- The Jackboots Are Coming: Mass Arrests, Power Grabs, & The Politics Of Fear
Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest—forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by the standards of other centuries.” – Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
How do you persuade a populace to embrace totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none?
You persuade the people that the menace they face (imaginary or not) is so sinister, so overwhelming, so fearsome that the only way to surmount the danger is by empowering the government to take all necessary steps to quash it, even if that means allowing government jackboots to trample all over the Constitution.
This is how you use the politics of fear to persuade a freedom-loving people to shackle themselves to a dictatorship.
It works the same way every time.
The government’s overblown, extended wars on terrorism, drugs, violence and illegal immigration have been convenient ruses used to terrorized the populace into relinquishing more of their freedoms in exchange for elusive promises of security.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Case in point: on June 17, the same day President Trump announced that the government would be making mass arrests in order to round up and forcibly remove millions of illegal immigrants—including families and children—from the country, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling in Gamble v. United States that placed the sovereignty (i.e., the supreme power or authority) of federal and state governments over that of the citizenry, specifically as it relates to the government’s ability to disregard the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause.
At first glance, the two incidents—one relating to illegal immigration and the other to the government’s prosecutorial powers—don’t have much to do with each other, and yet there is a common thread that binds them together.
That common thread speaks to the nature of the government beast we have been saddled with and how it views the rights and sovereignty of “we the people.”
Now you don’t hear a lot about sovereignty anymore.
Sovereignty is a dusty, antiquated term that harkens back to an age when kings and emperors ruled with absolute power over a populace that had no rights. Americans turned the idea of sovereignty on its head when they declared their independence from Great Britain and rejected the absolute authority of King George III. In doing so, Americans claimed for themselves the right to self-government and established themselves as the ultimate authority and power.
In other words, in America, “we the people”— sovereign citizens—call the shots.
So when the government acts, it is supposed to do so at our bidding and on our behalf, because we are the rulers.
That’s not exactly how it turned out, though, is it?
In the 200-plus years since we boldly embarked on this experiment in self-government, we have been steadily losing ground to the government’s brazen power grabs, foisted upon us in the so-called name of national security.
The government has knocked us off our rightful throne. It has usurped our rightful authority. It has staged the ultimate coup. Its agents no longer even pretend that they answer to “we the people.”
So you see, the two incidents on June 17 were not hugely significant in and of themselves.
Trump’s plan to carry out mass arrests of anyone the government suspects might be an illegal immigrant, and the Supreme Court’s recognition that the government can sidestep the Constitution for the sake of expediency are merely more of the same abuses that have been heaped upon us in recent years.
Yet these incidents speak volumes about how far our republic has fallen and how desensitized “we the people” have become to this constant undermining of our freedoms.
How do we reconcile the Founders’ vision of our government as an entity whose only purpose is to serve the people with the police state’s insistence that the government is the supreme authority, that its power trumps that of the people themselves, and that it may exercise that power in any way it sees fit (that includes government agents crashing through doors, mass arrests, ethnic cleansing, racial profiling, indefinite detentions without due process, and internment camps)?
They cannot be reconciled. They are polar opposites.
We are fast approaching a moment of reckoning where we will be forced to choose between the vision of what America was intended to be (a model for self-governance where power is vested in the people) and the reality of what she has become (a police state where power is vested in the government).
This slide into totalitarianism—helped along by overcriminalization, government surveillance, militarized police, neighbors turning in neighbors, privatized prisons, and forced labor camps, to name just a few similarities—is tracking very closely with what happened in Germany in the years leading up to Hitler’s rise to power.
We are walking a dangerous path right now.
The horrors of the Nazi concentration camps weren’t kept secret from the German people. They were well-publicized. As The Guardian reports:
The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler’s Holocaust… They knew concentration camps were full of Jewish people who were stigmatised as sub-human and race-defilers. They knew that these, like other groups and minorities, were being killed out of hand. They knew that Adolf Hitler had repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew on German soil. They knew these details because they had read about them. They knew because the camps and the measures which led up to them had been prominently and proudly reported step by step in thousands of officially-inspired German media articles and posters… The reports, in newspapers and magazines all over the country were phases in a public process of “desensitisation” which worked all too well, culminating in the killing of 6m Jews….
Likewise, the mass of ordinary Americans are fully aware of the Trump Administration’s efforts to stigmatize and dehumanize any and all who do not fit with the government’s plans for this country.
These mass arrests of anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant may well be the shot across the bow.
You see, it’s a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing government agents to lock large swaths of the population up in detention centers unless or until they can prove that they are not only legally in the country to empowering government agents to subject anyone—citizen and noncitizen alike—to similar treatment unless or until they can prove that they are in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books, and not guilty of having committed some crime or other.
It’s no longer a matter of if, but when.
You may be innocent of wrongdoing now, but when the standard for innocence is set by the government, no one is safe. Everyone is a suspect, and anyone can be a criminal when it’s the government determining what is a crime.
Remember, the police state does not discriminate.
At some point, once the government has been given the power to do whatever it wants—the Constitution be damned—it will not matter whether you’re an illegal immigrant or a citizen by birth, a law-breaker or someone who marches in lockstep with the government’s dictates. Government jails will detain you just as easily whether you’ve obeyed every law or broken a dozen. And government agents will treat you like a suspect, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, simply because they have been trained to view and treat everyone like potential criminals.
Eventually, all that will matter is whether some government agent—poorly trained, utterly ignorant of the Constitution, way too hyped up on the power of their badges, and authorized to detain, search, interrogate, threaten and generally harass anyone they see fit—chooses to single you out for special treatment.
We’ve been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the past 50-plus years, and still we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn too late.
All of the excessive, abusive tactics employed by the government today—warrantless surveillance, stop and frisk searches, SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, asset forfeiture schemes, private prisons, indefinite detention, militarized police, etc.—started out as a seemingly well-meaning plan to address some problem in society that needed a little extra help.
Be careful what you wish for: you will get more than you bargained for, especially when the government’s involved.
Remember, nothing is ever as simple as the government claims it is.
The war on drugs turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with SWAT teams and militarized police.
The war on terror turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention.
The war on immigration is turning out to be yet another war on the American people, waged with roving government agents demanding “papers, please.”
Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.
If you’re inclined to advance this double standard because you believe you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, beware: there’s always a boomerang effect.
