A couple of thousand years ago some early physicist amongst the Greek philosopher scientists, voiced the truth, when he said that “Change is the only constant in the Universe”

Heraclitus, went on to say that “Life is Flux” (Panta Rhei in Greek, meaning everything & all things change).

Yet change is really hard…

Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at 11.59.58 AM

Even with the potential to save one’s life, or the whole world itself — making the simplest of changes can be the hardest thing for any human being.

Just look at our pitiful & childish response to Climate Change … for further proof of this.

Naturally change, is especially hard for these intelligent constructs of human beings who seek to maintain long term safety & stability, and so change is a near impossibility for intelligent assemblies such as the Pentagon, the State Department, and the long held institutional memory coalescing as the foreign policy apparatus, of the United States.

As for other smaller nation states, that have simpler institutional structures — it is even more difficult to embrace change than it is for a Superpower to understand & handle the vagaries of uncertainty, time, and chance, that all together militate for a state of constant flux & change.

It appears to be especially hard for our institutions, when these necessary changes of policy are needed, not because of the changing times and circumstances of the geopolitical & economic dynamic equilibriums, but because they are rather needed in order to bring into focus the paradoxical conflict of the Superpower’s economic interests vs the diplomacy, world safety, and international order foreign policy.

We haven’t faced for a while, such lofty dilemmas as we are facing today when these United States, align for battle across the shifting sands of Iran and it’s wildly inventive and theocratic regime that seeks to spread evil hither and tither.

And yet, even now at the eleventh hour, we are unwilling to embrace either the conflict or the change, even though we know that as Heraclitus quipped: “The underlying form of life, the ‘wisdom,’ is that the human condition is chiefly characterized by strife, by the coming together and pulling away of opposing forces.” And while people lament this strife, equating it with suffering, Heraclitus observed that this same process informed the natural world as well by writing: “All things come into being through opposition and all are in flux like a river.” There is no reason, then, to fear or try to avoid strife because conflict is the essential underlying force in life. This contending of forces, which Heraclitus characterized as fire, is easily observable in nature and yet human beings resist the natural movement of life and try to cling to what is known and what is considered safe.”

Marry that riddle, with the conflicts of interest between our national economy, and our international “Pax Americana” sovereignty, along with the global NATO partnerships, and we are in for a refresher course in solving the famed game theory “Prisoner’s Dilemma” paradox, that others have never solved successfully at this highest levels of the global diplomatic stage, in order to avoid another needless war.

So…

It would seem that we are sleep-walking to our predetermined fate, and thus going blindly towards another Middle Eastern war and the resultant Oil Crisis be damned…

And this is going to be a real nasty bit of war, because it will start by shutting down the Straits of Hormuz, and then all kinds of economic hell will break loose, and the roof tiles of Wall Street and the Banking majors, will fall upon our heads all over again.

Yet, I truly think that our leadership does not really know what shutting down the straits of Hormuz entails, and perhaps they need to take a trip down the institutional memory-lane, or just visit the local library, and read up on the subject and then try their hardest to recall the havoc that was wrought to the world, the last time this happened.

And even for those of us who remember — it seems to me that our administration does not know the angles and the implications of it, and even more importantly, the unintended consequences of that oil gateway closure…

Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at 11.59.21 AM

YES, WE ARE SLEEP WALKING TOWARD WAR, AND AN OIL CRISIS TO BOOT IS IN THE OFFING … SIMPLY BECAUSE WE ARE UNWILLING TO SEE THE SHIFTING SANDS OF TIME FOE WHAT THEY ARE.

And sadly, we are all going down that dismal path, and we don’t even know it, as we are prevaricating with our national belly button observational fixation.

Yet, I must caution the war department President, and the Senate, (forget Congress), that we are mistakenly and blindly going down the war path, because the Trump administration’s oil embargo towards Iran, and the push to reduce Iran’s oil exports to near zero, has entered a new and untested, yet all too critical phase, without so much as a tensions release valve in place, in this pressure cooker explosion contest, I will christen as the “Brinkmanship with the Ayatollahs” global economic value blow-up game.

Screen Shot 2019-03-29 at 6.08.31 PM

Because we are already in a solid phase of belligerence, with the United States refusing to extend the waivers it granted six months ago to the eight oil importing nations, including China, India, Turkey, Japan, and South Korea, that were allowed to continue purchasing Iranian oil based on the prior Iran nuclear deal agreements.

Moreover, the United States has refused to allow for a “wind-down” period where impacted nations would be able to gradually wean themselves away from Iranian sources of energy.

This means that, effective May 1st, any nation purchasing oil from Iran will be subject to punitive US sanctions.

The effort on the part of the Trump administration to shut down Iran’s ability to export oil is predicated on the false notion that the rest of the world will fall in lockstep with U.S. policy. But has President Donald Trump really thought through what would happen to the economic health of the world if Iran retaliates, shutting the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s oil flows daily?

Because as of now, some 18 million barrels of oil transit through every day.

Therefore, the economic impact of shutting this trade down, by closing and clogging there straits, would surely be catastrophic.

But catastrophic exactly for whom?

Iran has responded to the American decision not to extend oil waivers in typical fashion, with Rear Admiral Alireza Tangsiri, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC) naval forces, warning on April 23 that “if Iran’s benefits in the Strait of Hormuz, which according to international rules is an international waterway, are denied, we will close it”.

This threat was clarified the next day, April 24, by Iran’s Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, who declared “ships can go through the Strait of Hormuz,” noting that “if the U.S. wanted to continue to observe the rules of engagement, the rules of the game, the channels of communication, the prevailing protocols, then in spite of the fact that we consider U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf as inherently destabilizing, we’re not going to take any action.”

For now…

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most critical sea lanes in the world today, transiting some 18.5 million barrels of crude and refined products per day, representing roughly 20 percent of all oil produced globally. There is universal consensus among energy analysts that any closure of the Strait of Hormuz would result in “catastrophic” consequences for the global economy.

Less certain is whether Iran is serious about carrying out its threats. In July 2018, following the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action, or JCPOA), Iranian President Hassan Rouhani threatened to close the Straits in retaliation for renewed U.S. economic sanctions. Calmer heads prevailed, and Iran ended up taking the diplomatic route, working with the other signatories of the JCPOA to find ways to bypass U.S. sanctions.

In the intervening time, Iran’s efforts at crafting a diplomatic solution have fizzled, with Europe unable (or unwilling) to implement a meaningful alternative to the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) system, a financial network based in Belgium that provides cross-border transfers for over 11,000 financial institutions in more than 200 countries and territories around the world. Because the SWIFT board includes executives from U.S. banks, federal law allows the U.S. government to sanction banks and regulators who operate in violation of U.S. law. As such, any financial transaction involving Iran or any other entity under U.S. sanction would provide a trigger for secondary sanctions to be applied to facilitating institutions and/or persons.

Iran has a history of bypassing U.S. sanctions, and while the Trump administration’s targeting of Iran’s oil exports has caused significant economic harm to the Islamic Republic, Iran remains confident that it would be able to continue to sell oil in enough quantity to keep its economy afloat. In a recent appearance, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared that the American effort to block Iran’s oil sales will fail. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will be exporting any amount of oil it would require, at will,” Khamenei said.

There is a major difference between 2018 and today, however. The recent decisionby the Trump administration to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC) a terrorist organization has complicated the issue of Iran’s oil sales, and America’s reaction in response.

The IRGC has long been subject to U.S. sanctions. In 2012, the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), determined that National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) was an “agent or affiliate” of the IRGC and therefore is subject to sanctions under the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (ITRSHRA). Other Iranian oil companies have likewise been linked to the IRGC, including Kermanshah Petrochemical Industries Co., Pardis Petrochemical Co., Parsian Oil & Gas Development Co., and Shiraz Petrochemical Co.

While in 2012 the United States determined that there was insufficient information to link the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) as an affiliate of the IRGC, under the current sanctions regime imposed in 2018 the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) and the NITC have been blacklisted in their entirety.

By linking the bulk of Iran’s oil exporting capacity to the IRGC, the United States has opened the door to means other than economic sanctions when it comes to enforcing its “zero” ban on Iranian oil sales. Any Iranian oil in transit would be classified as the property of a terrorist organization, as would any Iranian vessel carrying oil.

Likewise, any vessel from any nation that carried Iranian oil would be classified as providing material support to a terrorist organization, and thereby subject to interdiction, confiscation, and/or destruction. This is the distinction the world is missing when assessing Iran’s current threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. It’s one thing to sanction Iranian entities, including the IRGC—Iran has historically found enough work-arounds to defeat such efforts. It is an altogether different situation if the Unite States opts to physically impede Iran’s ability to ship oil. This would be a red line for Iran, and a trigger for it to shut down all shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

So far the United States has not shown any inclination to physically confront Iranian shipping. Indeed, as Iran’s top military commander Major General Mohammad Baqeri recently told reporters, U.S. naval and commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz continue to respond to the queries transmitted by the IRGC naval forces responsible for securing Iran’s portion of the strategic waterway—an awkward reality given that the IRGC has been designated a terrorist organization, which means the U.S. Navy freely communicates and coordinates with terrorists.

“As oil and commodities of other countries are passing through the Strait of Hormuz, ours are also moving through it,” Bageri observed, declaring that “if our crude is not to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, others’ [crude] will not pass either.” Bageri went on to explain that “this does not mean [that we are going to] close the Strait of Hormuz. We do not intend to shut it unless the enemies’ hostile acts will leave us with no other option. We will be fully capable of closing it on that day.”

The challenge will come when the U.S. effort to bring Iran’s oil exports to zero fails—and most observers believe this will be the case. Iran’s Foreign Minister Javid Zarif has bragged that “Iran has a PhD in sanctions busting,” and historical precedence is on his side. If the Trump administration proves unable to shut down Iran’s ability to sell oil through sanctions, and therefore fails to blunt what it describes as Iran’s “malign activities” in the Middle East, there will be increased pressure to be seen as doing something—anything—to effectuate policy objectives, especially during the lead up to the 2020 presidential election, where the Trump administration would be loath to provide any fodder to its political opponents.

Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at 11.59.42 AM

And if we seek to remember the lessons learned from dealing with Iran fifty years ago — then we are in for a surprise, because the Iranian Ayatollahs of your father’s time, are not the same ones ruling the roost in Teheran today.

Things have changed and we are not even aware of the changes, subtle and big, that have transpired in that country…

For it’s all a new game today.

After all as the old man Heraclitus would have said: “You can never step into the same river twice.”

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:

However the economic impacts of an Oil embargo emanating from the oil consumer nations, is another reality all together.

And if anyone out there recalls the effects of the OPEC’s oil embargo back in the early 1970’s, and the economic devastation that it caused the free world — might want to shout out at Mr Pompeo and Mr Trump to have a rethink of this new and precipitous invitation to trouble.

And simply because any effort to restrict or deny oil transits through the Strait of Hormuz would be rightfully seen as a provocative act worthy of military intervention, it is highly unlikely that either the United States or Iran would take any precipitous action in that regard unilaterally…

However, Iran would most likely seek a gradual escalation of restrictions grounded in its legal interpretation of the 1982 United Nations’ Convention on the Law of the Sea, which grants Iran control over “territorial waters” extending to a maximum of 12 nautical miles beyond its coastline.

Any ships using the northern and eastern routes through the Strait of Hormuz to gain access to the Persian Gulf would have to transit through Iranian waters.

Under the convention, Iran is permitted to deny free transit passage to nations, like the United States, which have not ratified the agreement. If the United States interdicts Iranian shipping involved in the transit of oil, then it is most likely Iran will close the Strait of Hormuz to U.S. shipping, citing the 1982 convention as its justification.

The United States would either be compelled to back down (unlikely), or resort to military force, certifying it as the aggressor in the eyes of international law, and bringing along the wrath of all the Arab oil producing nations, leading to an escalating oil embargo that would most likely include also the “neutral” producers of the OPEC and perhaps all others…

The military debate over Iran’s or the US’s ability to close the Strait of Hormuz unilaterally, and the ability of the “other” power to respond to such a threat is moot, mainly because No Real Insurance company will ever cover any oil tanker seeking to transit contested waterways under the strain of missile fire and long distance naval guns.

The threat of cannon fire across the bow of a ship is enough for all sane oil tanker captains, to turn their vessels around swiftly.

Thus the economic impact of any straits of Hormuz unilateral closure — will be immediate, catastrophic and sustained.

And regardless of outcomes — the bigger economy will suffer the most damage.

Further, our national economy will be going swiftly into the toilet with energy prices rising beyond the pale, even though as of now, the US is a net energy exporter, and conceivably self sufficient.

The riddle of this dilemma stands at the first mover advantage, and it resembles the economic paradox aspects of the game theory “Prisoner’s Dilemma” because even if the United States mover first, or simply responded to an Iranian closure of the straits, and even if we prevailed in a military conflict over the Strait of Hormuz, which is not at all a certainty … it would still mean that to do so, we will be shooting ourselves and the global economy straight in the head.

Seeing as two completely rational nation-states will engage all their mighty foreign affairs and diplomatic corps detailed negotiations, might not find a MIDDLE WAY to cooperate even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so — it is simply like waiting for the “Sarajevo moment” to unleash the Gods of War.

And since it is inevitable that we will not find a cooperative agreement with Iran, although we are both presumably rational in our pursuit of our self interests — diplomacy by military means will be the only other option.

But war as diplomacy is always flawed and the unintended consequences are massive and unseen ahead of the commencement of hostilities, always leading the belligerents at overestimating their particular strengths, while underestimating those of their opponent — leading both nations to the wrong assumptions about the length and the nature of the battles ahead and of the overall war…

And although for strategic purposes we are sure to score and declare a quick victory, we know that we will be left holding an empty cup, having drunk from the poisoned chalice of the Gods of War — and we will be stranded in the deserts of Iran for a long time to come much like those downed helicopters of the rangers during President Carter’s failed effort at freeing the hostages in the early days of this Persian theocratic tyrannical regime of the Mullahs, the Bazaaris, and the Ayatollahs.

Still hemlock is our own choice of drink when we belly up to that bar of Ares, and we forget to study our game theory primer…

Because we instinctively and unstintingly know hereafter, after the length and expenditure of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, that any military victory against Iran would be pyrrhic in nature.

And if our plan is for regime change in Iran, then we should really be concerned, because if a foreign nation deposed the existing theocratic regime in Iran by force — the ensuing civil war, regional destabilization, and refugee crisis, would make Iraq, Libya, and Syria, all look like a walk in the park…

As for the Pyrrhic victories — they have the effect of bleeding the winner dry of any power, and destabilizing their regime, regardless of the outcome of the war. And the fact that this looming battle seems to be resulting in a Pyrrhic victory before it even started is because it appears that the United States is willing to sacrifice its national economic health, and that of the rest of the world on the altar of hubris and anti free trade gunboat diplomacy.

And that posturing position clearly fails to advance the national interest in any meaningful fashion, and that’s why this provocation to war, is indeed a poisoned chalice that will sacrifice our best and brightest strategic minds along with scores of soldiers and marines.

A major sacrifice indeed.

“Corbunet Beram”

And the Persians will surely take advantage of the situation then…

من برای شما قربانی می کنم

And they will surely once again celebrate the SuperPower’s awful folly

Besalamati…

The M&A process involves multiple steps. Each deal is different, and each process has its own twists and turns, but generally, deals follow a certain order and cadence we’ll refer to here as M&A dating, M&A engagement, and M&A marriage…

Perhaps it was love at first sight and you received one terrific offer, or maybe you’ve been playing the field and received multiple offers. Either way, you’ve been through the M&A dating process (i.e. developing your acquisition strategy, identifying potential buyers, signing NDAs, negotiating valuation, and vetting indications of interest), but you’re still not ready to get married.

The term sheet is the tool used to align the parties on the basic deal terms and streamlines the dating process, so your next stop in M&A engagement is the presentation of a term sheet.

This is the stage where you and the buyer make sure you agree on the key terms of the proposed marriage. The term sheet is the tool used to align the parties on the basic deal terms and streamlines the drafting process by providing a clear roadmap for the lawyers to follow. It makes the deal process more efficient, reduces risk, and can save both parties a great deal of time, aggravation, and money.

There are differing views on how comprehensive a term sheet should be, and different deals require different degrees of details. But once a term sheet is signed, it is difficult (but not impossible) to materially alter the terms. If you haven’t yet, this is the time to consult with your legal advisors—make sure you understand exactly what you are signing up for.

Although every deal and every term sheet is different, here is a summary of the most commonly negotiated terms:

Deal Consideration: Valuation is the name of the game, but there’s much more to it than just a stated purchase price; there are additional components and adjustments to purchase price that factor into how much shareholders actually put in their pockets when all is said and done. It’s critical you understand this: just because you have a cash offer for $500 million doesn’t mean (and in fact it is unlikely that) the shareholders will receive $500 million in cash. Typical items that affect the ultimate pay out include adjustments for debt and other variables, working capital calculations, transaction expenses, escrows, and holdbacks and earn-out provisions. These adjustment variables and mechanisms should be clearly laid out in the term sheet to avoid disagreements between the parties as to the business agreement when drafting the relevant documents.

Transaction Structure. At a high level, an M&A deal can be structured as (a) a stock purchase, (b) a merger, or (c) an asset purchase. Not all deal structures are created equal, and the deal structure that is right for you will depend on several factors, including your corporate structure, your cap table configuration, the economics of the transaction and your post-transaction goals, and of course, tax considerations. Each structure has its own nuances, tax ramifications, benefits, and risks.

Treatment of Stock Options and Equity Awards: You can approach stock options and equity awards in a number of ways. Depending on the underlying equity award documents, options and equity awards can be cancelled, accelerated, cashed out, or substituted with new equity awards issued by the buyer. Your capital structure, vesting provisions, employee retention goals, and tax considerations are all factors that may determine how to treat stock options and equity awards. In addition, warrants can involve complicated mechanisms that determine what happens to the warrant in an acquisition scenario and complex calculations that determine their cash value. Your lawyer can help guide you through the relevant considerations and explain the nuances of how these instruments should be treated in the context of an acquisition.

Employee Retention: A buyer typically wants to acquire a business that will continue to run smoothly post-deal. This may mean that the buyer will want to retain some or all of your employees. The buyer may condition the deal or part of the deal consideration on retaining select key employees. The term sheet should articulate how the parties intend to treat the employees at closing.
Tax. Tax treatment often drives the structure of the transaction and affects the deal consideration. Your lawyer can help you understand the relevant tax consequences of the deal based on your corporate structure and business model. Be sure to understand the tax implications of the deal before you sign the term sheet.

Indemnity Escrow and Holdback Consideration: Most buyers will insist that a portion of the purchase price be held back from payment at closing to serve as security for things such as shareholder indemnity obligations under the M&A agreement or for a future obligation such as continued employment of the founders or key employees through a defined period. The buyer will pay out that held-back amount at a future date only if certain conditions are met. The amounts held back, whether such amounts are placed in a third party escrow account or held by the buyer, whether consideration is held back from all of the shareholders or just certain shareholders, and the timing and conditions of payment are all negotiated points and should be part of the term sheet.
Closing conditions. Closing conditions are requirements that each party must fulfill before the other is obligated to close the deal. While there are some standard closing conditions, they can be customized depending on the specific issues a buyer or seller may face. These conditions influence the timing and likelihood of closing. Your lawyer can help you identify the kind of closing conditions typical for companies like yours and manage the risk of unduly and burdensome requirements.

Exclusivity: Exclusivity gives the buyer the sole right to engage you in discussions related to the sale of your company and prohibits you from talking to other potential buyers to in the hopes of obtaining competitive offers. This provision and a confidentiality provision requiring that the term sheet and related discussion be kept confidential are typically the only binding provisions contained in the term sheet. Violating this provision would be a breach of your obligations under the term sheet and may subject you to legal claims. Therefore, you will want the duration of the exclusivity to be short. The length of the exclusivity and the specifics about who you can talk to and what you can and cannot do during the exclusivity period is something that should be carefully considered and drafted in the term sheet.

Equity Hotel: Once parties to an M&A deal have a “handshake” on valuation and basic structure, there is often pressure to minimize time spent on a term sheet and rush to the altar (i.e. the definitive M&A agreement). But skipping or rushing through the term sheet stage may result in a protracted and expensive drafting process and substantive disagreements late in the negotiation process that may even lead to a break up. In almost all circumstances, you will be better off with a detailed and well-planned term sheet to guide and focus the negotiations on definitive agreements.

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:

All things remaining equal the M&A possibilities today abound…

Speaking about Sustainable Arctic and Global Environmental Parliament solutions that surpass the Paris Accord, and bring real technological solutions, with the Arctic Council leaders today…

hashtagArcticEncounterSymposium hashtagArcticCouncel hashtagArcticLeadership hashtagArcticEnvironment hashtagArctic

 

Screen Shot 2019-04-25 at 11.10.45 AM

 

The inclusion of sociology in secondary education is akin to brainwashing students and turning them into slaves of a totalitarian ideological construct.

And although the voters threw out the brainwashing prior government and assigned all their leaders into the circular file cabinet of history, the political ideas of the previous ruling party are taught to the students of all the public schools, who they give tests to prove the learning of left-wing obsessions, through the new lessons of sociology & all other intersectionality and divisive diversity studies figuring powerfully within the existing curriculum, like Common Core and other unscientific inanities…

Yet, with sociology, the problem lies in the fact that this particular lesson, taught in secondary education, is presented as an acquaintance with a science, while in reality it is nothing more than catechism into the obsessions of the leftist deep state and the Obama/Hillary brigade that is more interested in allowing trannies to enter the little children’s bathrooms than anything else.

Seriously folks — this is their only agenda.

So, if students adopt and internalize these concepts, then their hearts and minds will be polluted and as new people — they will be totally lost to us, and thus we will face a very big problem in the future as a society, because the false prophets of Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and the falsely named “Social justice” are only seeking to overthrow all aspects of gentleness that Western Civilization carries and replace them with barbarity and incivility such as the return to the awful custom of open defecation that we witness everyday onto the streets of San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland, where the homeless and the drug addict populations, simply pull down their pants and poop on the very sidewalks they live on in the parks and downtowns of the major cities of the Western United States that have decided to be called Sanctuary Cities.

And indeed you have to make the connection from the study of Sociology to the Open Defecation on the streets of our downtowns and our parks, because the worst of all leftist obsessions are taught and adored within the sociology lesson, and it is the euphemistically called social justice.

Social justice is the left idea that inequalities between people are the product of some injustice and the government has to eliminate them. According to the lesson of sociology, economic inequalities are due to exploitation, ie injustice. The idea of ​​Marx’s goodwill, which is also taught in sociology, means that when a citizen produces wealth he succeeds in exploiting his fellow man. So enriching someone is done to the detriment of someone else. Naturally, this is not the case, because when one gets rich, he succeeds in delivering either products, or services sought by his fellow human beings and making it work for other fellow human beings. Bill Gates did not become the richest man in the world by stealing other poor people, but by providing the most competitive software in the world, and hiring the most skilled experts in this field with the highest wages on the market. In the help book of sociology for teachers, it is pointed out that poverty is not treated by the individual with his individual effort, but by the state with the redistribution of wealth. Therefore, sociology teachers teach the students of the school that their individual effort will not bring them anything, and in order to cope with their financial difficulties they should rely on the benefits of the First Left Party.

The proven erroneous Marxist idea of ​​surplus value and the toxic concept of class struggle are taught in the sociology lesson and extend beyond individual economic transactions and the global economy. As a person enriches himself by exploiting others, the rich countries have also achieved their growth through the unfair exploitation of third countries which have been poor or poorly exploited. Then, the fact that Third World countries remain very poor is responsible for colonialism from the past and Western capitalism today. It does not say anywhere that the Third World countries that have adopted capitalism since the last decade of the last century belonged to the richest in the world, such as the Asian Tigers of South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Obviously, the authors of sociology write on the left’s notions and not according to reality.

But let us examine what does the left have to do with progress, and we will better understand that they are really an impediment to progress and a strong throw back, and a harkening back, to the days when we did not have any sanitation, nor indoor toilets, and not even outdoor outhouses — but instead people just went out to the fields and defecated like the homeless population does in the Western United States capital cities…

Screen Shot 2019-02-16 at 3.59.44 PM

Sociology refers to the Second World, which consisted of the Communist states. But nowhere is it being considered, because the countries that have practiced Marxist obsessions, such as social justice and class struggle, have failed to produce wealth and have destroyed their societies. Mao’s China is the worst country in human history, where due to the application of the social justice of the Marxist dictator, within three decades they lost between 70 and 120 million people. After Mao’s death, his successor rejected the socialist economy and social justice, adopting capitalism. China, with the opening of its economy, has been transformed from a country that has mainly exported root to an exporter of hi-tech products and today’s GDP is close to that of the US.

Despite the blessed name of social justice, the central goal of the left in the twentieth century is a devastating idea, which should be considered repulsive. High school students would have to learn why social justice is a poisonous substance to society and because it is far more dangerous than racial purity promoted by fascism. Racial purity, as opposed to social justice, from the beginning sounds like a satanic idea that promotes the submission or extermination of other groups of people. The goal of social justice is to help the less successful people, but where it was implemented, it brought tragedies that had nothing to jealous of the Holocaust. Its first application was in the agricultural production of the Soviet Union and led togenocide of Ukrainians , eight years before the Holocaust.

The question that is not found in the schoolbook of sociology is how social justice will come about. Which government will be so capable and virtuous that it will eradicate all inequalities in the most fair way? Some of them with a short pathological liar in front of whom all other politicians are tortured, would be a deputy , but the writers know better that they do not ask such questions. It is good to say that they did not put as a sociological exercise on students to murder Ukrainian families, as did their idols in 1932.

By the way, the authors of school sociology are completely nailed to being leftist ideologists when they write that Russia and China had revolutions in October 1917 and 1949 respectively. The Russian revolution that overturned five centuries of Tsarist authoritarianism occurred in February 1917, while the so-called October Revolution was an Lenin armed coup which overthrew Russia’s first attempt to experiment with representative democracy. The Chinese Revolution, which brought to an end the totalitarian rule that ruled over two thousand years, broke out in 1911. In 1949, the Chinese Stalinists prevailed against the nationalists in their civil war, which broke out in 1946.

The Gulag Archipelago, which was written by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, is to this day the most important Russian book of the 20th century, since it was published in 1972 and inside these two thousand pages the author’s voluminous work has defeated all the ideas of Marxism, and it has also steam rolled over the New Left, as it has also flattened Socialism and the foolish Democratic Socialists, who along with the Neo-Marxist trying to pull the wool cloth over our eyes and bamboozle us with their con-games.

Indeed Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the survivor of the Siberian gulags and the author of this apocalyptic book, “The Gulag Archipelago” that he wrote and hid in strips of used paper from the bathrooms of the gulag — was eager to expose all variants of fascism of the tyrannical Socialist ideology, especially that of the New Left that is now the very central notion of the Democrat party and it’s left-wing obsession.

Apparently the collapse of the ideas of classical Marxism, led the desperate Marxists to the creation of the faculty of social strukturalism or constructivism, or more simply of neo-Marxism masquerading as Democratic Socialism in the West…

This particular Marxist school replaced the bankrupt idea of ​​the bourgeois exploiting the proletariat and the working classes, with the exploitation and oppression of the various racial and sexual minorities by the white patriarchy.

