Today, the Trump Administration announced that US factory orders had risen to their highest levels since before the 2008 Recession and that job cuts had reached their lowest levels since just before the 1992 Recession. Another two quarters of these kinds of reports, and we will be officially out of the recessionary period which began under Bush Jr. and continued throughout the Obama years.
One would think that these announcements would be headlines; but the Corporate Media instead is focusing on a newly-published book, Fire and Fury by Michael Wolff. The tome is allegedly an expose of the Trump inner circle and it is all the rage in the effete drawing-rooms of the so-called Elite.
Michael Wolff is, of course, a part of the Corporate Media himself. He writes for such deep journalistic publications as USA Today and Hollywood Insider. He's also affiliated with GQ; the media outlet which recently named Colin Kaepernick as its 'Man of the Year' and sponsored the now-defunct Keith Olbermann's Resistance. He formerly also worked for Vanity Fair. His net worth is reportedly around $12 million, pending the profits off his new book.
With credentials like that, who can doubt the veracity of Wolff's reporting? Well, some of Wolff's own media cronies do. In 2004, Michelle Cottle wrote in The New Republic that Wolff's journalistic ethics were open to some question saying that he "fixates on culture, style, buzz, and money, money, money. The scenes in his columns aren't so much recreated as created outright; springing from Wolff's own imagination rather than from an actual knowledge of events." By 2018, of course, none of this was an impediment to journalism, but a decade ago---though while dominated by Liberals---newsmen did actually care about their reputations.
In 2010, Wolff was also peer-criticized by The Columbia Journalism Review for alleged bias in favor of Robert Murdoch during the infamous British phone-hacking scandal. Two years earlier, Wolff had written a flattering biography of Murdoch. Shortly after this bio was published, Wolff got a lucrative job heading the online version of The Industry Standard. That publication was owned by the late Patrick McGovern, a good friend of the Murdochs.
Wolff later took over Adweek, but was fired for unspecified reasons a year later.
There have already been accusations that Fire and Fury is nothing but a collection of libelous lies, and a few principals featured therein have actually taken legal action. Just as a side note: public figures rarely do this unless the lies and libels are fairly egregious. It's very probable that Fire and Fury's title will be a good prediction of its fate as a writing. If a betting man, I would lay odds that six weeks from now nobody will remember this book.
But Wolff is likely to realize a significant profit in the meantime. Let's hope that he invests wisely, since the people whom he's criticizing are taking the economy upwards to new highs.
Today's announcement from the Trump Administration which rescinded the so-called 'Holder Memorandum' has caused near panic among West Coast Leftists. In 2013, former US Attorney-General Holder issued this dictum, which essentially ordered Federal authorities to refrain from taking legal action against marijuana use in states where it had been legalized.
Politicians like Washington Governor Jay Inslee---people to whom the pothead vote is important---went so far as to threaten Federal authorities with violence. "Any Federal Prosecutor who tries to enforce this won't be safe on the streets of Washington State." Inslee vowed. A sentiment not unlike his fellow-Democrat George Wallace once proposed about desegregation laws. Wallace had to be reminded, rather pointedly, that threatening federal officials is a serious offence; it wouldn't hurt Inslee to remember the same thing.
But Leftist hysteria aside, today's decision was part of a comprehensive policy initiated a few months ago. Previous Administrations had fallen into the illegal practice of creating laws out of whole cloth simply by attaching them to Memorandums which were intended to be nothing more than policy guidelines. The Department of Justice under President Trump has stopped this practice and is in the process of repealing Memorandums which are contrary to law.
The 2013 Memorandum was one of these. The Federal Government still classifies marijuana as a controlled substance. Congress never passed any law repealing that classification. Holder had no authority to permit states to opt out of the law. Therefore, the Memorandum itself was illegal; and therefore states which have legalized marijuana have done so in violation of Federal Law.
That is the extent of the legal problem here. Either Congress or the Courts will have to intervene and either repeal the existing law or declare it unconstitutional if marijuana is to be made legal. Or conversely, uphold the existing law. But that's what should have been the first place, because it really boils down to legal conflicts. For example, marijuana producers in a legal state cannot comply with IRS guidelines because they are officially engaged in a criminal enterprise. Likewise, states are profiting off revenues withheld from other states.
The other legal issue is that a State cannot nullify a Federal Law. This was decided in 1832 when South Carolina refused to uphold the federal cotton tax. Holder really messed this up badly because he essentially granted states the authority to nullify laws---and selectively, at that. The states which legalized marijuana are in the position of enforcing an ex post facto law on the marijuana industry, which is also unconstitutional. The Obama Administration once again put everybody involved in a legal Catch-22.
The way to approach this is to sort it out through the courts and through legislation. Above all, heavy-handed measures like the anarchistic Inslee suggests should be avoided. From the Trump Administration's side, going back to Clinton-Era 'Drug War' tactics would also be counterproductive. What we need is a cohesive national policy. It's simply wrong that people in one part of the country can get stoned in Hookah Lounges while people in another part face mandatory minimum prison sentences for far less egregious actions. It can't be both ways.
Granted, it's not to tell hop-heads to be patient and think clearly. But clear heads and reason are what's needed here the most.
One of the most interesting (and revealing) things about the Manosphere's Red Pill Cult is how---while many purport to be 'real' Christians---they get so much approval from Atheists and so little support from mainstream churches. A case in point was a recent article titled Christian Complimentarianism which appeared on the Red Pill blog Secular Patriarchy. The author, Jesse Powell, is an atheist by his own admission, yet his article received widespread praise from his fellow Red Pills as an authoritative critique of the subject.
Powell's argument basically parrots what the other Red Pills say: that complimentary gender relations are a recent innovation; while their cult is 'restoring' Male Supremacy. There never was in history Male Supremacist cultures---that is a Feminist herstory revisionist myth. Because the Feminists refer to historical epochs antecedent to their own as 'The Patriarchy'; the Red Pills ignorantly assume the same position and hold up anti-male Feminist stereotypes as some kind of Golden Age.
The Feminist ideology is based on Marxist philosophy. The Marxists believe that history is series of class struggles between the powerful and the powerless. When Feminists speak of 'empowerment' they actually mean that women en masse overthrowing the non-existing vast male conspiracy to hold power. The so-called ideological battles between the Red Pills and Feminists boil down to one group fighting to restore what never was against another fighting to replace what doesn't exist.
Thus Powell tells us, "Christian Complementarianism got started in 1987 with the Danvers Statement". It's actually been around a lot longer. Father Vincent Serpa of the Catholic Answers Ministry wrote in 2011: "The Catholic view is that men and women are equal in the sight of God. In marriage, each is to sacrifice himself or herself for the other. They are to build a family together through cooperation with each other and with mutual respect."
Father Serpa's answer is from the Catechism, which also reflects the opinion of the Scholastics. Aquinas wrote that "It was right for woman to be made from the rib of a man. First, to signify the social union of man and woman; for a woman should not dominate a man and thus she was not made from his head, nor is right for her to be subject to a man's contempt and be his slave and thus she was not nade from his feet." (Sum. Theol. xcii:3).
But going back to the Danvers Statement, Powell takes issue, naturally, with the phrase that women should engage in "intelligent, willful submission". This, to his mind, affords women far too much power. Now, in reality, women make an intelligent choice and submit to a man of her own free will. From the female perspective, that it what's called falling in love. The Red Pills, however, dislike the idea that women should have the slightest say-so in the choice of a husband. Powell writes:
"If a woman is not submitting to me, that means that my relationship with her is not safe, stable, or secure; that I had better find a way to establish my dominance over her again if I want my relationship with her to succeed and permanent."
No matter how they gloss over it, the Red Pill Cultists always default to this position. It comes down to: dominance=force. This is simply Feminism reversed; substituting the physical power of the man for the legal power of the state. The thing that neither side understands is that women submit to a man whom she loves and her love is dependent on how much she respects him. Contrary to what Powell and others of his cult believe, if a woman is not submitting, she has lost love or respect for the man; and he had better find a way to establish that before he starts thinking of sex.
Powell also asserts that Christian Complimentarianism is nothing but "female-controlled patriarchy" another of his soundbites that make no logical sense. The Red Pills, like the Feminists, are ignorant of the fact that female submission is female power. The ancient myths of the Amazons didn't have male armies because the ancients understood that men don't fight for dominant women. But the damsel in distress is a universal motif in every culture. Men---real men, not fake 'Alphas'---will always protect and provide for women who depend on them.
This happens because a strong relationship depends on each partner providing what the other lacks. That's complimentary; and that is the natural order of things. The Red Pill Cultists are the radical innovators here, not the Church.
In his first public statement of 2018, President Trump sent the following message via Twitter:
"The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies and deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists whom we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!"
The first thing which should be clarified here is that Trump is not talking about foreign aid as the brief message would imply. The US pays Pakistan for using its sovereign territory for operations in Afghanistan. This might also include the cost of military supplies, advisers, and training that the US conducts with Pakistan for the same purpose.
The statement itself has several problems with it. The late Osama bin Laden may disagree that Pakistan gives the US little help. The Pakistani Government has actually been quite helpful; but the current government is unable to cope fully with Wahhabi infiltrators. And whoever is misinforming the President here (i.e. Rainbow Rex Tillerson, McMaster, etc) should recall that the previous Pakistani Government under General Musharaaf was much stronger. But Musharaaf was forced out by American pressure.
Musharaaf angered the arch-RINO George Bush Jr. by carrying out counterterrorist activities on his own and expecting Pakistan to be treated as a sovereign country instead of a Beltway colony. The last straw for the Swamp RINOs came when a joint British-Pakistani operation foiled a massive Al-Qaeda plot to hijack ten airliners at once. The US was left totally out of the loop and embarrassed that they were upstaged. In act of petty revenge, Bush forced both Musharaaf and British PM Tony Blair out of office.
Those events happened about 15 years ago, the time to which Trump alludes. The problems with Pakistan are largely ones of previous Administrations' bungling. Trump, too, is also getting advice from very pro-India interests. Indian-Americans are one minority that is heavily Republican. Unfortunately, most are RINOs like Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal.
If Trump cuts off Pakistan, it is liable to make very little long-term problems for either country. Pakistan is also very closely allied with China: probably even moreso than with us. China will step into any void we leave. Maybe Trump is hoping to maneuver China into taking over US military responsibilities in Pakistan? It could be so; but it's hardly helpful to sour US-Pakistani relations in the process.
Wahhabi terrorism in Pakistan is a problem. But we have to recall here that ferreting out terror cells, radical mosques and madrassahs is a lot bigger job there than here. When it comes to the things that Trump accuses Pakistan of doing, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, the UAE, and Bahrain have been doing a lot worse---and soaking up a lot more American dollars in the process.
Trump needs to re-think this approach towards Pakistan. This doesn't mean throwing more money at the problem; but following the more constructive path of mutualism and win-win cooperation that has restored our relationship with China. The Swamp RINOs who are advising Trump on foreign affairs are too mired in the discredited Pax Americana approach of Clinton, Bush, and Obama. It didn't work for them and won't work for Trump either. Trump needs to reset with Pakistan and go to the Art of the Deal strategies in foreign policy, which have met with great success wherever they've been tried.
Vice-President Pence and Pakistani President
Abbasi Meet at UN in September
Since President Trump was elected, America has witnessed outbreaks of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Various people across the socioeconomic spectrum have---at the mere mention of the President---gone completely berserk in public with no regard to their personal or public interests.
TDS attacks have resulted in arrests, injuries, and even an occasional unintentional suicide. Job losses and trips to the hospital psych-ward are the usual outcome. Jay Malsky, an executive producer at NBC, is another example.
Malsky was visiting Disneyland when he encountered a display of robotic statues of US Presidents. No sooner had his lighted on Trump than he began waving his arms and screaming incoherently. The few American parents who still take their kids to Disney stood in shock---reflexively shielding their offspring while security guards restrained the uncontrollable media 'elite'. According to some reports, Malsky was screaming death threats, profanity, and making obscene gestures as he was dragged forcibly from the park.
This is another reason for parents to avoid Disneyland. Aside from the homosexual grooming of children and the occasional kid eaten by alligators; Disney attracts kooks like these who ruin the already over-priced and over-hyped 'experience'. Many foreign countries actually ban Disney films as undesirable cultural imports; and a few foreign theme parks ended up closing. The company hasn't done anything especially productive since the 1960s. And it's also yet another statement of the caliber of executive personnel at NBC.
As for Malsky, his last major production was what passes for a comedy-musical these days titled Jay Malsky Slept with my Boyfriend. That's about all we really need say about him.
Meanwhile the economy expands, gangsters go down, the energy crisis gets fixed, the Swamp gets drained. While one guy does that, another screams insults at his effigy. Nothing describes the current cultural shift better than that.
Wow---just when everybody in the Blogosphere is contemplating 2017's most under-reported stories, the US Department of the Interior dropped a major bombshell. And yes, the Corporate Media is ignoring the story.
When President Trump signed the Tax Reform Bill last week, we noted the accomplishment of resuming the ANWR Project---which has gone nowhere since the Carter Administration shut it down in 1978. This allows for oil exploration and development on the massive Federal holdings in Alaska: amounting to over 90% of the State. Now for the last several decades, we've been told that America's days of energy independence is over; that Alaskan resources wouldn't effect our dependency on foreign oil; that we needed to consume less; invest in Green Technology; reduce our 'carbon footprint'; fight wars in the Middle East, etc.
And this week, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke revealed that all of this was a hoax. Zinke commissioned a survey of petroleum resources on the Alaskan Peninsula and territorial waters earlier this year and the report is in. Alaska alone has the productive potential of 17.6 billion barrels of crude oil and an unbelievable 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
So far from not reducing oil imports, Alaska could replace all of our annual imports for almost a decade. And this doesn't include our idle fields in the Lower 48 or the untapped resources in the Arctic and Pacific possessions.
According to EPA figures, the US imports almost half of its oil from our two neighbors Canada and Mexico. Latin America accounts for another 20%. We literally can---in the very near future---cut off these Middle Eastern parasites completely and have no energy disruption. Our own resources can take their place.
This is excellent news: but the fact is apparent that we have been lied to for years by our so-called Political, Media, and Academic 'Elites'. They couldn't have helped but known that their propaganda was nothing but mythology or that our national energy issues could have been solved long ago. And the entire Alaskan Congressional delegation agrees.
The denizens of the Beltway Swamp have no defense for this kind of negligence. Every day that the Trump Administration is in office makes their incompetence and corruption more apparent.
But the news of America on the brink of ending the energy crisis hardly registers with the Corporate Media punks. Today's headlines include a Confederate flag in the background of one of Ivanka's old pictures; and the President's taste for 'junk food'. But then again, this is the same Media scum who never bothered to question whether the energy crisis was real in the first place.
The University of California-Irvine has wrapped up another sports season. The UCI Anteaters won the first-ever E-Sports championship, and has come to dominate all other schools at playing League of Legends.
No, seriously. This isn't a joke.
"UCI made headlines last Fall by fielding the nation's first school-sponsored E-Sports team at a public university." UCI Magazine editors crowed, "The campus wooed players with athletic scholarships, and built a trailblazing computer arena."
Athletic Scholarships. For video-game players. UCI Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs Thomas Parham thinks that the idea is somehow a great way to "weave its gaming endeavor into academics, research, and student life."
"It won't be just another sport." Parham sniffed. Parham is evidently a strong supporter of Snowflake Culture, having given a $1,000 donation to Obama's campaign, according to Open Secrets.
Rather than waste much time on the University's absurd rationalizations for such a program, we should take a close look at UCI itself and see whether this institution of higher learning is even worthy of any further public support.
UC-Irvine is the second-largest employer in Orange County, California. It has a reputation as a hotbed of Anti-Semitism and Jewish students and faculty have alleged discrimination and harassment. The school has hosted several Radical Islamic speakers including Holocaust Deniers. This is a fact that shouldn't be overlooked in Irvine's E-Sports program. A sizable number in the Tech/Gaming community are overtly anti-Jewish.
President Obama gave the graduation speech there in 2014. In 2015, the UCI student government banned displays of the American flag. Another major controversy centered on granting an exclusive concessions monopoly to Aramark Corporation. Aramark, it should be noted, has a major political lobby inside the Beltway Swamp. They've retained the lobbying firm headed by Tony Podesta's ex-wife, Heather. Heather Podesta is known inside the Beltway as The 'It Girl' of Washington and The Insider's Insider.
Jacques Derrida, who founded the philosophy of 'Postmodernism' taught at UCI until his death in 2004. In the 1990s, UCI researchers claimed Nobel Prizes in Chemistry and Physics; but aside from that, UCI hasn't produced much of any value since. Former UCI President Ralph Cicerone was a Climate-Change fanatic who turned most of the school's sciences in a leftward direction.
UCI has an endowment of a half-billion dollars and cranks out 9,000 diplomas a year for those paying the estimated $33,000 a year that it costs to attend. The head of this school is one Howard Gillman, a career academic bureaucrat who took over in 2014. He was appointed by Janet Napolitano, Obama's former DHS chief who now heads the University of California system.
Gillman is a vocal critic of President Trump, and published an encyclical against the proposed Travel Ban. Of course, by his own admission, he opposes it because "it unfairly discriminates against Moslems." Irvine, incidentally, is less than an hour's drive from San Bernardino, the site of the infamous Christmas terror attack in 2015. Despite Gillman's statements condemning anti-Semitism, he has failed to implement any of the promised reforms protecting Jewish students. In 2015, both he and Parham allowed Anti-Zionism Week to be observed on campus.
It certainly appears that our country wouldn't lose much by losing UC-Irvine. Irvine has a decent medical school, but the rest of the university could be defunded and closed down with no great loss to society.
We've said before that the Government needs to adopt the same strategy for funding colleges that it has for funding military bases: close the ones that are irrelevant and invest in the schools that produce. UC-Irvine would go to base-closure status, no doubt.
