- Orgy Enthusiast Bill Maher Defends Statutory Rape On Several Occasions – "The Crime Is That We Didn't Get It On Videotape"
What an interesting turn of events. Days after outspoken Trump-supporter Milo Yiannopoulos appeared on Bill Maher’s panel of idiots where he was subject to a liberal hit-job, the left decided to execute operation McMuffin; a collaboration between liberals and former CIA “never-Trumper” Evan McMullin to strategically release dredged up flippant remarks Milo made about homosexual grooming – which led to a canceled book deal and his resignation as tech editor for Breitbart. With over 1500 sex trafficking and child exploitation arrests in the first month of Trump’s presidency, this was clearly the left’s desperate attempt to try and insinuate some sort of hypocrisy on the right concerning pedophilia. Weak.
The MSM, predictably, wasted no time attacking Milo – a strategy which surely couldn’t backfire:
Salon.com even deleted a pro-pedophilia article so they wouldn’t look like total hypocrites when they ran an story quoting Bill Maher, who took credit for kicking off the Milo smear campaign:
Hours later, thanks to 4chan and Reddit – the tides are turning, and Bill Maher’s about to get blown the fuck out…
Turns out the 61 year old host of HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher, who attends a $75K / year elite Los Angeles sex club, is also a huge fan of pedophilia as long as the abuser is a woman – as told in a 2007 issue of Playboy magazine:
This isn’t the first time Maher has defended statutory rape. While the official DSM definition of pedophilia has an age cutoff of 13, the HBO host vehemently defended former teacher and convicted statutory child rapist Mary Kay Letourneau for having a sexual relationship with one of her students, which began when the boy was 12 – firmly putting Maher’s advocacy for the relationship in pedo territory.
(Note how Henry Rollins is completely on point?)
Karma Bill, karma. Oh, and about that sex club mentioned earlier; it appears Maher is into some Eyes Wide Shut shit. While normally I wouldn’t care – the hypocrisy of his ivory tower judgment of a gay conservative, and the fact that he piled on and took credit for kicking off Milo’s “downfall” for the exact same practice he’s advocated several times, makes it fair game to point out that the HBO host loves him some expensive orgies!
At a swanky party in a Beverly Hills, Calif., mansion last Saturday, I spot Bill Maher in a sea of beautiful young women and make my approach.
“Are you a Leo?” I ask the host of HBO’s “Real Time,” while eyeing a lion pendant around his neck.
“No, they make me wear this stupid thing because I’m a member,” he replies, stroking the back of his date, a pretty younger woman in a short black leather dress.
Single men pay $1,850 per party, or $1,500 if they come with a female partner. For the erotic elite, there’s an annual Dominus membership for $75,000, which includes admission to all parties, a sterling-silver necklace with a lion pendant and access to private rooms at parties and Lawner’s network of sex experts.
The sex club also has an interesting initiation:
Dominus members sign a “blood oath,” involving blood and a paper document, to join — but Lawner won’t go into details. –NY Post
What??? AIDS tests are in the back of the store at the pharmacy counter, Bill.
The crickets are warming up for yet another prolonged silence from the MSM.
- MSNBC Anchor: "Our Job" Is To "Control Exactly What People Think"
During a lively discussion centered on fears that President Trump is “trying to undermine the media,” MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski let slip the awesome unspoken truth that the media’s “job” is to “actually control exactly what people think.”
SCARBOROUGH: “Exactly. That is exactly what I hear. What Yamiche said is what I hear from all the Trump supporters that I talk to who were Trump voters and are still Trump supporters. They go, ‘Yeah you guys are going crazy. He’s doing — what are you so surprised about? He is doing exactly what he said he is going to do.'”
BRZEZINSKI: “Well, I think that the dangerous, you know, edges here are that he is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job.”
As grabien points out, the comment failed to raise any eyebrows from her co-panelists. Instead, her co-host, Joe Scarborough, said that Trump’s media antagonism puts him on par with Mussolini and Lenin…
- How Tennessee Could Be About To Start A Constitutional Crisis
The State Senate of Tennessee has laid the legislative groundwork for something that hasn’t been done in the United States of America since the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia. With a vote of 27-3, the Tennessee Senate has voted to call a “convention of the states” in order to draft and pass an amendment to the Constitution that would require balanced budgets to be passed every year.
For those who are little fuzzy on their high school U.S. history knowledge, the Tennessean explains that the U.S. Constitution can be amended in two ways. The first would require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress, an unlikely outcome in today’s hyper-partisan political arena. The second, on the other hand, requires that two-thirds of the states (34 in total) pass a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention.
There are two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution. The first and more traditional method is through a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Then the amendment is sent to the state legislatures, where it needs ratification by three-fourths or 38 states in order to become law. Nearly all 27 amendments have followed this path.
But the Constitution also provides a second, more populist path to amending the document. If two-thirds or 34 states pass a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention, delegates from all 50 states will meet to draft an amendment. This is what the Tennessee lawmakers are calling for in their resolution.
