Scientists: Weak Ocean Circulation Could Signify Incoming Mini Ice Age

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

A weak circulation of ocean waters in the North Atlantic could signify that a mini ice age is just around the corner.  Scientists have discovered the weakening currents look similar to those that happened right before the Little Ice Age, a cold spell observed between about 1600 and 1850 AD.

During the Little Ice Age, the Baltic Sea, along with many of the lakes and rivers in Europe froze over. And new and recent studies are showing that the currents in the North Atlantic ocean are at their lowest in 1,500 years

Researchers studied the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the branch of the North Atlantic circulation that brings warm surface water toward the Arctic and cold deep water toward the equator.

The research, co-led by Dr. Christelle Not and Dr. Benoit Thibodeau from the Department of Earth Sciences and the Swire Institute of Marine Science, The University of Hong Kong, is interpreted to be a direct consequence of global warming and associated melt of the Greenland Ice-Sheet.

Slower circulation in the North Atlantic can yield profound change on both the North American and European climate but also on the African and Asian summer monsoon rainfall.The Daily Mail

Scientists are about to blame a mini ice age on global warming climate change.

“The discovery of this new record of AMOC will enhance our understanding of its drivers and ultimately help us better comprehend potential near-future change under global warming,” said Dr. Thibodeau. 

“While we could ground-truth our temperature reconstruction for the 20th century against instrumental measurement it is not possible to do so for the Little Ice Age period, added Not. “Therefore, we need to conduct more analysis to consolidate this hypothesis.”

This weakening in the current is still vigorously debated because of the scarcity of long-term record of the AMOC.

To read the entire press release, please click here.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2AFH6qJ Tyler Durden

Hospital Suggests Woman Refused Heart Transplant Raise Money On GoFundMe

A Michigan woman who was rejected for a heart transplant by an area hospital because she couldn’t afford the after care has raised more than $30,000 on GoFundMe after her story went viral.

GoFundMe

Shortly before Thanksgiving, 60-year-old Hedda Martin received a letter from the Spectrum Health Richard DeVos Heart and Lung Transplant Center recommending that she undertake a “fundraising effort” to raise $10,000 needed to pay for the immunosuppressive drugs necessary to ensure that her body accepts the new heart. After Martin shared it on Facebook, a copy of the letter was posted to Twitter, where it was swiftly picked up by Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others.

According to her GoFundMe page, Martin developed congestive heart failure following aggressive chemotherapy treatments for breast cancer back in 2005. The $10,000 recommended by the hospital would cover 20% of her copays for the treatment.

“The transplant team does not want to ‘waste’ a vital organ if she cannot afford heart rejection drugs. Understandably,” Martin’s son wrote on her GoFundMe page. “However, they are not even willing to put her on the list knowing it would still give her time to raise money over a year or so through family”

In statement to Splinter, the hospital acknowledged that ability to pay is a factor when determining who receives potentially life saving transplants.

“While it is always upsetting when we cannot provide a transplant, we have an obligation to ensure that transplants are successful and that donor organs will remain viable. We thoughtfully review candidates for heart and lung transplant procedures with care and compassion, and these are often highly complex, difficult decisions,” the organization said. “While our primary focus is the medical needs of the patient, the fact is that transplants require lifelong care and immunosuppression drugs, and therefore costs are sometimes a regrettable and unavoidable factor in the decision-making process.”

Martin’s GoFundMe Page had raised over $30,000 as of this evening…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KKGeWk Tyler Durden

G20 Summit, Top Agenda Item: Bye-Bye American Empire

Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The G20 summits are nominally about how the world’s biggest national economies can cooperate to boost global growth. This year’s gathering – more than ever – shows, however, that rivalry between the US and China is center stage.

Zeroing in further still, the rivalry is an expression of a washed-up American empire desperately trying to reclaim its former power. There is much sound, fury and pretense from the outgoing hegemon – the US – but the ineluctable reality is an empire whose halcyon days are a bygone era.

Ahead of the summit taking place this weekend in Argentina, the Trump administration has been issuing furious ultimatums to China to “change its behavior”. Washington is threatening an escalating trade war if Beijing does not conform to American demands over economic policies.

President Trump has taken long-simmering US complaints about China to boiling point, castigating Beijing for unfair trade, currency manipulation, and theft of intellectual property rights. China rejects this pejorative American characterization of its economic practices.

Nevertheless, if Beijing does not comply with US diktats then the Trump administration says it will slap increasing tariffs on Chinese exports.

The gravity of the situation was highlighted by the comments this week of China’s ambassador to the US, Cui Tiankai, who warned that the “lessons of history” show trade wars can lead to catastrophic shooting wars. He urged the Trump administration to be reasonable and to seek a negotiated settlement of disputes.

The problem is that Washington is demanding the impossible. It’s like as if the US wants China to turn the clock back to some imagined former era of robust American capitalism. But it is not in China’s power to do that. The global economy has shifted structurally away from US dominance. The wheels of production and growth are in China’s domain of Eurasia.

For decades, China functioned as a giant market for cheap production of basic consumer goods. Now under President Xi Jinping, the nation is moving to a new phase of development involving sophisticated technologies, high-quality manufacture, and investment.

It’s an economic evolution that the world has seen before, in Europe, the US and now Eurasia. In the decades after the Second World War, up to the 1970s, it was US capitalism that was the undisputed world leader. Combined with its military power, the postwar global order was defined and shaped by Washington. Sometimes misleading called Pax Americana, there was nothing peaceful about the US-led global order. It was more often an order of relative stability purchased by massive acts of violence and repressive regimes under Washington’s tutelage.

In American mythology, it does not have an empire. The US was supposed to be different from the old European colonial powers, leading the rest of the world through its “exceptional” virtues of freedom, democracy and rule of law. In truth, US global dominance relied on the application of ruthless imperial power.

The curious thing about capitalism is it always outgrows its national base. Markets eventually become too small and the search for profits is insatiable. American capital soon found more lucrative opportunities in the emerging market of China. From the 1980s on, US corporations bailed out of America and set up shop in China, exploiting cheap labor and exporting their goods back to increasingly underemployed America consumers. The arrangement was propped up partly because of seemingly endless consumer debt.

That’s not the whole picture of course. China has innovated and developed independently from American capital. It is debatable whether China is an example of state-led capitalism or socialism. The Chinese authorities would claim to subscribe to the latter. In any case, China’s economic development has transformed the entire Eurasian hemisphere. Whether you like it or not, Beijing is the dynamo for the global economy. One indicator is how nations across Asia-Pacific are deferring to China for their future growth.

Washington likes to huff and puff about alleged Chinese expansionism “threatening” US allies in Asia-Pacific. But the reality is that Washington is living in the past of former glory. Trading blocs like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) realize their bread is buttered by China, no longer America. Washington’s rhetoric about “standing up to China” is just that – empty rhetoric. It doesn’t mean much to countries led by their interests of economic development and the benefits of Chinese investment.

One example is Taiwan. In contrast to Washington’s shibboleths about “free Taiwan”, more and more Asian countries are dialing down their bilateral links with Taiwan in deference to China’s position, which views the island as a renegade province. The US position is one of rhetoric, whereas the relations of other countries are based on material economic exigencies. And respecting Beijing’s sensibilities is for them a prudent option.

A recent report by the New York Times starkly illustrated the changing contours of the global economic order. It confirmed what many others have observed, that China is on the way to surpass the US as the world’s top economy. During the 1980s, some 75 per cent of China’s population were living in “extreme poverty”, according to the NY Times. Today, less than 1 per cent of the population is in that dire category. For the US, the trajectory has been in reverse with greater numbers of its people subject to deprivation.

China’s strategic economic plans – the One Belt One Road initiative – of integrating regional development under its leadership and finance have already created a world order analogous to what American capital achieved in the postwar decades.

American pundits and politicians like Vice President Mike Pence may disparage China’s economic policies as creating “debt traps” for other countries. But the reality is that other countries are gravitating to China’s dynamic leadership.

Arguably, Beijing’s vision for economic development is more enlightened and sustainable than what was provided by the Americans and Europeans before. The leitmotif for China, along with Russia, is very much one of multipolar development and mutual partnership. The global economy is not simply moving from one hegemon – the US – to another imperial taskmaster – China.