As commentator Shaun Kenney observed:
What civil liberties are you willing to surrender in the apprehension of 12 million people? Knock and drags? Detention centers? Checkpoints? House-to-house searches? Papers, please? Will we be racially profiling folks to look for or are we talking about people of Chinese… Indian… Irish… Polish… Italian… people-who-might-look-like-you descent as well? If the federal government makes a 1% rounding error and accidentally deports an American citizen, that’s 120,000 Americans… what means will be used to restore their rights? Who will remunerate them for their financial loss? Restore their lost homes? Personal property? Families? … What happens when these means are turned against some other group of undesirables in America by a president who does not share your political persuasion, but can now justify the act based on previous justifications?
We are all at risk.
The law of reciprocity applies here. The flip side of that Golden Rule, which calls for us to treat others as we would have them treat us, is that we shouldn’t inflict on others what we wouldn’t want to suffer ourselves.
In other words, if you don’t want to be locked up in a prison cell or a detention camp—if you don’t want to be discriminated against because of the color of your race, religion, politics or anything else that sets you apart from the rest—if you don’t want your loved ones shot at, strip searched, tasered, beaten and treated like slaves—if you don’t want to have to be constantly on guard against government eyes watching what you do, where you go and what you say—if you don’t want to be tortured, waterboarded or forced to perform degrading acts—if you don’t want your children to be forcibly separated from you, caged and lost—then don’t allow these evils to be inflicted on anyone else, no matter how compelling a case the government makes for it or how fervently you believe in the cause.
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.
You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.
You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.
Indeed, when the government is allowed to operate as a law unto itself, the rule of law itself becomes illegitimate. As Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.’ It was ‘illegal’ to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.”
In other words, there comes a time when law and order are in direct opposition to justice.
Isn’t that what the American Revolution was all about?
Finally, if anyone suggests that the government’s mass immigration roundups and arrests are just the government doing its job to fight illegal immigration, don’t buy it.
This is not about illegal immigration. It’s about power and control.
It’s about testing the waters to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in re-shaping the country in the image of a totalitarian police state.
It’s about the rise of an “emergency state” that justifies all manner of government misconduct and power grabs in the so-called name of national security.
It’s about how much tyranny “we the people” will tolerate before we find our conscience and our voice.
It’s about how far we will allow the government to go in its efforts to distract and divide us and turn us into a fearful, easily controlled populace.
Ultimately, it’s about whether we believe—as the Founders did—that our freedoms are inherently ours and that the government is only as powerful as we allow it to be. Freedom does not flow from the government. It was not given to us, to be taken away at the will of the State. In the same way, the government’s appointed purpose is not to threaten or undermine our freedoms, but to safeguard them.
We must get back to this way of thinking if we are to ever stand our ground in the face of threats to those freedoms.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it’s time to draw that line in the sand.
The treatment being meted out to anyone that looks like an illegal immigrant is only the beginning. Eventually we will all be in the government’s crosshairs for one reason or another.
This is the start of the slippery slope.
Martin Niemöller understood this. A Lutheran minister who was imprisoned and executed for opposing Hitler’s regime, Niemoller warned:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
- Watch: Dishwashing Robot Cleans Plates At Restaurant
A new wave of investments in automation is expected to eliminate 20% to 25% of current jobs by 2030 (40 million displaced jobs). In the latest installment of robots taking jobs, we have found a robot dishwasher that threatens to replace 550,000 jobs in the coming years.
A startup called Dishcraft Robotics is set to disrupt commercial kitchens with robot dishwashers. The new robot is designed to reduce the time and energy that humans spend washing plates by using automation to make sure dishes are cleaned faster and cheaper than a typical human.
CEO and founder Linda Pouliot and CTO Paul Birkmeye figured out through careful examination of restaurants that robots haven’t disrupted the dish room as it has remained the same for decades.
In a typical restaurant, dishwashers could break plates and or glasses, get burned and even slip on the wet floor, Birkmeyer noticed. Getting someone to scrub dishes all-day was one of the most challenging jobs in the kitchen to fill, he stated.
“We found the problem is universal. It didn’t matter if you were the French Laundry, a hospital cafeteria or Chili’s; everyone is having a hard time hiring dishwashers,” Pouliot said.
To solve the uncertainties in the dish room, Dishcraft’s robotic system gives restaurants a more sustainable, less costly option than humans.
The new system has four main components: a dish drop, robotic dishwasher, rolling racks, and a sanitizing machine.
First, dishes are pre-sorted and stacked in carts by humans. The cart is then wheeled into the Dishcraft system, a robot arm then uses magnets to pick up a dirty dish and places it in a washer.
After the dish is cleaned with special scrubbers, it’s rotated and examined for cleanliness using computer vision and machine learning algorithms.
Restaurants like the Dishcraft because “Robots do not call off, robots don’t take breaks, and robots do not take vacation,” Pouliot said.
Dishcraft’s main goal is to remove the human element from the kitchen.
The US economy is in the midst of a significant transformation of its economy – one where automation, artificial intelligence, and robotics will take over. These forces will disrupt at least 40 million jobs in the next ten years, and as we’ve shown in this latest piece, robots are now coming for dishwashers.
- Iran And US Officials Attend A Russian Security Forum But Nobody Is Talking About It
Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
The tenth international meeting on security has just concluded in the Russian the city of Ufa. The forum has been under-reported, but it represents one of the few global examples of multilateral meetings between high-level representatives of countries that are in conflict. Hundreds of representatives from as many as 120 countries attended the meeting over three days to discuss humanitarian crises, hybrid warfare, terrorist threats and ways to recover from armed conflict.
President Putin’s opening speech was read aloud by Russian Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev, which explained the forum’s agenda and objectives, namely, to create a positive atmosphere that should succeed in reducing various areas of tension between countries around the globe.
“I expect your communication to be substantial and fruitful, and will help achieve our common goal of creating a reliable, flexible, indivisible and equal for all security system at the regional and global level. US exit from arms reduction treaties undermines global security. This forum has fully proved to be in demand and effective, ensuring a dialogue on countering global challenges. The meeting’s agenda addresses problems requiring joint solutions and collective action, overcoming the consequences of armed conflict and humanitarian problems, as well as ensuring information security.”
The most important news of the day coming from Ufa was revealed by Tass:
“A high-ranking official from the US National Security Council will take part in an international meeting of high security representatives at Ufa on June 18-20, Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council Alexander Venediktov said in an interview with the Rossiyskaya Gazeta daily on Sunday.”
