Earlier today, in response to current issues surrounding human trafficking arrivals at the U.S. – Mexico border, President Trump signed an executive order (full text below) addressing family separation.
.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 “et seq”, it is hereby ordered as follows:
[Text] ♦ Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of this Administration to rigorously enforce our immigration laws. Under our laws, the only legal way for an alien to enter this country is at a designated port of entry at an appropriate time. When an alien enters or attempts to enter the country anywhere else, that alien has committed at least the crime of improper entry and is subject to a fine or imprisonment under section 1325(a) of title 8, United States Code.
This Administration will initiate proceedings to enforce this and other criminal provisions of the INA until and unless Congress directs otherwise. It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources. It is unfortunate that Congress’s failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law.
♦ Section 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order, the following definitions apply:
(a) “Alien family” means
(i) any person not a citizen or national of the United States who has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United States, who entered this country with an alien child or alien children at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained; and
(ii) that person’s alien child or alien children.
(b) “Alien child” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States who
(i) has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United States;
(ii) is under the age of 18; and
(iii) has a legal parent-child relationship to an alien who entered the United States with the alien child at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained.
♦ Section 3. Temporary Detention Policy for Families Entering this Country Illegally.
(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members.
(b) The Secretary shall not, however, detain an alien family together when there is a concern that detention of an alien child with the child’s alien parent would pose a risk to the child’s welfare.
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall take all legally available measures to provide to the Secretary, upon request, any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families, and shall construct such facilities if necessary and consistent with law. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.
(d) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent consistent with law, make available to the Secretary, for the housing and care of alien families pending court proceedings for improper entry, any facilities that are appropriate for such purposes. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.
(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in “Flores v. Sessions”, CV 85-4544 (“”Flores” settlement”), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.
♦ Section 4. Prioritization of Immigration Proceedings Involving Alien Families. The Attorney General shall, to the extent practicable, prioritize the adjudication of cases involving detained families.
♦Section 5. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Earlier today President Trump met with members of the republican deception caucus in the cabinet room. The Decepticon Caucus are funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and their President Tom Donohue. Within the discussion the Decepticons fight for open-ended immigration and trade deals to benefit Wall Street and the multinationals.
.
[Transcript] Cabinet Room – 11:44 A.M. EDT – THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, everybody. I’ll be leaving for Minnesota today. We have two stops; one a very big one, and it will be a lot of fun. I know a lot of you are going with us, so that will be interesting.
We’re meeting right now on immigration. And we are very strong at the border, we’re very strong on security. We want security for our country. The Republicans want security and insist on security for our country, and we will have that. At the same time, we have compassion. We want to keep families together; it’s very important. I’ll be signing something in a little while that’s going to do that. And the people in this room want to do that, and they’re working on various pieces of legislation to get it done. But I’ll be doing something that’s somewhat preemptive but ultimately will be matched by legislation, I’m sure.
We’re having a lot of problems with Democrats. They dont want to vote for anything. They don’t care about lack of security. They really would like to have open borders, where anybody in the world can just flow in, including from the Middle East. From — anybody, anywhere, they can just flow into our country. Tremendous problems with that. Tremendous crime caused by that. We’re just not going to do it.
I do want to say that because we’re all so busy, and I just mentioned to the congressmen and the senators in the room, that we are going to cancel and postpone tomorrow’s Congressional Picnic. We have a Congressional Picnic tomorrow. And I was just walking over to the Oval Office and I said, you know, it doesnt feel right to have a picnic for Congress when we’re working on — doing something very important. We have many things that are important. We’re talking about trade. We’re talking about many, many things. But it didnt feel exactly right to me.
So we will be officially postponing the Congressional Picnic for tomorrow. We’ll make it another time when things are going extremely well. And they are going, for the country, extremely well.
We have record-setting numbers in every way economically, but we want to solve this immigration problem, which is going on for 40 years, more. It’s been going on forever. And we want to see if we can solve it. So we are cancelling or postponing the Congressional Picnic tomorrow.
Would anybody in the room have any question or a statement that you’d like to make while the press is here? Anybody? Anybody?
SENATOR SULLIVAN: I’ll say one, Mr. President. On the issue of immigration, trade, and investment, these are all areas where Congress has a lot of authority under the Constitution, and you have authority; the executive branch has authority under the Constitution. And I think that’s why meetings like this are really important, bringing the leadership on both sides together because of important issues.
So appreciate the opportunity to let you see our views, hear our views on these issues, where we share authority on important matters. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: And we all very much have the same views. We want to keep family together; at the same time, we have to be strong on the border. Otherwise, you’ll have millions of people coming up — not thousands, like we have now; you’ll have millions of people flowing up and just overtaking the country. And we’re not letting that happen.
So we have to be very strong on the border, but, at the same time, we want to be very compassionate.
Yes. Lamar.
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Mr. President, thanks for having us. I think what Dan said was good. We really have — on the issues, on trade, on immigration — we have a partnership under the Constitution. We have some authority; the President has some authority. We need to work together.
I was thinking this morning, when we look at President Nixon’s portrait in the White House, we think that he did the unexpected and he went to China, because he could do that; he was in a position to do it. And President Reagan did the unexpected. He went to the Berlin Wall and Moscow.
And when we were here a year ago, I think I suggested to you that immigration, which has bedeviled us for 40 years, as you’ve said — I believe you can — you’re the President who can help us solve the immigration problem with your leadership. You may be able to do for immigration what Nixon did for China and Reagan did for the Soviet Union. And a lot of us would like to work with you on that.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Lamar, very much.
We need the Democrats’ support, because we need their votes. It’s very simple. You know, people say we have a majority. Well, we have a one majority in the Senate. We need 60. Unfortunately, we don’t go with the majority; we go with 60. Someday, somebody will explain why, but that’s the way it is. We have — we need 60 votes; we have 51 votes at the most. So we need Democrat votes in order to do it, otherwise you can’t do it.
Tom, you were going to say something? Tom Cotton.
SENATOR COTTON: I think it’s very important that we protect our border. We cannot allow a child to be a “get out of jail free” card and a “get into the U.S. free” ticket.
But at the same time, as you’ve said, as we’ve all said, we’d like to keep families together, keep them together at the border for the orderly and timely processing of the adults immigration claim. If it’s a lawful, legitimate claim, we can admit the family into the country. If not, they’ll have to go back to their home country.
I’m glad you’re looking for a solution for that. I know that we, in Congress, are working on legislation that will allow our hardworking Border Patrol agents to keep families together at the border while we process their claims in a timely fashion.
THE PRESIDENT: You’re right. And you bring up something that I have to say. Our Border Patrol agents and our ICE agents have done one great job. ICE is throwing — we’re throwing, by the thousands, MS-13. They come into the country. We’re liberating towns on Long Island and other places. We’re throwing them out by the thousands. But we need laws that don’t allow them to come back in.
Mac, you’ve been very involved in this issue. Do you have anything to say?
REPRESENTATIVE THORNBERRY: Well, Mr. President, there are a number of issues that we’re going to be able to discuss today that touch on our country’s national security. And certainly, controlling who and what comes across our border is an element of national security, as we do the compassionate thing with families.
And I look forward to working with you to further strengthen our military. Together, we have turned around a declining situation. But that’s also part of what we need to do together. In fact, to Lamar’s point about we both have responsibilities, we can do more together.
THE PRESIDENT: I will say, with all of the numbers that you see, if we weren’t strong on the border, you’d have hundreds of thousands of people pouring through the border. They’d just be pouring through, and the country would not be the country anymore.
Lindsey?
SENATOR GRAHAM: We’ve got a big massive mess that’s been going on for decades, and we’re all going to fix it one day, I hope. But we got a specific problem that puts the country in a dilemma. Here’s your dilemma and was President Obama’s dilemma, and our dilemma: If a family shows up at the border and we let the family go into the country, and say please come back for your hearing, about 80 percent of the time the adults never show up for the hearing. I think most Americans feel like that is bad; it will create a third wave of illegal immigration.
I want to be fair to people who came here under the old system, but I don’t want to create incentives to create a third wave.
The other choice is, is if you detain the parents who broke the law, under the Flores decision you have to break the family up. So there’s a 1997 Supreme Court case that we’ve got to deal with.
So I would urge my Democratic friends to see if we can find a way to keep families together, have a legislative fix of the Flores decision, and argue about the other things later.
Because right now, Mr. President, you’re in a real bind. If you detain the adults, the law requires the children to be separated. If you let the adults into the country, they’d never show up. It seems to me that we want to keep the family together and have the parents show up for their day in court.
To Senator Schumer: I know there’s a lot we don’t agree on, but surely to goodness we can fix this court decision, because the country is in a bad spot, not just you.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Lindsey, the dilemma is that if you’re weak — if you’re weak, which people would like you to be — if you’re really, really pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people. And if you’re strong, then you don’t have any heart. That’s a tough dilemma. Perhaps I’d rather be strong, but that’s a tough dilemma.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go ahead, Ron.
SENATOR JOHNSON: In our community, homeland security, we’ve held 30 hearings on border security. And you know how much I like data. And, you know, Senator Graham mentioned the fact that we have these incentives. There’s nothing compassionate, by the way, of enticing people to take a very dangerous journey on a train they call “the beast,” or through the desert. We’ve seen the pictures of dead — desiccated bodies in the desert. There’s nothing compassionate about that.
But here’s what’s happened since 2012, since DACA. Just to talk about unaccompanied children: Prior to that, somewhere between 3,000 or 4,000 unaccompanied children from Central America came into this country. Then DACA was instituted in 2012, and that problem skyrocketed. The numbers on it — about 225,000 unaccompanied children, just from Central America; about almost half a million family members. So we’ve got another 750,000 individuals — very sympathetic — that we’re just incentivizing for coming. And we have to stop those incentives.
Our goal of our policy should be to reduce the flow of people incentivized to come to this country, and that’s what strong enforcement actually does.
THE PRESIDENT: So just so everybody knows, this deal was just about done. We had a deal signed. President Obama signed DACA. When he signed it, he said, I’m really not allowed to sign this, and I’m going to sign it anyway. But he actually said, I’m not allowed to sign this, never going to hold up. And they got a judge who held it up, and they got another one who held it up. Then we had a couple that turned it down, and it’s going to be a Supreme Court issue.
But before it was held up, everyone assumed that the DACA would not be held up. But we had a deal with the Democrats. It was a deal that everybody agreed to. It was $25 billion. We were going to build a wall. We would take care of many, many different things, including loopholes. And it was all done, except when this judge ruled in favor of DACA, meaning that it could continue until we get to the Supreme Court, all of a sudden, they weren’t there anymore. And that’s what happened, and that’s why we’re in this mess — because we had a couple of court decisions, which is going to force an issue to the Supreme Court that shouldn’t be forced to the Supreme Court.
Yes, John.
SENATOR HOEVEN: Thanks for inviting up on these important issues, and for having this important discussion certainly on immigration, but also on trade. And the context that I want to make sure we talk about is, we’ve made incredible progress on tax relief, we’ve made tremendous progress on regulatory relief, and it’s reflected in our economy. Now, if we can do the same thing on trade, think what that means for our country in terms of economic growth, in terms of jobs, in terms of getting wages moving higher, and the impact that has for all Americans.
So we have to look at in that context. When we talk about trade, it’s on top of tax relief, regulatory relief. And now, if we can get the right policies in place on trade, think what that means for our country.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, were doing very well on trade, I will say. We’ve been really hurt as a country on trade, for many years. Despite bad trade deals, we’re doing very well. And now we’re making very good trade deals. Well, you’ll be seeing that. They’ll be announced pretty rapidly. We already have a couple that are made. But we’re making great trade deals.
And honestly, we need people coming into our country. You know, we have a lot of companies coming into our country: Chrysler just announced. We have Foxconn is going up to Wisconsin, as you know, and a great company. They make the Apple iPhones and laptops and — unbelievable company. We need people. We need people that work for these companies because they’re coming in at a number that nobody ever thought possible.
So we want people to come into our country, but I think I can speak for everybody at the table: We want them to come in based on merit. We want great people that will be great for our country. And we want them to come in based on merit. We’re going to need those people because we have so many companies coming to the country.
John, you were going to say something?
SENATOR CORNYN: Mr. President, to your point, America is the most generous country in the world when it comes to legal immigration. And I think we ought to draw a very clear line between legal immigration that benefits our country —
THE PRESIDENT: Right, absolutely.
SENATOR CORNYN: — and illegal immigration, which is a threat to public safety.
I just wanted to make the one point. I agree with what Tom Cotton and others have said, what you’ve said, about being able to enforce the law and keep families together. It’s not a mutually exclusive choice. We can do both. And I’m confident we will achieve that goal.
But I just want to point out that, coming from a border state, like Mac and I do, the border — the illegality along the border is a complex problem because it is — as somebody pointed out, it’s “commodity agnostic.” In other words, they said it’s people, it’s drugs, it’s weapons. And you talk about an opioid crisis in the United States — it’s not just prescription drugs; it’s heroin that comes from Mexico.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
SENATOR CORNYN: So this is a very complex situation. We need law and order along the border. Everybody agrees with that. We need to be compassionate in the way we handle these families. But it’s important to remember that larger context, because the cartels and the criminal organizations that benefit from this, they’re just making a lot of money and keeping this situation very dangerous for everybody involved.
THE PRESIDENT: And, John, in many ways, they’re using the children and always — they’re using the children as a ticket to getting into the country.
SENATOR CORNYN: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: And we have to remember that. You know, there’s a number of the 12,000 children; 2,000 are with the parents, and 10,000 came up with some really horrible people, in some cases. You have the coyotes, you have the traffickers — the human traffickers — not only drug traffickers, but you have the human traffickers. And they use these children as passports to get into the country. So we have to work on that, too. It’s a very complex issue.
It has been going on — you shouldn’t feel guilty, because it’s been going on for many, many years. Many, many decades. But we’re going to solve that, along with a lot of other problems that we’ve already solved. We’re doing well at solving problems.
You know, when I became President, we had North Korea; we had the Iran deal, which was no good; we had lots of problems with trade and bad trade deals. There are a lot of things that we’ve solved and we’re solving that, in theory, I shouldn’t have had to solve. These are things that should have been solved for a long time. Even on trade.
We should have never allowed our past leaders — should have never allowed China to get to a point where there’s a $500 billion trade deficit with the United States. When they went up, we should have gone up. We should have gone up together — not where you allowed one to get so far ahead. And that includes the European Union and it includes many others. Shouldn’t have happened.
So we came at a time where there were plenty of problems to solve, and one of the big problems is immigration. And I hope that within not too long a distance — and I mean beyond just one problem of immigration. You can mention the word “comprehensive,” or you dont have to use it. A lot of politicians don’t like the word “comprehensive immigration reform.” But I really think we have an opportunity to redo the whole immigration picture, and that’s what I’m looking to do, ultimately. But right now, we want to fix this problem and I think we’ll be able to do that.
Does anybody else — David, do you want to say something?
SENATOR PERDUE: Well, Mr. President, the last year and a half has shown an absolute turnaround in this economy. I mean, we were faced with eight years of 1.9 percent economic growth. We focused on, as John said, regulation, energy, taxes. This year, we’ve put a Dodd-Frank bill — a bipartisan bill, and we freed up a couple trillion dollars.
And what this administration has done is freed up $6 trillion to go back into the economy. This is real jobs — 3.5 million new jobs, 870 regulations reversed. This economy is moving. The rest of world is paying attention.
NATO has doubled their investment in terms of their military spending. We have a new free trade agreement with Korea. We’re heading in the right direction. I just hope that we can focus on the priorities right now, within this trade equation, to get equal access. It’s not right and Alibaba can do cloud computing in the U.S., and Google can’t do cloud computing in China. And that’s what this is all about.
We’ve reduced global poverty by two-thirds in the last 40 years, while poverty in the United States has remained flat. That’s not right. And this is moving to change that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Jim?
SENATOR INHOFE: I appreciate the fact that you call attention to what’s really happening now with the economy, due to two things: the tax bill and the regulations. You know, we’re killing people with the regulations. But what hasn’t been said around this table, and I’m surprised, the biggest accomplishment from your administration is what you’ve done with the military.
You succeeded a President who had a policy that said you can’t do anything with sequestration, with the military, unless you do it with the non-defense. And we changed that. We had to vote for a lousy budget bill to do it, but nonetheless, it is changed. We’ve broken parity, and we’re now rebuilding our military.
THE PRESIDENT: It’s true. The military is really incredible. We’re ordering new planes, new ships — all jobs too. You know, jobs, I would say, in this case is a far second. But we’re going to have a military like we’ve never had before, and it’s great. $700 billion approved and $716 [billion]. And in that budget, $6 billion for opioid. That’s an important thing, too.
So a lot of progress is being made.
Mike, did you have something to say? Mike Pence?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. And I just — I know I speak for the President when I express the gratitude of this administration for the support of the members of the Senate and the House that are gathered around here. You’ve delivered for the American people on national security and rebuilding our military; on tax cuts and regulatory reform, restoring our economy.
But what the President reiterated again yesterday, and he has said every day from when he sought this office, is we have a crisis of illegal immigration. And as the President made clear, we don’t want families to be separated. We don’t want children taken away from parents. But right now, under the law — and we sit with these lawmakers — we only have two choices before us: Number one is, don’t prosecute people who come into our country illegally, or prosecute them and then, under court cases and the law, they have to be separated from their children.
What I want to be clear about is we’re calling on these lawmakers, Mr. President, not just to solve this problem in a way that affirms our commitment to law and order and compassion, which we can do. And there are proposals in the Senate and proposals in the House to do that. But the President’s vision, articulated in his State of the Union address, was let’s solve the whole problem. Let’s build a wall, let’s close the loopholes, let’s solve the problem for 1.8 million people that were brought into this country through no fault of their own, and let’s deal with law and order and compassion with this issue of family separation at our borders.
And I would say, with great respect to the members of Congress, as the House considers legislation tomorrow and the Senate is considering legislation, the President has postponed the Congressional Picnic — we’re calling on Congress to act. Let’s roll our sleeves up, let’s work the whole problem. Let’s end this crisis of illegal immigration.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Does anybody else have anything to say? Because I think we’re pretty much — yes, Adam.
REPRESENTATIVE KINZINGER: Mr. President, thank you. And just from the House perspective, I want to say — and as a still-currently serving Guard member — you’re my Commander-in-Chief — there has been a marked difference in the security and the good feelings in the military. They understand that we’re investing in them again, even though we’re asking them to do a lot.
And secondly, security plays a big role. So that includes border security. And the bill that we’re going to bring up, and hopefully pass in the House this week, fully funds the border and takes care of all these issues. And I hope the House can pass it. And I wish Democrats would join us, because frankly, it’s a lot of stuff in there that they like, too. It’s an 80 percent issue. Unfortunately, I think they like the politics of this a little better.
And I also want to say, we really wish you didn’t take Secretary Pompeo from the House, because he did a great job. (Laughter.) He’s doing a great job.
THE PRESIDENT: He’s doing a great job. He is doing a great job. Thank you, Adam, very much. Appreciate it.
Anybody over here? Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENEY: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to echo particularly what Chairman Thornberry and Senator Inhofe said in terms of the change that we’ve seen — and Adam as well — the change we’ve seen in terms of resources for the military. We got to make sure we don’t have another CR for the military.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENEY: And we are working hard in the House. We’re hopeful we’re going to pass defense appropriations bill next week in the House. And we need to make sure that that gets taken up and passed in the Senate, and that we don’t give you another omnibus-type bill —
THE PRESIDENT: Please. Please, that would be very nice.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENEY: — that we get a straight defense appropriations bill passed and taken up. And that will be critically important to continue the work you’ve done to rebuild the military.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Liz. And say hello to your father, please.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENEY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Great guy.
PARTICIPANT: Can you tell Adam to shave — (laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: He looks good. Handsome guy.
So thank you all very much. We appreciate it.
Q Mr. President, are you supporting (inaudible) to keep families together? (Inaudible) executive order?
THE PRESIDENT: We are. We’re looking to keep families together. It’s very important.
Q Are you signing an executive order?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re going to be signing an executive order. We’re going to also count on Congress, obviously. But we are signing an executive order in a little while. We’re going to keep families together, but we still have to maintain toughness, or our country will be overrun by people, by crime, by all of the things that we don’t stand for, that we don’t want.
So I’m going to be signing an executive order in a little while before I go to Minnesota. But at the same time, I think you have to understand: We’re keeping families together, but we have to keep our borders strong. We will be overrun with crime and with people that should not be in our country.
Q Will you accept a standalone bill addressing the family separation issue?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re going to see what happens.
Q Mr. President, did the images of those young children at the border change your mind on this?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. They affect everybody. Those images affect everybody. But I have to say that you have double standards. You have people that want absolute security and safety, and you have people that do look at the children. And then you have people like me, and I think most of the people in this room, that want both. We want the heart, but we also want strong borders, and we want no crime.
We don’t want crime in this country. We don’t want people coming in. We don’t want people coming in from the Middle East through our border, using children to get through the lines. We don’t want that. We’re doing too good a job to allow that to happen. So we’re not going to allow that to happen.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Nothing. This has been going on for — when you say what took long — this has been going on for 50 years, longer. This has been going on under President Obama, under President Bush. This has been going on for many, many years. We’re going to see if we can solve it. This is not something that happened just now.
You look at the images from 2014. I was watching this morning, and they were showing images from 2014. They blow away what we’re looking at today. And that was not during this; that was during the Obama administration. I saw images that were horrible. And you know the ones I’m talking about because I’m sure you all saw them too.
We are going to see if we can solve the immigration problem like we’ve solved so many other problems. And I think we’ll get it done.
Thank you very much.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: North Korea is doing great. North Korea is doing great. North Korea is doing great.
Q (Inaudible) for North Korea?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no. North Korea itself is doing really well.
White House Trade Policy Adviser Peter Navarro discusses the release of the White House Trade and Manufacturing Policy report (full pdf below) on China.
.
Today, the White House Office of Trade & Manufacturing Policy (OTMP) released a report outlining how China’s policies threaten the economic and national security of the United States.
OTMP studied how China seeks to capture, through its “Made in China 2025” plan, the emerging high-technology industries that will drive future economic growth. China is targeting industries ranging from artificial intelligence, aerospace, and augmented and virtual reality to high-speed rail and shipping and new energy vehicles. Many of these “Made in China 2025” industries have important defense applications.
OTMP outlines how China aggressively seeks to acquire American technology and intellectual property through multiple vectors including: physical and cyber theft, forced technology transfers, evading United States export controls, export restraints on raw materials, and investments in more than 600 high-technology assets in the United States worth close to $20 billion.
CTH has tracked this issue so closely through the years it often feels futile for another reminder. However, with the insufferable political games surfacing, yet again, over the issue of illegal immigrants and children – perhaps it is worth another visit.
Understanding The Big Racket.
Massive illegal immigration is supported by both sides of the professional political machine. There are few issues more unifying for the K-Street purchased voices of DC politicians than keeping the borders open and the influx of illegal aliens as high as possible. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce pays politicians to keep this system in place.
All Democrats and most Republicans support mass immigration. Almost no DC politicians want to take action on any policy or legislation that stops the influx. There are billions at stake. None of the GOP leadership want to actually stop illegal immigration; it’s a lucrative business. Almost all of the CONservative groups and politicians lie about it.
The religious right is also part of the problem. In the past 15 years illegal immigration and refugee settlement has been financially beneficial for them. The prior actions of Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck et al show they are as committed to facilitating illegal immigration as Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse, Kevin McCarthy, Lisa Murkowski and the rest of the Decepticons.
Washington DC and the activist media, are infested with illegal immigration supporters; the issue is at the heart of the UniParty. Follow the money. It’s the Acorn model:
There is no greater disconnect from ordinary Americans on any singular issue than the policy positions of Democrats and Republicans in Washington DC surrounding immigration. President Donald Trump is confronting their unified interests.
All political opposition to the Trump administration on this issue is structured, planned and coordinated. The issue is a valuable tool for the professional political class to sow chaos amid politicians.
The resulting crisis is useful for them; therefore they fuel the crisis.
Southwest Key has been given $310,000,000, in taxpayer funds so far in 2018. And that’s just one company, in one part of a year. Prior CTH research showed this specific “Private Company” nets 98.76% of earnings from government grants (link).
Today … [Houston Mayor Sylvester] Turner said he met with officials from Austin-based Southwest Key Programs, the contractor that operates some of the child shelters, to ask them to reconsider their plans. A spokeswoman for Southwest Key didn’t immediately reply to an email seeking comment.
“And so there comes a point in time we draw a line and for me, the line is with these children,” said Turner during a news conference Tuesday. (link)
“The thought that they are going to be putting such little kids in an institutional setting? I mean it is hard for me to even wrap my mind around it,” said Kay Bellor, vice president for programs at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which provides foster care and other child welfare services to migrant children. “Toddlers are being detained.” (link)
“Faith Based Immigration Services” is a code-speak for legalized human smuggling.
Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms you’ll see a lot of, well, “generous” wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe’s, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc.
So when you’ve got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?
The “faith-based” crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don’t want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.
The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn’t want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.
Sad thing is, it’s you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.
These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.
It’s a vicious cycle. Trafficked children are more valuable than adults because the organizations involved get more funding for a child than an adult. Each illegal alien child is worth about $56,000 in grant money. The system is full of fraud.
From our prior research approximately 65% of the money they get is spent on executive pay and benefits, opaque administrative payrolls, bribes, kick-backs to DC politicians and payoffs to the South American smugglers who bring them more immigrants.
As best it can be determined, approximately 35% ($19,000) is spent on the alien/immigrant child; maybe. It gets sketchy deep in their accounting.
All of those advocates gnashing their teeth and crying on television have no idea just who is controlling this process; and immigration idiots like Ted Cruz are only adding more fuel, more money, to the bottom line:
President Trump is not only threatening to secure the border, he’s threatening a Washington DC-based business model that makes money for a lot of interests. The operation also has side benefits for the participants; child sexploitation, child labor, and yes, much worse (you can imagine).
Trump has been attacking Canada once again on trade. He blasted the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying the U.S. can no longer afford to be the “stupid country.” He pointed out that Canada imposes such onerous tariffs on U.S. products, such as shoes, that people are forced to “scuff ’em up” in order to “smuggle” them home. Trump has pointed out that Canada is seemingly confusing tariffs with duties.
I can attest to this problem. When we try to send materials to Canada for a conference, shipments are held-up, delayed, and they want all sorts of explanations even for materials that are handed out with no cost. It has become a real problem just trying to often ship anything outside the country. To get around this, we are having to try to find someone to manufacture mugs, pens, notebooks in the host country. It has become hopeless trying to just send cases of mugs that are handed out for free at our conferences.
Indeed, countries are sneaking in huge duties for sending anything into their country in place of tariffs.
Citigroup has issued a press release back in March stating that it will penalize banking clients who engage in gun sales even though they comply with federal, state, and local laws. Citigroup’s new policy tells businesses what kind of firearms and accessories they can stock in their stores, and who they can sell them to. This sort of bank interference in commerce and discrimination is actually illegal in itself. Under the FDIC rules, a bank may NOT under any circumstances discriminate against any business or person without just cause.
Under FDIC rules, it is “[u]nlawful discriminatory practices range from the overt to the very subtle. The motivations behind such practices range from prejudice to simple ignorance of the law. Violations generally fall into two categories: technical and substantive. Within the category of technical violations, some may be procedural, such as not having the Equal Housing Lender poster on display. However, technical violations, especially of a repetitive nature, can be indicators that possible substantive violations may also exist. Substantive violations involve actual discrimination on a prohibited basis, either disparate treatment or disparate impact.”
In this case, Citigroup is clearly engaging in political discrimination which goes all the way to violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution. It is not up to Citigroup to rewrite the Constitution or the prevailing laws. They are in effect violating the very foundation of a democratic structure and moving into a position of a corporate rough dictatorship. They can easily just as well discriminate and say everyone who sells condoms or birth control pills they will refuse to lend to because they believe that there should be no birth control. Or they could refuse to lend money to anyone who is a Muslim claiming they might be connected to some terrorist act.
This policy of Citigroup is flat outright illegal. Of course, the federal court in New York City rules in favor of banks. Any suit must be brought outside of New York where a violation takes place.
The analysis and plots shown here are based on the following two data series. First NASA-GISS estimates of a global temperature shown as an anomaly (converted to degrees Celsius) as shown in their table Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) and shown in Chart 1 as the red plot labeled NASA the scale for the temperatures is on the left. The NASA LOTI temperatures are shown as a 12 month moving average because of the large monthly variation. Second NOAA-ESRL Carbon Dioxide (CO2) values in Parts Per Million (PPM) which are shown in Chart 1 as a black plot labeled NOAA the scale for CO2 is shown on the right. However if you don’t have time to read this entire report go to Chart 7 and it will show you exactly what is going on with CO2 and global temperatures; I guarantee that this chart is based on NASA data and is 100% accurate.
NASA published data as stated in the first paragraph is shown as an anomaly, but what is a temperature anomaly? An anomaly is a deviation from some base value normally an average that is fixed. There were two problems with the system that NASA picked which were number one there is no “actual” global temperature and two since climate is a variable there cannot be a real base to measure from. NASA known for its science and engineering expertise back in the day thought it could get around these issues and created a system to do so. First they developed a computer model which took readings from all over the planet and made required adjustments to them which they called homogenization and came up with the estimated global temperature. Second they picked the period 1950 to 1980 (30 years) and averaged the values found in that period and came up with 14.00 degrees Celsius and make that their base. Then they took the calculated monthly temperature and subtracted the base from it which gave them the anomaly. The problem is that both are arbitrary.
Now that we have a base to work with we are going to add to Chart 1 three things. The first is a trend line of the growth in CO2 since that is according to the government through NASA and NOAA the entire basis for climate change. That plot is superimposed over the black plot of the actual NOAA CO2 values as the cyan line labeled as the CO2 Model and one can see there is a very good fit to the actual NOAA values so there should be no dispute about its validity, and it’s historically accurate. This plot allows us to make projections to future global temperatures according to the projected level of CO2 . The second added item is James E. Hansen’s 1988 Scenario B data, which is the very core of the IPCC Global Climate models (GCM’s) and which was based on a CO2 sensitivity value of 3.0O Celsius per doubling of CO2. This plot is shown here in lavender and is part of a presentation that Hansen showed to congress in 1988 when the UN was about to set up the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and this plot is labeled as Hansen Scenario B which Hansen stated was the most likely to happen based on his 1979 climate theories’. The third item is the current plot of the most likely temperature of the planet based on the growth of CO2 published by the IPCC. This plot is shown in Red and is labeled as IPCC AR5 A2 as that is the table where the data was found. This plot is a GCM computer projection of the planets temperature based on the complex relationships developed on the levels of CO2 by the IPCC primarily though NASS and NOAA.
It can be seen in Chart 2 that the lavender plot and the Hansen plot are very close from 1965 to around 2000 after that, from 2000 to 2014, there is a very large and deviation reaching close to .5 degrees Celsius in 2015, which is not an insubstantial number. Also of note is that there doesn’t seem to be a good correlation between the growth in CO2 and the increase in the planets temperature. The CO2 is going up in a log function and the Temperature was going down until 2015 and then there was a mysterious spike up. That unexplained change in temperature direction appeared to have occurred between 2013 and 2014 and is the subject of this monthly paper.
Next we have Chart 3 which is developed from the raw data from NASS and NOAA as shown in Chart 1. This plot was made first by adding ten years blocks of temperature and CO2 as indicated in the Chart 1 and diving by 120 to give an average for each. Then the average Temperature was divided by the average CO2 to give degrees of temperature increase per PPM of CO2. After that was plotted it appeared that there were two different curves. The first was from block 1965-1974 through block 2004-2014 shown as Black Dots and the second was from block 1995-2004 through block 2005-2017 shown as Black Dashes. When trend lines were added they were both almost perfect fits to the raw data and so you cannot see the data points very well on Chart 2. These blocks were picked to represent the entire period of time where we had both NASA temperature data and NOAA CO2 levels.
On Chart 3 there are two sets of color coded information. The first is Cyan plot and the Cyan box with the equation in it along with the R2 value of 1.0 are for the first series from block 1965-1974 through block 2004-2014. The other is the Red plot and the Red box with the equation in it along with the R2 value of 1.0 which are for the first series from block 1965-1974 through block 2004-2017. We can speculate on how this change happened but it can’t be said that the plot change is not real; however additional data will be required to actually prove that something has changed.
In summary the Cyan data set indicates a diminishing effect of CO2 on global temperature for about 54 years and the Red data set represents an increasing effect of CO2 on global temperature for the past 3 years. Since both data sets have an R2 value of 1.00 the trend lines cannot be in question.
Continuing the analysis of what happened to the NASA data in table LOTI from Chart 3, the following Chart 4 was constructed from the same NASA data. It’s very sad to say but it seems to prove without much doubt that the global temperatures have been manipulated by NASA probably at the request of the federal government such that a case could be made for supporting the COP21 Paris climate conference in December 2015 by showing that the earth was much hotter than it actually was. The dates on the x axis are the date of the NASA LOTI download file. The plots for specific date groupings are set such that one can see what that date range did in each separate NASA download. The proof is shown in Chart 4 below and a discussion will follow below Chart 4 on how Chart 4 was constructed.
At the bottom of Chart 4 is a blue trend line of NASA LOTI temperatures prior to 1950 and starting in2012 the values started going down, getting colder. At the same time the NASA LOTI temperatures from 2012 to the present went up as shown in the red line. There was no change in the base period, black line. This cannot happen with random variables they will cancel each other out; this could only be caused by specific program changes in the process that NASA and NOAA use, in other words it is intentional. So there can be no other reason but an attempt to support the adoption of the Climate accord agreement by the administration, and they were successful as it was agreed to in Paris at COP21.
How this table was constructed is important so a discussion is needed. As stated in the opening paragraph of this paper NASA publishes a table of the estimated global temperature each month as anomalies from a base of 14 degrees Celsius. This table starts with January 1880 and runs to the current date. The new table typical comes out mid-month with almost 1,700 values for the previous month. The process that is used to create this Table is very complex and is called homogenization. What that means is that the entire table is recreated each month and what that also means is that the temperature value for any given month is a variable.
When I realized the extent of that in 2012 I started to save the printouts of the NASA LOTI tables and I went back and found a few of them from when I started this project in 2007. When I started this project what I did is type in all the values from the NASA table into a spreadsheet each month which was a daunting task and I was very happy when NASA started to publish a csv file along with the text of the LOTI data. Then all I had to do is create a routine in excel that would turn the table format into a column format. There are now 68 months in the spreadsheet, when I started this method in 2012 there were maybe only a dozen. The values are residing in the spreadsheet as columns going from left to right so that the individual months are lined up side by side. This makes comparison of months very easy. One note is required here, when I started this model in 07 and for several years thereafter all I was doing is adding the current NASA LOTI current months number to the existing file, a single column, and it never occurred to me that the prior numbers were changing. The past was fixed, so I thought. This was also the way I was entering the NOAA CO2 data which doesn’t change over time.
The original goal was to see if the changes were just random or rounding errors. If that was so then they would wash out over time especially if I grouped the monthly data into blocks. I’ve used both 10 year (120 values) and 20 year (240 values) blocks which would be enough to maintain a fixed number if it was random or rounding. What I found was something quite different after I had a dozen or so columns in the spreadsheet, it appeared that NASA was making the past colder and the present warmer. And the purpose of the previous two Charts 3 and 4 is to show the result. Chart 4 is a bit complex but I have not found a better way to show what happened.
From 1880 to 1960 I used four 20 year blocks. Then I needed the base so there is a 30 year block from 1950 to 1980 and lastly four 10 year blocks from 1980 to the present. The last block is not yet complete as it will run to December 2019. Because the 30 year base block is fixed at 14.0 degrees Celsius there wasn’t much point in charting those individual yearly values even though there was some minor movement in those numbers. That raises an interesting issue for how can the base numbers not change and all the other numbers from 1880 to 2017 can change each month? A note, for each data set of years the plot on Chart 4 should be a straight line from left to right; very minor fluctuation would be OK. For example the plot for 1930 to 1949 (hidden behind the black plot) is what would be normally expected. This is the only plot that doesn’t show major manipulation.
In the four data sets in the 1880 to 1940 blocks in Chart 4 all have moved down probably about a .25 degree Celsius which is not insignificant. So the bottom line is that NASA made all the values from 1880 to 1940 colder by an average of a quarter of a degree Celsius. So that alone accounts for a high percentage of the supposed global warming that NASA shows. From 1980 to 2009 the data change appears to add another .1 degrees Celsius making the apparent differential between data from early 00’s to the present about .35 degrees greater than it was before 2009. That is not random that is a major change and clearly shows manipulation. I would probably never had caught this is if I hadn’t put the values in column format. Looking at all the data from 2008 to 2014 we find that around 2008 NASA showed that the planet had warmed about .75 degrees, Blue double arrow, from the 19th century. Then in 2014, four years later NASA showed that the planet had warmed about .95 degrees Red double arrow from the 19th century. However it gets a worse after that.
The change started in 2012, Green Oval, and Global temperature jumped almost a quarter of a degree by December 2015 just as the COP21 conference was in session. The temperatures kept going up with an eventual increase in global temperature of about 1.2 degrees Celsius in late 2016. At that point with the pressure off NASA appears to be erasing what they did as the global temperatures have now started back down. I’m not sure how many know of this blatant manipulation but it is serious. This is not science.
Now we need to consider other factors than CO2 on Climate change. The fault that occurred in the work that was done in the 1980’s was in assuming that there was an optimum or constant global temperature and therefore any change that was being observed was from the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There may have been correlation but it was never proved that there was causation (high R2 value) between CO2 and global temperatures; Chart 3 clearly shows there is not. With that assumption, which limited options, we moved from true science into the realm of political science. True science has an open mind and finds relationships that work in matching observations with predictions. Political science changes history and/or facts to match the desires of the politicians. Since the politicians control the money political science is what we get; which means that what we get may not be technically correct.
A decade ago when I started looking at “climate” change the first thing I did was look at geological temperature changes since it is well known that the climate is not a constant; I learned that 53 years ago in my undergrad geology and climatology courses in 1964. The next paragraph explains currently observed patterns in climate related to this subject and is historical accurate.
Ignoring the last Ice Age which ended some 11,000 years ago when a good portion of the Northern hemisphere was under miles of ice the following observations give a starting point to any serious study on the subject of climate. First, there is a clear up and down movement in global temperatures with a 1,000 some year cycle going back at least 3,000 to 4,000 years; probably because of the apsidal precession of the earth’s orbit of about 20,000 years for a complete cycle. However about every 10,000 years the seasons are reversed making the winter colder and the summer warmer in the northern hemisphere. 10,000 years from now the seasons will be reversed again. Secondly, there are also 60 to 70 year cycles in the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans that are well documented. These are known as the Atlantic Multi Decadal Oscillations (AMO) in the Atlantic and as La Nina and El Nino in the Pacific. Thirdly, we also know that there are greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that can affect global temperatures. Lastly the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimated that carbon dioxide had a doubling rate of 3.0O Celsius plus or minus 1.5O Celsius in 1979 when there were only two studies available and one for sure and maybe both were not peer reviewed.
The result of looking objectively at the three possible sources of global temperature changes was a series of equations based on these observations that when added together produced a sinusoidal curve that seemed to follow NASA published temperatures very closely when first developed in 2007, and modified a few years later when it was found the short and long cycles were related to multiples of Pi. Since this curve was based on observed temperature patterns it was called a Pattern Climate Model (PCM) which has been described in previous papers and posts on my blog and since it is generated by “equations” many assume it is some form of least squares curve fitting, which it is not. It does seem to be related to ocean currents where the bulk of the planet’s surface heat is stored.
Chart 5 shows the PCM a composite of two cycles and CO2. There is a long trend, 1036.7 years with an up and down of 1.65O Celsius (.00396O C per year) we in the up portion of that trend. Then there is a 69.1 year cycle that moves the trend line up and then down a total of 0.29O Celsius and we are now in the downward portion of that trend (-.01491O C per year), which will continue until around ~2035. Lastly, there is CO2 currently adding about .0079O Celsius per year so together they all basically wash out at -.0039O C per year, which matches the current holding pattern we were experiencing until 2014. After about 2035 the short cycle will have bottomed and turn up and all three will be on the upswing again duplicating what was observed in the 1980’s. Note: the values shown here are only representative from what is in the model.
When using a 12 month running average for global temperatures up until 2014 the PCM model was within +/- .01 degrees of what NASA was publishing in their LOTI table since the early 1960’s as shown in Chart 5. Further the back projection of the PCM plot matched historical records and global temperatures going back past the time of Christ. It should also be considered that geologically CO2 levels have reached levels many times that of the current 400 ppm without destroying the planet so the current hysteria over the current very small numbers can only be explained by political science not real science.
The nest step in this analysis is to put all of the known data and projections into Chart 6 which contains: NASA’s temperatures plot, NOAA’s CO2 plot, the CO2 model plot, the PCM model plot, Hansen’s Scenario B plot, and lastly the IPCC AR5 A2 global temperature plot. With that done we can look at the results and try to make some sense of what is going on with the various arms of the federal government that are promoting that we tax carbon based fuels to eliminate them since they are responsible for the global temperature level going up. As previously stated when the government pours money into the sciences the sciences respond with technical papers the support the governments views, this is what I call political science verses real science as was done prior to the 1980’s; money talks and BS walks as everyone on the street knows.
Chart 6 shows a good overview and contains no data manipulation and the only change that was made was to convert the NASA anomalies back to degrees Celsius to make it more readable to lay people. This is only a change in units and has no bearing on the look. We also need to understand the NASA homogenization process and its relationship to the 30 year base period. The portion in the black circle contains the NASA base period of 14.00 degrees Celsius and the reason it’s brought up here is that the Homogenization process causes the global temperatures to move around since the entire data base all the way back to 1880 is recalculated each month. But since the base has to stay at 14.00 degrees Celsius the program must be set to not allow changes in that period of time. I’m sure the programmers have fun with that. Prior work here has shown how this creates a teeter totter effect with the data plots, some of which have recently been significant.
Next Chart 7 looks at the period from 2010 to 2020 so we can see where a change in CO2 of only a few ppm has caused a major change in the global temperature way beyond anything previously shown in any published NASA data. There are two black ovals on Chart 7 one at the top of Chart 7 which is a black oval around the CO2 levels from 2012 to 2016 and part of 2017 and it’s very obvious that there has been very little change, maybe 7 ppm or about 1.9%. Then at the bottom of Chart 7 is another black oval around the NASA global temperature levels for the same period and its very obvious that there has been a large change, almost .50 degrees Celsius or about 3.1%. There has never been such a large increase in temperature from such a small increase in CO2. By contrast the previous comparable period of the last part of 2010 through 2013 shows about the same increase for CO2 at 1.1% but no increase for global temperature but actually small decrease.
Clarification is needed here as the plot seems to show the jump in temperature in 2016 not 2015; this is a result of the large jump in temperature shown by NASA. Since we are using a 12 month moving average and the increase occurred in only a few months it actually shifted the curve into 2016. The raw data for December 2015 showed the temperature at 15.12 degrees Celsius compared to December 2014 where it was 14.78 degrees Celsius. The actual peak was in February 2016 at 15.35 degrees Celsius. With the global temperature over 15.0 Celsius at COP21 the climate accord was approved and the manipulation was a success. After COP21 the need for Fake Warming was no longer needed and so we are now seeing a downward trend developing.
In summary, the IPCC models were designed before a true picture of the world’s climate was understood. During the 1980’s and 1990’s CO2 levels were going up and the world temperature was also going up so there appeared to be correlation and causation. The mistake that was made was looking at only a ~20 year period when the real variations in climate all move in much longer cycles of decades and centuries. Those other cycles can be observed in the NASA data but they were ignored for some reason. By ignoring those actual geological trends and focusing only on CO2 the Global Climate Models will be unable to correctly plot global temperatures until they are fixed. Also the temperature data from 1850 to 1880 was dropped for some reason as it showed a lower temperature that supported the PCM cycle shown in this paper.
In summary we have Chart 8 which shows why CO2 is not increasing the temperature of the planet by any meaningful amount. The problem, intentional or not, goes back to physics and how we show information. It’s critical that when we talk to nonscientists that information is properly displayed. And nowhere is this more important than when we are discussing temperature. When we talk about weather and local temperatures its going be in Celsius (C) in the EU or degrees Fahrenheit (F) in America e.g. for the base temperature that NASA uses it’s 14.00 C or 57.20 F; but these are both relative measures and do not tell us how much heat (thermal energy) is there. To know that we must use Kelvin (K) and that would be 287.150 K and all three of those numbers 14.00 C, 57.20 F, and 287.150 K are exactly the same temperature, just using a different base. But if the current temperature is 15.00 C that is a 7.1% increase in C, a 3.1% increase in F and a .35% increase in K; so which one is real? The answer is .35% because Kelvin is the only one that measures the total energy!
To show this graphically Chart 8 was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percentage increase from when it was first measured in 1958 the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up about 28.5% by February of 2018. That is a large change as anyone would agree. Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature using the proper units Kelvin we find that the changes in global temperature are almost un-measurable. The red plot, also starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere has varied by less than +/- .17%; while CO2 has increased by 28.3% which is over 80 times that of increase in temperature. So is there really a problem here?
Lastly, Chart 9 shows what a plot of the PCM model, in yellow, would look like from the year 1400 to the year 2900. This plot matches reasonably well with recorded history and fits the current NASA-GISS table LOTI data, in red, very closely, despite homogenization. I do understand that this PCM model is not based on physics but it is also not some statistical curve fitting. It’s based on observed reoccurring patterns in the climate. These patterns can be modeled and when they are, you get a plot that works better than any of the IPCC’s GCM’s. If the real conditions that create these patterns do not change and CO2 continues to increase to 800 ppm or even 1000 ppm then this model will work well into the foreseeable future. 150 years from now global temperatures will peak at around 15.750 to 16.000 C and then will be on the downside of the long cycle for the next ~500 years.
The overall effect of CO2 reaching levels of 1000 ppm or even higher will be about 1.50 C which is about the same as that of the long cycle. The Green plot on Chart 9 shows the observed pattern with no change in CO2 from the pre-industrial era of ~280 ppm. CO2 cannot affect global temperatures more than 1.500 C +/- no matter what the ppm level of CO2 is. The reason being that the CO2 sensitivity value is not 3.00 per doubling of CO2 but less than 1.00 C per doubling of CO2 as shown in more current scientific work and it’s a logistics curve not a log curve.
The purpose of this post is to make people aware of the errors inherent in the IPCC models so that they can be corrected.
The Obama administration’s “need” for a binding UN climate treaty with mandated CO2 reductions in Europe and America was achieved as predicted at the COP12 conference in Paris in December 2015. To support this endeavor NASA was forced to show ever increasing global temperatures that will make less and less sense based on observations and satellite data which will all be dismissed or ignored. Within a few years the manipulation will be obvious even to those without knowledge in the subject, but by then it will be to late the damage to the reputation of science will have been done.
In closing keep this in mind. The current panic generated by the government using political science is that the current global temperature of around 15.0O Celsius is an increase of 7.14% from the 1960’s when the global temperature was 14.0O Celsius; and that does seem like a lot. However those views would be in error as the actual increase in thermal energy, as measured by temperature, would be only .35% because we must use Kelvin not Celsius when working with heat energy. When we use kelvin the temperature goes from 287.15O K to 288.15O K which is only .35% not 7.14% about 1/20 of what is implied by the IPCC. What the IPCC shows is not technically wrong as much as it is extremely misleading to anyone without a very strong science background.
Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers for science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.
If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.
Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected.
QUESTION: Can you shed any light on the history of money in Portugal. There seems to be scan discussion of this subject.
Thank you
ANSWER: The first coinage of Portugal really is Roman and it appears to be struck by the first Roman Emperor Augustus (27BC-14AD). The location of the mint was the city of Évora. Interestingly enough, the name in ancient times was Ebora, which is really Celtic which is the name of a species of tree and thus the name means “of the yew trees.” However, there is a lack of any evidence of ancient settlements prior to that of the Roman. Perhaps because any Celtic evidence lies under the city which is not accessible to archeologists.
It is generally assumed that Évora only came into being as a municipium after the Pax Romana under Octavian in 30 BC which are really the first coin evidence in the region. Yet the name implies there was Celtic activity previously. The first reference to Évora as a municipium is found in a list of cities in Hispania in the Historia Naturalis of Pliny the Elder to the year 77AD.
During the 4th and 5th centuries, the Roman mint for coinage in the Spanish/Portugees region was actually Barcino, or Barcelona. So the early coinage of Portugal appears first under Augustus and then later the coinage is all struck in Barcelonia.
In more modern times, you might be wondering where are there different references to money. There was reis and reals and gold ducketsrelate. From the 12th century, Portugal had a currency called the dinheiro (dinero). The word today means money and is taken from the Roman denarius. Real meant royal, as in a royal coin, and reis was the plural of real.
Portugal’s capital is Lisbon but it did not emerge as a nation until 1143, as a result of a rebellion by Dom Afonso Henriques (Afonso I) against his own mother Teresa of León. Portugal won its independence at the Battle of São Mamede near the town of Guimarães, in June of 1128. The first coinage was that of Alfonso I (1139-1185) and it was a dinero.
Europe had silver mines, but not gold. Gold was found in Northern Africa and in Anatolia (modern Turkey). Portugal became prominent because it had trade links with the Arabs and imported gold for Europe. Therefore, during 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal emerged as a powerful nation and naval power. Famous explorers are Fernando Magellan (circumnavigated the world), Vasco da Gama (discovered the route to India) and Bartolomeu Dias (sailed around Africa). Portugal made many discoveries and established colonies all over the world. The most famous one is Brazil, but it also established colonies in Africa, such as Mozambique and Angola, and on other continents.
Portugal was actually the first global power and one of the biggest empires at that time and was, therefore, the Financial Capital of Europe. During a 1910 revolution, the rebellion against government erupted once again and overthrew the monarchy. For most of the next six decades, repressive governments ran the country. This led once again to civil unrest and a 1974 military coup installed broad democratic reforms. Finally, on January 1, 1986, Portugal became the eleventh member of the European Economic Community.
Any policy displaying a conscious orientation to reality (common sense) that extracts the U.S. from the insufferable fallacies of U.N. ‘councils’ means another winnamin is in order.
WASHINGTON/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – The United States withdrew from a “hypocritical and self-serving” United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday over what it called chronic bias against Israel and a lack of reform. (more)
Secretary Pompeo and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Nikki Haley deliver remarks to the press on the UN Human Rights Council, at the Department of State:
[Transcript] SECRETARY POMPEO: Good afternoon. The Trump administration is committed to protecting and promoting the God-given dignity and freedom of every human being. Every individual has rights that are inherent and inviolable. They are given by God, and not by government. Because of that, no government must take them away.
For decades, the United States has led global efforts to promote human rights, often through multilateral institutions. While we have seen improvements in certain human rights situations, for far too long we have waited while that progress comes too slowly or in some cases never comes. Too many commitments have gone unfulfilled.
President Trump wants to move the ball forward. From day one, he has called out institutions or countries who say one thing and do another. And that’s precisely the problem at the Human Rights Council. As President Trump said at the UN General Assembly: “It is a massive source of embarrassment to the United Nations that some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the Human Rights Council.”
We have no doubt that there was once a noble vision for this council. But today, we need to be honest – the Human Rights Council is a poor defender of human rights.
Worse than that, the Human Rights Council has become an exercise in shameless hypocrisy – with many of the world’s worst human rights abuses going ignored, and some of the world’s most serious offenders sitting on the council itself.
The only thing worse than a council that does almost nothing to protect human rights is a council that covers for human rights abuses and is therefore an obstacle to progress and an impediment to change. The Human Rights Council enables abuses by absolving wrongdoers through silence and falsely condemning those who have committed no offense. A mere look around the world today demonstrates that the council has failed in its stated objectives.
Its membership includes authoritarian governments with unambiguous and abhorrent human rights records, such as China, Cuba, and Venezuela.
There is no fair or competitive election process, and countries have colluded with one another to undermine the current method of selecting members.
And the council’s continued and well-documented bias against Israel is unconscionable. Since its creation, the council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world combined.
The United States has no opposition in principle to multilateral bodies working to protect human rights. We desire to work with our allies and partners on this critical objective that reflects America’s commitment to freedom.
But when organizations undermine our national interests and our allies, we will not be complicit. When they seek to infringe on our national sovereignty, we will not be silent.
The United States – which leads the world in humanitarian assistance, and whose service members have sacrificed life and limb to free millions from oppression and tyranny – will not take lectures form hypocritical bodies and institution as Americans selflessly give their blood and treasure to help the defenseless.
Ambassador Haley has spent more than a year trying to reform the Human Rights Council.
She is the right leader to drive our efforts in this regard at the United Nations. Her efforts in this regard have been tireless.
She has asserted American leadership on everything from the Assad regime’s chemical weapons use, to the pressure campaign against North Korea, and the Iran-backed provocations in the Middle East.
Ambassador Haley has been fearless and a consistent voice on behalf of our ally Israel. And she has a sincere passion to protect the security, dignity, and the freedom of human beings around the world – all while putting American interests first. She has been a fierce defender of human rights around the world.
I will now turn it over to Ambassador Haley for her announcement on how the United States will move forward with respect to the UN Human Rights Council.
♦AMBASSADOR HALEY: Thank you. Good afternoon. I want to thank Secretary Pompeo for his friendship and his partnership and his leadership as we move forward on these issues.
One year ago, I traveled to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. On that occasion, I outlined the U.S. priorities for advancing human rights and I declared our intent to remain a part of the Human Rights Council if essential reforms were achieved. These reforms were needed in order to make the council a serious advocate for human rights. For too long, the Human Rights Council has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias.
Regrettably, it is now clear that our call for reform was not heeded. Human rights abusers continue to serve on and be elected to the council. The world’s most inhumane regimes continue to escape scrutiny, and the council continues politicizing and scapegoating of countries with positive human rights records in an attempt to distract from the abusers in their ranks.
Therefore, as we said we would do a year ago if we did not see any progress, the United States is officially withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council. In doing so, I want to make it crystal clear that this step is not a retreat from human rights commitments; on the contrary, we take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights.
We did not make this decision lightly. When this administration began 17 months ago, we were well aware of the enormous flaws in the Human Rights Council. We could have withdrawn immediately. We did not do that.
Instead, we made a good-faith effort to resolve the problems. We met with ambassadors of over a dozen countries in Geneva. Last September, in President Trump’s speech before the UN General Assembly, he called for member-states to support Human Rights Council reform. During High-Level Week last year, we led a session on Human Rights Council reform cohosted by the British and Dutch foreign ministers and more than 40 other countries.
Our efforts continued all through this year in New York, where my team met with more than 125 member-states and circulated draft texts. Almost every country we met with agrees with us in principle and behind closed doors that the Human Rights Council needs major, dramatic, systemic changes, yet no other country has had the courage to join our fight.
Meanwhile, the situation on the council has gotten worse, not better. One of our central goals was to prevent the world’s worst human rights abusers from gaining Human Rights Council membership. What happened? In the past year, the Democratic Republic of Congo was elected as a member. The DRC is widely known to have one of the worst human rights records in the world. Even as it was being elected to membership in the Human Rights Council, mass graves continued to be discovered in the Congo.
Another of our goals was to stop the council from protecting the world’s worst human rights abusers. What happened? The council would not even have a meeting on the human rights conditions in Venezuela. Why? Because Venezuela is a member of the Human Rights Council, as is Cuba, as is China.
Similarly, the council failed to respond in December and January when the Iranian regime killed and arrested hundreds of citizens simply for expressing their views.
When a so-called Human Rights Council cannot bring itself to address the massive abuses in Venezuela and Iran, and it welcomes the Democratic Republic of Congo as a new member, the council ceases to be worthy of its name. Such a council, in fact, damages the cause of human rights.
And then, of course, there is the matter of the chronic bias against Israel. Last year, the United States made it clear that we would not accept the continued existence of agenda item seven, which singles out Israel in a way that no other country is singled out. Earlier this year, as it has in previous years, the Human Rights Council passed five resolutions against Israel – more than the number passed against North Korea, Iran, and Syria combined. This disproportionate focus and unending hostility towards Israel is clear proof that the council is motivated by political bias, not by human rights.
For all these reasons, the United States spent the past year engaged in a sincere effort to reform the Human Rights Council. It is worth examining why our efforts didn’t succeed. At its core, there are two reasons. First, there are many unfree countries that simply do not want the council to be effective. A credible human rights council poses a real threat to them, so they opposed the steps that would create it.
Look at the council membership and you see an appalling disrespect for the most basic human rights. These countries strongly resist any effort to expose their abusive practices. In fact, that’s why many of them run for a seat on the Human Rights Council in the first place: to protect themselves from scrutiny. When we made it clear we would strongly pursue council reform, these countries came out of the woodwork to oppose it. Russia, China, Cuba, and Egypt all attempted to undermine our reform efforts this past year.
The second reason our reforms didn’t succeed is in some ways even more frustrating. There are several countries on the Human Rights Council who do share our values. Many of them strongly urged us to remain engaged in the council. They are embarrassed by the obsessive mistreatment of Israel. They share our alarm with the hypocrisy of countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Democratic Republic of Congo, and others serving on the council.
Ultimately, however, many of these likeminded countries were unwilling to seriously challenge the status quo. We gave them opportunity after opportunity and many months of consultations, and yet they would not take a stand unless it was behind closed doors. Some even admittedly were fine with the blatant flaws of the council as long as they could pursue their own narrow agenda within the current structure.
We didn’t agree with such a moral compromise when the previous UN Human Rights Commission was disbanded in 2006, and we don’t agree with it now. Many of these countries argued that the United States should stay on the Human Rights Council because American participation is the last shred of credibility that the council has. But that is precisely why we must leave. If the Human Rights Council is going to attack countries that uphold human rights and shield countries that abuse human rights, then America should not provide it with any credibility. Instead, we will continue to lead on human rights outside the misnamed Human Rights Council.
Last year, during the United States presidency of the Security Council, we initiated the first ever Security Council session dedicated to the connection between human rights and peace and security. Despite protests and prohibitions, we did organize an event on Venezuela outside the Human Rights Council chambers in Geneva. And this past January, we did have a Security Council session on Iranian human rights in New York.
I have traveled to the – to UN refugee and internally displaced persons camps in Ethiopia, Congo, Turkey, and Jordan, and met with the victims of atrocities in those troubled regions. We have used America’s voice and vote to defend human rights at the UN every day, and we will continue to do so. Even as we end our membership in the Human Rights Council, we will keep trying to strengthen the entire framework of the UN engagement on human rights issues, and we will continue to strongly advocate for reform of the Human Rights Council. Should it become reformed, we would be happy to rejoin it.
America has a proud legacy as a champion of human rights, a proud legacy as the world’s largest provider of humanitarian aid, and a proud legacy of liberating oppressed people and defeating tyranny throughout the world. While we do not seek to impose the American system on anyone else, we do support the rights of all people to have freedoms bestowed on them by their creator. That is why we are withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council, an organization that is not worthy of its name.
Thank you.
QUESTION: Ambassador, is the timing related to the criticism of the border policy?
QUESTION: Do you believe that the criticism is justified?
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 