One thing seems inescapable. The days of American empire are over. Its capitalist vigor has dissipated decades ago. What the upheaval and rancor in relations between Washington and Beijing is all about is the American ruling class trying to recreate some fantasy of former vitality. Washington wants China to sacrifice its own development in order to somehow rejuvenate American society. It’s not going to happen.

That’s not to say that American society can never be rejuvenated. It could, as it could also in Europe. But that would entail a restructuring of the economic system involving democratic regeneration. The “good old days” of capitalism are gone. The American empire, as with the European empires, is obsolete.

That’s the unspoken Number One agenda item at the G20 summit. Bye-bye US empire.

What America needs to do is regenerate through a reinvented social economic order, one that is driven by democratic development and not the capitalist private profit of an elite few.

If not, the futile alternative is US failing political leaders trying to coerce China, and others, to pay for their future. That way leads to war. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2rgEzil Tyler Durden

Hong Kong Home Market Headed For Big Correction 

Back in October, Hong Kong’s housing market suffered its first decline in 29 months only days after HSBC became the first commercial bank to raise its prime lending rate, taking a hint from the Federal Reserve and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority in ending a decade of cheap money.

In that time, Hong Kong retained the world’s hottest housing market, but there is new evidence now of an immient slowdown. 

New-home sales this month have tumbled to levels not seen since 1Q 2016, according to Midland Realty data.

Meanwhile, home prices have fallen for two straight months, the longest losing streak since 2016, according to the Centa-City Leading Index.

Bloomberg said other reports showed deteriorating sales at Country Garden, the 6th largest property developer in China, is fueling speculation that the world’s most expensive housing market is headed for a deep correction. 

Last week, home prices experienced the largest decline since March 2016, falling 1.3% week-on-week, the data showed. 

From August’s peak, home prices have dipped about 5%.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. has forecasted a 15 to 20% correction into 2020, as the Hong Kong Monetary Authority is expected to raise rates in tandem with the Fed, according to a research report released Monday.

Here are some more signs the storm clouds are gathering over the Hong Kong housing market:

Mortgage applications recorded the most significant month-on-month drop in 20 years in September, according to Centaline Mortgage Broker Ltd. The number of applications slid 56% to 7,977, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority reported.

The number of transactions for luxury homes is now the worst on record. 

Hong Kong has for decades been one of the most stable places in the world, however, with one interest rate hike and the threat of an imploding real estate market in 2019, it seems like regime change is imminent. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2FSBUpj Tyler Durden

America Needs A New National Strategy

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

A productive national Strategy would systemically decentralize power and capital rather than concentrate both in the hands of a self-serving elite.

If you ask America’s well-paid punditry to define America’s National Strategy, you’ll most likely get the UNESCO version: America’s national strategy is to support a Liberal Global Order (LGO) of global cooperation on the environment, trade, etc. and the encouragement of democracy, a liberal order that benefits all by providing global security and avenues for cooperation.

This sounds good, but it overlooks the Endless Wars ™ and global meddling that characterize America’s realpolitik dependence on force, which it applies with a ruthlessness born of America’s peculiar marriage of exceptionalism and naivete.

The happy UNESCO story also overlooks the rapacious incoherence of America’s political system which is ultimately nothing but the Corporatocracy’s advocacy of self-interest. This sytem is based on the bizarre notion that private-sector corporations with revolving-doors to central state agencies lobbying for state protection of their monopolies will magically benefit the entire populace.

This absurd idea that the single-minded pursuit of maximizing private gain by any means available will magically benefit society is the essence of neofeudalism: the financial and political nobility maximize their take and justify this exploitation with airy assurances to the politically impotent debt-serfs that this systemic predation magically offers up the best possible outcome for the peasantry.

Uh, not to put too fine a point on it, but if this is the best possible world for America’s peasantry, let’s switch places, Mr. Financial Noble: you take my student loan debt and $30,000 a year job and I’ll take your $100 million private-wealth managed accounts in tax havens around the world, your private access to politicos and the Gulfstream on the tarmac.

