Watch Senate climate hearing live


EPW Hearing Room – 406 Dirksen

Link to live video follows. Click link in names for each person’s submitted testimony.


Panel 1

Dr. Heidi Cullen
Chief Climatologist
Climate Central
Mr. Frank Nutter
Reinsurance Association of America
Mr. KC Golden
Policy Director
Climate Solutions
Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Senior Fellow
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
Dr. Robert P. Murphy
Senior Economist
Institute for Energy Research

Panel 2

Dr. Jennifer Francis
Research Professor
Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University
Dr. Scott Doney
Director, Ocean and Climate Change Institute
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Dr. Margaret Leinin
Executive Director, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute
Florida Atlantic University
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.
Professor, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research
University of Colorado
Dr. Roy Spencer
Principal Research Scientist IV
University of Alabama, Huntsville

Live video here:  Live Webcast – Flash

About these ads
This entry was posted in Politics, Presentations and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Watch Senate climate hearing live

  1. AnonyMoose says:

    There’s barely enough room for the cheerleaders.

  2. Mark H says:

    Carbon pollution, Here we go again.Cant listen anymore,I’ll just wait for the short version.

  3. philincalifornia says:

    I listened for about 5 or 10 minutes and Barbara Boxer’s position appears to be that any data she doesn’t like is derived from funding by the Koch brothers and Exxon/Mobil.

    Maybe I just saw a good part, but she’s being made to look like the climate clown she is.

  4. The major problem hereafter (actually dating from years ago) is that a whole sector of the scientific world (i.e. climatologists, etc.) have so damaged their credibility that those who have taken any notice of that will never be able to trust them. That’s certainly my position, as one who has only relatively recently paid full attention to this.

    They could say that the grass is green and the sky is blue and I’d look at it skeptically, wondering where they are bending the truth, at best.

  5. Hey Cullen, Sandy wasn’t a friggen hurricane when it made landfall. Stop lying!

  6. looks like the game is up! And all the AGW chickens are coming home to roost and the future doesn’t look bright!

  7. Bruce Cobb says:

    High marks for recycling are certainly due. The same lies keep being reused by the crimastrologists like cullen.

  8. jaypan says:

    Love already the title of the hearing.
    “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now.”

    Manipulation often starts with specific language.

  9. Thanks Anthony, I will read the testimonies. Watching is too painful.

  10. Charles Hart says:

    I saw three graphs comparing model output to observations.
    a) models vs sat/ballons diverging
    b) models vs surface/sat/ballons diverging
    c) models vs what? close agreement

    what is the source for c? c included supposedly included the most data.

  11. Janice Moore says:

    LAUGH — OUT–LOUD, that Senator Whitehorse is a dope! “The flounder fishermen will have to drive farther and farther………. ” Oh, yeah. They are hopping in their pick-ups and driving to the bottom of the bay, but, nearly running out of gas before they get there, and when they get there, there are no flounder, because… uh……… because they all went to……. to Vegas! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    What a buffoon!

    Well, for Propaganda Whitehouse, er, Whitehorse, it CLEARLY was not about science.

  12. Janice Moore says:

    Q. “what is the source for c?”

    A. The air coming out of Whitehouse’s mouth

  13. son of mulder says:

    Senator Whitehouse seems to have given up on the atmospheric side of climate change. He says ocean is where to look for important signals, sealevel, flounders, ‘acidification’. I feel a new offensive approaching.

  14. Janice Moore says:

    One note of hope from the charade in D.C. today is: In sales (and this was, for the Democrats, clearly and ONLY about selling the lie about CAGW), when a customer is confused, they say, “No.”

    The CAGWers did NOT succeed in being persuasive. Their mumbling and lying and greasy squirming away from reality will not convince anyone. That is, the CAGWers did not WIN that hearing, thus, they are STILL LOSING the argument in the eye of the public.

    CO2 is going up ———- temperatures are not. The End.

    Certainly, the media will try very hard to amplify their squeekings into something more forceful, but, it will come off as stale. And it won’t sell papers, so….. the media will VERY soon turn its attention to HOLLYWOOD or SOMETHING real.


    NICE temperature stat from Dr. Spencer — “Don’t think D.C. will hit 103 today… that record was set in 1887.” Bahddah-bing — baahdda -boom!

  15. Janice Moore says:

    Well, I can see that this topic is not as interesting as “Heidi Cullen,” so I will stop talking to myself!

    Not interested in discussing her.

  16. C.M. Carmichael says:

    Did the alarmists arrange for the air conditioning to be turned off?

  17. cui bono says:

    Being a Brit, I’m not used to these hearings, but is it standard practice to try to drag witnesses into the mud (creationism, Exxon and Koch brothers funding, tobacco)?

    Or was this a global warming smear-the-evil-deni*rs special edition?

  18. John West says:

    Well, I read through the testimonies. Spencer, Pielke, Furchtgott-Roth, Murphy did excellent jobs with their written testimony. Thank You!

    The rest are an exercise in the use of logical fallacies, Zohnerism, cherry picking, and just plain old lying.

    Dr. Jennifer Francis shows a graphic (figure 6) that compares the arctic ice extent on a date to the 1979 -2000 median. Surely even a politician can see the invalidity here. What do we remember about the 70’s? An impending ice age ring a bell?

    They all (on the alarmist side) “address” the lack of recent warming by invoking the ocean heat content increase without bothering to mention that it is us skeptics that objected to the “scary” projections in part for the very reason that we thought much of the warming would end up going into the ocean therefore dramatically extending the potential timeframes of noticeable climate variances if not rendering the whole “problem” harmless.

  19. Janice Moore says:

    I was too late to watch the testimony of any of the truth in science witnesses today, except for Dr. Spencer. You honored God, today, Roy Spencer. He will honor you.

    “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. … [you] will soar on wings like eagles; [you] will run and not grow weary… .”

    [Isaiah 40:28-31]

  20. kramer says:

    Cullen’s presentation says:
    “I am Heidi Cullen and I currently serve as Chief Climatologist at Climate Central.”

    Climate Central is just another environmental organization that gets Rockefeller funding:

    From what I’ve seen of their funding, its often aimed at promoting left-wing causes.

  21. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Janice Moore –
    You can read the written testimony via the links under the “witnesses” heading.

    Generally, this seems to have been an empty exercise. It’s obvious that the alarmists haven’t learned anything and aren’t about to back off from their fantasies. Nothing will change, not even the climate, as a result of this marionette show. Only action by the skeptic members of Congress to shut down this nonsense will ever get any results.

    I would have preferred to see the skeptics take a harder line and refer to studies of the role of the sun and other natural processes and how these dwarf the effects of any human activity. I would also like to have seen specific presentations as to how the greenhouse effect of CO2 is limited and is near saturation, so that increases in it will have a nugatory effect – perhaps, for example, by citing the example of commercial greenhouses where 1,200 – 1,500 ppm of CO2 do not appreciably affect the temperatures in them.

    And above all I would like to have seen someone talk about the bullying tactics and the efforts of alarmists to silence skeptics and get those on the public record – and about the concomitant attacks by the Obama administration on civil liberties across the board, which are intimately bound up with AGW advocacy. Those are perhaps the most damning evidence against AGW, that it can only be advanced by deception and force, and that it is an excuse to trample constitutional rights.

    All in all, I’m disappointed.

  22. kramer says:

    Will cspan play these meetings again? I missed this one and want to check out Sanders, heard his panties were wadded up his democrat…

  23. GunnyGene says:

    The title of this esteemed panel of “know-it-alls”, cracks me up. The climate has been changing constantly for 4.5 Billion years, and will continue to change for the next 4.5 billion years. Yet the paranoia panel insists it’s all the fault of people born since 1900. Or maybe 1950.

    What a freaking joke.

  24. Robert Smith says:

    Are these idiots still going on about this tripe?

  25. kramer says:

    I noticed on Cullen’s presentation that Western wildfires have increased dramatically since 1970. Well, that may be true but what were they before the 70s? There could have been periods of time which much larger or more fires. If so, then her graph is misleading

  26. kramer says:

    Cullen presentation says:
    Heavy downpours are increasing nationally (Figure 7), especially over the past three to five decades. According to the National Climate Assessment (currently available in draft form11) those events in the top 1 percentile of intensity have increased in every region of the contiguous United States since 1958

    Well, we didn’t exceed the ‘safe limit’ of 350 ppm until almost 1990 (~24 years ago) so how can she attribute this to CO2 warming?

  27. Mike Abbott says:

    kramer says:
    July 18, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    Will cspan play these meetings again? I missed this one and want to check out Sanders, heard his panties were wadded up his democrat…

    It appears that the Live Link posted at the end of Anthony’s article now contains a replay of today’s session. It begins at the 19:27 mark. Sanders appears at the 2:25:48 mark (and maybe other places; I didn’t watch the whole 3 hours 48 minutes.) Roger Pielke and Roy Spencer appear briefly at the 2:54:10 mark.

  28. Doesn’t the (Re)insurance industry have a terrible conflict of interest on this topic? It would sure seem to me that the more the fear of CAGW is instilled in us, the more they can justify higher premiums in the present. And when it doesn’t pan out, don’t expect large rebates of the overpayment.

    And as for the charts and stats put forth by the insurance guy, Nutter. I wouldn’t trust those AT ALL. They just might be motivated to make those stats tell the story they like. And there’s no telling what criteria they used in those chart categories and the stats therein.

  29. KC Golden: “But we cannot implement these solutions at scale with out the active engagement and partnership of our federal government, including the United States Congress.”

    Translation: We need the big teat of the fed govt to suckle on, in that grand old tradition of cronies throughout time.

  30. Janice Moore says:

    Thank you, Chad, for the tip on how to read the testimony from today’s hearing.

    Yes, I am disappointed, too. You make good points in your post.

    Many good things lie ahead, nevertheless. Remember in the movie “The African Queen” when Rosie and Charlie have finally, after all their brave fighting to reach their goal, given up, lying exhausted in the bottom of their tired little boat? The camera moves up and out and…….. we can see what God can see: they are nearly there. They made it. Sometimes, it is only when things look hopeless from a human perspective that God steps in. He waits until the eleventh hour sometimes, because otherwise we would pridefully believe we achieved the victory all by ourselves.

    Take heart! We may be nearly out of the CAGW jungle of lies.

    That CAGW will fall is inevitable, for, in the end, truth always wins. It is just a matter of time.


    @Kramer and Gunnygene — Well said!

  31. Janice Moore says:

    “And as for the charts and stats put forth by the insurance guy, Nutter. I wouldn’t trust those AT ALL… .” [Onlooker for Troy]

    Nor would I. Given his blatant conflict of interest in this matter, his testimony (including his exhibits) has as much probative value as a snow tire salesperson’s winter weather forecast….

    or a windmill manufacturer’s testimony about the size of Big Oil’s likely reserves.

  32. Greg says:

    With the “hearing” itself intitled: “Climate change, it’s happening now” it pretty much gives the game away.

    This is not a “hearing” because a hearing is a session designed to take evidence, err, that means like LISTENING not telling us its happening as soon as you set up the meeting and before you’ve heard any expert witnesses.

    This is clearly not a hearing because those who organised it are NOT LISTENING. They are preaching.

    This is clear abuse of due process. The object of hearings is to collect information, not to be used as a televised platform to diffuse dogma.

  33. Roy Spencer says:

    I have more to say near the end of the hearing in response to Jeff sessions, who wasn’t there for my main testimony.

  34. Is the hearing on video somewhere now? Didn’t catch it live. Youtube maybe? I couldn’t find it there with a search.

  35. Theo Goodwin says:

    cui bono says:
    July 18, 2013 at 11:31 am

    Saul Alinsky taught that to the Left during the Sixties. Obama and team play by his book completely. The vast majority of Democrats in the Senate follow Alinsky.

  36. Lawrence13 London says:

    In response to Roy:
    Couple of things: I really admire you and Roger’s patience and control for not jumping up and slapping Cullen when in full flow around the face with a wet flounder and say “how’s that for rising sea-levels”?

    More seriously: I’m not religious in anyway but there has been a movement by affluent liberal lefty westerners over the last fifty years to almost spit upon western religion yet keep very quiet or even promote Islam. If I’m correct Roy, Roger Houghton, a real trail blazer for AGW and of the UKMO and the IPCC; was and is a devout Christian . Maybe if you get the chance you could posit this to Whitehouse when you get the chance. Me? I’ve learned over the years that atheism and intelligence aren’t necessarily mutually inclusive.

    All the best and well done.

  37. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Janice Moore –
    I share your hopes – but not necessarily your optimism. My real fear is that it may yet take a catastrophe on the order of WWII and the Jewish Holocaust to break the cycle – and even then, it will be centuries more before the world recovers. That is why I am so militant about putting a stop to these criminals, these genocidal maniacs, and why I am seeking decisive action against them by anyone in a position to defrock them and push them aside. If I don’t do that I would regard myself as complicit in the atrocities they are certain to commit. This is not a trivial issue – it is the most momentous threat to civilization and human well-being since the rise of socialism in all its ugly personae. If they are not stopped and are able to fully implement their agenda, these people’s actions could dwarf the 250 million murdered in the name of “social justice” and “reforming society” by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and their followers. Believers in “Gaea” have already made it clear that they will not hesitate to drastically reduce the human footprint – literally – on the planet, and that translates into BILLIONS dead.

  38. Mike Wilson says:

    @Roy Spencer – I enjoyed watching your testimony. You did a great job. Thank you!

  39. Thanks, Dr. Spencer. A clear presentation of facts and present knowledge.

  40. Charles Hart says:

    @Dr. Spencer, where did the graph “c” come from you were asked about?

    I saw three graphs comparing model output to observations.
    a) models vs sat/ballons diverging
    b) models vs surface/sat/ballons diverging
    c) models vs what? close agreement

    what is the source for c? c included supposedly included the most data.

  41. Chad Wozniak says:

    Listening to Harry Reid’s idiocy – “winters are shorter”? First May snow ever in Little Rock, rain and temps in the 60s in the Sacramento Valley in California in June (normal is 90s and no rain), the coldest baseball opening day in history in Minneapolis (35 F), snow in the UK into May, snow in Queensland, snow in Christchurch and Wellington, New Zealand, all-time record northward extent of Antarctic sea ice etc., etc. One wonders what planet this ignorant lying squirming worm is living on – it sure ain’t Earth.

  42. Chuck Nolan says:

    It doesn’t matter.
    The president will do his damage and the congressional crooks will steal the tax money from us some how.
    They lie and steal as bad a Gleick.
    Not even good thieves.
    At least stop wasting the money. Do something useful.
    I just don’t like them pissing on my boots and trying to make me believe it’s raining.

  43. george e smith says:

    “””””….. Carbon

    Dunno why that pasted like that. It was cut from Dr Heidi Cullen’s opening remarks.

    She said that greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing the sun’s energy and preventing heat from escaping back into space.

    She’s a scientist you know; even teaches at Princeton University.

    So Dr Cullen, space (around the earth) basically contains nothing; no molecules crashing into each other to speak of.

    So how; pray tell, in the absence of any GHGs exactly how ANY “HEAT” would escape to space. the earth loses essentially NO “heat” to space. The excess thermal energy in the atmosphere, has to be converted from “heat” into electro-magnetic radiation, before it can escape to space.

    Also, Dr Cullen, when atmospheric GHGs “absorb the sun’s energy”, that process prevents that sun’s energy from reaching the earth surface, and in particular the earth’s oceans, where it can propagate to great depths before being absorbed and converted (totally) into “heat” energy which warms those ocean depths. so your process cools the earth; it does not heat it.

  44. Blade says:

    Just for once, when these idjits say something like: “Climate change is happening right now”, why cannot anyone on ‘our side’ simply step up and say: “Yes, it was cold in the 1960’s to 1970’s, it was cold during the Little Ice Age, and it was really friggin cold during the last glaciation, but now it warmer. What should it be, still cold? You really want it to stay cold?”.

    Is that so hard? Just call them climate change deniers because that is exactly what they are. These are climate kooks, crooks and scoundrels, all of them.

  45. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Onlooker –
    You can get the written testimony via the links in the list of witnesses above. Prepare to laugh, cry or vomit or all three.

  46. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Lawrence13 London –
    I am also a religious nonbeliever, but at the same time I am supportive of people’s right to believe as they choose – my only condition is that they respect my right to my beliefs in return. Also, while as a matter of being honest with myself, I must call ‘em as I see ‘em, which precludes for me the idea of a supreme being, I hope that I am open minded enough to accept and not be offended by differences of viewpoint. And I would add this: if people genuinely derive comfort and reassurance from their religion, who am I to question that, who am I to take that from them? I do not want to do that, feel no urge or impulse to do that. If people are to get along and there is to be civility in relationships, one must be prepared to accept differences of viewpoint, even with those to whom one is closest. We must agree to disagree.

    The AGW crowd is, of course, the exact opposite: absolute, unquestioning belief in dogma is their meme, and you disagree with them at your peril.

  47. kramer says:

    @Mike Abbott. July 18, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    Thanks for the link and start time!

  48. Mario Lento says:

    The video became unresponsive as Roger Peilke started talking. I was looking forward to hearing him and others speak including Spencer. Up to that point, I think that the average person would believe (from the testimony of the left) that there is a big problem. The lies, damn lies… and the repeated statement that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans (where no one can find it) probably rings as valid for the average person. The problem is that the smart people only appeal to people who are smart enough to understand the truth.

    I hope that I am able to see the rest of this. But I had a very bad feeling from watching this.

  49. OssQss says:

    Nice job Roy,,,Roger and everyone involved….facts are hard to dispute.

    Learn and communicate such folks.

    What other options are there?

  50. Mario Lento says:

    OK – I just read Roger Pielke and Rpy Spencer’s testimonies. I feel better now… :)

  51. highflight56433 says:

    “If people are to get along and there is to be civility in relationships, one must be prepared to accept differences of viewpoint, even with those to whom one is closest. We must agree to disagree.”

    Well, that is very interesting comment. Not sure just who you believe we should get along with or agree with or disagree with. How empty. Unable to draw a line in the sand and stand for anything.

    Enver Pasha:
    The death toll from 1.1 to 2.5 million
    Years in power: 5 (1913-1918)
    The most heinous crime: genocide of Armenians
    Type of treatment: military
    Cause of death: killed in action (in the opinion of the majority)

    Kim Il Sung:
    North Korea
    The death toll: 1.6 million
    Years in power: 46 (1948-1994)
    The most heinous crime: the war in Korea
    Type of regime: communist
    Cause of death: heart attack

    Ho Chi Minh:
    Northern Vietnam
    The death toll: 1.7 million
    Years in power: 24 (1945-1969)
    The most heinous crime: the Vietnam War
    Type of regime: communist
    Cause of death: heart failure

    Pol Pot:
    The death toll from 1.7 to 2.4 million people
    Years in power: 4 (1975-1979)
    The most heinous crime: genocide in Cambodia
    Type of regime: communist
    Cause of death: officially unknown

    Saddam Hussein:
    The number of deaths: 2 million
    Years in power: 34 (1969-2003)
    The most heinous crime: genocide of Kurds
    Regime type: authoritarian
    Cause of death: death by hanging

    Yahya Khan:
    The death toll from 2 to 12 million people
    Years in power: 2 (1969-1971)
    The most heinous crime: genocide in Bangladesh
    Type of treatment: military
    Cause of death: unknown

    Hideki Tojo:
    The number of dead: 4 million
    Years in power: 3 (1941-1944)
    The most heinous crime: the killing of civilians during World War II
    Type of treatment: military
    Cause of death: death by hanging

    Vladimir Lenin:
    The number of dead: 4 million
    Years in power: 7 (1917-1924)
    The most heinous crime: Civil War in Russia
    Type of regime: communist
    Cause of death: cerebral hemorrhage

    The death toll: 6 million
    Years in power: 62 (1926-1989)
    The most terrible crimes: the massacre in Nanjing
    Type of regime: monarchy
    Cause of death: cancer

    Chiang Kai-shekChina:
    The death toll: 10 million
    Years in power: 18 (1928-1949)
    The most heinous crime: Incident 228 (Massacre in Taiwan in 1947)
    Type of treatment: military
    Cause of death: kidney failure

    Adolf Hitler:
    The death toll from 17 to 20 million people
    Years in power: 11 (1934-1945)
    The most heinous crime: the Holocaust
    Type of regime: fascist
    Cause of death: suicide

    Joseph Stalin:
    The death toll from 40 to 62 million people
    Years in power: 12 (1941-1953)
    The most heinous crime: the Gulag
    Type of regime: communist
    Cause of death: heart attack

    Mao Zedong:
    The death toll from 45 to 75 million
    Years in power: 34 (1943-1976)
    The most heinous crime: the great famine in China
    Cause of death: heart attack

  52. RACookPE1978 says:

    But you forgot the second most evil man in the world through the 20th century!

    Richard Nixon
    United States
    Death toll: None (Vietnam was Kennedy and Johnson’s initiative)
    Years in power: 5 (Jan 1969 – Aug 1973)
    Most heinous crime: Being a republican,
    Coverup of one burglary,
    (That, or exposing the communist groups within the US government)
    Starting the EPA.

  53. M Courtney says:

    Dr. Scott Doney provides evidence of many papers that show that specific marine species are suffering and links that to man’s effect.

    However, this presents the impression that these negative effects are unusual. But is it? What is the baseline for studies of marine fauna? How many typically find everything is A-OK?

    Research is expensive. No-one studies something if there is no concern or if there is no expectation of finding something important. So the list of papers given may be the normal output in the field.

    Without the baseline, the evidence is mere spin and a few local issues that may turn out to be natural anyway.

  54. Julian in Wales says:

    Onlooker (@OnlookerfrTroy) says: “The major problem hereafter (actually dating from years ago) is that a whole sector of the scientific world (i.e. climatologists, etc.) have so damaged their credibility that those who have taken any notice of that will never be able to trust them. That’s certainly my position, as one who has only relatively recently paid full attention to this.

    They could say that the grass is green and the sky is blue and I’d look at it skeptically, wondering where they are bending the truth, at best.”

    I agree; The reputation of science is the big loser. Why were there so few whistle-blowers and people of integrity? These proponents, fake scientists and biased editors, who have spent decades twisting truth for political ends should have been outed by those around them years ago. Where were the scientists of integrity whilst all this was going on?

    I know that on this blog (and others) there are many scientists and whistleblowers with the guts to use their real names – well done – you are stars. But how about people who have found themselves working alongside, or under these buffoons, why have none of them collected evbidence against their bosses? The Climategate whistleblower being an exception.

  55. herkimer says:

    Roy Spencer

    Great presentation.

  56. Gail Combs says:

    Julian in Wales says: @ July 19, 2013 at 1:47 am

    I agree; The reputation of science is the big loser. Why were there so few whistle-blowers and people of integrity? ….
    But how about people who have found themselves working alongside, or under these buffoons, why have none of them collected evidence against their bosses?
    The reason you hear nothing is because the evidence is ignored and buried and then the innocent are punished. If you persist you get fired then blackballed. “Whistle-blower protection” is only for those like PETA or others of the in-crowd.

    The Rule of Law is completely dead as Heartland’s attempts to have the prosecuting attorney’s office press criminal charges against Peter Gleick shows. There are now so many laws and regulations that the criminal justice system gets to pick and choose who they go after. The scandal of the IRS being used to ‘punish’ those who do not support the current Admin. is just the latest.

    Several years ago (Bush admin.) a friend whose brother works for the EPA was told to leave the big boys alone and go after the Mom & Pop companies. A truck driver I know had his load from Mexico delayed as the shipment was unloaded and repackaged as ‘grown in the USA’ He reported it to the USDA and the DOT threatened to revoke his CDL if he did not shut up. A neighbor down the street is a forester and found a large ‘hemp plantation’ on my street. When he reported it nothing was done except to have the police lie in wait and give him a ticket when ever he left his driveway. Another friend (different county) worked for the local pound. She was late leaving and over heard some of the county elected officials discussing drug running. When she got home her window was shot-up and her son’s life threatened if she talked. (She also lost her job.) Those are just a few examples I have run into.

    Whistle-blowers are alive and well but they are only one person trying to work within a very corrupt system so they lose.

    First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)
    ….In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:

    Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

    ….To Daly, the implications were enormous…. He wrote in a local news article:

    This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself . . . to study this decision very carefully . . . for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.

    Justice Mahoney, who was not dependent on campaign financing or hamstrung by precedent, went so far as to threaten to prosecute and expose the bank. He died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning.4 Since that time, a number of defendants have attempted to avoid loan defaults using the defense Daly raised; but they have met with only limited success. As one judge said off the record:

    If I let you do that – you and everyone else – it would bring the whole system down. . . . I cannot let you go behind the bar of the bank. . . . We are not going behind that curtain!

    We spend twenty years of our working life working for the government (taxes) and then spend up to another ~30% of our working life working for the banks. The total debt-to-income, or back-end, ratio, shows how much of your gross income would go toward all of your debt obligations, including mortgage, car loans, child support and alimony, credit card bills, student loans and condominium fees. In general, your total monthly debt obligation should not exceed 36 percent of your gross income.

    The rivers of wealth extracted from the working class is then used to buy power to further enslave us. The ‘Carbon Tax’ is just the latest insult.

    SEE: America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution

  57. Rapid melting of polar ice sheets may be due to short-lived natural events rather than climate change, scientists said. New research suggests more time is needed to predict the likely impact of global warming and ice loss on sea levels. –John von Radowitz, AFP, 15 July 2013

  58. Blade says:

    highflight56433 [July 18, 2013 at 9:44 pm] says:

    Just a nitpick … Saddam was during Carter … 1979

  59. Mark Bofill says:

    Wow. Watching that hearing makes me wonder why we expect anything intelligent to ever come out of our government policy wise. Dumb thing for me to ignore, but I tend to forget until my face is rubbed in it that our elected officials are predominantly a bunch of lawyers.
    We need more engineers in office, IMO. If we could find enough who’d take the durn job.

Comments are closed.