That is, women, homosexuals and people with different skin color, among others, are all victims to varying degrees of patriarchal tyranny. The inconsistent Marxist obsessions of the structuralists have their honor in the sociology of the school and are taught to the students who learn about male dominance in Greek society that “the model of the politician is the middle-class white man of mature age” and that the two sexes are social constructions. In Scandinavian countries, where gender equality is promoted elsewhere in the world,men and women have different professional preferences.

Indeed, it is stressed that the society, ie the white men that prevail in it, is what determines what the sexes have to do, and they report as examples the low female representation of surgeons, pilots and deputies. Of course, some of the most reputable professions are listed in the examples, where there is a low participation from women. If the authors and teachers of the lessons of sociology were sincere in their pursuit of more gender equality, then they would also discuss the even lower representation of female gender in the profession of foresters, miners, tree-cutters, military personnel, builders, carpenters, gardeners, roofers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, and all those other unglamorous professions.

Let the Sociologists explain that particular conundrum away, or why it is not compulsory to include women in the military’s draft rolls after their 18th year of maturity, as men are required to do.

However, the fact that the majority of university students are women, while in prisons neither women nor minorities represent the majority of the total number of prisoners, rather cancels the allegation that white male dominance prevails in the American society today.

And then what about the nonsense that the old Imperialism is somehow akin to today’s terrorism?

The authors of sociology reproduce Lenin’s Marxist novelty about imperialism as a cause of transnational conflicts, that is to say, the economic elite of a country attempting to expand its sphere of economic influence, forces its government to violently collide with its country to exploit its wealthy sources or with another competitive state with similar objectives. In other words, the authors as genuine Greek leftists still live the conflicts of the colonial powers. Unfortunately, Marxist obsession with imperialism does not explain anything in relation to the conflicts currently taking place in Ukraine, the Middle East and Afghanistan, nor does it even touch on the causes of genocide that occurred in the twentieth century in Central and Eastern Europe, in the Western Balkans, East Africa and the Middle East,

In terms of terrorism, sociologists, having informed us that a first response to its causes may arise from consideration of the notices of terrorists themselves, add that sociology seeks “the roots of terrorism in poverty, imperialism, and exploiting the resources of the Third World.”

However, anyone who has been dealing with jihadist and fervent Islamic terrorists for a while — will tell you, that it is a complete waste of time. Because anyone involved in dealing with terrorism, knows that for many years now, al-Qaeda and all others, like ISIS, and the Caliphate, have been publishing all their notices in doublespeak. That is they produce one type of writing in English what is meant for the Western readers, where they said for example that Osama Bin Laden was fighting for the rights of the Palestinians, for the native Afghans against the Soviet Union, and also for the Paris agreement on climate change, etc. All the while the same publications written in Arabic and published by the same Islamic jihad fundamentalists in Arabic, are keen to be seen as preaching to the Sunnis, that they have the religious duty to carry out a sacred war against all the other devoted religions, until they enslave them and thus enforce their own virulent Islamic version of religion upon them.

Who would have imagined that the sociologists were the only ones to take seriously the Arabic Salafists’notices to the West, while forgetting to read the Arabic language version of the self-same. Because if we leave up to the sociologists the search for the roots of terrorism — they will zero into irrelevant things that are mainly social problems such as poverty, imperialism, and exploitation of the Third World from the West, rather than understanding that the virulent hateful philosophy of a desert cult — has morphed into a death cult across the world ever since the introduction of jihad in the 6th century by the goatherd prophet of Arabia.

God rest Mohammed’s soul, but his best apologists today are the Western Sociologists rather than the Muslim mullahs, because their graphic allegations have been abolished countless times since 2001 by those who are academically engaged in counter-terrorism.

The lesson of sociology is nothing more than the conversion of youth on the left. It teaches students all the manifestations of the obsessions of Marxism by the classical one, such as the struggle of classes and the goodwill of labor, imperialism from Leninism and reaching the patriarchal oppression of Neo-Marxism. Yet, apart from the perceptions of three different schools of Marxism, in the curriculum of sociology, the ideas of Ballet and the Khmer Reds for excellence. Students of the Greek language are taught that the titles replace the old titles of nobility and that they are “titles that justify those who already feel sovereign”, whatever that means.

The Socilogists also praise the full legalization of all alien and illegal immigrants, despite their controversial role in causing social unrest, crime, and also failing to protect the few yet real refugees, who need to be protected based on human right abuses in their place of origin. Of course, since the US is a top destination because it supports legal and also free migration within the United States, it is also a magnet for the Sociologists ire…

The inclusion of sociology in secondary education is nothing more than brainwashing in underage students, as their character is in shape and vulnerable to political indoctrination. Sociology is the Socialist’s ultimate effort to sow their ideological seeds of destruction into the heads of the next generations of Americans, now that their time at the switch, has come to an end.

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

Apparently Betsy DeVoss and the rest of the Educational department of the Untied States government has to abolish sociology from the secondary education fully and absolutely. They should have done so from the very first day that they took over the government — but now is the best next chance to do this and this correct a wrong.

Students should prefer and they should ask to be taught the texts of Pliny, John Locke, Cicero, Seneca, Monsieur and Demosthenes, to know why they need to defend our Republic and our Democracy, before we end-up following the example of Russia where, since 2009, “The Gulag Archipelago” by Solzhenitsyn, is taught in all the schools, so that our future citizens are not deceived by left-wing populists and Socialist demagogues, who use easily lovable and catchy slogans in order to defeat logic and the hard realties of Life and History.

Equally important, students would be to get the young students better acquainted with the philosophical ideas of the Scottish Enlightenment, in order to discover that individual freedom has brought about the unthinkable economic, technological, and innovation progress, that humanity has enjoyed in the past three centuries — instead of being the victims of the Socialists, the New left, and of the Neo-Marxists, who are now trying to divide society in outraged minorities full of imagined casualties and perceived sacrifices, and playing the blame game of fake victims, railing against the western culture for whatever is crooked in their personal lives, for their evil addictions, for their surrendering into the many broken pleasures of the flesh, and also for whatever else might be happening in the wider world — including the changeable weather.

Screen Shot 2019-02-14 at 1.04.52 AM

Ever wondered why the development of the thorium cycle energy reactors has been so slow?

Terribly slow as a matter of fact, and a complete shame that the Thorium technology was never developed further back when nuclear energy mattered — because it might have been mature enough today.

Now the promise of “Thorium 2050” seems very far away, and creepily similar to the promise for the development of fission energy cycle.

Of course, I am not sure about the cost analysis of LFTR, comparing it to other nuclear reactors, or the price of energy in general, because it could replace fossil fuel-powered plants, so the incentive considering its zero carbon footprint, at least while running, should be large, and thus worthy of subsidies like those offered for solar and wind energy.

Indeed it appears, that humanity may face an energy crisis as the world’s population rapidly grows, and although Nuclear power plants can generate bountiful, carbon-free electricity — their solid fuel is problematic, there is no available long term nuclear spent fuel storage facility, and therefore all the aging nuclear reactors are being shut down without replacements on the pipeline…

Yet, we all know that even a Cold War era, liquid-fueled reactor design could transform thorium — an easily found and plentiful radioactive waste produced from mining — into a practically limitless energy source. And indeed, US engineers proved such a system works well, during the 1960s. However, the military canceled the project and thus Thorium nuclear energy production was nearly forgotten.

Screen Shot 2019-03-29 at 6.07.22 PM

Yet, today, companies and governments are now trying to revive and evolve the design, although development costs, engineering challenges, and nuclear-weapons concerns all pose hurdles — because the lifeblood of modern civilization is affordable, & free-flowing energy.

Energy gives us the power to cook our food, heat our homes, and make a cup of tea. It also helps us to grow and refrigerate our food, to purify water, to manufacture products, to provide healthcare, from performing surgeries and organ transplants, to manufacturing the drugs we all use daily, and also to allow the transportation to get us to the Doctor’s office or to school and to the workplace, or even to drive a car in order to simply go to recreate out in the countryside, and perhaps to go fishing, and to totally procrastinate from work…

Today’s cheap, bountiful supplies of energy, make it hard to see humanity’s looming energy crisis, but it’s possibly coming within our lifetimes, because our numbers will grow from 7.36 billion people today to 9 billion in 2040, which represents an average increase of 22%. Rapidly developing nations, however, will supercharge global energy consumption at more than twice that rate.

Fossil fuels could quench the planet’s deep thirst for energy, but they’d be a temporary fix at best. Known reserves may dry up within a century or two. And burning up that carbon-based fuel would accelerate climate change, which is already on track to disrupt and jeopardize countless lives.

Meanwhile, renewable energy sources like wind and solar, though key parts of a solution, are not silver bullets— especially if the world is to meet a 2050 deadline set by the Paris Agreement. Energy from fusion is promising, but it’s not yet proved to work, let alone on a commercial and competitive scale.

Nuclear reactors, on the other hand, could fit the bill, because they’re dense, they are reliable, they emit no carbon, and contrary to bitter popular sentiment, they are among the safest energy sources on earth, since even today, they supply about 20% of America’s energy. Though by the 2040s, this share may drop to 10% as companies shut down decades-old reactors, according to a July 2016 report released by Idaho National Laboratory (INL).

The good news is that a proven solution is at hand — if we want it badly enough.

It’s called a molten-salt reactor, the technology was conceived during the Cold War and forgoes solid nuclear fuel for a liquid one, which it can “burn” with far greater efficiency than any power technology in existence. It also generates a small fraction of the radioactive waste compared to today’s commercial reactors, which all rely on solid fuel. And, in theory, molten-salt reactors can never melt down.

According to Kirk Sorensen, the chief technology officer of nuclear-energy startup Flibe Energy: “Thorium, is reliable, it’s clean, it basically does everything fossil fuel does today, and it does a whole bunch of things it doesn’t do today, like make energy without emitting carbon, though the same could be said of any nuclear reactor. What’s more, feeding a molten-salt reactor a radioactive waste from mining, called thorium which is three to four times more abundant than uranium, can “breed” as much nuclear fuel as it burns up.

Manhattan Project scientist Alvin Weinberg calculated in 1959 that if we could somehow harvest all the thorium in the Earth’s crust and use it in this way, we could power civilization for tens of billions of years.

The technology is viable, the science has been demonstrated. Demonstrated, because government scientists built two complementary prototypes during the 1950s and ’60s. They weren’t good for making nuclear weapons, though, and this among other reasons, caused the government bureaucrats to pull the funding for the revolutionary energy technology. Indeed, the last working molten-salt energy reactor shut down in 1969.

Today, entrepreneurs such as Sorensen are working tirelessly to revive and modernize the technology. So are foreign governments, including France, India, and China, who now spends more than $350 million a year developing its variation of the Cold War-era Thorium reactor design.

The story of how we got here is neither short nor simple, but it explains why Sorensen and others are betting big on humanity’s coming “Thorium Age” — and why the US continues to stumble at its dawn.

The argument for going away from nuclear energy, are nuclear accidents like the three mile island nuclear power plant radioactive steam loss in Pennsylvania’s Middletown. With its brutalist architecture Nuclear plants may not be sexy, but nuclear energy unlocks a truly incredible source of carbon-free fuel. Ounce per ounce, uranium provides roughly 16,000 times more energy than coal and creates millions of times less pollution.

The argument to support growth in nuclear energy is so clear to James Hansen, a retired NASA earth scientist, a seasoned climatologist, and an outspoken environmentalist — that he passionately advocates for the use and development of the technology.

“To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not on prejudice. The climate system cares about greenhouse gas emissions — not about whether energy comes from renewable power or abundant nuclear power,” Hansen and three other well-known scientists — Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, and Tom Wigley — together wrote in an editorial for The Guardian in 2015.

The three climate scientists wrote: “Nuclear energy can power whole civilizations, and produce waste streams that are trivial compared to the waste produced by fossil fuel combustion. Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them.”

Climate science aside, the economics of nuclear energy are enough of a draw to make the technology worthwhile.

Today, the industry is already profitable, albeit heavily subsidized. Still, if you level the energy playing field against other power sources by taking into account government subsidies and tax breaks, capital costs, fuel costs, and other factors that affect the price-per-megawatt-hour of a power plant, nuclear energy remains a financial win in the long run.

Nuclear power’s 2016 levelized costs make it about twice as cheap as natural gas “peaking” plants (which fire up to meet sudden peaks in energy demand). Nuclear also beats the overall cost of many coal-fired power plants. And that’s before you account for the extraordinary hidden costs of fossil fuels against public health and the environment, including particulate pollution, which kills tens of thousands of people a year, and exacerbating climate change.

Nuclear also wins financially against solar rooftops, many fuel-cell energy schemes, and some geothermal and bioenergy plants.

That isn’t to say that current nuclear power plants are flawless. However, they’re irrefutably amazing power sources, currently meeting one-fifth of the US’s energy needs with just 61 power plants. They’re also incredibly reliable, always-on sources of baseload electricity, heat, and medically useful radioisotopes.

Yet great titans fall hard, and the reasons why, are key to the continued delay of the arrival of the Thorium Age.

The why nuclear energy is collapsing in America, is because new reactors that are planned or are supposed to be coming online soon, have all stalled and the industry has stagnated, with eight of the US’s 99 decades-old reactors planned for shutdown by 2025.

Why?

Flibe Energy’s Sorensen partly blames aggressive government subsidies of wind and solar energy, which leads to the problem of negative pricing.

“We’ve created rules that disturb the energy market substantially,” Sorensen said. “The first rule is that whenever wind and solar come online, we have to take the power. That’s called grid priority. The second rules is, they’re paid no matter how much power they make.”

Sorensen characterized this as the “murder” of nuclear energy, since those plants can’t be shut on and off quickly. He also said this is hurting the environment by causing companies to invest more heavily in gas plants which can be ramped up and down far more quickly.

“These two put together create negative prices, and if you’re a nuclear power-plant operator, and you’re trying to obviously make money selling power to the grid and the prices go negative for large portions of the day, that’s economically unviable. And that’s what’s causing reactors to get shut down.”

But other issues are kneecapping nuclear too, such as time and costs, because this is the trojan horse of nuclear power plant construction. The decommissioning process can take decades.

Energy sources such as hydroelectric and wind are still cheaper than nuclear, and a fracking boom has fueled investment in natural-gas-fired power plants.

As a result, nuclear is having a harder time finding a seat at the energy-pricing table.

Reactors also take many years and billions of dollars to permit, build, and license for operation: They’re exceedingly large and complex works of engineering, although you only need a high school diploma to operate them once they’re finished, as the cartoon Southpark has proven (sic).

Today in 2019, the average US reactor is about 35 years old. They can run for decades with constant maintenance. The Oyster Creek nuclear generating station outside of New York City, for example, has operated since 1969. But many nuclear reactors are being eyed for shutdown, and once they’re shut off, reactors can take more than a decade to decommission, demolish, and bury.

A dysfunctional uranium fuel cycle in the US has not helped, where just 3% to 6.5% of solid uranium fuel is burned up — and the remaining 93% to 97% is treated as radioactive waste and not reprocessed and recycled.

Fear of Nuclear melt downs and accidental releases such as the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster are what fuels the society’s pervasive anxiety toward nuclear power, that is often amped to irrational levels.

While events such as Windscales, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the Fukushima Daiichi disaster stand out in people’s minds, the reality does not match up by a long shot.

Screen Shot 2019-03-29 at 6.08.31 PM

“Nuclear radiation ticks all the boxes for increasing the fear factor,” David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at Cambridge University, told New Scientist after the Fukushima disaster in 2011: “It is invisible, an unknowable quantity. People don’t feel in control of it, and they don’t understand it. They feel it is imposed upon them and that it is unnatural. It has the dread quality of causing cancer and birth defects.”

But as Spiegelhalter, Sorensen, and others have said, the actual safety record of nuclear power is remarkable: “Fukushima’s reactor meltdowns killed no one, according to a 2013 World Health Organization report. Even in the two most affected locations of Fukushima prefecture, people in the first year would receive only two to three CT chest scans worth of radiation exposure. Let me throw out other names you might not be familiar with: San Bruno & Banqiao Dam, referring to the two accidents that killed eight people in a 2010 California gas-line explosion, and as many as 230,000 people, in a series of 1975 Chinese dam collapses, respectively. These are catastrophic incidents with hydropower and natural gas that really did result in large losses of human life, and yet the public doesn’t have a terror of hydroelectric power or natural gas.”

What does the data say about nuclear energy’s safety?

Measuring immediate deaths against gigawatts of electrical power is a typical way to assess the safety of energy sources, and a 2010 analysis by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) used this.

But adding in incidental deaths that occur later, such as 9,000 estimated cancer fatalities from Chernobyl (which the OECD left out), does change the numbers, as does including pollution deaths and incidental Banqiao Dam deaths.

In a more apples-to-apples comparison, New Scientist crunched the numbers. That maximum death-toll estimates from that analysis show: Natural gas is 1.3 times as dangerous as nuclear. Coal is 27 times as dangerous as nuclear. Hydroelectric is 46 times as dangerous as nuclear. In absolute terms, nuclear energy prevents about 80,000 air-pollution-related deaths a year, according to a 2013 study. Groups with antinuclear positions, such as Greenpeace, have struggled to spin these numbers.

“Nuclear power has consistently been proven to be the safest and most effective form of power that we have today, and by using thorium nuclear power, we can take that admirable safety record and go even further,” Sorensen said.

But grasping the promise and potential perils of a thorium-powered future, or any other atomic-energy scheme, means you’ve got to know a thing or two about nuclear physics.

Nuclear Physics 101: Advanced test reactor cherenkov and the idaho national laboratory show the blue glow of INL’s Advanced Test Reactor core, caused by Cherenkov radiation — an emission caused when particles move faster than light through a substance (in this case, electrons through water).

Screen Shot 2019-03-30 at 2.32.03 AM

In the United States, about 100,000 people work in the nuclear industry, and yet each year only a few thousand are awarded an undergraduate degree in physics.

These numbers suggest that more than 99% of us aren’t intimately familiar with how nuclear energy works — so here’s a bit of background about the atomic magic that provides roughly one-fifth of US power.

What reactors do? A commercial nuclear reactor’s job, like any fossil-fuel-burning plant, is to generate heat. Systems around the reactor harvest that flow of energy, use it to boil water into steam, drive turbines, and ultimately create electricity. Instead of burning fossil fuels, though, nuclear reactors “burn” heavy elements, typically uranium.

But uranium isn’t just uranium. The element is found as, and can be transformed into, different isotopes, or various weights or “flavors” of the same atomic element:
uranium-238 (U-238), which makes up 99.27% of natural uranium ore
uranium-235 (U-235), which is just 0.72% of natural ore, but a key ingredient in weapons and reactor fuel
uranium-233 (U-233), which isn’t found in nature yet is essential to thorium molten-salt reactors (more on this later)
The larger the number, the more chargeless neutrons are jammed into an atomic nucleus, and the heavier it is. Take away or add a neutron, and you can radically alter an isotope’s stability (and radioactivity), the types of radiation it emits, and what happens when it’s blasted by more neutrons.

The most common isotopes of uranium aren’t very radioactive.

For half of any U-238 to decay into lighter atoms — a measure called half-life — it takes 4.6 billion years. That’s a very, very long time to spread out a set amount of radiation. U-235 isn’t much more radioactive with a half-life of 704 million years.

Compare that to radon-222 (Rn-222), a gas with a half-life of nearly four days. It’s tens of billion times as radioactive as U-235, ounce for ounce, simply because Rn-222 decays so much faster. (Which is why it’s a problem if it seeps out of the ground and into your basement.)

Yet we don’t use Rn-222 as a nuclear fuel. One atomic property matters much more than all the others inside a reactor core.

Going critical: One of the most important things about a nuclear fuel is the chance its nucleus will react with a flying neutron, a property called neutron cross section.

Physicists measure cross section as an area, in “barns,” which you can imagine as a baseball glove. The larger the cross section the bigger the glove, and the more likely it is to catch a neutron — the baseball in this analogy.

The speed of a neutron greatly affects what happens next, and it can get weird.

A neutron can scatter, get captured, and turn a nucleus into a new isotope, or, and this is of tremendous importance — get caught in the glove, suddenly fission it into pieces, and spit out two or three more baseballs in the process.

When those extra neutrons slam into nearby isotopes and cause them to fission, too, it’s a chain reaction.

Energy vs. bombs: Fission chain reactions are the key to nuclear reactors (and nuclear bombs), since each fission event turns a little bit of mass into pure energy.

However, only a handful of isotopes are fissile — meaning they spit out enough neutrons and have the right cross section to “go critical” in a chain reaction.

U-238’s thermal cross section is about 0.00003 barn. That is a very tiny glove. Meanwhile, U-235’s cross section is 583 barns, making its figurative “glove” millions of times as big, and a highly fissile fuel. U-233 is also fissile with a respectable cross section of 529 barns.

This is all gravely important, because a controlled chain reaction is a nuclear reactor. A runaway fission reaction is a nuclear disaster, or a weapon of mass destruction.

It took thousands of the world’s brightest scientists in the Manhattan Project many years to crack open these and deeper mysteries of nuclear physics, then design technologies like bombs and reactors, so we’ll skip most of that backstory. “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” by Richard Rhodes is one of the best books to explore that history.

But in addition to figuring out how to “breed” Pu-239 from U-238, scientists learned to transmute thorium into U-233.

Breeding atoms, is as real as alchemy gets.

Thorium: Crystals of thorium nitrate do the job, and if you press Kirk Sorensen for a simple analogy that illustrates how energy from thorium works, he may plunk you down in a wet forest: “If you’ve ever gone camping as a Boy Scout or something like that, and been caught in a rainstorm and had to start a fire, you know that you’re really looking hard for dry wood. Wood that will immediately burn. That’s kind of how some of the uranium we have today is,” Sorensen said. “It’s like the dry wood. It’s the kindling.”

Which makes thorium the wet wood, so if you can get your nuclear fire hot enough — it will burn Thorium too: “That’s an imperfect analogy, but what happens in a thorium reactor is thorium absorbs neutrons and it forms a new fuel — uranium-233 — that can then sustain the reaction, because it can produce enough neutrons to continue turning more thorium into U-233.”

This transformative process is called breeding, and it’s the key that unlocks the promise of thorium — and explains its eventual abandonment during the Cold War.

Manhattan Project scientists, who embraced a “try everything” race to the bomb, didn’t figure out thorium breeding until late in World War II.

They initially focused on enriching U-235 in natural ore from less than 1% to about 90%, which is considered weapons-grade material.

The mile-long K-25 Building in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where bomb-grade uranium was enriched for World War, is where this happened, but enrichment proved that it was painfully inefficient, requiring city-size industrial complexes with mile-long buildings, and it all was used up for war bomb production. As a matter of fact, all $1 billion worth of enriched uranium went inside the “Little Boy” bomb, which killed more than 100,000 people in Hiroshima.

Plutonium, an element not found in nature — and specifically the isotope Pu-239 — eventually changed everything, since it was a simpler, although still arduous path to the development of nuclear weapons.

The highly fissile isotope could be “bred” from common U-238 by pounding it with neutrons, then chemically removing the fresh Pu-239 with a bath of nitric acid— no mile-long buildings full of machinery required.

But in tandem, the Manhattan Project also explored making a third fissile material, U-233, from thorium.

Bellow is a photo of some crystals of Thorium nitrate…

Screen Shot 2019-03-30 at 2.32.40 AM

Thorium’s first fizzle: Operation teapot met with a nuclear burst. A nuclear blast from Operation Teapot in 1955 at the Nevada test site was a magnificent site to behold. Glenn Seaborg, who discovered plutonium in 1940, “may have seen uranium-233 as a backup plan to the plutonium effort,” Sorensen wrote in his 2014 University of Tennessee master’s thesis about early research into thorium.

The scheme involved fueling up a reactor, then using the neutrons to bombard thorium — and breeding it into U-233. But U-233 quickly became a dead end for the military. For one, U-235 and Pu-239 were precious bomb-making materials, so burning them up in reactors was risky. Breeding U-233 from thorium also created significant amounts of a worrisome contaminant called U-232, which scientists had not yet figured out how to remove.

U-232 emits a lot of alpha radiation, which can trigger spontaneous fission — not good for a nuclear weapon you don’t want to randomly explode. Its decay products also emit a lot of gamma radiation, which can wreck electronics and harm or kill people who handle bombs. In addition, gamma rays can blow a bomb’s cover, since they are detectable by airplane or satellite, and pass through all but the heaviest radiation shielding.

Plutonium 239 metal: A ring of 99.96% pure plutonium metal from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, where scientists like Seaborg weren’t even certain a U-233-powered bomb would blow up very well. Apparently, they were right: We know that a 1955 “Operation Teapot” weapons test using U-233 fizzled, although the US government has yet to declassify all the details.

So in 1945, with Pu-239 production firmly in place, confidence in that weapons material, and a looming Japanese surrender, the defenders of breeding thorium into U-233 went to zero.

Screen Shot 2019-02-15 at 1.29.22 AM

Was that the right decision?

It’s very hard to know.

Those people thought that they were making a decision to preserve the future for their children, so I hesitate to levy judgments on those decisions made in the past.

But in the years leading up to the war’s end, Manhattan Project scientists were dreaming up ways to turn their wartime research into commercial power sources, and one group arrived at a brilliant concept: a super-fuel-efficient “breeder” reactor that ran on thorium and U-233.

A powerful postwar revival for thorium, was when molten salt reactor experiment succeeded, and on a see-through scale model of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, the concept of the breeder reactor was achieved in a fairly straightforward manner.

It would dramatically increase the chances for fission, boost the flow of neutrons, and breed more fissile fuel from a “fertile” material than the reactor burned up. Breeding U-238 into Pu-239 created an excess of plutonium. Meanwhile, breeding thorium into U-233 broke even, burning up just as much fuel as it made.

The choice of fuel makes all the difference, because the plutonium fuel cycle is a great way to make weapons. Meanwhile, the thorium fuel cycle can produce almost limitless energy.

A fluid-fueled design was ultimately envisioned by Manhattan Project scientists to “eliminate the considerable difficulty of fabricating solid fueled elements,” Sorensen wrote in his thesis. Liquid fuel also made it easy to remove both useful fission products — for example, for medical procedures, and those that poison nuclear chain reactions. The gas xenon-135 (Xe-135) is a common uranium fission product, and its 3-million-barn cross section gobbles up neutrons and chokes reactors.

Physicist Alvin Weinberg later wrote the idea to use fluid fuels “kind of an obsession” of his, to the extent he eventually succeeded at building his first molten-salt reactors in Tennessee.

When the Air Force launched an effort to build a nuclear-powered bomber in 1947 — part of the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program— Weinberg, who in 1945 invented the now industry standard light-water reactor (LWR), rose to the occasion, and created the NB-36H, a jet bomber that flew with the energy produced from a portable nuclear reactor from 1955 through 1957 when the USAF killed the project as too risky for it falling into enemy hands, and also because Weinberg, then the director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), thought LWRs were too heavy and inefficient for a jet airplane.

In fact, even modern LWRs — which all US commercial nuclear power plants operate today — fission or “burn up” just a few percent of their fuel before it needs to be replaced. That’s because neutron-absorbing waste builds up in the fuel, can’t be removed, and chokes fission.

