Tuesday, September 6, 2016

National Data | In Time For Labor Day, Immigrant Displacement of American Workers Hits Obama-Era Record; New Illegal Surge?

An interesting article from http://www.vdare.com about Labor Day and unemployment. This follows this post about Donald Trump, Mexico, and immigration. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

Employment_Situation_Summary_-_2016-09-04_21.34.12

National Data | In Time For Labor Day, Immigrant Displacement of American Workers Hits Obama-Era Record; New Illegal Surge?

Edwin S. Rubenstein

Friday’s August job report was greeted with a collective yawn by the Main Stream Media—which as usual paid no attention to immigrant displacement of American workers, which has reached an Obama-Era high, or to mounting evidence that illegal immigration is surging.
Who cares that businesses added 151,000 jobs, far below the 275,000 added in July, and below what is required to bring the unemployment down. Not to worry: this mediocre job growth reduces the prospect of a Fed interest rate hike.
Wages grew by an anemic 0.1%, well below the growth that was common at this point in prior recoveries? Not to worry: this reduces the prospect of inflation – another positive keeping the Fed at bay.
The Labor force Participation Rate [LPR] remains at a historically low 62.8%? Not to worry: a low LPR means a lot of people are still on the bench and could come into the labor market. These poor folks are a useful dampener against wage and price inflation.
stable

“The new August jobs report is a prime example of data that affirms the status quo. And that’s not such a bad thing,” writes Neil Irwin in the New York Times, illustrating it with the chart on the right.[ This Status Quo Jobs Report Shows the Economy Isn’t Overheating, September 2, 2016]
Not such a bad thing? Maybe for investors. Not for native-born American workers. Unfortunately, neither Mr. Irwin not his MSM counterparts bother with the table in the BLS report where monthly data on the nativity of workers is published. We do.
In August

Total Household Survey employment rose by 97,000, up by 0.06%
Native-born American employment fell by 177,000, off by 0.14%
Foreign-born immigrant employment rose by 274,000, up by 1.06%

While Native-born workers have lost ground to their foreign-born competitors throughout the Obama years, the trend has accelerated significantly over the past few months. In fact, the displacement of natives by immigrants hit an Obama-era high in August. This is brought out in our New VDARE.com American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI) graphic:

OBAMA'S LEGACY: IMMIGRANT VS. AMERICAN EMPLOYMENT GROWTH

January 2009 though August 2016

(Monthly employment index: Jan. 2009=100)

JS chart by amCharts

*VDARE.COM AMERICAN WORKER DISPLACEMENT INDEX

Source: BLS Household Employment Survey; VDARE.com

Native-born American employment growth is represented by the black line, immigrant employment growth is in pink, and NVAWDI—the ratio of immigrant to native-born job growth—is in yellow. The index starts at 100.0 in January 2009 for both immigrants and native-born Americans, and tracks their employment growth since then.
From January 2009 through August 2016:

ADVERTISEMENT

Immigrant employment rose by 4.455 million, or by 20.6%. The immigrant employment index rose from 100.0 to 120.6.
Native-born American employment rose by 4.938 million, up by 4.1%. The native-born American employment index rose from 100.0 to 104.1.
NVDAWDI (the ratio of immigrant to native-born employment growth indexes) rose from 100.0 to 115.8. (100X (120.6/104.1))

During the Obama years immigrant employment has risen 5.0-times faster than American employment – an increase of 20.6% versus one of 4.1%. In many unskilled occupations the job growth gap is far larger, owing to the disproportionate number of foreign-born workers.
The foreign-born share of total U.S. employment has risen steadily, albeit erratically, throughout the Obama years:

IMMIGRANT SHARE OF U.S. EMPLOYMENT

January 2009 through August 2016

JS chart by amCharts

Source: BLS Household Employment Survey; VDARE.com

In February 2009, President Obama’s first full month in office, 14.972% of all persons working in the U.S. were foreign-born. The foreign-born share in August 2016 was 17.216%, the highest among the 92 months of Mr. Obama’s administration. The prior record, 17.077%, was set in March of this year.
Six of the 10 worst months for native-born workers (measured by the share of jobs held by immigrants) have occurred in 2016.
August’s immigrant employment share was 2.24 percentage points above the level recorded in February 2009, Barack Obama’s first full month in office. With total employment now at 151.6 million, this implies that Obama-era immigration may have pushed as many as 3.63 million native-born Americans onto the unemployment rolls since then.
A detailed snapshot of American worker displacement over the past year is seen in the Employment Status of the Civilian Population by nativity table published in the monthly BLS Report. employmentstatus

Source: BLS, The Employment Situation – August 2016, Table A-7, September 2, 2016. PDF
From August 2015 to August 2016:

Foreign-born employment rose by 1.220 million, up 4.9%, while native-born American employment rose 1.356 million, up by 1.1%. Immigrant employment grew more than 4-times faster than native-born employment.
The foreign-born labor force rose by 4.9%, the native-born labor force rose by 0.9%. Advantage immigrants.
The unemployment rate dropped slightly for native-born workers and did not change for immigrants. At 4.4%, however, the immigrant unemployment rate is significantly below that of native-born Americans (5.1 %.)

(And remember: this government data understates the true displacement impact of immigration, because it doesn’t count the post-1965 wave’s U.S.-born children, now a significant factor).
In other news: once again the foreign-born population seems to growing like gang-busters. The table shows a 1.478 million jump in working age immigrants since last August. That is larger than the commonly cited figure of 1 million for annual net legal immigration of all ages. That is also larger than the 1.280 million rise in the corresponding

native-born population over that period.
Over the past 12 months the working-age immigrant population grew 6.2 times faster than the corresponding population of native-born Americans.
Why the foreign-born surge? Could the prospect of a wall be more frightening than the specter of deportation?
Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants.

Of 12,000 Women Infected With Zika, All Gave Birth to Healthy Baby. Women Don’t “Need” Abortion

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about Zika pregnancies. This follows this post about George Soros. For two very interesting books click HERE.
Please follow me here.

Of 12,000 Women Infected With Zika, All Gave Birth to Healthy Baby. Women Don’t “Need” Abortion

International Brad Mattes Washington, DC

All along I’ve felt somewhat suspect that the Zika virus is linked to microcephaly. The US Centers for Disease Control and the New England Journal of Medicine both concluded the link is there. Both are heavy hitters in the realm of research, however, they admit there’s no studied verification.

Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry were quick to jump on the abortion bandwagon for pregnant women with confirmed or suspected cases of the Zika virus.
But a recent, expansive study has cast legitimate doubt on the Zika/microcephaly connection.
Anxiety over Zika has affected the Olympic and Paralympic games in Rio, as well as impacting the cruise industry in Florida where Zika cases have been reported. Concern continues to grow.
Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry were quick to insert themselves into the medical crisis because they’re absolutely desperate to link abortion to any perceived common good and they thought the Zika virus was their ride to glory. As a result, they’ve been advocating abortion for at-risk pregnant women. Planned Parenthood even hired canvassers to go door-to-door in Miami.
The New England Complex Systems Institute has shed new light on the situation and opened the possibility that the declared Zika link may be premature. The study is expansive and so credible that the New England Journal of Medicine published the preliminary results in spite of already concluding Zika was the problem.
The study looked at nearly 12,000 pregnant Colombian women infected with Zika. None of them had a baby with microcephaly.
Four cases of microcephaly were reported with women who didn’t have Zika symptoms and were not part of the study, which is consistent with the normal expected number of cases.
Based on estimated numbers there should be about 60,000 pregnant women in Colombia with the Zika virus, yet there are hardly any cases of microcephaly. If the link to Zika is legitimate, there should have been a dramatic increase in the number of babies with microcephaly.
So what is the culprit?
Some scientists believe pesticides may be the source, specifically pyriproxyfen. It’s effective in controlling mosquitoes by acting as a larvicide. It interferes, the researchers say, with the development of mosquito larvae.
Do you recognize the possible link?
Pyriproxyfen may also have a detrimental effect on developing unborn babies.
More detailed information is available that explains the interactions between hormones and molecules.
Here’s why American researchers may be so interested in this study.
Pyriproxyfen was sprayed in areas with a high rate of microcephaly. Even more noteworthy is that they put this chemical in the drinking water in Pernambuco, a state in Brazil at ground zero in the Zika epidemic. The chemical was sprayed and added to the water just before the outbreak of microcephaly.
These early findings aren’t conclusive, but they do open the distinct possibility that Zika may not be the cause of the increase in microcephaly cases. We must follow the research to see where it leads and respond effectively while we protect pregnant women and their unborn babies regardless of the child’s disability.
Journal References:

Yaneer Bar-Yam, Dan Evans, Raphael Parens, Alfredo J. Morales, Fred Nijhout. Is Zika the cause of Microcephaly? Status Report. New England Complex Systems Institute, June 22, 2016 [link]
Sonja A. Rasmussen, Denise J. Jamieson, Margaret A. Honein, Lyle R. Petersen. Zika Virus and Birth Defects — Reviewing the Evidence for Causality. New England Journal of Medicine, 2016; 374 (20): 1981 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsr1604338
Oscar Pacheco, Mauricio Beltrán, Christina A. Nelson, Diana Valencia, Natalia Tolosa, Sherry L. Farr, Ana V. Padilla, Van T. Tong, Esther L. Cuevas, Andrés Espinosa-Bode, Lissethe Pardo, Angélica Rico, Jennita Reefhuis, Maritza González, Marcela Mercado, Pablo Chaparro, Mancel Martínez Duran, Carol Y. Rao, María M. Muñoz, Ann M. Powers, Claudia Cuéllar, Rita Helfand, Claudia Huguett, Denise J. Jamieson, Margaret A. Honein, Martha L. Ospina Martínez. Zika Virus Disease in Colombia — Preliminary Report. New England Journal of Medicine, 2016; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1604037

LifeNews.com Note: Bradley Mattes is the executive director of Life Issues Institute.

Friday, September 2, 2016

"In It You Shall Do No Work"

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Labor Day and the Sabbath. This follows this post about China's military and trade. This follows this post about the Lost 10 Tribes. This follows this post about Zika. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

"In It You Shall Do No Work"

A Labor Day Look at God's Sabbath

by Kevin Greer Listen Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

MP3 Audio (4.97 MB)

A young man watching the sun set from an observation deck. — You can reap the benefits of God's Sabbath every week!

According to the United States Department of Labor , Labor Day was created to honor the contributions that workers have made to the social and economic well-being of America. President Grover Cleveland first made it a federal holiday in 1894. Labor Day is the first Monday in September, falling on Sept. 5 this year. As an American college student myself, it makes a nice transition from working full-time to going back to classes for the year, giving summer one last hurrah.

God’s “work week” is a marvelous schedule that works. He pushes us to work hard at our jobs and various other responsibilities throughout the week, and then gives us the seventh day off to both relax and focus on Him.

Here’s an odd question: Have you ever stopped to consider God’s perspective on labor, or, as we might say today, “work”? It’s interesting to think and read about. God actually expects us to work for most of the week. In Exodus 20:9 we read God’s command that for “six [out of seven] days you shall labor and do all your work.” He also encourages us to work with passion and diligence: “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might” (Ecclesiastes 9:10). Work is important and allows us to do many honorable things in life, such as provide for our families, grant help to those in need, and leave an inheritance for our children.
Are we then to work and slave away at all times? Certainly not! God understands that we aren’t tireless robots who can run all seven days of the week. He tells us—commands us even—to take the seventh day off!
Let’s return to Exodus 20 to get the rest of God’s important directive: “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God . In it you shall do no work” (Exodus 20:9-10; emphasis added). God wants us to take the seventh day off so bad that He makes it the fourth requirement in the most well-known section of His law: the Ten Commandments!
But there’s still more to the story besides not working! What are we supposed to do with these 24 hours of seemingly free time? The core of God’s Fourth Commandment is this: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy .” (Exodus 20:8; emphasis added).
One important way that we keep this day holy is by resting instead of working, as we already mentioned. Another significant way we honor the Sabbath is by attending church services, which are a holy convocation appointed by God Himself (Leviticus 23:3). Going to church allows us to converse with and encourage others who believe as we do and to worship and learn more about God and His truth. Please click here to find the congregation closest to you.
God’s “work week” is a marvelous schedule that works. He pushes us to work hard at our jobs and various other responsibilities throughout the week, and then gives us the seventh day off to both relax and focus on Him. This “recharge day” doesn’t come around just once a year; you can reap the benefits of God’s Sabbath every week! As you prepare for fall and for the upcoming holiday weekend, remember to always put God first and keep His Sabbaths holy. Have a blessed and restful Sabbath and Labor Day weekend.
For a more in-depth look at God’s instruction to keep the Sabbath, how to keep it, and its plethora of benefits, please reflect on the following writings:
Sunset to Sunset: God’s Sabbath Rest — our extensive booklet investigating the seventh-day Sabbath as it is mentioned throughout the Bible, from beginning to end.
“The Fourth Commandment: Key to a Relationship With Our Creator” — a look at the Sabbath as a command from God, demonstrating its deep importance to you individually.
“The Benefits of the Sabbath” — this article examines just a handful of the many benefits that you can experience right now by keeping God’s Sabbath.

Sabbath Ten Commandments

Trump’s Great Immigration Speech–If It Doesn’t Save America, Nothing Can

A timely post from http://www.vdare.com about Donald Trump's immigration speech. This follows this post about the allegations about Donald Trump doing housing discrimination. This follows this post about rap songs referencing Donald Trump.
You can follow me here.

Trump’s Great Immigration Speech–If It Doesn’t Save America, Nothing Can

Washington Watcher

After two weeks of speculation of whether he would soften his stance on immigration, Donald Trump gave an amazing, astounding, detailed and rock solid speech outlining his patriotic immigration reform agenda. Trump reaffirmed his pledge to secure the borders, oppose any Amnesty, restrict refugee admissions, and enact tough interior enforcement measures. Additionally, he supported strict enforcement of E-Verify and laid out principles for legal immigration reform which unmistakably implied lower numbers and high quality immigrants.
In this piece I will answer three questions:

Did Trump backtrack?
Why did he seem to be waffling before the speech?
Will this help him win?

The short answers: No; I’m not sure; and—almost certainly, yes.
Did Trump Backtrack?
Trump clarified and, in some cases, finessed his previously bluntly-stated positions. However, he did not alter the substance away from patriotic immigration reform.

No wiggle room for Amnesty: Even some of Trump’s supporters have worried that he would support some form a “touchback” Amnesty, whereby illegal aliens would have to leave the country, but could immediately re-apply for citizenship. But Trump in his speech said specifically that the “one route” for illegals to obtain legal status is “to return home and apply for re-entry like everybody else, under the rules of the new legal immigration system that I have outlined above.”

Touchback amnesty plans–like the one Mike Pence proposed in 2006–include a special visa under which the illegals are to re-apply, or simply greatly increase legal immigration numbers so they can quickly gain re-entry. Trump, however, made clear that illegals “will not be awarded surplus visas, but will have to apply for entry under the immigration caps.”
Trump concluded that we would not have any “discussion” to “consider the appropriate disposition” of the remaining illegal aliens until “several years” after “illegal immigration is a memory of the past.”
In other words: well into Trump’s second term, after all the bulk of the illegal aliens have been deported or left on their own, Trump might—might—consider giving Amnesty to the few that remain.

Deportation priorities: Trump said he would “set priorities” for those he would deport, specifically “removing criminals, gang members, security threats, visa overstays, public charges.”

It’s noteworthy that “visa overstays” constitute around 40% of the illegal population–including 60% of recent illegals, and Trump cited a Center for Immigration Studies paper that found that 62% of illegal alien households received welfare.
Of course, the Obama administration has always justified its non-enforcement of the law by saying it was prioritizing removal of terrorists, gang members, and violent criminals. But unlike Obama, who uses prioritizing enforcement against terrorists and violent criminals as a euphemism to mean he won’t deport anyone else, Trump clarified that under his administration “anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation.”

Deportation Force to Deportation Task Force: Probably the biggest buzz over the last couple of weeks was whether Trump would drop his call for a “deportation force.”

In his speech, Trump stated that “within ICE I am going to create a new special deportation task force focused on identifying and quickly removing the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants in America who have evaded justice.” This is not what the Main Stream Media really had in mind by “deportation force.” But of course, ICE is supposed to be a deportation force to begin with.
Actually, Trump never proposed a deportation force. When Mika Brzezinski asked him “Are you going to have a massive deportation force,” Trump just let her put words in his mouth he would support it without elaborating. [Trump: You’re Going To Have A “Deportation Force,” They’ll Be Humane, by Tim Haines, Real Clear Politics, November 11, 2015]

Muslim Ban to Country Ban: Trump stated he would suspend “suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur,” specifically singling out Syria and Libya.

This differs from his previous statement that he would suspend all Muslim immigration. This is not news, as he had modified this statement earlier. As I’ve written, there are pros and cons to each approach, but his fundamental premise—that excluding potential terrorists, even if that means keeping out some perfectly innocent babies in the toxic bathwater, is the most effective way prevent terrorism– remains
So what was going on?
Trump and his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway have been giving mixed signals over the last few weeks, implying he was “softening,” might be open to some limited Amnesty or would really back off of deportations. Ann Coulter was so annoyed that she said she might cancel the publicity tour for her excellent new book In Trump We Trust if Trump embraced Amnesty [Trump’s immigration pivot a buzzkill for Coulter’s book tour, CNN, August 26, 2016]
So why did Trump give all of his most dedicated supporters heartburn worrying he would back down? I have no inside information, but here are a few possibilities:

Trump was making Beltway immigration patriot arguments poorly. Black MSNBC reporter Joy Reid tweeted

ADVERTISEMENT

Non nobis domine! In our modest opinion, Trump’s speech sounded distinctly more like NumbersUSA’s Roy Beck, Center for Immigration Studies’ Mark Krikorian and other herbivorous Beltway immigration patriots, who have emphasized that we do not need massive deportations to get the illegal population to return to their home country. Krikorian calls this “attrition through enforcement”—combining E-Verify, cutting off welfare, and increasing interior enforcement through cooperation with state law enforcement. [Pew Report Shows Attrition of the Illegal Population Is Possible, By Mark Krikorian, CIS.org, November 2015]
Prior to the speech Trump rarely discussed immigration enforcement beyond deportations—something I criticized way back in November 2015. Now he has finally adopted the more sophisticated attrition approach, citing CIS and using its buzzwords like “jobs magnet.”
But while Beck and Krikorian are good at making pretty strong policy proposals sound much less tough than they actually are, this requires them to use words very carefully. Trump, we must concede, does not choose his words carefully. Thus Trump could take Roy Beck’s argument that “we aren’t going to deport everyone, most illegals will return on their own if we remove the jobs magnet” without mentioning E-Verify and it would sound like amnesty.

Internal debate: Still, Trump’s trumpeting does not fully explain the “softening” stories. Obviously, some of his more precise surrogates did prepare the MSM for a pivot.

The campaign recently replaced the relatively establishment Paul Manafort with Breitbart chief Stephen Bannon as campaign CEO and pollster Kellyanne Conway as campaign manager. Conway was the main voice suggesting that Trump might soften his tone ahead of the speech, telling Face the Nation “he is not talking about a deportation force, but he is talking about being fair and humane.” Bannon and former Jeff Sessions aide Stephen Miller wrote the Arizona speech (though that was always the plan). It’s possible that there was an internal struggle with Conway, which they won.
However, it’s worth noting that Conway has been pretty solid on immigration long before Trump and she may have simply been pushing the aforementioned clarifications as the “fair and humane” policies. Indeed, as I noted, Trump even called the “Deportation Force” humane. Conway also took the fight to Clinton’s “Full Merkel” Amnesty/ Immigration Surge proposals, as Trump did in his speech. [Kellyanne Conway: Clinton camp made ‘grievous error’, By David Wright, CNN, August 22, 2016]

3D Chess: If nothing else, Trump knows how to manipulate the media. Could that be what he was doing here?

The MSM would probably have paid no more attention to Trump’s speech than to his other recent strong statements (here and here and here) if they thought he would just give a few extra details to the same policies he’s promoted the entire campaign. However, because there appeared to be a big chance he would flip-flop on his signature issue, it became his most anticipated speech since the Convention.
Maybe that’s what Trump wanted the whole time. As it is, Trump’s rumored flip flop ended up further cementing hardline immigration patriotism as the centerpiece of his campaign.
But will it help Trump win?
The MSM is predictably claiming that immigration patriotism will doom Trump’s chances. The Washington Post’s James Hohmann, typified this conventional wisdom:

Republicans facing four more years in the wilderness will long recall the raucous rally in Phoenix as a low point of the Trump campaign, perhaps even as the moment that he definitively extinguished his hopes of becoming president.
[Trump triples down on a losing immigration position in Phoenix, September 1, 2016]

Hohmann goes on to bring up the spectre of Proposition 187 and the damage it supposedly caused the Republican brand.
And Trump had (ill-advisedly) allowed pro-amnesty consultants like Alfonso Aguilar onto his National Hispanic Advisory Council. The original rumors that he would flip flop came from this Council and now many members are withdrawing their support [Several Hispanic Trump surrogates reconsider support, by Katie Glueck & Kyle Cheney, Politico, September 1, 2016]
VDARE.com has repeatedly debunked the myths about Proposition 187 and the Hispanic Vote. Without repeating all the arguments, it’s notable that less than half of Hispanics are eligible to vote, that they are concentrated in non-swing states and that they turn out at the lowest level of any other group [Why Hispanics Don’t Have a Larger Political Voice, by Nate Cohn, New York Times, June 15, 2014]. Even though Trump is the first Republican Presidential nominee to run on a true immigration patriot position, Hispanic apathy persists, with recent polls showing they are less worried about the outcome of the election than any other ethnic group [In U.S., Hispanics Least Worried About Election Outcome, Gallup, July 13, 2016]
That being said, of course not every single white voter is an immigration patriot. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton is running on an openly anti-American immigration policy and making it central to her campaign. The more cautious course would have been for Trump to focus on 80-20 proxy-type issues like Administrative Amnesty, Official English, and sanctuary cities to turn out the White Vote.
Still I think Trump made the right decision. Had he focused on these popular, but ultimately peripheral issues, immigration would not be central to the campaign. And American voters have not only never had a choice to vote on immigration patriotism—they have never heard the arguments for it.
Take total immigration levels. Polls show about half of Americans support reducing legal immigration levels, while 15% think it should be increased, and 34% think it should stay the same [U.S. Public Has Mixed Views of Immigrants and Immigration, Pew Research Center, September 28, 2015]. If Trump had simply said immigration should stay the same while focused on attacking Hillary for increasing legal immigration, 85% of the country would agree with him more than her.
Yet after hearing Trump say “legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers,” and we should “select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society, and their ability to be financially self-sufficient,” I believe there is every chance that reducing immigration will become an 80-20 issue.
Perhaps I am putting too much faith in the common sense of the American people. But if Trump’s great speech in Phoenix cannot convince them to save their country, it is already lost.
Washington Watcher [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Current Events & Trends: China's worrying military ambitions

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about China's military and trade. This follows this post about America's demographics. This follows this post about the Lost 10 Tribes. This follows this post about Zika. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Current Events & Trends

China's worrying military ambitions

by Jerold Aust, John Ross Schroeder Estimated reading time: 1 minute

A major feature article in The Sunday Times of London showed that, as its drophead states, “the test of a new missile is heightening concerns over Beijing's arms build-up” (“China's Carrier Killer Unnerves US Navy,” March 24, 2013). The article continues, “China has successfully tested a 'carrier killer' missile designed to change the military balance of power in Asia by deterring American aircraft carrier operations up to 1,250 miles from Chinese shores.”
Clearly the Chinese military has its aggressive generals. China's Liberation Army Daily opts for an end to “romantic pacifism” and urges “full preparation” for war. A headline in The Wall Street Journal reads, “For Xi, a 'China Dream' of Global Military Power” (Jeremy Page, March 14). The article that follows presents new Communist Party and military chief Xi Jinping as appearing to embrace the hawkish worldview of the nation's generals.
Are we going to see a new, updated version of World War II's old Axis Powers, with China in the role of principal Asian foe rather than an “Americanized” Japan? In World War II the Japanese army invaded China. Will the reverse occur in the future? Time will tell.
Isn't it troubling that the Republic of China holds so many billions of American dollars in its own treasury? Why is America being challenged on so many fronts today—military, economic and otherwise? What is America doing wrong? The answer, as revealed in the Bible, is clearly revealed in the Bible study aid The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy . (Sources: The Sunday Times [London], The Wall Street Journal. )

News and Prophecy

Trump Eats Mexicans’ Lunch–NYT Denounces Mexican President For Letting Him

An interesting article from http://www.vdare.com about Donald Trump, Mexico, and immigration. This follows this post about John McCain's senate primary. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

Trump Eats Mexicans’ Lunch–NYT Denounces Mexican President For Letting Him

Steve Sailer

I’ve got to run some errands, so comment away on Trump’s trip to Mexico and upcoming immigration speech.
Sounds like Trump dominated in Mexico. Carlos Slim’s NYT is livid:

Mexicans Accuse President of ‘Historic Error’ in Welcoming Donald Trump
By AZAM AHMED and ELISABETH MALKIN AUG. 31, 2016
MEXICO CITY — If President Enrique Peña Nieto invited Donald J. Trump to visit Mexico for a dialogue in the interest of democracy, the message has fallen on deaf ears.
Instead, the predominant feeling here in the Mexican capital is one of betrayal.
“It’s a historic error,” said Enrique Krauze, a well-known historian. “You confront tyrants, you don’t appease them.”
On Mexico’s most popular morning television show on Wednesday, a livid Mr. Krauze likened the president’s meeting with Mr. Trump to the decision by Neville Chamberlain, then the British prime minister, to sit down with Hitler in Munich in 1938.
“It isn’t brave to meet in private with somebody who has insulted and denigrated” Mexicans, Mr. Krauze said. “It isn’t dignified to simply have a dialogue.”
Yes, many Mexicans say, it was Mr. Trump who offended the people of Mexico with his disparaging comments about migrants and his promises to build a border wall paid for by Mexico.
But for many Mexicans, the surprising invitation from Mr. Peña Nieto — who has likened Mr. Trump’s language to that of Hitler and Mussolini in the past — is even worse.
Newspapers, television stations, social media and all manner of national communication were awash in vitriol at the idea of a meeting between the two men. …
Still, analysts on both sides of the border said they were mystified about why Mr. Peña Nieto received Mr. Trump.
There is “unanimity that this is a giant farce,” said Jesús Silva-Herzog Márquez, a professor and columnist for Reforma, a Mexico City newspaper.
Mr. Peña Nieto “compared Mr. Trump to Mussolini and Hitler,” he added, “and now we invite Mussolini, we are going to negotiate with Hitler when he hasn’t even won the election.”

ADVERTISEMENT

After the two men met, in what Mr. Trump described as an “excellent” occasion, they appeared at a very civil news conference. Mr. Peña Nieto promised to work with whichever candidate was elected and spoke about the importance of the relationship with the United States.
“I shared with him the fact that there have been misunderstandings or affirmations that hurt and affected Mexicans in their perception of his candidacy,” Mr. Peña Nieto said he told Mr. Trump. “The Mexican people felt aggravated for comments that were formulated, but I am certain that he has a genuine interest in building a relationship that would lead us to provide better conditions for our people”
While Mr. Trump hardly offered Mexicans the sort of apology that many had hoped for, he was a far more chastened candidate than Mexicans have come to expect. He repeatedly lauded their hard work, and spoke of his “tremendous feeling” for Mexicans.
“They are amazing people,” he noted.
In the end, he called Mr. Peña Nieto a friend.
“I don’t see how that helped Peña Nieto,” said Shannon K. O’Neil, a Mexico expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. “If the reason Peña was inviting Trump was to stand up to him and show his strength in front of somebody who has attacked Mexicans, then he failed.
Other critics were less kind.
“To put it mildly, I think it was the biggest humiliation a Mexican president has suffered on his own territory in the last 50 years,” said Esteban Illades, editor of Nexos, a magazine in Mexico. ”He not only managed to make Donald Trump look presidential, which is an incredibly hard thing to do, he managed to forgive Donald Trump even though he didn’t actually offer an apology in the first place.”

Keep in mind that Pena Nieto is, lately, the arch-enemy of the financial savior of the New York Times, Carlos Slim. The current president of Mexico finally pushed through anti-monopoly legislation that has knocked, last I checked, about $20 billion off Slim’s net worth.
Now Trump’s immigration speech is coming up. [Comment at Unz.com]

brianlee

Tuesday, September 6, 2016