Few governors have handled the coronavirus crisis perfectly, but Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer might deserve the prize for the least perfect performance. Her lockdown has inspired around 16 lawsuits and multiple protests. One doesn’t have to agree entirely with the protesters to understand that Whitmer went overboard.
Most local lockdowns had their share of nuttiness. But as long as the ratio of good sense to nonsense remained relatively high, Americans mostly went along. That started changing in the Wolverine State when Whitmer defied the legislature and unilaterally extended the lockdown beyond the 41 days that both sides had agreed to, prompting a lawsuit by the body’s Republican majority. What’s more, instead of easing restrictions over time, Whitmer added stringent new provisions even as the original goal of the lockdown—flattening the curve—was accomplished.
As federal guidelines suggested classifying more industries as “essential” so that they could reopen, Whitmer arbitrarily did the opposite. She ordered big-box outlets to stop selling paint, carpets, and other home improvement material in-store and to block aisles containing those items. But grocery stores could still ply people with soda and candy. Selling lottery tickets was allowed, as was (mercifully) liquor. Landscaping services, however, were suspended.
The last meant that Contender’s Tree and Lawn Specialist Inc., a company that had purchased hundreds of thousands of dollars of plant treatment in anticipation of the lockdown lifting, stood to lose all its plants. The company sued. So Whitmer released landscaping companies from captivity, along with golf courses.
But other categories of work, including “nonessential” medical treatments, were still prohibited. Michigan residents couldn’t see a doctor except for medical emergencies. No gallbladder operations, annual physicals, or dental checkups were permitted. And no number of safeguards adopted by medical facilities could convince Whitmer to acquiesce to Republican suggestions to include them in one of the earlier phases of reopening. They had to wait till the pandemic was in “phase six”—when “sufficient community immunity” or a “high uptake of an effective therapy or vaccine” was achieved, which could take years. Whitmer was unperturbed that in the interim, an untold number of people would suffer from health problems not related to the coronavirus and medical facilities, starved of income, would shutter. This triggered yet another lawsuit, this one filed by the free market Mackinac Center for Public Policy on behalf of patients and providers.
Whitmer’s lockdown didn’t even spare the barely affected northern regions of Michigan, putting the modest livelihoods of those residents in jeopardy. Her theory was that any activities beyond the absolutely essential would jeopardize frontline workers by driving up infection numbers. But this mindset, which regards even an infinitesimal increase in secondary risk as unacceptable, could justify stopping virtually any activity anytime.
Whitmer decreed that violations would count as misdemeanors punishable by up to a $1,000 civil fine, among the stiffest in the country. Criminal penalties were also on the table. Meanwhile, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, apparently looking to China for inspiration, encouraged employees to rat out employers who flouted the rules.
Although the initial lockdown was relatively uncontroversial, the extension triggered a backlash. A Facebook group called Michiganders Against Excessive Quarantining gained steam, reaching over 282,000 members. Its rhetoric was fairly measured at first, but by mid-May, according to Newsweek, one of its members was warning: “We haven’t had any bloodshed yet, but the populous [sic] is counting to three, and yesterday was day two. Next comes watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.” Calls to hang, shoot, beat, or behead the governor proliferated.
Rallies got nastier, too. In April, the Michigan Conservative Coalition’s “Operation Gridlock” invited motorists to Lansing, the state capital, to jam up roads. The group impressed on protesters to be respectful and responsible. Though it drew some Confederate flag wavers, that was nothing compared to subsequent rallies, where gun-toting militants entered the Capitol. In response, armed guards escorted minority lawmakers into the building. In mid-May, the legislature shut down for a few days. The state’s largest militia, Michigan Home Guard, dispatched armed members in Trump paraphernalia to prevent police interference as a 77-year-old small-town barber opened his shop in defiance of the lockdown.
President Donald Trump’s personal attacks on Whitmer and characterization of these extremists as “very good people” may have drawn them out. But Whitmer’s resort to the maximal possible force, rather than the minimal necessary, played into their hands.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31aWLLB
via IFTTT
Few governors have handled the coronavirus crisis perfectly, but Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer might deserve the prize for the least perfect performance. Her lockdown has inspired around 16 lawsuits and multiple protests. One doesn’t have to agree entirely with the protesters to understand that Whitmer went overboard.
Most local lockdowns had their share of nuttiness. But as long as the ratio of good sense to nonsense remained relatively high, Americans mostly went along. That started changing in the Wolverine State when Whitmer defied the legislature and unilaterally extended the lockdown beyond the 41 days that both sides had agreed to, prompting a lawsuit by the body’s Republican majority. What’s more, instead of easing restrictions over time, Whitmer added stringent new provisions even as the original goal of the lockdown—flattening the curve—was accomplished.
As federal guidelines suggested classifying more industries as “essential” so that they could reopen, Whitmer arbitrarily did the opposite. She ordered big-box outlets to stop selling paint, carpets, and other home improvement material in-store and to block aisles containing those items. But grocery stores could still ply people with soda and candy. Selling lottery tickets was allowed, as was (mercifully) liquor. Landscaping services, however, were suspended.
The last meant that Contender’s Tree and Lawn Specialist Inc., a company that had purchased hundreds of thousands of dollars of plant treatment in anticipation of the lockdown lifting, stood to lose all its plants. The company sued. So Whitmer released landscaping companies from captivity, along with golf courses.
But other categories of work, including “nonessential” medical treatments, were still prohibited. Michigan residents couldn’t see a doctor except for medical emergencies. No gallbladder operations, annual physicals, or dental checkups were permitted. And no number of safeguards adopted by medical facilities could convince Whitmer to acquiesce to Republican suggestions to include them in one of the earlier phases of reopening. They had to wait till the pandemic was in “phase six”—when “sufficient community immunity” or a “high uptake of an effective therapy or vaccine” was achieved, which could take years. Whitmer was unperturbed that in the interim, an untold number of people would suffer from health problems not related to the coronavirus and medical facilities, starved of income, would shutter. This triggered yet another lawsuit, this one filed by the free market Mackinac Center for Public Policy on behalf of patients and providers.
Whitmer’s lockdown didn’t even spare the barely affected northern regions of Michigan, putting the modest livelihoods of those residents in jeopardy. Her theory was that any activities beyond the absolutely essential would jeopardize frontline workers by driving up infection numbers. But this mindset, which regards even an infinitesimal increase in secondary risk as unacceptable, could justify stopping virtually any activity anytime.
Whitmer decreed that violations would count as misdemeanors punishable by up to a $1,000 civil fine, among the stiffest in the country. Criminal penalties were also on the table. Meanwhile, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, apparently looking to China for inspiration, encouraged employees to rat out employers who flouted the rules.