This disclosure is particularly relevant as the US has not sent any representatives to attend the international security meeting in the last four years. This is an event where leading figures can meet and discuss ways of overcoming disagreements in spite of any current difficulties that may exist between countries, such as between Iran and the US.
The Ufa forum has drawn little attention from the international press and has even been little reported on in the host country, with only Tass putting out a couple of reports on the gathering. The lack of media exposure is probably intentional, with the lack of a media spotlight allowing for diplomacy to calmly do its work without any unnecessary distractions.
The world is at a critical historical juncture, with potential or already volatile situations present on the Korean peninsula, in Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Ukraine, the Arctic, the Persian Gulf, and the Baltic, Black and South China Seas. Other volatile situations can be found in the cyber and information-warfare domains, as well as in the competition in space.
With so many potential flashpoints, a conference to address these dangers is most welcome. The fact that 120 countries have the opportunity to talk and think about possible ways for de-escalation is a rare opportunity that should not be left to go to waste.
Given current global events, the most significant attendees in Ufa are a senior US National Security Council member and the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Ali Shamkhani. As of now, the only official news comes from Ali Shamkhani’s words concerning the possibility of mediation with the US and the possibility of Iran acquiring weapons systems to fend off US threats. Shamkhani stated:
“We currently face demonstrative threats. Nevertheless, when it comes to air defense of our country, we consider using the foreign potential in addition to our domestic capacities… Mediation is out of question in the current situation. The United States has unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA, it has flouted its obligations and it has introduced illegal sanctions against Iran. The United States should return to the starting point and correct its own mistakes. This process needs no mediation,”
“This [gradually boosting of uranium enrichment and heavy water production beyond the levels outlined in the JCPOA] is a serious decision of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] and we will continue doing it step by step until JCPOA violators move toward agreement and return to fulfilling their obligations. [If JCPOA participants do not comply with the deal, Iran will be reducing its commitments] step by step within legal mechanisms that the JCPOA envisions.”
He also accused the US of “exercising pressure on the Islamic Republic through claims that Iran was behind the attack on oil tankers attack in the Gulf of Oman”. Speaking about the possibility of a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, he reiterated that “Iran will protect its borders and repel any encroachment”. The official also stated that “Iran and the United States will not come to war as there is no reason for this war to happen”.
Ali Shamkhani also held an important meeting with his Armenian counterpart to reaffirm how strategic trust and cooperation between Tehran and Yerevan is fundamental to the region, resisting external pressure from third parties. Currently Iran needs all the possible international support it can get in light of tensions with the US. The Ufa forum seems to be the perfect place for Iran to make this happen. The meeting between Ali Shamkhani and his Afghan counterpart, Hamdullah Mohib, seems to reflect this, being another example of how Iran is seeking more political allies.
Afghanistan is a central player in Eurasian integration, and Russia, India, China and Iran are all too keenly aware of the devastation wrought by the American occupation of the country.
The situation in Afghanistan seems to have improved recently, with regional powers increasingly acting independently of Washington’s desire to plunge the country into a perpetual state of chaos and underdevelopment. In fact, the next regional meeting on Afghanistan is set to be held in Tehran, with the participation of all five countries bordering Afghanistan, namely, Iran, Russia, China, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. Notably, Shamkhani asked neighboring countries to interact with the opposition in Afghanistan in order to draw them to the negotiating table, thereby limiting the influence of external actors in the country.
The meeting between Mohib and Shamkhani also served to reiterate how strategic cooperation between all relevant parties is fundamental to sustaining progress, peace and development in an area that is fundamental to Eurasian integration.
Ali Shamkhani also released some statements directed at Trump and the current state of Iran-US relations, statingthat “[Donald Trump’s America] is the most warmongering country in its history… If a wide range of countries decide to stand up to the illegal US blackmail and bullying, we can make the US retreat and adopt a rational and responsible behavior in the international system.”
Speaking of the US’s weaponization of the banking system and international finance, Shamkhani stated: “No title other than economic terrorism suits this US behavior.” He urged countries to create multilateral mechanisms to break US dominance on the global monetary system. He also pointed out that the US withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was a blow against the role of diplomacy and dialogue in solving security challenges. However, most countries, he added, were appreciative of Iran’s “wise” behavior in giving diplomacy a chance and were dragging their feet with regard to US pressure to suspend the nuclear deal.
Shamkhani’s words testify to the level of dissatisfaction and annoyance that Iran feels, being treated as it is so aggressively by Washington following years of negotiation to finally agree on the nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), to the satisfaction of all parties involved.
Guo Shengkun, a Senior Chinese security official who attended the conference, underlined the importance of countries increasing dialogue and cooperation to avoid unnecessary conflicts and trade wars, a pointed reference to Washington’s actions in its trade war against the People’s Republic of China.
His Russian counterpart was even more direct, highlighting Washington’s fear of full-scale Eurasian integration led by China and Russia. Sergey Naryshkin, Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, stated: “The US uses methods of hybrid war trying to hamper Russian cooperation, particularly with China. We are witnessing that. Moreover, there is no need to make any effort to see it, it is all happening before our very eyes.”
He also commented on how Washington exploits the US dollar as the global reserve currency for economic warfare. “It seems bewildering that the US continues to be the holder of the main reserve currency while behaving so aggressively and unpredictably. The monopoly position of the dollar in international economic relations has become anachronistic. Gradually, the dollar is becoming toxic.”
The political climate in Ufa seems very serene and inclined to favour dialogue and collaboration, showing how the Eurasian giants China, Russia and Iran are working together with enormous efforts to pacify the region and beyond. The statement of the Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergey Naryshkin, about new US sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) reveal the profound cooperation between Moscow and Tehran in various fields including terrorism.
“It’s no secret that over the past several years sanctions have become a favored method of the US policy. What is especially alarming is that the restrictions are introduced absolutely arbitrarily, spontaneously and impulsively. Their initiators do not take into account not only the long-term consequences but also the opinion of the closest economic partners… [Regarding US sanctions against the IRGC] The IRGC has made a huge contribution to the fight against ISIL in Syria and Iraq.”