“When you go to gas station, do you feel good about burning 10% of it? What about 5%?” Sorensen said, referencing the low burn-up rate of solid-fueled commercial reactors. “You want to burn it all. Why should we expect anything different?”

A molten-salt reactor emerged as the clear choice, since it could be built small: The fluid dramatically increases the efficiency of nuclear fission by making it easy to remove fission products, helping it burn up almost all the nuclear fuel and boosting energy output.

A first molten salt reactor aircraft reactor experiment was still valid, and a cutaway diagram of the first molten-salt reactor, called the Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE) is a sight to behold. By 1954, Weinberg’s team had built the proof-of-concept Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE), a 2.5-megawatt power plant that ran on a small amount of uranium-235 dissolved in molten salt made of fluorine, sodium, and zirconium.

It was the first working molten-salt reactor ever built.

Dissolved inside the reactor’s molten salt, U-235 fuel powered a fission chain reaction. The atomic heat warmed up an adjacent loop of coolant (filled with molten sodium) by 300 degrees, from 1,200 to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Incoming air cooled the sodium, and pumps returned it to the fluid-fueled reactor core for reheating.

“The Air Force was delighted by the aircraft reactor experiment,” Weinberg wrote in his 1994 autobiography, “The First Nuclear Era,” since this was hot enough to drive jet-engine turbines.

Screen Shot 2019-03-30 at 2.33.11 AM

Weinberg’s new technology never made it inside the “The Crusader” nuclear B-36 bomber, which actually did fly carrying a working reactor, before President John F. Kennedy canceled the entire USAF project in 1961.

However, Weinberg had squeezed years’ worth of research on molten-salt reactors out of the effort by then — and wasted no time spinning his work into the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE).

Screen Shot 2019-03-30 at 2.34.21 AM

Thus Weinberg’s thorium dream was born: A top-down view of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment taken in 1964 at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory where Weinberg and his colleagues designed MSRE over five years as a prototype for a commercial power plant shows us how it was done.

Screen Shot 2019-03-30 at 2.34.01 AM

It contained a loop filled with a molten salt made of fluorine, lithium, and beryllium — or FLiBe, the namesake of Sorensen’s energy-from-thorium startup— plus zirconium. The salt carried around dissolved U-235 and eventually U-233, making MSRE the world’s first reactor to run on U-233 fuel. A second loop of molten salt cooled the reactor.

The reactor went critical in 1965, ran for thousands of hours with only minor issues, and was put into standby mode after its first run ended in 1969. Weinberg thought of MSRE as a proof-of-concept, and he planned to develop it into a full molten salt breeder reactor (MSBR).

Screen Shot 2019-03-30 at 2.33.48 AM

This new version would blanket the neutron-shooting core with thorium, gradually transforming the element into U-233. Systems would filter out the new fuel as it’s created and feed it back into the core — all without having to shut down the reactor.

He also envisioned a world flush with thorium molten-salt breeder reactors as cheap, clean energy sources not only for the US but also for the developing world. According to “SuperFuel,” a 2013 book on thorium energy’s demise and promise by journalist and author Richard Martin, Weinberg envisioned nuclear oases in the desert: “Fed by the dream of inexhaustible, inexpensive energy, Weinberg’s projections became grandiose. The Oak Ridge scientists studied the ‘construction of giant agro-industrial complexes built around nuclear reactors . . . A complex built around thorium breeders could sustain 100,000 farmers and laborers, feed five million others and export fertilizers to grow food for 50 million additional people.”

But it was not to be, because some thought and followed the “It hasn’t been done before, so we shouldn’t try it at all” theory. Martin argues that a stubborn naval engineer named Milton Shaw derailed Weinberg’s Thorium Age indefinitely. Shaw led the Atomic Energy Commission’s research wing during Weinberg’s tenure at ORNL and, in 1972, issued a rambling report that terminated Weinberg’s project. Shaw had seen the early success of the liquid-metal fast-breeder reactor, another new type of nuclear power plant, and diverted MSRE’s funding to such a project on the Clinch River in Tennessee: a plutonium-fueled design that cost taxpayers $8 billion but never actually built a reactor.

In “SuperFuel,” Martin exposes Shaw’s rickety argument for killing the MSRE, a point that forms his book’s central argument: “It was the first of many versions of what would become a familiar argument: It hasn’t been done before, and doing it would be challenging. So we shouldn’t try it at all.”

Martin then argues similar thinking has stuck with the US government ever since Shaw’s letter: “Shaw’s reasoning was perfectly circular: Private industry will not invest in the MSBR as a commercial venture without the support of the government. We, the government, won’t support it. Thus private industry won’t invest in it.”

Weinberg was quickly pushed out of ORNL and into retirement. His molten-salt reactors never demonstrated the full thorium fuel cycle — breeding thorium into U-233 — but another project did.

Situated in western Pennsylvania and spearheaded by Shaw’s boss, Navy Admiral Hyman Rickover, the Shippingport Atomic Power Station pulled off the feat, yet inside a solid-fueled LWR, which is the one that helped pioneer the development of the first nuclear-powered submarine.

Martin succinctly describes Shippingport’s success in his book: “The Shippingport Atomic Power Station first went critical in December 1957 and produced energy for the Duquesne Light Company for 25 years. It occupies a unique position in the history of nuclear power. It was considered the first full-scale nuclear power reactor with no military use: all it did was produce energy. […] Shippingport proved that you could use thorium as an inexpensive and safe nuclear fuel in a light-water reactor and that you could breed additional fuel with it. This was not alchemy, but it was close.”

Sorensen and other entrepreneurs would discover this history decades later and attempt to revive Weinberg’s dream.

Rekindling the thorium dream: Kirk Sorensen, the president and chief technologist of Flibe Energy. Sorensen first learned of molten-salt reactors in 2000, when he was an engineer at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. His task at the time was to figure out how to power human bases on other worlds.

As Martin describes the moment in his 2009 feature for Wired, Sorensen saw a 1958 book called “Fluid Fuel Reactors” on the shelf of a colleague. The book laid out the lessons of Weinberg’s molten-salt reactor experiments for use in aircraft, yet also teased his vision of a thorium-powered future.
He ultimately left NASA to join a nuclear-energy company, later striking out on his own with Flibe Energy.

“For the longest time I thought that good ideas always got developed,” Sorensen said. “I’ve learned that the opposite is actually true. Most of the time, good ideas languish. And only through dedicated and committed effort are you able to see a new technology brought to fruition.”

In the next decade or so, several safer, more efficient next-generation reactor technologies may hit the market. Sorensen puts them into two groups: molten-salt reactors that don’t use thorium or solid-fueled technologies that could, but are comparatively minor and therefore easier-to-license, upgrades to the LWR design.

Sorensen is a proponent of a third group and the one he’s staking his career on, the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor, or LFTR (an acronym pronounced “lifter”), liquid fluoride thorium molten salt reactor design lftr concept 250mwe flibe energy, where Flibe Energy’s concept for a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor, or LFTR.Courtesy Flibe Energy resembles the LFTR in Sorensen’s own spin on Weinberg’s thorium breeder reactor work from the 1960s.

A 2015 independent review of the LFTR concept by the Electric Power Research Institute deemed it a “potentially transformational technology for meeting future energy needs in the face of uncertain market, policy, and regulatory constraints.”

Here’s part of the laundry list of reasons why Sorensen and others say that’s the case: Fuel burn-up is extraordinarily high. LFTRs could fission about 99% of their U-233 liquid fuel, compared to a few percent for solid fuel.
It’s easy to clean up. Solid fuels build up fission products, or new elements generated by the splitting of atoms, which poison fission reactions and often end up being treated as waste. Liquid fuels, meanwhile, can be processed “online” — and the fission products continuously removed, refined, and sold.
There’s less waste and it’s shorter-lived. For the above reasons, hundreds of times less radioactive waste is left over from LFTR operation compared to LWRs. And what remains requires burial for about 300 years, as opposed to 10,000 years for solid-fuel waste.
LFTRs operate under normal pressure. All commercial reactors compress water coolant to extreme pressures — upwards of 150 times that found at Earth’s surface. One small breach can lead to a catastrophic explosion. If a LFTR pipe breaks, however, molten salt will only spill on the ground and freeze.
Environmental contamination is far less likely. LWRs can release gases, fuel, and fission products into the air and water. Molten salt freezes and traps most contaminants.
LFTRs can be made small and modular. LWRs require giant, reinforced-concrete containment vessels that scale with their operating pressure. LFTRs require small containment structures, so they could be made small — possibly to a size that’d fit inside a semi-trailer.
They should be much cheaper and faster to build. LFTRs don’t require many of the expensive safeguards that LWRs do. Their potential to be modular could also lead to mass manufacture of parts and reduced cost.
LFTR is immune to meltdowns. Molten salt that overheats will expand, pushing fissile atoms away from one another and slowing down a chain reaction.
The design is “walk-away safe.” No nuclear power plant today can claim this. LWRs require backup power systems to cool solid fuel at all times. If power is knocked out to a LFTR, a freeze plug melts and lets the molten salt fall into underground containment units, where it freezes and stops fission.
Electricity output is better. LFTRs are so hot, operating at roughly 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, they can use more advanced heat-to-electricity conversion technologies.
The excess heat is very useful. It could boil and desalinate ocean water into drinking water, help generate hydrogen for fuel cells, break down organic waste into biofuels, and power industrial processes.
The “kindling” to start a LFTR is flexible. Burning up old nuclear weapons material is possible, since fissile U-233, U-235, or Pu-239 can be used to start the reactor.
And the list goes on and on and on…

With these and other benefits, it’s easy to get excited about LFTRs, other molten-salt reactors, and even thorium-fueled LWRs.

But it all raises the question: If thorium reactors are so great, what’s the holdup?

Screen Shot 2019-03-30 at 2.32.03 AM

Cherenkov radiation (blue) emanates from spent fuel being removed from the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where thorium reaction questions basically boil down to this: “The science is easy. The engineering is hard.”

That’s the verdict from Gougar and his colleague at INL, nuclear engineer Dave Petti.

“This is true in many, many advanced systems, nuclear and nonnuclear for that matter, where the scientists’ proof of concept is everything to them,” Petti told Business Insider. “To the engineer, getting it to the commercial-viability stage is their goal. And those are two very different hills to climb. ”

Petti and Gougar see three barriers to powering civilization with commercial thorium LFTRs.

1. Molten salt is a health hazard. LFTR’s molten salt contains beryllium to help regulate nuclear fission, but it’s a big health hazard. If there’s ever a leak or spill of the material, Petti says it solidifies into a crumbly “snow” that workers might inhale, raising their risk of a lung cancer and a disease called berylliosis.

Molten salt also contains lithium, which a reactor can breed into a radioactive gas called tritium. It’s less of a threat than beryllium, but it can bond to water and make it slightly radioactive, possibly leading to cancer and birth defects.

Luckily, such tainted water doesn’t stick around in the body, which flushes out half of any amount within 10 days, according to a Savannah River Site fact sheet. It’s also quickly and dramatically diluted if and when it evaporates or reaches any large body of water.

Dave Swank, a retired nuclear engineer who worked with commercial reactors for more than 35 years, emailed Business Insider to point out other hazards of molten salts: “Salts can be very harmful to metal piping (think of salt used on the road and what it does to car bodies),” Swank wrote. “Another challenge is the use of [fluorine] which is highly toxic due to its strong ability to strip electrons.”

Gougar also backed up this point, noting that developers like Sorensen “will have a difficult time demonstrating that their already-melted cores can remain safely contained” — as in, “no leaks in the pipes or valves or other irritating but common challenges that confront power plant systems,” he wrote…

As previously noted, however, he added that a molten-salt reactor’s “system pressure is very low so when a leak does occur, the radioactive goo isn’t sprayed all over the place.”

But good engineering, proper safety protocols, and protective equipment for LFTR staff would minimize these and other risks.

2. Engineering new reactors takes a long time and costs billions of dollars
The second barrier is the most exhausting but, Petti says, not insurmountable — especially if you have billionaires supporting you in the early stage investment to get the Thorium StartUp up and running, because you have to demonstrate the technology works, scale it up, and make sure it’s reliable for the commercial product and it takes a lot of time and a lot of money to get the technology from a proof of concept all the way to a commercial endeavor.

3. LFTRs create weapons-grade material (but it’s complicated) as Petti said that the LFTR’s biggest bugaboo, is its nuclear proliferation risk, since U-233 fuel could be used to make a bomb.

Fortunately, built-in contamination — by highly radioactive U-232, as previously noted — is a good deterrent, since the isotope quickly decays into thorium-228, which shoots out deadly (and easy-to-detect) gamma radiation.

Still, there is a way to greatly reduce this danger and enable production of safe-to-handle, weapons-grade U-233: an intermediate step between thorium and U-233, called protactinium-233 (Pa-233). This makes it possible to filter out Pa-233 and, months later, get a relatively pure and minimally contaminated lump of U-233 with minimal U-232 (and gamma-ray) contamination.

“When we talk to the nonproliferation experts, the safeguard issues are huge,” Petti said. “Being able to prove that you can’t do something nefarious has a big impact on the design.”

Gougar added: “It’s not that NSA doesn’t trust Kirk Sorensen. It’s Iran or North Korea that cannot be trusted with Thorium cycle reactors producing weapons grade fissionable materials.

That’s not to say using a LFTR to make nuclear weapons would be simple.

First, it may take a large and easily visible industrial-scale process to cleanse enough stolen U-233 to make a bomb, which minimizes the threat of terrorism. Also, at least as envisioned by Sorensen, the LFTR concept is a closed-loop system — so getting access to the liquid fuel and siphoning off materials would be exceedingly difficult.

North Korea nuclear weapons could be the kind that fits inside a KN-08 missile on a TEL as those shown on a military parade in Pyongyang in 2012. North Korea is today’s massive threat. Then again, for a nation like North Korea, stealing material from a US reactor is not the concern. Rather, it’s a theft of the blueprints for one, then adapting that design to operate as a powerful new source of weapons-grade nuclear material. That security concern may also be a moot point, however, since both China and India are already working on developing the technology, and aggressively so.

Given that scenario, it might be better to create and license LFTRs in a highly regulated environment, like the US, so that nonproliferation safeguards are built into the design long before it’s exported, or stolen, and adopted.

LFTR advocates also point out that many nations can already create and refine fissile U-235 and Pu-239 with traditional LWRs.

There’s still a long road to the Thorium Age though, because addressing all of the niggling details, according to current government estimates, might take until 2050 to fully realize a commercial LFTR or other type of thorium molten-salt breeder reactor.

Similarly arduous timescales are true of other “generation four” nuclear reactors, which is why they, too, aren’t yet powering US homes and businesses.

“Maneuvering the licensing process is a huge challenge. The regulatory framework is not currently streamlined to support these novel innovative technologies,” Rita Baranwal, a materials engineer at INL wrote.

Long-established nuclear-energy companies aren’t interested in overturning decades of “business as usual” to gamble on a technology that’s radically different from anything in their portfolios. After all, the LFTR may work but end up being outcompeted on price for the energy it generates.

So instead, most companies are riffing on current LWR and related designs to improve efficiency, safety, and the tortuously slow speed of licensing a reactor.

“To their credit, though, the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] recognizes this and is working with the [Department of Energy] to improve the licensing process as well, while keeping its mission at the forefront: the safety of the public,” Baranwal said. Baranwal is also trying to help companies advance more disruptive designs. After 11 years working in the nuclear-power industry, she left in August 2016 to be the founding director of INL’s new Gateway for Accelerating Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) program.

Per Peterson, a nuclear scientist at the University of California at Berkeley, likened GAIN to NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services — a program that helps commercial spaceflight startups like SpaceX get going.

“You can look at a large company like [United Launch Alliance] and compare its capability to develop rocket designs with SpaceX. The big, incumbent nuclear firms face issues around technological lock-in. And they can’t avoid it because of the scale they have to work and operate,” said Peterson, who is also on Flibe Energy’s board of advisors.

“I think there’s real potential for small-scale businesses,” he said. “It’s like with biotechnology: a small company will get a drug through phase two or three trials, then large pharmaceutical companies pick it up.”

Even if a small demonstration LFTR works, it isn’t guaranteed to scale up. Some unforeseen design issues may rear their ugly heads. And there are two other things that Baranwal, Gougar, Petti, and others can’t help with: market forces and people.

I don’t know when we will build an economically viable molten-salt power plant that is a squeaky clean, reliable, and burns nuclear fuel as well as Sorensen promises, same as with fusion — an oft-cited alternative to fission reactors — that is “still decades away from the production of a fusion power plant that generates more energy than it consumes.

LFTR could be a super-safe slam dunk for commercial power, but antinuclear (or anticompetitive) interests could threaten its future. And if the technology can’t compete with natural gas, wind, solar, hydroelectric, legacy nuclear power plants, and more, it could just be a failed business venture — Weinberg’s desert-oasis metropolises be damned.

That doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying: The stakes will only get higher as we use up fossil fuels and humanity’s numbers grow.

And as for Sorensen, the LFTR is certainly a dream worth chasing.

“This is something that’s going to benefit their future tremendously; it’s going to lead to a new age of human success,” he said, speaking to readers. “And if they want that, they need to be talking to their elected officials and demanding it, in fact, and saying ‘we want to see these things happen.’ Because only a society that decides to embrace this kind of technology is going to ultimately realize it’s benefits.”

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

Plenty of food for thought here.

And as a StartUp this Thorium reactor company is something to watch.

Because it maybe a Unicorn in the making…

After the discovery that the manufactured & salaciously fake Trump dossier was the only real Russian collusion during the elections of 2016, it becomes evident that finally the Clintons are leaving the American political & public proscenium for good.

Yet they leave behind a nasty legacy of murders, lies, and lawlessness.

Bill Clinton’s shameless behavior, with his perjury, and his obstructions of justice led to his impeachment, but he escaped that fate, whereas Hillary was flat out rejected by the American public, because of Hillary’s serial deceptions, constant lying, and her grotesque mishandling of classified information.

All of these issues militated against her, and led to her thumping defeat.

Her manufacturing of the Trump dossier however, and its sheer negative impact on American public life, may be her most infamous “achievement” out of her whole life of spreading BS and negativity to this country. And we can now safely say that her campaign — and ultimately Hillary herself — bear grave responsibility along with key members of the media and the government who also share in that responsibility, and now, they need to own up to it…

Because the “salacious and unverified” Trump dossier and the attendant debate about the documents within it — has invaded the body politic like a cancerous mole.

And although the Mueller investigation has concluded, and Mueller’s declaration of complete exoneration and total innocence for President Trump has now entered the public record through the words of the Special prosecutor that “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities” most people still have lingering fears that the witch-hunt will continue for some time by the Democrats rear guard actions.

But it’s worth reflecting on how the contrary view — the firm conviction that Trump did coordinate with Russia — became so deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans. And it’s worth reflecting on why another set of Americans could look at actual, troubling evidence of Russian contacts and simply not care at all.

The answer is complex, but at its heart is a set of documents compiled into a collection known as the “Steele dossier.” The dossier, characterized by James Comey under oath as “salacious and unverified,” consisted of opposition research compiled by a former British intelligence officer and commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Taken as whole, it undermined the credibility of American intelligence agencies, corrupted elements of the media, and distorted the public debate. It may well be one of the most malignant documents in modern American history.

The most immense and dangerous public scandal in American history is finally cracking open like a ripe pomegranate. The broad swath of the Trump-hating media that has participated in what has amounted to an unconstitutional attempt to overthrow the government are reduced to reporting the events and revelations of the scandal in which they have been complicit, in a po-faced ho-hum manner to impart to the misinformed public that this is as routine as stock market fluctuations or the burning of an American flag in Tehran.

For more than two years, the United States and the world have had two competing narratives: that an elected president of the United States was a Russian agent whom the Kremlin helped elect; and its rival narrative that senior officials of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and other national intelligence organizations had repeatedly lied under oath, misinformed federal officials, and meddled in partisan political matters illegally and unconstitutionally and had effectively tried to influence the outcome of a presidential election, and then undo its result by falsely propagating the first narrative. It is now obvious and indisputable that the second narrative is the correct one.

The instigators, the “authors”, the accomplices, and even the dupes of this attempted overthrow of constitutional government are now well along in reciting their misconduct without embarrassment or remorse because—in fired FBI Director James Comey’s formulation—a “higher duty” than the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution compelled them. Or—in fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s words—“the threat” was too great. Nevermind that the nature of “the threat” was that the people might elect someone he and Comey disapproved of as president, and that that person might actually serve his term, as elected.

The extent of the criminal misconduct of the former law enforcement and intelligence chiefs is now notorious, but to make the right point here, it has to be summarized. The fact that the officially preferred candidate lied to federal officials about her emails and acted in outright contempt of Congress and the legal process in the destruction of evidence, was simply ignored by the FBI director, who announced that she would not be prosecuted, though he had no authority to make that determination.

The dossier of salacious gossip and defamatory falsehoods amassed by a retired British spy from the lowest grade of intelligence sources in Russia, commissioned and paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, was circulated to the media by high public officials and cited in illegal and dishonest applications to authorize surveillance of the campaign of the other presidential candidate. A special counsel was empowered on the false pretext of the necessity to get to the bottom of Trump-Russian collusion in the election, of which there was and remains no evidence, because it did not occur and was a complete partisan fabrication.

The special counsel then packed his staff with militant Clinton partisans, and acted very late and only when his hand was forced by the media to remove two officials who referred in texts to each other to the Bureau’s ability to smear and provoke the impeachment of the winning candidate as “an insurance policy” against his filling the office to which he was elected.

Large sections of the media colluded with the Democratic campaign and produced the doctrine that anything was justifiable, no matter how dishonest, to destroy the incoming president’s reputation and damage him in public opinion polls to legitimize attempts to remove him from office. Large sections of the media deliberately deluged the public with stories they knew to be false about the new president and referred to him in terms of unprecedented vituperation in what purported to be reportage and not comment.

This unorganized but widespread campaign of defamation was taken up by a great number of ordinarily newsworthy celebrities and was accompanied by false, unresearched stories denigrating President Trump’s supporters, such as the more recent false claims about Catholic school students’ treatment of an elderly native American and the false claim that actor Jussie Smollett had been beaten up and reviled by Trump supporters. The former intelligence chiefs of the nation under President Obama repeatedly have accused this president of treason, the most heinous of all crimes, and have asserted with the authority of their former positions that the Russians determined the result of the 2016 presidential election. They knew this to be entirely false.

The special counsel has failed to find any evidence of the collusion and electoral interference that was the justification for establishing his inquiry, and the Democrats are already expressing disappointment in his failure to produce such evidence when the leading Democratic members of congressional investigative committees still robotically claim to have at least prima facie evidence of such collusion.

The dishonest attempt of much of the opposition and what even left-leaning media-monitoring organizations record as 90 percent of the national media, continued for more than two years to try to condition the country to believe that the president had committed the “high crimes and misdemeanors” required by the Constitution for impeachment and removal from office.

The special counsel, apart from smearing the president, distracted public attention from or tended to justify the ever more evident misconduct of the president’s enemies. And we now know that Comey, despite his “higher duty,” lied to the president about his not being a target of an FBI investigation, illegally leaked to the New York Times the contents of a self-serving memo he purloined from the government, and lied to Congress by claiming 245 times in one sitting to be ignorant of recent matters that no one of sound mind could have forgotten.

And now we have Andrew McCabe’s proud confirmation that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein not only continued the illegal counterintelligence investigation of President Trump, but actively discussed methods of securing his removal from office by deliberate misuse of a variety of laws, including the Emoluments Clause, the 25th Amendment to deal with mental incompetence, and the Logan Act of 1799, which has never been used successfully and has not been tested in 150 years.

This entire monstrous travesty is finally coming apart without even waiting for the horrible disappointment of the special counsel’s inability to adduce a scrap of evidence to justify his replication of Torquemada as an inquisitor and of the Gestapo and KGB at rounding up and accusing unarmed individuals who were not flight risks. The collapse of this grotesque putsch, under the irresistible pressure of a functioning attorney general and Senate committees that are not hamstrung by NeverTrumpers, will cause a revulsion against the Democratic Party that will be seismic and prolonged.

The disgrace of their misconduct is profound and shocking. Richard Nixon, against whom there is no conclusive evidence that he broke any laws (although a number of people in his entourage did) never did anything like this. J. Edgar Hoover in 47 years at the head of the FBI and its predecessor organization, never tried to meddle in a presidential election. Those responsible will pay for this, including at the polls.

I’m not going to link to the dossier, but it’s worth remembering its core claim. As explained in this December analysis in Lawfare, the document not only contained claims that Russia possessed lurid, compromising information on Donald Trump, it also made the sensational allegation that there existed a “well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [Trump and his associates] and the Russian leadership,” including an “intelligence exchange [that] had been running between them for at least 8 years.” The very existence of this allegation detonated like a bomb in the American body politic.

It had an obvious distorting effect on the intelligence community and parts of the American government. To be clear, I believe that the Trump-Russia investigation would have existed even without the dossier — I’m with Trey Gowdy on that point. As Devin Nunes wrote in his famous February 2018 memorandum alleging FISA abuse, information about George Papadopoulos triggered the opening of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016. Moreover, the multiplicity of problematic Trump-team contacts with Russians or Russian operatives justified an investigation regardless of the dossier’s contents or the dossier’s use by the FBI.

The dossier was used to form a crucial part of the Carter Page FISA-warrant applications, however: The Nunes memo notes that “Deputy Director McCabe testified . . . that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the dossier information.” In addition, elements of the dossier made it to lawmakers including Harry Reid and John McCain, and the FBI ultimately even briefed then-president-elect Trump about its contents. While the summary it provided Trump is still largely redacted, it is easy to imagine how the existence of such a document could enrage the president.

I urge you to read Chuck Ross’s well-reported account of the comprehensive efforts to “seed the dossier with reporters and government officials.” The efforts were in fact so comprehensive — and the existence of its allegations such an open secret with the press — that I even heard about it in Tennessee during the later stages of the campaign. I was flat-out told that there was evidence Trump had been “compromised” by Russian intelligence.

Salacious rumor-mongering is par for the course in politics. I’ve heard the wildest stories about even the most staid politicians. And when politicians aren’t staid, well, there are no boundaries. To this day, there are folks lurking around the dark quarters of the Internet absolutely convinced that the Clintons are responsible for a string of murders in Arkansas.

But even in the face of widespread rumors, responsible journalists — or journalists who aspire to responsibility — do not print the rumor, at least not without verifying or debunking it. They should not print the rumor even if they know that law enforcement is looking into it.

Let’s try a hypothetical. Imagine if you’re a reporter and you know that local police are investigating a wild claim against a prominent local figure. You’ve started to look into the claim yourself, but so far everything you’ve learned contradicts the allegations. Do you dump it into the public domain anyway, heedless of the impact on the public or the person?

Well, if you’re BuzzFeed, that’s exactly what you do. While it may well be newsworthy that the FBI is looking into claims that Trump is “compromised,” there’s a vast difference between that factual report and just tossing a raw opposition-research file into the public square and telling people to “make up their own minds.”

That makes no sense. None. Between taking kids to soccer practice and dance lessons, parents aren’t able to determine whether Michael Cohen went to Prague. As I wrote at the time, “individual Americans aren’t free-standing intelligence agencies, ready and able to investigate alleged Russian operations in Moscow.” If a journalist hears a claim, he should investigate. Not punt to the public.

BuzzFeed’s decision had two immediate effects. First, it demonstrated the extent to which an influential media outlet would depart from best practices when it possessed negative allegations against Trump. Second, the instant the claims were published, millions of Americans became convinced they were true. Combine the recent pain of a shocking electoral loss, Russia’s intervention in the campaign to help Trump and sow chaos generally, Trump’s incredibly odd behavior toward Putin, and the emerging reports (some overblown) of unusual contacts between Trump’s team and Russians or Russian assets, and Democrats were primed to believe the worst. Moreover, the dossier’s memo formats, which looked like movie versions of intelligence reports, enhanced their public credibility. They were official-looking.

And so we were off to the races. An odd sort of consensus developed on the left and the right. In essence, it was this: The dossier is the scandal. On the left, a kind of blind faith emerged that the purpose and ultimate inevitable outcome of the Mueller investigation were to prove the core claims (if not all the specifics) of the dossier. People weren’t singing songs to Mueller with the expectation and hope that he’d simply lay out the facts. They believed that they already knew the facts, it was up to Mueller to come through with the proof.

On the right, when the dossier became the scandal, that meant that misconduct — even lies about contacts with Russians or Russian assets — that fell far short of the dossier’s grandiose claims was treated simply as no big deal. If a meeting with a Russian lawyer with the intention of getting damaging information about Hillary Clinton or alleged efforts to establish back-channel communications with WikiLeaks through Roger Stone fell far short of the dossier’s claims, then they were nothing to worry about — a distraction from the “real” scandal of the “Russia hoax.”

Moreover, a veritable industry sprang up that attempted to tie the entire Trump-Russia investigation to the dossier, to somehow prove that absent the dossier, there never would have been a comprehensive investigation of Russian contacts with the Trump campaign, much less a special counsel. Troubling conduct and contacts by Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and others were swept aside as meaningless. The dossier was the chief weapon in the effort to delegitimize the investigation itself, and it was a potent weapon indeed.

For all of their other accomplishments, the Clintons are leaving American public life with a legacy of lies and lawlessness. Bill Clinton’s shameless behavior, perjury, and obstruction of justice led to his impeachment. Hillary’s serial deceptions and her grotesque mishandling of classified information led to her defeat. The dossier, however, in its sheer negative impact on American public life, may be her most infamous “achievement.”

Her campaign — and ultimately Hillary herself — bears responsibility for the chaos it sowed, because the dossier redefined the Presidential debate, as if it was some kind of cancer, that sickened our American culture and our Democratic and Republican politics.

And today, our nation is weaker because that fake document entered the bloodstream of the body politic, doing maximum damage that the Russians or anyone else cold never have done from the outside.

And we have Hillary Clinton and Obama to thank for it along with a compliant and cooperating mass media, television, and newspaper industry who all together along with some deluded members of Congress and Senate, seem to be really working for the Russians and the FSB…

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

Without realizing the proportions of the emergency, America has survived the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War. All those who legitimately oppose or dislike the president, including traditional high-brow Republicans who find him distasteful, should join in the condemnation of this largely criminal assault on democracy, and then, if they wish, go out and try to beat him fair and square, the good old-fashioned way, in a free election. But they must abide by the election’s result.

Screen Shot 2019-02-28 at 10.58.54 AM

Human industry, Civilization, Automobiles, Air Travel, and Flatulating Cows — all contribute to some serious global warming, and that in turn according to the United Nations Climate Organization, has caused the 3.7mm Sea Level Rise, that we apparently experienced over the last years.

Apparently, climate change is making the seas rise faster than ever, and this appears to be what the UN wants to warn us about so that we can change our lives around and start wearing a hair shirt while flogging ourselves for our sins on the way to till the fields by ourselves without the benefit or assistance of any cows, bulls, draft horses, mules, or even donkeys, because all of these beasts fart a whole lot of methane out the back end and that causes sea level rising…

On an aside António Guterrez, Secretary-General of the United Nations allowed men to draft their wives and place them under the yoke so that they pull the plow, reasoning that large human barnyard animals are better suited for this job, since the cows flatulence is a pathogen for our climate.

This the UN chief, had said after he had just warned the world that last years’ sea level rise had hit an unprecedented 3.7 millimeters. Apparently, the sea levels across the world are rising faster than ever, according to the United Nations that has warned us, that we urgently need to increase our action to stop dangerous climate change.

In a report released on Thursday, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a UN agency, painted a dire picture of all the key indicators of global warming.

The last four years were the warmest on record, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are at record levels and rising, and a global average sea level rise of 3.7 millimetres in 2018 outstripped the average annual increase over the past three decades.

The findings in the group’s annual State of the Climate report will bolster efforts by António Guterres, the UN secretary-general, to make governments commit to more ambitious carbon cuts at a landmark summit in September.

“There is no longer any time for delay,” wrote Guterres in a foreword to the report.

Last year was the fourth warmest on record, bringing the global temperature 1°C warmer on average than before the industrial revolution.

The WMO Press Release is available here, the actual report is available here.

Of course the report predicts more rapid sea level rise in the future. From page 16 of the report:

Over the period January 1993 to December 2018, the average rate of rise was 3.15 ± 0.3 mm yr-1, while the estimated acceleration was 0.1 mm yr-2.

If the UN estimate is correct, starting from 3.15mm per year this would result in a sea level rise of around:

d = vt + 0.5at2
d = 3.15 x 80 + 0.5 x 0.1 x 802
d = 572mm or just under 2ft of sea level rise by the end of the century.
If this rate of sea level rise per year continues, our children’s children might have to deal with 2ft of additional sea level by the end of this century.

Unlike others, I’m not immediately afraid of what the Green New Deal would do to the economy and our government. After all, this isn’t going to pass — not today, not any time soon certainly, but after reading the Green New Deal, I’m mostly afraid of not being able to get through this with a straight face, so I write today to you, because I want to consider the Green New Deal with the seriousness it deserves.

The Cold War as we all know, was won without firing a shot, but overcoming Communism in the 20th century is the way to kill the Green New Deal while overcoming climate change in the 21st century, hopefully without firing shots at each other…

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:

Talking about the weather… can be rather dangerous these days amongst the fools all around and especially inside the UN…

Screen Shot 2019-02-14 at 1.04.52 AM

Posted by: Dr Churchill | March 26, 2019

Indeed the Moon is made of Swiss Cheese…

President Trump has promised big things in Space, and yet most of his plans and promises, haven’t even been accepted by the various organizational leaders that command the United States Space program as real…

We now know how the AirForce killed the separate Space Command, and how the Space companies have sidelined the Space Councel, but what we don’t know is what is going to happen with NASA and her endeavors for the future.

Vice President Mike Pence gave us an inkling today by saying this on his speech about Space and America’s involvement in its exploration.

“It is the stated policy of this administration and the United States of America to return astronauts to the moon within the next five years,” Pence said. Trump weighed in with this statement: “This time, we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprint, we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars and perhaps, someday, to many worlds beyond.”
–Mike Pence VP on October 5th of 2017.

Yet this talk sounds eerily familiar… like the past one herewith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FERa2oxWhQ

And just as familiar, once again is how NASA isn’t getting any “new money” out of the existing budget in order to accomplish the lofty goals, despite VP Mike Pence’s laying out good reasons for going to the Moon and beyond, as Vice President Mike Pence tasked us with “landing humans on the Moon by 2024.”
–Mike Pence VP on March 26th of 2019. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgPC-KxqxyY]

The NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine replied: “We are up for the challenge.”
–Jim Bridenstine (NASA Admin) on March 26th of 2019.
[One could learn more about NASA’s plans to use our Space Launch System to send Orion to lunar orbit: https://lnkd.in/eWQX_Gn%5D

Indeed to an uninterested and casual observer with deep knowledge of government budgets and agency requirements along with a cost cutting accountant’s savvy for mission budgets — it might seem that the Trump administration is playing pretty much the same game that was played by Bill Clinton, and by both Papa-Bush and Bush Jr, as well as the game played by Obama in their exhortations about going off of our home-rock and into space: Promise them the moon (or Mars, or an asteroid) because it sounds really good, but don’t do anything of substance, in order to actually support that stated space exploration goal.

Am saying that because if Americans are going to be landing on the moon in five years — we best expect someone other than NASA, someone in the private sector to be behind this lofty goal and magnificent achievement.

It has to simply be a private mission of exploration, because the U.S. Government’s space program can’t even fly circles around the Earth anymore, without the Russian Soyouz providing the “Taxi-ride” to the Space station.

Back in the day of our space infancy, President John F. Kennedy promised the moon to all of us, when he gave us the famous 1962 Moonshot speech, but he also gave NASA a huge round of funding in order to make the Moonshot achievable. His dream actually happened because of that, and for about five years running, the space agency’s budget was in the stratosphere compared to the $21 billion earmarked for 2019 — peaking at twice the current amount – accounting for inflation.

Getting to the moon was not cheap then, and it certainly is not going to be cheap today.

Because going back to the Moon is not going to be like the last time, and it is not going to be any easier than last time…

Regardless — today the Trump Administration has pledged to put humans back on the moon within five years.

But the promise rings hollow in the context of history.

Because without another JFK-like commitment, and without some serious funding approved by Congress, the U.S. government will never put humans on the moon again, let alone send anyone to Mars.

It’s a sad truth for space exploration fans. But just look at the history of similar promises:

We got to the moon during President Richard Nixon’s watch (every human who ever visited the moon did so during Nixon’s presidency). But Nixon also presided over the end of human lunar exploration, opting instead to launch development of the space shuttle, which from 1981 to 2011 allowed astronauts to fly in circles around Earth.

Once Nixon shifted political space gears, his immediate successors held the course. Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan didn’t envision or articulate anything beyond near-Earth spaceflight during their presidencies.
Then, finally, a vision.

On July 20, 1989, President George H.W. Bush proposed putting humans back on the moon and eventually sending people to Mars. ‘’Our goal is nothing less than to establish the United States as the preeminent spacefaring nation,” the elder Bush said.

Nothing even remotely close happened. And then Bill Clinton’s space policy focused on Earth and space science, not human exploration of the great beyond.
Not to be outdone by his father, George W. Bush rekindled hopes of humans exploring the final frontier.

“Inspired by all that has come before, and guided by clear objectives, today we set a new course for America’s space program,” W said in an uplifting speech at NASA headquarters on Jan. 14, 2004. “We will give NASA a new focus and vision for future exploration. We will build new ships to carry man forward into the universe, to gain a new foothold on the moon and to prepare for new journeys to the worlds beyond our own.”

Bush the younger laid out three goals:
1. Return the space shuttle to flight (after the 2003 Columbia disaster) and finish the International Space Station.
2. Develop a new crew exploration vehicle.
3. “Return to the moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond.”

Barack Obama put the kibosh on work instigated by Bush, replacing it with a new policy that pushed the goal — both the physical one and the timing, way out there: “We’ll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history,” Obama said on April 15, 2010. “By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow.”

Again, nothing happened, and in fact the space shuttle stopped flying under Obama and NASA had to start bumming rides from the Russians to get to the aging space station.

Let’s now push our dreams for Space Exploration back in the calendar, because we need to have them launched forward from today onwards.

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

But let’s hope that the President and Congress will come up with some solid funding for this project, because the Russians and the Chinese are eating our cheese out there.

Apparently, they have all figured out that this giant wheel of Swiss cheese that we call the Moon, is quite tasty, and the fondue made of it, can be rather rewarding…

Today it is revealed that the United States debt has mushroomed to $22 Trillion and a good third of the foreign publicly held debt, is owed to China…

As of October 2018, foreigners owned $6.2 trillion of U.S. debt, or approximately 39 percent of the debt held by the public of $16.1 trillion and 28 percent of the total debt of $21.8 trillion.

Now wait a minute here…

Why is it that nobody amongst the two major parties is talking about this?

Are they waiting for an Independent to speak up?

Maybe,

Or maybe because all advocates of a stronger US monetary policy are currently sidelined by both the Dems and the Republicans.

Because they both think that they can kick the can down the road indefinitely, and also because even the hawks of foreign and monetary fiscal currency policy, all argue amongst themselves — if this a “Too Big To Handle” issue, and “Too Difficult To Solve” therefore an “Impossible To Tackle” government matter.

Yet, as an Independent, I must say that our collective failure to tackle the Chinese monetary policy battle and our unwillingness to scale the “Chinese Monetary Firewall” and breach the defenses of the Chinese enforced devaluations of the Yuan, have resulted in the cataclysmic events that we are now facing in our Deficits and Huge National Debt.

Along the way the Chinese masterminds, have caused the US debt problem and the subsequent global misalignment of all FX and of all global currencies, because they want to destabilize the US Dollar in order to dethrone the United States fort he global pole position.

And that is a devastating problem globally, but more immediately an American problem that demands a drastic solution, and the application of Executive Action from the White House, such as the forced depreciation of the dollar in equal measure to that of the Chinese currency’s depreciated value of the last many years…

We need parity of current values and a “Monetary Detente” in order to avoid mutually assured monetary war and economic destruction.

And to get there we need to fight.

That simple solution is what is needed.

But does this beleaguered President have the stomach for this expanded fight that has no obvious winners and losers — yet long term it will guarantee our economic sovereignty?

Maybe he does and maybe he doesn’t, because now he seems to seek easy and newsworthy easily understood mini-victories…

But he doesn’t seem to be savvy enough to engage in this gigantic and largely unheralded fight.
Because what this fight might need, is a Master leader who understands economic policy and the fact that a country, unlike an Enterprise — cannot restructure through bankruptcy.

Indeed the longer we wait for dealign with this disease — the more likely is that when the trauma to our economy is felt — it will be so devastating that it will render the Untied States into a second rate power.

Obviously that is not welcome news to most of us, but the necessary adrenalin needed to tackle this issue now, seems to be lacking in the current administration hamstrung by the errant Democrats and their never ending investigations akin to witch hunts of Salem in the days of yore.

Obviously a President who is prosecuted as a 16th century witch, cannot engage in frontline fighting that the Monetary Policy war, requires.

So let us hope that a new Independent minded person can focus on that monetary policy large scale war, instead of a tiny territorial trade battle skirmish, that only makes Mr Prez look good.

Because if we want to see long term equitable relief action that will not cause a loss of buying power for the American citizens, their savings, & their pocketbooks — we need to pick up our armor and go out for pitched battle of the mentally demanding Monetary Policy War, the kind of War that is so Meta that even Econometrics professors don’t even understand how it is waged….

Indeed this monetary policy misalignment, and the resultant exploitation of the FX currency markets, and interest rates, by the Chinese government, along with the constant production and issuance of fake economic data by China — has been the main cause of a rising trade deficit and increasing national debt in America over the last 30 years…

That is the “Phat Chinese Wave” that is coming crashing across the Pacific, each and every day, and it affects America in a damaging, dissonant and discordant way — each and every economic transaction, sale, and banking service, that we allow this to happen to ourselves…

And thus today even the prudent and fiscally conservative (in theory) President Trump’s attempts to deal with the currency issues in trade negotiations with China, along with his constant public complaints about a strong dollar — seem unlikely to change anything in the substantial and dramatic fashion that this grave issue for our Republic requires.

This matter requires our utmost attention, and if we add to that, the effects of five consecutive increases of the FED’s interest rates — you have the makings of an economic policy disaster, because the “strong dollar” due to hikes in interest rates, matters greatly for all the producers and the economic actors of these United States.

To address this inequity, matters greatly, because this situation, has led to near-record deficits in manufactured goods, and non-oil & non-gas goods, that are being masked by increases in exports of oil & gas, and all services.

In consequence, it is that which makes the US’s trade balance far worse than what the official data that is released would reflect. So my advise is that we should watch out for the Monetary Policy battles and not so much to the much ballyhooed tariffs of the news-worthy Trump trade war that has been made into a catchy tune all over the news…

Because that is a side show and the real show is the Monetary Policy battle between the two countries.

Indeed it appears that there’s a lot of underhanded stuff that is going on below the surface over there in Beijing’s Financial Street, and tin the palace of the bureaucrats of the Communist party, and it is this kind of stuff that we can’t even see, and yet it is equivalent in perspective to the unseen, and unobserved, underside of the underwater size of the Chinese iceberg, that is currently threatening our economy and our supremacy as a nation.

Even President Donald Trump’s, attempts to stop the trends of the past Obama presidency’s dismal monetary policy years — while bucking economists’ expectations for growth and wealth creation for all Americans — still hold the keys to the true trade deficit not just through his fight for installing tariffs and creating equalization with our main trading partner globally, but by waking up to the reality of the monetary war that is going on, and choosing to engage in that “monetary policy knife fight.”

Even though he wants to avoid cuts and bloodshed — this a fight that needs to be fought sooner rather than later.

But this President is not willing to open up another front in these difficult times for his administration as the paid provocateurs in the employ of China, have actively started to undermine him inside Congress and the DOJ.

Yet, some measure of hope shows from the new economic data (to be released officially tomorrow on Wednesday) that will show the US deficit in goods and services with the world, to have just topped $600 billion by the end of 2018.

What that means, is that Trump’s presidency will have seen the U.S. trade shortfall’s hump — that is the main metric by which we judge nations to be winning or losing — growing by more than $100 billion.

Although public economists don’t like to dwell too much on the U.S. trade balance, it remains by and large, an accounting measure that often moves in directions inverse to the health of the economy.

The U.S. trade deficit’s biggest contraction on record came in 2009 when it shrank by more than $300 billion in a single year as a result of the recession that was then under way, and the resulting collapse in U.S. demand for imported goods. As a result largely of that slump the U.S.’s goods and services deficit with the world contracted by more than $200 billion over President Barack Obama’s eight years in office.

This is a major reason why economists say, that You really don’t want this as your scorecard, because it is not an accidental trimming mechanism of deficits and economic health at the Macro level. Nor is it a monetary policy lever at the Executive policy level.

It is what it simply purports to be. A simple telltale signal, that when things are booming we consume more imports, and when the economy is in the dumps, we consume far less imports as well. yet, despite the name, trade deficits tend to have less to do with trade policy than with the broader macroeconomic policy and experience a certain ragtime between establishment of policy and results of said macro-economic policies.

The main long-term driver of persistent trade deficits since 1975 has been the gap between the US’s low savings rate and its attractiveness as an investment destination, fueled partly by the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. That in turn leads to a stronger dollar, which in itself helps increase the trade deficit by lowering the real cost of imports and increasing the local-currency cost of American goods in overseas markets.

In the first 11 months of 2018 the U.S. deficit in goods and services with the world increased $52 billion, or about 10 percent, from the same period in 2017. If that pattern holds in the December data released Wednesday — and economists predict it will — the deficit will have widened to about $610 billion in 2018. In 2016 it was $502 billion.

Screen Shot 2018-11-04 at 8.07.52 AM

The immediate drivers of the surge in the trade deficit under President Trump have been the fiscal expansion, the lower taxes for the middle class and indeed for all the consumers, and the overall spending resulting from the tax cuts President Trump has pushed through Congress aided by the stronger dollar that resulted, from the hyper-juiced economy that the lower taxes economic wealth creation and societal economic expansion have helped create.

However the economic boost from tax cuts has also helped lift the inherent value of the US currency, and it is this very feature of his macro-economic policies that Trump’s supporters insist he needs to be tackling right now. A weaker dollar will help employment locally and will also help the President’s trade negotiations with China and other U.S. trading partners. Trump economic policy supporters, also point to his renegotiation of NAFTA and all other treaties, as something that will help reduce the US trade deficit in the long run, but for now it only helps balloon the value of the dollar to an illusory and unsupportable height.

Yet, we must not forget that Trump’s economic & trade policy have also intentionally contributed to the growth of the trade deficit in 2018, because now we can negotiate with the Chinese from loftier target towards any reasonable reductions in trade deficits that can be offset by the Chinese currency’s fake devaluations and arbitrary hold-backs of the Yuan. Indeed, the tariffs that the President had originally threatened and then went ahead and imposed on Chinese imports — have caused a rush by importers to get ahead of the new duties, and that has fueled a significant and temporary increase in all incoming traffic at West Coast ports last year — that has registered as an increase in the trade deficit.

As a matter of fact, the retaliatory tariffs that President Trump provoked from China, have also hit major U.S. agricultural exports such as soybeans, and it is here where the President proved particularly useful in standing up for the American farmers and small time soybean growers…

Moreover, the showmanship of President Trump, along with his tariff threats and the game of brinkmanship of President Trump’s deal making and deal breaking power, and his apparent complete disregard for the consequences of imposing tariffs on long standing trading partners from China to the European Union, has also contributed to the slowdown in those economies and therefore their demand for American goods.

This is something that can easily be fixed with monetary policy adjustments and interest rate tweaking by the FED chair and the regional offices…

however because this monetary policy is elusive i coming our way — President Trump and his economic advisors, ministers, secretaries and even the well educated and monetary economic policy knowledgable supporters — have all cast the blame on the Federal Reserve, arguing that its decisions to hike rates last year contributed to the strengthening of the dollar.

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

Today, for the first time, President Trump also announced that a stronger dollar has weakened his hand in his trade wars and put a damper on U.S. growth, and it is an act of sabotage from within our own borders, to stop America from becoming the Great Economic Engine of the World and allowing China to remain way back in our own dust cloud…

But I foresee that President Trump will rejoice in they booming race between the two economic giants — the two largest economies in the World — and I forecast that we Americans will the race all over again and forever as we remain UNITED and PRODUCTIVE through our INNOVATION SPIRIT and our LIBERTY to think, create, and iterate.

God Bless America.

Screen Shot 2018-11-15 at 5.11.46 PM

In plotting the infamous “Coup D’Etat” of the Deep State acting against the United States, that sought to get President Trump impeached, both FBI and Justice Department officials, conspired with the Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and in the process totally trashed the Constitution of these United States…

Republicans on House and Senate Judiciary Committees have called on former acting FBI Director McCabe to testify because as North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows says, while the former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe is no longer a credible witness, he needs to testify before Congress again.

The most egregious anti-democratic actions ever taken by the “Deep State” are confirmed with the publication of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s new book detailing how the FBI and Justice Department plotted to remove President Trump from office for firing FBI Director James Comey.

Justice Department and FBI officials spied on U.S. citizens with false warrants, gave a pass to one presidential campaign with a predetermined investigation, investigated another political campaign on the basis of no verified evidence, and illegally leaked information on investigations. They discussed wiretapping and using the 25th Amendment to the Constitution to remove President Trump, and appointed a special counsel as a retaliatory move for Comey’s firing.

It is now crystal clear that the highest echelons of the Justice Department and FBI had morphed from the world’s most professional law enforcement organization into a Third World rump group. They had the hubris to believe that they – not the American people or their duly elected representatives – should decide who governs and how.

They closely cooperated with a Clinton operative and foreign agents hired by Perkins Coie (Hillary’s law Firm), they spied on the Trump presidential campaign on behalf of the DNC, they upended our electoral process, they influenced voters, they fanned partisan political flames, they distorted our foreign policy by isolating us from Russia, and they massively abused the power of their respective non-political positions and government offices.

Remember that McCabe, Comey and the intelligence community heads all publicly testified to Congress even after the Comey-Trump meetings and memos that no investigation had been tampered with in any way. None.

Yet upon President Trump’s firing of Comey, the remaining officials didn’t wait for the proper appointment of a new FBI head. Instead, they worked themselves up into an unfounded hysteria and acted to create an independent counsel over obstruction that never happened – and was never happening.

Operating a year past his commitment to the president’s lawyers, Mueller needs to finish his investigation, shut down his office, and distribute any remaining cases back to the Justice Department that now has a fully empowered attorney general.

McCabe said he was concerned that the Russia investigation might be snuffed out – but it wasn’t. It was untouched. You need a crime to appoint a special counsel, not a belief that a crime might be committed sometime in the future.

Had FBI officials waited for a new director to be confirmed by the Senate, they might have had a new boss who looked over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants and discovered that the key evidence for them was an unverified dossier from a fired source who had materially lied to the FBI.

Officials might have discovered that the supporting Yahoo News story was actually an echo created by their source and not independent evidence. The new FBI director might have figured out that the dossier came to the FBI not through actual intelligence channels but through an official’s wife who was on the payroll of the dossier-creating company, Fusion GPS.

The new FBI director might have even discovered that dossier was an opposite research operation from Trump opponents instead of real intelligence. The new director might have legitimately pulled back from this reckless course.

But Justice Department and FBI officials – egged on by the infamous Lisa Page and Peter Strzok of the FBI – knew better than to follow the Constitution. They were now on a mission to remove Trump from office for daring to fire Comey; they even thought they were part of the 25th Amendment, which empowers only the Cabinet and Congress to remove the president from office in extraordinary circumstances.

Screen Shot 2019-02-28 at 10.58.54 AM

Realizing that approach wouldn’t work, the FBI and Justice Department officials acted to keep the investigation they created under their supervision and with their friends whom they would appoint. And so rather than allow the new incoming head of the FBI to make these decisions, they acted to empower their buddy Robert Mueller as a special counsel.

Mueller, in turn, hired only Democrats, including a lawyer for the Clintons, and the “insurance policy” was launched and ensconced in power. So a counterintelligence investigation that was formed without probable cause now became the largest criminal investigation in history of a campaign and a presidency, dragging on since May 2017.

Adding to the intrigue is that Comey, McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein all disagree with each other in material ways.

McCabe believes he never lied to investigators and had permission from Comey to leak to the press. Comey says McCabe acted on his own.

McCabe and others say Rosenstein was deadly serious when he discussed invoking the 25th Amendment and wiretapping against President Trump in an effort to remove the president from office. Rosenstein says he was just joking around.

Newly confirmed Attorney General William Barr needs to crack all this wide open. The secret charge to Mueller needs to be released. The FISA warrants need to be declassified.

A grand jury must be empaneled to investigate all this and get testimony from officials under oath, and the certification of the warrants used to wiretap the Trump campaign needs to be fully investigated. Dossier author and former British spy Christopher Steele and Glen Simpson – founder of opposition research firm Fusion GPS – need to be called to the grand jury.

Operating a year past his commitment to the president’s lawyers, Mueller needs to finish his investigation, shut down his office, and distribute any remaining cases back to the Justice Department that now has a fully empowered attorney general.

If Mueller wants to continue instead, he should be required to balance his team with Democrats and Republicans, removing any former Clinton lawyers.

Rosenstein, who never should have been allowed to run this investigation because he was in fact witness, who wrote the memo given to the President Trump that was later used as the justification for firing James Comey — will be leaving the DOJ shortly.

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

McCabe and Comey appear on TV, write books, and have become nakedly partisan, revealing political attitudes no different from Strzok and Page.

They claim that they readily “believed” unsubstantiated information and then took power into their own hands and acted in an unbiased way…

Well, that’s a bridge too far already.

Every Democrat, Republican and independent should stop angling for partisan advantage and agree, regardless of who is helped or hurt, that these officials acted without proper authority and are responsible for unprecedented damage to our democracy and our political system.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Categories

%d bloggers like this: