||Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
|(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix|
The last time America saw a strong paleo-conservative was Pat Buchanan in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first in New Hampshire. Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment in Arizona and, in terms of paleo-conservatism, many thought he was the Last of the Mohicans. Trump's campaign is Buchananesque with one difference: Trump has money, and loads of it. He can fend off any attack and self-finance his campaign. He is establishment kryptonite. -- by Joseph R. Murray II (Orlando Sentinel, Aug 12, 2015)
|News||Paleoconservatism||Donald Trump -- an unusual fighter against excesses of neoliberal globalization||Recommended Links||Two Party System as Polyarchy||Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA||Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton||Neoliberal Brainwashing -- Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few||Non-Interventionism|
|DNC emails leak: switfboating Bernie Sanders and blaming Vladimir Putin||Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak||Obama: a yet another Neocon||Hillary Clinton email scandal: Timeline and summary||"Clinton Cash" Scandal: Hillary Clinton links to foreign donors and financial industry||Hillary as a pathological liar||Hillary role in Libya disaster||Hillary role in Syria bloodbath||Lock her up movement|
|"Fuck the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place||Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA||Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS||New American Militarism||Media-Military-Industrial Complex||Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich||Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism||Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism||Protestant church on danger of neoliberalism|
|The Iron Law of Oligarchy||Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite||Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners"||Myth about intelligent voter||American Exceptionalism||Libertarian Philosophy||Nation under attack meme||Pluralism as a myth||Bernie Sanders betrayal of his supporters|
|The Deep State||Corporatist Corruption||Predator state||Neocons||Myth about intelligent voter||Resurgence of neo-fascism as reaction on neoliberalism||Corporatism||National Security State||Immigration and free movement of workers|
|Libertarian Philosophy||The Iron Law of Oligarchy||Principal-agent problem||Neoliberalism||US Presidential Elections of 2012||Skeptic Quotations||Humor||Etc|
Immigration and free movement of workers to squash the salaries of existing workforce is the key tenet of Neoliberalism. So any neoliberal candidate who promises to limit it is lying. And Hillary is a pathological liar, no questions about it. See also Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalismThe immigration issue is by-and-large the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's outreach to the black community. Neoliberal MSM partially failed (they overplayed their hand distorting Trump position to fit their goal), partially succeeded (neoliberal brainwashing still works, although not as effectively as in the past)
Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put the press and everyone else on notice: "I have said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop" issue is minor at this point. Of course it is difficult to force neoliberal pressitute to shut up, but that might help. He should avoid bating, like was done in presidential debates and switch the heat on Hillary.
Is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the White House? the answer is no. Moreover not everybody in black community is brainwashed by "change we can believe in" bait and switch from Clinton campaign. Intelligent people see all the hypocrisy and all the rot: Hillary will forget about all her promised the moment she entered While House, much like Obama did.
He also can point out about the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities (and the poor). Democratic Party is as dangerous enemy of poor people and minorities as Republicans. Might be even more because they play the role of wolf in sheep clothing.
Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "employment security matters." While Democrats propose "outsourcing and destroying American jobs, Trump at least acknowledges that problem and promised to do something about it. Hillary Clinton participated in this this process of destruction, and enjoyed doing this (reaping outsize financial benefit from Wall Street in the process).
Mr. Trump must tell directly to the black community (not completely corrupt the black establishment political brokers) that he will try to improve the employment statistics and explain how he plan to achieve that. In this case they will vote for him, not Hillary, who is unrepentant neoliberal and warmonger. Also the black community disproportionally shoulder the cost of imperial war neoliberal administration of king of "bait and switch" Obama launched. Trump wants stop them (although unfortunately Republican party elite will try to co-opt him to support the usual imperial policy). This also can be important factor in attacking black voters.
And black voter, like all other voters need to be assured that they will get some protection from uncontrolled immigration. Temporary restriction on immigration might help is this respect and will be understood by the most electorate.
Likewise, Mr. Trump needs his political base understand the importance of "moving past" those things and fight exaggeration of his positions by neoliberal presstitutes. for example when blocking inflow of illegal immigrants from Mexico is interpreted as blocking Mexicans from entering the USA. Clinton camp is capable on quote dirty tricks in this respect. They are specialists.
Apr 19, 2021 | www.unz.comTucker Carlson Mentions Replacement in the Context of Immigration. Hatred Ensues. KEVIN MACDONALD APRIL 10, 2021 3,200 WORDS 396 COMMENTS REPLY Tweet Reddit 7 Share Share 1 Email Print More 8 SHARES Share to Gab
The ADL, always attuned to any indication that their subjects are getting restless, is insisting that Tucker Carlson be fired. What brought on their ire was Tucker's use of the word 'replacement' in the context of a discussion of Joe Biden's Open Border policy. Mentioning replacement in the context of immigration is pretty much in the same category as doubting that all races have the same potentialities or the official holocaust narrative. Be prepared for hatred. Tucker, as quoted in The Hill :
"I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term 'replacement,' if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate," Carlson said. "But they become hysterical because that's what's happening actually. Let's just say it. That's true.
Of course it's true, and what's being replaced is the traditional White population of the country. But Tucker couldn't say that without even more outrage. So he made it all about the current electorate, which is certainly not just White people.
"I mean, everyone's making a racial issue out of it. Oh, the, you know, white replacement? No, no, this is a voting rights question," Carlson added later, saying changes to the population "dilute the political power" of current registered voters.
This is disingenuous but I suppose it's what you have to say to keep your job in the mainstream media -- and even that might not be enough. Carlson's statement is consistent with his repeated assertions of color-blindness, and he's careful to restrict his comments to illegal immigration. His argument is completely color-blind: "every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter" -- an argument that would apply to any American citizen no matter what their race. "How dare you think I care particularly about White voters!" But isn't it obvious that such an argument would also apply to legal immigration?
Of course the ADL immediately labeled his comments as "white supremacy":
Not clear how replacement theory is "anti-Semitic," but I suppose that Greenblatt considers anything he dislikes as anti-Semitism. After quoting Greenblatt's tweet, The Hill noted that "the ADL head explained that the "Great Replacement" theory "is a white supremacist tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites," linking to a Daily Beast article saying the whole idea was a "racist lie." But how much of a "racist lie" is it when the White population is steadily dwindling, probably to around 60 percent, and the left wants to dramatically increase the rate at which it is dwindling?
Greenblatt also emailed Fox News, writing "Carlson's full-on embrace of the white supremacist replacement theory on yesterday's show and his repeated allusions to racist themes in past segments are a bridge too far. Given his long record of race-baiting, we believe it is time for Carlson to go." This assertion that Carlson is making a "full-on embrace of white supremacist replacement theory" is a bald-faced lie, but obvious lies seem to be more and more common in high places these days -- witness Biden's lie about the new Georgia voting laws as "Jim Crow on steroids." A full-on embrace of "white supremacist replacement theory" would at least reference a specific concern for White people losing political clout. Instead, Carlson religiously repeats his mainstream conservative, color-blind mantras firmly rooted in individualist ideology ("every time they import a new voter "). Officially, he could care less about White people as White people. One wonders if Fox would stand by their most popular talking head if he did come out and just say it. I am pretty sure he believes it.
Officially, Carlson's heart is bleeding for all those Black, Brown, and Asian citizen-voters whose political clout is being diluted. But of course, that would be wildly inaccurate, particularly in the age of identity politics where non-Whites are strongly encouraged to identify with their racial group and do all they can to advance its interests. The collective power of non-Whites is being increased by immigration and everyone knows it, and White political power is decreasing in an age when hatred of Whites is becoming increasingly obvious -- at a time when Critical Race Theory is dominating the educational establishment and corporate board rooms. CRT is a theory that essentially says it's fine for non-Whites to hate Whites while at the same time encouraging White guilt about the supposed sins of their ancestors. One can only imagine the horrors that await a politically powerless White minority.
And it's not just White political power that is waning. There is clearly a program to replace Whites as part of the American elite.
Given the voting behavior of non-Whites, it doesn't make much sense to say that America's non-White voters are being replaced when they are being "replaced" by more non-White voters, although I suppose one could make the argument that the traditional American Black population will have less political clout given that the preponderance of immigrants are from Latin America and Asia. But in any case, they ain't White , and the ADL and the Democrats are quite well aware that all non-White groups strongly skew Democrat. In general, the Democrats are in favor of increased legal immigration, amnesty for illegals, and non-enforcement at the border, all of which are on the table with Biden in the White House and a Democrat Congress. Putting these ideas into law along with allowing no-ID voting would give Democrats more or less immediate and permanent hegemony given that Texas and Florida are the largest destinations of immigrants -- as noted in my comments on the January 6 "insurrection," The Left Will Now Enact Permanent Hegemony. " Their strategy also includes packing the Supreme Court , in case some of their laws are challenged; Biden is already laying the groundwork by establishing a commission packed with a super-majority of liberals .
Biden's immigration plan calls for an increase in "diversity" visas to 80,000 from 55,000 and has an emphasis on family unification -- a code word for chain migration and a bedrock of Jewish attitudes on immigration since the 1920s and continuing up to the 1965 immigration law ( here, p. 283) and beyond. What this means is that one lucky visa recipient from, say, Africa, could bring in his immediate (likely large) family and when they became citizens, they could bring in their brothers and sisters outside the quota limit, who could in turn bring in their spouses and children, etc. All these new people would be able to immigrate outside the quota system for legal immigrants. And all could become citizens.
Tucker Carlson Is a Mass Murdering Terrorist!
Comment on the left has explicitly compared Carlson's mild comments to the manifesto of the Christchurch and El Paso murderers.
I found the above clip from The Daily Show on Max Boot's Twitter feed . Boot, former neocon (i.e., a liberal-leftie masquerading as a conservative active in promoting U.S. fealty to Israel and moving the GOP to the left on social issues). And now, because of obsessive Trump hate, now is firmly and explicitly ensconced on the left at The Washington Post. Boot wrote that Carlson "the top-rated host on Fox "News" Channel, has been attracting attention for a while with his vile rhetoric against immigrants. Yet now he's reached a new low."
As the left-leaning Media Matters for America has chronicled , Carlson has a long history of ugly statements. He has called Iraqis " semiliterate primitive monkeys " and said that Afghanistan is "never going to be a civilized country because the people aren't civilized." He has complained that an influx of poor immigrants " makes our own country poor and dirtier and more divided ." He has repeatedly described immigration as an " invasion ," and called the urgent threat posed by white supremacists a " hoax " and "a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power."
And that new low is that Tucker said something a mass murderer had said, implying, I guess, that if Hitler said the sky is blue, it would be extremely racist for anyone else to say it.
The Guardian noted in 2019 that there were already disturbing parallels between Carlson's rhetoric and that of white supremacist killers in El Paso, Tex., and Christchurch, New Zealand. For example, in one of his books, Carlson wrote: "When confronted or pressed for details, [proponents of diversity] retreat into a familiar platitude, which they repeat like a zen koan: diversity is our strength. But is diversity our strength? The less we have in common, the stronger we are? Is that true of families? Is that true in neighborhoods or businesses? Of course not."
And here is what the fiend who killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques said in his manifesto: "Why is diversity said to be our greatest strength? Does anyone even ask why? It is spoken like a mantra and repeated ad infinitum . But no one ever seems to give a reason why. What gives a nation strength? And how does diversity increase that strength?"
On Thursday night, Carlson moved even closer to white supremacist ideology by explicitly endorsing the Great Replacement theory, which holds that shadowy elites are orchestrating a plot to replace native-born White people with immigrants of color. The New Zealand shooter's manifesto was literally headlined "The Great Replacement," and the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville chanted "Jews will not replace us."
... ... ...
Apr 19, 2021 | www.unz.comTucker Carlson Doubles Down on Replacement, Explicitly Mentions White Replacement, and Targets the ADL's Hypocrisy(!) KEVIN MACDONALD APRIL 14, 2021 2,400 WORDS 411 COMMENTS REPLY Tweet Reddit 13 Share Share 2 Email Print More 15 SHARES Share to Gab
In a previous article I noted that Tucker Carlson's comments on 'replacement' in the context of immigration had unleashed a torrent of hatred from the ADL and the liberal media. When the ADL goes after public figures, the usual response is groveling apology in a typically futile effort to prevent getting ostracized or fired. After all, the ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt had tweeted that Carlson's comments were "anti-Semitic, racist, and toxic." Accusations of racism -- and especially anti-Semitism -- are pretty much a death sentence for anyone so accused.
So I was gratified that Carlson didn't back down. Indeed, he doubled down, with a 20-minute opening monologue elaborating on exactly why the Democrat Party is completely wedded to importing a new electorate and has been doing so for decades. He also mentioned that Whites (and Blacks) are being replaced as voters, that the entire project is immoral, and he called out the hypocrisy of the ADL. As he notes, it's not about compassion as usually advertised, but about power. And everyone with any brains knows it.
To date, Carlson's monologue is the most powerful and most explicit statement in the mainstream media that Whites -- as Whites -- have an interest in immigration. Indeed, a vital interest. In making his argument, he discussed states like California and Virginia that have become reliably Democrat because of immigration, and he mentions Vermont that is now blue because of disenchanted New Yorkers who brought their politics with them when they moved there. He says the same thing is happening to Montana and Idaho as yoga instructors, Google vice-presidents, and assorted rich White folks leave California for greener pastures. It will happen to your state. And the result will be permanent hegemony of the left because the imported electorate are reliable clients of the Democrat Party. 'Client' is the right word (from the Latin for 'dependent') because these people come to the U.S. for better pay and all the free stuff -- medical care, welfare if they have children, and the promise of eventual citizenship and the right to bring in their relatives. This description applies at least to the Mexicans, Central Americans, and Africans who have flooded our shores (that IQ thing again). They remain toward the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and dependent on the government. Hence reliably Democrat. California went from being the envy of the world to having poverty levels on par with Mississippi. Without explicitly mentioning Whites, he notes that the middle class is leaving in droves, resulting in the cost of a U-Haul being five times higher for people leaving the state as for entering. He portrays the middle class as one of the victim groups of the Great Replacement as America is transformed into a society with a hostile, ultra-wealthy elite who are politically supported by a dependent mass of Democrat voters.
Tucker also doubled down on his voter-replacement logic, but this time he was explicit about White people's vote being replaced, noting that Whites went from 90 percent of Californians to 30 percent since 1960, which means that how White people vote matters much less than it used to. It's shocking to hear someone in the mainstream media claim that Whites and their vital interests are victims of the immigration tsunami. One can easily imagine a situation where, even if White Californians woke up (far too many are still drinking the Kool-Aid), they couldn't win a statewide election. And that's the whole point. Permanent hegemony.
But because the interests of Whites are definitely not supposed to be paramount, he emphasized that Blacks in California have also been losing political clout rapidly, with very large declines in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. In my previous article, I noted that the voter replacement argument doesn't apply so much to Blacks because the people replacing them have pretty much the same politics. But I stand corrected. Identity politics has changed everything. Black Californian politicos like Maxine Waters, Willy Brown, and Kamala Harris may well become a thing of the past. Harris was replaced by Alex Padilla, a Latino, after being elevated to the vice-presidency, a result that was not warmly greeted by the Black political establishment.
California progressives had pushed [Gov. Gavin] Newsom to appoint Representative Barbara Lee [who is Black] or another like-minded Democrat. Mr. Newsom was also under pressure to appoint a Black woman to take the place of Ms. Harris, the only Black woman in the Senate. Representative Karen Bass and Ms. Lee were at the top of that list. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus strongly backed Mr. Padilla. The L.G.B.T.Q. community and Equality California lobbied for Robert Garcia, the mayor of Long Beach. Black Women United, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, and a range of Black elected officials pushed for Ms. Bass or Ms. Lee.
As Blacks become less of a demographic force, they will also become less of a political force. There will be less official sympathy for Black issues like BLM, reparations, dealing with criminals, and centering on Black grievance in the educational system.
Tucker also did some dog-whistling on Jewish involvement by mentioning Michelle Goldberg's NYTimes op-ed, " We can replace them, " which celebrates replacing the White electorate by doing a screen shot of Goldberg's statement: "The potential is there; Georgia is less than 53 percent non-Hispanic White." He didn't mention Goldberg's ethnicity, but anyone who knows anything about the media knows she is a strongly identified Jew writing for a Jewish-owned publication that is the crown jewel of the elite liberal-left media. As Tucker noted, Goldberg is "a New York Times columnist, not some QAnon blogger."
The left pretends that demographic replacement is an obsession on the right, but in fact, it's an obsession on the left. "It's the central idea of the modern Democratic Party." So true. And so refreshing to hear it in the mainstream media.
As always, the left pretends that their plan to replace the White population is a moral imperative. In 2019 then-Senator Harris condemned Trump's plan to deport illegals on the basis that Trump was trying to "remake the demographics of the country"; she tweeted that such actions are "deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values." Of course, the left would never think of remaking the demographics of the country!
What's immoral -- and obviously so -- is the left's scheme to remake the electorate in opposition to the legitimate interests of the traditional White majority. Tucker confronted the issue head-on, turning the tables on the leftist moralizers by framing their actions as "cheating." This is an important message for Whites to hear. What is happening to the White population of America is profoundly immoral. It's an important message because we Whites are uniquely prone to framing our actions in moral terms. As often discussed here, a major weakness of uniquely individualist culture characteristic of the West is that individualists are highly prone to forming moral communities rather than kinship-based communities typical of the rest of the world. It's a very exploitable weakness, and our hostile elites have taken full advantage by defining the legitimate interests of Whites as immoral, as Greenblatt and Harris do. Moral communities are fine as long as they serve the community's interests, and in the long history of the West, they have indeed been a strength. But the problem now is that the people who define the moral communities of the West since World War are the hostile elite who have shaped academic and media culture, i.e., strongly identified Jews and Jewish-owned mainstream media like the New York Times. So now a substantial proportion of Whites think it's a moral imperative to replace the White population. No other culture anywhere at any time has ever felt a moral imperative to replace its founding population.
However, the best part about Tucker's monologue was that he confronted the ADL directly by highlighting their lack of principle. Confronting any powerful Jewish organization is virtually unheard of in American media and political culture where groveling, apologies, and firing are the norm. And he chose a particularly glaring weakness in Jewish rationalizations of the adversarial culture they have championed in the U.S.: Jewish hypocrisy in claiming the moral high ground in America by insisting that any opposition to immigration is racist and hence immoral, while legitimizing Israel's ethnocentric immigration policy because it threatens the legitimate interests of its Jewish population. In fact, these activist Jews are consummate ethnic nationalists -- exactly what they condemn in White Americans. White Americans deserve just what the ADL and the rest of the activist Jewish community want for Jews, a safe homeland that remains theirs.
Granted, Carlson didn't mention that the ADL was leading the charge against him, but anyone paying the least bit of attention to this episode knows damn well that the ADL is leading the campaign against him. Carlson quoted from the ADL website:
With historically high birth rates among Palestinians, and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be a minority in a bi-national state, thus ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be politically -- and potentially physically -- vulnerable. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the Jewish population to expect the state of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and national identity and become a vulnerable minority in what was once its own territory.
This is another recurrent theme on TOO -- that the traditional White majority will become a hated and oppressed minority ( 58 articles ) because of the immigration of non-Whites in a culture dominated by an elite with a long history of hatred toward the White majority of the U.S. We already see a multitude of examples of hatred toward Whites emanating from the elite media, liberal-left politicians, and just ordinary non-Whites (like this one from James Edwards on Twitter), and hate crimes against Whites are ignored or quickly buried. Why would anyone think this will stop if and when Whites become a minority? It will increase. But the ADL thinks that Jews, who have been and continue to be the leading force enacting a multicultural United States, beginning with their influence in passing the 1965 immigration law , should retain sovereignty in Israel because ceding sovereignty would be dangerous for Jews. This is massively hypocritical, as Tucker implies, and he invited Greenblatt on his show to explain why the same principles that he champions for Israel should not exist in the United States. I rather doubt that will happen.
In fact, Greenblatt repeated his attacks on Carlson in a letter to Fox News , demanding that he be fired while never mentioning that Carlson had broached the hypocrisy of the ADL. Pretty clearly he wants to avoid the issue like the plague. Fox News CEO Lachlan Murdoch responded with a typical mainstream media mantra: "Fox Corporation shares your values and abhors anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism of any kind." But he rejected the argument that Carlson had endorsed "anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism," retreating to Carlson's original voting rights argument. Always a safe move to refuse to avoid issues that vitally affect White America by presenting them in non-racial terms.
In his letter to Murdoch, Greenblatt claimed that Carlson "did not accidentally echo these talking points; he knowingly escalated this well-worn racist rhetoric. At a time of intense polarization, this kind of rhetoric galvanizes extremists and lights the fire of violence."
Intense polarization indeed. That's what happens when there is a powerful attempt to dispossess the founding population of the country. Ultimately the polarization is a result of Jewish activism which has been a necessary condition for the immigration and multiculturalism that is tearing the country apart.
Greenblatt thinks that Tucker's message will galvanize "extremists." Let's hope that it does indeed galvanize the White population. In any case, it's important for Carlson to not let this issue drop. It was courageous of him to broach the issue, but it needs to be repeated, just as the messages of the left on race and multiculturalism are continually repeated on TV, movies, print media, and throughout the educational system.
The message of White replacement is powerful. As I noted in Chapter 8 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition :
Individualists are less naturally ethnocentric, and the left has created a culture that encourages Whites to inhibit expressions of ethnocentrism while encouraging non-Whites to be ethnocentric. Because the media is dominated by the left and because even the conservative media is terrified of appearing to advocate White interests, explicit messages that would encourage Whites to become angry and fearful about their future as a minority are rare [and when they occur, they are subjected to vicious attacks, as has happened to Carlson]. Indeed, the media rarely, if ever, mentions that Whites are well on their way to becoming a minority. And this for good reason: Whites in the United States and in Canada who are given explicit demographic projections of a time when Whites are no longer a majority tend to feel angry and fearful. They are also more likely to identify as Whites and have sympathy for other Whites. 
In other words, while I have emphasized the ability of the higher brain centers to inhibit ethnocentrism, explicit messages indicating that one's racial group is threatened are able to trigger ethnocentrism. This is especially important because many Whites live far from the areas of their countries undergoing the demographic shifts. Their day-to-day life of living in an essentially White environment hasn't changed while the population centers of New York, California, Toronto, and Vancouver have changed beyond all recognition from what they were 50 years ago. An obvious inference to be made is that pro-White activists should appeal to Whites' higher brain centers with explicit messages emphasizing these transformations.
White replacement is our most powerful message. Let's hope Tucker continues to repeat it. We certainly will.
 H. Robert Outten, Michael T. Schmitt, and Daniel A. Miller, "Feeling threatened about the future: Whites' emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2011): 14–25.
goldgettin , says: April 15, 2021 at 4:12 am GMT • 3.9 days agoRobert Dolan , says: April 15, 2021 at 4:27 am GMT • 3.9 days ago
Go Tucker Go.There is a lot of room to advance on this front. It shouldn't take much more to expose the complete hypocrisy of their argument,but what has being right got to do with it? We're talking about trillions upon trillions of "wealth,"not, "debt" and the self absorbed,egotistical materialists will do everything under the sun to continue ignoring reality,i.e.humanity.Money is "the GOD"and nobody should get in the way of "the PROPHET$" that assumed divine authority after the black book was written.Gold, diamonds,private jets,yachts,islands and lots of "faithful followers" to do all the work. They will assassinate anything that threatens "THIS"religion,good luck.follyofwar , says: April 15, 2021 at 5:23 am GMT • 3.8 days ago
Tuck has the moral high ground ..not only are we being replaced ..but Greenblatt's buddies GLOAT openly about our replacement ..that doesn't really seem like being a light unto the nations.Apex Predator , says: April 15, 2021 at 5:26 am GMT • 3.8 days ago
For a long time, Tucker has been more than just a political talk show host. He's become a Man on a Mission; even more so since Biden's enablers stole what was left of our "democracy," and fixed November's election. Will Fox fire him due to growing Corporate and Jewish pressure, or will the Murdoch's continue to have the guts to back him?
No one can know for sure. But Tucker, to a large extent, has Fox News over a barrel. He's even recently expanded his reach, with his newest show on the subscription based Fox Nation, where he is able to do long form interviews without commercial interruption. The Murdoch's must be keenly aware that, if they fire their number one ratings star, they've just flushed their consistently most watched cable news network down the toilet.
There's another huge issue, never mentioned on TV except with derision, that I'd love to see Tucker address one day soon: SECESSION! It's the only way forward.stevennonemaker88 , says: April 15, 2021 at 7:07 am GMT • 3.8 days ago
I think ol' Tucker may have bit off more than he can chew on this one. He touched the 3rd rail pretty strongly on live TV and Big Jew doesn't like that whatsoever. Given that Israel is supported by both right leaning Neocons and the more liberal Jonathan Greenblatts of the world his days may truly be numbered now.Nicolas Bonnal , says: Website April 15, 2021 at 7:15 am GMT • 3.8 days ago
Tucker does a good job of poking holes in idiotic liberalism. However, I think it is interesting that almost no one mentions the elephant in the room, which is that whites went from a fertility rate of 3.7 to 1.7 in the space of 60 years. Americans in general started murdering their babies, and swallowed all the jewish lies and "isms" hook, line and sinker. That is why you have lost your country. The brown tide is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The problem is a nation given over to greed, foolishness, and perversion.Anonymous  Disclaimer , says: April 15, 2021 at 7:15 am GMT • 3.8 days ago
Bravo Kevin et bravo Tucker. Ceux qui vont mourir vous saluent.
https://nicolasbonnal.wordpress.com/stevennonemaker88 , says: April 15, 2021 at 7:16 am GMT • 3.8 days ago
Since she first appeared as a talk show host on MSNBC during Obama's first presidential campaign, Rachel Maddow has been bragging about how Democrats were going to ascend to a permanent majority in the Congress and permanently control the presidency by virtue of unhindered "minority" migration into this country. The concept had been floated before by numerous analysts and even termed the "Reconquista" which Hispanic spokespersons enthusiastically embraced as the rightful recovery of their stolen patrimony from the Gringos.
I distinctly recall Maddow gloating about this anticipated outcome night after night while she demeaned the incipient shrinkage of a "rump Republican Party" to complete irrelevance when this desired scenario came to pass. She spoke excitedly about recruiting not only the tidal wave of Hispanic migrants into the Democratic fold to cohabit with the long loyal blacks, but also assumed that every foreigner, including all Orientals, East Indians, Middle Easterners and Black Africans should naturally ally with the liberal Dem philosophies: literally every immigrant but White Europeans (the "Eurotrash") would be a part of the coming new Democratic Golden Age.
Nobody on the left ever thought of calling her and her bigoted ideas to be "racist," and she is never called out for being "racist" when she spouts her totally hysterical over-the-top Russophobia (or is "Russophrenia" a more correct descriptor?). Why doesn't the ADL pick a bone with her while they are attacking Tucker Carlson who has always been much less excitable and far more logical that Maddow even when she is sober and not fixing mixed drinks on air.brabantian , says: April 15, 2021 at 7:27 am GMT • 3.7 days ago
I am also amazed that he pointed out the hypocrisy of Israel and the ADL live on the air!
Tucker is on fire. He's gone radical on covid, too, suggesting the US government knows the vaccines don't work and is intentionally hiding that, with a conspiracy behind the idea of demanding people continue to wear masks and stay apart (this article takes that negatively):
Screenshot of some of the recent Tucker statements relevant to above article (should be able to click to enlarge)
Apr 19, 2021 | www.msnbc.com
A newly formed "America First Caucus" in Congress, supported by a few far-right Republicans in the House of Representatives, is looking to recruit new members with an old set of arguments.
These white nationalist tropes found a receptive audience in the American people.
Its platform, now circulating in Washington, is little more than a retread of the white nationalist screeds of the 1910s and 1920s.
"America is a nation with a border, and a culture, strengthened by a common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon traditions," asserts the section on immigration. "History has shown that societal trust and political unity are threatened when foreign citizens are imported en-masse into a country."
A century ago, these same sorts of arguments about the "Anglo-Saxon" character of the United States and the threat that "foreign" elements would bring to its politics and culture were quite widespread.
... ... ...
The popular panic over immigration and the pseudo-scientific justifications for nativism and racism came together in the push for the National Origins Act of 1924, a quota-based measure that drastically reduced immigration from southeastern Europe and banned all Asians from immigrating entirely.
Kevin M. Kruse
Kevin M. Kruse is a professor of history at Princeton University. A specialist in modern American political, social and urban/suburban history, he is the author and editor of several books, including "White Flight" (2005), "One Nation Under God" (2015) and "Fault Lines: A History of the United States since 1974" (2019). He grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, and earned his bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his master's and doctoral degrees from Cornell University.
Mar 22, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org
vk , Mar 21 2021 19:30 utc | 37
The face of the Asian immigrant to the USA:
Ying Ma: "All Chinese Americans should denounce China for infecting the world with the China virus."
Contrary to the previous immigrants - who were economic immigrants (not religious immigrants, as the official history of the USA states) - the post-war immigrants to the USA are all political immigrants. They're the remnants of South Vietnam, Kuomintang, South Korea, Mensheviks, Refuseniks, Zionism, Batista's Cuba, Latin American comprador elites. I remember that once Hugo Chávez or the then president of Ecuador claimed that in Florida alone were more than 2,000 wanted people (most of them compradores and generals) enjoying political refugee status.
The only exception to the rule are the Mexican immigrants and some Central American immigrants (El Salvador, Guatemala in some cases), which had their economies dollarized or devastated by the advent of NAFTA, and were by chance close to the USA's territory.
Nov 07, 2020 | www.unz.com
Frank frank , says: November 7, 2020 at 9:33 am GMT • 8.1 hours ago@Beckow ow quality Indian workers far less interesting to the profiteers that then get the same low quality code and have to pay white/east Asian male wages.John Achterhof , says: November 7, 2020 at 12:50 pm GMT • 4.8 hours ago
It's funny how the tech companies are all about diversity until it means higher costs.
It will also be funny when the token blacks people hiring programs by the tech companies mean that peak-diversity signaling, token hire Jamal realizes he'll be working with nothing but Indians that hate anyone would who is not brainwashed by Jewish propaganda and speak nothing but Hindi to each other and whom you can't understand when they actually try to speak English,@Beckowbomag , says: November 7, 2020 at 12:56 pm GMT • 4.7 hours ago
Excellent analysis, entirely plausible. Lacking any survey of broad opinion, I'm apt to project my own view as Trump's Waterloo: that while the political damage of poorly managing the pandemic was mostly washed out by the emerging view that the economic damage (including the rioting) of the severe course favored by the left has been more harmful than the virus, a decisive fraction of his core demographic nevertheless arrived at the view – despite the ceaseless scolding insistence of this by much of mainstream media – that their president is indeed glaringly ill-suited for public office.@BeckowOld and Grumpy , says: November 7, 2020 at 1:00 pm GMT • 4.7 hours ago
Clearly helping the white male workers has not been a priority. So he lost.
So, the choice was between someone who did nothing, and someone who promised to take even more away from them.
Such voters stay home as a protest, not go out and actively make things worse for themselves.
Suspect that their non-votes were harvested by the Machine.PolarBear , says: November 7, 2020 at 1:40 pm GMT • 4.9 hours ago
Perhaps it is due to living near Philly, but there is always fraud. Democrats are good at it, and Republican Inc. loves it. Can't have any honest, straight shooter interrupt the long standing political graft. Of course the Donald isn't really an honest man. Had he kept that 5% of the 2016 white male vote, any cheating would have been impossible. But hey we have still have Israel first with President Kamala. Whew on that. However I don't look forward to being uncomfortable in my house due to the Paris Accords mandates.
In defense of Maga, there are so many professional agitators in their ranks besides Qanon. Call them dumb, but they really desperate for something called hope. Maybe that is the reason I tend to think Trump was the bait to reel them in for the sporting catch and kill.@prime noticer Trump's a business man, not a career politician like Biden or Hillary. The system wants the latter. Soros funds BLM, antifa, ect. It's safe to say the system was against Trump. Much of his own party of sellout politicians weren't with him. Trump got through the cracks once, the deep state wasn't going to let that happen again. To get 8 years in office you have to be a total puppet. The Bush's, Clinton, and Obama were all hand-picked puppets. Trump wasn't in the club. Trump as President was an accident they had clean up, even if he was more than willing to betray the White men that voted him in and submit to the beast.Trinity , says: November 7, 2020 at 2:18 pm GMT • 4.3 hours agoTMJ , says: November 7, 2020 at 2:34 pm GMT • 4.0 hours ago
It is obvious why (((they))) wanted Trumpstein out, Trumpstein, despite being a cuckold to the Zionist was threatening to bring our brave young men and women home, protect our borders, and his base was about 98% White at the lowest. And many of those were common everyday working class Whites, you know, the people who really made America great, the people who actually grow food, build buildings, work and produce automobiles in factories, drive trucks, you know jobs that are REAL JOBS, JOBS THAT ACTUALLY PRODUCE SOMETHING.
(((They))) didn't really hate Trump, they hated the typical Trump voter. Actually it has already been pointed out, Trump did very little for the average White other than give them hope, he really didn't deliver that much. Trump became uber popular by just giving the people crumbs, now can you imagine how popular a man or woman will be when they come out of nowhere and give the people the hundred per cent truth. It will take a fearless man or woman, someone with nothing left to lose, because that is the way it has always been. I NEVER expected Trump to do much, after all, this guy is the typical NYC businessman, think of who this guy has had dealings with in his lifetime, hell, look at his in-laws. For all his, "I am not a politician" rantings, Trump spent his life around politicians and pictures are all over the place with Trump & Bill Clinton golfing together, Trump and Ghislane, Trump & Epstein, Trump with his friend Baby Nut&Yahoo, etc. Sounds like the typical politician to me. Trump was NEVER a man of the people and it will take a real man of the people to set things right in America.@Ano4 emonized, censored, attacked, and even murdered. I am glad to have sat this one out, between who knows how many men like me and those 5% we brought this supposed contest to a standstill and caused a nation of cope.Trinity , says: November 7, 2020 at 4:58 pm GMT • 1.6 hours ago
Wignats gave him 2016 and we turned 2020 into a shitshow in answer to his betrayal. Trump only has himself to blame for doing almost nothing to stop censorship, clean up the FBI/DOJ, prosecute Antifa, end birthright citizenship, end H1B, so many other opportunities squandered. Trump supporters should start working toward something productive for their interests.Emslander , says: November 7, 2020 at 5:24 pm GMT • 1.2 hours ago
Harris/Biden like Trump/Pence are Israel Firsters, so really all this hoopla over a transition is not really called for when you think about it. Matter of fact, the 1st and 2nd Amendment will continue to be under attacked just like it was with Trumpstein, now more than ever. Anti-White racism will continue until Whites start standing up for their rights the same way as everyone else. Trumpstein was never the savior for America, face it. Maybe things will become so bad IF Harris/Biden take over that this country and Whites will gain a spine again. Until then, new boss, same as the old boss, more or less. Still as bad as the Orange Man was, IF you are "White" and voted for Harris/Biden, you have to be legally retarded. Thanks to all the WINOs and white traitor trash out there. Brilliant you bunch of retards.Zarathustra , says: Next New Comment November 7, 2020 at 5:40 pm GMT • 54 minutes ago
A nice splash of cold water on the sadly losing side in the 2020 election. What you say is mostly true. There are some significant points you don't acknowledge, such as the idea that massive numbers of mailed ballots will certainly result in unauthorized votes being counted. It's hard to say how many that is, but I suspect, like you, that it can't have made a difference of hundreds of thousands across all the states necessary for a Trump victory.
Blame the phony virus for most of these results and I insist that shutdown policies have been a gross overreaction designed to make Trump powerless to campaign.
Finally, one simply has to admit that Trump was unprepared to be an effective President and never learned how. Saying things that sound populist over and over isn't governing.
We have a nice wall that's 400 miles long down on the Mexican border and that's about it. At some point in the fast approaching future, it will have a plaque on it saying, "I am Ozymandias Trump. Look on all that I survey."Ghali , says: Next New Comment November 7, 2020 at 5:56 pm GMT • 38 minutes ago
What kind of pathetic miserable 17 intelligence agencies, with support of democratic party and Judenpresse would be , if they would not be able to fix the election such way that their mischief cannot be found. And on top of it Covid with mail in voting was a surefire help.
But than you sleep in the bed you make.
Very misleading and dis-informative post. It ignores the Democrats' history of fraudulent elections and manipulation of Americans. From the beginning and before the elections, the Democrats said that they will do everything to remove Trump from the White House, by violence if necessary.
In reality, the only times the Democrats won fair elections were by JFK and Obama recently. The reasons were because of the efficient and highly successful advertising campaigns (propaganda) to manipulate Americans. In fact, Obama won a prize for his efficient advertising campaign to con Americans and "win" the elections. He was far more criminal than his predecessors.
Oct 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
c1ue , Oct 23 2020 15:31 utc | 120
You do realize that H1B is literal indentured servitude, right?
And that its purpose is nothing more than cheap(er) labor for the tech companies?
I know many people on H1B, as well as several people who specialize in H1B "hiring".
The good news: many of these people are smart and capable.
The bad news: they're stuck at the companies they start at for 7 years or more - and are paid significantly (20% to 50%) under "market". If they leave, their green card process starts anew even assuming they find another H1B sponsor.
More bad news: there are also a significant number of "body shops" who do nothing but enter the lottery for H1B visas, then auction off the "wins" to the tech companies. The H1B people in these situations are far worse off because they work for the "body shop", not the tech company.
Most importantly: H1B, even at its peak, brought in less than 200K people (188K by law).
In comparison: in 2017 - legal immigration was
Family and Immediate Relatives: 748,746
Refugees and Asylees: 146,003
Diversity and Other: 94,563
Total Visas Issued: 1,127,167
Over 1.1 million people came in legally without the H1B.
Sep 11, 2020 | www.realclearpolitics.com
Stephen Miller vs. CNN's Jim Acosta: You Have Revealed Your "Cosmopolitan Bias" Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date August 2, 2017
White House counselor Stephen Miller and CNN's Jim Acosta clash at the Wednesday press briefing focused on the administration's new immigration proposal:
RELATED: Stephen Miller vs. CNN's Jim Acosta: U.S. Immigration Policy Has Never Been Dictated By Statue Of Liberty Poem
Jun 24, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
JohnnyGL , June 22, 2020 at 6:25 pm
You inspired me to peruse the website of Current Affairs. I bumped into this https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/04/should-we-just-open-the-borders
A bit off topic, but, personally, I'd really appreciate it if the Current Affairs-Jacobin crowd would drop the childish open-borders fantasy stuff.
Marx himself figured out what the immigration game was all about back in the mid-1800s, why do those who purport to represent the working class seem so intent on unlearning what was patently obvious back then and continues to be so, today?
Yes, I get we all like to meet different people, learn up close about different cultures, cuisines, and all that, but let's be clear-eyed that there's a cost to those things. It comes in the form of rising rents/property prices and gentrification, disinvestment in the labor force (why train workers when you can just import replacements?), degradation in local environment.
Also, can we stop strip-mining the human capital of other countries?
Let's focus more on creating a right to 'stay in place' instead of 'freedom of movement' fantasy stuff which sounds more like a right to tourism or something weird like that.
Anyway, rant over
WJ , June 22, 2020 at 7:04 pm
We need fewer Nathan Robinsons and a lot more Angela Nagles and Amber A'Lee Frosts
JohnnyGL , June 22, 2020 at 11:47 pm
Nathan Robinson on June 15th: "I don't believe the American left has lost its mind"
Also Nathan Robinson, June 19th:
"I have regretfully come to the conclusion that The Hill, owned by one of Trump's close personal friends, puts on Rising mainly for the purpose of trying to trick leftists into softening on Trump & see nationalist racists as preferable to moderate Democrats"
Wow that is flat out ridiculous how stupid does he think people are?
Mr. House , June 23, 2020 at 9:27 am
Have you talked to people in public lately? They can't understand how you can be against both republicans and democrats. Then spend the next hour trying to convince you to vote democrat. Orrrrr they storm off in a fit.
casino implosion , June 23, 2020 at 5:55 am
And Aimee Tereses and Anna Khachiyans.
JBird4049 , June 22, 2020 at 8:44 pm
Neoliberalism's support of very open boarders for both finance and labor arbitrage is assumed to be always good because the American and English nomenklatura and their apparatchiks implicitly. very often without any real thought, believe in the ideology of neoliberalism. So, while there is often manipulation by whatever hidden authority is doing it, most of the time there is no need. The writers have brainwashed themselves into ignorance. 2+2=5
anon in so cal , June 22, 2020 at 10:14 pm
One of the groups that suffers most from open borders is African Americans. If Blacks in Los Angeles, for example, lacked a college degree, they could nevertheless earn decent wages in various sectors including construction and janitorial work, as two examples. Illegal immigration ended that.
Daniel Raphael , June 22, 2020 at 9:11 pm
Borders are a problem only when capitalism prevails. Note the problems/objections you cited having to do with wages, property prices, and other "market" features that would not apply under socialism. When people rule themselves cooperatively and share the wealth that presently is stolen from them and used against them, the problem of borders will cease to be a problem.
WJ , June 22, 2020 at 9:29 pm
The problem I have is that, even assuming you're correct, the utopian socialist crew somehow thinks that open borders is compatible, in the actual capitalist world we live in, with forwarding the interests of the working class. It's just not.
Anarcissie , June 22, 2020 at 10:34 pm
Certainly 'open borders' are not compatible with anyone's interests because they're a contradiction in terms. The capitalists see the border (the real border, not the mythical 'open border') as a kind of valve which can be opened or shut as their interests require. It also provides for ways of further disadvantaging certain portions of the working class and thus reducing their wages and eliminating their rights. So the institution of the border turns out to be a kind of variable form of coercion, as well as a myth to build racist and classist politics on.
Lambert Strether Post author , June 23, 2020 at 3:55 am
> So the institution of the border turns out to be a kind of variable form of coercion
Has it occurred to you that coercion works because it causes real harms?
GettingTheBannedBack , June 22, 2020 at 10:05 pm
The media is more fascinating by the day if you try not to take it seriously. Really.
Trying to deconstruct who is the real audience, what is the underlying message (aka dog whistle), how is the media doing plausible deniability, who is the real source (who is the piece written to serve) and what is the motivation for the piece could take whole PhDs to figure out sometimes.
And it's hard because I have biases, like everyone I guess, which can get in the way. Every few days I get a lightbulb moment on something and that is fascinating.
But at the bottom of every media pronouncement is the money, so follow the money and the power. Not so easy sometimes because the real hallmark of the powerful is the ability to pay for invisibility. My CEO used to say that he had no real power. Now, he knew how to operate.
Clive , June 23, 2020 at 4:05 am
Yes, this is now my approach. I still watch and read widely, but never (or hardly ever) in the expectation that I'll either learn something or get told anything even vaguely related to the unvarnished truth.
Much more interesting (but as you say, requiring adroit mental gymnastics and prone to all sorts of misdirection) is trying to work out the answers to the inevitable questions:
-- Why am I being shown this at this time ?
-- What narratives are intended to be constructed by this "story"?
-- Who is trying to influence me and why, into doing (or refraining from doing) what?
-- Is it a false-flag or should it be taken at face value?
-- Is it supportive of existing norms or trying to change them (or, the old favourite stand-by "controlled opposition")?
-- Is it organic (highly, highly unlikely) or is it the latest exciting instalment of the ongoing oligarch v. oligarch grudge match?
-- What messaging / influencing technique is being employed (fear, guilt, appeal to ethics, tribalism, family values et. al.)?
The last is usually the most intriguing. Is this the family-favourite Soros v. Putin title fight? A Bill Gates v. Trump proxy war? The Clinton Democrats-in-name-only leftist faction v. whoever Sanders constituency actually is? Globalist Internationalism capitalists v. disaster capitalists?
I was going to write the following sentence at this point:
"Someone should publish " Top Trumps " (no irony intended) so we can all work our way around who's who in all this
But then, can you believe it, reality trumped me because some wisecracker beat me to it . Of course, the political power players Top Trumps pack really needs additional categories to make it realistic. "Number of SuperPACs", "$Billions Grifted", "Brown People in Far Away Places Blown to Pink Mist Total in Office", "Media Outlets Owned", "MSM Actors on the Payroll" etc. etc. etc.
Off The Street , June 23, 2020 at 9:58 am
Your inevitable questions should be in school curricula.
Tom Finn , June 23, 2020 at 12:40 pm
Thank you Clive for enunciating and listing so clearly the mental editing of reporting that I too have been doing for decades.
My only addition: __'Who profits from this being accepted.'
arielle , June 23, 2020 at 3:20 pm
Polar Socialist , June 23, 2020 at 5:00 am
There's a lot more recent papers on the issue than Marx. To put it shortly, it's almost impossible to separate the effect of immigration on wages from the effects of "free trade" and automatisation.
For example, in "The impact of massmigration on the Israeli labor market" in 2001 R.M. Friedberg concluded that wages actually went up, when Russians migrated en masse to Israel, though they did not migrate to seek employment.
Ottaviano and Peri in "Immigration and National Wages: Clarifying the theory and the empirics" and Card in "Immigration and inequality" state that the models used to estimate the wages are mostly too simple and very sensitive to how education levels are defined.
All economists seem to agree that in the least skilled or educated "class" the effect of migration is lower wages or raising unemployment, if wages are the only way for the economy to adjust.
I just don't think the issue is as clear cut as people make it to be.
Fireship , June 23, 2020 at 3:46 am
Robinson is continuing a great British tradition where mediocrities from the Mother country head for the colonies to wow the gullible colonists with their fancy ways. The guy is such a lightweight, like fellow grifting Brits Niall Ferguson or Louise Mensch.
Off The Street , June 23, 2020 at 8:24 am
Robinson could refer not to Fox, but to Fox Butterfield . That has a quaint, somewhat British-sounding aspirational upper class twit aspect that seems fitting. /s
geoff , June 23, 2020 at 11:20 am
Per wikipedia, Robinson moved with his family from the U.K. to the U.S. in 1995; he was born in 1989. He's almost entirely the product of an American upbringing and education. He hasn't dropped the accent because he doesn't want to. Frankly he's more of a Florida Man than a Brit imo. (I say this as an admirer.)
Donald , June 23, 2020 at 8:42 am
I generally like Nathan Robinson -- most of the time he writes long detailed heavily linked arguments that are worth reading and which I think most people here would agree with. He is not liked by mainstream Democrats.
I was very disappointed with his Taibbi piece. But I tend to be disappointed by nearly everyone at one point or another. When Robinson says he likes Taibbi, I think he is telling the truth. He just thinks Taibbi is wrong in this case, while I think it is Robinson who is wrong.
Fergus Hashimoto , June 23, 2020 at 2:15 pm
Why is everyone ignoring one of the most bizarre aspects of the Bernie Sanders campaign? That his campaign staff and most prominent supporters were mostly members and supporters of a small religious sect that comprises 1% of the US population, and they were not typical members of this sect, but instead the most extremist ones.
Moreover this small religious sect that comprises 1% of the US population causes one half of US terrorism deaths. Proof:
According to Wikipedia, between 2008 and 2016
right-wing terrorists caused 79 deaths
left-wing terrorists caused 7 deaths
jihadi terrorists caused 90 deaths
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States# Recent trends
Therefore Islamic terrorists actually killed MORE people than right-wing terrorists. Furthermore, if we assume that right-wingers make up 10% of the US population, and Muslims make up 1% of the US population, then per capita, Muslims accounted for TEN TIMES as many terrorism deaths as right-wingers did. Furthermore Muslims accounted for ONE HUNDRED TIMES as many terrorism deaths as non-Muslims did.
Bernie Sanders' campaign was run by Muslim extremists Faiz Shakir and Matt Duss.
But nobody seems to mind. Anyone who criticizes Islam is called a bigot. But Islam's holy book says: "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are ruthless to unbelievers, merciful to one another." (Qur'an 48:29) Is that bigotry or is that not bigotry?
In 1946 the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, praised Amin al-Husseini, the leader of the Palestinian national movement, in the following words:
Germany and Hitler are no more, but Amin el-Husseini will fight on!
Source: Die Welt, Hamburg
Bernie Sanders represents left-wing ideas and programs that are ANATHEMA to this small sect and ESPECIALLY to its extremist wing. Ideas like sexual freedom and religious freedom, freedom to criticize religions, equality among religions and non-religions, and equality between sexes, the idea that laws must be made by human beings elected by majorities through democratic elections instead of by some divinity who is obviously merely a social construct invented in order to exert tyrannical power over society. Those are all principles that flatly contradict Islam and its legal code, sharia law, which CAIR has been doing its utmost to protect from anti-sharia lagislation.
All of Bernie Sanders' most prominent supporters opposed ALL of his leftist ideas, because they want a theocratic state where binary sexuality is the norm and criticism of their sect is verboten.
They hopped onto the Sanders bandwagon and took control of it out of sheer opportunism, because they see Sanders as the path firstly to liquidating Israel and thus achieving one of the primary goals of the worldwide Islamist movement, namely to turn the Middle East into a homogeneous Muslim region, and secondly in order to seize key political positions in the political system of the US, DESPITE BEING SUCH A TINY MINORITY.
Matt Duss, Bernie Sanders' foreign policy adviser, is tightly linked through his family to World Vision, a Christian charity that for decades has funded the FDLP, a Palestinian terrorist group that is nominally secular, but in reality is Islamist. This is proved by the fact that when some of its members killed 4 rabbis in Jerusalem a few years ago, they yelled Allahu akbar. It was recently discovered that World Vision has financed Hamas with US government money. Moreover Matt Duss together with Faiz Shakir, Sanders' Islamist campaign manager, have campaigned in favor of sharia law, a legal system that claims divine authority and is a product of 7th century Arabian society.
By contrast, 20% of Americans are secularists who -- at least in theory -- strongly oppose the reactionary and obscurantist program of Bernie Sanders' principal supporters. But no prominent secularist appeared among Sanders' most important backers. Now why is it that Sanders relied principally on people who wholeheartedly oppose his program and ignored the vastly greater number of Americans who support freedom and equality?
HotFlash , June 23, 2020 at 3:24 pm
clarky90 , June 22, 2020 at 5:06 pm
"(The Era) Of McRevolutions and Bugmen "
When your movement is sponsored by transnational corporations ..
Aumua , June 23, 2020 at 12:32 am
JBird4049 , June 23, 2020 at 3:10 am
Proto -fascism? I rather think it might be here already, but in an American guise.
(Sorry, I just couldn't decide where the sentences and paragraphs should be. Semicolons were the solution.)
As the United States is its own unique blend; utopian, socialistic, religious, fascistic, authoritarian or totalitarian, dysfunctional, increasingly hourglass shaped (oligarchy with skilled workers, tiny middle class, and massive poor class) like any very corrupt Third-World country; an increasingly oppressive police state trying to control a very diverse, well educated, skilled "rightsized" people, often armed and getting more so, with a large number retire military; everyone is angry or afraid and most know that it was laziness or stupidity or the race/social group/Russians/Chinese/Space Elves that turned the prosperity, power, and general competence of fifty into the economic hellscape, weakness, and near complete incompetence of today; it is increasingly obvious that it was the wealthy with the help of their courtiers and servants of the apparatchiks, and the intelligentsia/punditocracy.
Fear and self righteousness facing anger and desperation. What a situation to have.
anon in so cal , June 22, 2020 at 5:35 pm
Bookmarked for later. Nathan Robinson manages to insidiously smuggle Cold War propaganda into articles that ostensibly argue against Russiagate. He appears to be the most dangerous kind of propagandist.
Rod , June 22, 2020 at 5:47 pm
hooked by the headline
Read that Taibbi piece and boy does he have links -- to back his sound and clear narrative.
It seems like he always has a lot of research, way more than he makes his case with
Drawing fire, as a tactic for the well prepared, can be useful.
Carolinian , June 22, 2020 at 5:57 pm
If NC wants to add a Media Whores Online section to Links or Water Cooler we won't object. Of course this would probably inspire PropOrNot part deux. Those MSM journalists can dish it out but not take it.
As I seem to recall MWO somewhat got the stuffing knocked out of it after 9/11. But when it was really rolling it seemed to embodied what the internet was for and why many of us took it up. Monica-gate followed by Bush v Gore offered a TINA media landscape begging to be debunked.
norm de plume , June 23, 2020 at 6:57 am
MWO published what might have been my first blog comment, really just an email, and it was on the Kaus affair, piling on with sarc mode set to high, another example of the 'hate' we were apparently guilty of. It was the daily visit then that NC is now. It was important. The creator remains a mystery, though Bartcop seems to deserve favouritism.
Looking at some of the MWO Wayback pages from 2002 took me back (though the whole of July when the Kaus thing blew is missing). Lots of familiar names – digby, Alterman, Marshall, Conason, Lyons, Pierce et al, all of whom I just stopped reading at some point, probably about the same time I ceased to have any respect for the Clintons.
Mel , June 22, 2020 at 5:59 pm
No "spook", huh? Then it's "secret squirrel", except they're hardly secret sitting there on NBC and CNN.
Lambert Strether Post author , June 23, 2020 at 3:48 am
> No "spook", huh? Then it's "secret squirrel",
I encountered "Secret Squirrel" in my travels, but I am a big Rocky and His Friends fan (or, rather, I stan Rocky and His Friends (?)).
shinola , June 22, 2020 at 6:05 pm
Thank you Lambert for the link to Taibbi's article Definitely worth a read.
EOH , June 22, 2020 at 6:06 pm
Color me skeptical when it comes to the wonders of Mr. Taibbi's observations. I find his narratives full of sound and fury as often as they are sound and clear. But, like Craig Murray or Glenn Greenwald, he can be a good read on the right topic. Sy Hersh and Thomas Frank, however, I have a lot of time for.
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , June 22, 2020 at 8:44 pm
By contrast I've always found that Taibbi always signifies something, but tries to do so in a way that might enable him to avoid being cancelled or deplatformed. Sy Hersh has no such concern. And last time I checked Thomas Frank was trying to signify to me that "maybe there is a case for Joe Biden". With more than 40 years' experience of the man, I utterly disagree.
ANTHONY WIKRENT , June 22, 2020 at 9:32 pm
"maybe there is a case for Joe Biden" is the headline and most of the article. It's deception. Read to the last paragraph if you want to see what Frank actually thinks of Biden. Quite a sucker punch! Though that does not fully capture the sticking and twisting of Frank's shiv.
EOH , June 23, 2020 at 11:53 am
But Frank says he came to assess Joe's mystique, not to bury it.
As for Joe Biden, consider the alternative of four more years of Mr. Trump's "malevolent incompetence" and intentional destruction.
integer , June 22, 2020 at 11:34 pm
Yes I think Taibbi knows a lot more than he puts forward in his articles. How could he not? Same with Frank, probably. Even Hersh censors himself, as evidenced by that recorded phone conversation about Seth Rich.
Chris , June 22, 2020 at 8:58 pm
The wonder of Mr. Taibbi's observations is that he's brave enough to keep making them. Real journalism is rare these days because our corporate organizations have removed journalists from the protected species list. Mr. Taibbi is just documenting the fallout from the officially sanctioned behavior that leads to people canceling those who are discussing actual injustice and real problems in our country. He's also trying, and failing, to show Team Blue fans that their inability to accept reality hurts their electoral chances. For example, the many attempts to scrub Hillary's problems from the media lead to a sense of complacency in likely Democrat voters and made people voting for her opponent highly motivated to turn out at the polls. Taking something like her "basket of deplorables" comment and not discussing why it was just as problematic as Mitt Romney's "48% of people who are voting for Obama don't pay income tax" comments was journalistic and political malpractice. It remains to be seen whether the many attempts to shield Biden using similar tactics will help or hurt him. Personally I think the Democrats will lose because they have rubber stamped the reduction of voting access so much in so many states that the people who would like to vote for them won't be able to vote. Which is a legitimately awful problem.
There are so many issues that Mr. Taibbi has discussed which bear repeating because unless you're getting your news from sites like NC you just don't see it. A recent Useful Idiots podcast episode that Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper did with Shahid Buttar noted that an interview that Mr. Buttar gave which mentioned corporate democrats supporting the re-approval of the Patriot Act under Trump was removed from YouTube and no reasons were given as to why that occurred. Stuff like that makes me think we're living on a spectrum between Brave New World and 1984, with class largely determining where you fall, and we have Cancel Culture people in media running around playing the role of Fireman from Fahrenheit 451 to keep the wrong people from asking too many questions regardless of class. As Mr. Buttar pointed out during his UI podcast interview, the algorithms that FB and YouTube use to remove content without due process catch all the videos of violent acts AND video evidence police abusing citizens. That's by design. But you wouldnt even know about it without reporters like Matt Taibbi.
Rod , June 22, 2020 at 10:18 pm
Yes, thanks for taking the time to encapsulate what Taibbi represents for me.
I admire his relentless pursuit of the 'how' our world is being spun out of control.
Lunker Walleye , June 22, 2020 at 11:28 pm
Yes! Completely agree. Thanks. I heard the interview with Shahid Buttar. I'm hoping for more courageous journalists like Matt.
wol , June 23, 2020 at 8:45 am
Yesterday I heard the Useful Idiots interview with Cornell West. At the end I was spontaneously fist pumping.
Michael , June 22, 2020 at 6:43 pm
That is a very interesting story. Call me paranoid, but IMO we are witnessing the collapse of American society, where every institution is losing it's credibility for various reasons. Personally, I think it is a combination of increased oppression from the threatened rulers, resulting in increased conformity by its victims ((journalists and the public) This combined with the privatization of information, ( ie everything becoming paywalled) is aimed at the reduction of important information by making it unavailable. I fear all of this ends in a veil of tears. This can only lead to fascism, where only the current accepted narrative is permitted.
Jeremy Grimm , June 23, 2020 at 1:40 am
We face the criminal persecution and torture of Assange; the criminal persecution of Craig Murray; the recent debacle at TruthDig; the demise of the Weatherunderground, the growing numbers of pay walls and pop-ups pleading for money and email addresses all suggesting a most unhappy outcome for the future. The consolidation and control of the major media is old history. Reporters are becoming extinct. And there's the pollution of youtube, search engines, and social media. Our society is devolving -- it is being dismantled, vivisected before our eyes to no end but the end of social order.
I am not sure fascism is the result. We already live in what is technically a fascism where State and Business share the same bed.
I still haven't read Talbi's critique but will.
norm de plume , June 23, 2020 at 7:11 am
'The consolidation and control of the major media is old history. Reporters are becoming extinct. And there's the pollution of youtube, search engines, and social media'
There should be a public option for the provision of information (surely up there with food, water and shelter as an essential public good) that is not polluted. Of course it would be derided (and feared) by the wingnuts, the Borg and finance capital as a vehicle for progressive propaganda. Which it could well be given consistent polling indicating majority support for many if not most progressive positions. That of course means that the Democrats would hate it too.
Which segues into my next pipe dream: Abolish parties!
Waking Up , June 22, 2020 at 6:56 pm
Ellsberg, like, Seymour Hersh and Thomas Frank, has been drummed out of town.
Interesting that those with a conscience are the ones "drummed out of town". Guess that tells you everything you need to know about that "town".
As for Matt Taibbi, he is one of the VERY RARE journalists that I give the benefit of the doubt is actually telling the truth (even though I still verify) as I usually assume most "journalists" are lying (or trying to sell a particular story) and go from there. I also find his podcast with Katie Halper entertaining and informative.
Synoia , June 22, 2020 at 7:00 pm
where every institution is losing it's credibility for various reasons
They had credibility, when?
Before the Committee of UnAmericam Activities?
Before the Korean War?
Before the Dulles Brothers?
Before the Monroe Doctrine?
elspeth ham , June 22, 2020 at 7:09 pm
I read that article. I thought it was one of the best of his I've read. Hats off Matt Taibbi. As far as I'm concerned once we lose the complexity that inhabits a serious regard for the truth, we're done. I always appreciate being brought up short by my 'enemies.' It means they might not be as hideous as I'd thought.
EH , June 22, 2020 at 7:15 pm
farmboy , June 22, 2020 at 7:38 pm
being consistently lied to by TV reporters, print media, and politicians not only breeds cynicism, it births, welps, nurses, and rears. the limitation of news outlets until the explosion of social media meant they could be parsed out in narrow sets of ideas and language. Today big media is laid bare, McLuhan was so right, Today it is crucial to know ones own biases, allow opinion and research in opposition into my field of view. As a trader, I always searched for the refuting argument, chart, analysis that would tell me i was wrong, saved me a lot of money. Inflaming passions today is crucial to getting buy-in, not just voting, which is the tail trying to wag the dog. Taibbi has earned his stripes, fields critics on twitter at least, faithfully and honestly.
Sutter Cane , June 22, 2020 at 7:45 pm
I have been reading Taibbi since the eXiled. Robinson and Current Affairs I only found out about more recently.
I view Taibbi as a real journalist with a proven track record. Current Affairs often has some entertaining and thoughful content, but Robinson frankly seems to be more of a lightweight, especially in comparison to Taibbi.
He specializes in "takedowns" of right wing grifters like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. Not exactly difficult targets. His turning on Taibbi, and more recently Krystal Ball and Rising, has been interesting to see. I don't know if he just grew tired of writing about only right wing types, or if he's trying to raise his own profile by attacking better-known left media figures (probably a bit of both). Either way, Robinson's shitck has gotten decidedly old.
bob , June 22, 2020 at 8:49 pm
But he has a hat and that oh so wonderful accent! How can you say that?
funemployed , June 22, 2020 at 8:53 pm
Robinson's not really an investigative reporter. More like a pundit for the over-educated left. So it's not really fair to compare him to people like Greenwald and Taibbi. He's also quite young, and every one his age has some big blind spots and youthful hubris that will (hopefully) shrink in time.
And of course his shtick got tired. Anyone who's job consists of basically writing 2-3 op-eds a week is gonna run out of new material real fast. In a marginally more sane world he'd have a nice job as the regular NYT lefty op-ed guy, and be pretty good at it I think.
In any case, he's a sincere young man who does seem to listen and learn. I mostly side with Taibbi in this kerfuffle, but maybe I wouldn't have 10 years ago. Given the large number of truly horrible people in the public eye these days, the vitriol towards young Nate seems a bit excessive. Frankly, if there's anyone who could get the PMC+DSA crowd to start questioning identitarianism, it's probably him (as I believe they constitute the near entirety of his readership), so lets work on helping him "recognize his own privilege" re: the working class instead of bashing him or questioning his motives.
Donald , June 23, 2020 at 8:49 am
I forgot about the attack on Krystal Ball. I didn't like that either, but another person I generally like, Adam Johnson, did the same.
I have just gotten used to the fact that there aren't going to be people I agree with on every important issue 100 percent of the time. This isn't irony or sarcasm -- I really am disappointed when otherwise smart and (IMO) clearly well intentioned people have opinions I think are wrong. But it is possible I am wrong. ( This is all painfully earnest, as corny as it sounds. )
PlutoniumKun , June 23, 2020 at 9:50 am
I think you have the correct approach. People are far too hair triggered about certain topics. A journalist has to churn out lots of copy, even the best will occasionally get it wrong, or just happen to express beliefs that don't match up with what i or anyone else believes. It is I think the sort of trap that IdPol people fall into – insisting on increasing levels of purity from those on their side, and immediately casting them out if they dare shift one inch from the narrative.
It should be possible to read and learn from good writers, even if you disagree with them. And it's very important that progressives learn and develop by listening to those who have respectful and intellectually coherent reasons not to buy into every precious shibboleth. I think its very important to have voices like Taibbi and Stoller, people who aren't afraid to make even fellow left progressives angry by taking strong positions.
Mammoth Jackstock , June 22, 2020 at 8:30 pm
As seen on TV, Frank Figliuzzi x Greenwald mistaking Figliuzzi's shingle advertising body-man services, for a Wurlitzer. "Figliuzzi" is "small son" in Italian, a euphemism for abandoned orphans, also known for working on behalf of the parents that raised them: The State. Perhaps Figliuzzi's booking agency has insight into clandestine media control. It's hard to decipher whether Taibbi's beef is that journalists' ethical lapses are not properly coordinated or whether the lapses are not authentic enough. Which is the same criticism leveled at the street demonstrators without acknowledging that higher levels of coordination and authentic anger potentiate more physical harm. Spontaneity is the x-factor in both pursuits. Last point. When the surveillance state is conceptualized as the ever-vigilant eyes of BLM and the feverish archiving of Journos, rather than the underworld of the Police State, the surveillance state-less becomes a mode for positive change. Vindication by security camera. Can one be baffled by hope?
Off The Street , June 23, 2020 at 8:29 am
That Mighty Casio has such a tinny little speaker anyway.
Briny , June 22, 2020 at 8:49 pm
Put simply, I refuse to be schooled by the ethically challenged MSM. Matt's doing important work here.
Edward , June 22, 2020 at 8:50 pm
"What the heck is the correct pejorative for a member of the intelligence commumity? "
The intelligence communities must have there own terms for these people. "Agents of influence"? Psychological warfare specialists? Propagandists? Minitrue Goodthinker?
I think the United States needs a mandatory high school class in "How to read propaganda". Americans are probably the most propagandized people on the planet.
Acacia , June 22, 2020 at 10:33 pm
I have heard the term "analyst", though it's far too neutral for their activities. "Operatives" or "henchmen" seems more fitting.
ChrisPacific , June 23, 2020 at 1:22 am
Edward , June 23, 2020 at 6:16 am
They are the president's secret army. They have avoided congressional oversight by securing their funding from the drug trade.
Edward , June 23, 2020 at 6:13 am
Some of the CIA are analysts, like Ray McGovern, albeit politicized ones. The CIA has different departments. The best word for the CIA is probably "disgrace" or "national shame".
Fazal Majid , June 23, 2020 at 3:56 am
Donald , June 23, 2020 at 8:52 am
"Lying scum" works, but applies to others as well, so we need something more targeted.
Berto , June 22, 2020 at 9:17 pm
Would love to hear Taibbi explain why the NY Times spent the summer of 2016 pretending to care that Republicans pretended to care about Clinton's email protocols.
anon in so cal , June 22, 2020 at 10:25 pm
Speaking of the fake news NY Times, here is a good 2017 analysis of its decades-long mendacity and war propagandizing. Here is a snippet:
"The CIA's brazen intervention in the electoral process in 2016 and 2017 broke new ground in the agency's politicization. Former CIA head Michael Morell announced in an August 2016 op-ed in the Times: "I Ran the C.I.A. Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton," and former CIA boss Michael Hayden published an op-ed in the Washington Post just days before the election, entitled "Former CIA Chief: Trump is Russia's Useful Fool." Morell had yet another op-ed in the Times on January 6, now openly assailing the new president. These attacks were unrelievedly insulting to Trump and laudatory to Clinton, even portraying Trump as a traitor; they also made clear that Clinton's more pugnacious stance toward Syria and Russia was preferable by far to Trump's leanings toward negotiation and cooperation with Russia."
Off The Street , June 23, 2020 at 10:04 am
Note where so many seemingly-disreputable people end up, and why. There is money , whether to reward for past services, or to transfer in anticipation of legal defenses needed.
Money shows up in novel ways, like book deals and in plain old propagandizing ways, like pundit spots.
McWatt , June 22, 2020 at 10:23 pm
Matt Taibbi is a God that Walks the Planet!!!
Stay the course Matt. When this is all over, you'll be the last intelligent reporter standing.
Along with Katie!!!
.Tom , June 22, 2020 at 11:00 pm
Pejorative suggestion: apparatchik
integer , June 22, 2020 at 11:43 pm
And of course there really is such a thing as "Left Wing Hate" (for some definition of "left," I admit).
Glad to see this qualifier added. I suspect the language that is necessary to have meaningful discussions about political ideologies with people from different political tribes is purposely corrupted by the conservative and liberal media establishments, probably at the behest of the CIA.
Charlie , June 23, 2020 at 2:30 am
New (But really not new) Pejorative: American Nomenklatura.
Sound of the Suburbs , June 23, 2020 at 3:14 am
Einstein's definition of madness "Doing the same thing again and again and expecting to get a different result"
Do you remember the last time you let the robber barons and reckless bankers run riot in the 1920s?
Do you remember the last time you used neoclassical economics in the 1920s?
Do you remember how bad it was in the 1970s?
Do you remember how bad it was in the 1930s?
During the 1920s there was a great consolidation of US businesses into often single companies that dominated every sector.
This time this has happened in the media.
About six corporations control the US media, and they make sure you hear, what they want you to hear.
Sound of the Suburbs , June 23, 2020 at 3:53 am
A trip down memory lane.
We stepped onto an old path that still leads to the same place.
1920s/2000s – neoclassical economics, high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, austerity, rising nationalism and extremism
1940s – World war.
We forgot we had been down that path before.
I remembered where this path goes.
When the US needed an FDR, it got an Obama.
Now they've got Trump.
They've taken a more European approach this time.
Trying to maintain the status quo is not a good idea, they needed a New Deal.
bwilli123 , June 23, 2020 at 3:46 am
Somewhat relevant. Don't threaten the narrative.
"Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex (@slatestarcodex deletes his blog after a @nytimes
reporter threatens to doxx him, which could ruin his career as a psychiatrist and raises serious safety concerns."
Fazal Majid , June 23, 2020 at 4:07 am
Wow, that's truly despicable!
That said, anyone who believes the NYT was ever respectable, as in worthy of respect, not as in "mainstay of the establishment", needs only harken back to Pulitzer's role in fanning the Spanish-American War to understand how fundamentally depraved an institution it really is.
Off The Street , June 23, 2020 at 8:37 am
His name was known to many readers of Slate Star Codex, and they were too polite to repeat it. There is a decency and brilliance that would be sorely missed with any permanent silencing of his unique voice and views.
PlutoniumKun , June 23, 2020 at 9:44 am
Absolutely, its a brilliant blog, on so many levels. Its beyond belief that the NY would insist on publishing his real name, when there is absolutely no reason or public interest in doing so.
Off The Street , June 23, 2020 at 10:12 am
The NYT fancies itself an empire, dispensing and dispatching at will. Here is a Star Wars quote from Obi-Wan applicable to those that the Grey Lady targets, or even purposefully ignores:
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Ignacio , June 23, 2020 at 5:23 am
It is quite interesting, and positive, should I say, that nobody resorted to the argument of "lefty" thinkers destroying themselves as the perennial malaise of the left. Regarding the confrontation between Taibbi and Robinson it looks clear they do not represent 2 variations of the same camp: They inhabit completely different camps though, as an outsider, I am not able to establish clearly the limits between their audiences and their supporting platforms.
It strikes me, as very well pointed, the similarities that Lambert brougth from Taibbi in the ADDENDUM about the, IMO very likely, Trump reelection and the 2016 elections: he can easily run away with his errors and the liberals look poised to make similar mistakes in 2020 as they did in 2016. They learnt nothing and forgot nothing.
On this I really would like a well informed discussion on some news pieces that have seen linked here before indicating that Trump very much dislikes voting by mail "because of fraud" though my opinion is that he just wants the election turnout to be the smaller the better.
Philbq , June 23, 2020 at 7:21 am
Regarding the vast U.S. media propaganda machine, Chomsky famously said long ago that propaganda was MORE necessary in democratic societies. In a totalitarian regime, the government can control the public with force and violence, imprisoning or executing dissidents. But in a democratic society, citizens have the power to vote and change the government. Therefore, it is more necessary in a democratic society to control how the public thinks. Thus propaganda is the very essence of democracy. Propaganda ids thought control in democratic societies.
Philbq , June 23, 2020 at 7:24 am
That last line should have read: "Propaganda is thought control in democratic societies. "
David , June 23, 2020 at 9:21 am
There was a time when I went to the established media to learn things. Now, it feels more like checking in on an evolving soap opera with a baffling plot and inconsistent characters. There's a certain grim amusement in seeing the latest plot twist but that's about all. I get my actual information from sites like NC and specialist sites and newsletters by experts. I'm afraid that my gut reaction to clicking on a MSM story these days is: why is this bast**d lying to me?
PlutoniumKun , June 23, 2020 at 9:43 am
Likewise. The thing is, as a teenager back in the 1980's I'd read my Chomsky and a number of radical media writers. My eyes had been opened when I was around 15, home on holidays and bored watching afternoon TV when a particular incident occurred in NI. I remember watching open mouthed as the narrative was completely twisted around 180 degrees by the time of the evening news (I won't go into the details, but it started as 'brave mourners tackle terrorists who drove a car into a crowd saving many lives' into 'barbaric Republicans lynch two innocent soldiers who had lost their way' over the course of about 4 hours of reporting. But I still, up to a few years ago, as a default tended to believe what I read in the newspapers or watched on TV, unless I had a reasonably good reason not to do so. But no more. I don't really know whether things have gotten much worse, or I've just become more educated/cynical.
Ignacio , June 23, 2020 at 10:28 am
Fast forward to 2003, very much like the terrorist attacks in Atocha train station when Aznar phoned all the media to say "it is certain it was ETA" and so the publications in Spain went with this story. Thereafter, only the conservative media went on with a conspiracy theory with the Spanish police in collusion with ETA to maintain their narrative even when it was crystal clear it was a yihaddist attack.
So, regarding the media, it is the narrative what goes first and much more important than facts. No matter if it is a conservative or a liberal outlet, they will stick to their narrative. This has worsened with time.
larry , June 23, 2020 at 9:47 am
I love this quote, so let me be a stickler. The actual question is: Why is this lying bastard lying to me?. It was originally atributed to Louis Heron of the Times and channeled by Paxman in an interview at the end of his Newsnight career. Otherwise, I am depressed to say that I can do nothing other than agree with your view of the MSM in general, although there are a few journalists who appear to be doing what they should be doing even if they may not doing it as well as they probably could. As for the rest, some of them can't even write.
David , June 23, 2020 at 11:12 am
Yes, I'm not sure whether Heron actually said that (accounts differ) but I remember thinking when I first read it decades ago that it was silly: I spent a good part of my life preparing politicians for interviews, and, at least then, you made sure they were briefed to put the best spin on things, which is not the same as lying. But on subjects I was familiar with, I used to reckon that most jobbing journalists (ie not the deep specialists) would get things factually accurate about 50% of the time, and that the problems were more related to ignorance and preconceptions than active attempts to mislead. I don't think that's the case now. Journalists today, by contrast, actively tell lies, often for political reasons or to conform to groupthink.
John Mc , June 23, 2020 at 10:00 am
Taibbi is a national treasure. He is a funny, engaging writer who knows where the boundaries are involving spin, humor and articulating a precise message. The fact that he has been so clairvoyant about hundreds of issues (Political futility, Financial Crisis, Policing, and changes in Media) is due to his unique willingness to talk to people in all walks of life to understand the complexity of what he is writing about. And when he does not know something, he owns it. Connectivity to people, and his marriage to journalism all breed more and more trust (as well as puts a target on his back).
We live in a time of fracture (capital/labor, institutional decay, and the indelible scars of markets taking over our lives at every level) means we need people to cut through the noise, effectively -- reminding us of our fantastic thinking and proffering uncomfortable truths. And nowhere has this been more apparent than the NL core of the democratic party on the Left:
1. Russiagate Maddowers versus Mate-Blumenthal
2. Syria/Bolivia/Venezuela/Chile CIA media engineers vs The Grayzone and Greenwald
3. The Warren/Sanders rift. The Warren/Warren rift.
4. The night of 1000 Knives.
5. BLM and Democratic Party.
6. And left media puts out a hit against Taibbi – with very little serious discussion of Hate Inc..
7. Leftist Fractures – N Robinson vs Krystal Ball, Lee Fang, Taibbi and an academic accused of "bad research"
8. Attack on the show Rising – why would the left talk to the populist right canard.
The left are playing a role in their own demise -- often at the behest of the NL center or in concert to a more individualistic lens, separate of that to ordinary people. Kyle Kulinski just did a 30 minutes on this too.
All in all, the group who needs to be shattered into a thousand pieces in the wind (the NL core of both parties) just got stronger this election cycle -- and in my mind the fractures on the left are just starting.
It did not have to be that way. Sickening to consider when you think about the opportunity we had in January.
Thanks Lambert for this article
Bruce , June 23, 2020 at 10:59 am
To add to the lists of questions to be asked when reading the "news" .
"What is not being reported here?" or, more colloquially, "What dog isn't barking?".
Bruce , June 23, 2020 at 11:08 am
Over the years I have asked many people about press coverage of subjects they knew well. I asked if, from their perspective, the press got all, most, some or none of the story right. The long run average response is between some and none.
Then I ask, "Why, if your personal experience says the press rarely gets it right concerning something you know a lot about, do you believe they get it right concerning things you know little about?"
Roquentin , June 23, 2020 at 11:54 am
Taibbi is correct in that piece, undeniably so, but more than that it's the entire Sanders-based social democratic movement that's coming apart. The media is mostly a reflection of that. I had always hoped that the movement towards social democracy Sanders fostered could survive beyond him as a viable candidate, but I must confess I no longer think that likely. The whole movement is imploding in on itself, and people lashing out against Taibbi is, to me at least, just more evidence of how much of his criticism hit the mark.
Even if the current left can survive the end of Sanders as a political figure on the national stage, I see even less of a path for it once Trump is gone. Rabid anti-Trump sentiment is the only adhesive that keeps the different parts of it together. They saw a boom when Trump was elected, and I can only conclude there will be a big bust when he goes away. If they put a lot of effort into publicly shilling for Biden, then it's even more likely, because on some level they'll be bound to carry water for him while he's in office because they advocated for him as a leader in the first place. No, it's not just the press that's destroying itself it's also practically all of the liberal class and most of what flies under the banner of the left too.
Waking Up , June 23, 2020 at 3:27 pm
I have to disagree with your assessment about the movement towards social democracy. There isn't a specific "leader" at present, but just the sheer number of people who protested in the streets around the country (during a pandemic I might add) in regards to police brutality, economic inequality, a better healthcare system such as Medicare For All, are all fighting for social justice and democracy. This is coming from people who recognize what our system is doing to them and others.
"Rabid anti-Trump sentiment is the only adhesive that keeps the different parts of it together."
Once again, I have to disagree. The supposed "liberal" media, many "liberal" politicians, and supporters who base their personal opinion on whatever is popular that particular day may have "rabid anti-Trump sentiment".
But there are plenty of people who recognize we are going through a major "social collapse".
Some people may not want to discuss these issues because they don't want to change the current system (they would rather attack Matt Taibbi and others than discuss the legitimate problems we have). These problems, including an economic collapse, are not going to disappear the day Donald Trump is out of office nor will it improve with a "more of the same" Joe Biden administration.
At this point, I tend to believe our country will either
a) become even more authoritarian where the citizens just accept they have no civil rights and view police and military brutality as part of "everyday life" or
b) we continue on this trajectory of collapse with a very small percentage of people doing quite well and the vast majority wondering or already in circumstances which lead them to question how long it will be before they are homeless, without a job, how they will feed their family and whether they can get any healthcare if they need it or
c) we finally wake up as a majority of citizens and demand a government (executive, congressional, and judicial) responsive to the citizens which deals with social and economic collapse. All of those with the current ideologies of the Democratic/Republican parties need to go as they represent either their careers or moneyed interests. Then again, maybe the level of corruption and greed is so far gone in this country that the only trajectory is collapse.
Glen , June 23, 2020 at 12:07 pm
Taibbi has been doing good work on this. This would seem to be another example. Krystal and Saagar: CNN viewers REVOLT after journalist correctly says 'Biden is a flawed candidate:
Apr 21, 2020 | www.unz.com
brabantian , says: Show Comment April 15, 2020 at 9:14 am GMTIn Continental Europe the 'all together' theme is barely holding, and momentum is in the opposite direction In fact migrant communities are growing afraid of backlash and eventual anti-migrant campaigns, even eventual quasi-ethnic-cleansing
With social welfare systems strained to the breaking point given lockdown unemployment, there is regret and anger building about public funds spent on migrant waves in recent years
The lockdowns are often barely being enforced in migrant communities, for fear of riotous explosion by youthful troublemakers if enforcement is attempted, as noted in the first comment above by jbwilson24 re France French officials have explicitly said so, in effect 'just leave migrant areas alone'
Last weekend in Belgium, an age-19 youth of migrant heritage, confronted by police when with others, tried to speed away on a scooter but in his haste hit a police vehicle head-on and died, leading to two days of rioting and 100 or so arrests When a police vehicle was attacked by a mob, at least one police firearm was removed by a rioter
As people watch these videos of migrant-origin youths rioting, whilst local people receive heavy monetary fines for lockdown violations, emotions run high as lockdowns continue, or with another wave in the autumn, it may get quite dramatic politically
This is sad for those of us with migrant-heritage friends, who think positively of a certain degree of 'organic' (not forced or induced or manipulated) immigration
Apr 19, 2020 | www.unz.com
Dino , says: Show Comment April 19, 2020 at 5:23 am GMTI am amazed that how many immigrants who migrated from a nation state, still love their nation but hate when us nationalist. It's such a hypocrisy. The number one rule of any migrant is to adapt the new country and culture and not the other way round. This whole PC culture is going out of hands everywhere. I think every one should be forced to watch the southpark to understand the irony of what we are becoming.
Jan 19, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Democrats Ignore the Immigration Elephant in the Room
The most important issue of Trump's ascent has drawn silence from the Democratic Party, now the party of the elites. (Jim Larkin/Shutterstock )
January 17, 2020|
12:01 amRobert W. Merry At Tuesday's Democratic debate sponsored by CNN and the Des Moines Register , nobody seemed to notice the elephant in the room -- or perhaps the candidates and moderators just didn't want to acknowledge its presence. Whether it was out of blindness or stubbornness, it tells us a great deal about the state of the Democratic Party in our time -- and also about the state of American politics.
That elephant is immigration, and the issue it represents is the defining one of our time. It is the most intractable, the most emotional, and the most irrepressible of all matters facing Western societies. And yet it was almost totally ignored in the most crucial debate so far in the Democratic quest for a presidential nominee. Two passing references was all the issue got over two hours of polemical fireworks.
President Trump certainly came in for his share of opprobrium from the top six Democratic candidates, yet nobody seemed to have the slightest awareness that the single most important issue driving Trump's political rise four years ago was immigration. A Pew Research Center survey revealed after the 2016 election that 66 percent of Trump supporters considered immigration to be a "very big" problem, the highest percentage for any issue. For Hillary Clinton supporters, the corresponding percentage was just 17. Also, fully 79 percent of Trump voters favored building the border wall he advocated, compared to just 10 percent for Clinton supporters.
During the 2016 campaign, the Washington Examiner called immigration "the mother of all issues" -- touching on jobs, national security and terrorism, the public fisc, and the cultural definition of America. That latter factor, said the paper, was a "nearly existential question" involving the ultimate definition of a nation without borders.
Elsewhere in the West, we see the same political percolation. By most analyses, immigration was the driving force behind Britain's 2016 vote for Brexit. The Atlantic ran a piece in June of that year headlined: "The Immigration Battle at the Heart of Brexit." After the vote, Slate rushed out to interview former British prime minister Tony Blair -- who, as the website noted, "presided over the opening of Britain's borders." That had unleashed "a wave of immigration unprecedented in [Britain's] history." Within a few years, noted Slate, "roughly twice as many immigrants arrived in the United Kingdom as had arrived in the previous half-century." The Brexit vote was in large measure a rebuke to that Blair project, pushed avidly and relentlessly by the British ruling class.
Elsewhere in Europe -- Hungary, Poland, France, Germany, Italy, even Sweden, among other nations -- mass immigration has emerged as the dominant issue, roiling the waters of national politics and pushing to the fore various types of conservative populism. New parties have emerged to join the issue, and old parties have gained new sway.
Many commentators and political analysts in recent years have posited the idea that a new political fault line has emerged throughout the West, between the globalist elites and ordinary citizens who are more nationalist in their political sensibilities and more culturally protective. This is true. And while there are many issues that have come into play here, such as trade, military adventurism, identity politics, and political correctness, immigration is the key driver.
Generally, the open-border elites have been on the defensive since Donald Trump seized the issue in 2015 and tied it to the emotional matters of terrorism and crime. Trump was probably correct in the first Republican debate of the 2016 election cycle when he said that, were it not for him, immigration probably wouldn't have been a major topic of discussion. It certainly seemed as if the other candidates preferred to keep it out of the campaign debate so it could be handled after the election in the more controlled environments of Congress and the courts. By bringing it up, even in his crude and disturbing manner, Trump galvanized a large body of voters who had concluded that the elites of both parties didn't really care about controlling the borders.
Indeed, in their 2018 book, The Great Revolt , Salena Zito and Brad Todd posit that Trump got an extra boost from working class Americans put off by the attacks on him from prominent politicians of both parties who called his immigration concerns "unhinged," "reprehensible," "xenophobic," "racist," and "fascist." Zito and Todd write that many Trump voters "saw one candidate, who shared their anxiety about immigration's potential connections to domestic terrorism, being attacked by an entire political and media establishment that blew off that concern as bigotry."
In this great political divide, the Democratic candidates at the debate represent the elite preference for policies that embrace or nearly embrace open borders. An NPR study of candidate positions indicated that, on the question of whether illegal crossings should be decriminalized, four of those on the debate stage say yes, while the positions of the other two remain "unclear." On whether immigration numbers should be increased, four say yes, while two are unclear. On whether federal funding for border enforcement should be increased or decreased, five have no clear position, while one says it should be decreased. A separate Washington Post study on the candidates' views as to whether illegal immigrants should be covered under a government-run health plan found that five say yes while one has no clear position.
The Democratic Party has become the party of the country's elites -- globalist, internationalist, anti-nationalist, free-trade, and open borders. Those views are so thoroughly at variance with those of Trump voters that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we have here a powerful issue of our time, perhaps the most powerful issue. Yet the journalistic moderators at Tuesday's event didn't see fit to ask about it. And the candidates weren't inclined to bring it up in any serious way.
Perhaps they thought that if they just ignored that elephant, eventually it would go away. It won't.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon & Schuster).
MarkVA • 2 days agoA million Eastern Europeans (Poles) move to the UK, and this precipitates Brexit. A million Ukrainians move to Poland, and it is hardly noticed there. There is a difference here which the author did not notice, or care to notice, and I feel no obligation to explain;izzy MarkVA • a day ago
Also, in 2016 some truly nasty things were said about the Mexican people, and they were not said by the people on the left. Again, this post fails to mention any of that;
These two things suggest a myopia of American conservatism.Mark, you really are a voice of reason. I enjoy engaging with you.trailhiker • 2 days ago
Agree with you entirely here. I think you'll notice that ethnocentrism I was talking about in the previous conversation we had in Rod's post about BenOp for the humanities. The ethnocentrism is in full display on that thread.
It's weird to call the democrats the party of the elites when about half, it not more of the working class vote democratic. The Washington post just put out a poll on black Americans and their hatred of Trump is almost universal. Most blacks are working clsss. The vast majority of Hispanics are also working class and they sure aren't Trump voters either.Trump and the GOP: had a mandate for populist reform, passed a tax-cut-for-billionaires, almost start a neocon war with IranKent trailhiker • a day ago
Obama and the Dems: had a mandate and passed ACA, which BigMediPharma is totally fine with, gave Wall Street a big bailout and no punishment for the derivatives crash
Both of the parties are owned by the elites with a few exceptions here and there, such as Sanders and Gabbard. And of course those two are attacked quite a bit by the elites.Both parties want to increase immigration, because they drive down wages and increase profits. Both parties are funded by the same crew of the shareholding class.
Trump is an outlier in that he is willing to talk about the unmentionable, which got him elected. Unfortunately, by calling Mexican immigrants rapists, drug dealers and murderers, he associated the immigration issue with racism instead of wage issues. While that played to an ugly subset of his supporters, it took the discussion of immigration off the board for Democrats because they don't want the association.
Bernie Sanders has fought against open borders in the past because of the effect on wages. But he can't discuss it now.
Oct 31, 2019 | www.redstate.com
A few years ago, in response to the notion of a resolution naming English as the country's official language, a prominent Democratic politician said it wasn't necessary -- it's already obvious.
Is it set to remain so?
As noted by ConservativeReview.com, a report by the Center for Immigration Studies indicates there's a whole lotta people speaking somethin' else, at least at home.
Conservative Review submits an interesting proposal:
Imagine if the American people were told in 1980 that the non-English-speaking population in America would triple and rise to a level that is greater than the population of France.
That statement comes in response to CIS's implication of 67.3 million people speaking a foreign language at home in America.
As per numbers from the 2018 American Community Survey, that's roughly 21.9% of U.S. residents.
CR observes a powerful surge:
It's not just the sheer number of foreign language speakers that is shocking; it's the trend. The number has tripled since 1980 and doubled since 1990. The foreign-born population has grown seven times as fast as the native-born population since 1980. But even since 2010, when the foreign population had already ballooned, it has still grown twice as fast as the native-born population over the past eight years.
If you're curious about the distribution of ESL (or English as No Language) residents, in nine states, the digits top 25%:
New Mexico 34%
New Jersey 32%
New York 31%
How do things fare in the five largest cities? The buncha peeps eschewing the ways of America's motherland at home breaks down like this obtener una carga de LA Sorry -- I mean, get a load of LA:
Los Angeles 59%
New York City 49%
Among foreign-language use, in terms of popularity, Spanish dominates like the Dream Team at the 1992 Olympics: Español's grown 12% since 2010, and it hits the boards with approx. 62%.
In fact, there are more Spanish-speakers in the U.S. than in any Latin American country -- short of Mexico, Argentina, and Columbia.
Chinese snags 2nd place, with 3.5 million moving mouths.
The fastest growing languages: those from India and Islamic countries.
Arabic speakers have grown 46% in only eight years.
Since 2000, they've doubled.
If all this signals a mere skyrocketing of bilingualism, then good for America: It's becoming more sophisticated.
On the other hand, if it points to a cave-in of inglés , that's quite a different trajectory.
And with 2020 Democrats wanting to do away with that quaint notion of protected borders, we're not sure to have millions more mastering the King's any time soon.
It seems to me that language is one thing we need to share -- it's the way we connect, in order to be One Nation Under God.Presently, we're on our way to One Nation Under Dios/bog/Déu/xudo/Deus/Bondye/Ilaah/Tanrı/ღმერთი/परमेश्वर/하나님/พระเจ้า/الله.
And while all those words are, of course, beautiful to know and use, that's gonna be one big-a** dollar bill.
Oct 24, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
... ... ...
The leader of the Spanish Vox party, Santiago Abascal, argued that immigration is a political euphemism for the trafficking of cheap labor into Europe so that multinational companies and financial interests can increase their profits: "The establishment argues that our system must be maintained in the face of an aging population, but mass immigration renders work increasingly precarious." According to Abascal, the 2015 refugee crisis was used as a pretext to further the economic ambitions of Brussels bureaucrats at the expense of Europe's working population, especially its youth.
Baudet also argues that establishment politicians push for immigration because they favor a globalized worldview under which national identities will disappear: "They genuinely believe we should move beyond religious and national identities to become global citizens." Baudet, however, thinks such policies would be disastrous, not only because they risk plunging Europe into "tremendous conflict," but also because they risk creating a "brain drain" from Africa and the Middle East.
The solution to this problem, many of these conservative leaders say, is to provide motivation and assistance to Europe's young people so they have their own children. Abascal uses Hungary as a model, where , under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, families that have three or more children are given government grants to buy houses and no longer have to pay income tax. The state finances free nurseries, allowing women to re-enter the workforce without having to worry about childcare costs. In addition, Hungary has inscribed Christianity in its constitution to create a strong religious identity, providing its youth with a sense of direction and meaning.
The problem of low birthrates ultimately lies internally, within Europe's culture and social life. A young generation that doesn't aspire to have families and that's increasingly alienated from any sense of community has driven much of the crisis. Whether Europe can be salvaged and revived is yet to be seen.
Alessandra Bocchi is a freelance journalist focusing on foreign policy in North Africa, Europe, and the U.S. She has been covering the protests in Hong Kong. Follow her on Twitter @AlessaBocchi .
Oct 17, 2019 | www.unz.com
"If minorities prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law.
Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell "discrimination"
Oct 20, 2019 | www.unz.com
Daniel Rich , says: October 17, 2019 at 5:16 am GMT@Rurik O.Teah , says: October 17, 2019 at 7:05 am GMT
I read somewhere James Gandolfini [The Sopranos], actively did a lot of stuff for [military] veterans.@eahCounterinsurgency , says: October 17, 2019 at 9:00 am GMT@J. O. Step 1 in ending hunger in America:
Stop importing hungry foreigners who can't earn a living here.
Do that and somebody might take you seriously. As it is, you're morally despicable.
Oct 15, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs , October 11, 2019 at 09:32 PM(There's 'that word' again.)Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , October 12, 2019 at 02:47 AM
Judge says Trump's immigrant wealth
test is 'repugnant,' blocks its enforcement
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2019/10/11/judge-says-trump-immigrant-wealth-test-repugnant/pecnue4UQPJ5jcZcp7t5IO/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe
Chris Dolmetsch and Edvard Pettersson - Bloomberg News - October 11
A new Homeland Security rule to screen out immigrants who are at risk of becoming dependent on government benefits was put on hold by a federal judge until there's a final decision whether the so-called green card wealth test is legal.
US District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan said Friday that the rule, which was set to go into effect Oct. 15, can't be implemented nationwide.
The rule, announced in August, replaces a current policy that says immigrants shouldn't receive more than half their income from cash benefits, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or Supplemental Security Income from Social Security.
Under the new more expansive definition, immigrants aren't supposed to use public benefits like Medicaid, public housing assistance, or food stamps for more than 12 months over a 36-month period. Immigration officials will consider an immigrant's age, health, education, and wealth to see if they are at risk of becoming a "public charge."
Immigrant rights' advocacy groups and several states have argued that the new rule conflicts with existing immigration laws and would drive up the cost of providing health care and other services to immigrants.
Daniels blocked the rule following a. August lawsuit filed by the states of New York, Connecticut and Vermont and the city of New York, which alleged that the policy specifically targets immigrants of color. He ruled that the Department of Homeland Security went beyond its authority under federal immigration law.
"Defendants do not articulate why they are changing the public charge definition, why this new definition is needed now, or why the definition set forth in the rule -- which has absolutely no support in the histroy of U.S. Immigration law -- is reasonable," Daniels said, calling the rule "repugnant to the American Dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility." ...(Previously...)
Reuters - October 7
Judge's order releasing Trump's tax returns and blasting 'repugnant' immunity claim put on hold https://reut.rs/30XyBSO
Sep 07, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
Joe , September 06, 2019 at 03:25 AMDo Immigrants Threaten U.S. Public Safety? - Dallasfed.org
Mexico. Mexican criminal groups based in Mexico smuggle bulk quantities of methamphetamine via couriers traveling in private and commercial vehicles, usually equipped with hidden compartments, or by foot through and between land POEs along the Southwest Border. These criminal groups also smuggle small shipments (2 kg to 4 kg) via couriers aboard commercial flights and via mail services. Methamphetamine shipments often are transported to stash sites and staging areas, primarily in California and Arizona, before the drug is distributed locally, regionally, or nationally.
Methamphetamine transported from production areas in Mexico to the Southwest Border typically has been smuggled through and between POEs in California; however, recent data indicate that more methamphetamine may now be smuggled through or between POEs in Arizona than other Southwest Border states. According to EPIC seizure data, the combined amount of methamphetamine seizures from 2001 through 2003 at or between POEs in California (1,725 kg) was much higher than the amount seized at or between POEs in Texas (1,145 kg), Arizona (1,120 kg), or New Mexico (60 kg). However, in 2003 the amount seized in Arizona (640 kg) surpassed seizures in the other Southwest Border states including California (593 kg), Texas (484 kg), and New Mexico (16 kg) possibly because of specific law enforcement operations conducted in Arizona (see Figure 11).
Pick an index then call it something vague like crime.
Are these immigrants importing meth? Mostly, immigrants crossing back and forth across the border.
How much crime does meth cause?
The number of murders and armed robberies committed by people addicted to methamphetamine is "truly frightening", Western Australia's Chief Justice says.
Justice Wayne Martin said 95 per cent of armed robberies and up to half of all murders could be attributed to people taking methamphetamine, also known as ice or crystal meth.
The number I hear is about half of all crime.
So, sure, pick a particular index, generate the result you want, and if it meets the delusional demands of Economist View then it is printed.
I didn't even need to read it, I already know what result he engineered, otherwise it never would have appeared here.
Aug 24, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Non-citizens accounted for 64 percent of all federal arrests in 2018, according to new data released on Aug. 22 by the Justice Department. The surge was driven largely by immigration -crime arrests, which have soared to the highest level in at least two decades.
Federal authorities conducted 108,667 arrests for immigration crimes in 2018, up more than five times from the 20,942 arrests in 1998. Immigration arrests accounted for 95 percent of the total increase in the number of federal arrests over the past 20 years, the data shows.That data also shows a flip in the percentage of arrests of noncitizens compared to arrests of U.S. citizens. In 1998, arrests of citizens accounted for 63 percent of the total arrests. By 2018, arrests of noncitizens had grown to 64 percent of the total.
In a press release accompanying the data, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) noted that while noncitizens accounted for 7 percent of the U.S. population, they committed 24 percent of all federal drug arrests, 25 percent of all federal property arrests, and 28 percent of all federal fraud arrests.
... ... ...
In terms of prosecutions, more than 78 percent of noncitizens were prosecuted for illegal reentry, alien smuggling, and misuse of visas. The most common prosecutions of noncitizens outside of immigration-related offense dealt with drugs, at 13 percent of the total, and fraud, at 4 percent.
cynicalskeptic , 1 hour ago linkFaeriedust , 4 hours ago link
a 95 % increase in immigration arrests.... they were getting arrested for BEING illegal immigrants, right?
so....that 64% of all Federal arrests statistic comes from arresting 'non-citizens' BECAUSE they were not citizens.
really a bogus statistical mash-up....
the question should be:
What percentage of serious crime is committed by non-citizens?Expendable Container , 4 hours ago link
Weall, they say it right out. 78% of those noncitizen arrests were for illegal immigration, a "victimless" crime. Most prosecutions for robbery, murder, rape, assault, and even drug trafficking are prosecuted under state laws. They'd only move it to federal court specifically because non-citizens or cross-border activity was involved. So what this really says is, "Hey, folks. Trump is actually enforcing immigration laws." That's it. The only crimes that foreigners really commit more than citizens are immigration violations. That and, historically, organized criminal gangs have used connections in other countries, whether Mexico or Sicily, to escape American justice and facilitate smuggling of whatever's profitable.HyperboreanWind , 5 hours ago link
'Mexico or Sicily'
Hey you forgot to mention safe haven Israel and the international Jewish Mafia (that call the Sicilian mafia 'the MICKY MOUSE MAFIA').HyperboreanWind , 5 hours ago link
Fits the demographics of the invasion.
US: Noncitizens Commit Crime At 2.5X Their Population Share (2018)
"At least 21 percent of people convicted of non-immigration crimes in the United States between 2011 and 2016 were non-citizens -- 2.5 times their share of the population, a new study has shown."
... ... ...
High Numbers Of Indian Nationals Crossing Into US At Southern Border (2019)
"In the 2018 fiscal year, 8,997 people from India were apprehended at the Southwest border -- more than triple the number from the year before, when 2,943 Indian migrants were apprehended."
Arab Living In Mexico Smuggles 6 Yemenis Into US Via Southern Border (2018)
Aug 23, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Kurtismayfield , August 23, 2019 at 4:15 pm
That NYT article is not for the proles.. it is for the ten percent. They want their hairdressers, lawn maintenance, nannies, and home health aides to make $10 an hour. It is better for them to have a lower class pool of people's to do this work. This is why the author didn't question the "$10-12 an hour for a CNA" statement. He/she wants that cheap labor for themselves.
marym , August 23, 2019 at 4:23 pm
Typo in the text for your link s/b 44.5 million. The report makes a further adjustment for illegal immigrants to obtain a total of "likely 46.4 million" immigrants. Then, from your link:
Between 2010 and 2017, 9.5 million new immigrants settled in the United States. New arrivals are offset by roughly 320,000 immigrants who return home each year and natural mortality of about 2ha90,000 annually among the existing immigrant population.2 As a result, growth in the immigrant population was 4.6 million from 2010 to 2017.
So net average about 12.6K per week, though the detail shows numbers increasing over the time span.
As far as "overloading the social systems, welfare and finances" it would be helpful to see some detail. There are often studies showing factors like the overall contribution of immigrant labor to the economy, and comparative immigrant uses of social services which illustrate these issues, pro and con. For example, a recently proposed change would make it more difficult for military veterans to obtain a green cards for themselves and their families if they had accepted public benefits, though some would argue that military service is a valuable contribution to the country.
A key consideration for me is that there are powerful politicians, and those who vote for them, who favor even the most inhumane versions of gutting or ending immigration who also favor gutting or eliminating social programs and workers rights for non-immigrants.
Monty , August 23, 2019 at 8:19 pm
Don't an overestimate in the order of magnitude interfere with our shared fight against The Others!
NotReallyHere , August 23, 2019 at 6:17 pm
This is NOT about immigration. Get the terms right and you can see the problem clearly. Allow others to define the vocabulary and you get the mess we are in where illegally trafficked, quasi-slaves are lumped together with legal immigrants.
The difference is rights. A legal immigrant has the right to a minimum wage, safe working conditions, a vote and all of the other protections afforded a native born citizen. And guess what, both government and corporations work hard to make legal immigration difficult. It costs thousands of dollars, takes years and if, at any time throughout that period you, or – more likely your now teenaged kid – makes a mistake involving law enforcement, then YOURROUT.
On the other hand we have human traffickers trawling around Guatemala, Nicaragua and probably rural Mexico selling the American dream for your teenage son. And all you have to do to get him trafficked to a life of luxury working fifteen hours a day in a battery chicken shed for 4 bucks an hour .. is to give over the deeds of your Guatemalan shack. So if kiddo doesn't work hard enough or, heaven forfend, says forget this and bails, then you're all homeless.
Get the difference?
anon in so cal , August 23, 2019 at 6:35 pm
Yes, "get the difference."
Unfortunately, open borders proponents are partly to blame for the terminological murkiness.
Pro illegal immigration advocates typically use slogans affirming the value of immigrants and immigration. They correctly note that immigrants make the country great, etc. No argument there. But they use these slogans and line of argumentation to advocate for illegal immigration. They deliberately conflate the two processes of legal and illegal immigration.
Summer , August 23, 2019 at 7:09 pm
"The difference is rights. A legal immigrant has the right to a minimum wage, safe working conditions, a vote and all of the other protections afforded a native born citizen "
They..the legal immigrants also often enjoy protections from their original country and dual citizenship. They have an escape route
Leaving the US citizen ass out with ZERO protections.
Carey , August 23, 2019 at 7:16 pm
"..Leaving the US citizen ass out with ZERO protections."
GERMO , August 23, 2019 at 7:45 pm
Just, ugh, to seeing rightwing talking point anti-immigrant comment thread on NC. Sorry. Thanks to anyone attempting to correct the stirring-up-of-reactionary-resentments with some critical thinking. Right now, I can't even.
Monty , August 23, 2019 at 8:21 pm
NotReallyHere , August 23, 2019 at 7:57 pm
That's fair, but you pay taxes at full rate with no rights for a decade, then you pay thousands in legal fees to keep your legal status correct and you can't leave the job your in till you get the green card – which can take years.
The "right" to go back to your own country" is indeed true. But now you have American kids and likely/eventually American grandkids who know nothing of your "old country" – which is itself unrecognizable from when you lived there – and maybe that "right" is less valuable than you think.
Anyway, my aim was to point out the difference between a legal, organized system of immigration and a cynical nasty system of wage suppression using quasi- slavery. They are different things and conflating them serves to hide what is going on
Aug 16, 2019 | www.unz.comMevashir , says: August 14, 2019 at 11:49 pm GMT@geokat62
Amazing Tony Martin lecture with David Irving
Aug 15, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc , August 14, 2019 at 03:48 PMA MUST READ in its entirety
Be prepared to have your mind blown
"Why a Banking Heiress Spent Her Fortune on Keeping Immigrants Out"
'Newly unearthed documents reveal how an environmental-minded socialite became an ardent nativist whose money helped sow the seeds of the Trump anti-immigration agenda'
By Nicholas Kulish and Mike McIntire...Aug. 14, 2019
"She was an heiress without a cause -- an indifferent student, an unhappy young bride, a miscast socialite. Her most enduring passion was for birds.
But Cordelia Scaife May eventually found her life's purpose: curbing what she perceived as the lethal threat of overpopulation by trying to shut America's doors to immigrants.
She believed that the United States was "being invaded on all fronts" by foreigners, who "breed like hamsters" and exhaust natural resources. She thought that the border with Mexico should be sealed and that abortions on demand would contain the swelling masses in developing countries.
An heiress to the Mellon banking and industrial fortune with a half-billion dollars at her disposal, Mrs. May helped create what would become the modern anti-immigration movement. She bankrolled the founding and operation of the nation's three largest restrictionist groups -- the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies -- as well as dozens of smaller ones, including some that have promulgated white nationalist views."...
Jul 17, 2019 | www.washingtonpost.com
Donald Trump's false comments connecting Mexican immigrants and crime By Michelle Ye Hee Lee July 8, 2015
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Real estate mogul Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech , June 16, 2015
"I can never apologize for the truth. I don't mind apologizing for things. But I can't apologize for the truth. I said tremendous crime is coming across. Everybody knows that's true. And it's happening all the time. So, why, when I mention, all of a sudden I'm a racist. I'm not a racist. I don't have a racist bone in my body."
Trump, interview on Fox News' "Media Buzz," July 5, 2015
"What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."
Trump, statement about his June 16 comments, July 6, 2015
Several readers asked us to fact-check Trump's initial comment, which has drawn outrage from Latino groups and led to breakups with his corporate partners distancing themselves from the inflammatory remarks.
This posed a conundrum for The Fact Checker. We had fact checked most of his statements from his news conference announcing his effort to win the GOP presidential nomination, but many of those were in the realm of domestic and international policy. We tend not to wade into fact checking incendiary comments that some might label opinion.
But Trump's statement -- which he repeatedly has defended -- underscores public perceptions that can drive immigration policies. For example, the 2010 murder of a rancher by a suspected smuggler in an Arizona border city fueled public and political pressure on then-Gov. Jan Brewer to sign the controversial anti-immigrant Senate Bill 1070 into law.
What do the data tell us about the criminal threat of immigrants?The Facts
Data on immigrants and crime are incomplete, but a range of studies show there is no evidence immigrants commit more crimes than native-born Americans. In fact, first-generation immigrants are predisposed to lower crime rates than native-born Americans. (The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for restrictive immigration laws, has a detailed report showing the shortfalls of immigrant crime data.)
Immigration and crime levels have had inverse trajectories since the 1990s: immigration has increased, while crime has decreased. Some experts say the influx of immigrants contributed to the decrease in crime rates, by increasing the denominator while not adding significantly to the numerator.
In his July 6 statement, Trump clarified that he was referring to cases where undocumented immigrants commit violent crimes or smuggle drugs. He pointed to the recent incident in San Francisco , where an undocumented immigrant and a repeat felon who had been deported five times to Mexico was arrested on suspicion of fatally shooting a woman.
Trump's campaign pointed to data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission , which tracks citizenship of offenders in federal prisons by primary offense, which is the offense with the longest maximum sentence when a person is convicted of multiple offenses. Of 78,022 primary offense cases in fiscal year 2013, 38.6 percent were illegal immigrant offenders. The majority of their cases (76 percent) were immigration related. Of total primary offenses, 17.6 percent of drug trafficking offenses and 3.8 percent of sex abuse were illegal immigrants. Of 22,878 drug crime cases, 17.2 percent were illegal immigrants.
But these numbers are not indicative of general crime trends of non-citizens. Federal prisoners made up 10 percent of the total incarcerated population in the United States in 2013. When asked how the data are indicative of the Mexican government sending criminals to the United States, or that there is a crime wave coming across the border, a Trump campaign adviser said: "The data speaks for itself."
The Congressional Research Service found that the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants do not fit in the category that fits Trump's description: aggravated felons, whose crimes include murder, drug trafficking or illegal trafficking of firearms.
(Congressional Research Service)
CRS also found that non-citizens make up a smaller percentage of the inmate population in state prisons and jails, compared to their percentage to the total U.S. population.
An analysis of 2010 Census data in a report from the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigration group, shows that 1.6 percent of immigrant males 18 to 39 years old were incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of native-born males. That disparity in incarceration rates has been consistent in the decennial Census since 1980, the report says.
The trend holds when comparing less educated Mexican, Salvadoran and Guatemalan men -- who make up the bulk of the undocumented immigrant population -- to their native-born counterparts, as shown below:
(American Immigration Council)
Are countries like Mexico "not sending their best"?
Immigration offenses account for the largest portion of federal convictions of immigrants (the majority of whom were from Mexico), followed by drug and traffic violations. Sex offenses comprised 1.6 percent of total crimes in 2013.
Inmate legal status is not always tracked at local jails or state prisons. The Government Accountability Office's 2011 analysis collected reports from 2003 to 2009 to the Department of Justice's State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, through which states and localities get reimbursed for convicting and incarcerating inmates of illegal or unknown immigration status (mainly from Mexico).
The GAO found that drug offenses made up the majority of convictions in fiscal year 2008 in the five states (Arizona, California, Florida, New York and Texas) with the largest populations of such inmates. These convictions were both felony and misdemeanor crimes, including use/under the influence, manufacturing, transporting and possession of paraphernalia.
Cartel- and gang-related arrests along the Texas southern border decreased after a border surge in 2014, the Houston Chronicle reported . In 2013, the Center for Investigative Reporting found that four out of five arrests for drug smuggling involved U.S. citizens.
The Department of Homeland Security in recent years has targeted immigration enforcement to those who committed serious crimes through efforts like Secure Communities, rolled out per county from 2008 through 2012. But a recent study showed that increased enforcement didn't lead to decreased crime, calling into question whether serious crimes were prevalent.
Researchers found Secure Communities did not result in a meaningful reduction in the FBI's overall index crime rate or in rates of violent crimes. There were modest reductions in burglary and motor vehicle theft, not serious crimes like homicides or violent crime. (This program is now on its way out .)
The theory is that immigrants generally have a stronger incentive than native-born Americans to stay out of legal trouble -- especially undocumented immigrants, who risk deportation. And those who legally are in the United States (or are pursuing legal status) are required to pass a criminal background check.
"Immigrants in general -- unauthorized immigrants in particular -- are a self-selected group who generally come to the U.S. to work. And once they're here, most of them want to keep their nose down and do their business, and they're sensitive to the fact that they're vulnerable," said Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank.
Interestingly, crime rates increase as generations of immigrants assimilate into America. Second-generation immigrants, who are born in the United States and have at least one foreign-born parent, are more likely to commit crimes than first-generation immigrants, and have similar crime rates as native-born Americans.The Pinocchio Test
It's difficult to connect any crime with illegal immigration, by its nature. Drug smuggling and violent crimes do exist, but the cases are not indicative of larger trends in the immigrant population. What we do know about crime rates among non-citizens and inmates with unknown or unauthorized immigrant statuses show Trump's assertions about a crime wave are not accurate.
Trump's repeated statements about immigrants and crime underscore a common public perception that crime is correlated with immigration, especially illegal immigration. But that is a misperception; no solid data support it, and the data that do exist negate it. Trump can defend himself all he wants, but the facts just are not there.
Nov 10, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
HuckleAndLowly, 10 Nov 2016 10:03ydobon -> HuckleAndLowly
There is a fundamental difficulty here which progressives have not fully faced. It is that more open trade and welcoming immigration policies are, on the one hand, a progressive and moral good (we should feel solidarity with people from the global south; it feels wrong to bar them from our countries and stop them from benefiting from our economies).
On the other hand, more open immigration policies will mean more workers, which will of course take jobs away, especially from the poorest in our own societies. Similarly, more open trade will more jobs in poorer countries and fewer jobs here, again taking jobs, especially from the poorest in our societies. this is morally wrong: we should feel solidarity with our own poor.
Further, more open immigration policies are what capitalism 'wants': more workers will necessarily drive wages down, and so produce greater profits for corporations and the rich, and therefore greater inequality in our society overall. Comfortably well-off liberals can appear and feel progressive by supporting more open immigration, while in fact this support aligns with capitalist policies that benefit them and exploit those who are worse off.
We need a progressive movement that can resolve this and square the circle.
Well said. ,olivercotts -> HuckleAndLowly
Well said.HuckleAndLowly -> olivercotts
'We need a progressive movement that can resolve this and square the circle'.
A good point, but any idea how to progress?
Honestly, no, beyond stressing the fact that more open and welcoming immigration policies are not unalloyed morally good things: they lead to lower wages for the poor and middle class, and lead to greater inequality, since lower wages translate into greater profits for corporations and their owners.
Perhaps if a progressive argument towards tempering and controlling immigration can be made, based on the fact that open immigration leads to greater inequality and in the end benefits the 1% the most, then we can get some sort of progress.
Jun 22, 2019 | www.youtube.comgrantgalea , 7 years agoTodd Randall , 7 years ago
I agree with you toria555 ,they have no right to persecute the Palestinians and another thing Jews are NOT the ONLY Semites. Helen Thomas is correct !theTRUTHprincess , 7 years ago
She's not an "antisemite" because she's a semite. Damn straight!Scherzo7 , 7 years ago div clas
helen = ultimate truth princess! may love surround her and all the others who take a stand in speaking up the truthFihelvete , 7 years ago
s="comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> I'm part Jewish, but consider myself Russian above everything else, as Russia is my home country. I don't entirely agree with this lady, but on some issues she's spot on. Twenty million Russian civilians were exterminated by Germans and millions of Chinese died at the hands of the Japanese, but how come we only hear about 6 million Jews all the time almost 70 years after the war? It's only evoked to victimize Israel, not to benefit Holocaust survivors in any way.eassaspades , 7 years ago
im german and i tell you STOP MILKING OUR MISTAKES!1980redkremlin , 7 years ago div tabindex="0" role="articl
You're so brainwashed. The Zionist jews of Israel are treating the Palestinians like the jews were treated in Germany just before the holocaust. That's why you see the REAL jews protesting against their Israeli government and the occupation of Palestinedeeplake33 , 7 years ago
Helen Thomas is old but that shouldn't mean the less intelligent interviewer should talk down to her. Thomas is right Israeli people should go back to Poland or Germany, they were pushed out of there unfairly sixty years ago. I think that she was misinterpreted because she should've added that second part. Likewise now Israel are doing the same thing to Palestine. I find it hard to sympathize with journalists and writers especially nowadays but Helen Thomas was wrongly interpreted in my view.999newaccount , 7 years ago div class="comm
She spoke the truth & they didn't like it. What they would like to hear is continuous lies, then u get a pat on the back. Start talkin the truth & bam they're all over you. She exercised her freedom of speech & they shut her down.pfcfatmax2010 , 7 years ago div class="comm
ent-renderer-text-content expanded"> It's amazing how unable to process logic that stupid host woman is. Everything Helen Thomas said is obvious truth, but she acts as if she is hearing another language. "Oh but the Jews are sensitive because of WW2!" is literally her only response, as if that is justification for anything that's happened in the past 50 years. Why does this view persist in America? Are they all so afraid of offending Jewish people? They sure don't care about offending anybody else.Llyn Kidner-Williams , 7 years ago
ent-renderer-text-content expanded"> She is talking about the Zionist Jews. The is those Jews who own these networks trying to discredit a wonderful old woman for stating the truth. Israel is Zionism and its disgusting that the world turns their eye to the atrocities happening to the Palestinians.
My heart goes out to them. I pray that one day the world will open their eyes. I pray that I am alive to see it come to pass. Zionism is going to lead to WWIII and it so many are blind to that factasrafoo , 7 years ago div class="
Helen is my Heroine but she is talking to an idiot who does not know her own history.Oscar Sun , 7 years ago
comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> lol america is the exact place indians got almost wiped out and black got enslaved. should you give them a land some where? hell no !! please wtf and know what? they come back to germany with israeli pasports and gert german one too and every year they flood the streets with israeli flags no one attacks them! they could have stayed lol but now we might wonder what the fuck they really want!britturk123 , 7 years ago
This lady has bigger balls than most American and European males combined.herdpoisoning , 7 years ago div tabindex="0" role="artic
She may be old but she is not there for the taking. Although i disagree with the way helen spoke because israel exists and that is that, i think she is fighting against current injustices that are happening in palestein. Some people hate injustice and helen is not one to turn her back on what she believes in so kudos to her.Shery Awan , 7 years ago
le"> It is a sin against the Torah to support the "State of Israel" in any way. Thus, no Jews support Israel, only Zionists. Many Jews who lived in Palestine prior to the Zionist reign of terror (Irgun, Stern Gang) that drove the Palestinians (including those Jews who lived there peacefully, often communally with their Muslim and Christian neighbors) off the land ended up in New York, and are known now as the Neturei Karta. Google them and learn why Rabbis burn the Israeli flag for Purim.Yvonne Romano , 7 years ago
@SaarVardi Let me show you the difference..... they [ the Palestinians] will bring upon themselves a bigger 'shoah' [a Hebrew word for catastrophe and a synonym for the Nazi Holocaust] because we will use all our might to defend ourselves." Israel's deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai told Army Radio on Friday, February 29, 2008John Verber , 7 years ago
The shill reporter starts by saying....."well you have to PAY the price for FREE speech. "John Verber , 7 years ago
v> @SaarVardi But using the "Holocaust" as a means and way to take land from someone else is wrong. The crap the Israeli army does to kids over there is wrong. Kids throw rocks at "TANKS" and the Israeli army breaks their arms. It's crazy. I'm a Native American the estimates are that we lost up to 20 million native Americans when the "white dudes" took over America...you don't see me crying about it. It sucks but just get over it and stop using it as a reason to do whatever you want.Caliq Summo , 7 years ago
v> @SaarVardi Jews yes have been living in the Palestine area forever. But they were a very small percentage of the population. After World War II, the "Big Three" sent all the Jewish refugee's and the one's calling for a Homeland to what is now Israel. Palestinians have whipped out actual land deeds, not archeological evidence. As you say the Jews were there before....yes again as a small percentage of the people within the area.
v> @SaarVardi Mexico is not called Spain,and there live Mexicans (many from Indians), Most of South America people are Indians (Bolivia, Colombia...). U.S. is an other story: most of the space was empty but yes, there was an extermination (is that ok for you?) we are not in the 1500 or 1700, Israel is from 1947 (yesterday) and they are killing people right now. Israel was left empty in the Diaspora (70A.C.).You cant go back now and kill the people who's livin there for 2,000 years
Jun 21, 2019 | www.unz.com
If President Trump doesn't waver, his border deal with Mexico will be a victory. The Mexicans have agreed to quit serving as conduits to hundreds of thousands of central Americans headed for the U.S.A.
Despite protests from Democrats, stateside -- Mexico has agreed to significantly increase enforcement on its borders.
At first, Mexico was as defiant as the Democrats -- and some Republicans.
Democrats certainly can be counted on to argue for the other side -- any side other than the so-called sovereign people they swore to represent.
In fairness to the Democrats, Republicans are only notionally committed to the tough policing of the border. And certainly not if policing the porous border entails threatening trade tariffs against our neighborly narco-state. Some Republican senators even considered a vote to block the tariffs.
Nevertheless, to the hooting and hollering of the cretins in Congress and media, Trump went ahead and threatened Mexico with tariffs .
More than that. The president didn't just tweet out "strong words" and taunts.
Since Mexico, the party duopoly, and his own courts have forced his hand, the president proceeded to "retrieve from his arsenal a time bomb of ruinous proportions."
Or, so the Economist hyperventilated.
Trump issued an executive order, according to which a schedule of tariffs will be implemented unless Mexico polices its borders and ups its dismal rate of deportation, currently at 10 to 20 percent.
Beginning on June 10, " a 5 percent tariff was placed on all imports from Mexico, to be increased by five percentage points each month until it hits 25 percent in October."
Lo and behold, Mexico quickly promised to arrest Central American migrants headed north. Agreements may soon materialize with Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, to which Trump has already cut off foreign aid, in March
It remains for Trump to stick with tough love for Mexico and the rest. If the torrent of grifters from Central America does not let up, neither should the tariffs be lifted or aid restored.
Trump's trade and tariff tactics are about winning negotiations for Americans; they're not aimed at flouting the putative free-market.
How free and fair is trade anyway? Are unfettered markets at work when Canada, for instance, taxes purchases of American goods starting at $20, while America starts taxing Canadian goods at $1000? Hardly.
Free trade is an unknown ideal, to echo Ayn Rand's observations. What goes for "free trade," rather, is trade managed by bureaucratic juggernauts -- national and international -- central planners concerned with regulating, not freeing, trade; whose goal it is to harmonize labor, health, and environmental laws throughout the developed world. The undeveloped and developing worlds generally exploit labor, despoil land and kill off critters as they please.
The American market economy is massive. Trump knows its might. The difference between the president and his detractors is that Trump is prepared to harness the power of American markets to benefit the American people.
But what of the "billions of dollars in imports from Mexico" that are at stake, as one media shill shrieked .
Give me a break. The truth about what Fake News call a major trading partner, Mexico, is that it's a trade pygmy -- a fact known all too well to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard.
The reason these leaders were quick to the negotiating table once a schedule of tariffs had been decided upon by the president is this. Via the Economist :
"Only about 15 percent of the United States' exports go to Mexico, but a whopping 80 percent of Mexico's exports head the other way. 'There is nothing we have in our arsenal that is equivalent to what the United States can do to us,' says Andrés Rozental, a Mexican former diplomat and minister."
Next, President Trump must compel Mexico to accept "safe third-country status." Translated, this means that the U.S. can expel any and all "asylum seekers" if they pass through Mexico, as Mexico becomes their lawful, first port-of-call.
Thinking people should realize that Trump's victory here is a Pyrrhic one. For what the president has had to do is convince the Mexican president to deploy his national guards to do the work American immigration police is not allowed to do.
The U.S. must turn to Mexico to police its border because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has, to all intents and purposes, outlawed immigration laws.
Congressional quislings, for their part, have sat back and grumbled about the need for new laws. But as Daniel Horowitz argues convincingly, this is "a separation of powers problem." Unless the Trump administration understands that the problem lies with the lower-court judges [exceeding their constitutional authority] and not the law -- there will be no fix.
For President Trump, the executive order serves as a way around the courts' violation of the constitutionally enshrined federal scheme, within which the role -- nay, the obligation -- of the commander in chief -- is to defend the country.
Although they're temporary fixes, executive orders can serve to nullify unjust laws. As I argued in my 2016 book, "The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Reconstructed," executive orders are Trump's political power tool -- justice's Jaws of Life, if you will -- to be used by the Executive to pry the people free from judicial oppression.
Understand: The right of a nation to stop The World from flooding its communities amounts to upholding a negative right. In other words, by stopping trespassers at their borders, Americans are not robbing invaders of the trinity of life, liberty and property.
All Americans are asserting is their right to be left alone. What we are saying to The World is what we tell our disobedient toddlers every day, "No. You can't go there."
Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed " (June, 2016). She's on Twitter , Facebook , Gab & YouTube
Nehlen , says: June 21, 2019 at 4:29 am GMTIf you believe Mexico is going to squelch the flow of humans into America -- the same humans who are wiring $25BILLION per year back to family members in Mexico -- I've got a fleet of taco trucks with square tires to sell you.SeekerofthePresence , says: June 21, 2019 at 4:56 am GMTDo you really believe this "deal" will have a substantial effect? It is like holding up an umbrella to Noah's flood of migrants.Whitewolf , says: June 21, 2019 at 5:18 am GMTThere needs to be a huge turnaround in the number of illegals crossing the border if Trump wants to avoid being a one term president. It's hard to see the republicans staying relevant as well if the current numbers continue. They might hold the Senate for a little while but the presidency and a majority in Congress will be out of reach forever.Honor is Loyalty , says: June 21, 2019 at 6:26 am GMTThe more this nonsense carries on, the more I empathize with Stalin. Sometimes you gotta bulldoze your way through. Democracy produces nothing but obstacles. Time to put the keys into the caterpillar.sarz , says: June 21, 2019 at 6:33 am GMTI'd love to see what Ann Coulter would say on this and on Trump's total score on immigration.Leon Haller , says: June 21, 2019 at 7:58 am GMTI applaud this move by Trump, and will of course vote for him in 2020 (for a patriot, what is the alternative?). But unless we end the LEGAL immigration invasion, all this is for nought, and Trump will likely be the last non-leftist Republican President.Bardon Kaldian , says: June 21, 2019 at 8:16 am GMT
I have fought immigration for 40 years without success, except for CA Prop 187 in 1994, quickly overturned by a dirty Muslim immigrant Federal judge. Immigration of racial and cultural and (now it's clear to everyone, as I knew by the 80s in CA) ideological aliens is simple invasion, imperialism by non-military means. We needed Pat Buchanan in the 90s; instead, the stupid Christianists, with whom I used to argue in the 80s-90s-00s endlessly wrt their insane priorities, worried more about abortion and queers (how'd that work out, morons?) than alien conquest – with the obvious result that "globohomo" is stronger than ever – AND we have another 50+ MILLION race aliens voting 8-1 Democrat.
Sadly, Trump and the all-GOP 2017-18 Congress were America's very last chance to stop the invasion and save our (and the GOP's) future. Trump blew it, utterly. Now the USA as a unitary, Occidental, Constitutional, capitalist nation-state cannot be salvaged and/or restored. The only hope for American patriots is White conservative territorial ingathering and eventual racial secession and new sovereignty.Renoman , says: June 21, 2019 at 8:22 am GMT
Unless the Trump administration understands that the problem lies with the lower-court judges [exceeding their constitutional authority] and not the law -- there will be no fix.
This is the crux. And this is true, too..
Free trade is an unknown ideal, to echo Ayn Rand's observations. What goes for "free trade," rather, is trade managed by bureaucratic juggernauts -- national and international -- central planners concerned with regulating, not freeing, trade; whose goal it is to harmonize labor, health, and environmental laws throughout the developed world. The undeveloped and developing worlds generally exploit labor, despoil land and kill off critters as they please.There are many times when a punch in the face is far more effective than diplomacy, this was one. Good for Donny, good for America.Gracchus Babeuf , says: June 21, 2019 at 9:03 am GMTIn 2018, there were 70 million refugees, seeking safety from the world's conflict zone. One person was forced to flee their home because of war and violence every two seconds.Greg Bacon , says: Website June 21, 2019 at 9:28 am GMT"And I'll huff and puff and bow your house down," said the Big, Bad Wolf.Greg Bacon , says: June 21, 2019 at 9:42 am GMT
When stories about the record number of illegals flooding in stop hitting the news cycle, and we no longer get possibly Ebola infected Congolese with wads of $100 bills, I might believe your assumptions.
Africans Coming Across The Southern Border Have "Rolls Of $100 Bills"
Has Herr Trump huffed and puffed the same hot air towards the Congo?One more thought: Remember that hot air the Big, Bad Orange wolf blew that ICE was going to start rounding up millions of illegals on Tuesday? Here it is Friday and no action.Realist , says: June 21, 2019 at 10:09 am GMT
How many times will people fall for Trump's BS promises where nothing gets done or he backtracks?
Madame Mercer, I suspect the real reason behind your story is that Trump is the best POTUS for Israel since the traitor LBJ and that a certain group wants to keep Tubby the Grifter in the WH so he can keep acting as Israel's de facto real estate agent.wesmouch , says: June 21, 2019 at 10:11 am GMT
Trump Barters for Borders -- and Wins, Big Time
Trump was won nothing big time. Including his election. His wins are miniscule. You are becoming an insufferable sycophant.The simpleton Mercer misses what is really going on. The re-election push is on and Trump will roll out "plans" to deal with immigration. They will never come into fruition as they are mere "boob bait for bubba". The drug cartels run Mexico and people trafficking is a bigger business than drug trafficking. If you think they are going to stop, you are as delusional as Ms Mercer. By the way the politicians work for the drug cartels in Mexico. Of course the advice that Mercer gave to South Africa led to the current situation where the ANC runs the country and whites are disenfranchised. But what else would you expect from a Jew who sell the goyim down the river every chance they get.Leon Haller , says: June 21, 2019 at 10:26 am GMT@sarz Grade: D+ (every other President since Kennedy: F)vinteuil , says: June 21, 2019 at 10:36 am GMT
Trump should have made reducing LEGAL immigration (and building the Wall to stop illegals) his #1 priority as soon as he was inaugurated. Instead, he dithered with personnel issues, then Obmacare (betrayed by rot-in-hell you bastard McCain), then tax cuts, Kavanaugh, loss of House, the End.
America is gone as not only a White nation, but within 25 years, even a semi-civilized and First World one. Diversity is what destroyed us. We could have integrated (more or less) the blacks, but the sheer numbers of mostly clannish nonwhite colonizers since 1968 has doomed us. America was its White, Christian, Anglo-Nordic majority. Without that majority, American dies.
On to the Ethnostate!@Gracchus Babeuf
I guess it's ok to bomb the crap out of other countries, but when those people try and get away from the hell created, that's supposed to be wrong.
Has the U.S. been bombing Central America, lately? I must have missed that.
Jun 17, 2019 | www.unz.com
... ... ...
The border situation is so outrageous it appears like something out of a black comedy. "We are in a full blown emergency," said acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner John Sanders, "and I cannot say this stronger: the system is broken". [ 32% increase in migrants encountered or arrested at the southern border in May , by Priscilla Alvarez, CNN, June 5, 2019] Why is this happening? Migrants all over the world from Guatemala to Angola know the loopholes in immigration border enforcement imposed by a treasonous Leftist kritarchy , especially the claim of " credible fear " potentially qualifying people for asylum.
[ While everyone sleeps, the courts are abolishing all immigration enforcement , by Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, March 11, 2019] Thus, most migrants are not sneaking across the border: they are eagerly turning themselves in at ports of entry, knowing they will soon be released into the country on the promise, which they intend to break, that they will show up for adjudication.
These invaders are being dumped on local communities, seemingly randomly. Without notice, 350 Congolese were sent to San Antonio recently , leaving the city scrambling for interpreters. Mayors throughout Texas, even the Democrat mayor of Del Rio, are furious because dealing with invading migrants prevents local governments from spending money on streets, schools, and infrastructure. [ Democrat border mayor goes ballistic over 'dumping' of illegal aliens in his town , by Daniel Horowitz, ConservativeReview, June 17, 2019] But the same MSM that wants social media regulated in the name of banning anti-vaccine propaganda is silent about diseases brought by these new arrivals .
The Department of Homeland Security is actually facilitating the invasion, dropping off illegals by bus in communities in the Southwest. [ Five Years Later: Murrietta Residents That Blocked DHS Buses With Illegals Prepare For Round Two , by Beth Baumann, Townhall, May 21, 2019] Even alleged cartel members are claiming asylum right after their gunfights. [ Sinaloa cartel shootout in Agua Prieta leaves nearly a dozen people dead , by Lupita Murillo, KVOA4, June 11, 2019]
Remember, President Trump has the authority to solve this problem without Congress. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the president can impose a travel ban on certain countries . Conservative Review's Daniel Horowitz argues the president has inherent powers under Article II to exclude asylum applicants from entering the country, authority that has been reaffirmed by Congress and repeatedly sanctioned by the Supreme Court. [ No judge has jurisdiction to erase our border , ConservativeReview, November 26, 2018]
He also, as we have repeatedly outlined at VDARE.com, has inherent powers to build border defenses that would not require Congress .
But Trump won't do it -- partially because he has inexplicably surrounded himself with political foes who won't back strong action . Instead, he's blaming the Democrats for not undertaking the "simple" measure of closing the "loopholes."
Yet he has to know (at least I hope he does) that Democrats, who have radically shifted left on immigration in recent years, won't help. Besides, the Democrats' plan to simply import a new electorate is working -- for them.
The most optimistic explanation: Trump intends to use immigration as an election issue in 2020. Yet his fecklessness in office will be as unappealing to many voters as the Democrats' extremism. [ Trump Is Vulnerable to Biden on Immigration , by Michael Brendan Dougherty, National Review, June 11, 2019] After all, Trump began his campaign vowing to solve the immigration problem almost exactly four years ago -- but essentially nothing has been done.
Instead, the president has been reduced to asking Mexico to solve our problem for us. He supposedly cut a deal with the Mexican government after threatening tariffs , but even that is in dispute. [ Mexico denies Trump's claim of secret concessions in deal , by Jill Colvin, Colleen Long, and Maria Verza, Associated Press, June 10, 2019] The president left powerful negotiating tools on the side, including, most importantly, a remittance tax . As in his dealings with Congress, the president insists on negotiating from weakness in his dealings with Mexico.
In contrast, in the Middle East the president has been extraordinarily bellicose. In April, the Administration revoked waivers that allowed certain countries to buy oil from Iran without violating U.S. sanctions [ U.S. Won't Renew Sanction Exemptions For Countries Buying Iran's Oil , by Bill Chappell, NPR, April 22, 2019]. In early May, the president imposed new sanctions on Iranian metals, a direct threat to the regime's economic viability. [ Trump sanctions Iranian metals, Tehran's largest non-petroleum-related sources of export revenue , by Amanda Macias, CNBC, May 8, 2019] Later that month, the president said a fight would mean "the official end of Iran" [ Trump threatens Iran With 'Official End' by Kenneth Walsh, US News and World Report, May 20, 2019].
The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War , by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign Policy, June 14, 2019].
... ... ...
There is also a deeper fundamental question. Our country is crumbling. The border is non-existent; entire communities are being overrun. There’s something perverse about even entertaining a dangerous and costly military intervention halfway around the world. It’s akin to a Roman emperor declaring he will conquer India while barbarians are crossing the Rhine.
President Trump ran on a policy of non-intervention and promised it even after being elected. [ Trump lays out non-interventionist U.S. military policy , by Steve Holland, Reuters, December 6, 2016] He repeatedly pushed back against efforts to get more deeply involved in Syria. He must now resist efforts to get involved in Iran, especially from those who may hint it will win him re-election.
Jun 11, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
fastfreddy , Jun 11, 2019 10:51:55 AM | 133The MoA Week In Review - OT 2019-32
The common migrant cannot be tasked with improving the politics, the financial aspects, the pay scale, the opportunities for work, the safety of his family in his home country.
The USA has prepared his country the way that it endeavors it to be. That is a vassal, saddled with World Bank, IMF Debt and currency with ever-declining value pegged to the us dollar.
Often the US controls his country via election rigging, coups, military intervention, black ops, etc.
He must do that which best serves his family. That is find the most efficient solution - which is migration.
Jun 08, 2019 | www.unz.com
Ace , says: June 7, 2019 at 1:20 pm GMT@Tired of Not Winning
... As a wag on ZeroHedge observed, Trump has spent more time at the Wailing Wall than on our southern border.
And while every month 100,000 invaders are released into the interior of the US.
May 19, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Rapid DNA testing has revealed that almost 1/3 of illegal migrants apprehended at the southern US border were not biologically related to the children they were traveling with, nor were they cases of step-fathers or adoptive parents, according to the Washington Examiner .
The findings were a result of a pilot program conducted by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in El Paso and McAllen, Texas.
The number of migrants tested and how they flagged people for testing is unknown, while the official added that some migrants refused the cheek-swab test and admitted that they aren't related to the children they were with after learning that their claim would be subject to DNA proof.
After analyzing the results of the pilot, the Department of Homeland Security will consider rolling out the rapid DNA tests on a broad-scale, according to ICE.
"This is certainly not the panacea. It's one measure," said the official.
One upside, the source said, was that in addition to verifying bogus relationships, it also verified many when Homeland Security personnel were unsure.
The Examiner reported in March the Department of Homeland Security and ICE were looking at adopting the test, made by a company called ANDE . On May 1, DHS announced it would launch a pilot of the program in instances where ICE Homeland Security Investigations agents could not verify a family unit's relationships. - Washington Examiner
In March, former DHS chief Kristjen Nielsen announced that border crossers have been using " child recycling rings " to trick US authorities .
"We've broken up child recycling rings -- if you can believe it -- in the last couple of months, which is where smugglers pick up a child, they give it to adults to present themselves as a family once they get over -- because, as you know, we can only hold families for 20 days -- they send the child back and bring the child back with another family. Another fake family," Nielsen told Fox News 's Tucker Carlson.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/rEfma2hj2sU?start=232Tags Social Issues
May 17, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Teamtc321 , 51 minutes ago link
President Donald Trump is planning on using the Insurrection Act to remove illegal immigrants from the United States, The Daily Caller has learned.
According to multiple senior administration officials, the president intends to invoke the "tremendous powers" of the act to remove illegal immigrants from the country.
"We're doing the Insurrection Act," one official said.
Under the Insurrection Act of 1807 , the president has the authority to use the National Guard and military in order to combat "unlawful obstruction or rebellion" within U.S. borders. The act was last invoked in 1992 by George H.W. Bush to quell the Los Angeles riots, and was also used by Eisenhower in 1957 to enforce school desegregation in the south.
An official expressed concerns that Trump's use of the act's powers would face legal challenges, pointing to the lawsuits against the president's travel ban from majority-Muslim countries. However, as the official noted, the travel ban ultimately prevailed in the Supreme Court.
In addition to the Insurrection Act, the president is also considering declaring the country full and insisting that the U.S. can no longer handle the massive influx of illegal immigrants. 2019 is currently on pace to reach the highest levels of illegal immigration in a decade.
"If you take a ship and it holds 1,000 people maximum -- one more person and the ship is going to collapse," the official explained. "The country is full."
"Our hospitals are full, our detention centers are full," they added."
May 13, 2019 | www.unz.com
Endgame Napoleon , says: May 9, 2019 at 9:26 pm GMTAmericans probably don't understand Russia. Americans don't even mostly understand their own history. With little education in our system of constitutional governance in formerly politically apathetic -- now Woke -- public schools bereft of civics classes, the lack of historical grounding is not surprising.
One thing Americans do understand, though, is the need to stop the mass flow of welfare-assisted immigration, curbing the illegal kind entirely and reducing the legal kind significantly. Americans have made this clear twice: in the election of Donald J. Trump and in the equally unexpected rise of Ross Perot, an unprecedentedly successful Third Party candidate in the Nineties who rocketed to prominence by boldly condemning "the giant sucking sound of jobs going across the border to Mexico."
It just does not matter what Americans want in our rigged system. Whatever we vote for, mostly for economic reasons but also a few other good reasons, Neoliberal economic Elites ignore it, pursuing their own economic interests once in office.
Maybe, Perot would have done the same thing as Trump if he had made it to the White House. But people like Ann Coulter are popular because -- like Perot -- they articulate in no uncertain terms crucial, popular points that most politicians are just too cowering to even address verbally, much less redressing voters' grievances with any real action.
On the campaign trail, Trump cleverly sidestepped the issue of immigration with mocking comedy that could be conveniently repackaged in case of any victory. It was just a matter of interpretation: whether you heard more Build The Wall or more Big Beautiful Door in the wall in Trump's thunderous speeches. Trump's voters heard Build The Wall, and many did not show up to vote for Republicans in the midterms, whereas the Cheap Labor Lobby & the corporate donor class heard Big Beautiful Door.
Higdon Kirt , , April 14, 2019 at 8:59 pm
Apr 15, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
President Donald Trump was elected on a platform of America policing its own borders, not the world. His reelection may depend on how well he has fulfilled those campaign promises, which distinguished him from the bipartisan political class he so eloquently described as the swamp.
So far, the results are not encouraging. While Trump campaigned against regime change in the Middle East, his administration has been coy about whether the authorization of military force to respond to the 9/11 attacks covers toppling the government of Iran mere days after labeling the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Meanwhile, the situation at the border is deteriorating, with the number of illegal crossings approaching the bad old days of the early to mid-2000s. More of these immigrants are likely staying in the country as the composition of new migrant inflows increasingly shifts from single men to families with children .
Single men can be more easily detained and quickly removed from the United States. Families with children and unaccompanied minors face a different set of rules -- and, as the White House learned last year, create a different set of political problems .
One key difference remains, however: on foreign policy, Trump is receiving advice almost exclusively from officials whose instincts run counter to the "America First" agenda from the 2016 campaign. On immigration and border security, there is more of a split . That's why there's so much at stake in Trump's recent immigration shake-up.
The ouster of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and her deputy Claire Grady has been widely reported as an example of senior advisor Stephen Miller consolidating control of his immigration portfolio. But it may not be Miller time just yet. The moves come after Jared Kushner, the senior advisor who is also Trump's son-in-law, has been pushing a plan to increase legal immigration .
Trump has praised Miller as "excellent," "wonderful," and "brilliant," but clarified that he alone runs the show on immigration. (It's possible that some of the sourcing for stories putting Miller's fingerprints all over the Nielsen sacking actually came from his own enemies inside the White House.) Trump described Kushner's unannounced immigration ideas as "very exciting, very important." The president recently called for increased immigration himself, ad-libbing this line in his last State of the Union address: "I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come legally."
Yet a bill Trump endorsed at the White House last year would eventually cut legal immigration in half. Freshman Senator Josh Hawley joined Trump-aligned Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue to reintroduce this bill in an apparent attempt to thwart Kushner's coming push to expand immigration. On the stump, Trump has railed against "chain migration" and picking immigrants by "lottery" rather than a "merit-based system." But like a lot of Republicans, he tends to focus on legality versus illegality, rather than the number and composition of immigrants entering the country overall.
There was a point last year when a sufficient number of Democrats -- mostly red-state senators up for reelection that November, like Hawley's since-vanquished opponent Claire McCaskill -- might have voted to fund Trump's border wall in exchange for the reinstatement of Barack Obama's amnesty for young illegal immigrants who arrived in the country as minors. The White House, on advice often attributed to Miller, floated a different compromise. Amnesty would be provided for an even larger number of young undocumented immigrants in exchange for the legal immigration reforms in the Cotton-Perdue RAISE Act and border security measures including wall funding.Immigration Puts Trump's Legacy at Risk Blame Congress for Trump's Immigration Power Grab
Politically, trading the wall for Dreamers would have given Trump a high-profile border victory at the cost of a much smaller amnesty than the Gang of Eight plan. The failure to take that deal, assuming Democrats would have actually accepted it, will always be regarded as a mistake . On the merits, however, there were strong reasons to offset the amnesty with immigration cuts elsewhere while adopting reforms that would make it less likely we would be debating yet another legalization program for undocumented minors a few years later.
In one of the many examples of how this president has unsettled our politics, David Frum, author of the Never Trump screed Trumpocracy , endorsed precisely this policy mix in an important cover story for The Atlantic. Frum's piece appeared at roughly the same time that Ann Coulter, author of In Trump We Trust , was excoriating Trump for failing to keep his immigration promises and filling his administration with people who constantly undermine them.
Frum, regardless of my other disagreements with him , has stuck to his skepticism of uninterrupted mass immigration despite his profound alienation from the Trump-era GOP. Coulter, ridiculed for her pro-Trump polemics during the campaign, has actually done far more to hold the president accountable than most denizens of MAGA-land (she was also more prescient about the election than most of those sneering at her). It was Frum, in a prior Atlantic piece, who credited Coulter, in a previous book, with opening Trump's eyes to the force of the immigration issue.
Trump and Coulter are now estranged over precisely this issue. The White House palace intrigue matters. Does Francis Cissna stay or go? Does Kris Kobach have a chance at DHS? Will Julie Kirchner join Miller or does Ken Cuccinelli come aboard ? But another question is even more important.
If given the chance for a wall and an amnesty do-over, is the average Trump voter closer to Kushner or Coulter?
W. James Antle III is editor of . 6 Responses to Trump's Immigration Choice: Kushner or Coulter?
newsflash April 14, 2019 at 8:46 pmTrump -- ""I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come legally.""
I don't. I don't want that. I voted for you because I thought you were against it too, you ^^^^ing ripoff artist. Now I'm going to help get you the ^^^^ out of the White House.
For the average voter, even the average Trump supporter, immigration is not as big an issue as many imagine. Among Trump supporters I know, gun rights, support of Israel, dislike of Hillary and the PC state in general all are more important than immigration. Kushner, being family, will beat Coulter on the immigration issue and it will make no difference to Trump's support level. As long as we have prosperity and just the right amount of tension at home and abroad in 2020, Trump will probably beat whatever array of Demo and third party candidate he has to deal with.Bullwinkle J. Moose , , April 14, 2019 at 9:21 pm
Jared is more focused on protecting Israel's expanding borders from Palestinians remaining in their homes and homeland, than protecting America's borders.sb , , April 15, 2019 at 12:35 am
America First, or Israel First???
Coulter. Hands down. And I have always been a 'lefty'.Sam , , April 15, 2019 at 2:26 am
Immigration shapes a nation more than any other driver (education, health, defense, etc), short of outright conquest by another nation.
Allow liberals their unconstrained 'open borders' importation of 'multi-cultural diversity', and you get colonised fast. Especially when migrants breed faster than locals. Look at Europe. Or Canada.
Lottery and chain migration must be canned, and retrospectively (ie deport past chain migrants) – they never had a claim to migrate in the first place. And institute random audits (with deportation) for fraudulent migration claims. With rising jail terms the more times they try to re-enter illegally.
You have to have spine to defend your nation. Trump may do. Coulter does. Kushner works for liberal capitalism, which wants a colonized US, flooded by cheap migrant labor.
WELL OF COURSE IT'S GONNA BE MISTAH KUSHNAHpax , , April 15, 2019 at 4:58 am
Kushner. Save Bibi calling Donald.
Apr 08, 2019 | www.unz.com"Unlike other presidents, I keep my promises," Trump boasted in a speech delivered on Saturday to the Republican Jewish Congress at a luxury hotel in Las Vegas. Many in the audience wore red yarmulkes emblazoned with his name. In his speech, Trump condemned Democrats for allowing "the terrible scourge of anti-Semitism to take root in their party" and emphasized his loyalty to Israel.
Trump has kept some of his promises. So far, he has kept every promise that he made to the Jewish community. Yet he has reneged on his promises to white America – the promises that got him elected in the first place. It is a betrayal of the highest order: millions of white Americans placed their hopes in Trump and wholeheartedly believed that he would be the one to make America great again. They were willing to endure social ostracism and imperil their livelihoods by supporting him. In return, Trump has turned his back on them and rendered his promises void.
The most recent example of this is Trump's failure to keep his promise to close the border. On March 29, Trump threatened to close the border if Mexico did not stop all illegal immigration into the US. This would likely have been a highly effective measure given Mexico's dependence on cross-border trade. Five days later, he suddenly retracted this threat and said that he would give Mexico a " one-year warning " before taking drastic action. He further claimed that closing the border would not be necessary and that he planned to establish a twenty-five percent tariff on cars entering the US instead.
Trump's failure here is his alone. Closing the border could be accomplished with a simple executive order. It has happened before: Reagan ordered the closing of the border when DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena was murdered on assignment in Mexico in 1985, for instance.
Trump's empty threats over the past two years have had real-world consequences, prompting waves of migrants trying to sneak into the country while they still have the chance. His recent move to cut all foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador is another empty gesture that will probably have similar consequences. The funds directed to those countries were used for programs that provided citizens with incentives not to migrate elsewhere. (The situation was not ideal from an isolationist point of view, but a wiser man would have built the wall before cutting off the aid.)
The past two years have seen a surge in illegal immigration without precedent in the past decade. Since late December, the Department of Homeland Security has released 125,565 illegal aliens into the country. In the past two weeks alone, 6,000 have been admitted. According to current projections, 2019 will witness around 500,000 to 775,000 border crossings. Additionally, about 630,000 illegal aliens will be added to the population after having overstayed their visas. By the end of the year, more than one million illegal aliens will have been added to the population:
These projections put the number of illegal aliens added to the U.S. population at around one to 1.5 million, on top of the 11 to 22 million illegal aliens who are already living across the country. This finding does not factor in the illegal aliens who will be deported, die over the next year, or leave the U.S. of their own will. As DHS data has revealed, once border crossers and illegal aliens are released into the country, the overwhelming majority are never deported.
In February, Trump signed a bill allowing the DHS secretary to add another 69,320 spots to the current H-2B cap of 66,000. On March 29, DHS began this process by announcing that it would issue an additional 30,000 H-2B visas this year. The H-2B visa program allows foreign workers to come to the US and work in non-agricultural occupations. Unlike the H-1B program, a Bachelor's degree is not required; most H-2B workers are employed in construction, maintenance, landscaping, and so on. The demographic most affected by the expansion of the H-2B program will be unemployed working-class Americans. This flies in the face of Trump's promise to protect American workers and stop importing foreigners.
Trump has indicated that he has plans to expand the H-1B visa program as well. "We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S.," he said in a tweet in January.
Trump's betrayal of American workers is perhaps best encapsulated by the fact that one of the members of the advisory board of his National Council for the American Worker (which claims to "enhance employment opportunities for Americans of all ages") is the CEO of IBM, a company that has expressed a preference for F-1 and H-1B visa holders in its job postings.
Trump has been working on legal immigration with Jared Kushner, who has quietly been crafting a plan to grant citizenship to more "low- and high-skilled workers, as well as permanent and temporary workers" (so, just about everyone). Kushner's plan proves the folly of the typical Republican line that legal immigration is fine and that only illegal immigration should be opposed. Under his plan, thousands of illegal aliens will become "legal" with the stroke of a pen.
There is a paucity of anti-immigration hardliners in Trump's inner circle (though Stephen Miller is a notable exception). Trump has surrounded himself with moderates: the Kushners, Mick Mulvaney, Alex Acosta, and others. There are more former Goldman Sachs employees in the Trump White House than in the Obama and Bush administrations combined.
The new DHS secretary, Kevin McAleenan, who was appointed yesterday following Kirstjen Nielsen's resignation, is a middle-of-the-road law enforcement official who served under Obama and Bush and is responsible for the revival of the " catch-and-release " policy, whereby illegal aliens are released upon being apprehended. It was reported last week that Trump was thinking of appointing either Kris Kobach or Ken Cuccinelli to a position of prominence (as an " immigration czar "), but this appears to have been another lie.
Trump's failure to deliver on his promises cannot be chalked up to congressional obstruction. Congress. As Kobach said in a recent interview , "It's not like we're powerless and it's not like we have to wait for Congress to do something. . . . No, we can actually solve the immediate crisis without Congress acting." Solving the border crisis would simply demand "leadership in the executive branch willing to act decisively." Kobach recently outlined an intelligent three-point plan that Trump could implement:Publish the final version of the regulation that would supersede the Flores Settlement. The initial regulation was published by the Department of Homeland Security in September 2018. DHS could have published the final regulation in December. Inexplicably, DHS has dragged its feet. Finalizing that regulation would allow the United States to detain entire families together, and it would stop illegal aliens from exploiting children as get-out-of-jail free cards. Set up processing centers at the border to house the migrants and hold the hearings in one place. The Department of Justice should deploy dozens of immigration judges to hear the asylum claims at the border without releasing the migrants into the country. FEMA already owns thousands of travel trailers and mobile homes that it has used to address past hurricane disasters. Instead of selling them (which FEMA is currently doing), FEMA should ship them to the processing centers to provide comfortable housing for the migrants. In addition, a fleet of passenger planes should deployed to the processing centers. Anyone who fails in his or her asylum claim, or who is not seeking asylum and is inadmissible, should be flown home immediately. It would be possible to fly most migrants home within a few weeks of their arrival. Word would get out quickly in their home countries that entry into the United States is not as easy as advertised. The incentive to join future caravans would dissipate quickly. Publish a proposed Treasury regulation that prohibits the sending home of remittances by people who cannot document lawful presence in the United States. This will hit Mexico in the pocketbook: Mexico typically brings in well over $20 billion a year in remittances , raking in more than $26 billion in 2017. Then, tell the government of Mexico that we will finalize the Treasury regulation unless they do two things to help us address the border crisis: (1) Mexico immediately signs a "safe third country agreement" similar to our agreement with Canada. This would require asylum applicants to file their asylum application in the first safe country they set foot in (so applicants in the caravans from Central America would have to seek asylum in Mexico, rather than Canada); and (2) Mexico chips in $5 billion to help us build the wall. The threat of ending remittances from illegal aliens is a far more powerful one than threatening to close the border. Ending such remittances doesn't hurt the U.S. economy; indeed, it helps the economy by making it more likely that such capital will be spent and circulate in our own country. We can follow through easily if Mexico doesn't cooperate.
It would not be all that difficult for Trump to implement these proposals. Kobach still has faith in Trump, but his assessment of him appears increasingly to be too generous. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Trump is not actually interested in curbing immigration and reversing America's demographic decline. He is a con artist and a coward who is willing to betray millions of white Americans so that he can remain in the good graces of establishment neoconservatives . At the same time, he wants to maintain the illusion that he cares about his base.
As Ann Coulter has put it, "He's like a waiter who compliments us for ordering the hamburger, but keeps bringing us fish. The hamburger is our signature dish, juicy and grilled to perfection, you've made a brilliant choice . . . now here's your salmon. "
Nearly everything Trump has done in the name of restricting immigration has turned out to be an empty gesture and mere theatrics: threatening to close the border, offering protections to "Dreamers" in exchange for funding for the ever-elusive wall, threatening to end the "anchor baby" phenomenon with an executive order (which never came to pass), cutting off aid to Central American countries, claiming that he will appoint an "immigration czar" (and then proceeding to appoint McAleenan instead of Kobach as DHS secretary), and on and on.
While Trump has failed to keep the promises that got him elected, he has fulfilled a number of major promises that he made to Israel and the Jewish community.
First, he moved the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump claimed that the move would only cost $200,000, but in reality it will end up being more than $20 million . The construction of the embassy also led to a series of bloody protests; it is located in East Jerusalem, which is generally acknowledged to be Palestinian territory.
Second, he pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal. Netanyahu claimed on Israeli TV that Israel was responsible for convincing him to exit the deal and reimpose sanctions on Iran. (Both Trump and Netanyahu falsely alleged that Iran lied about the extent of its nuclear program; meanwhile, Israel's large arsenal of chemical and biological weapons has escaped mention.) Third, he put an end to American funding for Palestinians. This coincided with the passing of a bill that codified a $38 billion, ten-year foreign aid package for Israel. Trump also authorized an act allocating an additional $550 million toward US-Israel missile and tunnel defense cooperation.
Fourth, he recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights (in defiance of the rest of the world, which recognizes the Golan Heights as Syrian territory under Israeli occupation). Trump's Golan Heights proclamation was issued on March 21 and was celebrated by Israel. Trump's track record on Israel shows that he is capable of exercising agency and getting things done. But he has failed to address the most pressing issue that America currently faces: mass immigration and the displacement of white Americans. The most credible explanation for his incompetence is that he has no intention of delivering on his promises. There is no "Plan," no 4-D chess game. The sooner white Americans realize this, the better.
aandrews , says: April 10, 2019 at 3:17 am GMTKushner, Inc. Book Review Part I: The Rise of The Kushner Crime FamilyThinker , says: April 10, 2019 at 4:16 am GMT
Kushner, Inc. Book Review Part II: The Fall of The Kushner Crime Family
If you haven't picked up a copy of Vicky Ward's book, Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump , you really should.
I haven't read Mr. Graham's essay yet, but I thought those two links would fit in nicely. I stay in a low boil, like it is, and having plodded through both those reviews, I can't stand reading too much on this topic at once.
Something's gotta give. Or are the brainless goy just going to let themselves be led off a cliff?
Oh, yes. There's an interview with Ward on BookTV .Yep. Trump's a lying POS pond scum like the rest of the DC swamp that he said he was going to drain, turns out he is one of them all along. We elected America's first Jewish president, nothing more. He needs to change his campaign slogan to MIGA, Make Israel Great Again, that was the plan of his handlers all along.jbwilson24 , says: April 10, 2019 at 4:51 am GMT
What I want to know is, who are those idiots who still keep showing up at his rallies? Are they really that dumb?
Even Sanders came out and said we can't have open borders. I've also heard him said back in 2015 that the H1b visa program is a replacement program for American workers. If he grows a pair and reverts back to that stance, teams up with Tulsi Gabbard, I'll vote for them 2020. Fuck Trump! Time for him and his whole treasonous rat family to move to Israel where they belong.@Thinker " We elected America's first Jewish president, nothing more"peterAUS , says: April 10, 2019 at 5:05 am GMT
Afraid not, there's plenty of reason to believe that the Roosevelt family and Lyndon Johnson were Jewish.
Your major point stands, though. He's basically a shabbesgoy.@Dr. Robert MorganReal Buddy Ray , says: April 10, 2019 at 5:18 am GMT
His "implicitly white" supporters would have abandoned him in droves, not wanting to be associated with a racist, thus pointing up the weakness of implicit whiteness as a survival strategy. And is it actually a survival strategy? A closer look at it makes me think it's more of a racial self-extermination strategy. After all, what kind of a survival strategy is it that can't even admit its goals to itself? And it's exactly this refusal of whites to explicitly state that they collectively want to continue to exist as a race that is the greatest impediment to their doing so. It's an interesting problem with no easy solution. How do you restore the will to live to a race that seems to have lost it? And not only lost its will to live, but actually prides itself on doing so? Accordingly, this "betrayal" isn't a betrayal at all. It's what American whites voted for and want. Giving their country away and accepting their own demographic demise is proof of their virtue; proof of their Christian love for all mankind.
You are definitely onto something here.
Still, I feel it's not that deep and complicated. It could be that they simply don't believe that the danger is closing in.
Boils down to wrong judgment. People who haven't had the need to think hard about serious things tend to develop that weakness.
I guess that boils down to "good times make weak men."
Hard times are coming and they'll make hard men. The catch is simple: will be enough of them in time ?@Thomm https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trumps-proposal-for-legal-immigration/499061/JNDillard , says: April 10, 2019 at 5:20 am GMTSwitching to the Democrats is no solution. The DNC has proven itself to be a criminal organization through sabotaging Sander's campaign and then being instrumental in creating Russophobia, in collusion with Obama, the CIA, the FBI, and the DoJ. The DNC has rules in place stating that super delegates – elitists aligned with the DNC – can vote if one nominee does not win on the first ballot at the National Convention.
Because we have a HUGE number of hats in the Democratic ring, the chances that the nomination will not be decided on a first vote are extremely high, with the result being that the Democratic nominee is not going to be decided by voters in the primaries but by super delegates, i.e., the elitists and plutocrats.
Democracy exists when we vote to support candidates chosen by the elites for the elites; when we stop doing that, the elites turn on democracy. It is a sham; we will have a choice in 2020: between Pepsi and Coke. You are free to choose which one you prefer, because you live in a democracy. For more on the rigging of the democratic primaries for 2020, see
Mar 25, 2019 | www.quora.com
David W. Rudlin Answered Jan 29 · Author has 1.8k answers and 8m answer views
Jared sold himself as the only man who could make a deal between Dems and the GOP. He pointed to "his" recent success with prison reform as proof of his bonafides.
Of course, he blew it as usual. He told his side that Dems would vote for Trump's $5.7 billion "wall, or whatever you want to call it" -- and they didn't. He said the Dems would break ranks -- and they didn't.
It appears that Kushner talked to a few junior Dems, who were too wet behind the ears to tell the president's son in law that he needed to change his meds. He read their silence as meaning they were prepared to commit mutiny and, putting all his chips on that bet, stopped talking to both Pelosi (where the real power lies) and Schumer.
Then he told everyone he'd cracked it.
The Senate votes came, and the Trump proposal got FEWER votes than the Democratic proposal, which managed to get 6 GOP Senators to jump ship. Kushner had not only failed; he'd embarrassed the boss.
As others have said below, Trump always finds someone to blame for his mistakes. But in this case there were very good reasons for pointing the finger at Kushner.
Of course, it was Donald who appointed Jared, and gave him the reins on this critical project -- ignoring the fact that Pence had actually served in Congress, knew the players, and knew the game. Even after two years' worth of evidence that a political neophyte cannot solve all the nation's most intractable problems just because he sleeps with the boss's daughter, the First Con fell for a con man.
They both got what they deserved.
Mar 16, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
I am now of the opinion that 2018 will be the peak in crude oil production, not 2019 as I earlier predicted. Russia is slowing down and may have peaked. Canada is slowing down and Brazil is slowing down. OPEC likely peaked in 2016. It is all up to the USA. Can shale oil save us from peak oil?
OPEC + Russia + Canada, about 57% of world oil production.
Jeff says: 03/14/2019 at 1: 50 pm
"I am now of the opinion that 2018 will be the peak in crude oil production, not 2019 as I earlier predicted. Russia is slowing down and may have peaked. Canada is slowing down and Brazil is slowing down. OPEC likely peaked in 2016. It is all up to the USA. Can shale oil save us from peak oil?"
IEA΄s Oil 2019 5y forecast has global conventional oil on a plateau, i.e. declines and growth match each other perfectly and net growth will come from LTO, NGL, biofuels and a small amount of other unconventional and "process gains".
Iran is ofc a jocker, since it can quickly add supply. Will be interesting to see how Trump will proceed.
Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 03/14/2019 at 3:23 pmI am quite original in my opinion about Peak Oil. I think it took place in late 2015. I will explain. If we define Peak Oil as the maximum in production over a certain period of time we will not know it has taken place for a long time, until we lose the hope of going above. That is not practical, as it might take years.Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/14/2019 at 4:57 pm
I prefer to define Peak Oil as the point in time when vigorous growth in oil production ended and we entered an undulating plateau when periods of slow growth and slow decline will alternate, affected by oil price and variable demand by economy until we reach terminal decline in production permanently abandoning the plateau towards lower oil production.
The 12-year rate of growth in C+C production took a big hit in late 2015 and has not recovered. The increase in 2 Mb since is just an anemic 2.5% over 3 years or 0.8% per year, and it keeps going down. This is plateau behavior since there was no economic crisis to blame. It will become negative when the economy sours.
Peak Oil has already arrived. We are not recognizing it because production still increases a little bit, but we are in Peak Oil mode. Oil production will decrease a lot more easily that it will increase over the next decade. The economy is going to be a real bitch.Carlos Diaz,Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 03/14/2019 at 7:18 pm
Interesting thesis, keep in mind that the price of oil was relatively low from 2015 to 2018 because for much of the period there was an excess of oil stocks built up over the 2013 to 2015 period when output growth outpaced demand growth due to very high oil prices. Supply has been adequate to keep oil prices relatively low through March 2019 and US sanctions on Iran, political instability in Libya and Venezuela, and action by OPEC and several non-OPEC nations to restrict supply have resulted in slower growth in oil output.
Eventually World Petroleum stocks will fall to a level that will drive oil prices higher, there is very poor visibility for World Petroleum Stocks, so there may be a 6 to 12 month lag between petroleum stocks falling to critically low levels and market realization of that fact, by Sept to Dec 2019 this may be apparent and oil prices may spike (perhaps to $90/b by May 2020).
At that point we may start to see some higher investment levels with higher output coming 12 to 60 months later (some projects such as deep water and Arctic projects take a lot of time to become operational, there may be some OPEC projects that might be developed as well, there are also Canadian Oil sands projects that might be developed in a high oil price environment.
I define the peak as the highest 12 month centered average World C+C output, but it can be define many different ways.So Dennis,Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/14/2019 at 9:20 pm
Our capability to store oil is very limited considering the volume being moved at any time from production to consumption. I understand that it is the marginal price of the last barrel of oil that sets the price for oil, but given the relatively inexpensive oil between 2015 and now, and the fact that we have not been in an economical crisis, what is according to you the cause that world oil production has grown so anemically these past three years?
Do you think that if oil had been at 20$/b as it used to be for decades the growth in consumption/production would have been significantly higher?
I'll give you a hint, with real negative interest rates and comparatively inexpensive oil most OECD economies are unable to grow robustly.
To me Peak Oil is an economical question, not a geological one. The geology just sets the cost of production (not the price) too high, making the operation uneconomical. It is the economy that becomes unable to pump more oil. That's why the beginning of Peak Oil can be placed at late 2015.
The economic system has three legs, cheap energy, demographic growth, and debt growth. All three are failing simultaneously so we are facing the perfect storm. Social unrest is the most likely consequence almost everywhere.Carlos,Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 5:03 am
If prices are low that means there is plenty of oil supply relative to demand. It also means that some oil cannot be produced profitably, so oil companies invest less and oil output grows more slowly.
So you seem to have the story backwards. Low oil prices means low growth in supply.
So if oil prices were $20/b, oil supply would grow more slowly, we have had an oversupply of oil that ls what led to low oil prices. When oil prices increase, supply growth will ne higher. Evause profits will be higher and there will be more investment.No Dennis,Schinzy x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 11:18 am
It is you who has it backwards, as you only see the issue from an oil price point of view, and oil price responds to supply and demand, and higher prices are an estimulus to higher production.
But there is a more important point of view, because oil is one of the main inputs of the economy. If the price of oil is sufficiently low it stimulates the economy. New businesses are created, more people go farther on vacation, and so on, increasing oil demand and oil production. If the price is sufficiently high it depresses the economy. A higher percentage of wealth is transferred from consumer countries to producing countries and consumer countries require more debt. During the 2010-2014 period high oil prices were sustained by the phenomenal push of the Chinese economy, while European and Japanese economies suffered enormously and their oil consumption depressed and hasn't fully recovered since.
In the long term it is the economy that pumps the oil, and that is what you cannot understand.
Oil limits → Oil cost → Oil Price ↔ Economy → Oil demand → Oil production
The economy decides when and how Peak Oil takes place. If you knew that you wouldn't bother with all those models.
And in my opinion the economy already decided in late 2015 when the drive to increase oil production to compensate for low oil prices couldn't be sustained.Carlos,Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 3:01 pm
Your reasoning is close to mine. See https://www.tse-fr.eu/publications/oil-cycle-dynamics-and-future-oil-price-scenarios .Carlos,Mario C Vachon x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 6:39 pm
Both supply and demand matter. I understand economics quite well thank you. You are correct that the economy is very important, it will determine oil prices to some degree especially on the demand side of the market. If one looks at the price of oil and economic growth or GDP, there is very little correlation.
The fact is the World economy grew quite nicely from 2011 to 2014 when oil prices averaged over $100/b.
There may be some point that high oil prices are a problem, apparently $100/b in 2014 US$ is below that price. Perhaps at $150/b your argument would be correct. Why would the economy need more oil when oil prices are low? The low price is a signal that there is too much oil being produced relative to the demand for oil.
I agree the economy will be a major factor in when peak oil occurs, but as most economists understand quite well, it is both supply and demand that will determine market prices for oil.
My models are based on the predictions of the geophysicists at the USGS (estimating TRR for tight oil) and the economists at the EIA (who attempt to predict future oil prices). Both predictions are used as inputs to the model along with past completion rates and well productivity and assumptions about potential future completion rates and future well productivity, bounded by the predictions of both the USGS and the EIA along with economic assumptions about well cost, royalties and taxes, transport costs, discount rate, and lease operating expenses.
Note that my results for economically recoverable resources are in line with the USGS TRR mean estimates and are somewhat lower when the economic assumptions are applied (ERR/TRR is roughly 0.85), the EIA AEO has economically recoverable tight oil resources at about 115% of the USGS mean TRR estimate. The main EIA estimate I use is their AEO reference oil price case (which may be too low with oil prices gradually rising to $110/b (2017$) by 2050.
Assumptions for Permian Basin are royalties and taxes 33% of wellhead revenue, transport cost $5/b, LOE=$2.3/b plus $15000/month, annual discount rate is 10%/year and well cost is $10 million, annual interest rate is 7.4%/year, annual inflation rate assumed to be 2.5%/year, income tax and revenue from natural gas and NGL are ignored all dollar costs in constant 2017 US$.You do incredible work Dennis and I believe you are correct. Demand for oil is relatively inelastic which accounts for huge price swings when inventories get uncomfortably high or low. If supply doesn't keep up with our needs, price will rise to levels that will eventually create more supply and create switching into other energy sources which will reduce demand.Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 6:57 pmDennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 7:33 am
Why would the economy need more oil when oil prices are low? The low price is a signal that there is too much oil being produced relative to the demand for oil.
You don't seem to be aware of historical oil prices. For inflation adjusted oil prices since 1946 oil (WTI) spent:
27 years below $30
13 years at ~ $70
18 years at ~ $40
10 years at ~ $90
5 years at ~ $50
And the fastest growth in oil production took place precisely at the periods when oil was cheapest.
You simply cannot be more wrong about that.
And your models are based on a very big assumption, that the geology of the reserves is determinant for Peak Oil. It is not. There is plenty of oil in the world, but the extraction of most of it is unaffordable. The economy will decide (has decided) when Oil Peak takes place and what happens afterwards. Predictions/projections aren't worth a cent as usual. You could save yourself the trouble.Carlos,Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 7:34 am
I use both geophysics and economics, it is not one or the other it is both of these that will determine peak oil.
Of course oil prices have increased, the cheapest oil gets produced first and oil gradually gets more expensive as the marginal barrel produced to meet demand at the margin is more costly to produce.
Real Oil Prices do not correlate well with real economic growth and on a microeconomic level the price of oil will affect profits and willingness of oil companies to invest which in turn will affect future output. Demand will be a function of both economic output and efficiency improvements in the use of oil.
Thanks Mario.Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 10:49 amCarlos,HHH x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 9:44 pm
Also keep in mind that during the 1945-1975 period economic growth rates were very high as population growth rates were very high and the World economy was expanding rapidly as population grew and the World rebuilt in the aftermath of World War 2. Oil was indeed plentiful and cheap over this period and output grew rapidly to meet expanding World demand for oil. The cheapness of the oil led to relatively inefficient use of the resource, as constraints in output became evident and more expensive offshore, Arctic oil were extracted oil prices increased and there was high volatility due to Wars in the Middle east and other political developments. Oil output (C+C) since 1982 has grown fairly steadily at about an 800 kb/d annual average each year, oil prices move up and down in response to anticipated oil stock movements and are volatile because these estimates are often incorrect (the World petroleum stock numbers are far from transparent.)
On average since the Iran/Iraq crash in output (1982-2017) World output has grown by about 1.2% per year and 800 kb/d per year on average, prices have risen or fallen when there was inadequate or excess stocks of petroleum, this pattern (prices adjusting to stock levels) is likely to continue.
There has been little change when we compare 1982 to 1999 to 1999-2017 (divide overall period of interest in half) for either percentage increase of absolute increase in output.
I would agree that severe shortages of oil supply relative to demand (likely apparent by 2030) is likely to lead to an economic crisis as oil prices rise to levels that the World economy cannot adjust to (my guess is that this level will be $165/b in 2018$). Potentially high oil prices might lead to faster adoption of alternative modes of transport that might avert a crisis, but that is too optimistic a scenario even for me.China will be in outright deflation soon enough. Economic stimulus is starting to fail in China. They can't fill the so called bathtub up fast enough to keep pace with the water draining out the bottom. So to speak.Lightsout x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 6:25 am
Interest rates in China will soon be exactly where they are in Europe and Japan. Maybe lower.
In order to get oil to $90-$100 the value of the dollar is going to have to sink a little bit. In order to get oil to $140-$160 the dollar has to make a new all time low. Anybody predicting prices shooting up to $200 needs the dollar index to sink to 60 or below.
The reality is oil is going to $20. Because the rest of the world outside the US is failing. Dennis makes some nice graphs and charts and under his assumptions his charts and graphs are correct. But his assumptions aren't correct.
We got $20 oil and an economic depression coming.
Peak Oil is going to be deflationary as hell. Higher prices aren't in the cards even when a shortage actually shows up. We will get less supply at a lower price. Demand destruction is actually going to happen when economies and debt bubbles implode so we actually can't be totally sure we are ever going to see an actual shortage.
We could very well be producing 20-30% less oil than we do now and still not have a shortage.
Oh and EV's are going to have to compete with $20 oil not $150 oil.You are assuming that the oil is priced in dollars there are moves underway that raise two fingers to that.Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 7:41 am
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2174453/china-and-russia-look-ditch-dollar-new-payments-system-moveHHH,Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 9:56 am
When do you expect the oil price to reach $20/b? We will have to see when this occurs.
It may come true when EVs and AVs have decimated demand for oil in 2050, but not before. EIA's oil price reference scenario from AEO 2019 below. That is a far more realistic prediction (though likely too low especially when peak oil arrives in 2025), oil prices from $100 to $160/b in 2018 US$ are more likely from 2023 to 2035 (for three year centered average Brent oil price).
HHH,HHH x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 6:50 pm
My assumptions are based on USGS mean resource estimates and EIA oil price estimates, as well as BIS estimates for the World monetary and financial system.
Your assumption that oil prices are determined by exchange rates only is not borne out by historical evidence. Exchange rates are a minor, not a major determinant of oil prices.Dennis,
Technically speaking. The most relevant trendline on price chart currently comes off the lows of 2016/02/08. It intersects with 2017/06/19. You draw the trendline on out to where price is currently. Currently price is trying to backtest that trendline.
On a weekly price chart i'd say it touches the underside of that trendline sometime in April in the low 60's somewhere between $62-$66 kinda depends on when it arrives there time wise. The later it takes to arrive there the higher price will be. I've been trading well over 20 years can't tell you how many times i've seen price backtest a trendline after it's been broken. It's a very common occurrence. And i wouldn't short oil until after it does.
But back to your question. $20 oil what kind of timetable. My best guess is 2021-2022. Might happen 2020 or 2023. And FED can always step in and weaken the dollar. Fundamentally the only way oil doesn't sink to $20 is the FED finds a way to weaken the dollar.
But understand the FED is the only major CB that currently doesn't have the need to open up monetary policy. It's really the rest of the worlds CB ultra loose monetary policy which is going to drive oil to $20.
Mar 16, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 12:42 am
Iron Mike Asked:
"If that was to happen and no energy source can cover the decline rate, wouldn't the world be pretty fucked economically thereafter? Hence one can assume or take a wild ass guess that the decline after peak would resemble something like Venezuela. So not a smooth short % decline rate."
Energy is the economy, The economy cannot function without energy. Thus its logical that a decline in energy supply will reduce the economy. The only way for this not to apply is if there are efficiency gains that offset the decline. But at this point the majority of cost effective efficiency gains are already in place. At this point gains become increasing expensive with much smaller gains (law of diminishing returns). Major infrastructure changes like modernizing rail lines take many decades to implement and also require lots of capital. Real capital needed will be difficult to obtain do to population demographics (ie boomers dependent on massive unfunded entitlement & pensions).
Realistically the global economy is already in a tight spot. It started back in 2000 when Oil prices started climbing from about $10/bbl in 1998 to about $30/bbl in 2000. Then the World Major Central banks dropped interest which ended triggering the Housing Boom\Bust and carried Oil prices to $147/bbl. Since then Interest rates have remained extremely low while World Debt has soared (expected to top $250T in 2019).
My guess is that global economy will wipe saw in the future as demographics, resource depletion (including Oil) and Debt all merge into another crisis. Gov't will act with more cheap and easy credit (since there is no alterative TINA) as well as QE\Asset buying to avoid a global depression. This creating a wipesaw effect that has already been happening since 2000 with Boom Bust cycles. This current cycle has lasted longer because the Major central banks kept interest rates low, When The Fed started QT and raising rate it ended up triggering a major stock market correction In Dec 2018. I believe at this point the Fed will no longer seek any further credit tightening that will trip the economy back into recession. However its likely they the global economy will fall into another recession as consumers & business even without further credit tighting by CB (Central Banks) Because they've been loading up on cheap debt, which will eventually run into issues servicing their debt. For instance there are about 7M auto loans in delinquency in March of 2019. Stock valuations are largely driven by stock buybacks, which is funded by debt. I presume companies are close to debt limit which is likely going to prevent them from purchase more stock back.
Probably the biggest concern for me is the risking risks for another World war: The US has been targeting all of the major Oil exporters. The two remaining independent targets are Venezuela & Iran. I suspect Venzuela will be the next US take over since it will be a push over compared to Iran. I think once all of remaining independent Oil Exports are seized that is when the major powers start fighting each other. However is possible that some of the proxy nations (Pakastan\India),(Israel\Iran), etc trigger direct war between the US, China, and Russia at any time.
Notice that the US is now withdrawing from all its major arms treaties, and the US\China\Russia are now locked into a Arms race. Nuclear powers are now rebuilding their nuclear capacity (more Nukes) and modernizing their deployment systems (Hypersonic, Very large MIRV ICBMS, Undersea drones, Subs, Bombers, etc.
My guess is that nations like the US & China will duke it out before collapsing into the next Venezuela. If my assessment is correct, The current state of Venezuela will look like the garden of Eden compared to the aftermath of a full scale nuclear war.
Currently the Doomsday clock (2019) is tied with 1953 at 2 minutes:
1953 was the height of the cold war. I presume soon the Doomsday clock will be reduced to less than 2 Minutes later this year, due to recent events in the past few weeks.
"the world's nuclear nations proceeded with programs of "nuclear modernization" that are all but indistinguishable from a worldwide arms race, and the military doctrines of Russia and the United States have increasingly eroded the long-held taboo against the use of nuclear weapons."
" The current international security situation -- what we call the "new abnormal" -- has extended over two years now. It's a state as worrisome as the most dangerous times of the Cold War, a state that features an unpredictable and shifting landscape of simmering disputes that multiply the chances for major military conflict to erupt."
Mar 16, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
likbez says: 03/16/2019 at 9:34 pmlikbez says:
03/16/2019 at 9:34 pm
Some arguments in defense of Ron estimates
1. When something is increasing 0.8% a year based on data with, say, 2% or higher margin of error this is not a growth. This is a number racket.
2. We need to use proper coefficients to correctly estimate energy output of different types of oil We do not know real EROEI of shale oil, but some sources claim that it is in the 1.5-4.5 range. Let's assume that it is 3. In comparison, Saudi oil has 80-100 range. In this sense shale oil is not a part of the solution; it is a part of the problem (stream of just bonds produced in parallel is the testament of that). In other words, all shale oil is "subprime oil," and an increase of shale oil production is correctly called the oil retirement party. The same is true for the tar sands oil.
So the proper formula for total world production in "normalized by ERORI units" might be approximated by the equation:
0.99* OPEC_oil + 0.97*other_conventional_oil + 0.95*shallow-water_oil + 0.9*deep_water_oil +0.75*(shale_oil+condensate) + 0.6*tar_sand_oil + 0.2*ethanol
where coefficients (I do not claim that they are accurate; they are provided just for demonstration) reflect EROEI of particular types of oil.
If we assume that 58% of the US oil production is shale oil and condensate then the amount of "normalized" oil extracted in the USA can be approximated by the formula
total * 0.83
In other words 17% of the volume is a fiction. Simplifying it was spent on extraction of shale oil and condensate (for concentrate lower energy content might justify lower coefficient; but for simplicity we assume that it is equal to shale oil).
Among other things that means that 1970 peak of production probably was never exceeded.
3. EROEI of most types of oil continues to decline (from 35 in 1999 to 18 in 2006 according to http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/eroeihalletal.png). Which means that in reality physical volume became a very deceptive metric as you need to sink more and more money/energy into producing every single barrel and that fact is not reflected in the volume. In other words, the barrel of shale oil is already 50% empty when it was lifted to the ground (aka "subprime oil"). In this sense, shale wells with their three years of the high producing period are simply money dumping grounds for money in comparison with Saudi oil wells.
4. The higher price does not solve the problem of the decline of EROEI. It just allows the allocation of a larger portion of national wealth to the oil extraction putting the rest of the economy into permanent stagnation.
5. If we assume average EROEI equal 3 (or even 5) for shale oil then rising shale oil production along with almost constant world oil production is clearly a Pyrrhic victory. Again, putting a single curve for all types of oil is the number racket, or voodoo dances around the fire.
1. IMHO Ron made a correct observation about Saudi behavior: the declines of production can well be masked under pretention of meeting the quota to save face. That might be true about OPEC and Russia as a whole too. Exceptions like Iraq only confirm the rule.
2. EROEI of lithium battery is around 32
Mar 15, 2019 | www.unz.com
The dark horse candidate of the 2020 Democratic primary is entrepreneur Andrew Yang , who just qualified for the first round of debates by attracting over 65,000 unique donors. [ Andrew Yang qualifies for first DNC debate with 65,000 unique donors , by Orion Rummler, Axios, March 12, 2019]
Yang is a businessman who has worked in several fields, but was best known for founding Venture for America , which helps college graduates become entrepreneurs. However, he is now gaining recognition for his signature campaign promise -- $1,000 a month for every American.
Yang promises a universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be funded through a value added tax , Yang claims that it would reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and actually save billions of dollars. Yang also notes that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally."
As Yang himself notes, this is not a new idea, nor one particularly tied to the Left. Indeed, it's been proposed by several prominent libertarians because it would replace the far more inefficient welfare system. Charles Murray called for this policy in 2016. [ A guaranteed income for every American , AEI, June 3, 2016] Milton Friedman suggested a similar policy in a 1968 interview with William F. Buckley, though Friedman called it a "negative income tax."
He rejected arguments that it would cause indolence. F.A. Hayek also supported such a policy; he essentially took it for granted . [ Friedrich Hayek supported a guaranteed minimum income , by James Kwak, Medium, July 20, 2015]
It's also been proposed by many nationalists, including, well, me. At the January 2013 VDARE.com Webinar, I called for a "straight-up minimum income for citizens only" among other policies that would build a new nationalist majority and deconstruct Leftist power. I've retained that belief ever since and argued for it here for years.
However, I've also made the argument that it only works if it is for citizens only and is combined with a restrictive immigration policy. As I previously argued in a piece attacking Jacobin's disingenuous complaints about the "reserve army of the unemployed," you simply can't support high wages, workers' rights, and a universal basic income while still demanding mass immigration.
Yang is justifying the need for such a program because of automation . Again, VDARE.com has been exploring how automation may necessitate such a program for many years . Yang also discussed this problem on Tucker Carlson's show , which alone shows he is more open to real discussion than many progressive activists.
Yang is also directly addressing the crises that the Trump Administration has seemly forgotten. Unlike Donald Trump himself, with his endless boasting about "low black and Hispanic unemployment," Yang has directly spoken about the demographic collapse of white people because of "low birth rates and white men dying from substance abuse and suicide ."
Though even the viciously anti-white Dylan Matthews called the tweet "innocuous," there is little doubt if President Trump said it would be called racist. [ Andrew Yang, the 2020 long-shot candidate running on a universal basic income, explained , Vox, March 11, 2019]
Significantly, President Trump himself has never once specifically recognized the plight of white Americans.
...He wants to make Puerto Rico a state . He supports a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, albeit with an 18-year waiting period and combined with pledges to secure the border and deport illegals who don't enroll in the citizenship program. He wants to create a massive bureaucratic system to track gun owners, restrict gun ownership , and require various "training" programs for licenses. He wants to subsidize local journalists with taxpayer dollars...
... ... ...
Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's online supporters are flocking to Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars. (Sample meme at right.) And because many of these online activists are "far right" by Main Stream Media standards, or at least Politically Incorrect, there is much hand-waving and wrist-flapping about the need for Yang to decry "white nationalists." So of course, the candidate has dutifully done so, claiming "racism and white nationalism [are] a threat to the core ideals of what it means to be an American". [ Presidential candidate Andrew Yang has a meme problem , by Russell Brandom, The Verge, March 9, 2019]
But what does it mean to be an American? As more and more of American history is described as racist, and even national symbols and the national anthem are targets for protest, "America" certainly doesn't seem like a real country with a real identity. Increasingly, "America" resembles a continent-sized shopping mall, with nothing holding together the warring tribes that occupy it except money.
President Trump, of course, was elected because many people thought he could reverse this process, especially by limiting mass immigration and taking strong action in the culture wars, for example by promoting official English. Yet in recent weeks, he has repeatedly endorsed more legal immigration. Rather than fighting, the president is content to brag about the economy and whine about unfair press coverage and investigations. He already seems like a lame duck.
The worst part of all of this is that President Trump was elected as a response not just to the Left, but to the failed Conservative Establishment. During the 2016 campaign, President Trump specifically pledged to protect entitlements , decried foreign wars, and argued for a massive infrastructure plan. However, once in office, his main legislative accomplishment is a tax cut any other Republican president would have pushed. Similarly, his latest budget contains the kinds of entitlement cuts that are guaranteed to provoke Democrat attack ads. [ Trump said he wouldn't cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare . His 2020 budget cuts all 3 , by Tara Golshan, Vox, March 12, 2019] And the president has already backed down on withdrawing all troops from Syria, never mind Afghanistan.
Conservatism Inc., having learned nothing from candidate Donald Trump's scorched-earth path to the Republican nomination, now embraces Trump as a man but ignores his campaign message. Instead, the conservative movement is still promoting the same tired slogans about "free markets" even as they have appear to have lost an entire generation to socialism. The most iconic moment was Charlie Kirk, head of the free market activist group Turning Point USA, desperately trying to tell his followers not to cheer for Tucker Carlson because Carlson had suggested a nation should be treated like a family, not simply a marketplace .
President Trump himself is now trying to talk like a fiscal conservative [ Exclusive -- Donald Trump: 'Seductive' Socialism Would Send Country 'Down The Tubes' In a Decade Or Less , by Alexander Marlow, Matt Boyle, Amanda House, and Charlie Spierling, Breitbart, March 11, 2019]. Such a pose is self-discrediting given how the deficit swelled under united Republican control and untold amounts of money are seemingly still available for foreign aid to Israel, regime change in Iran and Venezuela, and feminist programs abroad to make favorite daughter Ivanka Trump feel important. [ Trump budget plans to give $100 million to program for women that Ivanka launched , by Nathalie Baptiste, Mother Jones, March 9, 2019]
Thus, especially because of his cowardice on immigration, many of President Trump's most fervent online supporters have turned on him in recent weeks. And the embrace of Yang seems to come out of a great place of despair, a sense that the country really is beyond saving.
Yang has Leftist policies on many issues, but many disillusioned Trump supporters feel like those policies are coming anyway. If America is just an economy, and if everyone in the world is a simply an American-in-waiting, white Americans might as well get something out of this System before the bones are picked clean.
National Review ' s Theodore Kupfer just claimed the main importance of Yang's candidacy is that it will prove meme-makers ability to affect the vote count "has been overstated" [ Rise of the pink hats , March 12, 2019].
Time will tell, but it is ominous for Trump that many of the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard are giving up on him.
Mar 12, 2019 | www.unz.com
See, earlier by Ann Coulter: Trump's Failing On Immigration. Don't Ask Me To Lie About It
Three weeks ago, after Donald J. Trump abandoned the government shutdown and declared a national emergency to get some funding for his border wall, I asked: Did Trump Save His Presidency? Maybe -- IF He Doesn't INCREASE Legal Immigration . Unfortunately, and incredibly given his campaign promises , Trump has repeatedly said since then that he has indeed pivoted to increasing legal immigration -- reportedly under the influence of his daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka and Jared Kushner . Trump may still be saved by the Party of Hysterical Screeching 's inability to accept even victory (because increasing legal immigration would be demographic victory for them) at his hands. But in the interim, without Presidential leadership, it appears likely that the Congressional Stupid Party will not take up the various measures that could stem America's immigration disaster -- above all, the Merkel-type catastrophe now unfolding on the southern border.
Weirdly, Trump abruptly attacked Ann Coulter , one of his earliest and most eloquent backers , on Twitter Saturday night, perhaps signaling he is repudiating the immigration patriotism he won on -- or perhaps that he knows Ann is right:
In reality of course, "major sections of the wall" have not been built. And the administration suffered yet another defeat in the courts last week over its attempts to enforce immigration law. [ In another blow to Trump, judge rules in favor of ACLU in family separations case , by Maria Sacchetti, The Washington Post , March 8, 2019] Trump is fighting, to his credit, but he simply is not winning on the border.
Coulter has consistently demanded the president implement the immigration platform he campaigne d on and her recent (admittedly savage) criticism isn't much different from what she has said since the beginning of Trump's tenure. See, recently Ann Coulter To Donald Trump: Hey, Commander! Start Commanding!
The difference lies in Trump himself. [ Anti-Immigration Groups See Trump's Calls for More Legal Immigrants as a Betrayal , by Michael D. Shear, The New York Times , March 8, 2019]
Jared Kushner is currently leading negotiations with the Cheap Labor Lobby to craft a bill that will likely increase guest worker visas. It's unclear what exactly will end up in this legislation, but it is guaranteed to enrage immigration patriots. [ Globalist Business Groups with Koch, Bush Ties Dominate Immigration Talks at White House , by John Binder, Breitbart , February 26, 2019]
Congressional Republicans also seem uninterested in immigration patriotism.
Many Republicans want to block President Trump's national emergency declaration on the border -- the one good thing Trump has recently done on immigration–because it goes against their " principles ." Thirteen House Republicans voted to block the executive order last month. "The president doesn't get to just declare an emergency for something that Congress has deliberated many times over the past several years," Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, a libertarian, said of why he sponsored legislation to stifle the national emergency. [ Rep. Justin Amash: 'The President Doesn't Get To Just Declare an Emergency' , by Joe Seyton, Reason, February 26, 2019]. Amash was joined by a group primarily made up of squishy Republicans. [ Meet the 13 Republicans who rebuked Trump over his national emergency , by Bridget Bowman, Roll Call , February 26, 2019]
Trump's executive order is receiving even more pushback from Senate Republicans. Senators such as Shelly Moore-Capito (R-West Virginia) and Susan Collins think the national emergency is "concerning" and believe Trump already has enough wall money without the declaration. [ GOP wants Trump to back off on emergency , by Alexander Bolton, The Hill , March 6, 2019]
Four Republican Senators have announced their intention to vote for legislation to block the national emergency: Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis, and usual Trump ally Rand Paul. More are likely to announce their support for this measure as the vote approaches this week. Pat Toomey and Todd Young, both who are close with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, want to propose resolutions to give cucky Republicans a way to voice their disapproval without voting with the Democrats.
The resolutions would convey the message that Republicans want border security, but don't want to take the necessary actions to fund said border security. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah wants to pass a resolution that would restrict the president's emergency powers and place a 30-day or 60-day time limit on how long they can be in effect without congressional approval.
McConnell announced Monday that he could not prevent passage of legislation blocking Trump's national emergency declaration. The New York Times declared this announcement as proof that Trump has lost influence within his own party. [ Trump's Grip Shows Signs of Slipping as Senate Prepares to Block Wall Emergency , By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Emily Cochrane, The New York Times , March 4, 2019]
The good news is that Trump will most likely veto this legislation and Congress doesn't have enough votes to override the veto. The President is also threatening senators who vote for the block with stiff consequences. [ Senate Republicans divided ahead of vote on disapproval of national emergency , by Ted Barrett, CNN , March 7, 2019] There is little chance the President will sign a bill that overrides his own action, even if his close advisers tell him to do so. Trump's instincts would never allow such behavior.
The bad news: it's a sign congressional Republicans have no will to support immigration patriotism at the moment. This is very bad considering the immigration bills that may come before them in the near future, including the possible White House measure on guest worker visas. House Democrats are set to introduce a new DREAM Act that will legalize at least 1.8 million illegals and extend Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals.
Congressional Republicans need to get their act together to kill these pieces of legislation. But they may be at the forefront in support of them. Last fall, multiple Republican senators, including the appalling Thom Tillis, proposed a bill that would double the number of H-2b visas and screw over low-skilled American workers. And last month, several Republicans -- alas, including supposed immigration patriot Tom Cotton -- championed the easement of some regulations on H-1b visas.
The better hope for killing a guest worker expansion lies with the Democrats. Anyone with a brain realizes this would be bad for American workers and benefits greedy corporations. Democrats have never been too fond of this plan, as evidenced by their skepticism about its expansion in the Gang of Eight Amnesty. [ Gang of 8 defends guest worker plan , by Seung Min Kim, Politico , May 13, 2013]. What better way to portray Trump as a phony populist in 2020 than to skewer him for this gift to the cheap labor lobby?
The House Democrats' proposed DREAM Act will probably go nowhere–unless Trump includes that idea in his immigration package. There are some positive signs that the White House won't do this; and that Republicans would block its passage. Kushner floated the idea of giving green cards for Dreamers in exchange for wall funding during shutdown negotiations earlier this year. That plan was firmly opposed by conservative senators who thought it was insanity [ A "go big" idea to end the shutdown , by Jonathan Swan, Axios , January 23, 2019]
Though Congress and the White House seem set on terrible immigration ideas, it's worth remembering there are alternative patriotic immigration proposals they could push. All of these ideas would not likely pass the current Congress, but they would shape the immigration debate in a positive direction ahead of the 2020 election.El Chapo Act:
This bill proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz would confiscate the money of drug lords like Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman and allocate it to building the wall. Cruz reintroduced the proposal in February and believes the government could obtain $14 billion out of El Chapo's drug profits through this law [ Sen. Ted Cruz's solution to border wall impasse: Make El Chapo pay for it , by Deanna Paul, The Washington Post , February 13, 2019]. This would be more money than Trump currently has for wall construction and would send a strong message to the cartels. The president himself has said Sen. Cruz's idea is "interesting." There is no reason Republicans shouldn't hold a vote on this bill and make Democrats stand up for drug cartels.Kate's Law:
This bill, named after Kate Steinle who was murdered by an illegal alien, would institute harsher penalties for illegals caught re-entering the country. This measure passed the House in 2017, but it died in the (n.b. GOP-controlled)Senate [ Senate Has Not Voted On Kate's Law Five Months After It Passed The House With Bipartisan Support , by Will Racke, The Daily Caller , December 1, 2017].
Trump should resurrect the bill. Yes, it's passage is less likely with a Democrat-controlled House. That doesn't matter. The president needs to convey he still wants to crack down on illegal immigration and that his opponents favor criminal aliens over American citizens.
Along with the El Chapo Act, probably has the best chance at passage among the ideas the Trump admin could push as multiple Democrats voted for it back in 2017. There is still a chance enough Democrats would vote for it again to achieve passage.No Sanctuary for Criminals Act:
This act would cut Sanctuary Cities off from federal law enforcement funds and it was also passed by the House in 2017, albeit by a smaller margin than Kate's Law. It also went nowhere in the (GOP-controlled) Senate. If Republicans want to highlight the chaos created by Democrat policies, they should revive this bill and remind Americans that Trump stands up for law and order. This act, however, does have less chance of passage as it was more strongly opposed by Democrats [ Dems block Senate vote on sanctuary cities , by Alexander Bolton, The Hill , February 13, 2018]Mandatory e-Verify:
Requiring all American companies to use e-verify seems almost too good of an idea for Republicans. The bill explicitly protects American workers and puts the onus on employers to make sure they only hire those who are here legally. This should receive bipartisan support as both parties want to portray themselves as the true protectors of American workers.
House Republicans included the measure in their DACA deal last year, so they are aware of this proposal [ Goodlatte offers E-Verify mandate, farm worker fix for immigration bill , by John Bresnahan, Politico , June 26, 2018]. We just need one patriot Republican to stand up and offer mandatory e-Verify. This proposal also has a decent chance of passage.Override the Flores Settlement:
This 1997 court decision has handcuffed the Trump administration's ability to enforce immigration law and is directly responsible for the current border collapse. It has allowed liberal judges to deem it unlawful for the government to detain illegal alien minors for more than 20 days. It also has allowed for these minors to have better access to asylum as they remain in America undetained. Some Republican lawmakers, including Ted Cruz, suggested legislative action in the last congressional session to correct this loophole [ The History of the Flores Settlement , by Matt Sussis, Center for Immigration Studies , February 11, 2019].
A bill to end this policy would not likely pass as many Republicans shrank from the Trump's family detention policies last summer [ Here Are the Republicans Opposing Migrant Family Separation , by Jeff Cirillo, Roll Call , June 19, 2018]. That doesn't change the fact that the Trump administration needs this legislation to avoid further court losses and to shift public discussion on family detention to focus on Democratic preference for illegal immigrants.Eliminating birthright citizenship:
There is no way that this idea would pass Congress, but it does have the backing of the President and one prominent Republican senator. Trump said he may eliminate birthright citizenship by executive order and Sen. Lindsey Graham proposed a bill to do so right before the 2018 election. [ Lindsey Graham Seconds Trump Proposal to End Birthright Citizenship , by Niels Lesniewski, Roll Call , October 30, 2018]
Those plans, however, seem to have disappeared since then. But Trump still seems interested in the issue -- he mentioned it in his speech to CPAC -- and events may prompt the president to revisit the topic. A bill would cause an uproar within Congress and among the Republican caucus, let alone an executive order. And that's good. If Trump wants to have a serious discussion on citizenship and reduce the negative effects of mass immigration, then he must force this issue into the public square.
Javanka would likely oppose any such effort, so perhaps their White House influence would have to be minimalized from what it is today for this to happen.The RAISE Act:
The RAISE Act would halve America's yearly immigration intake and structure our system to be more "merit-based." It would also cap annual refugee numbers at 50,000 and eliminate the diversity visa lottery. The bill was introduced by Sens. Tom Cotton and David Perdue with Trump's backing in August 2017. But (again, despite GOP control of Congress) nothing happened.
If Trump wants to show he still puts America first ahead of 2020, he could resurrect the RAISE Act. There is no chance it would pass, but it would force Republicans to run on the plan and win the seats necessary to pass it in Trump's second term.
These are some positive things Trump and Republicans can do. Whether they choose to do them is up to them.
It's not looking good.
Washington Watcher [ email him ] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.
Mar 09, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
The Rev Kev, March 6, 2019 at 6:36 pm
Nothing that Bernie will do can satisfy the Democrats. Said the other day he was wishy-washy over Venezuela but it was still not enough. Seems that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has threatened to have him kicked out of the party unless he calls out Madura as a dictator.
Film clip at-
Some language used.
polecat , March 6, 2019 at 7:23 pm
Well then, Sanders better be carrying a polished shield at all times never know when Debbie the medusa will lurch forward throwing that gazy DNC stink-eye in his direction !
But several underlying factors also appear to have contributed to the closeness of the race. For starters, many Americans are economically worse off than they were a quarter-century ago. The median income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42 years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages.
Indeed, real (inflation-adjusted) wages at the bottom of the income distribution are roughly where they were 60 years ago. So it is no surprise that Trump finds a large, receptive audience when he says the state of the economy is rotten. But Trump is wrong both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last six decades: GDP has increased nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top people like Trump, owing partly to massive tax cuts that he would extend and deepen.
At the same time, reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all such as trade and financial liberalization have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both).
Trump wants to blame all of America's problems on trade and immigration. He's wrong. The US would have faced deindustrialization even without freer trade: global employment in manufacturing has been declining, with productivity gains exceeding demand growth.
Where the trade agreements failed, it was not because the US was outsmarted by its trading partners; it was because the US trade agenda was shaped by corporate interests. America's companies have done well, and it is the Republicans who have blocked efforts to ensure that Americans made worse off by trade agreements would share the benefits.
Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so.
Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. But Trump's proposed policies would make a bad situation much worse. Surely, another dose of trickle-down economics of the kind he promises, with tax cuts aimed almost entirely at rich Americans and corporations, would produce results no better than the last time they were tried.
In fact, launching a trade war with China, Mexico, and other US trading partners, as Trump promises, would make all Americans poorer and create new impediments to the global cooperation needed to address critical global problems like the Islamic State, global terrorism, and climate change. Using money that could be invested in technology, education, or infrastructure to build a wall between the US and Mexico is a twofer in terms of wasting resources.
There are two messages US political elites should be hearing. The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth.
This leads to the second message: we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon and more than a few similar political developments in Europe has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened.
markets aurelius OCT 15, 2016
I've yet to see such a succinct or well-presented analysis on the rise of Trump and the far-left and -right in Europe. Thank you.
Where I disagree with Prof. Stiglitz, however, is in the second point of his conclusion; to wit, "... we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon and more than a few similar political developments in Europe has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened." A political solution is impossible at this point in the USA since the legislative and executive branches of the have been completely captured by cartels, just as Hayek warned back in the '40s.
It took centuries of war -- civil and foreign -- to evolve the English common law and representative government from which America derived is greatest strengths. Included in that are the quaint cultural memes of civility and "fair play," which permeated all levels of society, not just sports; these norms were violated at great personal expense, in that it was difficult to gain the trust of one's fellow citizens if one violated them. However, it is not an immutable fact of nature such a system will persist throughout history. Truth be told, it is an outlier in the history of the world. Typically, and to this day outside the Anglosphere, most societies are spoils systems, in which the strong impose their will on the weak, and take the larger share of everything their societies produce. Some operate artfully (e.g., Mediterranean Europe), while others are just ham-handed (e.g., Russia, the Middle East). The ordering described by Hobbes more appropriately captures the state of affairs to a greater or lesser degree in these states.
It took a revolution, a civil war, and a century-long struggle post-civil war to evolve the US society to its modern, yet-to-be-fully-formed state. The interests that have secured control of the US government -- again, the legislative and executive at the federal and state levels, in particular -- will not easily or readily let go of the power they have amassed, vis-ΰ-vis their control over the writing and execution of laws and regulations lesser mortals must live under but from which the elites are exempt (cf, banking crisis).
Either we find a TR and FDR -- and the modern-day equivalent of their allies in Congress -- or our society will continue to erode. Either we fade into history as much of Europe did during the Dark Ages or we have another revolution.
While that's going on, the balance of global power likely will continue to shift to the more pragmatic and less constrained Hobbesian forms of societal organization -- most likely some variant of strongman rule, with China at the vanguard, if Xi Jinping (or a competitor) is able to successfully consolidate power.
Daniel Esmond OCT 15, 2016
I agree with nearly everything in Prof Stiglitz' analysis. However, I would like some details about the new 'rules of the economy'. There is a realisation in many circles that something has to change and the solutions advanced by the new populists are unworkable. But we still lack the details and a roadmap towards a new economy. While analysis like this one about how we got here are useful and enlightening, we need (desperately!) to move on and do something. I really would like to see a follow up of this article with Prof Stigliz outlining his plans for a new economic order.
James Murphy OCT 15, 2016Simon Barnard OCT 14, 2016"But Trump is wrong both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last six decades: GDP has increased nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top.."
The vehicle for shifting the fruits of that growth has more to do with our free trade agreements than tax cuts. Corporations were just as greedy before we had free trade agreements but tariffs prevented the enrichment free trade opens up. That GDP increase would have happened without free trade as workers enjoyed higher wages. Which makes Trump correct after all.
We are a trade deficient nation. As such the only way we lose a trade war is not to fight one. Aside from the short transition harm the American people would be better off with tariff protection as they were in the past.
From shortly after the end of the War of 1812 until the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions in 1967 the United States was the most tariff protected nation on earth. During that time absolutely none of the bad things you postulate actually happened. Free trade is an Ivory Tower theory that has never worked in the real world experience of the United States. We have more free trade today than we have ever had. Where are the blessings of those free trade deals? We abandoned free trade in 1967 and the real wages of blue collar workers peaked 5 years later never to come back.Rules of the economy do need to be rewritten and also do the rules of economic measurement.
Growth of GDP is not a valid measurement of whether or not an economy is healthy (or indeed growing). Should vast inequalities be created, that in turn cause social unrest, that in turn lead to a disintegration of society, this society may find it necessary to build a lot of prisons. The capital expenditure on these prisons will contribute to the GDP. Is it really healthier? Is this what is happening in the US? - it could be going that way.
So is it any wonder that people are looking for an alternative to the status quo, of which Hilary Clinton is certainly part of? NO.
Is Trump an alternative? DEFINITELY NO.
As Joseph Stiglitz put very well, he would make things still worse.
So I feel sorry for the USA having such a poor choice and I hope that soon we can change from the neo-liberal hegemony and develop a new one that will allow a progressive new choice to make itself available.
Vicky Lavendel OCT 14, 2016The true questions is: How is it possible that two powerful families (Bush and Clinton) are nearly have a monopoly on becoming US presidents. And furthermore all presidential candidates who want to have a chance must be ultra rich (like Trump) or must have very wealthy donors (like Obama). Is this still a democracy or already an oligarchy? That Stieglitz doesnt ask this question might be a hint that he is part of this wealthy establishment as well.Yoshimichi Moriyama OCT 14, 2016The word liberalization is so dazzling that we are captured and made by it to be unable to see the reality; we are often duped by it. When we hear or see the word, we need to be very careful of what the speaker or writer actually means by it. Corporate and financial interests have made an extensive use of it to camouflage and promote their selfishness.M M OCT 14, 2016
Just twenty five years ago Mr. Robert McNamara came to Matsue, a Japanese city near where I live, to attend a US-Japanese conference. I was appalled to hear, as he said and I was in the audience, that the income of the American middle-class had not risen at all for the past twenty or so years. His words were less an explanation of what had been going on in the American economy and more a warning of what was going to happen in the Japanese economy.
The rules need to be rewritten.The Americans shall be voting Trump for the same reasons they voted Bush Jr. The democratic [neoliberal] establishment failed miserably. They had eight years to put things right and what did they do, not only maintaining the status quo which made inequality worse but created mayhem everywhere and the Clintons were part of it throughout the Obama tenure. So Mr. "Yes We Can" not only managed to increase inequality, re-introduce slavery (albeit in many new forms), help spread terrorism all over the place and this to state just a few examples.
... ... ...
Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
libezkova -> pgl... February 01, 2017 at 08:40 PM
First of all, what is called "School of management" typically is a voodoo cult that should have nothing to do with university education ;-)
"He [Bush] signaled the shift [in strategy] in a speech here [in Pittsburgh] last week when he charged that Reagan had made 'a list of phony promises' on defense, energy and economic policy. And he labeled Reagan's tax cut proposal 'voodoo economic policy' and 'economic madness.'"
Compare with comments to "Ok To Bomb Them. But Don't Ban Them" ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46349.htm )
It's not the temporary ban on immigration that upsets people so much as singling out people from specific countries, whether Obama's Republican Congress in did it or Trump did it.
The ban should be on all religious extremists including apartheid Zionists and Christian extremists. Religious extremists from all of the major religions have committed heinous atrocities.
...And the Demo establishment lines up to attack Drumpf's ban; hoping to get some easy votes for corporatist neo-con hypocrites?
...The main purpose of all the noise against president Trump is to weaken him and then force him to take the positions the deep state wants him to take. Among the many problems he has he is only an apprentice.
Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.comallan November 10, 2016 at 2:35 pmChauncey Gardiner November 10, 2016 at 3:57 pm
Trump calls for '21st century' Glass-Steagall banking law [Reuters, Oct. 26]
Financial Services [Trump Transition Site, Nov. 10]
Oddly, no mention of Glass-Steagall, only dismantling Dodd-Frank. Who could have predicted?
File under Even Victims Can Be Fools.Dr. Roberts November 10, 2016 at 4:03 pm
Not surprised at all. The election is over, the voters are now moot. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren has famously said with respect to cabinet and other political appointments, "Personnel Is Policy." You can see the outline of the Trump administration's real policies being shaped before our eyes via his proposed cabinet appointees, covered by Politico and other sites.Steve C November 10, 2016 at 4:18 pm
Also no mention of NAFTA or renegotiating trade deals in the new transition agenda. Instead there's just a bunch of vague Chamber of Commercesque language about making America attractive to investors. I think our hopes for a disruptive Trump presidency are quickly being dashed.pretzelattack November 10, 2016 at 5:17 pm
Sanders, Warren and others should hold Trump's feet to the fire on the truly populist things he said and offer to work with him on that stuff. Like preserving Social Security and Medicare and getting out of wars.
As to the last point, appointing Bolton or Corker Secretary of State would be a clear indication he was just talking. A clear violation of campaign promises that would make Obama look like a choirboy. Trump may be W on steroids.Steve C November 10, 2016 at 6:25 pm
sure he may be almost as bad as Clinton on foreign policy. so far he hasn't been rattling a saber at Russia.anti-social socialist November 10, 2016 at 4:23 pm
Newland also is pernicious, but as with many things Trump, not as gaudy as Bolton.Katniss Everdeen November 10, 2016 at 5:38 pm
I can't imagine how he's neglected to update his transition plan regarding nafta. After all, he's already been president-elect for, what, 36 hours now? And he only talked about it umpteen times during the campaign. I'm sure he'll renege.
Hell, it took Clinton 8 hours to give her concession speech.
On the bright side, he managed to kill TPP just by getting elected. Was that quick enough for you?
Mar 01, 2019 | www.wsws.org
"The finance aristocracy, in its mode of acquisition as well as in its pleasures, is nothing but the rebirth of the lumpenproletariat on the heights of bourgeois society ." -- Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France
What Marx described, in his analysis of the corruption of the bourgeoisie in France leading up to the 1848 revolution, applies with even greater force to the United States of 2019, where the bourgeoisie faces its own rendezvous with social upheaval and explosive class battles.
That is how a Marxist understands the spectacle of Wednesday's hearing before the House Oversight Committee, in which Michael Cohen, the former attorney and "fixer" for Donald Trump for more than a decade, testified for six hours about how he and his boss worked to defraud business partners and tax collectors, intimidate critics and suppress opposition to Trump's acitvities in real estate, casino gambling, reality television and, eventually, electoral politics.
What Cohen described was a seedier version of an operation that most Americans would recognize from viewing films like The Godfather: Trump as the capo di tutti capi, the unquestioned authority who must be consulted on every decision ; the children, Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric, each now playing significant roles in the ongoing family criminal enterprise; Allen Weisselberg, CFO of the Trump Organization, the consigliere in charge of finance, mentioned by Cohen more than 20 times in the course of six hours of testimony as the man who facilitated Trump's schemes to evade taxes, deceive banks or stiff business partners.
Cohen himself was an enforcer. By his own account, he threatened people on Trump's behalf at least 500 times in a ten-year period, including business associates, politicians, journalists and anyone seeking to file complaints or gain reimbursement after being defrauded by one or another Trump venture. The now-disbarred lawyer admitted to tape recording clients -- including Trump among many others -- more than 100 times during this period.
The incidents recounted by Cohen range from the farcical (Trump browbeating colleges and even his military prep school not to release his grades or test scores), to the shabby (Trump having his own "charitable" foundation buy a portrait of himself for $60,000), to the brazenly criminal (deliberately inflating the value of properties when applying for bank loans while deflating the value of the same properties as much as twenty-fold in order to evade taxation).
One of the most remarkable revelations was Cohen's flat assertion that Trump himself did not enter the presidential race with the expectation that he could win either the Republican nomination or the presidency. Instead, the billionaire reality television "star" regularly told his closest aides, the campaign would be the "greatest infomercial in political history," good for promoting his brand and opening up business opportunities in previously closed markets.
These unflattering details filled the pages of the daily newspapers Thursday and occupied many hours on the cable television news. But in all that vast volume of reporting and commentary, one would look in vain for any serious assessment of what it means, in terms of the historical development and future trajectory of American society, that a family like the Trumps now occupies the highest rung in the US political system.
The World Socialist Web Site rejects efforts by the Democrats and the corporate media to dismiss Trump as an aberration, an accidental figure whose unexpected elevation to the presidency in 2016 will be "corrected" through impeachment, forced resignation or electoral defeat in 2020. We insist that the Trump administration is a manifestation of a protracted crisis and breakdown of American democracy, whose course can be traced back at least two decades to the failed impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998-99, followed by the stolen presidential election of 2000.
The US political system, always dominated by the interests of the capitalist ruling class that controls both of the major parties, the Democrats as much as the Republicans, is breaking down under the burden of mounting social tensions, driven above all by skyrocketing economic inequality. It is impossible to sustain the pretense that elections at two-year and four-year intervals provide genuine popular influence over the functioning of a government so completely subordinated to the financial aristocracy.
The figures are familiar but require restating: over the past three decades, virtually all the increase in wealth in American society has gone to a tiny layer at the top. Three mega-billionaires -- Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates -- now control more wealth than half the American population. This process of social polarization is global: according to the most recent Oxfam report, 26 billionaires control more wealth than the poorer half of the human race.
These billionaires did not accumulate their riches by devising new technologies or making new scientific discoveries that increased the wealth and happiness of humanity as a whole. On the contrary, their enrichment has come at the expense of society. Bezos has become the world's richest man through the emergence of Amazon as the greatest sweatshop enterprise in history, where every possible second of labor power is extracted from a brutally exploited workforce.
The class of billionaires as a whole, having precipitated the global financial collapse of 2008 through reckless speculation and swindling in the sale of derivatives and other obscure financial "products," was bailed out, first by the Republican Bush, then by the Democrat Obama, to the tune of trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, the jobs, living standards and social conditions for the great mass of working people sharply declined.
As for Donald Trump, the real estate swindler, casino con man and reality television mogul is a living demonstration of the truth of Balzac's aphorism: "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."
Trump toyed with running for president on the ultra-right Reform Party ticket in 2000 after a long stint as a registered Democrat and donor to both capitalist parties. When he decided to run for president as a Republican in 2016, however, he had shifted drastically to the right. His candidacy marked the emergence of a distinctly fascistic movement, as he spewed anti-immigrant prejudice and racism more generally, while making a right-wing populist appeal to working people, particularly in de-industrialized areas in the Midwest and Appalachia, on the basis of economic nationalism.
As World Socialist Web Site editorial board Chairman David North explained even before the 2016 elections:
The Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States did not emerge from an American version of a Munich beer hall. Donald Trump is a billionaire, who made his money in Manhattan real estate swindles, the semi-criminal operations of casino gambling, and the bizarre world of "reality television," which entertains and stupefies its audience by manufacturing absurd, disgusting and essentially fictional "real life" situations. The candidacy of Donald Trump could be described as the transfer of the techniques of reality television to politics.
The main development in the two years since Trump entered the White House is the emergence of the American working class into major struggles, beginning with the wave of teachers' strikes in 2018, initiated by the rank and file in defiance of the bureaucratic unions. The reaction in the American ruling elite is a panic-stricken turn to authoritarian methods of rule.
The billionaire in the White House is now engaged in a systematic assault on the foundations of American democracy. He has declared a national emergency in order to bypass Congress, which holds the constitutional "power of the purse," and divert funds from the military and other federal departments to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.
Whether or not he is immediately successful in this effort, it is clear that Trump is moving towards the establishment of an authoritarian regime, with or without the sanction of the ballot box. As Cohen observed in his closing statement -- in remarks generally downplayed by the media and ignored by the Democrats -- he is worried that if Trump loses the 2020 election, "there will never be a peaceful transition of power."
Trump's "opposition" in the Democratic Party is no less hostile to democratic rights. They have focused their anti-Trump campaign on bogus allegations that he is a Russian agent, while portraying the emergence of social divisions within the United States as the consequence of Russian "meddling," not the crisis of capitalism, and pushing for across-the-board internet censorship.
The defense of democratic rights and genuine resistance to Trump's drive toward authoritarian rule must come through the development of an independent political movement of the working class, directed against both big business parties, the Democrats as much as the Republicans, and against the profit system which they both defend.
Mar 02, 2019 | consortiumnews.com
KiwiAntz , February 20, 2019 at 6:31 am
The "Exceptional Nation" has now become the "Detestable Nation"!
The Puppet show display by Pence & Pompeo to rap Europeans over the knuckles for everything from not exiting the Iran Nuclear deal to not stopping the Nordstream pupeline & trying to contain Hiawei is blowing up in the Trump Administration's faces as these so called Allies or Vassals of the American Empire are refusing to tow the line?
Trump has alienated & disgusted it's Allies, so much that they can now see how deranged, unworkable & destructive is the Americans Foreign Policy & its bankrupt disfunctional , delusional Policies?
It's ridiculous, irrational & pathological hatred for Iran has shown that the US is the main Terrorist Nation on Earth not Iran who has never invaded anyone unlike the hypocritical US Empire!
Meanwhile in Sochi, the real Diplomacy for peace is taking place with Russia, Iran, Turkey & Syria having won the War against the US Empire & its cowardly, crony white helmeted, ragtag bunch of proxy Army misfits made up of Israel, ISIS, SDF & the Kurds now scurrying out of the Country like rats leaving a sinking ship!
And what was really laughable about VP Pences speech in Warsaw was the defeating silence to the pauses in that speech expecting people to clap on demand which never happened?
How embarrassing & really showed the lack of respect & utter contempt that everyone has for America these days!
Sam F, February 20, 2019 at 12:32 pm
A failure for US oligarchy foreign policy is a win for the US and the rest of the world.
Let's hope we see the end of NATO as an excuse for US bully tyrants to "defend" us with greedy aggression.
Perhaps that will lead to strengthening the UN and isolating it from the economic power of US tyrants.
The UN would be far stronger if it taxed its members instead of begging for support, on pain of embargo by all members, and monitored for corrupt influence.
Feb 27, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Zachary Smith , Feb 26, 2019 1:37:24 AM | link
@Circe @100Tump can go back and keep his job pleasing the Zionist elite that installed him.
So far as I'm concerned Hillary was the dream candidate for the apartheid Jewish state. That the Zionists have made a terrific rebound in capturing Trump seems to me to be another story entirely. At a guess, I'd say the job was done with a combination of flattery, bribery, and naked force.
I've tuned out the Mueller thing, but suspect it was part of the leverage used to get control of Trump. Again a guess, but I'd say Trump was totally in bed with the Russians - and everybody else with whom he thought he might run a scam. But this was "business", as in making promises and squeezing money out of them. Things like Trump University. With proper handling the cost of the failures would fall mostly on the "investors". And in the worst case, there was always the fifth or sixth bankruptcy.
Trump didn't expect to be president - that was a humongous publicity campaign financed by the Corporate Media. I don't think Pence was expecting anything besides getting some national exposure which might lead him becoming Senator from Indiana in 2018.
I'm very glad Hillary isn't perched in the White House, but the price of avoiding that has been higher than I expected. Speaking of the devil, I read some ugly stuff at the 2:00 news part of Naked Capitalism.Clinton (2): "EX-CLINTON POLLSTER: Hillary will run if Biden doesn't -- or field is 'too far left'" [The American Mirror]. "After defending Clinton's credentials as 'one of the most experienced politicians around,' [Mark] Penn went on to say of the reported recent confabs between Hillary and declared candidates, "Those meetings are going to be somewhat awkward because she hasn't declared that she's not definitely running, and she, in fact, at the same time is looking over the field and I think will make a decision later in the year whether or not to run herself. Penn said the chances of Hillary running depends on how the field shapes up. 'If the party looks too far to the left and there's no front runner, she'll get in,' he said. 'I think if Joe Biden gets in, that probably means she won't run if he gets in. If he doesn't get in, I think the field will be open for her,' Penn said." • She's tanned, rested, and ready!
That fits right in with my belief that the corporate Dems would prefer Trump's second term or Pence's first term to any decent Democrat being elected. I'll be saying this over and over - while Sander's foreign policy credentials stink to high heaven, the prospect of him being "decent" in domestic matters isn't too awfully bad.
Jackrabbit , Feb 26, 2019 2:26:48 AM | linkZachary Smith | Feb 26, 2019 1:37:24 AM | 102
Mueller [investigation]... suspect it was part of the leverage used to get control of Trump.
Well, the "Russia meddled" scare-mongering has worked well as a means of reviving anti-Russian McCarthyism. It even ensnared Wikileaks and Michael Flynn (both of whom were CIA/Deep State targets).
And, why would the Deep State allow an unvetted person to assume control of the Presidency? They are too careful for that. In fact, all recent President's have some connection to CIA: Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama. Felix Slater, an FBI informant worked for Trump for over a decade while informing on the Russian mob, and most of Trump dubious Russian oligarch connections are actually more loyal to Israel than Russia.
Trump didn't expect to be president
That's funny, given the fact that he bragged that he would win and that he was the ONLY populist running for the Republican nomination (out of 19 contenders!). And none of the other candidates (many of whom are seasoned campaigners) sought to alter their strategy when the saw Trump pulling ahead?!?!
Oh, and Hillary helped her friend Trump win when she alienated key constituencies (Sanders progressives, Blacks) and energized Trump's base by calling them "deploreables".
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Oh, sorry, these things are supposed to be memory-holed. Hope you and MoA readers don't suffer from too much cognitive dissonance from such facts.
Feb 22, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
by TDB Thu, 02/21/2019 - 12:24 5 SHARES By Joe Jarvis via The Daily Bell
The bad guys wear black hats. We're programmed to see things in black or white, right or wrong, good or evil. From what we are shown in movies and books from an early age, there is a protagonist and an antagonist.
Clever writers make it a little more complex, with the Boo Radleys and Snapes who are thought to be villains but turn out to be heroes. But generally, the characters fit largely into extremes: good guys or bad guys with little overlap: Harry Potter versus Voldemort.
But it's those characters on the edge who people can't get enough of. Like Walter White, the cancer patient who starts producing meth to leave some money behind for his family in the TV show Breaking Bad .
And that's probably because its an often unspoken truth that life is mostly gray, and not so black and white.
But the binary two choice meme has a function. It makes things a hell of a lot easier. And it prevents us from being crippled by indecision and inaction.
Of course, this is also easily exploited by bad guys
When I hear that the FBI considered attempting to oust Trump from the oval office, I am tempted to think, hey, Trump must not be such a bad guy.
According to a new book by former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, top FBI brass discussed using the 25th amendment to remove Trump, even though as the Wall Street Journal explains:
A President exercises his constitutional prerogative to fire the FBI director, and Mr. Comey's associates immediately talked about deposing him in what would amount to a coup?
The 25th Amendment was passed after JFK's assassination to allow for a transfer of power when a President is "unable" to discharge his duties. It is intended to be used only after demonstrated evidence of impairment that is witnessed by those closest to the Commander in Chief. It doesn't exist to settle political differences, or to let scheming bureaucrats imagine they are saving the country from someone they fear is a Manchurian candidate. The constitutional process for that is impeachment.
So if the horribly corrupt FBI doesn't like Trump, he must have something to offer. But this is only true in the binary world or pure good and evil. In the real world, evil often opposes evil, because they are different factions fighting for the same territory.
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -Frank Herbert, Author of Dune
We usually end up supporting who we see as the lesser of two evils.
That's sort of like Walter White. He starts off as a timid science geek and devoted father and husband. He is attracted to the drug industry for apparently noble purposes. And he ends up poisoning a child, causing another child to be murdered, ordering an innocent assistant killed, and causing the death of his brother-in-law. Ultimately, Walter White admits he didn't become a massive meth producer for his family. He did it for the thrill, the glory, the power that came with it . We live in a world of Walter Whites, not Voldemorts.
J.K. Rowling made Voldemort pure evil. But to her credit, she demonstrated how easy it was for him to seize the reigns of power at the Ministry of Magic, and how all the bureaucrats and ministers simply started serving a new master. Some even rejoiced in their new authority, relishing the newfound power.
When it comes to Trump versus the FBI, the Wall Street Journal editorial laments, "This is all corrosive to public trust in American democracy."
So what do we do about it?
The less trust we put in the political system, the better. All we can do is separate ourselves to the best of our abilities from far off bureaucrats and politicians.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb says in his book Skin in the Game , paraphrasing brothers Geoff and Vince Graham:
I am, at the Fed level, libertarian; at the state level, Republican; at the local level, Democrat; and at the family and friends level, a socialist.
... ... ...
Feb 18, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Kimberley Murphy , 1 week agochadinem , 1 month ago
I actually trust her more than Bernie. Bernie endorsed HRC, Tulsi did not. She stuck to morals. I respect that.CAY7607 , 1 week ago
Tulsi Gabbard is scary to Republicans because a lot of us center-right folks would be tempted to support her.
Would love to see a Tulsi - Trump debate. She'd be a formidable opponent.
Feb 17, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Chris Chuba , 4 hours ago1. Bolton is evil, 2. Pompeo is a liar, 3. Pence is a moralizing buffoon.
I detest them all but who do I hate the least? I'm going to go with Bolton.
Since I believe that Pence is an honest man, it twists my mind how someone can stand on a stage and seriously believe that other countries have a moral obligation to obey the U.S. in who they do and don't do business with. How dare you undermine U.S. sanctions he thunders, and the look on his face, priceless.
At least Bolton embraces the fact that he is simply exerting power over others without the insufferable moralizing of a Mike Pence.
What a crew we have today.
Feb 17, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Persuading the king ...
I watched Trump's Rose Garden session in which he announced that he would sign the appropriation bill and also declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act. IMO he will win whatever court challenges are made because his authority to do this is clear in "black letter" law and the opposition will have to base their plaints on a judgment as to whether or not there is an emergency. IMO there is nothing in the constitution or law that makes the judgment or the courts competent to overrule his judgment in this case. If they don't like the National Emergencies Law, let the Congress repeal it.
On the other hand, Trump also told the world that because of a personal appeal by a woman from Idlib Province in Syria who came to see him in the Oval Office, he called Putin and argued him into calling off the preparations for a massive Russo/Syrian/Iranian offensive that would IMO have recovered Idlib for the SAG.
I am recalling here roughly what he said.
The lady's argument was that she believed that the millions who lived in the province would be killed or maimed in the process and all the towns destroyed. Her parents lived in the province. And, after all, she said, there are only 45,000 jihadis in the province. I was not in the room, but would be willing to bet that she was; well spoken, well dressed, and reasonably attractive. Trump was persuaded and Idlib remains a cancer in the side of the Syrian state, the Russians, having listened to Trump, attempted to create a de-militarized zone around Idlib Province within which the jihadis have consolidated power.
Some years ago I was asked to speak at a two or three day discussion of the Middle East at Mississippi State University. This is a big school. Attendance was in the thousands. On the program with me (or I with him) was, then TV personality, (later governor of Ohio) John Kasich. At a pre-conference dinner, Kasich sought to dominate the table talk and me (his principal competition) at this conference. There were numerous senior faculty present at table. Kasich sought to belittle whatever knowledge I might have of the MENA region and of the peoples and cultures there. In particular he said that I did not understand Islam at all because I said that the jihadis were among the various forms of Islam, a religion which I foolishly claimed had no central authority structure and in which the "true Islam" was not to be known except in the consensus (ijma') of various groups of Muslims.
Having heard him out, I explained to him my background and experience. He grew more and more sober, clearly unused to opposition. I asked him what the basis was for his opinion that the various jihadis were not real Muslims at all.
He told us that a number of beauteous Muslim ladies had been brought to see him. He said they were well spoken, well dressed (some in French couture clothing) and that they smelled good. This last was said after I asked him about it having run into this phenomenon before.
These ladies were all at pains to explain to him that the jihadis were outside Islam because they did not accept the ijma' of the scholars of whatever "school" (mathab) of Sunni Sharia these ladies adhered to.
The lesson - Beware of well dressed ladies who smell of Chanel #5. pl
PeterVE , 5 hours agoAre you suggesting that President Trump could be influenced by an attractive, well spoken woman with an exotic accent? Maybe the Iranian Mullahs need to change their UN representative to get off Trump's s#*! list.Barbara Ann , 3 hours agoGreat anecdote Colonel, interesting that Kasich's first instinct was to see you as "competition" in such a setting. I don't suppose you told him that, despite your evident ignorance, you were known by the name of a famous warrior poet in several ME countries - or inquired as to his own sobriquet as in these places? My guess is the women folk of Idlib province are not in the habit of frequenting the Oval Office, it would be interesting to know who arranged her visit.Pat Lang Mod -> Barbara Ann , 2 hours ago
Machiavelli does not seem to have commented on the specific matter of wariness of beauteous messengers. However, I'd expect his advice on such matters would echo your own, in the importance of evaluating a message independently of its perfume.That is very good. Antar thanks you. An Iraqi general once asked me how I came to be called that. He said, "you are not Black." I said that was true but that I lived with a woman whose sobriquet was Abla and after so much war my heart was black enough. He said that was true of them as well.Pat Lang Mod -> Pat Lang , 19 minutes agoActually Abla and I were named by a Palestinian Arabic teacher who wanted his class to have working names that began with 'ain. He was from Bethlehem and owned a night club in San Francisco where he was occupied while not teaching Arabic at DLI in Monterey. The name stuck. He was killed in Kuwait by the Kuwaiti resistance who said he was a collaborator with the Iraqis. He was a marvelous 'oud player.Keith Harbaugh , an hour agoOn the other side of the coin, I recall reading how HRC, when she was SecState, was convinced by well-spoken, well-dressed Westernized and Western-educated men from Libya and Syria that if only the U.S. would overthrow the "brutal tyrants" then ruling those nations, that then democracy and freedom would reign in those lands.The Beaver , 2 hours ago
In particular, she was lobbied by one such Westernized Libyan just before she persuaded BHO to intervene in Libya, leading to the subsequent chaos.
BTW, for a reminder of who else pushed BHO to intervene in Libya,
see "Fight of the Valkyries" by Maureen Dowd, 2011-03-23.
Is calling such women stupid about things that matter sexist?
Thinking about how popular the values of Westernized people from the Islamic world are back in their native lands, there is the illustrative example of Benazir Bhutto .
Also BTW, the URL for this post currently is: https://turcopolier.typepad...
"my-entry"? Is this right?ColonelPat Lang Mod -> The Beaver , 2 hours ago
Here is that lady:
She is with SAMS thus in cahoots with White Helmets
and their reactions about Douma
https://www.sams-usa.net/pr...She qualifies.DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , 3 hours agoWhile not having the time nor energy at the moment to read much (even more post much), this statement from DJT just stunned me. And i am not easily stunned.Pat Lang Mod -> DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , an hour ago
Some ppl including me thought of this possibility, to be precise that Ivanka and Jared fed him: You got to save those inocent people there! And he took the bait.
But then again i didnt truely want to believe that this is how the goverment of the biggest world power works. With all those gazillions of analysts, SIGINT HUMINT etc. at hand, briefings and what not..
Even more comically and tragic is, that he might just told the truth, and this is truly what happend.
IMHO this is how the neocons influence him: By presenting selective "information", and just like the MSM he falls for it. Be it his family or patriachic instincts or what ever the psychologic motivation:
He admitted that he was influenced by the same MSM methods he claims to fight, and in turn protecting the biggest gathering of international Jihahist in this century against their sure defeat.
MAGA = Make AlQaida Great Again! ;)
AFAIK this is how DJT stopped the funding of the FSA, when he was shown the video of the child the Zenki Jihadists beheaded. So it is not a single decision, but the M.O. of his style of decision making.
Under all that narcissistic, egomanic and sociopathic behaviour seems to be a human being, a quite emotional too. Too bad it seems to care more for single female Jihadists propagandists than for his campaign promise of fighting Jihadists..
Maybe Assads wife should make a undercover visit to DJT? ;)
EDIT: TyposThe problem with him is his abysmal ignorance of anything outside the world of business. This makes him vulnerable to nonsense like this.Pat Lang Mod -> DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , 2 hours agoWhat is with the "EDIT:Typos" thingy? We are all plain folk here. Basma Asad? A beautiful, well spoken creature. There is a certain strain of blond Syrian upper class woman who will just knock your socks off. This what Italians call "the thunderbolt." I went to visit one in the Maryland suburbs of DC. A relative asked me to go. She was that type. After she decided I wasn't going to do whatever it was she thought I would want to do she took me out to the garage where there were several big cats; tiger, leopard, puma, etc. in cages. I asked her why. She just shrugged and went back in the house.mourjou , 3 hours agoThe woman concerned.David Solomon , 3 hours ago
Dr Rim Al-Bezem is the president of the eastern chapter of the Syrian-American Medical Society (SAMS), an organization that provides training, medical equipment and medicine for a country decimated by the war.
From memory, SAMS only ever worked in the rebel-held areas .
And again from memory, she has been economical with the truth, by ignoring the doctors in west Aleppo and inflating the number of people in Aleppo. Yet again from memory, I think it never reached much above 2 million, 1.5 million in the west and 0.5 million in the east."Many of the doctors have left the country because they, too, have families. In Aleppo alone, there are 35 doctors left to treat the population of 5 million people," she said.
.Colonel, I really enjoyed this piece. It may not have been intentional on your part, but it brought some joy to my day.
Feb 09, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
For starters, he talks about demography. Like many countries in Europe, Hungary's birthrates have plummeted. Orbán has commenced a campaign to raise them, with measures including generous maternity and paternity leave stipends, subsidies of up to 50 euros a month per child, tax write-offs, and housing assistance for couples that have three or more children. The government has also sent out questionnaires asking Hungarians whether they think the solution to Hungary's demographic crisis is stronger support for families or higher immigration. Katalin Novak, Orbán's minister of family and youth, explained unabashedly that the purpose of this was "to send a clear message to Brussels: the renovation of Europe is impossible without support for families and Hungary wants neither immigration nor a modification of its population." This sort of frankness from leaders in the wealthier West is inconceivable. At a press gathering I recently attended, a Macron minister holding a comparable post focused most of the conversation on the expansion of gay rights.
Of course, the other half of the demography subject is immigration. In an address during the fall of 2016 that still resonates, Orbán proclaimed that Europe is "in mortal danger":
The danger is "not attacking us the way wars and natural disasters do mass migration is a slow stream of water persistently eroding the shores. It is masquerading as a humanitarian cause, but its true nature is the occupation of territory. And what is gaining territory for them is losing territory for us. Flocks of obsessed human rights defenders feel the overwhelming urge to reprimand us . [A]llegedly we are hostile xenophobes but the truth is that the history of our nation is also one of inclusion, of the intertwining of cultures. Those who have sought to come here as new family members, as allies, or as displaced persons fearing for their lives have been let in to make a new home for themselves. But those who have come here with the intention of changing our country, of shaping our nation in their own image, have been met with resistance."
Faced with the Merkel Million Man Migration, Orbán ordered Hungary's army to build a fence.Bernard-Henri Lévy: Poster Boy For the False Europe How Brexit Burst the West's Immigration Taboos
Slovakia similarly refused to take in a quota of migrants dictated by Brussels and Berlin. The former president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, wrote a short but excellent book, Europe All Inclusive , about the migration crisis in which he charged that Europe's western elites were supporting mass immigration explicitly to smash the remaining power of nation states so full European unification could be achieved. Poland has likewise refused EU demands to resettle refugees from the Mideast and North Africa.
It is clear that on immigration, Eastern Europe differs from the rest of the continent -- attitudes represented politically only through the populist right in the west are thoroughly mainstream in the east. This difference in political culture is so vast, it can be traced to many sources. A similar divergence surfaced before, during the Cold War, when Eastern Europeans stubbornly refused to allow Western European intellectuals to forget or ignore that communism was a malign and murderous system. Today, Eastern Europeans note that they have been already been the subjects of utopian projects to remake society according to a progressive vision -- and they have no desire for a repeat.
Encountering Eastern European resistance to progressive dogma for the first time is a bracing experience. I first had it during the mid-'70s, in a grad school lecture class at Columbia. A charming and generally well-liked democratic socialist professor would take admiring students through various sophisticated Marxist readings, leading inexorably to the conclusion that the collapse of "late capitalism" was inevitable and to be welcomed. This semester, there happened to be two Poles taking the class, one of whom was a woman who had been an imprisoned dissident. They seemed to know their Marx as well as the prof did: they were smart, they were vocal, and they were having absolutely none of it. It made for an exciting several months, and for me a memorable demonstration that Eastern Europeans were more or less immune to the guilt and self-hatred permeating much of the West.
Perhaps we are in for a reprise, when the people of the west learn once again from the east what is true and essential about their own societies. Of course, there are parallels between the communists' aspirations and the open borders diversity project. Both are genuinely revolutionary in their desire to destroy and remake Western societies according to models that have little viable precedent in human experience. Under this logic, the '60s and '70s can be seen as a kind of transitional phase, during which Western socialists looked longingly towards various Third World models -- China, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua -- after they gave up on the Soviet Union and their own proletariats as viable revolutionary agents. Now progressives hope that social justice will bloom from the political chaos generated by demographic shifts.
Without the voices of Eastern Europe, the West might not have successfully resisted the first progressive onslaught. Once again, it needs the voices of the east to illuminate its path to survival.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor of and the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars.
Feb 07, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne , February 06, 2019 at 04:05 PMhttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/opinion/business-economics/trump-tax-reform-state-of-the-union-2019.htmlanne -> anne... , February 07, 2019 at 06:16 AM
February 6, 2019
The Global Con Hidden in Trump's Tax Reform Law, Revealed
Why would any multinational corporation pay the new 21 percent rate when it could use the new "global minimum" loophole to pay half of that?
By Brad Setser
Last night, President Trump reserved a few minutes of his State of the Union address to praise his tax reform law, which turned a year old last month. To promote its passage, Mr. Trump and his congressional allies promised Americans that drastically lowered corporate tax rates would bring home large sums of capital that had been stashed overseas and finance a surge of domestic investment.
"For too long, our tax code has incentivized companies to leave our country in search of lower tax rates," he said, pitching voters in the fall of 2017. "My administration rejects the offshoring model, and we have embraced a brand-new model. It's called the American model."
The White House argued they wanted a system that "encourages companies to stay in America, grow in America, spend in America, and hire in America." Yet the bill he signed into law includes a sweetheart deal that allows companies that shift their profits abroad to pay tax at a rate well below the already-reduced corporate income tax -- an incentive shift that completely contradicts his stated goal.
Why would any multinational corporation pay America's 21 percent tax rate when it could pay the new "global minimum" rate of 10.5 percent on profits shifted to tax havens, particularly when there are few restrictions on how money can be moved around a company and its foreign subsidiaries?
These wonky concerns were largely brushed aside amid the political brawl. But now that a full year has passed since the tax bill became law, we have hard numbers we can evaluate.
For starters, the law's repatriation deal did prompt a brief surge in offshore profits returning to the United States. But the total sum returned so far is well below the trillions many proponents predicted, and a large chunk of the returned funds have been used for record-breaking stock buybacks, which don't help workers and generate little real economic activity.
And despite Mr. Trump's proud rhetoric regarding tax reform during his State of the Union address, there is no wide pattern of companies bringing back jobs or profits from abroad. The global distribution of corporations' offshore profits -- our best measure of their tax avoidance gymnastics -- hasn't budged from the prevailing trend.
Well over half the profits that American companies report earning abroad are still booked in only a few low-tax nations -- places that, of course, are not actually home to the customers, workers and taxpayers facilitating most of their business. A multinational corporation can route its global sales through Ireland, pay royalties to its Dutch subsidiary and then funnel income to its Bermudian subsidiary -- taking advantage of Bermuda's corporate tax rate of zero.
Where American Profits Hide
No major technology company has jettisoned the finely tuned tax structures that allow a large share of its global profits to be booked offshore. Nor have major pharmaceutical companies stopped producing many of their most profitable drugs in Ireland. And Pepsi, to name just one major manufacturer, still makes the concentrate for its soda in Singapore, also a haven.
Eliminating the complex series of loopholes that encourage offshoring was a major talking point in the run-up to the 2017 tax bill, but most of them are still in place. The craftiest and largest corporations can still legally whittle down their effective tax rate into the single digits. (In fact, the new law encourages firms to move "tangible assets" -- like factories -- offshore).
Overall, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act amounted to a technocratic sleight of hand -- a scheme set to shift an even greater share of the federal tax burden onto the shoulders of American families. According to the Treasury Department's tally for fiscal year 2018, corporate income tax receipts fell by 31 percent, an unprecedented year-over-year drop in a time of economic growth (presumably a time when profits and government revenue should rise in tandem).
These damning results, to be sure, don't make for a good defense of what came before the new law. In theory under the old system, American-based firms still owed the government a cut of their global profits. In practice, large firms could indefinitely defer paying this tax until the funds could be repatriated -- usually when granted a tax holiday by a friendly administration.
Over a generation, this political dance was paired with rules that made it relatively easy for firms to transfer their most prized intellectual property -- say, the rights to popular software or the particular mix of ingredients for a hot new drug -- to their offshore subsidiaries. Taken together, they created a tax nirvana of sorts for multinational corporations, particularly in intellectual-property-intensive industries like tech and pharmaceuticals. But it wasn't enough.
For their next trick, the companies worked with their political allies to favorably frame the 2017 tax debate. When he was the House speaker, Paul Ryan was fond of talking about $3 trillion in "trapped" profits abroad. But those profits weren't actually, physically, sitting in a few tax havens.
Dwarf Economies, Giant American Profits
They were largely invested in United States bank accounts, securities and bonds issued by the Treasury or other companies headquartered in the States. As Adam Looney -- a Brookings Institution fellow and former Treasury Department official -- has explained, companies that needed to finance a new domestic investment could simply issue a bond effectively backed by its offshore cash. (For instance, Apple could bring its "trapped" funds onshore by selling a bond to Pfizer's offshore account, or vice versa.)
Put plainly, they got the best of both worlds: Uncle Sam could tax only a small slice of their books while they traded with one another based on the size of the entire pie.
The scale of the tax shifting has become so immense that some economists believe curbing it could raise reported G.D.P. by well over a percentage point -- something Mr. Trump, who's been absorbed by opportunities to brag about the economy, should notionally welcome.
President Trump's economic advisers and the key architects of the bill on Capitol Hill must have known their reform wasn't going to end business incentives that hurt American workers. Honest reform would have meant closing corporate loopholes -- a move they originally promised to make.
Should the opportunity present itself, perhaps to the next president, there are a couple of viable options for a fundamental tax overhaul that wouldn't require reinstating the 35 percent corporate tax rate.
One of several possibilities is to return to a system of global taxation without the deferrals that enabled empty repatriations. That would mean profits sneakily booked tax-free in Bermuda would be taxed every year at 21 percent. Profits booked in Ireland -- or other low-tax nations -- would be taxed at the difference between Ireland's rate and America's rate.
It's an approach that would protect small and midsize American companies while cracking down on bad corporate actors with enough fancy accountants and lawyers to rig the game to their advantage. And it would be far better than the fake tax reform passed a year ago.https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1093271623212457985
Paul Krugman @paulkrugman
This is very good from the essential Brad Setser, our leading expert on international trade and money flows. Bottom line: the Trump tax cut is a giveaway to corporations that doesn't promote investment here 1/
The Global Con Hidden in Trump's Tax Reform Law, Revealed
Why would any multinational corporation pay the new 21 percent rate when it could use the new "global minimum" loophole to pay half of that?
2:14 PM - 6 Feb 2019
@Brad_Setser also gets at something I've been trying to explain: corporate cash "overseas" isn't really a stash of money that can be brought home, it's an accounting fiction that lets them avoid taxes, with no real consequences for investment 2/
And this chart, showing the predominance of tax avoidance in overseas "investment", is a classic 3/
Feb 07, 2019 | failedevolution.blogspot.com
Even before the 2016 US presidential election, this blog supported that Donald Trump is a pure sample of neoliberal barbarism . Many almost laughed at this perception because Trump was being already promoted, more or less, as the 'terminator' of the neoliberal establishment. And many people, especially in the US, tired from the economic disasters, the growing inequality and the endless wars, were anxious to believe that this was indeed his special mission.
Right after the elections, we supported that the US establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat: Bernie Sanders.
Then, Trump sent the first shock wave to his supporters by literally hiring the Goldman Sachs banksters to run the economy. And right after that, he signed for more deregulation in favor of the Wall Street mafia that ruined the economy in 2008.
In 2017 , Trump bombed Syria for the first time, resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war disaster. Despite the fact that the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the targeted airport was operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep state that he is prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of the confrontation with Russia.
Indeed, a year later, Trump built a pro-war team that includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish neocons. And then, he ordered a second airstrike against Syria, together with his neocolonial friends.
In the middle of all this 'orgy' of pro-establishment moves, Trump offered a controversial withdrawal of US forces from Syria and Afghanistan to save whatever was possible from his 'anti-interventionist' profile. And it was indeed a highly controversial action with very little value, considering all these US military bases that are still fully operational in the broader Middle East and beyond. Not to mention the various ways through which the US intervenes in the area (training proxies, equip them with heavy weapons, supporting the Saudis and contribute to war crimes in Yemen, etc.)
And then , after this very short break, Trump returned to 'business as usual' to satisfy the neoliberal establishment with a 'glorious' record. He achieved a 35-day government shutdown, which is the "longest shutdown in US history" .
Trump conducted the longest experiment on neoliberals' ultimate goal: abolishing the annoying presence of the state. And this was just a taste of what Trump is willing to do in order to satisfy all neoliberals' wet dreams.
And now, we have the Venezuela issue. Since Hugo Chavez nationalized PDVSA, the central oil and natural gas company, the US empire launched a fierce economic war against the country. Yet, while all previous US administrations were trying to replace legitimate governments with their puppets as much silently as possible through slow-motion coup operations, Trump has no problem to do it in plain sight.
And perhaps the best proof for that is a statement by one of the most warmongering figures of the neocon/neoliberal cabal, hired by Trump . As John Bolton cynically and openly admitted recently, " It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela. "
Therefore, one should be very naive of course to believe that the Western imperialist gang seriously cares about the Venezuelan people and especially the poor. Here are three basic reasons behind the open US intervention in Venezuela:
- The imperialists want to grab the rich oil fields for the US big oil cartel, as well as the great untapped natural resources , particularly gold (mostly for the Canadian companies).
- Venezuela must not become an example for other countries in the region on social-programs policy, which is mainly funded by the oil production. The imperialists know that they must interrupt the path of Venezuela to real Socialism by force if necessary. Neoliberalism must prevail by all means for the benefit of the big banks and corporations.
- Venezuela must not turn to cooperation with rival powers like China and Russia. Such a prospect may give the country the ability to minimize the effects of the economic war. The country may find an alternative to escape the Western sanctions in order to fund its social programs for the benefit of the people. And, of course, the West will never accept the exploitation of the Venezuelan resources by the Sino-Russian bloc.
So, when Trump declared the unelected Juan Guaido as the 'legitimate president' of Venezuela, all the main neoliberal powers of the West rushed to follow the decision.
This is something we have never seen before. The 'liberal democracies' of the West - only by name - immediately, uncritically and without hesitation jumped on the same boat with Trump towards this outrageously undemocratic action. They recognized Washington's puppet as the legitimate president of a third country. A man that was never elected by the Venezuelan people and has very low popularity in the country. Even worse, the EU parliament approved this action , killing any last remnants of democracy in the Union.
Yet, it seems that the US is finding increasingly difficult to force many countries to align with its agenda. Even some European countries took some distance from the attempted constitutional coup, with Italy even trying to veto EU's decision to recognize Guaido.
Donald Trump is the personification of an authoritarian system that increasingly unveils its true nature. The US empire makes the Venezuelan economy 'scream hard', as it did in Chile in 1973. The country then turned into the first laboratory of neoliberalism with the help of the Chicago Boys and a brutal dictatorship. So, as the big fraud is clear now, neoliberalism is losing ground and ideological influence over countries and societies, after decades of complete dominance.
This unprecedented action by the Western neoliberal powers to recognize Guaido is a serious sign that neoliberalism returns to its roots and slips towards fascism. It appears now that this is the only way to maintain some level of power.
Feb 06, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
Christopher H. , February 06, 2019 at 01:36 PMhttps://jacobinmag.com/2019/02/trump-state-of-union-socialism
Trump Is Right to Be Afraid of Socialism... I think he's scared," said Ocasio-Cortez of Trump's socialism remarks. "He sees that everything is closing in on him. And he knows he's losing the battle of public opinion when it comes to the actual substantive proposals that we're advancing to the public." Given the remarkable popularity of proposals like Bernie's Medicare for All and tuition-free college and Ocasio-Cortez's 70 percent top marginal tax rate, she's probably onto something.
BY MEAGAN DAY
Insiders have suggested that Trump plans to explicitly run against socialism in 2020. In fact, in playing up the dangers of socialism, he may be positioning himself to run against Bernie Sanders in 2020. That would be a smart move, since Bernie is the most popular politician in America and could very well be Trump's direct contender in the general election, if he can successfully dodge attacks from the establishment wing of the Democratic Party in the primary.
Sanders's rebuttal to Trump's address gave us a preview of how he plans to respond to the mounting attacks on socialism from the Right. President Trump said tonight, quote, "We are born free, and we will stay free," end of quote. Well I say to President Trump, people are not truly free when they can't afford to go to the doctor when they are sick. People are not truly free when they cannot afford to buy the prescription drugs they desperately need. People are not truly free when they are unable to retire with dignity. People are not truly free when they are exhausted because they are working longer and longer hours for lower wages. People are not truly free when they cannot afford a decent place in which to live. People certainly are not free when they cannot afford to feed their families.
As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said in 1968, and I quote, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor." What Dr. King said then was true, and it is true today, and it remains absolutely unacceptable.
In essence what we're seeing here is Bernie Sanders challenging the popular equation of capitalism with democracy and freedom. This is the same point Bernie has been making for decades. "People have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically means slave-labor camps, dictatorship and lack of freedom of speech," he said in 1976. This Cold War dogma swept the pervasive reality of capitalist unfreedom - from the bondage of poverty to the perversions of formal democracy under the pressure of a dominant economic class - under the rug. In a 1986 interview, Bernie elaborated:
All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small "d." I believe in democracy, and by democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average working person who's making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank or corporation. So, if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy as well.
For more than four decades, Bernie made these points to relatively small audiences. In 2016, everything changed, and he now makes them to an audience of millions.
The rise of neoliberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union relieved the capitalist state's elite of the need to keep shoring up the equation between capitalism and freedom. Capitalists and their ideology had triumphed, hegemony was theirs, and socialism was no real threat, a foggy memory of a distant era. But forty years of stagnating wages, rising living costs, and intermittent chaos caused by capitalist economic crisis remade the world - slowly, and then all at once. When Bernie Sanders finally took socialist class politics to the national stage three years ago, people were willing to listen.
Bernie has been so successful at changing the conversation that the President now feels obligated to regurgitate Cold War nostrums about socialism and unfreedom to a new generation.
Good, let him. Each apocalyptic admonition is an opportunity for Bernie, and the rest of us socialists, to articulate a different perspective, one in which freedom and democracy are elusive at present but achievable through a society-wide commitment to economic and social equality. We will only escape "coercion, domination, and control" when we structure society to prioritize the well-being of the many over the desires of the greedy few.
Mr. Bill said in reply to anne... February 06, 2019 at 03:29 PM
A lot of the opinion part of what Paul Krugman says, in this article, maybe, doesn't ring quite true, although I don't dispute the facts.
Poll after poll show that 75% of us agree on 80% of the issues, regardless of which political tribe we identify with.
I tend to think that the real problem is that neither the GOP, which represents the top 1% of the economically comfortable, nor the Democrats who represent the top 10%, are representative of the majority of Americans.
Frantically trying to slice and dice the electorate into questionably accurate tranches, ignores the elephant in the room, Paul.
Feb 06, 2019 | www.businessinsider.com
Wages are rising at the fastest pace in decades, and growing for blue collar workers, who I promised to fight for, faster than anyone else. Nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps. The United States economy is growing almost twice as fast today as when I took office, and we are considered far and away the hottest economy anywhere in the world. Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in half a century. African-American, Hispanic-American and Asian-American unemployment have all reached their lowest levels ever recorded. Unemployment for Americans with disabilities has also reached an all-time low. More people are working now than at any time in our history -- 157 million.
We passed a massive tax cut for working families and doubled the child tax credit.
We virtually ended the estate, or death, tax on small businesses, ranches, and family farms.
We eliminated the very unpopular Obamacare individual mandate penalty -- and to give critically ill patients access to life-saving cures, we passed right to try.
My Administration has cut more regulations in a short time than any other administration during its entire tenure. Companies are coming back to our country in large numbers thanks to historic reductions in taxes and regulations.
We have unleashed a revolution in American energy -- the United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world. And now, for the first time in 65 years, we are a net exporter of energy.
After 24 months of rapid progress, our economy is the envy of the world, our military is the most powerful on earth, and America is winning each and every day. Members of Congress: the State of our Union is strong. Our country is vibrant and our economy is thriving like never before.
On Friday, it was announced that we added another 304,000 jobs last month alone -- almost double what was expected. An economic miracle is taking place in the United States -- and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations.
If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn't work that way!
... ... ...
Both parties should be able to unite for a great rebuilding of America's crumbling infrastructure.
I know that the Congress is eager to pass an infrastructure bill -- and I am eager to work with you on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment, including investments in the cutting edge industries of the future. This is not an option. This is a necessity.
The next major priority for me, and for all of us, should be to lower the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs -- and to protect patients with pre-existing conditions.
Already, as a result of my Administration's efforts, in 2018 drug prices experienced their single largest decline in 46 years.
But we must do more. It is unacceptable that Americans pay vastly more than people in other countries for the exact same drugs, often made in the exact same place. This is wrong, unfair, and together we can stop it.
... ... ...
he final part of my agenda is to protect America's National Security.
Over the last 2 years, we have begun to fully rebuild the United States Military -- with $700 billion last year and $716 billion this year. We are also getting other nations to pay their fair share. For years, the United States was being treated very unfairly by NATO -- but now we have secured a $100 billion increase in defense spending from NATO allies.
As part of our military build-up, the United States is developing a state-of-the-art Missile Defense System.
Under my Administration, we will never apologize for advancing America's interests.
For example, decades ago the United States entered into a treaty with Russia in which we agreed to limit and reduce our missile capabilities. While we followed the agreement to the letter, Russia repeatedly violated its terms. That is why I announced that the United States is officially withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF Treaty.
Perhaps we can negotiate a different agreement, adding China and others, or perhaps we can't -- in which case, we will outspend and out-innovate all others by far.
As part of a bold new diplomacy, we continue our historic push for peace on the Korean Peninsula. Our hostages have come home, nuclear testing has stopped, and there has not been a missile launch in 15 months. If I had not been elected President of the United States, we would right now, in my opinion, be in a major war with North Korea with potentially millions of people killed. Much work remains to be done, but my relationship with Kim Jong Un is a good one. And Chairman Kim and I will meet again on February 27 and 28 in Vietnam.
Two weeks ago, the United States officially recognized the legitimate government of Venezuela, and its new interim President, Juan Guaido.
... ... ...
Our approach is based on principled realism -- not discredited theories that have failed for decades to yield progress. For this reason, my Administration recognized the true capital of Israel -- and proudly opened the American Embassy in Jerusalem.
Our brave troops have now been fighting in the Middle East for almost 19 years. In Afghanistan and Iraq, nearly 7,000 American heroes have given their lives. More than 52,000 Americans have been badly wounded. We have spent more than $7 trillion in the Middle East.
As a candidate for President, I pledged a new approach. Great nations do not fight endless wars.
When I took office, ISIS controlled more than 20,000 square miles in Iraq and Syria. Today, we have liberated virtually all of that territory from the grip of these bloodthirsty killers.
Now, as we work with our allies to destroy the remnants of ISIS, it is time to give our brave warriors in Syria a warm welcome home.
I have also accelerated our negotiations to reach a political settlement in Afghanistan. Our troops have fought with unmatched valor -- and thanks to their bravery, we are now able to pursue a political solution to this long and bloody conflict.
In Afghanistan, my Administration is holding constructive talks with a number of Afghan groups, including the Taliban. As we make progress in these negotiations, we will be able to reduce our troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism. We do not know whether we will achieve an agreement -- but we do know that after two decades of war, the hour has come to at least try for peace.
... ... ...
My Administration has acted decisively to confront the world's leading state sponsor of terror: the radical regime in Iran.
To ensure this corrupt dictatorship never acquires nuclear weapons, I withdrew the United States from the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. And last fall, we put in place the toughest sanctions ever imposed on a country.
Jan 23, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.comConcerning the partial shutdown and and the border barriers 1 - The banks, credit unions and any other financial institutions that can lend money are missing a chance to build a lot of good will in this situation. Good will is an item that any good business plan must take into account even of it is impossible to quantify on paper. Good will leads to more customers. Businesses want to acquire more customers. The 800k federal employees now on furlough have legislated assurance that their back pay will be quickly forthcoming when the pause ends. Sooo! Make them no interest loans in the amount of their postponed pay. You will not be sorry if you do that. I don't know if that could be extended to contract employees since the contract that includes their services may not insure back pay.
2 - The wall, barrier system or whatever you want to call it presently exists on a number of sections of the border. Pelosi, Schumer and the other Democrats who prattle about the "immorality" and uselessness of physical border defenses should be asked each and every day if they want the present border barriers demolished so that anyone can cross the border whenever they want and anywhere they want. California is the destination of choice of these economic migrants. If the border barriers are taken down, there will be IMO a mass migration into what is now the United States and especially into California from Latin American and then inevitably from all over the world. Ask the Democrats, every day if they want the existing border barriers taken down, Ask them! pl
TTG , 4 hours agoThe current fight over "the wall" and funding for that wall is pure politics on both sides. We are under a partial government shutdown for the sake of a symbol. Some kind of border barrier has been in existence since the 90s and the "Secure Border Act" of 2006 called for close to 700 miles of double fence barriers. Both Republican and Democratic legislatures and presidencies have maintained and added to this fencing as well as doubling the size of the CBP. According to a December 2016 GAO report on securing the SW border, the CBP spent $2.4 billion between 2007 and 2015 to deploy tactical infrastructure (TI) - fencing, gates, roads, bridges, lighting and drainage infrastructure distributed along the entire SW border area. That includes 654 miles of fencing and 5,000 miles of roads.Mark Logan -> TTG , 2 hours ago
A total of $1.7 billion was appropriated in FY17 and FY18 for new and replacement barriers and fences. Most of those funds have been obligated to the Corp of Engineers and much of that has been awarded to contractors. Only a small percentage (6%) has been paid out for completed contracts. The following projects account for close to half of those funds:
- In New Mexico to replace 20 miles of fencing with bollard wall for $73 million. Contract was awarded in February 2018. Construction started in April 2018 and was completed in September 2018.
- In the Rio Grande Valley to build 8 miles of 18 foot bollard wall and replace existing levee wall for $167 million to begin in February 2019.
- In Arizona to build/replace 32 miles of "primary pedestrian wall" for $324 million to begin in April 2019.
- Near San Diego to replace 14 miles of 8-10 foot metal wall/fence with 18-30 foot tall bollard wall system for $287 million to begin in July 2019.
Trump's current demand for $5.7 billion covers an additional 243 miles of fencing mostly in the Rio Grande Valley. It'll probably be 2020 before a single bollard is set from that $5.7 billion and several years after that to issue the contracts and complete the construction. Given the shortcoming in the present border fences, that $5.7 billion would be better spent on replacing the present barriers in the most needed areas rather constructing new fence in less vulnerable areas. Just to maintain and replace what we have should require close to a billion dollars a year. I say again, this current battle over $5.7 billion for "the wall" is political posturing by both sides.
The more important demand made by Trump was the $800 million to address the humanitarian crisis on the border. These funds would provide for improved care/processing of refugees/asylum seekers, 2,750 more border agents and 75 more immigration judges. In my opinion, that would be a wise expense. I think there ought to be ten times that number of new border agents/officers to better address the refugee problem (humanitarian crisis) which will probably remain for many years. Climate change is making drought, hurricanes, floods and mudslides the new normal in Central America. The farming economy in this region, which includes southern Mexico is collapsing. Local governments are dysfunctional and impotent. These people are going to migrate or die in place.
If you want to declare a national emergency, we could use eminent domain to condemn and buy a lot of farmland at cost from corporate agribusinesses and start a "40 acres and a mule" program for refugee farm families and any native American family who desire a new start.Have to agree. Trump only asked for $1.6 billion for his wall in his 2019 budget...and got it. He then decided to have a fight, one that he was loath to have when the Republicans held the majority in the House.Eugene Owens -> TTG , 3 hours ago
IMO Pelosi and co have also decided this is a good place to have a Waterloo. This isn't a struggle for a wall it's a struggle for dominance. They await a tide of public opinion to decide it.A pox on both their houses!John P. Teschke , 9 hours agoThey should shut down the whole regime. The first things to be shut down should be the myriad of bases occupying foreign soil, particularly the bases that support the destabilization of middle eastern countries. Reply • Share › Twitter FacebookJames Thomas , 9 hours agoI am on the left and I don't have a problem with the wall. That said, if you really want to reduce illegal immigration exit controls would be more effective (and much more cost effective). I went through a whole lot of trouble to get a work visa to work legally in Poland in the late 90s - and I wouldn't have bothered if Poland didn't have exit controls. Almost every country in the world has exit controls ... except for Canada and the US.Pat Lang Mod -> James Thomas , 7 hours agoYou need a wide variety of techniques. This will of necessity include border barriers.EdwardAmame -> Pat Lang , 6 hours agoOh cut it out. The wall is bullshit. If Trump was actually serious about illegal immigration he'd be pushing E-Verify for all US businesses to determine the eligibility of employees. But the GOP business lobby would never allow that so we get dog and pony shows like this so that Trump can act like he really means business.Pat Lang Mod -> EdwardAmame , 14 minutes agoWell, at last you have made a logical point. E-verify should be made mandatory. You would probably loose a lot of friends if it were. BTW, your many insulting comments today have caused me after many years to ban you.ex-PFC Chuck , a day agoWith regard to #1 I'm not holding my breath. Fundamental to the financial sector's business model is opportunistic predation. As Michael Hudson relentlessly documents in his recently published and forgive them their debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year , it has been this way since money was invented in the ancient Near East over five thousand years ago. In today's world few banksters can be expected to forego invoking the fine print terms regarding the late fees and interest rate hikes, especially considering the fact the careers of the CEOs and CFOs of publicly traded companies live or die by the next quarterly earnings report.MP98 , a day ago
Sadly Hudson's important book is getting little traction. He could only get this published on a print-to-order basis in spite of the fact he has about a dozen prior books to his credit. As a PtO book it will not be stocked by chain book stores.They would never admit it, but of courser the Democrats want all the barriers gone and an open border.MP98 , a day ago
There are approx. 22 mil. illegal aliens in this country and the Democrats want more and more.
Then they can push for amnesty (which the swamp Republicans, in their gross stupidity, will go along with) and PRESTO: 22 mil. plus entitled Democrat voters.
Who needs those redneck gooberThey would never admit it, but of courser the Democrats want all the barriers gone and an open border.Eugene Owens , 4 hours ago
There are approx. 22 mil. illegal aliens in this country and the Democrats want more and more.
Then they can push for amnesty (which the swamp Republicans, in their gross stupidity, will go along with) and PRESTO: 22 mil. plus entitled Democrat voters.
Who needs those redneck goober (white male)Trump voters, anyway?http://www.hurriyetdailynew...ex-PFC Chuck , 6 hours agoAs Philip Giraldi points out in a post a The Unz Review today, the Democratic establishment isn't opposed to walls per se. It depends on who's building it and for what purpose.RaisingMac , 7 hours ago
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi...Pat Lang Mod -> RaisingMac , 5 hours agoPelosi, Schumer and the other Democrats who prattle about the immorality and uselessness of physical border defenses should be asked each and every day if they want the present border barriers demolished so that anyone can cross the border whenever they want and anywhere they want The wall, barrier system or whatever you want to call it presently exists on a number of sections of the border.
In honor of Sen. Chuck 'Shomer', I vote that we call our border barrier a fence , just as Israel does:Play HideYou are repeating what I wrote? Tell the Dems, not me.Lewis.Ballard , 10 hours agoSir: While not directly on point, I knuckled under and signed up with Disqus simply to say how much I have appreciated this committee of correspondence over the years. Seeing your post recently about conversing with Glubb Pasha was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.Eric Newhill , 13 hours agoIMO, we should sell coastal California to Mexico for $100 billion. Then use that money to build a wall from Oregon to Brownsville, TX. Solves two problems in one fell swoop.Pat Lang Mod -> Eric Newhill , 11 hours ago
It sure does seem like the lenders are missing an excellent opportunity for a nearly risk free public relations campaign as well as sales opportunities. Get these furloughed workers in the door and give them a furlough loan and then get them interested in home loans, auto loans...whatever they're qualified for. Should be a no-brainer.I would rather buy Baja California from Mexico.peter hodges -> Pat Lang , 3 hours agoWe would still be stuck with LA and the Bay Area.Pat Lang Mod -> peter hodges , 11 minutes agoWhy?Stuart Wood , 16 hours agoTrump, his wall, and the shutdownFred -> Stuart Wood , 14 hours ago
Trump is our chief executive charged with the day to day running of the government and the proverbial "making the trains run on time" for government functions. All these functions work for him, not the legislative branch. His partial shutdown of the government reminds me of the classic film Blazing Saddles where the black sheriff, played by Cleavon Little, takes himself hostage by holding a gun to his own head to hold off a mob angry at having a black appointed sheriff for their town. It worked in the film. Let's hope it does not work in Washington."This, I believe, is what the majority of the populace want." ... " his wall"Harlan Easley -> Fred , 12 hours ago
I believe that is why he won the election.Fred, just finished the book you recommended "A Disease in the Public Mind - Why We Fought the Civil War" by Thomas Flemming. The most balanced and fair nonfiction historical book I have read on this subject.Fred -> Harlan Easley , 9 hours ago
Also depressing because History is repeating itself. Not rhyming but repeating itself. The modern day abolitionist is convinced of their morale superiority over the deplorables. Just look at the Fake News regarding the Catholic School boys. One abolitionist said on Twitter that he wish they were dead along with their parents.
I hate the agenda of the Paul Ryan wing of the Republican Party but I hate these modern day abolitionist more since they desire to kill people just because they don't agree with their transgender, open borders anarchy, and taxes on the little guy for a Climate Change problem that doesn't exist. The Yellow Vest movement is a push back against this madness.
Instead of talking Medicare for All, jobs for everyone, prosperity, taking care of your countryman the political narrative is on bizarre subjects due to the Elite knowing Globalization is destroying huge sections of Western Civilization. The Yellow Vest have destroyed 60% of the Speed Cameras deployed to catch the little guy going 5 m.p.h. over the speed limit or running a red light that is timed to get you. It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with raising money off the individuals who are already struggling to survive.
For the top 26 billionaires in the world to have as much wealth as the bottom 3.8 billion people in the world is barbaric. Globalization has led to drastic income inequality and the fuse is burning.Harlan,Eric Newhill -> Fred , 8 hours ago
Glad you read the book. I agree when you say " The modern day abolitionist is convinced of their morale superiority over the deplorables." I wrote an early piece about that existential angst of this newest generation. (Hard to believe it has already been two years.) https://turcopolier.typepad...
I think this generation is waking up to having 'been played' by the politicians. What is being missed in this latest effort to control the narrative is 1) Anti-Semitism in the Women's march which led many groups, inluding the DNC, to withdraw support. 2) A turnout that's roughly 90% lower than two years ago and a far, far cry from what was promoted. Others in random order: Unempolyment is way down. The stock market is up almost 10% since the shutdown began. Turmp is directing that the armed forces leave Syria (Afghanistan is probably next) and North Korea is making further move gestures towards actual denuclearization.What will be interesting to see, in the long run, is if the Democrats can keep the Hispanic vote. Being godless sodomites, the new age abolitionists are making war on Catholics and, it just so happens, that Hispanics, by and large, are serious about their Catholicism.Pat Lang Mod -> Eric Newhill , 8 hours agoYes. It seems likely that the Hispanics will gradually gravitate to the GOP.EdwardAmame -> Pat Lang , 6 hours agoMaybe, but not the GOP that currently exists.Harlan Easley -> Pat Lang , 6 hours agoI don't see it. California proves otherwise. Texas and Georgia have become competitive because of illegal immigrants having American born kids. The abolitionist say demography is destiny and I tend to agree. Shows how racist they are. And how much they hate white people.Eric Newhill -> Pat Lang , 5 hours ago
I see the Republican Party becoming noncompetitive to extinct over the next 20 years. And the Democrat Party separating into 2 parties. The Progressive Wing versus the Moderate Wing. Of course it could just all burned down before then and I wouldn't be surprised. I plan to read your book next and have no doubt I will enjoy it. I've read the free excerpts you provided and enjoyed them.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if future white generations in America do not emigrate to Russia. I hate to be pessimistic but the monkey brain of man is incurable and hate runs rampant. The modern day white abolitionist will be sideline to the trailer park but they are too stupid to see it.
We need a new party in America that is for all colors of citizens and an economic populist platform along with a social justice system that is vibrant.
The Democrat Party is the most vile/racist/bigoted party in the world right now. This modern abolitionist attitude that killed many innocent Iraqi's due to no fault of their own and believes they can dictate to countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, and Russia on how to live because they are gender neutral is going to come back and destroy them. Either through a home grown movement such as the Yellow Vest or worse to all of our detriment.Sir, It may already be happening. An NPR/PBS/Marist January poll (that's not Fox/Breitbart) shows approval of the performance of Trump among Hispanics rising from 31% to 50% since the same poll was performed just prior to the shutdown. I can't figure out if Trump is a 10th level Jedi master or if it's a case of the one eyed man being king in the land of the blind.Pat Lang Mod -> Stuart Wood , 15 hours agoAh, the hostage taking meme.EdwardAmame -> Pat Lang , 6 hours agoTrump says give me X number of $$s for my border wall (thought balloon over his head says "so I can get re-elected") or I shut down the gov't. What's to keep him from doing it again if the Dems cave this time?Greco , a day ago
On a side note: it's pretty appalling that you and your mostly Cuckoo bird commenters think this is the way the republic should be run. So sad what happened to this blog.We have Democrats like Sandy Ocasio-Cortez demanding the abolition of ICE. Is that one of so-called improvements to border security the Democrats are seeking with popular backing?EdwardAmame -> Greco , 6 hours ago
If left to their devices, the Democrats would happily do away with the border altogether. Don't take my word for it. Take the words of the two-time failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She gave a paid, private speech in Brazil where she claimed, "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." That's all fine and dandy, I'm sure, but oddly she didn't make that proclamation publicly on the campaign trail.You are so full of shit. Dems want borders and they want border security based on real experience, not a mnemonic device dreamed up by Roger Stone to focus candidate Trump on immigration issues.Stuart Wood , a day agoI think you are putting words in Pelosi's and the democrats mouths. I have heard of none of them espousing getting rid of the border barriers. I believe they view a wall as a dumb idea but are for other improvements for border security. This, I believe, is what the majority of the populace want.Pat Lang Mod -> Stuart Wood , 15 hours agoPelosi and any number of other leading Dems have said that border barriers are immoral. The logical conclusion from those statements is that ALL border barriers are immoral. If that is their position then they should advocate removal of existing barriers. If they do not, then they are politically self serving liars.EdwardAmame -> Pat Lang , 6 hours agoBullshit. She said Trump's wall is immoral. My take is that what is immoral referred to using a gov't shutdown to get it.Stuart Wood -> Pat Lang , 13 hours agoNo. Pelosi said the wall was immoral.Pat Lang Mod -> Stuart Wood , 11 hours agoShe made it clear that she thinks all barriers are immoral and does not differetiate between the two. Ask her.mike2000917 -> Stuart Wood , a day agoThe walls in place currently are highly effective. Five billion would put more walls in areas focusing illegal crossers into smaller zones.EdwardAmame -> mike2000917 , 6 hours ago
The Democrats are all but endorsing open borders. Whether it's just to thwart Trump or if they actually want no borders, the affect is the same.Tell that to the angry ranchers along the southern Texas borders who think trump's wall is a political stunt that will ruin them economically.Pat Lang Mod -> mike2000917 , 15 hours ago
There is no illegal alien southern border crisis in 2019 -- and the migrant caravan that had so many republicans freaked out ultimately wound up in Tijuana, across the wall from San Diego. Because that's where migrant families wind up, at official points of entry so they can apply for asylum.Thank you for your support. Now, tell the Democrat leaders that!Pat Lang Mod -> Stuart Wood , a day agoThey should be asked.Britam -> Pat Lang , a day agoSir;Barbara Ann -> Britam , 14 hours ago
The problem with the idea of banks building 'good will' is that the financial sector, by and large, has moved on from old fashioned business models to an 'enrich the insiders at everyone else's expense' model.
My local bank that I use has signs in the lobby directing workers discommoded by the shutdown to apply at the small loan desk. I do not know what incentives are on offer, but my unpleasant experience with the bank once before does not give me much hope of the bank acting altruistically.
William K Black, who headed part of the Federal response to the 'Savings and Loan' crisis in the 1980's has called this trend the building of a "criminogenic environment."
As for the wall fiasco, I would ask Chuck and Nancy; "Who do you consider as being Americans?" Then tell them to serve that group, no one else. The last time I looked, no one had abolished the Nation State.
Thank you for your indulgence.But that is exactly the problem; global corporations and their lobbyists are doing their utmost to abolish the Nation State. Nation states are a PITA, from the Globalist POV. They make regulations, have borders impeding the rampant denuding of talent pools and worst of all occasionally erect trade barriers to favor their domestic industries. All of this is harmful to the corporate profits of a global business. What we are witnessing in the US and elsewhere is the push back against this drive to maximize profits at the cost of huge sections of national populations.Mrm Penumathy -> Barbara Ann , 13 hours ago
Trump may be a billionaire businessman with worldwide interests, but real estate is different. It employs largely local labor and is not vulnerable to 'protectionist' government policies in the same way. This is key to understanding how a billionaire like Trump can think and act so differently to the Davos club and billionaires like Bezos.Totally agree with you. What I can't understand about these politicians from the democratic party or for that matter the main stream media is if we are so internationalized then why all the this drum beating about Russia Russia since we a re all a part of the nice international group of people. Don't they have as much stake who governs in this international brotherhood?Pat Lang Mod -> Britam , 15 hours agoMy comment on the good will issue means that I am telling them what they would be wise to do.Bill H -> Stuart Wood , a day agoThen that is what they should say, rather than the prattle they are currently issuing. Apparently, unlike me, you completed the mind reading class in high school.Pat Lang Mod -> Bill H , 15 hours agoYes, my mind reading skills are legendary.Bill H -> Pat Lang , 12 hours agoMy mind reading comment was actually addressed to Stuart Wood for his remark about Pelosi and company that despite their words to the contrary, "I believe they view a wall as a dumb idea but are for other improvements for border security."
Jan 22, 2019 | www.unz.com
`Good fences make good neighbors,' wrote American poet Robert Frost. But not according to President Donald Trump whose proposed Great Wall is supposed to protect the nation from hordes of rabid, murderous, drug crazed rapists and unwhites from south of the border.
I'm a life-long student of military architecture, with a particular passion for modern fortification, chief among which is France's own Great Wall, the magnificent and unfairly reviled Maginot Line.
Given the heated debate in America over Trump's proposed barrier along the Mexican border, it's worth looking back to the Maginot Line. It was supposed to have been France's savior after the bloodbath of World War I.
Proposed by Deputy André Maginot in the 1920's, the Line was supposed to cover key parts of France's frontiers with German and Italy. Due to the terrible losses of the Great War, France did not have enough soldiers to properly defend its long frontiers. So it made sense to erect fortifications to compensate for manpower weakness and to block surprise attacks from next door enemy forces.
The first large Maginot fort was built in the 1920's north of Nice to protect the Cote d'Azur from possible Italian attacks. Mussolini was demanding France return the Riviera coast to its former Italian rulers. Work on the principal Line along the German and Luxembourg borders began soon after. Phase one covered 260 miles from near the Rhine to Longuyon, a rail junction south of the Belgian border.
The Line consisted of hundreds of steel and concrete machine gun and anti-tank casemates with interlocking flanking fire. They were surrounded by upright rails designed to halt tanks and dense belts of interwoven barbed wire covered by machine guns. Artillery casemates with 75mm, 81mm and 135mm guns covered the fort's fronts and sides.
Within and behind the Maginot Line were based an army of specialized fortress troops and hundreds of field artillery guns. The era's most advanced electronic communications systems meshed the defenses together. The big forts were mostly buried 90 feet underground, proof from any projectiles of the era.
But the problem was that a wall or barrier is only effective so long as there are adequate troops to man it.
In the spring of 1940, France had deployed nearly a third of its field army behind the Maginot Line. But then the Germans staged a brilliant breakthrough north of the Line across the supposedly impenetrable Ardennes forest region. In 1938, a French parliamentarian named Perrier (from the French water family) had toured the Ardennes area and warned the military that it was very vulnerable to a German breakthrough. The generals scoffed at 'this civilian' and ignored Perrier's warning.
Sure enough, the German armored and infantry assault came right through this Ardennes weak point near Sedan, forcing a rapid retreat by French and British forces in the region that ended up at Dunkerque.
ORDER IT NOW
As outflanked Allied forces pulled back from the frontier, they exposed the northern flank of the Maginot Line. The French high command, fearing their armies around the Line would be encircled, ordered the interval forces to retreat towards the highlands of central France. The Line was thus denuded of its troops and artillery. These units, who were armed and trained for static defense, had to make their way cross country on foot. Most were captured en route by advancing German forces.
In spring 1940 the Line was unfinished with large gaps and open flanks due to budgetary constraints caused by the 1930's depression. The Germans drove through them, wisely avoiding most of big forts, and attacked the Line from the rear. Ironically, in 1944/45, German troops ended up defending the Maginot Forts from the advancing US Army.
The Line worked as planned, protecting vulnerable areas. But it was never extended to the Channel due to Belgium's high water table and reluctance to fortify behind the French ally. The Belgians believed their powerful forts near Liege would delay the Germans until the French Army could intervene. They were wrong.
The French public ascribed almost magical powers to the Line. It would keep them invulnerable they believed. Building the fortifications became a national works project during the Depression, rather like the US WPA labor program. But Adolf Hitler vowed he would go around the Line and chop it up. He did.
A Trump wall or barrier will cost far more than believed and be likely unfinished, with large gaps like the Maginot Line. Some better way of blocking the border must be found. If not, we may end up having to wall and garrison the Canadian border as well.
Rational , says: January 20, 2019 at 12:53 am GMTINCORRECT COMPARISON; WALL WILL SURELY WORK.Carlton Meyer , says: Website January 20, 2019 at 12:56 am GMT
Sir, you make an interesting point, but the comparison is not valid.
In the Maginot line case, France was being attacked by other COUNTRIES, i.e. govt. of other countries, with tanks and soldiers.
But, the US is being attacked by individuals, these criminal alien invaders. The Mexican govt. is not trying to invade us with troops and tanks; only the individuals with nothing but a big mouth.This is a horrible analogy and the author knows it. He is correct, Trump's border wall would not withstand an attack by thousands of German troops with tanks. There is no mention of walls in Israel that no illegal immigrant can cross, nor the South Korean DMZ. Border security makes sense and is a tiny fraction of the huge budget our Department of Defense spends to protect the borders of our allies. Opponents are just naive or covert open borders globalists.anon1 , says: January 20, 2019 at 1:02 am GMT
We don't needs a wall (or high barriers) along 90% of the border because those areas are too far from road access on Mexican side, nor do we need them along 99% of the Canadian border. One can visit the border or just look at youtube and see that we really need a first class barrier along 10% of the Mexican border. This will deter chaos in the easily accessible areas by replacing an assortment of old fences wobbly that even moms with kids can hop over.
https://youtu.be/9Hrdvo71Z1QOkay Mr., Margolis ..Carlton Meyer , says: Website January 20, 2019 at 1:33 am GMT
What is YOUR solution to the problem of America's border with Mexico and controlling illegal immigration?
How diverse is the neighborhood you live in? How many unwhites live on your street?I challenge Mr Margolis to cite just one incident where an illegal immigrant penetrated the Maginot Line. Otherwise, he should apologize for wasting our time with this horrible article. If he wants to discuss alternatives, like requiring e-verify, let's hear them.Alistair , says: January 20, 2019 at 2:06 am GMT
How about self-funding border security. We all pay a TSA fee for every flight for security. Why not charge $10 to cross the border by foot, or $20 per vehicle. Many American bridges have hefty fees to cross, why not the border?No wall is strong enough to protect against desperate people who flee from extreme violence and poverty; yet these people are NOT an invading army but broken families; single mothers with small kids who only seek peace and security for their children.Giuseppe , says: January 20, 2019 at 3:38 am GMT
The problem of mass migration is not new; but the US leadership had always dealt with it with foresight which is lacking in the Trump Administration. America wouldn't have the problem of mass migration had the US fulfilled its own role as the world Superpower – so, dealing with the Latin America as the neighbours who need help to restore themselves to functioning states as opposed to walling them in their desperation.
Back in 1994, the Peso Crisis would have paralyzed Mexico as a functioning state but Bill Clinton administration had recognized that the US must help Mexican government from total collapse which would have resulted to flood of poor migrants to the southern borders of the USA – as such, under the leadership of president Bill Clinton, the US, Canada and IMF had structured a bailout loan-package to help the Mexican government to keep its economy afloat, that has not only prevented the mass migration of poor Mexicans workers to the southern borders of the USA but also helped the US exports to Mexico, so, helped the American economy as well.
We need similar approach to the rest of the Latin America, we need to help these countries to sustain and restore themselves to functioning states with relative security for families; because no wall is strong enough to protect against total desperation.The wall will not be effective because illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America constitutes 5% or less of all immigration, see Ron Unz's recent article on the subject. The real problem is legal immigration: anchor babies, diversity lottery visa, H1-B visa, chain immigration, etc. The real problem is US immigration law, not lack of a physical barrier to illegal immigration. If a wall worked 100% of the time (it won't) you still would have 20 times the numbers in *legal immigration* that would continue to fail to be addressed. The Wall is a sop tossed to the masses by pandering politicians who don't have the will to address the overarching problem of legal immigration. General George Patton summed up the Maginot line pretty well, and it applies to the Wall: "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."Svigor , says: January 20, 2019 at 5:38 am GMT@Alistair All the left has to do is 1) disguise their invading army as refugees 2) play the fiddle constantly, shout "they're refugees!"Svigor , says: January 20, 2019 at 5:42 am GMT
When they're fighting morons, anyway. No serious people would fall for this scheisse.@Giuseppe The wall will be effective: at proving that America is actually capable of stopping immigration flow. Can't do something as simple and straightforward as building the wall, can't enforce immigration law.The Alarmist , says: January 20, 2019 at 6:32 am GMTThe key point is that the Germans went around the Maginot Line: The wall itself worked.peterAUS , says: January 21, 2019 at 12:02 am GMT
My chateau is near Sedan; lovely wooded hilly place, and one would be forgiven for thinking an armoured assault through the Ardennes would surely fail, so why waste resources there? I hear the same sort of blather about parts of the US southern border.@Carlton MeyerAnon  Disclaimer , says: January 21, 2019 at 1:15 am GMT
This is a horrible analogy and the author knows it.
There is no mention of walls in Israel that no illegal immigrant can cross, nor the South Korean DMZ.
Yep. Especially the former.
All Trump has to do, re the wall is implement Israeli solution . Gander, goose.
As for the illegal immigration, also simple: JAIL the business owners who employ them; including one member of a household where an illegal is employed.
As for legal immigration, well one step at the time.
All this bullshit about this topic is truly funny. Funny how retards get hooked on it. Not people with agendas, oh they know what they are doing. But an average Joe getting so excited about the topic.
No wonder we are where we are.
I guess that's one of the usual "gullibility" games TPTBs play with the "deplorables". And win, obviously.So Mexicans are going to go by boat caravans to Canada, which is going to let that happen, and then the caravans will cross the U.S.-Canadian border?Hail , says: Website January 21, 2019 at 1:27 am GMT
As far as Nazis in tanks coming in from Mexico, that's O.K. with me. The more Nazi soldiers, the better. Just keeping out the hordes of unskilled poor is enough.@Carlton MeyerGrace Poole , says: January 21, 2019 at 3:18 am GMT
I challenge Mr Margolis to cite just one incident where an illegal immigrant penetrated the Maginot Line
Even keeping the problematic, apples-to-oranges migration-to-military analogy, consider this letter-to-editor in a Maryland local newspaper published Jan. 14, 2019:
The Maginot Line worked; it forced the Germans to attack elsewhere. Defeat could have been prevented, but the French failed to fully understand what a successful deterrent their wall was. France built the Maginot Line on the border between France and Germany from Switzerland to Belgium.
For political reasons (they didn't want to "offend" King Leopold) they stopped at Belgium instead of extending it to the North Sea. The French relied on the Dyle River and the Ardennes in Belgium to stop the Germans. Not extending the wall to the North Sea was the Maginot Line's Achilles Heel and caused the French defeat.
Sound familiar?@HailOleaginous Outrager , says: January 21, 2019 at 12:26 pm GMT
At the outbreak of war France's border was protected by the impregnable Maginot Line. Belgium, demonstrating "The Triumph of Hope over experience," had declared itself neutral and forbade the extension of the Line along its border. This meant that an attack on France would come via Belgium.
The Allied plan, Plan D, was to advance into Belgium and there, because of overall superiority, defeat the Germans. [Isaac Leslie Hore-Belisha, Jewish British Secretary of State for War], far from happy with this Plan, wanted the original defence system strengthened. This was to be done by building 240 pillboxes (small forts).
The Army told him it would take 3 weeks to construct a pillbox. Belisha ascertained that it would take 3 days. Accordingly he brought to France a team of Civil Engineers to do this. Unfortunately the Army resented them and gave minimal co-operation.
Belisha now visited France, and attended a meeting of senior officers, which included the commander of the British force, Lord Gort.
A shocked Belisha found that the 1st item on the agenda was "Over which shoulder should a soldier carry his steel helmet when it was not on his head?" He also found that only 2 pillboxes had been constructed.
On his return he reported the situation to the Army Council, and informed the Prime Minister who said that if he wanted to sack Lord Gort he would support him. Belisha refused to do this. Instead he sent General Packenham Walsh to convey to Lord Gort the Army Council's disquiet at the state of his defences.
In doing this Belisha had committed a breach of etiquette. An officer can only be reprimanded by a senior. Packenham Walsh was junior to Lord Gort.
This faux pas increased the already deep hostility to Belisha to a blinding rage. Lord Gort referred to him as Belli; His Chief of Staff General Sir Henry Pownell now referred to him as a "Shallow brained, charlatan, political Jew boy". Michael Foot, later to become leader of the Labour party thought of him as "a shit". Chips Chanon a prominent socialite referred to him as "An Oily Jew".
An army song went:
"Onward Christian Soldiers,
You have nothing to fear
Israel Hore-Belisha will lead you from the rear,
Clothed by Monty Burton
Fed on Lyons Pies
Die for Jewish freedom
As a Briton always dies.
Other officers were referring to him as Horeb Elisha.
Aware of this viscous attitude the Chief of the Imperial General Staff visited France. On his return he supported the Armies attitude, and reported to the King who called in the Prime minister. On January 4th 1940 Belisha was sacked.
On May 10th the Germans attacked through Belgium, and the British Army following plan D advanced to combat the enemy. They were then completely out flankedBut the problem was that a wall or barrier is only effective so long as there are adequate troops to man it.Joe Stalin , says: January 21, 2019 at 6:28 pm GMT
True, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of the Allies to stop the German invasion. By the way something, which part of the US's southern border is playing Belgium in this rather dubious comparison?@Rational The Kaiser didn't use 1,000 volts, he used 2,000 volts for his electric fence:The Anti-Gnostic , says: Website January 21, 2019 at 6:36 pm GMT
The Hun used a stand alone 2,000 volt power generation plant for their fence. Widespread electric power in the USA means we could use 1:2 step down power transformers for an electrified fence.
Did the Kaiser's fence work as planned?
"As Germany invaded neutral Belgium, Belgians began to cross the border to the Netherlands en masse. In 1914 one million Belgian refugees were already in the Netherlands, but throughout the war, refugees kept coming and tried to cross the border. Many wanted to escape German occupation, others wanted to join their relatives who had already fled, and some wanted to take part in the war and chose this detour to join the forces on the allied front.
"Construction began in the spring of 1915 and consisted of over 200 km (125 mi) of 2,000-volt wire with a height ranging from 1.5 to about 3 m (5 to about 10 ft) spanning the length of the Dutch-Belgian border from Aix-la-Chapelle to the River Scheldt. Within 100–500 m (110–550 yd) of the wire, anyone who was not able to officially explain their presence was summarily executed.
"The number of victims is estimated to range between 2,000 and 3,000 people. Local newspapers in the Southern Netherlands carried almost daily reports about people who were 'lightninged to death'.
"The wire also separated families and friends as the Dutch–Belgian border where Dutch and Flemings (Dutch-speaking Belgians), despite living in different states, often intermarried or otherwise socialized with each other. Funeral processions used to walk to the fence and halt there, to give relatives and friends on the other side the opportunity to pray and say farewell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_of_Death@Marat It's hard to shrink the State when it can continually import new constituents.Colin Wright , says: Website January 21, 2019 at 9:35 pm GMT@Gordo ' Actually I agree a wall is not needed, it is willpower that is needed. Without that a wall is useless, with it a wall is superfluous '
The wall has become a symbol -- as walls tend to be.
It's now secondary whether it actually stops anyone. If we build it, we have decided to retake control of our borders. If we don't, we have abdicated that control.
Jan 22, 2019 | www.unz.com
The demand of President Donald Trump that congress should appropriate money to build a wall securing the nation's southern border has resulted in the longest federal government shutdown in history with no end in sight. There is considerable opposition to the wall based on two quite different perceptions of border security. The generally "progressive" view is that there is no border threat at all, that the thousands of migrants heading for the U.S. can be assimilated and indeed should be allowed entry because of U.S. government policies in Central America that have created the ruined states that the would-be immigrants have been fleeing.
There is certainly some truth to that argument, though it suggests that the United States should essentially abandon sovereignty over its own territory, which most Americans would reject. The alternative viewpoint, which has a much broader bipartisan constituency, consists of those who do feel that border security is a national priority but are nevertheless critical of building a wall, which will be expensive, possibly ineffective and environmentally damaging. They prefer other options, to include increased spending on the border guards, more aggressive enforcement against existing illegals and severe punishment of businesses in the U.S. that hire anyone not possessing legal documentation. Some also have argued in favor of a national ID issued only to citizens or legal permanent residents that would have to be produced by anyone seeking employment or government services.
Whether the wall will ever be built is questionable, but one thing that is certain is that there is more than enough hypocrisy regarding it to go around. Democratic Presidents including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama when campaigning have called for better border security, as have Democratic Congressional leaders who are now smelling blood and attacking Trump for seeking to do what they have long at least theoretically sought.
Apart from that, many of the Democrats who are currently criticizing the southern border wall on moral grounds have failed to apply the same standard to another infamous wall, that which is being built by Israel. Israel's "separation wall" is arguably being constructed at least in part using "aid" and charitable money provided by Washington while also being enabled politically by the U.S. government's acquiescence to the Israeli violations of international law. And if the moral argument for not having a wall to aid suffering refugees has any meaning, it would be many times more so applied to the Israeli wall, which is an instrument in the maintenance of apartheid in areas under Israeli control while also making permanent the stateless status of the more than one million Palestinian refugees, far more in number than the would-be immigrants marching through Mexico.
The Israeli wall is at many points larger and more intimidating than that planned by Trump, and it is also designed to physically and economically devastate the Palestinian population adjacent to it. Israel's wall is undeniably far more damaging than anything being considered for placement along the U.S.-Mexican border as it operates as both a security measure and a tool for confiscating more Arab land by including inside the barrier illegal West Bank settlements.
There are both physical similarities and differences relating to the two walls. Judging from prototypes, Trump currently appears to favor prefabricated mostly metal sections with barbed wire coils on top that would be high and intimidating enough to deter climbing over. The sections would be set in foundations sufficiently deep to deter most tunneling and there would be sensors at intervals to alert guards to other attempts to penetrate the barrier. Israel's wall varies in terms of structural material, including large concrete blocks 28 feet high in some areas while other less populated stretches that are considered low security make do with multiple lines of barbed wire and sensors. It is interesting to note that some Israeli companies have apparently expressed interest in building the Mexico wall and, as one of the many perks Israel receives from congress includes the right to bid on U.S. government contracts, they might well wind up as a contractors or subcontractors if the barrier is ever actually built.
As noted above, the principal difference between the U.S. wall and that of Israel is that the American version is all on U.S. land and is engineered to more or less run in a straight line along the border. The Israeli version is nearly 90% built on Palestinian land and, as it is designed to create facts on the West Bank, it does not run in a straight line, instead closing off some areas to the Palestinians by surrounding Arab villages. It therefore keeps people in while also keeping people out, so it is not strictly speaking a security barrier. Indeed, some Israeli security experts have stated their belief that the wall has been only a minor asset in preventing violence directed by Palestinians against Israelis.
If the Israeli wall had followed the Green Line that separated Israel proper from Palestinian land it would be only half the estimated 440 miles long that it will now be upon completion. The extra miles are accounted for by the deep cuts of as much as 11 miles into the West Bank, isolating about 9% of it and completely enclosing 25,000 Palestinian Arabs from areas nominally controlled by the Palestinian Authority. One often cited victim of the barrier is the Palestinian town of Qalqilyah, with a population of 45,000, which is enclosed on all sides by a wall that in some sections measures more than 25 feet high. Qalqilyah is only accessible through an Israeli controlled military checkpoint on the main road from the east and a tunnel on the south side that links the town to the adjacent village of Habla.
The wall is therefore only in part a security measure while also being a major element in the Israeli plan to gradually acquire as much of the West Bank as possible perhaps all of it for Israeli settlers. It is a form of collective punishment based on religion to make life difficult for local people and eventually drive them from their homes.
The human costs for the Palestinians have consequently been high. A United Nations 2005 report states that :
it is difficult to overstate the humanitarian impact of the Barrier. The route inside the West Bank severs communities, people's access to services, livelihoods and religious and cultural amenities. In addition, plans for the Barrier's exact route and crossing points through it are often not fully revealed until days before construction commences. This has led to considerable anxiety amongst Palestinians about how their future lives will be impacted The land between the Barrier and the Green Line constitutes some of the most fertile in the West Bank. It is currently the home for 49,400 West Bank Palestinians living in 38 villages and towns."
Amnesty International in a 2004 report observed:
"The fence/wall, in its present configuration, violates Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law Since the summer of 2002 the Israeli army has been destroying large areas of Palestinian agricultural land, as well as other properties, to make way for a fence/wall which it is building in the West Bank. In addition to the large areas of particularly fertile Palestinian farmland that have been destroyed, other larger areas have been cut off from the rest of the West Bank by the fence/wall. The fence/wall is not being built between Israel and the Occupied Territories but mostly (close to 90%) inside the West Bank, turning Palestinian towns and villages into isolated enclaves, cutting off communities and families from each other, separating farmers from their land and Palestinians from their places of work, education and health care facilities and other essential services. This in order to facilitate passage between Israel and more than 50 illegal Israeli settlements located in the West Bank. "
Of course, the situation has become far worse for Palestinians since the two reports dating from 2004 and 2005. Israel has accelerated its settlement construction and the wall has expanded and shifted to accommodate those changes, making life impossible for the indigenous population.
Any pushback from the United States has been rare to nonexistent, with successive administrations only occasionally mentioning that the settlements themselves are "troubling" or a "complication" vis-ΰ-vis a peace settlement. The first direct criticism of the wall itself took place in 2003, when the Bush administration briefly considered reducing loan guarantees to discourage its construction. Then Secretary of State Colin Powell remarked "A nation is within its rights to put up a fence if it sees the need for one. However, in the case of the Israeli fence, we are concerned when the fence crosses over onto the land of others."
On May 25, 2005, Bush repeated his concerns , noting that "I think the wall is a problem. And I discussed this with Ariel Sharon. It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and Israel with a wall snaking through the West Bank." In a letter to Sharon he stated that it "should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities."
Congress is, of course, Israeli occupied territory so its response was directed against Powell and Bush in support of anything Israel chose to do. Then Senator Joe Lieberman complained "The administration's threat to cut aid to Israel unless it stops construction of a security fence is a heavy-handed tactic. The Israeli people have the right to defend themselves from terrorism, and a security fence may be necessary to achieve this."
In 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton declared her support for the wall by claiming that the Palestinian Authority had failed to fight terrorism. "This is not against the Palestinian people. This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism." Senator Charles Schumer, also from New York, added "As long as the Palestinians send terrorists onto school buses and to nightclubs to blow up people, Israel has no choice but to build the Security Wall."
So, for many in Washington a legal and relatively apolitical wall by the United States to protect its border is a horrible prospect while the Israeli version built on someone else's land with the intention to damage the local Arab population as much as possible is perfectly fine. The reality is that America's Establishment, which is dominated by veneration of Israel for a number of reasons, is completely hypocritical, more prepared to criticize actions taken by the United States even when those actions are justified than they are to condemn Israeli actions that amount to crimes against humanity. That is the reality and it is playing out in front of us right now.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .
Jan 17, 2019 | angrybearblog.com
likbez , January 15, 2019 4:39 pm
@run75441 January 15, 2019 1:49 pm
> Most have been breached in one manner or another, sabotaged, or gone around.
That's an extremely naïve position. The function of the wall is not to block the access, but to slow it down and raise the cost of crossing for illegal immigrants.
As such it has some value. Also those neoliberal Dems are eager to finance foreign wars and programs like F35 without any hesitation.
This is something like one percent of F35 program cost ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-10/f-35-program-costs-jump-to-406-billion-in-new-pentagon-estimate ) and has much higher security value (and is a defense not a tool for the wars for the expansion of neoliberal empire, which is too costly to maintain even in its current form)
What a bunch of fools. As Tucker Carlson aptly said
Most terrifying of all, the crew has become incompetent. They have no idea how to sail. They're spinning the ship's wheel like they're playing roulette and cackling like mental patients.
The boat is listing, taking on water, about to sink. They're totally unaware that any of this is happening. As waves wash over the deck, they're awarding themselves majestic new titles and raising their own salaries. You look on in horror, helpless and desperate. You have nowhere to go. You're trapped on a ship of fools.
Plato imagined this scene in The Republic. He never mentions what happened to the ship. It would be nice to know. What was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath the waves.
The people who did it don't seem aware of what they've done. They don't want to know, and they don't want you to tell them. Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet.
They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers.
Jan 17, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com
GBM1982 -> honeytree , 29 Nov 2018 10:25I've grown very sceptical over the years about the whole issue of asylum. To me, the idea that an individual can cross a border illegally without a visa, or without even a passport, and then suddenly become quasi legal be declaring that they wish to seek asylum is a bit of a farce. The situation becomes even more farcical when failed asylum seekers still aren't deported. As for humanitarian and ethical obligations, I don't really buy into that either because the demographics of the world are such that the West is at risk of losing its very identity if it feels "obliged" to accept everyone seeking asylum and/or work from the world's more troubled regions. I see the admission of refugees as a generous gesture, not as an obligation.
Jan 14, 2019 | www.youtube.com
WesleyAPEX 1 month ago
Chunk Yogurt is unaware that breaking into our country is a crime. He's talking about a secondary crime being committed by the illegals
Fernando Amaro 1 month ago
While Tucker uses logic and facts to make his arguments, Cenk uses feelings to support his. If anyone is still a follower of Cenk after this video, then Tucker is right, the level of delusion in society is staggering.
Western Chauvinist 1 month ago
Chunk really is a disingenuous slime ball. He brings up food as evidence of our "multiculturalism", it's such a moronic example. The fundamentals of culture that Tucker was speaking of include our beliefs enshrined in the constitution, freedom of speech, our egalitarianism, capitalism, the English language, ingenuity, entrepreneurial spirit, all of the god-given rights we believe in, self defense, etc. It's very uniquely American and to have millions upon millions of Hondurans or Mexicans or whatever flood in, not assimilate, and change the language and the freedoms/god-given rights we believe in, that will displace OUR culture with theirs.... and clearly our culture is superior, if it wasn't then they'd be the one's with a rich country that we'd want to move to. Who gives a fuck if we like to eat tacos or pasta you greasy slime ball. Basically if Glob of Grease was right then there would be no such thing as assimilation.
CWC4 1 month ago
At the risk of sounding misogynistic I have to say listening to a liberal is like listening to a woman. No matter how wrong they are in their mind they're right. No matter how much logic & common sense you throw their way it's never enough for them to understand. That's what it be like watching these "debates". This is why a lot of the left when it comes to men are considered BETA. They have the skewed mind like that of a female, men appeal more to logic than emotional rhetoric like what Cenk was speaking from. This is why civilizations of the past have all gone the way of the dodo bird. Because they'll allow themselves to become so diverse to the point of collapse. It's funny too because all of the countries they beg us to allow in are some of the most segregated countries on the planet, such as Asia.
Jan 12, 2019 | finance.yahoo.com
One of the most sought-after visa programs in the U.S., the H-1B, could see some significant changes in 2019, according to President Trump , including a potential path to citizenship for recipients of the non-immigrant visa.
The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to hire graduate-level workers in specialty occupations, like IT, finance, accounting, architecture, engineering, science and medicine. Any job that requires workers to have at least a bachelor's degree falls under the H-1B for specialty occupations.
Each year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) allots about 85,000 of the H-1B visas -- 65,000 for applicants with a bachelor's degree or equivalent, and 20,000 for those with a master's degree or higher.
As of April 2017, when Trump signed an executive order -- "Buy American and Hire American" -- it's become more difficult for U.S. companies to hire people via H-1B. It directs the Department of Homeland Security to only grant the visas to the "most-skilled or highest-paid beneficiaries."
Here's a look at the American companies (and industries) that benefited the most from the program in 2017.
Cognizant: The IT services business had a whopping 3,194 H-1B initial petitions approved in 2017, the most of any U.S. company by almost 600.
Amazon: In 2017, the e-commerce behemoth hired 2,515 employees via the H-1B visa program, according to data compiled by the National Foundation for American Policy . That was about a 78 percent increase from 2016, or 1,099 more employees.
Microsoft: Microsoft hired 1,479 workers through H-1B in 2017, the second most of U.S. companies -- an increase in 334 employees from the year prior, or close to 29 percent.
IBM: In 2017, IBM employed about 1,231 workers through the H-1B visa program.
Intel: The California-based company employed 1,230 workers through H-1B in 2017, 200 more workers -- or a 19 percent increase -- compared to 2016.
Google: The search engine giant had 1,213 H-1B initial petitions approved for fiscal year 2017, a 31 percent increase of about 289 from 2016.
Jan 02, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
150 Central Americans tried by force this week to enter the US illegally en masse
"US agents have fired tear gas over the border into Mexico at migrants trying to enter the country illegally.
Around 150 Central Americans tried to make the crossing near the town of Tijuana to the south of California on New Year's Day.
One US official described the migrants as a "violent mob".
It comes as the US federal government remains shut down as President Donald Trump and Congress argue over funding for his proposed border wall." BBC
The BBC does not seem to know that the US voluntarily admits over one million legal IMMIGRANTS per year. These people are automatically on a track to full citizenship after five years residence if they behave themselves, pay their taxes, do not commit criminal acts, etc. They can accelerate that process if they join the US armed forces and serve honorably.
The people now seeking to force their way across the border seem to think that they are justified in crashing across the US border with Mexico without regard to US law. To willingly cross the US border illegally is a misdemeanor crime. The US government has a duty under the constitution to defend the borders of the US against foreign invasion. How are foreign people trying to crash through the border not an invasion? Tear gas? Yes, it makes you cry and choke. The alternative is force escalating to deadly force.
The US listens to petitions for asylum from conditions that threaten life. The US does not recognize petitions for asylum based on poor conditions of local economy or crime in countries of origin. If the US did accept such petitions, most of the population of the planet would be eligible for asylum in the US.
The argument is raised that the US should make Central America an earthly paradise, a veritable Nebraska in which Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans would be content to abide. Well, pilgrims, as I have explained here several times, the US has been trying to do that in Latin America ever since the Kennedy Administration with minimal success. Do these little countries wish to surrender their sovereignty to the US so that we might perform our magic of enrichment and creation of actual democracy upon them? I think they do not. They approach our borders waving the various flags of their wretched countries even while asking for ASYLUM from those countries, countries that cannot run their own affairs well enough to make people want to stay home and live the good life Latino style.
Make no mistake. If these migrants, who think nothing of using little children as human shields, force surrender of control of immigration, there will be a tidal wave coming behind them. pl
Dec 30, 2018 | www.rt.com
It is no secret that neoliberalism relentlessly pursues a globalized, borderless world where labor, products, and services obey the hidden hand of the free market. What is less often mentioned, however, is that this system is far more concerned with promoting the well-being of corporations and cowboy capitalists than assisting the average person on the street. Indeed, many of the world's most powerful companies today have mutated into " stateless superpowers ," while consumers are forced to endure crippling austerity measures amid plummeting standards of living. The year 2018 could be seen as the tipping point when the grass-roots movement against these dire conditions took off.
Since 2015, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants into Germany and the EU, a groundswell of animosity has been steadily building against the European Union, perhaps best exemplified by the Brexit movement. Quite simply, many people are growing weary of the globalist argument that Europe needs migrants and austerity measures to keep the wheels of the economy spinning. At the very least, luring migrants with cash incentives to move to Germany and elsewhere in the EU appears incredibly shortsighted.
Indeed, if the globalist George Soros wants to lend his Midas touch to ameliorating the migrant's plight, why does he think that relocating them to European countries is the solution? As is becoming increasingly apparent in places like Sweden and France, efforts to assimilate people from vastly different cultures, religions and backgrounds is an extremely tricky venture, the success of which is far from guaranteed.
Tear gas fired as Yellow Vests and police clash in French city of Rouen (VIDEOS)
One worrying consequence of Europe's season of open borders has been the rise of far-right political movements. In fact, some of the harshest criticism of the 'Merkel plan' originated in Hungary , where its gutsy president, Viktor Orban, hopes to build " an old-school Christian democracy, rooted in European traditions ." Orban is simply responding to the democratic will of his people, who are fiercely conservative, yet the EU parliament voted to punish him regardless. The move shows that Brussels, aside from being adverse to democratic principles, has very few tools for addressing the rise of far-right sentiment that its own misguided policies created.
Here it is necessary to mention once again that bugbear of the political right, Mr. Soros, who has received no political mandate from European voters, yet who campaigns relentlessly on behalf of globalist initiatives through his Open Society Foundations (OSF) (That campaign just got some serious clout after Soros injected $18bn dollars of his own money into OSF, making it one of the most influential NGOs in the world).
With no small amount of impudence, Soros has condemned EU countries namely his native Hungary for attempting to protect their territories by constructing border barriers and fences, which he believes violate the human rights of migrants (rarely if ever does the philanthropist speak about the "human rights" of the native population). In the words of the maestro of mayhem himself: " Beggar-thy-neighbor migration policies, such as building border fences, will not only further fragment the union; they also seriously damage European economies and subvert global human rights standards. "
Through a leaked network of compromised EU parliamentarians who do his bidding, Soros says the EU should spend $30 billion euros ($33bln) to accommodate " at least 300,000 refugees each year ." How will the EU pay for the resettling of migrants from the Middle East? Soros has an answer for that as well. He calls it " surge funding, " which entails " raising a substantial amount of debt backed by the EU's relatively small budget. "
Nigel Farage ✔ @Nigel_Farage
George Soros has spent billions in the EU to undermine the nation state. This is where the real international political collusion is.28.8K 4:35 AM - Nov 14, 2017
Any guesses who will be forced to pay down the debt on this high-risk venture? If you guessed George Soros, guess again. The already heavily taxed people of Europe will be forced to shoulder that heavy burden. " To finance it, new European taxes will have to be levied sooner or later, " Soros admits. That comment is very interesting in light of the recent French protests, which were triggered by Emmanuel Macron's plan to impose a new fuel tax. Was the French leader, a former investment banker, attempting to get back some of the funds being used to support the influx of new arrivals into his country? The question seems like a valid one, and goes far at explaining the ongoing unrest.
Soros & the £400k Question: What constitutes 'foreign interference' in democracy?
At this point, it is worth remembering what triggered the exodus of migrants into Europe in the first place. A large part of the answer comes down to unlawful NATO operations on the ground of sovereign states. Since 2003, the 29-member military bloc, under the direct command of Washington, has conducted illicit military operations in various places around the globe, including in Iraq, Libya and Syria. These actions, which could be best described as globalism on steroids, have opened a Pandora's Box of global scourges, including famine, terrorism and grinding poverty. Is this what the Western states mean by 'humanitarian activism'? If the major EU countries really want to flout their humanitarian credentials, they could have started by demanding the cessation of regime-change operations throughout the Middle East and North Africa, which created such inhumane conditions for millions of innocent people.
This failure on the part of Western capitals to speak out against belligerent US foreign policy helps to explain why a number of other European governments are experiencing major shakeups. Sebastian Kurz, 32, won over the hearts of Austrian voters by promising to tackle unchecked immigration. In super-tolerant Sweden, which has accepted more migrants per capita than any other EU state, the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats party garnered 17.6 percent of the vote in September elections up from 12.9 percent in the previous election. And even Angela Merkel, who is seen by many people as the de facto leader of the European Union, is watching her political star crash and burn mostly due to her bungling of the migrant crisis. In October, after her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered a stinging setback in Bavaria elections, which saw CDU voters abandon ship for the anti-immigrant AfD and the Greens, Merkel announced she would resign in 2021 after her current term expires.
Meanwhile, back in the US, the government of President Donald Trump has been shut down as the Democrats refuse to grant the American leader the funds to build a wall on the Mexican border despite the fact that he essentially made it to the White House on precisely that promise. Personally, I find it very hard to believe that any political party that does not support a strong and viable border can continue to be taken seriously at the polls for very long. Yet that is the very strategy that the Democrats have chosen. But I digress.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
I am all alone (poor me) in the White House waiting for the Democrats to come back and make a deal on desperately needed Border Security. At some point the Democrats not wanting to make a deal will cost our Country more money than the Border Wall we are all talking about. Crazy!181K 12:32 PM - Dec 24, 2018 Twitter Ads info and privacy
The lesson that Western governments should have learned over the last year from these developments is that there exists a definite red line that the globalists cross at risk not only to the social order, but to their own political fortunes. Eventually the people will demand solutions to their problems many of which were caused by reckless neoliberal programs and austerity measures. This collective sense of desperation may open the door to any number of right-wing politicians only too happy to meet the demand.
Better to provide fair working conditions for the people while maintaining strong borders than have to face the wrath of the street or some political charlatan later. Whether or not Western leaders will change their neoliberal ways as a populist storm front approaches remains to be seen, but I for one am not betting on it.
Dec 07, 2018 | www.unz.com
niceland , says: December 6, 2018 at 10:07 am GMTMy right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals (even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!Curmudgeon , says: December 6, 2018 at 4:35 pm GMT
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes (even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems. MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread communist. Hopeless ideas!@niceland Your friends are not "right wing". The left/right paradigm is long dead. Your friends are globalists, whether they realize it or not. Globalism is about moving capital to the benefit of the haves. Migrants/immigrants are a form of capital. Investing in migration/immigration lowers the long term costs and increases long term profit. The profit (money capital) is then moved to a place where it best serves its owner.
Dec 07, 2018 | www.unz.com
Che Guava , says: December 6, 2018 at 3:16 pm GMTI agree Jilles, and with many other of the commenters.
Read enough to see that the article has many errors of fact and perception. It is bad enough to suspect *propaganda* , but Brett is clearly not at that level.
An important point that you hint at is that the Brits were violently and manipulatively forced to accept mass immigration for many years.
Yet strangely, to say anything about it only became acceptable when some numbers of the immigrants were fellow Europeans from within the EU, and most having some compatibility with existing ethnicity and previous culture.
Even people living far away notice such forced false consciousness.
As for Corbyn, he is nothing like the old left of old Labour. He tries to convey that image, it is a lie.
He may not be Blairite-Zio New Labour, and received some influence from the more heavily Marxist old Labour figures, but he is very much a creature of the post-worst-of-1968 and dirty hippy new left, Frankfurt School and all that crap, doubt that he has actually read much of it, but he has internalised it through his formal and political education.
By the way, the best translation of the name of North Korea's ruling party is 'Labour Party'. While it is a true fact, I intend nothing from it but a small laugh.
Nov 23, 2018 | angrybearblog.comThe world according to Trump -- notice a trend here?
Reporter: "Who should be held accountable?" [for Jamal Khashoggi's murder]
Trump: "Maybe the world should be held accountable because the world is a vicious place. The world is a very, very vicious place. " -- November 22, 2018.
- " The world is a vicious and brutal place. We think we're civilized. In truth, it's a cruel world and people are ruthless. They act nice to your face, but underneath they're out to kill you." Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 71.
- "Life is not easy. The world is a vicious, brutal place. It's a place where people are looking to kill you, if not physically, then mentally. In the world that we live in every day it is usually the mental kill. People are looking to put you down, especially if you are on top. When I watched Westerns as a kid, I noticed the cowboys were always trying to kill the fastest gun. As a kid, I never understood it. Why would anyone want to go after the fastest gun?
- "This is the way it is in real life. Everyone wants to kill the fastest gun. In real estate, I am the fastest gun, and everyone wants to kill me. You have to know how to defend yourself. People will be nasty and try to kill you just for sport. Even your friends are out to get you!" Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 139.
- "Well, not all people. But it's a vicious place. The world is a vicious place. You know, the lions and tigers, they hunt for food, we hunt for sport. So, it can be a very vicious place. You turn on the television and you look at what's happening." Interview with John Barton, Golf Digest , October 13, 2014.
- " This is the most deceptive, vicious world. It is vicious, it's full of lies, deceit and deception. You make a deal with somebody and it's like making a deal with that table." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS 60 Minutes , October 15, 2018.
- "This is a r this is a vicious place. Washington DC is a vicious, vicious place. The attacks, the the bad mouthing, the speaking behind your back. but you know, and in my way, I feel very comfortable here." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS 60 Minutes , October 15, 2018.
Karl Kolchak , November 23, 2018 8:54 pmilsm , November 24, 2018 7:19 am
The world is a vicious place -- that is utterly dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, and will be until civilization finally collapses.
Newly posted DNC democrat Bill Kristol thinks regime change in China a worthwhile endeavor.
The "world is a vicious place" designed, set up, held together, secured by the capitalist "post WW II world order" paid for by the US taxpayer and bonds bought by arms dealers and their financiers.
The tail wagging the attack dog being a Jerusalem-Medina axis straddling Hormuz and Malacca .
An inept princely heir apparent assassin is far better than Rouhani in a "vicious place".
While Xi moves ahead.
Nov 25, 2018 | caucus99percent.com
span y snoopydawg on Fri, 11/23/2018 - 12:27am
Maybe if Hillary and her NATO buddies hadn't overthrown Ghadaffi, they wouldn't have this migrant crisis.
Before Libya, being the richest African country, provided refuge to huge number of refugees from sub-Saharan Africa.
If you can't handle refugees,dont destroy countries https://t.co/i5NVP2LIxj
-- Esha & (@eshaLegal) November 22, 2018
Can she be any more tone deaf or say something more stupid than that?
Hillary Clinton: Europe must curb immigration to stop rightwing populists
"I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame," Clinton said, speaking as part of a series of interviews with senior centrist political figures about the rise of populists, particularly on the right, in Europe and the Americas.
"I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message – 'we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support ' – because if we don't deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic."
Hillary still can't admit to herself that she lost the election because she was a horrible candidate and people refused to vote for her.
Clinton urged forces opposed to rightwing populism in Europe and the US not to neglect the concerns about race and i dentity issues that she says were behind her losing key votes in 2016. She accused Trump of exploiting the issue in the election contest – and in office.
"The use of immigrants as a political device and as a symbol of government gone wrong, of attacks on one's heritage, one's identity, one's national unity has been very much exploited by the current administration here," she said.
"There are solutions to migration that do not require clamping down on the press, on your political opponents and trying to suborn the judiciary, or seeking financial and political help from Russia to support your political parties and movements."
Let's recap what Obama's coup in Ukraine has led to shall we? Maybe installing and blatantly backing Neo Nazis in Ukraine might have something to do with the rise of " populists on the right " that is spreading through Europe and this country, Hillary.
America's criminal 'news' media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began planning for a coup in Ukraine . And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside the U.S. Embassy there . And that they hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties , Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party, or "Svoboda" instead). And that in February 2014 they did it (and here's the 4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. 'news' media misrepresented as 'democracy demonstrations ,' though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today's U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine's corruption -- which instead actually soared after his coup there).
Nov 01, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Her refugee blunder changed the European continent in irreversible ways for decades to come. By Scott McConnell November 1, 2018
https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fangela-merkel-migrates-into-retirement%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.r3VEB-hu6dk.O%2Fam%3DQQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCPdzfaDsFYsZF5Fx6dxuyMdlAHKvg%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1541069526884&_gfid=I0_1541069526884&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=60814349Drop of Light/Shutterstock Whatever her accomplishments as pathbreaking female politician and respected leader of Europe's dominant economic power, Angela Merkel will go down in history for her outburst of naivete over the issue of migration into Europe during the summer of 2015.
Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism.
She had seen the vote share of her long dominant party shrink in one regional election after another. The rebuke given to her last weekend in Hesse, containing the Frankfurt region with its booming economy, where she had campaigned extensively, was the final straw. Her CDU's vote had declined 10 points since the previous election, their voters moving toward the further right (Alternative fur Deutschland or AfD). Meanwhile, the further left Greens have made dramatic gains at the expense of Merkel's Social Democrat coalition partners.
Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors, Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal in the postwar world.
One can acknowledge that while Merkel never admitted error for her multiculti summer fling (beyond wishing she had communicated her goals better), she did manage to adjust her policies. By 2016, Germany under her watch was paying a healthy ransom to Turkey to keep would-be migrants in camps and preventing them from sailing to Greece. Merkel's departure will make the battle to succeed her one of the most watched political contests in Europe. She has turned migration into a central and quite divisive issue within the CDU and Germany, and the party may decide that it has no choice but to accommodate, in one way or another, the voters who have left them for the AfD.
Related to the issue of who should reside in Europe (objectively the current answer remains anyone who can get there) is the question of how are such questions decided. In July 2015, five years after asserting in a speech that multiculturalism has "utterly failed" in Germany (without addressing what policies should be pursued in an increasingly ethnically diverse society) and several weeks after reducing a young Arab girl to tears at a televised forum by telling her that those whose asylum claims were rejected would "have to go back" and that "politics is hard," Merkel changed course.
For those interested in psychological studies of leadership and decision making, it would be hard to imagine a richer subject. Merkel's government first announced it would no longer enforce the rule (the Dublin agreement) that required asylum claimants to be processed in the first country they passed through. Then she doubled down. The migrants fleeing the Syrian civil war, along with those who pretended to be Syrian, and then basically just anyone, could come to Germany.
"We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later, she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as "Merkel the Bold."The Angela Merkel Era is Coming to an End The Subtle Return of Germany Hegemony
Her words traveled far beyond those fleeing Syria. Within 48 hours of the "no limit" remark, The New York Times reported a sudden stirring of migrants from Nigeria. Naturally Merkel boasted in a quiet way about how her decision had revealed that Germany had put its Nazi past behind it. "The world sees Germany as a land of hope and chances," she said. "That wasn't always the case." In making this decision personally, Merkel was making it for all of Europe. It was one of the ironies of a European arrangement whose institutions were developed in part to transcend nationalism and constrain future German power that 70 years after the end of the war, the privately arrived-at decision of a German chancellor could instantly transform societies all over Europe.
The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics), she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim world might prove difficult.
Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question.
In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself. Her public approval rating plunged from 75 percent in April 2015 to 47 percent the following summer. The first electoral rebuke came in September 2016, when the brand new anti-immigration party, the Alternative fur Deutschland, beat Merkel's CDU in Pomerania.
In every election since, Merkel's party has lost further ground. Challenges to her authority from within her own party have become more pointed and powerful. But the mass migration accelerated by her decision continues, albeit at a slightly lower pace.
Angela Merkel altered not only Germany but the entire European continent, in irreversible ways, for decades to come.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor of and the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars .
Oct 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
donkeytale , Oct 28, 2018 3:22:09 PM | linkNemesisCalling - LMAO. Srsly? Ok, I'll bite.
Trump represents himself and expects the little people (IE, everyone except him and his children) to exist only for him, the spoiled daddy-created globalist so-called billionaire who doesn't have a clue WTF he's doing as POTUS besides infotaining and enflaming his racist base, plus giving into the GOP party line on all substantive issues with the result being more of the same as Barry-O, only worse.
Personally, I enjoy him from an infotainment perspective. We are all only infotaining ourselves to death anyway, so Trump's just added comedic grist to enliven our time in hospice care.
Did you expect or hope for another in the globalist class, maybe as slick as Barry-O, who appealed to the edumacated coastal elites in his incredibly pompous and phony addresses?
I expected a globalist (either Trump or Hillary) but hoped for Bernie.
Trump is not antithesis. This is where you are most mistaken. If he were the truth (as you state), there would be stronger social security, Medicare and Medicaid for his base, no tax cuts favouring corporations, LLCs and the very rich.
There would be newly created infrastructure and improved healthcare.
The trade war would already be won and the wealth equality gap would be well on the road to closure.
Yonatan , Oct 28, 2018 4:04:53 PM | linkThe Pittsburgh attack was conveniently timed to distract US media from another murderous onslaught by Israel on Gaza. The IDF targets included a Gaza hospital.Vitaliy , Oct 28, 2018 6:08:07 PM | link
Pittsburgh - qui bono?There are mass shooters and there are mass bombers...Jay , Oct 28, 2018 6:18:11 PM | link
There are just babies compare with our old friend Mr. Kissinger.@john wilson:Pft , Oct 28, 2018 6:36:52 PM | link
"The Jews are murdering unarmed Palestinians with abandon,"
That's an ugly conflation of Jews and Israel.Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.hopehely , Oct 28, 2018 6:53:30 PM | link
As with any event I always look at who benefits. Certainly the anti-gun lobby. Zionists have always benefitted from such acts as they use them to get more protection against criticism of their policies (eg legislation to define antisemitism as hate speech which would include criticism of Israel). Remember the NY bombing threats a couple of years ago were coming from an individual said to be working alone in Israel)
Be interesting to learn more about this Bowers. I am skeptical its a psyops at this point because he was taken alive, but who knows.Posted by: Pft | Oct 28, 2018 6:36:52 PM | 39
Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.
If I understood correctly his attack was against the Jewish organisation that brings immigrants. Because he sees that as the enemy action.
Oct 08, 2018 | www.quora.com
Jason Perno , Cyber Security Specialist and Forensic Analyst at NNIT A/S (2017-present)
Answered 17h ago
I left the United States because I married a Danish woman. We tried living in New York, but we struggled a lot. She was not used to being without the normal help she gets from the Danish system. We... (more) Loading
I left the United States because I married a Danish woman. We tried living in New York, but we struggled a lot. She was not used to being without the normal help she gets from the Danish system. We made the move a few years ago, and right away our lives started to improve dramatically.
Now I am working in IT, making a great money, with private health insurance. Yes I pay high taxes, but the benefits outweigh the costs. The other things is that the Danish people trust in the government and trust in each other. There is no need for #metoo or blacklivesmatter, because the people already treat each other with respect.
While I now enjoy an easier life in Denmark, I sit back and watch the country I fiercely love continue to fall to pieces because of divisive rhetoric and the corporate greed buying out our government.
Trump is just a symptom of the problem. If people could live in the US as they did 50 years ago, when a single person could take care of their entire family, and an education didn't cost so much, there would be no need for this revolution. But wages have been stagnant since the 70's and the wealth has shifted upwards from the middle class to the top .001 percent. This has been decades in the making. You can't blame Obama or Trump for this.
Meanwhile, I sit in Denmark watching conservatives blame liberalism, immigrants, poor people, and socialism, while Democrats blame rednecks, crony capitalism, and republican greed. Everything is now "fake news". Whether it be CNN or FOX, no one knows who to trust anymore. Everything has become a conspiracy. Our own president doesn't even trust his own FBI or CIA. And he pushes conspiracy theories to mobilize his base. I am glad to be away from all that, and living in a much healthier environment, where people aren't constantly attacking one another.
Maybe if the US can get it's healthcare and education systems together, I would consider moving back one day. But it would also be nice if people learned to trust one another, and trust in the system again. Until then, I prefer to be around emotionally intelligent people, who are objective, and don't fall for every piece of propaganda. Not much of that happening in America these days. The left has gone off the deep end playing identity politics and focusing way too much on implementing government mandated Social Justice. Meanwhile the conservatives are using any propaganda and lying necessary to push their corporate backed agenda. This is all at the cost of our environment, our free trade agreements, peace treaties, and our European allies. Despite how much I love my country, I breaks my heart to say, I don't see myself returning any time soon I'm afraid.
Sep 27, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Why Not a Merit-Based Immigration System? Reihan Salam's latest book makes the case for an overhaul along Trumpian lines.
It's hard to imagine a more needed contribution to America's immigration debate than Reihan Salam's civil, sober, and penetrating Melting Pot or Civil War? At a moment when the major dueling discourses revolve around lurid depictions of immigrant crime by one side, and appeals to the inscription on the Statue of Liberty and accusations of racism by the other, Salam's data-driven argument about the future consequences of today's immigration choices could not be more timely.
While Salam is the child of middle-class professionals from Bangladesh who settled in New York at a time when there were virtually no Bengali speakers in the city (there are now tens of thousands), apart from a few personal anecdotes, his book could have been written by an author of any ethnicity. Yet in our increasingly racialized debate, an argument made by a "son of immigrants" (as the book's subtitle announces) may be less likely to face summary dismissal from the centrist liberals and moderates who are its most important audience.
Salam's case is that America's legal immigration system needs be reformed on lines roughly similar to what the Trump administration now and others before it have long advocated: changing the rules to place a greater emphasis on the economic skills of immigrants while deemphasizing the role played by family "reunification" would ensure both that new immigrants are an economic plus to the economy and, more importantly, that they are more likely to integrate into the American cultural mainstream. This would put the U.S. more in line with the generally politically popular systems in place in Canada and Australia. The proposal is tempered, or balanced, by measures to shore up the condition of the American working poor and an amnesty giving long-term resident illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, as well as ambitious measures to enhance economic development in the Third World.
But the meat of Melting Pot or Civil War? is not in the proposal but in the getting to it -- a route which passes through numerous nuggets gleaned from contemporary research and a depressing if persuasive analysis of the consequences if America stays on its present course.
First of all, Salam reminds us, an alarming number of recent immigrants and their families are poor. This does not mean that almost all of them have not improved their economic status by migration: they have. A low-skilled job in the United States pays several times better than such work in many countries, so low-skilled migration is, without a doubt, a benefit to low-skilled migrants. Recent immigrants grateful for the opportunity to live in America may accept living in poverty, though Salam is right to remind us of the miserable conditions, redolent of the teeming tenements of the early 20th century, in which their lives often unfold. He makes the subtle point that part of the current appeal of America's major cities to upper middle-class professionals is the presence of a politically docile service class of low-skilled immigrants, many of them undocumented.
But the families such immigrants form tend to be poor as well: today's immigrants face headwinds to upward mobility that the storied Ellis Island generations did not. There was much more need in 1900 for unskilled labor than there is now, and no substantive gap then existed in education level between the immigrants and the general American population. The data Salam deploys is not overly dramatic but decisive nonetheless: children of immigrants now make up 30 percent of all low-income children (where they are 24 percent of the whole); roughly half of immigrant families have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line; nearly a third of immigrant children grow up in families headed by someone without a high school diploma; the average Mexican immigrant has 9.4 years of schooling, rising to 12 in the second generation but flatlining after that.
As the gap between the earnings of American college graduates and others has grown in the past two generations, this means that the social problem of the intergenerational transmission of poverty is being intensified by the ever continuing flow of poor, unskilled immigrants, both legal and illegal. And while such immigrants may well be politically quiescent, their children are unlikely to be.Why We Want Immigrants Who Add Value How to Resolve the Conservative Split Over Immigration
These somber facts are balanced, and in many ways veiled, by the immigrant success stories which Americans rightly celebrate. But while it may be unkind to say so, immigrants don't arrive as blank slates, mysteriously sorted out upon reaching these shores so that some become doctors and software entrepreneurs.
As Salam makes clear, successful immigrants tend to come from relatively rich and urbanized societies. The parents of Google founder Sergey Brin were accomplished scholars. An astounding 45 percent of immigrants from India -- who make up the latest version of a high-achieving "model minority" -- are Brahmins, members of the tiny Indian hereditary upper caste. Indians who come here tend to be "triple selected": most enter the country by way of high-skilled worker visas, which means they are products of India's highly competitive education system, which serves only a fraction of India's population. Similarly, Chinese immigrants tend to come from that country's college-educated elite.
Salam explains that under the current system, most visas are doled out according to family ties -- not skills or education. And the larger the number of immigrants is from a given country, the lower their average earnings and educational outcomes will be in the U.S. Conversely, the harder it is for a given group to enter the United States, the more likely it is that immigrants will be drawn from the top of their country's pecking order.
One might conceive of this as a stable system -- after all, there are many jobs for low-skilled immigrants. But of course immigrants have children, at rates far higher than the native born, and the children of lower-skilled immigrants make up a continually growing share of Americans at or near the poverty level. "The children of elite immigrants make their way into America's elite, where they add a much needed dash of superficial diversity, enough to make us forget their inconvenient working class counterparts." The result, of which there is already ample evidence among the Millennial cohort of immigrant children, is a growing population which has grown up in poverty, isn't doing especially well in income or education, and perceives the American dream cynically, as a kind of whites-only sham. This divide will influence our politics for the foreseeable future. The question is how much.
While much of Salam's analysis is a deep dive into statistics of intergenerational poverty, educational outcomes, and the growing achievement gap, he doesn't shy from the ominous implications of the racialization of the immigration debate. There is ample evidence that college-educated Americans of all ethnicities marry one another at reasonable and growing rates, producing a fair number of mixed-race people who feel themselves part of the cultural mainstream. As scholars have long reminded us, "white" is a broad and fungible category in American history, and there is a fair prospect that the college-educated and middle classes will intermarry enough to produce a 21st-century version of the storied melting pot.
But that isn't the case with poorer immigrants, even as their children learn English. Current family unification statutes encourage poor, non-white immigrant communities to continually replenish their new arrivals. Thus there are two competing processes going on -- amalgamation, in which more educated immigrant families are joining the middle-class mainstream, intermarrying with whites and with one another, and racialization, in which a new immigrant group finds itself ghettoized and cut out of the mainstream. This latter phenomenon is most pronounced in some Mexican-American communities, which are demographically the largest immigrant groups, but exists in many immigrant communities.
It is in this subset, for example, where ISIS has found recruits, and where -- on a less dramatic level -- the Marxist Left is able to make inroads. As America's demography grows less white, the political salience of radical immigrants of color is likely to grow. While Salam exercises great restraint describing the phenomenon, his foreboding is unmistakable: "The danger, as I see it, is that as the logic of the melting pot fails to take hold, and as more newcomers are incorporated into disadvantaged groups, the level of interethnic tension will skyrocket, and we'll look back wistfully on the halcyon politics of the Trump years." Or again, "Imagine an America in which wealthy whites and Asians wall themselves off from the rest of society and low wage immigrants and their offspring constitute a new underclass."
Of course it is not merely racial minority immigrants who are tempted by political radicalism. The current extremist white backlash is widely noted by scholars and journalists. But among the liberal establishment it is viewed not as problem to be alleviated but a social development to be crushed. Salam observes immigration scholars who are scrupulous about reporting the ways immigration is making America less united, threatening social cohesion, "leading to greater divisions and tensions," while never considering reducing or reforming immigration (with greater emphasis on skills) as a possible answer to the problems. They hope -- against considerable social science evidence that political instability is endemic to multicultural societies -- that greater diversity will somehow bury ethnic conflict. This Salam calls the Backlash Paradox: while mass immigration contributes to bigotry and polarization, the only acceptable option among elites is to double down and hope the storm passes, as slowing the pace of immigration is considered a "callow surrender to bigotry."
I have focused on the social and political elements, but Salam's argument also relies a great deal on economics, much of it focused on economic choices molded by a relatively high-skilled or low-skilled labor force. His major point is that labor shortages spur technological innovation, while loose labor markets discourage it. Labor scarcity, Salam observes, has been the historical secret to American prosperity, spurring one labor-saving innovation after another. A high-immigration economy, with a completely elastic number of workers willing to work for a minimum wage or less, is an economy under a completely different calculus. There is no question we should prefer the first.
I have only minor caveats with this outstanding book. It might be a necessary concession to the immigrationist lobby to maintain the raw number of immigrants as high as it is at present, but it seems likely that lowering it to, say, half a million a year, roughly the number urged by the Clinton administration's task force on immigration, would break the fever more quickly and lead to far more rapid assimilation of recent immigrants.
I find Salam's earnest plea for the United States to dramatically raise its spending to accelerate economic development in the Third World well intended, but likely futile. An answer which comes to mind is one that diplomat George F. Kennan suggested a quarter of a century ago, that the single greatest benefit the United States can deliver to the world's poor is to maintain itself as a relatively high civilization able to inspire by example, and provide help and insight to others seeking answers to their problems.
And though it is a subject in itself, I wish Salam had directly addressed the new leftist ideology built around the fighting of "white privilege" -- which now includes under its rubric everything from getting rid of standardized tests to delegitimizing police departments, railing against the First Amendment to ripping down statues of long-admired white Americans. This largely white-led phenomenon does far more to intensify nativist dread about being reduced to minority status than any racist agitation leveled against immigrants of color, however lamentable the latter might be.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor of and the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars .
Sep 21, 2018 | www.unz.com
... ... ..
Dr. Hart's book is invaluable because it highlights some of the basic truths about America that modern-day histories simply conceal. For example, he writes: "America is much younger than most European nations . It did not exist at all prior to 1600 AD but was created in the ' colonial era .'"
This alone is a shot across the bow of Politically Correct histories that regard "America" simply as a geographic location. As Dr. Hart knows, "America" did not exist in any meaningful sense before the English settlement that created it -- our eponymous Virginia Dare's Roanoke Colony being the prototype. English settlers didn't "invade" a country that belonged to " Native Americans ," English settlers created one where none existed.
Dr. Hart provides a basic history of America's development, including highlighting specific incidents that ultimately proved critical to the future of the polity. One of the more interesting was the Zenger trial, a colonial case in which a journalist criticized the local governor and was charged with libel. A grand jury refused to indict Zenger, accepting his defense that the things he printed were true. Thanks to this case, Americans can claim truth as an absolute defense in libel cases, something our British cousins lack .
A highlight of Dr. Hart's history is his careful attention to demographic issues. For example, he scoffs at the claim sometimes heard within the dimmer quarters of the American Conservative Movement that the Constitution was a "miracle." Instead, Dr. Hart shows that the authors of America's governing document shared linguistic, cultural, racial, and experiential factors that allowed them to work together. (Contemporary American statesmen possess no such unanimity.) Dr. Hart is also not blind to the Constitution's faults, especially its failure to designate how and who has the power to interpret it -- specifically, not necessarily the Kritarchs on the Supreme Court.
Dr. Hart is also clearsighted regarding immigration. He does not accept the now de rigueur analysis that immigration from widely disparate regions was always a feature of American life. "Before 1849, immigrants to the Untied States came mostly from the Protestant regions of northwest Europe, including Holland , Sweden, Norway , Germany and Great Britain," he observes. He also provides an honest assessment of the difficulties Irish immigration presented for 19 th century America and argues that despite speaking English, "they assimilated very slowly."
Dr. Hart argues the "Golden Age" of the United States extended from 1865 to 1991. "During that interval the United States stood out for its wealth, for its military might, and for its unprecedented set of practical inventions and scientific discoveries," he argues. Indeed, one of the best parts of the book is when Dr. Hart recounts the numerous inventions and scientific advances America has given to the world.
However, Dr. Hart's most invaluable contribution is in detailing what he sees as the symptoms of America's decline after the Cold War. America's indebtedness, relatively poor military performance , loss of Constitutional liberties, and collapse of artistic standards are all covered. Two other issues highly relevant to immigration patriots are what Dr. Hart calls "political problems" and "loss of confidence and national pride."
Dr. Hart details how Democratic politicians have diligently opposed any efforts to implement common-sense voter ID laws to prevent election fraud. Media bias is another major political problem, one an increasing number of Americans are awakening to. Finally, Dr. Hart identifies the "increase in racial hostilities" as both a symptom and a cause of America's increasing political problems. "Black hostility towards whites is constantly being stirred up by 'race hustlers' such as Al Sharpton , who deny any good faith on the part of whites," he writes. "Many people deny that any progress has been made in the status and treatment of black Americans -- a blatant untruth which increases black suspicions and hostilities."
Similarly, the decline in national pride is partially a product of how the charge of "racism" has delegitimized our entire national history. "According to many of these critics, our Constitution was produced by a group of 'Dead White European Males' (DWEMs, for short) who do not deserve any respect," he writes. As a result of internalizing this poisonous attack on America's heritage, some advocate Open Borders as a kind of historical reparations of punishment for a "racist" country.
Dr. Hart writes:
One result of these attitudes is that many Americans find it unreasonable for the United States to defend its borders. (After all, since we stole the country from the Indians, we have no real claim on our land.) Sometimes these views lead to people suggesting that non-citizens should be permitted to vote in American elections. In any disagreement or conflict between the United States and a foreign group, many of these critics tend to blame America first. Many of these critics do not even pretend to be patriotic.
Dr. Hart identifies a host of causes to explain the emergence of these symptoms. Though they are too many to cover here, two very much worth mentioning are
Dr. Hart points out that for all the talk about white racism, the vast majority of interracial crime is committed by blacks against whites. Hatred of whites is not only mainstream but cultivated by the Main Stream Media, the education system, and even some Democratic politicians -- a coalition that Dr. Hart judges is too powerful to break.
Similarly, Dr. Hart details the disastrous consequences of the 1965 Immigration Act and explicitly calls for its repeal, but he is pessimistic about the prospects for doing so.
The most explosive part of the book is its concluding chapter, in which Dr. Hart discusses the various scenarios by which the United States could "fall," either by breaking up, being extinguished, or losing its political independence and being subsumed into a larger polity. All of these terrible scenarios have vastly increased in likelihood because of the destabilizing and destructive effects of mass immigration.
The "fall" of the United States may even occur without most people even noticing it at the time. "Without any foreign conquest, and without any sharp break, the USA might be transformed into a multinational state without any loyalty to our English origin," he writes. "In fact, such a process may already be in process."
During his discussion of causes for American decline, Dr. Hart identifies the most important "by far" as the "loss of pride and confidence." He blames this on the relentless hate campaign waged against "our ancestors" by educators and the Main Stream Media, leading to a situation in which Americans feel "ashamed of their country." In other words, Dr. Hart is really talking about a loss of identity.
With his history of the United States, and his frank discussion of the issues endangering its existence, Dr. Hart has performed a valuable service for Americans seeking to reclaim their national identity. For anyone curious about their country's past and concerned about its future, The Rise And Fall Of The United States (full disclosure: A VDARE book -- who else would publish it?) is well worth purchasing.
anonymous ,  Disclaimer says: September 8, 2018 at 8:39 pm GMTNo mention of white slavery in Plantation America?mark green , says: September 8, 2018 at 9:20 pm GMTIf/when America does break apart, it will not be a result of conventional war. The attack/upheaval will come from within.
Ironically, the trillions spent by Washington on our global MIC will not, in the end, protect the American people from what is now our greatest threat: internal treason against Historic America and its core people.
Ironically, instead of returning home to protect US borders when the cold war ended, American troops were dispersed around the world to fight phantom threats and protect non-essential foreign entities and extra-national interests.
This ongoing waste of US resources abroad continues to serve the interests of globalists, militarists, and Zionists. Meanwhile, our domestic security, our Main Street economy, and the continuity of white, European-derived culture and people inside America gets short shrift. This glaring disconnect may be our nation's undoing.
The 'proposition nation' concept was a fraud from the start since it ignores the vital significance of race, culture, language, and IQ.
The engine for America's coming implosion is demographic: uninterrupted, illegal, non-white immigration by Third World refugees. Hostile elites who now dominate America are also key. They refuse to acknowledge the perils of 'diversity'. Many want America changed, irreversibly so.
Meanwhile, white identity and white cohesion have been demonized in our schools as well as by our dominant mass media. This campaign has undermined white identity, white cohesion and white interests in general.
Numerous, politically-correct expressions of anti-white hatred are now in wide circulation. These hate-terms are, ironically, protected from criticism even though they are applied selectively to target whites. Those few who contest these double-standards (including Pres. Trump) are routinely defamed by comparisons to 'Hitler' or references to the KKK. The basic translation comes down to this: Shut up.
This unhealthy and insidious paradigm is here by design. It is used to not only justify anti-white animus, but to legitimize anti-white violence whenever and wherever whites try to assemble and express their grievances and/or aspirations. This very sinister double-standard has taken deep root. It is nurtured by biased reporting and coverage. It has spawned 'antifa'.
Modern speech rules and penalties favor privileged 'minorities' just as they cleary disfavor and penalize white advocacy.
Among the popular terms that lend support to anti-white bigotry are: 'racist', 'nativist', 'white supremacy', 'Islamophobia', and 'anti-Semitism'.
These shame-inducing memes have 1) contaminated the American mind and 2) empowered our race-conscious adversaries. They must be deconstructed and deligimized if we are to protect our interests and preserve America's demographic core.
Resistance, cohesion and self-defense are not fascistic sentiments. They are legitimate expressions of democratic self-determination.
Aug 02, 2018 | www.rt.com
The Sunday morning tirade saw the president claim he "would be willing to 'shut down'" the federal government if members of Congress from the opposition party didn't row in behind Republicans in voting for his immigration reform package, which includes releasing funds for the US-Mexico border wall that formed the cornerstone of his election campaign.
"I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc."
I would be willing to "shut down" government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc. and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our Country!-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2018
He also called for an immigration system "based on MERIT!," adding that immigrants wanted by the USA needed to be "great people."
Aug 01, 2018 | www.rt.com
The Sunday morning tirade saw the president claim he "would be willing to 'shut down'" the federal government if members of Congress from the opposition party didn't row in behind Republicans in voting for his immigration reform package, which includes releasing funds for the US-Mexico border wall that formed the cornerstone of his election campaign.
"I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc."
I would be willing to "shut down" government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc. and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our Country!-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2018
He also called for an immigration system "based on MERIT!," adding that immigrants wanted by the USA needed to be "great people."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
By Enrico Verga, a writer, consultant, and entrepreneur based in Milan. As a consultant, he concentrates on firms interested in opportunities in international and digital markets. His articles have appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, Capo Horn, Longitude, Il Fatto Quotidiano, and many other publications. You can follow him on Twitter @enricoverga .
International commerce, jobs, and economic migrants are propelled by a common force: profit.
In recent times, the Western middle class (by which I mean in particular industrial workers and office employees) has lost a large number of jobs and has seen its buying power fall. It isn't true that migrants are the source of all evil in the world. However, under current conditions, they become a locus for the exasperation of the population at twenty years of pro-globalization politics. They are tragically placed in the role of the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Western businesses have slipped jobs overseas to countries with low labor costs, while the middle class has been pushed into debt in order to try to keep up. The Glass-Steagall law and other brakes on American banks were abolished by a cheerleader for globalization, Bill Clinton, and these banks subsequently lost all restraints in their enthusiasm to lend. The cherry on top of the sundae was the real estate bubble and ensuing crash of 2008.
A damning picture of the results of 20 years of globalization is provided by Forbes , capitalism's magazine par excellence. Already in 2016, the surprise victory of Trump led to questions about whether the blond candidate's win was due in part to the straits of the American middle class, impoverished as a result of the pro-globalization politics of figures like Clinton and Obama.
Further support for this thesis is furnished by the New York Times , describing the collapse of the stars-and-stripes middle class. Its analysis is buttressed by lengthy research from the very mainstream Pew Center , which agrees that the American middle class is vanishing.
And Europe? Although the European middle class has been squeezed less than its American counterpart, for us as well the picture doesn't look good. See for example the analysis of the Brookings Institute , which discusses not only the flagging economic fortunes of the European middle class, but also the fear of prosperity collapsing that currently grips Europe.
Migrants and the Shock Doctrine
What do economic migrants have to do with any of this?
Far be it from me to criticize large corporations, but clearly they – and their managers and stockholders – benefit from higher margins. Profits (revenue minus costs and expenses) can be maximized by reducing expenses. To this end, the costs of acquiring goods (metals, agricultural products, energy, etc.) and services (labor) need to fall steadily.
In the quest to lower the cost of labor, the most desirable scenario is a sort of blank slate: to erase ongoing arrangements with workers and start over from zero, building a new "happy and productive" economy. This operation can be understood as a sort of "shock doctrine."
The term "economic shock therapy" is based on an analogy with electroshock therapy for mental patients. One important analysis of it comes from Naomi Klein , who became famous explaining in 2000 the system of fashion production through subsidiaries that don't adhere to the safety rules taken so seriously in Western countries (some of you may recall the scandal of Benetton and Rana Plaza , where more than a thousand workers at a Bangladesh factory producing Benetton (and other) clothes were crushed under a collapsing building).
Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest) labor force. Sometimes relocating from one nation to another is not possible, but if you can bring the job market of other countries here in the form of a low-cost mass of people competing for employment, then why bother?
The Doctrine in Practice
Continuing flows of low-cost labor can be useful for cutting costs. West Germany successfully absorbed East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the dirty secret of this achievement is the exploitation of workers from the former East, as Reuters reports .
The expansion of the EU to Poland (and the failed attempt to incorporate the Ukraine) has allowed many European businesses to shift local production to nations where the average cost of a blue or white collar worker is much lower ( by 60-70% on average ) than in Western European countries.
We see further evidence of damage to the European middle class daily, from France where the (at least verbally) pro-globalization Macron is cutting social welfare to attract foreign investment , to Germany where many ordinary workers are seriously exploited . And so on through the UK and Italy.
The migrant phenomenon is a perfect counterpoint to a threadbare middle class, given its role as a success story within the narrative of globalization.
Economic migrants are eager to obtain wealth on the level of the Western middle class – and this is of course a legitimate desire. However, to climb the social ladder, they are willing to do anything: from accepting low albeit legal salaries to picking tomatoes illegally ( as Alessandro Gassman, son of the famous actor, reminded us ).
The middle class is a silent mass that for many years has painfully digested globalization, while believing in the promises of globalist politicians," explains Luciano Ghelfi, a journalist of international affairs who has followed Lega from its beginnings. Ghelfi continues:
This mirage has fallen under the blows it has received from the most serious economic crisis since the Second World War. Foreign trade, easy credit (with the American real estate bubble of 2008 as a direct consequence), peace missions in Libya (carried out by pro-globalization French and English actors, with one motive being in my opinion the diversion of energy resources away from [the Italian] ENI) were supposed to have created a miracle; they have in reality created a climate of global instability.
Italy is of course not untouched by this phenomenon. It's easy enough to give an explanation for the Five Stars getting votes from part of the southern electorate that is financially in trouble and might hope for some sort of subsidy, but the North? The choice of voting center right (with a majority leaning toward Lega) can be explained in only one way – the herd (the middle class) has tried to rise up.
I asked him, "So in your opinion, is globalization in stasis? Or is it radically changing?" He replied:
I think unrestrained globalization has taken a hit. In Italy as well, as we have seen recently, businesses are relocating abroad. And the impoverished middle class finds itself forced to compete for state resources (subsidies) and jobs which can be threatened by an influx of economic migrants towards which enormous resources have been dedicated – just think of the 4.3 billion Euros that the last government allocated toward economic migrants.
This is an important element in the success of Lega: it is a force that has managed to understand clearly the exhaustion of the impoverished middle class, and that has proposed a way out, or has at least elaborated a vision opposing the rose-colored glasses of globalization.
In all of this, migrants are more victims than willing actors, and they become an object on which the fatigue, fear, and in the most extreme cases, hatred of the middle class can easily focus.
What Conflicts Are Most Relevant Today?
At the same time, if we observe, for example in Italy, the positions taken by the (pro-globalization?) Left, it becomes easier to understand why the middle class and also many blue collar workers are abandoning it. Examples range from the unfortunate declarations of deputy Lia Quartapelle on the need to support the Muslim Brotherhood to the explanations of the former president of the Chamber of Deputies, Laura Boldrini, on how the status of economic migrant should be seen as a model for the lifestyle of all Italians . These remarks were perhaps uttered lightly (Quartapelle subsequently took her post down and explained that she had made a mistake), but they are symptomatic of a certain sort of pro-globalization cultural "Left" that finds talking to potential voters less interesting than other matters.
From Italy to America (where Hillary Clinton was rejected after promoting major international trade arrangements that she claimed would benefit middle-class American workers) to the UK (where Brexit has been taken as a sort of exhaust valve), the middle class no longer seems to be snoring.
We are currently seeing a political conflict between globalist and nationalist forces. Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want protection for work and workers, a clamping down on economic migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at controlling international trade.
If for the last twenty years, with only occasional oscillation, the pro-globalization side has been dominant in the West, elections are starting to swing the balance in a new direction.
Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly uninterested in the concerns of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict with the commitment to globalization.
If the distinction between globalism and nationalism is in practice trumping other differences, then we should not let ourselves be distracted by bright and shiny objects, and keep our focus on what really matters.
fresno dan , July 20, 2018 at 7:06 amEnrico Verga , July 20, 2018 at 9:30 am
From the Forbes link:
"The first downside of international trade that even proponents of freer trade must acknowledge is that while the country as a whole gains some people do lose."
More accurate to say a tiny, tiny, TINY percentage gain.
Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP. Yes, GDP goes up – but that word that can never be uttered by American corporate media – DISTRIBUTION – that essentially ALL gains in GDP have gone to the very top. AND THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL DECISION, not like the waves of the ocean or natural selection. There is plenty that could be done about it – BUT it STARTS with WANTING to do something effective about it .
And of course, the bizarre idea that inflation helps. Well, like trade, it helps .the very, very rich
https://www.themaven.net/mishtalk/economics/real-hourly-earnings-decline-yoy-for-production-workers-flat-for-all-employees-W4eRI5nksU2lsrOR9Z01WQ/Off The Street , July 20, 2018 at 9:43 am
im used to use reliable link ( on forbes it's not Pew but i quoted also Pew) :)Heraclitus , July 20, 2018 at 11:38 am
Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP.
You have identified one of my pet peeves about economists and their fellow traveler politicians. They hide behind platitudes, and the former are more obnoxious about that. Economists will tell people that they just don't understand all that complexity, and that in the name of efficiency, etc, free trade and the long slide toward neo-liberal hell must continue.Jean , July 20, 2018 at 12:21 pm
I think the assertion that all economic gains have gone to the very top is not accurate. According to 'Unintended Consequences' by Ed Conard, the 'composition of the work force has shifted to demographics with lower incomes' between 1980 and 2005. If you held the workforce of 1980 steady through 2005, wages would be up 30% in real terms, not including benefits.
It's amazing that critics miss this.makedoanmend , July 20, 2018 at 7:12 am
But you are ignoring immigrant based population increases which dilutes your frozen population number. How convenient for argument's sake.
Not mentioned in the article are rent increases caused by more competition for scarcer housing.PlutoniumKun , July 20, 2018 at 8:30 am
I think the author has highlighted some home truths in the article. I once remember several years ago just trying to raise the issue of immigration* and its impact on workers on an Irish so-called socialist forum. Either I met silence or received a reply along the lines: 'that when socialists rule the EU we'll establish continental wide standards that will ensure fairness for everyone'. Fairy dust stuff. I'm not anti immigrant in any degree but it seems unwise not to understand and mitigate the negative aspects of policies on all workers. Those chickens are coming home to roost by creating the type of political parties (new or established) that now control the EU and many world economies.
During the same period many younger middle and upper middle class Irish extolled the virtues, quite openly, of immigration as way of lowering the power and wages of existing Irish workers so that the costs of building homes, labour intensive services and the like would be concretely reduced; and that was supposed to be a good thing for the material well being of these middle and upper middle classes. Sod manual labour.
One part of the working class was quite happy to thrown another part of the working class under the bus and the Left**, such as it was and is, was content to let it happen. Then established Leftist parties often facilitated the rightward economic process via a host of policies, often against their own stated policies in election manifestos. The Left appeared deceitful. The Irish Labour party is barely alive and subsisting on die-hard traditionalists for their support by those who can somehow ignore the deceit of their party. Surreaslist stuff from so-called working class parties,
And now the middle-middle classes are ailing and we're supposed to take notice. Hmmm. Yet, as a Leftist, myself, it is incumbent upon us to address the situation and assist all workers, whatever their own perceived status.
*I'm an immigrant in the UK currently, though that is about to change next year.
** Whether the "Left", such as the Irish Labour Party, was just confused or bamboozled matters not a jot. After the financial crises that became an economic crisis, they zealously implemented austerity policies that predominantly cleared the way for a right wing political landscape to dominate throughout Europe. One could be forgiven for thinking that those who called themselves Leftists secretly believed that only right wing, neo-liberal economic policies were correct. And I suppose, being a bit cynical, that a few politicos were paid handsomely for their services.makedoanmend , July 20, 2018 at 10:17 am
I think its easy to see why the more middle class elements of the left wing parties never saw immigration as a problem – but harder to see why the Trade Unions also bought into this. Partly I think it was a laudable and genuine attempt to ensure they didn't buy into racism – when you look at much trade union history, its not always pleasant reading when you see how nakedly racist some early trade union activists were, especially in the US. But I think there was also a process whereby Unions increasingly represented relatively protected trades and professions, while they lost ground in more vulnerable sectors, such as in construction.
I think there was also an underestimation of the 'balancing' effect within Europe. I think a lot of activists understimated the poverty in parts of Europe, and so didn't see the expansion of the EU into eastern Europe as resulting in the same sort of labour arbitrage thats occurred between the west and Asia. I remember the discussions over the enlargement of the EU to cover eastern Europe and I recall that there seemed to be an inbuilt assumption (certainly in the left), that rising general prosperity would ensure there would be no real migration impact on local jobs. This proved to be entirely untrue.
Incidentally, in my constituency (Dublin Central) in past elections the local Labour party was as guilty as any of pandering to the frequent racism encountered on the doorsteps in working class areas. But it didn't do them much good. Interestingly, SF was the only party who would consistently refuse to pander (At least in Dublin), making the distinction between nationalist and internationalist minded left wingers even more confusing.Glen , July 20, 2018 at 8:56 am
Yes, one has to praise the fact that the Unions didn't pander to racism – but that's about all the (insert expletive of choice) did correctly.
Your other points, as ever, are relevant and valid but (and I must but) I tend to think that parties like Labour were too far "breezy" about the repercussions about labour arbitrage. But that's water under the bridge now.
Speaking about SF and the North West in general, they have aggressively canvassed recent immigrants and have not tolerated racism among their ranks. Their simple reasoning was that is unthinkable that SF could tolerate such behaviour amongst themselves when they has waged a campaign against such attitudes and practices in the six counties. (SF are no saints, often fumble the ball badly, and are certainly not the end-all-be-all, but this is something they get right).Felix_47 , July 20, 2018 at 9:18 am
It has to be understood that much of immigration is occurring because of war, famine, collapsing societies (mostly due to massive wealth inequality and corrupt governments). Immigration is not the cause of the economic issues in the EU, it's a symptom (or a feature if you're on top). If you don't correct the causes – neo-liberalism, kleptocracy, rigged game – what ever you want to call it, then you too will become an immigrant in your own country (and it will be a third world country by the time the crooks on top are done).
Don't get caught up in the blame the other poor people game. It's a means to get the powerless to fight among themselves. They are not in charge, they are victims just like you.Louis Fyne , July 20, 2018 at 11:45 am
Having spent a lot of time in the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan and Iraq I have to say that rampant overpopulation plays a big part. Anyone who can get out is getting out. It makes sense. And with modern communications they all know how life is in Europe or the US in contrast to the grinding horror that surrounds them.redleg , July 20, 2018 at 7:32 pm
But Conan tells me that Haiti is a tropical paradise! (my brother too spent a lot of time in Afghanistan and Iraq working with the locals during his deployments)
"Twitter liberalism" is doing itself by not recognizing that much of the developing world IS a corrupt cesspool.
Instead of railing against Trump, the Twitter-sphere needs to rail against the bipartisan policies that drive corruption, and economic dislocations and political dislocations. and rail against religious fundamentalism that hinders family planning.
But that can't fit onto a bumper sticker.
Calling Trump names is easier.Oregoncharles , July 20, 2018 at 2:05 pm
But if you actually do that, rail against bipartisan neoliberal policies on social media and IRL, the conservatives are far less hostile than the die-hard Dems. This is especially true now, with all the frothing at the mouth and bloodlust about Russia. Its raised their "it's ALL *YOUR* FAULT"-ism by at least an order of magnitude.makedoanmend , July 20, 2018 at 10:04 am
Actually, that's been true since the 18th C., at least for the US. TV may make it more vivid, and Europe has changed places, but most Americans have immigrant ancestors, most often from Europe.nervos belli , July 20, 2018 at 10:20 am
Very good points, and I agree with all of them.
However, it does seem that the policy of the EU, especially under the influence of Mutti Merkel, signalled a free-for-all immigration stance over the last several years, completely ignoring the plight of existing workers (many of whom would be recent immigrants themselves and the children of immigrants). That the so-called Left either sat idly by or jumped on Mutti's band wagon didn't do them any favours with working people. Every country or customs union has and needs to regulate its borders. It also makes some sense to monitor labour markets when unfavourable conditions appear.
It appears that only the wealthy are largely reaping the rewards of the globalist direction trade has taken. These issues need to be addressed by the emerging Left political parties in the West. Failure to address these issues must, I would contend, play into the hands of the more right wing parties whose job is to often enrich the local rich.
But, bottom line, your are correct workers do not come out well when blaming other workers for economies that have been intentionally created to produce favourable conditions for the few over the many.Ben Wolf , July 20, 2018 at 7:36 am
It's a blade with two sides.
There are push factors like the wars and poor countries. However neither of these causes can be fixed. Not possible. Europe can gnash their teeth all they want, not even when they did the unthinkable and put the US under sanctions for their warcrimes would the US ever stop. First there would be color revolutions in western europe.
As important as the push factors are the pull ones. 90% or so of all refugees 2015 went to Germany. Some were sent to other countries by the EU, these too immediately moved to Germany and didn't stay where they were assigned. So the EU has to clean up their act and would need to put the last 10 or so US presidents and administrations before a judge in Den Haag for continued war crimes and crimes against humanity (please let me my dreams). The EU would also need to clean up their one sided trade treaties with Africa and generally reign in their own corporations. All that is however not enough by far and at most only half the battle. Even when the EU itself all did these things, the poverty would remain and therefore the biggest push factor. Humans always migrate to the place where the economy is better.
The pull factors is however at least as big. The first thing to do is for Germany to fix their laws to be in sync with the other EU countries. At this point, Germany is utterly alone, at most some countries simply don't speak out against german policy since they want concessions in other areas. Main one here is France with their proposed EU and Euro reforms but not alone by far.Enrico Verga , July 20, 2018 at 9:31 am
Nationalists want protection for work and workers, a clamping down on economic migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at controlling international trade.
Socialism in one country is a Stalinist theory, and falling back upon it in fear of international capital is not only regressive but (assuming we aren't intentionally ignoring history) relective of a defensive mentality.
In other words, this kind of thinking is the thinking of the whipped dog cringing before the next blow.Andrew Watts , July 20, 2018 at 11:28 am
Am i a dog? :)Oregoncharles , July 20, 2018 at 1:47 pm
Or perhaps they want to regulate and control the power of capital in their country. Which is an entirely impossible proposition considering that capital can flee any jurisdiction and cross any border. After all, transnational capital flows which were leveraged to the hilt in speculative assets played an oversized role in generating the financial crisis and subsequent crash.
It wouldn't be the first time I've been called a Stalinist though.JBird , July 20, 2018 at 3:39 pm
And why would we care whether it's a "Stalinist" theory? For that matter, although worker ownership would solve some of these problems, we needn't be talking about socialism, but rather about more functional capitalism.
Quite a leap in that last sentence; you haven't actually established anything of the sort.disc_writes , July 20, 2018 at 8:10 am
but rather about a more functional capitalism.
Personally, I believe capitalism needs to go away, but for it, or any other economic system, to work, we would need a fair, equal, just, enforced rule of law that everyone would be under, wouldn't we?
Right now the blessed of our various nations do not want this, so they make so that one set is unfair, unequal, unjust, harshly enforced on most of their country's population while they get the gentle rules.
For a society to function long term, it needs to have a fair and just set of rules that everyone understands and follow, although the rules don't have to equal; people will tolerate different levels of punishments and strictness of the rules. The less that is the case the more dysfunctional, and usually the more repressive it is. See the Western Roman Empire, the fall of just about every Chinese dynasty, the Russian Empire, heck even the American War of Independence, and the American Civil War. In example, people either actively worked to destroy the system or did not care to support it.Lambert Strether , July 20, 2018 at 4:00 pm
Thank you for the article, a pretty lucid analysis of the recent electoral results in Italy and trends elsewhere. Although I would have liked to read something about people voting the way they do because they are xenophobe fascist baby-eating pedophile racist Putin friends. Just for fun.
Funny how the author's company promotes "Daily international job vacancies in UNDP, FAO, UN, UNCTAD, UNIDO and the other Governative Organization, Non Governative Organization, Multinationals Corporations. Public Relations, Marketing, Business Development."
Precisely the sort of jobs that infuriates the impoverishing middle classes.Felix_47 , July 20, 2018 at 9:16 am
Class traitors are important and to be encouraged (though a phrase with a more positive tone would be helpful).Andrew Watts , July 20, 2018 at 11:34 am
As recently as 2015, Bernie Sanders defended not only border security, but also national sovereignty. Asked about expanded immigration, Sanders flipped the question into a critique of open-borders libertarianism: "That's a Koch brothers proposal which says essentially there is no United States."
Unfortunately the ethnic division of the campaign and Hillary's attack seems to have led him to change his mind.Enrico Verga , July 20, 2018 at 9:36 am
That's probably due to the fact that just about everybody can't seem to differentiate between immigration and mass migration. The latter issue is a matter of distributing the pain of a collapsing order. state failure, and climate change while the former is simply engaging in the comfortable rhetoric of politics dominated by the American middle class.MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 20, 2018 at 9:40 am
Oki lemme see.
1 people vote they like. im not updated if the voters eat babies but i'll check and let u know.
2 My company is not dream job. It is a for free ( and not making a penny) daily bulleting that using a fre soft (paper.li) collect international qualified job offers for whoever is willing to work in these sector.
i'm not pro or contro migrants. i actually only reported simple fact collating differents point :)JBird , July 20, 2018 at 3:42 pm
Economic migrants seek prosperity and are justified in doing so, yet they can also be seen as pawns in an international strategy that destroys the negotiating leverage of workers. The resulting contradictions potentially render conventional political classifications obsolete.
This appears on the homepage, but not here.
In any case, the 10% also seek prosperity. They are said to be the enablers of the 1%.
Perhaps pawns too.
Are economic migrants both pawns and enablers?Newton Finn , July 20, 2018 at 10:02 am
Yes. The economic migrants are both pawns and enablers as well as victims.ROB , July 20, 2018 at 10:11 am
Until the left alters its thinking to reflect the crucial information presented in this video, information more clearly and comprehensively spelled out in "Reclaiming the State" by Mitchell and Fazi, resurgent rightwing nationalism will be the only outlet for those who reject global neoliberalism's race to the bottom. It's that simple and sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IynNfA1OhaoJohn Wright , July 20, 2018 at 11:16 am
To paint this as two pro-globalisation (within which you place the left) and pro-nationalism is simplistic and repositions the false dichotomy of left vs right with something just as useless. We should instead seek to speak to the complexities of the modern political spectrum. This is an example of poor journalism and analysis and shouldn't have been posted here, sorry Yves.JTMcPhee , July 20, 2018 at 11:17 am
By "false dichotomy of left vs right" are you implying there is little difference between left and right?
Is that not one of the themes of the article?
Please speak to the complexities of the modern political spectrum and give some examples of better and more useful journalism and analysis.John , July 20, 2018 at 11:44 am
Thanks for your opinion. Check the format of this place: articles selected for information or provoking thoughts, in support of a general position of driving toward betterment of the general welfare, writ large.
The political economy is at least as complex as the Krebs or citric acid cycle that biology students and scientists try to master. There are so many moving parts and intersecting and competing interests that in the few words that the format can accommodate, regarding each link, it's a little unkind to expect some master work of explication and rhetorical closure every time.
The Krebs cycle is basically driven by the homeostatic thrust, bred of billions of years of refinement, to maintain the healthy functioning and prolong life of the organism. There's a perceivable axis to all the many parts of respiration, digestion, energy flows and such, all inter-related with a clear organizing principle at the level of the organism. On the record, it's hardly clear that at the level of the political economy, and all the many parts that make it up, there is sufficient cohesion around a set of organizing principles that parallel the drive, at the society and species level, to regulate and promote the energy flows and interactions that would keep things healthy and prolong the life of the larger entity. Or that their is not maybe a death wish built into the "cultural DNA" of most of the human population.
Looks a lot to me that we actually have been invested (in both the financial and military senses of the word) by a bunch of different cancer processes, wild and unregulated proliferation of ecnomic and political tumor tissues that have invaded and undermined the healthy organs of the body politic. Not so clear what the treatments might be, or the prognosis. It is a little hopeful, continuing the biological analogy, that the equivalents of inflammation and immune system processes appear to be overcoming the sneaky tricks that cancer genes and cells employ to evade being identified and rendered innocuous.jrs , July 20, 2018 at 6:40 pm
Yes, "invested in a bunch of cancer processes" is a good description of allowing excessive levels of predatory wealth. Thus you end up with a bunch of Jay Gould hyper capitalists whose guiding principle is: I can always pay one half of the working class to kill the other half. Divide and conquer rules.JimmyV , July 20, 2018 at 12:04 pm
It's mostly simply wrong. This doesn't describe the political views of almost anyone near power anywhere as far as I can tell:
"Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want protection for work and workers, "
Most of the nationalist forces are on the right and give @#$# all for workers rights. Really they may be anti-immigrant but they are absolutely anti-worker.Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , July 20, 2018 at 1:02 pm
The middle class does not really exist, it was a concept invented by capitalists to distract the workers from their essential unity as fellow wage slaves. Some make more wages, some make less wages but they all have their surplus value, the money left over after they have enough to take care of themselves, taken by the capitalist and used for his ends even though he may not have worked in the value creation process at all.
Economic migrants are members of the working class who have been driven from their home country to somewhere else by the capitalist system. While the article does mention capitalist shock doctrine methods for establishing imperialism and correctly notes that economic migrants are victims, it then goes on to try to lay a weak and insidious argument against them. The author goes on citing multiple different cases of worker wages being driven lower or stagnating, many of these cases have differing and sometimes complex reasons for why this happened. But migrants and globalization are to blame he says and that our struggle is nationalism vs globalism. He refuses to see what is staring him in the face, workers produce surplus value for society, more workers produce more surplus value. If society finds itself wealthier with more workers then why do workers wage fall or stagnate? He does note correctly that this is due to the workers now having a weaker bargaining position with the capitalist, but he seems to conclude from this without stating outrightly that we should then reject the economic migrants because of this.
However, we could instead conclude that if more workers produce more surplus value but yet their wages fall because the capitalist takes a larger share of the overall pot, that the problem is not more workers but instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to exploit workers everywhere. Plus the workers bargaining position only weakens with a greater number of them if they are all just bargaining for themselves, but if they were to bargain togather collectively then there bargaining position has actually only grown even stronger.
Also he falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists, instead of correctly noting that the democratic party represents capitalist interests from a centrist position and not the left. The strength of global capitalism can only be fought by a global coalition of the working class. The struggle of Mexican and American workers are interrelated to each other and the same goes for that of European and Middle Eastern workers. The time has come for the left to raise the rallying cry of its great and glorious past.
That workers of the world must unite!Oregoncharles , July 20, 2018 at 1:56 pm
You claim, as if it were obvious, that "economic migrants are members of the working class who have been driven from their home country to somewhere else by the capitalist system."
Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?
If the borders of the US were abruptly left completely open, a huge number of people would enter the country tomorrow, for economic reasons. Would they all have been "driven" here, or would they have some choice in the matter?
When you say, "he refuses to say what is staring him in the face, that [ ] more workers produce more surplus value," you are not only taking a gratuitously pedantic tone, you are actually not making a coherent critique. If economic migrants move from one country to another, the total pool of workers in the world has not increased; while according to your logic, if all the workers in the world were to move to Rhode Island, Rhode Island would suddenly be swimming in the richness of surplus value.
When you say, "we could instead conclude that [..] the problem is not more workers but instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to exploit workers everywhere," you are straw-manning the author but also making a purely rhetorical argument. If you think the capitalist system can be replaced with a better one within the near future, then you can work toward that; but in the meanwhile, nations, assuming that they will continue to exist, will either have open borders or something short of that, and these decisions do affect the lives of workers.
When you say he "falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists," the false equivalence is coming from you. The article barely touches on the Democratic Party, and instead draws most of its examples from Europe, especially Italy. In Italy, the public figures he mentions call themselves part of the sinistra and are generally referred to that way. You might perhaps feel that they are not entitled to that name (and in fact, the article sometimes places "left" in quotation marks), but you should at least read the article and look them up before discussing the matter.Oregoncharles , July 20, 2018 at 4:47 pm
From the article: "Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly uninterested in the concerns of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict with the commitment to globalization."
To Be Fair, Verga clearly is skeptical about those claims to be "on the Left," as he should be. Nonetheless, his initial mention of Democratic exemplars of globalization triggers American reflexes.Lambert Strether , July 20, 2018 at 3:47 pm
Something before this failed to post; was rejected as a double post.
In brief: corporate globalization is a conservative, Republican policy that Bill Clinton imposed on the Dems, where it has since become doctrine, since it pays. It's ultimately the reason I'm a Green, not a Democrat, and in a sense the reason there IS a Green Party in the US.Eduardo Pinha , July 20, 2018 at 1:00 pm
> The middle class does not really exist, it was a concept invented by capitalists
Let's not be simplistic. They have people for that.JBird , July 20, 2018 at 4:04 pm
The author points to stagnant middle class income in USA and Western Europe but fail to look the big picture. Middle class income has increased sharply in the past decades in Asia and Eastern Europe. Overall the gain huge, even though life is tougher in richer countries.jrs , July 20, 2018 at 6:50 pm
Overall the gain huge, even thought life is tougher in richer countries.
Please accept my apologies for saying this. I don't mean to offend. I just have to point out something.
Many in the Democratic Party, as well as the left, are pointing to other countries and peoples as well as the American 9.9% and saying things are great, why are you complaining? With the not so hidden implications, sometimes openly stated that those who do are losers and deplorables.
Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an untruth. As an American, I do not really care about the middle classes in Asia and Eastern Europe. Bleep the big picture. The huge gains comes with a commensurate increase in homeless in the United States, and a falling standard of living for most the of the population, especially in the "wealthy" states, like my state of California. Most of us are using fingernails to stay alive and homed. If those gains had not been caused by the losses, I would be very please to see them. As it is, I have to live under President Trump and worry about surviving. Heck, worry about the rest of my family doing so.David in Santa Cruz , July 20, 2018 at 1:24 pm
"Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an untruth."
I mean I actually do care somewhat about the people of the world, but we here in "rich countries" are being driven to homelessness at this point and told the goddamn lie that we live in a rich country, rather than the truth that we live in a plutocracy with levels of inequality approaching truly 3rd world. We are literally killing ourselves because we have to live in this plutocracy and our one existence itself is not even worth it anymore in this economic system (and we are lacking even a few of the positives of many other 3rd world countries). And those that aren't killing ourselves still can't find work, and even if we do, it doesn't pay enough to meet the most basic necessities.redleg , July 20, 2018 at 8:05 pm
1. It is unfortunate that Verga raises the rising cost of material inputs but fails to meaningfully address the issue. One of the drivers of migration, as mentioned in Comments above, is the population volcano currently erupting. Labor is cheap and globalization possible in large part because the world population has grown from 2 Billion to over 7 Billion in the past 60-odd years. This slow-growing mountain of human beings has created stresses on material inputs which are having a negative impact on the benefits derived from declining labor costs. This becomes a death-spiral as capital seeks to balance the rising cost of raw materials and agricultural products by driving down the cost of labor ever further.
2. Verga touches on the interplay of Nationalism and Racism in the responses of political parties and institutions in Italy and elsewhere. Voters appear to be abandoning Left and left-ish parties because the Left have been unable to come up with a definintion of national sovereignty that protects worker rights largely due to the importance of anti-racism in current Left-wing thought. Working people were briefly bought-off with cheap consumer goods and easy credit, but they now realize that low-wage migrant and off-shore workers mean that even these goodies are now out of reach. The only political alternative currently on offer is a brand of Nationalism defined by Racism -- which becomes acceptable to voters when the alternative is Third-World levels of poverty for those outside the 1% and their 9% enablers.
I don't see any simple solutions. Things may get very ugly.PKMKII , July 20, 2018 at 1:59 pm
The "left" abandoned the working class. Denied a political champion, the right offered the working class scapegoats.Tomonthebeach , July 20, 2018 at 3:23 pm
I certainly see that policies tampering down free trade, both of capital and labor, can benefit workers within a particular country. However, especially in the context of said policies in "Western" countries, this can tend towards a, protect the working class within the borders, leave those outside of it in impoverished squalor. Which doesn't mesh well with the leftist goal of global class consciousness. Much like the racially segregated labor policies of yesteryear, it's playing a zero-sum game with the working class while the ownership class gets the "rising tide lifts all boats" treatment.
So how do we protect workers within the sovereign, while not doing so at the cost of the workers outside of it? Schwieckart has an interesting idea, that tariffs on imports are used to fund non-profits/higher education/cooperatives in the country of export. However, I think we'd need something a bit more fine-tuned than that.whine country , July 20, 2018 at 4:28 pm
It has always baffled me that governments enable this global musical chairs game with the labor market. Nearly all Western governments allow tax dodging by those who benefit the most from their Navies, Armies, Patents, and Customs enforcement systems. However, it is the working class that carries the brunt of that cost while corporations off-shore their profits.
A simple-minded fix might be to start taxing foreign profits commensurate with the cost of enabling those overseas profits.ChrisAtRU , July 20, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Interesting that a corporation is a person just like us mortals when it is to their advantage, but unlike us humans, they can legally escape taxation on much of their income whereas a human being who is a US citizen cannot. A human citizen is generally taxed by the US on all income regardless of its source. OTOH, corporations (among other means) routinely transfer intellectual property to a non tax jurisdiction and then pay artificial payments to that entity for the rights to use such property. It is a scam akin to a human creating a tax deduction by transferring money from one pocket to another. Yes, proper taxation of corporations is a simple-minded fix which is absolutely not simple to legislate. Nice try though. Something else to ponder: Taxation without representation was said to be a major factor in our war of independence from Britain. Today no one seems to be concerned that we have evolved into representation without taxation. Doesn't see right to me.Anonymous2 , July 20, 2018 at 4:40 pm
"Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest) labor force."
Our Industry Follows Poverty
FWIW I don't think it's productive to talk about things like immigration in (or to) the US in terms of just the here – as in what should/could we be doing here to fix the problem. It's just as much if not more about the there . If we view the global economic order as an enriched center feeding off a developing periphery, then fixing the periphery should be first aim. #Wall or #NoBorders are largely incendiary extremes. Ending Original Sin and creating some sort of supranational IOU/credit system (not controlled by World Bank or IMF!) will end the economic imbalance and allow countries who will never export their way out of poverty and misery a way to become equal first world nation states. With this equality, there will be less economic migration, less peripheral poverty and potentially less political unrest. It's a gargantuan task to be sure, but with rising Socialist sentiment here and abroad, I'd like to think we are at least moving in the right direction.JimmyV , July 20, 2018 at 5:02 pm
No mention of tax policy?
If the rich were properly taxed then social tensions would be greatly reduced and if the revenue raised were used to help the poorest in society much distress could be alleviated.
I worry that debate on migration/globalisation is being encouraged to distract attention from this issue.Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , July 20, 2018 at 7:30 pm
I may indeed have taken a gratuitously pedantic tone and could have chosen a better one, for that i apologise. I do however believe that much of my critique still stands, I will try to go through your points one by one.
"Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?"
Not all but many are, especially the ones that most people are complaining about. Many of them are being driven from their home countries not simply for a better life but so they can have something approaching a life at all. While to fully prove this point would require an analysis of all the different migrants and their home country conditions, I do feel that if we are talking about Syrian refugees, migrants from Africa risking their lives crossing the Mediteranian sea, or CentralAmerican refugees than yes i do think these people to an extent have had their agency taken from them by global events. For Syrians, by being caught in an imperialist power struggle which while the civil war may not have been caused by it, it certainly has been prolonged because of it. Not too mention America played a very significant role in creating the conditions for ISIS, and western European powers don't have completely clean hands either due to their long history of brutal imperialism in the mideast. Africa of course also has an extensive past of colonization and suffers from a present of colonization and exploitation as well. For Central Americans there is of course the voracious american drug market as well as our politicians consistent appetite for its criminalisation to blame. There is also of course global climate change. Many of these contributing conditions are not being dealt with and so i believe that the migrations we have witnessed these last few years are only the first ining of perhaps even greater migrations to come. How we deal with it now, could determine whether our era is defined by mass deaths or something better. So to the extent that i believe many of these migrants have agency is similiar to how a person climbing onto the roof of there house to escape a flood does.
If the borders of the US were left completely open then, yes, there would most likely be a rush of people at first but over time they would migrate back and forth according to their needs, through the opening of the border they would gain agency. People often think that a country not permitting its citizens to leave is wrong and immoral, but if most countries close their borders to the people of a country going through great suffering, then it seems to me that is essentially the same even if the rhetoric may be different. The likeliness of this is high if the rich countries close there borders, since if the rich countries like the US and Italy feel they can not take them in, then its doubtful countries on the way that are much poorer will be able to either.
At the begining of your article you stated that "International commerce, jobs, and economic migrants are propelled by a common force: profit." This is the capitalist system, which is a system built upon the accumulation of capital, which are profits invested in instruments of labor, aka machines and various labor enhancements. Now Rhode island is quite small so there are geographical limitations of course, but if that was not an issue then yes. Wage workers in the capitalist system produce more value than they consume, if this was not the case they would not be hired or be hired for long. So if Rhode Island did not have the geographical limitations that it does, then with more workers the overall pot of valuable products and services would increase per capita in relation to the population. If the workers are divided and not unified into cohesive and responsive institutions to fight for there right share of the overall pie, which I believe should be all of it, then most of the gain to society will go to the capitalist as increased profits. So it is not the migrant workers who take from the native but instead actually the capitalist who exploits and trys to magnify there difference. So if the capitalist system through imperialism helped to contribute to the underlying conditions driving mass migration, and then it exploits there gratitude and willingness to work for less than native workers, than I believe it follows that they will wish to drive native anger towards the migrants with the ultimate goal of allowing them to exploit the migrant workers at an even more severe level. This could be true within the country, such as the US right now where the overarching result of anti-immigrant policies has been to not get rid of them but to drive there exploitation more into the shadows, or through mass deportations back to their home country followed by investments to exploit their desperation at super low wages that will then compete with the rich country workers, it is also possible they will all just die and everyone will look away. Either way the result will still be lower wages for rich country workers, it seems to me the only way out of the impass is for the native workers to realize their unity with migrant workers as exploited workers and instead of directing that energy of hostility at each other instead focus it upon the real root which is the capitalists themselves. Without the capitalists, more workers, held withing certain geographic limitations of course, would in fact only enrich each other.
So while nations may indeed continue to exist for awhile, the long term benefit of native workers is better served by making common cause with migrants against their mutual oppressors then allowing themselves to be stirred up against them. Making this argument to workers is much harder, but its the most beneficial if it can be made successfully.
This last point i do agree i may have been unfair to you, historically I believe the left generally referred to anarchists, socialists and communists. So I often dislike the way modern commentators use the left to refer to anything from a center right democrat like Hillary Clinton all the way to the most hard core communist, it can make understanding political subtleties difficult since anarchists, socialists and communists have radically different politics than liberals, much more so than can be expressed along a linear line. But as you point out you used quotes which i admit i did not notice, and of course one must generally use the jargon of the times in order to be understood.
Overall i think my main critique was that it seemed that throughout your article you were referencing different negative symptoms of capitalism but was instead taking that evidence for the negatives of globalism. I may come from a more radical tradition than you may be used to, but i would consider globalism to be an inherent aspect of capitalism. Capitalism in its algorithmic quest for ever increasing profits generally will not allow its self to be bound for long by people, nations, or even the physical and environmental limitations of the earth. While one country may be able to restrict it for a time unless it is overcome completely it will eventually reach out globally again. The only way to stop it is a prolonged struggle of the international working class cooperating with each other against capitalism in all its exploitive forms. I would also say that what we are seeing is not so much globalism vs nationalism but instead a rearrangement of the competing imperial powers, Russia, China, US, Germany and perhaps the evolution of multiple competing imperialisms similiar in nature to pre- world war times but that may have to wait for later.
A great deal of your article did indeed deal with Italy which I did not address but I felt that your arguments surrounding migrants was essentially of a subtle right wing nature and it needed to be balanced by a socialist counter narrative. I am very glad that you took the time to respond to my critique I know that putting analysis out there can be very difficult and i am thankful for your response which has allowed me to better express and understand my viewpoint. Once again I apoligise if I used some overly aggressive language and i hope your able to get something out of my response as well.Raulb , July 20, 2018 at 8:57 pm
I appreciate the more reflective tone of this reply. I believe there are still some misreadings of the article, which I will try to clarify.
For one thing, I am not the author of the article! Enrico Verga is the author. I merely translated the article. Enrico is Italian, however, and so for time zone reasons will be unable to respond to your comments for a while. I am happy to write a bit on this in the meantime.
You make two arguments.
The first is that many or most migrants are fleeing desperate circumstances. The article speaks however consistently of "economic migrants" – there are some overlapping issues with refugees, but also significant differences. Clearly there are many people who are economically comfortable in their home countries and who would still jump at a chance to get US citizenship if they could (look up EB-5 fraud for one example). Saying this does not imply some sort of subtle critique of such people, but they are not a myth.
I actually found your second argument more thought-provoking. As I understand you, you are suggesting something like the following. You support completely open borders. You acknowledge that this would lead at first to massive shifts in population, but in the long run you say things would stabilize. You acknowledge that this will lead to "lower wages for rich country workers," but say that we should focus on the fact that it is only within the capitalist system that this causality holds. You also suggest that it would probably lead, under current conditions, to workers having their anger misdirected at migrants and therefore supporting more reactionary policies.
Given that the shift to immediate open borders would, by this analysis, be highly detrimental to causes you support, why do you favor it? Your reasons appear to be (1) it's the right thing to do and we should just do it, (2) yes, workers might react in the way described, but they should not feel that way, and maybe we can convince them not to feel that way, (3) things will work themselves out in the long run.
I am a bit surprised at the straightforwardly idealistic tone of (1) and (2). As for (3), as Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead. He meant by this that phenomena that might in theory equilibrate over a very long time can lead to significant chaos in the short run; this chaos can meanwhile disrupt calculations about the "long term" and spawn other significant negative consequences.
Anyone who is open to the idea of radically new economic arrangements faces the question of how best to get there. You are perhaps suggesting that letting global capital reign supreme, unhindered by the rules and restrictions of nation-states, will in the long run allow workers to understand their oppression more clearly and so increase their openness to uniting against it. If so, I am skeptical.
I will finally point out that a part of the tone of your response seems directed at the impression that Enrico dislikes migrants, or wants other people to resent them. I see nothing in the article that would suggest this, and there are on the other hand several passages in which Enrico encourages the reader to empathize with migrants. When you suggest that his arguments are "essentially of a subtle right wing nature," you are maybe reacting to this misreading; in any case, I'm not really sure what you are getting at, since this phrase is so analytically imprecise that it could mean all sorts of things. Please try to engage with the article with arguments, not with vague epithets.
There is a bit of a dissonance here. Human rights has been persistently used by neoliberals to destabilize other regions for their own ends for decades now with little protest. And when the standard playbook of coups and stirring up trouble does not work its war and total destruction as we have seen recently in Iraq, Libya and Syria for completely fabricated reasons.
Since increased migration is the obvious first consequence when entire countries are decimated and in disarray one would expect the countries doing the destruction to accept the consequences of their actions but instead we have the same political forces who advocate intervention on 'human rights grounds' now demonizing migrants and advocating openly racist policies.
One can understand one mistake but 3 mistakes in a row! And apparently we are not capable of learning. The bloodlust continues unabated for Iran. This will destabilize an already destabilized region and cause even more migration to Europe. There seems to be a fundamental contradiction here, that the citizens of countries that execute these actions and who who protest about migrants must confront.
Maybe they should pay trillions of dollars of reparations for these intervention so these countries can be rebuilt and made secure again so migrants can return to their homes. Maybe the UN can introduce a new fund with any country considering destabilizing another country, for instance Iran, to first deposit a trillion dollars upfront to deal with the human fallout. Or maybe casually destabilizing and devastating entire countries, killing millions of people and putting millions more in disarray should be considered crimes against humanity and prosecuted so they are not repeated.
Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com
"Immigration" has become the dominant issue dividing Europe and the US, yet the most important matter which is driving millions to emigrate is overlooked is wars.
In this paper we will discuss the reasons behind the massification of immigration, focusing on several issues, namely (1) imperial wars (2) multi-national corporate expansion (3) the decline of the anti-war movements in the US and Western Europe (4) the weakness of the trade union and solidarity movements.
We will proceed by identifying the major countries affected by US and EU wars leading to massive immigration, and then turn to the western powers forcing refugees to 'follow' the flows of profits.
Imperial Wars and Mass Immigration
The US invasions and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq uprooted several million people, destroying their lives, families, livelihood, housing and communities and undermining there security.
As a result, most victims faced the choice of resistance or flight. Millions chose to flee to the West since the NATO countries would not bomb their residence in the US or Europe.
Others who fled to neighboring countries in the Middle East or Latin America were persecuted, or resided in countries too poor to offer them employment or opportunities for a livelihood.
Some Afghans fled to Pakistan or the Middle East but discovered that these regions were also subject to armed attacks from the West.
Iraqis were devastated by the western sanctions, invasion and occupation and fled to Europe and to a lesser degree the US , the Gulf states and Iran.
Libya prior to the US-EU invasion was a 'receiver' country accepting and employing millions of Africans, providing them with citizenship and a decent livelihood. After the US-EU air and sea attack and arming and financing of terrorist gangs, hundreds of thousands of Sub-Sahara immigrants were forced to flee to Europe. Most crossed the Mediterranean Sea to the west via Italy, Spain, and headed toward the affluent European countries which had savaged their lives in Libya.
The US-EU financed and armed client terrorist armies which assault the Syrian government and forced millions of Syrians to flee across the border to Lebanon,Turkey and beyond to Europe, causing the so-called 'immigration crises' and the rise of rightwing anti-immigrant parties. This led to divisions within the established social democratic and conservative parties,as sectors of the working class turned anti-immigrant.
Europe is reaping the consequences of its alliance with US militarized imperialism whereby the US uproots millions of people and the EU spends billions of euros to cover the cost of immigrants fleeing the western wars.
Most of the immigrants' welfare payments fall far short of the losses incurred in their homeland. Their jobs homes, schools, and civic associations in the EU and US are far less valuable and accommodating then what they possessed in their original communities.
Economic Imperialism and Immigration: Latin America
US wars, military intervention and economic exploitation has forced millions of Latin Americans to immigrate to the US.. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras engaged in popular struggle for socio-economic justice and political democracy between 1960 2000. On the verge of victory over the landed oligarchs and multinational corporations, Washington blocked popular insurgents by spending billions of dollars, arming, training, advising the military and paramilitary forces. Land reform was aborted; trade unionists were forced into exile and thousands of peasants fled the marauding terror campaigns.
The US-backed oligarchic regimes forced millions of displaced and uprooted pr unemployed and landless workers to flee to the US.
US supported coups and dictators resulted in 50,000 in Nicaragua, 80,000 in El Salvador and 200,000 in Guatemala. President Obama and Hillary Clinton supported a military coup in Honduras which overthrew Liberal President Zelaya -- which led to the killing and wounding of thousands of peasant activists and human rights workers, and the return of death squads, resulting in a new wave of immigrants to the US.
The US promoted free trade agreement (NAFTA) drove hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers into bankruptcy and into low wage maquiladoras; others were recruited by drug cartels; but the largest group was forced to immigrate across the Rio Grande. The US 'Plan Colombia' launched by President Clinton established seven US military bases in Colombia and provided 1 billion dollars in military aid between 2001 2010. Plan Colombia doubled the size of the military.
The US backed President Alvaro Uribe, resulting in the assassination of over 200,000 peasants, trade union activists and human rights workers by Uribe directed narco-death squad.Over two million farmers fled the countryside and immigrated to the cities or across the border.
US business secured hundreds of thousands of Latin American low wages, agricultural and factory workers almost all without health insurance or benefits though they paid taxes.
Immigration doubled profits, undermined collective bargains and lowered US wages. Unscrupulous US 'entrepreneurs' recruited immigrants into drugs, prostitution, the arms trade and money laundering.
Politicians exploited the immigration issue for political gain blaming the immigrants for the decline of working class living standards distracting attention from the real source : wars, invasions, death squads and economic pillage.
Having destroyed the lives of working people overseas and overthrown progressive leaders like Libyan President Gadhafi and Honduran President Zelaya, millions were forced to become immigrants.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Colombia, Mexico witnessed the flight of millions of immigrants -- all victims of US and EU wars. Washington and Brussels blamed the victims and accused the immigrants of illegality and criminal conduct.
The West debates expulsion, arrest and jail instead of reparations for crimes against humanity and violations of international law.
To restrain immigration the first step is to end imperial wars, withdraw troops,and to cease financing paramilitary and client terrorists.
ORDER IT NOW
Secondly, the West should establish a long term multi-billion-dollar fund for reconstruction and recovery of the economies, markets and infrastructure they bombed The demise of the peace movement allowed the US and EU to launch and prolong serial wars which led to massive immigration the so-called refugee crises and the flight to Europe. There is a direct connection between the conversion of the liberal and social democrats to war -parties and the forced flight of immigrants to the EU.
The decline of the trade unions and worse, their loss of militancy has led to the loss of solidarity with people living in the midst of imperial wars. Many workers in the imperialist countries have directed their ire to those 'below' the immigrants rather than to the imperialists who directed the wars which created the immigration problem. Immigration, war , the demise of the peace and workers movements, and left parties has led to the rise of the militarists, and neo-liberals who have taken power throughout the West. Their anti-immigrant politics, however, has provoked new contradictions within regimes,between business elites and among popular movements in the EU and the US. The elite and popular struggles can go in at least two directions toward fascism or radical social democracy.
Apr 29, 2018 | www.theguardian.com
cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 05:41If you are saying that their expertise lies elsewhere, that is surely self-evident?Crazymoomin , 24 Apr 2018 05:37Ron Jackson -> CharlesBradlaugh , 24 Apr 2018 05:30
Working-class white people may claim to be against identity politics, but they actually crave identity politics.
I think they probably see it more of a "if you can't beat them, join them" scenario. They see the way the wind is blowing and decide if they want representation, they have to play the game, even if they don't really like the rules.No sloth will make you live in poverty, unless you are actually the animal the sloth.StevoT -> cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 05:28The detail. They don't know the detail. They don't have the expertise. Which is what this article is about.cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 05:22
They don't know what they're talking about, even if they do know what they want..... but see my previous post.CharlesBradlaugh -> Ron Jackson , 24 Apr 2018 05:15
They know enough about the EU to know that it isn't one of their patrons and sponsors. They also know that Westminster have been systematically misrepresenting the EU for their own purposes for decades, and they can use the same approach.
What more is required?are we supposed to be impressed by your middle income? Poverty is not caused by sloth.CharlesBradlaugh -> Ron Jackson , 24 Apr 2018 05:12This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .Ron Jackson -> CharlesBradlaugh , 24 Apr 2018 05:08Not a fool and I don't hate anyone at 55 I have 1.2M in investments, I make 165k a year and pay 40k+ a year in taxes. I to come across people who live off of we everyday and expect to free load. I am not a blowhard just an engineer who pays for sloth.KeyboardChimp , 24 Apr 2018 05:07Non expert berating non experts. The Michael Massing paradox.CharlesBradlaugh -> Ron Jackson , 24 Apr 2018 04:57I've met many fools like you in my over 50 years on the planet, blowhards parading their ignorance as a badge of pride, thinking that their hatred of anyone not exactly like them is normal, mistaking what some cretin says on the far right radio for fact.Monkeybiz -> SteveofCaley , 24 Apr 2018 04:51
You people would be comical if not for the toxicity that your stupidity engenders.It's a play on the motto "One country under God". Rather clever, I thought.Monkeybiz -> Andrew Nichols , 24 Apr 2018 04:50Yes, there is a deep lack of context and hence dilution of meaning as a resultMonkeybiz -> Navarth , 24 Apr 2018 04:48Al Jazeera tries to do a better job, at least providing a spectrum of opinion and a lot of depth in quite a few issues, something most other networks fail to do these days.StevoT -> cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 04:48Don't think I am confusing anything.Monkeybiz -> breitling1884 , 24 Apr 2018 04:47
My point was about expertise. Brexiteers have goals about which I agree with you.
My point is that they don't know about the subject, the EU, which they are using to achieve their goals.Really? Were they repeated?cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 04:37Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL goals.StevoT -> cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 04:31
Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably) just about the only thing which would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing the English have, to a religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.
Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no part of it is accidental.Don't disagree with this. Doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 04:12Please, please don't make the unfounded assumption that people like Fox, Johnson, Cameron et al are as stupid as they sometimes appear.cynical_bystander -> aurelian , 24 Apr 2018 04:06
Fox and Hunt, in particular, know exactly what they are engaged in - a hard-right coup designed to destroy government control over the NHS and route its enormous cash flows into the pockets of their private, mostly American sponsors. It isn't necessary to look far, to discover their connections and patronage from this source.
Johnson is consumed by ambition, as was Cameron before him; like Cameron, he makes much of his self-presumed fitness for the role, whilst producing no supporting evidence of any description.
Brexit, as defined by its advocates, CANNOT be discussed precisely because no rational debate exists. It hinges upon the Conservative Party's only fear, that of disunity leading to Opposition. They see that Labour are 50-odd seats short of a majority, and that's ALL they see.What in God's green world are you talking about? Did you read that before pressing "Post"? It's obvious that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject.sgwnmr -> SteveofCaley , 24 Apr 2018 03:50
The "race riots" of the 1940s and 1950s were essentially about employment protection (the first, regarding the importation of Yemeni seamen into the North-East of England). The mostly Pakistani influx into the North-West of England was an attempt to cut labour costs and prop up a dying, obsolete industry, mortally wounded by the loss of its business model in the aftermath of Empire; an industry whose very bricks and mortar are long since gone, but the imported labour and their descendants remain... the influx of Caribbean labour into London and the South-East was focussed around the railways and Underground, to bolster the local labour force which had little interest in dead-end shift-work jobs in the last days of steam traction and the increasingly run-down Underground.
Labour, in those days, was strongly anti-immigration precisely because it saw no value in it, to their unionised, heavy-industry voter base.
Regarding the ideological, anti-British, anti-democratic nature of Labour's conversion to mass immigration, you need only read the writings and speeches of prominent figures of the day such as Roy Hattersley and Harriet Harman, who say exactly this, quite clearly and in considerable detail. Their ideological heirs, figures like Diane Abbot (who is stridently anti-white and anti-British), Andrew Neather and Hazel Blears, can speak for themselves.I guess you're of the "when I'm doubt talk gibberish" school of argument capitulation.StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 03:17I was recently struck by this part of the Guardian obituary of Lady Farrington of Ribbleton:SteveofCaley -> sgwnmr , 24 Apr 2018 02:37
' she possessed the important defining characteristic that, above others, wins admiration across all the red leather benches in the House of Lords: she knew what she was talking about'
Too often these days we are governed by people who don't know what they are talking about. Never has this been truer than the likes of Fox, Davis, Johnson, and other Brexiteers.
But this doesn't seem to matter much anymore. At times it seems that anyone can make generised assertions about something, without having to back them up with evidence, and then wave away questions about their veracity.
Opinion now trumps evidence regularly, even on the BBC where Brexit ideology is often now given a free pass. The problem for those of us who value expertise is that with the likes of Trump, and some EU Leavers, we are up against a bigotry which is evangelical in nature. A gospel that cannot be questioned, a creed that allows no other thinking.The best you can do is complain about "this?" This WHAT? Try a noun. You're being an embarrassment to troglodytes everywhere. Don't just point and leap up and down. Your forefathers died in bringing you a language. Be an expressive hominid and name the thing that hurts.gilstra , 24 Apr 2018 02:29It seems at the moment the Guardian also suffers from a glut of experts without expertise. Not a day goes by that my jaw doesn't drop at some inane claim made by what seems to be a retinue of contributors who have neither good writing skills nor a particularly wide look on things. An example today: "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I never wanted to be someone's wife". How extraordinary. Who says she ever 'wanted to be someone's wife'? Maybe she fell in love with someone all those years ago and they decided to get married? Who knows. But sweeping statements like that do not endear you to quite a few of your once very loyal readers. It's annoying.aurelian -> cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 02:03I think this posits an overriding explanation for people's actions that doesn't exist. Even the idea that immigration is a new liberal plot. Take the wind rush generation of immigrants while there was a Tory government at the time I think the idea this was an attempt to undermine white working class gains is provably nonsensicalcynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 01:21The problem with this article, and the numerous other similar pieces which appear in the various editions of the Guardian on a "regular-and-often" basis, is that it completely avoids a very basic point, because it has no answer to it.RalphDemming , 24 Apr 2018 01:00
It is this.
The white British (and by extension, Western) populations never wanted mass immigration because they knew from the outset, that its purpose was to undermine the social and political gains they had wrested from the political and financial elite after 1945. They cared not at all for the fratricidal conflicts between alien religions and cultures, of which they knew little and regarded what they did know as unacceptable.
The US achieved a huge economic boom without it. Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the USA were popular destinations for the British population whose goal and mantra was "no return to the thirties" and who emigrated in large numbers.
White semi-skilled and unskilled (and increasingly, lower middle class) populations everywhere reject, and have always rejected third world mass immigration (and more recently, in some areas, mass emigration from the former Soviet Union) for the simple, and sufficient reason that they have no possible reason or incentive to support or embrace it. It offers them nothing, and its impact on their lives is wholly negative in practical terms - which is how a social group which lives with limited or no margins between income and outgoings, necessarily
Identity politics has no roots amongst them, because they correctly perceive that whatever answer it might produce, there is no possible outcome in which the preferred answer will be a semi-skilled, white family man. They inevitably pick up a certain level of the constant blare of "racist bigot, homophobe, Islsmophobia" from its sheer inescapability, but they aren't COMPLETELY stupid.Dumb and dumber writers...
Mar 13, 2018 | Buchanan.org
Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: "There shall be open borders."
Bartley accepted what the erasure of America's borders and an endless influx or foreign peoples and goods would mean for his country.
Said Bartley, "I think the nation-state is finished."
His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.
This free trade, open borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his vision and the power of his rhetoric.
In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to be removed. There, Cobden thundered:
"I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe -- drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace."
Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the "American System," had been embraced.
The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: "A free people should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies."
In his 1791 "Report on Manufactures," Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence."
This was wisdom born of experience.
At Yorktown, Americans had to rely on French muskets and ships to win their independence. They were determined to erect a system that would end our reliance on Europe for the necessities of our national life, and establish new bonds of mutual dependency -- among Americans.
Britain's folly became manifest in World War I, as a self-reliant America stayed out, while selling to an import-dependent England the food, supplies and arms she needed to survive but could not produce.
America's own first major steps toward free trade, open borders and globalism came with JFK's Trade Expansion Act and LBJ's Immigration Act of 1965.
By the end of the Cold War, however, a reaction had set in, and a great awakening begun. U.S. trade deficits in goods were surging into the hundreds of billions, and more than a million legal and illegal immigrants were flooding in yearly, visibly altering the character of the country.
Americans were coming to realize that free trade was gutting the nation's manufacturing base and open borders meant losing the country in which they grew up. And on this earth there is no greater loss.
The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.
We see it in Trump's hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall.
We see it in England's declaration of independence from the EU in Brexit. We see it in the political triumphs of Polish, Hungarian and Czech nationalists, in anti-EU parties rising across Europe, in the secessionist movements in Scotland and Catalonia and Ukraine, and in the admiration for Russian nationalist Vladimir Putin.
Europeans have begun to see themselves as indigenous peoples whose Old Continent is mortally imperiled by the hundreds of millions of invaders wading across the Med and desperate come and occupy their homelands.
Who owns the future? Who will decide the fate of the West?
The problem of the internationalists is that the vision they have on offer -- a world of free trade, open borders and global government -- are constructs of the mind that do not engage the heart.
Men will fight for family, faith and country. But how many will lay down their lives for pluralism and diversity?
Who will fight and die for the Eurozone and EU?
On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first.
Patriotism trumps ideology.
In "Present at the Creation," Dean Acheson wrote of the postwar world and institutions born in the years he served FDR and Truman in the Department of State: The U.N., IMF, World Bank, Marshall Plan, and with the split between East and West, NATO.
We are present now at the end of all that.
And our transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem.
To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.
Mar 02, 2018 | www.unz.com
EliteCommInc. , March 1, 2018 at 3:38 pm GMTit's easy to come away from CPAC energy and enthusiasm thinking your headline is an accurate description of what is happening in the GOP. I am more conservative thankfully in my views than most members at CPAC. And while I may not be the typical voter. I can say categorically, that :trumoing" is not in my blood. Let's look what a consevative had to consider when evaluating Pres Trump:EliteCommInc. , March 1, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
1. He has spent most of his life supporting the murder of children.
2. He supports a national healthcare policy
3. He supports same sex relations and marriage of the same.
4. He ha absolutely little or n o knowledge about scripture or its intent in practice.
5. He is by nature a situational leader -- not typically a conservatives methodology of leadership
6. He can't reconcile historical criticism from deciphering a realistic image of the country.
7. He thinks that the country has disadvantaged whites and the previous executive that indication.
8. He mistakes support and loyalty for agreement.
9. He seems too weak to stand his ground on key issues. Syria, (missile attack)
10. His willingness to ignore – Israel-US problematic relationship.
11. He thinks that Keynesian policy is a substitute for economic growth. monetary policy.
12. I am leary of anyone who says tough things about immigration, but quietly backpedals or openly does the same -- DACA.
Now his other supporters might say, considered against all the other candidates -- he's better. Hmmmm, well, that's why I voted for him. But that vote is not unconditional or inconsiderate of where this executive and my conservative principles part company. On a personal note -- someone who does not grasp celibacy in theory and practice -- is probably not going to have a conservative bone in his core. There's one aspect of Pres. trump that makes me leary -- but I will bite my tongue. What I have noted is on the record.
The fact that he says things that amount to standing up to democrats and liberals is one thing, but what he engages in as to policy in many respects may not be that far off from their own. Laugh -- he does think someone should stand up for people of faith -- that's a relief.
Note about Miss Mona Charin: the two agree on so many points on foreign policy, especially Israel, it's hard to see her disdain. I think she rejects his troublesome demeanor and attitude. Presidential decorum is a big deal to many.Integrity mattersAlden , March 1, 2018 at 8:28 pm GMT@EliteCommInc.MarkinLA , March 1, 2018 at 9:35 pm GMT
It wasn' t Trump who back pedaled on DACA. He issued the executive order that would rescind it. But in accord with Marbury vs Madison 1804, just 2 low level judges, one in Hawaii and one in Brooklyn NYC overturned the executive order.
The DoJ appealed it went to the Supreme court last week. The Supreme Court refused to hear it.
So the rulings of just 2 low level judges prevailed over the executive order of an elected president.
It wasn't Trump who back pedaled. It was our ridiculous judicial supremacy legal system that ruled that the DACAs can stay. It's nothing new, it's been that way since 1804.
Only 2 presidents defied a Supreme Court ruling: Jackson in his order to expell Indians and Lincon's Suspending haveas corpus for the 4 years of the civil war.
Face it, this country has been ruled by judges from the beginnning.
Abortion? If it were not for abortion the black criminal affirmative action neighborhood and school destroying demographic would be at least 25 percent of the population instead of 12 percent.
No city or school has been able to withstand more than about a 10 percent black population. 25 percent is totally destructive.
The anti homosexual thing is in the Jewish part of the Bible, not the Christian part. I for one can't understand why so called Christians are so obsessed with the sex rape polygamy lie cheat steal and massacre Jewish part of the Bible.
The 2 parts are total opposites. One is kill slay massacre lie cheat and steal. The other is be good and generous sexually chaste virtuous and avoid war and massacring a defeated enemy.
Don't blame Trump for losing on DACA. Blame our judicial supremacy system of government@AldenEliteCommInc. , March 1, 2018 at 10:01 pm GMT
He backpedaled on DACA by not rescinding it on his first day in office like he promised. He did so by creating a deadline and asking Congress do fix it rather than just take it apart like he promised.
This district court judges do not have the power to tell a President that he must maintain a clearly unconstitutional program that was created with nothing but the stroke of the President's pen. He can and should simply ignore the lower courts ruling and force the Supreme Court to get off their butts and reign in these lower courts that think they have the power to make law.
The only reason the courts think they have this power is because everybody defers to them. It is one thing for the court to rule that some law is unconstitutional but quite another for courts to determine how those laws are implemented and what powers the executive has – even when they have nothing to do with those enumerated in the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution expected men, with all their lust for power, to jealously guard their power and in so doing make it hard for any one part of the governmnt to get too strong. However, now we have cowards in Congress ceding their power to the President so they don't have to make tough decisions that they will be hels accountable for on election day and we have weak Presidents hiding behind ridiculous rulings from unelected judges.The betrayal has absolutely with a court ruling. His offered compromise is the issue and make no mistake that was no compromise.EliteCommInc. , March 1, 2018 at 10:04 pm GMT
I could get in to some other choices the Pres could have chosen on the law created by DHS. But we'd be having a discussion issues pertaining the use of government agencies to in effect make laws without Congressional approval or the consent by the executive. Clearly with the DACA memo, it's clear that its existence rests on the discretion of the executive's enforcement of the law.
But as with most people, I get the excuse but the courts made me do it or wouldn't let me do it. government. He could have issues his memo for his current DHS head to amend the document, period. But I am dipping my toe where it need not be dipped to remain where I came in -- this president caved as he has on several issues. His supposed deal is exemplary of his choice to lob missiles and send troops into Syria.
He gets convinced he is being a "good guy". His hand ringing about a situation he himself created is further indication of his willingness to betray principles come as to why people like myself voted for him.
I have gone to bat for this executive even at the expense of my own moral codes for the sake of fairness. No. His offerings were a betrayal with or without the cover of a court ruling.
I rarely express agreement -- but on this occasion –
I think the above is substantially on point.
Jan 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
"Mr. President," Acosta shouted three times, finally getting Trump's attention, "Did you say that you want more people to come in from Norway? Did you say that you wanted more people from Norway? Is that true Mr. President?" Acosta barked at Trump.
" I want them to come in from everywhere everywhere. Thank you very much everybody ," Trump replied while Acosta continued to interject.
" Just Caucasian or white countries, sir? Or do you want people to come in from other parts of the world people of color ," Acosta asked - effectively calling Trump racist, to which Trump looked Acosta directly in the eye and simply said:
Acosta spoke about the incident with Wolf Blitzer afterwards and said it was clear the president was ordering him out of the room. Acosta said he tried to ask his questions again when Trump and Nazarbayev gave a joint statement later on, but Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley "got right up in my face" and started shouting at him to block out any questions.
"It was that kind of a display," Acosta recalled. "It reminded me of something you might see in less democratic countries when people at the White House or officials of a foreign government attempt to get in the way of the press in doing their jobs."
Acosta and CNN were infamously humiliated after Trump called them "fake news" during a January, 2017 press conference in which Acosta attempted to shoehorn a question in front of another reporter:
Meanwhile, Acosta was shut down in December by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders after he tried to grandstand during a press briefing over being called "Fake News," telling her that sometimes reporters make "honest mistakes."
Sanders shot back; "When journalists make honest mistakes, they should own up to them. Sometimes, and a lot of times, you don't," only to be temporarily cut off by Acosta.
"I'm sorry, I'm not finished," Sanders fired back, adding "There is a very big difference between making honest mistakes and purposefully misleading the American people... you cannot say it's an honest mistake when you're purposely putting out information you know is false."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.unz.com
Headliner of the week for immigration patriots was President Trump's immigration reform proposal , which he sent to Congress for their perusal last Sunday. The proposal is a very detailed 70-point list under three main headings:Border Security (27 items) Interior Enforcement (39 items) Merit-Based Immigration System (four items)
Item-wise, the biggest heading there is the second one, "Interior Enforcement." That's very welcome.
Of course we need improved border security so that people don't enter our country without permission. That comes under the first heading. An equally pressing problem, though, is the millions of foreigners who are living and working here, and using our schools and hospitals and public services, who should not be here.
The President's proposals on interior enforcement cover all bases: Sanctuary cities , visa overstays , law-enforcement resources , compulsory E-Verify , more deportations , improved visa security.
This is a major, wonderful improvement in national policy, when you consider that less than a year ago the White House and Justice Department were run by committed open-borders fanatics. I thank the President and his staff for having put so much work into such a detailed proposal for restoring American sovereignty and the rights of American workers and taxpayers.
That said, here come the quibbles.
That third heading, "Merit-Based Immigration System," with just four items, needs work. Setting aside improvements on visa controls under the other headings, this is really the only part of the proposal that covers legal immigration. In my opinion, it does so imperfectly.
There's some good meat in there, mind. Three of the four items -- numbers one, three, and four -- got a fist-pump from me:cutting down chain migration by limiting it to spouse and dependent children; eliminating the Diversity Visa Lottery ; and limiting the number of refugees admitted, assuming this means severely cutting back on the numbers, preferably all the way to zero.
Good stuff. Item two, however, is a problem. Quote:
Establish a new, points-based system for the awarding of Green Cards (lawful permanent residents) based on factors that allow individuals to successfully assimilate and support themselves financially.
sounds OK, bringing in talented, well-educated, well-socialized people, rather than what the late Lee Kuan Yew referred to as " fruit-pickers ." Forgive me if I have a rather jaundiced view of this merit-based approach.
For most of my adult life I made a living as a computer programmer. I spent four years doing this in the U.S.A. through the mid-1970s. Then I came back in the late 1980s and worked at the same trade here through the 1990s. (Pictured right–my actual H-1B visa ) That gave me two clear snapshots twenty years apart, of this particular corner of skilled middle-class employment in America.
In the 1970s a programming shop was legacy American, with only a thin scattering of foreigners like myself. Twenty years later programming had been considerably foreignized , thanks to the H-1B visa program. Now, twenty years further on, I believe legacy-American programmers are an endangered species.
So a well-paid and mentally rewarding corner of the middle-class job market has been handed over to foreigners -- for the sole reason, of course, that they are cheaper than Americans. The desire for cheap labor explains 95 percent of U.S. immigration policy. The other five percent is sentimentality.
On so-called "merit-based immigration," therefore, you can count me a cynic. I have no doubt that American firms could recruit all the computer programmers they need from among our legacy population. They used to do so, forty years ago. Then they discovered how to game the immigration system for cheaper labor.
Now they are brazen in their crime: you have heard, I'm sure, those stories about American workers being laid off, with severance packages conditional on their helping train their cheaper foreign replacements. That's our legal immigration system in a nutshell. It's a cheap-labor racket.
A "merit-based" points system won't fix that. It will quickly and easily be gamed by employers to lay waste yet more middle-class occupational zones for Americans. If it was restricted to the higher levels of "merit," we would just be importing a professional overclass of foreigners, most East and South Asians, to direct the labors of less-meritorious legacy Americans. How would that contribute to social harmony?
With coming up to a third of a billion people, the U.S.A. has all the talent, all the merit , it needs. You might make a case for a handful of certified geniuses like Einstein or worthy dissidents like Solzhenitsyn, but those cases aside, there is no reason at all to have guest-worker programs. They should all be shut down.
Some of these cheap-labor rackets don't even need congressional action to shut them down; it can be done by regulatory change via executive order. The scandalous OPT-visa scam, for example, which brings in cheap workers under the guise of student visas.
Here is John Miano writing about the OPT program last month, quote:
Measured by the number of workers per year, the largest guestworker program in the entire immigration system is now student visas through the Optional Practical Training program (OPT). Last year over 154,000 aliens were approved to work on student visas. By comparison, 114,000 aliens entered the workforce on H-1B guestworker visas.
Because there is no reporting on how long guestworkers stay in the country, we do not know the total number of workers in each category. Nonetheless, the number of approvals for work on student visas has grown by 62 percent over the past four years so their numbers will soon dwarf those on H-1B visas.
The troubling fact is that the OPT program was created entirely through regulation with no authorization from Congress whatsoever. [ A History of the 'Optional Practical Training' Guestworker Program , CIS, September 18, 2017]
End quote. (And a cheery wave of acknowledgement to John Miano here from one of the other seventeen people in the U.S.A. that knows the correct placement of the hyphen in "H-1B.")
Our legal immigration system is addled with these scams. Don't even get me started on the EB-5 investor's visa . It all needs sweeping away.
So for preference I would rewrite that third heading to include, yes, items one, three, and four -- cutting down chain migration, ending the Diversity Visa Lottery, and ending refugee settlement for anyone of less stature than Solzhenitsyn; but then, I'd replace item two with the following:End all guest-worker programs, with exceptions only for the highest levels of talent and accomplishment, limit one hundred visas per annum .
So much for my amendments to the President's October 8th proposals. There is, though, one glaring omission from that 70-item list. The proposal has no mention at all of birthright citizenship.
have abandoned it . It leads to obstetric tourism : women well-advanced in pregnancy come to the U.S.A. to give birth, knowing that the child will be a U.S. citizen. It is deeply unpopular with Americans , once it's explained to them.
Yes, yes, I know: some constitutional authorities argue that birthright citizenship is implied in the Fourteenth Amendment , although it is certain that the framers of that Amendment did not have foreign tourists or illegal entrants in mind. Other scholars think Congress could legislate against it.
The only way to find out is to have Congress legislate. If the courts strike down the legislation as unconstitutional, let's then frame a constitutional amendment and put it to the people.
Getting rid of birthright citizenship might end up a long and difficult process. We might ultimately fail. The only way to find out is to get the process started . Failure to mention this in the President's proposal is a very glaring omission.
Setting aside that, and the aforementioned reservations about working visas, I give two cheers to the proposal. email him ] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books . He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT ( also available in Kindle ) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013 . (Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
SimpleHandle > > , October 14, 2017 at 2:56 am GMTDiversity Heretic > > , October 14, 2017 at 5:04 am GMT
I agree with ending birthright citizenship. But Trump should wait until he can put at least one more strict constitutionalist in the supreme court. There will be a court challenge, and we need judges who can understand that if the 14th Amendment didn't give automatic citizenship to American Indians it doesn't give automatic citizenship to children of Mexican citizens who jumped our border.Diversity Heretic > > , October 14, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT
Insofar as your personal situation is concerned, perhaps you would find yourself less "relatively poor" if you had a job with higher wages.bartok > > , October 14, 2017 at 6:32 am GMT
John's article, it seems to me, ignores the elephant in the room: the DACA colonists. Trump is offering this proposal, more or less, in return for some sort of semi-permanent regularization of their status. Bad trade, in my opinion. Ending DACA and sending those illegals back where they belong will have more real effect on illegal and legal immigration/colonization than all sorts of proposals to be implemented in the future, which can and will be changed by subsequent Administrations and Congresses.
Trump would also be able to drive a much harder bargain with Congress (like maybe a moratorium on any immigration) if he had kept his campaign promise, ended DACA the afternoon of January 20, 2017, and busloads of DACA colonists were being sent south of the Rio Grande.
The best hope for immigration patriots is that the Democrats are so wedded to Open Borders that the entire proposal dies and Trump, in disgust, reenacts Ike's Operation Wetback.Negrolphin Pool > > , October 14, 2017 at 7:53 am GMT
Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what?
White people couldn't possibly thrive without non-Whites! Why, without all of that ballast we'd ascend too near the sun.Joe Franklin > > , October 14, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT
Well, in the real world, things just don't work that way. It's pay me now or pay me later. Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what?
Right, prior to 1965, Americans didn't exist. They had all starved to death because, as everyone knows, no Americans will work to produce food and, even if they did, once Tyson chicken plants stop making 50 percent on capital they just shut down.
If there were no Somalis in Minnesota, even Warren Buffett couldn't afford grapes.Carroll Price > > , October 14, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT
Illegal immigrants picking American produce is a false economy.
Illegal immigrants are subsidized by the taxpayer in terms of public health, education, housing, and welfare.
If businesses didn't have access to cheap and subsidized illegal alien labor, they would be compelled to resort to more farm automation to reduce cost.
Cheap illegal alien labor delays the inevitable use of newer farm automation technologies.
Many Americans would likely prefer a machine touch their food rather than a illegal alien with strange hygiene practices.
In addition, anti-American Democrats and neocons prefer certain kinds of illegal aliens because they bolster their diversity scheme.Jonathan Mason > > , October 14, 2017 at 2:57 pm GMT
@Realist "Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what?"
Eliminate welfare...then you'll have plenty of workers. Unfortunately, that train left the station long ago. With or without welfare, there's simply no way soft, spoiled, lazy, over-indulged Americans who have never hit a lick at anything their life, will ever perform manual labor for anyone, including themselves.George Weinbaum > > , October 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT
@Randal Probably people other than you have worked out that once their wages are not being continually undercut by cheap and easy immigrant competition, the American working classes will actually be able to earn enough to pay the increased prices for grocery store items, especially as the Americans who, along with machines, will replace those immigrants doing the "jobs Americans won't do" will also be earning more and actually paying taxes on it.
The "jobs Americans/Brits/etc won't do" myth is a deliberate distortion of reality that ignores the laws of supply and demand. There are no jobs Americans etc won't do, only jobs for which the employers are not prepared to pay wages high enough to make them worthwhile for Americans etc to do.
Now of course it is more complicated than that. There are jobs that would not be economically viable if the required wages were to be paid, and there are marginal contributions to job creation by immigrant populations, but those aspects are in reality far less significant than the bosses seeking cheap labour want people to think they are.
As a broad summary, a situation in which labour is tight, jobs are easy to come by and staff hard to hold on to is infinitely better for the ordinary working people of any nation than one in which there is a huge pool of excess labour, and therefore wages are low and employees disposable.
You'd think anyone purporting to be on the "left", in the sense of supporting working class people would understand that basic reality, but far too many on the left have been indoctrinated in radical leftist anti-racist and internationalist dogmas that make them functional stooges for big business and its mass immigration program.
Probably people other than you have worked out that once their wages are not being continually undercut by cheap and easy immigrant competition, the American working classes will actually be able to earn enough to pay the increased prices for grocery store items, especially as the Americans who, along with machines, will replace those immigrants doing the "jobs Americans won't do" will also be earning more and actually paying taxes on it.
There might be some truth in this. When I was a student in England in the 60′s I spent every summer working on farms, picking hops, apples, pears, potatoes and made some money and had a lot of fun too and became an expert farm tractor operator.
No reason why US students and high school seniors should not pick up a lot of the slack. Young people like camping in the countryside and sleeping rough, plus lots of opportunity to meet others, have sex, smoke weed, drink beer, or whatever. If you get a free vacation plus a nice check at the end, that makes the relatively low wages worthwhile. It is not always a question of how much you are paid, but how much you can save.Auntie Analogue > > , October 14, 2017 at 7:10 pm GMT
We can fix the EB-5 visa scam. My suggestion: charge would-be "investors" $1 million to enter the US. This $1 is not refundable under any circumstance. It is paid when the "investor's" visa is approved. If the "investor" is convicted of a felony, he is deported. He may bring no one with him. No wife, no child, no aunt, no uncle. Unless he pays $1 million for that person.
We will get a few thousand Russian oligarchs and Saudi princes a year under this program
As to fixing the H-1B visa program, we charge employer users of the program say $25,000 per year per employee. We require the employers to inform all employees that if any is asked to train a replacement, he should inform the DOJ immediately. The DOJ investigates and if true, charges managerial employees who asked that a replacement be trained with fraud.
As to birthright citizenship: I say make it a five-year felony to have a child while in the US illegally. Make it a condition of getting a tourist visa that one not be pregnant. If the tourist visa lasts say 60 days and the woman has a child while in the US, she gets charged with fraud.
None of these suggestions requires a constitutional amendment.Jim Sweeney > > , October 14, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
In the United States middle class prosperity reached its apogee in 1965 – before the disastrous (and eminently foreseeable) wage-lowering consequence of the Hart-Celler Open Immigration Act's massive admission of foreigners increased the supply of labor which began to lower middle class prosperity and to shrink and eradicate the middle class.
It was in 1965 that ordinary Americans, enjoying maximum employment because employers were forced to compete for Americans' talents and labor, wielded their peak purchasing power . Since 1970 wages have remained stagnant, and since 1965 the purchasing power of ordinary Americans has gone into steep decline.
It is long past time to halt Perpetual Mass Immigration into the United States, to end birthright citizenship, and to deport all illegal aliens – if, that is, our leaders genuinely care about and represent us ordinary Americans instead of continuing their legislative, policy, and judicial enrichment of the 1-percenter campaign donor/rentier class of transnational Globali$t Open Border$ E$tabli$hment $ellout$.JP Straley > > , October 14, 2017 at 9:42 pm GMT
Re the birthright citizenship argument, that is not settled law in that SCOTUS has never ruled on the question of whether a child born in the US is thereby a citizen if the parents are illegally present. Way back in 1897, SCOTUS did resolve the issue of whether a child born to alien parents who were legally present was thereby a citizen. That case is U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649. SCOTUS ruled in favor of citizenship. If that was a justiciable issue how much more so is it when the parents are illegally present?
My thinking is that the result would be the same but, at least, the question would be settled. I cannot see justices returning a toddler to Beijing or worse. They would never have invitations to cocktail parties again for the shame heaped upon them for such uncaring conduct. Today, the title of citizen is conferred simply by bureaucratic rule, not by judicial order.Realist > > , October 14, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT
Arguments Against Fourteenth Amendment Anchor Baby Interpretation
J. Paige Straley
Part One. Anchor Baby Argument, Mexican Case.
The ruling part of the US Constitution is Amendment Fourteen: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Here is the ruling part of the Mexican Constitution, Section II, Article Thirty:
Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
A. Mexicans by birth are:
I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of
II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and
a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
III. Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels. "
A baby born to Mexican nationals within the United States is automatically a Mexican citizen. Under the anchor baby reasoning, this baby acquires US citizenship at the same time and so is a dual citizen. Mexican citizenship is primary because it stems from a primary source, the parents' citizenship and the law of Mexico. The Mexican Constitution states the child of Mexican parents is automatically a Mexican citizen at birth no matter where the birth occurs. Since the child would be a Mexican citizen in any country, and becomes an American citizen only if born in America, it is clear that Mexico has the primary claim of citizenry on the child. This alone should be enough to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction thereof argument. Since Mexican citizenship is primary, it has primary jurisdiction; thus by the plain words of the Fourteenth such child is not an American citizen at birth.[MORE]
There is a second argument for primary Mexican citizenship in the case of anchor babies. Citizenship, whether Mexican or American, establishes rights and duties. Citizenship is a reciprocal relationship, thus establishing jurisdiction. This case for primary Mexican citizenship is supported by the fact that Mexico allows and encourages Mexicans resident in the US, either illegal aliens or legal residents, to vote in Mexican elections. They are counted as Mexican citizens abroad, even if dual citizens, and their government provides widespread consular services as well as voting access to Mexicans residing in the US. As far as Mexico is concerned, these persons are not Mexican in name only, but have a civil relationship strong enough to allow a political voice; in essence, full citizenship. Clearly, all this is the expression of typical reciprocal civic relationships expressed in legal citizenship, further supporting the establishment of jurisdiction.
Part Two: Wong Kim Ark (1898) case. (Birthright Citizenship)
The Wong Kim Ark (WKA) case is often cited as the essential legal reasoning and precedent for application of the fourteenth amendment as applied to aliens. There has been plenty of commentary on WKA, but the truly narrow application of the case is emphasized reviewing a concise statement of the question the case was meant to decide, written by Hon. Horace Gray, Justice for the majority in this decision.
"[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution." (Italics added.)
For WKA to justify birthright citizenship, the parents must have " permanent domicile and residence " But how can an illegal alien have permanent residence when the threat of deportation is constantly present? There is no statute of limitation for illegal presence in the US and the passage of time does not eliminate the legal remedy of deportation. This alone would seem to invalidate WKA as a support and precedent for illegal alien birthright citizenship.
If illegal (or legal) alien parents are unemployed, unemployable, illegally employed, or if they get their living by illegal means, then they are not ". . .carrying on business. . .", and so the children of indigent or criminal aliens may not be eligible for birthright citizenship
If legal aliens meet the two tests provided in WKA, birthright citizenship applies. Clearly the WKA case addresses the specific situation of the children of legal aliens, and so is not an applicable precedent to justify birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.
Part three. Birth Tourism
Occasionally foreign couples take a trip to the US during the last phase of the wife's pregnancy so she can give birth in the US, thus conferring birthright citizenship on the child. This practice is called "birth tourism." WKA provides two tests for birthright citizenship: permanent domicile and residence and doing business, and a temporary visit answers neither condition. WKA is therefore disqualified as justification for a "birth tourism" child to be granted birthright citizenship.Alfa158 > > ,
@Carroll Price Unfortunately, that train left the station long ago. With or without welfare, there's simply no way soft, spoiled, lazy, over-indulged Americans who have never hit a lick at anything their life, will ever perform manual labor for anyone, including themselves. Then let them starve to death. The Pilgrims nipped that dumb ass idea (welfare) in the bud