The Ufa meeting is not attracting any particular attention from the mainstream press (no mention of it has been made in the major Western news outlets). While it has been given some coverage by the Russian and Chinese media, most coverage has been given by Iranian media. This is an aspect worth considering given the current geopolitical environment. Moscow and Beijing have no intention of increasing the tension between Washington and other countries. Keeping a low media profile is a way of helping the Ufa forum act in a way that eases global tensions.
A war against Iran is a red line for virtually all forum participants. The fact that the US is represented at the forum at a time of elevated tensions with Iran, especially after having not attended for the previous four years, is a good signal from the Trump administration that it is willing to open dialogue with Iran despite the risk of continued provocations or intentional accidents between the two countries.
The explicit and direct words used by the Russian, Chinese and Iranian representatives suggest a complete coordination on essential issues like terrorism, especially when it is used by the US as a tool against geopolitical opponents around the world, whether it be on Russia’s southern border, in Syria, or in the Chinese province of Xinjiang. Terrorism used as tool of imperialism is something that Ufa places at the center of current global problems, trying to limit its impact and effectiveness.
Iran and Russia’s energy ministers met in the Iranian city of Isfahan on Tuesday to continue discussions about an oil-for-goods program in which the proceeds from the sale of Iranian oil would be used to pay for Russian agricultural equipment and products.
The Ufa forum shows the combined power of Russia and China in a multipolar global order. Beijing and Moscow seem to be the only two global superpowers able to mediate and gather countries around a table in spite of increasing tensions.
Putin and Xi Jinping’s ability to de-escalate global tensions in such low-key forum as the one in Ufa (now in its tenth edition) is the only hope we have for avoiding or defusing conflicts and trade wars that may be erupt around the world.
- United Flight Taken Out Of Service After Ants Spill Out From Carry-On Bag
A United Airlines flight arriving at Newark International Airport in New Jersey, had to be taken out of service after ants spilled out of a carry-on bag and into the cabin, according to CBS Philadelphia.
One passenger on the flight, from Venice to Newark, described the situation by saying: “The guy in front pulls down his case (which btw isn’t zipped shut, as middle aisle guy notes to me in an aside) and ants ants ants spill out, running in every which direction.”
The guy in front pulls down his case (which btw isn’t zipped shut, as middle aisle guy notes to me in an aside) and ants ants ants spill out, running in every which direction. This is absolutely heeby-jeeby-goose-bumpy-get-me-a-gin-gross
— charlotte burns (@charlieburns) June 17, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The passenger had documented her discovery of the ants on the plane on her Twitter account.
A spokesperson for United said that the plane was sidelined to be cleaned and exterminated. The spokesperson also said that the airline notified “airport customs and agriculture personnel”.
The spokesperson didn’t comment on whether or not the airline charged the ants additional baggage fees.
- Dr.Doom Warns Of Imminent Sino-American Bust-Up After G-20
Authored by Nouriel Roubini via Nepal24Hours.com,
The nascent Sino-American cold war is the key source of uncertainty in today’s global economy. How the conflict plays out will affect consumer and asset markets of all kinds, as well as the trajectory of inflation, monetary policy, and fiscal conditions around the world. Escalation of the tensions between the world’s two largest economies could well produce a global recession and subsequent financial crisis by 2020, even if the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks pursue aggressive monetary easing.
Much, therefore, depends on whether the dispute does indeed evolve into a persistent state of economic and political conflict. In the short term, a planned meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, at the G20 Summit in Osaka on June 28-29 is a key event to watch. A truce could leave tariffs frozen at the current level, while sparing the Chinese technology giant Huawei from the crippling sanctions that Trump has put forward; failure to reach an agreement could set off a progressive escalation, ultimately leading to the balkanization of the entire global economy.
JAW-JAW OR WAR-WAR?
Viewed broadly, there are three scenarios for how the situation might develop between now and the end of 2020, when the United States will hold its next presidential election.
One possibility is that Trump and Xi will find a truce or modus vivendi in Osaka, paving the way for a negotiated settlement toward the end of this year. On the trade front, the US wants China to buy more American goods, reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers, open more financial and service sectors to foreign direct investment, and commit to maintaining currency stability and transparency with respect to foreign-exchange data.
On technology, the US is demanding that China strengthen intellectual-property protections, cease making the transfer of technology to Chinese firms a condition of market entry for US (and other) companies, and crack down on corporate cyber espionage and theft. A temporary deal could include any of the above, with the US offering medium-term (through the end of 2020, and possibly longer) exemptions to Chinese tech firms that use US components, semiconductors, and software. This would leave Huawei severely constrained, but not dead in the water.
The second possibility is a full-scale trade, tech, and cold war within the next 6-12 months. In this scenario, the US and China would adopt rapidly diverging positions after failing to successfully restart negotiations (with or without a truce). The US would follow through with import tariffs – starting at 10% but increasing to 25% – on the remaining $300 billion worth of Chinese goods that have so far been spared. And the Trump administration would pull the trigger on Huawei and other Chinese tech firms, barring them from purchasing components and software from US companies.
China, meanwhile, would take steps to protect its economy through macro-level stimulus, while retaliating against the US through measures that go beyond tariffs (such as expelling American firms). Huawei might survive within the Chinese market, but its growing global business would effectively be crippled, at least for the time being.
Beyond trade and technology, this scenario also implies increased geopolitical and military tensions. The possibility of some type of conflict over the East and South China Seas, Taiwan, North Korea, Xinjiang, Iran, or Hong Kong could not be ruled out.
Finally, in the third scenario, China and the US would fail to reach a deal on trade and technology, but they would forego rapid escalation. Instead of plunging into a total trade and technology war, the two powers might ratchet up their conflict more gradually. The US would impose new tariffs, but keep them at 10%, while renewing only temporarily exemptions that allow Huawei and other Chinese firms to continue purchasing key US-made inputs, while retaining the option of pulling the plug on Huawei at its discretion. Negotiations could continue, but the US would essentially hold a veto over Huawei’s bid to develop 5G and other key technologies of the global economy. Given that Trump could suddenly pull the plug on the company whenever it suits him, China’s leaders would probably abstain from blatant full-scale retaliation, but would still intervene to minimize the economic damage.
THE GOLDILOCKS OPTION…
The third scenario is the most likely for now, because China is playing a waiting game until November 2020, to see if the US elects a more even-keeled president. Even with a truce, therefore, any negotiations that are relaunched after the G20 summit will probably drag on indefinitely, with no real signs of progress. In the meantime, the Trump administration will want to apply additional pressure on China, while keeping its options open. Better, then, to start with a 10% tariff on that remaining $300 billion worth of exports. The US could always hike the rate to 25%, but at the risk of raising the costs of goods that many of Trump’s own lower-income voters rely on.
In the absence of a trade deal, the same modulated escalation is likely on the tech front. With Chinese firms already on a tight leash, the US could convince European countries and other allies not to grant Huawei tenders or licenses relating to 5G and consumer products such as smartphones, thereby undercutting Huawei’s current advantage in this market. That would buy the US a couple of years to cultivate its own national champions in 5G and related technologies, and to get a head start on 6G.
Moreover, a managed escalation has potential political advantages for Trump, and even for Xi. Trump will not be exposed to charges from Democrats that he got suckered or went soft on China. At the same time, the lingering uncertainty from an unresolved conflict will probably prompt the Fed to start cutting its policy rate in July – or September at the latest. Those cuts could reach 150 basis points if the slow rise in tensions starts to take a toll on business confidence. In fact, if the conflict is managed well, the US could avoid a recession altogether, albeit with a deceleration of annual growth from 2% toward the 1-1.5% range.
Whether the stock market would suffer a correction (a decline of 10% or more) or merely a sideways shift in the third scenario would depend on a variety of factors, such as investor confidence, growth trends, and monetary-policy measures. One also cannot rule out some type of fiscal stimulus in the US and other advanced economies. For example, Trump could try to broker a partial infrastructure-spending deal with congressional Democrats or seek to rebate tariff revenues to politically sensitive constituencies such as farmers and low- and middle-income households in the Rust Belt. Though Democrats would balk at granting Trump such favors, they would block rebates for the “losers” of the trade war at their peril.
The “managed-warfare” scenario also has advantages for Xi. The Chinese economy, after all, can be backstopped with monetary, fiscal, and credit stimulus, not to mention a weakening of the renminbi (above CN¥7 to the dollar). The government could also make a modest show of retaliation, such as by threatening to restrict (but not ban) exports of rare-earth metals, which are used in a wide range of high-tech products. At the same time, the authorities could make life harder for the hundreds of US firms with business and investments in China, not with a full boycott, but through a thousand small cuts and abuses.
… ISN’T REALLY AN OPTION
Because China and the US both know that they are in for a decades-long rivalry, they may well conclude that it is better not to risk a full-scale conflict and global recession in the short run. Only through proper preparation over the medium term can the two powers manage a long-term cold war and the de-globalization that will be necessary to protect their respective supply chains.
But this scenario is not particularly stable, and could easily morph into the first or the second after a few months. If China and the US are both motivated by concerns about growth and financial-market stability, they could overcome their immediate differences, which would allow for a temporary agreement that postpones the question of how to manage a larger cold-war rivalry.
In principle, both countries would be better off with a deal, which is why markets had priced in the first scenario up until this past May, when negotiations collapsed. For the US, an agreement on good terms would boost consumer and business confidence, and thus growth, while reducing inflationary risks from the tariffs.
The sequencing of a potential deal also matters. As matters stand, persistent uncertainty will lead the Fed to loosen its monetary policy one way or another. Suppose that Trump and Xi restart negotiations that then drag on until late fall or early winter of this year. The Fed would have to cut its policy rate by at least 50 basis points, after which point the Trump administration may agree to a deal. Because the impact of monetary easing takes time, the Fed would have to remain on hold until November 2020. (Even if the economy and inflation were to rebound, monetary policymakers would be hesitant to reverse course before the election, lest they appear to be acting politically.)
In this sequence, Trump’s re-election prospects would be doubly improved. The Fed would have locked in rate cuts as insurance, and a new agreement would have bolstered investor confidence and the stock market. But, of course, this could happen only by chance. Trump’s “art of the deal” does not involve such multistep, multidimensional thinking, after all.
As for China, an agreement would, at a minimum, prevent further damage to its economy, and particularly its tech sector. The government would secure a few more years with which to prepare for a longer-term conflict over trade, investment, artificial intelligence, 5G, and geopolitical dominance in Asia and beyond.
The Chinese tend to think long term, and they are well aware of the “Thucydides trap” – a self-fulfilling prophecy in which a hegemon and an emerging power end up at war. Still, they clearly need more time to prepare. A major short-term shock today would be hard for China to absorb, especially if it knocks the country’s national champions offline for the medium to long term.
And indeed, Trump now appears to be opening the door to a truce at the G20, tweeting that critical preparatory work for an extensive meeting with Xi will now begin. But that meeting may still fail, even if both sides pretend that a truce was reached. If there is no substance to the terms of an agreement at the G20 – only painted smiles and stiff handshakes – the subsequent negotiations may quickly fail and lead to a gradual escalation of the trade and tech war.
THUCYDIDES RETURNS
Unfortunately, an even more likely course of events is that the third scenario – a managed trade and tech war, which is my baseline of how the rivalry will evolve over the next few months – would then devolve into the second (a full-scale confrontation). A Sino-American trade and tech deal in the coming months is far from assured. The negotiations broke down in May as a result of substantial differences between the two sides. And now, the complex preparations needed to stage a successful Trump-Xi summit in Osaka are being rushed at the last moment, after six weeks were wasted with no contact.
Even if the Americans and Chinese can overcome differences in their negotiating style, the US will still want legislative commitments from China, and China will still view such demands as a violation of its national sovereignty. The Chinese are highly sensitive to anything resembling the imperial interference that weakened China in the nineteenth century. Like Trump, Xi cannot afford to lose face.
Moreover, as the war of words has escalated over the last month, the spillover of trade frictions into the technology domain has intensified. Once kept formally separate, the two issues are now inextricably intertwined, which will make a resolution even harder to achieve. The Chinese cannot agree to any deal that does not rescue Huawei, but now that Huawei has become a bargaining chip, national-security hawks in the Trump administration and Congress will force Trump to take a hard line on the company.
Each side seems to think that the other will blink first. For example, the US assumes it can inflict more economic pain on China than China is capable of returning, because US exports to China ($130 billion) are a fraction of China’s exports to the US ($560 billion). Hence, when it comes to tariffs, China seems to have more to lose.
Yet, as we have seen, the conflict is about much more than tariffs, and China can retaliate in a number of ways. In addition to imposing new non-tariff barriers, it can strike a blow against major US firms that rely on Chinese supply chains and consumer markets, while allowing the renminbi to weaken. And if tensions escalate too far, China could even resort to the nuclear option of dumping its massive holdings of US Treasuries; it has already started to reduce its holdings of such US assets.
Moreover, US leaders may be underestimating the costs of the conflict. According to the prevailing narrative, the tariffs now in place have had only a modest impact on US growth and inflation. But the latest economic data suggest otherwise, as the US and global economy are slowing. In fact, one reason why the Fed has started considering preemptive insurance rate cuts – likely to start in July – may be that it is worried that tariffs are hurting the US economy more than was initially anticipated.
Making matters worse, the US has nowhere near as many tools to respond to macroeconomic shocks as China does. In addition to massive stimulus and currency depreciation, China’s government can bail out private and public enterprises at will. The US, by contrast, must rely on traditional monetary and fiscal tools, all of which are already severely constrained. And while Trump must worry about re-election, Xi has abolished presidential term limits, faces few constraints on his power, and presides over a sprawling apparatus of social control, including the Great Firewall of online censorship.
THE ART OF “NO DEAL”
Politically, then, it is much easier for China to take the long view, which is what Xi has done by announcing a “new Long March” – a reference to the People’s Liberation Army’s long, painful retreat in the 1930s to a new stronghold in Shaanxi province, from which it broke out and took over all of China, under Mao Zedong, in 1949. By wrapping himself in the Chinese flag and fomenting nationalism at home, Xi is preparing Chinese society for a protracted struggle. If a full-scale cold war ensues, he will be able to remind the Chinese of the need to suffer today to achieve glory tomorrow.
In fact, it is possible that Xi actually wants a full-scale economic war as a means of damaging Trump’s re-election chances. A new Democratic president – even one who accepts the reality of a more contentious Sino-American rivalry – would almost certainly be a more constructive and honest broker for China to deal with. In the parlance of the foreign-policy establishment, Xi may see de facto escalation as the quickest route to regime change in the US.
Moreover, Xi is not an absolute ruler. While he controls most of the levers of power, there are still factions within the Communist Party of China (CPC) that could turn on him if he does not mount a sufficiently aggressive response to the US. He is not in a position to accept a deal in which he – or China – loses face or power. If America’s medium- to long-term goal is to contain China, as the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy clearly suggests, Xi cannot agree to anything in the short term that advances that agenda. In the grand scheme of things, it might be better to start a full-scale conflict now than to grant the US a tactical advantage for the next two years.
The danger is that Trump, too, would prefer a partial or full-scale trade and technology war to a weak deal. If Trump makes any notable concessions, he will be accused by both Democrats and right-wing pundits of appeasing China and betraying American blue-collar workers. Even if he can’t secure a favorable deal, at least he can say he remained tough. Among those who have Trump’s ear are national-security hawks – some of them modern-day Dr. Strangeloves – who believe that China is so fragile that an economic shock could precipitate a political collapse, and even regime change. This is a dangerous game to play, because it could lead to actions that turn a cold war into a hot war. The mere presence of such extreme voices in Trump’s orbit suggests that the administration’s intent is to contain China at any cost.
Worse, these hawks have the upper hand now that the “adults in the room” have long since departed. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Adviser John Bolton, acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, and Vice President Mike Pence all appear to be China hawks. And the situation is no better with respect to trade and economic advisers, where Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, White House Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, and Peter Navarro, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, have sidelined moderates such as Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin (who is unwilling to stand up to the president anyway).
SUMMIT SIGNALS
Where does that leave us? If both Xi and Trump find the third scenario attractive, neither will be willing to meet halfway on a deal. That makes the second scenario – a full-scale trade and technology war – the most likely outcome, given that a controlled escalation is inherently unstable.
As matters stand, the probability of a deal eventually being reached is low (my colleagues and I put it at just 25%). Still, we will know more after the G20 summit later this month. If Trump and Xi fail to broker a truce or a temporary agreement regarding Huawei, the US will probably follow through with 10% tariffs on the remaining $300 billion worth of Chinese exports. We will then be in the initial stages of the third scenario.
On the other hand, if Trump and Xi hold a friendly meeting and agree to a truce, the US will probably withhold new tariffs, and we will be in the early stages of the first scenario. This would make the probability of the two sides reaching a deal slightly higher. But a lurch to the third scenario – a precipitous escalation of the current confrontation – would still be more likely, followed eventually by a descent into a full-scale conflict. Where it will end is anyone’s guess, but an escalating trade and tech war is, in my view, more likely than an eventual deal.
- "Come Heavily Armed": Oregon Senator Threatens Violence As Governor Hunts Down Lawmakers
A standoff between Republican and Democratic Oregon state senators escalated on Friday after Governor Kate Brown (D) authorized state police to track down Republican lawmakers who have stalled a vote on carbon credit legislation by walking out and refusing to vote.
Under the proposed cap-and-trade bill, Oregon would put an overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions and auction off pollution “allowances” for each ton of carbon industries plan to emit. The legislation would lower that cap over time to encourage businesses to move away from fossil fuels: The state would reduce emissions to 45% below 1990 levels by 2035 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Those opposed to the cap-and-trade plan say it would exacerbate a growing divide between the liberal, urban parts of the state and the rural areas. The plan would increase the cost of fuel, damaging small business, truckers and the logging industry, they say. –ABC13
While Oregon Democrats have a rare 18 to 12 supermajority in the House and Senate, they cannot approve the bill without at least two Republicans present. After several days of heated debate between the two sides, eleven GOP members mutually agreed to boycott the vote.
“The Senate Democrats have requested the assistance of the Oregon State Police to bring back their colleagues to finish the work they committed to push forward,” Brown said on Thursday, adding “As the executive of the agency, I am authorizing the State Police to fulfill the Senate Democrats’ request.“
(Of note, Oregon House Democrats once fled the capitol in 2001 for five days over a redistricting proposal – which Brown said at the time was “appropriate under the circumstances.)
Sen. Brian Boquist (R) didn’t take too kindly to Brown’s threat – telling a reporter he was prepared for a bloody standoff if state troopers show up for him. Boquist had previously told Brown that “hell is coming to visit you personally” if she went forward with the threat.
“Send bachelors, and come heavily armed; I’m not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon, it’s just that simple,”
Oregon state senator @BrianBoquistGOP said if R’s walk out to stop a vote on Cap and Trade and @OregonGovBrown sends state police to bring him back, they should be single and well armed. Your take? pic.twitter.com/Fcu8NXXl8h
— Pat Dooris (@PatDooris) June 19, 2019
Meanwhile, Oregon’s Senate President Peter Courtney’s office told ABC13 that each missing Senator was hit with a $500 fine on Friday, which would continue daily until they vote on the legislation.
Republicans immediately pushed back.
“We will file legal action,” said Sen. Tim Knopp, a Republican from Bend who has said he has been in three states in the past three days. “If they were trying to bring us back, threatening to arrest us and impose fines isn’t going to work.”
Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick said Republicans have no legal recourse as the fine is explicitly written in statute. A GoFundMe to cover the rogue lawmakers’ expenses and fines raised nearly $30,000 in less than a day. State ethics laws prohibit officials from receiving gifts exceeding $50, so it’s unclear whether senators could access the money. –ABC13
State police, meanwhile, will have the ability to track down senators and force them into a patrol car to return to the capitol, though the agency promises to use “polite communication” and patience throughout the process.
If Boquist starts shooting, we imagine that could change rapidly.
- U.S. College Grads Are In For An Unpleasant Surprise
U.S. college students currently working on their degree are in for an unpleasant surprise when negotiating their first salaries.
That’s because, as Statista’s Felix Richter details, according to a new study conducted by Clever, undergraduate students in the United States are overestimating what they’re worth by a varying degree, depending on the major. Comparing average expected salaries to median actual salaries as reported in PayScale’s College Salary Report, Clever reveals which majors are particularly prone to unrealistic expectations.
“Bushy-tailed and bright-eyed, the average Generation Z undergraduate expects to make $57,964 one year out of college, while the national median salary is $47,000 for recent grads with bachelor degrees who have between zero and five years of on-the-job experience,” Clever writes, concluding that many students have “seriously unrealistic” expectations for their early career salaries.
You will find more infographics at Statista
As the chart above shows, Business majors are in for the rudest awakening, overestimating their early career salary by almost $15,000 a year.
At the other end of the spectrum, Computer Science majors are in for a pleasant surprise when they enter the working world: according to Clever’s findings, they are underestimating their earnings potential by nearly $10,000.
- Global Warming, Carbon Dioxide, And The Solar Minimum
Authored by Renee Parsons via Off-Guardian.org,
Since Climate Change (CC) has been a constant of life on Gaia with the evolution of photosynthesis 3.2 billion years ago and has more complexities than this one essay can address; ergo, this article will explore co2’s historic contribution to global warming (GW) as well as explore the relationship of Solar Minimum(SM) to Earth’s climate.
Even before the UN-initiated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formed in 1988, the common assumption was that carbon dioxide was thekey greenhouse gas and that its increases were the driving force solely responsible for rising climate temperatures.
At that time, anthropogenic (human caused) GW was declared to be the existential crisis of our time, that the science was settled and that we, as a civilization, were running out of time.
And yet, in the intervening years, uncertainty remained about GW’s real time impacts which may be rooted in the fact that many of IPCC’sessential climate forecasts of consequence have not materializedas predicted. Even as the staid Economist magazine recently noted:
Over the past fifteen years, air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse gas emissions have continued to soar.”
Before the IPCC formed, NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii registered co2 levelsat under 350 ppm (parts per million) with the explicit warning that if co2 exceeded that number, Mother Earth was in Big Trouble – and there would be no turning back for humanity. Those alarm bells continue today as co2 levels have risen to 414 ppm as temperatures peaked in 1998.
From the outset, the IPCC controlled the debate by limiting its charter…
to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
In other words, before any of the science had been done, the IPCC’s assumption was that man-made activity was responsible and that Nature was not an active participant in a process within its own sphere of interest.
As an interdisciplinary topic of multiple diversity, the IPCC is not an authority on all the disciplines of science within the CC domain.
While there is no dispute among scientists that the Sun and its cyclical output is the true external force driving Earth’s energy and climate system as part of a Sun-centered Universe, the IPCC’s exclusion of the Sun from its consideration can only be seen as a deliberate thwarting of a basic fundamental law of science, a process which assures a free inquiry based on reason and evidence.
It is the Sun which all planets of the solar system orbit around, that has the strongest gravitational pull in the solar system, is the heaviest of all celestial bodies and its sunspots in relation to Earth’s temperatures has been known since Galileo began drawing sunspots in 1613.
Yet the IPCC which touts a ‘scientific view of climate change’would have us believe the Sun is irrelevant and immaterial to the IPCC’s world view and Earth’s climate; hardly a blip on their radar.
In the GW debate, co2 is dismissed as a colorless, odorless pollutant that gets little credit as a critical component for its contribution to life on the planet as photosynthesis does not happen without co2. A constant presence in Earth’s atmosphere since the production of oxygen, all living organisms depend on co2 for its existence.
As a net contributor to agriculture, plants absorb co2 as they release oxygen into the atmosphere that we two- and four-leggeds depend on for sustenance and oxygen as necessities for survival on Earth.
There are scientists who believe that Earth has been in a co2 ‘famine’ while others applaud Earth’s higher co2 levels in the last three decades as a regreening of the planet.
While An Inconvenient Truth (2006) and An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power (2016) stage managed the climate question as a thoroughly politicized ‘settled science’ with former veep Al Gore declaring the drama a ‘moral’ issue, there is no room for any preference that does not depend on a rigorous, skeptical, independent investigation based on evidentiary facts rather than the partisan politics of emotion and subjective opinion.
Given the prevalence of weather in our daily lives, it would seem elementary for engaged citizens and budding paleoclimatologists to understand Earth’s ancient climate history and atmospherein order to gain an informed perspective on Earth’s current and future climate.
As a complicated non-linearsystem, climate is a variable compositionof rhythmic spontaneity with erratic and even chaotic fluctuations making weather predictions near-impossible.
Climate is an average of weather systems over an established long term period while individual weather events indicative of a short term trend are not accurate forecasts of CC. While ice core readings provide information, they do not show causation of GW but only measure the ratio between co2 and rising temperatures. It is up to scientists to interpret the results. And that’s where this narrative takes, like ancient weather and climate patterns, an unpredictable turn.
It might be called an inconvenient truth that ‘skeptic’ scientists have known for the last twenty years that the Vostok ice core samples refute co2’s role as a negative and even question its contribution as the major greenhouse gas.
It is no secret to many climate professionals that water vapor with co2at 3.6%.
Located at the center of the Antarctica ice sheet, the Vostok Research Center is a collaborative effort where Russian and French scientists collected undisturbed ice core data in the 1990s to measure the historic presence of carbon dioxide levels.
The Vostoksamples provided the first irrefutable evidence of Earth’s climate history for 420,000 year including the existence of four previous glacial and interglacial periods.
Those samples ultimately challenged the earlier premise of co2’s predominant role and that carbon dioxide was not the climate culprit once thought. It is fair to add that IPCC related scientists believe Vostok to be ‘outliers’ in the GW debate.
The single most significant revelation of the ice core studies has been that GW could not be solely attributed to co2 since carbon dioxide increases occurred aftertemperature increases and that an extensive ‘lag’ time exists between the two.
Logic and clear thinking demands that cause (co2) precedes the effect (increased temps) is in direct contradiction to the assertion that carbon dioxide has been responsible for pushing higher global temperatures. Just as today’s 414 ppm precedes current temps which remain within the range of normal variability.
Numerouspeer-reviewedstudies confirmed that co2 lags behind temperature increases, originally by as much as 800 years.
That figure was later increased to 8,000 years and by 2017 the lag timebetween co2 and temperature had been identified as 14,000 years. As if a puzzlement from the Quantum world, it is accepted that CO2 and temperatures are correlated as they rise and fall together, yet are separated by a lag time of thousands of years.
What is obscure from public awareness in the GW shuffle is that geologic records have identified CC as a naturally occurring cyclewith glacial periods of 100,000 year intervals that are interrupted by brief, warming interglacial periods lasting 15,000-20,000 years.
Those interglacial periods act as a temperate respite from what is the world’s natural normal Ice Age environment. Within those glacial and interglacial periods are cyclical subsets of global cooling and warming just as today’s interglacial warm period began at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age about 12,000 years ago. Since climate is not a constant, check these recent examples of Earth’s climate subsets:
200 BC – 600 AD: Roman warming cycle
440 AD – 950 AD: Dark Ages cool cycle
950 AD – 1300 AD: Medieval warming cycle
1300 AD – 1850 AD: Renaissance Little Ice Age
1850 – Present: Modern warming cycle
In addition, climate records have shown that peak co2 temperatures from the past are relative to today’s co2 level without the addition of a fossil fuelcontribution. For instance, just as today’s measurement at 414 ppm contains a ‘base’ co2 level of approximately 300 ppm as recorded in the 19th century, any co2 accumulation over 300 ppm would be considered anthropogenic (man-made) and be portrayed as “historic” or ‘alarmingly high’ and yet remain statistically insignificant compared to historic co2 norms.
During the last 600 million years, only the Carboniferous period and today’s Holocene Epoch each witnessed co2 levels at less than 400 ppm.
During the Early Carboniferous Period, co2 was at 1500 ppm with average temperatures comparable to 20 C; 68 F before diving to 350 ppm during the Mid Carboniferous period with a reduced temperature of 12 C;54F. In other words, current man-made contributions to co2 are less than what has been determined to be significant.
Contrary to the IPCC’s stated goal, NASA recognizes that “All weather on Earth, from the surface of the planet into space, begins with the Sun” and that weather experienced on Earth’s surface is “influenced by the small changes the Sun undergoes during its solar cycle.”
A Solar Minimum(SM) is a periodic 11 year solar cycle normally manifesting a weak magnetic field with increased radiation and cosmic rays while exhibiting decreased sunspot activity that, in turn, decreases planetary temperatures.
Today’s solar cycle is referred to as the Grand Minimum which, according to NOAA, predicts reductions from the typical 140 – 220 sunspots per solar cycle to 95 – 130 sunspots.
As the Sun is entering “one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age,” a NASA scientist predicted a SM that could ”set a Space Age record for cold” but has recently clarified his statement as it applies only to the Thermosphere.
In October 2018, NOAA predicted “Winter Outlook favors Warmer Temperaturefor much of the US,” as above-normal precipitation and record freezing temperatures were experienced throughout the country.
As of this writing, with the Sun noticeably intense, Earth has experienced 22 consecutive dayswithout sunspots for a 2019 total of 95 spotless days at 59%.
In 2018, 221 days were spotless at 61%. Spaceweather.com monitors sunspot (in)activity.
With the usual IPCC and Non-IPCCsplit, the SM is expected to be at its lowest by 2020 with a peak between 2023 and 2026 as it exhibits counterintuitive erratic weather anomalies including cooler temps due to increased cloud cover, higher temps due to solar sunspot-free brilliance, potential electrical events, heavy rain and flooding and drought, a shorter growing season, impacts on agriculture and food production systems or it may all be a walk in the park with shirt sleeves in January.
While there is clearly an important climate shift occurring even as the role of co2 and human activity as responsible entities remains problematic, the elimination of co2 and its methane sidekick would be exceedingly beneficial for a healthy planet. It is time to allow scientists to be scientists without political agendas or bureaucratic interference as the Sun and Mother Earth continue in their orbit as they have for eons of millennia.
As Earth’s evolutionary climate cycles observe the Universal law of the natural world, the Zero Point Field, which produces an inexhaustible source of ‘free’ energy that Nikola Tesla spoke of, is the means by which inter stellar vehicles travel through time/space. The challenge for ingenious, motivated Earthlings is to harness and extract the ZPF proclaiming a new planetary age of technological innovation with no rapacious industry, no pollution, no shortages, no gas guzzlers and no war.
- Border Patrol Holding Contest For Robotic Tech Used In Underground Smuggling Tunnels
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has put out the call for companies to provide robotic surveillance and technology that can map out underground tunnels and report on structures, contents, threats and obstacles along the southern border.
“DHS S&T is interested in evaluating robotic communication capabilities to characterize underground structures, contents, threats and obstacles along the U.S. southern border,” reads the Request for Information (RFI). “These environments range in size and shape, but are all characterized by lack of GPS-signal, short distance—less than 50 meters—line of sight, and a variety of building materials.”
In order to test out potential technologies, the DHS Science and Technology Directorate is hosting invite-only field trials in Arizona to be held in August of this year.
The government is interested in the following capabilities:
DHS will award cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) following the August demonstrations.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...