Mark Levin | Pronk Palisades - PDF Free Download

Full Text

National Security Agency Is Spying On All American Who Use The Internet and Telephone System and They Collect and Store All Your Communications — Includes Trump and Associates — No Warrant Required If President Obama Designates You A Target — Congress Is Enabling The Turnkey Two Party Tyranny — Warrentless Searches — Congress Does Nothing To Stop It! — Videos Posted on March 17, 2017. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Communications, Computers, Computers, Congress, conservatives, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Data, Data Storage, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Demographics, Documentary, European History, External Hard Drives, External Hard Drives, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Friends, government spending, Heroes, history, Illegal, Immigration, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), IRS, Islam, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Middle East, National Security Agency (NSA), National Security Agency (NSA_, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Politics, Press, Programming, Psychology, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulations, Religion, Security, Sociology, Space, Spying, Strategy, Supreme Court, Systems, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Television, Terrorism, Video, Wahhabism, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: Bill Binney, Bill of Rights, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Congress, Corruption, Crimes, Felonies, Fourth Amendment, Internet, Mark Levin, National Security Agency (NSA), President Donald J. Trump, Sean Hannity, Secret Surveillance Spying Security State (S5), Signals Intelligence, Turnkey Tyranny, Tyranny, Warrant less Searches |

Image result for National security agency

Obama Launched TWO Criminal Investigations On Trump No Evidence Found

The O’Reilly Factor March 18, 2017 Fox News Pres Trump March 18, 2017

Edward Snowden Vault 7 ” Wikileaks” Obama Targeting Trump Tower Live From Russia Stream 14 03 2017

Former NSA Employee, Bill Binney, Breaks Silence Confirms Trump Wiretapping Claims

NSA WHISTLEBLOWER SAYS TRUMP WAS WIRETAPPED AND MONITORED

NSA Whistleblower William Binney On The Laura Ingraham Show (3/10/2017)

Sean Hannity Talks To Mark Levin , Jay Sekulow & Bill Binney About POTUS Wiretapping Claims

*BOMBSHELL* SEAN HANNITY, WILLIAM BINNEY And TONY SHAFFER (3/8/17) – TALK VAULT 7

Whistleblower: NSA Still Collecting Data On Every U.S. Citizen

William Binney Ex Nsa Intelligence Agent Discusses Trump Leaks With Lou Dobbs

Sharyl Attkisson: Presidents CAN Authorize ILLEGAL Surveillance And Nobody Would Ever Know!

Malzberg | Sharyl Attkisson To Discuss Her New Book “Stonewalled” | Part 1 [youtube-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjAoVEhlrPc]

Malzberg | Sharyl Attkisson To Discuss Her New Book “Stonewalled” | Part 2

Wyden: No To Warrantless Searches By The FBI Through National Security Letters

NSA Whistleblower: Everyone In US Under Virtual Surveillance, All Info Stored, No Matter The Post

William Binney – The Government Is Profiling You (The NSA Is Spying On You)

NSA Surveillance And What To Do About It

Taking A Look At The NSA’s Massive Data Center

NSA’s Largest Spy Center Located In Utah (What You Need To Know)

NSA Whistleblower William Binney: The Future Of FREEDOM

‘State Of Surveillance’ With Edward Snowden And Shane Smith (FULL EPISODE)

Edward Snowden Full Interview On Trump, Petraeus, & Having ‘No Regrets’

DOCUMENTARY: Edward Snowden – Terminal F (2015)

NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden: ‘I Don’t Want To Live In A Society That Does These Sort Of Things’

NSA Paying US Companies Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars For Access To Data

“You’re Being Watched”: Edward Snowden Emerges As Source Behind Explosive Revelations Of NSA Spying

Does The NSA Record Phone Calls? Glenn Greenwald On Warrentless Domestic Surveillance (2007)

Published on Jul 8, 2013 The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (AKA “Warrantless Wiretapping”) concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the “terrorist surveillance program”, part of the broader President’s Surveillance Program, the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. Critics, however, claimed that it was in an effort to attempt to silence critics of the Bush Administration and their handling of several hot button issues during its tenure. Under public pressure, the Bush administration ceased the warrantless wiretapping program in January 2007 and returned review of surveillance to the FISA court. Subsequently, in 2008 Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements. During the Obama Administration, the NSA has officially continued operating under the new FISA guidelines. However, in April 2009 officials at the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications in excess of the FISA court’s authority, but claimed that the acts were unintentional and had since been rectified. All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency requires a warrant from a three-judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which granted the President broad powers to fight a war against terrorism. The George W. Bush administration used these powers to bypass the FISA court and directed the NSA to spy directly on al Qaeda in a new NSA electronic surveillance program. Reports at the time indicate that an “apparently accidental” “glitch” resulted in the interception of communications that were purely domestic in nature.[5] This action was challenged by a number of groups, including Congress, as unconstitutional. The exact scope of the program is not known, but the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation’s largest telecommunication companies’ major interconnected locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic.[6] Critics said that such “domestic” intercepts required FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[7] The Bush administration maintained that the authorized intercepts are not domestic but rather foreign intelligence integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).[8] FISA makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act or to disclose or use information obtained by electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act knowing that it was not authorized by statute; this is punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to five years in prison, or both.[9] In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.[10]

After an article about the program, (which had been code-named Stellar Wind), was published in The New York Times on December 16, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed its existence.[11] [12][13] The Times had posted the exclusive story on their website the night before, after learning that the Bush administration was considering seeking a Pentagon-Papers-style court injunction to block its publication.[14] Critics of The Times have alleged that executive editor Bill Keller had withheld the story from publication since before the 2004 Presidential election, and that the story that was ultimately published by The Times was essentially the same as reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau had submitted in 2004.[15] In a December 2008 interview with Newsweek, former Justice Department employee Thomas Tamm revealed himself to be the initial whistle-blower to The Times. The FBI began investigating leaks about the program in 2005, with 25 agents and 5 prosecutors on the case.

FBI’s Patriot Act Abuse Of National Security Letters And Illegal NSA Spying

If You Think You Can Handle The Truth, Well Here It Is Folks

National Security Agency From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia “NSA” redirects here. For other uses, see NSA (disambiguation) and National Security Agency (disambiguation). Not to be confused with NASA or National Security Council. National Security Agency

Seal of the National Security Agency

Flag of the National Security Agency

NSA Headquarters, Fort Meade, Maryland Agency overview November 4, 1952; 64 years ago[1]

Formed

Armed Forces Security Agency

Preceding agency

Fort Meade, Maryland, U.S.

Headquarters Motto

39°6¢32²N 76°46¢17²WCoordinates: 39°6¢32²N 76°46¢17²W “Defending Our Nation. Securing The Future.”

Employees

Classified (30,000–40,000 estimate)[2][3][4][5]

Annual budget

Classified (estimated $10.8 billion, 2013)[6][7] Admiral Michael S. Rogers, U.S. Navy, Director of the National Security Agency

Agency executives

Richard Ledgett, Deputy Director of the National Security Agency

Parent agency Website

United States Department of Defense www.nsa.gov

National Security Agencysurveillance

Map of global NSA data collection Programs[hide] Pre-1978 ECHELON MINARET SHAMROCK PROMIS Since 1978 Upstream collection BLARNEY FAIRVIEW Main Core ThinThread Genoa Since 2001 OAKSTAR STORMBREW Trailblazer Turbulence Genoa II Total Information Awareness President’s Surveillance Program Terrorist Surveillance Program Since 2007 PRISM Dropmire Stateroom Bullrun MYSTIC MonsterMind (alleged) Databases, tools etc. PINWALE MARINA MAINWAY TRAFFICTHIEF DISHFIRE XKeyscore ICREACH BOUNDLESSINFORMANT GCHQ collaboration MUSCULAR Tempora Legislation[show] Institutions[show] Lawsuits[show] Whistleblowers[show] Publication[show] Related[show] Concepts[show] Collaboration[show] v t e The National Security Agency (NSA) is an intelligence organization of the United States federal government responsible for global monitoring, collection, and processing of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes, a discipline known as signals intelligence (SIGINT). NSA is concurrently charged with protection of U.S. government communications and information systems against penetration and network warfare. [8][9] Although many of NSA’s programs rely on “passive” electronic collection, the agency is authorized to accomplish its mission through active clandestine means, [10] among which are physically bugging electronic systems [11] and allegedly engaging in sabotage through subversive software. [12][13] Moreover, NSA maintains physical presence in a large number of

countries across the globe, where its Special Collection Service (SCS) inserts eavesdropping devices in difficult-to-reach places. SCS collection tactics allegedly encompass “close surveillance, burglary, wiretapping, breaking and entering”. [14][15] Unlike the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), both of which specialize primarily in foreign human espionage, NSA does not unilaterally conduct human-source intelligence gathering, despite often being portrayed so in popular culture. Instead, NSA is entrusted with assistance to and coordination of SIGINT elements at other government organizations, which are prevented by law from engaging in such activities without the approval of the NSA via the Defense Secretary. [16] As part of these streamlining responsibilities, the agency has a co-located organization called the Central Security Service (CSS), which was created to facilitate cooperation between NSA and other U.S. military cryptanalysis components. Additionally, the NSA Director simultaneously serves as the Commander of the United States Cyber Command and as Chief of the Central Security Service. Originating as a unit to decipher coded communications in World War II, it was officially formed as the NSA by President Harry S. Truman in 1952. Since then, it has become one of the largest U.S. intelligence organizations in terms of personnel and budget, [6][17] operating as part of the Department of Defense and simultaneously reporting to the Director of National Intelligence. NSA surveillance has been a matter of political controversy on several occasions, such as its spying on anti-Vietnam-war leaders or economic espionage. In 2013, the extent of some of the NSA’s secret surveillance programs was revealed to the public by Edward Snowden. According to the leaked documents, the NSA intercepts the communications of over a billion people worldwide, many of whom are United States citizens, and tracks the movement of hundreds of millions of people using cellphones. Internationally, research has pointed to the NSA’s ability to surveil the domestic Internet traffic of foreign countries through “boomerang routing”. [18]

Contents [show]

History Army predecessor The origins of the National Security Agency can be traced back to April 28, 1917, three weeks after the U.S. Congress declared war on Germany in World War I. A code and cipher decryption unit was established as the Cable and Telegraph Section which was also known as the Cipher Bureau. It was headquartered in Washington, D.C. and was part of the war effort under the executive branch without direct Congressional authorization. During the course of the war it was relocated in the army’s organizational chart several times. On July 5, 1917, Herbert O. Yardley was assigned to head the unit. At that point, the unit consisted of Yardley and two civilian clerks. It absorbed the navy’s cryptoanalysis functions in July 1918. World War I ended on November 11, 1918, and MI-8 moved to New York City on May 20, 1919, where it continued intelligence activities as the Code Compilation Company under the direction of Yardley. [19][20]

Black Chamber

Western Union allowed MI-8 to monitor telegraphic communications passing through the company’s wires until 1929. [21] MI-8 also operated the so-called “Black Chamber“. [22] The Black Chamber was located on East 37th Street in Manhattan. Its purpose was to crack the communications codes of foreign governments. Jointly supported by the State Department and the War Department, the chamber persuaded Western Union, the largest U.S. telegram company, to allow government officials to monitor private communications passing through the company’s wires. [23] Other “Black Chambers” were also found in Europe. They were established by the French and British governments to read the letters of targeted individuals, employing a variety of techniques to surreptitiously open, copy, and reseal correspondence before forwarding it to unsuspecting recipients. [24] Despite the American Black Chamber’s initial successes, it was shut down in 1929 by U.S. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson, who defended his decision by stating: “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail”. [21]

World War II and its aftermath During World War II, the Signal Security Agency (SSA) was created to intercept and decipher the communications of the Axis powers. [25] When the war ended, the SSA was reorganized as the Army Security Agency (ASA), and it was placed under the leadership of the Director of Military Intelligence. [25] On May 20, 1949, all cryptologic activities were centralized under a national organization called the Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA). [25]This organization was originally established within the U.S. Department of Defense under the command of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [26] The AFSA was tasked to direct Department of Defense communications and electronic intelligence activities, except those of U.S. military intelligence units. [26] However, the AFSA was unable to centralize communications intelligence and failed to coordinate with civilian agencies that shared its interests such as the Department of State, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). [26] In December 1951, President Harry S. Truman ordered a panel to investigate how AFSA had failed to achieve its goals. The results of the investigation led to improvements and its redesignation as the National Security Agency. [27] The agency was formally established by Truman in a memorandum of October 24, 1952, that revised National Security Council Intelligence Directive (NSCID) 9. [28] Since President Truman’s memo was a classified document, [28] the existence of the NSA was not known to the public at that time. Due to its ultra-secrecy the U.S. intelligence community referred to the NSA as “No Such Agency”. [29]

Vietnam War Main articles: Project MINARET and NESTOR (encryption) In the 1960s, the NSA played a key role in expanding America’s commitment to the Vietnam War by providing evidence of a North Vietnamese attack on the American destroyer USS Maddox during the Gulf of Tonkin incident. [30] A secret operation, code-named “MINARET“, was set up by the NSA to monitor the phone communications of Senators Frank Church and Howard Baker, as well as major civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, Jr., and prominent U.S. journalists and athletes who criticized the Vietnam War. [31] However, the project turned out to be controversial, and an internal review by the NSA concluded that its Minaret program was “disreputable if not outright illegal”. [31] The NSA mounted a major effort to secure tactical communications among U.S. forces during the war with mixed success. The NESTOR family of compatible secure voice systems it developed was widely deployed during the Vietnam War, with about 30,000 NESTOR sets produced. However a variety of technical and operational problems limited their use, allowing the North Vietnamese to exploit intercepted U.S. communications. [32]:Vol I, p.79

Church Committee hearings Further information: Watergate scandal and Church Committee In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, a congressional hearing in 1975 led by Sen. Frank Church[33] revealed that the NSA, in collaboration with Britain’s SIGINT intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), had routinely intercepted the international communications of prominent anti-Vietnam war leaders such as Jane Fonda and Dr. Benjamin Spock. [34] Following the resignation of President Richard Nixon, there were several investigations of suspected misuse of FBI, CIA and NSA facilities. [35] Senator Frank Church uncovered previously unknown activity, [35]such as a CIA plot (ordered by the administration of President John F. Kennedy) to assassinate Fidel Castro. [36] The investigation also uncovered NSA’s wiretaps on targeted American citizens. [37] After the Church Committee hearings, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was passed into law. This was designed to limit the practice of mass surveillance in the United States. [35]

From 1980s to 1990s In 1986, the NSA intercepted the communications of the Libyan government during the immediate aftermath of the Berlin discotheque bombing. The White House asserted that the NSA interception had provided “irrefutable” evidence that Libya was behind the bombing, which U.S. President Ronald Reagan cited as a justification for the 1986 United States bombing of Libya. [38][39] In 1999, a multi-year investigation by the European Parliament highlighted the NSA’s role in economic espionage in a report entitled ‘Development of Surveillance Technology and Risk of Abuse of Economic Information’. [40] That year, the NSA founded the NSA Hall of Honor, a memorial at the National Cryptologic Museum in Fort Meade, Maryland. [41] The memorial is a, “tribute to the pioneers and heroes who have made significant and long-lasting contributions to American cryptology”. [41] NSA employees must be retired for more than fifteen years to qualify for the memorial. [41] NSA’s infrastructure deteriorated in the 1990s as defense budget cuts resulted in maintenance deferrals. On January 24, 2000, NSA headquarters suffered a total network outage for three days caused by an overloaded network. Incoming traffic was successfully stored on agency servers, but it could not be directed and processed. The agency carried out emergency repairs at a cost of $3 million to get the system running again. (Some incoming traffic was also directed instead to Britain’s GCHQ for the time being.) Director Michael Hayden called the outage a “wake-up call” for the need to invest in the agency’s infrastructure. [42]

War on Terror

After Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan in the 1980s, the NSA recorded all of his phone calls via satellite, logging over 2,000 minutes of conversation[43] In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the NSA created new IT systems to deal with the flood of information from new technologies like the Internet and cellphones. ThinThread contained advanced data mining capabilities. It also had a “privacy mechanism”; surveillance was stored encrypted; decryption required a warrant. The research done under this program may have contributed to the technology used in later systems. ThinThread was cancelled when Michael Hayden chose Trailblazer, which did not include ThinThread’s privacy system. [44] Trailblazer Project ramped up in 2002. SAIC, Boeing, CSC, IBM, and Litton worked on it. Some NSA whistleblowers complained internally about major problems surrounding Trailblazer. This led to investigations by Congress and the NSA and DoD Inspectors General. The project was cancelled in early 2004. Several whistleblowers were later arrested and charged with violating federal espionage laws. Turbulence started in 2005. It was developed in small, inexpensive “test” pieces, rather than one grand plan like Trailblazer. It also included offensive cyber-warfare capabilities, like injecting malware into remote computers. Congress criticized Turbulence in 2007 for having similar bureaucratic problems as Trailblazer. [45] It was to be a realization of information processing at higher speeds in cyberspace. [46]

Global surveillance disclosures Part of a series on Global surveillance

Disclosures Origins Pre-2013 2013–present Reactions Systems XKeyscore PRISM ECHELON Carnivore DISHFIRE STONEGHOST Tempora Frenchelon Fairview MYSTIC DCSN Boundless Informant BULLRUN PINWALE Stingray SORM Agencies Five Eyes BND DGSE FSB MSS People Michael S. Rogers Keith Alexander James Bamford James Clapper Duncan Campbell Edward Snowden Russ Tice Barack Obama Julian Assange Places The Doughnut Fort Meade Menwith Hill Pine Gap Southern Cross Cable Utah Data Center Bad Aibling Station Dagger Complex Laws Five Eyes UKUSA Agreement Lustre U.S. USA Freedom Act FISA amendments EU Data Retention Directive Data Protection Directive Proposed changes U.S. FISA Improvements Act Other proposals Concepts Mass surveillance Culture of fear Secure communication SIGINT Call detail record Surveillance issues in smart cities Related topics Espionage Intelligence agency Cryptography Tor VPNs Human rights Privacy Liberty Satellites Stop Watching Us Mass surveillance portal v t e Main article: Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) The massive extent of the NSA’s spying, both foreign and domestic, was revealed to the public in a series of detailed disclosures of internal NSA documents beginning in June 2013. Most of the disclosures were leaked by former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden. Scope of surveillance It was revealed that the NSA intercepts telephone and Internet communications of over a billion people worldwide, seeking information on terrorism as well as foreign politics, economics [47] and “commercial secrets”. [48] In a declassified document it was revealed that 17,835 phone lines were on an improperly permitted “alert list” from 2006 to 2009 in breach of compliance, which tagged these phone lines for daily monitoring. [49][50][51] Eleven percent of these monitored phone lines met the agency’s legal standard for “reasonably articulable suspicion” (RAS). [49][52] A dedicated unit of the NSA locates targets for the CIA for extrajudicial assassination in the Middle East. [53] The NSA has also spied extensively on the European Union, the United Nations and numerous governments including allies and trading partners in Europe, South America and Asia. [54][55] The NSA tracks the locations of hundreds of millions of cellphones per day, allowing it to map people’s movements and relationships in detail. [56]It reportedly has access to all communications made via Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, YouTube, AOL, Skype, Apple and Paltalk, [57] and collects hundreds of millions of contact lists from personal email and instant messaging accounts each year. [58] It has also managed to weaken much of the encryption used on the Internet (by collaborating with, coercing or otherwise infiltrating numerous technology companies), so that the majority of Internet privacy is now vulnerable to the NSA and other attackers. [59][60] Domestically, the NSA collects and stores metadata records of phone calls, [61] including over 120 million US Verizon subscribers, [62] as well as Internet communications, [57] relying on a secret interpretation of the Patriot Act whereby the entirety of US communications may be considered “relevant” to a terrorism investigation if it is expected that even a tiny minority may relate to terrorism. [63] The NSA supplies foreign intercepts to the DEA, IRS and other law enforcement agencies, who use these to initiate criminal investigations. Federal agents are then instructed to “recreate” the investigative trail via parallel construction. [64] The NSA also spies on influential Muslims to obtain information that could be used to discredit them, such as their use of pornography. The targets, both domestic and abroad, are not suspected of any crime but hold religious or political views deemed “radical” by the NSA. [65] Although NSA’s surveillance activities are controversial, government agencies and private enterprises have common needs, and sometimes cooperate at subtle and complex technical levels. Big data is becoming more advantageous, justifying the cost of required computer hardware, and social media lead the trend. The interests of NSA and Silicon Valley began to converge as advances in computer storage technology drastically reduced the costs of storing enormous amounts of data and at the same time the value of the data for use in consumer marketing began to rise. On the other hand, social media sites are growing as voluntary data mining operations on a scale that rivals or exceeds anything the government could attempt on its own. [66] According to a report in The Washington Post in July 2014, relying on information provided by Snowden, 90% of those placed under surveillance in the U.S. are ordinary Americans, and are not the intended targets. The newspaper said it had examined documents including emails, text messages, and online accounts that support the claim. [67] Legal accountability Despite President Obama’s claims that these programs have congressional oversight, members of Congress were unaware of the existence of these NSA programs or the secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, and have consistently been denied access to basic information about them. [68] Obama has also claimed that there are legal checks in place to prevent inappropriate access of data and that there have been no examples of abuse; [69] however, the secret FISC court charged with regulating the NSA’s activities is, according to its chief judge, incapable of investigating or verifying how often the NSA breaks even its own secret rules. [70] It has since been reported that the NSA violated its own rules on data access thousands of times a year, many of these violations involving large-scale data interceptions; [71] and that NSA officers have even used data intercepts to spy on love interests. [72] The NSA has “generally disregarded the special rules for disseminating United States person information” by illegally sharing its intercepts with other law enforcement agencies. [73] A March 2009 opinion of the FISC court, released by court order, states that protocols restricting data queries had been “so frequently and systemically violated that it can be fairly said that this critical element of the overall … regime has never functioned effectively.”[74][75] In 2011 the same court noted that the “volume and nature” of the NSA’s bulk foreign Internet intercepts was “fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe”. [73] Email contact lists (including those of US citizens) are collected at numerous foreign locations to work around the illegality of doing so on US soil. [58] Legal opinions on the NSA’s bulk collection program have differed. In mid-December 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon ruled that the “almost-Orwellian” program likely violates the Constitution, and wrote, “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval. Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware ‘the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,’ would be aghast.”[76]

Later that month, U.S. District Judge William Pauley ruled that the NSA’s collection of telephone records is legal and valuable in the fight against terrorism. In his opinion, he wrote, “a bulk telephony metadata collection program [is] a wide net that could find and isolate gossamer contacts among suspected terrorists in an ocean of seemingly disconnected data” and noted that a similar collection of data prior to 9/11 might have prevented the attack. [77] An October 2014 United Nations report condemned mass surveillance by the United States and other countries as violating multiple international treaties and conventions that guarantee core privacy rights. [78]

Official responses On March 20, 2013 the Director of National Intelligence, Lieutenant General James Clapper, testified before Congress that the NSA does not wittingly collect any kind of data on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans, but he retracted this in June after details of the PRISM program were published, and stated instead that meta-data of phone and Internet traffic are collected, but no actual message contents. [79] This was corroborated by the NSA Director, General Keith Alexander, before it was revealed that the XKeyscore program collects the contents of millions of emails from US citizens without warrant, as well as “nearly everything a user does on the Internet”. Alexander later admitted that “content” is collected, but stated that it is simply stored and never analyzed or searched unless there is “a nexus to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups”. [69] Regarding the necessity of these NSA programs, Alexander stated on June 27 that the NSA’s bulk phone and Internet intercepts had been instrumental in preventing 54 terrorist “events”, including 13 in the US, and in all but one of these cases had provided the initial tip to “unravel the threat stream”. [80] On July 31 NSA Deputy Director John Inglis conceded to the Senate that these intercepts had not been vital in stopping any terrorist attacks, but were “close” to vital in identifying and convicting four San Diego men for sending US$8,930 to Al-Shabaab, a militia that conducts terrorism in Somalia. [81][82][83] The U.S. government has aggressively sought to dismiss and challenge Fourth Amendment cases raised against it, and has granted retroactive immunity to ISPs and telecoms participating in domestic surveillance. [84][85] The U.S. military has acknowledged blocking access to parts of The Guardian website for thousands of defense personnel across the country, [86][87] and blocking the entire Guardian website for personnel stationed throughout Afghanistan, the Middle East, and South Asia. [88]

Organizational structure

Michael S. Rogers, the director of the NSA. The NSA is led by the Director of the National Security Agency (DIRNSA), who also serves as Chief of the Central Security Service (CHCSS) and Commander of the United States Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) and is the highest-ranking military official of these organizations. He is assisted by a Deputy Director, who is the highest-ranking civilian within the NSA/CSS. NSA also has an Inspector General, head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), a General Counsel, head of the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and a Director of Compliance, who is head of the Office of the Director of Compliance (ODOC). [89] Unlike other intelligence organizations such as CIA or DIA, NSA has always been particularly reticent concerning its internal organizational structure. As of the mid-1990s, the National Security Agency was organized into five Directorates: The Operations Directorate, which was responsible for SIGINT collection and processing. The Technology and Systems Directorate, which develops new technologies for SIGINT collection and processing. The Information Systems Security Directorate, which was responsible for NSA’s communications and information security missions. The Plans, Policy and Programs Directorate, which provided staff support and general direction for the Agency. The Support Services Directorate, which provided logistical and administrative support activities. [90] Each of these directorates consisted of several groups or elements, designated by a letter. There were for example the A Group, which was responsible for all SIGINT operations against the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and G Group, which was responsible for SIGINT related to all non-communist countries. These groups were divided in units designated by an additional number, like unit A5 for breaking Soviet codes, and G6, being the office for the Middle East, North Africa, Cuba, Central and South America. [91][92]

Structure As of 2013, NSA has about a dozen directorates, which are designated by a letter, although not all of them are publicly known. The directorates are divided in divisions and units starting with the letter of the parent directorate, followed by a number for the division, the sub-unit or a sub-sub-unit. The main elements of the organizational structure of the NSA are: [93] F – Directorate only known from unit F6, the Special Collection Service (SCS), which is a joint program created by CIA and NSA in 1978 to facilitate clandestine activities such as bugging computers throughout the world, using the expertise of both agencies. [94] G – Directorate only known from unit G112, the office that manages the Senior Span platform, attached to the U2 spy planes. [95] I – Information Assurance Directorate (IAD), which ensures availability, integrity, authentication, confidentiality, and non-repudiation of national security and telecommunications and information systems (national security systems). J – Directorate only known from unit J2, the Cryptologic Intelligence Unit L – Installation and Logistics M – Human Resources Q – Security and Counterintelligence R – Research Directorate, which conducts research on signals intelligence and on information assurance for the U.S. Government. [96] S – Signals Intelligence Directorate (SID), which is responsible for the collection, analysis, production and dissemination of signals intelligence. This directorate is led by a director and a deputy director. The SID consists of the following divisions: S1 – Customer Relations S2 – Analysis and Production Centers, with the following so-called Product Lines: S2A: South Asia, S2B: China and Korea, S2C: International Security, S2E: Middle East/Asia, S2F: International Crime, S2G: Counter-proliferation, S2H: Russia, S2I: Counter-terrorism, S2J: Weapons and Space, S2T: Current Threats S3 – Data Acquisition, with these divisions for the main collection programs: S31 – Cryptanalysis and Exploitation Services (CES) S32 – Tailored Access Operations (TAO), which hacks into foreign computers to conduct cyber-espionage and reportedly is “the largest and arguably the most important component of the NSA’s huge Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) Directorate, consisting of over 1,000 military and civilian computer hackers, intelligence analysts, targeting specialists, computer hardware and software designers, and electrical engineers.”[97] S33 – Global Access Operations (GAO), which is responsible for intercepts from satellites and other international SIGINT platforms. [98] A tool which details and maps the information collected by this unit is code-named Boundless Informant. S34 – Collections Strategies and Requirements Center S35 – Special Source Operations (SSO), which is responsible for domestic and compartmented collection programs, like for example the PRISM program. [98] Special Source Operations is also mentioned in connection to the FAIRVIEW collection program. [99] T – Technical Directorate (TD) Directorate for Education and Training Directorate for Corporate Leadership Foreign Affairs Directorate, which acts as liaison with foreign intelligence services, counter-intelligence centers and the UKUSA-partners. Acquisitions and Procurement Directorate Information Sharing Services (ISS), led by a chief and a deputy chief. [100] In the year 2000, a leadership team was formed, consisting of the Director, the Deputy Director and the Directors of the Signals Intelligence (SID), the Information Assurance (IAD) and the Technical Directorate (TD). The chiefs of other main NSA divisions became associate directors of the senior leadership team. [101] After president George W. Bush initiated the President’s Surveillance Program (PSP) in 2001, the NSA created a 24-hour Metadata Analysis Center (MAC), followed in 2004 by the Advanced Analysis Division (AAD), with the mission of analyzing content, Internet metadata and telephone metadata. Both units were part of the Signals Intelligence Directorate. [102] A 2016 proposal would combine the Signals Intelligence Directorate with the Information Assurance Directorate into a Directorate of Operations. [103]

Watch centers The NSA maintains at least two watch centers: National Security Operations Center (NSOC), which is the NSA’s current operations center and focal point for time-sensitive SIGINT reporting for the United States SIGINT System (USSS). This center was established in 1968 as the National SIGINT Watch Center (NSWC) and renamed into National SIGINT Operations Center (NSOC) in 1973. This “nerve center of the NSA” got its current name in 1996. [104]

NSA/CSS Threat Operations Center (NTOC), which is the primary NSA/CSS partner for Department of Homeland Security response to cyber incidents. The NTOC establishes real-time network awareness and threat characterization capabilities to forecast, alert, and attribute malicious activity and enable the coordination of Computer Network Operations. The NTOC was established in 2004 as a joint Information Assurance and Signals Intelligence project. [105]

Employees The number of NSA employees is officially classified[4] but there are several sources providing estimates. In 1961, NSA had 59,000 military and civilian employees, which grew to 93,067 in 1969, of which 19,300 worked at the headquarters at Fort Meade. In the early 1980s NSA had roughly 50,000 military and civilian personnel. By 1989 this number had grown again to 75,000, of which 25,000 worked at the NSA headquarters. Between 1990 and 1995 the NSA’s budget and workforce were cut by one third, which led to a substantial loss of experience. [106] In 2012, the NSA said more than 30,000 employees worked at Fort Meade and other facilities. [2] In 2012, John C. Inglis, the deputy director, said that the total number of NSA employees is “somewhere between 37,000 and one billion” as a joke, [4] and stated that the agency is “probably the biggest employer of introverts.”[4] In 2013 Der Spiegel stated that the NSA had 40,000 employees. [5] More widely, it has been described as the world’s largest single employer of mathematicians. [107] Some NSA employees form part of the workforce of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the agency that provides the NSA with satellite signals intelligence. As of 2013 about 1,000 system administrators work for the NSA. [108] Security issues The NSA received criticism early on in 1960 after two agents had defected to the Soviet Union. Investigations by the House Un-American Activities Committee and a special subcommittee of the United States House Committee on Armed Services revealed severe cases of ignorance in personnel security regulations, prompting the former personnel director and the director of security to step down and leading to the adoption of stricter security practices. [109] Nonetheless, security breaches reoccurred only a year later when in an issue of Izvestia of July 23, 1963, a former NSA employee published several cryptologic secrets. The very same day, an NSA clerk-messenger committed suicide as ongoing investigations disclosed that he had sold secret information to the Soviets on a regular basis. The reluctance of Congressional houses to look into these affairs had prompted a journalist to write, “If a similar series of tragic blunders occurred in any ordinary agency of Government an aroused public would insist that those responsible be officially censured, demoted, or fired.” David Kahn criticized the NSA’s tactics of concealing its doings as smug and the Congress’ blind faith in the agency’s right-doing as shortsighted, and pointed out the necessity of surveillance by the Congress to prevent abuse of power. [109] Edward Snowden‘s leaking of the existence of PRISM in 2013 caused the NSA to institute a “two-man rule“, where two system administrators are required to be present when one accesses certain sensitive information. [108] Snowden claims he suggested such a rule in 2009. [110] Polygraphin

Defense Security Service (DSS) polygraph brochure given to NSA applicants The NSA conducts polygraph tests of employees. For new employees, the tests are meant to discover enemy spies who are applying to the NSA and to uncover any information that could make an applicant pliant to coercion. [111] As part of the latter, historically EPQs or “embarrassing personal questions” about sexual behavior had been included in the NSA polygraph. [111] The NSA also conducts five-year periodic reinvestigation polygraphs of employees, focusing on counterintelligence programs. In addition the NSA conducts periodic polygraph investigations in order to find spies and leakers; those who refuse to take them may receive “termination of employment”, according to a 1982 memorandum from the director of the NSA. [112]

NSA-produced video on the polygraph process There are also “special access examination” polygraphs for employees who wish to work in highly sensitive areas, and those polygraphs cover counterintelligence questions and some questions about behavior. [112] NSA’s brochure states that the average test length is between two and four hours. [113] A 1983 report of the Office of Technology Assessment stated that “It appears that the NSA [National Security Agency] (and possibly CIA) use the polygraph not to determine deception or truthfulness per se, but as a technique of interrogation to encourage admissions.”[114]Sometimes applicants in the polygraph process confess to committing felonies such as murder, rape, and selling of illegal drugs. Between 1974 and 1979, of the 20,511 job applicants who took polygraph tests, 695 (3.4%) confessed to previous felony crimes; almost all of those crimes had been undetected. [111] In 2010 the NSA produced a video explaining its polygraph process. [115] The video, ten minutes long, is titled “The Truth About the Polygraph” and was posted to the Web site of the Defense Security Service. Jeff Stein of The Washington Post said that the video portrays “various applicants, or actors playing them — it’s not clear — describing everything bad they had heard about the test, the implication being that none of it is true.”[116] AntiPolygraph.org argues that the NSA-produced video omits some information about the polygraph process; it produced a video responding to the NSA video. [115] George Maschke, the founder of the Web site, accused the NSA polygraph video of being “Orwellian“. [116] After Edward Snowden revealed his identity in 2013, the NSA began requiring polygraphing of employees once per quarter. [117] Arbitrary firing The number of exemptions from legal requirements has been criticized. When in 1964 the Congress was hearing a bill giving the director of the NSA the power to fire at will any employee,The Washington Post wrote: “This is the very definition of arbitrariness. It means that an employee could be discharged and disgraced on the basis of anonymous allegations without the slightest opportunity to defend himself.” Yet, the bill was accepted by an overwhelming majority. [109]

Insignia and memorials

The heraldic insignia of NSA consists of an eagle inside a circle, grasping a key in its talons. [118] The eagle represents the agency’s national mission. [118] Its breast features a shield with bands of red and white, taken from the Great Seal of the United States and representing Congress. [118] The key is taken from the emblem of Saint Peter and represents security. [118] When the NSA was created, the agency had no emblem and used that of the Department of Defense. [119] The agency adopted its first of two emblems in 1963. [119] The current NSA insignia has been in use since 1965, when then-Director, LTG Marshall S. Carter (USA) ordered the creation of a device to represent the agency. [120] The NSA’s flag consists of the agency’s seal on a light blue background.

National Cryptologic Memorial Crews associated with NSA missions have been involved in a number of dangerous and deadly situations. [121] The USS Liberty incident in 1967 and USS Pueblo incident in 1968 are examples of the losses endured during the Cold War. [121] The National Security Agency/Central Security Service Cryptologic Memorial honors and remembers the fallen personnel, both military and civilian, of these intelligence missions. [122] It is made of black granite, and has 171 names carved into it, as of 2013 . [122] It is located at NSA headquarters. A tradition of declassifying the stories of the fallen was begun in 2001. [122]

NSANet (NSA’s intranet)

Behind the Green Door – Secure communications room with separate computer terminals for access to SIPRNET, GWAN, NSANET, and JWICS NSANet stands for National Security Agency Network and is the official NSA intranet. [123] It is a classified network, [124] for information up to the level of TS/SCI [125] to support the use and sharing of intelligence data between NSA and the signals intelligence agencies of the four other nations of the Five Eyes partnership. The management of NSANet has been delegated to the Central Security Service Texas (CSSTEXAS). [126] NSANet is a highly secured computer network consisting of fiber-optic and satellite communication channels which are almost completely separated from the public Internet. The network allows NSA personnel and civilian and military intelligence analysts anywhere in the world to have access to the agency’s systems and databases. This access is tightly controlled and monitored. For example, every keystroke is logged, activities are audited at random and downloading and printing of documents from NSANet are recorded. [127] In 1998, NSANet, along with NIPRNET and SIPRNET, had “significant problems with poor search capabilities, unorganized data and old information”. [128] In 2004, the network was reported to have used over twenty commercial off-the-shelf operating systems. [129] Some universities that do highly sensitive research are allowed to connect to it. [130] The thousands of Top Secret internal NSA documents that were taken by Edward Snowden in 2013 were stored in “a file-sharing location on the NSA’s intranet site” so they could easily be read online by NSA personnel. Everyone with a TS/SCI-clearance had access to these documents and as a system administrator, Snowden was responsible for moving accidentally misplaced highly sensitive documents to more secure storage locations. [131]

National Computer Security Center The DoD Computer Security Center was founded in 1981 and renamed the National Computer Security Center (NCSC) in 1985. NCSC was responsible for computer security throughout the federal government. [132] NCSC was part of NSA, [133] and during the late 1980s and the 1990s, NSA and NCSC published Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria in a six-foot high Rainbow Series of books that detailed trusted computing and network platform specifications. [134] The Rainbow books were replaced by the Common Criteria, however, in the early 2000s. [134]

Facilities Headquarters

National Security Agency headquarters in Fort Meade, 2013 Headquarters for the National Security Agency is located at 39°6¢32²N 76°46¢17²W in Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, although it is separate from other compounds and agencies that are based within this same military installation. Ft. Meade is about 20 mi (32 km) southwest of Baltimore, [135] and 25 mi (40 km) northeast of Washington, DC. [136] The NSA has its own exit off Maryland Route 295 South labeled “NSA Employees Only”. [137][138] The exit may only be used by people with the proper clearances, and security vehicles parked along the road guard the entrance. [139] NSA is the largest employer in the U.S. state of Maryland, and two-thirds of its personnel work at Ft. Meade. [140] Built on 350 acres (140 ha; 0.55 sq mi)[141] of Ft. Meade’s 5,000 acres (2,000 ha; 7.8 sq mi), [142] the site has 1,300 buildings and an estimated 18,000 parking spaces. [136][143]

NSA headquarters building in Fort Meade (left), NSOC (right) The main NSA headquarters and operations building is what James Bamford, author of Body of Secrets, describes as “a modern boxy structure” that appears similar to “any stylish office building.”[144] The building is covered with one-way dark glass, which is lined with copper shielding in order to prevent espionage by trapping in signals and sounds. [144] It contains 3,000,000 square feet (280,000 m2), or more than 68 acres (28 ha), of floor space; Bamford said that the U.S. Capitol “could easily fit inside it four times over.”[144] The facility has over 100 watchposts, [145] one of them being the visitor control center, a two-story area that serves as the entrance. [144] At the entrance, a white pentagonal structure, [146] visitor badges are issued to visitors and security clearances of employees are checked. [147] The visitor center includes a painting of the NSA seal. [146] The OPS2A building, the tallest building in the NSA complex and the location of much of the agency’s operations directorate, is accessible from the visitor center. Bamford described it as a “dark glass Rubik’s Cube“. [148] The facility’s “red corridor” houses non-security operations such as concessions and the drug store. The name refers to the “red badge” which is worn by someone without a security clearance. The NSA headquarters includes a cafeteria, a credit union, ticket counters for airlines and entertainment, a barbershop, and a bank. [146] NSA headquarters has its own post office, fire department, and police force. [149][150][151] The employees at the NSA headquarters reside in various places in the Baltimore-Washington area, including Annapolis, Baltimore, and Columbia in Maryland and the District of Columbia, including the Georgetown community. [152] Power consumption

Due to massive amounts of data processing, NSA is the largest electricity consumer in Maryland. [140] Following a major power outage in 2000, in 2003 and in follow-ups through 2007, The Baltimore Sun reported that the NSA was at risk of electrical overload because of insufficient internal electrical infrastructure at Fort Meade to support the amount of equipment being installed. This problem was apparently recognized in the 1990s but not made a priority, and “now the agency’s ability to keep its operations going is threatened.”[153] Baltimore Gas & Electric (BGE, now Constellation Energy) provided NSA with 65 to 75 megawatts at Ft. Meade in 2007, and expected that an increase of 10 to 15 megawatts would be needed later that year. [154] In 2011, NSA at Ft. Meade was Maryland’s largest consumer of power. [140] In 2007, as BGE’s largest customer, NSA bought as much electricity as Annapolis, the capital city of Maryland. [153]

One estimate put the potential for power consumption by the new Utah Data Center at US$40 million per year. [155] History of headquarters

Headquarters at Fort Meade circa 1950s When the agency was established, its headquarters and cryptographic center were in the Naval Security Station in Washington, D.C. The COMINT functions were located in Arlington Hall in Northern Virginia, which served as the headquarters of the U.S. Army‘s cryptographic operations. [156]Because the Soviet Union had detonated a nuclear bomb and because the facilities were crowded, the federal government wanted to move several agencies, including the AFSA/NSA. A planning committee considered Fort Knox, but Fort Meade, Maryland, was ultimately chosen as NSA headquarters because it was far enough away from Washington, D.C. in case of a nuclear strike and was close enough so its employees would not have to move their families. [157] Construction of additional buildings began after the agency occupied buildings at Ft. Meade in the late 1950s, which they soon outgrew. [157] In 1963 the new headquarters building, nine stories tall, opened. NSA workers referred to the building as the “Headquarters Building” and since the NSA management occupied the top floor, workers used “Ninth Floor” to refer to their leaders. [158] COMSEC remained in Washington, D.C., until its new building was completed in 1968. [157] In September 1986, the Operations 2A and 2B buildings, both copper-shielded to prevent eavesdropping, opened with a dedication by President Ronald Reagan. [159] The four NSA buildings became known as the “Big Four.”[159] The NSA director moved to 2B when it opened. [159] Fort Meade shooting[edit]

On March 30, 2015, shortly before 9 am, a stolen sports utility vehicle approached an NSA police vehicle blocking the road near the gate of Fort Meade, after it was told to leave the area. NSA officers fired on the SUV, killing the 27-year-old driver, Ricky Hall (a transgender person also known as Mya), and seriously injuring his 20-year-old male passenger. An NSA officer’s arm was injured when Hall subsequently crashed into his vehicle. [160][161] The two, dressed in women’s clothing after a night of partying at a motel with the man they’d stolen the SUV from that morning, “attempted to drive a vehicle into the National Security Agency portion of the installation without authorization”, according to an NSA statement. [162] FBI spokeswoman Amy Thoreson said the incident is not believed to be related to terrorism. [163]In June 2015 the FBI closed its investigation into the incident and federal prosecutors have declined to bring charges against anyone involved. [164] An anonymous police official told The Washington Post, “This was not a deliberate attempt to breach the security of NSA. This was not a planned attack.” The two are believed to have made a wrong turn off the highway, while fleeing from the motel after stealing the vehicle. A small amount of cocaine was found in the SUV. A local CBS reporter initially said a gun was found, [165]but her later revision does not. [166] Dozens of journalists were corralled into a parking lot blocks away from the scene, and were barred from photographing the area. [167]

Computing[edit] In 1995, The Baltimore Sun reported that the NSA is the owner of the single largest group of supercomputers. [168] NSA held a groundbreaking ceremony at Ft. Meade in May 2013 for its High Performance Computing Center 2, expected to open in 2016. [169] Called Site M, the center has a 150 megawatt power substation, 14 administrative buildings and 10 parking garages. [149] It cost $3.2 billion and covers 227 acres (92 ha; 0.355 sq mi). [149] The center is 1,800,000 square feet (17 ha; 0.065 sq mi)[149] and initially uses 60 megawatts of electricity. [170] Increments II and III are expected to be completed by 2030, and would quadruple the space, covering 5,800,000 square feet (54 ha; 0.21 sq mi) with 60 buildings and 40 parking garages. [149] Defense contractors are also establishing or expanding cybersecurity facilities near the NSA and around the Washington metropolitan area. [149]

Other U.S. facilities

Buckley Air Force Base in Colorado

Utah Data Center As of 2012, NSA collected intelligence from four geostationary satellites. [155] Satellite receivers were at Roaring Creek Station in Catawissa, Pennsylvania and Salt Creek Station in Arbuckle, California. [155] It operated ten to twenty taps on U.S. telecom switches. NSA had installations in several U.S. states and from them observed intercepts from Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Latin America, and Asia. [155]

NSA had facilities at Friendship Annex (FANX) in Linthicum, Maryland, which is a 20 to 25-minute drive from Ft. Meade; [171] the Aerospace Data Facility at Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora outside Denver, Colorado; NSA Texas in the Texas Cryptology Center at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas; NSA Georgia at Fort Gordon in Augusta, Georgia; NSA Hawaii in Honolulu; the Multiprogram Research Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and elsewhere. [152][155] On January 6, 2011 a groundbreaking ceremony was held to begin construction on NSA’s first Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative (CNCI) Data Center, known as the “Utah Data Center” for short. The $1.5B data center is being built at Camp Williams, Utah, located 25 miles (40 km) south of Salt Lake City, and will help support the agency’s National Cyber-security Initiative. [172] It is expected to be operational by September 2013. [155] In 2009, to protect its assets and to access more electricity, NSA sought to decentralize and expand its existing facilities in Ft. Meade and Menwith Hill, [173] the latter expansion expected to be completed by 2015. [174] The Yakima Herald-Republic cited Bamford, saying that many of NSA’s bases for its Echelon program were a legacy system, using outdated, 1990s technology. [175] In 2004, NSA closed its operations at Bad Aibling Station (Field Station 81) in Bad Aibling, Germany. [176] In 2012, NSA began to move some of its operations at Yakima Research Station, Yakima Training Center, in Washington state to Colorado, planning to leave Yakima closed. [177] As of 2013, NSA also intended to close operations at Sugar Grove, West Virginia. [175]

International stations

RAF Menwith Hill has the largest NSA presence in the United Kingdom. [174] Following the signing in 1946–1956[178] of the UKUSA Agreement between the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who then cooperated on signals intelligence and ECHELON, [179] NSA stations were built at GCHQ Bude in Morwenstow, United Kingdom; Geraldton, Pine Gap and Shoal Bay, Australia; Leitrim and Ottawa, Canada; Misawa, Japan; and Waihopai and Tangimoana, [180] New Zealand. [181] NSA operates RAF Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire, United Kingdom, which was, according to BBC News in 2007, the largest electronic monitoring station in the world. [182] Planned in 1954, and opened in 1960, the base covered 562 acres (227 ha; 0.878 sq mi) in 1999. [183] The agency’s European Cryptologic Center (ECC), with 240 employees in 2011, is headquartered at a US military compound in Griesheim, near Frankfurt in Germany. A 2011 NSA report indicates that the ECC is responsible for the “largest analysis and productivity in Europe” and focusses on various priorities, including Africa, Europe, the Middle East and counterterrorism operations. [184] In 2013, a new Consolidated Intelligence Center, also to be used by NSA, is being built at the headquarters of the United States Army Europe in Wiesbaden, Germany. [185] NSA’s partnership with Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), the German foreign intelligence service, was confirmed by BND president Gerhard Schindler. [185] Thailand Thailand is a “3rd party partner” of the NSA along with nine other nations. [186] These are non-English-speaking countries that have made security agreements for the exchange of SIGINT raw material and end product reports. Thailand is the site of at least two US SIGINT collection stations. One is at the US Embassy in Bangkok, a joint NSA-CIA Special Collection Service (SCS) unit. It presumably eavesdrops on foreign embassies, governmental communications, and other targets of opportunity. [187] The second installation is a FORNSAT (foreign satellite interception) station in the Thai city of Khon Kaen. It is codenamed INDRA, but has also been referred to as LEMONWOOD. [187] The station is approximately 40 ha (100 acres) in size and consists of a large 3,700–4,600 m2 (40,000–50,000 ft 2) operations building on the west side of the ops compound and four radome-enclosed parabolic antennas. Possibly two of the radome-enclosed antennas are used for SATCOM intercept and two antennas used for relaying the intercepted material back to NSA. There is also a PUSHER-type circularly-disposed antenna array (CDAA) array just north of the ops compound. [188][189] NSA activated Khon Kaen in October 1979. Its mission was to eavesdrop on the radio traffic of Chinese army and air force units in southern China, especially in and around the city of Kunming in Yunnan Province. Back in the late 1970s the base consisted only of a small CDAA antenna array that was remote-controlled via satellite from the NSA listening post at Kunia, Hawaii, and a small force of civilian contractors from Bendix Field Engineering Corp. whose job it was to keep the antenna array and satellite relay facilities up and running 24/7. [188] According to the papers of the late General William Odom, the INDRA facility was upgraded in 1986 with a new British-made PUSHER CDAA antenna as part of an overall upgrade of NSA and Thai SIGINT facilities whose objective was to spy on the neighboring communist nations of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. [188] The base apparently fell into disrepair in the 1990s as China and Vietnam became more friendly towards the US, and by 2002 archived satellite imagery showed that the PUSHER CDAA antenna had been torn down, perhaps indicating that the base had been closed. At some point in the period since 9/11, the Khon Kaen base was reactivated and expanded to include a sizeable SATCOM intercept mission. It is likely that the NSA presence at Khon Kaen is relatively small, and that most of the work is done by civilian contractors. [188]

Mission NSA’s eavesdropping mission includes radio broadcasting, both from various organizations and individuals, the Internet, telephone calls, and other intercepted forms of communication. Its secure communications mission includes military, diplomatic, and all other sensitive, confidential or secret government communications. [190] According to the Washington Post, “[e]very day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications. The NSA sorts a fraction of those into 70 separate databases.”[191] Because of its listening task, NSA/CSS has been heavily involved in cryptanalytic research, continuing the work of predecessor agencies which had broken many World War II codes and ciphers (see, for instance, Purple, Venona project, and JN-25). In 2004, NSA Central Security Service and the National Cyber Security Division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreed to expand NSA Centers of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education Program. [192] As part of the National Security Presidential Directive 54/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23 (NSPD 54), signed on January 8, 2008 by President Bush, the NSA became the lead agency to monitor and protect all of the federal government’s computer networks from cyber-terrorism. [9]

Operations Operations by the National Security Agency can be divided in three types: Collection overseas, which falls under the responsibility of the Global Access Operations (GAO) division. Domestic collection, which falls under the responsibility of the Special Source Operations (SSO) division. Hacking operations, which falls under the responsibility of the Tailored Access Operations (TAO) division.

Collection overseas Echelon Main article: ECHELON Echelon was created in the incubator of the Cold War. [193] Today it is a legacy system, and several NSA stations are closing. [175] NSA/CSS, in combination with the equivalent agencies in the United Kingdom (Government Communications Headquarters), Canada (Communications Security Establishment), Australia (Defence Signals Directorate), and New Zealand (Government Communications Security Bureau), otherwise known as the UKUSA group, [194] was reported to be in command of the operation of the so-called ECHELON system. Its capabilities were suspected to include the ability to monitor a large proportion of the world’s transmitted civilian telephone, fax and data traffic. [195] During the early 1970s, the first of what became more than eight large satellite communications dishes were installed at Menwith Hill. [196] Investigative journalist Duncan Campbell reported in 1988 on the ECHELON surveillance program, an extension of the UKUSA Agreement on global signals intelligence SIGINT, and detailed how the eavesdropping operations worked. [197] In November 3, 1999 the BBC reported that they had confirmation from the Australian Government of the existence of a powerful “global spying network” code-named Echelon, that could “eavesdrop on every single phone call, fax or email, anywhere on the planet” with Britain and the United States as the chief protagonists. They confirmed that Menwith Hill was “linked directly to the headquarters of the US National Security Agency (NSA) at Fort Meade in Maryland”. [198] NSA’s United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (USSID 18) strictly prohibited the interception or collection of information about “… U.S. persons, entities, corporations or organizations….” without explicit written legal permission from the United States Attorney General when the subject is located abroad, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when within U.S. borders. Alleged Echelon-related activities, including its use for motives other than national security, including political and industrial espionage, received criticism from countries outside the UKUSA alliance. [199][200]

Protesters against NSA data mining in Berlin wearing Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden masks. Other SIGINT operations overseas The NSA is also involved in planning to blackmail people with “SEXINT“, intelligence gained about a potential target’s sexual activity and preferences. Those targeted had not committed any apparent crime nor were charged with one. [201] In order to support its facial recognition program, the NSA is intercepting “millions of images per day”. [202] The Real Time Regional Gateway is a data collection program introduced in 2005 in Iraq by NSA during the Iraq War that consisted of gathering all electronic communication, storing it, then searching and otherwise analyzing it. It was effective in providing information about Iraqi insurgents who had eluded less comprehensive techniques. [203] This “collect it all” strategy introduced by NSA director, Keith B. Alexander, is believed by Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian to be the model for the comprehensive worldwide mass archiving of communications which NSA is engaged in as of 2013. [204] BoundlessInformant Edward Snowden revealed in June 2013 that between February 8 and March 8, 2013, the NSA collected about 124.8 billion telephone data items and 97.1 billion computer data items throughout the world, as was displayed in charts from an internal NSA tool codenamed Boundless Informant. It was reported that some of these data reflected eavesdropping on citizens in countries like Germany, Spain and France. [205]

BoundlessInformant employs big data databases, cloud computing technology, and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) to analyze data collected worldwide by the NSA. [206] Bypassing encryption In 2013, reporters uncovered a secret memo that claims the NSA created and pushed for the adoption of the Dual_EC_DRBG encryption standard that contained built-in vulnerabilities in 2006 to the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the International Organization for Standardization (aka ISO). [207][208] This memo appears to give credence to previous speculation by cryptographers at Microsoft Research. [209] Edward Snowden claims that the NSA often bypasses encryption altogether by lifting information before it is encrypted or after it is decrypted. [208] XKeyscore rules (as specified in a file xkeyscorerules100.txt, sourced by German TV stations NDR and WDR, who claim to have excerpts from its source code) reveal that the NSA tracks users of privacyenhancing software tools, including Tor; an anonymous email service provided by the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) in Cambridge, Massachusetts; and readers of the Linux Journal. [210][211]

Domestic activity Further information: Mass surveillance in the United States NSA’s mission, as set forth in Executive Order 12333 in 1981, is to collect information that constitutes “foreign intelligence or counterintelligence” while not “acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons”. NSA has declared that it relies on the FBI to collect information on foreign intelligence activities within the borders of the United States, while confining its own activities within the United States to the embassies and missions of foreign nations. [212] The appearance of a ‘Domestic Surveillance Directorate’ of the NSA was soon exposed as a hoax in 2013. [213][214] NSA’s domestic surveillance activities are limited by the requirements imposed by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for example held in October 2011, citing multiple Supreme Court precedents, that the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to the contents of all communications, whatever the means, because “a person’s private communications are akin to personal papers.”[215] However, these protections do not apply to non-U.S. persons located outside of U.S. borders, so the NSA’s foreign surveillance efforts are subject to far fewer limitations under U.S. law. [216] The specific requirements for domestic surveillance operations are contained in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), which does not extend protection to non-U.S. citizens located outside of U.S. territory. [216] George W. Bush administration George W. Bush, president during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, approved the Patriot Act shortly after the attacks to take anti-terrorist security measures. Title 1, 2, and 9 specifically authorized measures that would be taken by the NSA. These titles granted enhanced domestic security against terrorism, surveillance procedures, and improved intelligence, respectively. On March 10, 2004, there was a debate between President Bush and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and Acting Attorney General James Comey. The Attorney Generals were unsure if the NSA’s programs could be considered constitutional. They threatened to resign over the matter, but ultimately the NSA’s programs continued. [217] On March 11, 2004, President Bush signed a new authorization for mass surveillance of Internet records, in addition to the surveillance of phone records.This allowed the president to be able to override laws such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which protected civilians from mass surveillance. In addition to this, President Bush also signed that the measures of mass surveillance were also retroactively in place. [218] Warrantless wiretaps

Main article: NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07) On December 16, 2005, The New York Times reported that, under White House pressure and with an executive order from President George W. Bush, the National Security Agency, in an attempt to thwart terrorism, had been tapping phone calls made to persons outside the country, without obtaining warrants from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a secret court created for that purpose under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). [219] One such surveillance program, authorized by the U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive 18 of President George Bush, was the Highlander Project undertaken for the National Security Agency by the U.S. Army 513th Military Intelligence Brigade. NSA relayed telephone (including cell phone) conversations obtained from ground, airborne, and satellite monitoring stations to various U.S. Army Signal Intelligence Officers, including the 201st Military Intelligence Battalion. Conversations of citizens of the U.S. were intercepted, along with those of other nations. [220] Proponents of the surveillance program claim that the President has executive authority to order such action, arguing that laws such as FISA are overridden by the President’s Constitutional powers. In addition, some argued that FISA was implicitly overridden by a subsequent statute, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, although the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld deprecates this view. In the August 2006 case ACLU v. NSA, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor concluded that NSA’s warrantless surveillance program was both illegal and unconstitutional. On July 6, 2007 the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the decision on the grounds that the ACLU lacked standing to bring the suit. [221] On January 17, 2006, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit, CCR v. Bush, against the George W. Bush Presidency. The lawsuit challenged the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) surveillance of people within the U.S., including the interception of CCR emails without securing a warrant first. [222][223] In September 2008, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class action lawsuit against the NSA and several high-ranking officials of the Bush administration, [224] charging an “illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet communications surveillance,”[225] based on documentation provided by former AT&T technician Mark Klein. [226] As a result of the USA Freedom Act passed by Congress in June 2015, the NSA had to shut down its bulk phone surveillance program on November 29 of the same year. The USA Freedom Act forbids the NSA to collect metadata and content of phone calls unless it has a warrant for terrorism investigation. In that case the agency has to ask the telecom companies for the record, which will only be kept for six months. AT&T Internet monitoring

Further information: Hepting v. AT&T, Jewel v. NSA, Mark Klein, and NSA warrantless surveillance controversy In May 2006, Mark Klein, a former AT&T employee, alleged that his company had cooperated with NSA in installing Narus hardware to replace the FBI Carnivore program, to monitor network communications including traffic between American citizens. [227] Data mining

NSA was reported in 2008 to use its computing capability to analyze “transactional” data that it regularly acquires from other government agencies, which gather it under their own jurisdictional authorities. As part of this effort, NSA now monitors huge volumes of records of domestic email data, web addresses from Internet searches, bank transfers, credit-card transactions, travel records, and telephone data, according to current and former intelligence officials interviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The sender, recipient, and subject line of emails can be included, but the content of the messages or of phone calls are not. [228] A 2013 advisory group for the Obama administration, seeking to reform NSA spying programs following the revelations of documents released by Edward J. Snowden. [229] mentioned in ‘Recommendation 30’ on page 37, “…that the National Security Council staff should manage an interagency process to review on a regular basis the activities of the US Government regarding attacks that exploit a previously unknown vulnerability in a computer application.” Retired cyber security expert Richard A. Clarke was a group member and stated on April 11 that NSA had no advance knowledge of Heartbleed. [230] Illegally obtained evidence

Further information: Parallel construction § Parallel construction in the United States Drug Enforcement Administration In August 2013 it was revealed that a 2005 IRS training document showed that NSA intelligence intercepts and wiretaps, both foreign and domestic, were being supplied to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and were illegally used to launch criminal investigations of US citizens. Law enforcement agents were directed to conceal how the investigations began and recreate an apparently legal investigative trail by re-obtaining the same evidence by other means. [231][232] Barack Obama administration In the months leading to April 2009, the NSA intercepted the communications of American citizens, including a Congressman, although the Justice Department believed that the interception was unintentional. The Justice Department then took action to correct the issues and bring the program into compliance with existing laws. [233] United States Attorney General Eric Holder resumed the program according to his understanding of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendment of 2008, without explaining what had occurred. [234] Polls conducted in June 2013 found divided results among Americans regarding NSA’s secret data collection. [235] Rasmussen Reports found that 59% of Americans disapprove, [236] Gallup found that 53% disapprove, [237] and Pew found that 56% are in favor of NSA data collection. [238] Section 215 metadata collection

On April 25, 2013, the NSA obtained a court order requiring Verizon‘s Business Network Services to provide metadata on all calls in its system to the NSA “on an ongoing daily basis” for a three-month period, as reported by The Guardian on June 6, 2013. This information includes “the numbers of both parties on a call … location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls” but not “[t]he contents of the conversation itself”. The order relies on the so-called “business records” provision of the Patriot Act. [239][240] In August 2013, following the Snowden leaks, new details about the NSA’s data mining activity were revealed. Reportedly, the majority of emails into or out of the United States are captured at “selected communications links” and automatically analyzed for keywords or other “selectors”. Emails that do not match are deleted. [241] The utility of such a massive metadata collection in preventing terrorist attacks is disputed. Many studies reveal the dragnet like system to be ineffective. One such report, released by the New America Foundation concluded that after an analysis of 225 terrorism cases, the NSA “had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism.”[242] Defenders of the program say that while metadata alone can’t provide all the information necessary to prevent an attack, it assures the ability to “connect the dots”[243] between suspect foreign numbers and domestic numbers with a speed only the NSA’s software is capable of. One benefit of this is quickly being able to determine the difference between suspicious activity and real threats. [citation needed] As an example, NSA director General Keith Alexander mentioned at the annual Cybersecurity Summit in 2013, that metadata analysis of domestic phone call records after the Boston Marathon bombing helped determine that [clarification needed] another attack in New York was baseless. [243] In addition to doubts about its effectiveness, many people argue that the collection of metadata is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. As of 2015, the collection process remains legal and grounded in the ruling from Smith v. Maryland (1979). A prominent opponent of the data collection and its legality is U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, who issued a report in 2013[244] in which he stated: “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval…Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment”. The PRISM program[edit]

PRISM: a clandestine surveillance program under which the NSA collects user data from companies like Microsoft and Facebook. Under the PRISM program, which started in 2007, [245][246] NSA gathers Internet communications from foreign targets from nine major U.S. Internet-based communication service providers: Microsoft, [247] Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple. Data gathered include email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, VoIP chats such as Skype, and file transfers. June 2015 – WikiLeaks: Industrial espionage

In June 2015, Wikileaks published documents, which showed that NSA spied on French companies. [248] July 2015 – WikiLeaks: Espionage against German federal ministries[edit]

In July 2015, WikiLeaks published documents, which showed that NSA spied on federal German ministries since 1990s. [249][250] Even Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel‘s cellphones and phone of her predecessors had been intercepted. [251] Claims of prevented terrorist attacks

Former NSA director General Keith Alexander claimed that in September 2009 the NSA prevented Najibullah Zazi and his friends from carrying out a terrorist attack. [252] However, this claim has been debunked and no evidence has been presented demonstrating that the NSA has ever been instrumental in preventing a terrorist attack. [253][254][255][256]

Hacking operations This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Besides the more traditional ways of eavesdropping in order to collect signals intelligence, NSA is also engaged in hacking computers, smartphones and their networks. These operations are conducted by the Tailored Access Operations (TAO) division. NSA’s China hacking group According to the Foreign Policy magazine, “… the Office of Tailored Access Operations, or TAO, has successfully penetrated Chinese computer and telecommunications systems for almost 15 years, generating some of the best and most reliable intelligence information about what is going on inside the People’s Republic of China.”[257][258] Syrian internet blackout In an interview with Wired magazine, Edward Snowden said the Tailored Access Operations division accidentally caused Syria‘s internet blackout in 2012. [259] Suspected responsibility for hacking operations by the Equation Group[edit] The espionage group named the Equation Group, described by discoverers Kaspersky Labs as one of the most advanced (if not the most advanced) in the world as of 2015, [260]:31 and connected to over 500 malware infections in at least 42 countries over many years, is suspected of being a part of NSA. [261][262] The group’s known espionage methods have been documented to include interdiction (interception of legitimate CDs sent by a scientific conference organizer by mail), [260]:15 and the “unprecedented” ability to infect and be transmitted through the hard drive firmware of several of the major hard drive manufacturers, and create and use hidden disk areas and virtual disk systems for its purposes, a feat demanding access to the manufacturer’s source code of each to achieve. [260]:16–18 The methods used to deploy the tools demonstrated “surgical precision”, going so far as to exclude specific countries by IP and allow targeting of specific usernames on discussion forums. [260]:23–26 The techniques and knowledge used by the Equation Group are considered in summary to be “out of the reach of most advanced threat groups in the world except [this group]. [260]:31 Software backdoors Linux kerne

Linus Torvalds, the founder of Linux kernel, joked during a LinuxCon keynote on September 18, 2013 that the NSA, who are the founder of SELinux, wanted a backdoor in the kernel. [263]However, later, Linus’ father, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP), revealed that the NSA actually did this. [264] When my oldest son [Linus Torvalds] was asked the same question: “Has he been approached by the NSA about backdoors?” he said “No”, but at the same time he nodded. Then he was sort of in the legal free. He had given the right answer, [but] everybody understood that the NSA had approached him. — Nils Torvalds, LIBE Committee Inquiry on Electronic Mass Surveillance of EU Citizens – 11th Hearing, 11 November 2013[265] Microsoft Windows

Main article: _NSAKEY _NSAKEY was a variable name discovered in Microsoft‘s Windows NT 4 Service Pack 5 (which had been released unstripped of its symbolic debugging data) in August 1999 by Andrew D. Fernandes of

Cryptonym Corporation. That variable contained a 1024-bit public key. IBM Notes

IBM Notes was the first widely adopted software product to use public key cryptography for client–server and server–server authentication and for encryption of data. Until US laws regulating encryption were changed in 2000, IBM and Lotus were prohibited from exporting versions of Notes that supported symmetric encryption keys that were longer than 40 bits. In 1997, Lotus negotiated an agreement with the NSA that allowed export of a version that supported stronger keys with 64 bits, but 24 of the bits were encrypted with a special key and included in the message to provide a “workload reduction factor” for the NSA. This strengthened the protection for users of Notes outside the US against private-sector industrial espionage, but not against spying by the US government. [266][267] Boomerang routing While it is assumed that foreign transmissions terminating in the U.S. (such as a non-U.S. citizen accessing a U.S. website) subject non-U.S. citizens to NSA surveillance, recent research into boomerang routing has raised new concerns about the NSA’s ability to surveil the domestic Internet traffic of foreign countries. [18] Boomerang routing occurs when an Internet transmission that originates and terminates in a single country transits another. Research at the University of Toronto has suggested that approximately 25% of Canadian domestic traffic may be subject to NSA surveillance activities as a result of the boomerang routing of Canadian Internet service providers. [18] Hardware implanting

Intercepted packages are opened carefully by NSA employees

A “load station” implanting a beacon A document included in NSA files released with Glenn Greenwald‘s book No Place to Hide details how the agency’s Tailored Access Operations (TAO) and other NSA units gain access to hardware. They intercept routers, servers and other network hardware being shipped to organizations targeted for surveillance and install covert implant firmware onto them before they are delivered. This was described by an NSA manager as “some of the most productive operations in TAO because they preposition access points into hard target networks around the world.”[268] Computers seized by the NSA due to interdiction are often modified with a physical device known as Cottonmouth. [269]Cottonmouth is a device that can be inserted in the USB port of a computer in order to establish remote access to the targeted machine. According to NSA’s Tailored Access Operations (TAO) group implant catalog, after implanting Cottonmouth, the NSA can establish Bridging (networking) “that allows the NSA to load exploit software onto modified computers as well as allowing the NSA to relay commands and data between hardware and software implants.”[270]

Role in scientific research and development[ NSA has been involved in debates about public policy, both indirectly as a behind-the-scenes adviser to other departments, and directly during and after Vice Admiral Bobby Ray Inman‘s directorship. NSA was a major player in the debates of the 1990s regarding the export of cryptography in the United States. Restrictions on export were reduced but not eliminated in 1996. Its secure government communications work has involved the NSA in numerous technology areas, including the design of specialized communications hardware and software, production of dedicated semiconductors (at the Ft. Meade chip fabrication plant), and advanced cryptography research. For 50 years, NSA designed and built most of its computer equipment in-house, but from the 1990s until about 2003 (when the U.S. Congress curtailed the practice), the agency contracted with the private sector in the fields of research and equipment. [271]

Data Encryption Standard Main article: Data Encryption Standard

FROSTBURG was the NSA’s first supercomputer, used from 1991 to 1997 NSA was embroiled in some minor controversy concerning its involvement in the creation of the Data Encryption Standard (DES), a standard and public block cipher algorithm used by the U.S. government and banking community. During the development of DES by IBM in the 1970s, NSA recommended changes to some details of the design. There was suspicion that these changes had weakened the algorithm sufficiently to enable the agency to eavesdrop if required, including speculation that a critical component—the so-called S-boxes—had been altered to insert a “backdoor” and that the reduction in key length might have made it feasible for NSA to discover DES keys using massive computing power. It has since been observed that the S-boxes in DES are particularly resilient against differential cryptanalysis, a technique which was not publicly discovered until the late 1980s, but which was known to the IBM DES team. The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reviewed NSA’s involvement, and concluded that while the agency had provided some assistance, it had not tampered with the design. [272][273] In late 2009 NSA declassified information stating that “NSA worked closely with IBM to strengthen the algorithm against all except brute force attacks and to strengthen substitution tables, called S-boxes. Conversely, NSA tried to convince IBM to reduce the length of the key from 64 to 48 bits. Ultimately they compromised on a 56-bit key.”[274][275]

Advanced Encryption Standard Main article: Advanced Encryption Standard The involvement of NSA in the selection of a successor to Data Encryption Standard (DES), the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), was limited to hardware performance testing (see AES competition). [276] NSA has subsequently certified AES for protection of classified information (for at most two levels, e.g. SECRET information in an unclassified environment [clarification needed]) when used in NSA-

approved systems. [277]

NSA encryption systems

STU-III secure telephones on display at the National Cryptologic Museum Main article: NSA encryption systems The NSA is responsible for the encryption-related components in these legacy systems: FNBDT Future Narrow Band Digital Terminal[278] KL-7 ADONIS off-line rotor encryption machine (post-WWII – 1980s)[279][280] KW-26 ROMULUS electronic in-line teletypewriter encryptor (1960s–1980s)[281] KW-37 JASON fleet broadcast encryptor (1960s–1990s)[280] KY-57 VINSON tactical radio voice encryptor[281] KG-84 Dedicated Data Encryption/Decryption[281] STU-III secure telephone unit, [281] phased out by the STE [282] The NSA oversees encryption in following systems which are in use today: EKMS Electronic Key Management System[283] Fortezza encryption based on portable crypto token in PC Card format [284] SINCGARS tactical radio with cryptographically controlled frequency hopping[285] STE secure terminal equipment [282] TACLANE product line by General Dynamics C4 Systems [286] The NSA has specified Suite A and Suite B cryptographic algorithm suites to be used in U.S. government systems; the Suite B algorithms are a subset of those previously specified by NIST and are expected to serve for most information protection purposes, while the Suite A algorithms are secret and are intended for especially high levels of protection. [277]

SHA The widely used SHA-1 and SHA-2 hash functions were designed by NSA. SHA-1 is a slight modification of the weaker SHA-0 algorithm, also designed by NSA in 1993. This small modification was suggested by NSA two years later, with no justification other than the fact that it provides additional security. An attack for SHA-0 that does not apply to the revised algorithm was indeed found between 1998 and 2005 by academic cryptographers. Because of weaknesses and key length restrictions in SHA-1, NIST deprecates its use for digital signatures, and approves only the newer SHA-2 algorithms for such applications from 2013 on. [287] A new hash standard, SHA-3, has recently been selected through the competition concluded October 2, 2012 with the selection of Keccak as the algorithm. The process to select SHA-3 was similar to the one held in choosing the AES, but some doubts have been cast over it, [288][289] since fundamental modifications have been made to Keccak in order to turn it into a standard. [290] These changes potentially undermine the cryptanalysis performed during the competition and reduce the security levels of the algorithm. [288]

Dual_EC_DRBG random number generator Main article: Dual_EC_DRBG NSA promoted the inclusion of a random number generator called Dual_EC_DRBG in the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology‘s 2007 guidelines. This led to speculation of a backdoor which would allow NSA access to data encrypted by systems using that pseudo random number generator. [291] This is now deemed to be plausible based on the fact that the output of the next iterations of the PRNG can provably be determined if the relation between two internal elliptic curve points is known. [292][293] Both NIST and RSA are now officially recommending against the use of this PRNG. [294][295]

Clipper chip Main article: Clipper chip Because of concerns that widespread use of strong cryptography would hamper government use of wiretaps, NSA proposed the concept of key escrow in 1993 and introduced the Clipper chip that would offer stronger protection than DES but would allow access to encrypted data by authorized law enforcement officials. [296] The proposal was strongly opposed and key escrow requirements ultimately went nowhere. [297] However, NSA’s Fortezza hardware-based encryption cards, created for the Clipper project, are still used within government, and NSA ultimately declassified and published the design of the Skipjack

cipher used on the cards. [298][299]

Perfect Citizen Main article: Perfect Citizen Perfect Citizen is a program to perform vulnerability assessment by the NSA on U.S. critical infrastructure. [300][301] It was originally reported to be a program to develop a system of sensors to detect cyber attacks on critical infrastructure computer networks in both the private and public sector through a network monitoring system named Einstein. [302][303] It is funded by the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative and thus far Raytheon has received a contract for up to $100 million for the initial stage.

Academic research NSA has invested many millions of dollars in academic research under grant code prefix MDA904, resulting in over 3,000 papers (as of 2007-10-11). NSA/CSS has, at times, attempted to restrict the publication of academic research into cryptography; for example, the Khufu and Khafre block ciphers were voluntarily withheld in response to an NSA request to do so. In response to a FOIA lawsuit, in 2013 the NSA released the 643-page research paper titled, “Untangling the Web: A Guide to Internet Research, [304] ” written and compiled by NSA employees to assist other NSA workers in searching for information of interest to the agency on the public Internet. [305]

Patents NSA has the ability to file for a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under gag order. Unlike normal patents, these are not revealed to the public and do not expire. However, if the Patent Office receives an application for an identical patent from a third party, they will reveal NSA’s patent and officially grant it to NSA for the full term on that date. [306] One of NSA’s published patents describes a method of geographically locating an individual computer site in an Internet-like network, based on the latency of multiple network connections. [307] Although no public patent exists, NSA is reported to have used a similar locating technology called trilateralization that allows real-time tracking of an individual’s location, including altitude from ground level, using data obtained from cellphone towers. [308]

Legality See also: Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)

Excerpt of James Clapper‘s false testimony to Congress on NSA surveillance programs In the United States, at least since 2001, [309] there has been legal controversy over what signal intelligence can be used for and how much freedom the National Security Agency has to use signal intelligence. [310] The government has made, in 2015, slight changes in how it uses and collects certain types of data, [311] specifically phone records. President Barack Obama has asked lawyers and his national security team to look at the tactics that are being used by the NSA. President Obama made a speech on January 17, 2014 where he defended the national security measures, including the NSA, and their intentions for keeping the country safe through surveillance. He said that it is difficult to determine where the line should be drawn between what is too much surveillance and how much is needed for national security because technology is ever changing and evolving. Therefore, the laws cannot keep up with the rapid advancements. President Obama did make some changes to national security regulations and how much data can be collected and surveyed. [citation needed] The first thing he added, was more presidential directive and oversight so that privacy and basic rights are not violated. The president would look over requests on behalf of American citizens to make sure that their personal privacy is not violated by the data that is being requested. Secondly, surveillance tactics and procedures are becoming more public, including over 40 rulings of the FISC that have been declassified. [citation needed] Thirdly, further protections are being placed on activities that are justified under Section 702, such as the ability to retain, search and use data collected in investigations, which allows the NSA to monitor and intercept interaction of targets overseas. Finally, national security letters, which are secret requests for information that the FBI uses in their investigations, are becoming less secretive. The secrecy of the information requested will not be indefinite and will terminate after a set time if future secrecy is not required. [citation needed] Concerning the bulk surveillance of American’s phone records, President Obama also ordered a transition from bulk surveillance under Section 215 to a new policy that will eliminate unnecessary bulk collection of metadata. As of May 7, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act was wrong and that the NSA program that has been collecting Americans’ phone records in bulk is illegal. [312] It stated that Section 215 cannot be clearly interpreted to allow government to collect national phone data and, as a result, expired on June 1, 2015. This ruling “is the first time a higher-level court in the regular judicial system has reviewed the N.S.A. phone records program.” [313] The new bill getting passed later in May taking its place is known as the U.S.A. Freedom Act, which will enable the NSA to continue hunting for terrorists by analyzing telephone links between callers but “keep the bulk phone records in the hands of phone companies.”[313] This would give phone companies the freedom to dispose the records in an 18-month period. The White House argued that this new ruling validated President Obama’s support of the government being extracted from bulk data collection and giving power to the telecommunications companies. Previously, the NSA paid billions of dollars to telecommunications companies in order to collect data from them. [314] While companies such as Google and Yahoo! claim that they do not provide “direct access” from their servers to the NSA unless under a court order, [315] the NSA had access to emails, phone calls and cellular data users. [316] With this new ruling, telecommunications companies would not provide the NSA with bulk information. The companies would allow the disposal of data in every 18 months, [313] which is arguably putting the telecommunications companies at a higher advantage. This ruling made the collecting of phone records illegal, but it did not rule on Section 215’s constitutionality. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already put forth a new bill to re-authorize the Patriot Act. [317] Defenders of this surveillance program are claiming that judges who sit on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) had ruled 37 times that this kind of collection of data is, in fact, lawful. [317] The FISC is the court specifically mandated to grant surveillance orders in the name of foreign intelligence. The new ruling made by the Second District Court of Appeals now retroactively dismisses the

findings of the FISC on this program.

See also FAPSI – Russia (1991–2003) Australian Signals Directorate or ASD – Australia Communications Security Establishment Canada or CSE – Canada Five Eyes Canadian – American – Australian – British – New Zealander intelligence sharing agreement Garda National Surveillance Unit or NSU – Ireland Government Communications Security Bureau or GCSB – New Zealand Government Communications Headquarters or GCHQ – United Kingdom Internal Security Department (Singapore) or ISD – Singapore Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom Mass surveillance in the United States Ministry of State Security or Stasi – former German Democratic Republic Ministry of State Security (China) or MSS – China National Technical Research Organisation or NTRO – India National Intelligence Priorities Framework Special Communications Service of Russia or Spetssvyaz – Russia Korean Air Lines Flight 007 Operation Ivy Bells Operation Eikonal Edward Snowden Harold T. Martin III USS Maddox incident

Notes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

President Trump Accuses Obama of Wiretapping Trump Tower — Abuse by National Security Agency — What did Obama know and When Did He Know It? — Arrogance and Abuse of Presidential Powers — Obama’s Towergate! — Turnkey Two Party Totalitarian Tyranny of Secret Surveillance Spying Security State — Videos Posted on March 4, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Congress, Crime, Crisis, Cult, Culture, Data, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Documentary, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, National Security Agency (NSA), National Security Agency (NSA_, People, Philosophy, Photos, Radio, Rants, Raves, Security, Strategy, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Terrorism, Video, War, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: Abuse of Power, Another Obama Scandal, Arrogance of Power, Bill Binney, Department of Justice, Edward Snowden, FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Former President Obama, Mark Levin, National Security Agency (NSA), NSA, NSA Whistleblower William Binney: The Future of FREEDOM, President Donald J. Trump, Scandal, Secret, Security, Spying, Surveillance, Towergate, Trump Tower, Whistleblowers, Wiretapping |

Image result for cartoons on obama scandals

Mark Levin Provides ProofObama Admin Wiretapped Trump Tower | Fox & Friends Published on Mar 5, 2017 LIKE | COMMENT | SUBSCRIBE Mark Levin Provides Proof Obama Admin Wiretapped Trump Tower | Fox & Friends

Trump Accuses Obama Of Wiretapping – Is There Any Evidence Of Collusion?

Intelligence Officer Claims Obama Was Involved In The Wiretapping

Bombshell! Trump Tweets, Obama Wire Tapped Trump Tower! “He Is Bad And Sick”! Dwarf’s Watergate!

Did President Obama Spy On Donald Trump? | True News

What Would It Mean If Former President Obama Wiretapped Trump Tower? | TODAY

News Trump ‘Donald Trump Started This’ Host Loses It With Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ Wiretapping Spin

Lindsey Graham On President Trump Accuses Obama Of Wiretapping Him Trump Tower Phones

TOWERGATE UPDATE: Obama Faces Indictment For Wiretapping Trump Tower Says Fox

No, Presidents Can’t Order Wiretaps | AM Joy | MSNBC

Obama Wiretapped Trump Phone Before Election?

Obama Explains NSA Wiretapping

NSA Wiretapping — A 4th Amendment Violation? Blake Norvell At TEDxSMU

John Brennan, Obama Involved In Bugging Trump Campaign During Election

NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden “My Greatest Fear … Is Turnkey Tyranny”

EDWARD SNOWDEN Everything About Donald Trump

NSA Whistleblower: Everyone In US Under Virtual Surveillance, All Info Stored, No Matter The Post

William Binney – The Government Is Profiling You (The NSA Is Spying On You)

United States Of Secrets: William Binney

NSA Whistleblower William Binney: The Future Of FREEDOM

AUTHOR: BRIAN BARRETT.BRIAN BARRETT SECURITY

IF THE FEDS DID WIRETAP TRUMP TOWER, IT’S NOT OBAMA WHO SHOULD WORRY

Trump Tower in New York City, NY.JABIN BOTSFORD/GETTY IMAGES IT STARTED, LIKE so many eruptions these days, with a tweet. Early Saturday morning, President Trump fired off a series of tweets accusing, without evidence, former President Barack Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower in the month before the election. Trump compared the alleged snooping to “Nixon/Watergate,” and intimated legal action. Follow Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW! 5:49 AM – 4 Mar 2017

28,66028,660 Retweets 89,45989,459 likes What makes the broader allegation so extraordinary isn’t that it is new. Quite the contrary. Various reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court granted Justice Department investigators a warrant to probe the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia surfaced in November. What makes Trump’s Twitter tirade so striking is what prompted it, and what it might imply if it’s true.

