The Pronk Pops Show 1200, February 1, 2019, Story 1 President Trump — A Big Beautiful Border Barrier or Wall Is Required To Stop The Continuing Illegal Alien Invasion of United States  — What about The 30 to 60 Million Illegal Aliens Already in the United States? — Part 2 of 2 — Videos — Story 2: Will United States Economy Measured By Gross Domestic Product Grow At Historical Average of 3% to 3.5% Annually? — Bureau of Economic Analysis Reports Scheduled for this Week Delayed  — Better Than Average Jobs Report of 304,000 Non farm Payroll Jobs Created in January 2019 — The  U-3 Unemployment Rate Increased to 4.0% from 3.86% and U-6 Unemployment Rate Increased to 8.07% from 7.59% and Number of Unemployed Increased To 6.5 Million from 6.3 Million — 100th Month of Job Increases and Growing Stronger — Videos

Posted on February 2, 2019. Filed under: Abortion, Addiction, American History, Biology, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Chemistry, China, Comedy, Communications, Computers, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Defense Spending, Disasters, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Genocide, Germany, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Killing, Language, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Medical, Monetary Policy, National Interest, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Progressives, Public Relations, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Rule of Law, Science, Senate, Social Security, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, United Kingdom, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1199 January 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1198 January 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1197 January 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1196 January 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1195 January 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1194 January 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1193 January 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1192 January 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1191 December 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1190 December 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1189 December 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1188 December 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1187 December 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1186 December 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1185 December 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1184 December 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1183 December 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1182 December 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1181 December 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1180 December 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1166 October 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1165 October 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1164 October 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1163 October 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1162 October 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1161 October 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1160 October 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1159 October 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1158 October 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1157 October 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1156 October 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1155 October 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1154 October 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1153 October 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1152 October 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1151 October 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1150 October 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1149, October 1, 2018

See the source imageSee the source image

Story 1 President Trump — A Big Beautiful Border Barrier or Wall Is Required To Stop The Continuing Illegal Alien Invasion of United States  — What about The 30 to 60 Million Illegal Aliens Already in the United States? — Part 2 of 2 — Videos —

 

Trump: Nancy Pelosi will be begging for a wall

President Trump: I won’t wait for congressional deal on wall

WATCH: President Trump Talks Border Wall, North Korea To The Media

Trump says Pelosi ‘playing games’ on wall funds

Nancy Pelosi: No money in legislation for Trump’s wall

Will Trump’s wall ever be built?

Trump vows to deport criminal illegal immigrants

Donald Trump explains his immigration plan

Trump’s plan for deporting criminal illegal immigrants

Trump: It is realistic to deport all illegal immigrants

Historian Victor Davis Hanson on why he supports Trump

The Suicide of Europe

Europe Is Killing Itself

A Nation of Immigrants

Trump Breaking News 2/1/19 | Tucker Carlson Tonight February 1, 2019

Trump Breaking News 2/1/19 | Fox News @ Night February 1, 2019

Trump Breaking News 2/1/19 | The Ingraham Angle February 1, 2019

Trump says Nancy Pelosi is ‘playing games’ with wall funding

– The Washington Times – Thursday, January 31, 2019

President Trump said Thursday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “playing games” with his demand for a border wall and he doesn’t expect the congressional negotiations to reach a deal on a barrier for the southern border.

“She’s playing games,” the president told reporters at the White House. “If there’s no wall, it doesn’t work.”

Minutes earlier, Mrs. Pelosi vowed at the Capitol that Democrats won’t approve money for a wall as part of negotiations on border security.

She suggested there might be money available for a so-called “Normandy” fence along the southern border, which would stop vehicles but not people on foot.

Upon hearing that, the president said he doesn’t expect a 17-member bipartisan committee to reach a deal on border security that’s acceptable to him.

“I don’t think they’re going to make a deal,” Mr. Trump said. “I don’t expect much coming out of this committee.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/31/donald-trump-border-wall-talks-congress/2729908002/

Story 2: Will United States Economy Measured By Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Grow At Historical Average of 3% to 3.5% Annually? — Bureau of Economic Analysis Reports Scheduled for this Week Delayed  — Better Than Average Jobs Report of 304,000 Non-farm Payroll Jobs Created in January 2019 — The  U-3 Unemployment Rate Increased to 4.0% from 3.86% and U-6 Unemployment Rate Increased to 8.07% from 7.59% and Number of Unemployed Increased To 6.5 Million from 6.3 Million — 100th Month of Job Increases and Growing Stronger — Videos

Watch 5 experts weigh in on the January jobs report

NEC’s Kudlow on Jobs Report, U.S.-China Trade Talks

St. Louis Fed president James Bullard on January jobs report

Strong jobs report won’t cause Fed to raise rates: Economist

Jobs Report

Jim Cramer’s Quick Take on Amazon, the Jobs Number and Google

Alternate Unemployment Charts

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

 

Public Commentary on Unemployment

Unemployment Data Series   subcription required(Subscription required.)  View  Download Excel CSV File   Last Updated: February 1st, 2019

The ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Rate for January 2019 is 21.8%.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Shadow Government Statistics
Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting

Data extracted on: February 1, 2019 (6:25:46 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Civilian Labor Force Level

163,229,000

 

Series Id:           LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150214(1) 150641 150813 150881 151069 151354 151377 151716 151662 152041 152406 152732
2007 153144(1) 152983 153051 152435 152670 153041 153054 152749 153414 153183 153835 153918
2008 154063(1) 153653 153908 153769 154303 154313 154469 154641 154570 154876 154639 154655
2009 154210(1) 154538 154133 154509 154747 154716 154502 154307 153827 153784 153878 153111
2010 153484(1) 153694 153954 154622 154091 153616 153691 154086 153975 153635 154125 153650
2011 153263(1) 153214 153376 153543 153479 153346 153288 153760 154131 153961 154128 153995
2012 154381(1) 154671 154749 154545 154866 155083 154948 154763 155160 155554 155338 155628
2013 155763(1) 155312 155005 155394 155536 155749 155599 155605 155687 154673 155265 155182
2014 155352(1) 155483 156028 155369 155684 155707 156007 156130 156040 156417 156494 156332
2015 157053(1) 156663 156626 157017 157616 157014 157008 157165 156745 157188 157502 158080
2016 158371(1) 158705 159079 158891 158700 158899 159150 159582 159810 159768 159629 159779
2017 159693(1) 159854 160036 160169 159910 160124 160383 160706 161190 160436 160626 160636
2018 161123(1) 161900 161646 161551 161667 162129 162209 161802 162055 162694 162821 163240
2019 163229(1)
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Labor Force Participation Rate

63.2% 

 

Series Id:           LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Employment Level

156,694,000

 

Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150(1) 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028(1) 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378(1) 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152(1) 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138438(1) 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139250(1) 139394 139639 139586 139624 139384 139524 139942 140183 140368 140826 140902
2012 141584(1) 141858 142036 141899 142206 142391 142292 142291 143044 143431 143333 143330
2013 143292(1) 143362 143316 143635 143882 143999 144264 144326 144418 143537 144479 144778
2014 145150(1) 145134 145648 145667 145825 146247 146399 146530 146778 147427 147404 147615
2015 148150(1) 148053 148122 148491 148802 148765 148815 149175 148853 149270 149506 150164
2016 150622(1) 150934 151146 150963 151074 151104 151450 151766 151877 151949 152150 152276
2017 152128(1) 152417 152958 153150 152920 153176 153456 153591 154399 153847 153945 154065
2018 154482(1) 155213 155160 155216 155539 155592 155964 155604 156069 156582 156803 156945
2019 156694(1)
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

 

January 28, 2019

Bureau of Economic Analysis reports scheduled for this week and next will be delayed because of the effects of the partial government shutdown.

Those reports are:

  • Gross Domestic Product by State for the third quarter of 2018, originally scheduled for release on Tuesday, Jan. 29.
  • The “advance,” or initial, estimates of Gross Domestic Product for the fourth quarter of 2018 and for all of 2018, originally scheduled for release Wednesday, Jan. 30.
  • Personal Income and Outlays for December 2018, originally scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 31.
  • U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services for December 2018, originally scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 5.

BEA has not yet set new release dates for those economic reports.

In addition, new release dates will be set for three other economic reports that were originally set for release while parts of the government were shut down: U.S. International Investment Position for the third quarter of 2018, scheduled for Dec. 27; U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services for November 2018, scheduled for Jan. 8; and GDP by Industry for the third quarter of 2018, scheduled for Jan. 24.

BEA reopened on Monday and is consulting with the U.S. Census Bureau and other data suppliers to determine the availability of the thousands of data series used to produce our economic indicators. We will then work with the Office of Management and Budget to publish a revised schedule of BEA’s economic releases.

Until we know more about when source data will be available, we cannot say anything definitive about release dates for specific economic indicators. We will work through this as quickly as possible and provide information as soon as we can. Watch bea.gov and our Twitter feed, @BEA_News, for updates.

 

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until		USDL-19-0140
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, February 1, 2019

Technical information: 
 Household data:	(202) 691-6378  *  cpsinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data:	(202) 691-6555  *  cesinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:		(202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov

	
		 THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JANUARY 2019


Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 304,000 in January, and the
unemployment rate edged up to 4.0 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Job gains occurred in several industries, including leisure
and hospitality, construction, health care, and transportation and warehousing. 

 _____________________________________________________________________________
| 									      |
|                Changes to The Employment Situation Data		      |
|									      |
|   Establishment survey data have been revised as a result of the annual     |
|   benchmarking process and the updating of seasonal adjustment factors.     |
|   Also, household survey data for January 2019 reflect updated population   |
|   estimates. See the notes beginning at the end of this news release for    |
|   more information about these changes.				      |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|


Household Survey Data

Both the unemployment rate, at 4.0 percent, and the number of unemployed persons,
at 6.5 million, edged up in January. The impact of the partial federal government
shutdown contributed to the uptick in these measures. Among the unemployed, the
number who reported being on temporary layoff increased by 175,000. This figure
includes furloughed federal employees who were classified as unemployed on
temporary layoff under the definitions used in the household survey. (See tables
A-1 and A-11. For information about annual population adjustments to the household
survey estimates, see the note at the end of this release and tables B and C. For
more information on the classification of workers affected by the partial federal
government shutdown, see the box note at the end of this news release.) 

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for Hispanics increased to
4.9 percent in January. The jobless rates for adult men (3.7 percent), adult
women (3.6 percent), teenagers (12.9 percent), Whites (3.5 percent), Blacks
(6.8 percent), and Asians (3.1 percent) showed little change over the month. (See
tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In January, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)
was little changed at 1.3 million and accounted for 19.3 percent of the unemployed.
(See table A-12.)

The labor force participation rate, at 63.2 percent, and the employment-population
ratio, at 60.7 percent, changed little over the month; both measures were up by 0.5
percentage point over the year. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred
to as involuntary part-time workers) increased by about one-half million to 5.1
million in January. Nearly all of this increase occurred in the private sector and
may reflect the impact of the partial federal government shutdown. (Persons employed
part time for economic reasons would have preferred full-time employment but were
working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find
full-time jobs.) (See table A-8.)

In January, 1.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These
individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and
had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as 
unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 426,000 discouraged workers in January,
little different than a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they
believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.2 million persons
marginally attached to the labor force in January had not searched for work for
reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 304,000 in January, compared with
an average monthly gain of 223,000 in 2018. In January, employment grew in several
industries, including leisure and hospitality, construction, health care, and
transportation and warehousing. There were no discernible impacts of the partial
federal government shutdown on the estimates of employment, hours, and earnings
from the establishment survey. (See table B-1. For information about the annual
benchmark process, see the note at the end of this release and table A. For more
information on the classification of workers affected by the partial federal
government shutdown, see the box note at the end of this news release.) 

In January, employment in leisure and hospitality rose by 74,000. Within the
industry, job gains occurred in food services and drinking places (+37,000) and in
amusements, gambling, and recreation (+32,000). Over the year, leisure and
hospitality has added 410,000 jobs. 

Construction employment rose by 52,000 in January. Job gains occurred among
specialty trade contractors, with increases in both the nonresidential (+19,000)
and residential (+15,000) components. Employment also rose in heavy and civil
engineering construction (+10,000) and residential building (+9,000). Construction
has added 338,000 jobs over the past 12 months.

Employment in health care increased by 42,000 in January. Within the industry, job
gains occurred in ambulatory health care services (+22,000) and hospitals (+19,000).
Health care has added 368,000 jobs over the past year.

Over the month, employment in transportation and warehousing rose by 27,000,
following little change in December. In January, job gains occurred in warehousing
and storage (+15,000) and among couriers and messengers (+7,000). Over the year,
employment in transportation and warehousing has increased by 219,000.

In January, retail trade employment edged up by 21,000. Job gains occurred in
sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores (+17,000), while general merchandise
stores lost jobs (-12,000). Employment in retail trade has shown little net change
over the past 12 months (+26,000). 

Mining employment increased by 7,000 in January. The industry has added 64,000 jobs
over the year, almost entirely in support activities for mining.

Employment in professional and business services continued to trend up over the
month (+30,000) and has increased by 546,000 in the past 12 months.

Employment in manufacturing continued to trend up in January (+13,000). Over-the-
month job gains occurred in durable goods (+20,000), while employment in nondurable
goods changed little (-7,000). Manufacturing employment has increased by 261,000
over the year, with more than four-fifths of the gain in durable goods industries.

Employment in federal government was essentially unchanged in January (+1,000).
Federal employees on furlough during the partial government shutdown were counted as
employed in the establishment survey because they worked or received pay (or will
receive pay) for the pay period that included the 12th of the month. 

Employment showed little change over the month in other major industries, including
wholesale trade, information, and financial activities.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at
34.5 hours in January. In manufacturing, both the workweek and overtime decreased by
0.1 hour to 40.8 hours and 3.5 hours, respectively. The average workweek for
production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls held at 33.7
hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In January, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
rose by 3 cents to $27.56, following a 10-cent gain in December. Over the year,
average hourly earnings have increased by 85 cents, or 3.2 percent. Average hourly
earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 3
cents to $23.12 in January. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for November was revised up from
+176,000 to +196,000, and the change for December was revised down from +312,000 to
+222,000. With these revisions, employment gains in November and December combined
were 70,000 less than previously reported. After revisions, job gains have averaged
241,000 per month over the last 3 months. (Monthly revisions result from additional
reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published
estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors. The annual benchmark process
also contributed to the November and December revisions.) 

_____________
The Employment Situation for February is scheduled to be released on Friday,
March 8, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).
	

   _____________________________________________________________________________
  |									        |
  |                     Partial Federal Government Shutdown		        |
  |										|
  |  Some federal government agencies were shut down or operating at reduced	|
  |  staffing levels during a lapse in appropriations from December 22, 2018,	|
  |  through January 25, 2019. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) was		|
  |  funded during the shutdown period and was operating as usual. Data		|
  |  collection for the household and establishment surveys occurred as		|
  |  scheduled.									|
  |										|
  |  In the household survey, individuals are classified as employed,		|
  |  unemployed, or not in the labor force based on their answers to a series	|
  |  of questions about their activities during the survey reference week.	|
  |  Workers who indicated that they were not working during the entire		|
  |  survey reference week and expected to be recalled to their jobs should	|
  |  be classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. In January 2019, there	|
  |  was an increase in the number of federal workers who were classified as	|
  |  unemployed on temporary layoff. However, there also was an increase in	|
  |  the number of federal workers who were classified as employed but absent	|
  |  from work. BLS analysis of the underlying data indicates that this group	|
  |  included federal workers affected by the shutdown who also should have	|
  |  been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. Such a			|
  |  misclassification is an example of nonsampling error and can occur when	|
  |  respondents misunderstand questions or interviewers record answers		|
  |  incorrectly. If the federal workers who were recorded as employed but	|
  |  absent from work had been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff,	|
  |  the overall unemployment rate would have been slightly higher than		|
  |  reported. However, according to usual practice, the data from the		|
  |  household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity,	|
  |  no ad hoc actions are taken to reassign survey responses. 			|
  |										|
  |  In the establishment survey, businesses and government agencies report the |
  |  number of people on payrolls during the pay period that includes the 12th  |
  |  of the month. Individuals who work or receive pay for any part of the pay  |
  |  period are	defined as employed. Federal employees on furlough during the   |
  |  partial federal government shutdown were considered employed in the        |
  |  establishment survey because they worked or received pay (or will receive  |
  |  pay) for the pay period that included the 12th of the month. Other workers |
  |  (including	federal contractors) who did not work or receive pay during the |
  |  partial federal government shutdown were not counted among the employed.	|
  |										|
  |  Additional information is available online at				|
  |  www.bls.gov/bls/shutdown_2019_empsit_qa.pdf.				|
  |_____________________________________________________________________________|	


	         Revisions to Establishment Survey Data

In accordance with annual practice, the establishment survey data released today
have been benchmarked to reflect comprehensive counts of payroll jobs for March
2018. These counts are derived principally from the Quarterly Census of Employment
and Wages (QCEW), which counts jobs covered by the Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax
system. The benchmark process results in revisions to not seasonally adjusted data
from April 2017 forward. Seasonally adjusted data from January 2014 forward are
subject to revision. In addition, data for some series prior to 2014, both
seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, incorporate other revisions.                           
                                                                
The total nonfarm employment level for March 2018 was revised downward by 1,000
(-16,000 on a not seasonally adjusted basis, or less than -0.05 percent). The
absolute average benchmark revision over the past 10 years is 0.2 percent. 

The effect of these revisions on the underlying trend in nonfarm payroll employment
was minor. For example, the over-the-year change in total nonfarm employment for 2018
was revised from +2,638,000 to +2,674,000 (seasonally adjusted). Table A presents
revised total nonfarm employment data on a seasonally adjusted basis from January to
December 2018.

All revised historical establishment survey data are available on the BLS website at
www.bls.gov/ces/data.htm. In addition, an article that discusses the benchmark and
post-benchmark revisions and other technical issues is available at
www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmart.htm. 


Table A. Revisions to total nonfarm employment, January to December 2018, seasonally
adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 |                                    |                                
                 |                Level               |      Over-the-month change     
                 |---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Year and month  |    As     |           |            |    As    |         |           
                 |previously |    As     | Difference |previously|   As    | Difference
                 |published  |  revised  |            |published | revised |           
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 |           |           |           |          |         |           
       2018      |           |           |           |          |         |           
                 |           |           |           |          |         |           
 January.........|  147,801  |  147,767  |    -34    |    176   |    171  |     -5   
 February........|  148,125  |  148,097  |    -28    |    324   |    330  |      6   
 March...........|  148,280  |  148,279  |     -1    |    155   |    182  |     27   
 April...........|  148,455  |  148,475  |     20    |    175   |    196  |     21   
 May.............|  148,723  |  148,745  |     22    |    268   |    270  |      2   
 June............|  148,931  |  149,007  |     76    |    208   |    262  |     54   
 July............|  149,096  |  149,185  |     89    |    165   |    178  |     13   
 August..........|  149,382  |  149,467  |     85    |    286   |    282  |     -4   
 September.......|  149,501  |  149,575  |     74    |    119   |    108  |    -11   
 October.........|  149,775  |  149,852  |     77    |    274   |    277  |      3   
 November........|  149,951  |  150,048  |     97    |    176   |    196  |     20   
 December (p)....|  150,263  |  150,270  |      7    |    312   |    222  |    -90   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   (p) = preliminary.


                Adjustments to Population Estimates for the Household Survey


Effective with data for January 2019, updated population estimates were incorporated into
the household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the
U.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new
information and assumptions about the growth of the population since the previous decennial
census. The change in population reflected in the new estimates results from adjustments
for net international migration, updated vital statistics, and estimation methodology
improvements. 

In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household survey
estimates for December 2018 and earlier months. To show the impact of the population
adjustments, however, differences in selected December 2018 labor force series based on
the old and new population estimates are shown in table B.

The adjustments decreased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population
in December by 800,000, the civilian labor force by 506,000, employment by 488,000,
unemployment by 18,000 and the number of persons not in the labor force was by 294,000.
The total unemployment rate, employment-population ratio, and labor force participation
rate were unaffected.

Data users are cautioned that these annual population adjustments can affect the comparability
of household data series over time. Table C shows the effect of the introduction of new
population estimates on the comparison of selected labor force measures between December 2018
and January 2019. Additional information on the population adjustments and their effect on
national labor force estimates is available at 
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps-pop-control-adjustments.pdf.
Table B. Effect of the updated population controls on December 2018 estimates by sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, not seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
Category Total Men Women White Black or
African
Ameri-
can
Asian Hispanic or
Latino
ethnicity

Civilian noninstitutional population

-800 -412 -389 -455 -119 -224 -275

Civilian labor force

-506 -281 -226 -303 -67 -134 -183

Participation rate

0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0

Employed

-488 -270 -217 -292 -62 -131 -176

Employment-population ratio

0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0

Unemployed

-18 -11 -8 -12 -4 -4 -8

Unemployment rate

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not in labor force

-294 -131 -164 -153 -53 -90 -91

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates for the above race groups (White, Black or African American, and Asian) do not sum to totals because data are not presented for all races. Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.

Table C. December 2018-January 2019 changes in selected labor force measures, with adjustments for population control effects
(Numbers in thousands)
Category Dec.-Jan.
change, as
published
2019
population
control effect
Dec.-Jan. change, after
removing the
population control
effect(1)

Civilian noninstitutional population

-649 -800 151

Civilian labor force

-11 -506 495

Participation rate

0.1 0 0.1

Employed

-251 -488 237

Employment-population ratio

0.1 0 0.1

Unemployed

241 -18 259

Unemployment rate

0.1 0 0.1

Not in labor force

-639 -294 -345

(1) This Dec.-Jan. change is calculated by subtracting the population control effect from the over-the-month change in the published seasonally adjusted estimates.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Category Jan.
2018
Nov.
2018
Dec.
2018
Jan.
2019
Change from:
Dec.
2018-
Jan.
2019

Employment status

Civilian noninstitutional population

256,780 258,708 258,888 258,239

Civilian labor force

161,123 162,821 163,240 163,229

Participation rate

62.7 62.9 63.1 63.2

Employed

154,482 156,803 156,945 156,694

Employment-population ratio

60.2 60.6 60.6 60.7

Unemployed

6,641 6,018 6,294 6,535

Unemployment rate

4.1 3.7 3.9 4.0

Not in labor force

95,657 95,886 95,649 95,010

Unemployment rates

Total, 16 years and over

4.1 3.7 3.9 4.0

Adult men (20 years and over)

3.9 3.3 3.6 3.7

Adult women (20 years and over)

3.6 3.4 3.5 3.6

Teenagers (16 to 19 years)

13.9 12.0 12.5 12.9

White

3.5 3.4 3.4 3.5

Black or African American

7.7 6.0 6.6 6.8

Asian

3.0 2.7 3.3 3.1

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

5.0 4.5 4.4 4.9

Total, 25 years and over

3.4 3.0 3.1 3.3

Less than a high school diploma

5.5 5.6 5.8 5.7

High school graduates, no college

4.4 3.5 3.8 3.8

Some college or associate degree

3.4 3.1 3.3 3.4

Bachelor’s degree and higher

2.2 2.2 2.1 2.4

Reason for unemployment

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs

3,243 2,842 2,903 3,082

Job leavers

724 697 839 805

Reentrants

1,959 1,880 1,958 1,945

New entrants

638 577 588 606

Duration of unemployment

Less than 5 weeks

2,271 2,128 2,126 2,325

5 to 14 weeks

1,927 1,842 2,027 2,013

15 to 26 weeks

959 865 897 902

27 weeks and over

1,428 1,259 1,306 1,252

Employed persons at work part time

Part time for economic reasons

4,982 4,781 4,657 5,147

Slack work or business conditions

3,006 2,882 2,891 3,451

Could only find part-time work

1,648 1,562 1,496 1,419

Part time for noneconomic reasons

20,978 20,909 21,234 20,949

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)

Marginally attached to the labor force

1,653 1,678 1,556 1,614

Discouraged workers

451 453 375 426

– December – January changes in household data are not shown due to the introduction of updated population controls.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Jan.
2018
Nov.
2018
Dec.
2018(P)
Jan.
2019(P)

EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

171 196 222 304

Total private

186 200 206 296

Goods-producing

56 29 53 72

Mining and logging

7 -3 5 7

Construction

33 5 28 52

Manufacturing

16 27 20 13

Durable goods(1)

17 16 17 20

Motor vehicles and parts

2.0 -1.9 1.8 0.7

Nondurable goods

-1 11 3 -7

Private service-providing

130 171 153 224

Wholesale trade

-2.3 11.3 10.9 4.7

Retail trade

2.4 32.5 -12.0 20.8

Transportation and warehousing

19.8 23.6 -4.9 26.6

Utilities

-1.5 0.3 -0.2 -0.5

Information

-9 -3 -4 -4

Financial activities

2 3 4 13

Professional and business services(1)

37 34 29 30

Temporary help services

-0.8 1.3 7.9 1.0

Education and health services(1)

65 29 67 55

Health care and social assistance

45.9 36.6 55.5 45.4

Leisure and hospitality

13 39 55 74

Other services

4 1 9 4

Government

-15 -4 16 8

(3-month average change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

188 194 232 241

Total private

188 198 230 234

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES(2)

Total nonfarm women employees

49.6 49.7 49.7 49.7

Total private women employees

48.2 48.3 48.3 48.3

Total private production and nonsupervisory employees

82.4 82.4 82.4 82.4

HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES

Total private

Average weekly hours

34.4 34.4 34.5 34.5

Average hourly earnings

$26.71 $27.43 $27.53 $27.56

Average weekly earnings

$918.82 $943.59 $949.79 $950.82

Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)

108.3 110.1 110.6 110.9

Over-the-month percent change

-0.1 -0.2 0.5 0.3

Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)

138.2 144.4 145.6 146.1

Over-the-month percent change

0.1 0.1 0.8 0.3

DIFFUSION INDEX
(Over 1-month span)(5)

Total private (258 industries)

58.1 61.6 66.3 61.0

Manufacturing (76 industries)

61.8 65.8 63.2 59.9

Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(P) Preliminary

NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2018 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.


https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1200

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1199, January 31, 2019, Story 1: Radical Extreme Democrats Reveal They Are Advocating Killing Babies — Virginia Governor Endorses Trimester Abortion Bill — Progressive Eugenics Advocates — What is Next? — Death of The Disabled and Unproductive — Videos — Story 2: President Trump — A Big Beautiful Border Barrier or Wall Is Required To Stop The Continuing Illegal Alien Invasion of United States  — What about The 30 to 60 Million Illegal Aliens Already in the United States? — Part 1 of 2 — Videos

Posted on February 1, 2019. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Candidates, Abortion, American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Business, Cartoons, College, Communications, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Eugenics, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Freedom of Speech, Genocide, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, High Crimes, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Military Spending, National Interest, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Public Corruption, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Scandals, Senate, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Fraud, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1199 January 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1198 January 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1197 January 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1196 January 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1195 January 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1194 January 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1193 January 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1192 January 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1191 December 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1190 December 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1189 December 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1188 December 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1187 December 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1186 December 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1185 December 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1184 December 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1183 December 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1182 December 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1181 December 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1180 December 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1166 October 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1165 October 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1164 October 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1163 October 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1162 October 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1161 October 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1160 October 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1159 October 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1158 October 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1157 October 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1156 October 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1155 October 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1154 October 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1153 October 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1152 October 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1151 October 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1150 October 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1149, October 1, 2018

Image result for cartoons progressives abortion and eugenicsSee the source imageSee the source imagePresident Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with American manufacturers in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, Jan. 31, 2019, in Washington. Trump was signing an executive order pushing those who receive federal funds to "buy American." (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)Image result for cartoon branco walls are immoralImage result for cartoon branco walls are immoralImage result for cartoon branco trump wall vs pelosi open bordersImage result for cartoon branco walls are immoralImage result for cartoon branco walls are immoral

Story 1: Radical Extreme Democrats (REDs) Reveal They Are Advocating Killing Babies — Virginia Governor Endorses Trimester Abortion Bill — Progressive Eugenics Advocates — What is Next? — Death of The Disabled and Unproductive Deplorables? — Videos —

See the source image

The Silent Scream (Full Length)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM COMPLETE VERSION (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Silent Scream Complete Version – Abortion as Infanticide Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child’s pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a “silent scream” as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder.

The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people. Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists’ tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion.

The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist’s suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a “silent scream.” The child’s heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist’s suction tip begins to rip the baby’s limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece).

The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to “dehumanize” the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby’s head as “number 1.” The abortionist crushes “number 1” with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed.

Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven’t been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge.

Films like this must be made part of “informed consent.” NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world.

Eugenics, Hitler, Margaret Sanger’s Planned Murderhood, etc. by Edwin Black

Eugenics Glenn Beck w/ Edwin Black author of “War Against the Weak” talk Al Gore & Margaret Sanger

War on the Weak: Eugenics in America

The Progressive Movement and its Racist Eugenics Fabian Roots

See the source image

See the source image

Planned Parenthood Funded Lawmaker Proposes Bill Allowing Abortion Until Moment of Birth

Viral video sparks division on Virginia House floor over abortions bill

Virginia Democrat defends bill allowing abortion as woman is giving birth

Virginia Democrats Propose Bill Allowing Abortions Until Birth

Democratic delegate Kathy Tran has introduced a bill in Virginia’s House of Delegates that would legalize abortion up to birth. When questioned about the bill on Monday by Republican delegate Todd Gilbert, the Virginia House majority leader, Tran acknowledged that it would allow abortion even at the very end of pregnancy when a woman was going into labor.

Critics Cry Infanticide As Virginia Governor Seemingly Proposes Allowing Abortions At Time Of Birth

VA Gov Ralph Northam Discusses 3rd Trimester Abortion Bill

 THE INGRAHAM ANGLE – LIVE FULL SCREEN – Breaking Fox News Live Stream 1/30/2019 – HD

Sean Hannity 1/30/19 – FOX NEWS LIVE | Breaking News Today Jan 30, 2019

Rush Limbaugh on NY Abortion Law: ‘Here’s Why Liberals Are Cheering Murder’

D’Souza: What the Nazis learned from American progressives

The Top 5 Issues Facing Black Americans

Abortion and Black Genocide (Barack Obama and the Negro Project)

MAAFA 21 Documentary: The Black Holocaust

Why Millions are Leaving Democrat Party for Good. Racist is a DEMOCRAT

Tucker spars with pro-choice advocate over Dem abortion bills

Late Term Abortion in Virginia

ABORTION BANDWAGON: Virginia Takes After New York

Jennifer Boysko Gives Farewell Speech as a Delegate (1/11/19)

Virginia Governor Endorses Killing Infants | The News & Why It Matters

Abortion Clinic Employees — “Babies born alive daily.”

‘I Murdered More People Than Ted Bundy’: Former Abortionist Reflects on Painful Past

NY Bishop Calls Out Cuomo Over State’s New Abortion Law: ‘It Goes Way Beyond Roe vs. Wade’

Lawmakers pass bill to protect abortion rights in New York

Babies In New York Have To Die So This Can Happen In 2020

Hitler’s secret Nazi program that killed thousands of disabled people

s

Fit vs. UnFit, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood & Psychology, Mind Control Report

Against the USA, Naked Communist Conspiracy Theory, NWO, Mind Control Report

American Eugenics movement, the truth is here, must see!

Darwin, Nazi Eugenics and Selective Breeding

Science and the Swastika : Hitler’s Biological Soldiers

War on the Weak: Eugenics in America

Sterilizing Undesirables: Did The USA Inspire The Nazis?

Chapter 1 | The Eugenics Crusade

The Man Behind American Eugenics | The Eugenics Crusade

Genetic Screening: Controlling Heredity | Retro Report

Scientific Racism The Eugenics of Social Darwinism

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Down Syndrome Abortions Are Eugenics

The Progressive Era: Crash Course US History #27

 

Northam on Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then ‘Physicians and the Mother’ Could Decide If It Lives

BY: 

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant’s birth.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.

A Democratic lawmaker in the Virginia House of Delegates proposed a bill Tuesday that would allow abortions through the end of the third trimester of pregnancy. The video of Delegate Kathy Tran presenting her bill led to an exchange where she admitted that her bill would allow for a mother to abort her child minutes before giving birth.

“How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated that it would impair the mental health of the woman?” Majority Leader Todd Gilbert (R.) asked.

“Or physical health,” Tran said.

“Okay,” Gilbert replied. “I’m talking about the mental health.”

“I mean, through the third trimester,” Tran said. “The third trimester goes up to 40 weeks.”

“Okay, but to the end of the third trimester?” Gilbert asked.

“Yup, I don’t think we have a limit in the bill,” Tran said.

“Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she’s about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified?” Gilbert asked. “She’s dilating.”

Tran responded that is a decision between the woman and her doctor would have to make. Gilbert asked if her bill would allow an abortion right before the infant was born.

“My bill would allow that, yes,” Tran said.

NBC4 reporter Julie Carey asked Northam about the measure.

“Do you support her measure and explain her answer?” Carey asked.

“I wasn’t there, Julie. And I certainly can’t speak for delegate Tran. But I would tell you one, the first think I would say, this is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved,” Northam said. “When we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it is done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is non-viable.”

Northam continued by saying government shouldn’t be involved in these types of decisions and that legislators, especially male legislators, shouldn’t be telling women what to do.

“I think this was really blown out of proportion. But again we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers. And this is why Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men by the way, shouldn’t be telling a woman what she should or shouldn’t be doing with her body,” Northam said.

Carey asked if the law should still require women to have multiple physicians approve an abortion.

“Well, I think it is always good to get a second opinion and for at least two providers to be involved in that decision,” Northam said. “These decisions shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Northam’s office released a statement about his comments.

“No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor,” Ofirah Yheskel, a spokeswoman for Northam, said. “Attempts to extrapolate these comments otherwise is in bad faith and underscores exactly why the governor believes physicians and women, not legislators, should make these difficult and deeply personal medical decisions,”

Update 4:24 p.m.: Article was updated to include Northam’s statement.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/northman-on-40-week-abortion-bill-infant-would-be-delivered-and-then-a-discussion-would-ensue-between-the-physicians-and-the-mother/

 

Failed abortion bill draws GOP outrage against Va. Gov. Northam, Democratic legislators


Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) speaks at a women’s rights rally this month at the State Capitol in Richmond. (Steve Helber/AP)

January 30 at 8:13 PM

 President Trump, Republican lawmakers in Virginia and conservatives across the country attacked Gov. Ralph Northam and other state Democrats on Wednesday after they defended a failed bill that sought to reduce restrictions on late-term abortions.

The furor escalated quickly after Republicans circulated a video of Del. Kathy Tran (D-
Fairfax) acknowledging that her bill, like current law, would allow abortions up to the point of delivery in cases when the mother’s life or health was at serious risk. Northam, a pediatric neurologist, was asked about the issue in a radio interview and gave an answer that was later used by Republicans to suggest he favored killing live babies.

“I’m surprised that he did that. I’ve met him a number of times,” Trump told the Daily Caller when asked about Northam’s remarks. He said he had not seen the governor’s words but had watched the video of Tran.

“I thought it was terrible,” Trump said. “Do you remember when I said Hillary Clinton was willing to rip the baby out of the womb? That’s what it is. That’s what they’re doing. It’s terrible.”

Northam, whose spokeswoman said his words were being taken out of context by Republicans, called the notion that he would approve of killing infants “disgusting.”

“I have devoted my life to caring for children, and any insinuation otherwise is shameful and disgusting,” he said.

The president’s remarks came after former U.S. senator Jim DeMint called the bill “vile” and said Northam should abandon it or resign. Fox News, Breitbart and other conservative news outlets posted stories suggesting that the Democrats embraced infanticide. Tran, the bill’s sponsor, suspended her social media accounts after being besieged with threatening messages.

And Virginia House Speaker Kirk Cox (R-Colonial Heights) made a dramatic floor speech citing Bible verses to vow to fight against abortion.

Republicans, clinging to a slim majority in an election year when the entire General Assembly is on the ballot, sought to exploit the moment as part of a campaign to paint Democrats as radicals out of step with the state. And the uproar played directly into the national partisan divide, fueling outrage at a time when Democrats are launching presidential campaigns on issues far removed from abortion, an in­trac­table issue in American society.

“What my Democratic colleagues are most concerned about is what this moment actually reveals,” said Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah), the House majority leader. “It was a moment of unbridled honesty about their agenda and their legislation and what it actually does.”

It was a surprising turn for legislation that had been introduced — and had failed — each of the past three years without any drama. A companion bill offered in the state Senate more than a week ago failed without comment.

The frontal political assault was also unusual for a chamber that often congratulates itself on the civil “Virginia way,” with GOP leaders joining Northam just last week to tout a bipartisan agreement to clean up coal ash.

In recent weeks, Republicans have sought to focus attention on several Democratic bills that they say would harm the state. Those include bills to enact a $15 minimum wage, move the state away from fossil fuels and provide tax relief to low-income families.

The strategy escalated with the abortion bill, which failed in a subcommittee Monday.

More than half of the bill’s 20 Democratic patrons were elected in 2017 during the surge that nearly erased the GOP majority in the House of Delegates. Among them was Tran, one of a record number of women elected that year and also the first Virginia legislator to nurse her infant on the House floor.

Late-term abortions are permitted in Virginia only when the mother’s life is at grave risk. Tran’s bill would have lifted some restrictions. Instead of requiring three doctors to sign off on the procedure, it would have required only one doctor. It also would have removed language requiring that the danger to the mother be “substantial and irremediable.”

On WTOP radio’s “Ask the Governor” program Wednesday, NBC4’s Julie Carey asked Northam whether he supported Tran’s bill.

Northam expressed support and spoke broadly about his belief that politicians should leave abortion decisions to women and their doctors.

But his comments about third-trimester abortions set off critics. The procedures, he said, are “done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s not viable. So in this particular example, if a mother’s in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

After which, Twitter erupted.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) retweeted Northam’s comment and added, “I never thought I would see the day America had government officials who openly support legal infanticide.”

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted that “Dem Gov. Ralph Northam, a pediatrician himself, is defending born-alive abortions.”

And DeMint, the former senator from South Carolina who is chairman of the Conservative Partnership Institute, tweeted: “VA Gov Northam is no moderate, this is one of the most vile, radical pro-abortion positions ever put forward. This is evil. He should recant or resign.”

Northam’s office made clear the governor was talking about prognosis and medical treatment, not ending the life of a delivered baby. Ofirah Yheskel, a spokeswoman for Northam, said the Republicans were mischaracterizing his remarks.

“No woman seeks a third-
trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor,” she said.

“Attempts to extrapolate these comments otherwise is in bad faith and underscores exactly why the governor believes physicians and women, not legislators, should make these difficult and deeply personal medical decisions,” Yheskel said.

Republicans on Tuesday night had begun circulating video of Tran discussing the bill in subcommittee the day before. By Wednesday morning, the Republican Party of Virginia had sent the clip out in a fundraising email.

The clip shows Tran before the subcommittee as Gilbert — who is off camera — grills her about whether the bill allows an abortion up to the moment a woman is about to give birth.

Tran paused at the question, and Gilbert added, “She’s dilating.”

With a grimace and another long pause, Tran said, “Mr. Chairman, that would be, you know, a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make a decision at that point.”

“I understand that,” Gilbert said. “I’m asking if your bill allows that.”

“My bill would allow that, yes,” Tran replied.

Seeming to catch Democrats off guard, Cox took the extraordinary step Wednesday of leaving the dais to make a speech from the floor — something he said no other speaker has done in his 30 years in the legislature.

Invoking the biblical story of David and verses in the book of Hebrews about God being the builder of all things, Cox said he was horrified last week when the New York state legislature passed a law to make late-term abortions easier to get.

“Governor Northam vowed to enact [the same law] if Democrats take over the House and Senate in 2019,” he said.

“I will never stop fighting for the promise of life, as long as I hold a gavel, as long as I can speak in this microphone,” Cox said to thunderous applause from Republican delegates.

Del. Eileen Filler-Corn (D-Fairfax), the minority leader, stood to respond, upbraiding Republicans for their treatment of Tran and for what she said was misrepresenting the issue.

“It clearly was part of an orchestrated ambush,” she said. The public statements “were made to inflame passions throughout the social media echo chamber. And they succeeded. What was the result? Ongoing harassment, intimidation against the patron, several members of this body, their families and their children.”

The Democratic caucus slammed the Republicans for what it called “sensationalism and fearmongering [that] is more representative of Trump-style national politics rather than the Virginia Way” and pointed out that 91 percent of the member of the Republican caucus are men.

“House Republicans would do well to pay Virginia women — and their women colleagues — more respect,” Democratic spokeswoman Kathryn Gilley said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/failed-abortion-bill-draws-gop-outrage-against-va-gov-northam-democratic-lawmakers/2019/01/30/4a18f022-24b2-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.050bec98c99d

Infanticide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Infanticide (or infant homicide) is the intentional killing of infants.

Parental infanticide researchers have found that mothers are far more likely than fathers to be the perpetrators of neonaticide[1] and slightly more likely to commit infanticide in general.[2]

Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that “Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule.”[3]:61

In many past societies, certain forms of infanticide were considered permissible.

Contents

History[

Infanticidio by Mexican artist Antonio García Vega.

The practice of infanticide has taken many forms over time. Child sacrifice to supernatural figures or forces, such as that believed to have been practiced in ancient Carthage, may be only the most notorious example in the ancient world.

A frequent method of infanticide in ancient Europe and Asia was simply to abandon the infant, leaving it to die by exposure (i.e., hypothermia, hunger, thirst, or animal attack).[4][5]

On at least one island in Oceania, infanticide was carried out until the 20th century by suffocating the infant,[6] while in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and in the Inca Empire it was carried out by sacrifice (see below).

Paleolithic and Neolithic

Many Neolithic groups routinely resorted to infanticide in order to control their numbers so that their lands could support them. Joseph Birdsell believed that infanticide rates in prehistoric times were between 15% and 50% of the total number of births,[7] while Laila Williamson estimated a lower rate ranging from 15% to 20%.[3]:66 Both anthropologists believed that these high rates of infanticide persisted until the development of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution.[8]:19 Comparative anthropologists have calculated that 50% of female newborn babies were killed by their parents during the Paleolithic era.[9] From the infants hominid skulls (e.g., Taung child skull) that had been traumatized, has been proposed cannibalism by Raymond A. Dart.[10] The children were not necessarily actively killed, but neglect and intentional malnourishment may also have occurred, as proposed by Vicente Lull as an explanation for an apparent surplus of men and the below average height of women in prehistoric Menorca.[11]

In ancient history

In the New World

Archaeologists have uncovered physical evidence of child sacrifice at several locations.[8]:16–22 Some of the best attested examples are the diverse rites which were part of the religious practices in Mesoamerica and the Inca Empire.[12][13][14]

In the Old World

Three thousand bones of young children, with evidence of sacrificial rituals, have been found in SardiniaPelasgians offered a sacrifice of every tenth child during difficult times. Syrians sacrificed children to Jupiter and Juno. Many remains of children have been found in Gezer excavations with signs of sacrifice. Child skeletons with the marks of sacrifice have been found also in Egypt dating 950–720 BCE.[citation needed] In Carthage “[child] sacrifice in the ancient world reached its infamous zenith”.[attribution needed][8]:324 Besides the Carthaginians, other Phoenicians, and the CanaanitesMoabites and Sepharvites offered their first-born as a sacrifice to their gods.

Ancient Egypt

In Egyptian households, at all social levels, children of both sexes were valued and there is no evidence of infanticide.[15] The religion of the Ancient Egyptians forbade infanticide and during the Greco-Roman period they rescued abandoned babies from manure heaps, a common method of infanticide by Greeks or Romans, and were allowed to either adopt them as foundling or raise them as slaves, often giving them names such as “copro -” to memorialise their rescue.[16] Strabo considered it a peculiarity of the Egyptians that every child must be reared.[17] Diodorus indicates infanticide was a punishable offence.[18] Egypt was heavily dependent on the annual flooding of the Nile to irrigate the land and in years of low inundation severe famine could occur with breakdowns in social order resulting, notably between 930–1070 AD and 1180–1350 AD. Instances of cannibalism are recorded during these periods but it is unknown if this happened during the pharaonic era of Ancient Egypt.[19] Beatrix Midant-Reynes describes human sacrifice as having occurred at Abydos in the early dynastic period (c. 3150–2850 BCE),[20] while Jan Assmann asserts there is no clear evidence of human sacrifice ever happening in Ancient Egypt.[21]

Carthage

According to Shelby Brown, Carthaginians, descendants of the Phoenicians, sacrificed infants to their gods.[22] Charred bones of hundreds of infants have been found in Carthaginian archaeological sites. One such area harbored as many as 20,000 burial urns.[22]Skeptics suggest that the bodies of children found in Carthaginian and Phoenician cemeteries were merely the cremated remains of children that died naturally.[23]

Plutarch (c. 46–120 AD) mentions the practice, as do TertullianOrosius, Diodorus Siculus and Philo. The Hebrew Bible also mentions what appears to be child sacrifice practiced at a place called the Tophet (from the Hebrew taph or toph, to burn) by the Canaanites. Writing in the 3rd century BCE, Kleitarchos, one of the historians of Alexander the Great, described that the infants rolled into the flaming pit. Diodorus Siculus wrote that babies were roasted to death inside the burning pit of the god Baal Hamon, a bronze statue.[24][25]

Greece and Rome

Medea killing her sons, by Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix (1862).

The historical Greeks considered the practice of adult and child sacrifice barbarous,[26] however, the exposure of newborns was widely practiced in ancient Greece, it was even advocated by Aristotle in the case of congenital deformity — “As to the exposure of children, let there be a law that no deformed child shall live.”[27] In Greece, the decision to expose a child was typically the father’s, although in Sparta the decision was made by a group of elders.[28] Exposure was the preferred method of disposal, as that act in itself was not considered to be murder; moreover, the exposed child technically had a chance of being rescued by the gods or any passersby.[29] This very situation was a recurring motif in Greek mythology.[30] To notify the neighbors of a birth of a child, a woolen strip was hung over the front door to indicate a female baby and an olive branch to indicate a boy had been born. Families did not always keep their new child. After a woman had a baby, she would show it to her husband. If the husband accepted it, it would live, but if he refused it, it would die. Babies would often be rejected if they were illegitimate, unhealthy or deformed, the wrong sex, or too great a burden on the family. These babies would not be directly killed, but put in a clay pot or jar and deserted outside the front door or on the roadway. In ancient Greek religion, this practice took the responsibility away from the parents because the child would die of natural causes, for example hunger, asphyxiation or exposure to the elements.

The practice was prevalent in ancient Rome, as well. Philo was the first philosopher to speak out against it.[31] A letter from a Roman citizen to his sister, or a pregnant wife from her husband,[32] dating from 1 BC, demonstrates the casual nature with which infanticide was often viewed:

“I am still in Alexandria. … I beg and plead with you to take care of our little child, and as soon as we receive wages, I will send them to you. In the meantime, if (good fortune to you!) you give birth, if it is a boy, let it live; if it is a girl, expose it.”,[33][34] “If you give birth to a boy, keep it. If it is a girl, expose it. Try not to worry. I’ll send the money as soon as we get paid.”[35]

In some periods of Roman history it was traditional for a newborn to be brought to the pater familias, the family patriarch, who would then decide whether the child was to be kept and raised, or left to die by exposure.[36] The Twelve Tables of Roman law obliged him to put to death a child that was visibly deformed. The concurrent practices of slavery and infanticide contributed to the “background noise” of the crises during the Republic.[36]

Infanticide became a capital offense in Roman law in 374 AD, but offenders were rarely if ever prosecuted.[37]

According to mythology, Romulus and Remus, twin infant sons of the war god Mars, survived near-infanticide after being tossed into the Tiber River. According to the myth, they were raised by wolves, and later founded the city of Rome.

Judaism

In this depiction of the Binding of Isaac by Julius Schnorr von Karolsfeld, 1860, Abraham is shone not sacrificing Isaac.

Judaism prohibits infanticide, and has for some time, dating back to at least early Common Era. Roman historians wrote about the ideas and customs of other peoples, which often diverged from their own. Tacitus recorded that the Jews “regard it as a crime to kill any late-born children”.[38] Josephus, whose works give an important insight into 1st-century Judaism, wrote that God “forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward”.[39]

Pagan European tribes

In his book GermaniaTacitus wrote in 98 AD that the ancient Germanic tribes enforced a similar prohibition. He found such mores remarkable and commented: “[The Germani] hold it shameful to kill any unwanted child.” It has become clear over the millennia, though, that Tacitus’ description was inaccurate; the consensus of modern scholarship significantly differs. John Boswell believed that in ancient Germanic tribes unwanted children were exposed, usually in the forest.[40]:218 “It was the custom of the [Teutonic] pagans, that if they wanted to kill a son or daughter, they would be killed before they had been given any food.”[40]:211 Usually children born out of wedlock were disposed that way.

In his highly influential Pre-historic TimesJohn Lubbock described burnt bones indicating the practice of child sacrifice in pagan Britain.[41]

The last canto, Marjatan poika (Son of Marjatta), of Finnish national epic Kalevala describes an assumed infanticide. Väinämöinen orders the infant bastard son of Marjatta to be drowned in marsh.

The Íslendingabók, a main source for the early history of Iceland, recounts that on the Conversion of Iceland to Christianity in 1000 it was provided – in order to make the transition more palatable to Pagans – that “the old laws allowing exposure of newborn children will remain in force”. However, this provision – like other concessions made at the time to the Pagans – was abolished some years later.

Christianity

Christianity rejects infanticide. The Teachings of the Apostles or Didache said “thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born”.[42] The Epistle of Barnabas stated an identical command, both thus conflating abortion and infanticide.[43] Apologists TertullianAthenagorasMinucius FelixJustin Martyr and Lactantius also maintained that exposing a baby to death was a wicked act.[4] In 318 ADConstantine I considered infanticide a crime, and in 374 ADValentinian I mandated the rearing of all children (exposing babies, especially girls, was still common). The Council of Constantinople declared that infanticide was homicide, and in 589 AD, the Third Council of Toledo took measures against the custom of killing their own children.[37]

Middle Ages

Whereas theologians and clerics preached sparing their lives, newborn abandonment continued as registered in both the literature record and in legal documents.[5]:16 According to William L. Langer, exposure in the Middle Ages “was practiced on gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference”.[44]:355–356 At the end of the 12th century, notes Richard Trexler, Roman women threw their newborns into the Tiber river in daylight.[45]

Unlike other European regions, in the Middle Ages the German mother had the right to expose the newborn.[46] In GotlandSweden, children were also sacrificed.[47]

In the High Middle Ages, abandoning unwanted children finally eclipsed infanticide.[citation needed] Unwanted children were left at the door of church or abbey, and the clergy was assumed to take care of their upbringing. This practice also gave rise to the first orphanages.

However, very high sex ratios were common in even late medieval Europe, which may indicate sex-selective infanticide.[48]

Arabia

Some Muslim sources allege that pre-Islamic Arabian society practiced infanticide as a form of “post-partum birth control”.[49] The word waʾd was used to describe the practice.[50] These sources state that infanticide was practiced either out of destitution (thus practiced on males and females alike), or as “disappointment and fear of social disgrace felt by a father upon the birth of a daughter”.[49]

Some authors believe that there is little evidence that infanticide was prevalent in pre-Islamic Arabia or early Muslim history, except for the case of the Tamim tribe, who practiced it during severe famine according to Islamic sources.[51] Others state that “female infanticide was common all over Arabia during this period of time” (pre-Islamic Arabia), especially by burying alive a female newborn.[8]:59[52] A tablet discovered in Yemen, forbidding the people of a certain town from engaging in the practice, is the only written reference to infanticide within the peninsula in pre-Islamic times.[53]

Islam

Infanticide is explicitly prohibited by the Qur’an.[54] “And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We give them sustenance and yourselves too; surely to kill them is a great wrong.”[55] Together with polytheism and homicide, infanticide is regarded as a grave sin (see 6:151 and 60:12).[49] Infanticide is also implicitly denounced in the story of Pharaoh’s slaughter of the male children of Israelites (see 2:497:1277:14114:628:440:25).[49]

Ukraine and Russia

Femme Russe abandonnant ses enfants à des loupsCharles-Michel Geoffroy (fr), 1845

Infanticide may have been practiced as human sacrifice, as part of the pagan cult of PerunIbn Fadlan describes sacrificial practices at the time of his trip to Kiev Rus (present day Ukraine) in 921–922, and describes an incident of a woman voluntarily sacrificing her life as part of a funeral rite for a prominent leader, but makes no mention of infanticide. The Primary Chronicle, one of the most important literary sources before the 12th century, indicates that human sacrifice to idols may have been introduced by Vladimir the Great in 980. The same Vladimir the Great formally converted Kiev Rus into Christianity just 8 years later, but pagan cults continued to be practiced clandestinely in remote areas as late as the 13th century.

In Kamchatka, babies were killed and thrown to the dogs.[56]:105 American explorer George Kennan noted that among the Koryaks, a Mongoloid people of north-eastern Siberia, infanticide was still common in the nineteenth century. One of a pair of twins was always sacrificed.[57]

Georgia

The Svans killed newborn females by filling their mouths with hot ashes.[56]:106

United Kingdom

Infanticide (as a crime) gained both popular and bureaucratic significance in Victorian Britain. By the mid 19th century, in the context of criminal lunacy and the insanity defence, killing one’s own child(ren) attracted ferocious debate, as the role of women in society was defined by motherhood, and it was thought that any woman who murdered her own child was by definition insane and could not be held responsible for her actions. Several cases were subsequently highlighted during the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment (1864-66), as a particular felony where an effective avoidance of the death penalty had informally begun.

The New Poor Law Act of 1834 ended parish relief for unmarried mothers and allowed fathers of illegitimate children to avoid paying for “child support”.[58] Unmarried mothers then received little assistance and the poor were left with the option either entering the workhouse, prostitution, infanticide or abortion. By the middle of the century infanticide was common for social reasons, such as illegitimacy, and the introduction of child life insurance additionally encouraged some women to kill their children for gain. Examples are Mary Ann Cotton, who murdered many of her 15 children as well as 3 husbands, Margaret Waters, the ‘Brixton Baby Farmer’, a professional baby-farmer who was found guilty of infanticide in 1870, Jessie King hanged in 1889, Amelia Dyer, the ‘Angel Maker’, who murdered over 400 babies in her care, and Ada Chard-Williams, a baby farmer who was later hanged at Newgate prison.

The Times reported that 67 infants were murdered in London in 1861 and 150 more recorded as “found dead”, many of which were found on the streets. Another 250 were suffocated, half of them not recorded as accidental deaths. The report noted that “infancy in London has to creep into life in the midst of foes.”[59]

Recording a birth as a still-birth was also another way of concealing infanticide because still-births did not need to be registered until 1926 and they did not need to be buried in public cemeteries.[60] In 1895 the Sun (London) published an article “Massacre of the Innocents” highlighting the dangers of baby-farming, in the recording of stillbirths and quoting Braxton-Hicks, the London Coroner, on lying-in houses: “I have not the slightest doubt that a large amount of crime is covered by the expression `still-birth’. There are a large number of cases of what are called newly-born children, which are found all over England, more especially in London and large towns, abandoned in streets, rivers, on commons, and so on.” He continued “a great deal of that crime is due to what are called lying-in houses, which are not registered, or under the supervision of that sort, where the people who act as midwives constantly, as soon as the child is born, either drop it into a pail of water or smother it with a damp cloth. It is a very common thing, also, to find that they bash their heads on the floor and break their skulls.”[61]

The last British woman to be executed for infanticide of her own child was Rebecca Smith, who was hanged in Wiltshire in 1849.

The Infant Life Protection Act of 1897 required local authorities to be notified within 48 hours of changes in custody or the death of children under seven years. Under the Children’s Act of 1908 “no infant could be kept in a home that was so unfit and so overcrowded as to endanger its health, and no infant could be kept by an unfit nurse who threatened, by neglect or abuse, its proper care and maintenance.”

Asia

China

Burying Babies in China (p.40, March 1865, XXII)[62]

Short of execution, the harshest penalties were imposed on practitioners of infanticide by the legal codes of the Qin dynasty and Han dynasty of ancient China.[63]

Marco Polo, the explorer, saw newborns exposed in Manzi.[64] China’s society practiced sex selective infanticide. Philosopher Han Fei Tzu, a member of the ruling aristocracy of the 3rd century BC, who developed a school of law, wrote: “As to children, a father and mother when they produce a boy congratulate one another, but when they produce a girl they put it to death.”[65] Among the Hakka people, and in YunnanAnhuiSichuanJiangxi and Fujian a method of killing the baby was to put her into a bucket of cold water, which was called “baby water”.[66]

Infanticide was known in China as early as the 3rd century BC, and, by the time of the Song dynasty (960–1279 AD), it was widespread in some provinces. Buddhist belief in transmigration allowed poor residents of the country to kill their newborn children if they felt unable to care for them, hoping that they would be reborn in better circumstances. Furthermore, some Chinese did not consider newborn children fully “human”, and saw “life” beginning at some point after the sixth month after birth.[67]

Contemporary writers from the Song dynasty note that, in Hubei and Fujian provinces, residents would only keep three sons and two daughters (among poor farmers, two sons and one daughter), and kill all babies beyond that number at birth.[68] Initially the sex of the child was only one factor to consider. By the time of the Ming Dynasty, however (1368–1644), male infanticide was becoming increasingly uncommon. The prevalence of female infanticide remained high much longer. The magnitude of this practice is subject to some dispute; however, one commonly quoted estimate is that, by late Qing, between one fifth and one quarter of all newborn girls, across the entire social spectrum, were victims of infanticide. If one includes excess mortality among female children under 10 (ascribed to gender-differential neglect), the share of victims rises to one third.[69][70]

Scottish Physician John Dudgeon, who worked in Beijing, China, during the Qing Dynasty said that in China, “Infanticide does not prevail to the extent so generally believed among us, and in the north it does not exist at all.”[71]

Sex ratio at birth in mainland China, males per 100 females, 1980-2010.

Gender-selected abortion, abandonment, and infanticide are illegal in present-day China. Nevertheless, the US State Department,[72] and the human rights organization Amnesty International[73] have all declared that China’s family planning programs, called the one child policy, contribute to infanticide.[74][75][76] The sex gap between males and females aged 0–19 years old was estimated to be 25 million in 2010 by the United Nations Population Fund.[77]

Japan

Since feudal Japan the common slang for infanticide was “mabiki” (間引き) which means to pull plants from an overcrowded garden. A typical method in Japan was smothering through wet paper on the baby’s mouth and nose.[78] It became common as a method of population control. Farmers would often kill their second or third sons. Daughters were usually spared, as they could be married off, sold off as servants or prostitutes, or sent off to become geishas.[79] Mabiki persisted in the 19th century and early 20th century.[80] To bear twins was perceived as barbarous and unlucky and efforts were made to hide or kill one or both twins.[81]

India

Hindu Woman carrying her child to be drowned in the River Ganges at Bengal (1852)[82]

Hindoo Mother Sacrificing her infant (November 1853, X, p.120)[83]

Female infanticide of newborn girls was systematic in feudatory Rajputs in South Asia for illegitimate female children during the Middle Ages. According to Firishta, as soon as the illegitimate female child was born she was held “in one hand, and a knife in the other, that any person who wanted a wife might take her now, otherwise she was immediately put to death”.[84] The practice of female infanticide was also common among the Kutch, Kehtri, Nagar, Bengal, Miazed, Kalowries in India inhabitants, and also among the Sindh in British India.[85]

It was not uncommon that parents threw a child to the sharks in the Ganges River as a sacrificial offering. The British colonists were unable to outlaw the custom until the beginnings of the 19th century.[86]:78

According to social activists, female infanticide has remained a problem in India into the 21st century, with both NGOs and the government conducting awareness campaigns to combat it.[87] In India female infanticide is more common than the killing of male offspring, due to sex-selective infanticide.[88] In China for example, the sex gap between males and females aged 0–19 years old was estimated to be 25 million in 2010 by the United Nations Population Fund.[77]

Africa

In some African societies some neonates were killed because of beliefs in evil omens or because they were considered unlucky. Twins were usually put to death in Arebo; as well as by the Nama people of South West Africa; in the Lake Victoria Nyanza region; by the Tswana in Portuguese East Africa; in some parts of IgbolandNigeria twins were sometimes abandoned in a forest at birth (as depicted in Things Fall Apart), oftentimes one twin was killed or hidden by midwives of wealthier mothers; and by the !Kung people of the Kalahari Desert.[8]:160–161 The KikuyuKenya‘s most populous ethnic group, practiced ritual killing of twins.[89]

Infanticide is rooted in the old traditions and beliefs prevailing all over the country. A survey conducted by Disability Rights International found that 45% women interviewed by them in Kenya were pressured to kill their children born with disabilities. The pressure being much higher in the rural areas, with every second mother being forced out of three.[90]

Australia

Literature suggests infanticide may have occurred reasonably commonly among Indigenous Australians, in all areas of Australia prior to European settlement. Infanticide may have continued to occur quite often up until the 1960s. An 1866 issue of The Australian News for Home Readers informed readers that “the crime of infanticide is so prevalent amongst the natives that it is rare to see an infant”.[91]

Author Susanna de Vries in 2007 told a newspaper that her accounts of Aboriginal violence, including infanticide, were censored by publishers in the 1980s and 1990s. She told reporters that the censorship “stemmed from guilt over the stolen children question”.[92] Keith Windschuttle weighed in on the conversation, saying this type of censorship started in the 1970s.[92] In the same article Louis Nowra suggested that infanticide in customary Aboriginal law may have been because it was difficult to keep an abundant number of Aboriginal children alive; there were life-and-death decisions modern-day Australians no longer have to face.[92]

South Australia and Victoria

According to William D. Rubinstein, “Nineteenth-century European observers of Aboriginal life in South Australia and Victoria reported that about 30% of Aboriginal infants were killed at birth.”[93]

James Dawson wrote a passage about infanticide among Indigenous people in the western district of Victoria, which stated that “Twins are as common among them as among Europeans; but as food is occasionally very scarce, and a large family troublesome to move about, it is lawful and customary to destroy the weakest twin child, irrespective of sex. It is usual also to destroy those which are malformed.”[94]

He also wrote “When a woman has children too rapidly for the convenience and necessities of the parents, she makes up her mind to let one be killed, and consults with her husband which it is to be. As the strength of a tribe depends more on males than females, the girls are generally sacrificed. The child is put to death and buried, or burned without ceremony; not, however, by its father or mother, but by relatives. No one wears mourning for it. Sickly children are never killed on account of their bad health, and are allowed to die naturally.”[94]

Western Australia

In 1937, a reverend in the Kimberley offered a “baby bonus” to Aboriginal families as a deterrent against infanticide and to increase the birthrate of the local Indigenous population.[95]

Australian Capital Territory

Canberran journalist in 1927 wrote of the “cheapness of life” to the Aboriginal people local to the Canberra area 100 years before. “If drought or bush fires had devastated the country and curtailed food supplies, babies got short shift. Ailing babies, too would not be kept” he wrote.[96]

New South Wales

A bishop wrote in 1928 that it was common for Aboriginal Australians to restrict the size of their tribal groups, including by infanticide, so that the food resources of the tribal area may be sufficient for them.[97]

Northern Territory

Annette Hamilton, a professor of anthropology at Macquarie University who carried out research in the Aboriginal community of Maningrida in Arnhem Land during the 1960s wrote that prior to that time part-European babies born to Aboriginal mothers had not been allowed to live, and that ‘mixed-unions are frowned on by men and women alike as a matter of principle’.[98]

North AmericaInuit

There is no agreement about the actual estimates of the frequency of newborn female infanticide in the Inuit population. Carmel Schrire mentions diverse studies ranging from 15–50% to 80%.[99]

Polar Inuit (Inughuit) killed the child by throwing him or her into the sea.[100] There is even a legend in Inuit mythology, “The Unwanted Child”, where a mother throws her child into the fjord.

The Yukon and the Mahlemuit tribes of Alaska exposed the female newborns by first stuffing their mouths with grass before leaving them to die.[101] In Arctic Canada the Inuit exposed their babies on the ice and left them to die.[44]:354

Female Inuit infanticide disappeared in the 1930s and 1940s after contact with the Western cultures from the South.[102]

Canada[

The Handbook of North American Indians reports infanticide among the Dene Natives and those of the Mackenzie Mountains.[103][104]

Native Americans

In the Eastern Shoshone there was a scarcity of Indian women as a result of female infanticide.[105] For the Maidu Native Americans twins were so dangerous that they not only killed them, but the mother as well.[106] In the region known today as southern Texas, the Mariame Indians practiced infanticide of females on a large scale. Wives had to be obtained from neighboring groups.[107]

Mexico

Bernal Díaz recounted that, after landing on the Veracruz coast, they came across a temple dedicated to Tezcatlipoca. “That day they had sacrificed two boys, cutting open their chests and offering their blood and hearts to that accursed idol”.[108] In The Conquest of New Spain Díaz describes more child sacrifices in the towns before the Spaniards reached the large Aztec city Tenochtitlan.

South America

Although academic data of infanticides among the indigenous people in South America is not as abundant as that of North America, the estimates seem to be similar.

Brazi

The Tapirapé indigenous people of Brazil allowed no more than three children per woman, and no more than two of the same sex. If the rule was broken infanticide was practiced.[109] The Bororo killed all the newborns that did not appear healthy enough. Infanticide is also documented in the case of the Korubo people in the Amazon.[110]

The Yanomami men killed children while raiding enemy villages.[111] Helena Valero, a Brazilian woman kidnapped by Yanomami warriors in the 1930s, witnessed a Karawetari raid on her tribe:

“They killed so many. I was weeping for fear and for pity but there was nothing I could do. They snatched the children from their mothers to kill them, while the others held the mothers tightly by the arms and wrists as they stood up in a line. All the women wept. … The men began to kill the children; little ones, bigger ones, they killed many of them.”.[111]

Peru, Paraguay and Bolivia

While qhapaq hucha was practiced in the Peruvian large cities, child sacrifice in the pre-Columbian tribes of the region is less documented. However, even today studies on the Aymara Indians reveal high incidences of mortality among the newborn, especially female deaths, suggesting infanticide.[112] The Abipones, a small tribe of Guaycuruan stock, of about 5,000 by the end of the 18th century in Paraguay, practiced systematic infanticide; with never more than two children being reared in one family. The Machigenga killed their disabled children. Infanticide among the Chaco in Paraguay was estimated as high as 50% of all newborns in that tribe, who were usually buried.[113] The infanticidal custom had such roots among the Ayoreo in Bolivia and Paraguay that it persisted until the late 20th century.[114]

Modern times

Infanticide has become less common in the Western world. The frequency has been estimated to be 1 in approximately 3000 to 5000 children of all ages[115] and 2.1 per 100,000 newborns per year.[116] It is thought that infanticide today continues at a much higher rate in areas of extremely high poverty and overpopulation, such as parts of China and India.[117] Female infants, then and even now, are particularly vulnerable, a factor in sex-selective infanticide. Recent estimates suggest that over 100 million girls and women are ‘missing’ in Asia.[118]

Benin[edit]

In spite of the fact that it is illegal, in BeninWest Africa, parents secretly continue with infanticidal customs.[119]

North Korea

According to “The Hidden Gulag” published by the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, the People’s Republic of China returns all illegal immigrants from North Korea which usually imprisons them in a short term facility. Women who are suspected of being impregnated by Chinese fathers are subjected to forced abortions; babies born alive are killed, sometimes by exposure or being buried alive.[120]

China

There have been some accusations that infanticide occurs in the People’s Republic of China due to the one-child policy.[121] In the 1990s, a certain stretch of the Yangtze River was known to be a common site of infanticide by drowning, until government projects made access to it more difficult. Recent studies suggest that over 40 million girls and women are ‘missing’ in China (Klasen and Wink 2003).[122]

India

The practice has continued in some rural areas of India.[123][124] Infanticide is illegal in India.[125]

According to a recent report by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) up to 50 million girls and women are missing in India‘s population as a result of systematic sex discrimination and sex selective abortions.[126]

Pakistan

Killings of newborn babies have been on the rise in Pakistan, corresponding to an increase in poverty across the country.[127] More than 1,000 infants, mostly girls, were killed or abandoned to die in Pakistan in 2009 according to a Pakistani charity organization.[128]

The Edhi Foundation found 1,210 dead babies in 2010. Many more are abandoned and left at the doorsteps of mosques. As a result, Edhi centers feature signs “Do not murder, lay them here.” Though female infanticide is punishable by life in prison, such crimes are rarely prosecuted.[127]

Oceania

In November 2008 it was reported that in Agibu and Amosa villages of Gimi region of Eastern Highlands province of Papua New Guinea where tribal fighting in the region of Gimi has been going on since 1986 (many of the clashes arising over claims of sorcery) women had agreed that if they stopped producing males, allowing only female babies to survive, their tribe’s stock of boys would go down and there would be no men in the future to fight. They agreed to have all newborn male babies killed. It is not known how many male babies were killed by being smothered, but it had reportedly happened to all males over a 10-year period and probably was still happening.

England and Wales

In England and Wales there were typically 30 to 50 homicides per million children less than 1 year old between 1982 and 1996.[129] The younger the infant, the higher the risk.[129] The rate for children 1 to 5 years was around 10 per million children.[129] The homicide rate of infants less than 1 year is significantly higher than for the general population.[129]

In English law infanticide is established as a distinct offence by the Infanticide Acts. Defined as the killing of a child under 12 months of age by their mother, the effect of the Acts are to establish a partial defence to charges of murder.[130]

United States

In 1983, the United States ranked eleventh for infants under 1 year killed, and fourth for those killed from 1 through 14 years (the latter case not necessarily involving filicide).[131] In the U.S. over six hundred children were killed by their parents in 1983.[132]

In the United States the infanticide rate during the first hour of life outside the womb dropped from 1.41 per 100,000 during 1963 to 1972 to 0.44 per 100,000 for 1974 to 1983; the rates during the first month after birth also declined, whereas those for older infants rose during this time.[133] The legalization of abortion, which was completed in 1973, was the most important factor in the decline in neonatal mortality during the period from 1964 to 1977, according to a study by economists associated with the National Bureau of Economic Research.[133][134]

Canada

In Canada 114 cases of infanticide by a parent were reported during 1964–1968.[135] There is ongoing debate in the Canadian legal and political fields about whether section 237 of the Criminal Code, which creates the specific offence and partial defence of infanticide in Canadian law, should be amended or abolished altogether.[136]

Spain

From 2013 to March 2018, 28 infanticides cases done by 22 mothers and three stepmothers were reported in Spain.[137][138] The most famous case was the murder of Bernardo González Parra in 1910 perpetrated by Francisco Leona Romero, Julio Hernández Rodríguez, Francisco Ortega el Moruno and Agustina Rodríguez.[139][140]

Modern proposals

In a 2012 article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, a philosopher and a bioethicist jointly proposed that infanticide be legalized, calling it “after-birth abortion”, and claiming that both “the fetus and the newborn are potential persons”. Many replies were published to this article.[141]

Child euthanasia

Euthanasia applied to children that are gravely ill or that suffer from significant birth defects is legal in the Netherlands under rigidly controlled conditions, but controversial.[142] Some critics have compared child euthanasia to infanticide.

Explanations for the practice

There are various reasons for infanticide. Neonaticide typically has different patterns and causes than for killing of older infants. Traditional neonaticide is often related to economic necessity – inability to provide for the infant.

In the United Kingdom and the United States, older infants are typically killed for reasons related to child abusedomestic violence or mental illness.[129] For infants older than one day, younger infants are more at risk, and boys are more at risk than girls.[129] Risk factors for the parent include: Family history of violence, violence in current relationship, history of abuse or neglect of children, and personality disorder and/or depression.[129]

Religious

In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, “loopholes” were invented by those who wanted to avoid the damnation that was promised by most Christian doctrine as a penalty of suicide. One famous example of someone who wished to end their life but avoid the eternity in hell was Christina Johansdotter (died 1740). She was a Swedish murderer who killed a child in Stockholm with the sole purpose of being executed. She is an example of those who seek suicide through execution by committing a murder. It was a common act, frequently targeting young children or infants as they were believed to be free from sin, thus going straight to heaven.[143]

In 1888, Lieut. F. Elton reported that Ugi beach people in the Solomon Islands killed their infants at birth by burying them, and women were also said to practice abortion. They reported that it was too much trouble to raise a child, and instead preferred to buy one from the bush people.[144]

Economic

Many historians believe the reason to be primarily economic, with more children born than the family is prepared to support. In societies that are patrilineal and patrilocal, the family may choose to allow more sons to live and kill some daughters, as the former will support their birth family until they die, whereas the latter will leave economically and geographically to join their husband’s family, possibly only after the payment of a burdensome dowry price. Thus the decision to bring up a boy is more economically rewarding to the parents.[8]:362–368 However, this does not explain why infanticide would occur equally among rich and poor, nor why it would be as frequent during decadent periods of the Roman Empire as during earlier, less affluent, periods.[8]:28–34, 187–192

Before the appearance of effective contraception, infanticide was a common occurrence in ancient brothels. Unlike usual infanticide – where historically girls have been more likely to be killed – prostitutes in certain areas preferred to kill their male offspring.[145]

UK 18th and 19th century

Instances of infanticide in Britain in 18th and 19th centuries is often attributed to the economic position of the women, with juries committing “pious perjury” in many subsequent murder cases. The knowledge of the difficulties faced in the 18th century by those women who attempted to keep their children can be seen as reason for juries to show compassion. If the woman chose to keep the child, society was not set up to ease the pressure placed upon the woman, legally, socially or economically.[146]

In mid-18th century Britain there was assistance available for women who were not able to raise their children. The Foundling Hospital opened in 1756 and was able to take in some of the illegitimate children. However, the conditions within the hospital caused Parliamentto withdraw funding and the governors to live off of their own incomes.[147] This resulted in a stringent entrance policy, with the committee requiring that the hospital:

Will not receive a child that is more than a year old, nor the child of a domestic servant, nor any child whose father can be compelled to maintain it.[148]

Once a mother had admitted her child to the hospital, the hospital did all it could to ensure that the parent and child were not re-united.[148]

MacFarlane argues in Illegitimacy and Illegitimates in Britain (1980) that English society greatly concerned itself with the burden that a bastard child places upon its communities and had gone to some lengths to ensure that the father of the child is identified in order to maintain its well-being.[149] Assistance could be gained through maintenance payments from the father, however, this was capped “at a miserable 2 s and 6 d a week”.[150] If the father fell behind with the payments he could only be asked “to pay a maximum of 13 weeks arrears”.[150]

Despite the accusations of some that women were getting a free hand-out there is evidence that many women were far from receiving adequate assistance from their parish. “Within Leeds in 1822 … relief was limited to 1 s per week”.[151] Sheffield required women to enter the workhouse, whereas Halifax gave no relief to the women who required it. The prospect of entering the workhouse was certainly something to be avoided. Lionel Rose quotes Dr Joseph Rogers in Massacre of the Innocents … (1986). Rogers, who was employed by a London workhouse in 1856 stated that conditions in the nursery were ‘wretchedly damp and miserable … [and] … overcrowded with young mothers and their infants’.[152]

The loss of social standing for a servant girl was a particular problem in respect of producing a bastard child as they relied upon a good character reference in order to maintain their job and more importantly, to get a new or better job. In a large number of trials for the crime of infanticide, it is the servant girl that stood accused.[153] The disadvantage of being a servant girl is that they had to live to the social standards of their superiors or risk dismissal and no references. Whereas within other professions, such as in the factory, the relationship between employer and employee was much more anonymous and the mother would be better able to make other provisions, such as employing a minder.[154] The result of the lack of basic social care in Britain in the 18th and 19th century is the numerous accounts in court records of women, particularly servant girls, standing trial for the murder of their child.[155]

There may have been no specific offence of infanticide in England before about 1623 because infanticide was a matter for the by ecclesiastical courts, possibly because infant mortality from natural causes was high (about 15% or one in six).[156]

Thereafter the accusation of the suppression of bastard children by lewd mothers was a crime incurring the presumption of guilt.[157]

The Infanticide Acts are several laws. That of 1922 made the killing of an infant child by its mother during the early months of life as a lesser crime than murder. The acts of 1938 and 1939 abolished the earlier act, but introduced the idea that postpartum depression was legally to be regarded as a form of diminished responsibility.

Population control

Marvin Harris estimated that among Paleolithic hunters 23–50% of newborn children were killed. He argued that the goal was to preserve the 0.001% population growth of that time.[158]:15 He also wrote that female infanticide may be a form of population control.[158]:5Population control is achieved not only by limiting the number of potential mothers; increased fighting among men for access to relatively scarce wives would also lead to a decline in population. For example, on the Melanesian island of Tikopia infanticide was used to keep a stable population in line with its resource base.[6] Research by Marvin Harris and William Divale supports this argument, it has been cited as an example of environmental determinism.[159]

Psychological

Evolutionary psychology

Evolutionary psychology has proposed several theories for different forms of infanticide. Infanticide by stepfathers, as well as child abuse in general by stepfathers, has been explained by spending resources on not genetically related children reducing reproductive success (See the Cinderella effect and Infanticide (zoology)). Infanticide is one of the few forms of violence more often done by women than men. Cross-cultural research has found that this is more likely to occur when the child has deformities or illnesses as well as when there are lacking resources due to factors such as poverty, other children requiring resources, and no male support. Such a child may have a low chance of reproductive success in which case it would decrease the mother’s inclusive fitness, in particular since women generally have a greater parental investment than men, to spend resources on the child.[160]

“Early infanticidal childrearing”

A minority of academics subscribe to an alternate school of thought, considering the practice as “early infanticidal childrearing“.[161]:246–247 They attribute parental infanticidal wishes to massive projection or displacement of the parents’ unconscious onto the child, because of intergenerational, ancestral abuse by their own parents.[162] Clearly, an infanticidal parent may have multiple motivations, conflicts, emotions, and thoughts about their baby and their relationship with their baby, which are often colored both by their individual psychology, current relational context and attachment history, and, perhaps most saliently, their psychopathology[163] (See also Psychiatric section below) Almeida, Merminod, and Schechter suggest that parents with fantasies, projections, and delusions involving infanticide need to be taken seriously and assessed carefully, whenever possible, by an interdisciplinary team that includes infant mental health specialists or mental health practitioners who have experience in working with parents, children, and families.

Wider effects

In addition to debates over the morality of infanticide itself, there is some debate over the effects of infanticide on surviving children, and the effects of childrearing in societies that also sanction infanticide. Some argue that the practice of infanticide in any widespread form causes enormous psychological damage in children.[161]:261–262 Conversely, studying societies that practice infanticide Géza Róheim reported that even infanticidal mothers in New Guinea, who ate a child, did not affect the personality development of the surviving children; that “these are good mothers who eat their own children”.[164] Harris and Divale’s work on the relationship between female infanticide and warfare suggests that there are, however, extensive negative effects.

Psychiatric

Postpartum psychosis is also a causative factor of infanticide. Stuart S. Asch, MD, a Professor of Psychiatry at Cornell University established the connections between some cases of infanticide and post-partum depression.[165],[166] The books, From Cradle to Grave,[167]and The Death of Innocents,[168] describe selected cases of maternal infanticide and the investigative research of Professor Asch working in concert with the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office. Stanley Hopwood wrote that childbirth and lactation entail severe stress on the female sex, and that under certain circumstances attempts at infanticide and suicide are common.[169] A study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry revealed that 44% of filicidal fathers had a diagnosis of psychosis.[170] In addition to postpartum psychosis, dissociative psychopathology and sociopathy have also been found to be associated with neonaticide in some cases[171]

In addition, severe postpartum depression can lead to infanticide.[172]

Sex selection

Sex selection may be one of the contributing factors of infanticide. In the absence of sex-selective abortion, sex-selective infanticide[dead link] can be deduced from very skewed birth statistics. The biologically normal sex ratio for humans at birth is approximately 105 males per 100 females; normal ratios hardly ranging beyond 102–108.[173] When a society has an infant male to female ratio which is significantly higher or lower than the biological norm, and biased data can be ruled out, sex selection can usually be inferred.[174]

Current law

Australia

In New South Wales, infanticide is defined in Section 22A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) as follows:[175]

Where a woman by any willful act or omission causes the death of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, but at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child, then, notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for this section the offence would have amounted to murder, she shall be guilty of infanticide, and may for such offence be dealt with and punished as if she had been guilty of the offence of manslaughter of such child.

Because Infanticide is punishable as manslaughter, as per s24,[176] the maximum penalty for this offence is therefore 25 years imprisonment.

Canada

In Canada, a mother commits infanticide, a lesser offence than homicide, if she killed her child while “not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed”.[177]

England and Wales

In England and Wales, the Infanticide Act 1938 describes the offence of infanticide as one which would otherwise amount to murder (by his/her mother) if the victim was older than 12 months and the mother was not suffering from an imbalance of mind due to the effects of childbirth or lactation. Where a mother who has killed such an infant has been charged with murder rather than infanticide s.1(3) of the Act confirms that a jury has the power to find alternative verdicts of Manslaughter in English law or guilty but insane.

Romania

Article 200 of the Penal Code of Romania stipulates that the killing of a newborn during the first 24 hours, by the mother who is in a state of mental distress, shall be punished with imprisonment of one to five years.[178] The previous Romanian Penal Code also defined infanticide (pruncucidere) as a distinct criminal offence, providing for a punishment of two to seven years imprisonment,[179] recognizing the fact that a mother’s judgment may be impaired immediately after birth, but did not define the term “infant”, and this had led to debates regarding the precise moment when infanticide becomes homicide. This issue was resolved by the new Penal Code, which came into force in 2014.

United States

In 2009, Texas state representative Jessica Farrar proposed legislation that would define infanticide as a distinct and lesser crime than homicide.[180] Under the terms of the proposed legislation, if jurors concluded that a mother’s “judgment was impaired as a result of the effects of giving birth or the effects of lactation following the birth”, they would be allowed to convict her of the crime of infanticide, rather than murder.[181] The maximum penalty for infanticide would be two years in prison.[181] Farrar’s introduction of this bill prompted liberal bioethics scholar Jacob M. Appel to call her “the bravest politician in America”.[181]

Prevention

Since infanticide, especially neonaticide, is often a response to an unwanted birth,[129] preventing unwanted pregnancies through improved sex education and increased contraceptive access are advocated as ways of preventing infanticide.[182] Increased use of contraceptives and access to safe legal abortions[8][133]:122–123 have greatly reduced neonaticide in many developed nations. Some say that where abortion is illegal, as in Pakistan, infanticide would decline if safer legal abortions were available.[127]

Screening for psychiatric disorders or risk factors, and providing treatment or assistance to those at risk may help prevent infanticide.[183] However, in developed world significant proportions of neonaticides that are detected occur in young women who deny their pregnancy, and avoid outside contacts, so they may have limited contact with health care services.[129]

In some areas baby hatches or safe surrender sites, safe places for a mother to anonymously leave an infant, are offered, in part to reduce the rate of infanticide. In other places, like the United States, safe-haven laws allow mothers to anonymously give infants to designated officials; they are frequently located at hospitals and police and fire stations. Additionally, some countries in Europe have the laws of anonymous birth and confidential birth that allow mothers to give up an infant after birth. In anonymous birth, the mother does not attach her name to the birth certificate. In confidential birth the mother registers her name and information, but the document containing her name is sealed until the child comes to age. Typically such babies are put up for adoption, or cared for in orphanages. [184]

Granting women employment raises their status and autonomy. Having a gainful employment can raise the perceived worth of females. This can lead to an increase in the number of women getting an education and a decrease in the number of female infanticide. As a result, the infant mortality rate will decrease and economic development will increase.[185]

In animals

Infanticide occurs in other animals, such as in Hanuman langurs.

Although human infanticide has been widely studied, the practice has been observed in many other species of the animal kingdom since it was first seriously studied by Yukimaru Sugiyama.[186] These include from microscopic rotifers and insects, to fishamphibiansbirds and mammals, including primates such as chacma baboons.[187] Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.

According to studies carried out by Kyoto University in non-human primates, including certain types of gorillas and chimpanzees, several conditions favor the tendency to infanticide in some species (to be performed only by males), among them are: Nocturnal live, the absence of nest construction, the marked sexual dimorphism in which the male is much larger than the female, the mating in a specific season and the high period of lactation without resumption of the estrus state in the female.

See also

References …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

Progressivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform.[1] As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in sciencetechnologyeconomic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.

The meanings of progressivism have varied over time and from different perspectives. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[2] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.[2]

The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late-19th century. Progressives in the early-20th century took the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, thus claiming that measures were needed to address these problems.[3] Early-20th century progressivism was also tied to eugenics[4][5][6] and the temperance movement.[7][8] Contemporary progressives promote public policies that they believe will lead to positive social change.

 

Progressivism in philosophy and politics

From the Enlightenment to the Industrial Revolution

Immanuel Kant identified progress as being a movement away from barbarism towards civilization. 18th-century philosopher and political scientist Marquis de Condorcet predicted that political progress would involve the disappearance of slavery, the rise of literacy, the lessening of inequalities between the sexes, reforms of harsh prisons and the decline of poverty.[9] “Modernity” or “modernization” was a key form of the idea of progress as promoted by classical liberals in the 19th and 20th centuries who called for the rapid modernization of the economy and society to remove the traditional hindrances to free markets and free movements of people.[10] German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was influential in promoting the idea of progress in European philosophy by emphasizing a linear-progressive conception of history and rejecting a cyclical conception of history. Karl Marx applied to his writings the Hegelian conception of linear-progressive history, the modernization of the economy through industrialization and criticisms of the social class structure of industrial capitalist societies. As industrialization grew, concerns over its effects grew beyond Marxists and other radical critiques and became mainstream.

Contemporary mainstream political conception

In the late 19th century, a political view rose in popularity in the Western world that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor, minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with out-of-control monopolistic corporations, intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists and a need for measures to address these problems.[11] Progressivism has influenced various political movements. Modern liberalism was influenced by liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill‘s conception of people being “progressive beings”.[12] British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli developed progressive conservatism under “one-nation” Toryism.[13][14] In France, the space between social revolution and the socially-conservative laissez-faire centre-right was filled with the emergence of Radicalism, which thought that social progress required humanism, republicanism and anticlericalism, and which was until the mid twentieth-century the dominant influence on the centre left in many French- and Romance-speaking countries. Similarly in Imperial Germany, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck enacted various progressive social welfare measures out of conservative motivations to distance workers from the socialist movement of the time and as humane ways to assist in maintaining the Industrial Revolution.[15]Proponents of social democracy have identified themselves as promoting the progressive cause.[16] The Roman Catholic Church encyclical Rerum novarum issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 condemned the exploitation of labour and urged support for labour unions and government regulation of businesses in the interests of social justice while upholding the rights of private property and criticizing socialism.[17] A Protestant progressive outlook called the Social Gospel emerged in North America that focused on challenging economic exploitation and poverty and by the mid-1890s was common in many Protestant theological seminaries in the United States.[18]

In the United States, progressivism began as a social movement in the 1890s and grew into a political movement in what was known as the Progressive Era. While the term “American progressives” represent a range of diverse political pressure groups (not always united), some American progressives rejected social Darwinism, believing that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism and class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace. Progressives lived mainly in the cities, were college educated and believed that government could be a tool for change.[19] American President Theodore Roosevelt of the Republican Party and later the Progressive Party declared that he “always believed that wise progressivism and wise conservatism go hand in hand”.[20] President Woodrow Wilson was also a member of the American progressive movement within the Democratic Party.

Progressive stances have evolved over time. Imperialism was a controversial issue within progressivism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly in the United States where some progressives supported American imperialism while others opposed it.[21]

In response to World War I, progressive President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points established the concept of national self-determination and criticized imperialist competition and colonial injustices; these views were supported by anti-imperialists in areas of the world that were resisting imperial rule.[22] During the period of acceptance of economic Keynesianism (1930s to 1970s), there was widespread acceptance in many nations of a large role for state intervention in the economy. With the rise of neoliberalism and challenges to state interventionist policies in the 1970s and 1980s, centre-left progressive movements responded by creating the Third Way that emphasized a major role for the market economy.[23] There have been social democrats who have called for the social democratic movement to move past Third Way.[24] Prominent progressive conservative elements in the British Conservative Party have criticized neoliberalism.[25]

See also

References …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

 

Story 2: President Trump — A Big Beautiful Border Barrier or Wall Is Required To Stop The Continuing Illegal Alien Invasion of United States  — What about The 30 to 60 Million Illegal Aliens Already in the United States — Part 1 of 2 — Videos —

Tucker: ‘Good chance’ Trump orders national emergency for wall

Expectations for Trump’s State of the Union address

Laura Ingraham Friday Follies!! The Ingraham Angle 2/1/2019

Trump, Pelosi agree on new State of the Union date

Trump: Nancy Pelosi will be begging for a wall

President Trump: I won’t wait for congressional deal on wall

WATCH: President Trump Talks Border Wall, North Korea To The Media

Trump says Pelosi ‘playing games’ on wall funds

Nancy Pelosi: No money in legislation for Trump’s wall

Will Trump’s wall ever be built?

Trump vows to deport criminal illegal immigrants

Donald Trump explains his immigration plan

Trump’s plan for deporting criminal illegal immigrants

Trump: It is realistic to deport all illegal immigrants

Historian Victor Davis Hanson on why he supports Trump

The Suicide of Europe

Europe Is Killing Itself

A Nation of Immigrants

Trump says Nancy Pelosi is ‘playing games’ with wall funding

– The Washington Times – Thursday, January 31, 2019

President Trump said Thursday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “playing games” with his demand for a border wall and he doesn’t expect the congressional negotiations to reach a deal on a barrier for the southern border.

“She’s playing games,” the president told reporters at the White House. “If there’s no wall, it doesn’t work.”

Minutes earlier, Mrs. Pelosi vowed at the Capitol that Democrats won’t approve money for a wall as part of negotiations on border security.

She suggested there might be money available for a so-called “Normandy” fence along the southern border, which would stop vehicles but not people on foot.

Upon hearing that, the president said he doesn’t expect a 17-member bipartisan committee to reach a deal on border security that’s acceptable to him.

“I don’t think they’re going to make a deal,” Mr. Trump said. “I don’t expect much coming out of this committee.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/31/donald-trump-border-wall-talks-congress/2729908002/

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1199

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1055, April 2, 2018, Story 1: The Illegal Alien Invasion of United States Surges With “Refugee Caravan” From Honduras –DACA Is Dead — Deport and Remove All 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens in United States — Videos — Story 2: Big Lie Media — Fake News Junk Journalism Progressive Propaganda Upset About Sinclair Broadcast Group Must Run Announcements — Videos

Posted on April 4, 2018. Filed under: Blogroll, Breaking News, Communications, Corruption, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, House of Representatives, Senate, Social Networking, United States of America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1055, April 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1054, March 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1053, March 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

 See the source imageImage result for trump tweet on defends sinclair broadcast mission statement

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

 Story 1: The Illegal Alien Invasion of United States Surges With “Refugee Caravan” From Honduras –DACA Is Dead — Deport and Remove All 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens in United States — Videos

See the source image

See the source image

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – NumbersUSA.com

World Population (2018 and historical)
Year (July 1) Population Fertility Rate
2018 7,632,819,325 2.51
2017 7,550,262,101 2.51
2016 7,466,964,280 2.51
2015 7,383,008,820 2.52

Current World Population

7,613,082,029
TODAY
Births today
276,943
Deaths today
114,708
Population Growth today
162,235
THIS YEAR
Births this year
36,144,462
Deaths this year
14,970,759
Population Growth this year
21,173,704
TOP 20 LARGEST COUNTRIES BY POPULATION (LIVE)
1  China1,413,722,294
2  India1,350,481,626
3  U.S.A.326,213,674
4  Indonesia266,122,047
5  Brazil210,489,231
6  Pakistan199,899,283
7  Nigeria194,670,837
8  Bangladesh165,960,538
9  Russia143,970,696
10  Mexico130,375,794
11  Japan127,256,776
12  Ethiopia106,913,011
13  Philippines106,128,823
14  Egypt98,936,954
15  Vietnam96,263,097
16  D.R. Congo83,360,050
17  Germany82,250,574
18  Iran81,807,979
19  Turkey81,635,187
20  Thailand

U.S. Population (LIVE)

326,213,754
United States Population (1950 – 2018)

1970197019801980199019902000200020102010100,000,000100,000,000200,000,000200,000,000300,000,000300,000,000U.S.A. PopulationU.S.A. Population

Date U.S.A. Population
1950 158,804,395
1951 160,905,035
1952 163,324,851
1953 165,988,190
1954 168,827,613
1955 171,783,842
1956 174,805,941
1957 177,851,156
1958 180,884,458
1959 183,877,873
1960 186,808,228
1961 189,654,905
1962 192,397,741
1963 195,016,211
1964 197,491,844
1965 199,815,540
1966 201,975,222
1967 203,981,928
1968 205,880,418
1969 207,733,004
1970 209,588,150
1971 211,461,598
1972 213,351,773
1973 215,268,687
1974 217,218,393
1975 219,205,296
1976 221,239,215
1977 223,324,042
1978 225,449,657
1979 227,599,878
1980 229,763,052
1981 231,938,963
1982 234,132,632
1983 236,344,004
1984 238,573,861
1985 240,824,120
1986 243,098,935
1987 245,402,864
1988 247,739,582
1989 250,113,187
1990 252,529,950
1991 254,974,819
1992 257,454,273
1993 260,020,186
1994 262,741,566
1995 265,658,849
1996 268,803,424
1997 272,136,551
1998 275,542,603
1999 278,862,277
2000 281,982,778
2001 284,852,391
2002 287,506,847
2003 290,027,624
2004 292,539,324
2005 295,129,501
2006 297,827,356
2007 300,595,175
2008 303,374,067
2009 306,076,362
2010 308,641,391
2011 311,051,373
2012 313,335,423
2013 315,536,676
2014 317,718,779
2015 319,929,162
2016 322,179,605
2017 324,459,463
2018 326,766,748
Yearly Population Growth Rate (%)

1960196019701970198019801990199020002000201020100.50.51.01.01.51.5Yearly Growth Rate (%)Yearly Growth Rate (%)

Date Yearly Growth Rate (%)
1951 1.32
1952 1.5
1953 1.63
1954 1.71
1955 1.75
1956 1.76
1957 1.74
1958 1.71
1959 1.65
1960 1.59
1961 1.52
1962 1.45
1963 1.36
1964 1.27
1965 1.18
1966 1.08
1967 0.99
1968 0.93
1969 0.9
1970 0.89
1971 0.89
1972 0.89
1973 0.9
1974 0.91
1975 0.91
1976 0.93
1977 0.94
1978 0.95
1979 0.95
1980 0.95
1981 0.95
1982 0.95
1983 0.94
1984 0.94
1985 0.94
1986 0.94
1987 0.95
1988 0.95
1989 0.96
1990 0.97
1991 0.97
1992 0.97
1993 1
1994 1.05
1995 1.11
1996 1.18
1997 1.24
1998 1.25
1999 1.2
2000 1.12
2001 1.02
2002 0.93
2003 0.88
2004 0.87
2005 0.89
2006 0.91
2007 0.93
2008 0.92
2009 0.89
2010 0.84
2011 0.78
2012 0.73
2013 0.7
2014 0.69
2015 0.7
2016 0.7
2017 0.71
2018 0.71
CountryContinentWorld
  • The current population of the United States of America is 326,204,292 as of Wednesday, April 4, 2018, based on the latest United Nations estimates.
  • The United States population is equivalent to 4.28% of the total world population.
  • The U.S.A. ranks number 3 in the list of countries (and dependencies) by population.
  • The population density in the United States is 36 per Km2 (93 people per mi2).
  • The total land area is 9,147,420 Km2 (3,531,837 sq. miles)
  • 83.7 % of the population is urban (273,368,693 people in 2018)
  • The median age in the United States is 37.8 years.

Population of the United States (2018 and historical)

Year Population Yearly %
Change
Yearly
Change
Migrants (net) Median Age Fertility Rate Density (P/Km²) Urban
Pop %
Urban Population Country’s Share of
World Pop
World Population U.S.
Global Rank
2018 326,766,748 0.71 % 2,307,285 900,000 37.8 1.88 36 82.8 % 273,368,693 4.28 % 7,632,819,325 3
2017 324,459,463 0.71 % 2,279,858 900,000 37.8 1.88 35 83.4 % 270,683,202 4.30 % 7,550,262,101 3
2016 322,179,605 0.70 % 2,250,443 900,000 37.8 1.88 35 83.2 % 268,012,791 4.31 % 7,466,964,280 3
2015 319,929,162 0.72 % 2,257,554 900,000 37.6 1.88 35 82.9 % 265,360,990 4.33 % 7,383,008,820 3
2010 308,641,391 0.90 % 2,702,378 1,006,738 36.9 2.05 34 81.7 % 252,209,506 4.44 % 6,958,169,159 3
2005 295,129,501 0.92 % 2,629,345 1,041,308 36.1 2.04 32 80.8 % 238,319,271 4.51 % 6,542,159,383 3
2000 281,982,778 1.20 % 3,264,786 1,722,415 35.2 2.00 31 79.8 % 224,992,587 4.59 % 6,145,006,989 3
1995 265,658,849 1.02 % 2,625,780 903,362 34.0 2.03 29 77.9 % 207,079,744 4.62 % 5,751,474,416 3
1990 252,529,950 0.95 % 2,341,166 685,748 32.8 1.91 28 75.9 % 191,644,695 4.74 % 5,330,943,460 3
1985 240,824,120 0.94 % 2,212,214 680,452 31.4 1.80 26 74.8 % 180,179,769 4.94 % 4,873,781,796 3
1980 229,763,052 0.95 % 2,111,551 785,362 30.0 1.77 25 73.9 % 169,727,449 5.15 % 4,458,411,534 3
1975 219,205,296 0.90 % 1,923,429 588,099 29.0 2.03 24 73.7 % 161,622,360 5.37 % 4,079,087,198 3
1970 209,588,150 0.96 % 1,954,522 309,893 28.4 2.54 23 73.7 % 154,485,268 5.66 % 3,700,577,650 3
1965 199,815,540 1.36 % 2,601,462 192,085 30.3 3.31 22 71.8 % 143,531,680 5.98 % 3,339,592,688 3
1960 186,808,228 1.69 % 3,004,877 422,460 29.8 3.58 20 69.8 % 130,444,993 6.16 % 3,033,212,527 3
1955 171,783,842 1.58 % 2,595,889 192,085 30.3 3.31 19 66.8 % 114,808,661 6.20 % 2,772,242,535 3

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Caravan, Honduras, Mexico, Gorka, and Trump

This animation puts the entire US population into perspective

The 2020 Census is at risk. Here are the major consequences

BREAKING: Trump moves military to guard the border, thus guaranteeing future Wall funding

Must Watch! Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson Reacts to Migrants Caravan about to STORM U.S By SURPRISE

Commentator on CNN calling Mexicans coming to the United States “SOFT INVASION” #Breaking #Mexico

Ann Coulter Reacts to Illegal Migrant Caravan

True Libertarianism Cannot Support Open Borders or Forced Diversity

‘Why Do We Allow This?!?’ – Tucker Carlson Reacts To Migrant Caravan

1,500 people on Refugee Caravan, mainly from Honduras, crossed into Mexico from Guatemala

Migrant Caravan, Likely Headed To US, Is Halted

New showdown over immigration amid a Trump tweetstorm

Bongino on Immigrant Caravan Headed to U.S.

D-day for Illegal Immigration as Caravan Approaches

Thousands Of Migrants Prepare to Invade America

WARNING! Invading Army Of Immigrants Marching Towards US Southern Border

Cooper: Trump’s Twitter tirade is all over the place

[youtub=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfkmE1LcBy4]

President Donald Trump’s DACA Tweets Are ‘Pure Stephen Miller’ | Kasie DC | MSNBC

Dan Bongino: You can’t have a country without borders

GOP making a comeback in California?

US shouldn’t be providing services for illegal immigrants: Rep. Davidson

380 Sheriffs In 40 States Just Issued Orders To Congress On Behalf Of President Trump(VIDEO)!!!

 

Trump tweets ‘DACA is dead’

Hannity: Sanctuary state backlash in California

GOP lawmaker drafts bill targeting undocumented immigrants

]

Migrant caravan abandons plan to travel to US border

AFP / VICTORIA RAZOCentral American migrants taking part in the “Migrant Via Crucis” caravan towards the United States chooses clothes from a donated pile as they camp at a sport complex in Matias Romero, Oaxaca

A caravan of Central American migrants whose trek across Mexico infuriated President Donald Trump has decided not to travel to the US border, leaders said Tuesday.

“We will wrap up our work in Mexico City,” said Irineo Mujica, the head of the migrant advocacy group People Without Borders (Pueblo sin Fronteras).

“We have support teams at the border if there are people who need assistance there, but they would have to travel on their own,” he told AFP in the town of Matias Romero, in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca.

The just over 1,000 migrants who currently make up the caravan — many traveling in families of up to 20 people — have been camped in the southern town since the weekend, deciding their next move in the face of daily attacks from Trump.

The Republican president vowed to send the US military to secure the border and threatened to axe the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) if Mexico did not stop the caravan.

The caravan is in fact a yearly event whose goal is more to raise awareness about the plight of migrants than to reach the United States — though some participants have traveled to the border in the past.

Mujica said this year’s caravan was so large it would have been dangerous to travel to the border by train-hopping.

“There are too many children — 450 in all. There are lots of babies. Hopping the train, as we did in the past, would have been crazy,” he said.

The caravan now plans to travel to the central city of Puebla for a conference, then on to Mexico City for a series of demonstrations — and end its journey there.

The group, mainly Hondurans, also includes Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Nicaraguans, mostly fleeing the brutal gang violence that has made Central America home to some of the highest murder rates in the world.

Organizers say Mexican immigration authorities are working with the migrants to get them papers to stay in Mexico.

Mujica praised the Mexican government for its response.

“Donald Trump wanted the world to crush us, to erase our existence. But Mexico responded admirably and we thank the government for the way it handled this caravan,” he said

https://www.afp.com/en/news/826/migrant-caravan-abandons-plan-travel-us-border-doc-13p1ry3

Third Mexican town welcomes migrant ‘caravan,’ 400 miles closer to US

A logo for Pueblo Sin Fronteras' "Refugee Caravan."
A logo for Pueblo Sin Fronteras’ “Refugee Caravan.”

A caravan of some 1,500 Latin American migrants, welcomed into Mexico on their 1,900-mile trek to the United States where they plan to demand asylum, was welcomed by a third Mexican town 400 miles into their journey.

On Facebook, organizer Pueblo Sin Fronteras wrote, “Thanks to the community Matias Romero for his solidarity with the caravan viacrusis migrants in the fight.”

It also gave a PayPal account to offer donations. And Washington-based reporters reached out through the Facebook account for help covering the caravan.

On Twitter, it added, “Afternoon of laughter and play in Matias Romero. Caravan “Viacrusis migrants in the fight.”

The town is about 400 miles from the Mexican-Guatemalan border. When they crossed that border, the group praised Mexican authorities for stepping aside. A Facebook post cheered, “The Refugee Caravan knocking down borders yesterday in Huehuetan! Immigration agents abandoned the post when they knew we were coming. The people celebrated this first little victory!”

Two days later, on March 28, they were greeted by a second town, Arriaga, Chiapas, where received food and support. The group said on Facebook, “Day 3 of #viacrucismigrante2018: thanks to the pressure of community organization of our colleagues from the municipality of tonalá, Chiapas, representatives of the city council decided to support us with a pickup and food. Also came to challenge the challenge that the Mexican government installed on the road outside its town, and to ensure that we all get to arriaga.

“Thanks to the people of tonalá for their support!

“We are Pueblo Sin Fronteras, almost 1500 families fighting against the corruption of the governments of Central America, Mexico, and the United States, creating together the right to free and dignified transit for migrants.”

On Twitter, they added, “Thanks to the people of Arriaga, Chiapas, standing in solidarity with the migrants of the Refugee Caravan and offering them water to quench their thirst! #VivaMexico!”

President Trump has condemned the caravan and the help Mexico and Mexicans are giving to the migrants who are technically illegals in that country. Most come from Honduras.

The group said that it plans to reach Puebla, Mexico near Mexico City this week where they plan to meet with immigration officials about their needs. Many in the caravan claim they were abused back home.

report on their journey said that the migrants are headed to the U.S. to “demand an end to the political corruption in their cities, and dignity and the right to asylum from Mexico and the United States.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/third-mexican-town-welcomes-migrant-caravan-400-miles-closer-to-us

Story 2: Big Lie Media — Fake News Junk Journalism Progressive Propaganda Upset About Sinclair Broadcast Group Must Run Announcements — Videos

 

KOMO News “Responsible Journalism” Sinclair Must Run

Local TV forced to denounce ‘one-sided news’ by America’s largest media company

Ben Ferguson & Ana Navarro on Anchors Required to read script bashing “Fake News” @benfergusonshow

Gutfeld on the infamous Sinclair mission statement

Sinclair Broadcast Group fires back at criticism

Sinclair requires anchors to read script bashing ‘fake’ news

Sinclair requires anchors to read script bashing ‘fake’ news

Former FCC head: Sinclair most dangerous media in US

How Sinclair Broadcasting puts a partisan tilt on trusted local news

President Trump Defends Sinclair Broadcast Group After ‘Fake News’ Speeches By Local Anchors | CNBC

One media giant is monopolizing the entire local TV market

Hey #FakeNewsMedia, Play the Entire Sinclair Broadcast Group Message Before Mocking It!

Sinclair Broadcast Montage: Yes, the Legacy Media is Scripted

Sinclair Broadcast Montage: Yes, the Legacy Media is Scripted

Inside Sinclair’s Local News Propaganda Machine

Pro-Trump Network Sinclair Set to Become Nation’s Biggest Broadcaster as FCC Weakens Ownership Rules

People Outside A Trump Rally Told Us Why They Hate The Media (HBO)

John Oliver: I’m not a journalist

Sinclair Responds to Video Showing Dozens of Anchors Reading the Same Exact Script

By Chris Ariens Comment

CNN’s Brian Stelter got a hold of a memohe says is from Sinclair svp of news Scott Livingston, in which Livingston applauds employees for their award-winning work, while blasting Sinclair critics.

This news about TV news picked up steam over the weekend when Deadspin assembled a supercut showing dozens of local TV news anchors reading the same exact script, which was sent to them by Sinclair corporate. In it, the anchors call out “one-sided news stories,” and accuse “some media outlets” of publishing “fake stories without checking facts first.”

“I know many of you and your stations are now in the media spotlight after the launch of our corporate news journalistic responsibility promotional campaign,” Livingston writes. “There is a lot of noise out there about our company right now, and what is lacking in that analysis is something we constantly preach; context and perspective.”

One of points Livingston tries to make in his 1,100-word memo, is what some Sinclair critics seem to forget:

One thing the critics DO seem obsessed with is the roughly 8 minutes a week of clearly labelled commentary that Boris Epshteyn offers in our newscasts each week. The critics continue to say that his former affiliation with Republicans makes him a propagandist. But they never offer any perspective on Boris’ appearances. They never mention that ABC News Anchor George Stephanopoulos ran Bill Clinton’s Presidential campaign and served as a Senior Advisor to President Clinton for 4 years. Stephanopoulos now hosts an ABC political talk shows and co-anchors 10 hours of news a week for ABC. That is 10 hours of ‘must run’ content that all ABC affiliates must carry each week hosted by a former advisor to President Clinton. We have no problem with Mr. Stephanopoulos anchoring these newscasts, but think it is odd that Sinclair critics seem to express zero outrage over this. Critics never talk about Chris Matthews, who worked for prominent Washington Democrats, including President Carter, before becoming an NBC show host. Why don’t the critics of Boris’ at least offer this context? Why are they obsessed with the 8 minutes a week that Boris gets to offer clearly labelled commentary? Remember, no one is trying to hide Boris’ past political affiliations. We label him as a former Trump advisor. We are fully transparent about Boris.

Sinclair owns or operates 193 stations across the country, in mostly small and medium-sized markets. But it is in the process of acquiring Tribune Media which will add stations in the nation’s Top 7 markets.

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/sinclair-responds-to-video-showing-dozens-of-anchors-reading-the-same-exact-script/360818

The real problem with Sinclair’s ‘fake’ news script

Sinclair Broadcast Group is in something of a bind. It wants to run an ideologically driven media outlet; it wants its 173 local TV stations to parrot its conservative pro-Trump corporate view; it wants uniformity. To accomplish all that, however, it must issue dictates.

That straightforward dynamic explains why the company is all over cable news on Monday: It recently sent a script to its stations with instruction to run it — in the words of local anchors. How did that play out? Just ask Deadspin, which put together a compilation video of just how the party line plays out in television markets across this great land. Exactly the same, that is.

Commentators are chewing over a number of questions raised by the “must-run” segment. What does it mean for the journalists in the Sinclair markets? Must they really say this stuff as if they mean it? To judge from Deadspin’s mash-up, um, yes. What does it mean for Sinclair’s planned merger with Tribune, a transaction under review by the federal government that would put Sinclair’s total station count over 200? Too much power? And what about the affinity between Sinclair and President Trump, whose loyalists do commentary on Sinclair’s air? The president recently tweeted:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

So funny to watch Fake News Networks, among the most dishonest groups of people I have ever dealt with, criticize Sinclair Broadcasting for being biased. Sinclair is far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke.

All these threads are very much worth pursuing, yet let’s please not overlook the degree to which this script is a piece of garbage on its own terms. Here it is, via SeattlePI.com, with bolded commentary from the Erik Wemple Blog:

“Hi, I’m(A) ____________, and I’m (B) _________________…

(B) Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Northwest communities. [And yet we’ll now proceed to obsess over the work of the national news media.] We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that KOMO News produces.

(A) But we’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. [We will provide no examples to illuminate this plague, but you know what we mean.]

(B) More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories … stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first. [Bogus reporting has been part of journalism since journalism was born, but we won’t provide data or examples to illuminate why this bears pointing out in April 2018.]

(A) Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think.’ [Random and nonsensical quotation marks are a mainstay of the Trump era.] … This is extremely dangerous to a democracy. [Right — as is an unsupported, evidence-free slam against the country’s press.]

(B) At KOMO it’s our responsibility to pursue and report the truth. We understand Truth is neither politically ‘left nor right.’ Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever. [And it’s why we snatched up Chief Political Analyst Boris Epshteyn fresh off his stint in the Trump White House!]

(A) But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair please reach out to us by going to KOMOnews.com and clicking on CONTENT CONCERNS. We value your comments. We will respond back to you.

(B) We work very hard to seek the truth and strive to be fair, balanced and factual. … We consider it our honor, our privilege to responsibly deliver the news every day.

(A) Thank you for watching and we appreciate your feedback.”

So: An editorial with no supporting evidence, no data, no argumentative beef. One hundred percent innuendo. No wonder Sinclair employees are freaking out about the thing.

To test the company’s commitment to responding to its audience, the Erik Wemple Blog asked the folks at KATU in Portland, Ore., for some examples of this scourge. We will post any feedback that we receive.

Sinclair Broadcast Group warns against fake news: should we worry?

The mission statement of Sinclair Broadcast Group, the nation’s largest local TV owner, shouldn’t be all that chilling.

On the surface, the message, posted on the company’s website, should resonate with any proponent of the First Amendment.

“We produce compelling, engaging, informative newscasts.

Our stations hold public officials accountable, asking the tough questions that our viewers would ask.

Our newscasts have stories that make a difference.

The key to our success is content choices.

Our goal is simple: We alert, protect and empower our audience on all platforms.”

Holding public officials accountable – that’s what journalists do.

Ask tough questions – who else, but journalists, can and do?

Protect and empower – of course.

Who wouldn’t agree with that?

What’s chilling isn’t the democracy-themed statement, not on its surface. It’s that dozens of anchors reciting the same script last month, dictated apparently by the company, seemed to foreshadow something far more ominous than defending the First Amendment.

“Our greatest responsibility,” the standard script begins, “is to serve our … communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that (local station) produces.

But we’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.

More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories… stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first.

Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think’…This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.”

Sinclair owns or operates more than 190 television stations across the country, including several in Texas – San Angelo, Abilene, Corpus Christ and El Paso, to name a few.

If Sinclair as a whole recognizes fake news as such – doesn’t perpetuate stories such as Pizzagate, crisis actors and a London terrorist claimed to be, but wasn’t, an anti-Trump liberal; all debunked – and calls them out, we’ll be the better for it.

The suspicion, perhaps a knee-jerk reaction to the mandated Sinclair scripts, is what that kind of exposure and power can do to the message, any message.

For example, Sinclair, according to The Washington Post, insisted that stations air a packaged segment featuring Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump official who hosted a campaign “newscast” leading up to the 2016 election.

Packaged campaign pieces on Hillary Clinton would, we suspect, not go over too well in some markets, including ours.

President Trump tweeted his support of Sinclair Broadcast Group on Monday, claiming outlets such as CNN and NBC are “fake news.” Sinclair owns a dozen or more NBC stations, by the way.

Trump defends Sinclair: It’s ‘funny to watch Fake News Networks’ criticize it

You may not be suspicious if the message affirms what you already believe. How will you know?

Local news plays a key role in any community, our local TV affiliates included. They keep their finger on the pulse of our city, seek out solutions to problems and empower those not in a position to change their destiny.

To be mandated to broadcast a chorus of ideas and ideology would be, to use Sinclair’s message, “dangerous to our democracy.”

https://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2018/04/02/sinclair-broadcast-group-fake-news-opinion/478619002/

“Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think,” dozens of news anchors said last month, reading from a script provided by Sinclair Broadcast Group. Creditfronch, via YouTube

On local news stations across the United States last month, dozens of anchors gave the same speech to their combined millions of viewers.

It included a warning about fake news, a promise to report fairly and accurately and a request that viewers go to the station’s website and comment “if you believe our coverage is unfair.

It may not have seemed strange to individual viewers. But Timothy Burke, the video director at Deadspin, had read a report last month from CNN, which quoted local station anchors who were uncomfortable with the speech.

Mr. Burke tracked down the stations and found when each had aired what he called a “forced read.”

Then he stitched together the various broadcasts to create a supercut of anchors eerily echoing the same lines:

“The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.”

“Some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias.”

Continue reading the main story

“This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.”

The script came from Sinclair Broadcast Group, the country’s largest broadcaster, which owns or operates 193 television stations. The company is seeking a $3.9 billion deal to buy Tribune Media, a move that’s being held up by regulators over antitrust concerns.

Last week, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer published a copy of the speech and reported that employees at a local news station there, KOMO, were unhappy about the script. CNN reported on it on March 7 and said Scott Livingston, the senior vice president of news for Sinclair, had read almost the exact same speech for a segment that was distributed to outlets a year ago.

[READ MORE: A Top Internal Watchdog For the F.C.C. Is Investigating Changes That Benefited Sinclair]

Mr. Burke’s video — along with a similar one created by ThinkProgress, the left-leaning news outlet — spread quickly on social media over the weekend, leading to prominent criticism of Sinclair. Peter Chernin, a media investor and longtime president of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, called it “insidious.” David E. Price, a Democratic North Carolina congressman, called the video “pro-Trump propaganda” on Monday.

Piggybacking on the attention, House Democrats resurfaced a letter, dated March 22 and signed by 38 lawmakers, that called for the Tribune merger to be rejected.

President Trump responded to scrutiny of the broadcaster on Monday in a tweet.

“So funny to watch Fake News Networks, among the most dishonest groups of people I have ever dealt with, criticize Sinclair Broadcasting for being biased,” he said.

In a statement on Monday, Scott Livingston, Sinclair’s senior vice president of news, called the backlash “ironic,” and said the stations “keep our audiences’ trust by staying focused on fact-based reporting and clearly identifying commentary.”

“We aren’t sure of the motivation for the criticism, but find it curious that we would be attacked for asking our news people to remind their audiences that unsubstantiated stories exist on social media, which result in an ill-informed public with potentially dangerous consequences,” he said.

A union that represents news anchors did not respond immediately to requests for comment on Monday.

Dave Twedell of the International Cinematographers Guild, who is a business representative for photojournalists (but not anchors) at KOMO in Seattle and KATU in Portland, Ore., said Sinclair told journalists at those stations not to discuss the company with outside news media.

Although it is the country’s largest broadcaster, Sinclair is not a household name and viewers may be unaware of who owns their local news station. Critics have accused the company of using its stations to advance a mostly right-leaning agenda.

“We work very hard to be objective and fair and be in the middle,” Mr. Livingston told The New York Times last year. “I think maybe some other news organizations may be to the left of center, and we work very hard to be in the center.”

Sinclair regularly sends video segments to the stations it owns. These are referred to as “must-runs,” and they can include content like terrorism news updatescommentators speaking in support of President Trump or speeches from company executives like the one from Mr. Livingston last year.

But asking newscasters to present the material themselves is not something that Kirstin Pellizzaro, a doctoral candidate at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, remembered from her experience as a producer at a Sinclair-owned news station in Kalamazoo, Mich., from 2014 to 2015.

The station had to air “must-run” segments that came from Sinclair, which is based outside Baltimore. “Some of them were a little slanted, a little biased,” Ms. Pellizzaro said. “Packages of this nature can make journalists uncomfortable.”

Sinclair representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday. But Mr. Livingston told The Baltimore Sun that the script was meant to demonstrate Sinclair’s “commitment to reporting facts,” adding that false stories “can result in dangerous consequences,” referring to the Pizzagate conspiracy as an example.

“We are focused on fact-based reporting,” Mr. Livingston continued. “That’s our commitment to our communities. That’s the goal of these announcements: to reiterate our commitment to reporting facts in a pursuit of truth.”

Ms. Pellizzaro said she can talk about Sinclair more freely now because she is working in academia, whereas journalists at stations owned by Sinclair might feel pressured not to bite the hand that feeds them.

“I hope people realize that the journalists are trying their best, and this shouldn’t reflect poorly on them,” she said. “They’re just under this corporate umbrella.”

Sinclair has been accused of using connections in the Trump administration to ease regulations on media consolidation. In an effort to expand its reach, the company is seeking approval from the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission for its $3.9 billion deal to buy Tribune Media.

Correction: April 2, 2018 
An earlier version of this article misstated the markets where Sinclair owns or operates stations. It does not have a station in Phoenix.

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1055

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...