The no-holds-barred pursuit of self-enrichment by the Nobility is America’s real-world national strategy: a system of institutionalized greed lacking any actual strategy.

America’s citizenry deserves better, and the place to start is to discuss a real strategy rather than justify self-serving elites’ parasitic predation as “good for everyone” via PR magic.

Let’s start by distinguishing force and power. This is a key discussion in my new book Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic.

It’s instructive to recall Edward Luttwak’s distinction between force and power in his book The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century CE to the Third where he defines force as a mechanical input (expense) that doesn’t scale; it takes a lot of people, effort and treasure to force others to comply with authoritarian edicts.

Power, on the other hand, reflects the total output of the nation-state: its productive capacity, resources, human and financial capital, social mobility and cohesiveness, shared purpose–everything. Technocrats take their authority to force compliance as power, but real power attracts cooperation; it has little need for force.

Brute-force diktats to maintain a surface stability of order only increase the brittleness and fragility of the system. This is the false promise of authority: we can force stability by forcing compliance. But sustainable stability is the output of adaptability, i.e. productive disorder, not force.

A national strategy that truly benefits all the citizenry starts with a simple principle: offer a secure level playing field for innovators, innovation and capital, and let that power attract opt-in cooperation of the most productive elements on the planet.

Simple principle #2: relinquish force and seek power, as defined above. In plain language: stop trying to run the world. Lead by example: there is no way authoritarian regimes can match the output of productive people and capital who are offered a low-cost entry to a secure level playing field free of parasitic predatory elites.

Simple principle #3: define American exceptionalism as the systemic elimination of the neofeudal dominance of financial and political elites (the New Nobility). The structure to do this is simple: A productive National Strategy would systemically decentralize power and capital rather than concentrate both in the hands of a self-serving elite.

*  *  *

My new book on these topics is available at a 28% discount for the ebook and 23% discount for the print edition through November 30 ($4.95 ebook, $9.95 print). Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF). My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new book Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic is 23% off ($4.95 ebook, $9.95 print): Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KLIgVX Tyler Durden

Luxury Housing Bust – Chicago’s Most Expensive Mansion Taken Off Market

Chicago’s most expensive mansion was abruptly taken off the market last week after failing to attract bidders at a staggering $50 million price tag.

United Automobile Insurance Co. Chairman and CEO Richard Parrillo and his wife, Michaela, constructed the 25,000 sqft Lincoln Park mansion a decade ago, after buying the property in 2005 for $12.5 million from the Infant Welfare Society.

After two years on the market, Parrillo and his wife held firm at $50 million, a record for the region, their original listing agent told the Chicago Tribune. The agent said the couple plowed more than $65 million into the estate, including land cost.

Listing information shows the mansion measures 25,000 sqft, which simple arithmetic would mean a cost of $2,000 per sqft. However, Cook County Assessor’s Office reports that the structure is more like 15,533 sqft. The report also shows how the mansion’s $50 million asking price is hugely overinflated versus 2018 estimated market value, which is $19.36 million. The report notes the 2018 property value is significantly higher from the assessor’s $13.98 million estimated market value for the mansion in 2017, due to a quick burst in high-end home sales in the last several years, but has since cooled.

With the Parrillos’ mansion off the market, Pete’s Fresh Market co-founder and owner James Dremonas’ $21.9 million asking price for a 13,400 sqft North Dearborn Street mansion on the Near North Side, is now the most expensive listing for any suburban home currently on the Chicago market.

More than likely, Parrillos and Dremonas have missed the window of opportunity to sell their luxury homes for the cycle. 

We have well documented the luxury Manhattan condo bust, Greenwich Homes sales plunge, Hamptons real estate downturn, Miami beach home implosion, Aspen mountain home crash, and the West Coast luxury market falling apart over the last several years.

Turning points in the real estate market take time, but as we find out this fall, the top is here:  Bank of America rang the proverbial bell on the US real estate market back in September, indicating that existing home sales have peaked, reflecting declining affordability, greater price reductions and deteriorating housing sentiment.

Chief BofA economist Michelle Meyer warned that “the housing market is no longer a tailwind for the economy but rather a headwind. Today’s crash in new home sales – which tumbled the most Y/Y in 7 years – only confirmed that.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2rgCrqO Tyler Durden

Dershowitz: Provoking New Crimes Rather Than Uncovering Past Crimes Is Mueller’s M.O.

Authored by Alan Dershowitz via The Gatestone Institute,

The recent guilty plea of Michael Cohen of lying represents the dominant trend in Mueller’s approach to prosecution. The vast majority of indictments and guilty pleas obtained against Americans by Mueller have not been for substantive crimes relating to his mandate: namely, to uncover crimes involving illegal contacts with Russia. They have involved indictments and guilty pleas either for lying, or for financial crimes by individuals unrelated to the Russia probe. If this remains true after the filing of the Mueller report, it would represent a significant failure on Mueller’s part.

Mueller was appointed Special Counsel not to provoke individuals into committing new crimes, but rather to uncover past crimes specifically involving alleged illegal coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. No one doubted that Russia attempted to influence the 2020 election in favor of Donald Trump and against Hillary Clinton. But Mueller’s mandate was not to prosecute Russians or to point the finger at Vladimir Putin. His mandate was to uncover crimes committed by the Trump campaign with regard to Russia’s attempts to influence the election.

It was always an uphill struggle for Mueller, since collusion itself is not a crime. In other words, even if he could show that individuals in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russian agents to help elect Trump, that would be a serious political sin, but not a federal crime. Even if Mueller could prove that members of the Trump team had colluded with Julian Assange to use material that Assange had unlawfully obtained, that, too, would not be a crime. What would be a crime is something that no one claims happened: namely, that members of the Trump campaign told Assange to hack the Democratic National Committee beforeAssange did so. Merely using the product of an already committed theft of information is not a crime. If you don’t believe me, ask the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and other newspapers that used material illegally obtained by Assange with full knowledge that it was illegally obtained. Not only did they use information from Assange, but also from Chelsea Manning and from the stolen Pentagon Papers. The First Amendment protects publication by the media of stolen information. It also protects use of such information by a political campaign, since political campaigns are also covered by the First Amendment.

It is important to note that Special Counsel Robert Mueller does not have a roving commission to ferret out political sin, to provoke new crimes, or to publish non-criminal conclusions that may be embarrassing to the President. His mandate, like that of every other prosecutor, is to uncover past crimes. In Mueller’s case those crimes must relate to Russia. He also has the authority to prosecute crimes growing out of the Russia probe, but that is collateral to his central mission. In the end, Mueller should be judged by how successful he has been in satisfying his central mission. Judged by that standard and based on what we now know, he seems to be an abysmal failure.

Perhaps more will come out when his report is published, but it is unlikely that he uncovered anything dramatically new with regard to allegations that the Trump campaign acted illegally in an attempt to help Russia undercut Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Even if the report alleges uncharged criminal behavior, it must be remembered that much of what will be in the report are merely allegations based on uncross-examined evidence. Some of that evidence seems to come from admitted liars, who have pleaded guilty for lying. These liars would make poor witnesses in an actual trial, but if their evidence serves as a basis for conclusions reached in the Mueller report, then these conclusions may seem more credible than they actually are. We must, of course, wait for the publication of the Mueller report before reaching any final judgments, but if the Mueller report merely catalogues all the guilty pleas and indictments achieved thus far for lying and unrelated financial crimes, and tries to build a case of guilt by association around them, the American public will be justly critical of the process.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2QqgUKC Tyler Durden

Cabinet ‘Alliance’ Working On Secret Plan For ‘Super Norway’ Brexit Alternative: Telegraph

With Theresa May out of town for the G-20 summit in Buenos Aires, eight of May’s senior cabinet ministers are reportedly working behind her back to undermine her draft deal, or at the very least hammer out an alternative proposal that they can bring to the EU once the current plan – which at least 100 members of her party have said they would oppose – is inevitably voted down.

May

According to the Telegraph, the talks are focusing on a forging a Norway-style “plan B” if the Prime Minister’s deal is voted down. This follows reports from earlier in the week that an “alliance of Tory cabinet members and EU ministers are secretly working behind the scenes to prepare a back up plan. With the deal’s future in doubt, a growing number of Tories have taken to endorsing what they have called the “Super Norway” plan (for more detail and context, see our latest Brexit guide).

A cross-Brexit alliance of ministers – equivalent to almost a third of the Cabinet – has held discussions about joining the European Free Trade Association amid concern there is “zero chance” of the Prime Minister’s deal surviving.

Last week four ministers – Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General and Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary – were briefed on the plans.

Amber Rudd, the Work and Pensions Secretary, Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, Greg Clark, the Business Secretary, David Gauke, the Justice Secretary, have also privately expressed support for Norway.

While EU officials like European Council President Donald Tusk and Commission President Jean Claude Juncker have insisted that the current deal is the only option and that negotiations will not be reopened, at the end of the day, the Europeans don’t have as much leverage as they would like because as we pointed out this week, while a ‘no deal’ Brexit would be ‘bad’ for the UK, it would be catastrophic for the EU.

This unassailable fact is perhaps the only clear theme that has emerged from the chaotic negotiations of the past three months. Adding to the secret plan’s chances of survival, it reportedly has the backing of Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis, who has privately expressed his support. The first stirrings of the plan emerged a few weeks ago after Theresa May’s first tumultuous week of trying to sell the draft deal nearly ended in a ‘no confidence’ vote. At the time, several of her key cabinet ministers agreed to stay on, reportedly so they could work on winning a better deal from the inside.

As a reminder, here’s what a ‘Super Norway’ trade agreement might look like (courtesy of Capital Economics):

Norwary

Over this past week, anonymously sourced media reports have claimed that May is considering holding a “meaningful vote”, which would allow MPs to propose amendments to her plan, then vote on which amendments they’d like to keep.

In another example of the irony that has at times characterized the political farce that is the Brexit talks, Theresa May opposes “Super Norway” because she feels it wouldn’t end free movement of people, and hence wouldn’t fulfill the popular mandate delivered in the June 2016 Brexit vote. And so the prime minister who has so often been accused of being a closet remainer is now insisting that tight immigration controls be part of any final deal.

Speaking to reporters on the flight to Buenos Aires, she said: “At the beginning of the negotiations with the EU, there were two options on the table, one was Norway and one was a Canada-style free trade agreement.”

“The EU said there was nothing else available, but what you see in the [Brexit deal] is…a more ambitious free trade agreement than Canada, that ends free movement which Norway doesn’t do. So this is the deal that is right for the UK.”

But there’s one factor of the Norway plan that May, nor the EU, would be able to argue with: The fact that it enjoys broad support not just among the Tories, but from Labour rebels, the DUP and the SNP.

However Cabinet ministers backing the Norway option believe it can win the support of more than 70 Labour rebels, the DUP and even the SNP. “It’s the only realistic alternative,” one minister said.

“This is about coalescing around something that will avoid a no-deal Brexit. Mr Hammond earlier this week refused to rule out the Norway option.”

Asked about whether the Government has a “plan B”, he said: “We will be in uncharted political territory. We will then have to sit down as a government and decide where to go on the basis of the vote.”

Asked about a Norway-style deal, Mr Hammond did not rule it out: ‘We will have to look at the decision Parliament has made and consider what is the best way to proceed.”

Under the Norway scenario the UK would retain access to the Single Market after Brexit but be forced to accept continued free movement. The Prime Minister has been clear that this represents a red line for her.

But as Deutsche Bank pointed out earlier this month, negotiations involving the EU often go down to the wire. At this point, both May and Michel Barnier, the EU’s lead negotiator, know the deal, as it stands, will never work. Which reinforces our other major point about Brexit: That everything that happens between now and the day the deal is finally passed and accepted by the EU is pure political theater.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Q2IA8O Tyler Durden

Mercer: Liberals Want America To Go Borderless

Authored by Ilana Mercer via The Unz Review,

That’s the law. Nothing can be done about it.

And that’s the liberal reaction to any rational action to stop the stampede of uneducated, unruly, fractious, antagonistic masses toward and over the U.S. southern border. Liberals call law-enforcement unlawful. Or, they shoehorn the act of holding the line into the unlawful category.

Prevent uninvited masses from entering the country: Unlawful.

Tear gas marauding migrants for stoning Border Patrol personnel: Illegal, immoral, possibly even criminal.

Illegal. Unconstitutional. Immoral. Un-American. These are some of the refrains deployed by wily pitchmen, Democrats and some Republicans, to stigmatize and end any action to stop, disincentivize and summarily deport caravans of grifters, bound for the U.S. in their thousands.

Our avatars of morality and legality seldom cite legal chapter-and-verse in support of their case for an immigration free-for-all.

To go by the law, as professed by the liberal cognoscenti, claims-makers must be allowed to make their claims.

Could the cuddly treatment mandated be predicated on the Christine Blasey Fordstandard? Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser claimed she had A Story to tell. So, the country had to hear her tell it. A compelling standard.

That’s what happens when feelings and fancy replace reason and facts.

No wonder the noise-makers are drowning-out the authentic claims-makers in society. Against the sainted noise-makers on the border all laws appear to be null and void or tantamount to torture

The Left is creating reality on the ground, all right. But the prime real estate liberals hope to colonize is in every American’s head.

Ruffians are breaching the U.S. border near Tijuana, demanding access to the American Welfare State. That’s the reality! Helped by the American left’s monopoly over the intellectual means of production—the average American is being encouraged to look at this aberrant apparition and “think”:

“Awesome. This is who we are. American laws are amazing for inviting this.”

Illegal, immoral, un-America: These are all pejoratives reserved not for the grifters making claims against Americans; but for the Americans resisting their claims.

To listen to the liberal propagandist class is to come away believing that breaking into America is legal so long as you call yourself a refugee or an asylee and are “seeking a better life.”

Moreover, provided an asylee, refugee or saint in disguise appears at a port of entry (San Ysidro, in our case), then he must be admitted into America.

So, is The Law an ass or are those lying about the law the real asses?

A bit of both.

The Center for Immigration Studies provides something of a corrective. The gist of it is simple:

“The Border Patrol has the authority to not only arrest those who enter illegally, but also to dissuade their entry. There is nothing in the law that requires the Border Patrol to allow aliens to enter the United States illegally, and then arrest them. Simply put, aliens do not have a right to illegally enter the United States.”

Essentially, the opportunity to assert “a credible fear” of persecution, as explained by Andrew R. Arthur of the CIS, doesn’t give a scofflaw the right to enter the country and claim asylum.

To the contrary: The “credible fear” provision, evidently being misused and misconstrued, doesn’t “exist to facilitate asylum claims.” Rather, “it exists to facilitate the removal from the United States of aliens who have attempted entry through fraud or without proper documents.”

This charitable interpretation struggles to convince. Notwithstanding a defense of lousy and lax law—it nevertheless seems true to state that U.S. laws governing the admission of asylum-seekers and refugees will still process people based on a tale told at a port of entry, and despite disqualifying conduct: the brazen, even criminal, behavior evinced by the Central American caravanners rushing our border.

As practiced, the law is worse than an ass. It’s perverse in the extreme.

In the context of law misconstrued or reinvented, the chant about the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act is as telling. It’s the excuse parroted by almost everybody, Republicans included, for a lack of vigorous military action against an en masse breach of the southern border.

With their Posse Comitatus chant, the no-borders crowd is claiming that sending the U.S. Military to the border is tantamount to deploying the military for civilian purposes.

If an ongoing, sustained, intentional and international invasion of U.S. territory by foreign nationals is considered a domestic dispute to be handled by civil authorities—then America, plain and simple, is both defenseless and borderless; there is, seemingly, no law that’ll defend American borders.

What those liberals colonizing our heads are attempting to convey is that a good America, a just America, a moral America is de facto and de jure a borderless America.

In truth, and according to the Congressional Research Service, as relayed by the Military Times, Posse Comitatus means that “the U.S. military is not to be used to control or defeat American citizens on U.S. soil.”

The hordes amassed on the border with Mexico, and rushing the port of entry in San Ysidro, California, are not American citizens. They are not even very nice.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2QsiL1f Tyler Durden