Although the initial lockdown was relatively uncontroversial, the extension triggered a backlash. A Facebook group called Michiganders Against Excessive Quarantining gained steam, reaching over 282,000 members. Its rhetoric was fairly measured at first, but by mid-May, according to Newsweek, one of its members was warning: “We haven’t had any bloodshed yet, but the populous [sic] is counting to three, and yesterday was day two. Next comes watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.” Calls to hang, shoot, beat, or behead the governor proliferated.
Rallies got nastier, too. In April, the Michigan Conservative Coalition’s “Operation Gridlock” invited motorists to Lansing, the state capital, to jam up roads. The group impressed on protesters to be respectful and responsible. Though it drew some Confederate flag wavers, that was nothing compared to subsequent rallies, where gun-toting militants entered the Capitol. In response, armed guards escorted minority lawmakers into the building. In mid-May, the legislature shut down for a few days. The state’s largest militia, Michigan Home Guard, dispatched armed members in Trump paraphernalia to prevent police interference as a 77-year-old small-town barber opened his shop in defiance of the lockdown.
President Donald Trump’s personal attacks on Whitmer and characterization of these extremists as “very good people” may have drawn them out. But Whitmer’s resort to the maximal possible force, rather than the minimal necessary, played into their hands.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31aWLLB
via IFTTT
From Tenn. AG Op. 20-14, released a week ago but just posted to Westlaw in the last couple of days; seems quite right to me:
Question
Is a governmental mandate that requires the general population to wear face coverings in public during a state of emergency caused by COVID-19 constitutionally permissible?
Opinion
As a general proposition, a governmental mandate that requires the general population to wear face coverings in public due to the health emergency caused by COVID-19 would be constitutionally defensible. The constitutionality of any particular governmental mandate, though, would depend on its specific terms and the underlying authority of the governmental entity issuing it….
Constitutionality of Governmental Mandates to Wear Face Coverings
For more than a century, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). Moreover, during an epidemic, the traditional tiers of judicial scrutiny do not apply. In these narrow circumstances, courts are to overturn only those orders that (1) have no “real or substantial relation” to protecting public health or (2) are “beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law.”
A governmental mandate that requires the general population to wear face coverings in public due to the health emergency caused by COVID-19 satisfies this two-prong Jacobson test…. Requiring a person to wear a face covering during a comparable public health crisis is no more invasive—indeed is arguably less invasive—than requiring a person to be vaccinated [the requirement upheld in Jacobson].
Even if traditional constitutional scrutiny applied, the governmental mandate would not impermissibly infringe on a person’s constitutional right to liberty or freedom of speech.
Some members of society view a governmental requirement to wear a face covering as a threat to personal liberty, a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the Tennessee Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of “liberty … without due process of law.” Similarly, article I, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution prohibits the taking of liberty without due process: “That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.” The “law of the land” phrase is synonymous with the “due process of law” provision in the Fourteenth Amendment ….
The liberties secured by the Constitution do “not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.” Even the right to liberty—the “greatest of all rights”—is subject to constraints. It is a “fundamental principle that persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state.” Thus, as the Jacobson Court found, a State has the authority to enact laws to protect the safety of its citizens in the face of an epidemic, including a vaccination mandate.
In sum, “the Constitution does not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty.” The liberty safeguard by the Constitution is “liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people.” Thus, liberty is subject to regulation that is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community….
For instance, challenges to Tennessee’s mandatory safety belt law, have been rejected. Requiring seat belts to be used did not violate the constitutional prohibition against taking liberty without due process. [Citations omitted.]
Similarly, challenges to Tennessee’s motorcycle helmet law, Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-9-302, have been rejected. The challengers viewed the motorcycle helmet law as “encroaching on their fundamental right to be left alone vis-à-vis the State.” They insisted that the decision to wear a safety helmet should be a personal one and they viewed the law as “paternalistic legislation” that constituted an “unwarranted governmental intrusion” into citizens’ lives. The courts, however, found the law to be a regulatory safety measure that constituted a valid exercise of the State’s police power.
It follows that a challenge to a governmental face-cover mandate as violating the constitutional right to liberty is almost certain to be rejected by the courts. The face-cover mandate is likely to be held to be a reasonable regulation to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19 and would not constitute an unconstitutional infringement on liberty interests.
Some people object to wearing a face covering because, since they view the mask as a political and cultural symbol, they believe the government is compelling them to “speak” in a certain way, thereby infringing on their right of free speech….
While a governmental mandate to wear face coverings in public does not regulate speech on its face, it does regulate conduct. The free speech protected by the First Amendment includes not just speech but also “expressive conduct.” Not all conduct, though, is protected speech under the First Amendment simply because the person engaging in the conduct “intends thereby to express an idea.” As explained by the United States Supreme Court, “[i]t is possible to find some kernel of expression in almost every activity a person undertakes—for example, walking down the street or meeting one’s friends at a shopping mall—but such a kernel is not sufficient to bring the activity within the first protection of the First Amendment.”
To qualify as “expressive conduct” there must be an intent to convey a particularized message, which others are likely to understand. Wearing a face covering during the COVID-19 pandemic is first and foremost understood as a means of preventing the spread of the virus. Therefore, others would not likely understand that the wearer was displaying a particular political or cultural symbol. See Antietam Battlefield, 2020 WL 2556496, at *12 (rejecting First Amendment challenge to face covering requirement during COVID-19 pandemic on these grounds).
Even assuming that refusing to wear a face covering constituted conduct sufficient to implicate constitutional principles of free speech, a governmental mandate to wear a face covering in public during the COVID-19 pandemic would not violate the First Amendment…. When the face-cover mandate is analyzed under the four-part O’Brien test [for expressive conduct], it survives a First Amendment challenge. First, the mandate is clearly within the State’s power to protect the safety of its citizens against an epidemic. Second, the mandate serves the important governmental interest of protecting the safety of the public by mitigating the spread of COVID-19. Third, the State’s interest in protecting the safety of its citizens is unrelated to the suppression of free speech. The mandate’s purpose is not to suppress expression; its purpose is to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Fourth, the incidental restriction on freedom of expression imposed on those who do not wish to wear a face covering during the COVID-19 pandemic is no greater than necessary to further the State’s interest.
“[A]n incidental burden on speech is no greater than is essential, and therefore is permissible under O’Brien, so long as the neutral regulation promotes a substantial governmental interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.” Here, the State’s interest in protecting the safety of the public would indeed be less effectively achieved without a mandate that requires the wearing of a face covering in public during the COVID-19 pandemic….
In sum, as a general proposition a governmental mandate that requires the general population to wear face coverings in public due to the health emergency caused by COVID-19 would be constitutionally defensible. The constitutionality of any particular governmental mandate, though, would depend on its specific terms and the underlying authority of the governmental entity issuing it….
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39K6TyY
via IFTTT
Back in 2014, hundreds if not thousands of conservatives and liberty movement activists converged on a farm in rural Clark County, Nevada. The purpose was to protest the incursion of federal government agents onto the property of the Bundy family, who had defied pressure from the Bureau of Land Management to stop allowing their cattle to feed on “federal land” in a form of free ranging. It was a practice that had been going on for decades and one that was required for the Bundy farm to survive, ended abruptly by environmental laws protecting a tortoise.
The Bundy family had been improving on the area with aquifers and other measures for generations without interference. The claim by the BLM and other agencies was that the farmers were destroying wildlife habitat with their cattle, yet the Bundy’s land improvements had actually allowed wildlife to THRIVE in areas where animals would find life difficult or impossible otherwise.
The federal government became fixated on the Bundy’s, and decided to make an example out of them. Their defiance of the crackdown on their use of the land was met with extreme measures, including their cattle impounded, their farm being surrounded and sniper teams placed in the hills nearby. The liberty movement saw this as the last straw, and so reacted at a grassroots level. The concern was that Bundy Ranch could become another Waco. They locked and loaded and went to defend the Bundy’s.
I completely agreed at the time with the efforts surrounding Bundy Ranch and I still agree with them today. The federal government had overstepped its bounds on multiple occasions when it came to rural farmers in sagebrush country and everyone had finally had enough. The feds were faced with a group of armed liberty movement members and eventually ran away. They even gave the Bundy’s back the cattle the feds had initially tried to confiscate. This event showcased the power of the people to repel tyranny when necessary.
The claim that the public is impotent against government force was summarily trounced. The action was not perfect, and there were many internal disputes and a plethora of mistakes, but overall it had achieved its goal. It sent a message to the establishment that if you try to assert unconstitutional force against the citizenry there is a chance a Bundy Ranch scenario might happen again, and next time it might not simply be a defensive measure.
I mention Bundy Ranch because I want to remind conservatives of their roots. We are a constitutional movement. We are a small government movement. We believe in individual rights, states rights and the 10th Amendment, as well as strict limitations placed on the federal government and state governments when they try to violate the Bill of Rights. If you don’t believe in these things, you are not a conservative or a constitutionalist.
No government, whether state or federal, supersedes the boundaries placed upon them by the constitution. Once they violate those boundaries, they must be put in check by the citizenry, for the constitution is merely an object that represents an ideal. It can’t defend itself. If a government undermines constitutional protections, it is not a failure of the constitution, it is a failure by the public to act.
Sadly, there are “conservatives” out there who supported the efforts at Bundy Ranch in 2014, but are now calling for federal overreach and martial law today. The very same people who argued vehemently against unconstitutional actions back then are arguing for bending or breaking the rules of the constitution now. This is something I have been warning about for years…
The greatest threat to freedom is not the government, extreme leftists or the globalist cabal; the greatest threat is when freedom fighters foresake their own principles and start rationalizing tyranny because it happens to benefit them in the moment. If freedom fighters stop fighting for freedom, who remains pick up the mantle? No one. And thus, the globalists and collectivists win the long game.
Right now there are two sides calling for martial law-like restrictions on the public, and both sides think they are doing what is best for society at large. They both believe they are morally justified and that totalitarian actions are necessary for “the greater good”. Both sides are wrong.
The Pandemic Puritans
On one side, we have a group made up primarily of political leftists but also some conservatives who say that the coronavius pandemic creates a scenario in which medical tyranny must be established to protect the public from itself. Leftists enjoy control in general and the pandemic simply offers an opportunity for them to act out their totalitarian fantasies in real life.
These are the people who wag their fingers at others on the street or in the park or at the beach for not “social distancing” properly. These are the people that inform on their neighbors, or inform on local businesses for not following strict guidelines. These are the people that get a thrill from forcing other people to conform.
This is not to say that precautions are not warranted, they certainly are. However, these precautions MUST be up to individuals, not enforced by bureaucracy. The moment you hand government ultimate power to dictate people’s health decisions, personal daily activities, freedom of assembly and their ability to participate in the economy, you have given the government ultimate power to destroy our very culture. No government should be allowed to have that kind of influence.
The issue here is one of the greater EVIL, not the greater good. What is the greater evil? To avoid unconstitutional measures, avoid violating individual rights and allow the virus to spread faster than it normally would? Or, to completely throw out the Bill of Rights, individual liberty and economic security in the name of a brand of “safety” that is ambiguous and undefined?
As I write this, the state of New Jersey among others is implementing a draconian response against businesses that defy lockdown orders. NJ just arrested the owners of a gymnasium in Bellmawr who refused to close down. Even though they used social distancing measures and applied their own guidelines, the state has decided that citizens are children that must be controlled rather than adults that can make their own choices. This sets a dangerous precedence for the whole country.
Understand that small businesses that are not deemed “essential” by arbitrary decree from the state are on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse. Millions of people are having their livelihoods threatened by the lockdowns. Millions of jobs are at risk. Is the coronavirus really worth destroying our own economic system? Because that is EXACTLY what is happening right now. The US economy was already suffering from destabilization, and now the pandemic response is putting the final nail in the coffin.
If the economy tanks far more people will die from the resulting crisis of poverty, crime and civil unrest than will EVER die from the coronavirus pandemic. When you look at the big picture, how can anyone justify medical tyranny and martial law measures? There is simply no logical explanation for violating the economic and personal freedom of Americans in response to a disease. If some people die from the virus, so be it. Its a small price to pay to keep our freedoms intact. Furthermore, I would stand by that argument even if I get sick from the virus.
Sock Puppet Conservatives
There are people out there that like constitutional rights and civil liberties “in theory”, but in practice they view these rights as inconvenient to their goals. For these so-called “conservatives”, the Bill of Rights is only for peacetime. When war or domestic conflict rolls around, our rights are suddenly forfeit.
I use this particular metaphor often but I really can’t find a better one:
Government power is like the “one ring” in Lord Of The Rings. Everyone desperately wants control of it. The side of evil thirsts for it. The side of good thinks that if only they had it they could use it for honorable ends; they think they can use it to defeat evil. They are wrong.
The “one ring” (government power) corrupts ALL. It cannot be controlled. It cannot be used for good. Eventually, it warps the minds of those who hold it, twisting them into something grotesque. Good people who exploit the ring end up becoming the very monsters they were trying to defeat, and evil wins.
Right now through the Trump Administration conservatives are being tempted with the “one ring”. We are being tempted with ultimate government power. The leftist hordes and their actions are egregious. They act irrationally and foolishly. Their communist ideology and mindless zealotry is destructive and they openly seek the collapse of western civilization. But in the end this doesn’t matter. They are nothing more than useful idiots for a greater agenda.
It’s interesting that the only solution I see being presented in conservative circles lately is the use of federal power to crush the protests and riots. Again, this might seem like a reasonable action in the face of so much lawlessness, but if taken too far the implications are horrifying.
Some conservative groups are cheering the deployment of federal agencies to cities like Portland in the name of stopping civil unrest, but there is a fine line between law enforcement and martial law. And by martial law, I mean ANY government force that is designed to suppress or break civil protections. This does not only include a military presence, it can also include federal agencies overstepping their bounds, just as they did at Bundy Ranch.
In Portland and other cities like New York, federal agents and police have been snatching protesters off the street in unmarked vans without identifying themselves. Essentially, they are black-bagging people. This is the kind of behavior which real conservatives traditionally despise.
Yes, some of these protesters did in fact loot or participate in property damage; and some of them did absolutely nothing. This is being done under 40 US Code 1315 which was signed into law by Neo-con president George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks as part of the tidal wave of unconstitutional Patriot Act measures that were railroaded through during mass fear and panic.
Conservatives have been warning for years about the potential for misuse of these laws to violate people’s rights. Will we now support them because they are being enforced against people we don’t like? I will say this: If an unmarked van with unidentified armed people tried to grab me off the street, I would do everything in my power to put a bullet in each and every one of them. And, I would not hold it against any person who did the same, even if they were my ideological opponent.
Some conservatives are calling for much more, including the deployment of the National Guard or a standing military presence. The use of such tactics opens the door to serious consequences, and I believe if we allow the federal government to bend the rules now, we set the stage for expansive martial law in the near future. By extension, labeling looters or rioters as “terrorists” also has dangerous implications. Those of us that were activists during the Obama years know how freely that label is thrown around by government and the media.
We might feel righteous in violating the civil liberties of social justice Marxists because of their insane behavior and the threat they pose to the stability of the country, but, what happens when the roles are reversed? During Bundy Ranch, conservatives were also being labeled “terrorists”, and who is to say we won’t find ourselves in that position again? Would defying the pandemic lockdowns also be considered an existential threat to the country?
Uncomfortable Questions
There are some questions in all of this that are either not being asked or are being deliberately avoided. For example:
1) Why is it that the Trump Administration has not bothered to go after the elites and globalists FUNDING Antifa and BLM groups behind the unrest? Why does George Soros and his Open Society Foundation get to operate in the US with impunity? And what about the Ford Foundation? Members of that institution openly admit that they have been funding and organizing the social justice cult for decades. Shouldn’t the men behind the curtain paying for the entire thing be targeted first, instead of going after the useful idiots? Perhaps the fact that Trump is surrounded by those very same elites in his cabinet has something to do with it…
2) If we support martial law measures, WHO are we giving that power to? Is it Trump, or the deep state ghouls that advise him daily? People like Wilber Ross, a New York Rothschild banking agent, Mike Pompeo, a long time Neo-con warmonger and promoter of mass surveillance, Robert Lightheizer, a member of the globalist Council On Foreign Relations, Steve Mnuchin, former Goldman Sachs banker, Larry Kudlow, former Federal Reserve, etc. Even if you think Trump has the best of intentions, can anyone honestly say the same for his cabinet?
3) When the left is “defeated” and the riots stop, will martial law simply fade away, or, is it a Pandora’s Box that can never be closed again? And if it doesn’t end, will supporters justify fighting against not just leftists, but also conservatives who will not tolerate it? I for one will be among the people that will not tolerate it.
Real Solutions
There are other much better solutions than martial law when confronting the leftist riots or the pandemic.
For the pandemic, stop trying to dictate public behavior. If individuals feel they are at risk from the virus, then they can take their own precautions. The only other option is to continue on the path of shutdowns and an informant society that will destroy this nation in a matter of months.
For the leftists, communities that stage an armed presence in the face of protests have ALL escaped riots and property damage. Sometimes Antifa and BLM decide to not even show up. We DON’T NEED a federal presence or a military presence to get the job done. We can do it ourselves. We already have proof that this strategy works.
And, if the lefties want to burn down their own neighborhoods and cities and local governments don’t want to stop them, then I say let it happen. It’s sad for the people in these places that had no dog in the fight, but maybe this will teach the locals to speak out against BLM or Antifa instead of remaining silent or virtue signaling their support in the hopes that their businesses won’t be attacked. Maybe they should look for better government officials as well.
Finally, it’s far past time to go after the elites that fund and engineer such groups. Remove their influence and I suspect many people will be shocked at how fast all this unrest and chaos suddenly disappears. Isn’t this what people wanted Trump to do from the very beginning? And yet, nothing happens to the vampires at the top.
Only cowards demand everyone else give up their freedoms just so they can feel safe. The establishment is trying to pit the American people against each other as a means to pave a path to tyranny. I believe what the elites want more than anything else is to trick conservatives into forsaking their own principles. If we do, we become hypocrites that can no longer sustain a movement for freedom. By becoming the monster to fight the monster we hand our enemies victory. This is unacceptable.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30k8ske Tyler Durden
Xi Hails Now “Fully Operational” China-Controlled Satellite Navigation System Which Rivals GPS Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/31/2020 – 23:45
Multiple official statements have come out of China that reveal, predictably enough, that the US pressure and sanctions campaign are not at all curbing its global ambitions or efforts at rapid defense technology modernization. Actually Washington’s hawkish stance is perhaps doing the opposite, given that President Xi Jinping told the Politburo on Friday that “only a strong military can ensure national security” while urging the country to “push forward national defense and military modernization,” according to Bloomberg citing official Xinhua.
And this includes the potential for military modernization in space, at a moment leaders across the globe fear that space will soon become a “war-fighting domain”— which is also subject of discussions in Vienna currently, as US and Russian diplomats work to extend the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty. Xi officially commissioned China’s BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS-3) on Friday, which state media now says is fully operational, is will compete with GPS.
Prior BDS-3 launch file image
This means that China joins a very few number of nations, which includes the US, Russia, and EU, that has its own independent global navigation system. The network includes 35 satellites as part of an ambitious program that’s been under development since the 1990’s.
Xinhua news also noted that BeiDou-based services are already in use in more than 120 countries and regions. While Beijing has specifically condemned the pursuit of the ‘weaponization of space’, Xi took the opportunity as touting the huge advantage that newly operational BDS-3 represents.
As Xinhua describes, “Xi said the completion and opening of the BDS-3 fully reflects the political advantage of China’s socialist system in mobilizing resources for major undertakings.”
“It is of great significance to enhance China’s comprehensive national strength, to promote China’s economic development and improvement of people’s livelihood under regular epidemic prevention and control, to promote China’s opening-up under the current international economic situation, to further enhance national self-confidence, and to strive to achieve the two centenary goals, noted Xi,” Xinhua continues.
It was on June 22 that China launched the final Beidou satellite in completion of its orbital navigation constellation.
According to a US-based space technology analysis site, “The first four Beidou satellites were launched between 2000 and 2007. Based on the CAST developed DFH-3 satellite bus, the satellites were orbited by Long March-3A launch vehicles to geostationary orbits.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fjwCiI Tyler Durden
From Tenn. AG Op. 20-14, released a week ago but just posted to Westlaw in the last couple of days; seems quite right to me:
Question
Is a governmental mandate that requires the general population to wear face coverings in public during a state of emergency caused by COVID-19 constitutionally permissible?
Opinion
As a general proposition, a governmental mandate that requires the general population to wear face coverings in public due to the health emergency caused by COVID-19 would be constitutionally defensible. The constitutionality of any particular governmental mandate, though, would depend on its specific terms and the underlying authority of the governmental entity issuing it….
Constitutionality of Governmental Mandates to Wear Face Coverings
For more than a century, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). Moreover, during an epidemic, the traditional tiers of judicial scrutiny do not apply. In these narrow circumstances, courts are to overturn only those orders that (1) have no “real or substantial relation” to protecting public health or (2) are “beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law.”
A governmental mandate that requires the general population to wear face coverings in public due to the health emergency caused by COVID-19 satisfies this two-prong Jacobson test…. Requiring a person to wear a face covering during a comparable public health crisis is no more invasive—indeed is arguably less invasive—than requiring a person to be vaccinated [the requirement upheld in Jacobson].
Even if traditional constitutional scrutiny applied, the governmental mandate would not impermissibly infringe on a person’s constitutional right to liberty or freedom of speech.
Some members of society view a governmental requirement to wear a face covering as a threat to personal liberty, a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the Tennessee Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of “liberty … without due process of law.” Similarly, article I, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution prohibits the taking of liberty without due process: “That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.” The “law of the land” phrase is synonymous with the “due process of law” provision in the Fourteenth Amendment ….
The liberties secured by the Constitution do “not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.” Even the right to liberty—the “greatest of all rights”—is subject to constraints. It is a “fundamental principle that persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state.” Thus, as the Jacobson Court found, a State has the authority to enact laws to protect the safety of its citizens in the face of an epidemic, including a vaccination mandate.
In sum, “the Constitution does not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty.” The liberty safeguard by the Constitution is “liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people.” Thus, liberty is subject to regulation that is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community….
For instance, challenges to Tennessee’s mandatory safety belt law, have been rejected. Requiring seat belts to be used did not violate the constitutional prohibition against taking liberty without due process. [Citations omitted.]
Similarly, challenges to Tennessee’s motorcycle helmet law, Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-9-302, have been rejected. The challengers viewed the motorcycle helmet law as “encroaching on their fundamental right to be left alone vis-à-vis the State.” They insisted that the decision to wear a safety helmet should be a personal one and they viewed the law as “paternalistic legislation” that constituted an “unwarranted governmental intrusion” into citizens’ lives. The courts, however, found the law to be a regulatory safety measure that constituted a valid exercise of the State’s police power.
It follows that a challenge to a governmental face-cover mandate as violating the constitutional right to liberty is almost certain to be rejected by the courts. The face-cover mandate is likely to be held to be a reasonable regulation to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19 and would not constitute an unconstitutional infringement on liberty interests.
Some people object to wearing a face covering because, since they view the mask as a political and cultural symbol, they believe the government is compelling them to “speak” in a certain way, thereby infringing on their right of free speech….
While a governmental mandate to wear face coverings in public does not regulate speech on its face, it does regulate conduct. The free speech protected by the First Amendment includes not just speech but also “expressive conduct.” Not all conduct, though, is protected speech under the First Amendment simply because the person engaging in the conduct “intends thereby to express an idea.” As explained by the United States Supreme Court, “[i]t is possible to find some kernel of expression in almost every activity a person undertakes—for example, walking down the street or meeting one’s friends at a shopping mall—but such a kernel is not sufficient to bring the activity within the first protection of the First Amendment.”
To qualify as “expressive conduct” there must be an intent to convey a particularized message, which others are likely to understand. Wearing a face covering during the COVID-19 pandemic is first and foremost understood as a means of preventing the spread of the virus. Therefore, others would not likely understand that the wearer was displaying a particular political or cultural symbol. See Antietam Battlefield, 2020 WL 2556496, at *12 (rejecting First Amendment challenge to face covering requirement during COVID-19 pandemic on these grounds).
Even assuming that refusing to wear a face covering constituted conduct sufficient to implicate constitutional principles of free speech, a governmental mandate to wear a face covering in public during the COVID-19 pandemic would not violate the First Amendment…. When the face-cover mandate is analyzed under the four-part O’Brien test [for expressive conduct], it survives a First Amendment challenge. First, the mandate is clearly within the State’s power to protect the safety of its citizens against an epidemic. Second, the mandate serves the important governmental interest of protecting the safety of the public by mitigating the spread of COVID-19. Third, the State’s interest in protecting the safety of its citizens is unrelated to the suppression of free speech. The mandate’s purpose is not to suppress expression; its purpose is to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Fourth, the incidental restriction on freedom of expression imposed on those who do not wish to wear a face covering during the COVID-19 pandemic is no greater than necessary to further the State’s interest.
“[A]n incidental burden on speech is no greater than is essential, and therefore is permissible under O’Brien, so long as the neutral regulation promotes a substantial governmental interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.” Here, the State’s interest in protecting the safety of the public would indeed be less effectively achieved without a mandate that requires the wearing of a face covering in public during the COVID-19 pandemic….
In sum, as a general proposition a governmental mandate that requires the general population to wear face coverings in public due to the health emergency caused by COVID-19 would be constitutionally defensible. The constitutionality of any particular governmental mandate, though, would depend on its specific terms and the underlying authority of the governmental entity issuing it….
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39K6TyY
via IFTTT
Susan Rice, the vice presidential contender with a high-profile history of questionable public statements, has another dubious claim in her past that until now has escaped scrutiny. Rice swore under oath that as President Obama’s national security adviser she was never told about the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. But former FBI Director James Comey testified that Rice was present when he informed Obama all about Crossfire Hurricane just weeks after the investigation was launched.
James Comey: His account of telling the White House about Crossfire Hurricane differs markedly from Susan Rice’s. She testified: “We were not informed by Director Comey or the attorney general that there was an active investigation of anybody in the Trump orbit.” (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
The contradiction could lead to charges that Rice lied to Congress about a topic still of intense interest to investigators: How actively involved in the effort to spy on the Trump campaign was the inner circle of the Obama White House, including the president himself? More immediately, the question of whether Rice told the truth on Capitol Hill might damage her bid to join Joe Biden on the Democratic presidential ticket.
Rice earned a reputation for shading the truth after the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. She was famously dispatched to five different Sunday morning news shows to repeat false talking points: that the mob that killed four Americans – including Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens – was merely reacting to an obscure YouTube video mocking Islam.
Questions about her forthrightness were redoubled when Senate investigators found that, in the waning minutes of the Obama administration, Rice wrote a curious “memo to the file.” She sent an email to herself on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration, and in it claimed that Obama had insisted that everything to do with Russia, whether law enforcement or counterintelligence, be done “by the book.”
President Obama and Rice: Both were present at a meeting where, the FBI’s Comey said, the Trump-Russia probe was discussed at its outset. She denied knowing about it. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
Asked about that memo later, Rice insisted she knew nothing about the FBI’s counterintelligence probe regarding Trump and Russia, let alone anything that could be characterized as spying on the incoming administration. She had her lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, write a letter to Sens. Charles Grassley, Dianne Feinstein, Lindsey Graham, and Sheldon Whitehouse. “While serving as National Security Advisor, Ambassador Rice was not briefed on the existence of any FBI investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia,” Ruemmler wrote, “and she later learned of the fact of this investigation from Director Comey’s subsequent public testimony” – testimony that didn’t occur until March 20, 2017
On Wednesday, September 8, 2017, Rice repeated that she knew nothing of the FBI’s investigation while in the White House. This time she made the claim under oath.
Rice was at the Capitol, sitting in a secure room used by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The official reason for the interview was to ask what the Obama administration had done to thwart Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Behind those questions was a different query: Had Barack Obama’s team used the power of the presidency to spy on and smear the Trump campaign?
With the expectation of facing unfriendly questions, Rice arrived with two attorneys from the law firm Latham & Watkins.
Adam Schiff: “… [W]ould Director Comey brief you on the progress of his investigation?” he asked Rice. “No,” replied Rice under oath. (Scott Applewhite)
The Republican staffer running the interview emphasized to Rice the importance of telling the truth: “You are reminded that it is unlawful to deliberately provide false information to members of Congress or staff.” She was asked to raise her right hand and take an oath: “Madam Ambassador, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”
“I do,” Rice said.
The Democrats at the interview weren’t looking to trip Rice up. But it was questions from two California Democrats in the room that Rice may regret. Rep. Adam Schiff cited the former head of the FBI: “Director Comey testified that, in July of last year [2016], he began a counterintelligence investigation into people associated with the Trump campaign and what contacts they may have had with Russia.
“That investigative responsibility,” Schiff asked Rice, “wasn’t part of your portfolio, I take it?”
“No, not at all.”
“And would Director Comey brief you on the progress of his investigation?”
“No,” said Rice. And then she elaborated. “I think it’s important for everybody to understand: We were not informed by Director Comey or the attorney general that there was an active investigation of anybody in the Trump orbit,” she said. “[I]n the Obama White House, we maintained scrupulously the firewall between people in the While House and contacts with Justice about potential or actual criminal matters. The only communication that was sanctioned in that vein was between the White House counsel and the Justice Department or the FBl.”
Eric Swalwell: “ls it fair to say that, as the national security adviser, you were not read in on active, ongoing investigations that the Department of Justice or the FBI were conducting?” Rice’s reply under penalty of perjury: “Absolutely, that’s the case.” AP Photo/Alex Brandon
If that weren’t definitive enough, Rice added, “And Director Comey did not volunteer to us, not only then but through the duration of the administration, that there was an active investigation of anybody in the Trump orbit. I knew he was looking at this issue, that he was concerned about it. But he never specifically shared with me or others, to my knowledge, that such an investigation was ongoing. And I learned about it formally in the public domain after I left office.”
A little later in the closed-door Capitol Hill interview, Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell came back to the question that Rice had already answered so definitively: “Speaking of investigations, you talked about Director Comey and the FBl,” Swalwell said to Rice. “ls it fair to say that, as the national security adviser, you were not read in on active, ongoing investigations that the Department of Justice or the FBI were conducting?”
If Rice were concerned that she might have misspoken earlier, she was presented with the opportunity to correct her testimony. She didn’t take it.
“Absolutely, that’s the case,” Rice replied. “Those were law enforcement matters. They were not things that I was privy to unless the Justice Department chose to share them with me. The Justice Department’s normal contact in the White House, at least in the Obama administration, for anything to do with law enforcement, criminal stuff, was the White House counsel.”
Rice’s testimony took place two years before the inspector general for the Justice Department, Michael Horowitz, released his report on the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. In that report is an admission from James Comey that contradicts Rice’s sworn statements. According to testimony obtained from Comey by Horowitz, the Obama team knew about the FBI’s investigation from nearly the start, and in detail.
Above, a footnote from the IG report undercuts Susan Rice’s claim of no knowledge of Crossfire Hurricane.
“Crossfire Hurricane,” as the counterintelligence investigation was called, was officially launched at the end of July 2016. Sometime in August – just weeks into the secret, “close-hold” probe – Comey was at the White House for a meeting, he told Horowitz.
“When we asked Comey about meetings with the White House concerning Crossfire Hurricane” Horowitz writes, the former FBI director said “he did not brief the White House about the investigation.”
Michael Horowitz: In his report on the origins of Trump-Russia, the Justice Department inspector general listed the attendees at a White House meeting where the probe was discussed, including Rice and President Obama. AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
Comey may not have considered it an official “briefing” but that doesn’t mean he didn’t share the information. Comey told Horowitz that in August 2016 “he did mention to President Obama and others at a meeting in the Situation Room that the FBI was trying to determine whether any U.S. person had worked with the Russians in their efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election.”
Comey claimed that he wasn’t eager at that White House meeting to share specifics of the inquiry, but he had done so nonetheless.
“[A]lthough [Comey] did not recall exactly what he said,” Horowitz writes, “he may have said there were four individuals with ‘some association or connection to the Trump campaign.’” This revelation failed to strike anyone at the meeting as remarkable: “Comey stated that after he provided this information, no one in the Situation Room responded or followed up with any questions.”
Who were the strangely incurious officials who remained mum when they were told four individuals associated with the Trump campaign were being investigated on suspicion of conspiring with Russians to interfere in the election? Comey provided Horowitz with a list of those at the meeting. The inspector general shares that list in footnote 194 to his report: President Obama was there, as well as his chief of staff, Dennis McDonough; also present were James Clapper, John Brennan, Michael Rogers and Susan Rice.
So Rice was among those told by James Comey about Crossfire Hurricane within weeks of the investigation’s launch. Yet she told the House Intelligence Committee under oath that “I think it’s important for everybody to understand: We were not informed by Director Comey or the Attorney General that there was an active investigation of anybody in the Trump orbit.”
Reached by RealClearInvestigations, Rice spokesperson Erin Pelton said that Rice’s testimony was true:
“As Ambassador Rice wrote in her book and stated to Congress, she was not briefed by the FBI or the Department of Justice on the existence of an FBI investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, nor was she informed of any FISA applications sought by the FBI in its investigation.” Pelton said Rice “only learned of the fact of this investigation after leaving office, when FBI Director Comey testified before Congress to that effect.”
The spokesperson offered no comment, however, about Comey’s assertion to the inspector general that he had told Obama, Rice, and the others about Crossfire Hurricane shortly after the investigation’s launch in the summer of 2016.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3173nL1 Tyler Durden
In 3rd Intercept This Week, Russia Scrambles Fighter Jet Against US Spy Plane Over Black Sea Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/31/2020 – 23:05
The tit-for-tat probing of borders and airspace between the US and Russia has continued, and now this week there’s been no less than three Russian intercepts of American spy planes over the Black Sea.
The Russian defense ministry said it had sent an Su-27 fighter plane on Friday to intercept a U.S. surveillance plane over the Black Sea, prompting it to change course away from the Russian border, Russian news agencies reported.
Two similar incidents were reported earlier this week over the Black Sea.
Su-27 fighter file image via The Aviationist
Russian MoD statements said there were two American military planes, with one likely being a smaller fighter jet escort to the larger spy plane.
“The crew of the Russian jet fighter approached the air targets at a safe distance and identified them as a US RC-135 US Air Force recon plane and a P-8A US Navy patrol plane,” TASS cited military officials as saying. Both sides acknowledged the incident took place over neutral waters.
This comes after a spate of such close aerial encounters throughout June and July. The past two months have witnessed a noticeable uptick.
Most close encounters have taken place off Alaska’s coast, as well as over the Black and Baltic Seas, as well as the Mediterranean near Syria, and lately perhaps more rare over the Seas of Japan and over the remote Sea of Okhotsk just off the Russian far east.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Xe9BaM Tyler Durden
When the Ronald Reagan and Nimitz carrier strike groups recently engaged in “operations” in the South China Sea, it did not escape to many a cynic that the US Pacific Fleet was doing its best to turn the infantile Thucydides Trap theory into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The pro forma official spin, via Rear Adm. Jim Kirk, commander of the Nimitz, is that the ops were conducted to “reinforce our commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, a rules-based international order, and to our allies and partners”.
Nobody pays attention to these clichés, because the real message was delivered by a CIA operative posing as diplomat, Secretary of State Mike “We Lie, We Cheat, We Steal” Pompeo: “The PRC has no legal grounds to unilaterally impose its will on the region”, in a reference to the Nine-Dash Line. For the State Dept., Beijing deploys nothing but “gangster tactics” in the South China Sea.
Once again, nobody paid attention, because the actual facts on the sea are stark. Anything that moves in the South China Sea – China’s crucial maritime trade artery – is at the mercy of the PLA, which decides if and when to deploy their deadly DF-21D and DF-26 “carrier killer” missiles.
There’s absolutely no way the US Pacific Fleet can win a shooting war in the South China Sea.
Electronically jammed
A crucial Chinese report, unavailable and not referred to by Western media, and translated by Hong Kong-based analyst Thomas Wing Polin, is essential to understand the context.
The report refers to US Growler electronic warplanes rendered totally out of control by electronic jamming devices positioned on islands and reefs in the South China Sea.
According to the report, “after the accident, the United States negotiated with China, demanding that China dismantle the electronic equipment immediately, but it was rejected. These electronic devices are an important part of China’s maritime defense and are not offensive weapons. Therefore, the US military’s request for dismantling is unreasonable.”
It gets better:
“On the same day, former commander Scott Swift of the US Pacific Fleet finally acknowledged that the US military had lost the best time to control the South China Sea. He believes that China has deployed a large number of Hongqi 9 air defense missiles, H-6K bombers, and electronic jamming systems on islands and reefs. The defense can be said to be solid. If US fighter jets rush into the South China Sea, they are likely to encounter their ‘Waterloo.’”
The bottom line is that the systems – including electronic jamming – deployed by the PLA on islands and reefs in the South China Sea, covering more than half of the total surface, are considered by Beijing to be part of the national defense system.
I have previously detailed what Admiral Philip Davidson, when he was still a nominee to lead the US Pacific Command (PACOM), told the US Senate. Here are his Top Three conclusions:
1) “China is pursuing advanced capabilities (e.g., hypersonic missiles) which the United States has no current defense against. As China pursues these advanced weapons systems, US forces across the Indo-Pacific will be placed increasingly at risk.”
2) “China is undermining the rules-based international order.”
3) “China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States.”
Implied in all of the above is the “secret” of the Indo-Pacific strategy: at best a containment exercise, as China continues to solidify the Maritime Silk Road linking the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean.
Remember the nusantao
The South China Sea is and will continue to be one of the prime geopolitical flashpoints of the young 21st century, where a great deal of the East-West balance of power will be played.
I have addressed this elsewhere in the past in some detail, but a short historical background is once again absolutely essential to understand the current juncture as the South China Sea increasingly looks and feels like a Chinese lake.
Let’s start in 1890, when Alfred Mahan, then president of the US Naval College, wrote the seminal The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783. Mahan’s central thesis is that the US should go global in search of new markets, and protect these new trade routes through a network of naval bases.
That is the embryo of the US Empire of Bases – which remains in effect.
It was Western – American and European – colonialism that came up with most land borders and maritime borders of states bordering the South China Sea: Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam.
We are talking about borders between different colonial possessions – and that implied intractable problems from the start, subsequently inherited by post-colonial nations.
Historically, it had always been a completely different story. The best anthropological studies (Bill Solheim’s, for instance) define the semi-nomadic communities who really traveled and traded across the South China Sea from time immemorial as the Nusantao – an Austronesian compound word for “south island” and “people”.
The Nusantao were not a defined ethnic group. They were a maritime internet. Over centuries, they had many key hubs, from the coastline between central Vietnam and Hong Kong all the way to the Mekong Delta. They were not attached to any “state”. The Western notion of “borders” did not even exist. In the mid-1990s, I had the privilege to encounter some of their descendants in Indonesia and Vietnam.
So it was only by the late 19th century that the Westphalian system managed to freeze the South China Sea inside an immovable framework.
Which brings us to the crucial point of why China is so sensitive about its borders; because they are directly linked to the “century of humiliation” – when internal Chinese corruption and weakness allowed Western “barbarians” to take possession of Chinese land.
A Japanese lake
The Nine Dash Line is an immensely complex problem. It was invented by the eminent Chinese geographer Bai Meichu, a fierce nationalist, in 1936, initially as part of a “Chinese National Humiliation Map” in the form of a “U-shaped line” gobbling up the South China Sea all the way down to James Shoal, which is 1,500 km south of China but only over 100 km off Borneo.
The Nine Dash Line, from the beginning, was promoted by the Chinese government – remember, at the time not yet Communist – as the letter of the law in terms of “historic” Chinese claims over islands in the South China Sea.
One year later, Japan invaded China. Japan had occupied Taiwan way back in 1895. Japan occupied the Philippines in 1942. That meant virtually the entire coastline of the South China Sea being controlled by a single empire for the fist time in history. The South China Sea had become a Japanese lake.
Well, that lasted only until 1945. The Japanese did occupy Woody Island in the Paracels and Itu Aba (today Taiping) in the Spratlys. After the end of WWII and the US nuclear-bombing Japan, the Philippines became independent in 1946 and the Spratlys immediately were declared Filipino territory.
In 1947, all the islands in the South China Sea got Chinese names.
And in December 1947 all the islands were placed under the control of Hainan (itself an island in southern China.) New maps duly followed, but now with Chinese names for the islands (or reefs, or shoals). But there was a huge problem: no one explained the meaning of those dashes (which were originally eleven.)
In June 1947 the Republic of China claimed everything within the line – while proclaiming itself open to negotiate definitive maritime borders with other nations later on. But, for the moment, there were no borders.
And that set the scene for the immensely complicated “strategic ambiguity” of the South China Sea that still lingers on – and allows the State Dept. to accuse Beijing of “gangster tactics”. The culmination of a millennia-old transition from the “maritime internet” of semi-nomadic peoples to the Westphalian system spelled nothing but trouble.
Time for COC
So what about the US notion of “freedom of navigation”?
In imperial terms, “freedom of navigation”, from the West Coast of the US to Asia – through the Pacific, the South China Sea, the Malacca Strait and the Indian Ocean – is strictly an issue of military strategy.
The US Navy simply cannot imagine dealing with maritime exclusion zones – or having to demand an “authorization” every time they need to cross them. In this case the Empire of Bases would lose “access” to its own bases.
This is compounded with trademark Pentagon paranoia, gaming a situation where a “hostile power” – namely China – decides to block global trade. The premise in itself is ludicrous, because the South China Sea is the premier, vital maritime artery for China’s globalized economy.
So there’s no rational justification for a Freedom of Navigation (FON) program. For all practical purposes, these aircraft carriers like the Ronald Reagan and the Nimitz showboating on and off in the South China Sea amount to 21st century gunboat diplomacy. And Beijing is not impressed.
As far as the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is concerned, what matters now is to come up with a Code of Conduct (COC) to solve all maritime conflicts between Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and China.
Next year, ASEAN and China celebrate 30 years of strong bilateral relations. There’s a strong possibility they will be upgraded to “comprehensive strategic partner” status.
Because of Covid-19, all players had to postpone negotiations on the second reading of the single draft of COC. Beijing wanted these to be face to face – because the document is ultra-sensitive and for the moment, secret. Yet they finally agreed to negotiate online – via detailed texts.
It will be a hard slog, because as ASEAN made it clear in a virtual summit in late June, everything has to be in accordance with international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS).
If they can all agree on a COC by the end of 2020, a final agreement could be approved by ASEAN in mid-2021. Historic does not even begin to describe it – because this negotiation has been going on for no less than two decades.
Not to mention that a COC invalidates any US pretension to secure “freedom of navigation” in an area where navigation is already free.
Yet “freedom” was never the issue. In imperial terminology, “freedom” means that China must obey and keep the South China Sea open to the US Navy. Well, that’s possible, but you gotta behave. That’ll be the day when the US Navy is “denied” the South China Sea. You don’t need to be Mahan to know that’ll mean the imperial end of ruling the seven seas.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Pd4pjl Tyler Durden
Ford Uses Robot Dogs To Map Plant, Human Surveyors No Longer Needed Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/31/2020 – 22:25
Ford Motor Company is set to abandoned traditional human surveyors for robot dogs with sensors to laser map a production plant ahead of retooling.
Ford partnered with Boston Dynamics to digitally map its Van Dyke Transmission Plant in Michigan. The data will enable engineers to retool the plant for future products. The ability to use robot dogs, outfitted with sensors, is a much timelier and cost-effective approach than using human surveyors.
“Equipped with five cameras, the robots can travel up to 3 mph on a battery lasting nearly two hours and will be used to scan the plant floor and assist engineers in updating the original Computer-Aided Design which is utilized when we’re getting ready to retool our plants,” Ford said.
Ford’s digital engineering manager Mark Goderis said, “by having the robots scan our facility, we can see what it actually looks like now and build a new engineering model. That digital model is then used when we need to retool the plant for new products.”
“We used to use a tripod, and we would walk around the facility stopping at different locations, each time standing around for five minutes waiting for the laser to scan,” Goderis said. “Scanning one plant could take two weeks. With Fluffy’s [the robot dog’s name] help, we are able to do it in half the time.”
A typical digital scan of a plant costs around $300,000. Ford claims the robot dogs can do it for a “fraction of the cost.”
Here’s the robot dog in action.
The takeaway is that automation and artificial intelligence will displace millions of jobs by 2030. The virus pandemic, forcing corporations to adopt cutting-edge (non-virus-catching) technology, will continue to weigh on the labor market recovery. As robots take human jobs, politicians, pressured by high unemployment and collapsing consumption (and supported by an enabling Fed), will increasingly support people’s quantitative easing. Washington’s socialist checks to broke Americans are likely prelude to UBI… and that likely explains the surge in gold prices.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2DmrXzp Tyler Durden