Of course, calls for a convention to pass a balanced budget amendment started in the 1970s and have failed each time. That said, with Republicans now controlling 32 state legislatures, this latest effort initiated by Tennessee seems to have the best chance of succeeding so far.
And while there have been close calls for Constitutional Conventions before, each time Congress has acted preemptively to stave off the need for a convention. In 1911, for example, 28 states of the required 32 passed a resolution calling for direct election of Senators before Congress intervened and drafted the Seventeenth Amendment instead.
But, as the Tennessean notes, the problem with amending the Constitution through a convention is that once the convention is convened anything can happen. For example, the last time the states gathered for a convention in 1787 they ended up tossing out the Articles of Confederation and forming an entirely new government based on the current Constitution.
The last time the states gathered to amend a governing document on the scale the resolution calls for, the delegates threw out America’s first basis of government and replaced it with the Constitutional system used today.
“They were supposed to meet to make amendments to the Articles of Confederation but ended up with a whole new form of government,” said Nathan Griffith, an associate professor of political science at Belmont University. “Not just a new constitution, but a whole new form of government.”
If enough states pass a similar resolution, then a planning convention could meet as early as this upcoming July, and by November the first Article V Convention in history could be called by Congress.
Meanwhile, as we noted earlier today, President Trump offered his own warning on America’s national debt this morning saying that “[spending] was out of control,” as officials gathered to discuss the budget, adding that there is “enormous work to do on the national debt.”
There is a “moral duty” to taxpayers, President Trump says at White House budget lunch, “we must do a lot more with less.”
“Our budget is absolutely out of control” he added, and in the future “will reflect our priorities.”
The hiring freeze for non-essential workers will remain.
“We have enormous work to do on the national debt”
There will be “no more wasted money, we will spend in a careful way.”
Of course, we’re not really sure what all the fuss is about…only $10 trillion has been added to the national debt over the past 8 years, which, when you think about it, is a very manageable $31,000 per man, woman and child.
And balancing the budget 5 years out of 50 is pretty good, right?
- The Conflictual Relationship Between Donald Trump And The US "Deep State" – Part 2
Submitted by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
In just two weeks as president of the United States, Donald Trump has left traces of how he intends to tackle various international political situations. The previous article dealt with a series of possible sabotage efforts suffered by the Trump administration. In this second and concluding article, I intend to analyze the situations in Iran, Russia, Ukraine, and Syria as well as the stance towards NATO, the EU and China. The goal is to decipher how Trump has used admissions, silences and bluffs in order to advance his intentions and obviate the deep state’s sabotage efforts.
Deep-state sabotage is in full swing and is increasingly influencing the Trump administration. The latest example can be seen in the resignation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. He was forced to resign either for inappropriate contacts with the Russian ambassador in the US prior to his appointment, or for not telling the truth about his phone call to the Vice President and President.
As with the whole Trump presidency, it is very difficult to understand whether we are facing an act of sabotage from the deep state or whether this is yet another semi-improvised strategy to muffle the drums of war. We all know of Flynn’s closeness to his Russian counterparts, a rapprochement that cannot be placed in danger with the dismissal of the new National Security Adviser. Trump needs Russia more than Russia needs Washington; improving ties is something that Trump needs in order to avoid major conflicts and de-escalate the international situation. One could even imagine that Flynn was wisely removed given his harsh and trenchant positions on Iran that would send Washington on a terrible path of war with Tehran.
There are several international situations in which the intentions of the new administration are very difficult to understand and sometimes even provoke amazement. Let us first examine the administration’s attitude towards the Iran and Yemen. As noted a few weeks ago, very harsh words from the US administration were directed towards Tehran following a legitimate missile test, and especially with the defensive actions of the Houthis in Yemen. With Yemen and Iran not looking like diminishing their legitimate actions, the affair regarding Flynn could fall into a de-escalation strategy to contain excesses in Islamophobia expressed by the former National Security Advisor.
Trump has always preferred to counter deep-state sabotage attempts with substantial bluffing, as seen with the strong rhetoric used against Tehran regarding its recent actions, exactly as in Yemen for the actions of Ansarullah defense forces. The Trump strategy seems to want to please the factions closest to the neoconservative wing, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies. Targeting Yemen and Iran with words has at least temporarily quietened the drums of war of an important part of the establishment in Washington. Trump has to carry out a careful balancing act involving his words and actions in order not to not draw too harsh a response from the Washington establishment.
Flynn's dismissal could also be seen as an easy attempt to sabotage and prevent a rapprochement with Russia; indeed this is likely to be so.
But meanwhile, we can consider one positive aspect: Flynn has always been highly Islamophobic, tending to find it difficult to distinguish between Wahhabi terrorist goons and legitimate Islamic fighters like the Houthis or Hezbollah. Flynn has usually maintained pro-Saudi positions and even pro-Qatar Muslim Brotherhood positions. It may even be that Trump has torpedoed his own personally chosen pick dampening the excessive saber-rattling against the Islamic Republic of Iran that was possibly laying the groundwork for an escalation that Trump had to reign in. This is pure speculation, but everything is possible with this unpredictable presidency.
Much talk, little action
Trump still gives the strong impression that he intends to avoid any further conflict. Bluffing on Iran and Yemen seems to be the ideal choice for the Trump administration: harsh tones and words to placate the most hawkish factions without actually taking any action appears to be the new normal. The first strategy of Trump's foreign policy therefore seems to be to employ a tactic of inaction. Not acting could well represent a new turning point in American foreign policy, avoiding further involvement in the Middle East and in the Persian Gulf. This would represent the first confirmation of Trump’s intention not to squander American resources by going to war and betraying his election promises, thereby further impoverishing the United States. Observing the very intense words on Iran, let us try and analyze the intentions of the Trump administration. Certainly having people like General Mattis within the administration is a big test for how Trump will manage to contain the most anti-Iranian wing of his inner council. Could Flynn's departure be the first step of this internal cleansing, a warning signal to other pro-war figures? Or maybe it is none of the above and in actual fact the first successful sabotage from the deep state.
Silence as a strategy of inaction
Another important approach in Trump’s presidency is a frequent silence or lack of comment on international events. Two most recent cases concern Syria and China. With regard to the «One China» policy, Trump confirmed assumptions made in the past, namely that his intentions are anything but malicious. The tone was initially hard, only to be replaced by a long silence, and then finally words one would not expect, averting an international crisis on this front. It is a modus operandi that should be taken as an example for understanding the psychology of Trump. At first he was critical in a decisive way, calling into question China and Taiwan, then he no longer mentioned the topic, and finally he gave his blessing to the «One China» policy, initiating a likely mutually fruitful cooperation.
Another important part of Trump’s policy of silence involves Syria. Since becoming president, Trump has rendered events in Syria irrelevant, making the issue disappear from the media radar. Thanks to Trump’s guerrilla tactics, lobbing smoke grenades hither and tither and signing two executive orders a day, the media simply does not have the time and perseverance to keep up with everything. One of the sacrificial victims has been the reality in Syria; but a lack of attention from the mainstream media is currently the best hope that we can desire for the Syrian people. Trump’s attitude seems to be deliberately cautious and silent about developments in that nation. The situation in Syria is firmly in Russian hands, and what seems to be occurring is an indirect coordination between Washington and Moscow against Daesh in the country. The silence from Trump certainly irritated the most radical and extreme wing of the deep state, but any attempt to sabotage this progress in Syria now seems to be wrecked thanks to the inaction of the Trump administration and the actions of Moscow. The final coup de grace would be to openly cooperate or act in joint US-Russia actions to defeat terrorism in the region.
Admissions to confirm the election promises
Finally, Trump has never hidden and indeed has often touted his vision of the approach that should be taken with the Russian Federation. A rapprochement with Putin to combat terrorism is one of the pivotal points around which the Trump presidency rotates. During the election campaign he has never hidden his positive intentions, even though this increased the criticism directed towards him. This part of his tactic is based on the admission from the beginning of his campaign of his intention to reach a deal with Moscow. The first confirmation of this intention can be seen in Syria, with Washington apparently ceasing the flow of money and weapons to the so-called moderate rebels, pleasing Moscow and looking for a de-escalation of the conflict. Another important aspect regarding Trump’s statements in terms of foreign policy concerns the role of NATO and his European allies.
During the election campaign he repeatedly attacked the role of NATO, but then was forced to reach an agreement given the importance of the international framework guaranteed by NATO in Europe. This provided a very clear indicator of how Trump’s strategy works out if he has to defer to other considerations. He changed his initial positions by placing a strong emphasis on the need for US allies to pay their share of military spending, namely 2% of GDP. Currently all NATO countries, excluding the United States and Greece, fall below this commitment. Sharp focus is brought on the EU members on the cost of keeping NATO alive, forcing them to come to terms with the harsh economic reality that this implies. In the long term this could lead to a strong treaty revision of NATO. EU countries are increasingly facing difficulty in increasing defense spending, especially when considering existing austerity measures as well as the lack of importance placed on NATO by the European public, with the exception of the EU elite.
This tactic will further weaken the integrity of the European Union. In a sense, the Trump strategy in this case is crystal clear and will probably achieve its objectives.
This situation will provide the perfect opportunity for the European populist and nationalist parties to further attack the foundations of the European Union and its security framework guaranteed by NATO. If Trump wanted to undermine the EU's foundations, pointing to the futility of NATO and at the same demonstrating to his base that he will act on his election promises, then this strategy seems perfectly calibrated.
Ultimately, we can already say that the relations between Trump and the deep state are essentially based on sabotage efforts against Trump, and the asymmetrical responses of his administration, ranging from bluffing, to silences, and admissions.
To correctly assess Trump’s foreign policy, one should divide into three categories the vicissitudes of the United States. In a first column we can include words and rhetoric; in the second, inaction; and in the third, actions taken.
While it is clear and obvious that the first column includes Iran, Yemen and the EU/NATO, it is worthwhile noting that the second column certainly includes inaction like shown towards China, Syria, and the events in Ukraine. The third column, for the moment, essentially concerns the first steps towards Russia and the rapprochement with Moscow. In this sense, it is worth remembering that the resignation of Flynn may just be a deep-state move to sabotage Trump before he takes decisive action to settle a deal with Russia. The tactic of not acting, or of inaction, is difficult to sabotage, as the deep state came to realize when Obama decided not to act in Syria in 2013. Criticizing actions taken is much more effective and easy for the media, as seen with the attacks on Trump’s team for ties with Putin that are deemed too close. In this sense, the hypothesis that Flynn has been sacrificed should not be discarded in this context as a way of promoting a rapprochement with Russia, eliminating one of the most contentious issues between the administration and the deep state.
On this aspect we will need to await the developments between Moscow and Washington, and how this will possibly change the rhetoric against countries such as Yemen and Iran, two countries long criticized by Flynn and his colleagues.
Conclusions
The only possible conclusion relates to the previous point, namely the clear division between words, actions, or inaction. At the moment, the Trump team’s strategy seems to use these three options to further advance their own interests and strategic objectives. Given the uncertainty surrounding the intentions of Trump’s administration, the only sensible attitude seems to wait and see whether the aggressive rhetoric remain just that. Another consideration relates to actions taken by the administration to approach and mend troubled relations with the Russian Federation. Finally is the inaction in foreign policy that amounts to a precise tactic. If words remain words and inaction will continue to remain a key part of the current presidency, perhaps for the first time in decades we will see in practice a positive change in direction from the new US administration.
In all this it remains to be seen whether Trump will really change the direction set by liberal hegemony with its global ambitions for a more realistic one as repeatedly suggested by the school of political realism represented by Mearsheimer. Only time, and actions, will tell.
- Dallas Police Pension Board Approves Benefit Cuts; Asks For More Taxpayer Money To Avoid Collapse
For the past several months we’ve warned that the taxpayers of the City of Dallas, despite all of the tough talk coming out of their elected city council members, would ultimately be forced to bail out the failing Dallas Police and Fire Pension (DPFP) system. And just last night the DPFP board voted 9-0 to approve a plan that would do just that.
The plan to save the DPFP was proposed by Dan Flynn, chair of the pensions committee in the Texas House of Representatives, and calls for Dallas taxpayers to contribute 34.5% of police and firefighter salaries each year into the failing pension system, up from 27% in 2015, plus an incremental $11 million per year. In total, the adopted plan will cost Dallas taxpayers an extra $22 million per year.
That said, the plan also calls for pensioners to grant concessions, including the following:
- Increase in retirement age to 58 from 55
- Increase in employee contributions to 13.5% of payroll from 8.5%
- Elimination of COLAs in the near term
- Elimination of exorbitant interest payments made on employees DROP accounts
Of course, the $7 billion shortfall in the DPFP triggered downgrades to Dallas’s credit rating from Moody’s and S&P in recent months which has wreaked havoc on the city’s bond yields. (chart per Bloomberg).
Meanwhile, no amount of incremental taxpayer funding will ever be sufficient to stop angry pensioners from playing the victim card when the realities of their pension ponzi schemes are exposed for all to see. Per NBC 5:
There was a whirlwind of emotions at the meeting, from clapping, to tears and obvious tension, both from board members and from those whose futures hang in the balance.
“I think we’re being treated like animals to a certain degree, and I was hesitant to even come down here today,” said Frank Varner, a retired Dallas firefighter.
“How do you fix broken promises? These people deserve better. The firefighters and officers working today deserve better,” said Mike Mata, a Dallas police officer and president of the Dallas Police Association.
Don’t worry dear pensioners, there is no problem too large for taxpayers to bail out.
A summary of the plan adopted by the DPFP board can be viewed below:
- As China's Housing Minister Admits There Is A Bubble, Axiom Warns "Sell Commodities Now"
After several months of slowing price growth across China’s bubbly housing market, if mostly in the lower-tiered cities, last month we reported that China’s National Bureau of Statistics confirmed that the latest Chinese housing bubble has finally popped, after housing prices across the 70 cities tracked by the NBS were up 12.7% Y/Y, below the 12.9% annual growth rate in November. This was the first deceleration in year-over-year housing price growth after 19 months of continued acceleration.
Then, overnight, China reported that after the November peak, January house prices decelerated again, and according to Goldman calculations, on a year-over-year, population-weighted basis, housing prices in the 70 cities were up 12.4% vs. 12.7% yoy in December, and 12.9% in November, the second consecutive month of deceleration.
On year-over-year basis, housing price growth moderated in January
On a month-over-month basis, house price inflation decelerated modestly in tier-1 and tier-4 cities, and remained stable in tier 2 and tier 3 cities: In tier-1 cities, January price growth was 0.3% month-over-month after seasonal adjustment, vs. 0.5% in December. In tier-4 cities, property price growth was 0.2% month-over-month after seasonal adjustment, vs. +0.3% in December. Average property price inflation in tier 2/3 cities was 0.5%/0.4% month-over-month after seasonal adjustment respectively in January.
Average house price inflation stabilized in January compared with December
According to Goldman’s China analyst, Maggie Wei, “we expect property transactions and house price inflation to slow this year from the rapid growth last year. On the other hand, property construction and investment activities may remain solid, supported by the strong land sales last year. We forecast only a small moderation in property FAI growth this year compared with last year.”
Consultancy giant McKinsey, which also is never too late to point out the obvious, said earlier on Wednesday that it sees “early signs of slowdown in China property market”, with McKinsey partner Oliver Ramsbottom speaking at an iron conference in Dalian adding that “our belief is that in property market we’re starting to see a slowdown.” He added that slower mortgage lending will be key indicator for slowing starts and completions, and that the government’s reaction to growth of price appreciation suggests increased focus on cooling, and slower starts.
As a result, he expects cooling in demand for recently red hot commodities such as steel and iron ore.
Another analyst who sees the bursting of China’s housing bubble as a big negative for commodities is Axiom Capital’s Gordon Johnson, who likewise looked at China’s slowing housing data and asked, rhetorically “what’s the significance of these data points?”
His answer: “the last time we had 18 consecutive months of home price acceleration in China (7/31/12-to-12/31/13), iron ore prices rallied, as did steel prices; yet, when year-over-year (“y/y”) growth in home prices turned negative 1/31/14, it marked the beginning of 16 consecutive months of deceleration in home prices, which also ushered in a collapse in both steel prices and iron ore prices, as well as other bulk commodity prices – we remind our readers that Chinese investors use home price growth, y/y, as a catalyst to invest in real estate in China (real estate, by far, is the most steel-intensive sector in China).”
Normal
0false
false
falseEN-US
X-NONE
X-NONEMicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Normal
0false
false
falseEN-US
X-NONE
X-NONEMicrosoftInternetExplorer4
As a result, with the second consecutive deceleration in home
price growth in China in 20 months, Axiom sees imminent risk to construction
activity, and thus steel/iron ore prices.His suggestion: sell commodities now.
Furthermore, Johnson has noticed a troubling trend when looking at land sales in China. As detailed in the chart below, land sales in China have shown an acute falloff recently. He reminds readers that land sales are a key funding source for local governments in China, and also lead key indicators of Chinese growth, like freight volumes, by around six months.
Johnson’s conclusion: “We see C1Q17 as the exact opposite of C4Q16 (i.e., stocks are rallying, despite what we see as a pending downturn in economic data points in China); with the data already beginning to support this narrative, yet investors completely ignoring it at present, we see an acute reversal in the commodity stocks as likely. At risk of stating the obvious, we do not believe this is consensus thinking at present.”
And speaking of rallying stocks, we pose the same question we asked – rhetorically – last month: “now that the Chinese housing bubble has finally hit its inflection point and is headed downward, prompting the momentum chasers to flee, the question is whether the Chinese stock market is about to become the bubble choice du jour, as happened in mid to late 2014 and early 2015, when the bursting of the home bubble once again pushed all the housing speculators into the stock market with scary, if entertaining, consequences. It may not be a bade idea to buy some deep out of the money calls on the Shenzhen composite, as that is the place where the most degenerate of Chinese gamblers eventually congregate to every time the housing bubble bursts, only to be reincarnated two years down the line.”
With headlines such as this one in Caixin from last week, “China Relaxes Curbs on Stock-Index Futures Trading“, the answer is clearly yes.
Finally, while China will do everything in its power to assure another soft landing for the burst Chinese housing bubble, a curious headline popped up moments ago, one which may assure a far more aggressive selling for Chinese real estate in the coming months: according to Bloomberg, “China Is Doing Preparation Work on Property Tax: Vice Minister” adding that “China will unveil property tax in “timely” manner, Lu Kehua, vice minister of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, says at a briefing in Beijing.“
Meanwhile, China’s Housing Minister Chen Zhenggao said at the briefing China property prices to “continue to stabilize” in 1Q, and admitted that mainland real estate is about to crash when he said that “China will contain the property bubble and prevent large fluctuations in property market.”
Well, thanks for the admission, because few things inspire confidence in artificial real estate values quite like the threat of imminent property taxes (which only those who sell now won’t have to pay) coupled with the local housing minister admitting the entire housing market in a bubble that has now burst.
- New Study Finds That Trump's Immigration Crack Down Could Cost $5 Trillion In GDP Over 10 Years
Earlier today we wrote about the impacts that Trump’s immigration policies may have on the U.S. housing market (see “Could Trump’s Immigration Ban Cause Another Housing Crash?“), but that’s just the beginning of the story. No matter where you come down on the immigration debate, like it or not, there are millions of low-skill jobs in this country, particularly in the Southwest, that our pampered, snowflake millennials wouldn’t touch with a 10-foot pole and are thus filled by “undocumented” workers primarily from Mexico and other portions of South America.
Courtesy of a recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), we know that the industries that employ the highest percentage of migrant workers are, quite unsurprisingly, industries like Agriculture, Construction and Leisure and Hospitality, all of which require either back-breaking work in the blistering sun and/or low pay. In fact, per the NBER study, nearly 20% of all agricultural labor in the United States is performed by illegal aliens while 13% of construction jobs are filled by illegals….jobs that most entitled American youth are unlikely to fill at almost any price.
Meanwhile, as we pointed out last fall, the seasonality of agricultural jobs makes them even more unattractive to domestic laborers. Per the chart below, the total number of people working in the ag industry in California spikes by about 33% starting in May every year and remains elevated for about 6 months through October. Ask any farmer in California how tight the labor market is during those summer months and you’ll quickly understand that, even with the 1,000’s of illegal migrants working in the state, that farmers find it almost impossible to fully staff their operations during the peak harvesting seasons.
And, of course, the majority of the illegal migrant workers in the U.S. come from Mexico and Central/South America.
Meanwhile, the NBER study estimates that every 1 million fewer workers in the U.S. equates to a roughly 0.5% drag on GDP. Per Bloomberg:
President Donald Trump’s sweeping crackdown on undocumented immigrants will strain an already tight U.S. job market, with one study suggesting that removing all of them would cost the economy as much as $5 trillion over 10 years.
“The challenge is particularly high now because the labor market has tightened up not just overall but in areas in which you would think undocumented immigrants would be important, so that means that it’s going to be hard to fill these jobs if you deport these employees,” Harris said. “You have to think about indirect effects when you disrupt production in industries in which they’re a critical part of getting things done. So there’s a transition cost, as well as the cost of a reduced labor force.”
Harris estimates that for every 1 million fewer workers in the economy, GDP would be reduced by about 0.5 percent. That’s the equivalent of $94 billion, based on the annualized pace of $18.9 trillion in fourth-quarter GDP.
And here are the states that would be forced to absorb the greatest economic losses:
Perhaps it’s time to start preparing young Tristan James Abernathy III for a life in the fields? Good luck with that…
- The New Wave Of Violent Protests Is Exactly What The Elite Want – Here's Why
Submitted by Chase Rachels via The Free Thought Project,
Over the past 18 months, there has been a significant increase in the frequency and severity of riots conducted by the extreme left. Their ranks are comprised of self-described anti-fascists, anarcho-communists, radical 3rd wave feminists, Black Lives Matter (BLM), and other social justice warriors (SJWs). They have attained great notoriety through their willingness to employ violence/intimidation, vandalize/loot private property, and engage in the very same behavior they accuse their ideological opponents of perpetrating. Tragically, innocent and non-interested bystanders often get caught in the cross hairs whilst they throw their violent temper tantrums. To add further cause for concern, these otherwise marginal groups are coalescing under the banner of “intersectionality” thereby effecting a swelling of their ranks, temerity, and menace.
However, as Professor Matthew Feinberg of the University of Toronto recently published a study confirming “extreme protest tactics reduce popular support for social movements.” Violent and destructive protests render peaceful protestors inept and guilty by association. The following summarizes the results of the study in greater detail:
“Social movements are critical agents of change that vary greatly in both tactics and popular support. Prior work shows that extreme protest tactics – actions that are highly counter-normative, disruptive, or harmful to others, including inflammatory rhetoric, blocking traffic, and damaging property – are effective for gaining publicity. However, we find across three experiments that extreme protest tactics decreased popular support for a given cause because they reduced feelings of identification with the movement. Though this effect obtained in tests of popular responses to extreme tactics used by animal rights, Black Lives Matter, and anti-Trump protests (Studies 1-3), we found that self-identified political activists were willing to use extreme tactics because they believed them to be effective for recruiting popular support (Studies 4a & 4b). The activist’s dilemma – wherein tactics that raise awareness also tend to reduce popular support – highlights a key challenge faced by social movements struggling to affect progressive change.”
To further illustrate the nature of such protests/riots a brief outline and analysis of the more notable examples will be provided in the following sections.
Berkeley Students Racist Barricade
In late October of 2016, a number of angry Berkeley SJWs barricaded a key bridge on campus to physically bar any white people from crossing. The objective of the protest was to secure more segregated spaces for people of color a.k.a. “spaces of color”. Any white person who attempted to breach the barricade was violently denied. The group also saw fit to post faux eviction notices on a private bookstore with the threat that “community action will continue to escalate” lest they cede the location to the student protesters for the purpose of transforming it into a “space of color.” Though obvious, it is worth explicitly recognizing the utter hypocrisy of this allegedly “anti-racist” group employing violence and threats against others based merely on the color of their skin for the sake of securing racially segregated spaces.
Berkeley Anti-Milo Riot
Riots erupted on February 1st, 2017 at the University of California at Berkeley over the arrival of the conservative celebrity and self-described “dangerous faggot” Milo Yiannopoulos. So-called anti-fascists and other SJWs were inciting mass violence, vandalism, and hysteria in order to prevent the gay interracial loving Jewish foreigner from peacefully expressing a political opinion that differs from their own. They firebombed the location where Milo’s event was to take place, pepper sprayed a female while being interviewed (and who was ironically offering words of respect to the non-violent protestors who showed up), burned Milo effigies, beat Milo supporters unconscious, and even violated neutral yet curious bystanders. It has repeatedly been made clear that as soon as a person of color, queer, woman, or Muslim expresses non-leftist/non-egalitarian views, the left will treat him/her with the same or even greater level of disdain and prejudice they accuse “right leaning” bogeymen of.
Yes, Yiannopoulos is a troll and says things to rile up the masses, but meeting free speech with violence only serves to empower your opposition.Free speech was stomped on by the radical left at the birthplace of the free speech movement. The poorly named “anti-fascists” (a.k.a antifas) were the ones leading the violent charge to silence and censor the gay Jew. If the irony weren’t thick enough, the topic of Milo’s discussion was a critical examination of “cultural appropriation,” yet it seems the antifas took no issue with culturally appropriating the tactics of fascists and Nazis.
Presidential Inauguration Riots
On January 20, 2017, in Washington D.C. several hundred antifas, anarcho-communists, and other radical leftists came together to protest the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump. To the dismay of peaceful protestors and Trump supporters alike, the radical leftist rioters quickly resorted to tactics of violence and vandalism. Many were caught throwing bricks and blocks of concrete, breaking the windows of private businesses, violently clashing with and intimidating Trump supporters, setting cars on fire, and harassing defenseless trash cans. Before the day was done, over 200 rioters would be arrested. One may rest assured that engaging in such public, juvenile, and violent behavior is the surest way to secure a second term for the controversial commander in chief.
Black Lives Matter (BLM) Riots
While most Black Lives Matter protests across the country remain entirely peaceful the majority of the time, some of them, often with the help of outside instigators devolve into utter chaos. Examples of this chaos happened in August and September of 2016, when violent BLM protests devolved and riots broke out in Milwaukee, WI and Charlotte, NC respectively. In Milwaukee, BLM rioters set fires to gas stations, auto parts stores, banks, and several other businesses. There were also reports of rioters firing off guns, hurling bricks, and looting local grocery stores.
In Charlotte, BLM chaos erupted after a black police officer shot a black man. Rioters responded by shutting down an interstate and setting it ablaze, looting several private businesses, throwing rocks at random motorists, and even targeting white people for beat downs simply for being white. It’s fairly safe to say that if your cause is to diminish the ill effects that racism has on society and your community, then it’s probably best not to burn down local productive enterprises, hinder your community’s ability to travel safely, and beat down any white person you can find with extreme prejudice.
Women’s March
On January 21st, 2017 more than 2.5 million protestors participated in the worldwide “Women’s March” whose aim was to promote human, civil, and reproductive rights. Unlike the other examples, this protest was largely absent the more injurious elements of violence and intimidation. However, many of the same themes were promoted and other off-putting tactics used thus a brief examination is warranted.
Perhaps the most paradoxical feature of the protest was the ubiquitous presence of both vagina attire (ranging from subtle vagina shaped/colored headwear to ostentatious full bodied vagina costumes) and anti-“islamophobia” themes.
It’s amusing to consider how the average Muslim, in his capacity as a Muslim, would be absolutely mortified upon encountering a woman dressed as a giant pubic hair infested vagina. Such a costume must be the antithesis of the hijab.
Beyond this, of course, the majority of the march’s themes were anti-libertarian as they included support for anti-discrimination laws, tax-funded healthcare, and the subsidization of both contraceptives and abortion. It should go without saying that all such measures entail both theft and private property violations. Thus, to say this was a march for liberty would be a gross misnomer. It was instead a march for entitlements funded at liberty’s expense.
Conclusion
If one is sincerely opposed to racism, sexism, and fascism then it may be best for him to refrain from engaging in racist, sexist, and fascist means to support his cause. The fact these radical leftist factions utilize such means indicates a more sinister and subtle objective than the purported one of “social justice.” And unfortunately, any legitimate peaceful protests to stop injustice will be deemed illegitimate and the cause ignored as it will be immediately associated with violence. Aside from the societal damage created by such violence and intolerance, this divisive and obstinate environment plays right into the hands of those who want to keep you under control.
When objectively assessed, these violent protests are revealed as being among the most bigoted, hateful, and dangerous threats to the cause of liberty.
- Taiwan Joins Global War On Cash: Plans To Ban Purchases Of Houses, Cars, & Jewelry
The cancerous virus of freedom-destroying worldwide cash-bans – in the name of fighting terrorism – has reached Taiwan this week. With the aim of 'preventing money-laundering', Taiwan may ban cash purchases of properties and luxury goods, Taipei-based Economic Daily News reports, citing unidentified official at Ministry of Justice.
As we previously noted, the War on Cash is not merely continuing, it is intensifying.
It began in the West, with relatively minor infringements on our right to use the currency of our own nation. The War has now shifted to India, been radically ratcheted up, and inflicted upon a population of 1.2 billion people, where 68% of transactions were conducted with cash. And now, as The Economic Daily News reports (via Google Translate), to Taiwan…
With the goal of strengthening the prevention and control of money laundering, Taiwan's Ministry of Justice plans to promote large-scale transactions without cash. The first wave may lock real estate, luxury cars and jewelry transactions.
According to the provisions of the money-laundering control law, which currently controls the use cash payment tools, The Ministry of Justice to discuss the plan with other regulators in the second half of the year.
Once finalized, the sale of real estate, cars, and jewelry will not be possible using cash; only non-cash payment tools, such as credit cards, financial cards, checks, electronic payments or remittances.
Current regulations require the keeping of records and reporting of any transcations over 500,000 Yuan (around $72,000), with no limit on the amount of cash that can be used.
As to whether a lower threshold will be set, it is unclear; but from indications, for the sale of real estate, luxury cars or jewelry the threshold will be zero – and only non-cash allowed.
Officials said that in addition to changes in the concept of the majority of normal business people should not be affected, but for some with bad credit, who can not apply for a credit card or bank account, it admitted the new law may cause inconvenience.
Of course, the excuse for all this cah ban is simple –
The Ministry of Justice internal data show that the criminal group's asset allocation is especially heavy in gold, diamonds, and real estate. Real estate transactions are considered to high-risk money laundering transactions.
As we noted previously, on the face of it, this 'war on cash' smacks of conspiracy theory, yet certainly, all governments would benefit from this control and would be likely to get on board. In fact, it might prove to be the only way out of their present economic problems.
So, how would it play out? Here’s roughly how I saw Phase I:
- Link the free movement of cash to terrorism (Create a consciousness that any movement of large sums suggests criminal activity.);
- Establish upper limits on the amount of money that can be moved without reporting to some government investigatory agency;
- Periodically lower those limits;
- Accustom people to making all purchases, however small or large, through a bank card;
- Create a consciousness that the mere possession of cash is suspect, since it’s no longer “necessary”.
When I first wrote on the subject, there was considerable criticism as to the possibility that such a programme would ever be attempted, let alone succeed. And, granted, it was so Orwellian that it was understandably seen as a crackpot idea. But since that time, the programme has been developing extremely rapidly. In the last six months alone, it has become so visible that it has even garnered a name – “the War on Cash”.
References in the media have been made that terrorist groups fund their attacks with cash. Dozens of countries have placed limits on the maximum amount of money that can be moved without reporting. Some, notably France, have already begun lowering their limits. Banks in some countries, notably Sweden, are already treating all cash transactions as suspicious. The previously theoretical Phase I is now well under way.
It would appear Taiwan is joining the rest of the world in this war on cash. There are three major players involved in the war on cash:
1. The Initiators
Who? Governments, central banks.
Why? The elimination of cash will make it easier to track all types of transactions – including those made by criminals.
2. The Enemy
Who? Criminals, terrorists
Why? Large denominations of bank notes make illegal transactions easier to perform, and increase anonymity.
3. The Crossfire
Who? Citizens
Why? The coercive elimination of physical cash will have potential repercussions on the economy and social liberties.
The shots fired by governments to fight its war on cash may have several unintended casualties:
1. Privacy
- Cashless transactions would always include some intermediary or third-party.
- Increased government access to personal transactions and records.
- Certain types of transactions (gambling, etc.) could be barred or frozen by governments.
- Decentralized cryptocurrency could be an alternative for such transactions
2. Savings
- Savers could no longer have the individual freedom to store wealth “outside” of the system.
- Eliminating cash makes negative interest rates (NIRP) a feasible option for policymakers.
- A cashless society also means all savers would be “on the hook” for bank bail-in scenarios.
- Savers would have limited abilities to react to extreme monetary events like deflation or inflation.
3. Human Rights
- Rapid demonetization has violated people’s rights to life and food.
- In India, removing the 500 and 1,000 rupee notes has caused multiple human tragedies, including patients being denied treatment and people not being able to afford food.
- Demonetization also hurts people and small businesses that make their livelihoods in the informal sectors of the economy.
4. Cybersecurity
- With all wealth stored digitally, the potential risk and impact of cybercrime increases.
- Hacking or identity theft could destroy people’s entire life savings.
- The cost of online data breaches is already expected to reach $2.1 trillion by 2019, according to Juniper Research.
This issue has expanded more quickly than we’d anticipated. Clearly, the governments that are forcing it into being are running out of time. There can only be one reason why they’d rush a programme that normally would be given more time for people to accept, and that’s that they see a crash coming before they can get Phase II of the programme underway.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...