Pres Trump To Start DEPORTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS From OBAMA AMNESTY First Day In Office, what next?
Donald Trump and the wall with Mexico… will it happen? BBC Newsnight
The Illegal Invasion of America
“The Gold Standard” of Fence System
The Great Wall of Trump
Top 5 Facts About President Donald Trumps Wall
18 seconds to climb a U.S. – Mexico Border fence
U.S. BORDER FENCE Is Left WIDE OPEN Allowing Illegal Immigrants from Mexico to Walk Into USA
What Mexicans think of Trump’s wall – BBC News
So You Want to Build a Wall on the Mexican Border?
Is a wall along the US-Mexico border realistic?
Trump’s Touchback amnesty explained by Marc Thiessen
How Donald Trump’s Amnesty Plan Works
Donald Trump lays out three steps of his immigration policy
Donald Trump explains his immigration plan
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
Immigration Gumballs and White Genocide Best explanation ever
Ben Shapiro interviews Ann Coulter; Adios America; 7/13/2015; C-Span
Ben Shapiro: Amnesty Will Destroy Conservatives
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1
Uploaded on Oct 20, 2007
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 1.
Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.
On October 3, 2007, a press conference and panel discussion was hosted by Californians for Population Stabilization (http://www.CAPSweb.org) and The Social Contract (http://www.TheSocialContract.com) to discuss alternative methodologies for estimating the true numbers of illegal aliens residing in the United States.
This is a presentation of five panelists presenting at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on October 3, 2007. The presentations are broken into a series of video segments:
Wayne Lutton, Introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5KHQR…
Diana Hull, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WvFW…
Diana Hull, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYuRNY…
James H Walsh, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB0RkV…
James H. Walsh, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbmdun…
Phil Romero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ohvJ…
Fred Elbel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTJGf…
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
Obama’s Amnesty & How Illegal Immigration Affects Us
ICE Deported Less Than 1 Percent Of All Illegal Aliens in FY2016
Read Full Post
If anyone out there still believes Obama to be the “deporter-in-chief,” now would be a good time to stop.
The moniker is an oft-cited, erroneous claim repeated ad nauseam by amnesty activists or liberal policymakers looking to justify the president’s lackadaisical immigration enforcement policies. But unfortunately for Americans who think the law is actually worth the paper it’s printed on, this claim doesn’t hold up against the data. This inaccurate assertion is based on the number of “removals and returns” cited each year by the administration, but fails to distinguish how many of those “returns” occurred at the border (i.e., not a true “deportation”) versus how many persons are actually arrested and removed from inside the United States – a significantly smaller number, and dropping.
And it doesn’t take much digging to find out. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement recently released its Fiscal Year 2016 report which stated that as a whole, the Department of Homeland Security – which houses both U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement – removed or returned a total of 450,954 illegal aliens last year alone, each counted as a “deportation” by the term’s weakest definition.
However, a closer look at the data reveals that the vast majority of these “deportations” claimed by the Obama administration took place at or near the border – meaning they weren’t actual “deportations” at all. These were folks, primarily single adults, who got caught crossing the border from Mexico and were either turned around or, in the case of non-Mexicans, processed and sent back to their home country.
In fact, of the roughly 451,000 aliens who were removed from the country last year, only 65,332 of them – about 14 percent – were apprehended in the interior of the United States, according to DHS’s own report. The vast majority of these, by the administration’s own admission, were criminal aliens who’d been convicted of a violent felony or were a threat to national security.
Only five percent of all removals (less than 23,000) were Priority 2 cases, which includes people who unlawfully crossed into the U.S. since 2014. An even smaller one percent (less than 5,000) were aliens who’d been given a final order of removal in the last 2-3 years.
Overall, 94 percent of removals and returns were classified within a Priority 1 category, five percent were classified within a Priority 2 category (i.e., serious and repeat misdemeanants, individuals who unlawfully entered the United States on or after January 1, 2014, and significant abusers of the visa system or visa waiver program), and one percent were classified within a Priority 3 category (individuals issued a final order of removal on or after January 1, 2014).
But not only are the administration’s overall “deportation” numbers highly misleading, they also mask the fact that interior arrests are dropping. According to ICE data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies last summer, there are about 925,000 illegal aliens who’ve received a final order of removal from an immigration judge still living in the United States, including about 179,000 convicted criminals. But despite these alarming numbers, the administration’s recent report states that ICE made nearly 11,000 fewer interior arrests in FY2016 than the year before, down from 125,211 in FY2015 to 114,434 last year.
Even assuming that every alien arrested by ICE in 2016 was under a final order of removal, this would mean ICE only arrested 12 percent of the total number of legally removable aliens, and only deported about seven percent.
Additionally, based on conservative immigration estimates, these 65,000 aliens only account for about .6 percent of the estimated 11 million unlawfully present aliens living in the United States.
What is a Sanctuary City? It’s Not What They’ve Been Telling You
Texas governor vows sanctuary cities will not be tolerated
Trump Will END Sanctuary Cities & The Democrats Hate How He’ll Do It
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
“A nation can be one or the other, a democracy or an imperialist, but it can’t be both.
If it sticks to imperialism, it will, like the old Roman Republic, on which so much of our system was modeled, lose its democracy to a domestic dictatorship.”
~ Chalmers Johnson
Remembering Chalmers Johnson and Frank W. Lewis
Chalmers Johnson, 1931-2010, on the Last Days of the American Republic
Chalmers Johnson – Speaking Freely
Domestic Democracy or Foreign Imperialism
DECLINE of EMPIRES: The Signs of Decay
TalkingStickTV – Chalmers Johnson – The Sorrows of Empire
The Bases Are Loaded: US Permanent Military Presence in Iraq
Chalmers Johnson: Militarism and the End of the Empire
What Does Blowback Mean in Politics?
Chalmers Johnson on the American Empire (2000)
The BLOWBACK SYNDROME: Oil Wars and Overreach
Conversations with History: Chalmers Johnson
Chalmers Johnson on American Hegemony
The Bully! Pulpit Show Classics: Mark Joseph Interviews Chalmers Johnson
Are We Rome? Ben Powell Compares the U.S. with the Roman Empire
Read Full Post
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thomas F. Madden (born 1960) is an American historian, a former Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, and Director of Saint Louis University’s Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies. A specialist on the Crusades, he has often commented in the popular media after the events of September 11, to discuss topics such as how Muslims have viewed the medieval Crusades and their parallels to today’s interventions in the Middle East. He has frequently appeared in the media, as a consultant for various programs on the History Channel and National Public Radio. In 2007, he was awarded the Haskins Medal from the Medieval Academy of America, for his book Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice, also a “Book of the Month” selection by the BBC History magazine. In 2012, he was named a Fellow of theJohn Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation.
Madden received his bachelor’s degree from the University of New Mexico in 1986, and his Masters (1990) and PhD (1993) degrees in History from the University of Illinois.
Madden is active in the Society for the Study of the Crusades in the Latin East, and organizes panels for the Annual Symposium on Medieval and Renaissance Studies in Saint Louis, Missouri. He is the Director of the Crusades Studies Forum and the Medieval Italy Prosopographical Database Project, both housed at Saint Louis University.
Madden has written numerous books and journal articles, including the “Crusades” entry for the Encyclopædia Britannica. His research specialties are ancient and medieval history, including the Fourth Crusade, as well as ancient and medieval Italian history. His 1997 book The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople was a selection of the History Book Club. He is also known for speaking about the ways that the history of the Crusades is often used for manipulation of modern political agendas. His book, The New Concise History of the Crusades has been translated into seven foreign languages.
His book Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice won multiple awards, including the 2007 Haskins Medal from the Medieval Academy of America and the Otto Gründler Prize from the Medieval Institute. According to the Medieval Review, with this book “Madden more than ever stakes out his place as one of the most important medievalists in America at present.”
His 2008 book, Empires of Trust, was a comparative study that sought elements in historic republics that led to the development of empires. In the case of Rome, he argued that their citizens and leaders acquired a level of trust among allies and potential enemies that was based upon an unusual rejection of hegemonic power. His most recent book, Venice: A New History is the culmination of decades of work in the archives and libraries of Venice.
- Venice: A New History, 2012, Viking
- Crusades: Medieval Worlds in Conflict, 2010 Ashgate
- Empires of Trust, 2008, Dutton/Penguin
- The Fourth Crusade: Event, Aftermath, and Perceptions, 2008, Ashgate
- Crusades: The Illustrated History, 2005, University of Michigan Press
- Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice, 2003, Johns Hopkins University Press
- The Crusades: The Essential Readings, 2002, Blackwell
- The New Concise History of the Crusades, 1999, Rowman & Littlefield
- Medieval and Renaissance Venice, 1999, University of Illinois Press
- The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople, 1997, University of Pennsylvania Press
Select popular articles
- “The Pope Joins a Fine but Rarely Seen Tradition”, Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2013.
- “The Real History of the Crusades”, ARMA, March 19, 2011 (updated 2005 piece)
- “America’s Days Aren’t Numbered”, The Wall Street Journal, July 4, 2008.
- “Not Dead Yet: The Lost Tomb of Jesus — One Year Later”, NRO, March 21, 2008.
- “Unreasonable Response: Benedict XVI Hasn’t Revived the Crusades”, NRO, September 18, 2006.
- “Crusaders and Historians”, First Things, June/July 2005.
- “Onward P.C. Soldiers: Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven, NRO, May 27, 2005.
- “The Real Inquisition: Investigating the Popular Myth,”, NRO, June 18, 2004.
Select scholarly articles
- “The Venetian Version of the Fourth Crusade: Memory and the Conquest of Constantinople in Medieval Venice,” Speculum 87 (2012): 311-44.
- “The Latin Empire of Constantinople’s Fractured Foundation: The Rift Between Boniface of Montferrat and Baldwin of Flanders,” in The Fourth Crusade: Event, Aftermath, and Perceptions (Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing, 2008): 45-52.
- “Food and the Fourth Crusade: A New Approach to the ‘Diversion Question,'” in Logistics of Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, John H. Pryor, ed. (Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing, 2006): 209-28.
- “Venice, the Papacy, and the Crusades before 1204,” in The Medieval Crusade, Susan J. Ridyard, ed. (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2004): 85-95.
- “The Enduring Myths of the Fourth Crusade,” World History Bulletin 20 (2004): 11-14.
- “The Chrysobull of Alexius I Comnenus to the Venetians: The Date and the Debate,” Journal of Medieval History 28 (2002): 23-41.
- “Venice’s Hostage Crisis: Diplomatic Efforts to Secure Peace with Byzantium between 1171 and 1184,” in Ellen E. Kittell and Thomas F. Madden, eds., Medieval and Renaissance Venice (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999): 96-108.
- “Outside and Inside the Fourth Crusade,” The International History Review 17 (1995): 726-43.
- “Venice and Constantinople in 1171 and 1172: Enrico Dandolo’s Attitude towards Byzantium,” Mediterranean Historical Review 8 (1993): 166-85.
- “Vows and Contracts in the Fourth Crusade: The Treaty of Zara and the Attack on Constantinople in 1204,” The International History Review 15 (1993): 441-68.
- “Father of the Bride: Fathers, Daughters, and Dowries in Late Medieval and Early Renaissance Venice,” Renaissance Quarterly 46 (1993): 685-711. (with Donald E. Queller)
- “The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople, 1203-1204: A Damage Assessment,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84/85 (1992): 72-93.
- “The Serpent Column of Delphi in Constantinople: Placement, Purposes, and Mutilations,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 16 (1992): 111-45.
History Channel documentaries
- Jump up^ Townsend, Tim (December 1, 2007). “Louis IX’s spirit of charity lives on in work of a city church”. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
- Jump up^ Thompson, Bob (May 9, 2005). “How Muslims View the Crusades”. Washington Post.
- Jump up^ Mahoney, Dennis M. (May 6, 2005). “New view of Crusades abandons simple stereotypes”. Columbus Dispatch.
- Jump up^ Derbyshire, John (November 25, 2001). “For all their crimes, medieval Crusaders were our spiritual kin”. Star-Tribune (Minneapolis).
- Jump up^ Davis, Bob (September 23, 2001). “A war that began 1,000 years ago”. Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
- Jump up^ Media | Thomas F. Madden
- Jump up^ http://sscle.slu.edu/
- Jump up^ Annual Symposium on Medieval and Renaissance Studies
- ^ Jump up to:a b WMU News – Grundler Prize awarded for book on Venetian leader
- ^ Jump up to:a b MAA Haskins Medal Winner
- Jump up^ Fellow of the Medieval Academy of America
- Jump up^ 
- Jump up^ Madden, Thomas F. (November 2, 2001). “Crusade Propaganda”. National Review. Retrieved 2007-12-03.
- Jump up^ Johns Hopkins University Press | Books | Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chalmers Ashby Johnson (August 6, 1931 – November 20, 2010) was an American author and professor emeritus of the University of California, San Diego. He served in the Korean War, was a consultant for the CIAfrom 1967 to 1973, and chaired the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of California, Berkeley from 1967 to 1972. He was also president and co-founder with Steven Clemons of the Japan Policy Research Institute (now based at the University of San Francisco), an organization promoting public education about Japan and Asia.
He wrote numerous books including, most recently, three examinations of the consequences of American Empire: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. A former cold warrior, his fears for the US changed:
- “A nation can be one or the other, a democracy or an imperialist, but it can’t be both. If it sticks to imperialism, it will, like the old Roman Republic, on which so much of our system was modeled, lose its democracy to a domestic dictatorship.”
Johnson was born in 1931 in Phoenix, Arizona. He earned a BA in economics in 1953 and an M.A. and a Ph.D. in political science in 1957 and 1961 respectively. Both of his advanced degrees were from the University of California, Berkeley. Johnson met his wife Sheila, a junior at Berkeley, in 1956, and they were married in Reno, Nevada in May 1957.
During the Korean War, Johnson served as a naval officer in Japan. He was the communications officer on a ship (the LST 883) “tasked with ferrying Chinese prisoners of war from South Korea back to North Koreanports.” He taught political science at the University of California from 1962 until he retired from teaching in 1992. He was best known early in his career for his scholarship on the subjects of China and Japan.
Johnson set the agenda for 10 or 15 years in social science scholarship on China with his book on peasant nationalism. His book MITI and the Japanese Miracle, on the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry was the preëminent study of the country’s development and it created the subfield of what could be called, the political economy of development. He coined the term “developmental state“. As a public intellectual, he first led the “Japan revisionists” who critiqued American neoliberal economics with Japan as a model; their arguments faded from view as the Japanese economy stagnated in the mid-90s and beyond. During this period, Johnson acted as a consultant for the Office of National Estimates, part of the CIA, contributing to analysis of China and Maoism.
Johnson was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1976. He served as Director of the Center for Chinese Studies (1967–72) and Chair of the Political Science Department at Berkeley, and held a number of important academic posts in area studies. He was a strong believer in the importance of language and historical training for conducting serious research. Late in his career he became well known as a critic of “rational choice” approaches, particularly in the study of Japanese politics and political economy.
Johnson is, perhaps, best known today as a sharp critic of American imperialism. His book Blowback (2000) won a prize in 2001 from the Before Columbus Foundation, and was re-issued in an updated version in 2004. Sorrows of Empire, published in 2004, updated the evidence and argument from Blowback for the post-9/11 environment, and Nemesis concludes the trilogy. Johnson was featured as an expert talking head in the Eugene Jarecki-directed film Why We Fight, which won the 2005 Grand Jury Prize at theSundance Film Festival. In the past, Johnson has also written for the Los Angeles Times, the London Review of Books, Harper’s Magazine, and The Nation.
The Blowback series
Johnson believed that the enforcement of American hegemony over the world constitutes a new form of global empire. Whereas traditional empires maintained control over subject peoples via colonies, since World War II the US has developed a vast system of hundreds of military bases around the world where it has strategic interests. A long-time Cold Warrior, he applauded the dissolution of the Soviet Union: “I was a cold warrior. There’s no doubt about that. I believed the Soviet Union was a genuine menace. I still think so.” At the same time, however, he experienced a political awakening after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, noting that instead of demobilizing its armed forces, the US accelerated its reliance on military solutions to problems both economic and political. The result of this militarism (as distinct from actual domestic defense) is more terrorism against the U.S. and its allies, the loss of core democratic values at home, and an eventual disaster for the American economy. Of four books he wrote on this topic, the first three are referred to as The Blowback Trilogy:
- Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
Chalmers Johnson summarized the intent of Blowback in the final chapter of Nemesis.
- “In Blowback, I set out to explain why we are hated around the world. The concept “blowback” does not just mean retaliation for things our government has done to and in foreign countries. It refers to retaliation for the numerous illegal operations we have carried out abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public. This means that when the retaliation comes – as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 – the American public is unable to put the events in context. So they tend to support acts intended to lash out against the perpetrators, thereby most commonly preparing the ground for yet another cycle of blowback. In the first book in this trilogy, I tried to provide some of the historical background for understanding the dilemmas we as a nation confront today, although I focused more on Asia – the area of my academic training – than on the Middle East.”
- The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic
Chalmers Johnson summarizes the intent of The Sorrows of Empire in the final chapter of Nemesis.
- “The Sorrows of Empire was written during the American preparations for and launching of the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. I began to study our continuous military buildup since World War II and the 737 military bases we currently maintain in other people’s countries. This empire of bases is the concrete manifestation of our global hegemony, and many of the blowback-inducing wars we have conducted had as their true purpose the sustaining and expanding of this network. We do not think of these overseas deployments as a form of empire; in fact, most Americans do not give them any thought at all until something truly shocking, such as the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, brings them to our attention. But the people living next door to these bases and dealing with the swaggering soldiers who brawl and sometimes rape their women certainly think of them as imperial enclaves, just as the people of ancient Iberia or nineteenth-century India knew that they were victims of foreign colonization.”
- Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic
Chalmers Johnson summarizes the intent of the book Nemesis.
- “In Nemesis, I have tried to present historical, political, economic, and philosophical evidence of where our current behavior is likely to lead. Specifically, I believe that to maintain our empire abroad requires resources and commitments that will inevitably undercut our domestic democracy and in the end produce a military dictatorship or its civilian equivalent. The founders of our nation understood this well and tried to create a form of government – a republic – that would prevent this from occurring. But the combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, military Keynesianism, and ruinous military expenses have destroyed our republican structure in favor of an imperial presidency. We are on the cusp of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. Once a nation is started down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come into play – isolation, overstretch, the uniting of forces opposed to imperialism, and bankruptcy. Nemesis stalks our life as a free nation.”
- Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last Best Hope
Johnson outlines how the United States can reverse American hegemony and preserve the American state. Dismantling the Empire was listed by the CIA in “The Intelligence Officer’s Bookshelf: Intelligence in Recent Public Literature”, compiled and reviewed by Hayden B. Peake.
Audio and video
- Chalmers Ashby Johnson. Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power (June 1, 1962 ed.). Stanford University Press. p. 268. ISBN 0-8047-0074-5.
- Chalmers Ashby Johnson. An Instance of Treason: Ozaki Hotsumi and the Sorge Spy Ring (1964; expanded in November 1999 ed.). Diane Pub Co. ISBN 0-7881-6748-0.
- Chalmers Ashby Johnson. Revolutionary Change (January 1966 ed.). Little Brown & Company. ISBN 0-316-46730-8.
- Jeremy R. Azrael, Chalmers A. Johnson. Change in Communist Systems (1970 ed.). Stanford University Press. p. 368. ISBN 0-8047-0723-5.
- Chalmers A. Johnson. Conspiracy at Matsukawa (July 1973 ed.). University of California Press. p. 470. ISBN 0-520-02063-4.
- John Israel, Chalmers A. Johnson. Ideology and Politics in Contemporary China (April 13, 1972 ed.). University of Washington Press. p. 528. ISBN 0-295-95247-4.
- Chalmers A. Johnson. Japan’s Public Policy Companies (June 1978 ed.). Aei Pr. p. 173. ISBN 0-8447-3272-9.
- Chalmers A. Johnson. MITI and the Japanese Miracle (June 1, 1982 ed.). Stanford University Press. p. 412. ISBN 0-8047-1206-9.
- Chalmers A. Johnson. The Industrial Policy Debate (May 1984 ed.). Ics Pr. p. 275. ISBN 0-917616-65-0.
- Chalmers A. Johnson, Laura D’Andrea Tyson. Politics and productivity: the real story of why Japan works (March 1989 ed.). HarperBusiness,U.S. p. 332. ISBN 0-88730-350-1.
- Chalmers A. Johnson. Japan: Who Governs? – The Rise of the Developmental State (September 1, 1994 ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. p. 388. ISBN 0-393-31450-2.
- Chalmers Ashby Johnson. Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (January 4, 2004 ed.). Holt Paperbacks. p. 288. ISBN 0-8050-7559-3.
- Chalmers Ashby Johnson. The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (January 13, 2004 ed.). Metropolitan Books. p. 400. ISBN 0-8050-7004-4.
- Chalmers Ashby Johnson. Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (February 6, 2007 ed.). Metropolitan Books. p. 368. ISBN 0-8050-7911-4.
- Chalmers Ashby Johnson. Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last Best Hope (August 17, 2010 ed.). Metropolitan Books. p. 224. ISBN 0-8050-9303-6.
On November 20, 2010, Chalmers Johnson died after a long illness from complications of rheumatoid arthritis at his home in Cardiff-by-the-Sea. 
- Jump up^http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/11/chalmers-johnson/66853/
- ^ Jump up to:a b “CCS History”, Center for Chinese Studies, Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley
- ^ Jump up to:a b AMY GOODMAN (February 27, 2007). “Chalmers Johnson: Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic”.Democracy Now!. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
- Jump up^ Chalmers Johnson, 1931–2010, on the Last Days of the American Republic
- ^ Jump up to:a b Sheila K. Johnson (2011-04-11) Chalmers Johnson vs. the Empire, Antiwar.com
- Jump up^ Chalmers Ashby Johnson. Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (January 4, 2004 ed.). Holt Paperbacks. p. 288. ISBN 0-8050-7559-3.
- Jump up^ Johnston, Eric, “Japan hand Chalmers Johnson dead at 79“,Japan Times, 23 November 2010, p. 2.
- Jump up^ Nic Paget-Clarke (2004). “Interview with Chalmers Johnson Part 2. From CIA Analyst to Best-Selling Scholar”. In Motion Magazine. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
- Jump up^ Tom Engelhardt (March 22, 2006). “Cold Warrior in a Strange Land – Tom Engelhardt interviews Chalmers Johnson”. antiwar.com. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
- ^ Jump up to:a b c Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic By Chalmers Johnson, 2006, Page 278, ISBN 978-0-8050-7911-1
- Jump up^ https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol.-55-no.-1/the-intelligence-officers-bookshelf.html
- Jump up^ https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no4/contributors.html
- Jump up^ Listing on Allrovi.com
- Jump up^ Shapiro, T. Rees (November 25, 2010). “Renowned Asia scholar Chalmers Johnson dies at 79”. The Washington Post.
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Story 1: US Economy Stagnating With Lowest Labor Participation in 38 Years of 62.4% With 94.6 Million Americans Not In Labor Force and 7.9 Unemployed and Only 142,000 Jobs Created In September — Recession in 2016? — Videos
U.S. economy gains 142,000 jobs in September
Does the weak jobs report take a Fed rate hike off the table?
The weak September jobs report and the markets
RETAIL APOCALYPSE CONTINUES SALES WORSE SINCE 2009
The last time September Retail Sales growth was this weak was 2009, limping aimlessly out of the ‘Great Recession’. With a mere 0.9% year-over-year growth, Johnson-Redbook data seems to confirm what Reuters reports is looming – the weakest U.S. holiday sales season for retailers since the recession. Consultancy firm AlixPartners expects sales to grow 2.8-3.4% during the November-December shopping period compared with 4.4% in 2014, based on analyzing consumer spending trends so far this year, noting (myth-busting for permabulls) dollars saved at the pump are being directed to personal savings or on non-retail activities.
Bursting Oil Bubble Could Put US Back in Recession
Commodities Report: October 2, 2015
Keep U.S. Jobs Numbers Volatility in Perspective: Krueger
Bad Jobs Report Prediction Understandable Says ‘Superforecasting’ Author
October 2, 2015 Financial News – Business News – Stock Exchange – NYSE – Market News
Gold Webcast – Gold climbs on weak US jobs report
Before the Asia Bell: October 2, 2015
Peter Schiff: Minimum Wage Will Result In Mass Unemployment & Self Service
MARC FABER – World Economy Grinding to a Halt. Don’t Trade With Leverage
Thom Hartmann “The Crash of 2016”
Keiser Report: Market Wasteland (E817)
The September Jobs Report in 11 Charts
By JOSH ZUMBRUN , NICK TIMIRAOS and ERIC MORATH
The U.S. economy added 142,000 jobs in September, but there’s more to the monthly jobs report than the number of jobs added. The report provides a wealth of information about the demographics of unemployment—about who is unemployed and why—summarized in the following 11 charts.
Over the past three months the economy has added jobs at the slowest pace since February 2014. Employers were adding an average of more than 200,000 jobs each month since the spring of last year, but now that pace has slowed.
Similarly, the annual pace of job creation has eased in recent months after peaking above three million late last year.
As a result of the weaker gains in August and September, job creation in 2015 has fallen well off last year’s pace. However, the economy is still on track to post the second-best year for employment growth in the past decade.
Every measure of unemployment is declining this year. The broadest gauge, which includes part-timers who would prefer full-time employment and Americans too discouraged to look for a job, fell to 10% last month. That’s the lowest rate since May 2008.
The median unemployed worker has been without a job for 11.4 weeks. That’s substantially shorter than during the first few years of this economic recovery, but still high by historical standards.
The number of Americans working full-time has finally returned to its prerecession levels, though this doesn’t account for an increase in the overall population.
The labor-force participation rate—that is, the share of the population either working or looking for work—declined to the lowest rate since 1977. The employment-to-population ratio, that is, the share of the population with a job, fell to 59.2% from 59.4%.
Much of the reason for the decline in the labor force is simply that a growing number of baby boomers are choosing to retire. Among workers ages 25 to 54, labor-force participation and employment rates are higher. Among this group of workers, dubbed prime-age by labor market economists, labor-force participation fell to 80.6% from 80.7% last month.
People can be unemployed for a range of reasons—whether it’s entering the job market for the first time; re-entering after going to school, starting a family or caring for a relative; quitting an old job with no new one lined up; or losing a job, either on a temporary layoff or permanently. As the recovery has progressed, the share of the unemployed who lost their previous job has declined. A growing share of the unemployed are new entrant or re-entrants to the work force.
College graduates have a significantly lower unemployment rate, which was unchanged at 2.5% this month. High-school dropouts have significantly higher unemployment, which climbed to 7.9% this month from 7.7%.
The unemployment rate has continued to come down for men, women, whites, blacks and Hispanics. The gaps in the unemployment rate between men and women have mostly closed, but significant gaps remain between racial groups.
Corrections & Amplifications
Monthly employment gains in 2015 have averaged 198,000. An earlier version of the chart “Slower, But Still Solid,” incorrectly showed an average gain of 221,000 jobs. Also, the number of Americans working full-time increased in September using a three-month moving average. An earlier version of the chart “Working Longer” included data for July, August and September that didn’t use the three-month average, while the post incorrectly suggested the number of full-time workers according to that measure had declined in September. (Oct. 2, 2015).
U.S. job growth stumbles, raising doubts on economy
U.S. employers slammed the brakes on hiring over the last two months, raising new doubts the economy is strong enough for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates by the end of this year.
Payrolls outside of farming rose by 142,000 last month and August figures were revised sharply lower to show only 136,000 jobs added that month, the Labor Department said on Friday.
That marked the smallest two-month gain in employment in over a year and could fuel fears that the China-led global economic slowdown is sapping America’s strength.
“You can’t throw lipstick on this pig of a report,” said Brian Jacobsen, a portfolio strategist at Wells Fargo Funds Management in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin.
The weak job growth took Wall Street by surprise and U.S. stocks sold off while the dollar also weakened and yields for government bonds fell.
Bets on interest rate futures showed investors only saw a 30 percent chance of a Fed rate hike in December, down from just under 50 percent before the job report’s release.
“(With) a weak report here, in combination with some of the other weakness that we are seeing across the globe, the odds get dinged for December,” said Tom Porcelli, an economist at RBC Capital Markets.
Investors saw virtually no chance the Fed would end its near-zero interest rate policy at its only other scheduled meeting this year, to be held later in October. Futures prices indicated investors were betting the Fed would probably hike in March.
U.S. factories are feeling the global chill and shed 9,000 jobs in September after losing 18,000 in August, according to the Labor Department’s survey of employers.
“We saw events in China lead to some global financial turmoil and you’re seeing that in the data here,” White House chief economist Jason Furman told Reuters.
New orders received by U.S. factories fell 1.7 percent in August, the Commerce Department said in a separate report..
Paul Ryan, a top Republican lawmaker in the House of Representatives, said the weak turn in the economy should be a wake-up call for Washington to reform the national economy with new tax laws, free trade agreements and policies to get people off welfare. “This recovery continues to disappoint, but we can’t accept it as the new normal,” Ryan said.
The recent pace of job growth should have been enough to push the unemployment rate lower because only around 100,000 new jobs are needed a month to keep up with population growth.
But the jobless rate held steady at 5.1 percent. The unemployment rate is derived from a separate survey of households that showed 350,000 workers dropping out of the labor force last month, as well as a lower level of employment.
The share of the population in the work force, which includes people who have jobs or are looking for one, fell to 62.4 percent, the lowest level since 1977.
Average hourly wages fell by a cent to $25.09 during the month and were up only 2.2 percent from the same month in 2014, holding around the same levels seen all year and pointing to marginal inflationary pressures.
The report did have a few bright spots that might be welcomed by Fed chief Janet Yellen, who said last week the economy was doing well enough to warrant higher rates this year.
The number of workers with part-time jobs but who want more hours fell by 447,000 in September to 6.0 million.
Yellen has signaled that the elevated number of these workers points to hidden slack in the labor market that isn’t captured by the jobless rate. A measure of joblessness that includes these workers and is closely followed by the Fed fell to 10 percent, its lowest level since May 2008.
Economists polled by Reuters had expected job growth of 203,000 in September.
All told, revised estimates meant 59,000 fewer jobs were created in July and August than previously believed.
In another grim sign, the number of hours worked in the country fell 0.2 percent, raising the specter that some broader softness might have gripped the economy last month.
Some of the strongest headwinds on the U.S. economy come from the commodity sector, which has slowed in part because of weaker demand from China.
The price of oil has fallen nearly 50 percent over the last year, and U.S. mining payrolls, which include energy sector jobs, fell by 10,000 in September, the ninth straight month of declines.
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until USDL-15-1912
8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, October 2, 2015
Household data: (202) 691-6378 • firstname.lastname@example.org • www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 • email@example.com • www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 • PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- SEPTEMBER 2015
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 142,000 in September, and the
unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care and information,
while mining employment fell.
Household Survey Data
In September, the unemployment rate held at 5.1 percent, and the number of
unemployed persons (7.9 million) changed little. Over the year, the unemployment
rate and the number of unemployed persons were down by 0.8 percentage point and
1.3 million, respectively. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (4.7 percent),
adult women (4.6 percent), teenagers (16.3 percent), whites (4.4 percent), blacks
(9.2 percent), Asians (3.6 percent), and Hispanics (6.4 percent) showed little
or no change in September. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks increased by 268,000 to
2.4 million in September, partially offsetting a decline in August. The number
of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed
at 2.1 million in September and accounted for 26.6 percent of the unemployed.
(See table A-12.)
The civilian labor force participation rate declined to 62.4 percent in September;
the rate had been 62.6 percent for the prior 3 months. The employment-population
ratio edged down to 59.2 percent in September, after showing little movement for
the first 8 months of the year. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) declined by 447,000 to 6.0 million in September.
These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part
time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a
full-time job. Over the past 12 months, the number of persons employed part time
for economic reasons declined by 1.0 million. (See table A-8.)
In September, 1.9 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down
by 305,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These
individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and
had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as
unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 635,000 discouraged workers in September,
little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.3 million persons marginally
attached to the labor force in September had not searched for work for reasons
such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 142,000 in September. Thus far in
2015, job growth has averaged 198,000 per month, compared with an average monthly
gain of 260,000 in 2014. In September, job gains occurred in health care and
information, while employment in mining continued to decline. (See table B-1.)
Health care added 34,000 jobs in September, in line with the average increase of
38,000 jobs per month over the prior 12 months. Hospitals accounted for 16,000 of
the jobs gained in September, and employment in ambulatory health care services
continued to trend up (+13,000).
Employment in information increased by 12,000 in September and has increased by
44,000 over the year.
Employment in professional and business services continued to trend up in September
(+31,000). Job growth has averaged 45,000 per month thus far in 2015, compared
with an average monthly gain of 59,000 in 2014. In September, job gains occurred
in computer systems design and related services (+7,000) and in legal services
Retail trade employment trended up in September (+24,000), in line with its average
monthly gain over the prior 12 months (+27,000). In September, employment rose in
general merchandise stores (+10,000) and automobile dealers (+5,000).
Employment in food services and drinking places continued on an upward trend in
September (+21,000). Over the year, this industry has added 349,000 jobs.
Employment in mining continued to decline in September (-10,000), with losses
concentrated in support activities for mining (-7,000). Mining employment has
declined by 102,000 since reaching a peak in December 2014.
Employment in other major industries, including construction, manufacturing,
wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, financial activities, and
government, showed little or no change over the month.
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls declined by
0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in September. The manufacturing workweek decreased by
0.2 hour to 40.6 hours, and factory overtime declined by 0.2 hour to 3.1 hours.
The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private
nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.1 hour to 33.6 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
In September, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls, at $25.09, changed little (-1 cent), following a 9-cent gain in August.
Hourly earnings have risen by 2.2 percent over the year. Average hourly earnings
of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees were unchanged at
$21.08 in September. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from +245,000
to +223,000, and the change for August was revised from +173,000 to +136,000. With
these revisions, employment gains in July and August combined were 59,000 less
than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 167,000
The Employment Situation for October is scheduled to be released on Friday,
November 6, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).
- Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
- Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
- Employment Situation Frequently Asked Questions
- Employment Situation Technical Note
- Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
- Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age
- Table A-3. Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by sex and age
- Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment
- Table A-5. Employment status of the civilian population 18 years and over by veteran status, period of service, and sex, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-7. Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status
- Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
- Table A-10. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
- Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment
- Table A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment
- Table A-13. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-14. Unemployed persons by industry and class of worker, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
- Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted
- Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
- Table B-2. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
- Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
- Table B-4. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
- Table B-5. Employment of women on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
- Table B-6. Employment of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
- Table B-7. Average weekly hours and overtime of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
- Table B-8. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
- Table B-9. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Civilian noninstitutional population
Civilian labor force
Not in labor force
Total, 16 years and over
Adult men (20 years and over)
Adult women (20 years and over)
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity
Total, 25 years and over
Less than a high school diploma
High school graduates, no college
Some college or associate degree
Bachelor’s degree and higher
Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs
Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks
5 to 14 weeks
15 to 26 weeks
27 weeks and over
Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons
Slack work or business conditions
Could only find part-time work
Part time for noneconomic reasons
Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force
– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Mining and logging
Motor vehicles and parts
Transportation and warehousing
Professional and business services
Temporary help services
Education and health services
Health care and social assistance
Leisure and hospitality
(3-month average change, in thousands)
WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES
Total nonfarm women employees
Total private women employees
Total private production and nonsupervisory employees
HOURS AND EARNINGS
Average weekly hours
Average hourly earnings
Average weekly earnings
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)
Over-the-month percent change
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)
Over-the-month percent change
(Over 1-month span)
Total private (263 industries)
Manufacturing (80 industries)
NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2014 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2015 (Third Estimate)
Corporate Profits: Second Quarter 2015 (Revised Estimate)
Real gross domestic product -- the value of the goods and services produced by the nation’s
economy less the value of the goods and services used up in production, adjusted for price
changes -- increased at an annual rate of 3.9 percent in the second quarter of 2015, according to the
"third" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased
The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "second" estimate issued last month. In the second estimate, the increase in real GDP was 3.7
percent. With the third estimate for the second quarter, the general picture of economic growth remains
the same; personal consumption expenditures (PCE) and nonresidential fixed investment increased more
than previously estimated (see “Revisions” on page 2).
The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
PCE, exports, nonresidential fixed investment, state and local government spending, and residential
fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.
Real GDP increased 3.9 percent in the second quarter, after increasing 0.6 percent in the first.
The acceleration in real GDP in the second quarter reflected an upturn in exports, an acceleration in
PCE, a deceleration in imports, an upturn in state and local government spending, and an acceleration in
nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by decelerations in private inventory investment
and in federal government spending.
Real gross domestic income (GDI) -- the value of the costs incurred and the incomes earned in
the production of goods and services in the nation’s economy -- increased 0.7 percent in the second
quarter, compared with an increase of 0.4 percent in the first. The average of real GDP and real GDI, a
supplemental measure of U.S. economic activity that equally weights GDP and GDI, increased 2.3
percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 0.5 percent in the first.
FOOTNOTE. Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified. Percent changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. "Real" estimates
are in chained (2009) dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures.
This news release is available on BEA's Web site.
Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 3.6 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent in
The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.5 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 1.6 percent in the first. Excluding
food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.2 percent, compared
with an increase of 0.2 percent.
Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the goods and services produced by the nation’s
economy less the value of the goods and services used up in production -- increased 6.1 percent, or
$264.4 billion, in the second quarter to a level of $17,913.7 billion. In the first quarter, current-dollar
GDP increased 0.8 percent, or $33.3 billion.
The upward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected upward revisions to
PCE, to nonresidential fixed investment, and to residential fixed investment that were partly offset by a
downward revision to private inventory investment. For information on revisions, see "The Revisions to
GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components."
Advance Estimate Second Estimate Third Estimate
(Percent change from preceding quarter)
Real GDP............................... 2.3 3.7 3.9
Current-dollar GDP..................... 4.4 5.9 6.1
Real GDI............................... ... 0.6 0.7
Average of Real GDP and Real GDI....... ... 2.1 2.3
Gross domestic purchases price index... 1.4 1.5 1.5
Profits from current production
Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and
capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj)) increased $70.4 billion in the second quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of $123.0 billion in the first.
Profits of domestic financial corporations increased $34.6 billion in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $23.4 billion in the first. Profits of domestic nonfinancial corporations
increased $24.3 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $70.5 billion. The rest-of-the-world component of
profits increased $11.4 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $29.0 billion. This measure is calculated as
the difference between receipts from the rest of the world and payments to the rest of the world. In the
second quarter, receipts increased $24.9 billion, and payments increased $13.4 billion.
Taxes on corporate income increased $31.3 billion in the second quarter, compared with an
increase of $5.5 billion in the first. Profits after tax with IVA and CCAdj increased $39.2 billion, in
contrast to a decrease of $128.4 billion.
Dividends increased $1.2 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase of $6.3 billion
in the first. Undistributed profits increased $38.0 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $134.7 billion. Net
cash flow with IVA -- the internal funds available to corporations for investment -- increased $48.1
billion, in contrast to a decrease of $135.5 billion.
The IVA and CCAdj are adjustments that convert inventory withdrawals and depreciation of
fixed assets reported on a tax-return, historical-cost basis to the current-cost economic measures used in
the national income and product accounts. The IVA decreased $78.7 billion in the second quarter, in
contrast to an increase of $45.7 billion in the first. The CCAdj increased $7.7 billion, in contrast to a
decrease of $208.1 billion.
Corporate profits with IVA
Profits of domestic financial corporations increased $34.3 billion in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $3.1 billion in the first. Profits of domestic nonfinancial corporations increased
$17.0 billion, compared with an increase of $117.3 billion. The second-quarter increase in profits of
nonfinancial corporations primarily reflected an increase in “other” nonfinancial industries that was
partly offset by a decrease in retail trade industries. A small increase in manufacturing industries
reflected an increase in durable goods that was mostly offset by a decrease in nondurable goods.
Gross value added of nonfinancial domestic corporate business
Real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations decreased slightly in the second quarter.
Profits per unit of real value added increased, reflecting an increase in unit prices and a decrease in unit
nonlabor costs that were partly offset by an increase in unit labor costs.
* * *
BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting the
site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.
* * *
Next release -- October 29, 2015 at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2015 (Advance Estimate)
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Story 1: The Second Republican Candidates Debate for 2016 Presidential Nomination — And The Winners Are? First Place: Donald Trump, Second Place: Carly Fiorina Third Place Tie: Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — Delegates Count, Debates and Poll Numbers Are Snapshots — Videos
FULL CNN GOP Debate Intro’s By All 11 Top Leading GOP Candidates Sept.16 2015
FULL CNN GOP DEBATE: 2nd CNN Republican Presidential Debate Part 1/5 Sept. 16, 2015
FULL CNN GOP DEBATE: 2nd CNN Republican Presidential Debate Part 2/5 Sept. 16, 2015
FULL CNN GOP DEBATE: 2nd CNN Republican Presidential Debate Part 3/5 Sept. 16, 2015
FULL CNN GOP DEBATE: 2nd CNN Republican Presidential Debate Part 4/5 Sept. 16, 2015
FULL CNN GOP DEBATE: 2nd CNN Republican Presidential Debate FINAL Part 5/5 Sept. 16, 2015
GOP Debate 2015 2nd round CNN Republican debate 9/16/15 presidential debate
Donald Trump takes centre stage and comes under attack from all sides in a fiery debate between the top Republican presidential candidates in the 2016 election.
Donald Trump CNN Debate Highlights
Donald Trump FULL highlights at 2nd GOP debate – PART 2 (9/16/15)
FULL Rand Paul Highlights from CNN GOP Debate
Senator Rand Paul’s full highlights from the CNN Republican Debate where Paul showed how he is different from the other candidates and the strongest on protecting the Constitution. Paul was asked about foreign policy issues, birthright citizenship, Iraq War, marijuana, Ronald Reagan, vaccines, lower taxes, and President Obama’s Iran Deal. Paul was joined on stage with Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker.
Rand Paul: There will be a ‘Reshuffling’ in the Polls | Sean Hannity Fox News
Donald Trump VS Jeb Bush 2016 Presidential GOP Republican National Debate
Main Debate Carly Fiorina vs Donald Trump Sept.16 2015!
Donald Trump OWNS Rand Paul At CNN Gop Debate
Donald Trump vs. The GOP | Republican Presidential Debate Analysis!
Who Won the Second Republican Presidential Debate?
The GOP rivals squared off at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, and a surprising victor emerged.
DAVID A. GRAHAM, YONI APPELBAUM, MOLLY BALL, RUSSELL BERMAN, PRISCILLA ALVAREZ,CONOR FRIEDERSDORF, TYLER BISHOP, MARINA KOREN, AND MATT FORD
What did the nation learn about the Republican candidates on Wednesday night?
First, viewers learned that the presidential contenders are delighted to take swipes at each other all night, if given the opportunity.
Second, they learned that the performance that elevated Carly Fiorina from the happy-hour debate in Cleveland to the main stage at the Reagan Library was no fluke—she’s a skilled speaker.
Third, they learned that the listless performance Jeb Bush delivered last time around was no fluke either. The wounded former frontrunner once again seemed unsure how best to handle the crowded stage or the slugfest the debate became.
What they didn’t learn was a great deal about policy. That was a result of a couple, related problems. First, the rules of the debate allowed anyone who was mentioned by a rival to offer a rebuttal. But that often just led to a sideswipe at a third rival, producing a daisy chain of rebuttals, as the topic of conversation drifted farther and farther away from the original question and toward a series of recriminations already familiar from the campaign trail. Second, and relatedly, the moderators allowed themselves to be rolled over by the candidates over and over—the inmates taking over the asylum, perhaps.
When policy did sneak in, the answers were often predictable: As it happens, the Republican candidates hate Planned Parenthood and the Iran deal; don’t think President Obama has an effective foreign policy; and don’t like ISIS.
But there were some notable moments, especially—surprisingly—on the back nine of the nearly three-hour debate.
A surprising and fascinating fight broke out over the lessons of the Iraq War for foreign policy, as Marco Rubio and Chris Christie represented the hawkish wing of the party, squaring off against Rand Paul, Ben Carson, and Donald Trump, who trumpeted their own opposition to the Iraq War and warned against foreign adventurism. One lesson here is that the Republican Party has a real split over the legacy of the Iraq War. As my colleague Matt Ford noted, there’s a real possibility that the Republican nominee in 2016 will have opposed the war, while the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, voted for it.
A second intriguing moment came as the candidates lined up to bash a somewhat surprising goat: the conservative chief justice of the United States, John Roberts. His Court’s rulings to legalize gay marriage and uphold the Affordable Care Act—the latter of which he supported—have made him a target for activists on the right. Ted Cruz tried to tie Jeb Bush to Roberts, who was appointed by George W. Bush; Bush, in one of his best moments of the evening, quickly turned and cornered Cruz, forcing him to admit he had publicly backed Roberts’s nomination.
Things got weird on taxation, too. Several candidates openly argued for regressive taxation systems; Mike Huckabee espoused the Fair Tax, saying, “We ought to get rid of all the taxes on people who produce,” while Carson decried progressive taxation on the wealthy. But Donald Trump—the Republican frontrunner!—delivered a defense of progressive taxation as a matter of fairness that was clearer and more concise than you’ll hear from almost any Democrat these days.
Of course, this nitty-gritty isn’t what many people were looking for from this debate: They were looking for a fight! (That includes moderator Jake Tapper, who promised, and delivered, confrontation.) They got it. Who came out on top?
Fiorina was the clear winner. She came with a store of zingers, notably directed at Trump. “Mr. Trump said he heard clearly what Mr. Bush said. I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said,” she said of his various misogynistic comments. It was perhaps the first moment in the two debates that Trump seemed truly flustered. More importantly, Fiorina repeatedly delivered clear, crisp, bullet-pointed answers to questions about policy—showing up her rivals, who tended to speak in more sweeping generalities. Often, those proposals didn’t add up once you looked at them closely. For example, her “plan” for Iran involved bringing the rest of the world back around to reinstituting a sanctions regime against Tehran, something that most experts reject as unrealistic. No matter: On a stage where no one seemed as sharp, it was enough to impress.
Ben Carson also delivered a strong performance, again using the calm, affable demeanor that’s become one of his great strengths. He was reassuring and friendly in most cases, and offered details—like explaining the kind of fence he saw in Yuma County, Arizona. He remains shaky on foreign policy, however, meandering through a confusing answer about how he would have responded to 9/11.
But what about Trump, the man everyone was watching? One lesson of the campaign so far is that it’s dangerous to judge his performance’s effects. The other candidates didn’t hesitate to take shots at him, but few besides Fiorina landed clean blows. Meanwhile, Trump maintained his typical demeanor. The frontrunner came out of the gate strong—when the first question invited Fiorina to take a shot at Trump, he used his rebuttal to take on not only her but also Rand Paul, seemingly out of nowhere. Mixing it up works well for him. His answers on policy, especially foreign policy, were characteristically vague or incoherent, but when has that hurt him before? More dangerously for Trump, he seemed to fade from view late in the debate. But if what he’s been doing works for him, this debate seems unlikely to radically affect his trajectory.
Bush seemed mostly to be in disbelief at the things Trump was saying as he stood beside him, and maybe at the temerity of the moderators who made him deal with it. (Understandably.) Bush was up and down, but it’s hard to believe that this was the pugnacious fighter his campaign promised to deliver ahead of the debate. Perhaps his most passionate moment came in defense of his brother, former President George W. Bush. But even that was bumpy: He claimed that his brother “kept America safe” from terror, overlooking 9/11, the one important moment at which Bush did not prevent an attack. Jeb Bush also still doesn’t seem to have a good answer to questions about how he differs from his brother and father, nine months into his candidacy. That’s a problem, given the low esteem in which those two administrations are held by both conservative activists and the general population. Raising his voice for what was clearly intended to be a strong finish, Bush flubbed his lines. This just isn’t a format that works well for him.
The rest of the slate are the candidates who stood to benefit the most from a strong debate performance: those who are muddled in the middle of the field, neither failing nor rising, but not especially buzzy. Marco Rubio, whose stock remains high among political pros but whose polling has stagnated, continues to shine on the debate stage, but never completely broke out. Rand Paul delivered a far stronger performance than he did in Cleveland, mixing it up with Bush and others, though it’s not clear that it matters anymore; he may already be dead in the water. Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Chris Christie also delivered solid performances, but none of them looked like gamechangers. Mike Huckabee rightly complained that he didn’t get many questions, but he didn’t do much with the ones he did field.
The real mystery of the night was Scott Walker. It’s been a rough couple of months for the Wisconsin governor, who was once hailed as a top-tier candidate but has since stumbled and lost his momentum. He’s slipped into single digits in Iowa, which was meant to be his launch pad. Ahead of this debate, Politico even argued that this “might be his last chance.” It’s wise to be wary of such definitive arguments, but Walker did need a strong performance, and he didn’t get it. He often seemed befuddled, didn’t offer many memorable answers, and—perhaps most damningly—seemed to totally vanish from the stage for long periods of time during the debate. Leaving the debate Wednesday, the Walker campaign will have to look for another moment on which to pin its hopes for a turnaround.
CNN’s Republican debate: Winners and losers
Last Modified: Wed Sep 16 2015 22:52:12 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
With expectations low, Bush’s several stand-out moments and overall improvement over his performance in the first debate sealed his spot as one of the night’s winners.
CNN political commentator Amanda Carpenter said Bush’s references to his family were immediately beneficial for him.
“I think the most interesting subtext with Jeb Bush in this debate is his newfound willingness to defend his family,” said the former Ted Cruz aide. “His best moment of the debate I think is when he came out and reminded everyone that his brother kept America safe. On the same hand, I think that will haunt him in the long term because I think tying himself to his brother’s legacy is bad in the long run.”
On Thursday morning, Carpenter said the former Florida governor should have been more forceful in demanding an apology from Trump for comments that real estate developer had made about Bush’s wife in the past.
“He could have been stronger and I think a lot of women were thinking that,” she said on CNN.
While Bush and Fiorina milked their standout moments from their tiffs with Trump, the New Jersey governor snagged his by using a key moment to make his opponents look narcissistic and portrayed himself the adult in the room.
“While I’m as entertained as anyone by this personal back-and-forth about the history of Donald and Carly’s career, for the 55-year-old construction worker out in that audience tonight who doesn’t have a job, who can’t fund his child’s education, I’ve got to tell you the truth. They could care less about your careers, they care about theirs,” Christie said. “Let’s start talking about that on this stage and stop playing — and stop playing the games.”
Earlier in the night, Christie suggested the problem with the debate was “we’re fighting with each other up here” over how to approach defunding Planned Parenthood even though “we agree.”
And that’s when Christie — who’s been accused of being too moderate — gave his best performance yet to prove his conservative credentials.
“She (Hillary Clinton) believes in the systematic murder of children in the womb to preserve their body parts…in the way that maximizes their value for sale for profit,” Christie said.
5 memorable moments from the debate
Trump faced a barrage of attacks from a field of contenders clearly more prepared, and eager, to take on the brash billionaire. Those who pulled punches in the last debate — like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush — didn’t hesitate to tackle Trump, eager to regain their faltering standings in the polls.
The result was mixed as Trump had both memorable highlights and cringe-worthy lowlights. But as the front-runner trying to hold on to the lead as retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson’s numbers grow, it’s difficult to see how Trump wasn’t at least partially wounded by Thursday’s performance.
Trump stumbled in responding to Fiorina’s deft answer to his comments about her face, awkwardly calling her “beautiful” after suggesting her looks would keep Americans from voting for her.
Former Bush aide and CNN political commentator Ana Navarro spoke highly of the move.
“I thought it was brilliant, because he surprised us all with his answer,” she said on CNN. “He shut it down.”
And when Bush attacked him for a “lack of judgment” and “lack of understanding about how the world works,” Trump resorted to an oft-used tactic of tying Bush to his brother’s presidency suggesting that “your brother’s administration gave us Barack Obama because it was such a disaster … that Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have been elected.”
Bush’s quick answer — that his brother kept the country safe — knocked Trump off balance as the crowd roared in approval.
Trump’s stamina tested in GOP debate
However, Trump hit his high notes when he was on the offensive, delivering some of the standard fare that his supporters likely devoured. He said he never attacked Sen. Rand Paul on his looks though “there’s plenty of subject matter right there” — and he took on both Fiorina and Walker’s records with numbers to back his rhetoric.
And as he faced questions over foreign policy and his flubbed response to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, who was one of the debate’s questioners, Trump smartly pivoted to Hewitt, insulating himself from further attacks from his rivals.
Trump managed to escape the main question over his knowledge of various terrorist groups and their leaders by pointing out that Hewitt had recently conceded to a misunderstanding between the two when Hewitt spoke of the Quds Forces, which Trump misheard as “Kurds” — leading to crosstalk between the two, not between Trump and a fellow candidate.
Conservative analyst Mercedes Schlapp said Trump was silent for more than 30 minutes of discussion n serious policy issues.
“There was a point when he was speechless,” she said. “You could tell he was so uncomfortable talking about any of the issues except for immigration.”
Odds of Trump nomination drop after debate
There wasn’t much daylight between the Ohio governor’s first and second debate performances.
But Kasich’s second performance lacked the umpf that defined his first appearance on the debate stage when he barely squeaked into the top-tier and impressed political observers just weeks after launching his candidacy.
Fact-checking the candidates
Paul continued to throw things at the wall on Wednesday — still nothing appeared to stick.
The libertarian-leaning senator from Kentucky once again went for Trump’s jugular. When he was asked whether he would trust Trump with the nuclear codes, Paul gave a firm answer: absolutely not.
But with each attack, Paul failed to do what candidates must do to break out in a debate: Pivot to his own strengths. Instead he simply pointed out Trump’s weaknesses.
Paul’s strongest moments came when he defended his libertarian point of view on foreign military interventions and drug and criminal justice reform. But while those audiences likely played well to his libertarian base of support, Paul appeared the odd one out as he discussed foreign policy amid a field of foreign policy hawks.
Walker came out swinging at the start of the debate, clearly eager to take on the front-runner after dipping in the polls in recent weeks off a strategy that largely avoided confronting Trump.
“We don’t need an apprentice in the White House. We have one there right now,” Walker said of Trump in what was clearly a prepared zinger — one that drew an approving nod from Bush.
Walker then took on Trump’s attacks about his tenure as governor and then defended his opposition to the minimum wage, but soon faded from the stage.
He delivered his responses with more zeal in a performance that topped his first debate night, but didn’t come away from the night with any breakout moments that may prove necessary as Walker looks to regain his footing in the race.
Graphic: Who attacked whom at the debate?
The second Republican debate was all Carson’s for the taking: the retired neurosurgeon’s appearance comes off a recent surge that has rocketed him to the No. 2 spot in the race.
But instead, Carson played it safe, clinging to his calm and measured demeanor, avoiding the food fights unfolding alongside him and injecting his trademark good humor into his responses.
It wasn’t for a lack of opportunities: Carson got several openings to knock Trump, but refused, even when Trump put forward some sketchy scientific backing for his views on vaccines.
A few zingers could have delivered the bump Carson needs to overtake Trump in at least one of the early states where he has been slowly catching up to the billionaire front-runner.
But Carson may get there anyway: his unorthodox appeal on Wednesday shied away from the spotlight-charging moments that often define presidential debates — not unlike his first debate performance.
Mike Huckabee & Ted Cruz
While both delivered solid responses to the questions they received, neither former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee nor Texas Sen. Ted Cruz seized opportunities to stand out on the crowded 11-candidate stage.
They didn’t want to take on Trump and both revealed an unwillingness to engage their fellow candidates on key policy issues.
The result? They faded into the background.
Candidates repeatedly attempted to distance themselves from the Beltway and paint themselves as anti-establishment, said former Obama aide David Axelrod.
“So Washington was a big loser in this debate for sure,” said Axelrod, a CNN senior political commentator.
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Story 1: Donald Trump is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative and Ted Cruz is Hard Core Conservative — Trump/Cruz Ticket? — Conservatives Intellectuals Need To Focus on Results Not Words — The Republican Party Is Not A Conservative Party — Conservatives and Libertarians Voters Have Been Abandoning Both The Democratic and Republican Parties Who Are Bought and Paid For By The Donor Base — The Tyranny of Two Party System — Corrupt Big Government Parties — The Decline and Fall of American Republic — Remembering 9/11 — Videos
History Documentary – World Trade Center attacks, Rise and Fall of the twin towers
911 Jumpers 9/11 in 18 min Plane Crashes Top World Trade Center Towers September 11 Terror Fact Vid
Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles
The Republican Party Has Ceased To be Conservative
Mark Levin • John Boehner’s GOP is NOT a Conservative Party • Hannity • 1/7/15 •
Liberal Party: 10 Reasons You Might Be A Liberal – Learn Liberty
Libertarianism: An Introduction
Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement
Libertarianism | Murray N. Rothbard
Kirzner on Rothbard & Libertarianism
TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism
Jon Stewart’s 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians!
Capitalism Needs Regulation – Why Max Keiser is Correct and Libertarians are Mistaken!
Liberals and Conservatives Will Never Agree – A Conversation with William Gairdner
The History of Classical Liberalism
The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) | Learn Liberty
The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 2) | Learn Liberty
FOX NEWS Hates Conservatives And Are WHAT”S WRONG WITH THE GOP PARTY
Mark Levin Eviscerates Megyn Kelly Fox News
Donald Trump vs. Fox News | Republican Presidential Debate Analysis!
McConnell on Iran Deal: ‘Obama Won Short-Term Battle, But We Won the Argument’
House Spars Over Iran Nuclear Agreement
Dennis Prager’s Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse
State Name Party Score Years in DC Next Election Track State Name Party Score Years in DC Next Election Track
Conservatives and Libertarians
UTSen. Mike Lee R A 100% 4 2016
TXSen. Ted Cruz R A 96% 2 2018
KYSen. Rand Paul R A 93% 4 2016
SCSen. Tim Scott R B 85% 4 2016
NESen. Benjamin Sasse R B 80% 0 2020
GASen. David Perdue R B 80% 0 2020
ALSen. Jeff Sessions R B 80% 18 2020
FLSen. Marco Rubio R B 80% 4 2016
IDSen. Jim Risch R C 78% 6 2020
OKSen. Jim Inhofe R C 77% 28 2020
IDSen. Michael Crapo R C 76% 22 2016
IASen. Charles Grassley R C 72% 40 2016
LASen. David Vitter R C 71% 16 2016
Moderates and Progressives
WISen. Ron Johnson R D 67% 4 2016
ALSen. Richard Shelby R D 66% 36 2016
WYSen. Michael Enzi R D 64% 18 2020
PASen. Pat Toomey R D 63% 10 2016
KSSen. Jerry Moran R D 62% 18 2016
WYSen. John Barrasso R D 61% 8 2018
LASen. Bill Cassidy R D 60% 6 2020
AKSen. Dan Sullivan R D 60% 0 2020
OKSen. James Lankford R D 60% 4 2016
IASen. Joni Ernst R D 60% 0 2020
MTSen. Steve Daines R D 60% 2 2020
ARSen. Tom Cotton R D 60% 2 2020
TXSen. John Cornyn R F 59% 13 2020
NESen. Deb Fischer R F 56% 2 2018
KSSen. Pat Roberts R F 55% 34 2020
OHSen. Rob Portman R F 54% 16 2016
NVSen. Dean Heller R F 52% 8 2018
SDSen. John Thune R F 52% 16 2016
KYSen. Mitch McConnell R F 52% 30 2020
UTSen. Orrin Hatch R F 52% 38 2018
TNSen. Bob Corker R F 51% 8 2018
ARSen. John Boozman R F 50% 14 2016
NCSen. Richard Burr R F 49% 20 2016
INSen. Daniel Coats R F 48% 22 2016
SCSen. Lindsey Graham R F 47% 20 2020
AZSen. John McCain R F 43% 32 2016
NHSen. Kelly Ayotte R F 41% 4 2016
GASen. Johnny Isakson R F 40% 16 2016
NCSen. Thom Tillis R F 40% 0 2020
AZSen. Jeff Flake R F 38% 14 2018
MOSen. Roy Blunt R F 38% 18 2016
MSSen. Thad Cochran R F 33% 41 2020
MSSen. Roger Wicker R F 30% 19 2018
ILSen. Mark Kirk R F 28% 14 2016
NDSen. John Hoeven R F 26% 4 2016
TNSen. Lamar Alexander R F 24% 12 2020
COSen. Cory Gardner R F 20% 4 2020
AKSen. Lisa Murkowski R F 20% 12 2016
SDSen. Mike Rounds R F 20% 0 2020
WVSen. Shelley Capito R F 20% 14 2020
MESen. Susan Collins R F 16% 18 2020 –
– See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard#sthash.7BNr4KT7.dpuf
NATIONAL REVIEW’S JONAH GOLDBERG: ‘COUNT ME OUT’ OF ANY CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT WITH DONALD TRUMP
By BEN SHAPIRO
On Saturday, National Review senior editor Jonah Goldbergpenned a controversial column in which he rejected Donald Trump and his followers from the conservative movement. “Well, if this is the conservative movement now, I guess you’re going to have to count me out,” Goldberg writes.
Goldberg goes on to suggest that the embrace of Trump perverts conservatism itself, broadening the definition of the movement in order to include Trump.
Goldberg, whom I consider a friend and a brilliant commentator, is right to label Trump insufficiently conservative. I have specifically argued that Trump ought not be the nominee thanks to his insufficient conservatism—so has Michelle Malkin, so have numerous other conservative commentators.
But here is the sad truth: Many of the same people appalled by Trump made Trump’s candidacy possible.
Trump is a product of a conservatism-less Republicanism, prepared for and championed by the intellectual elites who told us to ignore Mitt Romney’s creation of Romneycare and
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) 43% ’s campaign finance reform, who told conservatives to shut up and get in line, who explained that conservatives had to throw over Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 96% and his government shutdowns in favor of
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 52% and his pathological inability to take a hard stand against President Obama using the tools at his disposal.
Over at National Review, even as Goldberg condemns Trump for his non-conservatism, another columnist simultaneously urges a ticket with Governor “God Told Me To Use Obamacare Money To Expand Medicaid” John Kasich (R-OH) and Sen. Marco “Immigration Gang of Eight” Rubio (R-FL). Goldberg himself championed Romney’s candidacy because he wasn’t a conservative, writing back in 2012:
Even if Romney is a Potemkin conservative (a claim I think has merit but is also exaggerated), there is an instrumental case to be made for him: It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you. A President Romney would be on a very short leash.
Why wouldn’t the same logic apply to Trump?
And while Goldberg today raps Trump on the knuckles for his support of socialized medicine, going so far as to label opposition to such policy a “core tenet of American conservatism from Day One,” Goldberg used Romneycare as a point in favor of Romney in 2012: “He is a man of duty and purpose. He was told to ‘fix’ health care in ways Massachusetts would like… He did it all. The man does his assignments.”
Goldberg today says that Trump doesn’t deserve to be a part of the conservative movement, and his followers have excised themselves from the conservative community. But in 2012, he warned that anyone saying the same of Mitt Romney threatened the possibility of conservative victory. In 2012, Goldberg explicitly opposed purges and purity tests:
That’s certainly reason enough to be mad at the establishment. But replacing the current leadership with even more ardent, passionate and uncompromising conservatives is far from a guaranteed formula for making the Republican Party more popular or powerful. To do that, the GOP needs to persuade voters to become a little more conservative, not to hector already-conservative politicians to become even more pure as they go snipe-hunting for the Rockefeller Republicans.
What requirements did Mitt Romney, and John Kasich, and John McCain, and Mitch McConnell fulfill that Trump does not? Goldberg is right that Trump has “no ideological guardrails whatsoever” when it comes to taxes and “knows less than most halfway-decent DC interns about foreign policy.” Goldberg could have added that Trump has made an enormous amount of money utilizing eminent domain, that he supports affirmative action, and that he opposes free trade, among other pernicious positions. There is a reason that this weekend full-fledged economic idiot Paul Krugman endorsed Trump’s economic policies.
The question is: Why are so many Republicans backing him? There are two answers: first, he’s tough on illegal immigration, the only issue many conservatives believe matters. The second answer is more telling, however: Trump has heavy support because Republicans rejected ideological purity a long time ago. And here’s the irony: Goldberg and others can’t call Tea Partiers to Jesus on Trump because, according to polls, Tea Partiers don’t support Trump in outsized numbers. The reality is that the same people who don’t like ideological litmus tests support Trump. Just a few weeks back, the Washington Post concluded that Trump’s fans “are more moderate than Tea Partiers were,” significantly more likely to call themselves Republicans than Tea Partiers were, far younger and less religious and blue collar than Tea Partiers.
As Sallah from Raiders of the Lost Ark would put it, “Jonah, you’re digging in the wrong place.”
If you want to target Trump supporters for failing to take conservatism seriously, try starting with those who don’t take conservatism seriously. Most of them were trained in the acceptability of “victory before conservatism” Republicanism by the some of the same folks now deriding the poll-leading Trump.
I’ve lived this story before: I’m from California. Trump is Arnold Schwarzenegger without the Austrian accent. He’s a know-nothing with a huge name and a Teflon personality, and people get behind him because he’s a celebrity and because victory matters more than principle. I know that’s so, because I made the same mistake with regard to Schwarzenegger, explicitly endorsing him in spite of his insufficient conservatism on the grounds that voters in California would get used to voting Republican.
That was a failure. Schwarzenegger was terrible, and what followed him was a shift to radical leftism unthinkable in the early days of his candidacy. I learned that lesson, and in January 2012, I said that the conservative embrace of Mitt Romney would pervert the movement itself, in the same way Goldberg now accuses Trump of perverting conservatism:
Yes, defeating horrible politicians like Barack Obama is the top goal — but that doesn’t justify redefining conservatism entirely…. When we deliberately broaden conservatism to encompass government-forced purchase of health insurance or raising taxes or appointing liberal judges or enforcing same-sex marriage or using taxpayer money to bail out business or pushing trade barriers, we destroy conservatism from within. If we do that, why would our politicians even bother to pay lip service to the standard?
Like Goldberg, I fear the same from Trump: I fear that he’ll be a wild card with no governing principle, that even if he were to win, he’d irrevocably split conservatism. But I also recognize that Trump isn’t a departure for Republicans abandoning principle: he’s the political love child of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, a combination of the non-conservative “victory mentality” and the arrogance of a dictatorial left many conservatives want to see countered with fire.
In sum, I’m happy to welcome establishment Republicans who want to revivify conservative litmus tests to the party. But from now on, let’s be consistent: if we’re going to oust Trump based on his ideology, those requirements can’t be waived for others.
The Words Trump Doesn’t Use
by JIM GERAGHTY
Did you ever think you would see the day when the GOP front-runner rarely uttered the words “freedom” and “liberty”? Perhaps some Republicans can be accused of loving liberty and freedom too much — or at least using those words as rhetorical crutches. Donald Trump is not one of them. The current GOP presidential front-runner rarely uses the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his remarks at all.
Trump didn’t use the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his announcement speech. He didn’t use those words in his Nashville speech on August 29, or his Nashville rally on August 21, or his appearance at the Iowa State Fair on August 15, or his rally and news conference in New Hampshire on August 14, or his news conference in Birch Run, Mich., or his press conference in Laredo, Texas, on July 23.
He didn’t use those words while discussing his signing of the Republican National Committee’s pledge last Thursday, or in his contentious interview with Hugh Hewitt the same day.
Trump did use the term “free-market” once during his Meet the Press interview with Chuck Todd, in a defense of his qualified support for affirmative action: “Well, you know, you have to also go free market. You have to go capability. You have to do a lot of things. But I’m fine with affirmative action.” The word “liberty” didn’t even come up.
This is an unusual vocabulary for a Republican front-runner. It wasn’t that long ago that grass-roots conservatives showed up at Tea Party rallies with signs reading, “Liberty: All the Stimulus We Need.” The Tea Party named itself after an event organized by the Sons of Liberty. The GOP platform declares the party was “born in opposition to the denial of liberty.”
Trump’s lexicon is another indicator of the dramatic shift he would represent in moving the Republican party from a libertarian-leaning one to a populist one. During the Obama era, self-identified libertarians have asked whether the Tea Party and the GOP are truly dedicated to liberty and individual rights, or if their real objection to big government is that it’s controlled by Democrats. The embrace of Trump suggests their skepticism was well-founded.
It’s no accident that Trump has been labeled a populist by outlets across the political spectrum, from The American Interest to NPR. His speeches and off-the-cuff remarks make clear that he doesn’t see the world through the lens of free and unfree; he sees it through the lens of strength and weakness: For me, conservatism as it pertains to our country is fiscal. We have to be strong and secure and get rid of our debt. The military has to be powerful and not necessarily used but very powerful. I am on the sort of a little bit social side of conservative when it comes — I want people to be taken care of from a health-care standpoint. But to do that, we have to be strong. I want to save Social Security without cuts. I want a strong country. And to me, conservative means a strong country with very little debt.
The man whose slogan is “Make America Great Again” doesn’t seem particularly worried about a Leviathan state infringing upon its citizens’ liberties. He sees a disordered society whose people are threatened by violent criminals coming across the border, undermined by poor negotiation in foreign-trade and security agreements, and asked by free-riding allies to shoulder way too much of the burden in a dangerous world.
That philosophy is dramatically different from the liberty-focused message Republicans have become accustomed to since the rise of the Tea Party in 2009. And, at least for now, it has made Trump the front-runner by a wide margin.
| Donald Trump on Abortion
|Click here for 7 full quotes on Abortion OR other candidates on Abortion OR background on Abortion.
- I have evolved on abortion issue, like Reagan evolved. (Aug 2015)
- Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health. (Jun 2015)
- I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice. (Apr 2011)
- I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories. (Apr 2011)
- I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding. (Feb 2011)
- Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion. (Jul 2000)
- Favors abortion rights but respects opposition. (Dec 1999)
| Donald Trump on Budget & Economy
|Click here for 6 full quotes on Budget & Economy OR other candidates on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy.
- If debt reaches $24T, that’s the point of no return. (Jun 2015)
- Prepare for upcoming crash, bigger than 1929. (Jul 2000)
- Optimistic about future of Atlantic City. (Jul 1990)
- Rent control only benefits a privileged minority. (Jul 1987)
- One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt. (Nov 1999)
- Predicts 35% boost to economy from eliminating national debt. (Nov 1999)
| Donald Trump on Civil Rights
|Click here for 5 full quotes on Civil Rights OR other candidates on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights.
- Disinvited from RedState gathering for misogynistic comments. (Aug 2015)
- Political correctness is country’s problem, not my problem. (Aug 2015)
- Same-sex marriage is a state issue. (Jun 2015)
- No gay marriage; no same-sex partner benefits. (Mar 2011)
- Tolerate diversity; prosecute hate crimes against gays. (Jul 2000)
| Donald Trump on Corporations
|Click here for 5 full quotes on Corporations OR other candidates on Corporations OR background on Corporations.
- I’ve used bankruptcy laws to do a great job for my companies. (Aug 2015)
- 2002: Participated in development boom of Jersey City. (Apr 2012)
- 0% corporate tax would create millions of jobs. (Dec 2011)
- Fight crony capitalism with a level playing field. (Dec 2011)
- Wealthy move assets around globally based on tax incentives. (Apr 2011)