We Should Only Put Tariffs On U.S. Companies Shipping Back To America

We Should Only Put Tariffs On U.S. Companies Shipping Back To America

 

This article is simply just my opinion on the matter of ‘Trade War’s and Tariffs’. I am all for certain tariffs on freight coming into the United States, but not on all freight. I do not claim to be an Economist as my degrees are not in this field. They are only the opinions of one old man who has spent his whole lifetime living here in the States. Now, the reason I say what I do is this, American jobs. I was in the trucking industry for three decades and I witnessed multiple times where companies in the northern states in particular and in Canada who closed up their manufacturing plants and moved them to Mexico because of the costs to operate there was much less. So they would close up their factories here to save money and to increase their profits. It makes sense, good business policy, right? Have you ever noticed that when a company closes up here in the States and opens in another country for cost savings that the prices of their products on our Nation’s retailers shelves do not go down? The simple truth is that in business everything is only about profits, especially if a company is on a Stock Exchange. In my belief, stock exchanges are a death sword to the working people who actually make the products. If a company lays off a bunch of workers or is able to bust a Union, the value of their stock shares goes up. If a company closes their factory and moves it to another country, their stock values go up. These things are simple reality, the truth.

 

I often knock companies like WalMart who import most all of their store products from countries like China. To me, buying from China is the worst thing that we could possibly do as they use that income to create more and better weapons in which to kill the people of the Democratic free world. It is stupid to give them the bullets to kill you and your family with. I do not blame any company for opening a factory in a different country as long as the factory only makes products for that country. Where I strongly disagree is when a company closes here in the States, laying off American workers and then turns around and imports those products back into America for the laid off workers to buy. For an example, if General Motors wants to build a factory in China, India or anywhere else for the purpose of only creating vehicles for that Nation I honestly don’t have a problem with that. We have many car makers here in the U.S. that are based in other nations. Here in the U.S. we have Subaru, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota and Nissan factories which all created good paying jobs for American families. This is more profitable than shipping them here and paying the tarif costs.

 

My thoughts on these tarif wars is quite simple, have free trade flowing between all nations except for what I consider to be treasonous American companies who move elsewhere but wants Americans to buy their products. It is my belief that in every case where American companies have moved away, costing American jobs that those import tariffs should be at 100%. Make it not profitable for any American company to outsource American jobs if they want to sell their products here. This might cause some economic pain in the short term but if these companies are basically forced to reopen or build manufacturing facilities here in the States, in the long term it will be a very good thing for the American people. Also, such an ironclad tariff policy would keep other American companies from following the other traitors paths and moving away also. We have to protect our own jobs, just as any country does, we have to make it unprofitable for any company to screw the people and communities like what has been the norm for so long now.

What Are The 6 Hottest Cities In The U.S.

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF TRAVEL TRIVIA)

 

With temperatures rising across North America, the U.S. seems to be getting hotter by the minute. But which U.S. cities have really caused residents to shed layers? Using long-term temperature averages and based on the number of days over 99 degrees Fahrenheit in a year, the NOAA National Climatic Data Center revealed which cities are the most sweltering. Read on to learn about the six hottest cities in the U.S.

Sacramento, California, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Tie)

Sacramento, California, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Tie)

Credit: Sean Pavone/Shutterstock

Days over 99 °F: 11

Sacramento and Oklahoma City are tied for sixth place, each averaging 11 days above 99 degrees a year. But if you don’t mind the scorching hot temperatures, one of these cities might be for you. Sacramento was listed as #14 in the Best Places to Live 2019 by U.S. News and World Report, boasting 265 days of sun annually. And Oklahoma City doesn’t seem too shabby, either. The city’s low housing prices and good economy are making it more desirable to young professionals, earning it the #68 spot in the U.S. News ranking.

Austin, Texas

Austin, Texas

Credit: f11photo/Shutterstock

Days over 99 °F: 16

Although Austin’s temperatures are blazing hot in the summer, the locals take the heat in stride. When the city becomes too hot to handle, it’s a good time to float on any of the nearby rivers, from the spring-fed San Marcos to the party float on the Guadalupe. Plus, the warm evening temps are ideal for enjoying outdoor concerts, like Unplugged at the Grove and the symphony’s Free Concert in the Park. However, it can be too hot to exercise outside during the heat of midday, so make sure to hit up Austin’s many trails at dawn or dusk.

Dallas, Texas

Dallas, Texas

Credit: Davel5957/iStock

Days over 99 °F: 17

Nearly 200 miles north of Austin, the city of Dallas is just a little bit hotter than its southern neighbor. With an average of 17 days over 99 degrees, the people of Dallas know how to survive the oppressive heat of summer — bar-backed pools. If sitting poolside, sipping on frozen drinks sounds like your ideal summer day, Dallas may be the city for you. Once considered a luxury for hotel guests, more hotels and private pools are opening to city residents in need of a cold drink and a cool dip. Popular pools to visit include SISU, The Belmont and FOE.

Category IconCulture
3pts

Daily trivia question

Test Your Knowledge!

Which city has a museum about nothing?

PLAY!Plane icon

Riverside, California

Riverside, California

Credit: Jon Bilous/Shutterstock

Days over 99 °F: 24

Sixty miles east of L.A., Riverside, California, has a hot, dry climate that lends itself to growing citrus. In fact, Riverside was where the California citrus industry was born, with Eliza Tibbets planting two navel orange trees outside her home in 1873. These small plants eventually led to a citrus industry boom and a mere 20 years later, Riverside became one of the richest towns in the U.S. Today, Riverside is a bedroom community whose biggest claim to fame is the Mission Inn Hotel & Spa, a national historic landmark that has been around since 1876.

Las Vegas, Nevada

Las Vegas, Nevada

Credit: f11photo/Shutterstock

Days over 99 °F: 70

Sin City also happens to be sinfully hot, with 70 days creeping into three-digit temperatures. Thank goodness much of the city, with its casinos, museums and theaters, is protected by the cool blast of A/C. Being in the desert, Las Vegas is home to a dry heat, which makes it a bit easier to sit poolside or go exploring in the nearby mountains. If you really need to cool down, you can try the Arctic Ice Room at the Qua Baths & Spa at Caesars Palace. The spa experience allows visitors to relax in a cool 55-degree room, complete with fake falling snow, before immersing themselves in warm soaking pools.

Phoenix, Arizona

Phoenix, Arizona

Credit: Davel5957/iStock

Days over 99 °F: 107

Boasting 107 days over 99 degrees, Phoenix, Arizona, is the hottest city in the U.S. In fact, a 2017 heat wave resulted in the grounding of all planes at the Phoenix airport. With temps soaring up to 119 degrees, the planes were simply unable to operate. The sweltering heat of summer aside, spending time in Phoenix can be very pleasant in other seasons. With an average high of 72 degrees in February, it’s a popular city for retirees. With the complete lack of snow and 299 days of sun, Phoenix is ideal for anyone who wants to skip winter altogether.

The Ten Least Populated States In The U.S.

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF TRAVEL TRIVIA)

 

10 Least Populated States

10

Least Populated States

With its big cities, sprawling suburbs and congested roadways, the U.S. can feel crowded in many places. But despite the fact that there are over 300 million people living in the United States, there are still some areas that remain relatively unpopulated. The U.S. Census Bureau made population estimates for each state in 2018, and their results may surprise you. Read on to discover the 10 least populated states in the U.S.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire

Credit: Winston Tan/Shutterstock

Population: 1,356,458

With a population of 1.35 million residents, the state of New Hampshire doesn’t have an issue with overcrowding. This scenic state’s many lakes and mountains are a strong draw for tourists in the summer and winter months. Plus, New Hampshire’s historical sites are appealing to visitors and residents alike.

Maine

Maine

Credit: sara_winter/Shutterstock

Population: 1,338,404

In more recent years, Maine has grown in popularity, with more people moving to the state than leaving it, according to the Portland Press Herald. But while Maine’s larger cities, such as Portland and Lewiston, are showing a greater increase in population, Maine’s more remote areas, like Aroostook County, remain relatively uncongested.

Montana

Montana

Credit: TheBigMK/iStock

Population: 1,062,305

Often called “The Last Best Place,” Montana is known for its tall mountains, open country and big sky. And with a population of just over a million people, it’s one of the least densely populated states in the country, with 7.1 people per square mile. The state is vast and wild, and when traveling on a backroad in Montana, don’t be surprised if a cattle herd blocks your way.

Category IconCulture
3pts

Daily trivia question

Test Your Knowledge!

Where is the world’s biggest stained glass window?

PLAY!Plane icon

Rhode Island

Rhode Island

Credit: benedek/iStock

Population: 1,057,315

Rhode Island is only slightly less populated than Montana but far smaller in terms of land mass. As the smallest state in the U.S., Rhode Island is only 1,121 square miles. That’s 48 miles from north to south and 47 miles from east to west, according to RI.gov. Don’t let its small stature fool you, though. “The Ocean State” boasts some of the most incredible beaches and has wicked good surfing, too.

Delaware

Delaware

Credit: DenisTangneyJr/Shutterstock

Population: 967,171

The first state on our list with under one million residents, Delaware’s small population is due to its square mileage. At only 96 miles long, Delaware is the second smallest state in the U.S., after Rhode Island. Its close proximity to Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., are making it more popular, however, and it’s one of the fastest growing states in the U.S., according to U.S. News.

South Dakota

South Dakota

Credit: Dan Thornberg/Shutterstock

Population: 822,235

With only 822,235 residents, South Dakota’s population is sparse. But the impressive beauty of the state makes up for its lack of people. From the iconic Mount Rushmore to the jaw-dropping Badlands, the state’s land and rock formations are stunning. The best part about cruising on South Dakota’s Interstate 90? No traffic jams in sight.

North Dakota

North Dakota

Credit: rruntsch/iStock

Population: 760,077

When you’re driving through North Dakota, the state’s open plains and prairie fields are virtually empty. And with a population of 760,077 people, it’s no wonder why. While the state is often considered a thoroughfare for trucks and travelers, North Dakota’s beautiful national parks and fascinating historic sites make it a worthy destination.

Alaska

Alaska

Credit: chaolik/iStock

Population: 737,428

Although Alaska is almost twice the size of Texas, it has only a fraction of the residents. With a population of 737,428, Alaska boasts 1.3 people per square mile. In fact, residents of Alaska are just as apt to see wild animals in their backyard as they are human neighbors. With over 40,000 grizzly bears and 100,000 black bears, according to Alaska Trekker, this state is truly “The Last Frontier.”

Vermont

Vermont

Credit: DenisTangneyJr/iStock

Population: 626,299

Between hiking in the summer, leaf peeping in the fall and skiing in the winter, the mountains of Vermont are a draw for tourists all year long. With only 626,299 residents, Vermont remains relatively unpopulated, especially when compared to its heavily inhabited New York neighbor.

Wyoming

Wyoming

Credit: robh/iStock

Population: 577,737

With 577,737 residents, Wyoming remains the least populated state in the U.S. Why does Wyoming have so few people? Maybe it’s the harsh weather or the cyclical nature of its seasonal industries. Perhaps, with nearly half the state belonging to public lands, there is not much room for development. Regardless, we’re pretty sure the people of Wyoming don’t mind its small population. In fact, they probably prefer it that way.

Get Travel Trivia’s questions and articles in your inbox.

China steps up US criticism

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF CHINA’S GLOBAL TIMES NEWS NETWORK)

 

China steps up US criticism

By Wang Cong Source:Global Times Published: 2019/5/14 23:13:40

FM pushes back on Washington claims, keeps options open


Photo: VCG

China on Tuesday stepped up criticism of the US as tensions between the world’s largest economies continued to escalate, blaming the US for the renewed escalation that has roiled global financial markets and saying the US has underestimated China’s resolve and ability to defend itself.

As Chinese and US officials continued to exchange harsh words, China needs to be prepared for a protracted war with countermeasures and long-term reform and opening-up efforts, analysts said on Tuesday.

Asked at a routine press briefing about the US threat to impose tariffs on $300 billion in Chinese goods, Geng Shuang, a spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry, did not mince words about China’s plan to fight back.

“When it comes to a trade war, China does not want to fight one or is willing to fight one, but China is also absolutely not afraid to fight one,” Geng said. “If someone has brought the fight to our doorsteps, we will fight to the end.”

Though the spokesperson did not specify measures, China appears to keep options open. Asked about claims in social media that China should stop purchasing US agricultural and energy goods and Boeing airplanes if it retaliates, Geng declined to comment about the report but also stopped short of issuing a denial.

US officials appear to be moving forward with a threat to impose tariffs on $300 billion in Chinese goods. They plan a public hearing on June 17.

China announced it will impose tariffs of between 5 percent and 25 percent on $60 billion in US products starting June 1 in response to the US decision to increase tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods.

US miscalculation

China’s retaliation on Monday might have surprised US President Donald Trump and other US officials, who appeared to think that they could use tariffs to pressure China into signing an agreement, according to Wei Jianguo, a former Chinese vice commerce minister.

“I don’t think they thought about China’s will and resolve to defend its core national interests and major concerns, especially at the final stage,” Wei said. “They also haven’t considered China’s ability to stand up to pressure… and the reaction from US [consumers and companies].”

Geng also said that some in the US might have miscalculated the situation, continued to confuse the public, and asked for unreasonably  higher prices. “So we would certainly push back against these claims,” Geng said.

US officials have claimed that China walked back on a “95 percent” done deal and blamed that for the escalation.

Citing previous cases where the US backtracked from deals, Geng said that the US cannot accuse China of walking back from its positions and promises.

Prolonged war

Though both Chinese and US officials left some room for further talks, with Trump publically calling for a meeting with President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Japan in June and Chinese officials calling for the US to meet China halfway, no formal plan has been announced so far, leading some to believe this could be a prolonged trade war.

To prepare for a protracted war, analysts said, China must continue to carry out reforms and opening-up measures to boost market vitality and expand overseas markets for Chinese products to reduce reliance on the US market or any other single market.

“The reform and opening-up policy has been a magic key for China to address serious issues over the past 40 years. And a magic key is what we need to deal with the situation now,” said Cao Heping, an economics professor at Peking University, noting that more concrete actions are needed.

China has opened up more sectors to foreign investors, including finance, manufacturing and healthcare, and passed a new Foreign Investment Law to offer greater market access and better protection for foreign firms. It has cracked down on intellectual property rights violations and sought to increase foreign goods.

“The trade war has not changed and will not change China’s pace for further reform and opening-up,” Liu Ying, a research fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China in Beijing, told the Global Times on Tuesday.

Posted in: DIPLOMACY,ECONOMY

Israeli minister fears Tehran ‘may fire rockets at Israel’

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE TIMES OF ISRAEL)

 

Amid US-Iran tension, Israeli minister fears Tehran ‘may fire rockets at Israel’

‘Things are heating up,’ Yuval Steinitz warns as US aircraft carrier sails toward Persian Gulf; Iranian Guards chief dismisses US ‘psychological war’

Iranians visit a weaponry and military equipment exhibition in the capital Tehran on February 2, 2019, organized on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution. (Atta Kenare/AFP)

Iranians visit a weaponry and military equipment exhibition in the capital Tehran on February 2, 2019, organized on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution. (Atta Kenare/AFP)

Israel’s energy minister, a confidant of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warned Sunday that escalating tensions between the US and Iran may lead the Islamic Republic to launch a missile assault against Israel.

“Things are heating up,” Yuval Steinitz told the Ynet news site. “I wouldn’t rule anything out. Iran may fire rockets at Israel.”

Steinitz added that Iran may also choose to attack Israel by activating its proxies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah or Gaza’s Islamic Jihad.

“The American sanctions are breaking the neck of the Iranian economy, and a new and stronger wave [of sanctions] is still to come,” he warned, suggesting that the danger was unlikely to pass in the near future.

Speaking later Sunday to the Kan state radio station, Steinitz stressed that he was not privy to any particular intelligence information on Iranian plans, but noted that Iran was facing drastic economic pressure and “anything could happen” in such a climate.

The Iranians could “go crazy” and “declare war on the whole Middle East,” he said.

There were some in Iran who recognized the imperative to dismantle their rogue nuclear program, and others who would seek to retain it in the hope that the regime could weather the current economic crisis.

Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz at a conference in Tel Aviv on February 27, 2019. (Flash90)

Steinitz’s comments follow a report on Israel’s Channel 13 on Friday that said Israel had warned the US that Iran was contemplating targeting Saudi oil production facilities.

The unsourced report said the Iranians were “considering various hostile acts” against American or American-allied targets. Tehran had looked at targeting American bases in the Gulf, but that had been deemed too drastic a step, it claimed.

The main target then became “Saudi oil production facilities,” the report said. Such a strike would also send world oil prices soaring and enable Iran to get more income from its oil sales, the report added.

Channel 13 also quoted unnamed Arab intelligence sources as saying there was a debate raging in the Iranian leadership about striking US and US-allied targets, with some in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps pushing for attacks, including against Israeli targets, while others cautioned that it would be “suicidal” to get into a serious military conflict with the US.

Earlier last week, the same channel was the first to report that the Israeli Mossad had tipped off the White House two weeks ago about an Iranian plan to attack either a US or US-allied target. That earlier report did not specify potential targets for such an ostensible attack.

The US responded to the reported message, and to escalating rhetoric from Tehran, by saying it was moving significant military assets into the region, including an aircraft carrier strike group and nuclear-capable bombers. The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, leading a larger naval strike group, sailed through the Suez Canal toward the Persian Gulf late last week.

Volume 90%

On Friday, the US Maritime Administration warned that Iran could try to attack American commercial vessels, including oil tankers, Reuters reported.

On Sunday, the move was dismissed by the head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as “psychological war.”

The Pentagon’s deployment of the USS Lincoln, Major General Hossein Salami told lawmakers at a parliament session in Tehran, was part of the American military’s regular rotation schedule.

“Commander Salami, with attention to the situation in the region, presented an analysis that the Americans have started a psychological war because the comings and goings of their military is a normal matter,” Reuters quoted parliamentary leadership spokesman Behrouz Nemati as saying, summarizing Salami’s comments to the parliament’s ICANA news site.

On Thursday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened a “swift and decisive” American response to any attack by Iran.

In this undated photo released by Sepahnews, the website of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Gen. Hossein Salami speaks in a meeting in Tehran, Iran (Sepahnews via AP)

“The regime in Tehran should understand that any attacks by them or their proxies of any identity against US interests or citizens will be answered with a swift and decisive US response,” Pompeo said in a statement.

“Our restraint to this point should not be mistaken by Iran for a lack of resolve,” he said.

The Pentagon also said Friday that the US would move a Patriot missile battery to the Middle East to counter threats from Iran.

An American official said the decision to send in more forces was based in part on intelligence indicating that Iran had moved short-range ballistic missiles by boat in waters off its shores.

The moves have frightened some European allies as well as US President Donald Trump’s Democratic rivals, who fear the administration is pushing for war based on overhyped intelligence.

Illustrative: Iranian Navy exercise in 2011. (CC BY, Mohammad Sadegh Heydari, Wikimedia Commons)

Pompeo, who canceled a trip to Greenland to rush back to Washington last week, said, “We do not seek war. But Iran’s 40 years of killing American soldiers, attacking American facilities, and taking American hostages is a constant reminder that we must defend ourselves.”

Meanwhile Vice Admiral Jim Malloy, commander of the United States Naval Forces Central Command, told Reuters he would bring the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln through the Gulf’s sensitive Strait of Hormuz if need be.

“If I need to bring it inside the strait, I will do so,” Malloy said. “I’m not restricted in any way, I’m not challenged in any way, to operate her anywhere in the Middle East.”

Iran on Wednesday said it would suspend some commitments under a 2015 nuclear accord rejected by Trump, frustrated that renewed US sanctions have prevented the country from enjoying the economic fruits of compliance with the deal.

Earlier Thursday, Trump said he sought talks with Iran.

“What I would like to see with Iran, I would like to see them call me,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “We don’t want them to have nuclear weapons — not much to ask.”

Volume 90%

Trump also said Washington was not looking for a conflict with Tehran, but refused to divulge why the carrier had been dispatched.

“We have information that you don’t want to know about,” Trump said, according to Reuters. “They were very threatening and we have to have great security for this country and many other places.”

Asked about the possibility of a military confrontation, he said, “I don’t want to say no, but hopefully that won’t happen.”

Turkey Says Not Distancing Itself From NATO With S-400 Deal

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE SAUDI NEWS AGENCY ASHARQ AL-AWSAT)

 

Turkey Says Not Distancing Itself from NATO with S-400 Deal

Friday, 3 May, 2019 – 10:30
FILE PHOTO: A Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft is seen at the ILA Air Show in Berlin, Germany, April 25, 2018. REUTERS/Axel Schmidt
Asharq Al-Awsat
Turkey is not distancing itself from the NATO alliance by buying Russian S-400 missile defense systems, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar said on Friday, adding that Ankara should not be excluded from the F-35 jet project over the purchases.

Turkey and the United States, NATO allies, have been at odds over Ankara’s move to buy the Russian S-400s, which Washington says are not compatible with NATO systems and may threaten the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, of which Turkey is a prospective buyer and partner in production, Reuters reported.

In an interview with broadcaster NTV, Akar said that excluding Turkey from the F-35 project would put “very serious” burdens on the other partners in the project.

“There is no clause saying ‘you will be excluded if you buy S-400s’ in this partnership. Excluding us just because any one country wants so would not be in line with justice, laws or rights. This should not happen,” Akar said, according to Reuters.

He said Turkey was trying to explain to the United States and other partners in the F-35 project that the S-400s would not pose a threat to the jets, and added that Ankara had taken measures to prevent that.

In his strongest challenge yet to warnings that Turkey may be removed from the F-35 project, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday that the project would collapse if Turkey did not participate.

While Washington has warned of potential US sanctions if Ankara pushed on with the S-400 agreement, Turkey has said it would not back down from the deal.

Instead, Turkey has proposed to form a working group with the United States to assess the impact of the S-400s, but says it has not yet received a response from US officials.

Akar said on Friday Turkey was still evaluating the latest US offer to sell Raytheon Co. Patriot systems, which he said was more positive than Washington’s previous offers.

Iran’s President Decries US Policy Of Maximum Pressure

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE SAUDI NEWS AGENCY ASHARQ AL-AWSAT)

 

Iran’s Rouhani Decries US Policy of Maximum Pressure

Wednesday, 1 May, 2019 – 09:15
Rouhani speaks during a ceremony marking national Workers’ Week in Tehran, Iran April 30, 2019. (Reuters)
London – Asharq Al-Awsat
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani delivered Tuesday a vocal defiance to Washington’s latest measure to bring Iranian oil exports to zero.

“We will bring the US to its knees,” said Rouhani two days ahead of US decision to end waivers for country’s buying Iranian oil goes into effect.

Rouhani’s bellicose words followed an even tougher speech delivered by Qassem Soleimani, who commands the Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force.

“Enemies are looking to harm us through coercion, sanctions and threatening the country’s stability,” Soleimani said, while stressing that the US is going full-throttle in its attempt to trigger regime change in Tehran.

Last week, Washington announced it will no longer exempt eight countries that mainly import oil from Iran from economic sanctions. The move is set to place maximum pressure on Tehran so that it returns to negotiations and complies with 12 demands which include ending its support for regional militias, as well as freezing its development of ballistic missiles.

Since then, Rouhani and Iran’s top diplomat, Mohammad Javad Zarif, have signaled willingness to reopen negotiation channels.

But Soleimani blasted any talks under the pressure of economic sanctions as “degrading, capitulation and surrender.”

The country’s ultra-conservative Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, for his part, deemed returning to the roundtable a “strategic blunder.”

“America’s decision that Iranian oil exports should reach zero is wrong and incorrect, and we will not allow this decision to be implemented,” Rouhani said.

“In the coming months, the Americans themselves will see that we will continue our oil exports,” Rouhani said, taking pride in Tehran having “six methods” to circumvent US sanctions.

Rouhani and Iranian officials have threatened to disrupt oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz if Washington tries to halt Iranian oil exports.

The Strait of Hormuz links the crude-producing countries of the Middle East and markets in Asia and the Pacific, Europe, North America and beyond, and a third of the world’s sea-transported oil passes through it every day.

Iran has also threatened to pull out of the nuclear deal itself if European powers do not succeed in ensuring Tehran’s economic benefits.

European countries have said they would help companies keep their operations with Iran as long as they are committed to the deal, but Tehran has criticized what it sees as a slow pace of progress in the implementation of a payment mechanism for trade settlement between Iran and Europe.

Iranian Minister Threatens To Quit Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE TIMES OF ISRAEL)

 

Iranian minister threatens to quit nuclear non-proliferation treaty

Iran’s foreign minister says leaving the pact is one of Tehran’s ‘many options’ to retaliate against US sanctions

Iran's uranium conversion facility near Isfahan, which reprocesses uranium ore concentrate into uranium hexafluoride gas, which is then taken to Natanz and fed into the centrifuges for enrichment, March 30, 2005.  (AP/Vahid Salemi)

Iran’s uranium conversion facility near Isfahan, which reprocesses uranium ore concentrate into uranium hexafluoride gas, which is then taken to Natanz and fed into the centrifuges for enrichment, March 30, 2005. (AP/Vahid Salemi)

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has said leaving the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the “many options” Tehran has to retaliate against US sanctions, state media reported Sunday.

The United States has imposed a raft of sanctions against the Islamic Republic since US President Donald Trump withdrew last year from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal with world powers.

Last week Washington announced an end to sanction waivers for buyers of Iranian crude oil, and earlier this month the US declared Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards a “foreign terrorist organization.”

“The Islamic Republic has many options… (leaving) the NPT is one of them,” Zarif said in remarks to Iranian reporters in New York aired by state television.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on the CBS program Face the Nation, April 27, 2019. (YouTube screenshot)

State news agency IRNA said Zarif was asked why he had not touted leaving the nuclear treaty as one of Iran’s possible reactions during his trip, as he had done so previously.

“The country’s officials are deliberating” the different options and measures, Zarif replied, adding that the possibility of leaving the NPT was among those options. He did not list the other options.

Iran has branded the US sanctions “illegal” and Zarif warned on Wednesday that there would be consequences should Iran be barred from selling its oil.

The 2015 Iran nuclear deal with six world powers — Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany — had given the Islamic Republic sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

Speaking to Fox News Sunday, Zarif claimed Israel, US National Security Adviser John Bolton, Saudi Arabia,and the United Arab Emirates were pushing a reluctant Trump into war.

READ MORE:
COMMENTS

Global Warming Shrank India’s Economy By 31%

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE HINDUSTAN TIMES OF INDIA)

 

Global warming shrank Indian economy by 31%: Study

The study from 1961 to 2010, global warming decreased the wealth per person in the world’s poorest countries by 17 to 30 per cent.

WORLD Updated: Apr 23, 2019 11:46 IST

Press Trust of India
Press Trust of India
Boston
global warming,Indian economy,nigeria
Global warming shrank Indian economy by 31%: Study(AFP)

Global warming has caused the Indian economy to be 31 per cent smaller than it would otherwise have been, according to a Stanford study which shows how Earth’s temperature changes have increased inequalities.

The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed that growing concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere since 1960s have enriched cool countries like Norway and Sweden, while dragging down economic growth in warm countries such as India and Nigeria.

“Our results show that most of the poorest countries on Earth are considerably poorer than they would have been without global warming,” said climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh, from Stanford University in the US.

“At the same time, the majority of rich countries are richer than they would have been,” Diffenbaugh said in a statement.

The study from 1961 to 2010, global warming decreased the wealth per person in the world’s poorest countries by 17 to 30 per cent. Meanwhile, the gap between the group of nations with the highest and lowest economic output per person is now approximately 25 per cent larger than it would have been without climate change.

While the impacts of temperature may seem small from year to year, they can yield dramatic gains or losses over time. “This is like a savings account, where small differences in the interest rate will generate large differences in the account balance over 30 or 50 years,” said Diffenbaugh. After accumulating decades of small effects from warming, India’s economy is now 31 per cent smaller than it would have been in the absence of global warming, he said.

Although economic inequality between countries has decreased in recent decades, the research suggests the gap would have narrowed faster without global warming.

The study builds on previous research in the team analysed 50 years of annual temperature and GDP measurements for 165 countries to estimate the effects of temperature fluctuations on economic growth. They demonstrated that growth during warmer than average years has accelerated in cool nations and slowed in warm nations.

“The historical data clearly show that crops are more productive, people are healthier and we are more productive at work when temperatures are neither too hot nor too cold,” said Marshall Burke, a Stanford assistant professor of Earth system science. “This means that in cold countries, a little bit of warming can help. The opposite is true in places that are already hot,” said Burke.

Researchers combined data from more than 20 climate models developed by research centres around the world. Using the climate models to isolate how much each country has already warmed due to human-caused climate change, the researchers were able to determine what each country’s economic output might have been had temperatures not warmed.

“For most countries, whether global warming has helped or hurt economic growth is pretty certain,” said Burke. Tropical countries, in particular, tend to have temperatures far outside the ideal for economic growth. “There’s essentially no uncertainty that they’ve been harmed,” he said.

It’s less clear how warming has influenced growth in countries in the middle latitudes, including the US, China and Japan. For these and other temperate-climate nations, the analysis reveals economic impacts of less than 10 per cent.

First Published: Apr 23, 2019 11:46 IST

(MAKE THE WORLD GREAT AGAIN SEND ALL THE POLITICIANS ON A ONE WAY TRIP TO MARS) (oldpoet56)

So The Putin Mafia Controls Mafia Don: I don’t care about Treason He Is A Republican

So The Putin Mafia Controls MAFIA Don: I don’t care about Treason He Is A Republican
 THIS ARTICLE IS MEANT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRYING TO GET FOLKS TO THINK ABOUT THE SITUATION OF HAVING OUR NATIONS POLITICIANS CONSTANTLY BETRAYING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD. THE REASON FOR THIS IS SIMPLE, PEOPLE LIKE SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL AND THE OTHER REPUBLICANS IN THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE DO NOT CARE WHAT MAFIA DON DOES BECAUSE ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, NOT THE CONSTITUTION NOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION.

 

DO NOT GET ME WRONG, I HAVE NO USE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY EITHER. IF HILLARY CLINTON HAD WON (AND SHE DID WIN THE POPULAR VOTE BY SEVERAL MILLION VOTERS.) (THERE SHOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS THE ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE’.) IT IS MY TOTAL BELIEF THAT THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP WOULD BE BACKING HER JUST AS THE REPUBLICANS ARE BACKING MAFIA DON AND FAMILY. IT IS MY PERSONAL BELIEF THAT MR. TRUMP IS GUILTY AS CAN POSSIBLY BE OF TREASON, FRAUD, TAX FRAUD AND EVASION AND THEFT.

 

I wrote the above message in all caps and in red hoping that it would get a few more people’s attention. I have no intention or wish to ‘yell’ at folks. In the 2016 Presidential Election ‘we the people’ really only had two choices of who would become our next President, Hillary Clinton or Vladimir Putin.  Whichever one won, we the people lost. In my opinion as a fellow Kentuckian the second biggest traitor (outside of the Trump household) to the people and our Nation is the Republican head of the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell.