territory under treaty with the U.S." and, therefore, under the protection of the U.S. Constitution and, most importantly, "because he was the son of TWO U.S. citizen parents."

The language of Resolution 511 actually and explicitly commits McCain to presidential eligibility because of the citizenship of his parentage. Both of McCain's parents were U.S. citizens. This is a qualification which Barack Obama does not possess.

Shockingly, Obama voted in favor of Resolution 511 knowing he, himself, was not eligible under these same metrics.

Barack Obama voted in favor of a formal resolution stating that a presidential candidate was Constitutionally eligible because the candidate was defined as being 'natural born' by the fact that the candidate's birth was, in fact, to TWO U.S. citizen parent.

Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen and his mother was only 18 at the time of his birth which disqualified transfer of citizenship if the birth occurred outside the U.S

Obama's qualifications were never reviewed or conferred upon under any similar resolution, nor were his qualifications to be president ever vetted by any federal authority, legislative body or formal inquiry, as were John McCain's. Not ever.

Unruh continues: "After his election, Gallups points out, Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court - from which no public information was released.

The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant."  

Consider this very carefully, sons and daughters of vintage America. Barack Obama, an illegally appointed president under suspicion of violating the U.S. Constitution, actually engaged personal contact with eight sitting supreme court judges who were actively considering pending cases regarding his ineligibility as president, in covert meetings, without the presence of any opposing legal representation.

The suspect was allowed to meet alone with very authorities who were presiding in law suits against him, who have the supreme legal power to dismiss, overrule or uphold these lawsuits with binding jurisdictions, without any record of the content or accounting of attendance of those meetings, and without any representation of those filing complaints against him.

This level of corruption and judicial tampering is unprecedented in American history.

Ironically, only Justice Scalia, the longest serving conservatively oriented judge, appointed by Republican President, Ronald Reagan, in 1986, was absent from this secret meeting. Scalia has often been hailed as the "conservative intellectual anchor" of the supreme court.

If any one of the nine supreme court justices would have held opposition to Obama's illegal presidency, Scalia would be the first.

He was either not allowed in the meeting, or recused himself for reasons of deniability about the subject.

Unruh continues, "WND previously reported on another link between Obama and a campaign to change the constitutional provision.

It came from an associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama.

She advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic."

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate.

Herlihy was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis.

A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cited his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy was available online under law review articles from Kent University when it originally was the subject of reports but later was removed.

Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the "stupidest provision" in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory" and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."

She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.

The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization,

Herlihy wrote:  "Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.

"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.

In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.

"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.

"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.

Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."  

Or, Ms. Herlihy, perhaps you must be forced to accept that it was simply a wise measure correctly foreseen as necessary to prevent a lying, criminal usurper, perhaps like Barack Obama, from assuming power over the value, work and lives of the greatest people in world history.

There is nothing outdated in any doctrine devised to preserve that.

Is there no limit to the degeneracy of this current political roster into which they will descend in order to achieve their psychotic agenda and control over the blood-ransomed freedom, value and power of the only true decent and prosperous people of humanity?

Wake up, vintage America.  Your nation is under attack from within.

Liars and deceivers are stealing your daily lives, creeping closer into your personal boundaries and mocking the screaming blood of your pristine warriors.

It is time all who consider themselves decent and sovereign to reject Barack Obama as the criminal usurper that he is.

Source: The Madison Forum,  http://www.themadisonforum.com   

Comments: 

The silence of the entire Republican Party and its elected officials in 2008 and again in 2012 is an indictment of their untrustworthiness.  All of these elected officials must be removed through the electoral process in 2014 and 2016.  As for Democrats, they are damaged beyond repair.  We all must restore and reform our parties to reverse our economic decline.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Kudlow to Moneynews: 'Government Has Been Obstacle to Economy'

Corporate profit growth may be slowing, but companies are still showing impressive skill in boosting their earnings and surmounting the government's negative effect on the economy, says Larry Kudlow, host of "The Kudlow Report" on CNBC and a Moneynews Insider.

"Profits are the mother's milk of stocks," Kudlow said in an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV. And the outlook for annual profit growth has slowed to 5-6 percent, he said. Combined with higher interest rates, "that's going to hurt stock valuations."

Sluggish revenue growth — stemming from global economic weakness — is behind the profit slowdown, the Newsmax columnist notes.
But the good news on the earnings front it that companies have been very clever in increasing productivity and cutting costs, Kudlow said.

"The question is how clever can these companies be? Will they be able to execute at lower costs and keep their earnings margins reasonably decent?" he said.

"I can't answer that question, but I'm pretty confident because going back four years, the reason we have any growth at all is the resilience and cleverness of American businesses."

It's certainly not thanks to the government, Kudlow said. "Government has basically been an obstacle to the economy."

Companies have large cash hoards, he points out. "They're making good money, their balance sheets look pretty good. They've de-leveraged," Kudlow said. "So that's why I don’t want to be overly bearish" on stocks.

Source: Newsmax.com Thursday, 27 Jun 2013 06:19 PM

By Dan Weil and David Nelson
http://www.moneynews.com/headline/larry-kudlow-companies-government-economy/2013/06/27/id/512365#ixzz2Xkvs6WBN

Obama’s Global Warming Claims Demolished

President 'cherry-picks' facts 'with the same relentless care as Al Gore'

Dubbed the “high priest of climate skepticism,” former Margaret Thatcher adviser Christopher Monckton has become a formidable foe of the movement claiming mankind is causing catastrophic “global warming,” noting that the average worldwide temperature has not risen in nearly two decades.

So when President Obama recently announced his plan to bypass Congress and use his executive power to “fight climate change,” targeting the coal-energy industry, Monckton responded.

Some of what Obama said was simply copied from Al Gore’s writings on global warming, he said, and virtually everything was incomplete, misleading – or wrong.

Obama’s declarations included:

• “Science … tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on all of humankind.”
• “The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years. … these are facts.”
• The “sea level in New York, in New York Harbor, are (sic) now a foot higher than a century ago.”
• “The question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late.”It was too much for Monckton.

“The ‘image of Earth from space’ intro is lifted from Gore’s sci-fi movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ Gore may well have written much of the speech,” Monckton said. “The phrase ‘carbon pollution’ is also lifted from Gore. It occurs 30 times in the text of the speech.

“One imagines he means ‘carbon dioxide pollution.’ But CO2 is not a pollutant and is not listed as one on the U.S. national inventory of pollutants. It is a naturally occurring trace gas, harmlessly present in the air we breathe out, and in the bubbles in bread, Coca-Cola, and (more importantly) champagne.”

Then Monckton launched into a point-by-point demolition of Obama’s claims:

The “worry that rising levels [of CO2] might someday disrupt the fragile balance that makes our planet so hospitable” is scientifically unfounded. CO2 concentrations, at almost 400 μatm, are almost as low as they have ever been in geological time. In the Jurassic era, 175 million years ago, CO2 concentration was about 6000 μatm; in the Cambrian era, 550 million years ago, it was 8000 μatm; and in the Neoproterozoic era, 750 million years ago, it was 30,000 μatm, or 75 times today’s concentration. Yet the planet survived and throve.

The statement that “the 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years” is no big deal. Recorded history, as far as global temperatures are concerned, only goes back to 1850. The weather was warmer than today in the medieval, Roman, Minoan, Old Kingdom, and Holocene Warm Periods, the last of which endured for 4000 years (8000-4000 BC) and was 3 Cº warmer than the present.

Obama says, “Last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached record highs.” Welcome to our variable climate, which, like the baseball scores, is a chaotic object where new records will tend to be set all the time. Yet the 3500+ Argo bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2006 show very little ocean warming overall, so that – according to the now-failed ENVISAT satellite, sea level in the 8 years 2004-2012 rose at a rate equivalent to just 1.3 inches per century.

His moan about ice in the Arctic shrinking to its smallest size on record is also little to worry about: for the Arctic ice record only goes back a third of a century. It is likely that there was a lot less ice in the Arctic in 1922 and again in the mid-1930s than there is today, but we cannot demonstrate that definitively.

The statement that sea level is a foot higher than a century ago should also be put in context. In the 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age sea level has risen by 400 feet – a rate of getting on for 4 feet a century. So 1 foot a century is no big deal (and the 1.3 inches/century equivalent warming rate from 2004-2012 is still less of a big deal).

He whines on: “2012 was the warmest year in our history.” That may or may not have been true for the U.S. (there is good reason to suppose that 1934 was warmer): but it is certainly not true globally:

The graph, showing the Hadley/CRU data, makes clear that January 2007, an el Niño month, was the warmest on record; and 1998, an el Niño year, was the warmest year on record. El Niños are naturally-occurring events. Since the entire trend-line falls within the blue zone of measurement/bias/coverage uncertainty, we do not even know to 95% certainty that there has been any global warming at all for the past 17 years 4 months. Notwithstanding continuing increases in C)2 concentration, there has been no warming at all for 12 years 6 months:

The statement that “Midwest farms were parched by the worst drought since the Dust Bowl [in the 1930s]” is equivalent to a statement that the drought of the dustbowl years was worse than today’s drought. Yet the world is warmer now than it was then:

Why was there more drought when there was less warming, if global warming is the chief cause of drought? Besides, as Obama admits, the Midwest was then “drenched by the wettest spring on record.” In short, climate has been changing for 4567 million years; it is changing now; and it will continue to change.

Obama cherry-picks his event with the same relentless care as Al Gore. He talks of Western wildfires scorching an area larger than the state of Maryland and a recent heat wave in Alaska. He does not mention the 10,000 cold-weather and high-snowfall records set just in the U.S. in the past winter; or the 100-year record cold in London and Moscow.

He talks of “the costs of these events” being “measured in lost lives and lost livelihoods, lost homes, lost businesses, hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency services and disaster relief.” Yet the annual costs of extreme weather, normalized to allow for growth in population and infrastructure over the past half-century, show no trend. And the economic peer-reviewed literature is near-unanimous in finding that it would cost considerably more to try to mitigate global warming today than to adapt to its consequences the day after tomorrow. In fact, it is 10-100 times more costly to act now than to adapt later.

Obama says, “Farmers see crops wilted one year, washed away the next; and the higher food prices get passed on to you, the American consumer.” Well, farmers have always had fluctuating weather and consequent crop failures from time to time. Yet sometimes conditions are ideal, supply high and prices low. Those prices, too, get passed on to the American consumer, not that you will learn that from Obama.

He goes on: “Mountain communities worry about what smaller snowpacks will mean for tourism,” but he fails to mention that the United States has seen record snowfall in the past two or three years.

He says, “Families at the bottom of the mountains wonder what it will mean for their drinking water.” No, they don’t: the December snow cover extent in the northern-hemisphere winter of 2012/13 was the greatest in the entire 34-year satellite record, and the snow cover for the entire winter was the fifth-greatest on record.

Obama says, “Americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction in insurance premiums, state and local taxes, and the costs of rebuilding and disaster relief.” No: they are paying just about as much as they always did for extreme weather damage, which is why the insurance companies have found it so very difficult to use climate change as a pretext to talk up premiums.

He trots out the Trots’ usual meme that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”

The survey he mentions actually showed less than a third of a sample of almost 12,000 published papers even implicitly endorsing the notion that humans are contributing to global warming. Only 0.3 percent of the abstracts – just 41 out of 11,944 – said humans had caused more than half of “current” warming: no surprise there, given that there has not been any current warming. And none of the abstracts said warming would be catastrophic.

Obama got some applause for saying, “As a president, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act.” No: we need not to act. Since it is about 50 times more expensive to act now than to let the predicted global warming happen and pay the far later and lesser cost of adapting to it, it is necessary not to waste our legacy to future generations by spending it on pointless measures now.

He says: “This plan begins with cutting carbon pollution by changing the way we use energy – using less dirty energy, using more clean energy, wasting less energy throughout our economy.” Yet the four specific proposals for reducing “carbon pollution” would, if implemented at vast cost, forestall between them so little global warming that modern instruments and methods would not be able to detect it.

He trumpets: “Today, we use more clean energy – more renewables and natural gas –which is supporting hundreds of thousands of good jobs.” Yet each “green job” costs between $100,000 and $1 million, destroying many other jobs in the real economy.

He proclaims: “guess what – our economy is 60 percent bigger than it was 20 years ago, while our carbon emissions are roughly back to where they were 20 years ago. So, obviously, we can figure this out.” Except that, until he came along, no one was silly enough to do the economic damage he is doing. So the fall in US CO2 emissions is inadvertent: it owes nothing whatsoever to past concerns about global warming.

Obama goes on to say the State Department will decide on the Keystone XL pipeline by evaluating “the net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate.” The net effects will be nil: if the U.S. don’t buy the product, someone else will.

Source: World News Daily 6/30/13 by Bob Unrah http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/obamas-global-warming-claims-demolished/#Ii8H7fujRMCFea2x.99

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

Comments:

There is no man-made global warming problem and there has never been a global warming problem.  It is a hoax perpetrated by the UN to attempt to become our one-world communist government and to extort money from us.  There is a cabal of global Marxists associated with this scam that includes George Soros, global  ‘Banksters’ and all UN supporters in the US government. It was a political agenda using “political science”.  This junk science has been funded using your tax dollars printed out of thin air.  We need to replace all pro-UN Senators and quit the UN.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader