Most Damaging Spy In FBI History, Robert Hanssen, Dies At Colorado Supermax

Most Damaging Spy In FBI History, Robert Hanssen, Dies At Colorado Supermax

Robert Hanssen, known as the most damaging spy in FBI history for handing state secrets to the Soviet Union and later the Russian government for more than a decade-and-a-half, was found dead in his prison cell Monday

The 79-year-old died at the ADX Florence complex, the Colorado federal ‘supermax’ prison where he’d been held since pleading guilty to 15 counts of espionage in 2001. He was serving life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Career FBI intelligence officer Robert Hanssen, via AP

“Staff requested emergency medical services and life-saving efforts continued. The inmate was subsequently pronounced dead by outside emergency medical personnel,” a statement by the ADX Florence complex said.

The press release did not indicate cause of death, but an unnamed source familiar with the matter told The Associated Press that it’s believed he died of natural causes

According to background on the FBI’s website

On February 18, 2001, Hanssen was arrested and charged with committing espionage on behalf of Russia and the former Soviet Union. Hanssen—using the alias “Ramon Garcia” with his Russian handlers—had provided highly classified national security information to the Russians in exchange for more than $1.4 million in cash, bank funds, and diamonds.

Hanssen’s espionage activities began in 1985. Since he held key counterintelligence positions, he had authorized access to classified information. He used encrypted communications, “dead drops,” and other clandestine methods to provide information to the KGB and its successor agency, the SVR. The information he delivered compromised numerous human sources, counterintelligence techniques, investigations, dozens of classified U.S. government documents, and technical operations of extraordinary importance and value.

He went undetected for so long given he had extensive training and experience in counterintelligence. The intelligence community knew it had a mole feeding information to the Russians but for years an internal search and investigation came up short, with in some cases innocent veteran intelligence officers coming under suspicion and investigation

ADX Florence Prison

At one point, Hanssen was even tasked by the FBI to lead an investigation to find the mole, which unbeknownst to the FBI was actually himself. A 2007 movie called “Breach” captured the story and his eventually being caught in a sting operation. 

The FBI website details further of how the intelligence community began to figure out the mole was Hanssen:

A turning point came in 2000, when the FBI and CIA were able to secure original Russian documentation of an American spy who appeared to be Hanssen. The ensuing investigation confirmed this suspicion.

Hanssen was set to retire, so investigators had to move fast. Their goal was to catch Hanssen “red handed” in espionage.

An FBI sting on February 18, 2001 caught Hanssen in the act of making a “dead drop” at Foxstone Park in Tysons Corner, Virginia.

According to the FBI, “Hanssen parked on a residential street and walked down a wooded path to a footbridge with the classified materials wrapped in a plastic bag.” And then, “As Hanssen walked back to his car, the arrest team rushed up and took him into custody.”

Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/05/2023 – 20:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/h3Mmb1k Tyler Durden

Elon Musk Says Target Will Face Shareholder Lawsuits Amid Trans Controversy

Elon Musk Says Target Will Face Shareholder Lawsuits Amid Trans Controversy

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

As Target’s stock price has taken a beating amid conservative backlash over the company’s decision to sell LGBT-themed items and clothing, Twitter CEO Elon Musk said Friday that it’s just a matter of time before Target faces lawsuits for “destruction of shareholder value.”

Elon Musk, founder and chief engineer of SpaceX, speaks at the 2020 Satellite Conference and Exhibition in Washington on March 9, 2020. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Musk made the remarks in response to a tweet by conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who posted about JPMorgan downgrading Target’s stock after suffering its longest losing streak in decades.

Over the past month or so, Target’s stock dropped by double digits amid conservative calls for a boycott against the chain in connection to its decision to sell LGBT-themed apparel, including onesies for children and books instructing kids about the use of transgender pronouns.

Several days ago, JPMorgan downgraded Target Corporation’s stock from overweight to neutral, with the Wall Street bank citing “too many concerns” with the retail giant.

“We believe this share loss could accelerate into back to school and linger into holiday given consumer pressures and recent company controversies,” wrote JPMorgan analyst Christopher Horvers, per MarketWatch. “This could turn [Target’s] traffic negative after an impressive run of 12 consecutive positive quarters.”

Musk responded to Kirk’s tweet about Target’s stock downgrade by predicting that the company would face shareholder lawsuits.

Won’t be long before there are class-action lawsuits by shareholders against the company and board of directors for destruction of shareholder value,” Musk wrote.

Kirk replied by saying that shareholders should organize to get politics out of the “hyperpolitical” corporations of today.

A Target spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A worker collects shopping carts in the parking lot of a Target store in Highlands Ranch, Colo., on June 9, 2021. (David Zalubowski/AP Photo)

‘Continuing Commitment’

While Target said a week ago that it had removed some items that sparked the greatest controversy, it did not go into detail about which ones. The company also reiterated its “continuing commitment to the LGBTQIA+ community and standing with them as we celebrate Pride Month and throughout the year.”

“Since introducing this year’s collection, we’ve experienced threats impacting our team members’ sense of safety and well-being while at work,” Target said in a statement. “Given these volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans, including removing items that have been at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior.”

Target is among major brands—including Bud Light—that are facing backlash for supporting LGBT causes.

Several other companies, including PetSmart, Chick-fil-A, and Walmart, are also now facing boycott calls due to their endorsement of the LGBT agenda.

Experts say a big factor encouraging brands to promote transgender ideologies is an attempt to score points on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards.

‘Just Good Business Decisions’?

Target CEO Brian Cornell was asked about the backlash against “woke” companies during Fortune’s “Leadership Next” podcast several weeks ago.

“I think those are just good business decisions, and it’s the right thing for society, and it’s the great thing for our brand,” Cornell said.

“The things we’ve done from a DE&I [diversity, equity, and inclusion] standpoint, it’s adding value,” Cornell said, referring to policies that a number of prominent conservatives have panned as leftist and “woke.”

“It’s helping us drive sales, it’s building greater engagement with both our teams and our guests, and those are just the right things for our business today,” Cornell continued.

“When we think about purpose at Target, it’s really about helping all the families, and that ‘all’ word is really important,” he said.

The Target chief added that the focus on “diversity and inclusion and equity has fueled much of our growth over the last nine years.”

Target, which is one of the biggest retailers in the United States, has long faced boycott calls.

In 2016, calls for a boycott were sparked when Target released a policy that allowed men who identify as women to use women’s bathrooms.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/05/2023 – 20:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/TZiMRDo Tyler Durden

Here Are Goldman’s Top Takeaways From Its Semiconductor Conference As Tech Execs Focused On AI 

Here Are Goldman’s Top Takeaways From Its Semiconductor Conference As Tech Execs Focused On AI 

Last week, Goldman Sachs hosted the 2nd Annual Global Semiconductor Conference in New York, where they gained valuable insight into where the industry is headed from management and IR teams from the semiconductor device, equipment, and materials companies. Conversations were also held with Todd Fisher, the person the Biden-Harris Administration appointed to lead the CHIPS for America offices. 

Goldman’s Toshiya Hari said there was a lot of focus on artificial intelligence from participants, including Intel, Marvell, Micron, Renesas, and Advantest. Management teams of these companies overwhelmingly believe AI will be ‘long-term’ growth drivers, though some said it might take time for the growth to be realized.  

There were signs from Intel and Micron that the PC bust cycle might be stabilizing. As well as signs the memory industry is finally “bottoming.” 

Fisher provided more clarity on the Biden administration’s long-term goals of building out America’s domestic chip production while pointing out there is “no bias either way in the treatment of a domestic or international applicant as the goal of the program is to encourage companies to invest in R&D and for IP to reside in the United States.” 

Here’s Goldman’s Hari summary of the top ten takeaways from the chip conference: 

1) Focus on AI: 

There was an immense focus on AI throughout our conference with Intel, Marvell, Micron, Renesas, and Advantest, in particular, speaking to the near- and long-term opportunity set associated with this growing theme. Intel highlighted how Sapphire Rapids (i.e. 4th generation Xeon scalable processors based on Intel 7 technology) is well-suited for AI workloads (note Nvidia selected Sapphire Rapids as the standard server CPU in its DGX H100 system last year), while management also shared that its pipeline for Gaudi (i.e. Habana’s training and inference accelerator) had increased ~2.5x in the preceding 90-day period. Marvell reiterated what it had disclosed the prior week on its earnings call — namely, that optical DSPs and custom compute processors are expected to lead to a more than doubling of AI revenue in FY2024 and FY2025 from a base of ~$200mn in FY2023. Micron stated that although AI revenue is difficult to quantify and it currently makes up a small percentage of total revenue, they see AI as a significant long-term growth driver given the implications for content growth. While there is a range, Micron believes AI servers can embed 8x the amount of DRAM and 3x the amount of NAND compared to a traditional server. Renesas highlighted the medium- to long-term growth potential in MCUs, particularly at the edge (i.e. multi-billion dollar SAM), their recent acquisition of Reality AI, a predictive AI company, that will augment its MCU capabilities particularly across industrial applications (e.g. HVAC), as well as its ongoing investments in CXL memory accelerators. For Advantest, while HPC/AI-related demand is unlikely to move the needle on CY2023 tester demand, per management, the company sees HPC/AI as a medium- to long-term growth driver given a) the expected increase in transistor count, b) the potential increase in test intensity as the industry accelerates the adoption of advanced packaging, and c) the company’s confidence in defending its dominant share position in this market segment.

2) Signs of stabilization in the PC market: 

Signs of stabilization are emerging in the PC market with Intel raising the mid-point of its 2Q revenue outlook from $12.0bn to $12.25bn (+5% qoq, -20% yoy) based on strong linearity in Client Computing (i.e. PC) and Data Center and AI so far in the quarter and Micron reiterating its expectation for customer inventory in PCs (and smartphones) to be at or near normal levels exiting the CY2Q. While sell-in of components in CY2H and beyond will depend on PC sell-through, we expect, at a minimum, the under-shipping of components relative to end-demand that has persisted over the past ~9 months to subside soon.

3) Memory fundamentals bottoming: 

While Micron’s disclosure that the recent ruling by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) could have a high-single-digit (%) impact on total revenue, up from the low- to high-single-digit (%) range provided by management on 5/22, weighed on the stock last week, our constructive view on the Memory cycle predicated on demand stabilization and supply-side discipline (i.e. capex and production cuts) remains intact. Between DRAM and NAND, we continue to expect a sharper and more sustained recovery in DRAM given relative inventory levels (i.e. DRAM < NAND) and relative industry consolidation as measured by HHI (i.e. DRAM > NAND). In NAND, we fear that suppliers with relatively weak balance sheets could re-accelerate bit production once pricing has recovered to above cash cost.

4) Benign pricing in analog/MCU/power semis:

In broad-based MCU, analog and power semis, Microchip and Infineon, in contrast to growing investor skepticism, pointed to stable industry trends. Microchip reaffirmed its June quarter (+2-3% qoq) and September quarter (unlikely to be down qoq) revenue outlook, while Infineon reiterated its confidence in its auto semis growth outlook with underlying unit demand still solid in Europe/US. On pricing, Infineon stated that pricing remains resilient across all divisions, and is even increasing in certain pockets where demand is strong. Similarly, Microchip spoke to stable near-term pricing and shared its view that industry pricing is likely to be less deflationary going forward than in the past given higher capital intensity across mature process nodes.

5) TEL presents bullish CY2024 WFE market outlook: 

While the majority of Wafer Fab Equipment (WFE) suppliers have yet to comment on CY2024, Tokyo Electron (TEL) reiterated its view that the WFE market in CY2024 could recover to a level similar to CY2022 (which implies a ~25% yoy increase), driven by a data center upgrade cycle and a recovery in Memory spending following this year’s sharp inventory adjustment. Note that our own expectations for the WFE market in CY2024 are more subdued at +7% yoy based on a double-digit yoy increase in Memory and a stable outlook in advanced Logic/Foundry, partially offset by a decline across mature/specialty nodes.

6) Gate-All-Around to drive advanced Logic/Foundry spend: 

Applied Materials, ASML, ASM International, and Tokyo Electron all highlighted Gate-All-Around (GAA) as a potential driver of higher spending in advanced Logic/Foundry over the coming several years. ASM International highlighted that it will begin to receive GAA orders in 4Q23 and that it expects growth in its Epitaxy business to be catalyzed by the transition to GAA. Applied Materials, on its recent earnings call, stated that the GAA inflection will create an incremental opportunity of ~$1bn for every 100k wafer starts of capacity and that it expects to gain 5% of transistor market share in the transition from FinFET to GAA, particularly in product areas including Epitaxy and Selective Removal, in our view.

7) Constructive long-term outlook on mature node capital investments:

 Applied Materials reiterated that its ICAPS (IoT, Communications, Automotive, Power and Sensors) business is on track to grow in CY2023 at a faster pace than in CY2022 given strength across China, Japan, Europe, and the US While we expect capital spending across mature/specialty nodes to remain cyclical, we subscribe to the view that capital intensity in the trailing-edge will stay elevated vis-a-vis the past 5-10 years as the used equipment market the IDMs and foundry suppliers used to leverage has since declined in size. Note TEL stated that they expect WFE demand associated with mature process nodes could reach ~$50bn by CY2030, up from ~$30bn in CY2023, while ASML addressed skepticism surrounding spending on mature/specialty nodes in China by sharing that ordered lithography tools are being installed in cleanrooms (rather than only being ordered for strategic/geopolitical purposes and stored).

8) Industry wafer starts to recover in 2H: 

Entegris reaffirmed its CY2023 market outlook — specifically, a mid-teens (%) yoy decline in MSI and a ~20% yoy decline in industry capex. That said, the company expects a modest recovery in 2H23 driven by advanced Logic/Foundry on growth in AI and the introduction of new consumer electronics products. Management remains confident in its ability to deliver consistent outgrowth — 6-7% points this year — as customers’ execute to their respective technology transitions (e.g. Gate-All-Around) and in turn consume more of Entegris’ products on a per-wafer basis.

9) Near-term caution on wafer volumes but ASP outlook intact: 

SUMCO shared a relatively cautious outlook for its silicon wafer business as the ongoing inventory correction in Memory is likely to drive a hoh decline in shipments in 2H. On a positive note, management stated that wafer pricing continues to track largely in-line with what had been agreed in LTAs and that the current expectation is for wafer pricing to increase ~10% yoy in CY2024.

10) CHIPS Act: 

from the CHIPS for America program, we hosted Todd Fisher who had spent 30 years in the finance and investment industry, including nearly 25 years at KKR & Co. Inc., prior to joining the Department of Commerce in 2021. Related to the CHIPS Act, Mr. Fisher shared the US Government’s long-term goals, including a) at a high level, the pursuit of economic and national security, and at a micro level, b) the construction of at least two new leading-edge Logic/Foundry eco-systems in the US by the end of the decade, as well as c) the creation of a resilient supply chain as it pertains to mature process nodes and specialty technologies. Interestingly, Mr. Fisher noted that there is no bias either way in treatment of a domestic or international applicant as the goal of the program is to encourage companies to invest in R&D and for IP to reside in the United States. In his concluding remarks, Mr. Fisher summarized the six criteria under which applications are evaluated: 1) impact to economic and national security (the most significant), 2) financial viability, 3) commercial viability (including potential long-term implications for industry supply/demand), 4) technical feasibility, 5) workforce, and 6) broader impacts (with a significant discussion around R&D).

The explosion of interest in AI might be a growth driver of the semiconductor sector in two ways: building demand for innovative technologies and increasing chip demand. 

More details in the full Goldman note are available to pro subscribers in the usual place.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/05/2023 – 20:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/YqaG3gf Tyler Durden

When Your Own Government Confirms It Paid Censors To Silence You…

When Your Own Government Confirms It Paid Censors To Silence You…

Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

If you’ve been around for very long, you know this website has suffered repeated hits for our content. We’ve been defunded, we’ve been hit by algorithmic changes that make it harder for people to find us, and we’ve been classified as a “disinformation” site. All of this has happened despite the fact we offer factual coverage and often use mainstream sources that are not targeted by censors.

While I’ve had my suspicions since the attacks first began, imagine the sick feeling in the pit of my stomach when I recently read an expose by the Washington Examiner in which the United States government readily admitted giving funding to the very business that abruptly defunded my website back in 2021.

The US State Department “stands by” grant to fund censorship

It’s hard to believe that I’m writing this about the government of the United States of America, but here we are in 2023 with our own government striving to make at least half the country out to be terrorists and second-class citizens. An exclusive report by the Washington Examiner states:

The State Department “stands by” its widely scrutinized grant to a group the Washington Examiner revealed is blacklisting conservative media outlets, according to a letter to Congress.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) put the State Department’s Global Engagement Center on blast in a March letter to the agency and demanded an investigation into its $100,000 grant in 2021 to the Global Disinformation Index, which has fed conservative website blacklists to advertisers to defund disfavored speech. The agency issued a response to the congressman on Friday, telling him in a letter obtained by the Washington Examiner that it has no regrets over the taxpayer-backed award…

…As the Washington Examiner has reported since February 2022, the GDI was awarded $100,000 through the government’s U.S.-Paris Tech Challenge, which sought to “advance the development of promising and innovative technologies against disinformation and propaganda across the European Economic Area and the United Kingdom,” according to the Atlantic Council, a think tank that partnered for the challenge.

But it wasn’t just a grant of $100,000. At least $330,000 was received from US-State-Department-related entities, and it’s possible the price tag goes even higher. In another article, the Washington Examiner reported these ties:

The first State Department-backed group that has supported GDI is the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit group that receives nearly all of its funding from annual congressional appropriations.

According to financial statements, the NED received over $300 million from the State Department in 2021. Critics have argued that the endowment, which Congress authorized in 1983, is essentially a government grantmaking body despite its legal status as a private entity.

In 2020, the NED granted $230,000 to the AN Foundation, GDI’s group that also goes by the Disinformation Index Foundation, documents show.

The grant was to “deepen understanding of the challenges to information integrity in the digital space” in Africa , Asia, and other foreign countries, to “assess disinformation risks of local online media ecosystems,” according to the NED, which noted that GDI would compile “risk ratings” for ad companies and others to assess “risks that arise from funding disinformation.”

And that’s not all – further government funding of censorship entities is discussed in the article. Potentially there are millions of dollars granted to organizations that in turn fund censorship groups.

Our own government is wiping its feet on the first amendment as it “stands by” grants that go after those who dissent.

What is GDI?

GDI (Global Disinformation Index) is the group that directly caused The Organic Prepper website to lose a valuable advertising partnership that had been in place for years with no complaints whatsoever. There was no notice – the partnership with AdThrive was severed, and we were offered no recourse to try and maintain the relationship.

This was a loss of thousands of dollars of revenue monthly – revenue that allowed us to publish and offer our products at low or no cost to the readers.

Again from the Examiner:

GDI compiles a “dynamic exclusion list” that it feeds to corporate entities, such as the Microsoft -owned advertising company Xandr, emails show. Xandr and other companies are, in turn, declining to place ads on websites that GDI flags as peddling disinformation.

The Washington Examinerrevealed on Thursday that it is on this exclusion list. The list includes at least 2,000 websites and has “had a significant impact on the advertising revenue that has gone to those sites,” said GDI’s CEO Clare Melford on a March 2022 podcast.

We seem to be on the wrong side of GDI. To be honest, that’s not something that’s cause for shame. I’m glad that a group that believes in silencing anyone who doesn’t just meekly go with the status quo also believes that I’m not one of them.

Here’s what we were told at the time we were defunded.

When we were defunded, it wasn’t really a surprise. We’d received the following announcement two weeks before.

The Global Disinformation Index (GDI) helps advertising companies assess a website’s risk of disinformation and provide a trusted and neutral assessment so brands and ad companies can make informed decisions and avoid funding this content.

We recently became the first ad management service to partner with The Global Disinformation Index to introduce new vetting processes for all sites in the AdThrive community, so that advertisers can spend confidently and be assured they are NOT funding disinformation!

This allows us to pinpoint potentially harmful topics on the site (for example, disinformation, hate speech, racism, derogatory content, and other topics or themes that are not brand safe) and research the content in a more thorough way than before.

We’re also using this system to establish new brand safety processes to periodically review our existing partnerships to ensure our community remains as high-quality as possible. (source)

It was the first time I’d heard of GDI, but I was instantly suspicious.

Many of us ” voiced concern about this high-level censorship of our websites. After all, we’d been working together for years, and it was downright insulting to be “audited” for truthfulness from some outside entity. Our attempts to discuss this fell upon deaf ears. Their decision to align with censors had been made.

Soon, I received the following email.

And that was it.

Just like that, I lost $56,000 of revenue per year, the revenue that had juuuuussst covered my then-operating expenses of $55,000 per year.

The real-world effects of this

It’s been a real struggle to keep afloat. A once-thriving business is now going month-to-month in an effort to pay the massive overhead required to keep us online. That overhead has only gone up with both inflation and attacks on the sites at a server level. Those attacks have been costly to repair and prevent with added security measures. And while suing them would be great, these costs and the halt to my flow of income mean that I could not afford to take legal action, despite clear evidence of defamatory and malicious behavior. I tried, initially, and I quickly went through my entire savings account and never even got to court.

I’ve had to let long-time employees go, and we’re running on a skeleton crew now. We’ve had to dial back how often we post, and it’s a constant cycle of creating products and marketing them to keep things going.

We cannot keep operating without your help. So this weekend, we’re offering two ways to support the site – a site that the Biden administration desperately wants to see go away.

We will keep sharing the information we believe is important for as long as possible. We will keep offering our products on a sliding scale to help our readers who can’t afford to pay more. We are committed to exposing manipulation and corruption and to helping you get prepared and to recognize the threats.

We won’t go down without a fight, and we sincerely appreciate your efforts to help us.

What does it mean when you’re attacked by your own government?

Being attacked and censored by my own government is a very difficult thing to stomach.  Not only is it painfully disappointing, it’s also scary.

You look at other writers who have fun afoul of the administration and the attacks they are suffering, like Matt Taibbi’s run-in with the weaponized IRS or Tucker Carlson losing his job under mysterious circumstances (but most likely for exposing the events of January 6th using video footage.)

Meanwhile, the United Nations talks about standing up to those who would silence journalists.

On November 2, the United Nations observed its ninth annual International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists. The United Nations established this day in no small part because of the essential role journalists play in healthy and vibrant democracies. Independent reporters hold the powerful accountable for their conduct, their policies, and the results, and help their fellow citizens make informed choices that are untainted by propaganda or misinformation. When reporters are silenced, people are robbed of the information they need to make decisions that affect their lives.

They also note that fifteen American reporters have been murdered since the 90s as a direct result of their investigations.

While the United States may be considered a relatively safe place for journalists, it is not immune from such violence. Jeff German, a Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter covering politics and corruption, was found stabbed to death near his home on September 2. A local government official who was the subject of recent reporting by German was arrested and charged with murdering him days later. German was the 15th journalist to have been killed in the United States since 1992; some have died in particularly infamous incidents, like the four who were killed in a mass shooting at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland, in 2018.

But the journalists they have in mind aren’t alternative journalists and bloggers in America. These are legacy and local media who they discuss.

We, however, know the risk we are taking.

You have to wonder how much worse it will get now that the government admits without shame or remorse that it is funding the organizations which are going after us.

*  *  *

Daisy is the best-selling author of 5 traditionally published books, 12 self-published books, and runs a small digital publishing company with PDF guides, printables, and courses at SelfRelianceand Survival.com

Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/05/2023 – 19:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/yYhczDs Tyler Durden

El Niño Fears Surge Among CEOs As Economy In Crosshairs Of Extreme Weather

El Niño Fears Surge Among CEOs As Economy In Crosshairs Of Extreme Weather

As we have highlighted, the global economic impact of El Niño could be in the trillions of dollars over the next several years. American business leaders are bracing for weather disruptions as their discussion on recent earnings calls about the damaging weather phenomenon surges to multi-year highs. 

Bloomberg data shows executives speaking about El Niño has surged to the highest levels since 2019. There is growing concern among some corporate America that extreme weather will dent future earnings. 

News stories referencing El Niño have surged to highs not seen since October 2015. 

Christopher Callahan, an Earth system scientist at Dartmouth College, who co-authored the report “Persistent effect of El Niño on global economic growth,” recently warned: 

“There’s an economic legacy of El Niño in GDP [gross domestic product] growth.” 

Last month, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California identified a “potential precursor” of El Niño conditions after one of its satellites spotted a massive wave of warm water moving across the equatorial Pacific.

As of May 11, NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center said the probability of El Niño forming is greater than 90% over the next few months. 

Recall we wrote, “El Nino Watch Initiated As Ag-Industry In Crosshairs.” 

And maybe CEOs have found the next scapegoat to blame when earnings take a dive… 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/05/2023 – 19:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/9fMDUBg Tyler Durden

800 Years Of History In One Paragraph

800 Years Of History In One Paragraph

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via DailyReckoning.com,

Perhaps you recall the immensely popular series Downton Abbey, depicting British aristocratic life in a mighty estate, robust at first but fading as the seasons progress.

At one point, the dowager countess Violet Crawley summarizes 800 years of British history in a paragraph. It’s the kind of history that is routinely denied to students and has been for decades.

But it’s a good lesson in political science. She says:

For years I’ve watched governments take control of our lives, and their argument is always the same: fewer costs and greater efficiency. But the result is the same too: less control by the people and more control by the state, until the individual’s own wishes count for nothing. That is what I consider my duty to resist.

“By wielding your unelected power?” asks Lady Rosamund Painswick.

Ignoring the swipe, the dowager answers:

“See, the point of a so-called great family is to protect our freedoms. That is why the barons made King John sign the Magna Carta.”

Surprised, her distant cousin Isobel responds:

“I do see that your argument was more honorable than I’d appreciated.”

And her daughter-in-law Cora, an American who doesn’t understand what’s at stake, answers too: “Mama, we’re not living in 1215. The strengths of great families like ours is going. That’s just a fact.”

The dowager continues:

“Your great-grandchildren won’t thank you when the state is all-powerful because we didn’t fight.”

Now we know why she cares so much about this one seemingly small issue.

For her entire life, she has seen the state on the march, most especially during the Great War, and then the pressure of the state mounted against all the old estates, as they fall in status and wealth year after year, as if by some inexorable force of history.

The dowager, on the other hand, sees not some invisible hand at work but a very visible hand, that of the state itself. In other words, she sees what nearly everyone else has missed.

And whether she is right or wrong on the particular matter of this one hospital (and later history proves her correct), the larger point is precisely right.

As the great fortunes of the nobility declined — the very structures that had not only carved out the rights of the people against the rulers and protected them for 800 years — the state was on the rise, threatening not only the nobles but the people too.

What does all this have to do with the U.S. and the American Revolution? Read on.

Corruption of the Great Families and the Future of Freedom

New history likes to point out with great ire that the prime movers of rebels against the crown in 1776 were larger landowners and businessmen along with their families.

They were the Founding families and the main influencers behind the Revolution, which Edmund Burke famously defended on grounds that it was not a real revolution but a revolt with a conservative intent. By this he meant that the Colonies were merely asserting rights forged in British political experience.

And there is a point to that. The rights-based fervor that birthed the War of Independence gradually mutated into a Constitutional Convention 13 years later. The Articles of Confederation had no central government but the Constitution did. And the main controlling factions of the new government were indeed the landed families of the New World.

The Bill of Rights, a thoroughly radical codification of the rights of the people and lower governments, was tacked on by the “Anti-Federalists” — again, a landed aristocracy — as a condition of ratification.

The issue of slavery in the Colonies massively complicated the picture, of course, and became the main line of attack on the American system of federalism itself. The landed gentry of the South in particular always had grave doubts about Jefferson’s claims of universal and inviolable rights, fearing that eventually their ownership claims over human persons would be challenged, which indeed they were and less than a century after the Constitution was ratified.

That aside, it remains true that the birth of American liberty rested with the U.S. version of the nobles, but also backed by the people at large. So the dowager’s history of British rights is not entirely inconsistent with the American story at least until recently.

This has also been the prism with which to understand the broad outlines of the terms “left” and “right” in both the U.K. and the U.S. The “right” in a popular sense has represented mostly the established business interests (including the good parts and bad parts such as the munitions manufacturers) and tended to be the faction that defended the rights of commerce.

The “left” has pushed the interests of labor unions, social welfare and minority populations, all of which happened also to be aligned with the interests of the state.

Those categories seemed mostly settled as we entered the 21st century.

But it was at this point that a titanic shift began to take place, especially after 9/11. The interests of the “great families” and the state began to align across the board (and not just on matters of war and peace). These family fortunes were no longer attached to Old World ideals but to technologies of control.

The paradigmatic case is the Gates Foundation but the same holds true of Rockefeller, Koch, Johnson, Ford and Bezos. As the main funders of the World Health Organization and “scientific” research grants, they are the main forces behind the newest and largest threats to the freedom of the individual.

These foundations built from capitalist wealth, and now fully controlled by bureaucrats loyal to statist causes, are on the wrong side of the crucial debates of our time. They fight not for the emancipation of the people but rather more control.

With many sectors of the “left” naively signing up with the biomedical state and the interests of the pharmaceutical giants, and the “right” triangulated into going along, where is the party to defend the freedom of the individual? It is being squeezed out in an attack from both ends of the mainstream political spectrum.

If the “great families” have fundamentally shifted their loyalties and interests, in both the U.S. and the U.K., and the mainline churches can no longer be relied upon to defend basic freedoms, we can and should expect a major realignment to take place.

Marginalized groups drawn from the older versions of both right and left will need to mount a major and effective effort to reassert all the rights forged and earned over many centuries.

These are completely new times and the COVID wars signal that turning point.

Essentially, we need to revisit the Magna Carta itself to make it clear: Government has definite limits to its power. And by “government,” we cannot just mean the state but also its aligned interests, which are many but include the largest players in media, tech and corporate life.

The groups that want to normalize the lockdowns and mandates — thinking of the COVID Crisis Group — can count on the financial support of the “great” families, and freely admit it. This is a problem completely unlike what freedom fighters have faced over the long course of modern history. It’s also why political alliances these days seem so fluid.

This is ultimately what is behind the great political debates of our time. We are trying to make sense of who stands for what in times when nothing is as it seems.

And there are some strange anomalies extant too. Elon Musk, for example, is among the richest Americans but seems to be a backer of free speech that the establishment hates. His social platform is the only one among the high-impact products that permit speech that contradicts regime priorities.

Meanwhile his competitor in riches Jeff Bezos does not join him in this crusade.

So too when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a scion of a “great family” — has broken with his clan to support the rights of the individual and a restoration of the freedoms we took for granted in the 20th century. His entry into the race for the Democratic nomination has disrupted our whole sense of where the “great families” stand on fundamental questions.

The confusion even impacts political leaders like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis. Is Trump really a populist who is willing to stand up to the administrative state or is his appointed role to absorb the energies of the pro-freedom movement and once again turn them toward authoritarian ends, as he did with the lockdowns of 2020?

And is Ron DeSantis a genuine champion of freedom who will fight lockdowns or is his appointed role to divide and weaken the Republican Party in advance of the nomination fight?

This is the current fight within the GOP. It is a fight over who is telling the truth.

The reason conspiracy theory has been unleashed as never before in our lifetimes is because nothing truly is what it seems to be. This traces to the reversal of alliances that have characterized the struggle for liberty over 800 years.

We no longer have the barons and lords and we no longer have the great fortunes: They have thrown their lots in with the technocrats. Meanwhile, the supposed champions of the little guy are now fully aligned with the most powerful sectors of society, yielding a fake version of the left.

Where does this leave us? We only have the intelligent bourgeoisie — products of the middle class that is currently under assault — that is well-read, clear-thinking, attached to alternative sources of news and only now in our post-lockdown world aware of the existential nature of the struggle we face.

And their rallying cry is the same which has inspired the freedom movements of the past: the rights of individuals and families over the hegemon.

If the dowager countess were around today, let there be no doubt as to where she would stand. She would stand with the freedom of the people against the controls of the state and its managers.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/05/2023 – 19:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/OA3ExLU Tyler Durden

Park Hotels Makes “Difficult” Decision To Stop Paying San Fran CMBS Loan, Citing “Concerns Over Street Conditions”

Park Hotels Makes “Difficult” Decision To Stop Paying San Fran CMBS Loan, Citing “Concerns Over Street Conditions”

Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. announced Monday that it ceased making payments on a $725 million CMBS loan which is scheduled to mature in November 2023. The loan is secured by two of its San Francisco hotels that it plans to remove from its portfolio.

The hotels in focus are the 1,921-room Hilton San Francisco Union Square and the 1,024-room Parc 55 San Francisco. 

“The Company intends to work in good faith with the loan’s servicers to determine the most effective path forward, which is expected to result in ultimate removal of these hotels from its portfolio,” Park wrote in a statement. 

You won’t be shocked by Park CEO Thomas Baltimore’s statement on why it’s a “necessary decision to stop debt service payments on our San Francisco CMBS loan”: 

“After much thought and consideration, we believe it is in the best interest for Park’s stockholders to materially reduce our current exposure to the San Francisco market. Now more than ever, we believe San Francisco’s path to recovery remains clouded and elongated by major challenges – both old and new: record high office vacancy; concerns over street conditions; lower return to office than peer cities; and a weaker than expected citywide convention calendar through 2027 that will negatively impact business and leisure demand and will likely significantly reduce compression in the city for the foreseeable future.”

Baltimore said removing the two hotels will “substantially improve our balance sheet and operating metrics.” 

And there it is, a large real estate investment trust focused on hotel properties, with over 29,000 rooms in prime U.S. markets, abandoning San Francisco.

Park’s announcement comes days after San Francisco’s Mayor, London Breed, makes major U-Turn to fund police after an explosion in crime has forced companies to leave the crime-ridden town.  

Well done, Democrats. You’ve effectively transformed a once-thriving city into a hellhole. 

 

 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/05/2023 – 18:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/B6Jp0K4 Tyler Durden

The US Desperately Needs A Political Brain Transplant

The US Desperately Needs A Political Brain Transplant

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Euointelligence has an interesting take on why Biden Inflation Reduction Act will fail in its goal to re-industrialize the US.

Don’t Re-Industrialize. Forge Alliances.

Please consider Don’t Re-Industrialize. Forge Alliances, emphasis mine.

There is an old saying in the world of manufacturing: once an industry leaves, it won’t come back. It’s the Humpty Dumpty of economics. This is why the Germans, who know a thing or two about industry, have been fighting deindustrialization so hard. The US and the UK gave up on industry decades ago, but the Biden administration wants it to return. The instrument of choice is last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, with its $370bn program of green subsidies. I fear the US underestimates the scale of the task.

The intellectual force behind that strategy is Jake Sullivan, Joe Biden’s national security adviser. It is a sign of the times that foreign policy dictates the most important strategic economic policy shift in decades. Sullivan has cited the hollowing out of the US’s industrial base as one of the reasons behind the strategy. The other, of course, is China.

The White House says the goal of the Inflation Reduction Act is to make “the nation more resilient to growing threats… and driving critical economic investments to historically underserved communities”. This describes the mélange of foreign and domestic policy goals quite well. It is rare in politics that one policy instrument achieves two policy goals. More often than not, it achieves neither.

The scale of the problem is illustrated by the diminished role of industry. In the UK and the US, industry accounts for 17-18 per cent of the value added in the economy, according to the World Bank. In Germany and Japan, it is 27-29 per cent. In China it is almost 40 per cent.

It takes years for an industrial company to build a production line and supply chains. This is why China is so good at it. Industry time-horizons correspond more closely to five-year plans than quarterly profit targets. Herein lies the first obstacle. The term of a US president, and their national security adviser, is short. Would an industrial firm be so reckless as to place a strategic bet on Donald Trump not getting back into office? Or that, if he did, he would continue Biden’s industrial policies? Or that even a future Democratic administration would?

Sullivan is, of course, right in his diagnosis: the US industrial base has been hollowed out. Re-industrialization may be a laudable goal, but Sullivan’s strategy would require a political brain transplant. It would be a very long-term program. The way to start would be to build a bipartisan consensus. A subsidy program is not enough. And it should not be the start.

I also fail to see how the US will achieve the second stated goal of the Inflation Reduction Act – to become more resilient and independent from China. China’s near monopoly in some rare earths and other raw materials remains. All the new US investment will do is reshuffle the higher nodes or points in the supply chains.

A smarter policy response for the US would be to build strategic supply-chain and industrial partnerships in Africa and Latin America. This is what China has done, for example by taking a strategic stake in a Chilean lithium mine. Chile is the world’s second largest producer of lithium – a critical raw material in the production of electric batteries. China is also now Chile’s largest trading partner. As the US lost interest in Latin America, Chile has become increasingly dependent on China. 

China is also diplomatically more active in Africa than the Europeans and the Americans. In building new strategic relationships for the benefit of Western economies, this is where I would start.

What Sullivan’s comments tell me is that the US has lost more than just industry. It has lost its instinct for understanding what industry is all about.

Trade Wars Fail

Trump failed with Tariffs. Biden will fail with subsidies. Both are trade war tactics. 

Biden may have better near-term results, but what will the next administration do? And the EU is hopping mad over Biden’s subsidies that are illegal under WTO.

There is little long-term strategic thinking in the US with corporations looking only at beating the street on the next quarter, and politicians looking no further than the next election. 

And whereas Biden weaponized the dollar, the rest of the world, including the EU, is not only resentful, but looking for ways of avoiding the long arm of US sanctions and mandates. 

Dollar Weaponization In the Spotlight Again

President Biden and the Fed crossed a line with dollar weaponization.

For discussion, please see Dollar Weaponization Expands – FDIC Message to Foreign Depositors Is Don’t Trust the US

Also see Central Banks Are Buying Gold at Record Pace, What Does That Mean for Inflation?

Let’s return to a point that Eurointelligence made. “It is rare in politics that one policy instrument achieves two policy goals. More often than not, it achieves neither.”

The Inflation Reduction Act is unlikely to make “the nation more resilient to growing threats” or “drive critical economic investments to historically underserved communities”.

The IRA certainly failed to reduce inflation. If anything, it will increase inflation.

Expect three policy failures because what we really need is a “political brain transplant.”

Although the above is true, despite China’ ability to think long term. it still has not solved its dependence on massive property bubbles.

There is a common denominator to all of these global woes: The fundamental problem everywhere is an unsound currency system that promotes bubbles as a means of growth. 

For discussion, please see What’s the Fundamental Problem in China, the US, and the EU?

*  *  *

Please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/05/2023 – 18:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/bg3e2sM Tyler Durden

Fast reloading of guns in the 19th century

This post describes the speediest means of reloading firearms in the 19th century. The main focus is not the ammunition capacity of any particular type of arm, but rather how quickly various arms could be reloaded after the initial ammunition was spent.

As the post also explains, although the 19th century was, by far, the century of the greatest advances in firearms, many of those advances were not truly new. Rather, the advances were the results of improvements in manufacturing that greatly reduced the price of gun types that previously had been very expensive.

The post covers, in order:

  • Spencer lever-action rifles (fast reloads of 7-round tubular magazines);
  • Girardoni rifles (20-round tubular speedloaders);
  • bolt-action rifles (reloads via detachable box magazines or stripper clips);
  • double-barreled shotguns (over 30 shots per minute);
  • semiautomatic handguns (detachable box magazines or stripper clips);
  • metallic cartridge revolvers (via circular speedloaders);
  • cap-and-ball revolvers and pepperboxes (for revolvers, cylinder swaps starting with an 1858 Remington patent);
  • finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, the large progress in reloading speed of single-shot muskets and rifles, thanks to the replacement of muzzleloading with breechloading.

Spencer lever-action rifles

The first repeating long guns that became a major commercial success were lever-action rifles. They were introduced in the late 1850s. The first commercially successful lever action was the Henry Rifle of 1860; it held 15 rounds in a tubular magazine under the barrel, plus one round in the firing chamber.

Lever action rifles are fast shooters. Today, the champions of the Single Action Shooting Society can fire 10 shots in 2 seconds. The competition requires use of unimproved replicas of common 19th century arms. Once the user had fired all 16 shots from a Henry—or all 18 shots from its successor, the Winchester Model 1866—reloading would take some time, as the user would have to drop cartridges one at a time into the magazine.

Much faster reloads were possible with the Spencer lever action repeating rifles and carbines), which was also introduced in 1860. During the Civil War, the Spencer Repeating Rifle Company, of Boston, made 144,500 rifles and carbines (short rifles), including 34,000 subcontracted to the Burnside Rifle Company of Providence, R.I. Burnside also made the Burnside Carbine, similar to the Spencer but with different rifling. The company’s founder, Ambrose Burnside, was a Union general, strong advocate of using black volunteers in combat, future R.I. Senator and Governor, future first President of the National Rifle Association, and the namesake of “sideburns.”

Of the Boston production, 107,372 were sold to the U.S. government, as were 30,052 of the Providence production. The disposition of the rest was presumably private sale, which would almost certainly include some Union soldiers buying arms for themselves. The Spencer was a preferred firearm for cavalrymen. Norm Flayderman, Flayderman’s Guide to Antique American Firearms 633 (9th ed. 2007).

The Spencer held 7 rounds in a tubular magazine in the buttstock. After firing 7 rounds, the user could pour in 7 fresh rounds using the Blakeslee speedloader, patented in 1864. The Blakeslee cartridge box kit could hold up to 13 tubes, with 7 rounds each.

The principle of the detachable magazine had been put into use long before, albeit not on a scale as large as Spencer’s. After the American Revolution, American inventor Joseph Belton moved to England, where starting in 1786 he created 7-shot breechloading repeaters with detachable metal magazines for the British East India Company. The 1786 gun had 7 separate firing pans, each of which needed to be reprimed after a magazine change.

In America, Belton is most famous for a prior 1777 invention. During the Revolution, in Philadelphia he demonstrated a gun that fired 16 shots at once. The observing committee –which including two American generals and scientist David Rittenhouse–wrote to the Continental Congress urging adoption of the gun. Letter from Joseph Belton to the Continental Congress (July 10, 1777), in 1 Papers of the Continental Congress, Compiled 1774–1789, Petitions Addressed to Congress 139 (1957). The Continental Congress ordered a hundred, but could not come to terms with Belton on the price. J. Cont. Cong., at 324, 361 (May 15, 1777). He insisted on £130 per gun, equivalent to £27,258 today, or $34,174–too much for a government that already couldn’t make ends meet.

Another ancestor of Civil War Spencer was the lever-action Kalthoff repeater of 17th-century Europe. Some of them could fire 30 rounds without reloading. They “spread throughout Europe wherever there were gunsmiths with sufficient skill and knowledge to make them, and patrons wealthy enough to pay the cost. . . . [A]t least nineteen gunsmiths are known to have made such arms in an area stretching from London on the west to Moscow on the east, and from Copenhagen south to Salzburg. There may well have been even more.” Harold L. Peterson, The Treasury of the Gun 230 (1962).

However, like all repeaters of the time, the Kalthoffs were much more expensive than standard infantry firearms. This is because repeaters, by their nature, have more intricate internal parts than single-shot guns, and the repeater’s parts must fit together more precisely than in single-shots. If a Kalthoff part broke, the gun could only be repaired by a specialist gunsmith. The widespread adoption of lever action repeaters was impractical until the American industrial revolution, when, as described in a previous post, federal government industrial policy created a firearms industry that could mass produce high-quality intricate and interchangeable parts.

Although many Union soldiers provided their own firearms, as did Confederates, the majority of Union soldiers used firearms issued by War Department. When the Civil War ended, the U.S. government owned many more firearms than it would need for the soon-to-be much smaller post-war Army. Pursuant to General Order no. 101 (May 30, 1865), Union soldiers were allowed to buy their government-issued firearm for a deduction from their monthly pay. The most expensive was the Spencer, for $10. Muskets were $6, and revolvers or non-Spencer carbines $8. In 1865, the monthly pay for a Union private was $16. For sergeants it was $17 to $21, for lieutenants $105.50, and more for higher ranks.

Bolt-action rifles

The bolt-action rifle had been invented in 1836. Single-shot bolt-action rifles started becoming widespread in 1866. The magazine-fed bolt-action repeaters became standard infantry arms in the 1880s. Some of them used detachable box magazines, such as the 8-round 1888 British Lee-Metford.

Other models had a fixed (permanently attached) magazine that could quickly be reloaded with stripper clips. The clips held the rounds of ammunition in a straight line at their base, so they could speedily be shoved into an empty fixed magazine.

Girardoni rifles

The Spencers, with their speedloaded tubular magazine, used a system also used by the earlier Girardoni air rifle. Invented for Austrian army snipers in 1779, the Girardoni had a tubular magazines for 21 or 22 rounds, depending on .49 or .46 caliber. Each Girardoni came with four speedloading tubes; once the gun’s magazine was empty, pouring in 20 more rounds was simple and fast. Because of the air bladder’s finite capacity, a Girardoni could fire about 40 shots before the air bladder needed to be pumped up again. That took 1,500 strokes of the special pump.

Ballistically equal to a powder gun, the Girardoni could take an elk with one shot. The best gun of its time, the Girardoni was used by the Austrian army for decades, but did not become widespread in America. Most importantly, it was quite expensive. Second, after years of rough use, the neck connecting the bladder to pump would weaken, so that air refills became impossible. Like other early firearms, the very expensive Girardoni set a high standard that would eventually become attainable by firearms made for ordinary consumers.

Semiautomatic firearms

These were invented in 1884. The first ones to become major commercial successes were the Mauser C96 pistol starting in 1896, and the Luger in 1899. The former had a fixed magazine fed by stripper clips, the latter a 10-round detachable box magazine.

Double-barreled long guns

The double-barreled gun was invented in 1616. W.W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development 102 (9th ed. 1910). By the 1880s, breechloading and metallic cartridges had made the double-barreled shotgun into a fast shooter. With a flip of a switch, the gun could break open: the barrels would tilt down and the two empty cartridges would be  ejected. The user could then drop two fresh cartridges into the exposed barrel breeches. The rate of fire was about 26 rounds per minute for aimed shots, and “upwards of thirty” otherwise. Greener at 504.

Metallic cartridge revolvers and pepperboxes

The modern form of the metallic cartridge was invented in 1853, and is used by the vast majority of modern firearms. A metal cylinder holds the bullet, gunpowder, and primer all in a single unit. Its predecessors date back to the reign of King Henry VIII.

The first American revolver to use metallic cartridges was the 7-round breechloading Smith & Wesson New Model 1, introduced in 1857.

In the next section, I will explain how previous models of revolvers—the muzzleloading cap-and-ball type—had to be laboriously reloaded by ramming a bullet from the front of the cylinder to the back. The new Smith & Wesson opened on a hinge, exposing all 7 chambers at the back of the cylinder. When reloading, the user would use an attached rod to push out the  now-empty shell of a fired cartridge. Then the user could drop a fresh round into the empty cylinder chamber. For a full reload, the process would be repeated for each chamber. The ammunition for the Model 1 was Smith & Wesson’s new .22 rimfire short, which is still in use today.

Pepperboxes are similar to revolvers, but have multiple rotating barrels; they are discussed in more detail in the next section. In 1859, the first pepperbox using metallic cartridges was produced by Sharps. Production would be over 150,000. Lewis Winant, Pepperbox Firearms 78, 87 (1952).

Reloading a S&W revolver was faster than reloading a pre-1858 cap-and-ball revolver; cap-and-ball reloading became much quicker starting in 1858, thanks to a Remington patent discussed in the next section.

In the 1860s and 1870s, metallic cartridge firearms displaced firearms using older types of ammunition. As the process continued, reloading of revolvers with metallic cartridges sped up.

The S&W New Model 1 broke open from the bottom, via a hinge on the top. Later, “top break” revolvers put the hinge on the bottom. The user did not have to turn the gun upside-down to reload. Opening a top break revolver automatically ejected all the empty shells from the entire cylinder.

In 1879 the first speedloader for revolvers was patented. It was a circular clip that held six rounds of ammunition in the exact position of a revolver cylinder. While 6 rounds had become the standard capacity for revolvers, some models had more or fewer, so they would need speedloaders made for the revolver’s particular capacity and caliber.

With the entire back of the cylinder the exposed, the user places the speedloader over the empty cylinder and then turns a knob on the speedloader to release the cartridges all at once, dropping them into the cylinder. With some practice, the process is quick, albeit not as fast as swapping detachable box magazines on a semiautomatic firearm. In the days when many or most law enforcement officers carried revolvers–that is, up until about the 1990s–speedloaders were standard on an officer’s duty belt.

In 1889 came the swing-out cylinder, which is ubiquitous on modern revolvers. The cylinder is attached to revolver’s frame via a hinge called a “crane.” Like the top break, the swing-out exposes all cylinder chambers simultaneously. A few years later Smith & Wesson introduced an ejector rod to push out every empty shell from the cylinder all at once. Speedloaders made for a top break revolver can work for a swing-out, and vice versa.

Cap and ball revolvers and pepperboxes

The first repeating firearms to become huge commercial successes in the United States were handguns, starting in the 1830s. Although the Colt revolver was patented in 1836, until the 1850s revolvers were overshadowed by pepperboxes. In a revolver, a cylinder holds several rounds of ammunition, most typically 5 to 7. Before each shot, the cylinder is rotated by mechanical action from the trigger or hammer, and the cylinder aligns the next round in the cylinder’s chambers with the barrel. A pepperbox works similarly, except that the pepperbox has a separate barrel for each round of ammunition; the barrels rotate around an axis. (Some earlier models of pepperboxes wrapped the barrels around an axis, but the barrels did not rotate.)

Pepperboxes were less accurate than Colt revolvers, but accurate enough at close range. Many pepperboxes could fire faster than a Colt revolver because they were double-action; that is, they fire as fast as the user can press the trigger. In contrast, the Colt revolvers were single-action; before pressing the trigger, the user had to cock the hammer with his thumb. The first Colt revolvers had five shots, whereas many pepperboxes had six. Perhaps most importantly, the Colt revolver could cost four times as much as a pepperbox. Paul Henry, Ethan Allen and Allen & Wheelock 4, 17, 48, 59 (2006) (Allen price of $8 to $8.50 to dealers).

The largest-capacity American-made pepperbox appears to be the 10-shot Pecare & Smith, introduced in 1849. Lewis Winant, Pepperbox Firearms 58 (Palladium Press 2001) (1952).

The first American pepperbox patent was by Darling in 1836. Winant at 20. The leading American manufacturers were various companies associated with Ethan Allen. Allen was not the same person as the illustrious Vermont patriot of the American Revolution. The 19th-century Allen is the person who founded the company that today sells fine furniture. He “was a pioneer in the transition from handmade to machine-made and interchangeable parts.” Id. at 28.

“The Allens were very popular with the Forty Niners. . . . The pepperbox was the fastest shooting handgun of its day. Many were bought by soldiers and for use by state militia. Some saw service in the Seminole Wars and the War with Mexico, and more than a few were carried in the Civil War.” They were last used in a major engagement by the U.S. Cavalry in an 1857 battle with the Cheyenne. Id. at 30.

Like lever actions, neither revolvers nor pepperboxes were truly new. In the 18th century and before, expert gunsmiths made revolvers for wealthy customers, but their main business was single-shot flintlocks. Starting in the 1810s, Eilisha H. Collier of Boston began working on revolving pistols and rifles. He was the first gunsmith “to be known solely as a manufacturer of revolvers.” John Nigel George, English Guns and Rifles 231 (1947). In 1819-20, while working in London, Collier produced 150 revolvers, “a very respectable figure for an expensive hand-made weapon of that type.” Id. at 236.

In 1715, John Pimm of Boston made a 6-shot flintlock revolver that resembles a modern Smith & Wesson .38 Special. M.L. Brown, Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology 1497-1792, at 255-56 (1980). King Henry VIII (reigned 1509-47) owned a four-shot matchlock revolver. Greener at 81-82.

Far more mainstream than King Henry’s gun were the magazine-fed Lorenzoni handguns of the 1600s. They used a cylinder that was rotated via a lever into three different positions to load a fresh ball, a fresh gunpowder charge, and fresh priming powder. While the Lorenzoni cylinder did revolve, the cylinder held only one bullet and an appropriate amount of gunpowder at a time. The cylinder was revolved in order to reload a fresh bullet from one internal magazine, and fresh powder from another such magazine.

Pepperboxes also predate 1600. One well-known model was the “Holy Water Sprinkler,” consisting of several barrels wrapped around the staff of a mace; some said that Henry VIII carried one. Winant at 7, 11. In the latter 17th century, pepperboxes were made by Jan Flock of Holland, and in the late 18th by Henry Nock of England. Id. at 13-14. Once the percussion cap was invented in the early 19th century, an unknown gunsmith in Pennsylvania made a 6-shot pepperbox. Id. at 18.

There are two main reasons why pepperboxes and revolvers started to become widely popular in the 1830s rather than the 1540s. The first was a change in firearms ignition.

Previously, firearms had used either flintlock or matchlock ignition. Matchlocks were obsolete in America and England long before 1791. The wheellock, invented by Leonardo da Vinci, was a step on the way to the flintlock. In flintlocks and matchlocks, the firing begins by igniting loose gunpowder in the firing pan. For a flintlock, the ignition is by sparks from a flint striking steel; for a matchlock, by the trigger lowering a slow-burning hemp cord to the firing pan. The firing pan is connected to the main gunpowder charge in the breech (back) of the barrel by a narrow channel that enters the barrel via a small touch hole. In the early 1805, after 12 years of careful work, Scotland’s Rev. Alexander Forsyth invented percussion ignition: the hammer of a firearm would strike a small explosive (the fulminate) and that explosion would ignite the main gunpowder charge in the firearm’s barrel. Percussion priming made it possible to have several rounds ready to fire, without the need to refill a priming pan.

A second reason why revolvers and pepperboxes became ordinary consumer items in the 1830s rather than the 1540s was manufacturing cost. Being mechanically more complex than single-shot guns, repeaters could be, and were, produced artisanally from the fifteenth century onward, but required many hours of expert labor. Mass production for a large consumer market became possible as a result of the Madison-Monroe industrial policy, begun in 1815, of federal investment in research and development of machine tools for the mass production of firearms from interchangeable parts.

All the American pepperboxes, as well as the Colt revolvers in their first decades, were cap and ball firearms. That is, they were a type of muzzleloader. To load a round, the user poured gunpowder into a revolver’s cylinder chamber (or one of the barrels on a pepperbox) from the front, and then rammed a bullet into place. At the back of the same cylinder chamber (or barrel, for a pepperbox), the user would place a percussion cap on a nipple. Then the process would have to be repeated for the next cylinder chamber (revolver) or barrel (pepperbox). For revolvers, a short ramrod on a pivot was typically attached underneath the barrel. With the cap and ball system, once a handgun was empty, a full reload was far from instantaneous.

That changed in 1858, with the third version of the new Remington “Beals” revolvers. Remington had patented the first and second Beals models in 1856 and 1857. Charles Schif, Remington’s First Revolvers: The Remington Beals .31 Caliber Revolvers 6-8 (2007) (Patents 15,167 & 17,359). In the 1858 patent, no. 21,478, the barrel was affixed to the revolver frame by a single pin, and the pin was designed to be easy to remove. The user would push out the attachment pin, replace the empty cylinder with a fresh, preloaded cylinder, put the barrel and pin back into place, and be ready to shoot. Id. at 48. As Remington advertising explained, “The efficiency of the arm may be greatly increased by the addition of duplicate cylinders, thus affording the advantage of a brace [pair] of Pistols at a trifling additional expense.” Id. at 106 (reprinting advertisement that ran in the George W. Hawes’ Ohio State Gazetteer and Business Director in 1859-60).

Another company, U.S. Starr Arms, made revolvers with a similar mechanism, using a screw for attachment, and designed for fast reloads. Colt revolvers had an attachment pin, but it had not been made with reloads in mind. Thus, some Colt users would file the pin so that was easy to remove, and the gun could then be reloaded just as fast as a Remington. I do not know if Fordyce Beals figured out the idea of a removable attachment pin by noticing what Colt users were doing, or if Colt users got the idea of filing their pins after seeing the Remington Beals revolvers.

Single-shot rifles

As I described in a previous post, the American colonists switched from matchlock firearms to flintlocks much sooner than their European cousins did. Because a flintlock is much easier to reload, the change quintupled the fire—at least in the hands of a proficient user—from no more than one shot per minute to five shots per minute.

Flintlock firearms started becoming much more powerful in 1787 when England’s Henry Nock patented a new breechblock. Formerly, the touch hole had been located near the back of the main powder charge. Nock moved the touch hole to around the middle of the powder charge, so that all the powder would ignite at once. Greener at 118; George at 188-90. Because all the powder now burned in an instant, gun barrels could be shortened; there was no longer a need for long barrels that provided time of various parts of the powder to combust. George at 190.

Nock’s breechblock was one of many inventions that made the flintlocks of 1787 much better than the flintlocks of 1687. George at 103 (“immense improvement in such matters as the cutting of screw threads, the tempering of springs, the case-hardening of working parts and lock-plates, and the accurate fitting of all members of the lock”); 114 (“waterproof” flash-pan allowing moisture to drain out the bottom); 115 (“small bearing-wheel” on the pan cover or pan cover spring that reduced friction and “greatly increased” the speed of opening the pan cover and “lessened the chances of its missing fire”).

In the first decades of the 19th century, as percussion ignition became standard, retrofitting a flintlock to use percussion ignition was inexpensive and easy. With percussion ignition, the user no longer had to pour loose priming gunpowder into the firing pan; simply putting a cap on the nipple was much faster. So reloading became faster.

After experimentation, the best form of percussion ignition was determined to be the copper percussion cap, “shaped like a thimble and with a small charge of fulminate in the crown.” George at 258. The cap sat on a nipple near the breech.

The retrofit instantly made a firearm more reliable and powerful. Because the detonation of the fulminate instantly ignited all the gunpowder at once, the gun fired more powerfully. At the time, not everybody with a flintlock owned one with a Nock breechblock, which also ignited all the powder at once. Even with a Nock breechblock, there was sometimes a short delay between when the sparks landed in the firing pan and when main powder charge exploded, since the flame had to travel from the priming pan to the main powder charge. George at 246-48.

Unlike flintlocks, which had loose powder in the firing pan, a percussion cap gun was in little danger of not firing because of rain or heavy moisture.An 1834 British army test, conducted “in all types of weather,” fired 6,000 rounds, and reported 936 misfires from flintlocks, compared to only 22 from percussion locks. (At the time, “lock” was the term for what we today call the “action” of gun—the part of the gun that performs the mechanical operations of loading and firing.)

Moreover, as described above, in a flintlock the burning powder in the firing pan communicates with the main power charge via a touch hole in the barrel. Necessarily, some of the burning gas from the main powder charge would escape via the touch hole, rather than staying in the barrel to push the bullet out through the muzzle. When the flintlock touch hole was replaced with the percussion nipple, a path for rearward gas escape was eliminated. “The penetration and recoil are therefore proportionately increased.” Greener at 117.

Meanwhile, breechloaders were becoming increasingly common. The vast majority of  modern firearms are breechloaders. They load from the back of the barrel (the breech) rather than from the front of the barrel (the muzzle).

Of course, King Henry VIII had breechloaders in 1537. His armory included  breechloading matchlock arquebus handguns and rifles. Upon examination centuries later, the guns “with some minor difference in details, were found to be veritable Snider rifles.” Charles B. Norton, American Breech-loading Small Arms 10 (1872). Invented in 1865, the Snider rifle was the standard British service arm of 1866-74. Greener at 103-04.

But unlike Henry VIII’s lever action and revolver guns, the breechloader became widespread well before the 19th century. “[M]any specimens” of breechloaders  “may be seen in museums of ancient arms.” Greener at 703. “During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, breech-loading arms were very numerous and of greatly diversified mechanism.” Id. at 103-10 (quote at 105); see also George at 47.  Among the most famous, at least to Americans, was the Ferguson rifle, which was used by the British in the American War of Independence and was “the first breech-loading carbine ever used by a regularly organized British corps.” Greener at 108. The user could hit a 200 yard target with six shots per minute while stationary, or four shots per minute while walking and reloading—reloading on the move having hitherto been impossible. George at 149-50.

From an American perspective, the first highly popular breechloader was the 1848 Sharps single-shot rifle. It used percussion ignition, plus old-fashioned paper cartridges that contained the bullet and powder charge, but not the primer. A novice could fire and reload 9 shots per minute. Sharps’ Breech-loading Patent Rifle, Scientific American, Mar. 9, 1850. The Sharps were especially popular with pioneer families heading West. Nine shots per minute by a novice was a big change from the flintlock’s rate of five shots per minute by an experienced user.

But the biggest breakthrough for breechloaders was the invention of the modern metallic cartridge in 1853. As described above, it contains the bullet, powder charge, and primer in a single metal casing. A predecessor had been invented around 1810 by Samuel Johannes Pauly of Switzerland. Building on the invention of percussion ignition, Pauly put the fulminate inside a pan in the center of a short metal case. The Pauly case attached to the rear of a traditional paper cartridge (which contained the gunpowder and the bullet). The fulminate would be detonated when struck by a firing pin. (As opposed to the standard percussion cap, which was detonated when struck by a hammer.)

You might not be surprised to learn that Henry VIII also had guns that used metallic cartridges. For all breechloaders in every century, there was one fundamental problem that needed to be solved. Unlike with a muzzleloader, the breech of the breechloader must be opened every time new ammunition is inserted. Unless a perfect seal is created at the breech, some of the gas from the burning gunpowder will escape rearward. Whatever gas escapes rearward will be wasted, since it not used to impart forward energy to the bullet. The rear gas could be annoying to the user.

The solution was the metallic cartridge. If the case were precisely as wide as the bore of the barrel, then the case itself would create a gas seal—as Henry VIII’s engineers well understood. It took a lot of trial and error to build a metal case that was precisely the size of the bore on the king’s breechloaders. George at 17-18. A king could afford the very high labor cost of handcrafted ammunition built for a particular firearm, but few other people could. Even after machine tools greatly reduced variations in bore sizes in a given caliber, bore sizes still varied within a range of tolerance. Some breechloaders were designed with breechblocks that made a perfect gas seal, but over repeated use, the friction of metal moving against metal might eventually thin the metal and allow some gas to escape.

The metallic cartridge of 1853 was the answer. Unlike Henry VIII’s ammunition, the 1853 cartridge used an expansive shell. This thin-walled shell could readily be dropped into the barrel breech. Then, when the gunpowder ignited, the pressure would expand the wall of the shell to release the bullet, and to form a perfect seal behind the expanding gas. “Probably no invention connected with fire-arms has wrought such changes in gun construction as the invention of the expansive cartridge case.” Greener at 133.

The expansive metallic cartridge was greatly beneficial for repeating firearms. First, the mechanics of a repeater are simpler if the primer is contained in the cartridge, rather than having to be loaded separately.

Secondly, for repeating arms, especially if not correctly loaded, there was a risk of “chain fire.” That is, the flame that was igniting one round might escape and ignite another round. At the least this could severely damage the gun, and at worst the explosion might injure the user. Today, if you have a reproduction of a 6-shot cap and ball revolver, the safety instructions may encourage you to load only every other round in the cylinder during target practice, to reduce the risk of a chain fire. People who carried fully loaded cap and ball revolvers for defense presumably decided that the small risk of a chain fire was outweighed by the risk of running out of ammunition while under attack. With the metallic cartridge, the risk of chain fire was greatly reduced.

Even on a single-shot rifle, the expansive metallic cartridge was a game-changer because it sped up reloading. As stated in the 1859 annual report by U.S. War Department Chief of Ordnance Henry Craig, “With the best breech-loading arm, one skillful man would be equal to two, probably three, armed with an ordinary muzzle-loading gun.” Carl Davis, Arming the Union 117 (1979).

Undoubtedly the Union could have won the Civil War much faster if it had been able to equip all its soldiers with breechloaders. But that was logistically impossible. With production lines running as fast as possible, it took until 1863—two years into the war—before the Union could supply every infantry soldier with the Army’s then-standard arm, the muzzleloading Springfield Model 1848 rifle. Retooling all the muzzleloading production lines to convert them into breechloading was not possible, given the Army’s immediate need for huge quantities of rifles. The Union had to make do with whatever breechloaders it could obtain from private companies and from imports. The Union’s deficiency in very large-scale firearm production at hitherto unknown quantities was one reason so many Union soldiers brought their personal firearms to service.

Later, when the Army had reverted to its small peacetime size, the single-shot 1873 Springfield rifle was adopted as the standard service arm. According to tests by the Ordnance Department, “A practiced person can fire this arm from 12 to 13 times per minute, loading from the cartridge-box. (It has been fired from the shoulder at the rate of 25 times per minute from the cartridge-box).” Springfield Armory, Description and Rules for the Management of the Springfield Rifle, Carbine, and Army Revolvers, Caliber 45 (Gov’t Printing Off. 1887).

Conclusion

During the nineteenth century, firearms that could be reloaded quickly after being emptied became widespread and affordable to a broad market. Many of the developments involved ideas that had been worked out centuries before, but had not become available to average consumers due to the high labor costs of artisanal manufacture before the industrial revolution.

The post Fast reloading of guns in the 19th century appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/eg3klHs
via IFTTT

Based on My Police Training, I Recognize That Bouquet of Flowers as a Rifle

In a new decision, United States v. Cerda, a New York City police sergeant submitted a warrant application in which he described what he saw on a video of the suspect carrying an item into his house as follows:

I further state that I viewed video surveillance from the above mentioned
camera from outside the subject location from December 8, 2020 at approximately
3:53 PM which depicts the target exiting a vehicle, which is parked in the driveway
at the subject location, and holding between the target’s legs, what I recognize to
be, based on my training and experience as a police officer, a long rifle. Said video
then depicts the target zip up the target’s jacket so as to conceal said rifle, then the
target walks into the subject location.

What does this long rifle look like?   Here’s a screenshot from the video (a screenshot not included with the warrant application) with the item marked in red:

Held: Motion to suppress the fruits of the search granted, as the man was carrying a bouquet of flowers, not a gun.  The officer was reckless in describing it as “a long rifle,” based on his “training and experience,” and suppression of that false assertion is therefore required under Franks v. Delaware.

Incidentally, this case is another possible example of the phenomenon I described back in December, how video cameras are changing Fourth Amendment law.   As I wrote then, video evidence allows courts to scrutinize police conduct much more closely than before: “The available technology changes how the doctrine can be applied, and that, in a practical sense, helps to change what the doctrine is.” 

That’s part of the dynamic here, I think. If the officer had personally observed the suspect enter the house, and he had obtained a warrant based on that, a reviewing judge would have been unable to second-guess the officer’s claim that, based on his training and experience, he saw the man with a gun.  (And indeed, a different illegal gun was found in the house when the search occurred.)  The availability of video evidence changes that.  The reviewing judge can watch the video himself, and he doesn’t need to rely on the officer’s claim of expertise.

The post Based on My Police Training, I Recognize That Bouquet of Flowers as a Rifle appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/4jSE06J
via IFTTT