Why let Chicago, Detroit and New York have all the fun? Hawaii corruption by the party of crime also deserves <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ex-hawaii-senator-sentenced-to-40-months-for-taking-bribes/ar-AAZeUqu">a little attention</a>.


	English announced he was retiring last year due to health issues. His retirement will have to take place behind bars.

<blockquote>
	
		Former Senate Majority Leader J. Kalani English, 55, pleaded guilty to honest services wire fraud in February, admitting he accepted bribes from a Hawaii business owner in exchange for shaping legislation that would benefit a company involved in publicly financed cesspool conversion projects...

	
		English “peddled the power and influence of his position as a Hawaii State Senator and Majority Leader to enrich himself and betray the trust bestowed upon him by those he was elected to serve,” U.S. prosecutors said in a sentencing memo urging the judge to send him to prison for three-and-a-half years.

	
		The sentence, a little more than three years, must send a “stern and lasting message” that corruption of elected officials will be punished, the memo said.
</blockquote>


	Not all that long ago, English was <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/news/hawaii-obamas-birthplace-and-refuge/">praising</a> Obama.

<blockquote>
	
		“Hawaiians love Obama,” says J. Kalani English, a Democratic state senator. “He is one of us — he understands what aloha is, he understand what mana is.”&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	Obama and English both understand<a href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/07/feds-want-former-hawaii-lawmaker-who-took-bribes-to-spend-more-than-3-years-in-prison/"> "mana"</a> really well.

<blockquote>
	
		English pleaded guilty in February and&nbsp;admitted to accepting cash and other payments&nbsp;totaling more than $18,000 from Honolulu businessman Milton Choy. English leaked documents related to a wastewater working group to Choy in exchange for cash payments. He also accepted more money to first introduce, and then kill a bill that could have benefitted Choy’s business.

	
		“As the investigation progressed it became astoundingly clear that no matter the legislative ask, the answer from English would almost certainly be ‘yes.’ English’s behavior signaled that it was systemically normal for him to accept, and indeed expect, financial benefits in return for legislative favors,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Sorenson wrote in a sentencing memorandum Friday.
</blockquote>


	And the party may just be<a href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/02/honolulu-businessman-milton-choy-had-been-working-for-years-with-feds-on-legislative-bribery-case/"> getting started</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		Choy is a prolific donor, as are his immediate family members and business associates. Choy, his family members, and his employees from various companies have donated more than $356,000 to political campaigns since 2014, according to campaign finance data. Of that, Choy has contributed more than $160,000 to the elections and reelections of numerous Democrats.

	
		Choy himself has donated to 55 campaigns — including 29 sitting lawmakers — since 2014. Money has gone to former Gov. Neil Abercrombie and current Gov. David Ige. He has most recently contributed to former Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s campaign for governor, and to Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi’s campaign.
</blockquote>


	Culture of corruption.

Hawaii Senate Dem Majority Leader Gets 3 Years in Prison for Bribery

Why let Chicago, Detroit and New York have all the fun? Hawaii corruption by the party of crime also deserves a little attention.


	English announced he

Hawaii Senate Dem Majority Leader Gets 3 Years in Prison for Bribery

Dumping the country's oil reserves was the only strategy to lower energy prices that Biden would accept. He continues blocking domestic drilling and taxes remain high. The practical impact&nbsp;of the reserve releases was negligible and, worse still, 5 million barrels of oil from the reserve were actually <a href="https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/oil-from-u.s.-reserves-sent-overseas-as-gasoline-prices-stay-high">exported abroad</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		More than 5 million barrels of oil that were part of a historic U.S. emergency reserves release to lower domestic fuel prices were exported to Europe and Asia last month, according to data and sources, even as U.S. gasoline and diesel prices hit record highs.

	
		About 1 million barrels per day is being released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) through October. The flow is draining the SPR, which last month fell to the lowest since 1986.&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	Considering the scale of even the national use, 20 million a day, there was never going to be much of an impact here.

<blockquote>
	
		U.S. officials have said oil prices could be higher if the SPR had not been tapped.
</blockquote>


	Ah, the hypothetical.&nbsp;


	Anyway the oil went all over.

<blockquote>
	
		The fourth-largest U.S. oil refiner, Phillips 66&nbsp;PSX.N, shipped about 470,000 barrels of sour crude from the Big Hill SPR storage site in Texas to Trieste, Italy, according to U.S. Customs data. Trieste is home to a pipeline that sends oil to refineries in central Europe.

	
		Atlantic Trading &amp; Marketing (ATMI), an arm of French oil major TotalEnergies&nbsp;TTEF.PA, exported 2 cargoes of 560,000 barrels each, the data showed.

	
		Cargoes of SPR crude were also headed to the Netherlands and to a Reliance&nbsp;RELI.NS&nbsp;refinery in India, an industry source said. A third cargo headed to China, another source said.
</blockquote>


	Yes, the story wouldn't be complete without China. Much like the PPP disaster, the government efforts invariably only punish Americans and reward Communist China.

Barrels of Oil Released by Biden From Reserve Were Sent to China

Dumping the country's oil reserves was the only strategy to lower energy prices that Biden would accept. He continues blocking domestic drilling and taxes

Barrels of Oil Released by Biden From Reserve Were Sent to China

Racist DOJ official&nbsp;Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke announced that the Biden administration is targeting Arizona for trying to prevent non-citizens from voting.


	At issue is an Arizona law asking voters to show proof of citizenship. What should be an elementary and common sense requirement is being opposed by the Biden administration, officially on technical grounds, but as a practical matter because it is trying to protect voter fraud.


	Why fight against asking voters to show a legal right to vote unless...


	1. They are your voters


	2. You believe that they don't have a legal right to vote


	“The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona is dedicated to protecting voters in the state,” said U.S. Attorney Gary M. Restaino for the District of Arizona. “We are proud to join the Civil Rights Division in bringing this lawsuit to ensure that all eligible citizens in Arizona have the opportunity to register to vote and exercise their fundamental right to participate in our elections.”&nbsp;


	Voters have the right to vote. And they have the right to protect the legitimacy of their vote by passing common sense voter tests to fight fraud.

Biden Administration's Racist DOJ Official Seeks to Protect Non-Citizen Voting in Arizona

Racist DOJ official&nbsp;Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke announced that the Biden administration is targeting Arizona for trying to prevent non-

Biden Administration's Racist DOJ Official Seeks to Protect Non-Citizen Voting in Arizona

Democrats want to make the midterms about abortion. There's one big problem. Americans are upset about the economy and don't care about abortion.&nbsp;


	In the latest <a href="https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_US_070522/">Monmouth poll</a>,&nbsp;33% of Americans rank inflation as their top concern while 15% list gas prices. 9% mention the economy and 6% grocery prices. And only 5% list abortion.


	Over 70% list various economic concerns. Social hot button issues are on the back burner. So is national security. And the second amendment.


	57% also say that the actions of the federal government have hurt them, only 8% say that they have helped them.


	So much for the abortion or BLM or gender identity midterms. When people can't afford to eat or drive, they don't care about the hot button issues.

33% of Americans Worry About Inflation, 15% Gas Prices, 5% Abortion

Democrats want to make the midterms about abortion. There's one big problem. Americans are upset about the economy and don't care about abortion.&nbsp;

33% of Americans Worry About Inflation, 15% Gas Prices, 5% Abortion

For the past few years, the entertainment industry inhabited a strange world in which massive amounts of streaming programming were unleashed on an unprecedented level. Led by Netflix, Amazon&nbsp;and followed by tradiitional&nbsp;industry competitors like Disney&nbsp;and HBO Max, the sheer amount of money being spent was astronomical, in the billions, and the hours of programming, the number of shows made it Peak TV.


	And then Netflix and its business model crashed.


	In the familiar Dot Com pattern, a whole lot of money was chasing the promise of endless growth that would usher in its own business model. Now the crash <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-07-04/the-age-of-peak-tv-is-ending-an-age-of-austerity-is-beginning">has ended Peak TV.</a>

<blockquote>
	
		The sudden decline in Netflix’s share price&nbsp;and the&nbsp;growing fear of a recession&nbsp;have forced&nbsp;Hollywood into a new period of fiscal austerity. This manifests in ways big and small. A TV director who made&nbsp;$4 million a year is now getting $750,000. Mid-budget movies are being shelved. Broadcast TV budgets have dropped more than 30%...

	
		This is a significant departure from&nbsp;the last few years when&nbsp;media companies tripped over themselves to produce any halfway decent idea. The industry made 559 scripted shows last year, up more than 200 since 2013, the year “House of Cards” debuted...

	
		But the age of peak TV is coming&nbsp;to a close, and that will impact&nbsp;almost every sector of an industry where budgets, valuations and strategic plans were predicated on a booming&nbsp;market for new programming.&nbsp;

	
		Just a few months ago, any production company with a few credits to its name was suddenly worth&nbsp;hundreds of millions of dollars. (It helped if you were aligned with a celebrity like&nbsp;Reese Witherspoon&nbsp;or LeBron James.) Now many of the companies looking to raise capital or sell themselves are&nbsp;having a harder time.
</blockquote>


	Did Hollywood nuke its own business model?


	Streaming was supposed to be the future. Hollywood cannibalized its theatrical business for streaming. Every studio either tried to become Netflix or market to it. Or both.


	What's the future now? The plan to have every studio sell membership to its gated subscription service looks increasingly shaky especially in a troubled economy. Amazon and Netflix still want to be the dominant platform. Hollywood tried to compete with them and the result broke everyone.&nbsp;


	The entertainment industry can't grow further without China. And China wants to grow its own industry. And investors will now be skeptical of dot com promises of infinite growth.&nbsp;


	 
	&nbsp;

Hollywood Nuked Itself

For the past few years, the entertainment industry inhabited a strange world in which massive amounts of streaming programming were unleashed on an

Hollywood Nuked Itself

President Trump has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/trump-considering-buying-greenland">confirmed</a> he is considering an attempt to buy Greenland for strategic reasons. No, this is not an <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-16/trump-isn-t-crazy-to-want-to-buy-greenland?srnd=opinion">out-of-season</a> April fool’s joke.


	Trump, it seems, hasn't forgotten his old job. Remember, before he became the president of the free world, the septuagenarian was the world's most-famous real estate developer. If the acquisition of the self-governed Danish territory comes to fruition, this would be a savvy piece of expansionism. Why? People can ridicule the president all they want, but Greenland is rich in natural resources, including iron ore, lead, zinc, diamonds, gold, rare-earth elements, uranium and oil, <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-greenland-gold-rush-promise-and-pitfalls-of-greenlands-energy-and-mineral-resources/">according to the Brookings Institution</a>, a nonprofit public-policy organization in Washington, D.C.&nbsp;


	Anyway, why not? After all, the US acquired Louisiana from France, Florida from Spain, Alaska from Russia&nbsp;and much of its southwest from Mexico. Furthermore, in the 1860s, the U.S. nearly&nbsp;bought Greenland and Iceland. The idea, we’re <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-16/trump-isn-t-crazy-to-want-to-buy-greenland?srnd=opinion">told</a>, was to surround Canada with U.S. territory and thus persuade it to join the U.S. In 1946, the U.S. tried to buy Greenland again, but the offer was rejected. Maybe, just maybe, it will be third time lucky.


	Whatever the outcome, when it comes to savvy expansionism, there is one country that appears to be far ahead of the United States. That country is China.


	Emerging in 1999, Beijing’s Going Global strategy sought to bid farewell to the Mao-era mindset of self-reliance, urging Chinese firms to take advantage of booming world trade and to invest in global markets. The idea that one government could commandeer sub regions in Asia, Europe and Africa, which account for <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305760346_Understanding_China's_Belt_Road_Initiative_Motivation_framework_and_assessment">64 percent</a> of world population and 30 percent of world GDP, might sound ludicrous. But try telling this to the Chinese government.


	Make no mistake, under Xi Jinping’s guidance, China is engaged in an ideological and economic venture; the country’s ambitions for global leadership couldn’t be clearer. Between 2005 and 2017, the combined value of China’s global <a href="https://medium.com/@intelsohail/the-chinese-story-of-global-domination-b94b3abf3023">investment</a> in construction was $1.8Trillion.


	Construction of what, exactly?


	Four words: One Belt, One Road, otherwise known as the Belt and Road initiative.


	The Chinese Government is making a concerted effort to increase infrastructural, economic, and political connectivity between China and the other countries of Asia, Africa, and Europe.


	This is very much the New Silk Road — a multinational endeavor to <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/10/21/eurasia-the-worlds-largest-market-emerges/" target="_blank">exert a level of “smart power” throughout the Eurasian landmass</a>. While other countries find themselves consumed by petty squabbles, Beijing officials discuss square footage, potential monetary gain, and militaristic strategies.&nbsp;


	As Sohail Khan <a href="https://medium.com/@intelsohail/the-chinese-story-of-global-domination-b94b3abf3023">notes</a>,

<blockquote>
	
		This initiative helps develop infrastructure in developing countries and also help China to invest (and own) infrastructure in the countries. Interestingly, if you look at the tops sectors in which China has invested till date, have been Energy, Transport, Real Estate and Metals — the key ingredients for developing infrastructure.
</blockquote>


	Unsurprisingly, such a move has proved controversial in many Western capitals, particularly Washington. Many view it as a means for the Chinese to spread influence abroad and saddle countries with unimaginable levels of debt.


	Over the past decade, China’s lending to other countries has surged, causing debt levels to jump dangerously high. Worryingly, as much as half of such debt to developing economies is “<a href="https://uaehawk.com/2019/07/15/about-half-of-chinas-loans-to-developing-countries-are-hidden-study-finds/">hidden</a>.”


	Why does this matter? According to a CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/12/chinas-lending-to-other-countries-jumps-causing-hidden-debt.html">report</a>,

<blockquote>
	
		Such “hidden” debt means that the borrowing isn’t reported to or recorded by official institutions such as the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/imf/">International Monetary Fund (IMF)</a>, the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/world-bank/">World Bank</a>, or the Paris Club — a group of creditor nations.
</blockquote>


	According to a recent study carried out by the Kiel Institute, since the early 00’s, other countries’ debt owed to China has soared ten-fold, from less than $500 billion to more than $5 trillion — or from 1% of global economic output to more than 5%.


	The report ends on an ominous note: “This has transformed China into the largest official creditor, easily surpassing the IMF or the World Bank.”


	Estimates suggest that China, one of the most <a href="https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/china-and-tibet">repressive</a> countries in the world, now accounts for a quarter of total bank lending to emerging markets.


	Why is China so eager to loan money?


	Benevolence? Absolutely not. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of indentured servitude, where an employee finds himself within a system of unfree labor. He (or she) is bound by a signed or forced contract for a fixed time. Escape is impossible. You are “owned” in every sense of the world. Is China operating its own form of indentured servitude? One assumes so, because the <a href="https://quillette.com/2019/08/05/china-and-the-difficulties-of-dissent/">fascist</a> leaders in Beijing are not known for acts of pure kindness. If in doubt, just look at the chaos in <a href="An%20employee%20at%20the%20UK’s%20consulate%20in%20Hong%20Kong%20has%20been%20detained%20by%20mainland%20Chinese%20authorities%20on%20his%20way%20back%20to%20the%20city,%20his%20girlfriend%20has%20said.">Hong Kong</a>.


	Nefarious intentions, and not benevolence, explain China’s willingness to “help” other countries. After all, the US defense department <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/03/china-will-build-string-of-military-bases-around-world-says-pentagon">expects</a> China to add military bases around the world to protect its investments in its One Belt One Road initiative.


	Beijing currently has just one overseas military base, in Djibouti. However, officials are planning others, including one in Pakistan.


	China is clearly seeking to project itself as a global superpower. The One Belt One Road initiative could prove to be very dangerous.

China’s World Domination Gambit

President Trump has confirmed he is considering an attempt to buy Greenland for strategic reasons. No, this is not an out-of-season April fool’s joke.

“Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”&nbsp; 
	―&nbsp;G.K. Chesterton


	Tanya Gold, a well-respected writer, recently&nbsp;criticized Nike&nbsp;for promoting unhealthy body images. The sports behemoths are currently using mannequins, or, as Gold accurately labeled them, ‘fattequins,’ to advertise plus sized clothing. As Libby Emmons wrote, Gold received “an extra serving of inbox hate for being ‘fatphobic’, and a side order of online death threats with extra malice… and all for speaking the truth about encouraging women to maintain a dangerous weight and buy into unhealthy beauty standards.”


	Clearly unenthused by Gold’s writing, Tony Posnanski, a powerlifter and Mixed Martial Arts fighter, tweeted ‘Go fuck yourself, Tanya Gold.’ And who said that chivalry is dead?


	For stating the obvious, Gold received an inordinate amount of criticism on social media. Progressive outlets like Refinery29,&nbsp;HuffPost (predictably) People and&nbsp;Glamour&nbsp;all attempted to assassinate Gold’s character and credibility. Instead of lauding Gold for her honest concern that Nike was promoting a worrying health standard, these outlets accused her of fat-shaming.


	Gold was not fat-shaming; these outlets were fact-shaming.


	And what about Nike, a corporation widely lauded for motivating consumers to push the limits physically? This is a company known for slogans like “My better is better than your better” and ““Taking it easy won’t take you anywhere.” Well, when it comes to truth telling, Nike certainly takes it easy.


	A truly conscientious organization would warn people about the dangers associated with being overweight – the increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular issues, joint pain, lack of energy, etc. This is Nike, folks, a brand synonymous with athletic prowess. Honesty, we are told, is the best policy.


	Obviously, this does not apply to the world of advertising and marketing. After all, honesty might affect profitability. And we wouldn’t want that.


	Another brand guilty of disingenuous behavior is Budweiser. In honor of Pride month, the lager manufacturer has decided to produce a range of plastic beer cups with Pride’s nine official ‘flags’ on them, each representing a different section of the LGBT community.


	For instance, there’s ‘Genderfluid Pride’, a combination of pink, blue, white, purple and black. If that doesn’t float your virtue signaling boat, there’s an ‘Asexual Pride’ option, where black is for ‘asexuals who don’t feel sexual attraction to anyone. Oh yes, white represents ‘non-asexual allies,’ obviously.


	As a marketing exercise, Budweiser’s ‘Fly the Flag’ campaign cannot be aimed at those people who happen to fall into these categories. Why? According to the Williams Institute, about 0.66 per cent of the American population is transgender. There simply aren’t enough of them to actually care.


	So, with this being said, who here is really benefiting? The trans community or Budweiser?


	The same question can, of course, be asked of Gillette and its recent advertisement involving a father teaching his transgender son how to shave? The advertisement was mushier than a Nicholas Sparks novel. Again, who here is really benefiting?


	The answer is rather obvious. What we are dealing with here is bold face deceit masquerading as common decency; bad faith masquerading as a moral conscience.


	Bad Faith


	Jean-Paul Sartre, the 20th century French philosopher, was a hard man to please. He especially despised inauthenticity. In fact, he had a name for it: mauvaise foi&nbsp;('bad faith'). He argued, rather persuasively, that it’s much easier to follow the herd, to stick with the safe, easy, default ‘choice' than to actually do something of real merit. Thus, according to the existentialist, the average person is more akin to an object than to a conscious human being.

<blockquote>
	
		In a famous example, Sartre describes a waiter in a café. He observes that the waiter’s 
		 
		movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes towards the patrons with a step a little too quick. His voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer. He gives himself the quickness and pitiless rapidity of things. The waiter in the cafe plays with his condition in order to realize it.
</blockquote>


	Here, the waiter assumes the role of a performer, simply playing to the crowd. This, in Sartre’s view, is a disingenuous display. The waiter is a fake, a fraud, a bad actor. He is acting in an insincere manner.


	The waiter, just like Nike, Gillette and Budweiser, is acting inauthentically.


	Nevertheless, instead of acknowledging the lies for what they are, too many people, especially agenda driven journalists, let their emotions dictate the narrative. Case in point: Nikki Stamp at the Guardian.


	Instead of berating Nike for glamorizing&nbsp;obesity, the writer went on the defensive:

<blockquote>
	
		When we are shown bigger bodies, the concern trolls are never far away. They don’t come right out and say they are disgusted by squishy rolls of fat and bigger bottoms. Instead, they feign concern for the health and wellbeing of that person, based solely on their looks. Completely unsolicited, these people dish out advice or blame, under the guise of caring about their health. They’re so prevalent, even being a plastic mannequin in a&nbsp;Nike&nbsp;store doesn’t make you immune from them.
</blockquote>


	This, again, is disingenuous. Stamp is acting in bad faith, and one assumes that she knows it. These plus-sized mannequins are there for one reason and one reason only: to sell a narrative that big brands care about the average Joe, that the profit-drive CEOs care about our worries and insecurities. The sooner we realize that these companies only care about one thing, namely revenue, the sooner society can start having reasonable discussions.


	Show me a brand with a genuine moral conscience, and I’ll show you a carefully crafted lie disguised as truth.

Fat-Shaming or Fact-Shaming?

“Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”&nbsp;
	―&nbsp;G.K. Chesterton


	Tanya Gold, a well-respected writer, recently&nbsp;criticized Nike

Frontpage Mag

john glynn

China’s World Domination Gambit

Fat-Shaming or Fact-Shaming?

FPM Series

Disloyal Military

Progressive Fascists

Racist Mayors

The Point

Hawaii Senate Dem Majority Leader Gets 3 Years in Prison for Bribery

Barrels of Oil Released by Biden From Reserve Were Sent to China

Biden Administration's Racist DOJ Official Seeks to Protect Non-Citizen Voting in Arizona

33% of Americans Worry About Inflation, 15% Gas Prices, 5% Abortion

Hollywood Nuked Itself

Events