Archive for the ‘America’s Future’ Category

Wake Up America

Sarah Palin Just Made an EPIC Announcement About Trump

Palin tells America why Trump is winning in no uncertain terms. If you want prosperity, follow the guy with the gold. Business seminars for decades have preached, if you want to get rich, hang out with the rich people. If you want jobs, hang out with those who create them. You will become like the people you hang with. I don’t want to hang with the snakes and the promise breakers – the losers. I want to hang out with the bold, successful job makers. And so does the rest of America. The Donald is an expert at jobs and wealth. He wants to bring America’s manufacturing base back. He also wants to secure our borders once and for all. Trump speaks to everyday America. No one cares what he did before, we care what he’s doing now and so far, he’s speaking about things middle America feels passionately about. America is starved for a courageous leader who is not beholding to others and does not fear to tread where Progressives go. Time is short, we need a strong leader who will rebuild us militarily and fast. One who will make America great once again – that man could be Donald Trump.

From Breitbart:

What a hoot to watch pundits clutching their pearls and whimpering for smelling salts aghast over the latest “shocking” thing Donald Trump said, while The Donald ignores them and continues to soar. Silly kingmakers just don’t know what to make of this. Well, we do!
The elites are shocked by Trump’s dominance, but everyday Americans aren’t. Everywhere I’ve gone this summer, including motorsport events in Detroit full of fed up Joe Six-Pack Americans, the folks I meet commiserate about wussified slates of politicians, but then unsolicited, they whisper their appreciation for Trump because he has the guts to say it like it is.
Trump’s unconventional candidacy is a shot in the arm for ordinary Americans fed up with the predictable poll tested blather of squishy milquetoast career politicians who campaign one way and govern another. But it’s not just how Trump says it, it’s what he’s saying.

Trump has tapped into America’s great populist tradition by speaking to concerns of working class voters. He talks about fighting to bring back our factories. When was the last time a candidate talked passionately about reclaiming our manufacturing base (and knew what he was talking about)? What other candidate chooses American workers over the multinational corporations donating to their campaigns? Who other than Trump is talking about the dangerous trade deficits deindustrializing America and stealing our jobs? The old Arsenal of Democracy that allowed us to win World War II is now such a distant memory that we can’t even build the parts for our own military equipment – we need China to manufacture them for us. How can a great nation maintain its greatness without a manufacturing base? Or without secure borders for that matter?

Trump focused in on two major populist grievances: the loss of working class jobs due to awful trade agreements, and the unfair competition for those jobs – along with security threats – due to the flood of illegal immigrants pouring across unsecured borders.

Now throw in Trump’s candor about “winning” and you understand why his message catches fire. As General Patton said, “Americans play to win all the time.” But those of us outside the Beltway can see that America isn’t winning. Our enemies laugh at us. Our friends can’t rely on us. China is outpacing our military superiority. Putin thumbs his nose at us. ISIS seizes territory our sons and daughters fought and died to liberate. Iran gloats over the idiotic and ultimately catastrophic nuclear deal the White House caved on. Our friends in Israel shake their heads at our betrayal.

Trump diagnoses our problems as incompetent leadership. Who can argue with that? How many politicians promised to secure our borders? So, why aren’t they secured? How many politicians promised to grow American jobs? So, why did they vote for Obamatrade? Is it any wonder that Americans are telling status quo politicians, “You’re fired”?

For everyday Americans the beauty of Trump’s candidacy is that he’s not a politician. There’s hope the guy who wrote “The Art of the Deal” can finally close the deal on all the broken promises of career politicians. Maybe the man who actually builds things, big things, can rebuild America’s entrepreneurial spirit with government put back in its proper place.

The average American doesn’t ask for much. We want security and the freedom to prosper. Many politicians are now offering solutions for security, but what about our prosperity? Trump boasts about his wealth, and average Americans cheer him on. This is the secret the chattering classes will never get. Americans don’t begrudge wealth honestly earned. We celebrate it! Trump made his money the old fashioned way with brick and mortar. He built big buildings and proudly stamped his name on them. He actually created jobs – lots of them. Like so many great American entrepreneurs, Trump has the flair of a showman but the sensibilities of an ordinary guy. He may be a billionaire, but refreshingly, there’s nothing elitist about him. He’s saying to the average Joe, “I worked hard and I succeeded and I want you to also.” That’s the fabric of our national character woven by work ethic and dreams and drive. That’s America!

Palin and Patton are right: “Americans play to win all the time.” We’re sick of settling for the ‘best’ we can get. Holding our noses and voting for another Marxist that kind of, sort of sounds like a conservative. I don’t know about you, but I’m done with that. Palin’s friend says he loves Trump, because the media hates him. Right there with ya, bud. The Left is terrified over this and trying not to show it. The dirty little secret out there is that not only does Trump have the overwhelming support of most Americans, he’s harnessed the Independent vote and the Blue Dog Democrats. He’s also winning over 30 percent of the Hispanic vote. If Trump keeps this up, he could win in an absolute landslide and laugh all the way to Trump Towers with the presidency.

Ready to rumble Republicans?




The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.” The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France ‘s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”

The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose.”

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be alright, Mate.” Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is cancelled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

A final thought – ” Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 460 B.C



Why Empires Fall

Although the generalization is usually applied to republics, according to Sir John Glubb, a British author and lecturer, most empires don’t last longer than 250 years.

Or as Sir John said in summation:

As numerous points of interest have arisen in the course of this essay, I close with a brief summary, to refresh the reader’s mind.

  • We do not learn from history because
    our studies are brief and prejudiced.
    (b) In a surprising manner, 250 years
    emerges as the average length of national

    (c) This average has not varied for 3,000 years.
    Does it represent ten generations?
    (d) The stages of the rise and fall of great
    nations seem to be:
    The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
    The Age of Conquests
    The Age of Commerce
    The Age of Affluence
    The Age of Intellect
    The Age of Decadence.
    (e) Decadence is marked by:
    An influx of foreigners
    The Welfare State
    A weakening of religion.
    (f) Decadence is due to:
    Too long a period of wealth and power
    Love of money
    The loss of a sense of duty. (Sir John Glubb)

Does any of this sound familiar? In other words all empires rise and all empires fall. It is the luck of the draw or the happenstance of birth that situates us as spectators of the fall.

I know from experience as the Author of The Constitution Failed that if you question the viability of the American experiment even the most humble participant in that experiment becomes indignant. As I have been asked repeatedly, “How can you say, the Constitution failed don’t you mean, we failed the Constitution?” This always elicits my response, “Is that a distinction without a difference?”

Since the declared and understood purpose to the writing and ratification of the Constitution was to create and sustain a limited government and since We the People now face an unlimited government I maintain we must face the painful reality that the Constitution has failed. With that failure the experiment in individual liberty, personal freedom, and economic opportunity is hurtling towards a destination with destiny as we become like all the other nations of the earth: a command economy with a permanent political class.

When did we start our slide from a limited government to a centrally-planned Leviathan masquerading as a utopian paradise?

The experiment jumped the tracks under the second president. John Adams signed the Alien and sedition Act and then used that act to arrest anyone who disagreed with him. This was not the beginning of our present slide into totalitarianism.

Abraham Lincoln waged total war against eleven States that sought to secede when the right to secede was not withheld from the states and the right to wage war against the States was not afforded to the Federal Government by the Constitution. He did however allow West Virginia to secede from Virginia without the approval of the Virginia government which is explicitly contrary to the Constitution. This was not the beginning of our present slide into totalitarianism.

In the midst of the banking crisis of 1932-33 FDR told America, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” He should have told us that we had him and his Progressive agenda to fear, at least as far as the fundamental nature of the American Experiment was concerned.

Despite the fact that by 1932 the recovery from the crash of 1929 was well under way as evidenced by freight loadings that rose 20 percent, industrial production 21 percent, construction contract awards gained 30 percent, unemployment dropped by nearly one million, wholesale prices rebounded by 20 percent, and the battered stock market was up by 40 percent. David Stockman goes so far as to say, “the Hoover recovery would be celebrated in the history books even today if it had not been interrupted in the winter of 1932-1933 by a faux banking crisis which was entirely the doing of President-elect Roosevelt and the loose-talking economic statist at the core of his transition team.”

At that time the banking crisis, as it was loudly and universally called, had Americans fearing that the economy was about to collapse. This has been called the failure of capitalism. However as David Stockman points out,

The truth of the so-called banking crisis is that the artificial economic boom of 1914-1929 had generated a drastic proliferation of banks in the farm country and in the booming new industrial centers like Chicago, Detroit, Youngtown and Toledo, along with vast amounts of poorly underwritten debt on real estate and businesses.

When the bubble burst in 1929, the financial system experienced the time-honored capitalist cure — a sweeping liquidation of bad debts and under-capitalized banks. Not only was this an unavoidable and healthy purge of economic rot, but also reflected the fact that the legions of banks which failed were flat-out insolvent and should have been closed.

How great was this meltdown? How many people lost everything in the bank failures? Was this a massive slide into a financial morass? As David Stockman summed it up, “Indeed, a single startling statistic puts paid to the whole New Deal mythology that FDR rescued the banking system after a veritable heart attack: to wit, losses at failed US banks during the entire 12-year period ending in 1932 amounted to only 2-3 percent of deposits. There never was a sweeping contagion of failure in the banking system.”

Foreshadowing President Obama’s first Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before,” FDR used this crisis to forever change the very structure of American government.

FDR didn’t introduce his sweeping changes in the dead of night. He campaigned on them. He said he would bring in a New Deal for all Americans and he did. As his first inaugural speech ended he laid his cards on the table, “It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed (sic) action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.”

In these two sentences the new president announced that if he deemed it necessary to upend the balance of powers he would do so. He then threatened to do whatever he thought necessary in the 1933 version of President Obama’s “We can’t wait” proclamation. Instead of saying “I have a pen and I have a phone,” FDR said, “But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

Congress did not fight. They did not stand on their prerogatives as a co-equal branch. Instead they knuckled under and in 100 days created an alphabet soup of federal agencies to control everything from soup to nuts. America began its dramatic descent from freedom and liberty to servitude and regulation. With FDR’s imagery of a war against an emergency America found itself at war with a recession which had already ended successfully turning it into the Great Depression which wouldn’t end for eight more years.

Since that time we have declared war on poverty. Fifty years and several trillion dollars later and we have just as much poverty as before. We have declared war on drugs and hundreds of thousands of incarcerations and trillions of dollars later and the drug problem is worse than before. We have of course also been in either a hot or a cold war since 1941 and hundreds of thousands of lives and many trillions of dollars later we have less security than we had before.

All of this has led to an erosion of our individual liberty, personal freedom, and economic opportunity. The balance of power has all but dissolved as Congress ceded its power to the executive and the bureaucracy while nine Supreme Justices make all the final decisions.

The Constitution was written to set the foundations for how our nation should be ruled. The First Article of the Constitution established the Legislature and most of the document deals with the Legislature, obviously the most important part of our national government. The part that is closest to the people. Today that body has transferred its power and we are faced with an imperial presidency and a Supreme Court that has decreed itself to be the source and the summit of legitimacy.

John Locke, the inspiration of much that became our Constitution said in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, “The Legislative cannot transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to others.”

Yet this is what has happened and this is why we are no longer forging ahead at the vanguard of humanity. We are instead rapidly becoming the source of raw materials and a market place for the goods of others: a colony in all but name. Or as the saying goes, the borrower is slave to the lender.

Everywhere I go and everyone I speak with knows America is losing its edge, sliding down a Progressive rat hole into an over-regulated shabby future in the dustbin of History. At the same time everywhere I go and everyone I speak to says, “At least it won’t happen in my day but I feel sorry for the generations coming after me.”

Why do empires fall? Because they think they won’t.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ © 2015 Contact Dr. Owens Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens




Walker Wins: New Budget Will Repeal University Tenure

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is poised to win a huge victory on education as the state legislature passed a budget that repeals state tenure guarantees while also slashing the budget of the University of Wisconsin.

The victory was enunciated by the acquiescence of the university, which recognized its defeat by passing a spending plan that implements Walker’s cuts. All that remains is for Walker to consummate his victory by affixing his signature to the budget.

The two-year, $73 billion budget approved Thursday makes a host of changes Walker has sought in the realm of education. Wisconsin’s school voucher program is expanded, and $250 million in funding is taken from the University of Wisconsin. That’s down from the $300 million cut Walker originally sought, but still a substantial haircut.

Bowing to the fait accompli, later on Thursday the University of Wisconsin approved its own budget, implementing the big cuts expected of it. About 400 positions will be laid off or will go unfilled, and the university’s budgets no money for pay hikes. The school’s situation is made tougher because the legislature has also frozen in-state tuition.

While academics have accused Walker of sabotaging the school’s competitiveness, Walker has refused to yield, arguing that professors should be teaching more classes. (RELATED: Walker: University Profs Need To Work Harder)

Walker’s push to slash spending at U-Wisconsin has received the most press, but his push to alter tenure may have the biggest long-term implications. Until now, tenure for professors at the University of Wisconsin has been protected by statute (Wisconsin is the only state with such a law). Now, that protection has been eliminated, leaving it up to the school’s board of regents to decide whether professors have tenure.

Not only that, but tenure itself has been weakened so that it doesn’t offer the protections it once did. Previously, only “financial exigency” (an urgent budget shortfall) could justify the firing of a tenured professor. Now, tenured professors may also be laid off whenever it is “deemed necessary due to a budget or program decision regarding program discontinuance, curtailment, modification, or redirection.” (RELATED: Wisconsin Might Destroy Tenure For Professors)

The budget also rolls back the principle of “shared governance,” in which faculty are given heavy leeway to control the governance of their own departments. Instead, faculty are assigned a primary advisory role for helping the chancellor.

University of Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor Rebecca Blank sent a letter to Walker Friday begging him to veto the changes, saying they would drive away current and prospective faculty.

“Over its 165-year history, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has built an international reputation for the highest quality research and teaching,” said Blank. “For us to attract and retain the best faculty in the global higher education marketplace, it is imperative that UW-Madison not be seen as offering a less attractive package than can be found at our peer institutions.”

But given that rolling back tenure is Walker’s idea in the first place, a veto at the eleventh hour is a very unlikely concession.

Angry faculty have directed a great deal of venom toward Blank and the UW board of regents, accusing them of letting the tenure provisions pass by failing to make a loud protest.

Walker is expected to sign the budget by Monday, when he is scheduled to officially announce his presidential campaign.

Read more:

Donald Trump Defiantly Rallies a New ‘Silent Majority’ in a Visit to Arizona


by Nicholas Fandos
PHOENIX — Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and reality television star who has taken center stage in the race for the Republican presidential nomination this week, delivered a rambling monologue on Saturday, dismissing a long list of critics — including Jeb Bush, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Macy’s — while rallying what he termed a new silent majority of voters.

Mr. Trump had less to say about immigration, the topic on which his comments have garnered so much attention, than about those who have criticized him. For more than an hour, he ticked through a list of businesses and candidates who have tried to censure him since his long-shot campaign began three weeks ago, and made light of their practices and intelligence.

“How can I be tied with this guy?” Trump said of Mr. Bush, whom many consider the Republican front-runner. “He’s terrible. He’s weak on immigration.”

Donald J. Trump, center, attended an event Monday at Trump Golf Links in the Bronx.Can’t Fire Him: Republican Party Frets Over What to Do With Donald TrumpJULY 9, 2015
Donald J. Trump talked with reporters after speaking to members of the City Club of Chicago last month.Donald Trump’s Comments Resonate With Some in G.O.P.JULY 9, 2015
Donald Trump said he stood by comments he made about Mexican immigrants.Donald Trump’s Lousy Week (Except for the Polling)JULY 2, 2015
The speech had a distinctly celebratory air as Mr. Trump lauded the “massive” crowds he has drawn and the attention he has brought to immigration and other issues that he said “weak” politicians were afraid to address.

What Donald Trump Would Need to Do to Win
It also demonstrated what his party fears most about him: that he is an orator without regard for decorum who is willing to mock other Republicans.

The speech, hosted by the Republican Party of Maricopa County, drew several thousand people to the Phoenix Convention Center, making it one of the largest events for any candidate so far, though short of the crowd of 10,000 predicted by the Trump campaign. Outside, in the 100-degree desert heat, supporters who could not make it into the room waved American flags and sparred with a smaller but vocal group of protesters.

“The silent majority is back, and we’re going to take our country back,” Mr. Trump declared as he left the stage.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, whose tactics in tracking down illegal immigrants drew national attention and a federal conviction for racial profiling in 2013, preceded Mr. Trump on stage at the businessman’s invitation.

As he had earlier in the day in Las Vegas, Mr. Trump also brought to the stage Jamiel Shaw Sr., the father of a teenager killed in 2008 by an undocumented immigrant in Los Angeles, to share the story of his son’s death and to endorse Mr. Trump.

Continue reading the main story

Who Is Running for President (and Who’s Not)?
Mr. Trump’s trip to the immigrant-heavy border region was the first since he asserted in his campaign announcement on June 16 that those crossing the United States-Mexico border illegally included rapists and criminals. Those remarks have earned Mr. Trump sharp criticism from business and political leaders across the country, including companies such as Macy’s, Univision and NBC that have cut ties with him in recent weeks.

He came to Phoenix after addressing a series of private and public audiences Friday and Saturday in Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

“This has become a movement because people don’t know what’s happening,” Mr. Trump said. “We can’t be great if we don’t have a border.”

His welcome here was not entirely warm. Phoenix’s vice mayor and several pro-immigrant groups had called for the city to bar him from speaking at the convention center, which it owns. Mayor Greg Stanton, a Democrat, rejected those calls, saying he would respect Mr. Trump’s right to free speech.

But just as Mr. Trump’s presence in the nominating race has confounded national Republican leaders trying to expand the party’s appeal to minority groups, his visit here posed a dilemma for state officials trying to distance themselves from the anti-immigrant policies of the recent past.

Bernie Sanders Courts Martha’s Vineyard Donors 10:28 PM ET
Hillary Clinton Picks Up Teachers’ Union Endorsement 4:45 PM ET
Did Scott Walker’s Twitter Account Get Ahead of His Campaign? 7:19 PM ET
Arizona’s senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, both Republicans, decided not to attend the event, as did the Republican governor, Doug Ducey. Mr. Flake also called on the Maricopa County Republican Party to rescind its invitation to Mr. Trump, a request that was ignored.

On Saturday, Mr. Flake said Mr. Trump’s remarks, which he called “intolerant” and “inaccurate,” would hurt Republicans here and around the country as they attempt to appeal to a broader demographic of voters.

“Particularly in Arizona, we have had such a long stretch of this kind of rhetoric and this kind of talk,” Mr. Flake said in a telephone interview before Mr. Trump’s speech. “We seem to be moving beyond that here, and this kind of rhetoric just pulls us back.”

For many here, the event revived an image of the state, embodied by Sheriff Arpaio, as unwelcoming and harsh in its enforcement of illegal immigration laws — a perception that Mr. Ducey has worked hard to dispel. He barely discussed immigration during his campaign last year, and since taking office in January, he has worked to make his mark as a business-centric leader, focused on taxes and improving Arizona’s beleaguered public education system.

Saturday’s crowd, though, suggested that the topic remains a galvanizing force among the Republican Party’s conservative base here. Many who had lined up outside the convention center said Mr. Trump was the only candidate willing to speak up about what they see as the risks of illegal immigration and the failures of federal law enforcement to solve the problem.

“I’m very interested in Mr. Trump,” said Rod Patrick, a 72-year-old retired rancher and small business owner. “It’s not necessarily because he’s a good guy, but I’m fed up with politicians.”

Steve Donaldson, 31, agreed, saying that Mr. Trump’s experience in international business, rather than elective politics, made him the best-prepared candidate for the presidency. Mr. Donaldson said Mr. Trump could have been more artful in crafting his points about illegal immigration, in particular, but thought that the abrasive approach was actually helping him in the polls.

“I think his delivery on some of his points could use a little finesse,” he said, “but that’s also what I like most about him.”

Fernanda Santos and Kimberley McGee contributed reporting.

Can You Believe This -Feds Spent $2 Million to Have Wives Nag Men About Chewing Tobacco

By Kellan Howell – The Washington Times – Thursday, July 9, 2015
Since 2012 the government has spent nearly $2 million on a campaign to get women to nag the men in their lives to quit using smokeless tobacco.

The National Institutes of Health has sponsored a continuing grant for the Oregon Research Institute to “evaluate an innovative approach that encourages male smokeless tobacco users to quit by enlisting the support of their wives/partners, both to lead smokeless tobacco users to engage in treatment and to help them sustain abstinence.”

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Obama’s Rosy jobless numbers cover up bad news

Economist sifts truth from ‘politically manipulated statistics’

by Jerome R. Corsi

Editor’s Note: This is the third in a series about the unprecedented dependence Americans have on their federal government. The first story shows how the food-stamp program has doubled under President Obama, as it did under President George W. Bush. The second story reports the strain on the welfare system caused by record numbers of Americans retiring amid a declining work force.

NEW YORK – As the Obama administration announced unemployment in June had fallen to 5.3 percent, respected economist John Williams, the author of, argued in his private subscription newsletter that the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ rosy numbers were not the result of a recovering economy creating full-time jobs but a product of manipulating statistics for political purposes.

Williams pointed out that the drop in unemployment from 5.5 percent in May to 5.3 percent in June reflected 375,000 unemployed workers disappearing from the workforce.

“Separately, aside from the headline June payroll gain of 223,000, which was a count of jobs, not people holding jobs, headline full-time employment fell by 349,000, representing the count of people who lost full-time jobs in June,” Williams wrote in his subscription newsletter.

Williams said that on the unemployment front, the drop in the headline U3 rate from 5.5 percent to 5.3 percent “could not have been more negative.”

“Instead of the 375,000 drop in unemployment representing people finding gainful employment, it represented those people leaving the headline labor force, most likely being shifted to the headline discouraged-worker category by the BLS,” he said.

Williams point was that the BLS reported June payrolls rose by 223,000 in June, but it neglected to point out that “June payrolls” measures the number of jobs, not the number of people with jobs.

“Headline June employment and unemployment numbers were more typical of deteriorating, broad economic activity than they were of an expanding economy in its purported sixth year of recovery,” he said.

Supporting Williams’ argument, the BLS also reported last week that a record 93,636,000 Americans were no longer in the labor force in June, up from 92,986,000 in May, while the labor force participation rate continued to hover near the 38-year record low, registering labor force participation at only 62.6 percent for June.

Calculating unemployment by historically accepted government methodologies, Williams concludes the unemployment rate in June was not the 5.3 percent “headline rate” reported by the Obama administration, but above 23 percent, where it has been since April 2013.

Manipulated unemployment rates

The BLS publishes six levels of unemployment, but only the headline U3 unemployment rate gets attention.

The headline number does not count the “discouraged” unemployed workers who have actively looked for work in the past year but not in the past four weeks, because they believe no jobs are available.

Williams has demonstrated that it takes an expert to truly decipher BLS unemployment statistics.

The U6 unemployment rate is the BLS’s broadest measure. It includes those marginally attached to the labor force and the “under-employed” – those who have accepted part-time jobs when they are really looking for full-time employment. Also included are what Williams describes as short-term discouraged workers who have looked for a job in the past year but not the past four weeks.

Since 1994, however, the long-term discouraged workers, those who have been discouraged for more than one year, have been excluded from all government data.

The only measure BLS reports to the public as the official monthly unemployment rate is the seasonally adjusted U3 number.

Williams calculates his ShadowStats Alternative Unemployment Rate by adding to the BLS U6 numbers the long-term discouraged workers.

Williams argues that his ShadowStats Alternative Unemployment measure most closely mirrors common experience.

“If you were to survey everyone in the country as to whether they were employed or unemployed, without qualification as to when they last looked for a job, the resulting unemployment rate would be close to the ShadowStats estimate,” Williams explained to WND.

The headline BLS unemployment rate has stayed relatively low because it excludes all discouraged workers, Williams argues.

Here is a more complete unemployment table that includes the seasonally adjusted unemployment percentages for U3 unemployment, as well as the same for U6 unemployment, followed by the ShadowStats Alternative Unemployment rate, comparing June 2014 with June 2015.


As is made clear by the table, the BLS admitted that in June 2015, when the headline unemployment rate reported to the U.S. public was the U3 rate of 5.3 percent, the U6 rate for June 2015 was much higher, 10.5 percent.

Obama ‘non-recovery’

Williams believes the drop in unemployment to 5.3 percent in June reflects systematic government manipulation in what he characterizes as Obama’s “non-recovery.”

“In the ongoing economic collapse into 2008 and 2009, and the non-recovery thereafter, the broad drop in the U3 unemployment rate from its headline peak of 10 percent in 2009 to today’s 5.3 percent has been due largely to unemployed giving up looking for work, being redefined out of headline reporting and the labor force, as discouraged workers,” Williams explained in his current subscription newsletter.

He noted that as new discouraged workers move regularly from U3 into U6 unemployment accounting, those who have been discouraged for one year are dropped from the U6 measure.

As a result, the U6 measure has been declining along with U3 for some time.

But those being pushed out of U6 still are counted in the ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Measure, which has remained steady, at or near its historic-high rate for the last couple of years, Williams said.


Donald Trump’s Illegal Immigration Comments Are Substantiated


by Javier Manjarres
The Democrat Party and their supporting groups are all giddy about what Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said about “Latinos” during his presidential announcement speech in New York City.

Democrats are already fundraising of Trumps words, and don’t be surprised if they try to tie this around the necks of all the 2016 Republican presidential candidates, and further this as being part of the Republican racists anti-Hispanic agenda.

Trust me. Don’t discount the race card here.

Here are the comments that landed Trump in a whole lot of hot water with Democrats, the pro-amnesty for illegal immigration lobby, and Latinos who think they speak for all Latinos.

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.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.

It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.

Islamic terrorism is eating up large portions of the Middle East. They’ve become rich. I’m in competition with them.-Donald Trump, Time

Trump is 100% accurate in his assessment of the border problem, which is actually a national security issue.

Over at, we dissected what Trump meant to say, or what he probably meant by his statement, offering substantive support for his claims.

Trump is an in your face, call it how I see it, type of guy.

Americans love this about him, but “The Donald” needs to be a bit more diplomatic when saying things like this.

Trump could have made the same case about illegal immigration, just using less incendiary language.

His message was correct. His delivery of the message was what got him in trouble.

Click here on to read how accurate Donald Trump’s statement really is.