budbromley

This coming week on the talk shows, crisis new channels, newspapers and magazines, Americans will be receiving the full persuasive force of BOTH political parties to convince Americans to allow the government to continue gathering ALL of your personal information into their databases.  The Obama administration will be presenting NSA plans in secret session to the entire U.S. House of Representatives. 

Of course they BELIEVE and say they are doing this for your safety, for national security.  They already have your phone calls, your internet communications, your credit card information, your tax filings, tracking you by GPS location, and according to last week’s Supreme Court ruling, they can take your DNA without a warrant and under mere suspicion of an unspecified crime for which you are never charged, and they can impersonate your friends on social networks in order to communicate with you to attempt to trap you.  Whether you know it or not, a major part of Obamacare will build a national information database of your health records.

Even if you believe the WashingtonD.C. and mass media push that they are doing all this for your benefit or national security, it is impossible to secure this information from those who would use it to harm you.  Think Russian mob, Chinese or Nigerian hackers.  It is impossible to secure your information without completely locking down the internet to the point it becomes useless to the public.  The President already has the power to switch off the internet.

This past week, the FBI raided the offices of an online magazine and confiscated documents, and claimed authority under the Patriot Act.  The documents had nothing to do with terrorism but were documentation about the falsification of Obama’s birth certificate.  Despite $80 billion dollars of taxpayer money invested so far in this intelligence system, they were unable to stop the bombing at the Boston marathon even though the Russian government had twice revealed the identities of the two bombers to the U.S. government.  In another case, IRS agents in full SWAT battle gear raided at gunpoint the offices of a bottled water company and confiscated documents, but more than a year later no charges have been filed, the documents are not returned, the IRS agent in charge no longer works at the IRS, but the company and its executive’s reputations have been damaged.  In a similar case, Gibson Guitar’s offices were raided.  The recent IRS scandal targeting Tea Party and conservatives proves once again, it is far too easy for government to abuse its power, and its use of power is frequently incompetent and inept.

The only thing that is protecting you from severe government intrusion is the incompetence and ineptness of the government.  But, that government incompetence and ineptness will not protect you from those who wish to steal your information and your property.  That same government incompetence and ineptness leaves giant security holes in the databases, software and networks which hackers can and do exploit at will.

Instead of intelligence profiling of all Americans, profiling the bad actors who are perpetrating terrorism is the obvious solution, and then make the information public so that it can be used properly or discredited.  Misguided ethical concerns and political correctness have been created by disproven liberal concepts, moral relativism and multiculturalism, and these concerns and political correctness are preventing implementation of profiling.  It would be discrimination to target specific groups, but that is the effective solution and strategy.

Islamic sharia, as it exists in its 7^th century unreformed state today, is completely incompatible with western culture.  Muslims know that and the radicals among them work to change western culture, not to reform Islam, a system which was specifically created to exploit the weakness of other cultures to defeat them and enable Islamic world domination. It has gone so far that our government and media cannot use the words Islamic radicals or similar to describe criminals.  Your life is in danger because of Presidential policy.

Former Florida Congressman Allen West ponders, “Can someone explain why we weren’t listening to Anwar-al-Awlaki and his conversations with Major Nidal Hasan? Why weren’t we able to track Carlos Bledsoe’s travel to Somalia and Yemen to receive terrorist training? Why didn’t we pay attention to warning signs of Abdul Mutallab (underwear bomber) with a one-way ticket and little baggage traveling from Nigeria to America? Why weren’t we paying attention to the Tsarnaev brothers’ travels and connections to Chechen Islamic terrorism — heck Russia warned us? Why is it that in October 2011, 57 Islamic organizations — several with ties to Muslim Brotherhood — sent a letter to then counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan demanding we purge training materials and punish instructors they deemed “offensive” and we didn’t say “shove it” and target THEIR records? We’d rather carpet bomb Americans to cover our cowardice in confronting Islamic extremism. Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.””

Literally, our own government has become our greatest danger.  It is so bad that the U.S. military colonel who shot and killed many members of the U.S. military on a Texas military base while yelling praise to Allah is deemed by the U.S. government to be a workplace accident.  The members of the U.S. military who were killed on that base were trained in the use of arms, and could have stopped the slaughter by the Muslim doctor, but a Clinton Presidential Order prohibited our military from carrying weapons on military bases in the U.S.  The Pakistani M.D. who turned over information that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden is allowed to remain in prison in Pakistan, while President Obama takes credit for killing Osama.  Americans and our friends are sitting ducks, the ratings by citizens of our government are extremely poor and we are laughing stock to our enemies.  Honest and peaceful Muslims who might be able to reform Islam cannot do so because radical Muslims are killing eight of their fellow Muslims to one non-Muslim.  The U.S. government cannot and does not protect its friends and allies, is unable to identify its sworn enemies, and has repeatedly armed those enemies, while leaving Americans unprotected to die in the field of battle.  The greatest danger to our republic at this moment is our own incompetent, inept and grossly large government.

In this coming week, think long and hard before you allow yourself to be persuaded by the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court and the sycophant mass media.  It is time to take back your private information, your rights and your country.

Enough data has already been released to unequivocally prove scientific fraud.  Global temperature datasets that include the actual physical measurements of global temperature clearly demonstrate that there was a rapid rise in global temperature from around 1910 to about 1942, followed by a slow drop in global temperature from 1942 to 1975, at which time the world reverted to warming, which all global temperature datasets clearly show ended after 1998 followed by a cooling trend that is still continuing today.  Multiple scientists and politicians have called global warming alarmism a scam, even the greatest scam.

Despite the evidence, President Obama proposed an MIT climate scientist to be his new Secretary of Energy, and Dr. Munoz immediately dismissed further debate about the cause of climate change and wants to move on to discussions about solutions.  But there are no feasible solutions and he knows it, and his failure to look at the camera reveals his deception.  ‘Let’s Debate the Solutions as Opposed to the Driver.’ The confirmation of Munoz by the U.S. Senate makes the Senate look like fools, again. 58 second video.  So, how does it feel to have a finger stuck in your eye and wallet by the President, his cabinet and the Congress?   http://cnsnews.com/video/national/new-energy-secretary-moniz-climate-change-let-s-debate-solutions-opposed-driver

Global emissions increased by just half a billion tonnes of CO2 per year during the global warming of about half a degree C from 1910 to 1942.  Sounds like a lot, but it’s not.  This equates to each gigatonne increase in CO2 emissions causing a one degree C rise in global temperature.  As a result of increased CO2 emissions from post-war industrialization, from 1942 to 1975 global emissions increased from under 4 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 1942 to over 20 billion tonnes of CO2 by 1975.  Relative to the continuous and normal, though seasonal, exchanges of CO2 between the planet and the atmosphere, these amounts are trivial.  Moreover, human-contributed portion of the CO2 is only a small percentage of the overall CO2 in the atmosphere, and the total CO2 in the atmosphere is only 400 parts per million (ppm) or 0.04 percent.  If we lost 50% of that 400, most plants would starve and die.  The CO2 concentration in your exhaled breath is about 5%.   In the Jurassic period known for dense jungles and dinosaurs and abundant life, CO2 concentration averaged nearly 3000 ppm, or 0.3%, plants and animals were abundant, and the temperature was about 22 degrees C for 100,000 years … compared to 400 ppm and 14 degrees C in 2012.  Higher CO2 and warmer temperatures promote life.

During the cooling that occurred from 1942 to 1975 the global emissions increased by 16 billion tonnes of CO2 per year and based on the previous warming this amount of carbon should have caused 16°C of global warming but instead there was nothing but cooling.  It was only 13 years after this global cooling with contemporaneous rapid increase in global CO2 emissions that the climate models incorporated a “forcing parameter” or trigger that related global warming to increases in CO2 concentration on the basis that this increase came from humans and small increases in CO2 triggered larger increases in temperature produced by derivative effects from clouds and water vapor.  Humans produce only a fraction (3% to 4% according to UN IPCC reports) of the total CO2.

Since the people proposing the “forcing parameter” and climate models are self-claimed  climate specialists, these modelers would be fully aware that the globe cooled from 1942 to 1975 as the atmospheric CO2 concentration grew. The relationship of the “forcing parameter” expressed in the climate models of 5.35ln(C/C0) … in which C0 represents the reference level and C represents the new level of CO2 concentration … clearly shows that increases in CO2 concentration should produce an increase in temperature, or such is the claim of climate alarmists. But, this warming did not happen over the entire period from 1942 to 1975, and it is not happening today, therefore this parameter is clearly not valid.

The climate modelers also relate global warming directly to human-produced CO2 emissions, but these human-produced CO2 emissions were increasing dramatically as the global temperature dropped over these 33 years from 1942 to 1975, making this relationship completely contrary to physical observation.  Across the most recent 16 years to 2013, human-caused CO2 has continued to increase, but average global temperature has been flat to slightly down.  According to the mathematical relationship expressed in the “forcing parameter” created by global warming alarmists, if the CO2 concentration is increasing, then the temperature must increase.  Real world evidence has falsified the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Since physical data already existed that falsified the “forcing parameter” used in the climate models long before the models were run using this forcing parameter, and this had to be known by the modelers who claimed to be climate scientists, then it is clearly an open and shut case of scientific fraud.  If the modelers were unaware that this physical data falsified their forcing parameter it is still fraud because the modelers misrepresented their credentials as climate specialists.  Either way it is still fraud, and as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and global emissions of CO2 both continue to increase while global temperatures continue to drop the fraud becomes more and more obvious.

Greenhouse gases of all types summed together make up no more than 2 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere.  Total CO2, the current nemesis of alarmists, makes up 0.04 % of the atmosphere or 400 ppm, but humans provide only 3%-4% of that 400 ppm total.  Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse gases. CO2 and all the other trace gases are only 5 percent of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are critical to making the planet habitable—keeping the Earth from being a freezing rock in space.  But humans contribute only 0.28% of all greenhouse gases.

It is not currently technically feasible to control greenhouse gases, even if it were scientifically determined that control was the right action.  Politicians might try to blame the alarmist climate scientists for scientific fraud, but they cannot escape the charge of fraud.  They have had the opportunity to hear the testimony of economists and engineers regarding the feasibility of controlling greenhouse gases.  They know it is impossible even if the entire world agreed to try, and they know attempting control is economically devastating to the economy.  They have proposed so-called green jobs.  But the evidence shows that these jobs are extraordinarily expensive, and they have been told that controlling CO2 is useless and counterproductive for the environment.  Politicians including the President and several in his cabinet are perpetrating fraud on the nation and funding the United Nations who is perpetrating fraud worldwide.

There was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (Cambrian Period), when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. During the Jurassic Period, when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today.  For the past 400,000 years, temperature and CO2 levels have varied together. However, the Earth’s temperature has consistently risen and fallen hundreds of years prior to increases and declines in CO2 levels.  Clearly, CO2 concentration is not a controlling factor or a trigger or a “forcing parameter.”  The cause must occur before the effect.

There are risks and consequences that would result from a much warmer planet, if warming resumes.  Keep in mind that in geologic time we are at the end of one of the average 10,000 year warm periods which interrupt the longer 100,000 year plus “ice ages.”  We do not know whether the planet will resume warming or begin cooling.  We do know that the negative effects of cooling have been far worse for living things than warming.  Based on what we know today, any efforts to reduce human-produced CO2 would appear to be the wrong action to take in a cooling world.

Adaptation means taking steps now to adapt to changing conditions— such as using pesticides to kill malaria-bearing mosquitoes, improving farming practices and ending subsidies to coastal development and in river flood zones. These measures could virtually eliminate the threat of coastal flooding and cut in half the number of people projected to be at risk from malaria and hunger.  The US government has already wasted more than enough money on bogus climate change activities, more than $120 billion according to GAO and CRS, more than enough to fund real adaption to real and predictable environmental conditions.  But, as of today, we do not know whether we need to adapt to warming or cooling.

The intention of global warming propaganda over these last 30 years or so has been to persuade citizens of the world to allow themselves to be taxed for their carbon emissions, for their so-called “carbon footprint,” and to submit to increasing energy costs.  Regulation of carbon emissions allows governments to control most of daily life.  But also, the creators of this scam intend to enrich themselves via a commission, a percentage of each transaction, in a scheme of global trading in carbon credits and derivatives, which they have estimated will amount to $25 trillion per year in carbon credit transactions.  President Obama was on the board of the Joyce Foundation in the 1990’s which funded the studies and modeling of carbon credits.  The president of that board became the president of the Chicago Climate Exchange, (CCX) which began trading carbon credits in the U.S.  CCX was sold to the International Commodities Exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars, enriching its founders.  The founders of CCX and its European equivalent include the names of the loudest climate alarmists in government and banking.

They intend to regulate carbon emissions from your home through your already federally regulated mortgage.  They invented a commodity to trade on the emissions and energy saving opportunity which would occur, according to a patent filed by Obama’s friend Franklin Raines, when he headed Fannie Mae.  According to US Patent number US 6,904,336 B2 granted June 7, 2005 to Franklin D. Raines et al and assigned to Fannie Mae and CO2e.com, “The present invention is directed to a method of residential emissions trading and a residential emissions trading commodity.  In particular an embodiment of the present invention is a method for identifying, quantifying, and aggregating reductions in residential emissions into a tradable commodity.”  Co2e.com also was granted additional patents, including US patent 7,529,705 granted May 5, 2009 “Electronic trading system for simulating the trading of carbon dioxide equivalent emission reductions and methods of use.”

Press Release: October 17, 2000

“Cantor Fitzgerald, one of the world’s leading international brokerage houses today announced the launch of an e-business marketplace that will empower companies to participate in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) trading, anticipated to become one of the fastest growing commodity markets in the world.

CO2e.com, LLC (“CO2e.com”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cantor Fitzgerald Brokerage, L.P. that has been working with PricewaterhouseCoopers, the world’s largest professional services organization, to develop this marketplace.

CO2e.com is designed to serve as the pre-eminent business-to-business online resource to understand, mitigate and manage the transition to a greenhouse gas (GHG) constrained future. CO2e.com incorporates a web-based, broker-assisted marketplace for project-based emission reductions.

The trading of commoditized greenhouse gas trading instruments will be powered by leading interactive B2B marketplace technology company eSpeed, Inc. (Nasdaq: ESPD) as they are introduced.

Cantor Fitzgerald and PricewaterhouseCoopers each intend to commit the support of their extensive global businesses to build the market.

Making the announcement in New York, CEO of CO2e.com and Managing Director of Environmental Brokerage Services at Cantor Fitzgerald Brokerage, L.P., Carlton Bartels, said CO2e.com is a world first in the field of carbon commerce.

“CO2e.com builds upon a cornerstone 24-hour Internet trading market place for greenhouse gas emissions offsets to offer a full suite of carbon commerce support, including daily news service, briefings and specialized Web-search engine, decision making and trading tools, and access to a specially recruited group of international consultants and experts. “

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cantor+Fitzgerald+and+PricewaterhouseCoopers+to+Create+Global+Hub+of…-a066143896

Unquote

Unquestionably, the planned fraud by the alarmists is long range and well funded.  It is also large, pervasive and occurring right before your eyes.  In 2009, the major accounting firm Ernst & Young published a brochure describing the scheme and accounting, “Accounting for emission reductions and other incentive schemes” (link below.)

The second intention of global warming propaganda is to create a crisis and the fear of a crisis which allows government to control the supply (and thereby the prices and tax revenue on) hydrocarbon fuels with the least possible objection by the public.  Today, ninety percent of the oil and gas bearing lands held by the U.S. government are off limits to exploration and production of fuels.  This is done by pressing the public with guilt over their continue use of “dirty” and “polluting” hydrocarbon fuels and demonizing the producers of hydrocarbon fuels, and claims that the planet is running out of oil and gas.  Increasing the prices and reducing the supply of hydrocarbons allows so-called alternative energy sources (solar, wind, bio-fuel) to survive and to receive government funding through crony political subsidies, funds which are partially channeled back through campaign contributions into the coffers of “green” politicians.  Unfortunately, higher fuel prices transfer massive money from western nations to middle eastern OPEC nations who do not share most of the principles of western nations.  In addition to high prices for energy which are punishing the economy, another result is higher risk to national security and the perceived, but false, need to protect shipping and production of oil in the middle east.

In fact, natural gas and oil are sustainable fuels.  The planet is creating these fuels as it has over millions of years of life on this planet.  The creation of these fuels is slow, but the quantities are enormous and continuous.  As more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, then plants and animals grow faster and eventually die.  As these carbon containing species die or are consumed, the carbon in their bodies moves down the food chain, until eventually it has been degraded into natural gas (methane, CH4) dissolved in the water of the oceans.  There it is pressed into ocean sediments, and known as methane hydrates or clathrates on the sea floor.  In places the pools of methane deposits are kilometers deep.  These sea bottom deposits are pressed beneath the continental shelves at the boundaries of the ocean shelves and continental shelves.  There are enormous pools of natural gas and clathrates on the sea floor, far more than all of the oil and gas that humans have ever used or discovered.  As life continues and dies in our oceans (which cover 75%  of this planet) then even more methane is created.  CO2 in the atmosphere is metabolized into living organisms which eventually die or are consumed by other organisms.  Eventually the organisms are degraded to the smallest organic molecule, methane, and much of that methane ends up in ocean sediments which slowly become gas and oil in or under the oceans and land.   That is the cycle of life on this planet.

CO2 is plant food, not pollution, and it is the key to eternal, sustainable, non-polluting hydrocarbon fuel.  If it were possible to withhold or sequester a significant amount of CO2, then growth of life forms would slow.  Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.  When the oceans warm, CO2 and methane (CH4) are released into the atmosphere.  Methane released into the atmosphere is almost instantly converted to CO2.  When the oceans cool, at night or in winter, more CO2 is dissolved into the oceans, the methane from the last cycle having been already converted to CO2.  CO2 is rapidly dissolved into the water at the ocean surface; colder water holds more CO2 than warmer water.  Over years, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases as the average ocean temperature slowly warms.  That warming has been occuring since the end of the last ice age.  When the planet is warming, the increasing CO2 trend is more rapid.  Henry’s law defines the relative amounts of these gases which are in equilibrium between the atmosphere and the oceans at a given temperature, air pressure and salinity; 6 to 8 times more gas is dissolved in the water than is found in the air above it, and that is before the gas reacts with the massive amount of buffering elements dissolved in the oceans.  The evidence for massive buffering of CO2 in the oceans is found in the layers of calcium carbonate (limestone) and other carbonates which cover the ocean floors and continents of this planet.  It requires the extreme heat of volcanoes to reverse this process, that is to convert the limestone back into atmospheric.  On the other hand, methane from living entities in the atmosphere at standard temperature and pressure converts immediately into CO2.

There is an excess of calcium and other minerals in the oceans relative to the entire amount of carbon on the planet.  In other words, all of the carbon on the planet could be dissolved in the oceans, where it would be plated out as limestone and other carbonates.  When the planet freezes, such as the long ice ages, the amount of CO2 in the oceans increases, as compared to CO2 in the air.  CO2 is more soluble in cold water.

Today, unfortunately, millions of people have been propagandized by the global warming agenda.  The alarmist climate propaganda has been put out over 3 decades by extremely well-funded people beginning with mis-education of educators, political leaders and news media.  The truth is that the human influence on global temperature is so tiny that it is statistically insignificant, but the chance of anyone learning or hearing that is also very small.  Clouds and water vapor are the dominate greenhouse gases and they cannot be controlled by humans by any technology known today.  The variance in the measurement of temperature due to clouds and water vapor is much higher than the warming effect which can be attributed to humans.  But, since clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere cannot be controlled, the politicians at the United Nations did not include clouds and water vapor in their list of greenhouse gases, even though responsible for more than 80% of the greenhouse warming effect.  Climate change alarmists don’t discuss cloud or water vapor.  The reason is that the human contribution to warming is buried in the noise from measuring water vapor and clouds, and they know that.  This is scientific fraud.

The measurement of the temperature effects due to human-contributed CO2 cannot be statistically distinguished from the variability in the measurement of the temperature effects due to water vapor and clouds; when honest scientists say the human contribution to climate change is insignificant the previous statement is precisely what they mean.  The greenhouse effects due to water vapor and clouds can be measured and they are large, but there is variation in the measurement, for example plus or minus 1 degree variation in a 20 degree change in temperature measured with or without clouds.  But the entire human contribution is less than that 1 degree variation.  So, was that variation caused by human CO2 or caused by error in the measurement of clouds?

One tiny human part of the overall process that we can measure is the increasing tonnes of CO2 that humans add to the atmosphere.  This CO2 would  improve the living condition for almost all life on this planet.  Higher CO2 concentration has been shown in historical models, many scientific papers and live experiments to increase growth of most living things.  But, unfortunately, mis-educated and devious people want to reduce emissions of CO2 even though plants on this planet are not far from starvation levels for their CO2 food.  One of the underlying reasons for this long term scam is the ideology of Thomas Malthus, that is, human population is excessive.

How many millions of people have died from starvation and malnutrition due to these mis-educated and devious people and their “green” initiatives?  Biofuels like ethanol have increased the cost of food worldwide.  This is not theoretical.  People especially children are starving and being denied electricity even though hydrocarbon fuels are plentiful.  When will climate alarmist be punished for actions which amount to fraud and genocide?

More than $120 billion of U.S. taxpayer money has been spent since 2008 on green initiatives, based on false and alarming claims about the effects of CO2 and climate change.  A global cabal wants to tax carbon worldwide and trade carbon credits, all at your expense.

References:

No claim of originality.  Large portions are copied, borrowed, or edited from the work of  Norm Kalmanovitch, Calgary, Canada.

1. U.S. Patent No.” US 6,904,336 B2, granted June 7, 2005

2. “Accounting for emission reductions and other incentive schemes” (link below.)  Ernst & Young.  http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Accounting_for_emission_reductions_and_other_incentive_schemes/$FILE/Accounting_emission_reductions_July09.pdf

3. “The world’s first markets for trading emissions credits . . . ,” Dow Jones Business News, Oct. 17, 2000. cited by other .
4. “Cantor Fitzgerald and PricewaterhouseCoopers to Create Global Hub of Carbon Commerce: Market to be Powered by B2B Leader, eSpeed,” Business Wire, Oct. 17, 2000. cited by other .
5. “Cantor Fitzgerald and PricewaterhouseCoopers to Create Global Hub of Carbon Commerce: Market to be Powered by B2B Leader, eSpeed,” Press Release, Oct. 17, 2000. cited by other .
6. John J. Fialka, “New Emission-Credits Market is Expected To Resemble Fast Commodity Exchange,” The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 17, 2000. cited by other .
7. “EU Introduces 10-Year Environment Plan,” Reuters, Oct. 17, 2000 as published by EIN Publishing Daily Newsletter “Global Warming Today,” dated Oct. 26, 2000. cited by other .
8. “Cantor Fitzgerald, PWC Join on GHG Trading,” Business Wire, Oct. 17, 2000 as published by EIN Publishing Daily Newsletter “Global Warming Today,” dated Oct. 26, 2000. cited by other .
9. Jason T. Cone, “Trading greenhouse gas emissions goes online,” Earth Times News Service, Oct. 18, 2000. cited by other .
10. “Want to Trade in Carbon Emission Credits? CO2e.com Is the Answer!”, EarthDot, Oct. 18, 2000. cited by other .
11. “Emissions Trading Site Launched; CO2e.com: Brief Article,” Energy Intelligence Group, Oct. 18, 2000. cited by other .
12. Andrew C. Revkin, “7 Companies Agree to Cut Gas Emissions,” The New York Times, Oct. 18, 2000. cited by other .
13. “Cantor and PricewaterhouseCoopers Develop On-line Greenhouse Market,” The Oil Daily, Oct. 20, 2000. cited by other .
14. “Cantor and PricewaterhouseCoopers Develop On-line Greenhouse Market,” Utility Environment Report, Oct. 20, 2000. cited by other .
15. “CSU Study to Examine Carbon Sequestration,” CSU-Chico Release, Oct. 23, 2000 as published by EIN Publishing Daily Newsletter “Global Warming Today,” dated Oct. 26, 2000. cited by other .
16. “CO2 May Cause Ragweed to Increase,” M2 Communications, EIN Publishing, Oct. 24, 2000 as published by EIN Publishing Daily Newsletter “Global Warming Today,” dated Oct. 26, 2000. cited by other
17. “CO2e.com–The Global Hub for Carbon Commerce,” Environmental Finance Supplement, Oct. 2000. cited by other .
18. Cheryl A. McMullen, “Web site fosters emissions trading,” Waste News, Nov. 6, 2000. cited by other .
19. Janet Ginsburg, “Letting the Free Market Clear the Air,” Waste News, Nov. 6, 2000. cited by other .
20. Eric Sorenson, “WashingtonStateResearchersMonitorForests to Help Save Environment,” The Seattle Times, Nov. 13, 2000. cited by other .
21. “CO2e.com, the Global Hub for Carbon Commerce, Goes Live at COP6 Climate Conference,” Business Week, Nov. 14, 2000. cited by other .
    Vanessa Houlder, “Business sees green controls as a prospect, not just a cost,” Financial Times, Nov. 18, 2000. cited by other .
22. “BT Moves to Halt Brain Drain,” The Sunday Telegraph, Nov. 18, 2000. cited by other .
23. Mary Fagan, “PwC to launch online CO2 exchange,” Electronic Telegraph, Nov. 19, 2000. cited by other .
24. Michael Harrison, “Row Mars Launch of Online Market for Trading Greenhouse Gas `Permits`,” The Sunday Telegraph (London), Nov. 19, 2000. cited by other .
25. “PwC/Greenhouse gases ING Group,” The Sunday Telegraph, Nov. 19, 2000. cited by other .
26. Mary Fagan, “PwC to launch online CO.sup.2 exchange,” The Sunday Telegraph, Nov. 19, 2000. cited by other .
27. “Greenhouse emissions trading site opens on internet,” Platt’s Commodity News, Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
28. Michael Harrison, “Row mars launch of online market,” The Independent, Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
29. “What the Sunday Business Papers Said,” The Independent (London), Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
30. Steve Levine, “Ex-Soviet States See Gold in Emission Quotas,” Wall Street Journal Europe, Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
31. “PwC launches internet emissions trading bourse,” Reuters, Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
32. “Global Marketplace for Carbon Commerce Opens for Business,” Press Release, Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
33. “CO2e.com Announces the Completion of Two Significant Trades,” Press Relase, Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
34. Steve Levine, “Decline in Industry Proves Profitable for Soviet Plants,” Wall Street Journal, Nov. 21, 2000. cited by other .
35. “Consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers and financial brokers Cantor Fitzgerald have launched a global Internet exchange for trading greenhouse gas emissions,” ZD Net Australia, Nov. 21, 2000. cited by other .
36. “Ontario Power Generation buys carbon credits,” Megawatt Daily, Nov. 21, 2000. cited by other .
37. “Canadian group agrees to CO2 reduction deal,” Megawatt Daily, Nov. 21, 2000. cited by other .
38. Yasmin D. Arquiza, “Meet tackles effect of climate change on environment,” Business World (Philippines), Nov. 22, 2000. cited by other .
39. Simon Mann, “Pollution traders ready to clean up,” The Sydney Morning Herald, Nov. 23, 2000. cited by other .
40. Simon Mann, “Business–Clearing the air on trade in CO2,” The Age, Nov. 23, 2000. cited by other .
41. “Estonia could earn billions with greenhouse gases,” Estonian News Agency, Nov. 23, 2000. cited by other .
42. “PwC reveals CO2.com exchange,” Accountancy Age website, Nov. 23, 2000. cited by other .
43. “Houston: we have carbon trading,” Utility Week, Nov. 24, 2000. cited by other .
44. Nick Hordern, “Global warming: the greens have the numbers,” Financial Review (UK), Nov. 25, 2000. cited by other .
45. Nick Hordern, “Industry breathes easier, for now,” Australian Financial Review, Nov. 27, 2000. cited by other .
46. “Petro Source Logs CO2 Trades,” The Oil Daily Co., Nov. 27, 2000. cited by other .
47. “Online trading–emissions,” European Chemical News, Nov. 27, 2000. cited by other .
48. Wade O’Leary, “Online greenies–Bottom of the Harbour,” The Daily Telegraph, Nov. 27, 2000. cited by other .
49. “E-exchange continue to trade pollution allowances,” http://www.silicon.com, Nov. 28, 2000. cited by other .
50. “Global law firm Baker & McKenzie . . . ,” AAP News Feed, Nov. 28, 2000. cited by other .
51. Caspar Henderson, “An exchange in climate,” Director, Jan. 2001. cited by other .
52. “EU maps out CO.sub.2 strategy,” Steel Times, Mar. 2001. cited by other .
53. Roger Milne, “UK and Denmark mull carbon trade linkage,” Reed Business Information (UK), May 4, 2001. cited by other .
54. Cait Murphy, “First/Opinion/Slings and Arrows–Kyoto is Bush-Whacked–That’s okay,” Fortune, May 14, 2001. cited by other .
55. Robin Lancaster, “Carbon goes dotcom,” Energy Power Risk Management, May 2001. cited by other .
56. Germana Canzi, “Greenhouse Gas Mkt Set to Double in 2001,” Dow Jones Newswires, Jul. 20, 2001. cited by other .
57. Paul Brown, “UK may take lead in carbon trading,” Guardian, Jul. 24, 2001. cited by other .
58. Vanessa Houlder, “Carbon trading plans may be hampered by the politics of pollution,” Financial Times, Aug. 14, 2001. cited by other .
59. Laurent Belsie, “Firms climb toward `climate neutral` Boldest bids to cut emissions now being led by some big polluters of yore,” Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 20, 2001. cited by other .
60. “Greenhouse Gas Trading Simulations an Essential Tool,” Carbon Monitor, vol. 6, Issue 9, Sep. 2001. cited by other .
61. “The Climate for Business is Changing,” Environmental Finance Supplement, Oct. 2001. cited by other .
62. Ron Feemster, “Don’t like emissions? Trade ’em under Kyoto,” undated. cited by other .
63. Chinn, Lily N., “Can the Market Be Fair and Efficient? An Environmental Justice Critique of Emissions Trading”, 26 Ecology L.Q. 80 (1999). cited by other .
64. Driesen, David, “Is Emissions Trading An Economic Incentive Program?: Replacing The Command And Control/Economic Incentive Dichotomy”, 55 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 289 (1998). cited by other .
65. Gorrell, M., “Taking Pollution To The `Bank` Pays Dividends Program Offers Utah Firms A Reward For Cleaning Up”, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1995, at D3. cited by other .
66. Holly, Chris, “EC Moves On Greenhouse Emissions Trading Plan”, The Energy Daily, 28 (53), Mar. 2000. cited by other .
67. Jarman, M., “Utilities Set For Pinch In Resources”, The ArizonaRepublic, Dec. 2000, at B1. cited by other .
68. Pallasch, Abdon M., “City To Receive Millions From HUD To Reclaim Brownfields; 5 Industrial Locations Expected To Attract New Factories, Jobs”, Chi. Trib., Nov. 17, 1998, at 5. cited by other .
69. Porter, N., “Legislators Begin Emissions Talks Resolution Sought To Untangle Conflict”, Bangor Daily News, Aug. 4, 1994. cited by other .
70. Rosenfeld, Arthur, et al., “Policies To Reduce Heat Islands: Magnitudes Of Benefits And Incentives To Achieve Them”, Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, vol. 9 (1996) at 177. cited by other .
71. “Cold Facts On Hot Topic”, The Calgary Sun, Nov. 18, 2000, at SE3. cited by other .
72. “EPSA Says California Discourages Generators”, Generation Week, 2 (44), Nov. 1, 2000. cited by other .
73. “EPSA: Don’t Exclude New Plants From NOx Trading”, The Electricity Daily, 9 (108), Dec. 5, 1997. cited by other .
74. “Green Power Is Too Gray”, Electrical World, 211 (5), May 1997, at 44. cited by other .
75. “Climate Change: A Backgrounder; Petroleum Communication Foundation”, Oilweek, 45 (46), Nov. 14, 1994, at S1. cited by other .
76. “Indiana House Passes Bill Allowing Pre-Approval Of Compliance Costs”, Utility Environment Report, Apr. 19, 1991, at 3. cited by other .
77. “SCAQMD Proposes Adding Natural Gas Cuts To Its Reclaim Trading Program”, Utility Environment Report, May 27, 1994, at 9. cited by other .
78. “Waffling On Warming: Canada Has No Clear Policy On Climate Change”, Calgary Herald, Mar. 2, 1998, at A16. cited by other .
79. California Energy Commission, “1999 Electricity Generation Emissions Report”, Jul. 1999. cited by other .
80. “Green Light”, The National Journal, 25 (24), Jun. 12, 1993, at 1421. cited by other .
81. “Canada’s first greenhouse gas emission reduction exchange opens,” Oil and Gas Inquirer v12:7, Jul. 2000, at 40-41. cited by other .
82. Colton et al “Keys to Successful Carbon Dioxide Market: Program Structure and Secondary Trading,” Energy Efficiency and Global Environment–Biennial Conference, 1995, at 61-74. cited by other .
83. U.S. Appl. No. 09/967,375, entitled “Systems and Methods for Electronic Trading of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emission Reductions”, filed Sep. 28, 2001 in the name of Carlton Bartels et al.,. cited by other .
84. U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,825, entitled “Systems and Methods for Electronic Trading of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emission Reductions”, filed Aug. 16, 2005 in the name of Carlton Bartels et al.,. cited by other .
85. U.S. Appl. No. 10/824,954, entitled “Systems and Methods for Trading Emission Reduction Benefits”, filed Apr. 14, 2004 in the name of Stephen Drummond et al.,. cited by other .

I believe the question should be: is the action right under natural law, not is it justified or honorable.  Liberty and her blessings can only be sustained by doing the right things, taking the right actions.  To the degree our leaders seek justice and honor, we enable tyranny. 

This is a complex subject and by no means or intent do I disparage the men and women who serve this country, especially today.  I give thanks to all who have served and now serve this country.

Allow me to try to explain. If an action is right, then it will also always be justified and honorable.  But, the reverse is not necessarily true; a justified and honorable action is not always right.  Knights and warriors serving and killing at the command of divine right kings and popes were justified and honored, legally and in every other way, though they usually served tyrants.  Whether or not they were also right requires knowledge of history, analysis and a great deal of thought.

A tiger in a zoo kills a child who came too near, some may feel justified in killing the animal, but is that the right action to take?  The distraught and angry parents most likely will demand zoo administrators kill the animal.  But how can it be just, honorable or right to kill a wild animal which is behaving normally?

If we want to stop these seemingly endless wars, then we must take the right actions.  Sending U.S. forces into Afghanistan and Iraq in pursuit of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and sponsors of terror was unquestionably justified and honorable based on the information available to the every nation, political leader and almost every humanitarian organization between 9-11-2001 and mid 2003.  Here in the U.S. all of the leadership of both parties strongly endorsed both wars.  Prior to 9-11 Congress passed in 1998 and President Clinton signed a law compelling the U.S. President to remove Saddam Hussein, and then Clinton began what became 20,000 deadly air sorties over Iraq by the end of his second term.  Any President elected in 2000 was compelled to remove Saddam Hussein, a tyrant  was harboring one of the masterminds of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the hijackers of a cruise ship, a training center for international airline hijacking, was accused of over 1 million deaths of Iraqi people and uncounted thousands of deaths of Iranians in a long war with Iran.

The world was already living in fear PRIOR TO 9-11-2001.  Terrorists including the Taliban and various other Islamic groups were hijacking airliners and killing people, especially American military.  The Taliban had held control of Afghanistan after a long war with Russia and they were trying to violently take over Pakistan.  Military and civilian planes had been shot down or blown up, including an Iranian civilian airliner (with the death of all on board) shot down by a missile fired by A U.S. Navy ship in the Persian Gulf, and Pan Am flight 103 blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in a counterattack by Iran, although initially blamed on Libya for several years.  Were these actions justified, honorable or right?

The U.S. and the NATO nations had supplied Saddam Hussein with WMD following the theocratic revolution in Iran.  The political leadership of the NATO nations and the UN knew that at the time of both wars on Iraq.  With the benefit of hindsight and transparency in government, it turns out that the second war in Iraq was not right, it was a bad decision, though perhaps well intentioned, and certainly the men and women who fought and died there were under legal orders, therefore they were unquestionably justified and honorable.  9-11-2001 was the emotional impetus that finally drove an already fearful but war-wary American public once again into a war.  This was a war that radical Islamic leadership had been planning and are still fighting since at least the Israeli defeat of the Muslim nations surrounding Israel in 1967.

Most free people and world leaders today still do not acknowledge the extent of the Islamists global war for world domination, though their strategy has been published and translated for years and their organizations are well known.  The intent and plan of Islamists is to cause proxy or full scale wars between super powers which will drain the strength and will of the super powers, allowing Islam to step in and dominate the world.  Savagery and terror are explicit tactics.  The long war in which Russian occupied Afghanistan bled Russia of military strength and will, and is an explicit Islamist strategy.  The wars fought and being fought in more than 6 countries today by America are explicit strategies of their plan.  The treasury and will of America is being exhausted to kill people who have been training to die for more than 30 years.  Notice that Russia is funding and arming the Syrian tyrant regime while the U.S., Turkey, Hezbollah/Iran and Saudi Arabia are arming the international Islamic mercenary rebels in Syria.

The leadership of the free world and most of the people of the free world are in denial.  The global banking and government elite don’t believe it, they go on fighting endless wars.  Almost no one believes that a maniacal plan for world domination is being implemented by Islamists, and some of the agents for that were appointed to Homeland Security, the State Department and CIA.

President Obama and some in his administration justify their drone killing of civilians by claiming that all able-bodied males of a certain age are militants.  His drones have now killed thousands of innocent civilians and children, not including young men who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  The number of civilian deaths is understated.  Is this right action?  Will this stop the wars in those countries or result in unconditional surrender?  The evidentiary answer is clear: no.  The numbers of Islamic fighters is growing and the number of wars is growing.  Clearly, this is not the right course of action.  Drone pilots and Apache pilots are being honored.  President Obama is recently attempting to distance himself from his personal drone hit list.

International laws of war define the targeted killing of specific groups of people as a war crime.  The Taliban fit the definition of a specific group of people.  So, even though some of us, at least, know that the Taliban are part of an Islamist strategy to dominate the world, international law defines killing members of the Taliban as a war crime.  In other words, under international law, indiscriminate killing of Taliban is unjustified.  Killing of unarmed or downed and wounded Taliban is unjustified, as well as dishonorable under most codes of military justice.

Muhammad and Islamic strategy have specifically and intentionally targeted the weaknesses of the western and eastern worlds’ intellectual heritages, all of them.  “The Management of Savagery,” (2)  a jihadi guide written by al-Qaida operative Abu Bakr Naji, specifically targets western weaknesses, intends proxy war between the superpowers, defines the importance of the mass media and PR as well as jihadist ideology and goals, and specifically requires Muslims to endure a period of savagery by their brothers.  There is no intent to assimilate Sharia or be compatible with western or eastern legal and moral law.  Religious and ethnic tolerance and our legal system are being strategically used against us.

We celebrate life.  They celebrate death.  Death by martyrdom is an honorable and justified means to achieve their version of heaven, or so they believe.  The father of the Chechen terrorist who bombed the Boston marathon called his dead son “an angel” after the bombing.

Americans and the free world must find the right solution to this multi-faceted dilemma.  The enemy has already slaughtered more than 200 million people in the name of Allah over the 1300 years since Muhammad created Islam, more than the combination of all the other holocausts, pogroms, genocides, long marches, and killing fields.  They kill eight of the fellow Muslims for one non-Muslim.  They have their arguments against us and feel just as justified and honorable in their jihadist acts as we do.

The path we are on leads to defeat.  We are already in their trap.  So far, the jihadists are winning, regardless the propaganda from your favorite politicians and media outlets.  So far, western and eastern intelligentsia have no answer to the attack of Islamic fundamentalism, because jihad is successfully turning into weaknesses to be exploited the very characteristics that the civilized world considers its strengths.  Citizen, soldier, sailor, politician, teacher, preacher, we all need to discuss the solution openly, decide and act.  I am not calling for all out war.  I am calling for the civilized western and eastern world to converge its resources to think and develop together a plan and take the right action.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

(2) http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/olin/images/Management%20of%20Savagery%20-%2005-23-2006.pdf

If the 5th Amendment can be used by federal employees, such as Lois Lerner of the IRS, then what is the legal and non-violent process to remove high level federal executives?  Federal executives take advantage of government enforced secrecy, strong arm tactics, executive privilege, and presidential pardons.  The only time a criminal in the federal government is caught is if and when the federal employee makes a mistake in their scheme and someone has enough guts to blow the whistle.  As we see all too often, that requires a rare combination of honest people in government, events, and a persistent and objective mass media effort.

Alternatively, the correct approach, which would maintain public trust in government, is to significantly reward behavior by federal employees which discloses corruption, reward reduction in bureaucracy, reward programs and policies which reduce cost, and reward behavior and policies which result in transparency and simplicity.  Our current government does the opposite.

The reason this alternative is highly unlikely to be implemented is that too many government employees benefit from corruption in the government.  As reported by the IRS in 2011, federal employees owed the federal government more than $3.5 billion in late federal taxes, despite the fact that their pay and benefits are far better than the average American they serve.  How is it that so many federal employees, Congressmen, Senators, Presidents become multi-millionaires while employed by the government?  And then most of them leave government for even higher paying jobs and retain government benefits.  Why is the federal government allowed to use the power of government, police, military, fear of prison, etc. against the press and against federal employees?  The people have allowed the servants to become their masters and celebrities.

On its present course, the U.S. is rapidly regressing to a third world system, like Brazil, where it is common and best practice to ignore laws.  The only attention paid to laws there is to avoid getting caught and be prepared to pay someone off if caught.  Currently, Brazilians are more free than Americans .

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/21/doj-accused-of-going-even-further-than-first-thought-in-probe-of-fox-news-reporter/

“[Windpower] slaughters eagles by the dozen, uses tons of fossil fuels every day, emits a greenhouse gas that’s like CO2 on steroids, can’t do the job it’s made for, costs taxpayers exorbitant fees, and makes the federal government look mentally ill for giving it outrageous subsidies.”

…”Nationwide, the wind industry kills thousands of golden eagles without prosecution,” Johns said, “while any other American citizen even possessing eagle parts such as feathers would face huge fines and prison time.”

“Huge is right: violate either the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Eagle Protection Act and you could get a fine up to $250,000 or two years imprisonment.”

“Not a single wind farm operator has yet been prosecuted for killing birds, yet in 2009 ExxonMobil got whacked with a $600,000 fine for killing 85 birds that flew into uncovered tanks on its property.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ron-arnold-dont-expect-big-green-to-save-falmouth/article/2527550?utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest%20-%2004/19/2013&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest

“…recent studies show that the use of ethanol and biodiesel does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For many years, proponents of decarbonization assumed that the burning of biofuels would be “carbon neutral.” The carbon neutral concept assumes that as plants grow they absorb carbon dioxide equal to the amount released when burned. If true, the substitution of ethanol for gasoline would reduce emissions.”

“But a 2011 opinion from the Science Committee of the European Environment Agency pointed out what it called a “serious accounting error.” The carbon neutral concept does not consider vegetation that would naturally grow on land used for biofuel production. Since biofuels are less efficient than gasoline or diesel fuel, they actually emit more CO2 per mile driven than hydrocarbon fuels, when proper accounting is used for carbon sequestered in natural vegetation. Further, a 2011 study for the National Academy of Sciences found that, “…production of ethanol as fuel to displace gasoline is likely to increase such air pollutants as particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides.”

“Ethanol fuel is no bargain… According to the US Department of Agriculture, ethanol fuel remains about 25 percent more expensive than gasoline….”

“Mandates for ethanol vehicle fuel are also boosting food prices.”

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/climatism-watching-climate-science/2013/apr/16/it-time-end-ethanol-vehicle-fuel-mandates/#ixzz2SAD2KUq3

UK thinktank: “The Trouble with Biofuels: Costs and Consequences of Expanding Biofuel Use in the United Kingdom”
(1) Agricultural biofuel use increases the level and volatility of food prices, with
detrimental impacts on the food security of low-income food-importing countries.
(2) Agricultural biofuel use also indirectly drives expansion of agriculture into areas
of high carbon stock such as rainforest or peatland, resulting in indirect land-use
change, the emissions from which may outweigh any greenhouse gas savings the
biofuels are able to offer.
(3) Biofuels are not a cost-effective means to reduce emissions from road transporthttp://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/0413pp_biofuels.pdf

“The EPA’s yellow brick road to Eco-Utopia is not one our nation should travel. It will not take us to an economic recovery, more jobs, a cleaner environment, or improved human safety, health and welfare.” …

“Nothing in the Clean Air Act says EPA needs to promulgate these rules. But nothing says it can’t do so. It’s largely discretionary, and this Administration is determined to “interpret” the science and use its executive authority to restrict and penalize hydrocarbon use – and “fundamentally transform” America.” …

“We are desperately in need of science-based legislative standards, commonsense regulatory actions, and adult supervision by Congress and the courts. Unfortunately, that is not likely to be forthcoming anytime soon, and neither Republican Senators nor the House of Representatives seem to have the power, attention span or spine to do what is necessary. Where this all will end is therefore anyone’s guess.” ~ Paul Driessen http://sppiblog.org/news/epas-tier-3-tyranny

Millions of Americans will pay more for health insurance, lose their coverage, or have their hours of work cut back.  By DANIEL P. KESSLER, April 29, 2013.

In recent weeks, there have been increasing expressions of concern from surprising quarters about the implementation of ObamaCare. Montana Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat, called it a “train wreck.” A Democratic colleague, West Virginia’s Sen. Jay Rockefeller, described the massive Affordable Care Act as “beyond comprehension.” Henry Chao, the government’s chief technical officer in charge of putting in place the insurance exchanges mandated by the law, was quoted in the Congressional Quarterly as saying “I’m pretty nervous . . . Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.”

These individuals are worried for good reason. The unpopular health-care law’s rollout is going to be rough. It will also administer several price (and other) shocks to tens of millions of Americans.

Start with people who have individual and small-group health insurance. These policies are most affected by ObamaCare’s community-rating regulations, which require insurers to accept everyone but limit or ban them from varying premiums based on age or health. The law also mandates “essential” benefits that are far more generous than those currently offered.

According to consultants from Oliver Wyman (who wrote on the issue in the January issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries), around six million of the 19 million people with individual health policies are going to have to pay more—and this even after accounting for the government subsidies offered under the law. For example, single adults age 21-29 earning 300% to 400% of the federal poverty level will be hit with an increase of 46% even after premium assistance from tax credits.

Determining the number of individuals who will be harmed by changes to the small-group insurance market is harder. According to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, around 30 million Americans work in firms with fewer than 50 employees, and so are potentially affected by the small-group “reforms” imposed by ObamaCare.

Around nine million of these people, plus six million family members, are covered by employers who do not self-insure. The premium increases for this group will be less on average than those for people in the individual market but will still be substantial. According to analyses conducted by the insurer WellPoint for 11 states, small-group premiums are expected to increase by 13%-23% on average.

This average masks big differences. While some firms (primarily those that employ older or sicker workers) will see premium decreases due to community rating, firms with younger, healthier workers will see very large increases: 89% in Missouri, 91% in Indiana and 101% in Nevada.

Because the government subsidies to purchasers of health insurance in the small-group market are significantly smaller than those in the individual market, I estimate that another 10 million people, the approximately two-thirds of the market that is low- or average-risk, will see higher insurance bills for 2014.

Higher premiums are just the beginning, because virtually all existing policies in the individual market and the vast majority in the small-group market do not cover all of the “essential” benefits mandated by the law. Policies without premium increases will have to change, probably by shifting to more restrictive networks of doctors and hospitals. Even if only one third of these policies are affected, this amounts to more than five million people.

In addition, according to Congressional Budget Office projections in July and September 2012, three million people will lose their insurance altogether in 2014 due to the law, and six million will have to pay the individual-mandate tax penalty in 2016 because they don’t want or won’t be able to afford coverage, even with the subsidies.

None of this counts the people whose employment opportunities will suffer because of disincentives under ObamaCare. Some, whose employers have to pay a tax penalty because their policies do not carry sufficiently generous insurance, will see their wages fall. Others will lose their jobs or see their hours reduced.

Anecdotal evidence already suggests that these disincentives will really matter in the job market, as full-time jobs are converted to part time. Why would employers do this? Because they aren’t subject to a tax penalty for employees who work less than 30 hours per week.

There is some debate over how large these effects will be, and how long they will take to manifest. However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports on a category of workers who will almost surely be involuntarily underemployed as a result of health reform: the 10 million part-timers who now work 30-34 hours per week.

These workers are particularly vulnerable. Reducing their hours to 29 avoids the employer tax penalty, with relatively little disruption to the workplace. Fewer than one million of them, according to calculations based on the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, get covered by ObamaCare-compliant insurance from their employer.

In total, it appears that there will be 30 million to 40 million people damaged in some fashion by the Affordable Care Act—more than one in 10 Americans. When that reality becomes clearer, the law is going to start losing its friends in the media, who are inclined to support the president and his initiatives. We’ll hear about innocent victims who saw their premiums skyrocket, who were barred from seeing their usual doctor, who had their hours cut or lost their insurance entirely—all thanks to the faceless bureaucracy administering a federal law.

The allure of the David-versus-Goliath narrative is likely to prove irresistible to the media, raising the pressure on Washington to repeal or dramatically modify the law. With the implementation of ObamaCare beginning to take full force at the end of the year, there will be plenty of time before the 2014 midterm elections for Congress to consider its options.

For those like Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who told a gathering a few weeks ago at the Harvard School of Public Health that she has been “surprised” by the political wrangling caused so far by ObamaCare, there are likely to be plenty of surprises ahead.