Anatomy of an Allegation Baffling as it may be, it appears Trump’s accusation stems from a recent article published on Breitbart, the conservative news outlet formerly run by White House senior adviser Stephen Bannon. “This is a somewhat stunning, in so far as the president of the United States doesn’t need to get his information about classified activity from Breitbart,” says Cato Institute fellow Julian Sanchez. That story, “Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ Vs. Trump,” rehashes comments the titular conservative radio host made Thursday equating the previously reported FISA warrant with a “police state,” and accuses Obama of a politically motivated, covert attempt to undermine Trump and his associates. It’s unclear just what prompted Levin’s rant, or why Trump glommed onto it. Although no one has confirmed a FISA investigation, or wiretaps in Trump Tower, several news outlets have reported the former’s existence. The most detailed account thus far, from the BBC in January, provided a timeline: The Justice Department sought a FISA warrant in June to intercept communications from two Russian banks suspected of facilitating donations to the Trump campaign. The judge reportedly rejected the warrant, as well as a narrower version sought in July. A new judge granted the order in mid-October, according to the BBC. However strongly Trump feels that he’s right, he’d better hope he’s wrong. None of this necessarily makes Trump’s allegations true. Even if a FISA warrant exists, it does not mean Trump Tower is tapped or that Trump specifically is the target. Further complicating things, the existence of a wiretap would not necessarily confirm the existence of a FISA warrant. Almost half of the building’s 58 floors are dedicated to commercial and office space, and any one of them—not to mention the building’s residents—could be the target of an investigation unrelated to international espionage or election tampering. “If he has evidence that he was wiretapped without a proper FISA order being sought, that would be a huge scandal, and he should produce whatever evidence he’s got,” says Sanchez. “It’s a pretty serious claim, and it’s striking he would make it without anything solid to back it up.” Republican Senator Ben Sasse called on the president to clarify his claims, stating that “we are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust.” Obama spokesperson Kevin Lewis strongly denied extra-judicial surveillance of any US citizens to Politico in response to the claims.. Look past the president’s conspiracy theories, though, and one fact stands out: However strongly Trump feels that he’s right, he’d better hope he’s wrong.

Tower of FISA If nothing else, Trump’s tweets show he doesn’t understand how the FISA system works. If he did, he may have limited himself to tweeting about Arnold Schwartzenegger quitting The Apprentice this morning. “While the order would have been requested by some part of the executive branch, Obama can’t order anything. Nor can Trump,” says former NSA lawyer April Doss, who stresses that her comments are based only on public information. “The order has to come from the court, and the court operates independently.” FISA court judges serve seven-year appointments, so the court’s composition doesn’t ebb and flow with the political tides. What’s more, specific laws adopted in the wake of Watergate prevent the very activity Trump accuses Obama of. “You can’t tap the phones of a political candidate for political purposes,” says Doss. What you could tap them for? Acting as a foreign power, or as an agent of a foreign power. In other words, spying against US interests with both knowledge and intent. Clearing that bar is difficult, by design. FISA warrants don’t allow for broad wiretaps of, say, every call going in and out of a specific office in a 58-story Manhattan skyscraper. Federal authorities must demonstrate not just probable cause, but that a given phone line serves primarily to undermine US interests. It’s difficult, for instance, to obtain a warrant to wiretap a shared office, for fear of picking up innocent third-party conversations. “I have high confidence that a FISA court judge would not have authorized any warrant unless it met all the requirements under the statute,” says Doss. Trump’s wiretap claims, then, carry presumably inadvertent implications. First, based on previous reporting and the nature of FISA courts, any wiretaps within Trump Tower would be legal. And they would stem from overwhelming evidence that the Trump campaign, or someone within it, has unsavory ties to Russia or another foreign power. Otherwise, it’s unlikely those wiretaps would exist at all. If federal authorities did have cause to listen in on Trump Tower, though, and they provided enough evidence for a FISA court to approve the snooping, Obama is not the one who ought to worry. With additional reporting by Andy Greenberg. This story has been updated to include responses from Obama spokesperson Kevin Lewis and GOP Senator Ben Sasse, and to reflect that FISA court judges serve seven-year terms, not lifetime tenure. https://www.wired.com/2017/03/feds-wiretap-trump-tower-not-obama-worry/

Trump Asks Congress To Probe Alleged Illicit Campaign Investigations AFPMarch 5, 2017

US President Donald Trump pictured during a meeting with parents and teachers at Saint Andrew Catholic School in Orlando, Florida, on March 3, 2017 (AFP Photo/Nicholas KAMM) More Washington (AFP) – President Donald Trump is asking Congress to probe “potentially politically motivated investigations” during the 2016 campaign, the White House said Sunday. The announcement came one day after Trump took to Twitter to accuse his predecessor Barack Obama of tapping his phones ahead of the November election, without providing evidence of the explosive charge. An Obama spokesman has denied Trump’s accusation as “simply false.” Related Video: https://view.yahoo.com/embed?id=60850754&type=clip&autoplay=0&mute=0&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=news For more news videos visit Yahoo View, available now on iOS and Android. In his statement, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer referred to unspecified reports of “potentially politically motivated investigations immediately ahead of the 2016 election” as “very troubling.” “President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016,” Spicer said. He added that there would be no more comment on the matter from Trump or the White House.

Trump leveled his charges against Obama early Saturday, at the end of a week in which his administration was battered by controversy over communications between Russian officials and some of his senior aides including Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!” Trump wrote. “How low has President Obama gone to tapp (sic) my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!” he wrote in another tweet, referring to the political scandal that toppled president Richard Nixon in 1974. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-asks-congress-probe-alleged-illicit-campaign-investigations-143333695.html

Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTMARCH 4, 2017

President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump on Inauguration Day. Mr. Trump has praised Mr. Obama repeatedly since taking office. But on Saturday, he called his predecessor a “bad (or sick) guy.”CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump on Saturday accused former President Barack Obama of tapping his phones at Trump Tower the month before the election, taking to Twitter to call his predecessor a “bad (or sick) guy.” Without offering any evidence or providing the source of his information, Mr. Trump fired off a series of Twitter messages claiming that Mr. Obama “had my ‘wires tapped.’ ” He likened the supposed tapping to “Nixon/Watergate” and “McCarthyism.” Follow Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy! 6:02 AM – 4 Mar 2017

39,65139,651 Retweets 112,395112,395 likes A spokesman for Mr. Obama said any suggestion that the former president had ordered such surveillance was “simply false.” Mr. Trump’s aides declined to clarify whether the president’s explosive allegations were based on briefings from intelligence or law enforcement officials — which could mean that Mr. Trump was revealing previously unknown details about an investigation — or on something else, like a news report. His decision to lend the power of his office to such a charged claim against his predecessor — without offering any initial proof — was remarkable, even for a leader who has repeatedly shown himself willing to make assertions that are false or based on dubious sources. It would have been difficult for federal agents, working within the law, to obtain a wiretap order to target Mr. Trump’s phone conversations. It would have meant that the Justice Department had gathered sufficient evidence to persuade a federal judge that there was probable cause to believe he had committed a serious crime or was an agent of a foreign power, depending on whether it was a criminal investigation or a foreign intelligence one. Former officials pointed to longstanding laws and procedures intended to ensure that presidents cannot wiretap a rival for political purposes. “A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice,” said Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for Mr. Obama. “As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.” But a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn II, the president’s chief counsel, was working on Saturday to secure access to what Mr. McGahn believed was an order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing some form of surveillance related to Mr. Trump and his associates. The official offered no evidence to support the notion that such an order exists. If one does, it would be highly unusual for a White House to order the Justice Department to turn over such an investigative document, given the traditional independence of law enforcement matters. It has been widely reported that there is a federal investigation, which began during the 2016 presidential campaign, into links between Trump associates and the Russians. That issue has dogged Mr. Trump for months. In one message, which Mr. Trump sent from his Palm Beach, Fla., estate at 6:35 a.m., the president said he had “just found out” that his phones had been tapped before the election. Mr. Trump’s reference to “wires tapped” raised the possibility that he was referring to some other type of electronic surveillance and was using the idea of phone tapping loosely. Follow Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! 5:35 AM – 4 Mar 2017

41,36641,366 Retweets 106,440106,440 likes Two people close to Mr. Trump said they believed he was referring to a Breitbart News article, which aides said had been passed around among his advisers. Mark Levin, a conservative radio host, had also embraced the theory recently in a push against what right-leaning commentators have been calling the “deep state.” The Breitbart article, published on Friday, claimed that there was a series of “known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.” If Mr. Trump was motivated to take to Twitter after reading the Breitbart article or listening to Mr. Levin, he was using a presidential megaphone to spread dark theories of a broad conspiracy aimed at undermining his presidential ambitions, and later his presidency.

Even with the Breitbart article circulating, several of Mr. Trump’s advisers were stunned by the president’s morning Twitter outburst. Those advisers said they were uncertain about what specifically Mr. Trump was referring to; one surmised that he may also have been referring to a months-old news report about a secret surveillance warrant for communications at his New York offices. One senior law enforcement official from the Obama administration, who has direct knowledge of the F.B.I. investigation into Russia and of government wiretapping, said that it was “100 percent untrue” that the government had wiretapped Mr. Trump. The official, who asked for anonymity to discuss matters related to investigations and intelligence, said the White House owed the American people an explanation for the president’s allegations. Ben Rhodes, a former top national security aide to Mr. Obama, said in a Twitter message directed at Mr. Trump on Saturday that “no president can order a wiretap” and added, “Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you.” The House and Senate Intelligence Committees are moving forward with their own investigations into Russia’s efforts to influence the election, and they have said they will examine links between Mr. Trump’s associates and the Russians. Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, said on Friday that he believed there were “transcripts” that would help document those contacts, though he said he had not yet seen them. Photo

Mr. Trump claimed the Obama administration ordered the phoned at his building in New York tapped. CreditVictor J. Blue for The New York Times “There are transcripts that provide very helpful, very critical insights into whether or not Russian intelligence or senior Russian political leaders — including Vladimir Putin — were cooperating, were colluding, with the Trump campaign at the highest levels to influence the outcome of our election,” Mr. Coons told Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC. “I believe they exist.” In a written statement on Saturday, a spokesman for Mr. Coons said that the senator “did not imply that he is aware of transcripts indicating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.” The spokesman, Sean Coit, said Mr. Coons “simply stated that a full review of all relevant transcripts and intelligence intercepts is necessary to determine if collusion took place.”

The New York Times reported in January that among the associates whose links to Russia are being scrutinized are Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s onetime campaign chairman; Carter Page, a businessman and foreign policy adviser to the campaign; and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative who said he was in touch with WikiLeaks at one point before it released a trove of emails from John D. Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, last August. Mr. Stone later said he had communicated with WikiLeaks through an intermediary. Mr. Trump appeared on Saturday to suggest that warrants had been issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He claimed that the Obama administration had once been “turned down by court” in its supposed efforts to listen in on conversations by Mr. Trump and his associates. Follow Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW! 5:49 AM – 4 Mar 2017

28,65428,654 Retweets 89,44389,443 likes In the fall, the F.B.I. examined computer data showing an odd stream of activity between a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank, one of Russia’s biggest banks, whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. While some F.B.I. officials initially believed that the computer activity indicated an encrypted channel between Moscow and New York, the bureau ultimately moved away from that view. The activity remains unexplained. There is no confirmed evidence that the F.B.I. obtained a court warrant to wiretap the Trump Organization or was capturing communications directly from the Trump Organization. During the transition, the F.B.I. — which uses FISA warrants to eavesdrop on the communications of foreign leaders inside the United States — overheard conversations between the Russian ambassador to the United States and Michael T. Flynn, whom Mr. Trump had named national security adviser. Mr. Trump has pointedly and repeatedly questioned in conversations how it was that Mr. Flynn’s conversations were recorded, and wondered who could have issued a warrant. After The Washington Post reported that Mr. Flynn and the ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, had discussed sanctions that the Obama administration had just imposed on Russia, Mr. Flynn was pushed out of his post by the White House because he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of the calls. The Breitbart article cited mainstream news reports and concluded — going beyond the public record — that the Obama administration had “obtained authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the N.S.A. rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government.” Mr. Levin, a day earlier, railed about what he called a “much bigger scandal,” claiming — again with no evidence — that Mr. Obama and his aides had used “the instrumentalities of the federal government, intelligence activity, to surveil members of the Trump campaign and put that information out in the public.” Several senior members of Mr. Trump’s White House staff, including his spokesman, Sean Spicer, did not respond to an email requesting on-the-record responses to more than a half-dozen questions about Mr. Trump’s Twitter posts. Representative Adam B. Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, denounced the “willingness of the nation’s chief executive to make the most outlandish and destructive claims without providing a scintilla of evidence to support them.” Even some Republican lawmakers questioned Mr. Trump’s accusations. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska issued a statement demanding that the president reveal everything he knows about any wiretaps or warrants. “The president today made some very serious allegations, and the informed citizens that a republic requires deserve more information,” Mr. Sasse said, adding that “we are in the midst of a civilizationwarping crisis of public trust.” Taping calls seems to hold a spot in Mr. Trump’s consciousness. He spent many years taping his own phone calls as a businessman. During the campaign, Mr. Trump’s staff members told reporters they feared that their offices were being bugged. But Mr. Trump’s latest allegations represented a sharp change in his tone toward Mr. Obama. The current president has frequently spoken about how much he admires Mr. Obama for the gracious way he handled the transition. But since taking office, Mr. Trump has frequently clashed with the intelligence agencies over the Russia inquiries, including efforts to examine the attempts by that country to influence the presidential election and the contacts between Mr. Trump’s aides and the Russian government. In recent days, the president has appeared increasingly angry about leaks of information that he believes are coming from law enforcement and intelligence officials who are holdovers or recently departed from Mr. Obama’s administration. People close to Mr. Trump have described him as determined to stop those people from sabotaging his administration. One adviser said on Friday that the president had been discussing a possible plan to try to prevent leaks from occurring. The adviser declined to elaborate on what the plan might entail. Two senior administration officials said Mr. Trump had tried for two days to find a way to be on an offensive footing against the news articles resulting from leaks; one person close to Mr. Trump said his explosive claim was a result of that. Mr. Trump’s mood was said to be volatile even before he departed for his weekend in Florida, with an episode in which he vented at his staff. The president’s ire was trained in particular on Mr. McGahn, his White House counsel, according to two people briefed on the matter. Mr. Trump was said to be frustrated about the decision by Jeff Sessions, his attorney general, to recuse himself from participating in any investigations of connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. Mr. Trump has said there were no such connections. Mr. Trump, who did not learn that Mr. Sessions was recusing himself until after the decision was made, told aides that it gave an opening to his critics on the Russia issue. Michael D. Shear reported from West Palm Beach, and Michael S. Schmidt from Washington. Matt Apuzzo and Charlie Savage contributed reporting from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York.

Trump Faces Furor Over Unsubstantiated Claim Obama Wiretapped Him President adds meeting with attorney general and homeland security secretary as allies and foes react to his claims on Twitter

Trump Faces Furor Over Unsubstantiated Claim Obama Wiretapped Him President adds meeting with attorney general and homeland security secretary as allies and foes react to his claims on Twitter By TED MANN Updated March 4, 2017 7:56 p.m. ET 8647 COMMENTS PALM BEACH, Fla.—President Donald Trump called together several top advisers Saturday, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and political strategist Steve Bannon, as the White House faced a growing furor over the president’s early morning claims he had been wiretapped by his predecessor. Mr. Trump, who is spending the weekend at his private Mar-a-Lago club here, added a meeting with Mr. Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to his calendar on Saturday, as political allies and foes of the president continued to react to the president’s claim on Twitter. Mr. Trump tweeted early Saturday morning that former President Barack Obama had tapped his phones at Trump Tower, where Mr. Trump lived and worked in New York during the campaign, but provided no evidence for what amounted to an extraordinary claim of illegal activity by a former president. The tweets used strong language and compared Mr. Obama to Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon. “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory,” Mr. Trump tweeted at 6:35 a.m. “Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” Jeff Sessions Used Political Funds for Republican Convention Expenses Campaign-finance records show attorney general used campaign account, not official funds, for expenses to Cleveland, where he met Russia’s ambassador at an event. CLICK TO READ STORY Trump Jr. Was Likely Paid at Least $50,000 to Speak to Pro-Russia Group President Donald Trump’s eldest son Donald Trump Jr. was likely paid at least $50,000 for an appearance late last year before a French think tank whose founder and wife are allies of the Russian government in efforts to end the war in Syria. CLICK TO READ STORY ADVERTISEMENT In Short Supply in Trump’s Cabinet: Lawyers President Trump’s preference for business and military leaders has marginalized a group long at the capital’s levers of power: lawyers. Just three of his 16 cabinet picks have law degrees, a sharp drop from the four previous administrations. CLICK TO READ STORY Russian Ambassador Kislyak Was Avid Networker in D.C. Sergei Kislyak, the Russian official at the center of the furor around the Trump administration, was active in the Washington political circuit. CLICK TO READ STORY Senate Democrats Raise Concerns About Labor Department Data Under Trump As a candidate, president questioned the reliability of statistics and called jobless rate ‘phony numbers.’ CLICK TO READ STORY ADVERTISEMENT TRUMP’S FIRST 100 DAYS Follow Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy! 6:02 AM – 4 Mar 2017 48,93248,932 Retweets 144,655144,655 likes Follow Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW! 5:49 AM – 4 Mar 2017 34,10134,101 Retweets 110,952110,952 likes His postings also referred to Mr. Obama as a “bad (or sick) guy,” compared any such phone tapping to the Watergate scandal, and suggested that “a good lawyer could make a great case” of the matter. Public officials, including some of Mr. Trump’s fellow Republicans, reacted sharply to the allegation. A spokesman for Mr. Obama said “neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.” The White House didn’t provide clarification on what Mr. Trump may have been referring to or what evidence he had for his claims, though a recent article on the Breitbart website made similar allegations about the Obama administration. The furor threatened to overshadow a crucial upcoming week for Mr. Trump, in which he is scheduled to release a revised executive order on immigration and Republican-led congressional committees are set to begin producing health-care legislation. Follow

Ben Rhodes

@brhodes

No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/837989835818287106 … 8:25 AM – 4 Mar 2017 56,28756,287 Retweets 104,886104,886 likes Mr. Trump had been scheduled to dine Saturday evening with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross at Mar-a-Lago. In an update, the president’s staff said the two also would be joined by Messrs. Sessions, Bannon and Kelly, as well as policy adviser Stephen Miller and the White House counsel, Don McGahn, turning the dinner into a session of the president’s inner circle. The meeting came as some prominent Republicans joined Democrats in calling on the president to explain his claims. Sen. Ben Sasse (R., Neb.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a written statement Saturday that Mr. Trump should “explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this.” Mr. Sasse said the president’s statement suggests he may have been illegally tapped, or the courts may have approved a legal wiretap out of national security concerns, which would raise its own set of questions. “We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust, and the president’s allegations today demand the thorough and dispassionate attention of serious patriots,” Mr. Sasse said. Earlier in the day, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), told an audience at Clemson University that Mr. Trump’s claim of having been illegally wiretapped, if true, would be “the biggest scandal since Watergate.” He added that he was also “very worried if in fact the Obama administration was able to obtain a warrant lawfully about Trump campaign activity with foreign governments.” Rep. Justin Amash (R., Mich.), also called on Mr. Trump to share any evidence for his claim, saying on Twitter that the president “should provide more info to Congress immediately to assess constitutionality and legality.” Messrs. Sasse, Graham and Amash have been among the Republicans most willing to publicly criticize Mr. Trump in the past. Still, few if any Republicans defended his comments Saturday. Mr. Trump’s assertion followed several days of negative news coverage, as attention focused on interactions between Mr. Trump’s campaign advisers, family, and political allies with representatives of the Russian government. Saturday’s tweets marked a return to the caustic tone that has often characterized the president’s remarks, a tone he departed from during a well-received speech to a joint session of Congress earlier in the week. Under the law, presidents can’t legally order wiretaps. In a national security probe, investigators seeking a wiretap must convince a judge there is probable cause that a target for surveillance is an agent of foreign intelligence, and that the main purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information. Investigators sometimes face a higher bar if the target is an American citizen. In a criminal probe, investigators must show probable cause that a crime has been committed for electronic surveillance to be approved. The conservative media outlet Breitbart, whose former chairman, Mr. Bannon, is Mr. Trump’s political strategist, published an article Friday based on the claims of a right-wing radio host that intelligence agencies were conducting a “silent coup” against Mr. Trump. The host, Mark Levin, and the Breitbart article assert the Obama administration received authorization to conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign. Mr. Levin said that intelligence-gathering on the Trump campaign and its surrogates—rather than the communications between Mr. Trump’s allies and Russian officials—should be investigated by Congress. Democrats reacted angrily to what they called baseless claims by Mr. Trump, including the president’s description of his predecessor as “bad” or “sick.” “The President offered no evidence to support this spectacularly reckless allegation,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “If there is something bad or sick going on, it is the willingness of the nation’s chief executive to make the most outlandish and destructive claims without providing a scintilla of evidence to support them.” This isn’t the first time Mr. Trump has offered allegations of election-related misdeeds without evidence. He has also claimed that he lost the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton because “millions” of votes were cast illegally in the 2016 presidential election, including those by illegal immigrants. There is no evidence for that, and election officials, including Republicans, say it didn’t happen. Follow Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election! 5:52 AM – 4 Mar 2017 34,52134,521 Retweets 117,372117,372 likes Mr. Trump’s latest tweetstorm comes after a rough week for the administration, as positive reviews for his address to a joint session of Congress—in which the president avoided ad hominem attacks and some of his harshest rhetoric—faded in the face of revelations that Mr. Sessions hadn’t testified accurately about his communications with the Russian ambassador during his Senate confirmation hearing. Mr. Sessions said Thursday that he would recuse himself from investigations involving the Trump campaign. He added that his testimony was an accurate reflection of his understanding of the question posed at his hearing, since he had no ongoing contact with any Russian officials. The Wall Street Journal has reported that intelligence officials were examining contacts involving Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak, Mr. Sessions and others as part of a wide-ranging counterintelligence investigation. Mr. Sessions was on the president’s mind Saturday morning: The president’s first tweet, at 6:26 a.m., asserted that Mr. Sessions’ first meeting with Mr. Kislyak was part of an “education program” arranged by the Obama administration for a large group of ambassadors. Mr. Sessions has said that his contact with Mr. Kislyak was in the context of his position as a senator from Alabama, and not in his capacity as an adviser to the Trump campaign, but he acknowledged that the two discussed Ukraine. In a later tweet, Mr. Trump said that the Russian ambassador had visited the Obama White House 22 times, and four times last year. That number of visits by the ambassador for a major foreign power wouldn’t be unusual. By 8:19 a.m., Mr. Trump had turned his sights to Arnold Schwarzenegger, the actor and former California governor who succeeded Mr. Trump as host of the reality TV show “The Apprentice,” and who has sparred with Mr. Trump over the president’s policies on immigration. Mr. Schwarzenegger isn’t voluntarily leaving the show, but was fired for “his (bad) pathetic ratings,” Mr. Trump said. “Sad end to great show,” the president wrote. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-accuses-obama-of-wire-tapping-in-october-1488637355

John McCain Passes Dossier Alleging Secret Trump-Russia Contacts To FBI Russian intelligence alleged to have compromising material on Trump ‘Unverified and potentially unverifiable’ reports published by BuzzFeed

Donald Trump and his inner circle ‘have received a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals’, a report dated June 2016 alleges. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock This article is 1 month old

Shares 77,166 Julian Borger in Washington Wednesday 11 January 2017 09.36 ESTFirst published on Tuesday 10 January 2017 19.29 EST Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself. The material, which has been seen by the Guardian, is a series of reports on Trump’s relationship with Moscow. They were drawn up by a former western counter-intelligence official, now working as a private consultant. BuzzFeed on Tuesday published the documents, which it said were “unverified and potentially unverifiable”.

What We Know – And What’s True – About The Trump-Russia Dossier The Guardian has not been able to confirm the veracity of the documents’ contents, and the Trump team has consistently denied any hidden contacts with the Russian government. A spokesman for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, on Wednesday denied Russia has collected compromising information on Trump and dismissed news reports as a “complete fabrication and utter nonsense”. Dmitry Peskov insisted that the Kremlin “does not engage in collecting compromising material”.

Trump’s transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but late on Tuesday, Trump tweeted: “FAKE NEWS – A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!” He made no direct reference to the allegations. An official in the US administration who spoke to the Guardian described the source who wrote the intelligence report as consistently reliable, meticulous and well-informed, with a reputation for having extensive Russian contacts. Some of the reports – which are dated from 20 June to 20 October last year – also proved to be prescient, predicting events that happened after they were sent. One report, dated June 2016, claims that the Kremlin has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years, with the aim of encouraging “splits and divisions in western alliance”. FacebookTwitterPinterest Donald Trump calls the unverified documents ‘fake news’ leaked by ‘sick people’ during his first press conference as President-elect It claims that Trump had declined “various sweetener real estate deals offered him in Russia” especially in developments linked to the 2018 World Cup finals but that “he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.” Most explosively, the report alleges: “FSB has compromised Trump through his activities in Moscow sufficiently to be able to blackmail him.” The president-elect has not responded to the allegations.

How The Trump Dossier Came To Light: Secret Sources, A Retired Spy And John McCain CNN reported on Tuesday that the FBI was still investigating the credibility of the documents but added that the intelligence chiefs had included a summary of the material in a secret briefing on Russian interference in the election delivered last week to Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The emergence of the documents is potentially explosive, 10 days before Trump’s inauguration and on the eve of his first planned press conference since July last year. Despite glowing references from US and foreign officials who have worked with the source, there are some errors in the reports. One describes the Moscow suburb of Barvikha as “reserved for the residences of the top leadership and their close associates”, but although it is a very expensive neighbourhood, there are no restrictions on who can own property there. The document also misspells the name of a Russian banking corporation. The FBI does not normally make any comment on ongoing counter-intelligence investigations but was under increasing pressure from Democrats and some Republicans to act before the inauguration, particularly because of Comey’s announcement of a continuing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server 11 days before the election, which many of her supporters believe cost her the presidency. The reports were initially commissioned as opposition research during the presidential campaign, but its author was sufficiently alarmed by what he discovered to send a copy to the FBI. It is unclear who within the organisation they reached and what action the bureau took. The former Democratic Senate leader, Harry Reid, has lambasted Comey for publicising investigations into Hillary Clinton’s private server, while allegedly sitting on “explosive” material on Trump’s ties to Russia. Another Democratic senator, Ron Wyden, questioned Comey insistently at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Tuesday on whether the FBI was pursuing leads on Trump campaign contacts with Russia. “Has the FBI investigated these reported relationships?” Wyden asked. Comey replied: “I would never comment on investigations … in a public forum. The Guardian can confirm that the documents reached the top of the FBI by December. Senator John McCain, who was informed about the existence of the documents separately by an intermediary from a western allied state, dispatched an emissary overseas to meet the source and then decided to present the material to Comey in a one-on-one meeting on 9 December, according to a source aware of the meeting. The documents, which were first reported on last year by Mother Jones, are also in the hands of officials in the White House.

James Comey Refuses To Tell Senate If FBI Is Investigating Trump-Russia Links McCain is not thought to have made a judgment on the reliability of the documents but was sufficiently impressed by the source’s credentials to feel obliged to pass them to the FBI. The Senate armed services committee, which Senator McCain chairs, launched an inquiry last week into Russian cyber-attacks during the election. McCain was reluctant to get involved, according to a colleague, for fear the issue would be dismissed as a personal grudge against Trump. He pushed instead for the creation of a special Senate committee to look into connections between campaign staff and Moscow, but the proposal was blocked by the Republican leadership. McCain told the NBC programme Meet the Press on Sunday: “I would like to see a select committee. Apparently that is not in agreement by our leadership. So we will move forward with the armed services committee and I’m sure foreign relations and intelligence committee will as well.” But the senator added: “It is possible if enough information comes out, that that decision could be reversed. I still think it’s the best way to attack the issue.” Asked on the same programme on whether an investigation was ongoing into campaign links to Moscow, Senator Lindsey Graham, another conservative Republican said: “I believe that it’s happening.” According to the report passed to Comey, Russian intelligence allegedly gathered compromising material during Trump’s stay in Moscow in November 2013, when he was in the city to host the Miss Universe pageant. Another report, dated 19 July last year said that Carter Page, a businessman named by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, had held a secret meeting that month with Igor Sechin, head of the Rosneft state-owned oil company and a long-serving lieutenant of Vladimir Putin. Page also allegedly met Igor Divyekin, an internal affairs official with a background in intelligence, who is said to have warned Page that Moscow had “kompromat” (compromising material) on Trump. Two months later, allegations of Page’s meetings surfaced in the US media, attributed to intelligence sources, along with reports that he had been under FBI scrutiny. Page, a vociferous supporter of the Kremlin line, was in Moscow in July to make a speech decrying western policy towards Russia. At the time he declined to saywhether he had been in contact with Russian officials, but in September he rejected the reports as “garbage”. The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation. A month after Trump’s surprise election victory, Page was back in Moscow saying he was meeting with “business leaders and thought leaders”, dismissing the FBI investigation as a “witch-hunt” and suggesting the Russian hacking of the Democratic Party alleged by US intelligence agencies, could be a false flag operation to incriminate Moscow. Another of the reports compiled by the former western counter-intelligence official in July said that members of Trump’s team, which was led by campaign manager Paul Manafort (a former consultant for proRussian politicians in Ukraine), had knowledge of the DNC hacking operation, and in return “had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/Nato defence commitments in the Baltics and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine”. A few days later, Trump raised the possibility that his administration might recognise Russia’s annexation of Crimea and openly called on Moscow to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. In August, officials from the Trump campaign intervened in the drafting of the Republican party platform, specifically to remove a call for lethal assistance to Ukraine for its battle against Moscow-backed eastern rebels.

Trump Campaign Denies Report Of Trump Organization Tie To Russian Bank Manafort stepped down in August as campaign manager and the campaign steadily distanced itself from Page. However, Trump’s praise of Putin and defence of Moscow’s actions in Ukraine and Syria remained one of the few constants in his campaign talking points. Manafort has denied secret links with Moscow calling the allegation “an outrageous smear being driven by Harry Reid and the Clinton campaign”. Since then, Trump has consistently cast doubt on Russian culpability for hacking the Democratic National Committee, defying a consensus of 17 national intelligence agencies. After Obama deported 35 Russian diplomats in retaliation for Moscow’s intervention, Trump praised Putin for not carrying out tit-for-tat deportations of US diplomats. “I always knew he was very smart,” he tweeted. An FBI spokesman declined to comment after the CNN report. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American Conservative Union CPAC 2017 — Videos Posted on February 26, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Congress, conservatives, Constitution, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, Health Care, Heroes, history, Illegal, Immigration, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Religious, Security, Speech, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: Ambassador John Bolton, American Conservative Union CPAC 2017, Carly Fiorina and Arthur Brooks, Chris Cox, conservatives, Dan Schneider, Dana Loesch, Dr. Larry Arnn, Gov. Pete Ricketts, Judge Jeanine Pirro, Kellyanne Conway, Lou Dobbs, Mark Levin, Nigel Farage, NRA, NRA-ILA, President Donald J. Trump, Raheem Kassam, Reince Priebus Interview at CPAC 2017, Robert Davi, Sen. Jim Demint, Senator Ted Cruz, Steve Bannon, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Vice President Mike Pence, Videos, Wayne LaPierre |

Image result for CPAC 2017

Image result for Trump at CPAC 2017

Image result for dr. larry arn at cpac 2017

Trump Speech At CPAC 2017 (FULL) | ABC News

CPAC 2017 – Dr. Larry Arnn

CPAC 2017 – Dan Schneider

FULL EVENT: President Donald Trump Speech At CPAC 2017 (2/24/2017) Donald Trump Live CPAC Speech

CPAC 2017 – Judge Jeanine Pirro

CPAC 2017 – Vice President Mike Pence’s Full #CPAC Speech #CPAC2017

CPAC 2017 – How The Election Has Changed And Expanded The Pro-Life Movement

CPAC 2017 – Mark Levin And Sen. Ted Cruz

Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus Interview At CPAC 2017 | ABC News

CPAC 2017 – Sen. Jim Demint

CPAC 2017 – Ambassador John Bolton

CPAC 2017 – Nigel Farage

CPAC 2017 – Raheem Kassam

CPAC 2017 – Why Government Gets So Much Wrong

CPAC 2017 – When Did WWIII Begin? Part A: Threats At Home

CPAC 2017 – When Did World War III Begin? Part B

CPAC 2017 – Armed And Fabulous

CPAC 2017 – Wayne LaPierre, NRA

CPAC 2017 – Chris Cox, NRA-ILA

CPAC 2017 – Prosecutors Gone Wild

CPAC 2017 – Kellyanne Conway

CPAC 2017 – A Conversation With Carly Fiorina And Arthur Brooks

CPAC 2017 – The States Vs The State Governors

CPAC 2017 – Gov. Pete Ricketts

CPAC 2017 – U.S. Secretary Of Education Betsy DeVos

CPAC 2017 – Dan Schneider

CPAC 2017 – FREE Stuff Vs FREE-Dom Panel

CPAC 2017 – Dana Loesch

CPAC 2017 – Robert Davi

CPAC 2017 – Lou Dobbs

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

Trump Targets Terrorist Control vs. Clinton and Obama Talk Gun Control — Lying Lunatic Left Losers — Americans Armed Against Gun Grabbing Government Tyrants — Defend The Second Amendment — Videos Posted on July 1, 2016. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, British History, Business, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Doumentary, Elections, Employment, European History, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Middle East, Money, National Security Agency (NSA), Newspapers, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Police, Political Correctness, Presidential Candidates, Press, Psychology, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulations, Rifles, Speech, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons | Tags: 16 June 2016, America, ARTICLE II SECTION 3 United States Constitution, articles, Audio, Automatic Weapons, Best 7 minutes on gun control, Breaking News, Broadcasting, capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, CIA Director Warns of ISIS, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Clinton and Obama Talk Gun Control, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Donald J. Trump, economic growth, economic policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, First, fiscal policy, free enterprise, freedom, freedom of speech, Friends, Give It A Listen, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, gun control, Gun Grabbers, Hillary Clinton, Hitler, Hope, Individualism, Islamic State, John Lott, Knowledge, liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Lying Lunatic Left Losers, Mao, Mark Levin, monetary policy, MPEG3, News, No Fly List, Oath of office of the President of the United States, Opinions, Orlando Shooting, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, President Barack Obama, prosperity, Radical Islamic Terrorists, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Ronald Reagan on Gun Control, rule of law, Rule of Men, Second Amendment, Semi-automatic Weapons, Show Notes, Stalin, Talk Radio, Terrorist Control, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 700, The United States Constituion, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 635: March 3, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 634: March 2, 2016 Pronk Pops Show 633: March 1, 2016

Story 1: Trump Targets Terrorist Control vs. Clinton and Obama Talk Gun Control — Lying Lunatic Left Losers — Americans Armed Against Gun Grabbing Government Tyrants — Defend The Second Amendment — Videos

Oath Of Office Of The President Of The United States “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”[1]

ARTICLE II, SECTION 3, United States Constitution [The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…. http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/98/take-care-clause

No Fly List, No Guns?

Tom McClintock Trashes Leftist No Fly List Gun Control

Ted Cruz Destroys Senate Dems For Gun Control Filibuster

Ted Cruz: ‘Offensive’ That Democrats Are Calling For Gun Control After Orlando | NBC News [youtube-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2YkqTSTZDY]

Best 7 Minutes On Gun Control I Have Ever Seen!

John Lott On Gun Control: “The Background Check System Itself Is Basically Racist”

John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime

John Stossel -The Gun Violence Myth

Mark Levin Discusses The Gun Control Issue With John Lott (Audio From 11-30-2015)

Trump Threatens To Run Apart From GOP On Gun Control

Obama Calls For Assault Weapons Ban, New ‘No Fly, No Buy’ Law

Trump: People Using PC Terms Against Us To Not Report Terror

Trump Renews Calls For Muslim Ban, Surveillance Of Mosques

Donald Trump Jr.: Extremists Only Understand Force

Obama Criticises Donald Trump Over His Calls To Ban Muslims From US!!!!

CIA Director Warns Of ISIS Using Refugee Streams To Move Operatives

Ben Shapiro: The Myth Of The Tiny Radical Muslim Minority

CIA DIRECTOR TESTIFIES AT SENATE HEARING ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Obama Goes On Tirade Against Trump Over ‘Radical Isl…

Former Intel Chair Rips Pres. Obama’s Anti-Trump Speech

The 2nd Amendment Explained

Donald Trump Rally Speech 6/15/16: Atlanta, GA: Trump Blasts Hillary

Second Amendment Of United States Constitution

Trump Vs. Clinton: Two Views On Orlando Terror

Paul Ryan Interview Bill O’Reilly Factor Fox News Regarding Donald Trump

FULL: Donald Trump Orlando Terrorism Speech 6/13/16

LGBT Nightclub Orlando Trump ISLAMIC Terrorism VS Obama Clinton HomeGrown Hate CRIME

Background Checks? Shooter Had Them In Spades

Why Restrict ‘Good’ Gun Owners, Resident Asks President Obama At Town Hall

Gunning For Hillary – Trump Says Clinton Will Abolish 2nd Amendment – Fox & Friends

Hillary Clinton On Second Amendment Gun Rights – June 5, 2016 – ABC This Week

The Clintons Are Coming For Your Guns

Hillary Clinton, If President, Vows To ‘Get Those Guns’ Out Of People’s Hands

Hillary Clinton Outlines Plan To Abolish The Second Amendment

Ginny Simone Reporting | S7 E1: “Obama: Our Biggest Threat To National Security”

Judge Napolitano: Obama Doesn’t Believe In The 2nd Amendment

Judge Napolitano Reacts To NY Times Criticism “Either We Have A 2nd Amendment Or We Don’t”

Barack Obama On 2nd Amendment Rights

Trump: We Need Strong Surveillance, We Need Intelligence

AK47 Versus M16 – R. Lee Ermey

EDUCATE YOURSELF ~ Semi-Auto Firearms Vs Fully-Automatic Firearms

The Truth About AK-47 Firepower

Lock N’ Load With R. Lee Ermey – Machine Guns

MG42 Machine Gun – “Hitler’s Buzz Saw”

CIA Chief: IS Working To Send Operatives To The West CIA Director John Brennan will tell Congress on Thursday that Islamic State militants are training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks on the West and will rely more on guerrilla-style tactics to compensate for their territorial losses. CIA Director John Brennan will tell Congress on Thursday that Islamic State militants are training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks on the West and will rely more on guerrilla-style tactics to compensate for their territorial losses. In remarks prepared for the Senate Intelligence Committee, Brennan says IS has been working to build an apparatus to direct and inspire attacks against its foreign enemies, as in the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels — ones the CIA believes were directed by IS leaders. “ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West,” Brennan said, using another acronym for the group. He said IS probably is working to smuggle them into countries, perhaps among refugee flows or through legitimate means of travel. Brennan also noted the group’s call for followers to conduct so-called lone-wolf attacks in their home countries. He called last week’s attack in Orlando a “heinous act of wanton violence” and an “assault on the values of openness and tolerance” that define the United States as a nation.

He said IS is gradually cultivating its various branches into an interconnected network. The branch in Libya is likely the most advanced and most dangerous, but IS is trying to increase its influence in Africa, he said. The IS branch in the Sinai has become the “most active and capable terrorist group in Egypt,” attacking the Egyptian military and government targets in addition to foreigners and tourists, such as the downing of a Russian passenger jet last October. Other branches have struggled to gain traction, he says. “The Yemen branch, for instance, has been riven with factionalism. And the Afghanistan-Pakistan branch has struggled to maintain its cohesion, in part because of competition with the Taliban.” He called IS a “formidable adversary,” but said the U.S.-led coalition has made progress combatting the group, which has had to surrender large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria and has lost some of its leaders in airstrikes. IS has struggled to replenish its ranks of fighters, Brennan said, because fewer of them are traveling to Syria and others have defected. “The group appears to be a long way from realizing the vision that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi laid out when he declared the caliphate two years ago in Mosul,” Iraq, Brennan said. He said the group’s ability to raise money has also been curtailed, although the group still continues to generate at least tens of millions of dollars in revenue each month, mostly from taxation and from sales of crude oil. “Unfortunately, despite all our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach,” he said. “In fact, as the pressure mounts on ISIL, we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda.” http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article84049057.html#storylink=cpy

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-700 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 Shows151-157 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 01-09

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

Mass Media Big Lie Campaign To Take Down Trump With Out of Context Propaganda! — Trump Never Said He Wants All Muslims In U.S. To Register– The So-Called “Journalist” Did! — Hit and Run Political Character Assassination Attempt By Hillary Clinton Journalist Supporter — Hunter Walker — Videos Posted on November 21, 2015. Filed under: Airplanes, American History, Babies, Blogroll, Bomb, Books, British History, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Cult, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Demographics, Diasters, Documentary, Drug Cartels, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Energy, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, government spending, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Middle East, Money, National Security Agency (NSA), National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Police, Political Correctness, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Press, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religion, Religious, Rifles, Security, Speech, Spying, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Technology, Terrorism, Torture, Transportation, Vacations, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: 20 November 2015, 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates, 30-50 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of the United States, Alex Jones, All Muslims In U.S. To Register, America, AP, articles, Audio, Big Lie Propaganda Campaign, Breaking News, Broadcasting, capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Database, Donald Trump, economic growth, economic policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, FBI Director Comey, First, fiscal policy, free enterprise, freedom, freedom of speech, Friends, Give It A Listen, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hillary Clinton Journalist Supporter, Hope, Hunter Walker, ID Cards, Immigration, Individualism, ISIS, Islamic Jihadist, Islamic State, Jews, Knowledge, Latest Polls, liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Mark Levin, Mass Media, monetary policy, Mosques, MPEG3, MSNBC, NBC, News, Opinions, Out of Context Propaganda, Paris Terrorist Attacks, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Character Assassination, Political Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Press, Propaganda, prosperity, Public Opinion, Rachel Maddow, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Registration Nazis, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, rule of law, Rule of Men, Senator Rand Paul, Senator Ted Cruz, Show Notes, Sleeper Cells, Star of David, Syrian Refugees, Talk Radio, terror, Terrorists, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 579, Trump wants a database for Syrian refugees, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom, Yahoo News |

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Pronk Pops Show 579: November 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 578: November 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 577: November 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 576: November 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 575: November 16, 2015 (more…) Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Part 1: The Decline and Fall Of The Democratic Party Under Liar In Chief Obama — Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump in 2016 Presidential Election — Two Party Tyranny — What Difference Does It Make? — Donor Class Wins No Matter Who Wins — Make America Great Again! –Videos Posted on November 1, 2015. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Articles, Babies, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, College, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Documentary, Economics, Education, Energy, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Middle East, Money, National Security Agency (NSA), Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religious, Speech, Strategy, Tax Policy, Television, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: 2012 Election, 2016 Presidential Election, 23 October 2015, America, American people, Andrew Horning, Archie Bunker on Democrats, articles, Audio, Benghazi, Breaking News, Broadcasting, capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Comedy, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, DECLINE of EMPIRES, Democratic Party, Deport the 30-50 Million Aliens in the United States, Donor Class, economic growth, economic policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, First, fiscal policy, free enterprise, freedom, freedom of speech, Friends, George Carlin, Give It A Listen, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump, Hope, House Speaker, illegal immigration, Impact of Europe’s Migrant Crisis, Independents, Individualism, John Birch Society, Judge Napolitano, Knowledge, Liar In Chief Obama, liars, liberty, lies, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Mark Levin, Mark Steyn, monetary policy, MPEG3, News, ObamaCare 101, Opinions, Oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Part 1, Paul Ryan, Paul Ryan's radical pro Amnesty ideology, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Elitist Establishment (PEEs), Political Philosophy, Politics, President Barack Obama, prosperity, Public Opinion, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Republican Party, Resources, Respect, Robert Welch, rule of law, Rule of Men, Rush Limbaugh, Scandal, Show Notes, Talk Radio, The Decline and Fall Of The Democratic Party, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 560, The Signs of Decay, Trust, Truth, Two Party Tyranny, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Pronk Pops Show 560: October 23, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 559: October 22, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 558: October 21, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 557: October 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 556: October 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 555: October 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 554: October 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 553: October 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 552: October 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 551: October 12, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 550: October 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 549: October 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 548: October 7, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 547: October 5, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 546: October 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 545: October 1, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 544: September 30, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 543: September 29, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 542: September 28, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 541: September 25, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 540: September 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 539: September 23, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 538: September 22, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 537: September 21, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 536: September 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 535: September 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 534: September 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 533: September 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 532: September 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Story 1: Part 1: The Decline and Fall Of The Democratic Party Under Liar In Chief Obama — Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump in 2016 Presidential Election — Two Party Tyranny — What Difference Does It Make? — Donor Class Wins No Matter Who Wins — Make America Great Again! –Videos

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Measured Benghazi Testimony

Ray: A Public Servant Who Has A Track Record Of Not Telling The Truth

Judge Napolitano What If The Two Party System Is A Sham? – Fox Business

Donald Trump On GOP Competition, Benghazi Hearing

Kurtz: Paul Ryan, Insufficiently Conservative?

Rush Limbaugh: GOP Donors Installed Paul Ryan As House Speaker

Limbaugh: Donor/RINO Class Pushing Hard For Paul Ryan As Speaker Of The House

Both Parties Fear The Tea Party (Limbaugh)

Mark Levin On Paul Ryan’s Radical Pro Amnesty Ideology

UN-Led Mass Migration Destroying U.S. Nationhood

Understanding The Impact Of Europe’s Migrant Crisis

Would Paul Ryan Be A Good Choice For House Speaker?

What We Can Expect If Congress Passes TPP

The Nuances Behind The Republican Presidential Debate

How Trump’s Attack On McCain Didn’t Go Far Enough

Iran Deal Courtesy Of CFR New World Order Crowd

‘2030 Agenda’: Latest UN Plan For World Government

‘Two-Party System An Illusion, Both Funded From Same Source’

“MORE AND MORE PEOPLE “FED UP WITH THIS “RIGGED TWO-PARTY SYSTEM”!

The Two-Party System Is Making America Ungovernable- Intelligence Squared U.S.

Andrew Horning On Breaking The Two Party System 1 18 2014

Reagan Warned Us About Obama

Mark Steyn On Racism, Slavery, And The Democratic Party

Rush To Beck: “We May Be Looking At Barack Obama Destroying The Democrat Party”

Mind Blowing Speech By Robert Welch In 1958 Predicting Insiders Plans To Destroy America

Ron Paul – Judge Napolitano What If The Two Party System Is A Sham? – Fox Business

ObamaCare 101: What The Healthcare Law Means To You Part 1 Of 3 Art Thompson, CEO of The John Birch Society, takes you into the new healthcare law. He identifies a pattern of government broken promises, revealing that if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. Find out what’s really in the new law and what you can expect long term.

ObamaCare 101: What The Healthcare Law Means To You Part 2 Of 3

ObamaCare 101: What The Healthcare Law Means To You Part 3 Of 3 John Birch Society: Oppose The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) William F. Jasper, Senior Editor for The New American magazine, explains how President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an “an all-out assault on our national sovereignty,” and how It would unconstitutionally transfer legislative powers from the U.S. Congress, our state legislatures, and our city and county governments to multi-national corporations and unaccountable international bureaucrats at the World Trade Organization, or WTO. Incredibly, it also would transfer judicial powers from our federal and state courts — which are bad enough — to globalist TPP judges at regional tribunals and the WTO.

DECLINE Of EMPIRES: The Signs Of Decay

Archie Bunker On Democrats

Archie Bunker Predicts Conditions Under Obama

George Carlin – It’s A Big Club And You Ain’t In It

Obama Job Approval Steady In 27th Quarter At 45.9%

by Jeffrey M. Jones STORY HIGHLIGHTS Average 45.9% approval similar to 46.1% in prior quarter Obama has been under 50% approval for most of his presidency Approval midrange compared with other presidents’ 27th quarters PRINCETON, N.J. — President Barack Obama’s job approval rating in his 27th quarter in office, from July 20 to Oct. 19, averaged 45.9%, essentially unchanged from his 46.1% average for the prior quarter.

Obama’s daily approval ratings also varied little within his most recent quarter, averaging 46% nearly every week during the quarter. There were just two modest but notable exceptions. In late August, as U.S. stocks fell in response to concerns about problems in the Chinese economy, his weekly approval rating dipped to 44%. And in late September it rose to 48% during the week of Pope Francis’ U.S. trip, which included a widely covered visit with Obama at the White House. Since he became president nearly seven years ago, Obama has averaged 47% job approval. There have been only five quarters when he had majority approval, with four of those occurring during the first year of his presidency, the so-called “honeymoon phase” when new presidents tend to be rated positively. The only other time Obama’s quarterly approval exceeded 50% was perhaps the most consequential one — the 16th quarter, in which he was re-elected. Obama’s 27th Quarter Midrange Compared With Other Presidents Obama is the sixth post-World War II president to serve a 27th quarter in office. Two of these — Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton — were rated quite positively at this stage in their presidencies, with average approval ratings of 65.3% and 59.7%, respectively. In contrast, Harry Truman (23.0%) and George W. Bush (33.2%) were decidedly unpopular at the same point of their presidencies. Truman’s 27th quarter average is the worst quarterly average for any president in Gallup’s polling history. Obama’s 27th quarter average, along with Ronald Reagan’s, is between these two extremes. Reagan averaged 47.0% approval, slightly better than Obama’s 45.9%.

After presidents have served nearly seven years in office, Americans’ opinions of them are pretty well-established and unlikely to change unless a major international or domestic crisis occurs. Clinton’s and Bush’s approval ratings did not change between their 27th and 28thquarters. Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan saw modest improvements of a few percentage points. Implications Americans’ opinions of Obama have been steady this year, holding near 46%. If his approval ratings do not improve dramatically during the remainder of his presidency, his full-term approval rating average, currently 47%, will rank among the lowest for post-World War II presidents, tied with Gerald Ford’s and better than only Truman’s (45.4%) and Jimmy Carter’s (45.5%). Obama’s relatively low approval ratings may be as much a function of the era in which he is governing as it is a reflection on his leadership, management and decision-making. There have been relatively few international crises that helped to boost his public support, as the 9/11 attacks and Iraq War did for Bush, and as similar crises have done for other presidents. Arguably the only “rally event” in Obama’s presidency was the capture of Osama bin Laden. Obama also took office during the Great Recession, and the economic recovery since it ended has been slow and uneven. But Obama is also governing in a time of extreme partisan polarization. In Congress, that has meant political gridlock since Democrats lost control of the U.S. House in the 2010 midterm elections. In the American public, it is evident in his historically low support from the opposition party. Obama’s average 13% approval rating among Republicans is on pace to be the lowest job approval rating from the opposition party by a full 10 percentage points, behind Bush’s average 23% approval rating among Democrats. By comparison, Clinton averaged 27% approval among Republicans, and presidents before Clinton averaged 40% approval from the opposition. These data are available inGallup Analytics. Survey Methods Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted July 20-Oct. 19, 2015, on the Gallup U.S. Daily survey, with a random sample of 45,663 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Learn more about how the Gallup U.S. Daily works. http://www.gallup.com/poll/186335/obama-job-approval-steady-27th-quarter.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

In U.S., New Record 43% Are Political Independents by Jeffrey M. Jones STORY HIGHLIGHTS Record 43% of Americans are political independents Democrats maintain edge among those with a party preference Democratic advantage smaller in 2014 than in 2013 PRINCETON, N.J. — An average 43% of Americans identified politically as independents in 2014, establishing a new high in Gallup telephone poll trends back to 1988. In terms of national identification with the two major parties, Democrats continued to hold a modest edge over Republicans, 30% to 26%.

Since 2008, the percentage of political independents — those who identify as such before their leanings to the two major parties are taken into account — has steadily climbed from 35% to the current 43%, exceeding 40% each of the last four years. Prior to 2011, the high in independent identification was 39% in 1995 and 1999. The recent rise in political independence has come at the expense of both parties, but more among Democrats than among Republicans. Over the last six years, Democratic identification has fallen from 36% — the highest in the last 25 years — to 30%. Meanwhile, Republican identification is down from 28% in 2008 to 26% last year. The latest results are based on aggregated data from 15 separate Gallup telephone polls conducted throughout 2014. These changes have left both parties at or near low points in the percentage who identify themselves as core supporters of the party. Although the party identification data compiled in telephone polls since 1988 are not directly comparable to the in-person polling Gallup collected before then, the percentages identifying as Democrats prior to 1988 were so high that it is safe to say the average 30% identifying as Democrats last year is the lowest since at least the 1950s. Republican identification, at 26%, is a shade higher than the 25% in 2013. Not since 1983, the year before Ronald Reagan’s landslide re-election victory, have fewer Americans identified as Republicans. The decline in identification with both parties in recent years comes as dissatisfaction with government has emerged as one of the most important problems facing the country, according to Americans. This is likely due to the partisan gridlock that has come from divided party control of the federal government. Trust in the government to handle problems more generally is the lowest Gallup has measured to date, and Americans’ favorable ratings of both parties are at or near historical lows. Thus, the rise in U.S. political independence likely flows from the high level of frustration with the government and the political parties that control it. Democrats’ Edge in Party Identification and Leaning Shrinks Although independents claim no outright allegiance to either major party, it is well-known that they are not necessarily neutral when it comes to politics. When pressed, most independents will say they lean to one of the two major parties. For example, last year an average of 17% of Americans who initially identified as independents subsequently said they “leaned” Republican, 15% were independents who leaned Democratic, with the remaining 11% not expressing a leaning to either party. Since partisan leaners often share similar attitudes to those who identify with a party outright, the relative proportions of identifiers plus leaners gives a sense of the relative electoral strength of the two political parties, since voting decisions almost always come down to a choice of the two major-party candidates. In 2014, an average 45% of Americans identified as Democrats or said they were Democraticleaning independents, while 42% identified as Republicans or were Republican-leaning independents. That the three-point Democratic edge was down from six points in 2013, and among Democrats’ smaller advantages the past 25 years. Democrats usually hold an advantage in this combined measure of party affiliation. In fact, the only year Republicans held a notable edge since Gallup began tracking independents’ political leanings was in 1991, the year Republican President George H.W. Bush’s approval ratings soared after the United States’ victory in the Persian Gulf War. Democrats’ high point came in 2008, in the final year of George W. Bush’s administration and the year Barack Obama was first elected president.

However, the three-point Democratic advantage for all of 2014 obscures the change that occurred during the year. On a quarterly basis, Democrats started out 2014 with a five-point edge, similar to their advantage in 2013. That dipped to two points by the third quarter. In the fourth quarter, likely in response to Republicans’ success in the 2014 midterm elections, Republicans held a slight advantage of one point.

Implications Since 2008, Americans have been increasingly reluctant to identify with either the Republican or Democratic Party, and now a record 43% claimed political independence in 2014. Given historical trends, 2015 could bring a new record, as the percentage identifying as independents typically increases in the year before a presidential election, averaging a 2.5-point increase in the last six such years. Although Democrats typically have an advantage in partisanship, that edge shrunk in 2014 and in the last months of the year the parties were essentially on equal footing. With each party controlling part of the federal government — Democrats the presidency and Republicans the Congress — they each will have a say in how the nation addresses its major challenges in the coming year. However, in recent years divided control of government has more often than not resulted in partisan gridlock, and Americans’ frustration with the frequent political stalemate is evident. Continued frustration with the government would likely encourage more Americans to identify as independents this year. Survey Methods Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted January-December 2014, with a combined random sample of 16,479 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Learn more about how Gallup Poll Social Series works. http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

New Emails Reveal Obama White House Worked On Concocting Benghazi Lie DURING The Attacks House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said on Thursday that the Obama White House was contacting YouTube owner Google during the Benghazi terrorist attacks, working on the false narrative even before Americans were out of harm’s way and before the intelligence community examined available evidence. The still classified Obama State Department email, according to Issa, shows that the Obama White House rushed to settle on the false narrative of the anti-Islamic YouTube video instigating the attacks, which was completely at odds with the conclusions reached by reports from the ground. This new evidence destroys the Obama White House claims, communicated by Obama spokesman Jay Carney, that the White House obtained the false narrative from CIA talking points, since, according to Congressman Issa, the communication with YouTube was conducted by the Obama White House before any CIA talking points were concocted. The subject line of the email, ironically sent at 9:11 p.m. (the attacks took place on 9/11/12) on the night of the attack, was “Update on Response to actions – Libya,” hours before the attack had ended. “The e-mail shows the White House had hurried to settle on a false narrative — one at odds with the conclusions reached by those on the ground — before Americans were even out of harm’s way or the intelligence community had made an impartial examination of available evidence,” Issa said. Issa has called for the Obama White House to declassify the email. According to Issa, one of the items noted in the email stated, “White House is reaching out to U-Tube [sic] to advise ramifications of the posting of the Pastor Jon video.” Issa scolded current Secretary of State, Democrat John Kerry, for just now turning over a classified version of the email, some 20 months after the attack, while calling on the regime to release a unclassified copy. “Unfortunately, Secretary Kerry and the State Department continue to try to keep this information from the public, only turning this document over to Congress last month. While the information I have cited from this email is clearly unclassified, the State Department has attempted to obstruct its disclosure by not providing Congress with an unclassified copy of this document that redacted only classified portions outlining what the Department of Defense and the Secretary of State were doing in response to the attack in Benghazi that night.” “This tactic prevents the release of the email itself,” said Issa. http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/23/new-emails-reveal-obama-white-house-worked-on-concocting-benghazi-lie-during-the-attacks/#ixzz3pQkPlr1D

Paul Ryan Officially Declares Candidacy For House Speaker Deirdre Shesgreen Rep. Paul Ryan officially announced his bid Thursday night to become the next House speaker after securing backing from the three major political factions inside the House GOP conference. “I never thought I’d be speaker,” Ryan wrote in a letter to his Republican colleagues. “But I pledged to you that if I could be a unifying figure, then I would serve — I would go all in. After talking with so many of you, and hearing your words of encouragement, I believe we are ready to move forward as one, united team. And I am ready and eager to be our speaker.” The Wisconsin Republican snapped up endorsements from a centrist Republican caucus called the Tuesday Group as well as from the more conservative Republican Study Committee. “After hearing Paul lay out his vision for the future of the Republican conference, I am confident that he is the right person to lead the House going forward,” Rep. Bill Flores, chairman of the RSC, said in a statement Thursday. “He has the policy expertise, conservative principles and strong values we need in our next speaker.” The endorsements came after Ryan won support from most members of the House Freedom Caucus — a group of about 40 hard-line conservatives — late Wednesday night. “I’ve spoken with many of you over the past few days, and I can sense the hunger in our conference to get to work,” Ryan wrote. “I know many of you want to show the country how to fix our tax code, how to rebuild our military, how to strengthen the safety net, and how to lift people out of poverty. I know you’re willing to work hard and get it done, and I think this moment is ripe for real reform.” Ryan, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, announced Tuesday he would run for the top leadership job if he got support from all GOP factions. He gave his colleagues until Friday to decide whether to support him. He had repeatedly said he did not want the job but was pressed to run by Republicans who see him as the best candidate to unite the GOP conference.

“Whatever our differences, we’re all conservatives,” Ryan wrote in his letter. “We were elected to defend the constitution. We share the same principles. We all believe America is the land of opportunity — the place where you should be able to go as far as your talents and hard work will take you.” Republicans will choose a new speaker next week — voting in conference next Wednesday to pick their nominee and on the House floor next Thursday. Outgoing House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is set to resign next Friday. The rebellious Freedom Caucus was Ryan’s biggest obstacle to becoming speaker. He did not win the group’s official backing because he fell short of its requirement that at least 80% of its members agree on an endorsement. He won support from about 70% of caucus members. The caucus’ qualified support, combined with endorsements from the other two GOP groups, are enough to clear Ryan’s path — and possibly end the weeks-long leadership scramble inside the House GOP conference. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/22/rep-ryan-seems-poised-win-election-house-speaker/74402206/

Insiders: Trump Nomination Looking More Likely Eighty-one percent of Republican insiders say that the likelihood that Trump becomes their party’s nominee is more today than it was a month ago.

By Katie Glueck The odds that Donald Trump wins the Republican presidential nomination are going up. Eighty-one percent of Republican insiders say the likelihood that Trump becomes their party’s nominee is more today than it was a month ago, and 79 percent of Democrats said the same. That’s according to the POLITICO Caucus, our weekly bipartisan survey of top strategists, operatives and activists in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Story Continued Below “I can’t even describe the lunacy of him as our nominee. But reason has not applied to date in this race, and my hopes are fleeting that it will ever surface,” lamented an Iowa Republican, who like all participants was granted anonymity in order to speak freely. “Predictions of his demise keep not coming true,” added a New Hampshire Republican. Asserted a South Carolina Republican, “Donald Trump being the GOP nominee is now within the realm of possibility.” Twenty-two percent of Caucus Republicans said Trump has a 50-50 shot at becoming the Republican nominee; the same percentage said he has a 30 percent chance. The rest of the respondents were divided, with the majority saying his odds are still less than 50 percent. But more than 8-in-10 GOP respondents said those are better odds than they gave Trump a month ago. The results are notable because they represent a big shift in the thinking of POLITICO Caucus insiders, who this summer were deeplyskeptical of Trump’s staying power. “Trump will be among 3-4 finalists well into April; of that there is no doubt,” an Iowa Republican said.

Trump: Clinton Sounded ‘Terrible’ In Benghazi Hearing By NICK GASS Added a New Hampshire Republican, who like all participants responded via an online survey: “Numbers are numbers and you have to give them credence. I remain skeptical that he has the ability to turn people out, come primary day, but I [have] been wrong about this campaign every step of the way so far.” Several insiders pointed to both Trump’s persistent leads in polls and evidence of organization on the ground. “I think he’s now mounting a serious campaign,” a South Carolina Republican said. “His stump speech had matured and even though the novelty of his candidacy is wearing off, his straight talk is appealing to people who are so sick of being lied to by the political class.” Another Iowa Republican agreed, saying, “The more time that goes by that he continues to lead — the more likely it is he wins. That simple. Also, comparatively, he is building a real campaign. More so than many others.” “Not sure why anyone should be so surprised that Trump’s campaign is getting so serious in terms of infrastructure build-out,” a New Hampshire Democrat said. “Trump may be a jerk, but he is an extremely successful jerk. He has the means and the smarts to compete everywhere — and he is not slowing down.” That’s not the case in Nevada, noted several Republicans there, who said they see little evidence of a strong Trump ground game there. But, one Republican from that state admonished: “He has demonstrated that he is durable in a way that Herman Cain, Michele [Bachmann] and Newt Gingrich were not. … A lot can happen in the next few months, but it is time for everyone to stop whistling past the graveyard and realize that this is real and he could be our standard-bearer.” However, several insiders also predict that, though his odds have improved, the rest of the Republican Party will coalesce against him if he still appears to be a serious contender for the nomination when voting begins. “Maybe, just maybe, Trump wins an early contest or two. That will trigger a much stronger Stop Trump movement,” a New Hampshire Republican said. “The party will nominate Bob Dole — in 2016 —before it will nominate Trump. And a Trump nomination would result in a third candidate emerging.” Several insiders also said Trump couldn’t withstand waves of scrutiny stemming from attacks launched by super PACs and big donors that, they said, may be just around the corner. “The summer of Trump has lasted longer than conventional wisdom suggested it would,” a South Carolina Republican said. “It’s going to take a sustained, multi-pronged paid media effort to educate voters that Trump is not a conservative and has flip-flopped on practically every issue. Major donors are quickly getting to the place where they are ready to fund such an effort.” All eyes on Jeb The pressure is on for Jeb Bush in next week’s GOP debate, insiders said. Forty-seven percent of Republicans, and 41 percent of Democrats, said the former Florida governor is the candidate with the most riding on the contest, set for next Wednesday in Boulder, Colo. “Jeb really needs a knock-out performance — it needs to be all him with nobody even close. Otherwise those fumes he’s on are going to evaporate even quicker,” a New Hampshire Republican said. An Iowa Republican said he doesn’t even need to go that far, but he does need to step up his performance. “Riding at 6 percent in the polls has rattled Jeb’s donors and volunteers,” this insider said. “He doesn’t need a breakout performance, but he needs to be in the mix and in the top tier of the debate or risk getting shoved to the background and overshadowed by Rubio and others seeking to win over mainstream Republican voters.” Marco Rubio was a distant second choice for which candidate was under the most pressure for a strong debate, pulling in 13 percent of the overall Republican vote and 24 percent of the Democratic vote. “Rubio has been the one constant at third place, and it’s time he breaks out of that and starts cutting into Trump/Carson,” a South Carolina Democrat said. “It’s no longer ‘early’ and it’s not the final stretch, but this is the part of the horse race where jockeys know they have to start making their moves if they want to be in position to win.” http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/insiders-trump-nomination-looking-more-likely-215087#ixzz3pRHKjOBy

Hillary Clinton: The Fat Cats’ Favorite Candidate By Post Editorial Board Fire-breathing scourge of Wall Street on the campaign trail — and reliable friend of Wall Street in the boardroom. That’s Hillary Clinton — and the big-money crowd thinks it’s in on the game. For all her populist rhetoric against hedge-funders and the like, Clinton has received more donations from CEOs than any candidate in the GOP — you know, the party of the greedy rich. More than 760 of Clinton’s presidential donors have listed their occupation as CEO or some variation, according to a Big Crunch analysis of federal election forms. That’s as many as have given to Republican hopefuls Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz combined. And it doesn’t even include people like hedge-fund CEO Robert Mercer, who prefers to list himself as a “financial consultant” — or those who’ve given instead to pro-Hillary super-PACs. (Or all the folks who’ve bought goodwill over the years by giving to the Clinton Foundation.) Surprising? No. We’re talking about a woman who’s made millions from hefty six-figure fees for speeches to, among others, groups headed by those same CEOs. She’s also raked in many millions more for her campaign from corporate lawyers, lobbyists and bankers. Still, that hasn’t stopped her from declaring, “Wall Street, you’ve had your president. Now we need a president for Main Street.” And never mind what that seems to imply about the guy in the Oval Office now. Or that just one of her speeches costs four times the average American’s salary. Wall Street gets it. The fat cats figure she’s just saying what she must to placate her party’s Sanders-Warren hard-left wing. As one hedge-fund manager told Politico: “Nobody takes it like she’s going after them personally.” It’s just Hillary being Hillary. Which is to say, all things to all people. http://nypost.com/2015/10/25/hillary-clinton-the-fat-cats-favorite-candidate/

The Most Likely Next President Is Hillary Clinton And Republicans are in denial about it. A virulent strain of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, which scientists and Republicans thought had been wiped out at the end of the last century, is now afflicting millions of conservative Americans. Some Republicans so detest Hillary Clinton they are badly underestimating how likely she is, at this point in the campaign, to be America’s 45thpresident. Their denial is just as strong now as it was a month ago, before Clinton began a run of political victories that have enhanced her prospects, all while the roller derby/demolition derby that is the Republican nomination contest has continued to harm the GOP’s chances of winning back the White House.

To be sure, nothing ever happens in a linear or tidy fashion with the Clintons; she is certain to add more chapters to the Perils of Hillary saga before Election Day 2016. Bernie Sanders could still upend her in Iowa, New Hampshire, or both, which could throw the nomination battle into unadulterated bedlam. Even if Clinton is nominated, a strong Republican candidate could absolutely defeat her next November, with victory as simple as the party putting forth a nominee who is more likeable to voters and better on television. Indeed, many elite and grassroots Republicans believe Clinton’s personality, which they can’t stand, will keep her out of the Oval Office no matter what. But October has been good to Clinton: a glittering debate performance, the decision of potential rival Joe Biden not to run (greatly simplifying her path to the nomination), the vanquishing of Republicans during her daylong Benghazi hearing, and a solid turn at the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner Saturday night. All have improved Clinton’s odds of cruising into the White House twelve months hence, and have thrown into sharper relief some of the advantages she has had all along. To state the obvious, Clinton faces two tasks to become commander-in-chief: get enough delegates to beat Sanders and then sew up 270 electoral votes. The more easily she can complete her first mission (especially compared to the wooly nomination battle of her eventual Republican opponent), the more easily achievable will be her second goal. Here, then, are some of the advantages the Democratic frontrunner has now, many of which have been ignored or discounted by the people who want to beat her so badly they can’t think straight: Hillary has shown she can handle Bernie Sanders, despite his plucky persona, raw grassroots appeal, and authentic authenticity. The Vegas debate and Clinton’s improved poll standing has given her and her team a revived notion that Sanders will end up a nuisance rather than a real threat. She has confidence she can face him down in the three debates remaining before Iowa. Without Biden in the race, Clinton is not going to have to play three-dimensional chess and can focus her energies on Sanders alone. Bernie has shown he doesn’t quite understand how to play big moments in the big leagues. First the debate and now the Jefferson-Jackson dinner—Sanders prepared more for both evenings than the organic Vermonter normally would for any political event, but even his advisers concede that neither occasion represented the kind of performance that Sanders will eventually have to present if he is going to stop the prohibitive front-runner. He was very strong Saturday night but aides say they are still having trouble fully convincing him that not all campaign events are created equal.

Hillary Clinton speaks at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Des Moines, Iowa, U.S., on Saturday, Oct. 24, 2015. Daniel Acker/Bloomberg Hillary is getting better at managing (and shaking off) the personal pang of her likability deficit. At the J-J dinner, in her recent television interviews, and in her Benghazi testimony, she is showing more of her real self (even the all-too-human tetchy, the airily dismissive, the lordly—without knee-jerk defensiveness or wide-eyed guile), and not getting tied in knots over how she is coming off. While this version of Hillary is still nails-on-a-chalkboard to her conservative critics, it is a huge improvement over the recent past and probably enough to win under the right circumstances. Biden’s withdrawal means Clinton will lock up even more commitments from the Democratic establishment, giving her even more super delegates and making it easier to bounce back if Sanders wins Iowa, New Hampshire, or both. I reported in August that Clinton’s camp already had in hand private commitments from enough of the elected and party officials who are automatic delegates to the national convention next summer (so-called super delegates) that she was one fifth of her way to the nomination. That number has increased significantly in recent weeks and will go up now that Biden has passed on the race. This allows Team Clinton to make a robust argument about her inevitability and gives it a squadron of surrogates from the left, center, and right of the Democratic Party to wound Sanders, buck her up if she stumbles, and, eventually, argue that the senator should get out of the competition if she wins early. Hillary has massive support from labor unions. The party’s most important constituency group in terms of ground troops and campaign resources is now moving decisively towards Clinton, also giving her more working-class cred and undermining one of Sanders’ strongest rhetorical plays—that she is out of touch with the economic grassroots. And long-invested unions will provide her important foot soldiers in the general election battlegrounds, as they have since time began for Democratic presidential nominees. Hillary could be the de facto Democratic nominee by Feb. 8. Her team privately believes that, given the way expectations have been set up, even narrow wins in the two first-voting contests would not be discounted. Clinton has robust field operations in both states and could diligently grind her way to victories. Even Sanders’ top aides acknowledge that, barring other factors, it could be game, set, match if Hillary starts the voting year with twin wins, giving Brooklyn ample incentive to go all in there and try to put it away early.

Hillary Clinton waves to supporters with husband Bill Clinton, former U.S. president, at the conclusion of the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Des Moines, Iowa, U.S., on Saturday, Oct. 24, 2015. Daniel Acker/Bloomberg Hillary’s husband now seems fired up and ready to go. Although a little rusty over the weekend in Iowa in his 2015 campaign trail debut, accounts from aides to both Clintons suggest the former president has learned lessons from his performance eight years ago, when he arguably hurt his wife’s chances as much as he helped her. He has been kept in the loop on the campaign’s thinking, receives polling information on a regular basis, and has participated in some strategy discussions with the team. The campaign seems happy with him, and he seems happy with the campaign, and that is a big change from 2008. Both campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign manager Robby Mook have good and confident relationships with the FPOTUS, who seems less ambivalent than last time about becoming the First Lad. Hillary’s campaign is much less tense and fractious than was the 2008 team. There are fraught moments in Brooklyn, as in any campaign, and Clinton’s donors can get restive awfully quick, but this year’s model is one of relative peace and tranquility. Zen masters Podesta, Mook, and communications chief Jennifer Palmieri set the “been there, done that, seen that, dealt with that” sensibility. Hillary’s team at last is convincing rich Democrats to come around to the super-PAC game. Clinton loyalist Guy Cecil is now topping Priorities USA and he has brought in a new cast of folks to supplement holdovers such as Paul Begala, Jim Messina, and Harold Ickes, all of whom have experience rubbing shoulders with the mega-wealthy and prying seven-figure checks out of their hands. Cecil knows how to leverage hot buttons like the Koch brothers and the threat of more conservative Supreme Court justices and unified GOP control of Washington to maintain momentum and encourage the participation of those previously reluctant to muck about in the big money world that many liberals despise and disdain. Hillary has a first-class opposition research team that is saving nuggets to use once Republicans pick their nominee. Oppo veteran Christina Reynolds heads an operation that can afford to play a long game, teasing out incremental research in conjunction with allies such as the Democratic National Committee but knowing full well that holding back powerful tidbits until the late spring or summer, when the eventual Republican nominee will be most vulnerable, is supremely smart. The research operations of the Republican presidential campaigns, on the other hand, are currently focused on each other (although the independent group America Rising is hoping to make up the gap). The Republican nominee is more likely to emerge bloodied, broke, and behind. A nominating calendar and delegate rules designed to avoid the kind of extended intra-party fight that crippled Mitt Romney’s general election effort will almost certainly be no match for a fifteen candidate field, a number of whom can make a decent argument that they’ll win the prize. The ferociousness and deep pockets of gladiators Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and the possibility that the party establishment will end up intervening with tens of millions of dollars in negative TV spots means a long, gory slog that might not find resolution until after the national convention in Cleveland in mid-July. (Of course, if Trump is ultimately the nomination victor, then “broke” should not be a factor.) As the nominee, Hillary will effectively control the DNC and will exercise free rein over the convention. Even with Sanders a remaining foe, Hillaryland is coordinating fundraising with the national and state parties, strategizing about installing allies at the party headquarters in DC, and gaming out what the Philly convention will look like. If Clinton is the standard bearer, make no mistake: Brooklyn will convert the DNC into its wholly owned subsidiary and will take over every jot and tittle of convention planning and execution. This type of control typically leads to less friction and a smoother running enterprise, including on-message convention speakers. Republicans are erroneously convinced they can beat Clinton solely with talk of Benghazi, e-mails, and other controversies that have nothing to do with the economy and the real lives of real people. Nowhere does the Fox News-Rush Limbaugh echo chamber more hurt Republican chances of beating Clinton than in the politics of scandal and controversy. To paraphrase the famous line attributed to Pauline Kael: everyone who conservatives know think the Clintons should be in prison. The problem is that swing voters don’t share that view in sufficient numbers to actually warrant banking a victory on placing those arguments front and center. Kevin McCarthy’s acknowledgement that the Benghazi committee was set up to damage Clinton politically has not just polluted the select committee’s efforts; it also means that one of the most effectively tried-and-true Team Clinton defenses (that any controversy that swirls around her is a ginned up political attack because Republicans don’t want to talk about real issues) has got legs straight through next November.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waits to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Capitol Hill in Washington on Oct. 22, 2015. Photographer: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Hillary is ready for the debates. She won’t have as many debates in which to hone her skills as the eventual GOP nominee, but she has many other edges, including her 2008 experience; the fact that going forward she will face only one or two opponents—rather than nine or so—on the debate stage (much closer to the dynamics in a general election); her professionalized and experienced debate prep team (many of whom worked the same gig for Barack Obama); and her own fearsome, dogged, and scrupulous preparation. Hillary’s pollster knows how to find issues that test 80-20 or 70-30, and the candidate knows how to translate them on the stump. While Republican presidential candidates thrash around competing to see who can be the most anti-immigrant, pro-tax cuts for the wealthy, anti-abortion and gay marriage, and pro-climate change-denying, Clinton’s pollster and strategist Joel Benenson is busy finding topics she can talk about in a general election that garner overwhelming support from the public across the political spectrum and will put the GOP nominee on the defensive. Nothing makes a Clinton running for president more confident and effective than having mainstream boldface issues to use as a cudgel. Obama’s approval rating is holding at a level that would make Clinton’s path much easier. Yes, the economy is not going gangbusters. Yes, ObamaCare is not universally popular (to say the least). Yes, the world is filled with dangerous hot spots and looming, chilling threats. But barring some major change in his fortune, Obama’s current approval rating of around 46% is likely to sustain through Election Day, a high enough figure, history suggests, to keep him from being a drag on his party’s nominee and chosen successor. Hillary’s team is already thinking about general election targeting. One of the pages Brooklyn has taken from the Obama playbook is to start thinking about the general election early. That includes using contests in caucuses and primaries states that will be battlegrounds next November to build up a team, target data, establish media relationships, and keep it all humming after the nominating contest and throughout the duration. It also includes living by the dictum “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours let’s negotiate over,” hawkishly protecting the nearly 250 electoral votes and voting groups Democrats have won consistently over the last several cycles while looking to expand the targeting efforts demographically and geographically. Hillary would inherit a considerable demographic edge in a general election. Republicans have done next to nothing, and clearly much more harm than good since Mitt Romney lost in 2012, to make inroads with the so-called coalition of the ascendant. Clinton would almost certainly have an overwhelming edge with African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, LGBT voters, young people, and single women, and the future contours of the Republican nomination fight are not likely to make the party’s challenge with these groups any easier. Hillary would also inherit a considerable Electoral College edge in a general election. The Democrats don’t have quite the Electoral College “lock” that the GOP had in the ‘70s and ‘80s but it is pretty close. A strong Republican nominee could make Clinton play defense in states such as Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Colorado. But the safe Democrat states would give her a huge leg up, and demographic changes mean Clinton could be playing offense in places such as Georgia and Arizona under the right circumstances. Political pros in both parties believe some of the leading Republican contenders would give Clinton a chance to surpass her husband’s 1992 electoral vote total of 370 if they are her eventual competition. Clinton advisers are well aware of these many advantages. They are staying largely mum for now, preferring to let the candidate’s recent positive media coverage speak for itself and not relinquish any tactical advantage of surprise. They also know the FBI probe into her e-mails, Bill Clinton’s portfolio, or something new and super controversial could upend her standing at any time. And the raucous Republican nomination process could yet yield a strong general election opponent for her. This list is not meant to gloss over the considerable challenges Clinton is sure to face even if everything goes as planned on her side—not to mention if things start to go south. And a few savvy Republican operatives are ringing the alarm bell in private strategy sessions, urging the party to try to address as many of these deficits as soon as possible. But don’t be surprised if reports soon surface mirroring what happened almost exactly eight years ago, when Clinton asked top advisers to secretly begin planning her vice presidential selection process—and her presidential transition. Republicans would surely see those steps as wildly premature, but given all of Clinton’s advantages now, she may consider it simply prudent planning. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-26/the-most-likely-next-president-is-hillary-clinton

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 556-560 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 546-555 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 538-545 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 532-537 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 Shows 93 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 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 01-09

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

Playing The Blame Game — Avoiding Responsibility and Accountability — Government Failure! — 9/11: Trump Blames Bush — Clinton Blames Republicans ! — Videos Posted on October 22, 2015. Filed under: American History, Ammunition, Blogroll, Bomb, Books, Bunker Busters, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Drones, Economics, Education, Ethic Cleansing, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Genocide, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Missiles, National Security Agency (NSA), National Security Agency (NSA_, Non-Fiction, Nuclear, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Political Correctness, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Rifles, Spying, Strategy, Taxation, Taxes, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: 19 October 2015, 2015, 9/11, 911 Commission, Arms Shipments to Muslim Brotherhood, Benghazi Attack Cover Up, Benghazi September 11, Benghazi-Gate, birthright citizenship & illegal immigration, Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, Covert Operations, Dark Forces, Donald Trump, George W. Bush, Government Failure, Hillary Clinton, Intelligence Stove Piping Is System Failure, Jamie Gorelick, Jamie Gorelick’s wall, Jeb Bush, Libya, Libyan Rebels, Mark Levin, Mistress of Disaster: Jamie Gorelick, Murder Of Chris Stevens, Playing The Blame Game, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Richard Clarke, Senator Rand Paul, Sharyl Attkisson, Syria, The Pronk Pops Show 556, TREY GOWDY, US Covert Operation For Running Libya Arms To Syria, US special forces |

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Pronk Pops Show 556: October 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 555: October 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 554: October 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 553: October 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 552: October 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 551: October 12, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 550: October 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 549: October 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 548: October 7, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 547: October 5, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 546: October 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 545: October 1, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 544: September 30, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 543: September 29, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 542: September 28, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 541: September 25, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 540: September 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 539: September 23, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 538: September 22, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 537: September 21, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 536: September 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 535: September 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 534: September 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 533: September 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 532: September 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Story 1: Playing The Blame Game — Avoiding Responsibility and Accountability — Government Failure! — 9/11: Trump Blames Bush — Clinton Blames Republicans ! — Videos

Hillary Clinton And The “Dark Forces” In Benghazi Kenneth Timmerman, author of Dark forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi, looks at Hillary Clinton’s next scheduled appearance before the Benghazi special committee and the Iranian nuclear deal. He cites evidence that the Iranians were behind the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans on September 11, 2012. In addition, Timmerman says Iran was involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks. Timmerman also discusses Russian backing for Iran and the Russian role in attacking the opponents of Assad in Syria. Timmerman also looks at: Will Russia attack the Kurds? And who are the Kurds? Is Obama a Muslim? Will Israel strike Iran?

Donald Trump Blames George W. Bush For 9/11

Did Donald Trump Blame Bush For 9/11?

Jake Tapper Calls Out Jeb Bush For Saying His Brother Is Blameless For 9/11

9-11 WTC Attacks Original Sound

Who Was Really Behind The 9/11 Attacks?

George Bush Takes Questions After Meeting With 9/11 Commission – 4/29/2004

Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, Apologizes For 9/11

Why Government Failure Occurs: Richard Clarke On National Security Disasters (2008)

Your Government Failed You: Richard Clarke At The September 11 Commission On Counterterrorism (2004) Richard Alan Clarke (born October 27, 1950) is the former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism for the United States. Clarke worked for the State Department during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed him to chair the Counter-terrorism Security Group and to a seat on the United States National Security Council. President Bill Clinton retained Clarke and in 1998 promoted him to be the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council. Under President George W. Bush, Clarke initially continued in the same position, but the position was no longer given cabinet-level access. He later became the Special Advisor to the President on cybersecurity. Clarke left the Bush administration in 2003. Clarke came to widespread public attention for his role as counter-terrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush administrations in March 2004, when he appeared on the 60 Minutes television news magazine, released his memoir about his service in government, Against All Enemies, and testified before the 9/11 Commission. In all three instances, Clarke was sharply critical of the Bush administration’s attitude toward counter-terrorism before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and of the decision to go to war with Iraq. On March 24, 2004, Clarke testified at the public 9/11 Commission hearings.[17] At the outset of his testimony Clarke offered an apology to the families of 9/11 victims and an acknowledgment that the government had failed: “I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11…To the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in this room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn’t matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness.”[17] Many of the events Clarke recounted during the hearings were also published in his memoir. Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the Administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and “testily” asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying “Please update and resubmit.”[18] After initially denying that such a meeting between the President and Clarke took place, the White House later reversed its denial when others present backed Clarke’s version of the events. Clarke is currently Chairman of Good Harbor Consulting and Good Harbour International, two strategic planning and corporate risk management firms; an on-air consultant for ABC News, and a contributor to the Good Harbor Report, an online community discussing homeland security, defense, and politics. He is an adjunct lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School and a faculty affiliate of its Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.[35] He has also become an author of fiction, publishing his first novel, The Scorpion’s Gate, in 2005, and a second, Breakpoint, in 2007. Clarke wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post on May 31, 2009 harshly critical of other Bush administration officials, entitled “The Trauma of 9/11 Is No Excuse”.[36] Clarke wrote that he had little sympathy for his fellow officials who seemed to want to use the excuse of being traumatized, and caught unaware by Al-Qaeda’s attacks on the USA, because their being caught unaware was due to their ignoring clear reports a major attack on U.S. soil was imminent. Clarke particularly singled out former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

911 Press For Truth

Intelligence Stove Piping Is System Failure

Fannie Mae, Jamie Gorelick And The 911 Commission

911 Commission Co-Chair Explains Need For New Investigation

Jamie Gorelick For FBI Director? Are You Kidding Me?

Inside Libya’s Militias

Libya War: What They Don’t Want You To Know

How Will History Judge U.S., Coalition Intervention In Libya?

Libyan No Fly Zone Necessary But Intervention Has Imperialist Objectives

Debate The Libyan Intervention: Humanitarian Or An Aggression?

Democracy And Hypocrisy In Libya

Backlash? Wave Of Terror Feared In Europe Over Libya Intervention

Semantics – The Rise And Fall Of Muammar Al Gaddafi

Why Did America And The West Intervene In Libya? Former State Department officer Ethan Chorin explains, the United States and the West provided Muammar Qaddafi and his forces with many of the weapons they used to fight the rebels during the 2011 Libyan revolution. Therefore, the U.S. and NATO had a moral responsibility to help the anti-Qaddafi forces

US Special Forces Already On Ground In Libya – FoxNews 110324

Obama Authorized CIA Covert Operation In Libya – FoxNews 110331

The Truth About The War On Libya Government Lies Revealed A Goverment Conspiracy 2011

SYRIA Retired General Suspects A US Covert Operation For Running Libya Arms To Syria

LIBYA TIMELINE SHOWING LIE AFTER LIE BY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION – LYBYAGATE COVERUP

Murder Of Chris Stevens In Benghazi Attack Ordered By American Military Leadership, Possibly Obama

Know The TRUTH ~ Step By Step ~ Bret Baier’s ~ ‘Death And Deceit In Benghazi’

FLASHBACK] Hillary Clinton Blames Youtube Video For Benghazi

Obama And Hillary Blame Youtube Video For Benghazi Terrorist Attack As Coffins Arrive

Rand Paul Destroys Hillary Clinton Over Benghazi-Gate During Capitol Hill Press Conference

Benghazi Attack Cover Up! Obama Armed Al Qaeda?

Former CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson: Emails Reveal White House Hid Truths About Benghazi Attack

Sharyl Attkisson: White House Hiding Photos Of Obama On Night Of Benghazi Attack

Explosive: Rep. Trey Gowdy Unloads Unreleased Email Exposing Benghazi Coverup

Benghazi Hearing Trey Gowdy — “I Don’t Give A Damn Whose Careers Are Ruined

Hillary Ad Hammers Republicans On Bogus Benghazi Investigation

Why Is Hillary Clinton Blamed For The Benghazi Attack?

For The Record-Zero Footprint

Treason Exposed! Obama Used Benghazi Attack To Cover Up Arms Shipments To Muslim Brotherhood

Trump’s Take On Birthright Citizenships

Mark Levin: No Birthright Citizenship – Hannity 8/19/2015

Mark Levin: The Citizenship Clause Of 14th Amendment, Birthright Citizenship & Illegal Immigration

Donald Trump’s Tense Presser, Illegal Immigration, Birthright Citizenship Debate- Mark Levin Hannity

Jeb Bush Dismisses Donald Trump’s Immigration Plans

Jamie Gorelick’s Wall By – The Washington Times – Thursday, April 15, 2004 The disclosure that Jamie Gorelick, a member of the September 11 commission, was personally responsible for instituting a key obstacle to cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence operations before the terrorist attacks raises disturbing questions about the integrity of the commission itself. Ms. Gorelick should not be cross-examining witnesses; instead, she should be required to testify about her own behavior under oath. Specifically, commission members need to ask her about a 1995 directive she wrote that made it more difficult for the FBI to locate two of the September 11 hijackers who had already entered the country by the summer of 2001. On Tuesday, Attorney General John Ashcroft declassified a four-page directive sent by Ms. Gorelick (the No. 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department) on March 4, 1995, to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures that “go beyond what is legally required,” in order to avoid “any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance” that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects. At issue was the oft-noted wall of separation that prevented counterterrorism agents and federal prosecutors from communicating with one another prior to September 11. Information collected under special FISA warrants, which do not require a probable cause, was generally not to be shared with personnel responsible for enforcing federal criminal laws — where probable cause must be demonstrated for a warrant to be issued. As lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey noted on our Op-Ed page yesterday, the practical effect of the wall was that counterintelligence information was generally kept away from law enforcement personnel who were investigating al Qaeda activities. But Ms. Gorelick’s memo clearly indicated that the Clinton administration had decided as a matter of policy to go even beyond the law’s already stringent requirements in order to further choke off information sharing. As Mr. Ashcroft noted during his testimony before the September 11 commission, all of this had a devastating effect into the investigation of al Qaeda operations in this country in the summer of 2001. For example, in late August, when the CIA told the FBI that Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi had entered the country, FBI investigators refused to permit criminal investigators with considerable knowledge about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the manhunt. Also, a criminal search warrant to examine the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, whose interest in flying aircraft had attracted attention, was rejected because FBI officials were afraid of breaching the wall. Ms. Gorelick has been among the most partisan and aggressive Democratic panel members in questioning the anti-terror efforts of the Bush administration. The nation deserves a full accounting from Ms. Gorelick of why the Clinton administration felt it necessary to go the extra mile in order to hamper the capability of law enforcement and intelligence agents to talk to one another. If Ms. Gorelick fails to provide this, her actions would bring into serious doubt the credibility of the commission. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/15/20040415-094758-5267r/

Mistress Of Disaster: Jamie Gorelick By C. Edmund Wright Ken Lay and Jack Abramoff must be green with envy over the all the mischief that has been accomplished by Jamie Gorelick, with scarcely any demonization in the press. Imagine playing a central role in the biggest national defense disaster in 50 years. Imagine playing a central role in one of the biggest economic disasters in your country’s history. Imagine doing both as an un-elected official. Imagine getting filthy rich in the process, and even being allowed to sit self-righteously on a commission appointed to get to the bottom of the first disaster, which of course did not get to the bottom of that disaster or anything else for that matter. Imagine ending, ruining or at least causing signficant quality deterioration in the lives of millions of people, most of whom will never know your name. Imagine counting your millions of dollars while people who tried to stop you from causing all this mayhem were getting blamed for most of the ills you actually contributed to. Well, as un-imagineable as this is, there is one American who doesn’t have to imagine it. One Jamie Gorelick is this American. And without pretending that she caused the loss of countless thousands of lives and countless billions of dollars of wealth by herself, she certainly did push some of the early domino’s in catastrophic chain events that are a major factors in life in America today. This is not a bad millineums’s work, when you think about it. Gorelick, an appointee of Bill Clinton, is the one who constructed the wall of separation that kept the CIA and the FBI from comparing notes and therefore invading the privacy of nice young men like, say, Muhammed Atta and Zacarius Moussaoui. While countless problems were uncovered in our intelligence operations in the wake of 9-11, no single factor comes close to in importance to Jamie Gorelick’s wall. In fact, it was Gorelick’s wall, perhaps more than any other single factor, that induces some people to blame Clinton himself for 9-11 since he appointed her and she acted consistent with his philosophy of “crime fighting.” She put the wall into place as Deputy Attorney General in 1995. And for good measure, she was appointed by Tom Daschle to serve on the “non partisan” 9-11 Commission. And we thought the fox in the henhouse was simply a metaphor. Of course, in a splendid example of “reaching across the aisle,” feckless Republican Slade Gorton of Washington did all he could to exonerate Gorelick in the commission. Thanks, Slade. God forbid the nation actually knows the truth. But for Ms. Gorelick, one earth shaking catastrophe is just not enough. You might think that she caused enough carnage to us infidels on 9-11 as to qualify her for the 72 virgins upon her death. (this would also keep her consistent with several of Clinton’s philosophies). Alas, that’s only part of her resume. Her fingerprints are all over the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac mess, which is to say the mess that is central in the entire mortgage-housing crisis. Without so much as one scintilla of real estate or finance experience, she was appointed as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae in 1997 and served in that role through 2003, which is when most of the systemic cancers that came home to roost today happened. She was instrumental in covering up problems with Fannie Mae while employed there and took multiple millions in bonuses as she helped construct this house of cards. From Wikipedia: One example of falsified financial transactions that helped the company meet earnings targets for 1998, a “manipulation” that triggered multimillion-dollar bonuses for top executives. On March 25, 2002, Business Week Gorelick is quoted as saying, “We believe we are managed safely. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions.” One year later, Government Regulators “accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses” As we know, the financial damage done by the housing related problems in this country are still incalculable. Ms. Gorelick’s evil tab is still growing. But it doesn’t stop there. She managed to be on the wrong side of the Duke LaCrosse case, working for Duke University to protect that school from it’s damaging knee jerk reactions to the spectacularly unbelievable charges filed by a stripper. (excuse me, exotic dancer). So, even on a smaller scale, she continues to make money while working to ruin the lives of innocent Americans in defense of liberal dogma. At the Department of Defense, when she served as legal counsel there in 1993, she drafted the “Don’t ask /don’t tell” policy. From what can be gleaned, it all comes from being well connected. She was educated (is that what they call it?) at Harvard undergrad and Harvard Law. From there, she kept getting appointed to positions above her experience level where she could flex her liberal muscles, add a resume item, and move upward. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/mistress_of_disaster_jamie_gor.html#ixzz3p3M8KxQf Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 556 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 546-555 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 538-545 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 532-537 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 Shows 93 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 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 01-09

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

Donald J. Trump — Our Next President — Videos Posted on October 6, 2015. Filed under: American History, Art, Articles, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Economics, Education, Elections, Entertainment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, Health Care, Heroes, history, Investments, Islam, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Love, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Music, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Press, Radio, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Terrorism, Trade Policiy, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: 2016 Presidential Candidates, Abba, And The Is?, Claude François, Comme d'habitude, Dilbert Creator, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Frank Sinatra, Health Care, I Have A Dream, Low Energy, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, My Way, Nice Man, Obamacare, Robot, Scott Adams, Sean Hannity, State My Case, Talk Radio, Taxes, The Winner Takes It All, Trade, Videos |

Dilbert Creator Scott Adams On Donald Trump’s “Linguistic Kill Shots”

Feud Between Marco Rubio And Donald Trump Heats Up

Hannity Donald Trump FULL Interview. We Dont Fight For Victory. We Just Keep Going And Going

Donald Trump ‘Eminent Domain’ Is A Wonderful Thing

Donald Trump Interview With Michael Savage On The Savage Nation (10-6-15)

Donald Trump Interview W/Mark Levin; 10-5-2015

Donald Trump Meet The Press FULL Interview 10/4/2015

Donald Trump This Week ABC FULL Interview. George Steaphanopoulos Grills Trump On Tax Plan

FULL Speech: Donald Trump Fires Up The Crowd At Franklin, TN Rally (10-3-15)

Donald Trump: “Enough With The Nice!”

Donald Trump Don Lemon Interview CNN FULL Donald Trump Don Lemon CNN Interview 9/30/15

FULL Speech: Donald Trump EXPLOSIVE Rally In Keene, NH (9-30-15)

Bill O’Reilly Donald Trump FULL Interview. Trump ENDS Fox News Boycott

Carl Icahn On The Movement Toward Donald Trump For President September 29, 2015, Donald Trump recommended a video on Twitter (@realdonaldTrump) by renowned American business magnate, investor, activist shareholder, and philanthropist, CARL ICAHN.

Donald Trump Full Interview With Erin Burnett On Iran/Russia, Tax PLan & GOP Candidates 9/28/2015

Full Press Conference: Donald Trump Unveils His Tax Plan (9-28-15)

Donald Trump Has Nothing To Apologize For

Full Speech: Donald Trump YUGE, EXPLOSIVE Campaign Rally At Oklahoma State Fair (9-25-15)

Speech: Donald Trump Speaks At Values Voter Summit In DC (9-25-15)

Full: Donald Trump Town Hall In Columbia, SC With Sen. Tim Scott (9-23-15)

Donald Trump CNN Debate Highlights

FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Campaign Rally Dallas, Texas Monday 9/14/2015

Donald Trump Gives Wildly Entertaining Speech In Nashville, TN (8-29-15)

Michael Savage Interview W/ Donald Trump On Global Warming, Political Run And More – January 7, 2014

Mr. Trump’s 757

Donald Trump’s Luxurious Chopper

Abba – The Winner Takes It All

ABBA : I Have A Dream (HQ)

Frank Sinatra, My Way, With Lyrics

Frank Sinatra – “My Way” – My Way (Live At Madison Square Garden/1974)” by Frank Sinatra

Claude François – Comme D’habitude Most english people wouldn’t even now that Sinatra “my way” is a cover of Claude François the orginal of this song.

Claude François – Comme D’habitude (BBC – 1er Février 1977)

Cloclo Movie US Trailer

Claude François – My Way (En Anglais) + Paroles

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

Biden’s Big Lie: Trump Selling A “Sick Message” About Immigrants (aka Illegal Aliens) in America Based on Xenophobia — The Truth: Obama and Biden Betray Oath of Office By Not Enforcing Immigration Law — The American People Want The Immigration Laws Enforced — Trump on Immigration Plan: ‘Start by Building a Big, Beautiful, Powerful Wall’ — Live With It Liars! — Trump Fires Back From USS Iowa With All Three Guns Firing — Veteran Voter Victory For Trump! — Video Posted on September 20, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Culture, Economics, Elections, Employment, Entertainment, Faith, Family, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religious, Speech, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Television, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: 15 September 2015, 30-50 Million Illegal Aliens in USA, America, Anchor Babies Are Not U.S. Citizens, articles, Audio, Beautiful, Biden's Big Lie, birthright citizenship & illegal immigration, Breaking News, Broadcasting, capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Donald Trump, economic growth, economic policy, Economics, Education, Enforcement of Immigration Law, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, First, fiscal policy, free enterprise, freedom, freedom of speech, Friends, Give It A Listen, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, he Citizenship Clause of 14th Amendment, Hope, Illegal Aliens, illegal immigration, Individualism, Joe Biden, Knowledge, Law and Order, liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Mark Levin, monetary policy, MPEG3, News, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, Powerful Wall, prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, rule of law, Rule of Men, Show Notes, Sick Message, Start by Building a Big, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 534, Trump on Immigration Plan, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, USS Iowa, Veteran, Veterans Administration, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom, Xenophobia |

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Pronk Pops Show 534: September 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 533: September 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 532: September 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Story 1: Biden’s Big Lie: Trump Selling A “Sick Message” About Immigrants (aka Illegal Aliens) in America Based on Xenophobia — The Truth: Obama and Biden Betray Oath of Office By Not Enforcing Immigration Law — The American People Want The Immigration Laws Enforced — Trump on Immigration Plan: ‘Start by Building a Big, Beautiful, Powerful Wall’ — Live With It Liars! — Trump Fires Back From USS Iowa With All Three Guns Firing — Veteran Voter Victory For Trump! — Video

Biden Thumps Trump For Selling ‘Sick Message’

Biden Speaks Out On Trump’s ‘Xenophobia’: ‘This Will Pass’ Vice President Joe Biden spoke at a Hispanic Heritage Month reception today and took a moment to go after the “xenophobia” being pushed by Donald Trump. He said with sincerity that people shouldn’t “be down right now” with all the GOP rhetoric, despite “one guy absolutely denigrating an entire group of people, appealing to the baser side of human nature, working on this notion of xenophobia.” The veep assured the audience that “this will pass” and that the “sick message” they’re hearing-–presumably referring to politically divisive rhetoric––is a problem on both sides. Biden still hasn’t made up his mind as to whether he’s running or not in 2016, recently saying it’s a tough decision, but his fiery rhetoric recently has gotten people talking.

FNN: Donald Trump Speaks On The USS Iowa Donald Trump spoke to supporters and veterans on September 15, 2015. Aboard the USS Iowa, Trump stated that, “illegal immigrants get better health care than our veterans. That is going to change.”

Karl Rove Destroys Joe Biden

Joe Biden Prevaricates About Law School Class Standing

JOE BIDEN — PLAGIARIST

Joe Biden Says Dumb Things

“The Best Of Joe Biden’s Gaffe’s; A Continuing Series…”

Watch Joe Biden Rub, Touch And Kiss His Way To Beck-Like Creepiness

Joe Biden Kisses Woman On Lips At Rally

Vote For A Genuine Scumbag: Joe Biden For Prez

Trump On Immigration Plan: ‘Start By Building A Big, Beautiful, Powerful Wall’

• Mark Levin • Anchor Babies Are Not U.S. Citizens • Hannity • 8/19/15 • Constitutional scholar Mark Levin disabuses the common notion that children of illegal immigrants are conferred U.S. citizenship by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution. Levin meticulously reviews the history and language of the amendment to demonstrate that only an Act of Congress can grant citizenship to “anchor babies”.

Mark Levin: The Citizenship Clause Of 14th Amendment, Birthright Citizenship & Illegal Immigration

Trump’s Right: Anchor Babies Are Big Business

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents Margaret Mikyung Lee Legislative Attorney August 12, 2010

Joe Biden Hammers Trump For ‘Sick Message’ Exploiting Xenophobia Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday said Republican presidential contender Donald Trump was selling a “sick message” about immigrants in America based on xenophobia. Biden, considering a run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, told a small group of Latinos gathered at his home that they should not lose heart watching Trump climb in the polls while taking a hard line on immigration. Trump, leading the pack of Republicans seeking their party’s 2016 nomination, has accused Mexico of sending criminals and rapists to the United States. He has promised to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to keep out illegal immigrants and deport the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States. Biden told his guests that he had seen Trump talking on television just before speaking to the poolside cocktail party, and decided to cast aside remarks his staff had prepared recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month.

“There’s one guy absolutely denigrating an entire group of people, appealing to the baser side of human nature, working on this notion of xenophobia in a way that hasn’t occurred in a long time,” Biden told the group of about 75 people. “This isn’t about Democrat – Republican. It’s about a sick message. This message has been tried on America many times before. We always, always, always, always overcome,” he said. Biden, who is Catholic, urged the group not to feel “down” about Trump’s popularity, noting that Pope Francis was about to visit the United States and likely would have a very different message about welcoming immigrants. “The American people are with us. I know it doesn’t feel that way. But I’m telling you, the American people agree with us,” Biden said. Biden, whose son Beau died recently, has said he is not sure he has the emotional capacity to make what would be his third run for president. His poll numbers have climbed as he explores the possibility and as the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, grapples with a controversy over her use of a private email server while secretary of state. At the end of his remarks, a few people in the crowd shouted, “Run Joe, run!” Biden, making the sign of the cross as he hurried away from the podium, said “Oh no, no, no, no, no” as if to stave off the topic. http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/joe-biden-hammers-trump-for-sick-message-exploiting-xenophobia/

Consequences Of Misinterpreting The 14th Amendment To The United States Constitution Cost Births to illegal alien mothers are adding more to the U.S. population each year than did immigration from all sources in an average year prior to 1965. The Urban Institute estimates the cost of educating illegal alienchildren in the nation’s seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens was $3.1 billion in 1993 (which, with the growth of their population to 1.3 million, would be more like $5 billion in 2000). This estimate does not take into account the additional costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs. 1 FAIR estimates there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and official estimates of the size of the illegal alien population – between 8.7 and 11 million. It should be noted that the Bear Stearns investment firm and others have concluded that the actual number of illegal aliens in the United States could be as high as 20 million. 2,3 Using this higher number would roughly double FAIR’s estimate to approximately 574,000 to 726,000 children born to illegal aliens each year! As of 2001, the cost of having a baby in the U.S. ranged from $6,000 to $8,000 for a normal delivery and $10,000 to $12,000 for a cesarean birth (to as much as $14,000 in certain parts of the country). 10 Assuming that an average birth in the year 2007 now costs $8,000, the total cost for 363,000 anchor babies would be approximately $3 billion. Assuming the more realistic number of 726,000 anchor babies, the total cost would be nearly $6 billion. American taxpayers pay a substantial part of this cost. In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year. 1 A survey conducted under the auspices of the University of California, found that of new Hispanic mothers in California border hospitals, 15 percent had crossed the border specifically to give birth. Two-thirds of births in Los Angeles County hospitals are to illegal alien mothers who are in the U.S. in violation of our existing immigration laws. Illegal aliens are not eligible for welfare benefits, but their citizen children qualify for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and other benefits granted to US citizens. Based on data collected in California for AFDC’s “children only” cases, the California Department of Social Services estimated that in fiscal 1994-1995, 193,800 children of illegal aliens received welfare, costing $553 million. By not addressing this abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment and enforcing immigration law, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.

Rule of Law By deliberately not addressing this loophole, Congress in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally. The 14th Amendment stipulates that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions by enactment of legislation, and the power to enforce a law is necessarily accompanied by the authority to interpret that law. Therefore, an act of Congress stating its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as not to include the offspring of illegal aliens, would fall within Congress’s prerogative.

One Man, One Vote Congressional district reapportionment weighted by the presence of illegal alien noncitizens is notably unfair to American citizens (both natural-born and naturalized), and clearly violates the principle of “one man, one vote”. As the number of US House seats is fixed at 435, reapportionment means that if a given state gains a House district, another state must lose one. If non-citizens (illegal aliens) are counted in the decennial Census upon which districts are apportioned, then states with larger illegal alien populations are likely to end up with more districts and therefore more representation in the House. This effectively dilutes the votes citizens in states having relatively low proportions of illegal aliens.

United States Sovereignty The Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”8 The Mexican government recently provided dual nationality to its citizens who naturalize in the United States. No longer looked upon by their countrymen with contempt, those who emigrate (and sneak in) to the United States are seen by Mexico as advocates for its presumed territorial claims to the American Southwest. Mass immigration, while acting as an overpopulation safety valve for Mexico, simultaneously strengthens Mexico’s political presence inside the United States. Mexican dual nationality serves to retain the allegiance of its citizens who become United States citizens, and to discourage assimilation – in spite of the oath of allegiance they take to America. Unconstrained illegal immigration and disregard for the rule of law are not conducive toward maintaining US sovereignty. Special corporate and political interests want all the cheap foreign labor they can get. Misinterpreting the 14th Amendment and granting automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens is but one aspect of the dismantling of America. In April, 2005, President Bush signed the Security Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico, with the stated objective of ensuring the free movement of goods and people across the US border. This treaty, never ratified by Congress, is a significant step towards the North American Union where a sovereign United States will be merely a memory.

Population and environmental consequences United States population is at roughly 300 million and is projected to double within the lifetimes of children born today. 4 Approximately two-thirds of this population growth will be due to mass immigration – that is, immigrants, illegal aliens, and their descendents. 5 The United States is past the point of environmental sustainability. Scientists have noted that a sustainable population at today’s consumption levels would be approximately 100 to 150 million people. 6 A good and readable overview of the population-environment connection can be found at SUSPS. A visual presentation of the damage illegal immigration does to the environment near our southern border can be seen atDesertInvasion.US.

Other countries The United Kingdom, for example, formerly allowed Birthright citizenship. In 1981, because of immigration pressures, they restricted it to now require that one parent be a legal resident. In France birthright citizenship has been changed — now children between the ages of 16 and 22 of illegal alien parents must actively seek French citizenship. It should be noted that on June 11, 2004 Irish voters voted in a national referendum to end automatic citizenship for any child born in Ireland regardless of the parents’ residence status. Ireland was the last member of the European Union to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and welfare benefits as a result of birth in the country. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 13, 2004.)

Millions of Americans Millions of Americans have served in defense of the United States of America. Many have died to preserve the freedoms that we take for granted – freedoms granted to United States citizens by the US Constitution. Granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens whose first act in coming here is to break our laws, cheapens beyond recognition the meaning of our Constitution and the value of the lives lost fighting to preserve it.

Notes and more information: 1. Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens (Federation for American Immigration Reform) 2. Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA, The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface (Bear Stearns, January 3, 2005) 3. Fred Elbel, Illegal immigration invasion numbers(DesertInvasion.US, August, 2004). Published in the Social Contract under the title How Many Illegals Are There in the U.S.? (A New Methodology) (Fall, 2005) 4. US Census Bureau. 5. NumbersUSA.com resources on Birthright Citizenship 6. SUSPS 7. James R. Edwards, Jr., Two Sides of the Same Coin – The Connection Between Legal and Illegal Immigration, (Center for Immigration Studies, February, 2006) 8. Anthony Beilenson, Case for Correction By Constitutional Amendment, The Social Contract (Fall, 1996) 9. US Citizenship and Immigration Services 10. The Cost of Having a Baby Dr. Greenfield (Dr. Spock, July 18, 2001) http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/consequences.html

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 532-534 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 Shows 93 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 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 01-09

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

Donald Trump is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative and Ted Cruz is Hard Core Conservative — Trump/Cruz Ticket? — Conservatives Intellectuals Need To Focus on Results Not Words — The Republican Party Is Not A Conservative Party — Conservatives and Libertarians Voters Have Been Abandoning Both The Democratic and Republican Parties Who Are Bought and Paid For By The Donor Base — The Tyranny of Two Party System — Corrupt Big Government Parties — The Decline and Fall of American Republic — Remembering 9/11 — Videos Posted on September 12, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Documentary, Economics, Elections, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Newspapers, Nuclear Proliferation, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Terrorism, Trade Policiy, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: 11 September 2001, 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidate, 30-50 Million Illegal Aliens in USA, A Trump/Cruz Ticket?, America, articles, Audio, Breaking News, Broadcasting, C.S. Lewis, capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concerns, Concise, Conservative Review, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Democratic Party, Dennis Prager, Donald Trump, economic growth, economic policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, F. A. Hayek, Faith, Family, First, fiscal policy, free enterprise, Free Market Capitalism, freedom, freedom of speech, Friends, Give It A Listen, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hard Core Conservatice, Hope, Immigration, Individualism, Intellectuals, Iran Nuclear Deal, Issues, Jon Stewart's 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians, Knowledge, Law and Order, libertarian, Libertarian Leaning Conservative, liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Ludwig von Mises, Mark Levin, Megyn Kelly, monetary policy, MPEG3, Murray Rothbard, News, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, Polls, pro life, prosperity, Public Opinion, Radio, Rand Paul, Raymond Thomas Pron, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Republican Party, Resources, Respect, Ronald Reagan, rule of law, Rule of Men, Russell Kirk, Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles, Scott Walker, Show Notes, Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement, Talk Radio, Ted Cruz, The History of Classical Liberalism, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 531, The Republican Party Has Ceased To be Conservative, The Two Party Tyranny, The United States Constitution, Thomas Sowell, Toppling Two Party Tyranny, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Story 1: Donald Trump is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative and Ted Cruz is Hard Core Conservative — Trump/Cruz Ticket? — Conservatives Intellectuals Need To Focus on Results Not Words — The Republican Party Is Not A Conservative Party — Conservatives and Libertarians Voters Have Been Abandoning Both The Democratic and Republican Parties Who Are Bought and Paid For By The Donor Base — The Tyranny of Two Party System — Corrupt Big Government Parties — The Decline and Fall of American Republic — Remembering 9/11 — Videos

History Documentary – World Trade Center Attacks, Rise And Fall Of The Twin Towers

911 Jumpers 9/11 In 18 Min Plane Crashes Top World Trade Center Towers September 11 Terror Fact Vid

Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles

The Republican Party Has Ceased To Be Conservative

Mark Levin • John Boehner’s GOP Is NOT A Conservative Party • Hannity • 1/7/15 •

Liberal Party: 10 Reasons You Might Be A Liberal – Learn Liberty

Libertarianism: An Introduction

Murray Rothbard: Six Stages Of The Libertarian Movement

Libertarianism | Murray N. Rothbard

Kirzner On Rothbard & Libertarianism

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman On Libertarianism

Jon Stewart’s 19 Tough Questions For Libertarians!

Capitalism Needs Regulation – Why Max Keiser Is Correct And Libertarians Are Mistaken!

Liberals And Conservatives Will Never Agree – A Conversation With William Gairdner

The History Of Classical Liberalism

The Decline And Triumph Of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) | Learn Liberty

The Decline And Triumph Of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 2) | Learn Liberty

FOX NEWS Hates Conservatives And Are WHAT”S WRONG WITH THE GOP PARTY

Mark Levin Eviscerates Megyn Kelly Fox News

Donald Trump Vs. Fox News | Republican Presidential Debate Analysis!

McConnell On Iran Deal: ‘Obama Won Short-Term Battle, But We Won The Argument’

House Spars Over Iran Nuclear Agreement

Dennis Prager’s Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse tube.com/watch?v=Uj9qvBwOeMA]

Conservative Review State Name Party Score Years in DC Next Election Track State Name Party Score Years in DC Next Election Track

Conservatives And Libertarians (A-C) UT

Sen. Mike Lee R A 100% 4 2016

TX

Sen. Ted Cruz R A 96% 2 2018

KY

Sen. Rand Paul R A 93% 4 2016

SC

Sen. Tim Scott R B 85% 4 2016

NE

Sen. Benjamin Sasse R B 80% 0 2020

GA

Sen. David Perdue R B 80% 0 2020

AL

Sen. Jeff Sessions R B 80% 18 2020

FL

Sen. Marco Rubio R B 80% 4 2016

ID

Sen. Jim Risch R C 78% 6 2020

OK

Sen. Jim Inhofe R C 77% 28 2020

ID

Sen. Michael Crapo R C 76% 22 2016

IA

Sen. Charles Grassley R C 72% 40 2016

LA

Sen. David Vitter R C 71% 16 2016

Moderates And Progressives (D-F) WI

Sen. Ron Johnson R D 67% 4 2016

AL

Sen. Richard Shelby R D 66% 36 2016

WY

Sen. Michael Enzi R D 64% 18 2020

PA

Sen. Pat Toomey R D 63% 10 2016

KS

Sen. Jerry Moran R D 62% 18 2016

WY

Sen. John Barrasso R D 61% 8 2018

LA

Sen. Bill Cassidy R D 60% 6 2020

AK

Sen. Dan Sullivan R D 60% 0 2020

OK

Sen. James Lankford R D 60% 4 2016

IA

Sen. Joni Ernst R D 60% 0 2020

MT

Sen. Steve Daines R D 60% 2 2020

AR

Sen. Tom Cotton R D 60% 2 2020

TX

Sen. John Cornyn R F 59% 13 2020

NE

Sen. Deb Fischer R F 56% 2 2018

KS

Sen. Pat Roberts R F 55% 34 2020

OH

Sen. Rob Portman R F 54% 16 2016

NV

Sen. Dean Heller R F 52% 8 2018

SD

Sen. John Thune R F 52% 16 2016

KY

Sen. Mitch McConnell R F 52% 30 2020

UT

Sen. Orrin Hatch R F 52% 38 2018

TN

Sen. Bob Corker R F 51% 8 2018

AR

Sen. John Boozman R F 50% 14 2016

NC

Sen. Richard Burr R F 49% 20 2016

IN

Sen. Daniel Coats R F 48% 22 2016

SC

Sen. Lindsey Graham R F 47% 20 2020

AZ

Sen. John McCain R F 43% 32 2016

NH

Sen. Kelly Ayotte R F 41% 4 2016

GA

Sen. Johnny Isakson R F 40% 16 2016

NC

Sen. Thom Tillis R F 40% 0 2020

AZ

Sen. Jeff Flake R F 38% 14 2018

MO

Sen. Roy Blunt R F 38% 18 2016

MS

Sen. Thad Cochran R F 33% 41 2020

MS

Sen. Roger Wicker R F 30% 19 2018

IL

Sen. Mark Kirk R F 28% 14 2016

ND

Sen. John Hoeven R F 26% 4 2016

TN

Sen. Lamar Alexander R F 24% 12 2020

CO

Sen. Cory Gardner R F 20% 4 2020

AK

Sen. Lisa Murkowski R F 20% 12 2016

SD

Sen. Mike Rounds R F 20% 0 2020

WV

Sen. Shelley Capito R F 20% 14 2020

ME

Sen. Susan Collins R F 16% 18 2020 –

https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard#sthash.9HLKmHG5.dpuf State

Name

Score Years in DC Next Election Track

State

Name

Score Years in DC Next Election Track

VA-7

Rep. David Brat

A 100% 0

2016

AL-6

Rep. Gary Palmer

A 100% 0

2016

OK-1

Rep. Jim Bridenstine

A 96% 2

2016

NC-11

Rep. Mark Meadows

A 96% 2

2016

SC-3

Rep. Jeff Duncan

A 95% 4

2016

MI-3

Rep. Justin Amash

A 95% 4

2016

ID-1

Rep. Raul Labrador

A 95% 4

2016

TX-1

Rep. Louie Gohmert

A 94% 10

2016

SC-5

Rep. Mick Mulvaney

A 93% 4

2016

AZ-6

Rep. David Schweikert

A 92% 4

2016

OH-4

Rep. Jim Jordan

A 92% 8

2016

KY-4

Rep. Thomas Massie

A 92% 2

2016

FL-19

Rep. Curt Clawson

A 90% 1

2016

KS-1

Rep. Tim Huelskamp

A 90% 4

2016

CA-4

Rep. Tom McClintock

A 90% 6

2016

NJ-5

Rep. Scott Garrett

B 88% 12

2016

AZ-8

Rep. Trent Franks

B 88% 12

2016

AZ-5

Rep. Matt Salmon

B 87% 8

2016

FL-6

Rep. Ron DeSantis

B 87% 2

2016

CO-4

Rep. Ken Buck

B 86% 0

2016

SC-1

Rep. Mark Sanford

B 86% 8

2016

IA-1

Rep. Rod Blum

B 86% 0

2016

SC-4

Rep. Trey Gowdy

B 85% 4

2016

TN-2

Rep. John Duncan Jr.

B 84% 26

2016

CO-5

Rep. Doug Lamborn

B 83% 8

2016

TX-14

Rep. Randy Weber

B 83% 2

2016

WI-5

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner

B 82% 36

2016

LA-4

Rep. John Fleming

B 82% 6

2016

IN-3

Rep. Marlin Stutzman

B 81% 4

2016

TN-4

Rep. Scott DesJarlais

B 81% 4

2016

CA-48

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher

B 80% 26

2016

UT-3

Rep. Jason Chaffetz

B 80% 6

2016

AL-5

Rep. Mo Brooks

B 80% 4

2016

AZ-4

Rep. Paul Gosar

B 80% 4

2016

TX-19

Rep. Randy Neugebauer

B 80% 12

2016

OH-1

Rep. Steven Chabot

B 80% 18

2016

TX-24

Rep. Kenny Marchant

C 79% 10

2016

TX-26

Rep. Michael Burgess

C 79% 12

2016

MD-1

Rep. Andy Harris

C 78% 4

2016

GA-8

Rep. Austin Scott

C 78% 4

2016

FL-8

Rep. Bill Posey

C 78% 6

2016

WY-0

Rep. Cynthia Lummis

C 78% 6

2016

GA-3

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland

C 78% 10

2016

KS-4

Rep. Mike Pompeo

C 78% 4

2016

TX-25

Rep. Roger Williams

C 77% 2

2016

IA-4

Rep. Steve King

C 77% 12

2016

GA-14

Rep. Tom Graves

C 77% 5

2016

TX-3

Rep. Sam Johnson

C 76% 24

2016

LA-1

Rep. Steve Scalise

C 74% 7

2016

TX-2

Rep. Ted Poe

C 74% 10

2016

IL-14

Rep. Randy Hultgren

C 73% 4

2016

FL-11

Rep. Richard Nugent

C 73% 4

2016

WV-2

Rep. Alex Mooney

C 71% 0

2016

GA-11

Rep. Barry Loudermilk

C 71% 0

2016

MI-2

Rep. Bill Huizenga

C 71% 4

2016

FL-15

Rep. Dennis Ross

C 71% 4

2016

WV-3

Rep. Evan Jenkins

C 71% 0

2016

TX-5

Rep. Jeb Hensarling

C 71% 12

2016

FL-1

Rep. Jeff Miller

C 71% 13

2016

SC-2

Rep. Joe Wilson

C 71% 13

2016

TX-4

Rep. John Ratcliffe

C 71% 0

2016

NY-1

Rep. Lee Zeldin

C 71% 0

2016

NM-2

Rep. Steve Pearce

C 71% 10

2016

TN-7

Rep. Marsha Blackburn

C 70% 12

2016

UT-1

Rep. Rob Bishop

C 70% 12

2016

PA-4

Rep. Scott Perry

C 70% 2

2016

FL-3

Rep. Ted Yoho

C 70% 2

2016

GA-6

Rep. Tom Price

C 70% 10

2016

NC-3

Rep. Walter Jones

C 70% 20

2016

TX-6

Rep. Joe Barton

D 69% 30

2016

TN-3

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann

D 68% 4

2016

WI-8

Rep. Reid Ribble

D 68% 4

2016

VA-5

Rep. Robert Hurt

D 68% 4

2016

CA-50

Rep. Duncan Hunter

D 67% 6

2016

NH-1

Rep. Frank Guinta

D 67% 2

2016

TN-8

Rep. Stephen Fincher

D 67% 4

2016

TX-17

Rep. Bill Flores

D 66% 4

2016

TN-6

Rep. Diane Black

D 66% 4

2016

VA-9

Rep. Morgan Griffith

D 66% 4

2016

VA-6

Rep. Robert Goodlatte

D 66% 22

2016

NC-5

Rep. Virginia Foxx

D 66% 10

2016

MO-7

Rep. Billy Long

D 65% 4

2016

GA-9

Rep. Doug Collins

D 65% 2

2016

CA-1

Rep. Doug LaMalfa

D 65% 2

2016

NC-13

Rep. George Holding

D 65% 2

2016

OK-2

Rep. Markwayne Mullin

D 65% 2

2016

AL-1

Rep. Bradley Byrne

D 64% 1

2016

CA-39

Rep. Ed Royce

D 64% 22

2016

CO-6

Rep. Mike Coffman

D 64% 6

2016

TX-22

Rep. Pete Olson

D 64% 6

2016

OH-5

Rep. Robert Latta

D 64% 7

2016

TX-27

Rep. Blake Farenthold

D 63% 4

2016

FL-10

Rep. Daniel Webster

D 63% 4

2016

KS-3

Rep. Kevin Yoder

D 63% 4

2016

NC-10

Rep. Patrick McHenry

D 63% 10

2016

TX-32

Rep. Pete Sessions

D 63% 18

2016

GA-7

Rep. Rob Woodall

D 63% 4

2016

MI-7

Rep. Tim Walberg

D 63% 6

2016

TX-8

Rep. Kevin Brady

D 62% 18

2016

IN-4

Rep. Todd Rokita

D 62% 4

2016

FL-17

Rep. Tom Rooney

D 62% 6

2016

OH-2

Rep. Brad Wenstrup

D 61% 2

2016

UT-2

Rep. Chris Stewart

D 61% 2

2016

TX-7

Rep. John Culberson

D 61% 14

2016

PA-12

Rep. Keith Rothfus

D 61% 2

2016

TX-10

Rep. Michael McCaul

D 61% 10

2016

SC-7

Rep. Tom Rice

D 61% 2

2016

MO-8

Rep. Jason Smith

D 60% 2

2016

FL-7

Rep. John Mica

D 60% 22

2016

KS-2

Rep. Lynn Jenkins

D 60% 6

2016

TX-13

Rep. Mac Thornberry

D 60% 20

2016

VA-4

Rep. Randy Forbes

D 60% 14

2016

CO-3

Rep. Scott Tipton

D 60% 4

2016

NE-3

Rep. Adrian Smith

F 58% 8

2016

TX-21

Rep. Lamar Smith

F 58% 28

2016

WI-1

Rep. Paul Ryan

F 58% 16

2016

VA-1

Rep. Robert Wittman

F 58% 7

2016

NC-6

Rep. Mark Walker

F 57% 0

2016

TX-36

Rep. Brian Babin

F 57% 0

2016

AR-4

Rep. Bruce Westerman

F 57% 0

2016

GA-1

Rep. Buddy Carter

F 57% 0

2016

CA-49

Rep. Darrell Issa

F 57% 14

2016

NC-7

Rep. David Rouzer

F 57% 0

2016

IA-3

Rep. David Young

F 57% 0

2016

AR-2

Rep. French Hill

F 57% 0

2016

LA-6

Rep. Garret Graves

F 57% 0

2016

WI-6

Rep. Glenn Grothman

F 57% 0

2016

GA-10

Rep. Jody Hice

F 57% 0

2016

UT-4

Rep. Mia Love

F 57% 0

2016

LA-5

Rep. Ralph Abraham

F 57% 0

2016

NC-8

Rep. Richard Hudson

F 57% 2

2016

GA-12

Rep. Rick Allen

F 57% 0

2016

OK-5

Rep. Steve Russell

F 57% 0

2016

NJ-3

Rep. Tom MacArthur

F 57% 0

2016

OH-6

Rep. Bill Johnson

F 56% 4

2016

PA-16

Rep. Joe Pitts

F 56% 18

2016

IL-6

Rep. Peter Roskam

F 56% 8

2016

TN-1

Rep. Phil Roe

F 56% 6

2016

LA-3

Rep. Charles Boustany Jr.

F 55% 10

2016

TX-31

Rep. John Carter

F 55% 12

2016

TX-11

Rep. Mike Conaway

F 55% 10

2016

MN-3

Rep. Erik Paulsen

F 54% 6

2016

OH-16

Rep. Jim Renacci

F 54% 4

2016

MO-6

Rep. Sam Graves

F 54% 14

2016

IN-9

Rep. Todd Young

F 54% 4

2016

MO-4

Rep. Vicky Hartzler

F 54% 4

2016

AL-4

Rep. Robert Aderholt

F 53% 18

2016

MI-10

Rep. Candice Miller

F 52% 12

2016

CA-22

Rep. Devin Nunes

F 52% 12

2016

FL-12

Rep. Gus Bilirakis

F 52% 8

2016

AL-3

Rep. Mike Rogers

F 52% 12

2016

CA-8

Rep. Paul Cook

F 52% 2

2016

NC-2

Rep. Renee Ellmers

F 52% 4

2016

IN-8

Rep. Larry Bucshon

F 51% 4

2016

OH-7

Rep. Bob Gibbs

F 50% 4

2016

MN-2

Rep. John Kline

F 50% 12

2016

AR-1

Rep. Rick Crawford

F 50% 4

2016

WI-7

Rep. Sean Duffy

F 50% 4

2016

NY-23

Rep. Tom Reed

F 50% 4

2016

KY-2

Rep. Brett Guthrie

F 49% 6

2016

WA-5

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers F 49% 10

2016

MI-1

Rep. Dan Benishek

F 49% 4

2016

TX-12

Rep. Kay Granger

F 49% 18

2016

VA-2

Rep. Scott Rigell

F 49% 4

2016

MS-4

Rep. Steven Palazzo

F 49% 4

2016

FL-16

Rep. Vern Buchanan

F 49% 8

2016

MO-3

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer

F 48% 6

2016

IN-6

Rep. Luke Messer

F 48% 2

2016

AL-2

Rep. Martha Roby

F 48% 4

2016

OH-10

Rep. Michael Turner

F 48% 12

2016

NC-9

Rep. Robert Pittenger

F 48% 2

2016

PA-9

Rep. Bill Shuster

F 47% 14

2016

MS-3

Rep. Gregg Harper

F 47% 6

2016

WV-1

Rep. David McKinley

F 46% 4

2016

OH-12

Rep. Pat Tiberi

F 46% 14

2016

OK-4

Rep. Tom Cole

F 46% 12

2016

PA-10

Rep. Tom Marino

F 46% 4

2016

FL-13

Rep. David Jolly

F 45% 1

2016

OK-3

Rep. Frank Lucas

F 45% 21

2016

NE-1

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry

F 45% 10

2016

CA-23

Rep. Kevin McCarthy

F 45% 8

2016

PA-18

Rep. Tim Murphy

F 45% 12

2016

NY-19

Rep. Chris Gibson

F 44% 4

2016

OR-2

Rep. Greg Walden

F 44% 16

2016

SD-0

Rep. Kristi Noem

F 44% 4

2016

PA-3

Rep. Mike Kelly

F 44% 4

2016

KY-6

Rep. Andy Barr

F 43% 2

2016

MO-2

Rep. Ann Wagner

F 43% 2

2016

VA-10

Rep. Barbara Comstock

F 43% 0

2016

ME-2

Rep. Bruce Poliquin

F 43% 0

2016

FL-26

Rep. Carlos Curbelo

F 43% 0

2016

NV-4

Rep. Cresent Hardy

F 43% 0

2016

WA-4

Rep. Dan Newhouse

F 43% 0

2016

OH-14

Rep. Dave Joyce

F 43% 2

2016

MI-11

Rep. Dave Trott

F 43% 0

2016

KY-1

Rep. Edward Whitfield

F 43% 20

2016

NY-21

Rep. Elise Stefanik

F 43% 0

2016

IN-2

Rep. Jackie Walorski

F 43% 2

2016

NY-24

Rep. John Katko

F 43% 0

2016

MI-4

Rep. John Moolenaar

F 43% 0

2016

AZ-2

Rep. Martha McSally

F 43% 0

2016

MI-8

Rep. Mike Bishop

F 43% 0

2016

IL-12

Rep. Mike Bost

F 43% 0

2016

CA-45

Rep. Mimi Walters

F 43% 0

2016

PA-6

Rep. Ryan Costello

F 43% 0

2016

MT-0

Rep. Ryan Zinke

F 43% 0

2016

CA-25

Rep. Steve Knight

F 43% 0

2016

MN-6

Rep. Tom Emmer

F 43% 0

2016

TX-23

Rep. Will Hurd

F 43% 0

2016

MI-6

Rep. Fred Upton

F 42% 28

2016

NJ-7

Rep. Leonard Lance

F 42% 6

2016

PA-5

Rep. Glenn Thompson

F 41% 6

2016

WA-3

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler

F 41% 4

2016

ID-2

Rep. Mike Simpson

F 41% 16

2016

FL-4

Rep. Ander Crenshaw

F 40% 14

2016

KY-5

Rep. Harold Rogers

F 40% 34

2016

IL-16

Rep. Adam Kinzinger

F 39% 4

2016

NJ-4

Rep. Christopher Smith

F 39% 34

2016

AK-0

Rep. Don Young

F 39% 42

2016

CA-10

Rep. Jeffrey Denham

F 39% 4

2016

IL-15

Rep. John Shimkus

F 39% 18

2016

NJ-11

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen

F 39% 20

2016

AR-3

Rep. Steve Womack

F 39% 4

2016

PA-11

Rep. Lou Barletta

F 38% 4

2016

NV-2

Rep. Mark Amodei

F 38% 3

2016

OH-15

Rep. Steve Stivers

F 38% 4

2016

NV-3

Rep. Joe Heck

F 37% 4

2016

CA-42

Rep. Ken Calvert

F 37% 22

2016

PA-8

Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick

F 37% 8

2016

IL-10

Rep. Bob Dold

F 36% 2

2016

IL-13

Rep. Rodney Davis

F 36% 2

2016

NY-27

Rep. Chris Collins

F 35% 2

2016

WA-8

Rep. Dave Reichert

F 35% 10

2016

OH-8

Rep. John Boehner

F 35% 24

2016

ND-0

Rep. Kevin Cramer

F 35% 2

2016

NY-2

Rep. Peter King

F 35% 22

2016

IN-5

Rep. Susan Brooks

F 35% 2

2016

PA-15

Rep. Charlie Dent

F 34% 10

2016

NJ-2

Rep. Frank LoBiondo

F 34% 20

2016

FL-25

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart

F 32% 12

2016

PA-7

Rep. Pat Meehan

F 32% 4

2016

NY-22

Rep. Richard Hanna

F 31% 4

2016

FL-27

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

F 30% 26

2016

CA-21

Rep. David Valadao

F 26% 2

2016

– See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard#sthash.7BNr4KT7.dpuf

Party Affiliation

NATIONAL REVIEW’S JONAH GOLDBERG: ‘COUNT ME OUT’ OF ANY CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT WITH DONALD TRUMP By BEN SHAPIRO On Saturday, National Review senior editor Jonah Goldbergpenned a controversial column in which he rejected Donald Trump and his followers from the conservative movement. “Well, if this is the conservative movement now, I guess you’re going to have to count me out,” Goldberg writes. Goldberg goes on to suggest that the embrace of Trump perverts conservatism itself, broadening the definition of the movement in order to include Trump. Goldberg, whom I consider a friend and a brilliant commentator, is right to label Trump insufficiently conservative. I have specifically argued that Trump ought not be the nominee thanks to his insufficient conservatism—so has Michelle Malkin, so have numerous other conservative commentators. But here is the sad truth: Many of the same people appalled by Trump made Trump’s candidacy possible. Trump is a product of a conservatism-less Republicanism, prepared for and championed by the intellectual elites who told us to ignore Mitt Romney’s creation of Romneycare and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) 43% ’s campaign finance reform, who told conservatives to shut up and get in line, who explained that conservatives had to throw over Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 96% and his government shutdowns in favor of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 52% and his pathological inability to take a hard stand against President Obama using the tools at his disposal. Over at National Review, even as Goldberg condemns Trump for his non-conservatism, another columnist simultaneously urges a ticket with Governor “God Told Me To Use Obamacare Money To Expand Medicaid” John Kasich (R-OH) and Sen. Marco “Immigration Gang of Eight” Rubio (R-FL). Goldberg himself championed Romney’s candidacy because he wasn’t a conservative, writing back in 2012: Even if Romney is a Potemkin conservative (a claim I think has merit but is also exaggerated), there is an instrumental case to be made for him: It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you. A President Romney would be on a very short leash. Why wouldn’t the same logic apply to Trump? And while Goldberg today raps Trump on the knuckles for his support of socialized medicine, going so far as to label opposition to such policy a “core tenet of American conservatism from Day One,” Goldberg used Romneycare as a point in favor of Romney in 2012: “He is a man of duty and purpose. He was told to ‘fix’ health care in ways Massachusetts would like… He did it all. The man does his assignments.” Goldberg today says that Trump doesn’t deserve to be a part of the conservative movement, and his followers have excised themselves from the conservative community. But in 2012, he warned that anyone saying the same of Mitt Romney threatened the possibility of conservative victory. In 2012, Goldberg explicitly opposed purges and purity tests: That’s certainly reason enough to be mad at the establishment. But replacing the current leadership with even more ardent, passionate and uncompromising conservatives is far from a guaranteed formula for making the Republican Party more popular or powerful. To do that, the GOP needs to persuade voters to become a little more conservative, not to hector already-conservative politicians to become even more pure as they go snipe-hunting for the Rockefeller Republicans. What requirements did Mitt Romney, and John Kasich, and John McCain, and Mitch McConnell fulfill that Trump does not? Goldberg is right that Trump has “no ideological guardrails whatsoever” when it comes to taxes and “knows less than most halfway-decent DC interns about foreign policy.” Goldberg could have added that Trump has made an enormous amount of money utilizing eminent domain, that he supports affirmative action, and that he opposes free trade, among other pernicious positions. There is a reason that this weekend full-fledged economic idiot Paul Krugman endorsed Trump’s economic policies. The question is: Why are so many Republicans backing him? There are two answers: first, he’s tough on illegal immigration, the only issue many conservatives believe matters. The second answer is more telling, however: Trump has heavy support because Republicans rejected ideological purity a long time ago. And here’s the irony: Goldberg and others can’t call Tea Partiers to Jesus on Trump because, according to polls, Tea Partiers don’t support Trump in outsized numbers. The reality is that the same people who don’t like ideological litmus tests support Trump. Just a few weeks back, the Washington Post concluded that Trump’s fans “are more moderate than Tea Partiers were,” significantly more likely to call themselves Republicans than Tea Partiers were, far younger and less religious and blue collar than Tea Partiers. As Sallah from Raiders of the Lost Ark would put it, “Jonah, you’re digging in the wrong place.” If you want to target Trump supporters for failing to take conservatism seriously, try starting with those who don’t take conservatism seriously. Most of them were trained in the acceptability of “victory before conservatism” Republicanism by the some of the same folks now deriding the poll-leading Trump. I’ve lived this story before: I’m from California. Trump is Arnold Schwarzenegger without the Austrian accent. He’s a know-nothing with a huge name and a Teflon personality, and people get behind him because he’s a celebrity and because victory matters more than principle. I know that’s so, because I made the same mistake with regard to Schwarzenegger, explicitly endorsing him in spite of his insufficient conservatism on the grounds that voters in California would get used to voting Republican. That was a failure. Schwarzenegger was terrible, and what followed him was a shift to radical leftism unthinkable in the early days of his candidacy. I learned that lesson, and in January 2012, I said that the conservative embrace of Mitt Romney would pervert the movement itself, in the same way Goldberg now accuses Trump of perverting conservatism: Yes, defeating horrible politicians like Barack Obama is the top goal — but that doesn’t justify redefining conservatism entirely…. When we deliberately broaden conservatism to encompass governmentforced purchase of health insurance or raising taxes or appointing liberal judges or enforcing same-sex marriage or using taxpayer money to bail out business or pushing trade barriers, we destroy conservatism from within. If we do that, why would our politicians even bother to pay lip service to the standard? Like Goldberg, I fear the same from Trump: I fear that he’ll be a wild card with no governing principle, that even if he were to win, he’d irrevocably split conservatism. But I also recognize that Trump isn’t a departure for Republicans abandoning principle: he’s the political love child of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, a combination of the non-conservative “victory mentality” and the arrogance of a dictatorial left many conservatives want to see countered with fire. In sum, I’m happy to welcome establishment Republicans who want to revivify conservative litmus tests to the party. But from now on, let’s be consistent: if we’re going to oust Trump based on his ideology, those requirements can’t be waived for others. http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/07/national-reviews-jonah-goldberg-count-me-out-of-any-conservative-movement-with-donald-trump/

The Words Trump Doesn’t Use by JIM GERAGHTY Did you ever think you would see the day when the GOP front-runner rarely uttered the words “freedom” and “liberty”? Perhaps some Republicans can be accused of loving liberty and freedom too much — or at least using those words as rhetorical crutches. Donald Trump is not one of them. The current GOP presidential front-runner rarely uses the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his remarks at all. Trump didn’t use the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his announcement speech. He didn’t use those words in his Nashville speech on August 29, or his Nashville rally on August 21, or his appearance at the Iowa State Fair on August 15, or his rally and news conference in New Hampshire on August 14, or his news conference in Birch Run, Mich., or his press conference in Laredo, Texas, on July 23. He didn’t use those words while discussing his signing of the Republican National Committee’s pledge last Thursday, or in his contentious interview with Hugh Hewitt the same day. Trump did use the term “free-market” once during his Meet the Press interview with Chuck Todd, in a defense of his qualified support for affirmative action: “Well, you know, you have to also go free market. You have to go capability. You have to do a lot of things. But I’m fine with affirmative action.” The word “liberty” didn’t even come up. This is an unusual vocabulary for a Republican front-runner. It wasn’t that long ago that grass-roots conservatives showed up at Tea Party rallies with signs reading, “Liberty: All the Stimulus We Need.” The Tea Party named itself after an event organized by the Sons of Liberty. The GOP platform declares the party was “born in opposition to the denial of liberty.” Trump’s lexicon is another indicator of the dramatic shift he would represent in moving the Republican party from a libertarian-leaning one to a populist one. During the Obama era, self-identified libertarians have asked whether the Tea Party and the GOP are truly dedicated to liberty and individual rights, or if their real objection to big government is that it’s controlled by Democrats. The embrace of Trump suggests their skepticism was well-founded. It’s no accident that Trump has been labeled a populist by outlets across the political spectrum, from The American Interest to NPR. His speeches and off-the-cuff remarks make clear that he doesn’t see the world through the lens of free and unfree; he sees it through the lens of strength and weakness: For me, conservatism as it pertains to our country is fiscal. We have to be strong and secure and get rid of our debt. The military has to be powerful and not necessarily used but very powerful. I am on the sort of a little bit social side of conservative when it comes — I want people to be taken care of from a healthcare standpoint. But to do that, we have to be strong. I want to save Social Security without cuts. I want a strong country. And to me, conservative means a strong country with very little debt. The man whose slogan is “Make America Great Again” doesn’t seem particularly worried about a Leviathan state infringing upon its citizens’ liberties. He sees a disordered society whose people are threatened by violent criminals coming across the border, undermined by poor negotiation in foreign-trade and security agreements, and asked by free-riding allies to shoulder way too much of the burden in a dangerous world. That philosophy is dramatically different from the liberty-focused message Republicans have become accustomed to since the rise of the Tea Party in 2009. And, at least for now, it has made Trump the front-runner by a wide margin. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423819/donald-trump-speeches-no-liberty-freedom?target=author&tid=814

Donald Trump on Abortion

Click here for 7 full quotes on Abortion OR other candidates on Abortion OR background on Abortion. I have evolved on abortion issue, like Reagan evolved. (Aug 2015) Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health. (Jun 2015) I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice. (Apr 2011) I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories. (Apr 2011) I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding. (Feb 2011) Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion. (Jul 2000) Favors abortion rights but respects opposition. (Dec 1999)

Donald Trump on Budget & Economy

Click here for 6 full quotes on Budget & Economy OR other candidates on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy. If debt reaches $24T, that’s the point of no return. (Jun 2015) Prepare for upcoming crash, bigger than 1929. (Jul 2000) Optimistic about future of Atlantic City. (Jul 1990) Rent control only benefits a privileged minority. (Jul 1987) One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt. (Nov 1999) Predicts 35% boost to economy from eliminating national debt. (Nov 1999)

Donald Trump on Civil Rights

Click here for 5 full quotes on Civil Rights OR other candidates on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights. Disinvited from RedState gathering for misogynistic comments. (Aug 2015) Political correctness is country’s problem, not my problem. (Aug 2015) Same-sex marriage is a state issue. (Jun 2015) No gay marriage; no same-sex partner benefits. (Mar 2011) Tolerate diversity; prosecute hate crimes against gays. (Jul 2000)

Donald Trump on Corporations

Click here for 5 full quotes on Corporations OR other candidates on Corporations OR background on Corporations. I’ve used bankruptcy laws to do a great job for my companies. (Aug 2015) 2002: Participated in development boom of Jersey City. (Apr 2012) 0% corporate tax would create millions of jobs. (Dec 2011) Fight crony capitalism with a level playing field. (Dec 2011) Wealthy move assets around globally based on tax incentives. (Apr 2011)

Donald Trump on Crime

Click here for 4 full quotes on Crime OR other candidates on Crime OR background on Crime. Capital punishment isn’t uncivilized; murderers living is. (Jul 2000) Death penalty deters like violent TV leads kids astray. (Jul 2000) Hold judges accountable; don’t reduce sentences. (Jul 2000) For tough anti-crime policies; not criminals’ rights. (Jul 2000)

Donald Trump on Drugs

Click here for 4 full quotes on Drugs OR other candidates on Drugs OR background on Drugs. Legalize drugs and use tax revenue to fund drug education. (Apr 2011) Never drinks, smokes, nor does drugs. (Feb 2011) Fired Miss USA crown winner due to drug over-indulgence. (Dec 2006) Never touched drugs, nor alcohol, tobacco, or coffee. (Jul 2000)

Donald Trump on Education

Click here for 8 full quotes on Education OR other candidates on Education OR background on Education. Common Core is a disaster. (Jun 2015) Cut the Department of Education way, way down. (Jun 2015) Founded Trump University to teach the art of deal-making. (Jun 2015) Opposes Common Core. (Feb 2015) Teach citizenship; stop “dumbing down”. (Jul 2000) End “creative spelling,” “estimating,” & “empowerment”. (Jul 2000) Bring on the competition; tear down the union walls. (Jul 2000) School choice will improve public schools. (Jul 2000)

Donald Trump on Energy & Oil

Click here for 7 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR other candidates on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil. Climate change is a hoax. (Jun 2015) No Cap-and-Tax: oil is this country’s lifeblood. (Dec 2011) Jobs will slump until our lifeblood–oil–is cheap again. (Dec 2011) Enough natural gas in Marcellus Shale for 110 year supply. (Dec 2011) Libya: No oil, no support; no exceptions. (Dec 2011) It’s incredible how slowly we’re drilling for oil. (Mar 2011) Oil is the lifeblood of all economies. (Apr 2010)

Donald Trump on Environment

Click here for 2 full quotes on Environment OR other candidates on Environment OR background on Environment. Good development enhances the environment. (Jan 2008) FactCheck: Yes, hybrid family vehicles are available in US. ()

Donald Trump on Families & Children

Click here for the full quote on Families & Children OR other candidates on Families & Children OR background on Families & Children. Stress importance of a strong family, & a culture of Life. (Jun 2015)

Donald Trump on Foreign Policy

Click here for 9 full quotes on Foreign Policy OR other candidates on Foreign Policy OR background on Foreign Policy. More sanctions on Iran; more support of Israel. (Jun 2015) China is our enemy; they’re bilking us for billions. (Dec 2011) When you love America, you protect it with no apologies. (Dec 2011) By 2027, tsunami as China overtakes US as largest economy. (Dec 2011) Criticized Buchanan’s view on Hitler as appeasement. (Jul 2000) Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker. (Jul 2000) Support Russia, but with strings attached. (Jul 2000) China: lack of human rights prevents consumer development. (Jul 2000) Be tougher on China-we’re too eager to please. (Jul 2000)

Donald Trump on Free Trade

Click here for 11 full quotes on Free Trade OR other candidates on Free Trade OR background on Free Trade. We don’t beat China or Japan or Mexico in trade. (Aug 2015) China and Japan are beating us; I can beat China. (Jun 2015) 35% import tax on Mexican border. (Jun 2015) Stupid people negotiate our trade bills, & trade won’t work. (Jun 2015) 20% tax on all imported goods. (Dec 2011) Fair trade instead of embarrassing deal with South Korea. (Dec 2011) Repatriate jobs that China has been stealing. (Dec 2011) Embrace globalization and international markets. (Jan 2008) Renegotiate tougher & fairer trade agreements. (Jul 2000) President should be nation’s trade representative. (Dec 1999) World views US trade officials as ‘saps’. (Dec 1999)

Donald Trump on Government Reform

Click here for 6 full quotes on Government Reform OR other candidates on Government Reform OR background on Government Reform. I give to politicians; and they give back: that’s broken!. (Aug 2015) Two-term limit on NYC mayor is a terrible idea. (Sep 2010) Government scrutiny is greatest threat to American Dream. (Jul 2000) Ban soft money; but allow unlimited personal contributions. (Jul 2000) Government should do public works & safety & little else. (Jul 2000) Rebuilt Wollman Rink in 4 months; city failed for 6 years. (Jul 1987)

Donald Trump on Gun Control

Click here for 4 full quotes on Gun Control OR other candidates on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control. A very strong person on the Second Amendment. (Jun 2015) I am against gun control. (Feb 2011) Dems and Reps are both wrong on guns. (Jul 2000) For assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background check. (Jul 2000)

Donald Trump on Health Care

Click here for 8 full quotes on Health Care OR other candidates on Health Care OR background on Health Care. The insurance companies have total control over politicians. (Aug 2015) ObamaCare is a catastrophe that must be repealed & replaced. (Jun 2015) Don’t cut Medicare; grow the economy to keep benefits. (Jun 2015) ObamaCare deductibles are so high that it’s useless. (Jun 2015) Save Medicare & Medicaid without cutting them to the bone. (Jan 2015) Kill ObamaCare before it becomes a trillion-ton weight. (Dec 2011) Increase insurance competition across state lines. (Dec 2011) We must have universal health care. (Jul 2000)

Donald Trump on Homeland Security

Click here for 8 full quotes on Homeland Security OR other candidates on Homeland Security OR background on Homeland Security. Our nuclear arsenal doesn’t work; it’s 30 years old. (Jun 2015) Increased Veterans Day parade audience from 100 to 1 million. (Jun 2015) Defeat ISIS and stop Islamic terrorists. (Jan 2015) American interests come first; no apologies. (Dec 2011) All freedoms flow from national security. (Dec 2011) 3% of GNP for military is too low. (Jul 2000) Missile defense is inappropriate; focus on terrorism. (Jul 2000) Prepare for bio-terrorism attack. (Jul 2000)

Donald Trump on Immigration

Click here for 14 full quotes on Immigration OR other candidates on Immigration OR background on Immigration. We need wall on Mexican border, but ok to have a door in it. (Aug 2015) Mexican government is sending criminals across the border. (Aug 2015) OpEd: businesses & Republicans condemn anti-Mexico terms. (Jul 2015) Half of the undocumented residents in America are criminals. (Jun 2015) Mexico & Latin America send us drugs, crime, and rapists. (Jun 2015) Build great wall on southern border; have Mexico pay for it. (Jun 2015) We need strong borders; we need a wall. (Feb 2015) Citizenship for illegal immigrants is a GOP suicide mission. (Mar 2013) 351,000 illegal aliens are in our prisons; costing $1.1B. (Dec 2011) Anchor babies were NEVER the intent of the 14th Amendment. (Dec 2011) Invite foreigners graduating from college to stay in US. (Dec 2011) Triple-layered fence & Predator drones on Mexican border. (Dec 2011) Control borders; even legal immigration should be difficult. (Jul 2000) Limit new immigration; focus on people already here. (Dec 1999)

Donald Trump on Jobs

Click here for 4 full quotes on Jobs OR other candidates on Jobs OR background on Jobs. Real unemployment rate is 20%; don’t believe 5.6%. (Jun 2015) Raising business tax causes businesses to move jobs overseas. (Dec 2011) Unions fight for pay; managers fight for less; consumers win. (Jul 2000) Foreign companies are taking jobs from US. (Dec 1999)

Donald Trump on Principles & Values

Click here for 26 full quotes on Principles & Values OR other candidates on Principles & Values OR background on Principles & Values. I want to win as a Republican, but might run as Independent. (Aug 2015) In NYC almost everyone is Democrat, but I’m Republican. (Aug 2015) Attended military academy & Wharton Business School. (Jun 2015) Stoked Tea Party suspicions about Obama’s legitimacy. (Jan 2012) No more morning in America; we’ll be mourning FOR America. (Dec 2011) 5-point plan to return America to her former greatness. (Dec 2011) USA is the greatest force for freedom world has ever known. (Dec 2011) Bad students (like Obama) shouldn’t go to Harvard. (Apr 2011) One hour to produce my birth certificate; Obama should too. (Feb 2011) If I run & win, our country will be great again. (Feb 2011) Never give up; look at the solution, not the problem. (Jan 2008) To negotiate well, prepare and know as much as possible. (Jan 2008) In the best negotiations, everyone wins. (Jan 2008) Failure is not permanent. (Jan 2008) Tell people you’re successful or they won’t know it. (Mar 2004) Good management requires hiring good people. (Mar 2004) Lessons: stay focused on big picture. (Mar 2004) Surround yourself with people you can trust. (Mar 2004) 3 principles: One term, two-fisted policies, zero excuses. (Jul 2000) Non-politicians are the wave of the future. (Jul 2000) In business & politics, stands for getting things done. (Jul 2000) Burned by press too often to be available any more. (Jul 1990) Rules for surviving the perils of success. (Jul 1990) Separated from Ivana after long less-than-perfect marriage. (Jul 1990) Toughness is equally strength, intelligence, & self-respect. (Jul 1990) Appealing to middle Americans leery of political elite. (Nov 1999)

Donald Trump on Social Security

Click here for 6 full quotes on Social Security OR other candidates on Social Security OR background on Social Security. Cannot change Medicare or Soc.Sec. and still win elections. (Mar 2013) Social Security isn’t an “entitlement”; it’s honoring a deal. (Dec 2011) Disability Racket: $25B in fraudulent disability filings. (Dec 2011) Pay off debt; put $3T interest savings into Trust Fund. (Jul 2000) Let people invest their own retirement funds. (Jul 2000) No government investment of retirement funds. (Jul 2000)

Donald Trump on Tax Reform

Click here for 10 full quotes on Tax Reform OR other candidates on Tax Reform OR background on Tax Reform. One-time 14% tax on wealthy to pay down national debt. (Jun 2015) 4 brackets; 1-5-10-15%; kill death tax & corporate tax. (Dec 2011) Cutting tax rates incentivizes a strong national work ethic. (Dec 2011) Previously supported wealth tax; now supports Bush tax cuts. (Apr 2011) Repeal the inheritance tax to offset one-time wealth tax. (Jul 2000) Simplify tax code; end marriage penalty & other hidden taxes. (Jul 2000) Opposes flat tax; benefits wealthy too much. (Jul 2000) Personally avoids sales tax, but knows many people like it. (Dec 1999) One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt. (Nov 1999) Tax assets over $10 million, paid over 10 years. (Nov 1999)

Donald Trump on Technology

Click here for 3 full quotes on Technology OR other candidates on Technology OR background on Technology. Rebuild our infrastructure on time & on budget. (Jun 2015) Emmy award & Hollywood Walk of Fame for “The Apprentice”. (Jun 2015) China threatens US with cyber warfare & industrial espionage. (Dec 2011)

Donald Trump on War & Peace

Click here for 12 full quotes on War & Peace OR other candidates on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace. Opposed Iraq war in 2004 & predicted Mideast destabilization. (Aug 2015) Disgraceful deal gives Iran a lot & gets nothing for us. (Aug 2015) Boots on the ground to fight ISIS. (Jun 2015) I said “don’t hit Iraq,” because it destabilized Middle East. (Jun 2015) Hit ISIS hard and fast. (Feb 2015) Take $1.5T in oil from Iraq to pay for US victims. (Mar 2013) Iraq should pick up the tab for their own liberation. (Dec 2011) Stop Iran’s nuclear programs by any & all means necessary. (Dec 2011) John McCain’s actions in Vietnam were not “heroic”. (Sep 2000) Use force to stop North Korean nuke development. (Jul 2000) Support Israel, our unsinkable Mideast aircraft carrier. (Jul 2000) No humanitarian intervention; only to direct threats. (Jul 2000)

Donald Trump on Welfare & Poverty

Click here for 4 full quotes on Welfare & Poverty OR other candidates on Welfare & Poverty OR background on Welfare & Poverty. I don’t like firing people; work makes people better. (Dec 2011) Food stamps should be temporary; not a decade on the dole. (Dec 2011) Apply welfare-to-work to 76 other welfare programs. (Dec 2011) Let “saints” help teen moms; restrict public assistance. (Jul 2000)

VoteMatch Responses (Click here for VoteMatch quiz)

VoteMatch Question & Answer

Based on these stances:

(Click on question for explanation and background) (Click on topic for excerpt & citation)

Opposes topic 1: Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right

Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health: Strongly Opposes topic 1 Stress importance of a strong family, & a culture of Life: Opposes topic 1 I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice: Strongly Opposes topic 1 I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories: Opposes topic 1 I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding: Opposes topic 1 Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion: Favors topic 1 Favors abortion rights but respects opposition: Favors topic 1

(-3 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 2: Legally require hiring women & minorities

Political correctness is country’s problem, not my problem: Strongly Opposes topic 2 Bad students (like Obama) shouldn’t go to Harvard: Opposes topic 2

(+5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 3: Comfortable with same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage is a state issue: Opposes topic 3 No gay marriage; no same-sex partner benefits: Strongly Opposes topic 3 Tolerate diversity; prosecute hate crimes against gays: Favors topic 3

(-3 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 4: Keep God in the public sphere

Teach citizenship; stop “dumbing down”: Favors topic 4 End “creative spelling,” “estimating,” & “empowerment”: Favors topic 4 Let “saints” help teen moms; restrict public assistance: Strongly Favors topic 4

(-5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 5: Expand ObamaCare

ObamaCare is a catastrophe that must be repealed & replaced: Strongly Opposes topic 5 Don’t cut Medicare; grow the economy to keep benefits: Favors topic 5 ObamaCare deductibles are so high that it’s useless: Strongly Opposes topic 5 Save Medicare & Medicaid without cutting them to the bone: Favors topic 5 Kill ObamaCare before it becomes a trillion-ton weight: Strongly Opposes topic 5 Increase insurance competition across state lines: Strongly Opposes topic 5 We must have universal health care: Strongly Favors topic 5

(+2 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 6: Privatize Social Security

Cannot change Medicare or Soc.Sec. and still win elections: Opposes topic 6 Social Security isn’t an “entitlement”; it’s honoring a deal: Opposes topic 6 Pay off debt; put $3T interest savings into Trust Fund: Opposes topic 6 Let people invest their own retirement funds: Strongly Favors topic 6 No government investment of retirement funds: Strongly Favors topic 6

(+2 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 7: Vouchers for school choice

Common Core is a disaster: Strongly Favors topic 7 Opposes Common Core: Favors topic 7 Bring on the competition; tear down the union walls: Favors topic 7 School choice will improve public schools: Strongly Favors topic 7

(+5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 8: EPA regulations are too restrictive

Good development enhances the environment: Favors topic 8

(-3 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 9: Stricter punishment reduces crime

Capital punishment isn’t uncivilized; murderers living is: Strongly Favors topic 9 Death penalty deters like violent TV leads kids astray: Favors topic 9 Hold judges accountable; don’t reduce sentences: Favors topic 9 For tough anti-crime policies; not criminals’ rights: Favors topic 9

(-5 points on Social scale)

Favors topic 10: Absolute right to gun ownership

A very strong person on the Second Amendment: Strongly Favors topic 10 I am against gun control: Strongly Favors topic 10 Dems and Reps are both wrong on guns: Neutral on topic 10 For assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background check: Opposes topic 10

(+2 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 11: Higher taxes on the wealthy

One-time 14% tax on wealthy to pay down national debt: Strongly Favors topic 11 Raising business tax causes businesses to move jobs overseas: Strongly Opposes topic 11 4 brackets; 1-5-10-15%; kill death tax & corporate tax: Strongly Opposes topic 11 Repeal the inheritance tax to offset one-time wealth tax: Opposes topic 11 Simplify tax code; end marriage penalty & other hidden taxes: Opposes topic 11 Opposes flat tax; benefits wealthy too much: Strongly Favors topic 11 Personally avoids sales tax, but knows many people like it: Opposes topic 11 One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt: Strongly Favors topic 11 Predicts 35% boost to economy from eliminating national debt: Favors topic 11 Tax assets over $10 million, paid over 10 years: Strongly Favors topic 11

(-3 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 12: Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens

Mexico & Latin America send us drugs, crime, and rapists: Strongly Opposes topic 12 We need strong borders; we need a wall: Strongly Opposes topic 12 Citizenship for illegal immigrants is a GOP suicide mission: Strongly Opposes topic 12 351,000 illegal aliens are in our prisons; costing $1.1B: Strongly Opposes topic 12 Anchor babies were NEVER the intent of the 14th Amendment: Strongly Opposes topic 12 Invite foreigners graduating from college to stay in US: Favors topic 12 Triple-layered fence & Predator drones on Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 12 Control borders; even legal immigration should be difficult: Strongly Opposes topic 12 Limit new immigration; focus on people already here: Strongly Opposes topic 12

(-5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 13: Support & expand free trade

35% import tax on Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 13 20% tax on all imported goods: Strongly Opposes topic 13 Repatriate jobs that China has been stealing: Opposes topic 13 Embrace globalization and international markets: Strongly Favors topic 13 Renegotiate tougher & fairer trade agreements: Opposes topic 13 President should be nation’s trade representative: Favors topic 13 World views US trade officials as ‘saps’: Opposes topic 13 Foreign companies are taking jobs from US: Strongly Opposes topic 13

(-3 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 14: Support American Exceptionalism

More sanctions on Iran; more support of Israel: Favors topic 14 American interests come first; no apologies: Strongly Favors topic 14 Use force to stop North Korean nuke development: Strongly Favors topic 14

(+5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 15: Expand the military (-5 points on Social scale)

Our nuclear arsenal doesn’t work; it’s 30 years old: Strongly Favors topic 15 All freedoms flow from national security: Strongly Favors topic 15 3% of GNP for military is too low: Strongly Favors topic 15

No opinion on topic 16: Make voter registration easier

(No votes on which to base response)

(0 points on Social scale)

Favors topic 17: Avoid foreign entanglements

Opposed Iraq war in 2004 & predicted Mideast destabilization: Strongly Favors topic 17 I said “don’t hit Iraq,” because it destabilized Middle East: Strongly Favors topic 17 Hit ISIS hard and fast: Strongly Opposes topic 17 Defeat ISIS and stop Islamic terrorists: Opposes topic 17 Take $1.5T in oil from Iraq to pay for US victims: Strongly Opposes topic 17 Iraq should pick up the tab for their own liberation: Strongly Opposes topic 17 Criticized Buchanan’s view on Hitler as appeasement: Favors topic 17 Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker: Strongly Favors topic 17 Support Russia, but with strings attached: Favors topic 17 Support Israel, our unsinkable Mideast aircraft carrier: Strongly Favors topic 17 No humanitarian intervention; only to direct threats: Opposes topic 17

(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 18: Prioritize green energy

Climate change is a hoax: Strongly Opposes topic 18 No Cap-and-Tax: oil is this country’s lifeblood: Strongly Opposes topic 18 It’s incredible how slowly we’re drilling for oil: Strongly Opposes topic 18

(+5 points on Economic scale)

No opinion on topic 19: Marijuana is a gateway drug

Legalize drugs and use tax revenue to fund drug education: Strongly Opposes topic 19 Never drinks, smokes, nor does drugs: Favors topic 19 Fired Miss USA crown winner due to drug over-indulgence: Favors topic 19

(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 20: Stimulus better than market-led recovery

0% corporate tax would create millions of jobs: Strongly Opposes topic 20 Cutting tax rates incentivizes a strong national work ethic: Strongly Opposes topic 20 Previously supported wealth tax; now supports Bush tax cuts: Strongly Opposes topic 20 One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt: Favors topic 20

(+5 points on Economic scale)

Donald Trump is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative. Click here for explanation of political philosophy. Click here for VoteMatch quiz.

VoteMatch Candidate’s Political Philosophy

The below is a way of thinking about the candidate’s political philosophy by dividing the candidate’s VoteMatch answers into “social” and “economic” questions. It is only a theory – please take it with a grain of salt! Social Questions: Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers. Economic Questions: Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers. Candidate’s Score The candidate scored the following on the VoteMatch questions: Social Score 25% Economic Score 78% Where the Candidate Fits In Where the candidate’s Social score meets the Economic score on the grid below is the candidate’s political philosophy. Based on the above score, the candidate is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative.

Social ScoreThis measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s personal lives or on social issues. These issues include health, morality, love, recreation, prayer and other activities that are not measured in dollars. A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in tolerance for different people and lifestyles. A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that standards of morality & safety should be enforced by government. Economic Score This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes. A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in personal responsibility for financial matters, and that free-market competition is better for people than central planning by the government. A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth. The candidate believes that government’s purpose is to decide which programs are good for society, and how much should be spent on each program. This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes. How We Score Candidates

How we determine a candidate’s stance on each VoteMatch question: We collect up votes, excerpts from speeches, press releases, and so on, which are related to each question. Each of these are shown on the candidate’s VoteMatch table. We assign an individual score for each item on the list. The scores can be: Strongly Favor, Favor, Neutral/Mixed, Oppose, Strongly Oppose. The scoring terms refer to the text of the question, not whether the candidate strongly opposed a bill, for example. We then average the individual scores, using the numeric scale: Strongly Favor = 2, Favor = 1, Neutral/Mixed = 0, Oppose = -1, Strongly Oppose = -2. If the average is above 1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Favor. If the average is above 0, the overall answer to the question is Favor. If the average is exactly 0, the overall answer to the question is Neutral. If the average is below 0, the overall answer to the question is Oppose. If the average is below -1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Oppose. When you do a VoteMatch quiz, your answers are compared to each candidates’ overall answer to come up with a matching percentage. To get the political philosophy of the candidate, we sum up the answers on two scales, the Personal/Social scale and the Economic Scale. Some questions aren’t used in the political philosophy calculations. The VoteMatch table indicates the number of scale points from each answer (any one question can provide from 0 to 10 scale points on one scale or the other). The combination of social/moral scales and economic scales produces a political philosophy description. A more detailed explanation appears below. Examples

The chart below indicates how four “hard-core” political philosophers would answer the questions. From this example, you can see how the candidate fits in with each philosophy. The candidate’s answers are on the left. A “hard-core liberal” would answer social questions to minimize government involvement, but would answer economic questions to include government intervention. A “hard-core libertarian” would answer both social and economic questions to minimize government involvement. A “hard-core conservative” would answer social questions to include government intervention, but would answer economic questions to minimize government involvement. A “hard-core populist” would answer both social and economic questions with proposals that include government intervention. = Strongly Support = Support = No Opinion The candidate

Social Issues

= Oppose

= Strongly Oppose

Hard-core Libertarian

Hard-core Liberal

Hard-Core Conservative

Hard-Core Populist

Question 1. Abortion is a woman’s

unrestricted right Question 3. Comfortable with same-sex marriage Question 8. Human needs over animal rights Question 12. Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens Question 17. Stay out of Iran Question 4. Keep God in the public sphere Question 9. Stricter punishment reduces crime Question 15. Expand the military Question 16. Stricter limits on political campaign funds Question 19. Never legalize marijuana

= Strongly Support = Support = No Opinion

Economic Issues

= Oppose

= Strongly Oppose

The Candidate

Hard-core Liberal

Hard-core Libertarian

Hard-Core Conservative

Hard-Core Populist

The Candidate

Hard-core Liberal

Hard-core Libertarian

Hard-Core Conservative

Hard-Core Populist

Question 2. Legally require hiring

women & minorities Question 5. Expand ObamaCare Question 11. Higher taxes on the wealthy Question 18. Prioritize green energy Question 20. Stimulus better than market-led recovery Question 6. Privatize Social Security Question 7. Vouchers for school choice Question 10. Absolute right to gun ownership Question 13. Support and expand Free Trade Question 14. Maintain US sovereignty from UN

= Strongly Support = Support = No Opinion

= Oppose

= Strongly Oppose

Final Notes To ensure balance among political viewpoints, we arranged the wording of the questions so that half the time, the answer involving more government is answered by “support”, and half the time by “oppose.” Hence, each of the “hard core” philosophers would choose “support” for 5 of the Social questions and for 5 of the Economic questions. Many of these statements cross over the line between social issues and economic issues. And many people might answer what we call a “Social” issue based on economic reasoning. But we have tried to arrange a series of questions which separates the way candidates think about government activities in these two broad scales. Political Map and some content from Advocates for Self-Government.

Ted Cruz on Abortion

Click here for 7 full quotes on Abortion OR other candidates on Abortion OR background on Abortion. Allow vote to end Planned Parenthood’s funding. (Aug 2015) Prosecute Planned Parenthood for criminal violations. (Aug 2015) Ban taxpayer funding of abortion & partial birth abortion. (Mar 2015) Companies can deny insuring birth control. (Apr 2012) Protect innocent human life with partial-birth ban. (Jul 2011) Opposes public abortion funding. (Oct 2012) Opposes churches providing birth control. (Oct 2012)

Ted Cruz on Budget & Economy

Click here for 11 full quotes on Budget & Economy OR other candidates on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy. Top 1% under Obama got fat & happy while workers are hurting. (Feb 2015) Lost Generation: Obama agenda hammers young people. (Mar 2014) Balanced budget amendment to stop bankrupting our country. (Mar 2014) Choice is more federal spending, or free markets & liberty. (Aug 2012) FactCheck: Yes, gross federal debt now exceeds GDP. (Aug 2012) Demand a Balanced Budget amendment. (Jul 2010) Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate. (Jul 2010) Supports a constitutional BBA. (Oct 2012) Supports the Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge. (Jan 2012) Endorsed by the Club for Growth, for pro-growth stances. (Aug 2012) Audit the Federal Reserve & its actions on mortgage loans. (Feb 2013)

Ted Cruz on Civil Rights

Click here for 11 full quotes on Civil Rights OR other candidates on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights. Pray against a court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. (Apr 2015) Liberals obsessed with mandatory gay marriage in 50 states. (Apr 2015) Zealotry on same-sex marriage leaves out religious liberty. (Apr 2015) Most states can ignore Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. (Mar 2015) Overturn Supreme Court with anti-gay marriage Amendment. (Oct 2014) Opposes gay pride parades and opposes gay marriage. (Feb 2012) One-man-one-woman marriage is building block of society. (Jul 2011) Disallow Ku Klux Klan from participating in Adopt-A-Highway. (Jul 2011) Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013) Supports defining traditional marriage. (Oct 2012) Sponsored state definition of marriage supersedes federal gay marriage. (Feb 2014)

Ted Cruz on Corporations

Click here for 2 full quotes on Corporations OR other candidates on Corporations OR background on Corporations. Slash corporate tax rates to 15 percent. (Mar 2015) Get senseless obstacles from Washington out of the way. (Jan 2015)

Ted Cruz on Crime

Click here for 4 full quotes on Crime OR other candidates on Crime OR background on Crime. Convert regulatory crimes into civil offenses. (Apr 2015) World Court should have no say in Texas executions. (Jul 2011) Fully monitor sexual predators & bring them to justice. (Jul 2011) Supports the death penalty. (Oct 2012)

Ted Cruz on Drugs

Click here for the full quote on Drugs OR other candidates on Drugs OR background on Drugs. Lower minimums and mandatory sentencing for drugs. (Apr 2015)

Ted Cruz on Education

Click here for 5 full quotes on Education OR other candidates on Education OR background on Education. Right to education: public, private, charter, or homeschool. (Mar 2015) We should thank parents who homeschool. (Mar 2015) Local control of education instead of Common Core. (Mar 2015) Education decisions best made at local level. (Jun 2012) Denounce the Common Core State Standards. (Feb 2014)

Ted Cruz on Energy & Oil

Click here for 5 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR other candidates on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil. Fight against Gulf moratorium on offshore exploration. (Jul 2011) Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Aug 2012) Cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures. (Jul 2010) Explore proven energy reserves & keep energy prices low. (Jul 2010) Let states lease energy rights on federal lands. (Jun 2013)

Ted Cruz on Environment

Click here for 2 full quotes on Environment OR other candidates on Environment OR background on Environment. Don’t pick winners & losers like RFS’ ethanol in gasoline. (Mar 2015) Voted NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. (May 2013)

Ted Cruz on Families & Children

Click here for 2 full quotes on Families & Children OR other candidates on Families & Children OR background on Families & Children. Defend Judeo-Christian values against liberal fascism. (Apr 2015) Opposes the unrelenting assault on traditional marriage. (Mar 2015)

Ted Cruz on Foreign Policy

Click here for 5 full quotes on Foreign Policy OR other candidates on Foreign Policy OR background on Foreign Policy. Cuba is oppressive but never misses chance to propagandize. (Oct 2014) Vigorous sanctions against Putin; help eastern Ukraine. (Jul 2014) America is indispensable; our allies need our leadership. (Jun 2014) Sanctions on Putin for Ukraine: tyrants respond to weakness. (Mar 2014) US has a responsibility to defend our values abroad. (Mar 2014)

Ted Cruz on Free Trade

Click here for 4 full quotes on Free Trade OR other candidates on Free Trade OR background on Free Trade. End the Export-Import Bank. (Aug 2015) The Export-Import bank is corporate welfare. (Mar 2015) Defended Chinese company on intellectual property theft. (May 2012) Dewhurst lying about defending Chinese intellectual property. (May 2012)

Ted Cruz on Government Reform

Click here for 15 full quotes on Government Reform OR other candidates on Government Reform OR background on Government Reform. If you like special interests, I ain’t your guy. (Aug 2015) Executive actions override Congress & the Constitution. (Nov 2014) Stop IRS from asking: ‘tell me the content of your prayers’. (Mar 2014) Presidents should not pick & choose laws to enforce. (Mar 2014) End Washington cronyism via Congressional term limits. (Mar 2014) Obama dishonors Constitution by bypassing Congress. (Jan 2014) Obama’s executive orders is open door for future lawlessness. (Jan 2014) Debt ceiling limits “blank check” of federal spending. (Jan 2014) Dems want to get as many Americans as possible dependent. (Oct 2012) Head of the Center for Tenth Amendment Studies. (Jul 2011) Require voters to show ID to avoid voter fraud. (Jul 2011) Identify constitutionality in every new congressional bill. (Jul 2010) Audit federal agencies, to reform or eliminate them. (Jul 2010) Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced. (Jul 2010) Prohibit IRS audits targeting Tea Party political groups. (Feb 2014)

Ted Cruz on Gun Control

Click here for 4 full quotes on Gun Control OR other candidates on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control. Opposes unreasonable and burdensome gun restrictions. (Jul 2011) Voted NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013) Opposes restricting the Second Amendment. (Oct 2012) Oppose the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. (Sep 2013)

Ted Cruz on Health Care

Click here for 16 full quotes on Health Care OR other candidates on Health Care OR background on Health Care. Washington wants ObamaCare, the people want liberty. (Feb 2015) Support nuns’ battle for religious liberty against ObamaCare. (Jan 2015) Government shutdown on ObamaCare worked: GOP won in 2014. (Nov 2014) Suspend commercial air travel to Ebola-infected areas. (Oct 2014) To repeal ObamaCare, show Dems they’d lose by supporting it. (Mar 2014) Obama changed ObamaCare mandate deadline by a blog post. (Jan 2014) Obama asked companies to disobey ObamaCare rules for a year. (Jan 2014) 5 million had health insurance canceled because of ObamaCare. (Jan 2014) Vow to repeal ObamaCare. (Oct 2012) Save Medicare by raising eligibility age. (Aug 2012) Throw my body in front of a train to stop ObamaCare. (Apr 2012) Defeat ObamaCare; rein in the federal government. (Jul 2011) Defund, repeal, & replace federal care with free market. (Jul 2010) Repeal any federal health care takeover. (Aug 2012) Supports repealing ObamaCare. (Oct 2012) Supports market-based health insurance. (Oct 2012)

Ted Cruz on Homeland Security

Click here for 8 full quotes on Homeland Security OR other candidates on Homeland Security OR background on Homeland Security. Label the enemy that Obama won’t: radical Islamic terrorists. (Aug 2015) Torture was rightly outlawed, but keep tactics classified. (Dec 2014) Americans who join ISIS should be barred from coming home. (Sep 2014) Vital role for deploying military force abroad. (Mar 2014) Opposes TSA and National Defense Authorization Act. (Sep 2012) Fierce advocate of recruiting and growing the military. (Jul 2011) Supports banning military gay marriage. (Oct 2012) Sponsored opposing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. (Mar 2013)

Ted Cruz on Immigration

Click here for 9 full quotes on Immigration OR other candidates on Immigration OR background on Immigration. Support Kate’s Law: oppose our leaders who won’t enforce. (Aug 2015) Path to citizenship is profoundly unfair to legal immigrants. (Feb 2015) End Obama’s illegal amnesty via Congress’ checks & balances. (Nov 2014) Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded. (Nov 2014) No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas. (Oct 2012) Give police more power to ask about immigration status. (Jun 2012) Boots on the ground, plus a wall. (Apr 2012) Triple the size of the Border Patrol. (Mar 2012) Strengthen border security and increase enforcement. (Jul 2011)

Ted Cruz on Jobs

Click here for 3 full quotes on Jobs OR other candidates on Jobs OR background on Jobs. Raising minimum wage by executive fiat opposes rule of law. (Jan 2014) Lowest labor force participation in over three decades. (Jan 2014) Extending unemployment benefits exacerbates joblessness. (Aug 2012)

Ted Cruz on Principles & Values

Click here for 9 full quotes on Principles & Values OR other candidates on Principles & Values OR background on Principles & Values. I’m a consistent conservative, not a campaign conservative. (Aug 2015) I’m despised by GOP establishment, but so was Reagan. (Feb 2015) We win elections by bold principles & a positive agenda. (Mar 2014) Washington would be better with more farmers & fewer lawyers. (Mar 2014) Great Awakening: response to mess from career politicians. (Aug 2012) OpEd: His law firm donated $200,000 to Obama’s campaign. (Apr 2012) Defend Ten Commandments and “under God” in the Pledge. (Jul 2011) Endorsed Member of the Tea Party movement. (Aug 2012) Rated 100% by the AU, indicating opposition to separation of church & state. (Jan 2013)

Ted Cruz on Social Security

Click here for 3 full quotes on Social Security OR other candidates on Social Security OR background on Social Security. Raise retirement age; cap increases to inflation rate. (Aug 2012) Transition younger workers into personal savings system. (Jun 2012) Rated 0% by ARA, indicating a pro-privatization stance. (Jan 2013)

Ted Cruz on Tax Reform

Click here for 7 full quotes on Tax Reform OR other candidates on Tax Reform OR background on Tax Reform. Abolish the IRS. (Feb 2015) Permanent Washington elite protects the tax code. (Apr 2012) Adopt a single-rate tax system. (Jul 2010) Repeal tax hikes in capital gains and death tax. (Jul 2010) Supports the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. (Aug 2012) Opposes increasing tax rates. (Oct 2012) Supports eliminating the inheritance tax. (Oct 2012)

Ted Cruz on Technology

Click here for 3 full quotes on Technology OR other candidates on Technology OR background on Technology. Of course China & Russia have conducted cyberwarfare on US. (Aug 2015) Net neutrality is ObamaCare for the Internet. (Nov 2014) Voted NO on authorizing states to collect Internet sales taxes. (May 2013)

Ted Cruz on War & Peace

Click here for 12 full quotes on War & Peace OR other candidates on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace. If you wage jihad on America, you sign your death warrant. (Aug 2015) Toughen sanctions on Iran, to safeguard America. (Mar 2015) Provide defensive weapons for Ukraine against Russia. (Feb 2015) Arm the Kurds to fight ISIS, with US air support. (Feb 2015) Focused, direct military objective of destroying ISIS. (Feb 2015) Bomb ISIS back to the Stone Age. (Oct 2014) Arm & aid the Peshmerga Kurds against ISIS. (Oct 2014) Don’t arm Syrian rebels without a clear plan to combat ISIS. (Sep 2014) Bomb ISIS back into the Stone Age, with Congress’ approval. (Sep 2014) Install Eastern European ABMs; stand up to Russia in Ukraine. (Jun 2014) Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went on too long. (Jun 2012) Sponsored shutting down Iranian foreign reserves. (May 2013)

Ted Cruz on Welfare & Poverty

Click here for the full quote on Welfare & Poverty OR other candidates on Welfare & Poverty OR background on Welfare & Poverty. Government checks create dependency. (Aug 2012)

VoteMatch Responses (Click here for VoteMatch quiz)

VoteMatch Question & Answer

Based on these stances:

(Click on question for explanation and background) (Click on topic for excerpt & citation)

Strongly Opposes topic 1: Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right

Ban taxpayer funding of abortion & partial birth abortion: Strongly Opposes topic 1 Companies can deny insuring birth control: Opposes topic 1 Protect innocent human life with partial-birth ban: Strongly Opposes topic 1 Opposes public abortion funding: Opposes topic 1 Opposes churches providing birth control: Opposes topic 1

(-5 points on Social scale)

No opinion on topic 2: Legally require hiring women & minorities

Disallow Ku Klux Klan from participating in Adopt-A-Highway: Favors topic 2 NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act: Opposes topic 2

(0 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 3: Comfortable with same-sex marriage

Pray against a court decision legalizing same-sex marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3 Zealotry on same-sex marriage leaves out religious liberty: Strongly Opposes topic 3 Most states can ignore Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3 Opposes the unrelenting assault on traditional marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3 Overturn Supreme Court with anti-gay marriage Amendment: Strongly Opposes topic 3 Opposes gay pride parades and opposes gay marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3 One-man-one-woman marriage is building block of society: Strongly Opposes topic 3 Supports defining traditional marriage: Opposes topic 3 Supports banning military gay marriage: Opposes topic 3 Sponsored state definition of marriage supersedes federal gay marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3

(-5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 4: Keep God in the public sphere

Defend Judeo-Christian values against liberal fascism: Strongly Favors topic 4 Stop IRS from asking: ‘tell me the content of your prayers’: Strongly Favors topic 4 Government checks create dependency: Favors topic 4 Defend Ten Commandments and “under God” in the Pledge: Strongly Favors topic 4 Rated 100% by the AU, indicating opposition to separation of church & state: Strongly Favors topic 4

(-5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 5: Expand ObamaCare

Washington wants ObamaCare, the people want liberty: Strongly Opposes topic 5 Support nuns’ battle for religious liberty against ObamaCare: Opposes topic 5 To repeal ObamaCare, show Dems they’d lose by supporting it: Opposes topic 5 5 million had health insurance canceled because of ObamaCare: Strongly Opposes topic 5 Vow to repeal ObamaCare: Strongly Opposes topic 5 Save Medicare by raising eligibility age: Favors topic 5 Throw my body in front of a train to stop ObamaCare: Strongly Opposes topic 5 Defeat ObamaCare; rein in the federal government: Strongly Opposes topic 5 Defund, repeal, & replace federal care with free market : Strongly Opposes topic 5 Repeal any federal health care takeover: Strongly Opposes topic 5 Supports repealing ObamaCare: Strongly Opposes topic 5 Supports market-based health insurance: Opposes topic 5

(+5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 6: Privatize Social Security

Raise retirement age; cap increases to inflation rate: Favors topic 6 Transition younger workers into personal savings system: Favors topic 6 Rated 0% by ARA, indicating a pro-privatization stance: Strongly Favors topic 6

(+5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 7: Vouchers for school choice (+5 points on Economic scale)

Right to education: public, private, charter, or homeschool: Strongly Favors topic 7 Education decisions best made at local level: Favors topic 7 Denounce the Common Core State Standards : Favors topic 7

Favors topic 8: EPA regulations are too restrictive

NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems: Favors topic 8

(-3 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 9: Stricter punishment reduces crime

World Court should have no say in Texas executions: Strongly Favors topic 9 Fully monitor sexual predators & bring them to justice: Favors topic 9 Supports the death penalty : Strongly Favors topic 9

(-5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 10: Absolute right to gun ownership

Opposes unreasonable and burdensome gun restrictions: Strongly Favors topic 10 Opposes restricting the Second Amendment : Favors topic 10 NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets: Strongly Favors topic 10

(+5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 11: Higher taxes on the wealthy

Abolish the IRS: Strongly Favors topic 11 Permanent Washington elite protects the tax code: Opposes topic 11 Adopt a single-rate tax system: Strongly Opposes topic 11 Repeal tax hikes in capital gains and death tax : Strongly Opposes topic 11 Supports the Taxpayer Protection Pledge: Strongly Opposes topic 11 Opposes increasing tax rates : Opposes topic 11 Supports eliminating the inheritance tax : Opposes topic 11

(+2 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 12: Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens

End Obama’s illegal amnesty via Congress’ checks & balances: Strongly Opposes topic 12 Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded: Strongly Opposes topic 12 No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas: Strongly Opposes topic 12 Give police more power to ask about immigration status: Strongly Opposes topic 12 Boots on the ground, plus a wall: Strongly Opposes topic 12 Triple the size of the Border Patrol: Strongly Opposes topic 12 Strengthen border security and increase enforcement: Strongly Opposes topic 12

(-5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 13: Support & expand free trade

Defended Chinese company on intellectual property theft: Strongly Favors topic 13

(+5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 14: Support American Exceptionalism

Cuba is oppressive but never misses chance to propagandize: Favors topic 14 America is indispensable; our allies need our leadership: Strongly Favors topic 14 US has a responsibility to defend our values abroad: Favors topic 14 Sponsored opposing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty : Strongly Favors topic 14 Oppose the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty : Favors topic 14

(+5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 15: Expand the military

Vital role for deploying military force abroad: Strongly Favors topic 15 Fierce advocate of recruiting and growing the military: Strongly Favors topic 15

(-5 points on Social scale)

No opinion on topic 16: Make voter registration easier

If you like special interests, I ain’t your guy: Favors topic 16 Require voters to show ID to avoid voter fraud: Opposes topic 16

(0 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 17: Avoid foreign entanglements

Toughen sanctions on Iran, to safeguard America: Strongly Opposes topic 17 Arm the Kurds to fight ISIS, with US air support: Opposes topic 17 Bomb ISIS back to the Stone Age: Strongly Opposes topic 17 Arm & aid the Peshmerga Kurds against ISIS: Strongly Opposes topic 17 Don’t arm Syrian rebels without a clear plan to combat ISIS: Favors topic 17 Vigorous sanctions against Putin; help eastern Ukraine: Opposes topic 17 Install Eastern European ABMs; stand up to Russia in Ukraine: Opposes topic 17 Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went on too long: Favors topic 17 Sponsored shutting down Iranian foreign reserves : Opposes topic 17

(-3 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 18: Prioritize green energy

Fight against Gulf moratorium on offshore exploration: Strongly Opposes topic 18 Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP : Strongly Opposes topic 18 Cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures : Strongly Opposes topic 18 Explore proven energy reserves & keep energy prices low: Opposes topic 18 Let states lease energy rights on federal lands : Strongly Opposes topic 18

(+5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19: Marijuana is a gateway drug

Lower minimums and mandatory sentencing for drugs: Opposes topic 19

(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 20: Stimulus better than market-led recovery

Balanced budget amendment to stop bankrupting our country: Strongly Opposes topic 20 Debt ceiling limits “blank check” of federal spending: Strongly Opposes topic 20 Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate: Strongly Opposes topic 20 Supports the Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge: Opposes topic 20 Audit the Federal Reserve & its actions on mortgage loans : Opposes topic 20

(+5 points on Economic scale)

Ted Cruz is a Hard-Core Conservative. Click here for explanation of political philosophy. Click here for VoteMatch quiz.

VoteMatch Candidate’s Political Philosophy

The below is a way of thinking about the candidate’s political philosophy by dividing the candidate’s VoteMatch answers into “social” and “economic” questions. It is only a theory – please take it with a grain of salt! Social Questions: Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers. Economic Questions: Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers. Candidate’s Score The candidate scored the following on the VoteMatch questions: Social Score 18% Economic Score 93% Where the Candidate Fits In Where the candidate’s Social score meets the Economic score on the grid below is the candidate’s political philosophy. Based on the above score, the candidate is a Hard-Core Conservative.

Social ScoreThis measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s personal lives or on social issues. These issues include health, morality, love, recreation, prayer and other activities that are not measured in dollars. A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in tolerance for different people and lifestyles. A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that standards of morality & safety should be enforced by government. Economic Score This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes. A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in personal responsibility for financial matters, and that free-market competition is better for people than central planning by the government. A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth. The candidate believes that government’s purpose is to decide which programs are good for society, and how much should be spent on each program. This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes. How We Score Candidates

How we determine a candidate’s stance on each VoteMatch question: We collect up votes, excerpts from speeches, press releases, and so on, which are related to each question. Each of these are shown on the candidate’s VoteMatch table. We assign an individual score for each item on the list. The scores can be: Strongly Favor, Favor, Neutral/Mixed, Oppose, Strongly Oppose. The scoring terms refer to the text of the question, not whether the candidate strongly opposed a bill, for example. We then average the individual scores, using the numeric scale: Strongly Favor = 2, Favor = 1, Neutral/Mixed = 0, Oppose = -1, Strongly Oppose = -2. If the average is above 1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Favor. If the average is above 0, the overall answer to the question is Favor. If the average is exactly 0, the overall answer to the question is Neutral. If the average is below 0, the overall answer to the question is Oppose. If the average is below -1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Oppose. When you do a VoteMatch quiz, your answers are compared to each candidates’ overall answer to come up with a matching percentage. To get the political philosophy of the candidate, we sum up the answers on two scales, the Personal/Social scale and the Economic Scale. Some questions aren’t used in the political philosophy calculations. The VoteMatch table indicates the number of scale points from each answer (any one question can provide from 0 to 10 scale points on one scale or the other). The combination of social/moral scales and economic scales produces a political philosophy description. A more detailed explanation appears below. Examples

The chart below indicates how four “hard-core” political philosophers would answer the questions. From this example, you can see how the candidate fits in with each philosophy. The candidate’s answers are on the left. A “hard-core liberal” would answer social questions to minimize government involvement, but would answer economic questions to include government intervention. A “hard-core libertarian” would answer both social and economic questions to minimize government involvement. A “hard-core conservative” would answer social questions to include government intervention, but would answer economic questions to minimize government involvement. A “hard-core populist” would answer both social and economic questions with proposals that include government intervention. = Strongly Support = Support = No Opinion The candidate

Social Issues

= Oppose

= Strongly Oppose

Hard-core Libertarian

Hard-core Liberal

Hard-Core Conservative

Hard-Core Populist

Question 1. Abortion is a woman’s

unrestricted right Question 3. Comfortable with same-sex marriage Question 8. Human needs over animal rights Question 12. Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens Question 17. Stay out of Iran Question 4. Keep God in the public sphere Question 9. Stricter punishment reduces crime Question 15. Expand the military Question 16. Stricter limits on political campaign funds Question 19. Never legalize marijuana

= Strongly Support = Support = No Opinion

Economic Issues

= Oppose

= Strongly Oppose

The Candidate

Hard-core Liberal

Hard-core Libertarian

Hard-Core Conservative

Hard-Core Populist

The Candidate

Hard-core Liberal

Hard-core Libertarian

Hard-Core Conservative

Hard-Core Populist

Question 2. Legally require hiring

women & minorities Question 5. Expand ObamaCare Question 11. Higher taxes on the wealthy Question 18. Prioritize green energy Question 20. Stimulus better than market-led recovery Question 6. Privatize Social Security Question 7. Vouchers for school choice Question 10. Absolute right to gun ownership Question 13. Support and expand Free Trade Question 14. Maintain US sovereignty from UN

= Strongly Support = Support = No Opinion

= Oppose

= Strongly Oppose

Final Notes To ensure balance among political viewpoints, we arranged the wording of the questions so that half the time, the answer involving more government is answered by “support”, and half the time by “oppose.” Hence, each of the “hard core” philosophers would choose “support” for 5 of the Social questions and for 5 of the Economic questions. Many of these statements cross over the line between social issues and economic issues. And many people might answer what we call a “Social” issue based on economic reasoning. But we have tried to arrange a series of questions which separates the way candidates think about government activities in these two broad scales. Political Map and some content from Advocates for Self-Government.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 Shows 93 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 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 01-09

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

Obama’s Betrayal of His Oath of Office — Traitorous Terrorist Treaty — Iranians Inspect Their Own Military Installations Building Nuclear Weapons –Obama Legacy Is A Sellout of The American People And Unconditional Surrender To Iran’s Demands — Not A Joke — Treason! — Not Trust, Not Verification — Obama Lied And Americans Will Die — Videos Posted on September 5, 2015. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crisis, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Documentary, Economics, Education, Elections, Energy, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, government spending, history, Homicide, Investments, Islam, Law, liberty, media, Money, Narcissism, National Security Agency (NSA), National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Proliferation, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Resources, Shite, Spying, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Taxation, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: 20 August 2015, Harms Way, IAEA, Instability, Iran, Iran Nuclear Deal, Islamic Republic of Iran, Mark Levin, Michael Ledeen, Middle East, New George S Patton speech!, No Inspections of Military Bases, Nuclear Bombs, Nuclear Deal, Nuclear Explosion, Nuclear Proliferation, Obama is on Iran's side, President Barack Obama, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Senate, Senate passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act 98 to 1, terror, Terrorism, The Pronk Pops Show 518, Traitorous Terrorist Treaty, Treaty Clause, United States Constitution, War in Middle East |

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 474; May 29, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 473: May 28, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 472: May 27, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 471: May 26, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 470: May 22, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 469: May 21, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 468: May 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 467: May 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 466: May 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 465: May 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 464; May 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 463; May 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 462: May 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 461: May 7, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 460; May 6, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 459: May 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 458: May 1, 2015

Story 1: Obama’s Betrayal of His Oath of Office — Traitorous Terrorist Treaty — Iranians Inspect Their Own Military Installations Building Nuclear Weapons –Obama Legacy Is A Sellout of The American People And Unconditional Surrender To Iran’s Demands — Not A Joke — Treason! — Not Trust, Not Verification — Obama Lied And Americans Will Die — Videos The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…. ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2 “International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period.” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce “Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement.” ~John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator “President Obama boasts his deal includes ‘unprecedented verification.’ He claims it’s not built on trust. But the administration’s briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient – and it still isn’t clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents.” ~House Speaker John Boehner

Iran Secret Deal “Self Inspection”

Krauthammer: Iran Self-Inspecting Nuclear Facility Is ‘Scandalous, Farcical’

Megyn Kelly – Amb. Ron Dermer Responds To Donald Trump’s Iran Strategy

Side Deal Allows Iran To Conduct Its Own Nuclear Inspections

Iran Nuclear Side Deal – Iran Can Conduct Its Own Nuclear Inspections

IAEA: Iran Has To Allow Inspection Of Country’s Military Sites

The Iran Nuclear Deal. Good Deal Or Bad Deal?

The Iran Nuclear Deal

MM160 – Iran Side-Deal Exposed

CBN NewsWatch: August 20, 2015

CNBC: Inspections Program For Iran Nuclear Activity ‘A Whole Lot Of Bunk’

White House ‘Confident’ IAEA Can Investigate Iran

President Obama: Iran Deal Not Built On Trust, But Verification

2015 – CNN World News – Obama On Iran Nuclear Deal – Full Speech

Larry Elder Interviews Michael Ledeen

Top Three Consequences Of The Iran Nuclear Deal

Malzberg | Patrick J. Buchanan Weighs In On The Iran Deal

FDD Freedom Scholar Michael Ledeen Comments On Iran And Radical Islamist Ideology.

NETANYAHU On IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL – “One Of The Darkest Days In World History”

Malzberg | Dr. Michael Ledeen: “Obama Is On Iran’s Side”

Michael Ledeen: Bring Down The Iranian Regime

Federal Prosecutor: Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal Clearly Treason In a interview with Frank Gaffney, Former Federal Prosecutor Andy McCarthy lays out why the Iran nuclear deal put forth by the Obama administration is clearly a act of treason against the United States.

General: Obama’s Iran Deal Is ‘A Treasonous Act Under The Constitution’ Major General Paul Vallely (Ret.) blasted Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran while being interviewed by Alan Colmes on Fox News. The General stated that Obama, Kerry and the State Department are ‘aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States’ and is ‘a treasonous act under the constitution’ in his opinion.

Secret Side Deal “Iran, IAEA Deal” ?

Iran’s Parliament Upholds Ban For IAEA To Access Military Sites, Scientists ‘At Will’

Iran’s Supreme Leader Refuses Access To Military Sites And Scientists

Iran’s Guardian Council Ratifies Bill Banning Inspection Of Military Sites

Top Commander: Iran Never To Allow Foreigners To Inspect Military Sites

Amid Nuke Talks, Ayatollah Says ‘Death To America’

IAEA: Iran Has To Allow Inspection Of Country’s Military Sites

McConnell Calls For Senate Passage Of Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act

US Republican-Led Senate Passes Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act

Mark Levin: “Obama Has Now Planted The Seeds Of World War III” With Iran Deal

Mark Levin: Senate Passed The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act 98 To 1 (Audio From 05-07-2015)

Incredible! New George S Patton Speech! Iran & Modern Warfare

AP Exclusive: UN To Let Iran Inspect Alleged Nuke Work Site By GEORGE JAHN Aug. 19, 2015 Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press. The revelation on Wednesday newly riled Republican lawmakers in the U.S. who have been severely critical of a broader agreement to limit Iran’s future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the wider deal is unwisely built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections. A skeptical House Speaker John Boehner said, “President Obama boasts his deal includes ‘unprecedented verification.’ He claims it’s not built on trust. But the administration’s briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient – and it still isn’t clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents.” Said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce: “International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period.” But House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi shrugged off the revelation, saying, “I truly believe in this agreement.” The newly disclosed side agreement, for an investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency, is linked to persistent allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear-limits deal. Evidence of the inspections concession is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents before a Senate vote of disapproval on the overall agreement in early September. If the resolution passes and President Barack Obama vetoes it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose a veto fight, though that was before Wednesday’s disclosure. John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator, said, “Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement.” The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package. On Wednesday, White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said the Obama administration was “confident in the agency’s technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran’s former program. … The IAEA has separately developed the most robust inspection regime ever peacefully negotiated.” All IAEA member countries must give the agency some insight into their nuclear programs. Some are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations— like Iran — suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections. The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons. Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country. The White House has repeatedly denied claims of a secret side deal favorable to Tehran. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told Republican senators last week that he was obligated to keep the document confidential. Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any interest in — or work on — nuclear weapons. Based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, the IAEA suspects that the Islamic Republic may have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms. The IAEA has cited evidence, based on satellite images, of possible attempts to sanitize the site since the alleged work stopped more than a decade ago. The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn’t differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the issue in public. The document is labeled “separate arrangement II,” indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency’s probe of the nuclear weapons allegations. Iran is to provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, “taking into account military concerns.” That wording suggests that — beyond being barred from physically visiting the site — the agency won’t get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance. While the document says the IAEA “will ensure the technical authenticity” of Iran’s inspection, it does not say how. The draft is unsigned but the proposed signatory for Iran is listed as Ali Hoseini Tash, deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs. That reflects the significance Tehran attaches to the agreement. Iranian diplomats in Vienna were unavailable for comment, Wednesday while IAEA spokesman Serge Gas said the agency had no immediate comment. The main focus of the July 14 deal between Iran and six world powers is curbing Iran’s present nuclear program that could be used to make weapons. But a subsidiary element obligates Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA in its probe of the past allegations. The investigation has been essentially deadlocked for years, with Tehran asserting the allegations are based on false intelligence from the U.S., Israel and other adversaries. But Iran and the U.N. agency agreed last month to wrap up the investigation by December, when the IAEA plans to issue a final assessment. That assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal. Still, it is expected to be approved by the IAEA’s board, which includes the United States and the other nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to upend their broader deal, and will see the December report as closing the books on the issue. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a9f4e40803924a8ab4c61cb65b2b2bb3/ap-exclusive-un-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site

Iran’s Secret Self-Inspections A report says the IAEA won’t have access to the Parchin nuclear site.

ENLARGE A satellite image of the Parchin facility in Iran in February 2013. PHOTO: DIGITALGLOBE/GETTY IMAGES Aug. 19, 2015 7:20 p.m. ET Three more Senators have declared against President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal in recent days, and don’t be surprised if more follow after Wednesday’s bombshell from the Associated Press. The news service reports that Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors at the secret Parchin nuclear site under its secret side agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This is a new one in the history of arms control. Parchin is the military complex long suspected as the home of Iran’s nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile development. The IAEA has sought access to Parchin for more than a decade, and U.S. officials have said the deal requires Iran to come clean about Parchin by agreeing on an inspections protocol with the IAEA by the end of this year. The Israel Project CEO Josh Block with an update on the Congressional whip count for the Iran vote, and whether Democrats might mount a filibuster. Photos: Getty Images But that spin started to unravel three weeks ago with the discovery that the Parchin inspections were part of a secret side agreement between the IAEA and Iran—not between Iran and the six negotiating countries. Secretary of State John Kerry has said he hasn’t read the side deal, though his negotiating deputy Wendy Sherman told MSNBC that she “saw the pieces of paper” but couldn’t keep them. IAEA Director GeneralYukiya Amano has told Members of the U.S. Congress that he’s bound by secrecy and can’t show them the side deals. That secrecy should be unacceptable to Congress—all the more so after the AP dispatch. The news service says it has seen a document labelled “separate arrangement II.” The document says Iran will provide the IAEA with photos and locations that the IAEA says are linked to Iran’s weapons work, “taking into account military concerns.” In other words, the country that lied for years about its nuclear weapons program will now be trusted to come clean about those lies. And trusted to such a degree that it can limit its self-inspections so they don’t raise “military concerns” in Iran. Keep in mind that the side deal already excludes a role for the U.S., and that the IAEA lacks any way to enforce its side deal since it has no way of imposing penalties for violations. Iran has also already ruled out any role for American or Canadian nationals on the inspection teams. Why not cut out the IAEA middle man and simply let Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, sign a personal affadavit? The AP report hadn’t been contradicted by our deadline on Wednesday, and a White House spokesman told AP merely that the U.S. is “confident in the agency’s technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran’s former program.” That sounds like a confirmation. The news raises further doubts about a nuclear pact that is already leaking credibility. Unfettered access to Parchin is crucial to understanding Iran’s past nuclear work, which is essential to understanding how close Iran has come to getting the bomb. Without that knowledge it’s impossible to know if Iran really is a year or more away from having the bomb, which is the time period that Mr. Kerry says is built into the accord and makes it so worth doing. Earlier this year President Obama signed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which says Congress must receive all documents related to the deal, including any “entered into or made between Iran and any other parties.” That has to mean the IAEA. By the way, the reference in the IAEA document to “separate arrangement II” suggests there may be more than one side deal. Congress should insist on seeing every such side deal or else pass a resolution of disapproval on the principle that it can’t possibly approve a deal whose complete terms it hasn’t even been allowed to inspect. Meanwhile, bipartisan opposition continues to build in Congress. New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez on Tuesday became the second Senate Democrat to oppose the deal, following announcements from Republicans Jeff Flake (Arizona) and Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker. Mr. Flake in particular was inclined to support the pact and was lobbied hard by the President. “For me, the Administration’s willingness to forgo a critical element of Iran’s weaponization—past and present—is inexplicable,” said Mr. Menendez in explaining his opposition. “Our willingness to accept this process on Parchin is only exacerbated by the inability to obtain anytime, anywhere inspections, which the Administration always held out as one of those essential elements we would insist on and could rely on in any deal.” Public opposition is also growing. And it will increase as Americans learn that the deal’s inspections include taking Iran’s word about its previous weaponization work at its most crucial nuclear-weapons site. http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-secret-self-inspections-1440026399

The Latest Iran Revelation Is Utterly Humiliating By Jennifer Rubin The day after a devastating take-down of the Iran deal from Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the Associated Press reports: Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press. The revelation is sure to roil American and Israeli critics of the main Iran deal signed by the U.S., Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the deal is built on trust of the Iranians, a claim the U.S. has denied. It surely will. “This establishes the exact precedent that Iran always sought and repeatedly claimed: IAEA weapons inspectors will never get physical access into any military sites,” says sanctions expert Mark Dubowitz in an email. “That the Obama administration agreed to Iranian self-inspections tells you everything you need to know about how far it caved on the essential elements of a verifiable and enforceable nuclear agreement.” The inspection regime and dispute resolution system was already riddled with loopholes that Iran will exploit. But with this there is not even the pretense that there is a viable inspection process. With selfinspection comes the open door for Iran to cheat with impunity. The AP report continues: The Parchin deal is a separate, side agreement worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers that signed the Iran nuclear deal were not party to this agreement but were briefed on it by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package. Without divulging its contents, the Obama administration has described the document as nothing more than a routine technical arrangement between Iran and the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency on the particulars of inspecting the site. Ironically, Menendez’s speech is more true in the wake of the AP report than it was when he delivered it: For well over a decade, the world has been concerned about the secret weaponization efforts Iran conducted at the military base called Parchin. The goal that we have long sought, along with the international community, is to know what Iran accomplished at Parchin — not necessarily to get Iran to declare culpability — but to determine how far along they were in their nuclear weaponization program so that we know what signatures to look for in the future. . . . With so much at stake, the IAEA — after waiting over ten years to inspect Parchin, speak to Iranian nuclear scientists, and review additional materials and documents — are now told they will not have direct access to Parchin. The list of scientists the P5+1 wanted the IAEA to interview were rejected outright by Iran, and they are now given three months to do all of their review and analysis before they must deliver a report in December of this year. How the inspections and soil and other samples are to be collected are outlined in two secret agreements that the U.S. Congress is not privy to. The answer as to why we cannot see those documents, is because they have a confidentiality agreement between the IAEA and Iran, which they say ‘is customary,’ but this issue is anything but customary. “If Iran can violate its obligations for more than a decade, it can’t then be allowed to avail themselves of the same provisions and protections they violated in the first place. We have to ask: Why would our negotiators decide to negotiate access to other IAEA documents, but not these documents? Maybe the reason, as some members of Congress and public reports have raised, is because it will be the Iranians and not the IAEA performing the tests and providing the samples to be analyzed, which would be the equivalent of having an athlete accused of using performance enhancing drugs submit an unsupervised urine sample to the appropriate authority. Chain of custody doesn’t matter when the evidence given to you is prepared by the perpetrator. Maybe this is why we did not get a look at the side deal. If Iran is going to inspect itself anyway it hardly matters if we know about PMD’s or how many days inspectors must wait. Tellingly, according to Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein, the White House put out a weak-kneed statement saying it was “confident in the agency’s technical plans” and insisted if the IAEA was happy, it was happy. According to the Washington Free Beacon, Iran threatened an IAEA official if he revealed the nature of the side deals. No wonder. It is hard to argue that the contents of the deal amount to anything approaching the stated aim of preventing Iran from going nuclear. Obama frankly wanted a document so badly he literally did not care what was in it, or at least what was in the critical side deal. The deal is an utter farce. Democrats who have not declared their intentions to date will be hard-pressed to justify supporting it. UPDATE: Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, tells me, “This type of unorthodox agreement has never been done before by the IAEA and speaks to the great lengths our negotiators took to accommodate the Ayatollah despite repeated assurances from the administration that this deal is not based on trust.” House Speaker John Boehner put out a statement, which reads, “The Obama administration has a lot of explaining to do. Why haven’t these secret side agreements been provided to Congress and the American people for review? Why should Iran be trusted to carry out its own nuclear inspections at a military site it tried to hide from the world? How does this not set a precedent for future inspections at suspicious military sites in Iran?” He continued, “President Obama boasts his deal includes ‘unprecedented verification.’ He claims it’s not built on trust. But the administration’s briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient – and it still isn’t clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents. The American people and their representatives in Congress have serious questions about whether this nuclear agreement will keep our country safe, and it’s time for this administration to provide honest answers.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/08/19/the-latest-iran-revelation-is-utterly-humiliating/

Treaty Clause The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…. ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2 Teacher’s Companion Lesson (PDF) The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madison’s terms, a “partial agency” in the President’s foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (twothirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the “people,” no role in the process. Midway through the Constitutional Convention, a working draft had assigned the treaty-making power to the Senate, but the Framers, apparently considering the traditional role of a nation-state’s executive in making treaties, changed direction and gave the power to the President, but with the proviso of the Senate’s “Advice and Consent.” In a formal sense, then, treaty-making became a mixture of executive and legislative power. Most people of the time recognized the actual conduct of diplomacy as an executive function, but under Article VI treaties were, like statutes, part of the “supreme Law of the Land.” Thus, as Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 75, the two branches were appropriately combined: The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign relations point out the executive as the most fit in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust and the operation of treaties as laws plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them. Another reason for involving both President and Senate was that the Framers thought American interests might be undermined by treaties entered into without proper reflection. The Framers believed that treaties should be strictly honored, both as a matter of the law of nations and as a practical matter, because the United States could not afford to give the great powers any cause for war. But this meant that the nation should be doubly cautious in accepting treaty obligations. As James Wilson said, “Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people.” The fear of disadvantageous treaties also underlay the Framers’ insistence on approval by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In particular, the Framers worried that one region or interest within the nation, constituting a bare majority, would make a treaty advantageous to it but prejudicial to other parts of the country and to the national interest. An episode just a year before the start of the Convention had highlighted the problem. The United States desired a trade treaty with Spain, and sought free access to the Mississippi River through Spanish-controlled New Orleans. Spain offered favorable trade terms, but only if the United States would give up its demands on the Mississippi. The Northern states, which would have benefited most from the trade treaty and cared little about New Orleans, had a majority, but not a supermajority, in the Continental Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, treaties required assent of a supermajority (nine out of thirteen) of the states, and the South was able to block the treaty. It was undoubtedly that experience that impelled the Framers to carry over the supermajority principle from the Articles of Confederation. At the Convention, several prominent Framers argued unsuccessfully to have the House of Representatives included. But most delegates thought that the House had substantial disadvantages when it came to treaty-making. For example, as a large body, the House would have difficulty keeping secrets or acting quickly. The small states, wary of being disadvantaged, also preferred to keep the treaty-making power in the Senate, where they had proportionally greater power. The ultimate purpose, then, of the Treaty Clause was to ensure that treaties would not be adopted unless most of the country stood to gain. True, treaties would be more difficult to adopt than statutes, but the Framers realized that an unwise statute could simply be repealed, but an unwise treaty remained a binding international commitment, which would not be so easy to unwind. Other questions, however, remained. First, are the provisions of the clause exclusive—that is, does it provide the only way that the United States may enter into international obligations? While the clause does not say, in so many words, that it is exclusive, its very purpose—not to have any treaty disadvantage one part of the nation—suggests that no other route was possible, whether it be the President acting alone, or the popularly elected House having a role. On the other hand, while the Treaty Clause was, in the original understanding, the exclusive way to make treaties, the Framers also apparently recognized a class of less-important international agreements, not rising to the level of “treaties,” which could be approved in some other way. Article I, Section 10, in describing restrictions upon the states, speaks of “Treat[ies]” and “Agreement[s]…with a foreign Power” as two distinct categories. Some scholars believe this shows that not all international agreements are treaties, and that these other agreements would not need to go through the procedures of the Treaty Clause. Instead, the President, in the exercise of his executive power, could conclude such agreements on his own. Still, this exception for lesser agreements would have to be limited to “agreements” of minor importance, or else it would provide too great an avenue for evasion of the protections the Framers placed in the Treaty Clause.

A second question is how the President and Senate should interact in their joint exercise of the treaty power. Many Framers apparently thought that the President would oversee the actual conduct of diplomacy, but that the Senate would be involved from the outset as a sort of executive council advising the President. This was likely a reason that the Framers thought the smaller Senate was more suited than the House to play a key role in treaty-making. In the first effort at treaty-making under the Constitution, President George Washington attempted to operate in just this fashion. He went to the Senate in person to discuss a proposed treaty before he began negotiations. What is less clear, however, is whether the Constitution actually requires this process, or whether it is only what the Framers assumed would happen. The Senate, of course, is constitutionally authorized to offer “advice” to the President at any stage of the treaty-making process, but the President is not directed (in so many words) as to when advice must be solicited. As we shall see, this uncertainty has led, in modern practice, to a very different procedure than some Framers envisioned. It seems clear, however, that the Framers expected that the Senate’s “advice and consent” would be a close review and not a mere formality, as they thought of it as an important check upon presidential power. A third difficult question is whether the Treaty Clause implies a Senate power or role in treaty termination. Scholarly opinion is divided, and few Framers appear to have discussed the question directly. One view sees the power to make a treaty as distinct from the power of termination, with the latter being more akin to a power of implementation. Since the Constitution does not directly address the termination power, this view would give it to the President as part of the President’s executive powers to conduct foreign affairs and to execute the laws. When the termination question first arose in 1793, Washington and his Cabinet, which included Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, embraced this view. All of them thought Washington could, on his own authority, terminate the treaty with France if necessary to keep the United States neutral. A second view holds that, as a matter of the general eighteenth-century understanding of the legal process, the power to take an action (such as passing a statute or making a treaty) implies the power to undo the action. This view would require the consent of the President and a supermajority of the Senate to undo a treaty. There is, however, not much historical evidence that many Framers actually held this view of treaty termination, and it is inconsistent with the common interpretation of the Appointments Clause (under which Senate approval is required to appoint but not to remove executive officers). The third view is that the Congress as a whole has the power to terminate treaties, based on an analogy between treaties and federal laws. When the United States first terminated a treaty in 1798 under John Adams, this procedure was adopted, but there was little discussion of the constitutional ramifications. Finally, there is a question of the limits of the treaty power. A treaty presumably cannot alter the constitutional structure of government, and the Supreme Court has said that executive agreements—and so apparently treaties—are subject to the limits of the Bill of Rights just as ordinary laws are. Reid v. Covert (1957). InGeofroy v. Riggs (1890), the Supreme Court also declared that the treaty power extends only to topics that are “properly the subject of negotiation with a foreign country.” However, at least in the modern world, one would think that few topics are so local that they could not, under some circumstances, be reached as part of the foreign-affairs interests of the nation. Some have argued that treaties are limited by the federalism interests of the states. The Supreme Court rejected a version of that argument in State of Missouri v. Holland (1920), holding that the subject matter of treaties is not limited to the enumerated powers of Congress. The revival of interest in federalism limits on Congress in such areas as state sovereign immunity, see Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), and the Tenth Amendment, see Printz v. United States (1997), raises the question whether these limits also apply to the treaty power, but the Court has not yet taken up these matters. Turning to modern practice, the Framers’ vision of treaty-making has in some ways prevailed and in some ways been altered. First, it is not true—and has not been true since George Washington’s administration—that the Senate serves as an executive council to advise the President in all stages of treaty-making. Rather, the usual modern course is that the President negotiates and signs treaties independently and then presents the proposed treaty to the Senate for its approval or disapproval. Washington himself found personal consultation with the Senate to be so awkward and unproductive that he abandoned it, and subsequent Presidents have followed his example. Moreover, the Senate frequently approves treaties with conditions and has done so since the Washington administration. If the President makes clear to foreign nations that his signature on a treaty is only a preliminary commitment subject to serious Senate scrutiny, and if the Senate takes seriously its constitutional role of reviewing treaties (rather than merely deferring to the President), the check that the Framers sought to create remains in place. By going beyond a simple “up-or-down” vote, the Senate retains some of its power of “advice”: the Senate not only disapproves the treaty proposed by the President but suggests how the President might craft a better treaty. As a practical matter, there is often much consultation between the executive and members of the Senate before treaties are crafted and signed. Thus modern practice captures the essence of the Framers’ vision that the Senate would have some form of a participatory role in treaty-making. A more substantial departure from the Framers’ vision may arise from the practice of “executive agreements.” According to the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, the President may validly conclude executive agreements that (1) cover matters that are solely within his executive power, or (2) are made pursuant to a treaty, or (3) are made pursuant to a legitimate act of Congress. Examples of important executive agreements include the Potsdam and Yalta agreements of World War II, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which regulated international trade for decades, and the numerous status-of-forces agreements the United States has concluded with foreign governments. Where the President acts pursuant to a prior treaty, there seems little tension with the Framers’ vision, as Senate approval has, in effect, been secured in advance. Somewhat more troublesome is the modern practice of so-called congressional–executive agreements, by which some international agreements have been made by the President and approved (either in advance or after the fact) by a simple majority of both houses of Congress, rather than two-thirds of the Senate. Many of these agreements deal particularly with trade-related matters, which Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate. Congressional–executive agreements, at least with respect to trade matters, are now well established, and recent court challenges have been unsuccessful. Made in the USA Foundation v. United States (2001). On the other hand, arguments for “complete interchangeability”—that is, claims that anything that can be done by treaty can be done by congressional–executive agreement—seem counter to the Framers’ intent. The Framers carefully considered the supermajority rule for treaties and adopted it in response to specific threats to the Union; finding a complete alternative to the Treaty Clause would in effect eliminate the supermajority rule and make important international agreements easier to adopt than the Framers wished. The third type of executive agreement is one adopted by the President without explicit approval of either the Senate or the Congress as a whole. The Supreme Court and modern practice embrace the idea that the President may under some circumstances make these so-called sole executive agreements. United States v. Belmont (1937); United States v. Pink (1942). But the scope of this independent presidential power remains a serious question. The Pink and Belmont cases involved agreements relating to the recognition of a foreign government, a power closely tied to the President’s textual power to receive ambassadors (Article II, Section 3). The courts have consistently permitted the President to settle foreign claims by sole executive agreement, but at the same time have emphasized that the Congress has acquiesced in the practice. Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981);American Insurance Ass’n v. Garamendi (2003). Beyond this, the modern limits of the President’s ability to act independently in making international agreements have not been explored. With respect to treaty termination, modern practice allows the President to terminate treaties on his own. In recent times, President James Earl Carter terminated the U.S.–Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty in 1977, and President George W. Bush terminated the ABM Treaty with Russia in 2001. The Senate objected sharply to President Carter’s actions, but the Supreme Court rebuffed the Senate in Goldwater v. Carter (1979). President Bush’s action was criticized in some academic quarters but received general acquiescence. In light of the consensus early in Washington’s administration, it is probably fair to say that presidential termination does not obviously depart from the original understanding, inasmuch as the Framers were much more concerned about checks upon entering into treaties than they were about checks upon terminating them.

Michael D. Ramsey Professor of Law University http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause

Treaty Clause From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is part of a series on the Constitution of the United States of America

Preamble and Articles of the Constitution Preamble I II III IV V VI VII Amendments to the Constitution Bill of Rights I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII Unratified Amendments Congressional Apportionment Titles of Nobility Corwin Child Labor Equal Rights D.C. Voting Rights History History Articles of Confederation Convention Federalism Republicanism Full text of the Constitution and Amendments Preamble & Articles I–VII Amendments I–X Amendments XI–XXVII Unratified Amendments United States portal U.S. Government portal Law portal v t e Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers thePresident of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

Contents [hide] 1 Full text of the clause 2 One of three types of international accord 3 Repeal 4 Scope of presidential powers 5 See also 6 Further reading 7 References

Full text of the clause [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…

One of three types of international accord In the United States, the term “treaty” is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and soleexecutive agreements. [1] All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. Distinctions among the three concern their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause [2] empowers the President to make or enter into treaties with the “advice and consent” of two-thirds of the Senate. In contrast, normal legislation becomes law after approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreementsmade by the President alone. [1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress). [3] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment: It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent…. [4] A further distinction embodied in U.S. law is between self-executing treaties, which do not require additional legislative action, and non-self-executing treaties which do require the enactment of new laws. [1][5] These various distinctions of procedure and terminology do not affect the binding status of accords under international law. Nevertheless, they do have major implications under U.S. domestic law. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states. By contrast, a congressional-executive agreement can only cover matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President. [1] Likewise, a sole-executive agreement can only cover matters within the President’s authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President. [1] For example, a treaty may prohibit states from imposing capital punishment on foreign nationals, but a congressional-executive agreement or sole-executive agreement cannot. In general, arms control agreements are often ratified by the treaty mechanism. [6] At the same time, trade agreements (such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and United States accession to the World Trade Organization) are generally voted on as a CEA, and such agreements typically include an explicit right to withdraw after giving sufficient written notice to the other parties. [7] If an international commercial accord contains binding “treaty” commitments, then a two-thirds vote of the Senate may be required. [8] Between 1946 and 1999, the United States completed nearly 16,000 international agreements. Only 912 of those agreements were treaties, submitted to the Senate for approval as outlined in Article II of the United States Constitution. Since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency, only 6% of international accords have been completed as Article II treaties. [1] Most of these executive agreements consist of congressional-executive agreements.

Repeal American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law. [1] Consequently, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S. [1] Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert. [9] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so. In Goldwater v. Carter, [10] Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter‘s unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that “The issue at hand … was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition.” In his opinion,Justice Brennan dissented, “The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts”. Presently, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent. [11]

Scope of presidential powers Presidents have regarded the Article II treaty process as necessary where an international accord would bind a future president. For example, Theodore Rooseveltexplained: The Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not forbid my doing what I did. I put the agreement into effect, and I continued its execution for two years before the Senate acted; and I would have continued it until the end of my term, if necessary, without any action by Congress. But it was far preferable that there should be action by Congress, so that we might be proceeding under a treaty which was the law of the land and not merely by a direction of the Chief Executive which would lapse when that particular executive left office. I therefore did my best to get the Senate to ratify what I had done. [12] A sole-executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president’s authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, (3) from a prior act of Congress, or (4) from a prior treaty. [1] Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties). In 1972, Congress passed legislation requiring the president to notify Congress of any executive agreements that are formed. [13] Although the nondelegation doctrine prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the executive branch, Congress has allowed the executive to act as Congress’s “agent” in trade negotiations, such as by setting tariffs, and, in the case of Trade Promotion Authority, by solely authoring the implementing legislation for trade agreements. The constitutionality of this delegation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Field v. Clark (1892).

See also Advice and consent Supremacy Clause Foreign policy of the United States Treaty List of United States treaties Jus tractatuum

Further reading Warren F. Kimball, Alliances, Coalitions, and Ententes – The American alliance system: an unamerican tradition

References 1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i Treaties and other International Agreements: the Role of the United States Senate (Congressional Research Service 2001). 2. Jump up^ [Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2] 3. Jump up^ The Supreme Court has said that the words “treaty” and “agreement” were technical terms of international diplomacy, when the Constitution was written. See Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540 (1840): “A few extracts from an eminent writer on the laws of nations, showing the manner in which these different words have been used, and the different meanings sometimes attached to them, will, perhaps, contribute to explain the reason for using them all in the Constitution….Vattel, page 192, sec. 152, says: ‘A treaty, in Latin foedus, is a compact made with a view to the public welfare, by the superior power, either for perpetuity, or for a considerable time.’ Section 153. ‘The compacts which have temporary matters for their object, are called agreements, conventions, and pactions. They are accomplished by one single act, and not by repeated acts. These compacts are perfected in their execution once for all; treaties receive a successive execution, whose duration equals that of the treaty.’ Section 154….After reading these extracts, we can be at no loss to comprehend the intention of the framers of the Constitution in using all these words, ‘treaty,’ ‘compact,’ ‘agreement.'” 4. Jump up^ Jefferson, Thomas. “Report of the Secretary of State to the President” (January 18, 1791) quoted in The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia (1900). 5. Jump up^ Medellin v. Texas, 2008 6. Jump up^ Charnovitz, Steve. “Analysis of Congressional-Executive Agreements”, American Journal of International Law (2004). 7. Jump up^ Hyman, Andrew. “The Unconstitutionality of Long-Term Nuclear Pacts that are Rejected by Over One-Third of the Senate”, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy(1995). 8. Jump up^ Sherman, Roger. “Observations on the Alterations Proposed as Amendments to the New Federal Constitution” (1788) reprinted in Essays on the Constitution of the United States, Published During its Discussion by the People, 1787-1788 (Paul Leicester Ford ed. 1892), page 235: “It is provided by the constitution that no commercial treaty shall be made by the president without the consent of two-thirds of the senators present….” Retrieved 2008-04-12. 9. Jump up^ Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

10. Jump up^ Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979).

11. Jump up^ Ackerman, David. “Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty: Legal Considerations”, CRS Report for Congress (2002-12-31).

12. Jump up^ Roosevelt, Theodore. An Autobiography, page 510 (1913).

13. Jump up^ 1 U.S.C. 112(b). Via Findlaw. Retrieved 2008-04-12. [hide] v t e United States Constitution Preamble and Articles I–VII Amendments 1–10 Text

Amendments 11–27

(via Wikisource)

Unsuccessful Proposed Amendments Debates in State Conventions on the Adoption of the Constitution Preamble I II III

Preamble and articles

IV V VI VII 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Ratified

15 16 17 18 19 20 Amendments

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Congressional Apportionment Titles of Nobility Pending

Corwin (State Domestic Institutions) Child Labor Equal Rights

Unsuccessful

District of Columbia Voting Rights

List of Amendments Bill of Rights (Amendments 1–10) Reconstruction Amendments (Amendments 13–15) Amendment proposals in Congress Conventions to propose amendments State ratifying conventions History Articles of Confederation Mount Vernon Conference Annapolis Convention Philadelphia Convention Virginia Plan New Jersey Plan Connecticut Compromise Three-Fifths Compromise Committee of Detail

Formation

Signers Independence Hall Syng inkstand The Federalist Papers Anti-Federalist Papers Massachusetts Compromise Virginia Ratifying Convention Bill of Rights Drafting and ratification timeline Appointments Appropriations Assistance of Counsel Bill of credit Case or Controversy Citizenship Commerce Compact Compulsory Process Confrontation Contract Copyright and Patent Double Jeopardy Due Process Equal Protection Establishment Exceptions Excessive Bail Ex post facto Extradition Free Exercise Free Speech Fugitive Slave Full Faith and Credit General Welfare Guarantee Impeachment Ineligibility (Emolument) Clauses

Militia Natural-born citizen Necessary and Proper No Religious Test Origination Petition Postal Presentment Privileges and Immunities Privileges or Immunities Recommendation Self-Incrimination Speech or Debate Speedy Trial State of the Union Supremacy Suspension Take Care Takings Taxing and Spending Territorial Title of Nobility Treaty Trial by Jury Vesting Vicinage War Powers List of clauses Concurrent powers Congressional enforcement Constitutional law Criminal procedure Criminal sentencing Dormant Commerce Clause Enumerated powers Executive privilege Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

Interpretation

Judicial review Nondelegation doctrine Preemption Saxbe fix Separation of church and state Separation of powers Taxation power Unitary executive theory National Archives Charters of Freedom Rotunda Independence Mall

Display and honors

Constitution Day Constitution Gardens National Constitution Center

US Government Portal • Law Portal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 Shows 93 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 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 01-09

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

President Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal at American University, August 5, 2015 — Videos Posted on August 5, 2015. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, British History, Chemistry, Computers, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Energy, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, history, Islam, Islam, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Middle East, Money, National Security Agency (NSA), Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Nuclear Proliferation, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Politics, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religion, Religious, Resources, Science, Security, Shite, Spying, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Technology, Television, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: 5 August 2015, American University, Andy McCarthy, Dennis Prager, Evil, Frank Gaffney, Full Text, Good, Iran Nuclear Deal, Iran nuke deal, Mark Levin, Netanyahu, Nuclear Proliferation, Peace, President Barack Obama, Senator Ted Cruz, Sollozzo, The Godfather, The Iran nuclear deal, The Traitorous Terrorist Treaty, The Turk, Treason, Video, War |

President Obama FULL SPEECH On Iran Nuclear Deal – “Rejecting Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Vote For War”

President Obama Iran Nuclear Deal Press Conference July 15, 2015 [FULL]

Iran Nuclear News -Nuclear Disasters! Netanyahu Iran Nuke Deal – See Now!

PM Netanyahu – Why We Must Oppose The Iran Deal

The Iran Nuclear Deal Is the nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran a good or bad deal? Would it be harder or easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Would it make Iran and its terror proxies stronger or weaker? Should the U.S. Congress support or defeat the deal? Dennis Prager answers these questions and more.

Top Three Political Realities Of The Iran Nuclear Deal

Eric Shawn Reports: The Iran Deal’s Details

Senate Hearing On Iran Nuclear Deal

House Hearing On Iran Nuclear Deal

Will The Iran Nuclear Agreement Work?

Ted Cruz: Iran Deal A ‘Catastrophic Mistake’ (July 15, 2015) | Charlie Rose

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) Questions On Iran Nuclear Deal (C-SPAN)

Sen. Ted Cruz: Any President Worth His Salt Would Overturn Iran Deal

Donald Trump On Nuke Deal: They Are Laughing At Us In Iran

Federal Prosecutor: Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal Clearly Treason

Mark Levin Gives His Commentary Regarding The Hearing On Iran Nuclear Deal (Audio From 07-29-2015)

Mark Levin: Barack Obama Has Planted The Seeds For World War III (Audio From 07-14-2015)

The Savage Nation- Michael Savage- Wed, August 5, 2015 (1st Hour)

The Godfather – Sollozzo Known As The Turk 4/10 (HD)

The Godfather – Michael Shoots Sollozzo And McCluskey

Godfather-Meeting Of The Five Families

Iran Nuclear Agreement: The Administration’s Case

Full Text: Obama Gives A Speech About The Iran Nuclear Deal President Obama is continuing his push for the Iran nuclear deal, giving a speech at American University. Here is a complete transcript of his remarks. OBAMA: Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Thank you so much. Thank you. Everybody, please have a seat. Thank you very much. I apologize for the slight delay; even presidents have a problem with toner. (LAUGHTER) It is a great honor to be back at American University, which has prepared generations of young people for service and public life. I want to thank President Kerwin and the American University family for hosting us here today. Fifty-two years ago, President Kennedy, at the height of the Cold War, addressed this same university on the subject of peace. The Berlin Wall had just been built. The Soviet Union had tested the most powerful weapons ever developed. China was on the verge of acquiring the nuclear bomb. Less than 20 years after the end of World War II, the prospect of nuclear war was all too real. With all of the threats that we face today, it is hard to appreciate how much more dangerous the world was at that time. In light of these mounting threats, a number of strategists here in the United States argued we had to take military action against the Soviets, to hasten what they saw as inevitable confrontation. But the young president offered a different vision. OBAMA: Strength, in his view, included powerful armed forces and a willingness to stand up for our values around the world. But he rejected the prevailing attitude among some foreign-policy circles that equated security with a perpetual war footing. Instead, he promised strong, principled American leadership on behalf of what he called a practical and attainable peace, a peace based not on a sudden revolution in human nature, but on a gradual evolution in human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements. Such wisdom would help guide our ship of state through some of the most perilous moments in human history. With Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully. Under Democratic and Republican presidents, new agreements were forged: A nonproliferation treaty that prohibited nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, while allowing them to access peaceful nuclear energy, the SALT and START treaties, which bound the United States and the Soviet Union to cooperation on arms control. Not every conflict was averted, but the world avoided nuclear catastrophe, and we created the time and the space to win the Cold War without firing a shot at the Soviets. The agreement now reached between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran builds on this tradition of strong, principled policy diplomacy. After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb. It contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program. As was true in previous treaties, it does not resolve all problems. It certainly doesn’t resolve all our problems with Iran. It does not ensure a warming between our two countries. But it achieves one of our most critical security objectives. As such, it is a very good deal. Today, I want to speak to you about this deal and the most consequential foreign-policy debate that our country has had since the invasion of Iraq, as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world. Between now and the congressional vote in September, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads and the accompanying commentary sounds familiar, it should, for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal. Now, when I ran for president eight years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didn’t just have to end that war. We had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place. It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported. Leaders did not level with the American people about the costs of war, insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history. OBAMA: And, of course, those calling for war labeled themselves strong and decisive while dismissing those who disagreed as weak, even appeasers of a malevolent adversary. More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq. Our troops achieved every mission they were given, but thousands of lives were lost, tens of thousands wounded. That doesn’t count the lives lost among Iraqis. Nearly a trillion dollars was spent. Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al-Qaida in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL. And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein. I raise this recent history because now more than ever, we need clear thinking in our foreign policy, and I raise this history because it bears directly on how we respond to the Iranian nuclear program. That program has been around for decades, dating back to the Shah’s efforts, with U.S. support, in the 1960s and ’70s to develop nuclear power. The theocracy that overthrew the Shah accelerated the program after the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, a war in which Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to brutal effect, and Iran’s nuclear program advanced steadily through the 1990s despite unilateral U.S. sanctions. When the Bush administration took office, Iran had no centrifuges, the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb, that were spinning to enrich uranium. But despite repeated warnings from the United States government, by the time I took office, Iran had installed several thousand centrifuges and showed no inclination to slow, much less halt, its program. Among U.S. policymakers, there’s never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world’s most unstable region and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups like Hezbollah and pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to nonproliferation that the world has done so much to defend. The question then is not whether to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but how. Even before taking office, I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch, and it’s been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options, including possible military options, on the table to achieve that objective. But I have also made clear my preference for a peaceful diplomatic resolution of the issue, not just because of the costs of war, but also because a negotiated agreement offered a more effective, verifiable and durable resolution. And so in 2009, we let the Iranians know that a diplomatic path was available. Iran failed to take that path, and our intelligence community exposed the existence of a covert nuclear facility at Fordo. Now some have argued that Iran’s intransigence showed the futility of negotiations. In fact, it was our very willingness to negotiate that helped America rally the world to our cause and secured international participation in an unprecedented framework of commercial and financial sanctions. OBAMA: Keep in mind, unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran had been in place for decades, but had failed to pressure Iran to the negotiating table. What made our new approach more effective was our ability to draw upon new U.N. Security Council resolutions, combining strong enforcement with voluntary agreements for nations like China and India, Japan and South Korea, to reduce their purchases of Iranian oil, as well as the imposition by our European allies of a total oil embargo. Winning this global buy-in was not easy. I know; I was there. In some cases, our partners lost billions of dollars in trade because of their decision to cooperate. But we were able to convince them that, absent a diplomatic resolution, the result could be war with major disruptions to the global economy, and even greater instability in the Middle East. In other words, it was diplomacy, hard, painstaking diplomacy, not saber rattling, not tough talk, that ratcheted up the pressure on Iran. With the world now unified beside us, Iran’s economy contracted severely, and remains about 20 percent smaller today than it would have otherwise been. No doubt this hardship played a role in Iran’s 2013 elections, when the Iranian people elected a new government, that promised to improve the economy through engagement to the world. A window had cracked open. Iran came back to the nuclear talks. And after a series of negotiations, Iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal, a deal that rolled back Iran’s stockpile of near 20 percent enriched uranium, and froze the progress of its program so that the P5+1 — the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the European Union, could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that Iran might be stalling for time. Now, let me pause here just to remind everybody that, when the interim deal was announced, critics, the same critics we are hearing from now, called it a historic mistake. They insisted Iran would ignore its obligations, they warned that the sanctions would unravel. They warned that Iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism. The critics were wrong. The progress of Iran’s nuclear program was halted for the first time in a decade, its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced, the deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped, inspections did increase. There was no flood of money into Iran. And the architecture of the international sanctions remained in place. In fact, the interim deal worked so well that the same people who criticized it so fiercely now cite it as an excuse not to support the broader accord. Think about that. What was once proclaimed as an historic mistake is now held up as a success and a reason to not sign the comprehensive of deal. So keep that in mind when you assess the credibility of the arguments being made against diplomacy today. Despite the criticism, we moved ahead to negotiate a more lasting, comprehensive deal. Our diplomats, led by Secretary of State John Kerry kept our coalition united, our nuclear experts, including one of the best in the world, Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, work tirelessly on a technical details. In July, we reached a comprehensive of plan of action that meets our objectives. Under its terms, Iran is never allowed to build a nuclear weapon. And while Iran, like any party to the nuclear non- proliferation treaty, is allowed to access peaceful nuclear energy, the agreement strictly defines the manner in which its nuclear program can proceed, ensuring that all pathways to a bomb are cut off. OBAMA: Here is how. Under this deal, Iran cannot acquire the plutonium needed for a bomb. The core of its heavy reactor at Arak will be pulled out, filled with concrete, replaced with one that will not produce plutonium for a weapon. The spent fuel from that reactor will be shipped out of the country, and Iran will not build any new heavy water reactors for at least 15 years. Iran will also not be able to acquire the enriched uranium that could be used for a bomb. As soon as this deal is implemented, Iran will remove two-thirds of its centrifuges. For the next decade, Iran will not enrich uranium with its more advanced centrifuges. Iran will not enrich uranium at the previously undisclosed Fordo facility, which is very deep underground, for at least 15 years. Iran will get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is currently enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs for the next 15 years. Even after those 15 years have passed, Iran will never have the right to use a peaceful program as cover to pursue a weapon, and in fact this deal shuts off the type of covert path Iran pursued in the past. There will be 24/7 monitoring of Iran’s key nuclear facilities. For decades, inspectors will have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, from the uranium mines and mills where they get raw materials to the centrifuge production facilities where they make machines to enrich it. And understand why this is so important. For Iran to cheat, it has to build a lot more than just one building or covert facility like Fordo. It would need a secret source for every single aspect of its program. No nation in history has been able to pull of such subterfuge when subjected to such rigorous inspections. And under the terms of the deal, inspectors will have the permanent ability to inspect any suspicious sites in Iran. And finally, Iran has powerful incentives to keep its commitments. Before getting sanctions relief, Iran has to take significant concrete steps, like removing centrifuges and getting rid of its stock piles. If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won’t need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council, America can trigger snap back on our own. On the other hand, if Iran abides by the deal, and its economy beings to reintegrate with the world, the incentive to avoid snap back will only grow. So this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives, this is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated, and because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously supported it. The majority of arms control and nonproliferation experts support it. Over 100 former ambassadors who served under Republican and Democratic presidents support it. I’ve had to make a lot of tough calls as president, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls, it’s not even close. Unfortunately, we’re living through a time in American politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prison, evaluated by headline-grabbing soundbites, and so before the ink was even dry on this deal, before Congress even read it, a majority of Republicans declared their virulent opposition. Lobbyists and pundits were suddenly transformed into armchair nuclear scientists… (LAUGHTER) … disputing the assessments of experts like Secretary Moniz, challenging his findings, offering multiple and sometimes contradictory arguments about why Congress should reject this deal. OBAMA: But if you repeat these arguments long enough, they can get some traction. So, let me address just a few of the arguments that have been made so far in opposition to this deal. First, there’re those who say the inspections are not strong enough, because inspectors can’t go anywhere in Iran at any time with no notice. Well, here’s the truth. Inspectors will be allowed daily access to Iran’s key nuclear sites. If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors will get that access even if Iran objects. This access can be with as little as 24 hours notice. And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we’ve identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in. And — and by the way, nuclear material isn’t something you hide in the closet. (LAUGHTER) It can leave a trace for years. The bottom line is, if Iran cheats, we can catch them, and we will. Second, there are those who argue that the deal isn’t strong enough, because some of the limitations on Iran’s civilian nuclear program expire in 15 years. Let me repeat. The prohibition on Iran having a nuclear weapon is permanent. The ban on weapons-related research is permanent. Inspections are permanent. It is true that some of the limitations regarding Iran’s peaceful program last only 15 years. But that’s how arms control agreements work. The first SALT treaty with the Soviet Union lasted five years. The first START treaty lasted 15 years. And in our current situation, if 15 or 20 years from now, Iran tries to build a bomb, this deal ensures that the United States will have better tools to detect it, a stronger basis under international law to respond and the same options available to stop our weapons program as we have today, including, if necessary, military options. On the other hand, without this deal, the scenarios that critics warn about happening in 15 years could happen six months from now. By killing this deal, Congress would not merely Iran’s pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it. Third, a number of critics say the deal isn’t worth it, because Iran will get billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Now, let’s be clear. The international sanctions were put in place precisely to get Iran to agree to constraints on its program. That’s the point of sanctions. Any negotiated agreement with Iran would involve sanctions relief. So an argument against sanctions relief is effectively an argument against any diplomatic resolution of this issue. It is true that if Iran lives up to its commitments, it will gain access to roughly $56 billion of its own money, revenue frozen overseas by other countries. But the notion that this will be a game-changer with all this money funneled into Iran’s pernicious activities misses the reality of Iran’s current situation. Partly because of our sanctions, the Iranian government has over half a trillion dollars in urgent requirements, from funding pensions and salaries to paying for crumbling infrastructure. Iran’s leaders have raised expectations of their people, that sanctions relief will improve their lives. Even a repressive regime like Iran’s cannot completely ignore those expectations, and that’s why our best analysts expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the Iranian people. Now, this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military. Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to. OBAMA: We have no illusions about the Iranian government or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies, including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq. They tried to destabilize our Gulf partners. But Iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. They engaged in them before sanctions and while sanctions were in place. In fact, Iran even engaged in these sanctions in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war, a war that cost them nearly a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. The truth is that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts, and whatever benefit Iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon. Moreover, there is no scenario where sanctions relief turns Iran into the region’s dominant power. Iran’s defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined budget of our Gulf allies. Their conventional capabilities will never compare to Israel’s, and our commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge helps guarantee that. Over the last several years, Iran has had to spend billions of dollars to support its only ally in the Arab world, Bashar al-Assad, even as he’s lost control of huge chunks of his country. And Hezbollah suffered significant blows on this same battlefield. And Iran, like the rest of the region, is being forced to respond to the threat of ISIL in Iraq. So, contrary to the alarmists who claim Iran is on the brink of taking over the Middle East, or even the world, Iran will remain a regional power with its own set of challenges. The ruling regime is dangerous and it is repressive. We will continue to have sanctions in place on Iran’s support for terrorism and violation of human rights. We will continue to insist upon the release of Americans detained unjustly. We will have a lot of differences with the Iranian regime. But if we are serious about confronting Iran’s destabilizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal. Instead, we need to check the behavior that we are concerned about directly, by helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter a cyber attack or a ballistic missile, by improving the interdiction of weapons’ shipments that go to groups like Hezbollah, by training our allies’ special forces so they can more effectively respond to situations like Yemen. All these capabilities will make a difference. We will be in a stronger position to implement them with this deal. And by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by ISIL. Now, the final criticism, this is sort of catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had. We should get a better deal. That is repeated over and over again. It’s a bad deal — we need a better deal. (LAUGHTER) One that relies on vague promises of toughness and, more recently, the argument that we can apply a broader and indefinite set of sanctions to squeeze the Iranian regime harder. Those making this argument are either ignorant of Iranian society, or they are not being straight with the American people. Sanctions alone are not going to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure, even aspects that are consistent with peaceful programs. That, is oftentimes, is what the critics are calling a better deal. OBAMA: Neither the Iranian government, or the Iranian opposition, or the Iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty. Moreover, our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the U.S. Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power, and it certainly wasn’t based on a desire for regime change in Iran. As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, Congress’ rejection would almost certainly result in multi-lateral sanctions unraveling.

If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world. In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world’s largest banks. We’d have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by way, raise questions internationally about the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. That’s part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived. What’s more likely to happen should Congress reject this deal is that Iran would end up with some form of sanctions relief without having to accept any of the constraints or inspections required by this deal. So in that sense, the critics are right. Walk away from this agreement, and you will get a better deal — for Iran. (APPLAUSE) Now because more sanctions won’t produce the results that the critics want, we have to be honest. Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option, another war in the Middle East. I say this not to be provocative, I am stating a fact. Without this deal, Iran will be in a position, however tough our rhetoric may be, to steadily advance its capabilities. Its breakout time, which is already fairly small, could shrink to near zero. Does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is president bomb those nuclear facilities? And as someone who does firmly believe that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon and who has wrestled with this issue since the beginning of my presidency, I can tell you that alternatives to military actions will have been exhausted once we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports. So let’s not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon. OBAMA: And here’s the irony. As I said before, military action would be far less effective than this deal in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That’s not just my supposition. Every estimate, including those from Israeli analysts, suggest military action would only set back Iran’s program by a few years at best, which is a fraction of the limitations imposed by this deal. It would likely guarantee that inspectors are kicked out of Iran. It is probable that it would drive Iran’s program deeper underground. It would certainly destroy the international unity that we have spent so many years building. Now, there are some of opponents — I have to give them credit. They’re opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. In fact, they argue that surgical strikes against Iran’s facilities will be quick and painless. But if we’ve learned anything from the last decade, it’s that wars in general and wars in the Middle East in particular are anything but simple. (APPLAUSE) The only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain costs, unintended consequences. We can also be sure that the Americans who bear the heaviest burden are the less-than-1 percent of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war. As commander-in-chief, I have not shied away from using force when necessary. I have ordered tens of thousands of young Americans into combat. I have sat by their bedside sometimes when they come home. I’ve ordered military action in seven countries. There are times when force is necessary, and if Iran does not abide by this deal, it’s possible that we don’t have an alternative. But how can we, in good conscience, justify war before we’ve tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives, that has been agreed to by Iran, that is supported by the rest of the world and that preserves our option if the deal falls short? How could we justify that to our troops? How could we justify that to the world or to future generations? In the end, that should be a lesson that we’ve learned from over a decade of war. On the front end, ask tough questions, subject our own assumptions to evidence and analysis, resist the conventional wisdom and the drumbeat of war, worry less about being labeled weak, worry more about getting it right. I recognize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously. But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those… (APPLAUSE) In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus. (APPLAUSE) The majority of the Iranian people have powerful incentives to urge their government to move in a different, less provocative direction, incentives that are strengthened by this deal. We should offer them that chance. We should give them the opportunity.

OBAMA: It’s not guaranteed to succeed. But if they take it, that would be good for Iran. It would be good for the United States. It would be good for a region that has known too much conflict. It would be good for the world. And if Iran does not move in that direction, if Iran violates this deal, we will have ample ability to respond. You know, the agreements pursued by Kennedy and Reagan with the Soviet Union. Those agreements and treaties involved America accepting significant constraints on our arsenal. As such, they were riskier. This agreement involves no such constraints. The defense budget of the United States is more than $600 billion. To repeat, Iran’s is about $15 billion. Our military remains the ultimate backstop to any security agreement that we make. I have stated that Iran will never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, and have done what is necessary to make sure our military options are real. And I have no doubt that any president who follows me will take the same position. So, let me sum up here. When we carefully examine the arguments against this deal, none stand up to scrutiny. That may be why the rhetoric on the other side is so strident. I suppose some of it can be ascribed to knee-jerk partisanship that has become all too familiar, rhetoric that renders every decision made to be a disaster, a surrender. You’re aiding terrorists; you’re endangering freedom. On the other hand, I do think it is important to a knowledge another more understandable motivation behind the opposition to this deal, or at least skepticism to this deal. And that is a sincere affinity for our friend and ally Israel. An affinity that, as someone who has been a stalwart friend to Israel throughout my career, I deeply share. When the Israeli government is opposed to something, people in the United States take notice; and they should. No one can blame Israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with the government like Iran’s, which includes leaders who deny the Holocaust, embrace an ideology of anti-Semitism, facilitate the flow of rockets that are arrayed on Israel’s borders. Are pointed at Tel Aviv. In such a dangerous neighbor Israel has to be vigilant, and it rightly insists it cannot depend on any other country, even it’s great friend the United States, for its own security. So, we have to take seriously concerns in Israel. But the fact is, partly due to American military and intelligence assistance, which my administration has provided at unprecedented levels, Israel can defend itself against any conventional danger, whether from Iran directly or from its proxies. On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Iran changes that equation. And that’s why this deal must be judged by what it achieves on the central goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This deal does exactly that. I say this as someone who is done more than any other president to strengthen Israel’s security. And I have made clear to the Israeli government that we are prepared to discuss how we can deepen that cooperation even further. Already, we have held talks with Israel on concluding another 10-year plan for U.S. security assistance to Israel. OBAMA: We can enhance support for areas like missile defense, information sharing, interdiction, all to help meet Israel’s pressing security needs. And to provide a hedge against any additional activities that Iran may engage in as a consequence of sanctions relief. But I have also listened to the Israeli security establishment, which warned of the danger posed by a nuclear armed Iran for decades. In fact, they helped develop many of the ideas that ultimately led to this deal. So to friends of Israel and the Israeli people, I say this. A nuclear armed Iran is far more dangerous to Israel, to America, and to the world than an Iran that benefits from sanctions relief. I recognize that prime minister Netanyahu disagrees, disagrees strongly. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I believe he is wrong. I believe the facts support this deal. I believe they are in America’s interests and Israel’s interests, and as president of the United States it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally. I do not believe that would be the right thing to do for the United States, I do not believe it would be the right thing to do for Israel. (APPLAUSE) For the last couple of weeks, I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one. What I’ve heard instead are the same types of arguments that we heard in the run up to the Iraq war. “Iran cannot be dealt with diplomatically.” “We can take military strikes without significant consequences.” “We shouldn’t worry about what the rest of the world thinks, because once we act, everyone will fall in line.” “Tougher talk, more military threats will force Iran into submission.” “We can get a better deal.” I know it’s easy to play in people’s fears, to magnify threats, to compare any attempt at diplomacy to Munich, but none of these arguments hold up. They didn’t back in 2002, in 2003, they shouldn’t now. (APPLAUSE) That same mind set in many cases offered by the same people, who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong… (LAUGHTER) … lead to a war that did more to strengthen Iran, more to isolate the United States than anything we have done in the decades before or since. It’s a mind set out of step with the traditions of American foreign policy where we exhaust diplomacy before war and debate matters of war and peace in the cold light of truth. “Peace is not the absence of conflict,” President Reagan once said. It is the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means. President Kennedy warned Americans not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than the exchange of threats. It is time to apply such wisdom. The deal before us doesn’t bet on Iran changing, it doesn’t require trust, it verifies and requires Iran to forsake a nuclear weapon. OBAMA: Just as we struck agreements with the Soviet Union at a time when they were threatening our allies, arming proxies against us, proclaiming their commitment to destroy our way of life, and had nuclear weapons pointed at all of our major cities, a genuine existential threat. You know, we live in a complicated world, a world in which the forces unleashed by human innovation are creating for our children that were unimaginable for most of human history. It is also a world of persistent threats, a world in which mass violence and cruelty is all too common and human innovation risks the destruction of all that we hold dear. In this world, the United States of America remains the most powerful nation on Earth, and I believe that we will remain such for decades to come. But we are one nation among many, and what separates us from the empires of old, what has made us exceptional, is not the mere fact of our military might. Since World War II, the deadliest war in human history, we have used our power to try and bind nations together in a system of international law. We have led an evolution of those human institutions President Kennedy spoke about to prevent the spread of deadly weapons, to uphold peace and security and promote human progress. We now have the opportunity to build on that progress. We built a coalition and held together through sanctions and negotiations, and now we have before us a solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon without resorting to war. As Americans, we should be proud of this achievement. And as members of Congress reflect on their pending decision, I urge them to set aside political concerns, shut out the noise, consider the stakes involved with the vote that you will cast. If Congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just constraints on Iran’s nuclear deal or the sanctions we have painstakingly built. We will have lost something more precious: America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America’s credibility is the anchor of the international system. John F. Kennedy cautioned here more than 50 years ago at this university that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war. But it’s so very important. It is surely the pursuit of peace that is most needed in this world so full of strife. My fellow Americans, contact your representatives in Congress, remind them of who we are, remind them of what is best in us and what we stand for so that we can leave behind a world that is more secure and more peaceful for our children. Thank you very much. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/ Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Billionaires For Bush and Clinton — American People For Anyone Else — Nurse Ratchet Is Back — Money Cannot Buy You Love — It’s My Turn — Videos Posted on June 20, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Banking, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, College, Comedy, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Middle East, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, Music, National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Politics, Press, Radio, Radio, Raves, Regulations, Religious, Speech, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: 15 June 2015, America, Ann Coulter, articles, Audio, Billionaires Candidates of Choice, Billionaires For Bush and Clinton, Breaking News, Broadcasting, capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Crimes, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Democratic Party, Deport the 30-50 Million Aliens in the United States, economic growth, economic policy, Economics, Education, Election 2016 Presidential Polls, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, First, fiscal policy, free enterprise, freedom, freedom of speech, Friends, Gallup Polls, Give It A Listen, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hillary Clinton, Hope, How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US?, Illegal Aliens, illegal immigration, Immigration, Independents, Individualism, Jeb Bush, Knowledge, liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Mark Levin, monetary policy, Money, MPEG3, Music, News, Nurse Ratchet, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Open borders, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Presidential Campaign Announcements, Presidential Elections 2016, prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Republican Party, Resources, Respect, rule of law, Rule of Men, Show Notes, Songs, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Tax Rates, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 485, Trends, Trends in Party Identification, Truth, Tyranny, Tyranny of Two Party System, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Federal Government Budget, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Pronk Pops Show 485 June 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 484 June 12, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 483 June 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 482 June 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 481 June 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 480 June 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 479 June 5, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 478 June 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 477 June 3, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 476 June 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 475 June 1, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 474 May 29, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 473 May 28, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 472 May 27, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 471 May 26, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 470 May 22, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 469 May 21, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 468 May 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 467 May 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 466 May 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 465 May 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 438: March 31, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Story 1: Billionaires For Bush and Clinton — American People For Anyone Else — Nurse Ratchet Is Back — Money Cannot Buy You Love — It’s My Turn — Videos Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression, and by aggression.

~Herbert Spencer, 1850 This is the gravest danger that today threatens civilization: State intervention, the absorption of all spontaneous social effort by the State; that is to say, of spontaneous historical action, which in the longrun sustains, nourishes and impels human destinies.

~Jose Ortega y Gasset, 1922 It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men.

~Henry L. Mencken, 1926

Election 2016 Presidential Polls Monday, June 15 Race/Topic (Click Poll to Sort)

Results

Spread

Walker 18, Rubio 7, Huckabee 10, Paul 10, Bush 10, Carson 5, Walker Cruz 4, Santorum, Trump 5, Christie 6, Perry, Fiorina 2, +8 Kasich, Jindal Clinton Clinton 54, Sanders 12, Biden 9, O’Malley 1, Webb 1, Chafee +42 Bush 14, Walker 10, Paul 9, Rubio 8, Trump 8, Christie 7, Cruz Bush 4, Carson 6, Huckabee 6, Fiorina 5, Perry, Jindal, Santorum, +4 Kasich Clinton Clinton 44, Sanders 32, Biden 8, O’Malley 2, Webb 1, Chafee +12

Iowa Republican Morning Presidential Caucus Consult

Iowa Democratic Morning Presidential Caucus Consult New Hampshire Morning Republican Consult Presidential Primary New Hampshire 2016 Morning Democratic Primary Consult South Carolina Morning Bush 11, Walker 10, Graham 14, Cruz 6, Carson 12, Huckabee Graham Republican Consult 7, Rubio 8, Paul 5, Christie 5, Trump 2, Perry, Santorum +2 Presidential Primary South Carolina Morning Clinton 56, Biden 15, Sanders 10, O’Malley 3, Webb 2, Chafee Clinton Democratic Consult 1 +41 Presidential Primary 2016 Republican Bush 9, Walker 10, Rubio 9, Carson 11, Huckabee 8, Paul 6, Carson Presidential MonmouthCruz 5, Christie 4, Trump 2, Perry 4, Santorum 3, Fiorina 2, +1 Nomination Kasich 1, Graham 2, Jindal 1 Wednesday, June 10 Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Ohio Republican Presidential Primary Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary

Poll Results

Spread

PPP Kasich 19, Walker 13, Carson 13, Bush 12, Rubio 12, Paul 9, (D) Huckabee 6, Cruz 5, Christie 4, Jindal, Perry PPP Clinton 61, Biden, Sanders 13, Chafee 2, O’Malley 2, Webb 1 (D) PPP Ohio: Bush vs. Clinton Clinton 45, Bush 43 (D) Ohio: Walker vs. PPP Clinton 44, Walker 43 Clinton (D) PPP Ohio: Rubio vs. Clinton Clinton 44, Rubio 44 (D) Ohio: Carson vs. PPP Clinton 44, Carson 43 Clinton (D) PPP Ohio: Paul vs. Clinton Clinton 41, Paul 44 (D) Ohio: Huckabee vs. PPP Clinton 45, Huckabee 42 Clinton (D) PPP Ohio: Cruz vs. Clinton Clinton 44, Cruz 43 (D) Ohio: Christie vs. PPP Clinton 44, Christie 41 Clinton (D) Ohio: Kasich vs. PPP Clinton 40, Kasich 47 Clinton (D)

Kasich +6 Clinton +48 Clinton +2 Clinton +1 Tie Clinton +1 Paul +3 Clinton +3 Clinton +1 Clinton +3 Kasich +7

APRIL 7, 2015

Trends In Party Identification, 1939-2014 For more than 70 years, with few exceptions, more Americans have identified as Democrats than Republicans. But the share of independents, which surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans several years ago, continues to increase. Currently, 39% Americans identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling. Report: A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation % of Americans who say they are … http://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/ Note: 1939-1989 yearly averages from the Gallup Organization interactive website. 1990-2014 yearly totals from Pew Research Center aggregate files. Based on the general public. Data unavailable for 1941. Independent data unavailable for 1951-1956.

One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest – Randal Back In Action Scene

I Want My Cigarettes

The Beatles – Can’t Buy Me Love (Live)

Hillary Clinton Announces Her Bid For President. Again.

This Aug. 24, 2012 photo provided by FDR Four Freedoms Park LLC, shows the New York City memorial park, honoring President Franklin D. Roosevelt, that has been completed 40 years after the original design was created. The Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park on the southern tip of 2-mile-long Roosevelt Island – between Manhattan and Queens – is being dedicated Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012, in a ceremony to be attended by dignitaries including former President Bill Clinton and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. (AP Photo/FDR Four Freedoms Park LLC, Paul Warchol)

Clinton Touts Shared Prosperity In Campaign Kick-Off Speech

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Candidacy Announcement Expected On Sunday

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential Campaign Announcement (OFFICIAL)

Malzberg | Raffi Williams Discusses Hillary Clinton’s Saturday “Re-Launch” Of Her Campaign

Hillary Clinton Launches Presidential Campaign In Nyc FULL SPEECH

Hillary The Scandals

Exposed: Hillary Clinton’s Sex Scandals

THE CLINTON CONSPIRACY – MUST WATCH

Google “Bill Clinton Rape”

The Alex Jones Show (1st HOUR-VIDEO Commercial Free) Sunday June 14 2015: News

CNN Poll Shows Hillary Clinton “Shine Has Tarnished” And She Is Losing Support Of Independents

FNC: Hillary Clinton’s Favorability Down 11 Among Independents

Jeb LET’S-JUST-LEAVE-LAST-NAMES-OUT-OF-THIS Bush 2016 Presidential Campaign Announcement

Immigration Protesters Disrupt Jeb Bush Campaign Announcement – June 15, 2015

Conservative Heads Explode Over Jeb Bush Immigration Comments

Mark Levin Comments On Jeb Bush’s Statements About Legal And Illegal Immigration

PJTV: No Jeb Bush And No Third Parties

Glenn Beck – “Jeb Bush Is Hillary Clinton LITE”

Immigration By The Numbers — Off The Charts

America’s Immigration History

Top 10 Immigrant Countries

Immigration, World Poverty And Gumballs – Updated 2010

How Many Illegal Aliens Are In The US? – Walsh – 1 How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 1. Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million. On October 3, 2007, a press conference and panel discussion was hosted by Californians for Population Stabilization (http://www.CAPSweb.org) and The Social Contract (http://www.TheSocialContract.com) to discuss alternative methodologies for estimating the true numbers of illegal aliens residing in the United States. This is a presentation of five panelists presenting at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on October 3, 2007. The presentations are broken into a series of video segments: Wayne Lutton, Introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5KHQR… Diana Hull, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WvFW… Diana Hull, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYuRNY… James H Walsh, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB0RkV… James H. Walsh, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbmdun… Phil Romero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ohvJ… Fred Elbel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTJGf…

How Many Illegal Aliens Are In The US? – Walsh – 2

Jeb Bush Urges ‘Earned Legal Status’ For 11 Million Illegal Aliens

Did Ann Coulter Save USA With Funny & Brilliant Immigration CPAC Speech?

Laura Ingraham Slams Jeb Bush At CPAC

Jeb Bush To Officially Announce 2016 Presidential Run

Jeb Bush Finally Announces He Will Run For President

Jeb Bush – Just Another W?

Raw Video: Jeb Bush Speaks At Politics And Eggs

Diana Ross – Do You Know Where You’re Going To ( Theme From Soundtrack Mahogany )

Diana Ross It’s My Turn

JEB BUSH HAS OPTIMISTIC MESSAGE, FACES CHALLENGES IN ’16 BID BY STEVE PEOPLES AND BRENDAN FARRINGTON ASSOCIATED PRESS Jeb Bush is launching a Republican presidential bid months in the making Monday with a vow to get Washington “out of the business of causing problems” and to stay true to his beliefs – easier said than done in a bristling primary contest where his conservative credentials will be sharply challenged. “I will campaign as I would serve, going everywhere, speaking to everyone, keeping my word, facing the issues without flinching,” Bush said in excerpts of a speech released by his campaign before his afternoon announcement. Bush was opening his campaign at a rally near his south Florida home at Miami Dade College, where the institution’s large and diverse student body symbolizes the nation he seeks to lead. In an unusual twist for a political speech aimed at a national audience, Bush, who is bilingual, planned to speak partly in Spanish. The former Florida governor has made minority outreach a priority. “In any language,” his speech said, “my message will be an optimistic one because I am certain that we can make the decades just ahead in America the greatest time ever to be alive in this world.” In a video for the event, showing women, minorities and a disabled child, Bush says “the most vulnerable in our society should be in the front of the line and not the back.” This calls for “new leadership that takes conservative principles and applies them so that people can rise up.” Neither his father, former President George H.W. Bush, nor his brother, former President George W. Bush, was expected to attend. The family was to be represented instead by Jeb Bush’s mother and former first lady, Barbara Bush, who once said that the country didn’t need yet another Bush as president, and by his son George P. Bush, recently elected Texas land commissioner. Before the event, the Bush campaign came out with a new logo – Jeb! – that conspicuously leaves out the Bush surname. Bush joins the race in progress in some ways in a commanding position. Bush has probably raised a record amount of money to support his candidacy and conceived of a new approach on how to structure his campaign, both aimed at allowing him to make a deep run into the GOP primaries. But on other measures, early public opinion polls among them, he has yet to break out. While unquestionably one of the top-tier candidates in the GOP race, he is also only one of several in a large and capable Republican field that does not have a true front-runner. In the past six months, Bush has made clear he will remain committed to his core beliefs in the campaign to come – even if his positions on immigration and education standards are deeply unpopular among the conservative base of the party that plays an outsized role in the GOP primaries. Tea party leader Mark Meckler on Monday said Bush’s positions on education and immigration are “a nonstarter with many conservatives.” “There are two political dynasties eyeing 2016,” said Meckler, a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, one of the movement’s largest organizations, and now leader of Citizens for Self-Governance. “And before conservatives try to beat Hillary, they first need to beat Bush.” Yet a defiant Bush has showed little willingness to placate his party’s right wing. “I’m not going to change who I am,” Bush said as he wrapped up a European trip on the weekend. “I respect people who may not agree with me, but I’m not going to change my views because today someone has a view that’s different.” Bush is one of 11 major Republicans in the hunt for the nomination. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are among those still deciding whether to join a field that could end up just shy of 20. After touring four early-voting states, Bush quickly launches a private fundraising tour with stops in at least 11 cities before the end of the month. Two events alone – a reception at Union Station in Washington on Friday and a breakfast the following week on Seventh Avenue in New York – will account for almost $2 million in new campaign cash, according to invitations that list more than 75 already committed donors.

Jeb Bush Announces GOP Presidential Campaign Enters crowded Republican field with the party faithful divided over the GOP’s direction By BYRON TAU Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on Monday, flipping the switch on an expansive campaign operation he has quietly been building for months.

ENLARGE Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush formally announces his campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination on Monday, June 15, 2015 in Miami. PHOTO:REUTERS “Here’s what it comes down to. Our country is on a very bad course. And the question is: What are we going to do about it? The question for me is: What am I going to do about it?” he said. “And I have decided. I am a candidate for president of the United States.” Mr. Bush, who becomes the third member of his family to seek the nation’s highest office, spoke while delivering his official campaign speech at Miami-Dade College. Earlier, he officially kicked off his candidacy by filing paperwork to run for president with the Federal Election Commission. The son and brother of two U.S. presidents, Mr. Bush enters a presidential field crowded with young up-and-coming Republican talent and an electorate deeply divided about the future direction of both the Republican Party and the nation. In laying out the case for his candidacy, Mr. Bush promised an uplifting message about the direction and future of the country. “In any language, my message will be an optimistic one because I am certain that we can make the decades just ahead in America the greatest time ever to be alive in this world,” Mr. Bush said. And the former Florida governor boasted about job and economic growth and tax cuts in the state over his tenure. JebBushisnotthatfaroffpoliticallyfrombrotherGeorgeW.,butthetwohaveverydifferentpersonalitiesandbackgrounds.Photo:AP Though Mr. Bush has built a sizable campaign war chest and attracted veteran operatives for both his campaign and his independent super PAC—polls show him barely registering above 10% in a crowded primary field. He’ll also face a Republican primary electorate that has grown more conservative since his brother George W. Bush ran for election in 2000 on a platform of what he called compassionate conservatism. READ MORE ON CAPITAL JOURNAL Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s home for politics, policy and national security news. The Bush Family Tree CAPITOL JOURNAL: Jeb Bush’s Chance for Takeoff Jeb Bush Navigates Long Family Legacy in 2016 Bid Meet the Candidate: Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush Obama Fights to Save Trade Bill Why Hillary Clinton Will Be Hard to Beat On two issues in particular—immigration andeducation—Mr. Bush finds himself on the opposite side from many grassroots activists in the Republican Party. Mr. Bush has long supported changes to the nation’s immigration system that would allow illegal immigrants a path to legal status. He also has expressed support for national education standards opposed by many conservative activists. Mr. Bush also faces the challenge of distancing himself in the voters’ eyes from his family name and legacy. His brother, George W. Bush, left office with sagging approval ratings due in part to his role as the architect of a divisive and unpopular war in Iraq. Jeb Bush has spent months planning his entrance into the 2016 presidential campaign and he will enter with the most name recognition and money of his GOP field. WSJ’s Jerry Seib explains. Photo: AP Mr. Bush unveiled a campaign logo on Monday that downplays his family’s last name. The stylized red logo contains only Mr. Bush’s first name with an exclamation point. His father, George H.W. Bush, and brother, George W. Bush, aren’t expected to attend his campaign kickoff. Mr. Bush has been traveling the country in the past few months banking campaign cash for an independent group that is expected to support his efforts. With his deep ties to the Republican donor class and the business community, Mr. Bush has built a formidable operation and a major war chest. Once he becomes an official candidate, he won’t be able to coordinate with the super PAC, which will be run out of Los Angeles. Mr. Bush’s official campaign is based in Florida. His announcement comes on his return from a five-day, three-nation European tour aimed at shoring up Mr. Bush’s foreign policy credentials. http://www.wsj.com/articles/jeb-bush-formally-announces-hell-seek-gop-presidential-nomination-1434388382

Jeb Bush: I Cry, I’m Introverted, But I Want To Be President Third member of the Bush dynasty finally to announce candidacy for Republican nomination

Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, in Tallinn, Estonia, on Saturday Photo: Bloomberg By Joanna Walters, New York and Raf Sanchez, Miami Jeb Bush will finally end months of speculation and announce he is running for the American presidency on Monday, in a campaign carefully calibrated to portray himself as a natural heir to the family dynasty and at the same time distance himself from his brother George W. In a key-note interview, he described his father, the first President George Bush, as the “greatest man alive” and said the mere thought of him might make him cry. But by contrast he was careful to differentiate himself from his brother. “Jeb is different from George,” he told CNN. “Jeb is who he is and his life story is different.” Mr Bush plans to announce he is running for the White House in Miami on Monday, after months of unofficial campaigning. He unveiled his campaign logo via social media site Twitter on Sunday, and immediately ran into teasing from the public that it is almost identical to the logo he used when he ran, successfully, for the governorship of Florida in 1998. The logo is simply his first name in bright red with an exclamation mark and 2016 underneath. His governor’s campaign logo was also ‘Jeb!’ In a jab at both President Barack Obama and, seemingly, some of hisyounger Republican rivals such as Marco Rubio, he was keen to project a statesmanlike appearance, touting his “life experience” as a state governor and overseas businessman. “It’s something that’s been lacking in the presidency, to have someone who’s been tempered by life, and along the way I will get to share that,” said Mr Bush, who at 62 is eighteen years older than Mr Rubio and eight years older even than the departing president. Polls show the two men, along with Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, as the current front-runners for the Republican nomination. • Which Republicans are running for US president in 2016? Mr Bush will make his campaign announcement in his hometown of Miami and will be joined by his wife Columba, a Mexican-born woman who has largely shied away from the public spotlight. The story of how they met as teenagers featured prominently in a video Mr Bush released shortly before the announcement. “I need to share my heart to show a little bit about my life experience,” Mr Bush said in the video. While it has been clear for months that Mr Bush intended to run he has used the time ahead of his formal announcement to raise funds for a superPAC, a nominally independent group that will support his candidacy. Mr Bush is said to have already amassed a campaign war chest of more than $100 million, according to the website Politico. He also travelled to Germany, Poland and Estonia to showcase his foreign policy credentials and has been dieting based on the eating habits of a caveman to shed weight before getting into the race. Mr Bush will run with a traditionally hawkish Republican approach to foreign policy, arguing for a stronger line against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Vladimir Putin’s Russia. But he is among the most moderate of the Republican contenders when it comes to domestic policy. Unlike others in his party he has not lashed out at national education standards and has taken a more measured tone on immigration. • US election 2016: What you need to know Mr Bush, who speaks fluent Spanish, may be able to attract the votes of Hispanic voters who are an increasingly crucial voting group in US elections. However, the conservative activists who play a major role in determining the Republican nominee may pressure Mr Bush to take a harsher line on immigration. He has already backed away from his previous support for a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the US for a long time. Mrs Clinton supports such a path, as does President Barack Obama. Mr Bush has denied he was trying to cut himself off from his famous name, but admitted he had a difficult task to show the man beneath the family. • Does Jeb Bush even really want to be president? “I don’t have to dissociate myself from my family, you know, I love them but I know that for me to be successful I’m going to have to share my heart, tell my story,” he added. “It’s important. It’s something that took a little bit of getting used to for me, personally, to be able to show my heart, because I’m kind of introverted, but it’s important to do,” he said. He was asked about his father, who turned 91 on June 12 and whether he would be on his mind when he announces his own candidacy to follow in the family footsteps. “I’m not going to think about that because Bushes are known to cry once in a while. It’s very emotional for me,” he said. “I love my dad. He’s just the greatest man alive,” he said. Mr Bush said he was looking forward to telling a life story that was “full of warts and full of successes”, where he had had to make “tough decisions”.Most startling is that it completely leaves out the famous family name that has given him a head start in the 2016 presidential race. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11674241/Jeb-Bush-I-cry-Im-introverted-but-I-want-to-be-president.html

Clinton Formally Launches 2016 Campaign With Focus On Economic Equality Hillary Clinton on Saturday officially launched her 2016 presidential campaign, calling for a return to shared prosperity and asking American workers, students and others to trust her to fight for them. Clinton made the announcement at an outdoor rally on New York City’s Roosevelt Island, two months after announcing her campaign with an online video.

“You have to wonder: When do I get ahead? I say now,” Clinton told the crowd in a roughly 46-minute speech. “You brought the country back. Now it’s your time to enjoy the prosperity. That is why I’m running for president of the United States.” The former first lady, U.S. senator from New York and secretary of state is the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 White House race. Also in the race are Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chaffe. She lost her 2008 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination to then-Sen. Obama. Clinton, wearing her signature blue pantsuit, walked through the crowd en route to the stage for her speech. She remarked that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms are a “testament to our nation’s unmatched aspirations and a reminder of our unfinished work at home and abroad.” Clinton also drew into focus what will likely be the key themes of her campaign including support for same-sex marriage, wage equality for women and all Americans, affordable college tuition and free childcare and pre-kindergarten. “The top-25 hedge fund managers make more than all kindergarten teachers combined,” she said. “And they’re paying lower taxes.” Clinton attempted to portray herself as a fierce advocate for those left behind in the post-recession economy, detailing a lifetime of work on behalf of struggling families. She said her mother’s difficult childhood inspired what she considers a calling. “I have been called many things by many people,” Clinton said.” Quitter is not one of them.” She said that attribute came from her late mother, Dorothy Rodham, in whom she would confide after hard days in the Senate and at the State Department. “I wish my mother could have been with us longer,” Clinton said. “I wish she could have seen the America we are going to build together … where we don’t leave any one out or any one behind.” Clinton was joined by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and their daughter, Chelsea. She also was critical in her speech of Republicans, suggesting they have reserved economic prosperity for the wealthy, in large part by cutting taxes for the country’s highest wage-earners. She also accused them of trying to “wipe out tough rules on Wall Street,” take away health insurance from more than 16 million Americans without offering any “credible alternative” and turning their backs on “gay people who love each other.” The Republican National Committee said in response that Clinton’s campaign was full of hypocritical attacks, partisan rhetoric and ideas from the past. “Next year, Americans will reject the failed policies of the past and elect a Republican president,” RNC Press Secretary Allison Moore said. Republicans also argued Clinton devoted only about five minutes of her speech to foreign policy. Clinton now heads to four early-primary states, starting Saturday night in Iowa where she will talk with volunteers and others about grassroots-campaign efforts for the first-in-the-nation caucus state. The organizational meeting will be simulcast to Clinton camps across the country and serve as a blueprint for them all 435 congressional districts. She then travels to New Hampshire on June 15, South Carolina on June 17 and in Nevada on June 18. Clinton vowed Saturday to roll out specific policy proposals in the coming weeks, including ones on rewriting the tax code and sustainable energy. In what was her first major speech of her campaign, she also cited President Obama, Roosevelt and her husband, saying they embraced the idea that “real and lasting prosperity must be built by all and shared by all.” Holding the event on an island between Queens and Manhattan raised some criticism about its accessibility by vehicle and public transportation. The campaign estimated the event crowd, whose members needed a ticket, at 5,500. However, the number appeared smaller, and the overflow section was empty. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/13/clinton-formally-launches-2016-campaign-with-focus-on-economic-equality/

Hillary Clinton, In Roosevelt Island Speech, Pledges To Close Income Gap By AMY CHOZICK Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a speech that was at times sweeping and at times policy laden, delivered on Saturday a pointed repudiation of Republican economic policies and a populist promise to reverse the gaping gulf between the rich and poor at her biggest campaign event to date. Under sunny skies and surrounded by flag-waving supporters on Roosevelt Island in New York, Mrs. Clinton pledged to run an inclusive campaign and to create a more inclusive economy, saying that even the new voices in the Republican Party continued to push “the top-down economic policies that failed us before.” “These Republicans trip over themselves promising lower taxes for the wealthy and fewer rules for the biggest corporations without any regard on how that will make income inequality worse,” she said before a crowd estimated at 5,500, according to the campaign. “I’m not running for some Americans, but for all Americans,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I’m running for all Americans.” Continue reading the main story

Roosevelt Island Awakens to a Clinton Crowd JUNE 13, 2015 Offering her case for the presidency, she rested heavily on her biography. Her candidacy, she said, was in the name of “everyone who has ever been knocked down but refused to be knocked out.” U.S. & POLITICS By Reuters 00:51 Hillary Outlines Campaign Focus Hillary Clinton speaks at her campaign launch rally on Roosevelt Island in New York City. By Reuters on Publish DateJune 13, 2015. Photo by Mark Kauzlarich/The New York Times. Mrs. Clinton portrayed herself as a fighter, sounding a theme her campaign had emphasized in recent days. “I’ve been called many things by many people, quitter is not one of them,” she said. Standing on a platform set in the middle of a grassy memorial to Franklin D. Roosevelt on the East River island named after him, Mrs. Clinton invoked his legacy. She also praised President Obama and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, but declared that “we face new challenges” in the aftermath of the economic crisis. While some Republican detractors have tried to make an issue of Mrs. Clinton’s age (if she won she would be 69 when she took office in January 2017), she sought to embrace it and to rebut the notion that she cannot stand for change or modernity. Offering her campaign contact information, she spoke about the lives of gay people, saying Republicans “turn their backs on gay people who love each other.” In one of the biggest applause lines, she said: “I may not be the youngest candidate in this race, but I will be the youngest woman president in the history of the United States.” Underscoring the point with a riff on an old Beatles song, Mrs. Clinton said: “There may be some new voices in the presidential Republican choir. But they’re all singing the same old song.” “It’s a song called ‘Yesterday,’ ” she continued. “They believe in yesterday.” Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called the speech “chock-full of hypocritical attacks, partisan rhetoric and ideas from the past that led to a sluggish economy.”

Who Is Running for President (and Who’s Not)? Mrs. Clinton specified policies she would push for, including universal prekindergarten, paid family leave, equal pay for women, college affordability and incentives for companies that provide profit-sharing to employees. She also spoke of rewriting the tax code “so it rewards hard work at home” rather than corporations “stashing profits overseas.” She did not detail how she would achieve those policies or address their costs. Mrs. Clinton spoke to the criticism that her wealth makes her out of touch with middle-class Americans, saying her candidacy is for “factory workers and food servers who stand on their feet all day, for the nurses who work the night shift, for the truckers who drive for hours.” Uncomfortable with the fiery rhetoric of Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, Mrs. Clinton offered some stark statistics to address the concerns of the Democratic Party’s restless left. “The top 25 hedge fund managers make more than all of America’s kindergarten teachers combined, often paying a lower tax rate,” she said. Mrs. Clinton said many Americans must be asking, “When does my family get ahead?” She added: “When? I say now.” In a campaign in which Republicans have emphasized the growing threat of Islamic terrorism and an unstable Middle East, Mrs. Clinton hardly mentioned foreign policy. She did speak of her experience as a senator from New York after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “As your president, I’ll do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe,” she said, weaving the skyline and a view of the newly built One World Trade Center into her remarks. For as much as the content of the speech mattered, the theater of it was equally important. For a campaign criticized for lacking passion, the event gave Mrs. Clinton the ability to create a camera-ready tableau of excitement. The Brooklyn Express Drumline revved up the crowd assembled on a narrow stretch at the southern tip of the island. And Marlon Marshall, the campaign’s director of political engagement, rattled off statistics about the number of volunteers who have signed up and house parties held in the early nominating states. A section with giant screens set up for an overflow crowd stood nearly empty. But a crowd of supporters and volunteers from the staunchly Democratic New York area does not exactly represent the electorate writ large. The real test for Mrs. Clinton and how the speech was perceived will be in Iowa, where she was to travel on Saturday evening for several events. Iowa, the first nominating state, shunned her the last time she sought the presidency, in 2008. “I was disappointed she didn’t challenge Obama four years ago,” said Dominique Pettinato, a 24-year-old parole officer who lives in Brooklyn. For some members of the skeptical liberal wing of the Democratic Party still concerned that Mrs. Clinton will embrace her husband’s centrist approach, the speech went only so far in convincing them otherwise. “This was mostly a typical Democratic speech — much better than the direction Republicans offer America,” said Adam Green, a co-founder of Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal advocacy group. But he said the speech had not offered “the bold economic vision that most Americans want and need.” Mrs. Clinton did not broach one issue that liberals are increasingly frustrated by: trade. On Thursday, Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist from Vermont who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, pointedly criticized Mrs. Clinton for not taking a position on a controversial trade bill Mr. Obama is pushing, as well as other contentious issues like the proposedKeystone XL oil pipeline and the renewal of the Patriot Act. “What is the secretary’s point of view on that?” Mr. Sanders asked of the act, which he voted against. Mrs. Clinton had hardly stopped speaking Saturday when Bill Hyers, a senior strategist for Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, who is also seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, criticized her as vague on trade and other issues. Mr. O’Malley, he said, “has been fearless and specific in the progressive agenda we need.” If there is one demographic Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is hoping to excite it is young women. It is an obvious connection that her 2008 campaign played down as it tried to present the former first lady as a strong commander in chief. But on Saturday it was clear that Mrs. Clinton will make gender more central to her campaign this time. In her closing remarks, she called for a country “where a father can tell his daughter yes, you can be anything you want to be, even president of the United States.” Correction: June 13, 2015 An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of a woman who attended Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech. She is Dominique Pettinato, not Pettin. An earlier version also misstated part of a quote by Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee. She said Mrs. Clinton’s speech was “chock-full of hypocritical attacks,” not hypothetical attacks.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/us/hillary-clinton-attacks-republican-economic-policies-in-roosevelt-island-speech.html

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-485 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 Shows 93 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 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 01-09

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

Congress Using Fast Track Authority To Open The Back Door To Millions of H-1 B Visas For Foreign Workers Replacing American Workers (Trade In Services Agreement) — The Selling Out of The American People By Political Elitist Establishment (PEE) For Corporate Campaign Contributions — Vote The Bastards Out of Office — Videos Posted on June 13, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Banking, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Politics, Press, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: 12 June 2015, 30-50 Million Illegal Aliens in USA, America, articles, Audio, Breaking News, Broadcasting, capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Corporate Campaign Contributions, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Disney, economic growth, economic policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, Fast Track Authority, First, fiscal policy, Foreign Workers Replacing American Workers, free enterprise, Free Trade, freedom, freedom of speech, Friends, George Carlin, Give It A Listen, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, H-1 B Visas, Hope, Individualism, Jim Rogers, Knowledge, liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Mark Levin, monetary policy, MPEG3, News, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Elitist Establishment (PEE), Political Philosophy, Politics, prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, rule of law, Rule of Men, Senator Ted Cruz, Show Notes, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 484, Trade and Services Agreement, Trade in Services Act (TiSA), Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Pronk Pops Show 484 June 12, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 483 June 11, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 482 June 10, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 481 June 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 480 June 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 479 June 5, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 478 June 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 477 June 3, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 476 June 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 475 June 1, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 474 May 29, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 473 May 28, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 472 May 27, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 471 May 26, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 470 May 22, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 469 May 21, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 468 May 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 467 May 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 466 May 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 465 May 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 438: March 31, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015 Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Story 1: Congress Using Fast Track Authority To Open The Back Door To Millions of H-1 B Visas For Foreign Workers Replacing American Workers (Trade In Services Agreement) — The Selling Out of The American People By Political Elitist Establishment (PEE) For Corporate Campaign Contributions — Vote The Bastards Out of Office — Videos

George Carlin On The American Dream

‘Fast-Track’ Trade Bill Derailed In House In Blow To Obama

Democrats Derail Obama’s Trade Deal For Now

The Fall Of Cover Garbage

SR In 60: House Lawmakers Vote To Derail Obama’s Trade Agenda

McConnell Says Pres Obama Has Done An Excellent Job Pushing Trade Deal Jeff Sessions Lou Dobbs

Investor Jim Rogers On Why TPP Is So Secret

No One Knows What The TPP Is

Wikileaks Releases Part Of The Trans-Pacific Partnership Text…

WikiLeaks Launches Campaign To Offer $100,000 “Bounty” For Leaked Drafts Of Secret TPP Chapters

Belgium: Assange Slams EU/US Plans Revealed In Leaked TiSA Documents

Mark Levin: Fast Track Trade Bill Massively Expands Obama’s Executive Authority Over Immigration!

Breaking! TPA Passes House While TAA Fails

Disney Fires Hundreds Of American Tech Workers, Forced To Train Foreign Replacements

Disney Setting Up High Tech Sweatshops In US (TPP Foreshadow)

TPP: The Dirtiest Trade Deal You’ve Never Heard Of

Infowars Blows The Lid Off TPP Agreement

The Truth About Free Trade Agreements | Trans-Pacific Partnership TPP

Free Trade And The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Revolt Over TPP: Senate Dems Rebuke Obama By Blocking Debate On Secretive Trade Deal

Cruz Supports Giving Fast Track Authority On Trade To Obama

Sen Ted Cruz Wants To DOUBLE Immigration

Sen. Cruz Amendment To Immigration Legislation To Increase H-1B Visas

REVEALED: THE SECRET IMMIGRATION CHAPTER IN OBAMA’S TRADE AGREEMENT

PEDRO SANTANA/AFP/Getty Images by ALEX SWOYER10 Jun 2015Washington, DC5444

Discovered inside the huge tranche of secretive Obamatrade documents released by Wikileaks are key details on how technically any Republican voting for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fasttrack trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal would technically also be voting to massively expand President Obama’s executive authority when it comes to immigration matters. The mainstream media covered the Wikileaks document dump extensively, but did not mention the immigration chapter contained within it, so Breitbart News took the documents to immigration experts to get their take on it. Nobody has figured how big a deal the documents uncovered by Wikileaks are until now. (See below) The president’s Trade in Services Act (TiSA) documents, which is one of the three different close-to-completely-negotiated deals that would be fast-tracked making up the president’s trade agreement, show Obamatrade in fact unilaterally alters current U.S. immigration law. TiSA, like TPP or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) deals, are international trade agreements that President Obama is trying to force through to final approval. The way he can do so is by getting Congress to give him fast-track authority through TPA. TiSA is even more secretive than TPP. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill can review the text of TPP in a secret, secured room inside the Capitol—and in some cases can bring staffers who have high enough security clearances—but with TiSA, no such draft text is available. Voting for TPA, of course, would essentially ensure the final passage of each TPP, T-TIP, and TiSA by Congress, since in the history of fast-track any deal that’s ever started on fast-track has been approved. Roughly 10 pages of this TiSA agreement document leak are specifically about immigration. “The existence of these ten pages on immigration in the Trade and Services Agreement make it absolutely clear in my mind that the administration is negotiating immigration – and for them to say they are not – they have a lot of explaining to do based on the actual text in this agreement,” Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, told Breitbart News following her review of these documents. Obama will be able to finalize all three of the Obamatrade deals, without any Congressional input, if Congress grants him fast-track authority by passing TPA. Fast-track lowers the vote thresholds in the Senate and blocks Congress from amending any trade deals—and also, since each of these three deals are pretty much entirely negotiated already, it wouldn’t lead to any more congressional involvement or transparency with each. The Senate passed the TPA last month, so it is up to the House to put the brakes on Obama’s unilateral power. The House could vote as early as Friday on fast-track, but may head into next week. By all counts, it’s going to be a very tight vote—and may not pass. It remains to be seen what will happen in light of leaks about things like the immigration provisions of TiSA—which deals with 24 separate parties, mostly different nations but also the European Union. It is focused on increasing the free flow of services worldwide—and with that, comes labor. Labor means immigration and guestworkers. “This Trade and Services Agreement is specifically mentioned in TPA as being covered by fast-track authority, so why would Congress be passing a Trade Promotion Authority Act that covers this agreement, if the U.S. weren’t intended to be a party to this agreement – so at the very least, there should be specific places where the U.S. exempts itself from these provisions and there are not,” explained Jenks. She emphasized that this is a draft, but at this point “certainly the implication is that the U.S. intends to be a party to all or some of the provisions of this agreement. There is nothing in there that says otherwise, and there is no question in my mind that some of the provisions in this Trade and Services Agreement would require the United States to change its immigration laws.” In 2003, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution that said no immigration provision should be in trade agreements – and in fact, former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) voted for this resolution. The existence of these 10 pages is in clear violation of that earlier unanimous decision, and also in violation of the statements made by the U.S. Trade Representative. “He has told members of Congress very specifically the U.S. is not negotiating immigration – or at least is not negotiating any immigration provisions that would require us to change our laws. So, unless major changes are made to the Trade and Services Agreement – that is not true,” said Jenks. There are three examples within the 10 pages of areas where the U.S. would have to alter current immigration law. First, on page 4 and 5 of the agreement, roughly 40 industries are listed where potentially the U.S. visa processes would have to change to accommodate the requirements within the agreement. Jenks explained that under the agreement, the terms don’t have an economic needs based test, which currently U.S. law requires for some types of visa applications in order to show there aren’t American workers available to fill positions. Secondly, on page 7 of the agreement, it suggests, “The period of processing applications may not exceed 30 days.” Jenks said this is a massive problem for the U.S. because so many visa applications take longer than 30 days. “We will not be able to meet those requirements without essentially our government becoming a rubber stamp because it very often takes more than 30 days to process a temporary worker visa,” she said. Jenks also spotted another issue with the application process. “The fact that there’s a footnote in this agreement that says that face to face interviews are too burdensome … we’re supposed to be doing face to face interviews with applicants for temporary visas,” she added. “According to the State Department Consular Officer, it’s the in person interviews that really gives the Consular Officer an opportunity to determine – is this person is a criminal, is this person a terrorist … all of those things are more easily determined when you’re sitting face to face with someone and asking those questions.” The third issue is present on page 4 of the agreement. It only provides an “[X]” where the number of years would be filled in for the entry or temporary stay. Jenks explained that for example, with L visas under current U.S. immigration law, the time limit is seven years – so if the agreement were to go beyond seven years, it would change current U.S. law.

This wouldn’t be unconstitutional if Obama has fast-track authority under TPA, as Congress would essentially have given him the power to finalize all aspects of the negotiations, including altering immigration law. “I think this whole thing makes it very clear that this administration is negotiating immigration – intends to make immigration changes if they can get away with it, and I think it’s that much more critical that Congress ensure that the administration does not have the authority to negotiate immigration,” Jenks said. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/10/revealed-the-secret-immigration-chapter-in-obamas-trade-agreement/

TiSA: A Secret Trade Agreement That Will Usurp America’s Authority to Make Immigration Policy By Daniel Costa and Ron Hira Proponents of Trade Promotion Authority (aka fast-track trade negotiating authority), which the House of Representatives will likely vote on soon, have made an unequivocal promise that future trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will explicitly exclude any provisions that would require a change to U.S. immigration law, regulations, policy, or practices. Many members of Congress in both parties have expressed concern that trade agreements might limit America’s ability to set immigration policy. Republican congressmen Paul Ryan and Robert Goodlatte have responded by explicitly assuring members of their party that there will be no immigration provisions in any trade bill. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has stated in an interrogatory with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and via letter that nothing is being negotiated in the TPP that “would require any modification to U.S. immigration law or policy or any changes to the U.S. visa system.” Furthermore, just a few weeks ago, the Senate Finance Committee released a statement titled “TPA Drives High-Quality Trade Agreements, Not Immigration Law: The Administration Has No Authority Under TPA or Any Pending Trade Agreement to Unilaterally Change U.S. Immigration Laws,” and the committee’s May 12 report on the Fast Track bill that was eventually passed by the full Senate contained this relevant language: For many years, Congress has made it abundantly clear that international trade agreements should not change, nor require any change, to U.S. immigration law and practice… The Committee continues to believe that it is not appropriate to negotiate in a trade agreement any provision that would (1) require changes to U.S. immigration law, regulations, policy, or practice; (2) accord immigration-related benefits to parties to trade agreements; (3) commit the United States to keep unchanged, with respect to nationals of parties to trade agreements, one or more existing provisions of U.S. immigration law, policy, or practice; or (4) expand to additional countries immigration-related commitments already made by the United States in earlier trade agreements. Congress’ intent could not be any clearer, but there’s strong evidence to doubt that these assurances will be upheld. If you read these statements closely, you’ll see that most of them concern only the TPP and its lack of impact on immigration policy. But the Trade in Services Agreement, or “TiSA”—another trade deal being negotiated in secret by the Obama administration—is another story; there is little doubt that it will constrain the future ability of the United States Congress to regulate U.S. immigration policy. In fact, deregulating the U.S. work visa system, and therefore opening it up to foreign corporations that provide services (as opposed to goods) is the explicit purpose of an entire annex (section) in TiSA, entitled “Movement of Natural Persons.” The text was heretofore secret until Wikileaks published it on its website last week. It should be noted that much of the text is a proposed draft for negotiation, and within the text, numerous parts of specific provisions are bracketed to denote which countries support or oppose particular sections or language within sections. But the thrust of the text in the annex is clear. For example, Article 4 is about the schedules (i.e., lists) of commitments that countries will have to put together regarding the “Entry and Temporary Stay of Natural Persons,” and a proposed version of Article 4, Section 2 would prohibit member states from “maintain[ing] or adopt[ing] Economic Needs Tests, including labor market tests, as a requirement for a visa or work permit” in the sectors where commitments are made. (In other words, U.S. laws or regulations limiting guestworkers only to jobs where no U.S. workers were available would violate the terms of the treaty.) Proposed draft Article 5, Section 1 then requires that “Each Party shall take market access and national treatment commitments for intra-corporate transferees, business visitors and categories delinked from commercial presence: contractual service suppliers and independent professionals.” Section 3 gets more specific about the sectors of the economy where member states will have to allow access to intracorporate transferees, business visitors, contractual service suppliers, and independent professionals: 3. Subject to any terms, limitations, conditions and qualifications that the Party sets out in its Schedule, Parties shall allow entry and temporary stay of [contractual service suppliers and independent professionals 3] for a minimum of [X%] of the following sectors/sub-sectors: Professional services: 1. Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services (CPC 862) 2. Architectural services (CPC 8671) 3. Engineering services (CPC 8672) 4. Integrated engineering services (CPC 8673) 5. Urban planning and landscape architectural services (CPC 8674) 6. Medical & dental services (CPC 9312) 7. Veterinary services (CPC 932) 8. Services provided by midwives, nurses, physiotherapists and paramedical personnel (CPC 93191) Computer and related services: 9. Consultancy services related to the installation of computer hardware (CPC 841) 10. Software implementation services (CPC 842) 11. Data processing services (CPC 843) 12. Data base services (CPC 844) 13. Other (CPC 845+849) Research and Development services: 14. R&D services on natural sciences (CPC 851) 15. R&D services on social sciences and humanities (CPC 852) 16. Interdisciplinary R&D services (CPC 853) Other business services 17. Advertising services (CPC 871) 18. Market research and public opinion polling services (CPC 864) 19. Management consulting services (CPC 865) 20. Services related to management consulting (CPC 866) 21. Technical testing & analysis services (CPC 8676) 22. [CH propose: Services incidental to manufacturing] 23. Related scientific and technical consulting services (CPC 8675) 24. Maintenance and repair of equipment (not including maritime vessels, aircraft or other transport equipment) (CPC 633 + 8861-8866) 25. Specialty design services (CPC 87907) Construction and related engineering services: 26. General construction work for buildings (CPC 512) 27. General construction work for civil engineering (CPC 513) 28. Installation and assembly work (CPC514+516) 29. Building completion and finishing work (CPC 517) 30. Other (CPC 511+515+518) Environmental services: 31. Sewage services (CPC 9401) 32. Refuse disposal services (CPC 9402) 33. Sanitation and similar services (CPC 9403) 34. Other [CH propose: Financial Services] [CH propose: Financial advisors] Tourism and travel related services: 35. Hotels and Restaurants (CPC Ex. 641) 36. Travel Agencies and Tour Operators services (CPC 7471) 37. Tourist Guides services (CPC 7472) [CH propose: Transport services [CH propose: Other services auxiliary to all modes of transport CPC] Recreational, cultural and sporting services: 38. Sporting and other recreational services (CPC 964) In the United States, this means the L-1 intra-company transferee, B-1 business visitor visa programs, and any other applicable visa programs could be used to permit temporary employees from abroad to work in the United States, and no economic needs tests (i.e., testing the labor market) could ever be imposed by Congress. To translate, that means that foreign firms would not be required to advertise jobs to U.S. workers, or to hire U.S. workers if they were equally or better qualified for job openings in their own country. (It should be noted that the L-1 is already restricted in this way, as a result of the United States’ commitments under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATS).) These visa programs are already under-regulated and abused by employers, but since neither the L-1 nor the B-1 visa program is numerically limited by law, this means that potentially hundreds of thousands of workers could enter the United States every year to work in these 38 sectors. This is worrying and problematic, not because there shouldn’t be any foreign competition from service-providing companies in the United States, but because the competitive advantage foreign companies will get from TiSA is the ability to provide cheaper services by importing much cheaper labor to supplant American workers. They’ll do this by paying their workers the much lower salaries they would earn in their home countries (as they often already do in the L-1 and B-1 visa programs), and the United States might even be prohibited in future from imposing minimum or prevailing wage standards (at present, neither the L-1 or B-1 visa program has a minimum or prevailing wage rule). There is clear precedent for this. The multilateral GATS agreement, to which the United States is a party, includes limits on the U.S. government’s ability to change the rules on H-1B and L-1 guestworker visas. That’s why when Congress wants to raise visa fees, as they did in 2010, the Indian government cries foul and threatens to formally complain to the World Trade Organization. The U.S.-Chile and U.S.Singapore trade deals also included new guestworker programs similar to the H-1B and constraints on the U.S. government’s ability to set rules on L-1 intracompany transfers. The TiSA draft annex on Movement of Natural Persons would also likely restrict the ability of the current and future administrations to continue some of the basic immigration procedures it currently follows, such as requiring an in-person interview with L-1 applicants. The draft treaty might even prohibit common sense legislative proposals that Congress has considered over the past few years, including minimum wage rules for companies seeking to hire guestworkers in the L-1 visa program. This is particularly disturbing since the L-1 visa program has been a primary vehicle to facilitate the offshoring of high wage jobs and for replacing American workers with cheaper guestworkers. TiSA has been written in secret by and for major corporations that will benefit greatly if it becomes law. If the House of Representatives grants the Obama administration the fast-track trade promotion authority it seeks, the authority will be valid for six years, which means TiSA (like TPP) would also get an up-or-down vote in Congress without any amendments—making it very likely to pass and become law without the necessary democratic deliberations on immigration that such major changes should have. The leaked TiSA text makes it clear that contrary to the claims by proponents of fast-track trade promotion authority, the reality is that those voting for fast track are ceding key powers to make immigration law and policy to an unelected group of corporations and foreign governments.

REVEALED: THE SECRET IMMIGRATION CHAPTER IN OBAMA’S TRADE AGREEMENT Roughly 10 pages of this TiSA agreement document leak are specifically about immigration Revealed: The Secret Immigration Chapter in Obama’s Trade Agreement Image Credits: Backbone Campaign / Flickr. by ALEX SWOYER | BREITBART | JUNE 10, 2015 Share on Facebook89Tweet about this on Twitter65Share on Google+0Email this to someonePrint this page Discovered inside the huge tranche of secretive Obamatrade documents released by Wikileaks are key details on how technically any Republican voting for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fasttrack trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal would technically also be voting to massively expand President Obama’s executive authority when it comes to immigration matters. The mainstream media covered the Wikileaks document dump extensively, but did not mention the immigration chapter contained within it, so Breitbart News took the documents to immigration experts to get their take on it. Nobody has figured how big a deal the documents uncovered by Wikileaks are until now. (See below) The president’s Trade in Services Act (TiSA) documents, which is one of the three different close-to-completely-negotiated deals that would be fast-tracked making up the president’s trade agreement, show Obamatrade in fact unilaterally alters current U.S. immigration law. TiSA, like TPP or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) deals, are international trade agreements that President Obama is trying to force through to final approval. The way he can do so is by getting Congress to give him fast-track authority through TPA. TiSA is even more secretive than TPP. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill can review the text of TPP in a secret, secured room inside the Capitol—and in some cases can bring staffers who have high enough security clearances—but with TiSA, no such draft text is available. Voting for TPA, of course, would essentially ensure the final passage of each TPP, T-TIP, and TiSA by Congress, since in the history of fast-track any deal that’s ever started on fast-track has been approved. Roughly 10 pages of this TiSA agreement document leak are specifically about immigration. http://www.infowars.com/revealed-the-secret-immigration-chapter-in-obamas-trade-agreement/

The Congressional Trade Debate, Explained In 6 Factions By Amber Phillips Few issues shuffle Washington around into weird alliances like trade policy. President Obama’s two ambitious, legacy-defining trade deals with Pacific Rim countries and Europe are no different. Obama is trying to get Congress to let him negotiate the deals without lawmakers’ input until the very end, when Congress would get a yes-or-no vote on each deal. It’s known as “fast-track authority.” The Senate approved the president’s power to do that in last month, but the bigger challenge is in the House of Representatives. It’s a tough sell, but not for the reasons you might think. Broadly speaking, House Republicans are on board; Democrats, not so much. A major reason for the division is labor unions, which fear trade deals can take manufacturing jobs away from American workers and ship them overseas. Labor unions are also huge supporters of Democrats. So Obama and Republicans are in the odd situation of trying to convince Democrats to reluctantly give the president what he wants. As they scramble to find the votes ahead of a potential vote on Friday, here are the six factions Congress falls into on trade. 1. The Labor Democrats Sen.Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is not a fan of Obama’s trade deals. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts) Who they are: Pretty much all House and Senate Democrats who don’t want labor unions spending big money against them in their next campaigns. In the House, that’s about two-thirds of the party’s 180 Democrats. Labor unions have become the most vocal group on either side of the trade debate, and they appear to be putting their money where their mouth is. Politico reports labor activists say they’ll run $84,000 in TV ads against a California Democrat who supports the fast-track bill. On Capitol Hill, Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts lead the charge for this group. On the campaign trail, Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley also oppose the trade deals. What they believe: That opening up U.S. markets to foreign countries will also open up American workers to lower wages and job losses, particularly while U.S. manufacturing companies take advantage of open borders to move plants overseas for cheaper labor. There’s some truth to that, economists say. By allowing goods and services to flow more freely across borders, trade deals helps countries specialize in just a few goods and services they’re really good at. That makes economies more efficient but means some workers will inevitably lose out. But the size of which industries like manufacturing will lose out in these trade deals is debatable, as many such low-wage jobs have already moved overseas. Key talking point: Warren: The deals are “going to help the rich get richer and leave everyone else behind.” 2. Silicon Valley Democrats Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is among those who support Obama’s trade deals. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu) Who they are: A relatively small group of about 40 pro-business, moderate Democrats who are allied with Silicon Valley executives. The Washington Post’s David Nakamura notes those executives include the influential Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents 390 companies, including Facebook, Google and Microsoft, and is aligned with tech CEOs from Cisco Systems, Oracle and AT&T in lobbying for fast track. What they believe: That the trade deals — and particularly Obama’s massive 12-nation deal with Pacific Rim countries — protects one of America’s top money-makers: intellectual property. The deals as drafted strengthen patents and extend copyright protections for the things Americans are good at inventing, like pharmaceuticals, movies and technology start-ups. This argument offers Democrats an alternative to labor unions’ message: Perhaps some manufacturing jobs will indeed ship overseas, but low-wage manufacturing isn’t where America’s economy is headed anyways. Key talking point: Obama made the best argument for this group recently: “If we are going to capture the future, then we’ve got to open up markets to the kinds of things that we’re really good at, that can’t be duplicated overseas.” 3. On-the-fence Democrats U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) speaks to the press about the potential for a U.S. government shutdown, alongside House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), are torn on trade. (REUTERS/Jason Reed ) Who’s in this camp: A handful of Democrats who are torn between supporting their president and the labor unions’ strong pull. These Democrats include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland. This group is small but significant; Obama and Republicans need about 25 Democrats to support the fast-track legislation when it comes to a vote, so the president is lobbying these people hard. What they think: Two competing thoughts here: Let’s give our president what he wants … but I don’t know if that’s worth risking a primary challenge supported by labor unions. With the vote count coming down to the wire, the AP’s Josh Lederman reports Obama has promised to help campaign in 2016 for anyone in this group who crosses the line and votes yes for fast-track legislation. Key talking point: “There’s a difference between growing the economy and helping American companies grow the bottom line and creating jobs.” Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) told The Hill. 4. Gung-ho trade supporters House Speaker John A. Boehner, left, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are Obama’s biggest advocates on trade. (AP Photo/PennLive.com, Mark Pynes ) Who’s in this camp: Establishment Republicans, including leaders like House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), have Obama’s back on fast-track legislation and the two trade bills. In the House, they have the support of about 110 Republicans, according to The Hill’s whip count. What they believe: Trade deals are job creators, because they allow the United States to require other countries to the same labor and environmental standards that our businesses must follow. That makes a more even global playing field for Americans. And fast-tracking the deals is the only way to get them negotiated; imagine if every country involved allowed its legislative bodies to chime in. Nothing would get done! Key talking point: “We have a chance here to write the rules on our terms,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who is central to crafting the fast-track legislation. “We have a chance here to write the rules on our terms, to raise other countries to our standards, to create more opportunity for our people.” 5. The anti-Obama Republicans Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has warned about the dangers of giving Obama fast track trade authority. (AP Photo/CBS News, Chris Usher) Who’s in this camp: Republicans who might support fast-track legislation and the trade deals but who are wary of giving the president so much authority to negotiate them without Congress’s input. This camp encompasses about 50 of Republicans’ Southern and tea party-leaning lawmakers. What they believe: By voting for fast-track legislation, they’re essentially blocking themselves from the discussion about what should be put in the trade deals. Key talking point: Here’s one from Alabama Rep. Bradley Byrne’s (R) office: “Congressman Byrne is a strong supporter of free trade, which supports almost 3,000 jobs in the 1st district alone. That said, he believes Congress must have a seat at the table as the trade negotiations continue.” 6. The swing-state Republicans Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) is among a small group of swing state House Republicans who are worried about a vote on trade. (AP Photo/Mark Duncan) Who’s in this camp: About 12-20 recently elected House Republicans who came into power during midterm Republican waves and now represent swing districts with decisive moderate constituents who might not like Obama’s trade deals. They include Midwestern lawmakers like Ohio’s David Joyce and Long Island’s Rep. Lee Zeldin.

The environmentalist group Sierra Club recently held a rally in Zeldin’s district to convince him to oppose the fast-track legislation. What they believe: This group usually aligns with the Republican establishment on most issues. But on trade, these lawmakers carry the same concerns as Labor Democrats: A vote for fast track could mean a vote for them out of office. Key talking point: “I support trade,” Zeldin told Facebook supporters in March. But on the trade deals and fast-track authority, “I will read it and decide at that time whether to vote for it or against it.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/10/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-trade-debate-explained-by-6-house-factions/

Obama Makes Last-Ditch Plea To Dems Ahead Of Showdown Vote On Trade President Obama went to Capitol Hill Friday morning to make a final plea to congressional Democrats for his trade agenda, ahead of a showdown vote in the House. The president met with House Democratic leaders ahead of a caucus meeting. While it is extremely rare for a president to make a visit like this before a big vote, the last-minute lobbying comes after the president also made a surprise appearance at the annual congressional baseball game between Democrats and Republicans the night before. His personal involvement underscores how fragile the effort is — Fox News is told the effort is still short on the votes — and how important he sees it to his second-term legacy. The night before, a bizarre scene unfolded as the crowd crammed inside Nationals Park lurched into a chant about the legislation. “TPA! TPA! TPA!” chanted Republican congressional aides seated near the first base dugout when Obama stepped onto the field at the top of the fourth inning. This wasn’t quite the drunken, Bronx throng at Yankee Stadium cantillating “Reg-GIE! Reg-GIE! Reg-GIE!” after Reggie Jackson swatted three consecutive home runs in Game Six of the 1977 World Series. This was gamesmanship, Washington-style. A game in which most congressional Republicans find themselves backing the Democratic president’s efforts to pass Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), a framework for a big trade deal the administration hopes to advance later this year. TPA, which would give the president the ability to “fast-track” future trade deals, is one of two bills due up in the House on Friday. And it’s anybody’s guess if the bills will pass. Members of Congress may have been mixing it up on the diamond. But there is just as much gamesmanship underway on Capitol Hill as lawmakers try to leverage passage or defeat of the trade legislation.

More on this… Stage set for vote to give Obama fast-track trade authority First, the basics. Most House Republicans want to approve TPA. But they don’t quite have the votes to do it on their own. They need Democratic support. Yet the irony is that even though Obama is pushing the deal, only about 20-plus House Democrats support their own chief executive on this issue. So various political gambits kick in. Republicans find it absurd that Obama can’t persuade more than two-dozen Democratic members to support the trade plan. Conversely, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is stunned that House Republicans, boasting a 246-188 majority, can’t excavate at least 200 GOPers to approve the package. So Pelosi and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, cut a deal. Neither side promised a certain number of votes to the other. But both House leaders forged a plan which could conceivably reward both sides with a political victory and concurrently test their respective abilities to gin up votes. Pelosi and Boehner engineered a deal to advance the trade framework to the floor – so long as Democrats scored a vote on something called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). TAA is a program near and dear to the hearts of many Democrats. It’s a method to cushion the blow for various workers and industries damaged by business reallocations in trade agreements. So House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., teed up two votes for Friday: One for TAA and one on TPA. But a TPA vote was contingent on the House first adopting TAA. The procedural maneuver would require Republicans to carry most of the freight to adopt TPA. But to get there, Democrats would be expected to provide the lion’s share of votes for TAA. If the House doesn’t approve TAA, everything comes to a screeching halt and there’s no vote on TPA. Further complicating matters, Pelosi has spoken openly against the trade accord but has yet to definitively say how she’ll vote. Capitol Hill is weird. Weird enough to have Republicans serving as Obama’s TPA cheerleaders – both at the ballpark and in the House chamber. It’s even weirder to have House Democrats working against Obama on this. And then there’s Pelosi – stuck in the middle. On trade, Pelosi is a switch-pitcher. She’s trying to keep the Democratic caucus from embarrassing Obama with a paltry vote total for TPA. Yet she’s working to make sure most of her caucus gets what it wants: a defeat of TPA. At the same time, Pelosi secured a deal for the TAA vote – which could help pass TPA … or blow it up. Major League Baseball has a rule for ambidextrous pitchers, few as there may be. Such cross-hurlers must first declare whether they intend to pitch left-handed or right-handed to each batter. There’s no such rule on Capitol Hill. That’s why when it comes to trade, Pelosi is chucking political curveballs from both sides of the mound. But Democrats are working against Pelosi. A senior House GOP leadership source says Republicans can only provide 50 to 70 votes for TAA. Democrats must make up the difference. However, many Democrats now see a means to an end. Some intend to vote no on TAA simply to detonate the entire process and never get the TPA bill to the floor — which they so despise. The House nearly voted to truncate the entire process before the first pitch, coming close to voting down a procedural vote just to get the measures to the floor. Some observers interpreted the uneven procedural vote as a harbinger of things to come Friday on the trade bills. Some lawmakers wondered if Obama – fresh off his dugout diplomatic mission — might ring up lawmakers and implore them to vote aye. One longtime Democratic member doubted that would happen, noting that Obama had already done all of the calling he could do. There are games here, too. The same lawmaker signaled that some colleagues might not even take the call if the president phones. In fact, they might even keep their phones switched off. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/12/house-obama-trade-agenda/

Obama-Backed Trade Bill Fails In The House By David Nakamura and Paul Kane President Obama suffered a major defeat to his Pacific Rim free trade initiative Friday as House Democrats helped derail a key presidential priority despite his last-minute, personal plea on Capitol Hill. The House voted 302 to 126 to sink a measure to grant financial aid to displaced workers, fracturing hopes at the White House that Congress would grant Obama fast-track trade authority to complete an accord with 11 other Pacific Rim nations. “I will be voting to slow down fast-track,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on the floor moments before the vote, after keeping her intentions private for months. “Today we have an opportunity to slow down. Whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a better deal for American workers.”

The dramatic defeat could sink the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping free trade and regulatory pact that Obama has called central to his economic agenda at home and his foreign policy strategy in Asia. Obama’s loss came after a months-long lobbying blitz in which the president invested significant personal credibility and political capital. Republican leaders, who had backed the president’s trade initiative, pleaded with their colleagues to support the deal or risk watching the United States lose economic ground in Asia. “The world is watching us right now,” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said before the vote. Obama had rushed to Capitol Hill on Friday morning to make a last-ditch plea to an emergency meeting of the Democratic caucus. The president urged members to vote with their conscience and “play it straight,” urging them to support the financial package for displaced workers, which Democrats have long supported. “I don’t think you ever nail anything down around here,” Obama told reporters on his way out of the Capitol. “It’s always moving.” But anti-trade Democrats pushed hard to block the financial aid plan, knowing that its defeat would also torpedo a companion measure to grant Obama fast-track authority to complete the TPP. That bill was later approved with overwhelming Republican support in what amounted to a symbolic vote because it could not move forward into law without the related worker assistance package. The legislation is now paralyzed in the House — “stuck in the station,” as Pelosi described in her speech. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has decided to give Obama the weekend to try to coax enough Democrats into supporting the worker assistance package by bringing it up for reconsideration next Tuesday. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest insisted that the president’s trade agenda was still alive and vowed that Obama would continue to urge passage of the package in the coming days. He noted that the Senate approved the fast track legislation last month after initially voting to block it. “To the surprise of very few, another procedural snafu has emerged,” Earnest said in an attempt to play down the outcome. In a message on Twitter, AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka, one of the most vehement opponents of the trade deal, hailed Pelosi as “a champion for workers.” [The trade deal, explained for people who fall asleep hearing about trade deals] Obama made an impassioned plea during his visit to Capitol Hill. But he appeared not to have changed many minds among fellow Democrats. After the president departed, two anti-trade Democrats, Louise Slaughter of New York and Gene Green of Texas, came out of the meeting determined to oppose Obama. “I don’t want this trade bill to go through,” Slaughter, who represents the economically depressed area of Rochester, said of the fast-track bill. Several members said Obama took no questions and received applause on several occasions when discussing his previous efforts to deliver on Democratic priorities.

Lawmakers said the White House had pushed harder on trade than any legislative issue since the health-care reform effort during his first year. After keeping trade on the back burner, Obama joined forces with business-friendly Republicans after the midterm elections in pursuit of a rare bipartisan deal and launched a fierce effort to win support from his usual Democratic allies over the intense opposition of labor unions. “The president and his counselors understand that this is a legacy vote for his second term,” Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), who supported the fast-track bill, said Thursday. “It’s a philosophical battle, a political battle and an economic battle. The president finds himself in the crossfire with the base.” The debate among Democrats has at times been raw and personal, and it has exposed old divisions on trade as the party attempts to coalesce around a common agenda ahead of the 2016 campaign to select Obama’s successor. Other Democratic leaders, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have questioned Obama’s commitment to workers and the middle class, while union officials accused the president of marginalizing them. “I would ask that you not mischaracterize our positions and views — even in the heat of a legislative battle,” Trumka wrote this week in a letter to the president. “You have repeatedly isolated and marginalized labor and unions.” White House officials had cast the dispute with labor as a difference of opinion that does not reflect a deeper divide within a party focused on stemming the nation’s growing wealth divide. Obama has framed the 12-nation TPP as a way to lock in rules to ensure U.S. economic primacy in the fast-growing Asian-Pacific region against increasing competition from China. In the president’s view, that would benefit American workers as the world’s economy shifts toward high-tech industries in which the United States maintains an advantage. A failure on fast-track could lend weight to Chinese claims that the United States does not have staying power in Asia. The president’s pitch was met with widespread skepticism among Democrats who blame past trade deals for killing jobs and depressing wages for Americans in traditional manufacturing work. [What Chicago Democrats tell us about Obama’s problems on trade] On Thursday night, Obama made a surprise visit to the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity at Nationals Park to woo Pelosi and other Democrats. “The president is personally engaged on this,” Wyden said Thursday. “He’s all in.” Despite the intensive campaign, however, Obama struggled to convince more than a sliver of House Democrats to back his push for the fast-track authority. The legislation would have allowed him to submit the trade pact to Congress for a vote in a specified timetable without lawmakers being able to amend it. The White House has called such powers crucial to persuading the other 11 nations involved in the TPP negotiations to put their best offers on the table in the final round of talks this summer. But opponents said they feared that approving the fast-track measure would be akin to ratifying a pact that is still being negotiated and whose terms have been kept largely hidden from public view. (Lawmakers are permitted to read draft sections of the agreement in a classified setting and are prevented from talking about specifics in public.) On Thursday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other Obama aides huddled with House Democrats in a bid to alleviate objections. But at each turn, the administration was met by a determined coalition of opponents, made up of labor unions, environmental groups and progressive Democrats. Led by Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.), the coalition has been meeting for two years with individual Democrats, and with small groups, to pressure them to oppose a fast-track bill. Trumka met with the same House Democrats on Thursday soon after the White House officials had departed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-is-all-in-on-trade-sees-it-as-a-cornerstone-of-his-legacy/2015/06/12/32b6dce8-1073-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html

Fast Track (Trade) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this article to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (June 2015) The fast track negotiating authority for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the United States to negotiate international agreements that Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster. Also called trade promotion authority (TPA) since 2002, fast track negotiating authority is a temporary and controversial power granted to the President by Congress. The authority was in effect from 1975 to 1994, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, and from 2002 to 2007 by the Trade Act of 2002. Although it expired for new agreements on July 1, 2007, it continued to apply to agreements already under negot at on unt they were eventua y passed nto aw n 2011. In 2012, the Obama adm n strat on began seek ng renewa of the author ty. Enactment and h story Congress started the fast track author ty n the Trade Act of 1974, § 151–154 (19 U.S.C. § 2191–2194). Th s author ty was set to exp re n 1980, but was extended for e ght years n 1979.[1] It was renewed n 1988 for f ve years to accommodate negot at on of the Uruguay Round, conducted w th n the framework of the Genera Agreement on Tar ffs and Trade (GATT).[2] It was then extended to 16 Apr 1994,[3][4] [5] wh ch s one day after the Uruguay Round conc uded n the Marrakech Agreement, transform ng the GATT nto the Wor d Trade Organ zat on (WTO). Pursuant to that grant of author ty, Congress then enacted mp ement ng eg s at on for the U.S.-Israe Free Trade Area, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, the North Amer can Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In the second ha f of the 1990s, fast track author ty angu shed due to oppos t on from House Repub cans.[6] Repub can Pres dent a cand date George W. Bush made fast track part of h s campa gn p atform n 2000.[7] In May 2001, as pres dent he made a speech about the mportance of free trade at the annua Counc of the Amer cas n New York, founded by Dav d Rockefe er and other sen or U.S. bus nessmen n 1965. Subsequent y, the Counc p ayed a ro e n the mp ementat on and secur ng of TPA through Congress.[8] At 3:30 a.m. on Ju y 27, 2002, the House passed the Trade Act of 2002 narrow y by a 215 to 212 vote w th 190 Repub cans and 27 Democrats mak ng up the ma or ty. The b passed the Senate by a vote of 64 to 34 on August 1, 2002. The Trade Act of 2002, § 2103–2105 (19 U.S.C. § 3803–3805), extended and cond t oned the app cat on of the or g na procedures. Under the second per od of fast track author ty, Congress enacted mp ement ng eg s at on for the U.S.–Ch e Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–S ngapore Free Trade Agreement, the Austra a–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Morocco Free Trade Agreement, the Dom n can Repub c–Centra Amer ca Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Bahra n Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Oman Free Trade Agreement, and the Peru–U.S. Trade Promot on Agreement. The author ty exp red on Ju y 1, 2007.[9] In October 2011, the Congress and Pres dent Obama enacted nto aw the Co omb a Trade Promot on Agreement, the South Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and the Panama–U.S. Trade Promot on Agreement us ng fast track ru es, a of wh ch the George W. Bush adm n strat on s gned before the dead ne.[10] In ear y 2012, the Obama adm n strat on nd cated that renewa of the author ty s a requ rement for the conc us on of Trans-Pac f c Partnersh p (TPP) negot at ons, wh ch have been undertaken as f the author ty were st n effect.[11] In Ju y 2013, M chae Froman, the new y conf rmed U.S. Trade Representat ve, renewed efforts to obta n Congress ona re nstatement of “fast track” author ty. At near y the same t me, Senator E zabeth Warren quest oned Froman about the prospect of a secret y negot ated, b nd ng nternat ona agreement such as TPP that m ght turn out to supersede U.S. wage, safety, and env ronmenta aws.[12] Other eg s ators expressed concerns about fore gn currency man pu at on, food safety aws, state-owned bus nesses, market access for sma bus nesses, access to pharmaceut ca products, and on ne commerce.[10] In ear y 2014, Senator Max Baucus and Congressman Dave Camp ntroduced the B part san Congress ona Trade Pr or t es Act of 2014,[13] wh ch sought to reauthor ze trade promot on author ty and estab sh a number of pr or t es and requ rements for trade agreements.[14] Its sponsors ca ed t a “v ta too ” n connect on w th negot at ons on the Trans-Pac f c Partnersh p and trade negot at ons w th the EU.[13] Cr t cs sa d the b cou d detract from “transparency and accountab ty”. Sander Lev n, who s the rank ng Democrat c member on the House Ways and Means comm ttee, sa d he wou d make an a ternat ve proposa .[15] Procedure[ed t] If the Pres dent transm ts a fast track trade agreement to Congress, then the ma or ty eaders of the House and Senate or the r des gnees must ntroduce the mp ement ng b subm tted by the Pres dent on the f rst day on wh ch the r House s n sess on. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(c)(1).) Senators and Representat ves may not amend the Pres dent s b , e ther n comm ttee or n the Senate or House. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(d).) The comm ttees to wh ch the b has been referred have 45 days after ts ntroduct on to report the b , or be automat ca y d scharged, and each House must vote w th n 15 days after the b s reported or d scharged. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(1).) In the ke y case that the b s a revenue b (as tar ffs are revenues), the b must or g nate n the House (see U.S. Const., art I, sec. 7), and after the Senate rece ved the House-passed b , the F nance Comm ttee wou d have another 15 days to report the b or be d scharged, and then the Senate wou d have another 15 days to pass the b . (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(2).) On the House and Senate f oors, each Body can debate the b for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot f buster the b and t w pass w th a s mp e ma or ty vote. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(f)-(g).) Thus the ent re Congress ona cons derat on cou d take no onger than 90 days. Negot at ng ob ect ves[ed t] Accord ng to the Congress ona Research Serv ce, Congress categor zes trade negot at ng ob ect ves n three ways: overa ob ect ves, pr nc pa ob ect ves, and other pr or t es. The broader goa s encapsu ate the overa d rect on trade negot at ons take, such as enhanc ng the Un ted States and other countr es econom es. Pr nc pa ob ect ves are deta ed goa s that Congress expects to be ntegrated nto trade agreements, such as “reduc ng barr ers and d stort ons to trade (e.g., goods, serv ces, agr cu ture); protect ng fore gn nvestment and nte ectua property r ghts; encourag ng transparency; estab sh ng fa r regu atory pract ces; combat ng corrupt on; ensur ng that countr es enforce the r env ronmenta and abor aws; prov d ng for an effect ve d spute sett ement process; and protect ng the U.S. r ght to enforce ts trade remedy aws”. Consu t ng Congress s a so an mportant ob ect ve.[16] Pr nc pa ob ect ves nc ude: Market access: These negot at ng ob ect ves seek to reduce or e m nate barr ers that m t market access for U.S. products. “It a so ca s for the use of sectora tar ff and non-tar ff barr er e m nat on agreements to ach eve greater market access.” Serv ces: Serv ces ob ect ves “requ re that U.S. negot ator str ve to reduce or e m nate barr ers to trade n serv ces, nc ud ng regu at ons that deny nond scr m natory treatment to U.S. serv ces and nh b t the r ght of estab shment (through fore gn nvestment) to U.S. serv ce prov ders.” Agr cu ture: There are three negot at ng ob ect ves regard ng agr cu ture. One ays out n greater deta what U.S. negot ators shou d ach eve n negot at ng robust trade ru es on san tary and phytosan tary (SPS) measures. The second ca s for trade negot ators to ensure transparency n how tar ff-rate quotas are adm n stered that may mpede market access opportun t es. The th rd seeks to e m nate and prevent the mproper use of a country s system to protect or recogn ze geograph ca nd cat ons (GI). These are trademark- ke terms used to protect the qua ty and reputat on of d st nct ve agr cu tura products, w nes and sp r ts produced n a part cu ar reg on of a country. Th s new ob ect ve s ntended to counter n arge part the European Un on s efforts to nc ude GI protect on n ts b atera trade agreements for the names of ts products that U.S. and other country exporters argue are gener c n nature or common y used across borders, such as parma ham or Parmesan cheese.” Investment/Investor r ghts: “The overa negot at ng ob ect ves on fore gn nvestment are des gned “to reduce or e m nate art f c a or trade d stort ng barr ers to fore gn nvestment, wh e ensur ng that fore gn nvestors n the Un ted States are not accorded greater substant ve r ghts w th respect to nvestment protect ons than domest c nvestors n the Un ted States, and to secure for nvestors mportant r ghts comparab e to those that wou d be ava ab e under the Un ted States ega pr nc p es and pract ces.”[17] Scope Fast track agreements were enacted as “congress ona -execut ve agreements” (CEAs), wh ch must be approved by a s mp e ma or ty n both chambers of Congress. A though Congress cannot exp c t y transfer ts powers to the execut ve branch, the 1974 trade promot on author ty had the effect of de egat ng power to the execut ve, m n m z ng cons derat on of the pub c nterest, and m t ng the eg s ature s nf uence over the b to an up or down vote:[18] It a owed the execut ve branch to se ect countr es for, set the substance of, negot ate and then s gn trade agreements w thout pr or congress ona approva . It a owed the execut ve branch to negot ate trade agreements cover ng more than ust tar ffs and quotas. It estab shed a comm ttee system, compr s ng 700 ndustry representat ves appo nted by the pres dent, to serve as adv sors to the negot at ons. Throughout trade ta ks, these nd v dua s had access to conf dent a negot at ng documents. Most members of Congress and the pub c had no such access, and there were no comm ttees for consumer, hea th, env ronmenta or other pub c nterests. It empowered the execut ve branch to author an agreement s mp ement ng eg s at on w thout Congress ona nput. It requ red the execut ve branch to not fy Congress 90 days before s gn ng and enter ng nto an agreement, but a owed un m ted t me for the mp ement ng eg s at on to be subm tted. It forced a f oor vote on the agreement and ts mp ement ng eg s at on n both chambers of Congress; the matters cou d not “d e n comm ttee.” It e m nated severa f oor procedures, nc ud ng Senate unan mous consent, norma debate and c oture ru es, and the ab ty to amend the eg s at on. It prevented f buster by m t ng debate to 20 hours n each chamber. It e evated the Spec a Trade Representat ve (STR) to the cab net eve , and requ red the Execut ve Off ce to house the agency. The 1979 vers on of the author ty changed the name of the STR to the U.S. Trade Representat ve.[18] The 2002 vers on of the author ty created an add t ona requ rement for 90-day not ce to Congress before negot at ons cou d beg n.[18]

Arguments n favor[ed t] He ps pass trade agreements: Accord ng to AT&T Cha rman and CEO Randa L. Stephenson, Trade Promot on Author ty s “cr t ca to comp et ng new trade agreements that have the potent a to un eash U.S. econom c growth and nvestment”. Jason Furman, cha rman of Obama s Counc of Econom c Adv sers, a so sa d “the Un ted States m ght become ess compet t ve g oba y f t d sengaged from seek ng further trade open ngs: If you re not n an agreement—that trade w be d verted from us to someone e se—we w ose out to another country ”.[19] Congress s a owed more say and members are sh e ded: Accord ng to I.M. Dest er of the Peterson Inst tute for Internat ona Econom cs, fast track “has effect ve y br dged the d v s on of power between the two branches. It g ves execut ve branch (USTR) negot ators needed cred b ty to conc ude trade agreements by assur ng other nat ons representat ves that Congress won t rework them; t guarantees a ma or Congress ona ro e n trade po cy wh e reduc ng members vu nerab ty to spec a nterests”.[20] Assurance for fore gn governments: Accord ng to Pres dent Reagan s Attorney Genera Edw n Meese III, “ t s extreme y d ff cu t for any U.S. Pres dent to negot ate s gn f cant trade dea s f he cannot assure other nat ons that Congress w refra n from add ng numerous amendments and cond t ons that must then be taken back to the negot at ng tab e”. The very nature of Trade Promot on Author ty requ res Congress to vote on the agreements before they can take effect, mean ng that w thout TPA, “those agreements m ght never even be negot ated”.[21] Arguments aga nst Unconst tut ona : Groups opposed to Trade Promot on Author ty c a m that t p aces too much power n the execut ve branch, “a ow ng the pres dent to un atera y se ect partner countr es for trade pacts, dec de the agreements contents, and then negot ate and s gn the agreements—a before Congress has a vote on the matter. Norma congress ona comm ttee processes are forb dden, mean ng that the execut ve branch s empowered to wr te engthy eg s at on on ts own w th no rev ew or amendments.”[22] Lack of transparency: Democrat c members of Congress and genera r ght-to-know nternet groups are among those opposed to trade fast track on grounds of a ack of transparency. Such Congressmen have comp a ned that fast track forces “members to ump over hurd es to see negot at on texts and b ocks staffer nvo vement. In 2012, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) comp a ned that corporate obby sts were g ven easy access wh e h s off ce was be ng stym ed, and even ntroduced protest eg s at on requ r ng more congress ona nput.”[23] Renewed Interest As recent y as May 21, 2015, the Un ted States Senate has ut zed the fast-track process to move a trade b between the U.S. as we as Japan and 10 other countr es. A though the b has yet to move to the House, the renewed nterest n th s tract s ntr gu ng g ven the 2016 e ect on cyc e beg nn ng to p ck up. [24] https://en.w k ped a.org/w k /Fast_track_(trade)

Trade Adjustment Assistance From W k ped a, the free encyc oped a Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) s a federa program of the Un ted States government to act as a way to reduce the damag ng mpact of mports fe t by certa n sectors of the U.S. economy. The current structure features four components of Trade Ad ustment Ass stance: for Workers, F rms, Farmers, and Commun t es. Each Cab net eve Department was tasked w th a d fferent sector of the overa Trade Ad ustment Ass stance program. The program for workers s the argest, and adm n stered by the U.S. Department of Labor. The program for Farmers s adm n stered by the U.S. Department of Agr cu ture, and the F rms and Commun t es programs are adm n stered by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

History Trade Ad ustment Ass stance cons sts of four programs author zed under the Trade Expans on Act of 1962 and def ned further under the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq) (Trade Act). The or g na dea for a trade compensat on program goes back to 1939. [1] Later, t was proposed by Pres dent John F. Kennedyas part of the tota package to open up free trade. Pres dent Kennedy sa d: “When cons derat ons of nat ona po cy make t des rab e to avo d h gher tar ffs, those n ured by that compet t on shou d not be requ red to bear the fu brunt of the mpact. Rather, the burden of econom c ad ustment shou d be borne n part by the Federa Government.”[2]

Justification TAA for workers Supporters argue that free trade offers w despread benef ts among consumers, workers and f rms n the U.S. n terms of ower pr ces, h gher eff c ency and qua ty, and more obs. They c a m that ga ns from negot ated trade dea s are arge and w de y d str buted across sectors. For examp e, n 2011 there were 9.7 m on obs supported by exports, near y 15% more than n 2010. [3] Benef ts from free trade agreements (FTA) w th Ch e, S ngapore, Austra a, Morocco, and South Korea for the U.S. economy are est mated n $4 b on, $17 b on, $19 b on, $6 b on and $30 b on, respect ve y. [4] In order to ach eve trade benef ts, however, the U.S. economy must rea ocate product on factors between sectors. Thus, free trade a so eads to costs assoc ated w th workers d sp aced by mport compet t on and offshore outsourc ng. Accord ng to the Department of Labor (DOL), d sp aced workers are def ned as “persons 20 years of age and o der who ost or eft obs because the r p ant or company c osed or moved, there was nsuff c ent work for them to do, or the r pos t on or sh ft was abo shed”. [5] The Internat ona Labour Organ zat on (ILO) states that workers bore h gh ad ustment costs such as unemp oyment, ower wage dur ng trans t on, obso escence of sk s, tra n ng costs, and persona costs (e.g. menta suffer ng). These trade costs, a be t re at ve y sma er than the benef ts, are h gh y concentrated by reg on, ndustry and worker demograph cs. For nstance, some occupat ons, ke teacher, have not exper enced mport compet t on wh e for shoe manufactur ng occupat ons mport compet t on has ncreased by 40 percentage po nts. [6] In genera , manufactur ng workers are most affected by mport compet t on compare to workers n other sectors. Furthermore, wh e ga ns from trade requ re a ong t me to take fu effect, costs are fe t rap d y, part cu ar y n ess compet t ve sectors. [7] There s a strong corre at on between mport penetrat on and unemp oyment. Ebenste n et a . (2009) f nd that a 1 percentage po nt ncrease n mport penetrat on eads to a 0.6 percentage po nt decrease n manufactur ng emp oyment n the U.S. resu t ng n a reduct on of manufactur ng obs of a most 5%. [8] Accord ng to a report by the Progress ve Po cy Inst tute, between 2007 and 2011, 1.3 m on d rect and nd rect obs were ost to ncreas ng mports of goods and serv ces. [9]S m ar y, K etzer (2005) est mat ons suggest that ndustr es fac ng h gh mport compet t on account for 40% of manufactur ng ob osses. [10] The Econom c Po cy Inst tute (EPI) est mates that by 2015 the overa U.S. trade def c t w correspond to the oss of add t ona 214,000 obs. [11]

A though trade-d s ocated workers are not s gn f cant y d fferent from workers d sp aced by other reasons, they present some s ght d fferences. They tend to be o der, ess educated, more tenured and product on-or ented, have h gher earn ngs on the ost ob and fewer transferab e sk s, and the preva ence on women s h gher than for other d sp aced workers. These character st cs are assoc ated w th m ted abor mob ty and reemp oyment d ff cu t es, espec a y for workers w th obso ete sk s who do not rece ve add t ona tra n ng, no matter the reason of d sp acement. [12] Furthermore, asymmetr c nformat on n absence of good ob-search sk s and geograph c m smatch ead to pro ong unemp oyment. [13] Hence, trade-d sp aced workers face onger per ods to f nd a new ob and have ow reemp oyment rates (63% dur ng the ast two decades accord ng to K etzer, 2005). Reemp oyment s part cu ar y cha eng ng for o der workers. The DOL (2012) reports that n 2012 reemp oyment rates for workers ages 55 to 64 and 65 years and over were 47 and 24% respect ve y wh e the rate for those ages 20 to 54 was about 62%. [5] Once d s ocated workers obta n a new ob, they suffer s gn f cant wage reduct ons. [14] About two th rds of d s ocated workers have ower wages n the new ob and one quarter of d sp aced workers from manufactur ng who f nd a new fu -t me ob suffer earn ng osses of 30% or more. [15] The reason s that many workers f nd obs n serv ces sector where sa ar es are ower. Ebenste n et a . (2009) f nd that d sp aced workers from manufactur ng who f nd a ob n the serv ces sector suffer a wage dec ne of between 6 and 22%. They conc ude that a 1 percentage po nt ncrease n occupat on-spec f c mport compet t on s assoc ated w th a 0.25 percentage po nt dec ne n rea wages. [8] Import compet t on mpacts negat ve y not on y d s ocated workers but a so the r fam es and commun t es. D sp aced workers fa beh nd n the r mortgage payments and n prov d ng hea th care to the r fam es. Fam es must spend down assets to smooth consumpt on. [16] There s ev dence that d sp aced workers are n worse hea th after os ng a ob. [17] Accord ng to a Report by the Corporat on for Enterpr se Deve opment (CFED), more than 46% of the ob ess ack hea th nsurance and 31% of workers w thout nsurance do not see a doctor a though s ck. If the worker s ab e to be re ocated n other ob n other reg on the who e fam y s d sp aced and ch dren are uprooted from the r schoo s, ncreas ng domest c tens ons. The phenomenon of d sp aced workers has a broader mpact because t a so affects aggregate demand for goods and serv ces and tax co ect ons. [18] In br ef, trade eads to an unequa red str but on of costs and benef ts. The ad ustment process mpacts not on y d sp aced workers but a so the who e soc ety and economy. Furthermore, abor rea ocat on from neff c ent to compet t ve sectors a med at rea z ng the benef ts of trade can be mpeded by severa obstac es descr bed above, pro ong ng the trans t on per od and ncreas ng the ad ustment costs. In th s framework, severa scho ars and po cy-makers have argued that trade-re ated ad ustment costs mer t a po cy response. [13] The TAA has pers sted for more than f ve decades show ng amp e po t ca support. [19] Hav ng an ass stance program targeted exc us ve y at trade-d sp aced workers en oyed w de po t ca support among Congress ona representat ves n the past because the program served to decrease po t ca res stance to and workers obby ng efforts aga nst FTAs. [20] As a 2012 Report by the Jo nt Econom c Comm ttee states: “TAA needs to rema n an ntegra part of trade po cy because t compensates those harmed by mport compet t on w thout sacr f c ng the arger demonstrab e benef ts of trade.”[21]

Specific Programs Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers The Department of Labor Emp oyment and Tra n ng Adm n strat on program, Trade Ad ustment Ass stance for Workers, prov des a var ety of reemp oyment serv ces nc ud ng tra n ng and ob-search ng ass stance and benef ts to d sp aced workers who have ost the r obs or suffered a reduct on of hours and wages as a resu t of ncreased mports or sh fts n product on outs de the Un ted States. The TAA program a ms to he p program part c pants obta n new obs faster, ensur ng they reta n emp oyment and earn wages comparab e to the r pr or emp oyment. Among the ma n benef ts are: trade read ustment a owances (TRA) n add t on to regu ar unemp oyment nsurance (UI) up to 117 weeks of cash payments for a workers concurrent y enro ed on y n fu -t me tra n ng (workers must be enro ed n tra n ng 8 weeks after cert f cat on or 16 weeks after ayoff, wh chever s ater, to rece ve TRA), and Reemp oyment Trade Ad ustment Ass stance (RTAA) or supp ementary wages for workers age 50 and over, and earn ng ess than $50,000 per year n reemp oyment. It prov des a wage supp ement equa to 50% of the d fference between a worker s reemp oyment wage and wage at the worker s cert f ed ob w th a max mum benef t of $10,000 over a per od of up to two years (workers must be reemp oyed w th n 26 weeks). The TAA used to nc ude a Hea th Coverage Tax Cred t Program wh ch w def n t ve y exp re at the end of 2013 and other tax cred ts re ated to hea th coverage w become ava ab e (e.g. Pat ent Protect on and Affordab e Care Act). The program promotes retra n ng s nce workers rece ve the TRAs on y f they part c pate n a fu -t me TAA tra n ng (or are under a wa ver). [22] The program s adm n stered by the Department of Labor (DOL) n cooperat on w th the 50 states, the D str ct of Co umb a and Puerto R co. The Secretary of Labor was author zed to mp ement Trade Read ustment Ass stance (TRA) and re ocat on a owances through cooperat ng state agenc es. TRA are ncome support payments that were, at that t me, pa d n add t on to an nd v dua s regu ar unemp oyment compensat on. The or g na program had no tra n ng or reemp oyment component. The program was rare y used unt 1974, when t was expanded as part of the Trade Act of 1974. The Trade Act of 1974 estab shed the tra n ng component of the program. In 1981, the program was sharp y curta ed by the Congress at the request of the Reagan Adm n strat on. [23] In 2002, the Trade Ad ustment Ass stance Reform Act (TAARA) expanded the program and t was comb ned w th the trade ad ustment program prov ded under the North Amer can Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). [24] The TAA has recent y suffered severa amendments. In 2009, the TAA program was expanded by the Trade and G oba zat on Ad ustment Ass stance Act (TGAAA) of 2009, wh ch was part of the Amer can Recovery and Re nvestment Act. These benef ts were extended through February 2011 by the Omn bus Trade Act of 2010. After that, the program reverted to the pre-expans on prov s ons under the TAARA of 2002. In October 2011, the Trade Ad ustment Ass stance Extens on Act (TAAEA) of 2011 was s gned nto aw, re nstat ng most of the benef ts nc uded n the TGAAA of 2009. The TAA s author zed through December 31, 2014 but w th some mod f cat ons. The TAA w operate under ts current prov s ons through December 31, 2013. For the add t ona year unt ts exp rat on on December 31, 2014, the TAA s set to operate under the e g b ty and benef t eve s estab shed by the TAARA of 2002. [22]

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms The Department of Commerce program, Trade Ad ustment Ass stance for F rms, [25] prov des f nanc a ass stance to manufacturers and serv ce f rms affected by mport compet t on. Sponsored by the Department of Commerce s Econom c Deve opment Adm n strat on (EDA), th s cost-shar ng federa ass stance program he ps pay for pro ects that mprove f rms compet t veness. EDA, through a nat ona network of 11 Trade Ad ustment Ass stance Centers (TAACs), prov des techn ca ass stance on a cost-shared bas s to U.S. manufactur ng, product on, and serv ce f rms n a 50 states, the D str ct of Co umb a, and Puerto R co. Trade Ad ustment Ass stance for F rms prov des mport mpacted compan es w th profess ona gu dance, bus ness recovery p an deve opment, and cost-shar ng for outs de consu t ng serv ces. E g b ty s estab shed a ong s m ar nes, w th compan es show ng that there has been a recent decrease n sa es and emp oyment, n part due to customers sh ft ng purchases away from the app cant and to mported goods. The Amer can Recovery and Re nvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 expanded e g b ty to serv ce f rms as we as the trad t ona manufactur ng compan es that had been the so e focus of the program. Th s expans on for serv ce f rms and workers was schedu ed to exp re on December 31, 2010, and the program wou d revert to the pre-ARRA structure w thout a vote to extend the author zat on.

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Trade Ad ustment Ass stance for Farmers, created n 2002 by w de-rang ng trade eg s at on (P.L. 107-210, Sec. 141), author zes the expend ture of up to $90 m on per year through FY2007. Under the program, certa n agr cu tura producers can each rece ve payments of up to $10,000 per year f pr ce dec nes for the r commod ty were at east part y caused by mports. To be e g b e for such ass stance, such producers must be members of cert f ed groups and meet a number of cr ter a spec f ed by the aw. The program s adm n stered by the Department of Agr cu ture.

Program Eligibility TAA for workers Workers must be d rect y mpacted by mports or by a sh ft n product on of the r f rm to any country w th a free trade agreement w th the Un ted States or to benef c ary countr es under the Andean Trade Preference, the Afr can Growth and Opportun ty, or by certa n other sh fts n product on. Emp oyees of upstream supp ers are e g b e f the product supp ed to the pr mary f rm cons sts 20% of the product on or sa es of the secondary workers f rm, or the r emp oyer s oss of bus ness w th the pr mary f rm contr buted s gn f cant y to the secondary workers separat on from work. Emp oyees of downstream producers are e g b e f they perform add t ona , va ue-added product on processes for art c es produced by pr mary f rms, and the pr mary cert f cat on was based on an ncrease n mports or a sh ft n product on to Canada or Mex co. In order to rece ve the benef ts d sp aced workers must f a pet t on as a group to n t ate the nvest gat on to address the reasons of the r ayoff. Once the DOL f nds that trade has contr buted notab y to the ayoff, the group s cert f ed but the nd v dua worker must st app y for benef ts at a oca One-Stop Career Center. [22]

Under the current aw, as mod f ed n 2009, workers n most serv ce obs (ca center operators, for examp e) are e g b e for trade ad ustment ass stance. In 2004, a group of computer experts d sp aced by overseas abor tr ed to app y for trade ad ustment ass stance but were re ected because computer software was not cons dered an “art c e” by the DOL. After a ser es of scath ng dec s ons by the Un ted States Court of Internat ona Trade cr t c z ng the DOL s approach, the DOL rev sed ts po c es n Apr 2006 to extend trade ad ustment ass stance to more workers produc ng d g ta products such as software code. [26] Neverthe ess, the program under the TAARA of 2002 start ng on January 1, 2014 does not nc ude trade-d sp aced workers n serv ces sectors. [22]

TAA for farmers Farmers and ranchers adverse y mpacted by trade w be e g b e to part c pate n a new program operated by the Department of Agr cu ture and are potent a y e g b e to rece ve tra n ng under TAA. They are not e g b e for the Trade Read ustment A owance.

Program Cost TAA for workers There are severa components of the overa cost of the program. The pr nc pa spend ng of the program s n reemp oyment serv ces wh ch are set to the annua fund ng eve s of the Trade Act of 2002: $220 m on for state grants (p us adm n strat ve a otments equa to 15% of each state s grant). The TRA ncome support and RTAA wage nsurance program are uncapped ent t ements. In FY 2011, the cost of TRA was $234,126,500 and the cost of RTAA was $43,227,212, based on the number of part c pants of each program n th s year (25,689 and 1,133 part c pants respect ve y). [27]

Program Effectiveness TAA for workers The TAA for workers have demonstrated overa ow effect veness so far wh ch s ref ected n the controversy to reauthor ze the program before the 112th Congress and the fact that the TAA w be d scont nued n 2015. F rst, the program s not very effect ve prov d ng support dur ng the trans t on because a s gn f cant port on of workers does not rece ve TRA. In FY2011 there were over 196,000 TAA part c pants and on y around 46,000 rece ved TRA. [27] One reason s that the tra n ng enro ment dead ne of 8/16 weeks ser ous y m ts the ab ty of workers to enro n tra n ng programs and rece ve the benef t. Moreover, even for those workers rece v ng TRA and UI, on y a port on of the ost ncome s rep aced. [28] The program prov des hea th nsurance coverage but n the past t has not been very effect ve s nce part c pat on n TAA was assoc ated w th decreased coverage n the per od fo ow ng ob oss ke a o nt report by Mathemat ca Po cy Research and Soc a Po cy Research (SPR) prepared for the DOL eva uat ng the TAA program under the Trade Act of 2002 shows. [29] The effect veness of the program n terms of foster ng reemp oyment s very ow too. Data on post-TAA outcomes for program ex ters based on DOL est mat ons shows that the entered emp oyment rate was 66% n 2011. [22] The Mathemat ca Po cy Research and SPR report f nds that the TAA s not effect ve n terms of ncreas ng emp oyab ty. There s pos t ve effect on the reemp oyment rate for part c pants but t s not stat st ca y d fferent from that for non-part c pants. [29] The effect veness of the program n terms of m t gat ng earn ng osses n the new ob s very ow too as severa stud es report. Reyno ds and Pa atucc (2008) est mate that “part c pat ng n the TAA program causes a wage oss approx mate y 10 percentage po nts greater than f the d sp aced worker had chosen not to part c pate n the program.”[20] The report by Mathemat ca Po cy Research and SPR states that TAA was est mated to have no effect on earn ngs and compared to a samp e of UI c a mants, TAA part c pants worked about the same number of weeks but had ower earn ngs. [29] Moreover, a 2007 GAO report shows that n FY 2006 on y 5% or ess of TAA part c pants rece ved wage nsurance. The program s neffect ve c os ng the earn ng gap because n order to be e g b e for wage nsurance workers must f nd a ob w th n 26 weeks after be ng a d off, wh ch proved to be a very short per od. [30]Add t ona y, the program on y rep aces ha f of the osses. F na y, the mp ementat on of th s program over aps extens ve y w th others such as Workforce Investment Act generat ng extra costs and dup cat ng adm n strat ve efforts. [13] The process to a ocate tra n ng funds s a so prob emat c. States rece ve funds at the beg nn ng of the f sca year but t does not proper y ref ect the state´s demand for tra n ng serv ces. In add t on, states do not rece ve funds for case management and ack f ex b ty to use the funds for tra n ng. Thus, states face cha enges n prov d ng serv ces to workers proper y. [30]

Policy Alternatives TAA for workers Over ast years, the TAA program has been sub ect to d verse cr t cs due to ts f awed performance and extreme y h gh cost. The TAA was on y extended to the end of 2014 and the ast reauthor zat on process before the 112th Congress exposed a ack of consensus about the program. [19] Severa scho ars from d fferent nst tut ons have proposed po cy a ternat ves. Integrated Adjustment Assistance Program The F nanc a Serv ces Forum, through ts 2008 wh te paper “Succeed ng n the G oba Economy: An Ad ustment Ass stance Program for Amer can Workers,” proposes to comb ne the UI and TAA programs nto a s ng e ntegrated program for a d sp aced workers who qua fy for UI no matter the reason of d sp acement [31]The program nc udes: wage nsurance, portab ty of hea th nsurance (under the current program COBRA), and reemp oyment serv ces such as ass stance w th geograph c re ocat on and retra n ng. The wage nsurance wou d cush on the cost of ower wages n the new ob for workers age 45 and o der. The program rep aces 50% of workers ost wages for up to two years, for up to $10,000 per year, for workers that ho d the prev ous ob for at east two years. Regard ng retra n ng, workers wou d be ab e to deduct from the r gross ncome, for tax purposes, the fu cost of educat on and tra n ng expenses, and there w be no m tat ons n terms of area of tra n ng. The est mated annua cost of the program s $22 b on. The F nanc a Serv ces Forum proposes to rep ace the current tax system w th a f at 1.2% tax on a earn ng at the state eve , and a f at rate of 0.12% on a earn ngs at the federa eve to pay for the program. Wage Insurance and Subsidies for Medical Insurance Program Scho ars at the Brook ngs Inst tut on and the Inst tute for Internat ona Econom cs proposed a twofo d program nc ud ng a wage nsurance and subs dy for med ca nsurance n add t on to the UI program for

e g b e workers. [32] On the one hand, the program covers workers d sp aced by any reason, not ust trade, who suffer an earn ng oss after reemp oyment. D sp aced workers def ned as “workers d sp aced due to p ant c os ng or re ocat on, e m nat on of pos t on or sh ft, and nsuff c ent work”. [33] It wou d rep ace a port on between 30% and 70% of the d fference between earn ngs on the o d and new ob. In order to be e g b e, workers must have been emp oyed fu -t me at the r prev ous ob for at east two years, and suffered a wage decrease that can be documented. The nsurance wou d be pa d on y after workers found a new ob and they w rece ve t for up to two years from the or g na date of ob oss. Annua payments wou d be capped at $10,000 or $20,000 per year. The payments wou d be adm n stered through state UI. [32] In add t on, the program wou d a so offer a hea th nsurance subs dy for a fu -t me d sp aced workers, for up to 6 months, or unt they found a new ob (wh chever s ear er). Workers wou d be m ted to rece v ng the subs dy no more frequent y than once dur ng a certa n per od, probab y 3 or 4 years, n order to prevent ob churn ng. [32] K etzer and L tan (2001) est mate that about 20% of d sp aced workers reemp oyed fu -t me wou d have had at east 2 years tenure on the r prev ous ob and suffered a wage oss n the new one. The program wou d cost from $2 to $5 b on per year. Th s cost s est mated w th a nat ona unemp oyment rate between 4.2% and 4.9%. [32] In 2012, the average nat ona unemp oyment rate was 8.9%. [33] Consequent y, the pro ected cost wou d be h gher f the program wou d be mp emented today. https://en.w k ped a.org/w k /Trade_Ad ustment_Ass stance Trans-Pac f c Partnersh p: Summary of U.S. Ob ect ves The Un ted States s part c pat ng n negot at ons of the Trans-Pac f c Partnersh p (TPP) Agreement w th 11 other As a-Pac f c countr es (Austra a, Brune Darussa am, Canada, Ch e, Japan, Ma ays a, Mex co, New Zea and, Peru, S ngapore, and V etnam) – a trade agreement that w open markets, set h gh-standard trade ru es, and address 21st-century ssues n the g oba economy. By do ng so, TPP w promote obs and growth n the Un ted States and across the As a-Pac f c reg on. The Obama Adm n strat on s pursu ng TPP to un ock opportun t es for Amer can manufacturers, workers, serv ce prov ders, farmers, and ranchers – to support ob creat on and wage growth. We are work ng hard to ensure that TPP w be a comprehens ve dea , prov d ng new and mean ngfu market access for goods and serv ces; strong and enforceab e abor standards and env ronmenta comm tments; groundbreak ng new ru es des gned to ensure fa r compet t on between state-owned enterpr ses (SOEs) and pr vate compan es; comm tments that w mprove the transparency and cons stency of the regu atory env ronment to make t eas er for sma - and med um-s zed bus nesses to operate across the reg on; a robust nte ectua property (IP) r ghts framework to promote nnovat on, wh e support ng access to nnovat ve and gener c med c nes and an open Internet; and ob gat ons that w promote a thr v ng d g ta economy, nc ud ng new ru es to ensure the free f ow of data. Th s document descr bes the Adm n strat on s goa s and ob ect ves for TPP, and presents the ma n e ements of each chapter from the Un ted States perspect ve. Negot at ons toward a TPP Agreement are ongo ng, and many of the e ements deta ed be ow are not sett ed. These are our ob ect ves; there s st work to be done to ach eve them. Th s document ays out the Adm n strat on s v s on, wh ch the Off ce of the U.S. Trade Representat ve s advanc ng, of harness ng trade as a too for econom c growth and support ng obs, and bu d ng opportun ty for Amer cans n the context of an agreement that w benef t a TPP countr es. We are comm tted to prov d ng the pub c nformat on on what we are work ng to ach eve through trade negot at ons, and we w cont nue to share th s nformat on through the press, soc a med a, and at www.ustr.gov as we move forward n the TPP negot at ons. TRADE IN GOODS The Un ted States sh ps more than $1.9 b on n goods to TPP countr es every day. In today s h gh y compet t ve g oba marketp ace, even sma ncreases n a product s cost due to tar ffs or non-tar ff barr ers can mean the d fference between success and fa ure for a bus ness. That s why the Un ted States s work ng to negot ate n TPP comprehens ve and preferent a access across an expans ve dutyfree trad ng reg on for the ndustr a goods, food and agr cu ture products, and text es, wh ch w a ow our exporters to deve op and expand the r part c pat on n the va ue cha ns of the fastest-grow ng econom es n the wor d. The Un ted States exported more than $622.5 b on of manufactured products to TPP countr es n 2013. W th the e m nat on of TPP countr es tar ffs on manufactured products, nc ud ng nnovat ve and h gh techno ogy products, such as ndustr a and e ectr ca mach nery, prec s on and sc ent f c nstruments, and chem ca s and p ast cs, U.S. products w compete on a more eve p ay ng f e d w th goods from TPP countr es other free trade agreement (FTA) partners – nc ud ng Ch na, Ind a, and the EU. As ust one examp e, certa n U.S. auto parts current y face a 27-percent tar ff enter ng V etnam. Other countr es that have an FTA w th V etnam, such as Ch na, Tha and, and Indones a, export the r auto parts to V etnam duty free. By e m nat ng dut es U.S. auto parts compan es face, TPP wou d he p boost the r compet t veness n the V etnamese market. Twenty percent of U.S. farm ncome comes from agr cu tura exports and those exports support rura commun t es. In fact, U.S. food and agr cu tura exports to the wor d reached an a -t me h gh n 2013 of over $148 b on. Of that tota , we exported more than $58 b on to TPP countr es – a f gure that wou d ncrease as a resu t of tar ff e m nat on under TPP. As ust one examp e: U.S. pou try current y faces a 40-percent tar ff n Ma ays a. U.S. pou try wou d become more affordab e n Ma ays a under a TPP agreement that reduces these dut es to zero. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: E m nat on of tar ffs and commerc a y-mean ngfu market access for U.S. products exported to TPP countr es; and Prov s ons that address ongstand ng non-tar ff barr ers, nc ud ng mport cens ng requ rements and other restr ct ons. TEXTILES U.S. text e and appare manufacturers so d more than $10 b on worth of products to TPP countr es n 2013, an ncrease of 5.4 percent from the prev ous year. Many U.S. yarns, fabr cs, and appare current y face tar ffs as h gh as 20 percent upon enter ng some TPP countr es. Our goa n the TPP negot at ons s to remove tar ff and non-tar ff barr ers to text e and appare exports to enhance the compet t veness of our producers n the As a-Pac f c reg on. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: E m nat on of tar ffs on text e and appare exports to TPP countr es; A “yarn forward” ru e of or g n, wh ch requ res that text e and appare products be made us ng U.S. or other TPP country yarns and fabr cs to qua fy for the benef ts of the agreement, so as to ensure that non-qua fy ng text es and appare from non-TPP countr es do not en oy the benef ts reserved for TPP countr es; A carefu y crafted “short supp y” st, wh ch wou d a ow fabr cs, yarns, and f bers that are not commerc a y ava ab e n the Un ted States or other TPP countr es to be sourced from non-TPP countr es and used n the product on of appare n the TPP reg on w thout os ng duty preference; Str ct enforcement prov s ons and customs cooperat on comm tments that w prov de for ver f cat on of c a ms of or g n or preferent a treatment, and den a of preferent a treatment or entry for suspect goods f c a ms cannot be ver f ed; and A text e spec f c safeguard mechan sm that w a ow the Un ted States and other TPP countr es to re- mpose tar ffs on certa n goods f a surge n mports causes or threatens to cause ser ous damage to domest c producers. SERVICES Serv ces ndustr es account for four out of f ve U.S. obs and a so represent a s gn f cant and grow ng share of obs n other TPP countr es. Secur ng bera zed and fa r access to fore gn serv ces markets w he p U.S. serv ce supp ers, both sma and arge, seek ng to do bus ness n TPP markets, thereby, support ng obs at home. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: L bera z ng access for serv ces compan es so they rece ve better or equa treatment to serv ce supp ers from TPP countr es other FTA partners and face a more eve p ay ng f e d n TPP markets; Prov s ons that wou d enab e serv ce supp ers to supp y serv ces w thout estab sh ng an off ce n every TPP country;

New or enhanced ob gat ons n spec f c sectors mportant to promot ng trade (e.g., enhanced d sc p nes for express de very serv ces w promote reg ona supp y cha ns and a d sma bus nesses, wh ch often are h gh y dependent on express de very serv ces for ntegrat on nto supp y cha ns and d str but on networks); and Comm tments to bera ze fore gn f nanc a serv ces and nsurance markets wh e protect ng a government s broad f ex b ty to regu ate, nc ud ng n the f nanc a sector, and to take the act ons necessary to ensure the stab ty and ntegr ty of a f nanc a system. INVESTMENT W th trade fo ow ng nvestment, we are work ng to ensure that U.S. nvestors abroad are prov ded the same k nd of opportun t es n other markets that we prov de n the Un ted States to fore gn nvestors do ng bus ness w th n our borders. That s why we are seek ng to nc ude n TPP many of the nvestment ob gat ons that have h stor ca y proven to support obs and econom c growth, as we as new prov s ons to take on emerg ng nvestment ssues. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: L bera zed access for nvestment n TPP markets, non-d scr m nat on and the reduct on or e m nat on of other barr ers to the estab shment and operat on of nvestments n TPP countr es, nc ud ng proh b t ons aga nst un awfu expropr at on and spec f ed performance requ rements; Prov s ons that w address measures that requ re TPP nvestors to favor another country s domest c techno ogy n order to benef t SOEs, nat ona champ ons, or other compet tors n that country; and Procedures for arb trat on that w prov de bas c ru e of aw protect ons for U.S. nvestors operat ng n fore gn markets s m ar to those the U.S. a ready prov des to fore gn nvestors operat ng n the U.S. These procedures wou d prov de strong protect ons to ensure that a TPP governments can appropr ate y regu ate n the pub c nterest, nc ud ng on hea th, safety, and env ronmenta protect on. Th s nc udes an array of safeguards des gned to ra se the standards around nvestor-state d spute sett ement, such as by d scourag ng and d sm ss ng fr vo ous su ts, a ow ng governments to d rect the outcome of arb tra tr buna s n certa n areas, mak ng proceed ngs more open and transparent, and prov d ng for the part c pat on of c v soc ety organ zat ons and other non-part es. LABOR Ensur ng respect for worker r ghts s a core va ue. That s why n TPP the Un ted States s seek ng to bu d on the strong abor prov s ons n the most recent U.S. trade agreements by seek ng enforceab e ru es that protect the r ghts of freedom of assoc at on and co ect ve barga n ng; d scourage trade n goods produced by forced abor, nc ud ng forced ch d abor; and estab sh mechan sms to mon tor and address abor concerns. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: Requ rements to adhere to fundamenta abor r ghts as recogn zed by the Internat ona Labor Organ zat on, as we as acceptab e cond t ons of work, sub ect to the same d spute sett ement mechan sm as other ob gat ons n TPP; Ru es that w ensure that TPP countr es do not wa ve or derogate from abor aws n a manner that affects trade or nvestment, nc ud ng n free trade zones, and that they take n t at ves to d scourage trade n goods produced by forced abor; Format on of a consu tat ve mechan sm to deve op spec f c steps to address abor concerns when they ar se; and

Estab shment of a means for the pub c to ra se concerns d rect y w th TPP governments f they be eve a TPP country s not meet ng ts abor comm tments, and requ rements that governments cons der and respond to those concerns. ENVIRONMENT Env ronmenta stewardsh p s a core va ue and advanc ng env ronmenta protect on and conservat on efforts across the As a-Pac f c reg on s a key pr or ty for the Un ted States n TPP. In add t on to core env ronment ob gat ons, we are seek ng tra b az ng, f rst-ever conservat on proposa s to address some of the reg on s most urgent env ronmenta cha enges. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: Strong and enforceab e env ronment ob gat ons, sub ect to the same d spute sett ement mechan sm as other ob gat ons n TPP; Comm tments to effect ve y enforce domest c env ronmenta aws, nc ud ng aws that mp ement mu t atera env ronmenta agreements, and comm tments not to wa ve or derogate from the protect ons afforded n env ronmenta aws for the purpose of encourag ng trade or nvestment; New prov s ons that w address w d fe traff ck ng, ega ogg ng, and ega f sh ng pract ces; and Estab shment of a means for the pub c to ra se concerns d rect y w th TPP governments f they be eve a TPP member s not meet ng ts env ronment comm tments, and requ rements that governments cons der and respond to those concerns. E-COMMERCE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS In the past f ve years, the number of Internet users wor dw de has ba ooned from 2 to 3 b on and w cont nue to grow. The ncrease n Internet use creates s gn f cant econom c potent a , part cu ar y for sma bus nesses. The Obama Adm n strat on s work ng through TPP to un ock the prom se of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open, promote compet t ve access for te ecommun cat ons supp ers, and set d g ta trade ru es-of-the-road. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: Comm tments not to mpose customs dut es on d g ta products (e.g., software, mus c, v deo, e-books); Non-d scr m natory treatment of d g ta products transm tted e ectron ca y and guarantees that these products w not face government-sanct oned d scr m nat on based on the nat ona ty or terr tory n wh ch the product s produced; Requ rements that support a s ng e, g oba Internet, nc ud ng ensur ng cross-border data f ows, cons stent w th governments eg t mate nterest n regu at ng for purposes of pr vacy protect on; Ru es aga nst oca zat on requ rements that force bus nesses to p ace computer nfrastructure n each market n wh ch they seek to operate, rather than a ow ng them to offer serv ces from network centers that make bus ness sense; Comm tments to prov de reasonab e network access for te ecommun cat ons supp ers through nterconnect on and access to phys ca fac t es; and Prov s ons promot ng cho ce of techno ogy and compet t ve a ternat ves to address the h gh cost of nternat ona mob e roam ng. COMPETITION POLICY AND STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES U.S. goa s on compet t on po cy and SOEs are grounded n ong-stand ng pr nc p es of fa r compet t on, consumer protect on, and transparency. The Un ted States s seek ng ru es to proh b t ant compet t ve bus ness conduct, as we as fraudu ent and decept ve commerc a act v t es that harm consumers. We are a so pursu ng p oneer ng ru es to ensure that pr vate sector bus nesses and workers are ab e to compete on fa r terms w th SOEs, espec a y when such SOEs rece ve s gn f cant government back ng to engage n commerc a act v ty. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: Bas c ru es for procedura fa rness on compet t on aw enforcement; Comm tments ensur ng SOEs act n accordance w th commerc a cons derat ons and compete fa r y, w thout undue advantages from the governments that own them, wh e a ow ng governments to prov de support to SOEs that prov de pub c serv ces domest ca y; and Ru es that w prov de transparency w th respect to the nature of government contro over and support for SOEs. SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES Sma - and med um-s zed enterpr ses (SMEs) are the backbone of the U.S. economy and are key contr butors to econom c growth n other TPP econom es as we . The Un ted States 28 m on SMEs account for near y two-th rds of net new pr vate sector obs n recent decades. SMEs that export tend to grow even faster, create more obs, and pay h gher wages than s m ar bus nesses that do not trade nternat ona y. We are seek ng through th s agreement to prov de SMEs the too s they need to compete across TPP markets. TPP w benef t SMEs by e m nat ng tar ff and non-tar ff barr ers, stream n ng customs procedures, strengthen ng nte ectua property protect on, promot ng e-commerce, and deve op ng more eff c ent and transparent regu atory reg mes. In add t on, TPP w nc ude a f rst-ever chapter focus ng on ssues that create part cu ar cha enges for SMEs. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: Comm tments to prov de access to nformat on on ut z ng FTAs – a prob em that SMEs have dent f ed as a d sproport onate cha enge for them; and Estab shment of a regu ar rev ew of how TPP s work ng for SMEs. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS As the wor d s most nnovat ve economy, strong and effect ve protect on and enforcement of IP r ghts s cr t ca to U.S. econom c growth and Amer can obs. Near y 40 m on Amer can obs are d rect y or nd rect y attr butab e to “IP- ntens ve” ndustr es. These obs pay h gher wages to the r workers, and these ndustr es dr ve approx mate y 60 percent of U.S. merchand se exports and a arge share of serv ces exports. In TPP, we are work ng to advance strong, state-of-the-art, and ba anced ru es that w protect and promote U.S. exports of IP- ntens ve products and serv ces throughout the As a-Pac f c reg on for the benef t of producers and consumers of those goods and serv ces n a TPP countr es. The prov s ons that the Un ted States s seek ng – gu ded by the carefu ba ance ach eved n ex st ng U.S. aw – w promote an open, nnovat ve, and techno og ca y-advanced As a-Pac f c reg on, acce erat ng nvent on and creat on of new products and ndustr es across TPP countr es, wh e at the same t me ensur ng outcomes that enab e a TPP countr es to draw on the fu benef ts of sc ent f c, techno og ca , and med ca nnovat on, and take part n deve opment and en oyment of new med a, and the arts. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: Strong protect ons for patents, trademarks, copyr ghts, and trade secrets, nc ud ng safeguards aga nst cyber theft of trade secrets; Comm tments that ob gate countr es to seek to ach eve ba ance n the r copyr ght systems by means of, among other approaches, m tat ons or except ons that a ow for the use of copyr ghted works for purposes such as cr t c sm, comment, news report ng, teach ng, scho arsh p, and research; Pharmaceut ca IP prov s ons that promote nnovat on and the deve opment of new, fesav ng med c nes, create opportun t es for robust gener c drug compet t on, and ensure affordab e access to med c nes, tak ng nto account eve s of deve opment among the TPP countr es and the r ex st ng aws and nternat ona comm tments; New ru es that promote transparency and due process w th respect to trademarks and geograph ca nd cat ons; Strong and fa r enforcement ru es to protect aga nst trademark counterfe t ng and copyr ght p racy, nc ud ng ru es a ow ng ncreased pena t es n cases where counterfe t or p rated goods threaten consumer hea th or safety; and Internet serv ce prov der “safe harbor” prov s ons, as we as strong and ba anced prov s ons regard ng techno og ca protect on measures to foster new bus ness mode s and eg t mate commerce n the d g ta env ronment. TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE AND SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES Non-tar ff trade barr ers, such as dup cat ve test ng and unsc ent f c regu at ons mposed on food and agr cu tura goods, are among the b ggest cha enges fac ng exporters across the As a-Pac f c reg on. An effect ve regu atory program shou d protect the pub c nterest – for examp e n hea th, safety, and env ronmenta protect on – and do so n a manner that s no more trade restr ct ve than necessary to ach eve the po cy goa . The Un ted States s therefore seek ng n TPP to strengthen ru es ntended to e m nate unwarranted techn ca barr ers to trade (TBT) and bu d upon WTO comm tments n th s area, and to ensure that san tary and phytosan tary measures (SPS) are deve oped and mp emented n a transparent, sc ence-based manner. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: Comm tments to enhance transparency, reduce unnecessary test ng and cert f cat on costs, and promote greater openness n standards deve opment; Comm tments a med at adopt ng common approaches to regu atory matters re ated to trade n products n key sectors such as w ne and d st ed sp r ts, med ca dev ces, cosmet cs, pharmaceut ca s, nformat on and commun cat on techno ogy, and food formu as New and enforceab e ru es to ensure that sc ence-based SPS measures are deve oped and mp emented n a transparent, pred ctab e, and non-d scr m natory manner, wh e at the same t me preserv ng the ab ty of U.S. and other TPP regu atory agenc es to do what they deem necessary to protect food safety, and p ant and an ma hea th; an Estab shment of an on-go ng mechan sm for mproved d a ogue and cooperat on on address ng SPS and TBT ssues. TRANSPARENCY, ANTICORRUPTION AND REGULATORY COHERENCE Through TPP, we are seek ng to make trade across the TPP reg on more seam ess, nc ud ng by mprov ng the coherence of TPP regu atory systems, enhanc ng transparency n po cy-mak ng processes, and combatt ng corrupt on. These “good government” reforms a so p ay an mportant ro e n ensur ng fa rness for Amer can f rms and workers Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: Comm tments to promote greater transparency, part c pat on, and accountab ty n the deve opment of regu at ons and other government dec s ons, nc ud ng by prompt y pub sh ng aws, regu at ons, adm n strat ve ru ngs of genera app cat on, and other procedures that affect trade and nvestment, and prov d ng opportun t es for stakeho der comment on measures before they are adopted and f na zed; For the f rst t me n a U.S. trade agreement, a chapter on regu atory coherence, nc ud ng comm tments on good regu atory pract ces; and Comm tments d scourag ng corrupt on and estab sh ng codes of conduct to promote h gh eth ca standards among pub c off c a s. CUSTOMS, TRADE FACILITATION AND RULES OF ORIGIN Cutt ng the red-tape of trade, nc ud ng by reduc ng costs and ncreas ng customs eff c enc es, w make t cheaper, eas er, and faster for bus nesses to get the r products to market. In TPP, we are ook ng to fac tate trade across the TPP reg on; support the deep ntegrat on of U.S. og st cs, manufactur ng, and other ndustr es n reg ona supp y cha ns; and reduce costs for U.S. bus ness by remov ng onerous and opaque customs barr ers. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: Comm tments that w ensure the qu ck re ease of goods through customs, exped ted procedures for express sh pments, advance ru ngs, and transparent and pred ctab e customs regu at ons; Strong customs cooperat on comm tments n order to ensure that TPP countr es work together to prevent smugg ng, ega transsh pment, and duty evas on, and to guarantee comp ance w th trade aws and regu at ons; and Strong and common ru es of or g n to ensure that the benef ts of TPP go to the Un ted States and other TPP countr es, and a so that TPP promotes the deve opment of supp y cha ns n the reg on that nc ude compan es based n the Un ted States. GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT Increas ng access to government procurement markets n TPP countr es, wh ch represent an est mated 5-10 percent of a country s economy, w un ock s gn f cant opportun t es for U.S. and other TPP bus nesses and workers. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: Creat on of fa r, transparent, pred ctab e, and non-d scr m natory ru es to govern government procurement n TPP countr es; and Comm tments to bera ze TPP countr es government procurement markets, w th comparab e eve s of coverage by a TPP countr es, tak ng nto account the part cu ar sens t v t es of spec f c countr es. DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE CAPACITY-BUILDING The Un ted States v ews deve opment as a way to further strengthen the reg on and ay the groundwork for future econom c opportun t es by mprov ng access to econom c opportun ty for women and ow ncome nd v dua s; ncent v z ng pr vate-pub c partnersh ps n deve opment act v t es; and des gn ng susta nab e mode s for econom c growth. In add t on, the Un ted States sees trade capac ty-bu d ng as cr t ca to ass st TPP deve op ng countr es n mp ement ng the agreement and ensur ng they can benef t from t. In TPP, we p an to nc ude a chapter on cooperat on and capac ty bu d ng and, for the f rst t me n any U.S. trade agreement, a chapter ded cated spec f ca y to deve opment. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: Agreement on cooperat ve deve opment act v t es TPP countr es cou d conduct to promote broad-based econom c growth and susta nab e deve opment, nc ud ng pub c-pr vate partnersh ps, sc ence and techno ogy cooperat on, and other o nt deve opment act v t es; and Mechan sms for co aborat on and fac tat on of capac ty-bu d ng act v t es by both TPP government and non-government representat ves, as we as the pr vate sector, n order to he p TPP workers and bus nesses, nc ud ng SMEs and m cro- enterpr ses part c pate n g oba trade and take advantage of the agreement. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT When the Un ted States negot ates a trade agreement, we expect our trad ng partners to ab de by the ru es and ob gat ons to wh ch they agree. Under the TPP, countr es w f rst seek to address an ssue cooperat ve y. If they are unab e to do so, the Part es have recourse to an ndependent tr buna to determ ne whether a Party has fa ed to meet ts ob gat ons, and u t mate y to a ow suspens on of benef ts f a Party fa s to come nto comp ance. Through the TPP d spute sett ement mechan sm, we are seek ng to g ve the Amer can pub c the conf dence that the Un ted States has the means to enforce the strong, h gh-standard ob gat ons we are negot at ng n th s agreement. Spec f ca y, n the TPP we are seek ng: Estab shment of a fa r and transparent d spute sett ement mechan sm that app es across the agreement; and Procedures to a ow us to sett e d sputes on matters ar s ng under TPP n a t me y and effect ve manner. U.S.-JAPAN BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS ON MOTOR VEHICLE TRADE AND NON-TARIFF MEASURES W th the part c pat on of Japan, TPP countr es account for near y 40 percent of g oba GDP and about one-th rd of a wor d trade. Japan s current y the fourth- argest goods trad ng partners of the Un ted States. The Un ted States exported $65 b on n goods and an est mated $48 b on n serv ces to Japan n 2013. Neverthe ess, U.S. exporters have faced a broad range of form dab e non-tar ff measures n Japan s automot ve and other markets. As a resu t, pr or to Japan o n ng the TPP negot at ons, the Un ted States reached a ser es of agreements w th Japan to address a range of ssues n con unct on w th Japan s part c pat on n TPP. Th s nc udes an agreement that U.S. tar ffs on motor veh c es w be phased out n accordance w th the ongest stag ng per od n the TPP negot at ons and w be back- oaded to the max mum extent. The Un ted States and Japan a so agreed to address non-tar ff measures through para e negot at ons to TPP, wh ch were aunched n August 2013. Spec f ca y, n these negot at ons w th Japan we are seek ng: Enforceab e comm tments re ated to the automot ve sector that w address a broad range of non-tar ff measures – nc ud ng those re ated to regu atory transparency, standards, cert f cat on, f nanc a ncent ves, and d str but on; Estab shment of an acce erated d spute sett ement procedure that wou d app y to the automot ve sector that nc udes a mechan sm to “snap back” tar ffs as a remedy, as we as a spec a motor veh c e safeguard; and Mean ngfu outcomes that address cross-cutt ng and sectora non-tar ff measures, nc ud ng n the areas of nsurance, transparency, nvestment, IP r ghts, standards, government procurement, compet t on po cy, express de very, and SPS. https://ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-ob ect ves

H-1B Visa From W k ped a, the free encyc oped a Th s art c e possibly contains original research. P ease mprove t by ver fy ng the c a ms made and add ng n ne c tat ons. Statements cons st ng on y of or g na research shou d be removed. (November 2009)

The H-1B s a non- mm grant v sa n the Un ted States under the Imm grat on and Nat ona ty Act, sect on 101(a)(15)(H). It a ows U.S. emp oyers to temporar y emp oy fore gn workers n spec a ty occupat ons. If a fore gn worker n H-1B status qu ts or s d sm ssed from the sponsor ng emp oyer, the worker must e ther app y for and be granted a change of status to another non- mm grant status, f nd another emp oyer (sub ect to app cat on for ad ustment of status and/or change of v sa), or eave the U.S. The regu at ons def ne a “spec a ty occupat on” as requ r ng theoret ca and pract ca app cat on of a body of h gh y spec a zed know edge n a f e d of human endeavor[1] nc ud ng but not m ted to b otechno ogy, chem stry, arch tecture, eng neer ng, mathemat cs, phys ca sc ences, soc a sc ences, med c ne and hea th, educat on, aw, account ng, bus ness spec a t es, theo ogy, and the arts, and requ r ng the atta nment of a bache or s degree or ts equ va ent as a m n mum[2] (w th the except on of fash on mode s, who must be “of d st ngu shed mer t and ab ty”). [3] L kew se, the fore gn worker must possess at east a bache or s degree or ts equ va ent and state censure, f requ red to pract ce n that f e d. H-1B work-author zat on s str ct y m ted to emp oyment by the sponsor ng emp oyer.

Structure of the program Duration of stay The durat on of stay s three years, extendab e to s x years. An except on to max mum ength of stay app es n certa n c rcumstances If a v sa ho der has subm tted an I-140 mm grant pet t on or a abor cert f cat on pr or to the r f fth year ann versary of hav ng the H-1B v sa, they are ent t ed to renew the r H-1B v sa n one-year or threeyear ncrements unt a dec s on has been rendered on the r app cat on for permanent res dence. If the v sa ho der has an approved I-140 mm grant pet t on, but s unab e to n t ate the f na step of the green card process due to the r pr or ty date not be ng current, they may be ent t ed to a three-year extens on of the r H-1B v sa. Th s except on or g nated w th the Amer can Compet t veness n the Twenty-F rst Century Act of 2000. [4] The max mum durat on of the H-1B v sa s ten years for except ona Un ted States Department of Defense pro ect re ated work. H-1B ho ders who want to cont nue to work n the U.S. after s x years, but who have not obta ned permanent res dency status, must rema n outs de of the U.S. for one year before reapp y ng for another H-1B v sa. Desp te a m t on ength of stay, no requ rement ex sts that the nd v dua rema n for any per od n the ob the v sa was or g na y ssued for. Th s s known as H-1B portab ty or transfer, prov ded the new emp oyer sponsors another H-1B v sa, wh ch may or may not be sub ected to the quota. Under current aw, H-1B v sa has no st pu ated grace per od n the event the emp oyer-emp oyee re at onsh p ceases to ex st.

Congressional yearly numerical cap and exemptions The current aw m ts to 65,000 the number of fore gn nat ona s who may be ssued a v sa or otherw se prov ded H-1B status each f sca year (FY). Laws exempt up to 20,000 fore gn nat ona s ho d ng a master s or h gher degree from U.S. un vers t es from the cap on H-1B v sas. In add t on, exc uded from the ce ng are a H-1B non- mm grants who work at (but not necessar y for) un vers t es, non-prof t research fac t es assoc ated w th un vers t es, and government research fac t es. [5]Un vers t es can emp oy an un m ted number of fore gn workers as cap-exempt. Th s a so means that contractors work ng at but not d rect y emp oyed by the nst tut ons may be exempt from the cap as we . Free Trade Agreements carve out 1,400 H-1B1 v sas for Ch ean nat ona s and 5,400 H-1B1 v sas for S ngapore nat ona s. However, f these reserved v sas are not used, then they are made ava ab e n the next f sca year to app cants from other countr es. Due to these un m ted exempt ons and ro -overs, the number of H-1B v sas ssued each year s s gn f cant y more than the 65,000 cap, w th 117,828 hav ng been ssued n FY2010, 129,552 n FY2011, and 135,991 n FY2012. [6][7] The Un ted States C t zensh p and Imm grat on Serv ces starts accept ng app cat ons on the f rst bus ness day of Apr for v sas that count aga nst the f sca year start ng n October. For nstance, H-1B v sa app cat ons that count aga nst the FY 2013 cap cou d be subm tted start ng from Monday, 2012 Apr 2. USCIS accepts H-1B v sa app cat ons no more than 6 months n advance of the requested start date. [8] Benef c ar es not sub ect to the annua cap are those who current y ho dcap-subject H-1B status or have he d cap-subject H-1B status at some po nt n the past s x years.

Tax status of H-1B workers The taxat on of ncome for H-1B emp oyees depends on whether they are categor zed as e ther non-res dent a ens or res dent a ens for tax purposes. A non-res dent a en for tax purposes s on y taxed on ncome from the Un ted States, wh e a res dent a en for tax purposes s taxed on a ncome, nc ud ng ncome from outs de the US. The c ass f cat on s determ ned based on the “substant a presence test“: If the substant a presence test nd cates that the H-1B v sa ho der s a res dent, then ncome taxat on s ke any other U.S. person and may be f ed us ng Form 1040 and the necessary schedu es; otherw se, the v sa-ho der must f e as a non-res dent a en us ng tax form 1040NR or 1040NR-EZ; he or she may c a m benef t from tax treat es f they ex st between the Un ted States and the v sa ho der s country of c t zensh p. Persons n the r f rst year n the U.S. may choose to be cons dered a res dent for taxat on purposes for the ent re year, and must pay taxes on the r wor dw de ncome for that year. Th s “F rst Year Cho ce” s descr bed n IRS Pub cat on 519 and can on y be made once n a person s fet me. A spouse, regard ess of v sa status, must nc ude a va d Ind v dua Taxpayer Ident f cat on Number (ITIN) or Soc a Secur ty number (SSN) on a o nt tax return w th the H-1B ho der. Tax f ng ru es for H-1B ho ders may be comp ex, depend ng on the nd v dua s tuat on. Bes des consu t ng a profess ona tax preparer know edgeab e about the ru es for fore gners, the IRS Pub cat on 519, U.S. Tax Gu de for A ens, may be consu ted. Apart from state and federa taxes, H-1B v sa ho ders pay Med careand Soc a Secur ty taxes, and are e g b e for Soc a Secur ty benef ts.

H-1B and legal immigration Even though the H-1B v sa s a non- mm grant v sa, t s one of the few v sa categor es recogn zed as dua ntent, mean ng an H-1B ho der can have ega mm grat on ntent (app y for and obta n the green card) wh e st a ho der of the v sa. In the past the emp oyment-based green card process used to take on y a few years, ess than the durat on of the H-1B v sa tse f. However, n recent t mes the ega emp oyment-based mm grat on process has back ogged and retrogressed to the extent that t now takes many years for guest-work v sa ho ders from certa n countr es to obta n green cards. S nce the durat on of the H-1B v sa hasn t changed, th s has meant that many more H-1B v sa ho ders must renew the r v sas n one or three-year ncrements for cont nued ega status wh e the r green card app cat on s n process.

Dependents of H-1B visa holders H-1B v sa ho ders can br ng mmed ate fam y members (spouse and ch dren under 21) to the U.S. under the H4 V sa category as dependents. An H4 V sa ho der may rema n n the U.S. as ong as the H-1B v sa ho der reta ns ega status. An H4 v sa ho der s not e g b e to work or get a Soc a Secur ty number (SSN). [9]However, a DHS ru ng made on Feb 24, 2015 prov des certa n H4 v sa ho ders w th e g b ty to work, start ng May 26, 2015. [10] An H4 V sa ho der may attend schoo , get a dr ver s cense, and open a bank account n the U.S. To c a m a dependent on a tax return or f e a o nt tax return, the dependent must obta n an Ind v dua Tax Ident f cat on Number (ITIN), wh ch s on y used for tax f ng purposes.

Administrative processing When an H-1B worker goes outs de of U.S. for vacat on, he or she has to get the v sa stamped on h s passport un ess he has a ready done so for re-entry n the Un ted States. The nterv ew s taken n U.S. Embassy by a v sa off cer. In some cases, H-1B workers can be requ red to undergo “adm n strat ve process ng“, nvo v ng extra, engthy background checks. Under current ru es, these checks are supposed to take ten days or ess, but n some cases, have asted years. [11]

Application process The process of gett ng a H-1B v sa has three stages: The emp oyer f es w th the Un ted States Department of Labor a Labor Cond t on App cat on (LCA) for the emp oyee, mak ng re evant attestat ons, nc ud ng attestat ons about wages (show ng that the wage s at east equa to the preva ng wage and wages pa d to others n the company n s m ar pos t ons) and work ng cond t ons. W th an approved LCA, the emp oyer f es a Form I-129 (Pet t on for a Non mm grant Worker) request ng H-1B c ass f cat on for the worker. Th s must be accompan ed by necessary support ng documents and fees. Once the Form I-129 s approved, the worker may beg n work ng w th the H-1B c ass f cat on on or after the nd cated start date of the ob, f a ready phys ca y present n the Un ted States n va d status at the t me. If the emp oyee s outs de the Un ted States, he/she may use the approved Form I-129 and support ng documents to app y for the H-1B v sa. W th a H-1B v sa, the worker may present h mse f or herse f at a Un ted States port of entry seek ng adm ss on to the Un ted States, and get an Form I-94 to enter the Un ted States. Emp oyees who started a ob on H-1B status w thout a H-1B v sa because they were a ready n the Un ted States st need to get a H-1B v sa f they ever eave and w sh to reenter the Un ted States wh e on H-1B status.

OPT cap-gap extension for STEM students For more deta s on th s top c, see G oba abor arb trage, STEM-e g b e degrees n US mm grat on, and Opt ona Pract ca Tra n ng (OPT). On Apr 2, 2008, the U.S. Department of Home and Secur ty (DHS) Secretary M chae Chertoff announced a 17-month extens on to the OPT for students n qua fy ng STEM f e ds. A so known as the capgap, the ru e change a ows fore gn STEM students opportun t es unava ab e to fore gn students of other d sc p nes. The 17 month work-author zat on extens on a ows the fore gn STEM student to work up to 29 months under the student v sa, a ow ng the STEM student mu t p e years to obta n an H-1B v sa. [12][13] To be e g b e for the 12-month perm t, any degree n any f e d of stud es s va d. For the 17-month OPT extens on, a student must have rece ved a Sc ence, Techno ogy, Eng neer ng, or Mathemat cs degree n one of the fo ow ng approved ma ors sted on the USCIS webs te. [14] In 2014, a Federa Court den ed the government s mot on to d sm ss the Wash ngton A ance of Techno ogy Workers (Washtech) and three other p a nt ff s case aga nst the OPT extens on. Judge Huve e noted that the p a nt ffs had stand ng due to ncreased compet t on n the r f e d, that the OPT part c pat on had ba ooned from 28,500 n 2008, to 123,000 and that wh e the students are work ng under OPT on student v sas, emp oyers are not requ red to pay Soc a Secur ty and Med care contr but ons, nor preva ng wage. [15]

Evolution of the program Changes to legal and administrative rules Congress Effect on fees

Effect on LCA attestations and DOL investigative authority

Effect on cap

Imm grat on Act of 1990, November 29, 1990, George H. W. Bush 101st

Set an annua cap of 65,000 on new 3-year H-1Bs, Set up the bas c ru es for the Labor Cond t on App cat on nc ud ng transfer app cat ons and extens ons of stay.

On y a base f ng fee

Amer can Compet t veness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA), October 21, 1998, B C nton Added a $500 fee that wou d be used to retra n U.S. workers and c ose the sk gap, n the hope of reduc ng subsequent need for H-1B v sas.

105th

Temporary ncrease n caps to 115,000 for 1999 and 2000[16]

Introduced the concept of “H-1B-dependent emp oyer” and requ red add t ona attestat ons about non-d sp acement of U.S. workers from emp oyers who were H-1B-dependent or had comm tted a w fu m srepresentat on n an app cat on n the recent past. A so gave nvest gat ve author ty to the Un ted States Department of Labor.

Amer can Compet t veness n the 21st Century Act, (AC21), October 17, 2000, B C nton Increase n caps to 195,000 for F sca Years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Creat on of an uncapped category for non-prof t research nst tut ons. Exempt on from the cap for peop e who had a ready been cap-sub ect. Th s nc uded peop e on cap-sub ect H-1Bs who were sw tch ng obs, as we as peop e app y ng for a 3-year extens on of the r current 3-year H-1B.

Increased $500 fee for retra n ng US workers to $1000.

106th

H-1B V sa Reform Act of 2004, part of the Conso dated Appropr at ons Act, 2005, December 6, 2004, George W. Bush Increased fee for retra n ng US workers to Bache or s degree cap returns to 65,000 w th added $1500 for compan es w th 26 or more Expanded the Department of Labor s nvest gat ve author ty, but a so prov ded two standard nes 20,000 v sas for app cants w th U.S. postgraduate emp oyees, reduced to $750 for sma of defense to emp oyers (the Good Fa th Comp ance Defense and the Recogn zed Industry degrees. Add t ona exempt ons for Non-prof t research compan es. Standards Defense). and governmenta ent t es. Added ant -fraud fee of $500

108th

Emp oy Amer can Workers Act, February 17, 2009, Barack Obama Part of the Amer can Recovery and Re nvestment Act of 2009 (sunset on February 17, 2011)

111th

No change.

A rec p ents of Troub ed Asset Re ef Program (TARP) or Federa Reserve Act Sect on 13 were requ red to f e the add t ona attestat ons requ red of H-1B-dependent emp oyers, for any emp oyee who had not yet started on a H-1B v sa.

No change.

Changes in the cap, number of applications received, and numbers of applications approved vs. visas issued Dur ng the ear y 1990s, the cap was rare y reached. By the m d-1990s, however, the a ocat on tended f each year on a f rst come, f rst served bas s, resu t ng n frequent den a s or de ays of H-1Bs because the annua cap had been reached. In 1998, the cap ncreased to 115,000. For FY2007, w th app cat ons accepted from 2006 Apr 1, the ent re quota of v sas for the year was exhausted w th n a span of 2 months on May 26, [17] we before the beg nn ng of the f nanc a year concerned. The add t ona 20,000 Advanced Degree H-1B v sas were exhausted on Ju y 26. For FY2008, the ent re quota was exhausted before the end of the f rst day that app cat ons were accepted, Apr 2. [18] Under USCIS ru es, the 123,480 pet t ons rece ved on Apr 2 and Apr 3 that were sub ect to the cap were poo ed, and then 65,000 of these were se ected at random for further process ng. [19] The add t ona 20,000 Advanced Degree H-1B v sas for FY2008 was exhausted on Apr 30. For FY2009, USCIS announced on 2008 Apr 8, that the ent re quota for v sas for the year had been reached, for both 20,000 Advanced and the 65,000 quota. USCIS wou d comp ete n t a data entry for a f ng rece ved dur ng 2008 Apr 1 to Apr 7, before runn ng the ottery, wh e 86,300 new v sas were approved. [20] For FY2010, USCIS announced on 2009 December 21, that enough pet t ons were rece ved to reach that year s cap. [21] For FY2011, USCIS announced on 2011 January 27, that enough pet t ons were rece ved to reach that year s cap on January 26. For FY2015, USCIS announced on 2014 Apr 10 that rece ved about 172,500 H-1B pet t ons dur ng the f ng per od wh ch began Apr 1, nc ud ng pet t ons f ed for the advanced degree exempt on. [22] For FY2016, USCIS announced on 2015 Apr 7 that enough pet t ons were rece ved to reach that year s cap. [23] On 2015 Apr 13, USCIS announced comp et on of the H1B cap ottery se ect on processes. The USCIS reported rece pt of a most 233,000 H1B pet t ons, we n excess of the m ts of 65,000 for the regu ar cap and 20,000 advanced-degree exempt ons (or, “master s cap”).

Numbers of applications approved The app cat ons rece ved are eva uated by USCIS, and some subset are approved each year. It s poss b e for an nd v dua to f e mu t p e app cat ons, for mu t p e ob opportun t es w th a s ng e emp oyer/sponsor or w th mu t p e emp oyer/sponsors. It s poss b e for an nd v dua app cant to have mu t p e app cat ons approved and to be ab e to choose wh ch one to take. In ts annua report on H-1B v sas, re eased n 2006 November, USCIS stated that t approved 130,497 H-1B v sa app cat ons n FY2004 (wh e 138,965 new v sas were ssued through consu ar off ces) and 116,927 n FY2005 (wh e 124,099 new v sas were ssued v a consu ar off ces). [24][25][26][27][28][28][29][30] In FY2008, a tota of 276,252 v sa app cat ons (109,335 n t a , 166,917 renewa s and extens ons) were approved, and 130,183 new n t a v sas were ssued through consu ar off ces. In FY2009, 214,271 v sas were approved, w th 86,300 be ng for n t a emp oyment, and 127,971 be ng for cont nued emp oyment)[31] and 110,988 n t a H-1B v sas were ssued from consu ar off ces. [32] In FY2010, 192,990 new v sas were approved, w th 76,627 be ng for n t a emp oyment and 116,363 be ng for cont nu ng emp oyment. 117,828 new v sas were ssued through consu ar off ces [33] In FY2011, 269,653 new v sas were approved, w th 106,445 be ng for n t a emp oyment and 163,208 be ng for cont nued emp oyment. 129,552 new v sas were ssued through consu ar off ces. [33] In FY2012, 262,569 new v sas were approved w th 136,890 be ng for n t a emp oyment and 125,679 be ng for cont nued emp oyment. [26][27][28][29][30][33][33][33][34][35]

American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000[edit] Further nformat on: Amer can Compet t veness n the 21st Century Act The Amer can Compet t veness n the Twenty-F rst Century Act of 2000 (AC21) and the U.S. Department of Labor s PERM system for abor cert f cat on erased most of the ear er c a med arguments for H1Bs as ndentured servants dur ng the green card process. W th PERM, abor cert f cat on process ng t me s now approx mate y 9 months (as of Mar 2010). [36]

Because of AC21, the H-1B emp oyee s free to change obs f they have an I-485 app cat on pend ng for s x months and an approved I-140, and f the pos t on they move to s substant a y comparab e to the r current pos t on. In some cases, f those abor cert f cat ons are w thdrawn and rep aced w th PERM app cat ons, process ng t mes mprove, but the person a so oses the r favorab e pr or ty date. In those cases, emp oyers ncent ve to attempt to ock n H-1B emp oyees to a ob by offer ng a green card s reduced, because the emp oyer bears the h gh ega costs and fees assoc ated w th abor cert f cat on and I-140 process ng, but the H-1B emp oyee s st free to change obs. However, many peop e are ne g b e to f e I-485 at the current t me due to the w despread retrogress on n pr or ty dates. Thus, they may we st be stuck w th the r sponsor ng emp oyer for many years. There are a so many o d abor cert f cat on cases pend ng under pre-PERM ru es.

Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 The Conso dated Natura Resources Act of 2008, wh ch, among other ssues, federa zes mm grat on n the Commonwea th of the Northern Mar ana Is ands, st pu ates that dur ng a trans t on per od, numer ca m tat ons do not app y to otherw se qua f ed workers n the H v sa category n the CNMI and Guam. [37]

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Further nformat on: Emp oy Amer can Workers Act On Feb. 17, 2009, Pres dent Obama s gned nto aw the Amer can Recovery and Re nvestment Act of 2009 (“st mu us b ”), Pub c Law 111-5. [38] Sect on 1661 of the ARRA ncorporates the Emp oy Amer can Workers Act (EAWA) by Senators Sanders (I-Vt.) and Grass ey (R-Iowa) to m t certa n banks and other f nanc a nst tut ons from h r ng H-1B workers un ess they had offered pos t ons to equa y or betterqua f ed U.S. workers, and to prevent banks from h r ng H-1B workers n occupat ons they had a d off U.S. workers from. These restr ct ons nc ude: 1. The emp oyer must, pr or to f ng the H-1B pet t on, take good-fa th steps to recru t U.S. workers for the pos t on for wh ch the H-1B worker s sought, offer ng a wage at east as h gh as what the aw requ res for the H-1B worker. The emp oyer must a so attest that, n connect on w th th s recru tment, t has offered the ob to any U.S. worker who app es who s equa y or better qua f ed for the pos t on. 2. The emp oyer must not have a d off, and w not ay off, any U.S. worker n a ob essent a y equ va ent to the H-1B pos t on n the area of ntended emp oyment of the H-1B worker w th n the per od beg nn ng 90 days pr or to the f ng of the H-1B pet t on and end ng 90 days after ts f ng. [39]

Changes in USCIS policy After comp et ng a po cy rev ew, the USCIS c ar f ed that nd v dua s who spent more than one year outs de of U.S. and d d not exhaust the r ent re s x-year term can choose to be re-adm tted for the “rema nder” of n t a s x-year per od w thout be ng sub ect to the H-1B cap. [40] After comp et ng a po cy rev ew, the USCIS c ar f ed that, “Any t me spent n H-4 status w not count aga nst the s x-year max mum per od of adm ss on app cab e to H-1B a ens.”[40] USCIS recent y ssued a memorandum dated 8 Jan 2010. The memorandum effect ve y states that there must be a c ear “emp oyee emp oyer re at onsh p” between the pet t oner (emp oyer) and the benef c ary (prospect ve v sa ho der). It s mp y out nes what the emp oyer must do to be cons dered n comp ance as we as putt ng forth the documentat on requ rements to back up the emp oyer s assert on that a va d re at onsh p ex sts. The memorandum g ves three c ear examp es of what s cons dered a va d “emp oyee emp oyer re at onsh p”: a fash on mode a computer software eng neer work ng off-s te/on-s te a company or a contractor wh ch s work ng on a co-product on product n co aborat on w th DOD In the case of the software eng neer, the pet t oner (emp oyer) must agree to do (some of) the fo ow ng among others: Superv se the benef c ary on and off-s te Ma nta n such superv s on through ca s, reports, or v s ts Have a “r ght” to contro the work on a day-to-day bas s f such contro s requ red Prov de too s for the ob H re, pay, and have the ab ty to f re the benef c ary Eva uate work products and perform progress/performance rev ews C a m them for tax purposes Prov de (some type of) emp oyee benef ts Use “propr etary nformat on” to perform work Produce an end product re ated to the bus ness Have an “ab ty to” contro the manner and means n wh ch the worker accomp shes tasks

It further states that “common aw s f ex b e” n how to we gh these factors. Though th s memorandum c tes ega cases and prov des examp es, such a memorandum n tse f s not aw and future memoranda cou d change th s.

Protections for U.S. workers Labor Condition Application Further nformat on: Labor Cond t on App cat on The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) s respons b e for ensur ng that fore gn workers do not d sp ace or adverse y affect wages or work ng cond t ons of U.S. workers. For every H-1B pet t on f ed w th the USCIS, there must be nc uded a Labor Cond t on App cat on (LCA) (not to be confused w th the abor cert f cat on), cert f ed by the U.S. Department of Labor. The LCA s des gned to ensure that the wage offered to the non- mm grant worker meets or exceeds the “preva ng wage” n the area of emp oyment. (“Imm grat on aw has a number of h gh y techn ca terms that may not mean the same th ng to the average reader.”[41] ast updated 2011 March 31, v s ted 2012 November 5) The LCA a so conta ns an attestat on sect on des gned to prevent the program from be ng used to mport fore gn workers to break a str ke or rep ace U.S. c t zen workers. Wh e an emp oyer s not requ red to advert se the pos t on before h r ng an H-1B non- mm grant pursuant to the H-1B v sa approva , the emp oyer must not fy the emp oyee representat ve about the Labor Cond t on App cat on (LCA)—or f there s no such representat on, the emp oyer must pub sh the LCA at the workp ace and the emp oyer s off ce. [42][43] Under the regu at ons, LCAs are a matter of pub c record. Corporat ons h r ng H-1B workers are requ red to make these records ava ab e to any member of the pub c who requests to ook at them. Cop es of the re evant records are a so ava ab e from var ous web s tes, nc ud ng the Department of Labor. History of the Labor Condition Application form The LCA must be f ed e ectron ca y us ng Form ETA 9035E. [44] Over the years, the comp ex ty of the form ncreased from one page n 1997[45] to three pages n 2008, [46] to f ve pages as of August 2012. [47]

Employer attestations By s gn ng the LCA, the emp oyer attests that: [48] The emp oyer pays H-1B non- mm grants the same wage eve pa d to a other nd v dua s w th s m ar exper ence and qua f cat ons for that spec f c emp oyment, or the preva ng wage for the occupat on n the area of emp oyment, wh chever s h gher. The emp oyment of H-1B non- mm grants does not adverse y affect work ng cond t ons of workers s m ar y emp oyed.

On the date the app cat on s s gned and subm tted, there s not a str ke, ockout, or work stoppage n the course of a abor d spute n the occupat on n wh ch H-1B non- mm grants w be emp oyed at the p ace of emp oyment. If such a str ke or ockout occurs after th s app cat on s subm tted, the emp oyer must not fy ETA w th n three days, and the app cat on s not used to support pet t on f ngs w th INS for H-1B non- mm grants to work n the same occupat on at the p ace of emp oyment unt ETA determ nes the str ke or ockout s over. A copy of th s app cat on has been, or w be, prov ded to each H-1B non- mm grant emp oyed pursuant to th s app cat on, and, as of the app cat on date, not ce of th s app cat on has been prov ded to workers emp oyed n the occupat on n wh ch H-1B non- mm grants w be emp oyed: Not ce of th s f ng has been prov ded to barga n ng representat ve of workers n the occupat on n wh ch H-1B non- mm grants w be emp oyed; or There s no such barga n ng representat ve; therefore, a not ce of th s f ng has been posted and was, or w rema n, posted for 10 days n at east two consp cuous ocat ons where H-1B nonmm grants w be emp oyed. The aw requ res H-1B workers to be pa d the h gher of the preva ng wage for the same occupat on and geograph c ocat on, or the same as the emp oyer pays to s m ar y s tuated emp oyees. Other factors, such as age and sk were not perm tted to be taken nto account for the preva ng wage. Congress changed the program n 2004 to requ re the Department of Labor to prov de four sk -based preva ng wage eve s for emp oyers to use. Th s s the on y preva ng wage mechan sm the aw perm ts that ncorporates factors other than occupat on and ocat on. The approva process for these app cat ons are based on emp oyer attestat ons and documentary ev dence subm tted. The emp oyer s adv sed of the r ab ty f they are rep ac ng a U.S. worker.

Limits on employment Accord ng to the USCIS, “H-1B non mm grants may on y work for the pet t on ng U.S. emp oyer and on y n the H-1B act v t es descr bed n the pet t on. The pet t on ng U.S. emp oyer may p ace the H-1B worker on the works te of another emp oyer f a app cab e ru es (e.g., Department of Labor ru es) are fo owed. Genera y, a non mm grant emp oyee may work for more than one emp oyer at the same t me. However, each emp oyer must fo ow the process for n t a y app y ng for a non mm grant emp oyee.”[49]

H-1B fees earmarked for U.S. worker education and training In 2007, the U.S. Department of Labor, Emp oyment and Tra n ng Adm n strat on (ETA), reported on two programs, the H gh Growth Tra n ng In t at ve and Workforce Innovat on Reg ona Econom c Deve opment (WIRED), wh ch have rece ved or w rece ve $284 m on and $260 m on, respect ve y, from H-1B tra n ng fees to educate and tra n U.S. workers. [c tat on needed] Accord ng to the Seatt e T mes $1 b on from H1-B fees have been d str buted by the Labor Department to further tra n the U.S. workforce s nce 2001. [50]

Criticisms of the program It has been suggested that th s sect on be sp t nto a new art c e t t ed H-1B v sa abuse. (D scuss) Proposed s nce June 2015. The H-1B program has been cr t c zed on many grounds. It was the sub ect of a hear ng, “Imm grat on Reforms Needed to Protect Sk ed Amer can Workers,” by theUn ted States Senate Comm ttee on the Jud c ary on March 17, 2015. [51][52] Accord ng to Senator Chuck Grass ey of Iowa, cha rman of the comm ttee: The program was ntended to serve emp oyers who cou d not f nd the sk ed workers they needed n the Un ted States. Most peop e be eve that emp oyers are supposed to recru t Amer cans before they pet t on for an H-1B worker. Yet, under the aw, most emp oyers are not requ red to prove to the Department of Labor that they tr ed to f nd an Amer can to f the ob f rst. And, f there s an equa y or even “ ” better qua f ed U.S. worker ava ab e, the company does not have to offer h m or her the ob. Over the years the program has become a government-ass sted way for emp oyers to br ng n cheaper fore gn abor, and now t appears these fore gn workers take over – rather than comp ement – the U.S. workforce. [53]

Use for outsourcing

In arge part, rather than be ng used to h re ta ented workers not ava ab e n the Amer can abor market, the program s be ng used for outsourc ng. [54] SenatorsD ck Durb n and Char es Grass ey of Iowa began ntroduc ng “The H-1B and L-1 V sa Fraud & Prevent on Act” n 2007. Accord ng to Durb n, speak ng n 2009, “The H-1B v sa program shou d comp ement the U.S. workforce, not rep ace t;” “The…program s p agued w th fraud and abuse and s now a veh c e for outsourc ng that depr ves qua f ed Amer can workers of the r obs.” The proposed eg s at on has been opposed by Compete Amer ca, a tech ndustry obby ng group, [55] Outsourc ng f rms, many based n Ind a, are ma or users of H-1B v sas. The out-sourc ng f rm contracts w th an emp oyer, such as D sney, to perform techn ca serv ces. D sney then c oses down ts n-house department and ays off ts emp oyees. The outsourc ng f rm then performs the work. [56] In June 2015 congress ona eaders announced that the Department of Labor had opened an nvest gat on of outsourc ng of techn ca tasks by Southern Ca forn a Ed son to Tata Consu tancy Serv ces and Infosys then ay ng off 500 techno ogy workers. [57]

No labor shortages Pau Donne y, n a 2002 art c e n Computerwor d, c ted M ton Fr edman as stat ng that the H-1B program acts as a subs dy for corporat ons. [58] Others ho d ng th s v ew nc ude Dr. Norman Mat off, who test f ed to the U.S. House Jud c ary Comm ttee Subcomm ttee on Imm grat on on the H-1B sub ect. [59] Mat off s paper for theUn vers ty of M ch gan Journa of Law Reform c a ms that there has been no shortage of qua f ed Amer can c t zens to f Amer can computer-re ated obs, and that the data offered as ev dence of Amer can corporat ons need ng H-1B v sas to address abor shortages was erroneous. [60] The Un ted States Genera Account ng Off ce found n a report n 2000 that contro s on the H-1B program acked effect veness. [61] The GAO report s recommendat ons were subsequent y mp emented.

H gh-tech compan es often c te a tech-worker shortage when ask ng Congress to ra se the annua cap on H-1B v sas, and have succeeded n gett ng var ous exempt ons passed. The Amer can Imm grat on Lawyers Assoc at on (AILA), descr bed the s tuat on as a cr s s, and the s tuat on was reported on by the Wa Street Journa , Bus nessWeek and Wash ngton Post. Emp oyers app ed pressure on Congress.

[62] M crosoft cha rman B Gates test f ed n 2007 on beha f of the expanded v sa program on Cap to H , “warn ng of dangers to the U.S. economy f emp oyers can t mport sk ed workers to f ob gaps”. [62]

Congress cons dered a b to address the c a ms of shortfa [63] but n the end d d not rev se the program. [64] Accord ng to a study conducted by John M ano and the Center for Imm grat on Stud es, there s no emp r ca data to support a c a m of emp oyee worker shortage. [65] C t ng stud es from Duke, A fred P. S oan Foundat on, Georgetown Un vers ty and others, cr t cs have a so argued that n some years, the number of fore gn programmers and eng neers mported outnumbered the number of obs created by the ndustry. [66] Organ zat ons have a so posted hundreds of f rst hand accounts of H-1B V sa Harm reports d rect y from nd v dua s negat ve y mpacted by the program, many of whom are w ng to speak w th the med a. [67] Stud es carr ed out from the 1990s through 2011 by researchers from Co umb a U, Comput ng Research Assoc at on (CRA), Duke U, Georgetown U, Harvard U, Nat ona Research Counc of the NAS, RAND Corporat on, Rochester Inst tute of Techno ogy, Rutgers U, A fred P. S oan Foundat on, Stanford U, SUNY Buffa o, UC Dav s, UPenn Wharton Schoo , Urban Inst tute, and U.S. Dept. of Educat on Off ce of Educat on Research & Improvement have reported that the U.S. has been produc ng suff c ent numbers of ab e and w ng STEM (Sc ence, Techno ogy, Eng neer ng and Mathemat cs) workers, wh e severa stud es from Ha Sa zman, B. L ndsay Lowe , Dan e Kuehn, M chae Te te baum and others have conc uded that the U.S. has been emp oy ng on y 30% to 50% of ts new y degreed ab e and w ng STEM workers to work n STEM f e ds. A 2012 IEEE announcement of a conference on STEM educat on fund ng and ob markets stated “on y about ha f of those w th under-graduate STEM degrees actua y work n the STEM-re ated f e ds after co ege, and after 10 years, on y some 8% st do”. [68] Ron H ra, a professor of pub c po cy at Howard Un vers ty and a ongt me cr t c of the H-1B v sa program, recent y ca ed the IT ta ent shortage “ mag nary,”[69] a front for compan es that want to h re re at ve y nexpens ve fore gn guest workers.

Wage depression Wage depress on s a chron c comp a nt cr t cs have about the H-1B program: some stud es have found that H-1B workers are pa d s gn f cant y ess than U.S. workers. [70][71] It s c a med[72][73][74][75][76][76] that the H-1B program s pr mar y used as a source of cheap abor. A paper by George J. Bor as for the Nat ona Bureau of Econom c Research found that “a 10 percent mm grat on- nduced ncrease n the supp y of doctorates owers the wage of compet ng workers by about 3 to 4 percent.”[77] The Labor Cond t on App cat on (LCA) nc uded n the H-1B pet t on s supposed to ensure that H-1B workers are pa d the preva ng wage n the abor market, or the emp oyer s actua average wage (wh chever s h gher), but ev dence ex sts that some emp oyers do not ab de by these prov s ons and avo d pay ng the actua preva ng wage desp te st ff pena t es for abusers. [78] Theoret ca y, the LCA process appears to offer protect on to both U.S. and H-1B workers. However, accord ng to the U.S. Genera Account ng Off ce, enforcement m tat ons and procedura prob ems render these protect ons neffect ve. [79] U t mate y, the emp oyer, not the Department of Labor, determ nes what sources determ ne the preva ng wage for an offered pos t on, and t may choose among a var ety of compet ng surveys, nc ud ng ts own wage surveys, prov ded that such surveys fo ow certa n def ned ru es and regu at ons. The aw spec f ca y restr cts the Department of Labor s approva process of LCAs to check ng for “comp eteness and obv ous naccurac es”. [80] In FY 2005, on y about 800 LCAs were re ected out of over 300,000 subm tted. H re Amer cans F rst has posted severa hundred f rst hand accounts of nd v dua s negat ve y mpacted by the program, many of whom are w ng to speak w th the med a. [67] DOL has sp t the preva ng wage nto four eve s, w th Leve One represent ng about the 17th percent e of wage average Amer cans earn. About 80 percent of LCAs are f ed at th s 17th percent e eve [c tat on needed]. Th s four- eve preva ng wage can be obta ned from the DOL webs te, [81] and s genera y far ower than average wages [c tat on needed].

The “preva ng wage” st pu at on s a eged y vague and thus easy to man pu ate[c tat on needed], resu t ng n emp oyers underpay ng v sa workers. Accord ng to Ron H ra, ass stant professor of pub c po cy at the Rochester Inst tute of Techno ogy, the med an wage n 2005 for new H-1B nformat on techno ogy (IT) was ust $50,000, wh ch s even ower than start ng wages for IT graduates w th a B.S. degree. The U.S. government OES off ce s data nd cates that 90 percent of H-1B IT wages were be ow the med an U.S. wage for the same occupat on. [82] In 2002, the U.S. government began an nvest gat on nto Sun M crosystems h r ng pract ces after an ex-emp oyee, Guy Sant g a, f ed comp a nts w th the U.S. Department of Just ce and U.S. Department of Labor a eg ng that the Santa C ara f rm d scr m nates aga nst Amer can c t zens n favor of fore gn workers on H-1B v sas. Sant g a accused the company of b as aga nst U.S. c t zens when t a d off 3,900 workers n ate 2001 and at the same t me app ed for thousands of v sas. In 2002, about 5 percent of Sun s 39,000 emp oyees had temporary work v sas, he sa d. [83] In 2005, t was dec ded that Sun v o ated on y m nor requ rements and that ne ther of these v o at ons was substant a or w fu . Thus, the udge on y ordered Sun to change ts post ng pract ces. [84]

Risks for employees H stor ca y, H-1B ho ders have somet mes been descr bed as ndentured servants, [85] and wh e the compar son s no onger as compe ng, t had more va d ty pr or to the passage of Amer can Compet t veness n the Twenty-F rst Century Act of 2000. A though mm grat on genera y requ res short- and ong-term v s tors to d savow any amb t on to seek the green card (permanent res dency), H-1B v sa ho ders are an mportant except on, n that the H-1B s ega y acknow edged as a poss b e step towards a green card under what s ca ed the doctr ne of dua ntent. H-1B v sa ho ders may be sponsored for the r green cards by the r emp oyers through an App cat on for A en Labor Cert f cat on, f ed w th the U.S. Department of Labor. [c tat on needed] In the past, the sponsorsh p process has taken severa years, and for much of that t me the H-1B v sa ho der was unab e to change obs w thout os ng the r p ace n ne for the green card. Th s created an e ement of enforced oya ty to an emp oyer by an H-1B v sa ho der. Cr t cs [who?] a eged that emp oyers benef t from th s enforced oya ty because t reduced the r sk that the H-1B emp oyee m ght eave the ob and go work for a compet tor, and that t put c t zen workers at a d sadvantage n the ob market, s nce the emp oyer has ess assurance that the c t zen w stay at the ob for an extended per od of t me, espec a y f the work cond t ons are tough, wages are ower or the work s d ff cu t or comp ex. It has been argued that th s makes the H-1B program extreme y attract ve to emp oyers, and that abor eg s at on n th s regard has been nf uenced by corporat ons seek ng and benef t ng from such advantages. [c tat on needed] Some recent news reports suggest that the recess on that started n 2008 w exacerbate the H-1B v sa s tuat on, both for supporters of the program and for those who oppose t. [86] The process to obta n the green card has become so ong that dur ng these recess on years t has not been unusua that sponsor ng compan es fa and d sappear, thus forc ng the H-1B emp oyee to f nd another sponsor, and ose the r p ace n ne for the green card. An H-1B emp oyee cou d be ust one month from obta n ng the r green card, but f the emp oyee s a d off, he or she may have to eave the country, or go to the end of the ne and start over the process to get the green card, and wa t as much as 10 more years, depend ng on the nat ona ty and v sa category. [87] The Amer can Compet t veness n the Twenty-F rst Century Act of 2000 prov des some re ef for peop e wa t ng for a ong t me for a green card, by a ow ng H-1B extens ons past the norma 6 years, as we as by mak ng t eas er to change the sponsor ng emp oyer.

The Out-Sourcing/Off-Shoring Visa Further nformat on: Body shopp ng In h s f oor statement on H-1B V sa Reform, Senator D ck Durb n stated “The H-1B ob v sa asts for 3 years and can be renewed for 3 years. What happens to those workers after that? We , they cou d stay. It s poss b e. But these new compan es have a much better dea for mak ng money. They send the eng neers to Amer ca to f spots–and get money to do t—and then after the 3 to 6 years, they br ng them back to work for the compan es that are compet ng w th Amer can compan es. They ca t the r outsourc ng v sa. They are send ng the r ta ented eng neers to earn how Amer cans do bus ness and then br ng them back and compete w th those Amer can compan es.”[88] Cr t cs of H-1B use for outsourc ng have a so noted that more H-1B v sas are granted to compan es headquartered n Ind a than compan es headquartered n the Un ted States. [89] Of a Computer Systems Ana ysts and programmers on H-1B v sas n the U.S., 74 percent were from As a. Th s arge sca e m grat on of As an IT profess ona s to the Un ted States has been c ted as a centra cause for the qu ck emergence of the offshore outsourc ng ndustry. [90] In FY 2009, due to the wor dw de recess on, app cat ons for H-1B v sas by off-shore out-sourc ng f rms were s gn f cant y ower than n prev ous years, [91] yet 110,367 H-1B v sas were ssued, and 117,409 were ssued n FY2010.

Social Security and Medicare taxes H-1B emp oyees have to pay Soc a Secur ty and Med care taxes as part of the r payro . L ke U.S. c t zens, they are e g b e to rece ve Soc a Secur ty benef ts even f they eave the Un ted States, prov ded they have pa d Soc a Secur ty payro taxes for at east 10 years. Further, the U.S. has b atera agreements w th severa countr es to ensure that the t me pa d nto the U.S. Soc a Secur ty system, even f t s ess than 10 years, s taken nto account n the fore gn country s comparab e system and v ce versa. [92]

Departure Requirement on Job Loss If an emp oyer ays off an H-1B worker, the emp oyer s requ red to pay for the a d-off worker s transportat on outs de the Un ted States. If an H-1B worker s a d off for any reason, the H-1B program techn ca y does not spec fy a t me a owance or grace per od to round up one s affa rs rrespect ve of how ong the H-1B worker m ght have ved n the Un ted States. To round up one s affa rs, f ng an app cat on to change to another non- mm grant status may therefore become a necess ty.

If an H-1B worker s a d off and attempts to f nd a new H-1B emp oyer to f e a pet t on for h m, the nd v dua s cons dered out of status f there s even a one-day gap between the ast day of emp oyment and the date that the new H-1B pet t on s f ed. Wh e some attorneys c a m that there s a grace per od of 30 days, 60 days, or somet mes 10 days, that s not true accord ng to the aw. In pract ce, USCIS has accepted H-1B transfer app cat ons even w th a gap n emp oyment up to 60 days, but that s by no means guaranteed. Some of the confus on regard ng the a eged grace per od arose because there s a 10-day grace per od for an H-1B worker to depart the Un ted States at the end of h s authorized per od of stay (does not app y for a d-off workers). Th s grace per od on y app es f the worker works unt the H-1B exp rat on date sted on h s I-797 approva not ce, or I-94 card. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(13)( )(A).

American workers are ordered to train their foreign replacements[edit] There have been cases where emp oyers used the program to rep ace the r Amer can emp oyees w th H-1B emp oyees, and n some of those cases, the Amer can emp oyees were even ordered to tra n the r rep acements. [93][54][56]

Age discrimination Age d scr m nat on n the program resu ts n o der workers be ng rep aced by H-1B app cants. In FY 2014, 72% of H-1B ho ders were between the ages of 25 and 34, accord ng to the USCIS “Character st cs of Spec a ty Occupat on Workers (H-1B): F sca Year 2014”[94] report for that year, the most recent t has pub shed on ts pub c webs te. In Tab e 5 of the same report, on y 3,592 of the 315,857 H-1B v sas were approved for workers over the age of 50. [94]

Fraud The Un ted States C t zensh p and Imm grat on Serv ces “H-1B Benef t Fraud & Comp ance Assessment” of September 2008 conc uded 21% of H-1B v sas granted or g nate from fraudu ent app cat ons or app cat ons w th techn ca v o at ons. [95] Fraud was def ned as a w fu m srepresentat on, fa s f cat on, or om ss on of a mater a fact. Techn ca v o at ons, errors, om ss ons, and fa ures to comp y that are not w th n the fraud def n t on were nc uded n the 21% rate. Subsequent y, USCIS has made procedura changes to reduce the number of fraud and techn ca v o at ons on H-1B app cat ons. In 2009, federa author t es busted a nat onw de H-1B V sa Scam. [96] Fraud has nc uded acqu s t on of a fake un vers ty degree for the prospect ve H-B1 worker, coach ng the worker on y ng to consu off c a s, h r ng a worker for wh ch there s no U.S. ob, charg ng the worker money to be h red, bench ng the worker w th no pay, and tak ng a cut of the worker s U.S. sa ary. The workers, a though they have tt e cho ce n the matter, are a so engaged n fraud, and may be charged, f ned, and deported. [97]

Similar programs In add t on to H-1B v sas, there are a var ety of other v sa categor es that a ow fore gn workers to come nto the U.S. to work for some per od of t me. L-1 v sas are ssued to fore gn emp oyees of a corporat on. Under recent ru es, the fore gn worker must have worked for the corporat on for at east one year n the preced ng three years pr or to gett ng the v sa. An L-1B v sa s appropr ate for non- mm grant workers who are be ng temporar y transferred to the Un ted States based on the r spec a zed know edge of the company s techn ques and methodo og es. An L-1A v sa s for managers or execut ves who e ther manage peop e or an essent a funct on of the company. There s no requ rement to pay preva ng wages for the L-1 v sa ho ders. For Canad an res dents, a spec a L v sa category s ava ab e. TN-1 v sas are part of the North Amer can Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and are ssued to Canad an and Mex can c t zens. [98] TN v sas are on y ava ab e to workers who fa nto one of a pre-set st of occupat ons determ ned by the NAFTA treaty. There are spec f c e g b ty requ rements for the TN V sa. E-3 v sas are ssued to c t zens of Austra a under the Austra a free-trade treaty. H-1B1 v sas are a sub-set of H-1B ssued to res dents of Ch e and S ngapore under the Un ted States-Ch e Free Trade Agreement of 2003; PL108-77 § 402(a)(2)(B), 117 Stat. 909, 940; S1416, HR2738; passed n House 2003-07-24 and the Un ted States-S ngapore Free Trade Agreement of 2003; PL108-78 § 402(2), 117 Stat. 948, 970-971; S1417, HR2739; passed n House 2003-07-24, passed n senate 2003-07-31, s gned by execut ve (GWBush) 2003-05-06. Accord ng to USCIS, unused H-1B1 v sas are added nto the next year s H-1B base quota of 58,200. One recent trend n work v sas s that var ous countr es attempt to get spec a preference for the r nat ona s as part of treaty negot at ons. Another trend s for changes n mm grat on aw to be embedded n arge Author zat on or Omn bus b s to avo d the controversy that m ght accompany a separate vote. H-2B v sa: The H-2B non- mm grant program perm ts emp oyers to h re fore gn workers to come to the U.S. and perform temporary nonagr cu tura work, wh ch may be one-t me, seasona , peak oad or nterm ttent. There s a 66,000 per year m t on the number of fore gn workers who may rece ve H-2B status.

H-1B demographics

H-1B number ssued each year for 2006-2008

Issued H-1Bs by cont nent

P e chart show ng 25% Ind an

By nat on n 2005

H-1B Applications Approved H-1B App cat ons Approved by USCIS [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][33][35][99][100] Year Initial employment approvals Continuing employment approvals Total 1999 134,411 na na 2000 136,787 120,853 257,640 2001 201,079 130,127 331,206 2002 103,584 93,953 197,537 2003 105,314 112,026 217,340 2004 130,497 156,921 287,418 2005 116,927 150,204 267,131 2006 109,614 161,367 270,981 2007 120,031 161,413 281,444 2008 109,335 166,917 276,252 2009 86,300 127,971 214,271 2010 76,627 116,363 192,990 2011 106,445 163,208 269,653 2012 136,890 125,679 262,569 2013 128,291 158,482 286,773 2014 124,326 191,531 315,857 H-1B App cat ons Approved by USCIS for those w th ess than the equ va ent of a U.S. bache or s degree[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][33][35][99][100] Year No HS Diploma Only HS Diploma Less Than 1 year of College 1+ years of College Equivalent of Associate’s Total Less Than Equivalent of U.S. Bachelor’s 2000 554 288 158 1,290 696 2,986 2001 247 895 284 1,376 1,181 3,983 2002 169 806 189 849 642 2,655 2003 148 822 122 623 534 2,249 2004 123 690 137 421 432 1,803 2005 107 440 77 358 363 1,345 2006 96 392 54 195 177 914 2007 72 374 42 210 215 913 2008 80 174 19 175 195 643 2009 108 190 33 236 262 829 2010 140 201 24 213 161 739 2011 373 500 44 255 170 1,342 2012 108 220 35 259 174 796 2013 68 148 15 162 121 514 2014 32 133 18 133 88 404

H-1B visas issued per year[edit] new/ n t a H-1B v sas ssued by State Department through consu ar off ces< [101] Year H-1B H-1B1 Total 1990 794 na 794 1991 51,882 na 51,882 1992 44,290 na 44,290 1993 35,818 na 35,818 1994 42,843 na 42,843 1995 51,832 na 51,832 1996 58,327 na 58,327 1997 80,547 na 80,547 1998 91,360 na 91,360 1999 116,513 na 116,513 2000 133,290 na 133,290 2001 161,643 na 161,643 2002 118,352 na 118,352 2003 107,196 na 107,196 2004 138,965 72 139,037 2005 124,099 275 124,374 2006 135,421 440 135,861 2007 154,053 639 154,692 2008 129,464 719 130,183 2009 110,367 621 110,988 2010 117,409 419 117,828 2011 129,134 418 129,552 2012 135,530 461 135,991 2013 153,223 571 153,794

Employers ranked by H-1B visas approved Compan es rece v ng H-1Bs [102][103][104] Primary Emp. Base 2006 [105] 2007 [106] 2008 [107] 2009 [108] 2010 [109] 2011 [110] 2012 [111] 2013 [112]

2013 Rank Company

Infosys Ind a Banga ore, Karnataka, Ind a Tata Consu tancy Serv ces Ind a Mumba , Maharashtra, Ind a Cogn zant U.S. Teaneck, New Jersey Accenture Inc U.S. Dub n, Ire and W pro Ind a Banga ore, Karnataka, Ind a HCL Techno og es Ltd Ind a No da, Uttar Pradesh, Ind a IBM U.S. Armonk, New York Mah ndra Satyam Ind a Hyderabad, Te angana, Ind a Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ind a Mumba , Maharashtra, Ind a De o tte U.S. New York C ty, New York IGATE (merged w Patn ) Ind a Br dgewater, NJ & Benga uru, Ind a M crosoft U.S. Redmond, Wash ngton Synte Ind a Troy, M ch gan Qua comm U.S. San D ego, Ca forn a Amazon U.S. Seatt e, Wash ngton Inte Corporat on U.S. Santa C ara, Ca forn a Goog e U.S. Mounta n V ew, Ca forn a Mphas s Ind a Banga ore, Karnataka, Ind a Capgem n E.U. Par s, France Orac e Corporat on U.S. Redwood Shores, Ca forn a UST G oba U.S. A so V e o, Ca forn a Pr cewaterhouseCoopers E.U. London, Un ted K ngdom C sco Systems U.S. San Jose, Ca forn a Ernst & Young LLP UK London, Un ted K ngdom

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

4,908

4,559

4,559

440

3,792

3,962

5,600

6,298

3,046

797

1,539

1,740

7,469

6,258

2,226

962

467

233

3,388

4,222

9,281

5,186

637

331

731

287

506

1,347

4,037

3,346

4,002

2,567

2,678

1,964

1,521

2,736

4,304

2,644

910

102

1,033

2,070

1,766

1,324

199

381

865

882

853

1,846

1,624

2,880

1,396

1,917

219

224

1,963

1,589

947

292

403

602

333

1,832

1,580

1,555

525

413

563

196

1,668

1,491

1,391

477

296

609

164

1,260

1,157

3,117

959

1,037

1,318

1,618

1,497

1,048

416

130

1,161

1,041

533

158

262

81

828

369

328

1,204

947

129 255

320

909

182

881

351

723

772

248

207

211

172

751

248

251

229

197

309

99

1,022

113

339

416

591

192

828

324

422

308

379

774

302

321

481

373

383

753 556 500

168

272

475

344

475 449

Top 10 un vers t es and schoo s rece v ng H-1Bs [102][103][105] School H-1Bs Received 2006 New York C ty Pub c Schoo s 642 Un vers ty of M ch gan 437 Un vers ty of I no s at Ch cago 434 Un vers ty of Pennsy van a 432 Johns Hopk ns Un vers ty Schoo of Med c ne 432 Un vers ty of Mary and 404 Co umb a Un vers ty 355 Ya e Un vers ty 316 Harvard Un vers ty 308 Stanford Un vers ty 279 Wash ngton Un vers ty n St. Lou s 278 Un vers ty of P ttsburgh 275

See also SKIL B Free trade debate Labor shortage Imm grat on Vo ce L-1 v sa https://en.w k ped a.org/w k /H-1B_v sa

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-484 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 Shows 93 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 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 01-09

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

Obama Asserts Executive Privilege Claim Over Holder’s Wife Emails Pertaining To Fast and Furious — Cover up Of Crimes — Article 1 of Impeachment Bill — What are They Hiding? — Aiding and Abetting Homicides –Videos Pos ed on Oc ober 24 2014 F ed under Amer can H s ory B ogro Bus ness Co ege Commun ca ons Cons u on Corrup on Cr me Cr s s Cu ure Documen ary Drug Car e s Econom cs Educa on Emp oymen Fam y Federa Governmen Federa Governmen Budge F sca Po cy Fore gn Po cy Freedom governmen spend ng h s ory Hom c de ega mm gra on RS Law ber y L e L nks L eracy med a Peop e Ph osophy Pho os Po cs Press Rad o Rad o Raves S ra egy Ta k Rad o Taxes Terror sm Unemp oymen V deo Wa er Wea h We are W sdom Tags 200 P us Mex cans K ed 2014 Amer ca ar c es ATF A orney Genera Er c Ho der Aud o Break ng News Broadcas ng Bureau o A coho Tabaco F rearms and Exp os ves cap a sm Char y C zensh p C ar y C ass ca L bera sm Co ec v sm Commen ary Comm men Commun ca e Commun ca on Conc se Congress Con emp o Congress Conv nc ng Courage Cover Up Cu ure Curren A a rs Curren Even s Drug Car e s econom c grow h econom c po cy Econom cs Educa on Ev Execu ve Pr v ege Exper ence Fa h Fam y Fas and Fur ous F rs sca po cy FO A Fore gn Po cy ree en erpr se reedom Freedom o n orma on Ac (FO A) reques reedom o speech Fr ends G ve A L s en God Good Goodw Grow h Gun Grabbers Gun Wa k ng H gh Cr mes Hom c des Hope House o Represen a ves mpeachmen ncompe ence nd v dua sm Judge Napo ano Jud c a Wa ch Know edge ber y es L e Love Lovers o L ber y Mark Lev n Mex co mone ary po cy MPEG3 News November 2014 E ec ons Obama Scanda s Obs ruc on o Jus ce Oc ober 223 Opera on Fas and Fur ous scanda Op n ons Peace Pho os Podcas s Po ca Ph osophy Po cs Pres den Barack Obama prosper y Rad o Raymond Thomas Pronk Represen a ve Repub c Repub c Resources Respec ru e o aw Ru e o Men Second Amendmen Sena e Show No es S onewa ng Ta k Rad o The Pronk Pops Show The Pronk Pops Show 355 Tom F on Tru h Tyranny U S Cons u on U S Federa Cour s Un ed S a es Cons u on Un ed S a es o Amer ca Vaughn ndex V deos V r ue War Wash ng on Exam ner W sdom

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014 Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014 Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014 Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014 Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 320: August 29, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 319: August 28, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 318: August 27, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 317: August 22, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 316: August 20, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 315: August 18, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 314: August 15, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 313: August 14, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 312: August 13, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 311: August 11, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 310: August 8, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 309: August 6, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 308: August 4, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 307: August 1, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 306: July 31, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 305: July 30, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 304: July 29, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 303: July 28, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 302: July 24, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 301: July 23, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 300: July 22, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 299: July 21, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 298: July 18, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 297: July 17, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 296: July 16, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 295: July 15, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 294: July 14, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 293: July 11, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 292: July 9, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 291: July 7, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 290: July 3, 2014 Pronk Pops Show 289: July 2, 2014

Story 1: Obama Asserts Executive Privilege Claim Over Holder’s Wife Emails Pertaining To Fast and Furious — Cover up Of Crimes — Article 1 of Impeachment Bill — What are They Hiding? — Aiding and Abetting Homicides –Videos

President Obama Evokes Executive Privilege For Eric Holder – 2007 V. 2012

Obama Announces Eric Holder’s Resignation

Is Obama Involved In Fast And Furious, Obstructing A Congressional Investigation Or Both?

Congress Votes To Hold Eric Holder In Contempt Perjury Lied To House Congress Vote Passes

Jon Stewart Slams Obama Executive Privilege, Fast & Furious, And Eric Holder

Remember Brian Terry, The Murdered Border Patrol Agent

Judge Napolitano: Executive Privilege Only Applies If Obama Involved

Mark Levin Explains How GOP Should Handle Holder Contempt Charge & Executive Privilege Claim

Issa On Fast And Furious, Holder Contempt, Obama Executive Privilege On Fox News Sunday

Obama Perpetuates The ’90 Percent Of Mexico’s Weapons Come From The U.S.’ Lie — In Mexico!

Eric Holder – We Must “Brainwash” People Against Guns! – (1995)

Holder On 2nd Amendment

Eric Holder Attacking The Second Amendment To Help Mexico?

“Operation Fast & Furious: The Other Side Of The Border” Part 1

“Operation Fast & Furious: The Other Side Of The Border” Part 2

“Operation Fast & Furious: The Other Side Of The Border” Part 3

Fast And Furious: Management Failures At The Department Of Justice – Part 1

Eric Holder Choking On His Testimony

Michael Savage Offers Concise Summary Of “Fast And Furious”, Describes His Own Love Of Guns

Congress: Eric Holder Should Be In Jail!

Obama Asserts Fast And Furious Executive Privilege Claim For Holder’s Wife OCTOBER 23, 2014 Jud c a Watch announced today that t rece ved from the Obama Department of Just ce (DOJ) a “Vaughn ndex” deta ng records about the Operat on Fast and Fur ous scanda . The ndex was forced out of the Obama adm n strat on thanks to JW s June 2012 Freedom of Informat on Act (FOIA) request and subsequent September 2012 FOIA awsu t (Jud c a Watch v. Department of Just ce (No. 1:12-cv-01510)). A federa court had ordered the product on over the ob ect ons of the Obama Just ce Department. The document deta s the Attorney Genera Ho der s persona nvo vement n manag ng the Just ce Department s strategy on med a and Congress ona nvest gat ons nto the Fast and Fur ous scanda . Notab y, the document d sc oses that ema s between Attorney Genera Ho der and h s w fe Sharon Ma one – as we as h s mother – are be ng w thhe d under an extraord nary c a m of execut ve pr v ege as we as a dub ous c a m of de berat ve process pr v ege under the Freedom of Informat on Act. The “F rst Lady of the Just ce Department” s a phys c an and not a government emp oyee. Th s s the f rst t me that the Obama adm n strat on has prov ded a deta ed st ng of a records be ng w thhe d from Congress and the Amer can peop e about the dead y Fast and Fur ous gun runn ng scanda . The 1307-page “draft” Vaughn ndex was ema ed to Jud c a Watch at 8:34 p.m. ast n ght, a few hours before a federa court-ordered dead ne. In ts cover etter, the Department of Just ce asserts that a of the respons ve records descr bed n the ndex are “sub ect to the assert on of execut ve pr v ege.” The Vaughn ndex exp a ns 15,662 documents. Typ ca y, a Vaughn ndex must: (1) dent fy each record w thhe d; (2) state the statutory exempt on c a med; and (3) exp a n how d sc osure wou d damage the nterests protected by the c a med exempt on. The Vaughn ndex arguab y fa s to prov de a of th s requ red nformat on but does prov de p enty of nterest ng nformat on for a pub c kept n the dark for years about the Fast and Fur ous scanda . Based on a pre m nary rev ew of the mass ve document, Jud c a Watch can d sc ose that the Vaughn ndex revea s: Numerous ema s that deta Attorney Genera Ho der s d rect nvo vement n craft ng ta k ng po nts, the t m ng of pub c d sc osures, and hand ng Congress ona nqu r es n the Fast and Fur ous matter. Pres dent Obama has asserted execut ve pr v ege over near y 20 ema commun cat ons between Ho der and h s spouse Sharon Ma one. The adm n strat on a so c a ms that the records are a so sub ect to w thho d ng under the “de berat ve process” exempt on. Th s exempt on ord nar y exempts from pub c d sc osure records that cou d ch nterna government de berat ons. Numerous entr es deta DOJ s commun cat ons ( nc ud ng those of Er c Ho der) concern ng the Wh te House about Fast and Fur ous. The scanda requ red the attent on of v rtua y every top off c a of the DOJ and the Bureau of A coho , Tobacco and F rearms (ATF). Commun cat ons to and from the Un ted States Ambassador to Mex co about the Fast and Fur ous matter are a so descr bed. Many of the records are a ready pub c y ava ab e such as etters from Congress, press c ps, and typ ca agency commun cat ons. Ord nar y, these records wou d, n who e or part, be sub ect to d sc osure under the Freedom of Informat on Act. Few of the records seem to even mp cate pres dent a dec s on-mak ng and adv ce that m ght be sub ect to Pres dent Obama s broad and unprecedented execut ve pr v ege c a m. Jud c a Watch Pres dent Tom F tton cr t c zed Pres dent Obama and h s d sgraced Attorney Genera n a statement today: Th s document prov des key nformat on about the cover-up of Fast and Fur ous by Attorney Genera Er c Ho der and other h gh- eve off c a s of the Obama adm n strat on. Obama s execut ve pr v ege c a ms over these records are a fraud and an abuse of h s off ce. There s no precedent for Pres dent Obama s N xon an assert on of execut ve pr v ege over these ord nary government agency records. Amer cans w be aston shed that Obama asserted execut ve pr v ege over Er c Ho der s ema s to h s w fe about Fast and Fur ous. Once aga n, Jud c a Watch has proven tse f more effect ve than Congress and the estab shment med a n prov d ng bas c overs ght of th s out-of-contro Adm n strat on. Th s Fast and Fur ous document prov des dozens of eads for further congress ona , med a, and even cr m na nvest gat ons. On June 28, 2012, Attorney Genera Er c Ho der was he d n contempt by the House of Representat ves over h s refusa to turn over records exp a n ng why the Obama adm n strat on may have ed to Congress and refused for months to d sc ose the truth about the gun runn ng operat on. It marked the f rst t me n U.S. h story that a s tt ng Attorney Genera was he d n contempt of Congress. A week before the contempt f nd ng, to protect Ho der from cr m na prosecut on and stave off the contempt vote, Pres dent Obama asserted execut ve pr v ege over the Fast and Fur ous records the House Overs ght Comm ttee had subpoenaed e ght months ear er. Jud c a Watch f ed ts FOIA request two days ater. Ho der s Just ce Department wou dn t budge (or fo ow the aw), so JW f ed a FOIA awsu t on September 12, 2012. But then the Just ce Department conv nced U.S. D str ct Court Judge John D. Bates to stay our awsu t, n part to a ow ongo ng sett ement d scuss ons between the Ho der s government awyers and the House Comm ttee to cont nue. Unsurpr s ng y, the “negot at ons” between po t c ans runn ng the House and the Just ce Department went nowhere. Fed up w th the nterm nab e de ay caused Ho der s gamesmansh p and stonewa ng, JW renewed ts request to the Court to a ow our transparency awsu t to cont nue. Thankfu y, th s past Ju y, Judge John D. Bates ended the 16-month de ay and ordered the Obama adm n strat on to produce a Vaughn ndex of the a eged “execut ve pr v ege” records by October 1. Judge Bates noted that no court has ever “express y recogn zed” Pres dent Obama s unprecedented execut ve pr v ege c a ms n the Fast and Fur ous matter. Unhappy w th hav ng to produce the records pr or to the e ect ons, Just ce awyers asked the udge to g ve them one extra month, unt November 3 (the day before E ect on Day!) to produce the nfo. Judge Bates re ected th s gamb t, suggested that the Ho der s agency d d not take court order ser ous y. Rather than a month, Judge Bates gave Just ce unt yesterday to cough up the Vaughn ndex. Judge Bates ssued h s smack down on September 23. Attorney Genera Er c Ho der announced h s res gnat on two days ater. Many share our op n on t was “no co nc dence” that Ho der s res gnat on came “on the hee s of another court ru ng that the Just ce Department must f na y cough up nformat on about how Ho der s Just ce Department ed to Congress and the Amer can peop e about the Operat on Fast and Fur ous scanda , for wh ch Er c Ho der was he d n contempt by the House of Representat ves.” The House had been separate y t gat ng to obta n the records but had gotten nowhere unt after Judge Bates ru ed that the DOJ f na y had to d sc ose nformat on to Jud c a Watch. On September 9, U.S. D str ct Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, c t ng Jud c a Watch s success, ordered the Just ce Department to produce nformat on to Congress by November 3.

Fast and Fur ous was a DOJ/Bureau of A coho , Tobacco, F rearms and Exp os ves (ATF) “gun runn ng” operat on n wh ch the Obama adm n strat on reported y a owed guns to go to Mex can drug carte s hop ng they wou d end up at cr me scenes, advanc ng gun-contro po c es. Fast and Fur ous weapons have been mp cated n the murder of Border Patro Agent Br an Terry and hundreds of other nnocents n Mex co. Guns from the Fast and Fur ous scanda are expected to be used n cr m na act v ty on both s des of the U.S.-Mex co border for years to come. Guns from the Fast and Fur ous scanda cont nue to be used n cr mes. Just ast week, Jud c a Watch d sc osed that a Fast and Fur ous gun was used n gang -sty e assau t on a Phoen x apartment bu d ng that eft two peop e wounded. We f gured th s out from nformat on we uncovered through another pub c records awsu t aga nst the C ty of Phoen x. Congress off c a y conf rmed the AK-47 was used n the assau t that terror zed res dents n Phoen x. In an October 16 etter sent from Sen. Char es Grass ey (R-IA) and Rep. Darry Issa (R-CA) to Deputy Attorney Genera James Co e d sc oses that “we have earned of another cr me gun connected to Fast and Fur ous. The [Just ce] Department d d not prov de any not ce to the Congress or the pub c about th s gun….Th s ack of transparency about the consequences of Fast and Fur ous underm nes pub c conf dence n aw enforcement and g ves the mpress on that the Department s seek ng to suppress nformat on and m t ts exposure to pub c scrut ny.” We have many other act ve awsu ts over the Fast and Fur ous scanda : On October 11, 2011, Jud c a Watch sued the DOJ and the ATF to obta n a Fast and Fur ous records subm tted to the House Comm ttee on Overs ght. On June 6, 2012, Jud c a Watch sued the ATF seek ng access to records deta ng commun cat ons between ATF off c a s and Kev n O Re y, former Obama Wh te House D rector of North Amer can Affa rs at the U.S. Nat ona Secur ty Counc . On September 5, 2013, Jud c a Watch sued the DOJ seek ng access to a records of commun cat ons between DOJ and the Overs ght Comm ttee re at ng to sett ement d scuss ons n the Comm ttee s 2012 contempt of Congress awsu t aga nst Ho der. The contempt c tat on stemmed from Ho der s refusa to turn over documents to Congress re ated to the Fast and Fur ous gunrunn ng scanda . On May 28, 2014, Jud c a Watch sued the DOJ on beha f of ATF Spec a Agent John Dodson, who b ew the wh st e on Operat on Fast and Fur ous and was then sub ected to an a eged smear campa gn des gned to destroy h s reputat on.

Obama Used Executive Privilege To Shield Holder Emails BY SUSAN FERRECHIO Pres dent Obama used execut ve pr v ege to w thho d the contents of more than 20 ema s sent between Attorney Genera Er c Ho der, h s w fe and h s mother that a conservat ve watchdog group sought n connect on w th the federa government s botched “Fast and Fur ous” gun-runn ng operat on. The document, accord ng to the conservat ve watchdog group Jud c a Watch, “deta s the Attorney Genera Ho der s persona nvo vement n manag ng the Just ce Department s strategy on med a and Congress ona nvest gat ons nto the Fast and Fur ous scanda .” Jud c a Watch sa d the Wh te House s w thho d ng the contents of the Ho der ema s between h s w fe and mother c t ng not on y the execut ve pr v ege, but the “de berat ve process” exempt on, wh ch s norma y used to exc ude from pub c d sc osure any nformat on “that cou d ch nterna government de berat ons.” Ho der s w fe, Sharon Ma one, s a Wash ngton, D.C., gyneco og st. The Repub can- ed House has been due ng w th Ho der for years n an effort to get documents and ema s re ated to Fast and Fur ous. In 2012, the House voted to f nd Ho der n contempt of Congress for refus ng to turn over documents re ated to the operat on and has sued to obta n them. Democrats have accused the GOP of a po t ca y mot vated w tch hunt aga nst Ho der, who recent y announced p ans to step down. The Fast and Fur ous program ran from 2006 to 2011 out of an Ar zona d v s on of the Bureau of A coho , Tobacco, F rearms and Exp os ves. It nvo ved U.S. agents se ng guns to Mex can drug traff ckers n an effort to trace the weapons to the drug carte s. But agents ost track of the weapons and some of them were used to k peop e, nc ud ng U.S. Border Patro agent Br an Terry. “Obama s execut ve pr v ege c a ms over these records are a fraud and an abuse of h s off ce,” Jud c a Watch Pres dent Tom F tton sa d n a statement. “There s no precedent for Pres dent Obama s N xon an assert on of execut ve pr v ege over these ord nary government agency records. Amer cans w be aston shed that Obama asserted execut ve pr v ege over Er c Ho der s ema s to h s w fe about Fast and Fur ous.” “Th s st of documents was prov ded n order to fu f a procedura step n th s case,” Just ce Department spokesman Br an Fa on to d theExam ner. “We w make a further subm ss on, re ated to these same mater a s, on Nov. 3 n connect on to the case brought by the House Overs ght Comm ttee.” Ed tor s note: Jud c a Watch s represent ng the Wash ngton Exam ner n the newspaper s federa awsu t seek ng access to Consumer F nanc a Protect on Bureau records under FOIA. http://www.wash ngtonexam ner.com/obama-used-execut ve-pr v ege-to-sh e d-ho der-ema s/art c e/2555188

Operation Fast And Furious Fast Facts Here s some background nformat on about Operat on Fast and Fur ous. From 2009 – 2011, under Operat on Fast and Fur ous, the Bureau of A coho , Tobacco, F rearms and Exp os ves (ATF) Phoen x F e d D v s on, a ong w th other partners, a owed ega gun sa es be eved to be dest ned for Mex can drug carte s n order to track the se ers and purchasers. Facts: An est mated 1,400 weapons were ost by the ATF n Mex co. Two of the m ss ng weapons nked to the operat on turned up at the Ar zona murder scene of Un ted States Border Patro agent Br an Terry. Wh st e-b ow ng eads to a Congress ona nvest gat on by the Senate Jud c ary Comm ttee and the House Overs ght and Government Reform Comm ttee, and Attorney Genera Er c Ho der s c ted for contempt. Operat on Fast and Fur ous was one of the operat ons under Pro ect Gunrunner, part of the Department of Just ce s broader Southwest Border In t at ve, an “ nter-agency effort to combat Mex co-based traff ck ng groups.” (DOJ) “Straw purchasers (a so ca ed straw buyers) buy f rearms on beha f of others w thout d sc os ng that fact on the forms requ red by the Bureau of A coho , Tobacco and F rearms.” (DOJ) The operat on asted approx mate y 15 months, resu t ng n grand ury nd ctments of 34 suspects n drug and f rearms traff ck ng organ zat ons. Operat on Fast and Fur ous was not the f rst “gun wa k ng” nvest gat on by ATF; t was preceded by Operat on W de Rece ver, wh ch began n 2006. Timeline: April 2006 – Off c a aunch of Pro ect Gunrunner. October 2009 – Operat on Fast and Fur ous beg ns, based on a rev ew of Pro ect Gunrunner by the ATF Organ zed Cr me Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). January 2010 – Bureau of A coho , Tobacco, F rearms agents te the staff of Senator Char es Grass ey (R-Iowa), member of the Senate Jud c ary Comm ttee, that the ATF a owed straw buyer Ja me Av a to make repeated purchases of guns after h s name had been entered nto a “suspect person database” on January 13, 2009. December 14, 2011 – Border patro agent Br an Terry s k ed n the Ar zona desert, and two weapons the ATF a owed to be purchased ear er n 2010 by purported “straw buyer” Ja me Av a are found near the shoot ng scene. It s unknown whether any of the guns were used as the murder weapon. January 25, 2011 – The Department of Just ce announces the end of Operat on Fast and Fur ous, w th the nd ctments of 34 drug and f rearm traff ck ng suspects. March 3, 2011 – ATF Act ng D rector Kenneth Me son announces the format on of a pane to “rev ew the bureau s current f rearms traff ck ng strateg es emp oyed by f e d d v s on managers and spec a agents.” April 1, 2011 – Act ng D rector Me son s ssued a subpoena from the House Overs ght and Government Reform Comm ttee. May 3, 2011 – Attorney Genera Er c Ho der test f es for the f rst t me before the House Jud c ary Comm ttee that he had f rst heard of Operat on Fast and Fur ous on y over the past few weeks. June 2011 – Wh st eb owers test fy before the House Overs ght comm ttee. ATF agent John Dodson te s awmakers, “I cannot beg n to th nk how the r sk of ett ng guns fa nto the hands of known cr m na s cou d poss b y advance any eg t mate aw enforcement nterest.” July 26, 2011 – The House Overs ght and Government Reform Comm ttee ho ds a second hear ng. August 30, 2011 – Me son s reass gned to the Just ce Department, and s rep aced by B. Todd Jones. October 12, 2011 – Congress ona nvest gators ssue a subpoena for commun cat ons from Attorney Genera Ho der re at ng to the federa gunrunn ng operat on. October 2011 – Invest gators uncover memos nd cat ng Attorney Genera Ho der had known about Operat on Fast and Fur ous for c ose to a year, not a few weeks as he had stated n May 2011. November 7, 2011 – A federa grand ury n the D str ct of Ar zona hands up an 11-count nd ctment. It a eges that on December 14, 2010, f ve of the defendants (Manue Osor o-Are anes, Jesus Rosar o Fave a-Astorga, Ivan Soto-Barraza, Herac o Osor o-Are anes and L one Port o-Meza) were nvo ved n a f ref ght w th Border Patro agents dur ng wh ch Terry was fata y shot. The men are charged w th f rst-degree murder, second-degree murder, consp racy to nterfere w th commerce by robbery, attempted nterference w th commerce by robbery, carry ng and us ng a f rearm dur ng a cr me of v o ence, assau t on a federa off cer and possess on of a f rearm by a proh b ted person. The nd ctment s unsea ed on Ju y 9th, 2012. November 8, 2011 – Attorney Genera Ho der test f es before the Senate Jud c ary Comm ttee that, “th s operat on was f awed n concept, as we as n execut on.” February 1, 2012 – The fam y of ATF agent Br an Terry f es a $25 m on wrongfu death c a m aga nst the Un ted States. February 2, 2012 – Attorney Genera Ho der test f es before the House Overs ght and Government Reform Comm ttee that f r ngs and charges aga nst Just ce Department off c a s who oversaw Fast and Fur ous are ke y to come n the next s x months. He a so den es any cover-up. June 12, 2012 – Attorney Genera Ho der test f es before the U.S. Senate Comm ttee on the Jud c ary, and re ects ca s for h s res gnat on. June 20, 2012 – The House Overs ght and Government Reform Comm ttee recommends that Attorney Genera Ho der be c ted for contempt of Congress for fa ng to turn over documents re at ng to the Fast and Fur ous operat on. June 20, 2012 – Pres dent Barack Obama asserts execut ve pr v ege over the documents sought by the nvest gat ng comm ttee. Th s prevents future prosecut on of Ho der. June 28, 2012 – The House of Representat ves votes 255-67 to ho d Ho der n cr m na contempt. Th s s the f rst t me n Amer can h story that the head of the Just ce Department has been he d n contempt by Congress. July 31, 2012 – The f rst of a three-part o nt staff Congress ona report s re eased, Fast and Fur ous: Anatomy of a Fa ed Operat on, wh ch ays b ame for the fa ed gun-runn ng probe on Act ng ATF D rector Kenneth Me son and Deputy D rector W am Hoover. July 31, 2012 – ATF Deputy D rector W am Hoover res gns. August 13, 2012 – The House Overs ght Comm ttee f es a c v awsu t aga nst Ho der over Operat on Fast and Fur ous documents. September 6, 2012 – Mex can author t es arrest Leone Sanchez Jesus Meza, wanted n the k ng of Border Patro agent Br an Terry. September 19, 2012 – Department of Just ce Inspector Genera M chae Horow tz re eases a report on the operat on. The report f nds 14 emp oyees of the ATF and the Just ce Department respons b e for management fa ures. After the re ease, former act ng ATF head Kenneth Me son ret res and former Deputy Ass stant Attorney Genera Jason We nste n res gns. December 13, 2012 – Ja me Av a s sentenced to 57 months n pr son for h s ro e n buy ng weapons that were found at the s te of the k ng of patro agent Br an A. Terry. June 17, 2014 – L one Port o Meza, a suspect n the death of Border Patro Agent Br an Terry, s extrad ted from Mex co to the U.S. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/wor d/amer cas/operat on-fast-and-fur ous-fast-facts/

ATF Gunwalking Scandal From W k ped a, the free encyc oped a

Weapons recovered by Mex can m tary n Naco, Sonora, Mex co on November 20, 2009. They nc ude weapons bought two weeks ear er by Operat on Fast and Fur ous suspect Ur e Pat no, who bought 723 guns dur ng the operat on. [1] “Gunwalking“, or “letting guns walk“, was a tact c of the Ar zona F e d Off ce of the Un ted States Bureau of A coho , Tobacco, F rearms and Exp os ves (ATF), wh ch ran a ser es of st ng operat ons [2][3] between 2006[4]and 2011[2][5] n the Tucson and Phoen x area where the ATF “purpose y a owed censed f rearms dea ers to se weapons to ega straw buyers, hop ng to track the guns to Mex can drug carte eaders and arrest them.”[6] These operat ons were done under the umbre a of Pro ect Gunrunner, a pro ect ntended to stem the f ow of f rearms nto Mex co by nterd ct ng straw purchasers and gun traff ckers w th n the Un ted States. [7] The Chambers case[who?] began n October 2009, and eventua y became known n February 2010 as “Operat on Fast and Fur ous” after agents d scovered some of the suspects under nvest gat on be onged to a car c ub. [1] The stated goa of a ow ng these purchases was to cont nue to track the f rearms as they were transferred to h gher- eve traff ckers and key f gures n Mex can carte s, w th the expectat on that th s wou d ead to the r arrests and the d smant ng of the carte s. [6][8][9] The tact c was quest oned dur ng the operat ons by a number of peop e, nc ud ng ATF f e d agents and cooperat ng censed gun dea ers. [10][11][12] [13][14] Dur ng Operat on Fast and Fur ous, the argest “gunwa k ng” probe, the ATF mon tored the sa e of about 2,000[1]:203[15] f rearms, of wh ch on y 710 were recovered as of February 2012. [1]:203 A number

of straw purchasers have been arrested and nd cted; however, as of October 2011, none of the targeted h gh- eve carte f gures had been arrested. [6] Guns tracked by the ATF have been found at cr me scenes on both s des of the Mex co–Un ted States border, and the scene where Un ted States Border Patro Agent Br an Terry was k ed December 2010. The “gunwa k ng” operat ons became pub c n the aftermath of Terry s murder. [2] D ssent ng ATF agents came forward to Congress n response. [16][17] Accord ng to Humberto Benítez Trev ño, former Mex can Attorney Genera and cha r of the ust ce comm ttee n the Chamber of Deput es, re ated f rearms have been found at numerous cr me scenes n Mex co where at east 150 Mex can c v ans were ma med or k ed. [18] Reve at ons of “gunwa k ng” ed to controversy n both countr es, and d p omat c re at ons were damaged. [2] As a resu t of a d spute over the re ease of Just ce Department documents re ated to the scanda , Attorney Genera Er c Ho der became the f rst s tt ng member of theCab net of the Un ted States to be he d n contempt of Congress on June 28, 2012. [19][20] Ear er that month, Pres dent Barack Obama had nvoked execut ve pr v egefor the f rst t me n h s pres dency over the same documents. [21][22]

Background Further nformat on: Pro ect Gunrunner and Mex can Drug War One 20-year veteran of ATF s Tucson off ce to d us that before Operat on W de Rece ver, a of ATF s traff ck ng cases were very s m ar n the r s mp c ty: ATF wou d get a t p from an FFL[Federa F rearms L censee] [14] about a buyer who wanted a arge number of f rearms and nformat on about when the transact on was schedu ed to take p ace, and wou d set up surve ance and arrest the buyer when he headed southbound or at the border. Somet mes the n t a buyer wou d cooperate w th ATF, and agents wou d arrest the actua buyer when he showed up to take possess on of the guns. If the guns went to a stash house, agents wou d speak w th sub ects at the stash house or conduct a search of the stash house. Th s agent to d us that ATF nterd cted guns as a matter of course and had been “content to make the tt e cases,” but that W de Rece ver represented a “d fferent d rect on” from ATF s typ ca pract ce. —Report by the Off ce of the Inspector Genera on the Rev ew of ATF s Operat on Fast and Fur ous and Re ated Matters, September 2012[1] ATF “gunwa k ng” operat ons were, n part, a response to ongstand ng cr t c sm of the bureau for focus ng on re at ve y m nor gun v o at ons wh e fa ng to target h gh- eve gun smugg ng f gures. [23] U.S. f rearms aws current y govern the possess on and transfer of f rearms and prov de pena t es for the v o at on of such aws. “Gun traff ck ng”, a though not def ned by statute, essent a y nc udes the movement or d vers on of f rearms from ega to ega markets. [24]:Summary A 2009 GAO report on efforts to combat arms traff ck ng to Mex co notes that straw purchas ng s not n tse f ega , a though t s ega to prov de fa se nformat on n connect on w th a purchase. [25] Four federa statutes govern U.S. commerce of f rearms domest ca y and nternat ona y. Many states supp ement these federa statutes and have f rearms aws of the r own that are str cter. For examp e, some states requ re perm ts to obta n f rearms and mpose a wa t ng per od for f rearm transfers. Domest c commerce and mportat ons nto the Un ted States are genera y regu ated under the Nat ona F rearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Contro Act of 1968 (GCA). The exportat on of f rearms from the Un ted States s regu ated by the Arms Export Contro Act of 1976 and, to a esser extent, the Export Adm n strat on Regu at ons (EAR). [24]:3 Defendants are often prosecuted and conv cted under prov s ons of statutes such as the GCA that make t un awfu for certa n persons to be n possess on of f rearms, govern the transact on process of obta n ng f rearms (e.g., straw purchases), and conta n pena t es for the use of a f rearm n a cr me of v o ence or a drug traff ck ng cr me, or pena t es for know ng y or fraudu ent y smugg ng goods that wou d be contrary to U.S. aw and regu at on. [24]:18 In a 2012 case n San Juan, Texas, under ex st ng 1968 Gun Contro Act prov s ons on straw purchas ng (T t e 18 Un ted States Code, Sect on 924(a)(1)(A)), straw purchaser Ta sa Garc a rece ved 33 months and buyer Marco V a obos rece ved 46 months, p us two years superv s on after re ease. [26] In another Texas gun traff ck ng case, Oscar Bravo Hernandez rece ved a sentence of 84 months for buy ng and send ng to Mex co at east 55 f rearms from a r ng of n ne straw purchasers who rece ved sentences from 51 months for the most nvo ved down to three years probat on for the east nvo ved. [27] Accord ng to twenty-year ATF veteran Jay Wachte , ett ng guns “wa k” has been a pract ce done n a contro ed manner that nvo ved surve ance and eventua se zure of the weapons. “The dea was that you wou d fo ow t ong enough unt you were sure you had enough probab e cause” to n t ate an arrest, Wachte sa d. [28]Accord ng to ATF f e d agents nvo ved n Operat on Fast and Fur ous, a part of Pro ect Gunrunner, “ATF agents were tra ned to nterd ct guns and prevent cr m na s from obta n ng them” and not to a ow guns to wa k and then d sappear. [11] ATF agents ass gned to Phoen x from other d str cts to work on Fast and Fur ous were cr t ca of the operat on. [29]

Operations There have been a egat ons of “gunwa k ng” n at east 10 c t es n f ve states. [30] The most w de y known and controvers a operat ons took p ace n Ar zona under the ATF s Phoen x, Ar zona f e d d v s on.

2006–2008: Operation Wide Receiver and other probes[edit] Operation Wide Receiver[edit]

The susp c ous sa e of AR-15s ed to Operat on W de Rece ver. [31] The f rst known ATF “gunwa k ng” operat on to Mex can drug carte s, named Operat on W de Rece ver, began n ear y 2006 and ran nto ate 2007. L censed dea er M ke Detty of Mad Dawg G oba nformed the ATF of a susp c ous gun purchase that took p ace n February 2006 n Tucson, Ar zona. In March he was h red as a conf dent a nformant work ng w th the ATF s Tucson off ce, part of the r Phoen x, Ar zona f e d d v s on. [31] W th the use of surve ance equ pment, ATF agents mon tored add t ona sa es by Detty to straw purchasers. W th assurance from ATF “that Mex can off c a s wou d be conduct ng surve ance or nterd ct ons when guns got to the other s de of the border”, [12] Detty wou d se a tota of about 450 guns dur ng the operat on. [30] These nc uded AR-15s, sem -automat c AK-pattern r f es, and Co t .38s. The ma or ty of the guns were eventua y ost as they moved nto Mex co. [6][31][32][33] As the ater DOJ OIG Report documented, under W de Rece ver coord nat on of ATF Tucson w th the ATF Mex co C ty Off ce (MCO) and w th Mex can aw enforcement had been haphazard. D scuss ons of gett ng track ng dev ces from Raytheon were not fo owed up. ATF f e d agents and the cooperat ng gun dea er had been to d by ATF superv sors that the guns were be ng nterd cted before they cou d reach Mex co, but on y 64 of the 474 guns had actua y been se zed. The k ngp n sought by wa k ng the guns, Israe Egurro a-Leon, turned out to be the target of a arger drug case Operat on Iron R ver run by OCDETF. After Operat on W de Rece ver was ended, severa attorneys at the Phoen x USAO who rev ewed the W de Rece ver cases for prosecut on found the cases had been so poor y managed that they were re uctant to br ng any of them to tr a . [1] At the t me, under the Bush adm n strat on Department of Just ce (DOJ), no arrests or nd ctments were made. After Pres dent Barack Obama took off ce n 2009, the DOJ rev ewed W de Rece ver and found that guns had been a owed nto the hands of suspected gun traff ckers. Ind ctments began n 2010, over three years after W de Rece ver conc uded. As of October 4, 2011, n ne peop e had been charged w th mak ng fa se statements n acqu s t on of f rearms and c t transfer, sh pment or de very of f rearms. [23] As of November, charges aga nst one defendant had been dropped; f ve of them had p ed gu ty, and one had been sentenced to one year and one day n pr son. Two of them rema ned fug t ves. [31] The Hernandez case Another, sma er probe occurred n 2007 under the same ATF Phoen x f e d d v s on. The F de Hernandez case began when the ATF dent f ed Mex can suspects who bought weapons from a Phoen x gun shop over a span of severa months. The probe u t mate y nvo ved over 200 guns, a dozen of wh ch were ost n Mex co. On September 27, 2007, ATF agents saw the or g na suspects buy ng weapons at the same store and fo owed them toward the Mex can border. The ATF nformed the Mex can government when the suspects successfu y crossed the border, but Mex can aw enforcement were unab e to track them. [4][10] Less than two weeks ater, on October 6, W am Newe , then ATF s Spec a Agent n Charge (SAC) of the Phoen x f e d d v s on, shut down the operat on at the behest of W am Hoover, ATF s ass stant d rector for the off ce of f e d operat ons. [34] No charges were f ed. Newe , who was Phoen x ATF SAC from June 2006 to May 2011, wou d ater p ay a ma or ro e n Operat on Fast and Fur ous. [4][12] The Hernandez case was referenced n a br ef ng paper prepared for Attorney Genera M chae Mukasey pr or to h s meet ng w th the Mex can Attorney Genera Med na Mora on November 16, 2007. The paper stated, “ATF has recent y worked o nt y w th Mex co on the f rst-ever attempt to have a contro ed de very of weapons be ng smugg ed nto Mex co by a ma or arms traff cker” and that “the f rst attempts at th s contro ed de very have not been successfu .” The paper a so stated, “ATF wou d ke to expand the poss b ty of such o nt nvest gat ons and contro ed de ver es — s nce on y then w t be poss b e to nvest gate an ent re smugg ng network, rather than arrest ng s mp y a s ng e smugg er.”[35] Invest gators regarded the Hernandez Case as an examp e of “contro ed de very” w th surve ance and nvo vement of Mex can author t es rather than “gunwa k ng” or fa ure to attempt nterd ct on. [1][36][37] The Medrano case[ The 2008 A e andro Medrano case nvo ved both ATF SAC W am Newe and cooperat ng Tucson gun dea er M ke Detty of Operat on W de Rece ver. ATF Phoen x a owed about 100 guns to be taken nto Mex co over the ob ect ons of U.S. Imm grat on and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personne who became aware of the case. Phoen x ATF SAC Newe acknow edged to ICE “that ett ng guns cross the border was part of ATF s p an”. In August 2010, Medrano was sentenced to 46 months, h s assoc ate Hernan Ramos rece ved 50 months and the r fe ow consp rators rece ved pr son terms from 14 to 30 months, but the target, a S na oa Carte k ngp n, Jav er E enes Ru z, n cknamed “Rambo,” rema ned untouched ns de Mex co. [36]

2009–2011: Operation Fast and Furious On October 26, 2009, a te econference was he d at the Department of Just ce n Wash ngton, D.C. to d scuss U.S. strategy for combat ng Mex can drug carte s. Part c pat ng n the meet ng were Deputy Attorney Genera Dav d W. Ogden, Ass stant Attorney Genera Lanny A. Breuer, act ng ATF D rector Kenneth E. Me son, Drug Enforcement Adm n strat on (DEA) Adm n strator M che e Leonhart, D rector of the Federa Bureau of Invest gat on Robert Mue er and the top federa prosecutors n theSouthwestern border states. They dec ded on a strategy to dent fy and e m nate ent re arms traff ck ng networks rather than ow- eve buyers. [3][38][39] Those at the meet ng apparent y d d not suggest us ng the “gunwa k ng” tact c, but Phoen x ATF superv sors wou d soon use t n an attempt to ach eve the des red goa s. [40]

The strategy of target ng h gh- eve nd v dua s, wh ch was a ready ATF po cy, wou d be mp emented by B Newe , spec a agent n charge of ATF s Phoen x f e d d v s on. In order to accomp sh t, the off ce dec ded to mon tor susp c ous f rearms purchases wh ch federa prosecutors had determ ned acked suff c ent ev dence for prosecut on, as a d out n a January 2010 br ef ng paper. Th s was sa d to be a owed under ATF regu at ons and g ven ega back ng by U.S. Attorney for the D str ct of Ar zona Denn s K. Burke. It was add t ona y approved and funded by a Just ce Department task force. [3] However, ong-stand ng DOJ and ATF po cy has requ red suspected ega arms sh pments to be ntercepted. [4][5]

FN F ve-sevens were among the weapons a owed to wa k. [41] The operat on began on October 31, 2009, when a oca gun store reported to the Phoen x ATF that four nd v dua s had purchased mu t p e AK47 sty e r f es. [42] In November 2009, the Phoen x off ce s Group VII, wh ch wou d be the ead nvest gat ve group n Fast and Fur ous, began to fo ow a pro f c gun traff cker. He had bought 34 f rearms n 24 days, and he and h s assoc ates bought 212 more n the next month. The case soon grew to over two dozen straw purchasers, the most pro f c of wh ch wou d u t mate y buy more than 600 weapons. [3][5][43] The effort wou d come to be ca ed Operat on Fast and Fur ous for the successfu f m franch se, because some of the suspects under nvest gat on operated out of an auto repa r store and street raced. [3] Under the prev ous Operat on W de Rece ver, there had been a forma ATF contract w th the cooperat ng gun dea er and efforts were made to nvo ve the ATF Mex co C ty Off ce (MCO) and Mex can aw enforcement. Under Operat on Fast and Fur ous, at Newe s ns stence the cooperat ng gun dea ers d d not have contracts w th ATF, and MCO and Mex can po ce were eft n the dark. [1] Accord ng to nterna ATF documents, the operat on was n t a y run n con unct on w th the Phoen x DEA Organ zed Cr me Drug Enforcement Task Force(OCDETF). [44] On January 26, 2010, ATF forma y app ed to the Just ce Department n Wash ngton for fund ng through the OCDETF program. When t won approva and rece ved add t ona fund ng, Operat on Fast and Fur ous was reorgan zed as a Str ke Force that nc uded agents from ATF, FBI, DEA, and the ICE component of the Department of Home and Secur ty, wh ch wou d be run through the U.S. Attorney s off ce rather than the ATF. Th s new Str ke Force des gnat on a owed the operat on to take advantage of soph st cated surve ance techn ques such as federa w retaps, wh ch wou d requ re court orders and nteract on from Just ce Department off c a s n Wash ngton, D.C. s nce federa aw requ res certa n nd v dua s to rev ew ev dence and cert fy the necess ty of such techn ques. [45] The dea ers nvo ved became concerned as months went by and the same nd v dua s they reported to ATF as suspected straw purchasers returned and repeated y bought dent ca weapons. As they ater to d the DOJ OIG, the r prev ous exper ence was that after they reported a suspected straw to ATF, they d d not see the straw aga n un ess subpoenaed to test fy aga nst the straw at tr a . [1] One cooperat ng dea er expressed h s concerns n a ser es of ema s n Apr and June 2010 to GS Dav d Voth, who assured the dea er that ATF was mon tor ng the suspects us ng a var ety of techn ques that he cou d not d scuss n deta . [14] The tact c of ett ng guns wa k, rather than nterd ct ng them and arrest ng the buyers, ed to controversy w th n the ATF. [5][46] As the case cont nued, severa members of Group VII, nc ud ng John Dodson and O ndo Casa, became ncreas ng y upset at the tact c of a ow ng guns to wa k. The r standard Pro ect Gunrunner tra n ng was to fo ow the straw purchasers to the hand-off to the carte buyers, then arrest both part es and se ze the guns. But accord ng to Dodson, they watched guns be ng bought ega y and stashed on a da y bas s, wh e the r superv sors, nc ud ng Dav d Voth and Hope MacA ster, prevented the agents from nterven ng. [3] However, other accounts of the operat on ns st that ATF agents were prevented from nterven ng not by ATF off c a s, but rather by federa prosecutors w th the Attorney Genera s off ce, who were unsure of whether the agents had suff c ent ev dence to arrest suspected straw-buyers. [47] Accord ng to some reports, many agents ns sted they were prevented from mak ng arrests because prosecutors were unw ng to engage n what cou d become a potent a y content ous po t ca batt e over Second Amendment r ghts dur ng an e ect on year, part cu ar y g ven the d ff cu t nature of prosecut ng straw buyers, and the weak pena t es assoc ated w th t, even f successfu . [47] Instead, prosecutors nstructed ATF agents not to make arrests, but rather cont nue co ect ng ev dence n order to bu d a stronger case. One tact c proposed for do ng so was a w retap of suspected straw-buyers, n an attempt to nk the suspects to cr m na act v t es tak ng p ace on the Mex can s de of the border. [47] Between March 20 and Ju y 30, 2010, n ne w retaps were sought and approved by Just ce Department off c a s, resu t ng n a s gn f cant de ay n conc ud ng the case. [1]:247,274 One of the centra targeted nd v dua s was Manue Fab an Ce s-Acosta. [45] By December 2009, Ce s-Acosta was be ng nvest gated by the ATF, wh ch had p aced a secret po e camera outs de h s Phoen x home to track h s movements. Around th s t me, apparent y by chance, ATF agents d scovered Ce s-Acosta was a so a potent a cr m na target of the DEA, wh ch was operat ng a w re room to mon tor ve w retaps n order to track h m. On Apr 2, 2010, Ce s-Acosta was arrested on possess on of coca ne and found n possess on of a weapon purchased by Ur e Pat no, who had a ready purchased at east 434 guns from cooperat ng gun dea ers n the Phoen x area. By th s t me about a dozen ATF agents regu ar y surve ed Ce s-Acosta as he recru ted 20 fr ends and fam y to buy guns for h m and regu ar y trave ed to Texas to obta n funds from carte assoc ates to purchase f rearms. On May 29, 2010, Ce s-Acosta was deta ned n Lukev e, Ar zona w th 74 rounds of ammun t on and 9 ce phones. He was then re eased by the ch ef ATF nvest gator on Fast and Fur ous, Hope MacA ster, after he prom sed to cooperate w th her to f nd two spec f c S na oa carte assoc ates. After the redetent on and arrest of Ce sAcosta n February 2011, the ATF earned that the assoc ates they were after were FBI/DEA pa d nformants, and one of them was Ce s-Acosta s f nanc er. S nce they were nformants, they were un nd ctab e under Operat on Fast and Fur ous. [45][48][49][50][51] Later, the DOJ nspector Genera conc uded: “We d d not f nd persuas ve ev dence that agents sought to se ze f rearms or make arrests dur ng the nvest gat ve stage of the case and were rebuffed by the prosecutor. … We found that the ack of se zures and arrests was pr mar y attr butab e to the pursu t of a strateg c goa shared by both the [Phoen x] ATF and the U.S. Attorney s Off ce—to e m nate a traff ck ng organ zat on—and the be ef that confront ng sub ects and se z ng f rearms cou d comprom se that goa .”[1]

Weapons bought by Fast and Fur ous suspect Ur e Pat no, se zed by Border Patro and Tucson ATF agents on the Tohono O odham Reservat on from a veh c e headed toward the Mex can border, February 20, 2010. [1] By June 2010, suspects had purchased 1,608 f rearms at a cost of over US$1 m on at Phoen x-area gun shops. At that t me, the ATF was a so aware of 179 of those weapons be ng found at cr me scenes n Mex co, and 130 n the Un ted States. [8] As guns traced to Fast and Fur ous began turn ng up at v o ent cr me scenes n Mex co, ATF agents stat oned there a so vo ced oppos t on. [3]

On the even ng of December 14, 2010, U.S. Border Patro agent Br an Terry and others were patro ng Peck Canyon,Santa Cruz County, Ar zona, 11 m es from the Mex can border. The group came across f ve suspected ega mm grants. When they f red non- etha beanbag guns, the suspects responded w th the r own weapons, ead ng to a f ref ght. Terry was shot and k ed; four of the suspects were arrested and two AK-pattern r f es were found nearby. [3] The Attorney Genera s off ce was mmed ate y not f ed of the shoot ng nc dent by ema . [52] The r f es were traced w th n hours of the shoot ng to a Phoen x store nvo ved n the Fast and Fur ous operat on, but the bu et that k ed Terry was too bad y damaged to be conc us ve y nked to e ther gun. [3] Act ng Deputy Attorney Genera Gary Gr nd er and Deputy Ch ef of Staff Monty W k nson were nformed about the guns, but they d dn t be eve the nformat on was suff c ent y mportant to a ert the Attorney Genera about t or to make any further nqu ry regard ng the deve opment. [1]:297 After hear ng of the nc dent, Dodson contacted ATF headquarters, ATF s ch ef counse , the ATF eth cs sect on and the Just ce Department s Off ce of the Inspector Genera , none of whom mmed ate y responded. He and other agents then contacted Senator Chuck Grass ey of Iowa (R–IA), rank ng member of the Senate Jud c ary Comm ttee, who wou d become a ma or f gure n the nvest gat on of “gunwa k ng.” At the same t me, nformat on began eak ng to var ous b oggers and Web s tes. [3] On January 25, 2011, Burke announced the f rst deta s of the case to become off c a y pub c, mark ng the end of Operat on Fast and Fur ous. At a news conference n Phoen x, he reported a 53-count nd ctment of 20 suspects for buy ng hundreds of guns ntended for ega export between September 2009 and December 2010. Newe , who was at the conference, ca ed Fast and Fur ous a “phenomena case,” wh e deny ng that guns had been de berate y a owed to wa k nto Mex co. [3][12] A together, about 2,000 f rearms were bought by straw purchasers dur ng Fast and Fur ous. [1]:203[3] These nc uded AK-47 var ants, Barrett .50 ca ber sn per r f es, .38 ca ber revo vers, and FN F ve-sevens. [41] As of October 20, 2011, 389 had been recovered n the US and 276 had been recovered n Mex co. The rest rema ned on the streets, unaccounted for. [15] As of February 2012, the tota number of

recovered f rearms was 710. [1]:203 Most of the guns went to the S na oa Carte , wh e others made the r way to E Teo and La Fam a. [2][32] A though most weapons were purchased by suspects under nvest gat on by the program, there have been reports of at east one nstance of ATF agents be ng d rect y nvo ved n the transfer of weapons. On Apr 13, 2010, ATF Agent John Dodson, w th ass stance from Agents Casa and A t, d rected a cooperat ng straw purchaser to g ve three guns to Isa ah Fernandez, a suspected gun traff cker, and had taped the conversat ons w thout prosecutor approva . [47] After be ng nstructed by h s super ors to obta n approva from prosecutors (a be t retroact ve y), Dodson s proposa was ater re ected by h s mmed ate super or Dav d Voth, a though he ater rece ved perm ss on from Voth s superv sor after subm tt ng a wr tten proposa for the program. On June 1, 2010, Dodson used $2,500 of ATF funds to purchase s x AK Draco p sto s from oca gun dea ers, wh ch he then gave to Mr. Fernandez, who re mbursed h m for the expense of the guns, p us $700 for h s ass stance. [47] Two days ater, Agent Dodson went on a schedu ed vacat on w thout nterd ct ng the weapons. As a resu t, the weapons were never recovered, no arrests were ever made, and the case was c osed w thout charges be ng f ed. [47] Accord ng to the DOJ OIG report, Agent Dodson, as the undercover pos ng as a straw buyer, was not expected to surve the weapons after hand-off to Fernandez. Other ATF agents fo owed the weapons to a storage fac ty; then surve ance was term nated w thout nterd ct on. [1] The Fernandez case was dropped from Fast and Fur ous after t was determ ned that Fernandez was not connected to Mex can carte s and had ceased buy ng guns for resa e. [1][53]

Aftermath and reaction Fate of walked guns S nce the end of Operat on Fast and Fur ous, re ated f rearms have cont nued to be d scovered n cr m na hands. As reported n September 2011, the Mex can government stated that an und sc osed number of guns found at about 170 cr me scenes were nked to Fast and Fur ous. [54] U.S. Representat ve Darre Issa (R–Ca f.–49) est mated that more than 200 Mex cans were k ed by guns nked to the operat on. [55] Ref ect ng on the operat on, Attorney Genera Er c Ho der sa d that theUn ted States government s “… os ng the batt e to stop the f ow of ega guns to Mex co,”[56] and that the effects of Operat on Fast

and Fur ous w most ke y cont nue to be fe t for years, as more wa ked guns appear at Mex can cr me scenes. [57] In Apr 2011, a arge cache of weapons, 40 traced to Fast and Fur ous but a so nc ud ng m tary-grade weapons d ff cu t to obta n ega y n the US such as an ant -a rcraft mach ne gun and grenade auncher, was found n the home of Jose Anton o Torres Marrufo, a prom nent S na oa Carte member, n C udad Juárez, Mex co. Torres Marrufo was nd cted, but evaded aw enforcement for a br ef t me. [58][59] F na y, on February 4, 2012, Marrufo was arrested by the Mex can Po ce. [60] On May 29, 2011, four Mex can Federa Po ce he copters attacked a carte compound, where they were met w th heavy f re, nc ud ng from a .50 ca ber r f e. Accord ng to a report from the House Comm ttee on Overs ght and Government Reform, th s r f e s ke y nked to Fast and Fur ous. [2] There have been quest ons ra sed over a poss b e connect on between Fast and Fur ous and the death of U.S. Imm grat on and Customs Enforcement agent Ja me Zapata on February 15, 2011. [61][62] The gun used to k Zapata was purchased by Ot o Osor o n the Da as/Fort Worth Metrop ex, Texas [63] (outs de the area of respons b ty for the ATF Phoen x f e d d v s on[64] wh ch conducted Fast and Fur ous), and then smugg ed nto Mex co. Congress ona nvest gators have stated that Osor o was known by the ATF to be a straw purchaser months before he purchased the gun used to k Zapata, ead ng them to quest on ATF surve ance tact cs [63]and to suspect a Texas-based operat on s m ar to Fast and Fur ous. [65] In add t on to Ot o Osor o, a Texas-based drug and gun traff cker, Manue Barba, was nvo ved traff ck ng another of the guns recovered n the Zapata shoot ng. The t me ne of th s case, ca ed “Baytown Crew”, shows guns were a owed to wa k dur ng surve ance that began June 7, 2010. On August 20, 2010, Barba rece ved a r f e ater recovered n the Zapata ambush and sent t w th n ne others to Mex co. The warrant for Barba s arrest was ssued February 14, 2011, the day before Zapata was shot. [66] On January 30, 2012, Barba, who c a med to be work ng w th Los Zetas n ega y export ng at east 44 weapons purchased through straw buyers, was sentenced to 100 months n pr son. [67]

On November 23, 2012, two f rearms nked to the ATF were found at the scene of a shootout between S na oa carte members and the Mex can m tary. One of the weapons was an AK-47 type r f e traff cked by Fast and Fur ous suspect Ur e Pat no, and the other was an FN Hersta p sto or g na y purchased by an ATF agent. Mex can beauty queen Mar a Susana F ores Gamez and four others were k ed. [68][69]

Investigations and fallout In the U.S. Congress, Representat ve Darre Issa (R–CA–49), cha rman of the House Comm ttee on Overs ght and Government Reform, and Senator Chuck Grass ey(R–IA), rank ng member of the Senate Jud c ary Comm ttee, have been ead ng nvest gat ons of “gunwa k ng” operat ons. [70] There have a so been nvest gat ons by the Un ted States Department of Just ce Off ce of the Inspector Genera and others. 2011 On January 27, 2011, Grass ey wrote a etter to ATF Act ng D rector Kenneth E. Me son request ng nformat on about the ATF-sanct oned sa e of hundreds of f rearms to straw purchasers. The etter ment oned a number of a egat ons that wa ked guns were used n the f ght that k ed Border Patro Agent Br an Terry. [71] A second etter from Grass ey on January 31 accused the ATF of target ng wh st eb owers. [72] On February 4, after rev ew and comment from dozens of off c a s n the Just ce Department Cr m na D v s on, the Off ce of the Deputy Attorney Genera , the U.S. Attorney s Off ce n Phoen x, and ATF Headquarters, [1]:332 Ass stant Attorney Genera Rona d We ch sent a response to Grass ey regard ng h s two etters. We ch sa d c a ms “…that (the) ATF sanct oned or otherw se know ng y a owed the sa e of assau t weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them to Mex co [are] fa se. ATF makes every effort to nterd ct weapons that have been purchased ega y and prevent the r transportat on to Mex co.”[73][74] On February 28, Attorney Genera Er c Ho der requested that the Department of Just ce s Inspector Genera beg n an nvest gat on of Fast and Fur ous. [75] On March 23, Pres dent Barack Obama appeared on Un v s on and spoke about the “gunwa k ng” controversy. He sa d that ne ther he nor Attorney Genera Ho der author zed Fast and Fur ous. He a so stated, “There may be a s tuat on here n wh ch a ser ous m stake was made, and f that s the case then we f nd out and we ho d somebody accountab e.”[76] On May 3, Attorney Genera Ho der test f ed to the House Jud c ary Comm ttee that he d d not know who approved Fast and Fur ous, but that t was be ng nvest gated. He a so stated that he “probab y heard about Fast and Fur ous for the f rst t me over the ast few weeks,”[77] a c a m wh ch wou d ater be quest oned[78][79][80] as exp a ned be ow. In June, ATF Agent V nce Cefa u, who he ped to pub c ze Fast and Fur ous, was served w th term nat on papers, n a move by the agency he descr bed as po t ca y mot vated reta at on. He had been at odds w th ATF management s nce he f ed a comp a nt over tact cs n an unre ated case n 2005. The ATF den ed that the f r ng was reta at on, and Cefa u s term nat on etter noted that he eaked documents to the Internet and showed a “ ack of candor” n other operat ons. [81] On June 14, 2011, a pre m nary o nt staff report was re eased by Representat ve Issa and Senator Grass ey. [11] Among the f nd ngs: agents were to d to stand down rather than nterd ct weapons, they comp a ned about the strategy and were gnored, and Fast and Fur ous ed to ncreased v o ence and death n Mex co. [82] Agents were pan cked, certa n that “someone was go ng to d e.”[83] Representat ve Issa cont nued to ho d hear ngs n June and Ju y where ATF off c a s based n Phoen x and Mex co, and at headquarters n Wash ngton, test f ed before the comm ttee. [84] ATF agent John Dodson stated that he and other agents were ordered to observe the act v t es of gun smugg ers but not to ntervene. He test f ed: [85][86] Over the course of the next 10 months that I was nvo ved n th s operat on, we mon tored as they purchased hand guns, AK-47 var ants, and .50 ca berr f es a most da y. Rather than conduct any enforcement act ons, we took notes, we recorded observat ons, we tracked movements of these nd v dua s for a short t me after the r purchases, but noth ng more. Know ng a the wh e, ust days after these purchases, the guns that we saw these nd v dua s buy wou d beg n turn ng up at cr me scenes n the Un ted States and Mex co, we st d d noth ng. … I cannot beg n to th nk of how the r sk of ett ng guns fa nto the hands of known cr m na s cou d poss b y advance any eg t mate aw enforcement nterest. A second o nt staff report was re eased by the Repub cans on Ju y 26. [41] In August, three mportant Fast and Fur ous superv sors were transferred to new management pos t ons at ATF headquarters n Wash ngton: W am Newe and Dav d Voth, f e d superv sors who oversaw the program from Phoen x, and W am McMahon, an ATF deputy d rector of operat ons. The transfers were n t a y reported as promot ons by the Los Ange es T mes, but the ATF stated that they d d not rece ve ra ses or take on greater respons b t es. [70][87] In ate August, t was announced that Act ng ATF D rector Me son had been reass gned to the Just ce Department, and U.S. Attorney Burke announced h s res gnat on after be ng quest oned by Congress ona nvest gators ear er that month. [88] In October, documents show ng that Attorney Genera Ho der s off ce had been sent br ef ngs on Fast and Fur ous as ear y as Ju y 2010, prompted quest ons about h s May statement that he wasn t sure of the exact date, but had known about t for on y a few weeks. The br ef ngs were from the Nat ona Drug Inte gence Center andAss stant Attorney Genera Lanny Breuer. The Just ce Department sa d that those br ef ngs were about a d fferent case started before Ho der became Attorney Genera , and that wh e he had known about Fast and Fur ous, he d dn t know the deta s of the tact cs be ng used. [80] On October 31, 2011, after the re ease of subpoenaed documents, Ass stant Attorney Genera Lanny Breuer stated he found out about gunwa k ng n Operat on W de Rece ver n Apr 2010, and that he w shed he had a erted the deputy or the attorney genera at the t me. [89][90] The fo ow ng day, n test mony before the Senate Jud c a Comm ttee n a hear ng on Internat ona Organ zed Cr me, when asked f he had rev ewed the etter before t was sent to Senator Char es Grass ey on February 4, 2011 deny ng gunwa k ng, Breuer rep ed, “I cannot say for sure whether I saw a draft of the etter that was sent to you. What I can te you, Senator, s that at that t me I was n Mex co dea ng w th the very rea ssues that we re a so comm tted to.”[91] On November 8, Ho der stated for the f rst t me n Congress ona test mony that “gunwa k ng” was used n Fast and Fur ous. He remarked that the tact c s unacceptab e, and that the operat on was “f awed n ts concept and f awed n ts execut on.” He further stated that h s off ce had naccurate y descr bed the program n prev ous etters sent to Congress, but that th s was un ntent ona . Re terat ng prev ous test mony, he sa d that he and other top off c a s had been unaware that the “gunwa k ng” tact c was be ng used. Ho der stated that h s staff had not showed h m memos about the program, not ng, “There s noth ng n any of those memos that nd cates any of those nappropr ate tact cs that are of concern. Those th ngs were not brought to my attent on, and my staff, I th nk, made the correct dec s on n that regard.”[78][92][93] That same month, ex-US Attorney Burke adm tted to eak ng sens t ve documents about ATF agent and wh st eb ower Dodson. Senator Grass ey expressed concern that the Just ce Department was us ng Burke as a scapegoat to protect h gher off c a s and vowed to cont nue h s probe. [94] On December 2, 2011, the Just ce Department forma y w thdrew ts statement from February 4, 2011 deny ng gunwa k ng due to naccurac es. [95] Later that month, documents showed that some ATF agents d scussed us ng Fast and Fur ous to prov de anecdota cases to support controvers a new ru es about gun sa es. The regu at on, ca ed Demand Letter 3, wou d requ re 8,500 f rearms dea ers n Ar zona, Ca forn a, New Mex co and Texas that “have a s gn f cant number of cr me guns traced back to them from Mex co” to report mu t p e r f e sa es. [96] 2012 Invest gat ons by Congress and the DOJ Inspector Genera cont nued nto 2012. In January, Patr ck Cunn ngham, who was the cr m na d v s on ch ef at the Phoen x off ce of the U.S. Attorney s Off ce for the D str ct of Ar zona and has s nce res gned, asserted h s nnocence and h s const tut ona r ght aga nst se f- ncr m nat on to avo d test fy ng. [97] Cunn ngham worked d rect y under Burke dur ng Fast and Fur ous. He was subpoenaed because of the ro e he m ght have p ayed n the operat on, and n the etter sent from the DOJ to Senator Grass ey n February 2011 that c a med the ATF d d not a ow weapons to be traff cked to Mex co. [98] On January 31, 2012, Democrats on the House Overs ght and Government Reform Comm ttee re eased a report t t ed, “Fata y F awed: F ve Years of Gunwa k ng n Ar zona”. [36] The report conc uded that there was no ev dence of nvo vement by h gh-rank ng appo ntees at the Just ce Department n “gunwa k ng.” Rather, Operat on Fast and Fur ous was ust one of four such operat ons conducted over f ve years dur ng the Bush and Obama adm n strat ons, and was on y “the atest n a ser es of fata y f awed operat ons run by ATF agents n Phoen x and the Ar zona U.S. Attorney s Off ce.”[99] In May, t was reported that the Department of Home and Secur ty (DHS) Off ce of Inspector Genera had begun to nvest gate Fast and Fur ous, w th a report expected n October. The DHS had Imm grat on and Customs Enforcement agents ass gned to the operat on after becom ng nvo ved n ate 2009. [100] On May 3, 2012, Congressman Issa re eased a etter to the Comm ttee on Overs ght and Government Reform that nc uded a draft of a reso ut on to ho d Attorney Genera Ho der n contempt. [101] In the etter, Issa descr bed the connect on between Operat on Fast and Fur ous and the OCDETF program s nce at east January 2009, wh ch wou d nvo ve mu t p e execut ve agenc es nc ud ng the ATF, DOJ, DEA, FBI, ICE, and DHS. He quest oned how, why, or f overs ght by h gh eve Just ce Department d d not occur n such an mportant case. He further descr bed the trag c death of Br an Terry, the wh st eb owers and the r m streatment, and the damage the operat on had to US-Mex co re at ons. On June 7, 2012, under the threat of be ng he d n contempt of Congress for not turn ng over add t ona requested documents, Attorney Genera Ho der appeared at h s seventh Congress ona hear ng, where he cont nued to deny know edge of “gunwa k ng” by h gh- eve off c a s. By then, the Just ce Department had turned over more than 7,000 pages of documents. [102] Dur ng the June 12, 2012, Senate hear ng, Er c Ho der stated, “If you want to ta k about Fast and Fur ous, I m the Attorney Genera that put an end to the m sgu ded tact cs that were used n Fast and Fur ous. An Attorney Genera who I suppose you wou d ho d n h gher regard was br efed on these k nds of tact cs n an operat on ca ed W de Rece ver and d d noth ng to stop them—noth ng. Three hundred guns, at east, wa ked n that nstance.” Ho der c ted a br ef ng paper on “W de Rece ver”; the DOJ Off ce of Leg s at ve Affa rs ater c ar f ed that the br ef ng paper was about the F de Hernandez case, prepared for Ho der s predecessor, U.S. Attorney Genera M chae Mukasey before h s meet ng w th Mex can Attorney Genera Mora on November 16, 2007. [35] The Hernandez Case had ended October 6, 2007, [103]before Mukasey entered off ce November 9, 2007. [104] The off ce further exp a ned, “As Attorney Genera Ho der a so noted n h s test mony, and as we have set forth n pr or correspondence and test mony, he took measures and nst tuted a ser es of mportant reforms des gned to ensure that the nappropr ate tact cs used n Fast and Fur ous, W de Rece ver, Hernandez, and other matters about wh ch the Department has nformed Congress are not repeated.”[35] The ater DOJ OIG nvest gat on conc uded “Attorney Genera Mukasey was not br efed about Operat on W de Rece ver or gun “wa k ng,” but on a d fferent and trad t ona aw enforcement tact c that was emp oyed n a d fferent case.”[1] On June 20, the House Overs ght and Government Reform Comm ttee voted a ong party nes to recommend that Ho der be he d n contempt. At ssue were 1,300 pages of documents that had not been turned over to Congress by the DOJ. Ear er that day, Pres dent Obama had nvoked execut ve pr v ege over those documents, mark ng the f rst t me the pr v ege has been asserted dur ng h s pres dency. [21] [22] Issa contends that the Obama execut ve pr v ege c a m s a cover-up or an obstruct on to the congress ona probe. Issa sa d the department has dent f ed “140,000 pages of documents and

commun cat ons respons ve to the comm ttee s subpoena.”[105] On Thursday, June 28, 2012, Ho der became the f rst s tt ng member of the Cab net of the Un ted States to be he d n cr m na contempt of Congress by the House of Representat ves for refus ng to d sc ose nterna Just ce Department documents n response to a subpoena. The vote was 255–67 n favor, w th 17 Democrats vot ng yes and a arge number of Democrats wa k ng off the f oor n protest and refus ng to vote. A c v contempt measure was a so voted on and passed, 258–95. The c v contempt vote a ows the House Comm ttee on Overs ght and Government Reform to go to court w th a c v awsu t to ook nto the US Just ce Department s refusa to turn over some of the subpoenaed documents and to test Obama s assert on of execut ve pr v ege. Ho der d sm ssed the votes as “the regrettab e cu m nat on of what became a m sgu ded—and po t ca y mot vated— nvest gat on dur ng an e ect on year,” and the Wh te House ca ed t “po t ca theater rather than eg t mate congress ona overs ght.”[19][20] The Nat ona R f e Assoc at on controvers a y obb ed for Ho der to be he d n contempt. [106][107][108][109][110][111] In June 2012, a s x-month ong nvest gat on by Fortune magaz ne stated that the ATF never ntent ona y a owed guns to fa nto the hands of Mex can drug carte s, n contrast to most other reports. Agents nterv ewed dur ng the nvest gat on repeated y asserted that on y one so ated nc dent of “gunwa k ng” ever occurred, and was performed ndependent y by ATF Agent John Dodson (who ater appeared on CBS News as a wh st eb ower to denounce the gunwa k ng scanda ) as part of an unauthor zed so o act on outs de the arger Fast and Fur ous operat on. [47] On Ju y 31, the f rst part of a new three-part report, Fast and Fur ous: The Anatomy of a Fa ed Operat on, [37] was re eased by Repub can awmakers. The report s ng ed out f ve ATF superv sors for respons b ty n Fast and Fur ous, a of whom had been prev ous y reass gned. The report a so sa d that Fast and Fur ous resu ted from a change n strategy by the Obama Adm n strat on. The Just ce Department was d sm ss ve of the report, say ng that t conta ned “d stort ons” and “debunked consp racy theor es,” and that “gunwa k ng” tact cs dated back to 2006. [112] DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schma er, wh e cr t ca of the report, d d cred t t for acknow edg ng that the dea for “gun wa k ng”—a ow ng ega sa es of weapons on the border—or g nated under the Repub can adm n strat on before Er c Ho der took off ce n 2009. Schma er noted that Ho der moved sw ft y to rep ace the ATF s management and nst reforms. [113] On the same day, ATF Deputy D rector W am Hoover, who was one of the f ve b amed n the Congress ona report, off c a y ret red. [114] The report nc uded an append x d sput ng c a ms n the Fortune art c e. [53]Fo ow ng ts pub cat on, Dodson s awyer wrote the manag ng ed tor of Fortune stat ng the art c e was “demonstrab y fa se” and that a retract on was n order. [115] AfterFortune d d not retract the art c e, Dodson sued for be on October 12, 2012. [116][117] On September 19, [118] the Department of Just ce Inspector Genera M chae Horow tz pub c y re eased a 471-page report [1] deta ng the resu ts of the Just ce Department s own nterna nvest gat ons. The Inspector Genera s report, wh ch had access to ev dence and nterv ews w th w tnesses not perm tted n prev ous Congress ona reports, recommended 14 federa off c a s for d sc p nary act on, rang ng from ATF agents to federa prosecutors nvo ved n the Fast and Fur ous operat on. [118] It found “no ev dence” that Attorney Genera Ho der knew about Fast and Fur ous before ear y 2011. [119] It found no ev dence that prev ous Attorneys Genera had been adv sed about gunwa k ng n Operat on W de Rece ver. [1] Wh e the OIG report found no ev dence that h gher off c a s at the Just ce Department n Wash ngton had author zed or approved of the tact cs used n the Fast and Fur ous nvest gat ons, t d d fau t 14 ower off c a s for re ated fa ures, nc ud ng fa ures to take note of “red f ags” uncovered by the nvest gat on, as we as fa ures to fo ow up on nformat on produced through Operat on Fast and Fur ous and ts predecessor, Operat on W de Rece ver. [118][120] The report a so noted ATF agents apparent frustrat ons over ega obstac es from the Phoen x Attorney s Off ce to prosecut ng suspected “straw-buyers,” wh e a so cr t c z ng the agents fa ure to qu ck y ntervene and nterd ct weapons obta ned by ow- eve suspects n the case. [118] The 14 Just ce Department emp oyees were referred for poss b e nterna d sc p ne. The Just ce Department s Cr m na D v s on head Lanny Breuer, an Obama adm n strat on pres dent a appo ntee, was c ted for not a ert ng h s bosses n 2010 to the f aws of Operat on W de Rece ver. [121] Deputy Ass stant Attorney Genera Jason We nste n, who was respons b e for author z ng a port on of the w retap app cat ons n Operat on Fast and Fur ous and fau ted n the report for not dent fy ng the gunwa k ng tact cs, res gned on the day of the report. [122] On December 4, 2012, the ATF Profess ona Rev ew Board de vered ts recommendat ons to h gh- eve ATF managers, who w dec de whether to accept them. The recommendat ons nc uded f r ng W am McMahon, ATF Deputy Ass stant D rector; Mark Cha t, ATF Ass stant D rector for F e d Operat ons; W am Newe , Phoen x ATF Spec a Agent n Charge; and George G ett, Newe s second n command. Two add t ona ATF emp oyees, Phoen x superv sor Dav d Voth and ead agent Hope McA ster, rece ved recommendat ons for demot on and d sc p nary transfer to another ATF post, respect ve y. [123][124] It was reported the next day that McMahon had been f red. It was a so announced that Gary Gr nd er, Er c Ho der s ch ef of staff who was fau ted n the OIG report, wou d be eav ng the Just ce Department. [120] Later that month, the fam y of Br an Terry sued seven government off c a s and a gun shop nvo ved n Operat on Fast and Fur ous for neg gence and wrongfu death. [125] 2013 Agent John Dodson s book on h s exper ences n Operat on Fast and Fur ous was re eased by S mon and Schuster on December 3, 2013. [126]

Related criminal prosecutions On Ju y 9, 2012, an nd ctment charg ng f ve men n the death of U.S. Border Patro Agent Br an Terry was unsea ed. The FBI offered a reward of $250,000 per fug t ve for nformat on ead ng to the r arrests. The nd ctment, or g na y handed up on November 7, 2011, charges Manue Osor o-Are anes, Jesus Rosar o Fave a-Astorga, Ivan Soto-Barraza, Herac o Osor o-Are anes and L one Port o-Meza w th f rstdegree murder, second-degree murder, and other cr mes. [127][128] Manue Osor o-Are anes p ed gu ty to avo d the death pena ty and s expected to be sentenced n March 2013. As of December 12, 2012, another of the suspects s n custody, and three rema n fug t ves. [129] On October 15, 2012, Danny Cruz Morones, one of the twenty nd v dua s nd cted as a resu t of Fast and Fur ous, was sentenced to 57 months n pr son. He was the f rst of the twenty to be sentenced. He p ed gu ty to straw purchas ng and recru t ng others to buy guns. Accord ng to prosecutors, he bought 27 AK-47s, and h s recru ts bought dozens more. [130] On December 12, Ja me Av a, Jr. rece ved the max mum pena ty of 57 months n pr son for gun dea ng and consp racy. He p ed gu ty after two AK-47 type r f es purchased by h m were found at the scene of Border Patro Agent Br an Terry s death. Federa prosecutors stated that, n add t on to gun traff ck ng, he had recru ted others to do the same. He was under ATF surve ance at the t me. [129]

Mexican reactions As more nformat on on Operat ons Fast and Fur ous and W de Rece ver was revea ed n 2011, Mex can off c a s, po t ca commentators and med a reacted w th anger. [131] Mex can off c a s stated n September that the U.S. government st had not br efed them on what went wrong nor had they apo og zed. [132] Due to severa fa ed attempts at coord nat ng w th Mex can aw enforcement n the apprehens on of suspected arms traff ckers n the W de Rece ver and Hernandez cases, [36] and concerns about w despread corrupt on, deta s of Operat on Fast and Fur ous were not shared w th Mex can government off c a s, and they were de berate y kept out of the oop after re ated f rearms began turn ng up at cr me scenes and n cr m na arsena s n 2010. The U.S. Embassy n Mex co and the ATF Mex co C ty Off ce (MCO) were a so kept n the dark. Accord ng to Attorney Genera of Mex co Mar se a Mora es, the Mex can government was to d about the undercover program n January 2011, but they were not prov ded deta s at the t me. [132] Mora es stated, “At no t me d d we know or were we made aware that there m ght have been arms traff ck ng perm tted. In no way wou d we have a owed t, because t s an attack on the safety of Mex cans.” In add t on, she expressed that a ow ng weapons to “wa k” wou d represent a “betraya ” of Mex co. [132] Mora es sa d that her off ce wou d search “to the end” n order to c ar fy what happened n Fast and Fur ous. [133] In November 2011, t was reported that the Mex can Attorney Genera s off ce was seek ng the extrad t on of s x c t zens of the Un ted States mp cated w th smugg ng weapons. [134] Mex can Senator Arturo Escobar stated after hear ng about Operat on W de Rece ver, “We can no onger to erate what s occurr ng. There must be condemnat on from the state,” and that the Mex can Senate condemned the act ons of the ATF. [131][135][136] Jorge Car os Ramírez Marín, pres dent of the Chamber of Deput es of Mex co from the Inst tut ona Revo ut onary Party, sa d “Th s s a ser ous v o at on of nternat ona aw. What happens f next t me they need to ntroduce tra ned assass ns or nuc ear weapons?”[137] Ch huahua state prosecutor Patr c a Gonza ez, who had worked c ose y w th the US for years, sa d, “The bas c nept tude of these off c a s [who ordered the Fast and Fur ous operat on] caused the death of my brother and sure y thousands more v ct ms.” Her brother, Mar o, had been k dnapped, tortured and k ed by carte h t men n fa 2010. Later, two AK-47 r f es found among the severa weapons recovered after a gunf ght between po ce and carte members were traced to the Fast and Fur ous program. [2][132] Mex can Congressman Humberto Benítez Trev ño, a former attorney genera , ca ed Fast and Fur ous “a bad bus ness that got out of hand.”[132] He had a so character zed t as “an undercover program that wasn t proper y contro ed.”[137] L ke many po t c ans, Mex can pund ts across the po t ca spectrum expressed anger at news of both operat ons. La Jornada, a eft- ean ng newspaper, asked “US: a y or enemy?”[138] The paper a so argued that after news about W de Rece ver, the Mér da In t at ve shou d be mmed ate y suspended. A r ght- ean ng paper accused the US of v o at ng Mex can sovere gnty. Manue J. Jauregu of the Reforma newspaper wrote, “In sum, the gr ngo (Amer can) government has been send ng weapons to Mex co n a premed tated and systemat c manner, know ng that the r dest nat ons were Mex can cr m na organ zat ons.”[131]

See also Mex can Drug War Mér da In t at ve

References 1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u “A Rev ew of ATF s Operat on Fast and Fur ous and Re ated Matters”. U.S. Department of Just ce Off ce of the Inspector Genera . November 2012. Retr eved 6 February 2013. 2. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Jonsson, Patr k. “How Mex can k ers got US guns from Fast and Fur ous operat on”. The Chr st an Sc ence Mon tor. Retr eved October 16, 2011. 3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Horw tz, Sar (Ju y 27, 2011). “A gunrunn ng st ng gone fata y wrong”. The Wash ngton Post. Retr eved October 23, 2011. 4. ^ Jump up to: a b c d “AP Exc us ve: Second Bush-Era Gun-Smugg ng Probe”. Assoc ated Press. October 14, 2011. Retr eved December 8, 2011. 5. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Savage, Char e (Ju y 26, 2011). “Agent Who Superv sed Gun-Traff ck ng Operat on Test f es on H s Fa ngs”. New York T mes. Retr eved October 16, 2011. 6. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Serrano, R chard (October 3, 2011). “Ema s show top Just ce Department off c a s knew of ATF gun program”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved October 16, 2011. 7. Jump up^ “ATF Fact Sheet – Pro ect Gunrunner”. ATF. Retr eved October 16, 2011. 8. ^ Jump up to: a b “Congress start ng ATF “gunwa ker scanda ” probe”. CBS News. Retr eved October 24, 2011. 9. Jump up^ Attk sson, Shary . “Attorney Genera Ho der subpoenaed for documents n ATF Gunwa ker Fast and Fur ous case”. CBS News. Retr eved October 24, 2011. [dead nk]

10. ^ Jump up to: a b Jason Ryan, “Documents H gh ght Bush-Era Inc dent Pre-Dat ng Fast and Fur ous “, ABC News, October 14, 2011.

11. ^ Jump up to: a b c The Department of Just ce s Operat on Fast and Fur ous: Accounts of ATF Agents, JOINT STAFF REPORT, Prepared for Rep. Darre E. Issa and Senator Char es E. Grass ey, 112th Congress, June 14, 2011.

12. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Ste er, T m (October 12, 2011). “Newe s ro e, Mex co s part c pat on and more on ATF s Tucson operat on”. Ar zona Da y Star. Retr eved October 24, 2011.

13. Jump up^ Shary Attk sson, “Gun shop owner expressed concerns ear y on n “gunwa ker” scanda ”, CBS News Invest gates, Apr 14, 2011 1:19 pm.

14. ^ Jump up to: a b c Letter from Senator Char es Grasse ey to Attorney Genera Er c Ho der, Apr 13, 2011, on e-ma s between “Cooperat ng FFL” and ATF Dav d Voth.

15. ^ Jump up to: a b Yost, Pete. “2007 Just ce memo ment oned gun-wa k ng probe”. Yahoo! News. Retr eved June 20, 2012.

16. Jump up^ Shary Attk nsson, “Gunrunn ng scanda uncovered at the ATF”, CBS Even ng News, February 23, 2011.

17. Jump up^ “memo Feb 3, 2011 to ATF SAC Da as from Gary M. Steyers, ATF SA Lubbock.” (PDF). Retr eved 2012-07-14.

18. Jump up^ Murphy, K m (March 11, 2011). “Mex co demands answers on guns”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved June 26, 2012.

19. ^ Jump up to: a b “House ho ds Ho der n contempt”. CNN.com. June 28, 2012.

20. ^ Jump up to: a b House F nds Ho der n Contempt Over Inqu ry on Guns; New York T mes; Jonathan We sman and Char e Savage; June 28, 2012

21. ^ Jump up to: a b Jackson, Dav d (June 20, 2012). “Obama c a ms execut ve pr v ege; Ho der he d n contempt”. USA Today. Retr eved 22 June 2012.

22. ^ Jump up to: a b Dwyer, Dev n; Park nson, John R. (June 20, 2012). “Comm ttee Votes Attorney Genera Er c Ho der n Contempt of Congress After Obama Asserts Execut ve Pr v ege”. ABC News. Retr eved 22 June 2012.

23. ^ Jump up to: a b Yost, Pete (October 5, 2011). “AP sources: Bush-era probe nvo ved guns wa k ng ”. The Seatt e T mes. Assoc ated Press. Retr eved June 25, 2012.

24. ^ Jump up to: a b c “Gun Traff ck ng and the Southwest Border”. Congress ona Research Serv ce. September 21, 2009.

25. Jump up^ Un ted States Government Accountab ty Off ce (June 2009). “F rearms Traff ck ng: U.S. Efforts to Combat Arms Traff ck ng to Mex co Face P ann ng and Coord nat on Cha enges”. p. 29. Retr eved 28 June 2012. “Wh e straw purchas ng s not n tse f ega , t s ega to ntent ona y prov de fa se nformat on n connect on w th the acqu s t on of a f rearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). See a so U.S. v. Moore, 109 F.3d 1456, 1460-63 (9th C r. 1997) (exp a n ng the straw man doctr ne and app y ng t to a factua case).”

26. Jump up^ “Two San Juan res dents get federa pr son t me for f rearms straw purchases”, YourVa eyVo ce.com, McA en Texas, January 18, 2012.

27. Jump up^ “10 Sentenced for Invo vement n Straw Purchase and Export R ng”, USAO Southern D str ct of Texas press re ease, March 1, 2012.

28. Jump up^ Arr aga, Pau ne (Ju y 30, 2011). “What Led to Pro ect Gunwa ker ?”. ABC News. Retr eved October 24, 2011.

29. Jump up^ “The Department of Just ce s Operat on Fast and Fur ous: Accounts of ATF Agents” Jo nt Staff Report Prepared for Rep. Darre E. Issa and Senator Char es E. Grass ey, 112th Congress, June 14, 2011.

30. ^ Jump up to: a b “Informant: ATF “gun wa k ng” went on for years”. CBS news. Retr eved October 16, 2011.

31. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Barrett, Pau . “The Guns That Got Away”. B oomberg Bus nessweek. Retr eved December 21, 2011.

32. ^ Jump up to: a b Horw tz, Sar (October 7, 2011). “Ear er ATF gun operat on W de Rece ver used same tact cs as Fast and Fur ous ”. The Wash ngton Post. Retr eved October 16, 2011.

33. Jump up^ Attk sson, Shary . “Documents po nt to ATF “gun runn ng” s nce 2008². CBS News. Retr eved January 7, 2012.

34. Jump up^ “ATF Ema s D scuss Bush-Era Gun Wa k ng Program”. Ta k ng Po nts Memo. Retr eved October 16, 2011.

35. ^ Jump up to: a b c Letters of 14 Jun 2012 from Senator Char es E. Grass ey to U.S. Attorney Genera Er c H. Ho der, Jr. and 18 Jun 2012 from U.S. DOJ Off ce of Leg s at ve Affa rs to Senator Char es E. Grass ey. [dead nk]

36. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Fata y F awed: F ve Years of Gunwa k ng n Ar zona (Report of the M nor ty Staff, Rep. E ah E. Cumm ngs, Rank ng Member; Comm ttee on Overs ght and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representat ves, January 2012)

37. ^ Jump up to: a b “Fast and Fur ous: The Anatomy of a Fa ed Operat on”. Un ted States Congress. Retr eved 3 August 2012.

38. Jump up^ “Department of Just ce Carte Strategy, October 2009”. The Wash ngton Post. Retr eved October 23, 2011.

39. Jump up^ “Jud c a Watch Sues Department of Just ce and ATF for Documents Perta n ng to ATF s “Fast and Fur ous” Gun-Runn ng Operat on”. Jud c a Watch. Retr eved October 24, 2011.

40. Jump up^ Serrano, R chard (August 11, 2011). “ATF s gun surve ance program showed ear y s gns of fa ure”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved October 24, 2011.

41. ^ Jump up to: a b c “The Department of Just ce s Operat on Fast and Fur ous: Fue ng Carte V o ence”. Un ted States Congress. Retr eved January 15, 2012.

42. Jump up^ Statement of M chae E. Horow tz, Inspector Genera , before the House Comm ttee on Overs ght and Government Reform, 20 Sep 2012.

43. Jump up^ Savage, Char e (August 30, 2011). “Gun Inqu ry Costs Off c a s The r Jobs”.The New York T mes. Retr eved October 24, 2011.

44. Jump up^ Char es Grass ey, “Char es Grass ey Congress ona test mony documents”U.S. House of Representat ves Comm ttee on Overs ght and Government Reform, June 15, 2011.

45. ^ Jump up to: a b c Darre Issa, “Update on Operat on Fast and Fur ous” House of Representat ves Comm ttee on Overs ght and Government Reform, May 3, 2012.

46. Jump up^ Savage, Char e (Ju y 18, 2011). “Facts Sought on D.E.A. Informants”. The New York T mes. Retr eved October 24, 2011.

47. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Kather ne Eban, “The truth about the Fast and Fur ous scanda ”, Fortune Magaz ne, June 27, 2012.

48. Jump up^ R chard A. Serrano, “Drug ords targeted by Fast and Fur ous were FBI nformants” Los Ange es T mes, March 21, 2012.

49. Jump up^ R chard A. Serrano, “ Fast and Fur ous probe: Ch ef suspect re eased more than once” Los Ange es T mes, March 22, 2012.

50. Jump up^ R chard A. Serrano, “Informant he ped smugg e guns to Mex co, nvest gators say” Los Ange es T mes, September 27, 2011.

51. Jump up^ W am La Jeunesse, “Ma n suspect n Operat on Fast and Fur ous arrested tw ce before, report shows Fox News, Apr 14, 2012.

52. Jump up^ Carr e Johnson, “Ema s Show How Fast And Fur ous Ambush News Unfo ded At Just ce Dept.” NPR, January 27, 2012.

53. ^ Jump up to: a b Jo nt Staff Report Part I Append x III PDF “The Who e Truth About the Fast and Fur ous Scanda ”, 7-31-12.

54. Jump up^ Serrano, R chard A. (September 11, 2011). “Gun store owner had m sg v ngs about ATF st ng”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved 23 June 2012.

55. Jump up^ “200 mex canos mur eron por armas de Ráp do y Fur oso : congres sta de EU”.CNN Mex co. October 28, 2011.

56. Jump up^ “Er c Ho der: Effects of Fast and Fur ous w nger”. Po t co LLC. November 7, 2011. Retr eved November 8, 2011.

57. Jump up^ Fr eden, Terry (November 7, 2011). “E gob erno de EU adm te que p erde a bata a contra e tráf co de armas”. CNN Mex co. Retr eved November 8, 2011.

58. Jump up^ Longbottom, W (October 13, 2011). “U.S. Attorney Genera ssued w th subpoena n probe over Fast and Fur ous gun traff ck ng”. Da y Ma (London). Retr eved October 24, 2011.

59. Jump up^ Serrano, R chard (October 8, 2011). “Fast and Fur ous weapons were found n Mex co carte enforcer s home”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved October 24, 2011.

60. Jump up^ Ugarte, Marco (February 4, 2012). “Mex co arrested Jose Anton o Torres Marrufo, the reputed enforcer for the S na oa drug carte .”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved Apr 23, 2012.

61. Jump up^ Serrano, R chard (Ju y 17, 2011). “Fam y of U.S. agent s a n n Mex co demands to know gun source”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved November 15, 2011.

62. Jump up^ Carro , Susan. “S a n ICE agent s fam y st search ng for answers”. The Houston Chron c e. Retr eved November 15, 2011.

63. ^ Jump up to: a b Perez-Trev no, Emma. “Straw purchaser of guns p eads gu ty n Da as; defendant nked to Zapata death”. The Brownsv e Hera d. Retr eved November 15, 2011.

64. Jump up^ “Phoen x F e d D v s on”. ATF. Retr eved November 15, 2011.

65. Jump up^ T tus, E zabeth. “Cornyn Presses Ho der on A eged Texas Operat on”. The Texas Tr bune. Retr eved November 15, 2011.

66. Jump up^ “T me ne of “Baytown Crew” case.” (PDF). CBS News. Retr eved 2012-07-14.

67. Jump up^ Shary Attk sson, “Second gun used n ICE agent murder nked to ATF undercover operat on”, CBS News, February 22, 2012.

68. Jump up^ Attk sson, Shary (19 December 2012). “P sto purchased by ATF agent found at a eged carte cr me scene n Mex co”. CBS News. Retr eved 14 January 2013.

69. Jump up^ Attk sson, Shary (18 December 2012). “Fast and Fur ous gun found at Mex can cr me scene”. CBS News. Retr eved 14 January 2013.

70. ^ Jump up to: a b Serrano, R chard (August 16, 2011). “Superv sors n ATF gun operat on are promoted”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved January 13, 2012.

71. Jump up^ Wagner, Denn s. “Phoen x-area gun store, ATF st ng may be nked to shootout”. The Ar zona Repub c. Retr eved December 25, 2011.

72. Jump up^ Lott, Max m (February 2, 2011). “Senator Ca s ATF on A egat ons Agency Is A ow ng Guns Into Mex co”. Fox News. Retr eved January 12, 2012.

73. Jump up^ Sa ant, Jonathan (December 2, 2011). “Erroneous Gun Letter Based on U.S. Attorney, Documents Show”. B oomberg. Retr eved January 13, 2012.

74. Jump up^ We ch, Rona d. “Jud c ary ATF 02-04-11 etter from DOJ deny a egat ons”. Un ted States Senate. Retr eved January 13, 2012.

75. Jump up^ Serrano, R chard (December 24, 2011). “Angry former ATF ch ef b ames subord nates for Fast and Fur ous”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved January 12, 2012.

76. Jump up^ Attk sson, Shary . “Obama on “gunwa k ng”: Ser ous m stake may have been made”. CBS News. Retr eved January 13, 2012. [dead nk]

77. Jump up^ Attorney Genera Er c Ho der Test mony Before the House Jud c ary Comm ttee; CSPAN; May 3, 2011.

78. ^ Jump up to: a b Hennessey, Kath een (November 9, 2011). “Senate gr s Ho der on Fast and Fur ous gun-traff ck ng st ng”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved November 9, 2011.

79. Jump up^ Attk sson, Shary . “Attorney Genera Er c Ho der gr ed by Congress on ATF “Gunwa ker” controversy”. CBS News. Retr eved January 7, 2012. [dead nk]

80. ^ Jump up to: a b Attk sson, Shary . “ATF Fast and Fur ous: New documents show Attorney Genera Er c Ho der was br efed n Ju y 2010”. CBS News. Retr eved January 7, 2012. [dead nk]

81. Jump up^ Lott, Max m (June 27, 2011). “ Pro ect Gunrunner Wh st eb ower Says ATF Sent H m Term nat on Not ce”. Fox News. Retr eved Ju y 26, 2011.

82. Jump up^ La eunesse, W am (June 15, 2011). “House Pane Re eases Scath ng Report on Fast and Fur ous Gun Operat on, Sure to Anger Mex co”. Fox News. Retr eved January 13, 2012.

83. Jump up^ Murphy, K m (June 14, 2011). “Report descr bes gun agents state of pan c ”.Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved January 13, 2012.

84. Jump up^ La Jeunesse, W am (June 10, 2011). “Just ce Off c a s n Pan c Mode as Hear ng Nears on Fa ed Ant -Gun Traff ck ng Program”. Fox News. Retr eved January 13, 2012.

85. Jump up^ Johnson, Kev n (June 16, 2011). “ATF agent ca s gun-track ng program a d saster ”. USA Today. Retr eved January 13, 2012.

86. Jump up^ Ho ub, Hugh. “Statement of John Dodson about ATF gunwa ker scanda : “The very dea of ett ng guns wa k s unth nkab e to most aw enforcement.””. Tucson C t zen. Retr eved January 13, 2012.

87. Jump up^ Serrano, R chard (August 17, 2011). “ATF den es t promoted Fast and Fur ous superv sors”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved January 13, 2012.

88. Jump up^ Attk sson, Shary . “Gunwa ker scanda : ATF d rector out of top ob”. CBS News. Retr eved January 7, 2012. [dead nk]

89. Jump up^ Terry Fr eden, Top Just ce off c a expresses regret for fa ure to warn on gun wa k ng CNN, November 1, 2011.

90. Jump up^ Carr e Johnson, “Off c a Adm ts M stake In Gun-Traff ck ng Case” NPR, November 1, 2011.

91. Jump up^ “Senate Comm ttee Hear ng on Internat ona Organ zed Cr me” CSPAN, November 1, 2011.

92. Jump up^ Attk sson, Shary . “Er c Ho der ca s “gunwa k ng” unacceptab e, regrets tact c as part of Fast and Fur ous”. CBS News. Retr eved January 7, 2012.

93. Jump up^ “Ho der ema s” (PDF). Retr eved 2012-07-14.

94. Jump up^ Denn s Wagner, “Ex-U.S. Attorney Burke adm ts to eak ng wh st e-b ower s records” The Ar zona Repub c, November 10, 2011.

95. Jump up^ Carr e Johnson, “Just ce W thdraws Inaccurate Fast And Fur ous Letter It Sent To Congress” NPR, December 2, 2011.

96. Jump up^ Shary Attk sson, “Documents: ATF used “Fast and Fur ous” to make the case for gun regu at ons”, CBS News, December 7, 2011.

97. Jump up^ Savage, Char e (January 31, 2012). “Report by House Democrats Abso ves Adm n strat on n Gun Traff ck ng Case”. The New York T mes. Retr eved January 31, 2012.

98. Jump up^ Yager, Jordy. “Federa off cer nvokes F fth n Fast and Fur ous nvest gat on”. The H . Retr eved January 22, 2012.

99. Jump up^ Yost, Pete (February 1, 2012). “Dems: Fast & Fur ous ust 1 of 4 m sgu ded probes”. Assoc ated Press. Retr eved March 11, 2012.

00. Jump up^ Attk sson, Shary (May 22, 2012). “Home and Secur ty IG Invest gates Fast and Fur ous”. CBS News. Retr eved 5 August 2012.

01. Jump up^ http://overs ght.house.gov/wp-content/up oads/2012/05/Update-on-Fast-and-Fur ous-w th-attachment-FINAL.pdf

02. Jump up^ Fr eden, Terry (June 7, 2012). “Ho der re ects GOP assert ons on Fast and Fur ous at House hear ng”. CNN. Retr eved 22 June 2012.

03. Jump up^ “ATF Ema s D scuss Bush-Era Gun Wa k ng Program” Page 2 ema from W am Newe to Carson W. Carro 6 Oct 2007.

04. Jump up^ Laur e Ke man (AP), “Mukasey conf rmed as attorney genera ”, Wash ngton Post, November 9, 2007.

05. Jump up^ Issa: Obama execut ve pr v ege c a m s cover-up or obstruct on; Wash ngton T mes; June 26, 2012

06. Jump up^ NRA sends Democrats a message over Ho der contempt vote; CNN; Ju y 2, 2012

07. Jump up^ NRA Letter to the comm ttee – June 20; Nat ona R f e Assoc at on; June 20, 2012

08. Jump up^ “House votes to ho d attorney genera n contempt”. Fox News. June 28, 2012. Retr eved 29 June 2012.

09. Jump up^ Grant, Dav d (June 27, 2012). “Why NRA wants Congress to vote Attorney Genera Er c Ho der n contempt”. The Chr st an Sc ence Mon tor. Retr eved 29 June 2012.

10. Jump up^ Hoyer Cha enges Issa to Show E-Ma s; New York T mes; June 26, 2012

11. Jump up^ Issa s r ght: Tougher gun aws Fast and Fur ous goa ; Nat ona R f e Assoc at on; June 27, 2012

12. Jump up^ “Just ce Dept: Fast and Fur ous report d storted”. CBS News. August 1, 2012. Retr eved 3 August 2012. [dead nk]

13. Jump up^ Serrano, R chard A. (Ju y 31, 2012). “Just ce Department shrugs off Fast and Fur ous report”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved 3 August 2012.

14. Jump up^ Fr eden, Terry (August 2, 2012). “Deputy D rector W am Hoover res gns from ATF n wake of cr t ca report”. CNN. Retr eved 3 August 2012.

15. Jump up^ “Letter from Robert N. Dr sco to Andy Serwer re: The truth about the Fast and Fur ous scanda ”. Po t co. September 27, 2012. Retr eved 2014-06-25.

16. Jump up^ Dy an Byers, “Exc us ve: Fast and Fur ous wh st eb ower sues T me Inc. for be ”, Po t co, 24 Oct 2012.

17. Jump up^ “L be Comp a nt, John Dodson v T me Inc., 6:12-294-MGL”. Documentc oud.org. Retr eved 2014-06-25.

18. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Char e Savage, “Guns Inqu ry Urges Act on Aga nst 14 n Just ce Dept.”,New York T mes, 19 Sep 2012.

19. Jump up^ Kev n Johnson (September 19, 2012). “Rev ew: Ho der d d not know about Fast and Fur ous ”. USA Today.

20. ^ Jump up to: a b Attk sson, Shary (5 December 2012). “Heads ro after Fast and Fur ous nvest gat on”. CBS News. Retr eved 14 January 2013.

21. Jump up^ “Probe fau ts US agents over Mex co gunrunn ng”, A Jazeera, 20 Sep 2012.

22. Jump up^ Mary Jacoby, “Cr m na D v s on Deputy We nste n Res gns In Wake of Fast and Fur ous Report” Ma n Just ce, September 19, 2012.

23. Jump up^ Evan Perez, “F r ngs Set Over Fast and Fur ous ”, The Wa Street Journa , 4 Dec 2012. Subscr pt on requ red.

24. Jump up^ Chuck Neubauer (2012-12-05). “F r ngs adv sed for 4 ATF eaders t ed to Fast and Fur ous”. Wash ngton T mes. Retr eved 2014-06-25.

25. Jump up^ Shary Attk sson, “Br an Terry fam y sues ATF off c a s n Fast and Fur ous”CBS, December 17, 2012.

26. Jump up^ John Dodson, The Unarmed Truth: My F ght to B ow the Wh st e and Expose Fast and Fur ous Hardcover, Thresho d Ed t ons, 3 Dec 2013, ISBN 978-1476727554. Hardcover: 304 pages.·

27. Jump up^ Ph ps, Wh tney. “Feds name 4 suspects nked to Fast and Fur ous”. Independentma .com. Retr eved 9 Ju y 2012.

28. Jump up^ “Feds unve nd ctments n Border Patro Agent Br an Terry s s ay ng”. CNN. Ju y 9, 2012. Retr eved 9 Ju y 2012.

29. ^ Jump up to: a b “Fast and Fur ous suspect sentenced”. CBS/AP. 12 December 2012. Retr eved 14 January 2013.

30. Jump up^ Perry, Tony (15 October 2012). “ Fast and Fur ous defendant gets pr son for buy ng guns”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved 11 March 2013.

31. ^ Jump up to: a b c Hernandez, Dan e (October 6, 2011). “MEXICO: News of another U.S. gun-track ng program st rs cr t c sm”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved October 17, 2011.

32. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e E ngwood, Ken (September 19, 2011). “Mex co st wa t ng for answers on Fast and Fur ous gun program”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved October 17, 2011.

33. Jump up^ “Méx co p de a extrad c ón de se s estadoun denses por tráf co de armas”. CNN Mex co. November 16, 2011.

34. Jump up^ “Busca PGR extrad c ón de mp cados en Ráp do y fur oso ”. Not c eros Te ev sa. November 16, 2011. Retr eved November 17, 2011.

35. Jump up^ “Ex ge Senado mex cano rec amo a EE.UU por armas ega es”. Prensa Lat na. Retr eved October 17, 2011.

36. Jump up^ MEXICO: News of another U.S. gun-track ng program st rs cr t c sm; Los Ange es T mes; October 6, 2011

37. ^ Jump up to: a b Murphy, K m (March 10, 2011). “Mex co awmakers demand answers about guns smugg ed under ATF s watch”. Los Ange es T mes. Retr eved November 6, 2011.

38. Jump up^ “EU: ¿a ado o enem go?”. La Jornada. Retr eved October 17, 2011. http://en.w k ped a.org/w k /ATF_gunwa k ng_scanda

Executive Privilege From W k ped a, the free encyc oped a Un ted States of Amer ca

Th s art c e s part of a ser es on the United States Constitution Preamble and Articles of the Constitution Preamb e I II III IV V VI VII Amendments to the Constitution Ratified Amendments The f rst ten Amendments are co ect ve y known as theBill of Rights

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII Unratified Amendments Congress ona Apport onment T t es of Nob ty Corw n Ch d Labor Equa R ghts D.C. Vot ng R ghts Full text of the Constitution and Amendments Preamb e & Art c es I–VII Amendments I–X Amendments XI–XXVII Unrat f ed Amendments US Government Porta Law Porta v t e In the Un ted States government, executive privilege s the power c a med by the Pres dent of the Un ted States and other members of the execut ve branch to res st certa n subpoenas and other ntervent ons by the eg s at ve and ud c a branches of government to access nformat on and personne re at ng to the execut ve branch. The concept of execut ve pr v ege s not ment oned exp c t y n the Un ted States Const tut on, but the Supreme Court of the Un ted States ru ed t to be an e ement of the separat on of powers doctr ne, and/or der ved from the supremacy of execut ve branch n ts own area of Const tut ona act v ty. [1]The Supreme Court conf rmed the eg t macy of th s doctr ne n Un ted States v. N xon, but on y to the extent of conf rm ng that there s a qua f ed pr v ege. Once nvoked, a presumpt on of pr v ege s estab shed, requ r ng the Prosecutor to make a “suff c ent show ng” that the “Pres dent a mater a ” s “essent a to the ust ce of the case” (418 U.S. at 713-14).Ch ef Just ce Burger further stated that execut ve pr v ege wou d most effect ve y app y when the overs ght of the execut ve wou d mpa r that branch s nat ona secur ty concerns. H stor ca y, the uses of execut ve pr v ege underscore the untested nature of the doctr ne, s nce Pres dents have genera y s destepped open confrontat ons w th the Un ted States Congress and the courts over the ssue by f rst assert ng the pr v ege, then produc ng some of the documents requested on an asserted y vo untary bas s.

Contents [h de] 1 Ear y precedents 2 Modern exerc ses 3 U.S. v. N xon 4 Post-N xon 4.1 C nton adm n strat on 4.2 George W. Bush adm n strat on 4.3 House Invest gat on of the SEC 4.4 Obama adm n strat on 5 References 6 Externa nks

Early precedents Execut ve pr v ege s a spec f c nstance of the more genera common- aw pr nc p e of de berat ve process pr v ege and s be eved to trace ts roots to the Eng sh Crown Pr v ege. [2] In the context of pr v ege assert ons by US Pres dents, “In 1796, Pres dent George Wash ngton refused to comp y w th a request by the House of Representat ves for documents re ated to the negot at on of the then-recent y adopted Jay Treaty w th the K ngdom of Great Br ta n. The Senate a one p ays a ro e n the rat f cat on of treat es, Wash ngton reasoned, and therefore the House had no eg t mate c a m to the mater a . Therefore, Wash ngton prov ded the documents to the Senate but not the House.”[3] Pres dent Thomas Jefferson cont nued the precedent for th s n the tr a of Aaron Burr for treason n 1807. Burr asked the court to ssue a subpoena duces tecum to compe Jefferson to prov de h s pr vate etters concern ng Burr. Ch ef Just ce John Marsha , a strong proponent of the powers of the federa government but a so a po t ca opponent of Jefferson, ru ed that the S xth Amendment to the Const tut on, wh ch a ows for these sorts of court orders for cr m na defendants, d d not prov de any except on for the pres dent. As for Jefferson s c a m that d sc osure of the document wou d mper pub c safety, Marsha he d that the court, not the pres dent, wou d be the udge of that. Jefferson comp ed w th Marsha s order. In 1833, Pres dent Andrew Jackson c ted execut ve pr v ege when Senator Henry C ay demanded he produce documents concern ng statements the pres dent made to h s cab net about the remova of federa depos ts from the Second Bank of the Un ted States dur ng the Bank War. [4]

Modern exercises Dur ng the per od of 1947-49, severa ma or secur ty cases became known to Congress. There fo owed a ser es of nvest gat ons, cu m nat ng n the famous H ss–Chambers case of 1948. At that po nt, the Truman Adm n strat on ssued a sweep ng secrecy order b ock ng congress ona efforts from FBI and other execut ve data on secur ty prob ems. [5] Secur ty f es were moved to the Wh te House and Adm n strat on off c a s were banned from test fy ng before Congress on secur ty re ated matters. Invest gat on of the State Department and other cases was stym ed and the matter eft unreso ved. Dur ng the Army–McCarthy hear ngs n 1954, E senhower used the c a m of execut ve pr v ege to forb d the “prov s on of any data about nterna conversat ons, meet ngs, or wr tten commun cat on among staffers, w th no except on to top cs or peop e.” Department of Defense emp oyees were a so nstructed not to test fy on any such conversat ons or produce any such documents or reproduct ons. [6] Th s was done to refuse the McCarthy Comm ttee subpoenas of transcr pts of mon tored te ephone ca s from Army off c a s, as we as nformat on on meet ngs between E senhower off c a s re at ng to the hear ngs. Th s was done n the form of a etter from E senhower to the Department of Defense and an accompany ng memo from E senhower Just ce. The reason ng beh nd the order was that there was a need for “cand d” exchanges among execut ve emp oyees n g v ng “adv ce” to one another. In the end, E senhower wou d nvoke the c a m 44 t mes between 1955 and 1960.

U.S. v. Nixon Th s sect on does not cite any references or sources. P ease he p mprove th s sect on by add ng c tat ons to re ab e sources. Unsourced mater a may be cha enged and removed. (June 2009) The Supreme Court addressed execut ve pr v ege n Un ted States v. N xon, the 1974 case nvo v ng the demand by Watergate spec a prosecutor Arch ba d Cox that Pres dent R chard N xon produce the aud otapes of conversat ons he and h s co eagues had n the Ova Off ce of the Wh te House n connect on w th cr m na charges be ng brought aga nst members of the N xon Adm n strat on. N xon nvoked the pr v ege and refused to produce any records. The Supreme Court d d not re ect the c a m of pr v ege out of hand; t noted, n fact, “the va d need for protect on of commun cat ons between h gh Government off c a s and those who adv se and ass st them n the performance of the r man fo d dut es” and that “[h]uman exper ence teaches that those who expect pub c d ssem nat on of the r remarks may we temper candor w th a concern for appearances and for the r own nterests to the detr ment of the dec s onmak ng process.” Th s s very s m ar to the og c that the Court had used n estab sh ng an “execut ve mmun ty” defense for h gh off ce-ho ders charged w th v o at ng c t zens const tut ona r ghts n the course of perform ng the r dut es. The Supreme Court stated: “To read the Art c e II powers of the Pres dent as prov d ng an abso ute pr v ege as aga nst a subpoena essent a to enforcement of cr m na statutes on no more than a genera zed c a m of the pub c nterest n conf dent a ty of nonm tary and nond p omat c d scuss ons wou d upset the const tut ona ba ance of a workab e government and grave y mpa r the ro e of the courts under Art c e III.” Because N xon had asserted on y a genera zed need for conf dent a ty, the Court he d that the arger pub c nterest n obta n ng the truth n the context of a cr m na prosecut on took precedence. “Once execut ve pr v ege s asserted, coequa branches of the Government are set on a co s on course. The Jud c ary s forced nto the d ff cu t task of ba anc ng the need for nformat on n a ud c a proceed ng and the Execut ve s Art c e II prerogat ves. Th s nqu ry p aces courts n the awkward pos t on of eva uat ng the Execut ve s c a ms of conf dent a ty and autonomy, and pushes to the fore d ff cu t quest ons of separat on of powers and checks and ba ances. These occas on[s] for const tut ona confrontat on between the two branches are ke y to be avo ded whenever poss b e. Un ted States v. N xon, supra, at 692.”[7]

Post-Nixon Clinton administration The C nton adm n strat on nvoked execut ve pr v ege on fourteen occas ons. In 1998, Pres dent B C nton became the f rst Pres dent s nce N xon to assert execut ve pr v ege and ose n court, when a Federa udge ru ed that C nton a des cou d be ca ed to test fy n the Lew nsky scanda . [8] Later, C nton exerc sed a form of negot ated execut ve pr v ege when he agreed to test fy before the grand ury ca ed by Independent Counse Kenneth Starr on y after negot at ng the terms under wh ch he wou d appear. Dec ar ng that “abso ute y no one s above the aw”, Starr sa d such a pr v ege “must g ve way” and ev dence “must be turned over” to prosecutors f t s re evant to an nvest gat on.

George W. Bush administration The Bush adm n strat on nvoked execut ve pr v ege on s x occas ons. Pres dent George W. Bush f rst asserted execut ve pr v ege to deny d sc osure of sought deta s regard ng former Attorney Genera Janet Reno,[2] the scanda nvo v ng Federa Bureau of Invest gat on (FBI) m suse of organ zed-cr me nformants James J. Bu ger and Stephen F emm n Boston, and Just ce Department de berat ons about Pres dent B C nton s fundra s ng tact cs, n December 2001. [9] Bush nvoked execut ve pr v ege “ n substance” n refus ng to d sc ose the deta s of V ce Pres dent D ck Cheney s meet ngs w th energy execut ves, wh ch was not appea ed by the GAO. In a separate Supreme Court dec s on n 2004, however, Just ce Anthony Kennedy noted “Execut ve pr v ege s an extraord nary assert on of power not to be ght y nvoked. Un ted States v. Reyno ds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953). Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush nvoked execut ve pr v ege n response to congress ona subpoenas request ng documents from former pres dent a counse Harr et M ers and former po t ca d rector Sara Tay or, [10] c t ng that: The reason for these d st nct ons rests upon a bedrock pres dent a prerogat ve: for the Pres dent to perform h s const tut ona dut es, t s mperat ve that he rece ve cand d and unfettered adv ce and that free and open d scuss ons and de berat ons occur among h s adv sors and between those adv sors and others w th n and outs de the Execut ve Branch. On Ju y 9, 2007, Bush aga n nvoked execut ve pr v ege to b ock a congress ona subpoena requ r ng the test mon es of Tay or and M ers. Furthermore, Wh te House Counse Fred F. F e d ng refused to comp y w th a dead ne set by the cha rman of the Senate Jud c ary Comm ttee to exp a n ts pr v ege c a m, prove that the pres dent persona y nvoked t, and prov de ogs of wh ch documents were be ng w thhe d. On Ju y 25, 2007, the House Jud c ary Comm ttee voted to c te M ers andWh te House Ch ef of Staff Joshua Bo ten for contempt of Congress. [11][12] On Ju y 13, ess than a week after c a m ng execut ve pr v ege for M ers and Tay or, Counse F e d ng effect ve y c a med the pr v ege once aga n, th s t me n re at on to documents re ated to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat T man. In a etter to the House Comm ttee on Overs ght and Government Reform, F e d ng c a med certa n papers re at ng to d scuss on of the fr end y-f re shoot ng “ mp cate Execut ve Branch conf dent a ty nterests” and wou d therefore not be turned over to the comm ttee. [13] On August 1, 2007, Bush nvoked the pr v ege for the fourth t me n tt e over a month, th s t me re ect ng a subpoena for Kar Rove. The subpoena wou d have requ red the Pres dent s Sen or Adv sor to test fy before the Senate Jud c ary Comm ttee n a probe over f red federa prosecutors. In a etter to Senate Jud c ary Cha rmanPatr ck Leahy, F e d ng c a med that “Mr. Rove, as an mmed ate pres dent a adv sor, s mmune from compe ed congress ona test mony about matters that arose dur ng h s tenure and that re ate to h s off c a dut es n that capac ty….”[14] Leahy c a med that Pres dent Bush was not nvo ved w th the emp oyment term nat ons of U.S. attorneys. Furthermore, he asserted that the pres dent s execut ve pr v ege c a ms protect ng Josh Bo ten, and Kar Rove are ega . The Senator demanded that Bo ten, Rove, Sara Tay or, and J. Scott Jenn ngs comp y “ mmed ate y” w th the r subpoenas, presumab y to awa t a further rev ew of these matters. Th s deve opment paved the way for a Senate pane vote on whether to advance the c tat ons to the fu Senate. “It s obv ous that the reasons g ven for these f r ngs were contr ved as part of a cover up and that the stonewa ng by the Wh te House s part and parce of that same effort”, Leahy conc uded about these nc dents. [15][16][17][18] As of Ju y 17, 2008, Rove st c a med execut ve pr v ege to avo d a congress ona subpoena. Rove s awyer wrote that h s c ent s “const tut ona y mmune from compe ed congress ona test mony.”[19]

House Investigation of the SEC Leaders of the U.S. Secur t es and Exchange Comm ss on test f ed on February 4, 2009 before the Un ted States House Comm ttee on F nanc a Serv cessubcomm ttee nc ud ng L nda Chatman Thomsen S.E.C. enforcement d rector, act ng Genera Counse Andy Vo mer, Andrew Donohue, Er k S rr , and Lor R chards and Stephen Lupare o of FINRA. The sub ect of the hear ngs were on why the SEC had fa ed to act when Harry Markopo os, a pr vate fraud nvest gator from Boston a erted the Secur t es and Exchange Comm ss on deta ng h s pers stent and unsuccessfu efforts to get the SEC to nvest gate Bernard Madoff, beg nn ng n 1999. [20]Vo mer c a med execut ve pr v ege n dec n ng to answer some quest ons. [21][22] Subcomm ttee cha rman Pau E. Kan orsk asked Mr. Vo mer f he had obta ned execut ve pr v ege from the U.S. attorney genera . [21] “No … th s s the pos t on of the agency,” sa d Vo mer. [21] “D d the SEC nstruct h m not to respond to quest ons?” Mr. Kan orsk asked. [21] Vo mer rep ed that t was the pos t on of the Comm ss on and that “the answer s no.”[21] The SEC announced Vo mer wou d “ eave the Comm ss on and return to the pr vate sector,” ust 14 days after mak ng the c a m. [23]

Obama administration On June 20, 2012, Pres dent Barack Obama asserted execut ve pr v ege, h s f rst, to w thho d certa n Department of Just ce documents re ated to the ongo ngOperat on Fast and Fur ous controversy ahead of a Un ted States House Comm ttee on Overs ght and Government Reform vote to ho d Attorney Genera Er c Ho der nContempt of Congress for refus ng to produce the documents. [24] Later the same day, the Un ted States House Comm ttee on Overs ght and Government Reform voted 23-17 a ong party nes to ho d Attorney Genera Ho der n contempt of Congress over not re eas ng documents regard ng Fast and Fur ous. [25]

References 1. Jump up^ Ch ef Just ce Burger, wr t ng for the ma or ty n US v. N xon noted: “Whatever the nature of the pr v ege of conf dent a ty of Pres dent a commun cat ons n the exerc se of Art. II powers, the pr v ege can be sa d to der ve from the supremacy of each branch w th n ts own ass gned area of const tut ona dut es. Certa n powers and pr v eges f ow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protect on of the conf dent a ty of Pres dent a commun cat ons has s m ar const tut ona underp nn ngs.Un ted States v. N xon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (Supreme Court op n on at F ndLaw) 2. Jump up^ Proper Assert on of the De berat ve Process Pr nc p e, S Narayan, p 6 3. Jump up^ F ndLaw s Wr t – Dorf: A Br ef H story Of Execut ve Pr v ege, From George Wash ngton Through D ck Cheney 4. Jump up^ Dav d and Jeanne He d er, Henry C ay: The Essent a Amer can (2010) p.264 5. Jump up^ B ack sted by H story, p. 23 6. Jump up^ B ack sted by H story p.575 7. Jump up^ Ho d ng, Reyno ds. T me, March 21, 2007. Ho d ng, Reyno ds (March 21, 2007). “The Execut ve Pr v ege Showdown”. T me. Retr eved 2007-03-27. 8. Jump up^ Baker, Peter; and Schm dt, Susan. “Pres dent s Den ed Execut ve Pr v ege”. The Wash ngton Post. Ju y 22, 1998. Retr eved 2007-03-27. Wash ngton Post, May 6, 1998. 9. Jump up^ Lew s, Ne A. (2001-12-14). “Bush C a ms Execut ve Pr v ege n Response to House Inqu ry”. New York T mes. Retr eved 2007-07-17.

10. Jump up^ [1]

11. Jump up^ “House nches toward const tut ona showdown w th contempt vote”. Po t cs (CNN). Ju y 25, 2007. Retr eved 2007-07-25.

12. Jump up^ “House Jud c ary Reports Contempt C tat ons to the House of Representat ves” (Press re ease). U.S. House of Representat ves Comm ttee on the Jud c ary. Ju y 25, 2007. Retr eved 2007-0726.

13. Jump up^ “Wh te House Rebuffs Congress on T man Papers”. Po t cs (The Seatt e T mes). August 1, 2007. Retr eved 2008-08-01.

14. Jump up^ “Bush won t et a de Rove test fy to Congress”. Po t cs (Reuters). August 1, 2007. Retr eved 2008-08-01.

15. Jump up^ “Leahy: Bush not nvo ved n f r ngs”. Yahoo! News. Retr eved 2008-11-30. [dead nk]

16. Jump up^ “Leahy: Rove, others must comp y w th subpoenas”. CNN. Retr eved 2008-11-30. [dead nk]

17. Jump up^ “Leahy aga n orders Kar Rove to appear”. Benn ngton Banner. Retr eved 2008-11-30.

18. Jump up^ “Leahy aga n demands U.S. attorney nfo”. Earth T mes. Retr eved 2008-11-30.

19. Jump up^ “Rove gnores comm ttee s subpoena, refuses to test fy”. CNN. Ju y 10, 2008. Retr eved 2008-07-10.

20. Jump up^ Henr ques, D ana (February 4, 2009). “Anger and Drama at a House Hear ng on Madoff”. The New York T mes.

21. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Jam eson, Dan (February 4, 2009). “SEC off c a s dodge quest ons; one c a ms pr v ege”. InvestmentNews.

22. Jump up^ Ahrens, Frank (February 5, 2009). “Lawmakers S nk Teeth Into the SEC: Agency Mocked for Not Catch ng Madoff”. The Wash ngton Post. pp. D01.

23. Jump up^ “Act ng Genera Counse Andrew Vo mer to Leave SEC”. Wash ngton, D.C.: U.S. Secur t es and Exchange Comm ss on. Feb 18, 2009. Retr eved 6 March 2009.

24. Jump up^ Jackson, Dav d (June 20, 2012). “Obama team: Fast and Fur ous documents are pr v eged”. USA Today. Retr eved 20 June 2012.

25. Jump up^ Madhan and Dav s, Aamer and Susan (June 20, 2012). “House pane votes to c te Ho der for contempt of Congress”. USA Today. Retr eved 20 June 2012. Pres dent Asserts Execut ve Pr v ege n B d to Foresta Contempt Vote By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr. Pub shed: June 20, 2012 NY T mes http://en.w k ped a.org/w k /Execut ve_pr v ege

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-355 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 Shows 93 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92 Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 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 01-09

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

Breaking Bob Grant Dead At 84 –Talk Radio Path Maker — Rest In Peace — Videos Pos ed on January 2 2014 F ed under Amer can H s ory B ogro Bus ness Co ege Commun ca ons Compu ers Cu ure Econom cs Educa on Emp oymen En er a nmen F sca Po cy Heroes h s ory Language Law ber y L e L nks L eracy med a Peop e Ph osophy Pho os Po cs Press Psycho ogy Rad o Rad o Ran s Raves Regu a ons Rev ews Secur y Ta k Rad o Unemp oymen V deo Wea h W sdom Tags Add c on Bob Gran Break ng News Commen ary Commun ca or Conserva ve Conserva ve Ta k Rad o Cu ure En er a nmen n uence Mark Lev n Mass Commun ca or Op n ons Rad o Res n Peace Rush L mbaugh Sean Hann y Ta k Rad o

Bob Grant has d ed. Born March 14, 1929 he was an Amer can rad o host whose rea name was Robert C ro G gante. Grant, who ved n Tom s R ver, N.J., d ed on New Year s Eve.He was a veteran of rad o broadcast ng n New York C ty, and Grant s cons dered to be a p oneer of the “conservat ve” and “confrontat ona ” ta k rad o format who nf uenced many peop e after h m.He began work ng n rad o n the 1940s at WBBM n Ch cago as a rad o persona ty and te ev s on ta k show host at KNX n Los Ange es, and as an actor. Dur ng the Korean War he served n the Nava Reserve. He became sports d rector at KABC n Los Ange es, where after some subst tute appearances he nher ted the ta k show of Joe Pyne n 1964 and began to bu d a huge fo ow ng. Grant hosted three shows on KABC n 1964 t t ed, “Open L ne,” “N ght L ne,” and “Sunday L ne.” Many peop e were av d steners of h s show and t he ped the popu ar ty of the format.He was the father of conservat ve ta krad o.He was known to say: “Good afternoon, Lad es and Gent emen, and we come to another hour of the free and open exchange of deas and op n ons n the be ef that as Amer can c t zens you have the r ght to hear, and to be heard.”

Bob Grant On “Hannity & Colmes” Discusses Retiring 1.16.2006 (Sean Hannity) Bob Grant Celebrates 40 Years On New York Radio

Bob Grant Interview: Media Coverage Of Obama “Absolutely Sca

Bob Grant’s Emotional Monologue 9.23.2012

Bob Grant 40th Anniversary In New York City Show On WABC 9.20.2010

Howard Stern Calls Into Bob Grant’s Last WOR Show 1.13.2006

Bob Grant In “The History Of Talk Radio” Documentary 1996

Rush Limbaugh Roasts Bob Grant – September 15, 1991

Bob Grant Makes Fun Of Michael Savage Hyping His Books

Bob Grant On Filling In For Michael Savage

The Best Of Bob Grant-2000’S Pt 1

The Best Of Bob Grant 2007-2012 Pt 2

Bob Grant On CBS News Discussing Rush Limbaugh’s Prescription Drug Addiction 10.11.2003

Bob Grant Show-Day After September 11, 2001 (9.12.2001)

Bob Grant Attacks ‘The Tea Party’ 1.6.2013

Bob Grant On Taking Over Joe Pyne’s Show The Night Of The Kennedy Assassination

WABC 77 New York – Bob Grant GAG (Get At Grant) Hour- Dec 1988

Bob Grant, Father Of Conservative Talk Radio, Dead At 84 Veteran New York rad o persona ty Bob Grant — w de y cred ted w th nvent ng the conservat ve ta k-rad o format — has d ed at the age of 84. Grant, who ved n Tom s R ver, N.J., passed away on New Year s Eve, according to the Branchburg Funeral Home, wh ch s hand ng the arrangements. Grant began h s career as a controvers a ta k show host n 1970, when he o ned WMCA n New York and qu ck y bucked the bera s ant of many of the other hosts. The grave -vo ced ta ker s n-your-face op n ons and regu ar te ng off of ca ers often got h m n hot water. He opened h s show stat ng: “Good afternoon, Lad es and Gent emen, and we come to another hour of the free and open exchange of deas and op n ons n the be ef that as Amer can c t zens you have the r ght to hear, and to be heard.” He s ammed uncouth po t c ans as “craven boot ckers.” He once sa d of the Second Com ng of Jesus: “He s not com ng back. Look, I don t be eve he s com ng back. I th nk that s a myth and I say t.” Grant rout ne y s gned off w th the chant “Get Gaddaf ,” n a taunt at L byan d ctator Muammar a -Gaddaf . In 1973, he ca ed Rep. Ben am n Rosentha of New York a coward for cance ng an appearance on h s show, ead ng Rosentha to comp a n to the Federa Commun cat ons Comm ss on. The case went to the U.S. Court of Appea s and was u t mate y thrown out after a udge dec ded Grant had offered Rosentha equa t me. Grant eft WMCA n 1977 to work for WOR, but was f red for controvers a remarks he made n 1979. “A ca er phoned n to the show say ng he was upset w th a woman who was b am ng the po ce for what happened to her sons. [Th s woman] was the pub c re at ons d rector or commun ty re at ons d rector of WCBS newsrad o,” he sa d. “I stup d y asked the ca er f he knew how she got that ob. The ca er sa d he d dn t know and I prompt y and arrogant y sa d, “I w te you how. She passed the gyneco og ca and p gmentat on test — that s how! … WOR was forced to f re me even though I had g ven the rad o g ant the b ggest overn ght rat ngs they ever had.” Grant returned to WMCA n 1980, where h s producer was Steve Ma zberg, now host of “The Steve Ma zberg Show” on Newsmax TV. “I had grown up sten ng to Bob Grant so th s was a dream come true,” Ma zberg sa d. “He was an extreme y n ce guy, a wonderfu and funny p oneer who overcame many attempts to turn h m nto a v a n. He persevered and d d what he ove unt the very end.” In 1984, Grant was h red by WABC, wh ch had sw tched formats from Top 40 mus c to a -ta k. W th ts strong s gna , Grant was heard by m ons of stener n the Northeastern Un ted States. The stat on began b ng h m as “Amer ca s most stened to ta k rad o persona ty.” But Grant got n troub e w th WABC n 1996 when he made a mean-sp r ted crack about Commerce Secretary Ron Brown whose p ane had crashed n Croat a. “My hunch s that [Brown] s the one surv vor. I ust have that hunch. Maybe t s because, at heart, I m a pess m st,” Grant sa d. Brown, a ong w th 34 others on board, had been k ed. Grant then moved back to WOR and h s show became nat ona y synd cated. H s WOR run ended n 2006. In 2007, he returned to WABC where he stayed for a year and a ha f, before eav ng to host an Internet rad o show t t ed “Stra ght Ahead!” He aga n returned to WABC n Sept. 2009, to host a Sunday ta k show, ret r ng ast summer because of poor hea th. Grant s fam y asks that memor a contr but ons may be made n h s memory can be made to the Young Amer ca s Foundat on, 110 E den Street, Herndon, VA 20170 or the New York Po ce and F re W dows & Ch drens Benef t Fund, Inc., 767 F fth Ave., 2614C, New York, NY 10153. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Grant-rad o-ob tuary-conservat ve/2014/01/02/ d/544851

Bob Grant Bob Grant (March 14, 1929 – December 31, 2013) was an Amer can rad o host whose rea name was Robert Ciro Gigante. A veteran of broadcast ng n New York C ty, Grant s cons dered a p oneer of the “conservat ve” and “confrontat ona ” ta k rad o format. [2][3][4]

Career[edit] Early work[edit] Grant graduated from the Un vers ty of I no s at Urbana-Champa gn w th a degree n ourna sm. He began work ng n rad o n the 1940s at the news department at WBBM (AM) n Ch cago, as a rad o persona ty and te ev s on ta k show host at KNX (AM) n Los Ange es, and as an actor. Dur ng the Korean War, he served n the Nava Reserve. [5] He ater became sports d rector at KABC (AM) n Los Ange es, where after some subst tute appearances he nher ted the ta k show of ear y controvers a st Joe Pyne n 1964 and began to bu d a fo ow ng. Grant hosted three shows on KABC (AM) n 1964 t t ed, “Open L ne,” “N ght L ne,” and “Sunday L ne.”[6]

Move to New York City (WMCA: 1970–1977)[edit] Grant came to New York n 1970, where he hosted a ta k show on WMCA as the “house conservat ve”, d st nct ve y out of fash on w th both the t mes and w th some countercu tura WMCA persona t es, nc ud ng A ex Bennett. H s offbeat but combat ve sty e (a ong w th Fa rness Doctr ne requ rements of the era) won h m seven years on WMCA, w th a grow ng and oya aud ence. H s s gn-off for many years was “Get Gaddaf ”, wh ch meant remove Muammar a -Gaddaf , the d ctator of L bya, whose ant -Israe stance was n oppos t on to Grant s pro-Israe fee ngs. On March 8, 1973, Grant had schedu ed New York Rep. Ben am n S. Rosentha , who was ead ng a boycott of meat. Grant ater earned that Rosentha wou d not appear on h s show, and n a d scuss on w th a ca er, Grant referred to Rosentha as a “coward.” Rosentha then f ed a comp a nt w th the F.C.C., and the ssue went a the way up to the Un ted States Court of Appea s for the D str ct of Co umb a C rcu t n Straus Commun cat ons v. Federa Commun cat ons Comm ss on, Un ted States Court of Appea s for the D str ct of Co umb a C rcu t, January 16, 1976, Wr ght, J. [7][8][9] The appea s court u t mate y ru ed n favor of WMCA and Grant, due to the fact that Grant offered the congressman an nv tat on to appear on h s show, grant ng Rosentha equa t me. [9]

One of Grant s most memorab e regu ar ca ers was Ms. Tr v a, who a red her “Beef of the Week”, a ser es of seem ng y tr v a comp a nts. Ms. Tr v a was Grant s guest at a Ha oween Fest va d nner he d at Laur tano s Restaurant n theBronx, where a young Ms. Tr v a, not ong out of her teens, revea ed herse f for the f rst t me to a start ed rad o aud ence, many who had expected and assumed, based upon her art cu at on and ntonat on, that she wou d be an e der y, prud sh woman. Instead, a statuesque and fash onab e Ms. Tr v a, wear ng an e aborate V ctor an costume, was the surpr se guest seated next to Grant at the da s tab e a ong w th severa po t ca f gures from New York. The fo ow ng day the ma or ty of ca s to the show were for the purpose of obta n ng nformat on about the myster ous Mm. Tr v a, w th Grant n h s typ ca manner f na y n exasperat on hang ng up on the ca ers, shout ng, “THIS IS NOT Mm. TRIVIA S SHOW!”[10] A ngu st c “hoax” tr v a quest on or g nated on Grant s WMCA show n 1975, “There are three words n the Eng sh anguage that end n -gry. Two of them are angry and hungry. What s the th rd?”[11] Wh e at WMCA, Grant attracted attent on n 1975 from a commentary he recorded t t ed, “How Long W You Stand As de.”[12] Grant a so re eased an LP record n 1977 t t ed, “Let s Be Heard,” wh ch was a record ng of a speech Grant gave before a synagogue n New York. Grant eft WMCA n 1977.

WOR AND WWDB[edit] In 1979, rad o host Barry Farber, fought w th WMCA stat on manager E en Straus to reh re Grant. Farber broadcast dur ng the 4-7 P.M. weekday t mes ot on WMCA. When asked by Straus at a meet ng f Farber was w ng to g ve up h s a rt me for Grant, Farber rep ed, “Yes he can have my t me. I d rather he have my t me than no t me at a .”[13] Wh e away from WMCA, Grant went up the d a to New York s WOR (AM) for a t me, where he was f red for controvers a remarks. Grant descr bes the remarks that got h m f red from WOR: “

I had done my n ght y show on WOR and a ca er phoned n to the show say ng he was upset w th a woman who was b am ng the po ce for what happened to her sons. I had read the story the man was referr ng to and noted that the woman, who was very angry w th the po ce, was the pub c re at ons d rector or commun ty re at ons d rector of WCBS newsrad o. I stup d y asked the ca er f he knew how she got that ob. The ca er sa d he d dn t know and I prompt y and arrogant y sa d, “I w te you how. She passed the gyneco og ca and p gmentat on test — that s how!” Not on y d d that turn off Roger A es, but WOR was forced to f re me even though I had g ven the rad o g ant the b ggest overn ght rat ngs they ever had. [14]

”

After be ng f red from WOR, Grant worked at WWDB n Ph ade ph a. Grant had gone back to WMCA after work ng at WWDB n Ph ade ph a. It was reported upon Grant s departure that h s rat ngs had s pped to number 23 out of 39 shows dur ng the 4-7 P.M. weekday t mes ot. [15]

WABC (1984–1996)[edit] In 1984, WABC (AM) n New York C ty h red Grant to o n the r new ta k stat on. He f rst hosted a show from 9-11pm, before mov ng to the 3-6pm afternoon t me s ot. The Bob Grant Show cons stent y dom nated the rat ngs n the h gh y compet t ve afternoon dr ve t me s ot n New York C ty and at one po nt the rad o stat on a red recorded promos announc ng h m as “Amer ca s most stened to ta k rad o persona ty.” The grave -vo ced Grant rem nded steners dur ng the da y ntroduct on that the “program was unscr pted and unrehearsed”.

Grant s ong stay at WABC ended when he was f red for a remark about the Apr 3, 1996 a rp ane crash nvo v ng Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Grant remarked to ca er named, Car of Oyster Bay (Car L mbacher, ater of NewsMaxfame), “My hunch s that [Brown] s the one surv vor. I ust have that hunch. Maybe t s because, at heart, I m a pess m st.” When Brown was found dead, Grant s comments were w de y cr t c zed, and severa weeks ater, after a med a campa gn, h s contract was term nated. [16]

Return to WOR (1996–2006)[edit] After be ng f red, Grant moved down the d a to WOR to host h s show n the same afternoon dr ve-t me s ot. Grant s age began to show wh e broadcast ng at WOR. He was ess engag ng w th the ca ers, and not as energet c dur ng h s broadcasts. For a t me, the Bob Grant show went nto nat ona synd cat on, but has been a oca on y show s nce 2001. Grant and h s WABC rep acement Sean Hann ty wou d somet mes throw abs at each other. Hann ty defeated Grant n the rat ngs from 2001–2006. [17][18] Grant s WOR run ended on January 13, 2006. Grant s rat ngs were not to b ame for h s departure, accord ng to the New York Post, wh ch ment oned that the dec s on was reached because the stat on s other shows had n che aud ences to garner more advert s ng do ars. [19] On January 16, 2006, short y after Grant s ast WOR show, Grant appeared on Sean Hann ty s rad o show and TV program Hann ty & Co mes, where h s former compet tor pa d tr bute to h m. Hav ng eft h s opt ons open for “an offer he cannot refuse,” Grant returned to WOR n February 2006, do ng one m nute “Stra ght Ahead” commentar es wh ch a red tw ce da y after news broadcasts unt September 2006. On September 8, 2006 Grant aga n appeared on Hann ty s show to prov de a post-ret rement update, wh ch ed to premature rumors that Grant was return ng to WABC. [20][21] Grant then made var ous so ated rad o appearances. He appeared as a guest host on WFNY (now WXRK) on December 7, 2006, and was nterv ewed by attorney Anthony Macr for Macr s WOR show on February 24, 2007.

Post-Retirement: Return to WABC and Internet broadcasting[edit] H s guest appearances became more frequent beg nn ng n Ju y 2007. On Ju y 7, 2007, he guest hosted for John R. Gamb ng, and appeared on Mark Lev n s show (wh ch s networked from WABC) on Ju y 10. Grant, guest hosted for Jerry Agar on Ju y 9, 10, 11 and re-appeared as a f - n host aga n for John Gamb ng on August 20 and 21. Then, on August 22, wh e appear ng on Hann ty s show, he announced that he was return ng as a regu ar host to WABC, n the 8–10 PM s ot that at the t me was f ed by Agar. It wou d ater be revea ed, on what was Agar s f na show a few hours ater, that he wou d be start ng effect ve mmed ate y, as Grant took over the f na segments of the show. H s f rst fu show on ABC s nce 1996 was on August 23. The story of Grant s return, as reported by the New York Da y News, had been d scovered on y a coup e of hours before Grant s off c a announcement. Grant s st nt asted ess than a year and a ha f, unt h s regu ar n ght y show was pu ed by WABC n ate November 2008 as part of a programm ng shuff e stemm ng from the debut of Curt s S wa s nat ona show, and ater Mark Lev n s show expand ng to three hours, eav ng no room for Grant. [22] Grant d d h s most recent AM rad o work as guest host f ng n for M chae Savage on January 21, 2009, Mark Lev n on March 23, 2009, and Sean Hann ty on Ju y 31, 2009. [22] Dur ng the week of Ju y 6, 2009 Grant began host ng an Internet rad o show t t ed Stra ght Ahead! wh ch or g na y ran Monday through Fr day from 8 to 9 a.m. Eastern t me on UBATV.com. [23] As a webcast, the show d ffered from Grant s rad o shows, n that the v ewer watched Grant as he d d h s broadcast. The f rst two months of Stra ght Ahead! were from ns de Grant s home, and were run w th techn ca ass stance from ndependent f mmaker Ryan O Leary. [24]New York rad o persona t es R chard Bey and Jay D amond were a so brought on board to broadcast the r own one hour shows. Grant ment oned that he d d not get pa d to do the UBATV show, but be eves that Internet broadcast ng s the future. [25][26] Beg nn ng n September 2009, Grant reduced Stra ght Ahead! from f ve days a week down to two (Mondays and Wednesdays from 10 to 11 a.m Eastern t me). Grant a so moved the show from h s home to a profess ona stud o. Due to a ow number of ca ers to the show, Grant usua y nterv ewed on y guests for the hour. On January 13, 2010, Grant d d h s ast UBATV show. Grant s ast UBATV show and h s ast WOR show both fe on the date of January 13. On September 13, 2009, Grant returned to WABC for a th rd st nt at the stat on, do ng a week y Sunday ta k show from 12pm to 2pm. Grant s return to AM broadcast ng has a owed h m to cont nue nteract ng w th h s fan base through greater stenersh p and part c pat on than h s prev ous nternet rad o show prov ded. At the c ose of h s f rst show, he express y thanked the management of the stat on for “ nv t ng h m back” and sa d he ooked forward to cont nu ng th s o nt venture every week for the foreseeab e future. Grant ssued a statement n October 2012 that h s October 7 broadcast wou d be h s ast, but then resc nded that message after the show, abe ng t a “m stake” and an attempt to grab attent on. He then took off a short t me for med ca work, and when he returned to the a r, t was for a shortened 1pm to 2pm Sunday show (current as of November 2012). Bob Grant s ast show on WABC was Ju y 28, 2013 when he ret red due to hea th. Grant a so prepares week y co umns for h s webs te, www.BobGrantOn ne.com. The s te was or g na y sponsored by NewsMax. As of February 19, 2013, Grant has d scont nued h s ed tor a s.

Characteristics of Grant’s radio shows[edit] Th s sect on of a b ography of a v ng person does not include any references or sources. P ease he p by add ng re ab e sources. Content ous mater a about v ng peop e that s unsourced or poor y sourced must be removed immediately. (January 2010) Grant s po t ca ph osophy genera y fo owed Amer can conservat sm, but w th some urches nto popu sm, bertar an sm, consp racy theory, and unorthodoxy (such as be ng pro-cho ce and ant -F ag Desecrat on Amendment). Grant was known for us ng a number of catchphrases on h s show, such as “You re a fake, a phony, and a fraud!”, [27] “Stra ght ahead”, “Get off my phone!”, “Anyth ng and everyth ng s gr st for our ever-gr nd ng m ”, and h s c os ng ne, “Your nf uence counts. Use t.” H s open ng ne was used as the t t e of h s 1996 book, Let s Be Heard, a t t e represent ng an abbrev ated vers on of h s or g na opener, “And et s be heard! Good afternoon, Lad es and Gent emen, and we come to another hour of the free and open exchange of deas and op n ons n the be ef that as Amer can c t zens you have the r ght to hear, and to be heard.” Before h s da y mono ogue, Grant wou d ask the rhetor ca quest on, “And what s on your m nd today, hmmm?”, and wou d somet mes ca women “ch ck e-poos”. He occas ona y referred to women as “broads” and when certa n undes rab e, ack ustre or content ous women were combat ve he referenced them as “severa m es of bad road”. One of h s favor te put-downs was to refer to someone as a “cacazote”. Dur ng the 1988 pres dent a b d of M chae Dukak s, th s term took on a natura segue as Grant often referred to h m as “Dukacazote”. He a so referred to feck ess po t c ans as “craven boot ckers,” espec a y when e ected off c a s wou d cave n to po t ca pressures, and Grant accused them of “fo d ng ke a cheap camera”. Due to h s Ita an her tage, Grant frequent y used Ita an s ang words to descr be ca ers or other nd v dua s ca ng them gavones (crude or uncu tured persons), stunads (stup d, th ck, dense) or ch acchorones (persons who ta k excess ve y). Dur ng h s second st nt at WOR, Grant often c osed h s show w th the phrase, “Somebody s got to say these th ngs, t has to be me!” As a res dent of Mana apan, New Jersey n the ate1990s, he cons dered runn ng for statew de off ce, but eventua y dec ded aga nst t. Grant occas ona y made on-a r reference to an a ways unheard, etherea Beatr ce- ke presence à a Dante s Parad so sect on n The D v ne Comedy, “The Lady Joseph ne”, to whom he constant y pa d obe sance. H s son, Jeff Grant, a traff c reporter w th a d fferent stat on, wou d ca n occas ona y. Grant made frequent references to the REO D ner n Woodbr dge, New Jersey, h s regu ar haunt. For many years Grant c osed each show w th the exc amat on, “Get Khadafy!” Th s was apparent y an a us on to the pract ce of Roman statesman Cato the E der end ng h s speeches w th a ca for the destruct on of Carthage even f he had not been d scuss ng Carthage n the speech. When Khadafy was f na y k ed n the 2012 L byan c v war, Grant pra sed the dec s on. When once asked by the ca er George the Athe st whether he be eved n God, Grant rep ed, “What f I te you, George, that somet mes I do and somet mes I don t?” On h s Ju y 21, 2005 broadcast, Grant, a bapt zed and ra sed Roman Catho c, unequ voca y stated to the same ca er h s op n on on the Second Com ng of Jesus: “He s not com ng back. Look, I don t be eve he s com ng back. I th nk that s a myth and I say t. I don t trumpet t but f a person asks — and you know one th ng for sure, I ve been dead y honest, dead-on honest a the t me I ve been on the a r ta k ng to peop e and they ask me quest ons or they make a comment that e c ts a response, they are go ng to get an honest response. It may a ways not be correct but t s honest.” Grant has s nce stated that he s not an athe st. L ke many hosts n the ta k rad o format, Grant had h s battery of usua ca ers that added nterest to the show. John from Staten Is and, J mmy from Brook yn, A from Chappaqua, Greg from Chatham, Dav d from Irv ngton, Dorothy from Montc a r, Ha from North Bergen (at the t me an undercover FBI agent provocateur pos ng as a wh te supremac st, he ater went rogue), pat ents r ghts act v st Edd e Carbone, and the popu ar Frank from Queens were some of the frequent ca ers. A few quas -f ct t ous characters (p ayed by Grant) were a so emp oyed dur ng the show such as, Ju an P. Farquar, Dexter Pogue, Rantz Greeb, Pau “need enose” Monage, and Lucy Shagnasty. Over the years, Grant has made a number of statements on h s shows that cr t cs have descr bed as rac st. For examp e, he was quoted n the Newsday of June 2, 1992, as say ng “M nor t es are the B g App e s ma or ty, you don t need the papers to te you that, wa k around and you know t. To me, that s a bad th ng. I m a wh te person.” In h s book, Grant defended th s statement by wr t ng that he d d not ntend to put down other races, but on y ntended to express that “no one kes to be n the m nor ty,” and that Amer ca can on y surv ve by reta n ng ts “humane, west European cu ture.” Thus, he supports end ng b ngua sm and mu t cu tura sm, two po c es of wh ch he has been h gh y cr t ca . On October 15, 2008, Grant sa d “D d you not ce Obama s not content w th ust hav ng severa Amer can f ags, p a n o d Amer can f ags w th the 50 states represented by 50 stars? He has the O f ag. […] He had the f ag pa nted over, and the O for Obama. Now,…these th ngs are symptomat c of a person who wou d ke to be a potentate — a d ctator.” The “O” f ag to wh ch Grant referred was, n fact, the state f ag of Oh o. Grant d st ngu shed h mse f from other conservat ve ta k show hosts by ca ng for Obama to re ease h s ong form b rth cert f cate, pr or to Obama re eas ng t. [28] A though Grant s genera y known as be ng a conservat ve, he has been a cr t c of hard- ned conservat ve advocates n pr mary races, nc ud ng the Tea Party movement s cand dates. Th s has been a frequent debate top c between Grant and h s ca ers over the past few years. Dur ng the fa e ect on of 2010, Grant cr t c zed cand dates, such as Chr st ne O Donne , Rand Pau , and Sharron Ang e. Grant endorsed Char e Cr st over Marco Rub o on a Ju y 10, 2010 broadcast for the F or da senate pr mary. On a May 8, 2011 broadcast, Grant nformed h s aud ence that he supported the moderate Jon Huntsman, Jr. for the Repub can nom nat on for pres dent, a though he wou d ater go on to supportM tt Romney. [29]

Influences and legacy[edit] Be ng arge y the nnovator of h s own part cu ar ta k rad o sty e, Grant prev ous y worked w th the kes of Barry Gray and Joe Pyne. Pyne wou d often end each broadcast w th “Stra ght Ahead” wh ch s someth ng Grant p cked up, ead ng many to be eve that Grant was the f rst host to frequent y use that ne. Over the years, nat ona rad o ta k persona ty Howard Stern has made d ffer ng remarks on h s adm rat on for Grant as an ear y nf uence. Upon Stern s arr va n New York, he c ted Grant as an nf uence, [30] but as Stern s stardom rose, Grant became the sub ect of r d cu e on Stern s show. Dur ng Stern s pr me, he den ed be ng nf uenced by Grant or hav ng respect for h m. [31] Stern has a so frequent y

cr t c zed Grant for chang ng h s act to appease management. [31]Grant to d Pau D. Co ford, author of the 1996 Stern b o, Howard Stern: K ng of A Med a, about be ng approached at a pub c appearance by Ben Stern, Howard s father, w th a teenage Howard n tow. Father ntroduced son to Grant and to d h m of Howard s des re to go nto rad o. “I ooked at th s b g, gawky k d and I sa d to h m, Just be yourse f, ” Grant reca ed. Stern has den ed Grant s vers on of the story. [31] Soon after Grant s f r ng from WABC, and before h s f rst WOR show, Grant appeared as a ca - n guest on Stern s rad o show. In more recent years, Stern began to pra se Grant s egacy, [32] and ca ed n on h s ast WOR show n 2006. [33] G enn Beck now uses the catchphrase “Get off my phone!” as a sp noff of Grant s ear er ca - n ta k show sty e, as do Tom Scharp ng and Mark Lev n; s m ar y, Sean Hann ty often uses Grant s phrase “Stra ght ahead.” In 2002, ndustry magaz ne Ta kers ranked Grant as the 16th greatest rad o ta k show host of a t me. [34] On March 28, 2007 Bob Grant was nom nated for nduct on nto the Nat ona Rad o Ha of Fame. [35] Rad o & Records had p anned to ssue a L fet me Ach evement Award to Grant dur ng ts annua convent on n March 2008; however, the award was revoked n January 2008 for “past comments by h m that contrad ct our va ues and the respect we have for a members of our commun ty.”[36] Severa ta k rad o hosts have spoken out aga nst the dec s on; Nea Boortz has stated: “

I usua y try not to m ss the Rad o & Records ta k rad o convent on… Not th s year. Maybe never aga n. R&R has succumbed to po t ca correctness… I don t ca for boycotts. But I do th nk t wou d be wonderfu to see ta k show hosts refuse to appear at th s convent on… What we have seen here n th s revocat on of the award to Bob Grant s s mp e pander ng to po t ca correctness. Noth ng more, noth ng ess. [37] ”

Sean Hann ty, Op e and Anthony, Comed an J m Norton, Lars Larson, Rush L mbaugh, Mark Lev n, L one and Howard Stern opposed the move as we , w th Lev n stat ng “I am d sgusted w th the m streatment of Bob Grant. I am fed up w th the censors, nt m dators, and cowards n th s bus ness.”[th s quote needs a c tat on] Don Imus deemed the award un mportant, offered to return awards he had rece ved after treat ng them to h s s edgehammer and b ock of wood, and ca ed Grant s comments “stup d”, a though he a so referred to Grant as a “ egendary broadcaster.”[38] http://en.w k ped a.org/w k /Bob_Grant_(rad o) Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Veterans March To Washington To Take Down Memorial Barricades Move Them To White House To Barricade Obama — H.I.M. Obama Calls Out Blue Shirts — Photos and Videos Pos ed on Oc ober 13 2013 F ed under Amer can H s ory B ogro Commun ca ons Cons u on Cr me D as ers Econom cs Federa Governmen Budge F sca Po cy governmen spend ng h s ory Law ber y L e L nks med a Peop e Pho os Po cs Ran s Raves Regu a ons Resources Secur y Ta k Rad o Tax Po cy Unemp oymen V deo War Wea h Wea her W sdom Tags 13 Oc ober 2013 Barr cades B ue Sh r s Cops H M Mark Lev n Memor a Barr cades Obama Pho os Pres den Barack Obama To The Barr cades Ve erans Ve erans March On Wash ng on V deos Wh e House Wor d War Memor a

VETERANS REMOVE BARRICADES FROM MEMORIALS AND BRING THEM TO WH

On Sunday, protesting the barricades placed at memorials around Washington D.C. by the vindictive Obama administration, veterans removed the barricades and proceeded to take them to the White House. Multiple people tweeted photos of the barricades being removed and taken for presidential inspection:

Former Marine Thomas Sowell

Barricades Veterans remove barr cades from Wor d War II Memor a and carry them to the Wh te House, October 13, 2013. Set to the mus c of “The Home of the Brave,” by Gregory S dak.

Million Vet March Sunday! – Military Rallies Against Memorial Shutdowns – Wake Up America!

Protesters Reopen World War II Memorial VIDEO Crowd Of Veterans, Supporters Storm WWII Memorial

‘Million Vet March’ On The Memorials Draws Crowds Across The Nation

MILLION VET MARCH: WHITE HOUSE RIOT POLICE DEFEATED IN LESS THAN 5 MINUTES

Protest In Washington D.C Today 10/13/2013

Protest DC Clash With The Cops In DC 10/13/2013

USA: Protesters Break Through Barriers, Take Them To White House

DC Crowd Pushes Through Barriers To WWII Memorial

Washington Barricades

Veterans Take Barriers From WWII Memorial And Dump Them At White House Gates! #T4VETS #T2SDA\

Support The Million Veteran March On Memorials #T4VETS #1MVetMa Members of the so-ca ed “M on Vet March” descended on Wash ngton, D.C., Sunday to protest the Obama adm n strat on s dec s on to c ose the c ty s pub c memor a s. Thousands of demonstrators arr ved ear y n the morn ng and tore down barr cades that had been set up to b ock peop e from v s t ng the popu ar attract ons, WTOP reports. The group sa d m tary personne and veterans are “be ng used a po t ca pawns n the ongo ng government shutdown and budget cr s s,” accord ng to a statement on ts webs te. The group a so sa d t has no po t ca ean ng, but be eves that the c os ng of memor a s s “a desp cab e act of coward ce.”

Mark Levin To Obama: “We’ll March On Washington” If “You Lay One Hand” On Those WWII Vets

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades His Imperial Majesty — HIM That Must Be Obeyed — The Monarch of Marxism, The Czar of Communism, The Shah of Socialism — HIM Obama! HIM Obama! HIM Obama! — Photos Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

FBI And NSA Demands Passwords From Internet Service Providers — Big Brother Is Truly Out-of-Control — Time To Totally Repeal Patriot Act — Photos and Videos Pos ed on Ju y 25 2013 F ed under Amer can H s ory B ogro Commun ca ons Cons u on Econom cs Educa on Emp oymen Federa Governmen Federa Governmen Budge F sca Po cy Fore gn Po cy governmen spend ng h s ory ega mm gra on Law ber y L e L nks Macroeconom cs med a Peop e Ph osophy Po cs Press Rad o Ran s Raves Secur y Tax Po cy Taxes V deo War W sdom Tags 1984 B g Bro her B B nney B u da e Co ec on da a cen ers Enemy o he S a e FB G enn Beck n erne Serv ce Prov ders James Bam ord Jus ng Amash Mark Lev n Na ona Secur y Agency Nova NSA Passwords Pa r o Ac Pho os PR SM S$ Secre Secur y Surve ance S a e U ah U ah Da a Cen er

Amash Amendment Creates New Political Coalitions

Glenn Beck Justin Amash Interview On Nsa Surveillance

Justin Amash on NSA spying: This issue is about the American people vs. Washington political elites

Glenn Beck Excoriates Michele Bachmann: ‘Shame On You,’ ‘Really, Really, Really Almost Dead To Me’

Justin Amash: No Precedent In History For NSA Spying

Daines Fights to Protect Americans from NSA Mass Data Collection

Michigan congressman aims to defund NSA surveillance program

FOX NEWS: NSA Director’s Deceptive Testimony

NSAs Keith Alexander Calls Emergency Private Briefing To Lobby Against Justin Amash Amendment Curtai

NSA Director describes PRISM-like program in 2012

Unconstitutional – Judge: FBI Requests Violate 1st Amendment – Judge Andrew Napolitano

NSA & The Mass Surveillance Society

FBI’s Patriot Act Abuse of National Security Letters and illegal NSA spying

Mark Levin – Government Surveillance – June 6, 2013 – Full Show

Full Show 6/10/13: The Rise of the Security State

Nova: The Spy Factory Full Video

Feds tell Web firms to turn over user account passwords Secret demands mark escalation in Internet surveillance by the federal government through gaining access to user passwords, which are typically stored in encrypted form. The U.S. government has demanded that ma or Internet compan es d vu ge users stored passwords, accord ng to two ndustry sources fam ar w th these orders, wh ch represent an esca at on n surve ance techn ques that has not prev ous y been d sc osed. If the government s ab e to determ ne a person s password, wh ch s typ ca y stored n encrypted form, the credent a cou d be used to og n to an account to peruse conf dent a correspondence or even mpersonate the user. Obta n ng t a so wou d a d n dec pher ng encrypted dev ces n s tuat ons where passwords are reused. “I ve certa n y seen them ask for passwords,” sa d one Internet ndustry source who spoke on cond t on of anonym ty. “We push back.” A second person who has worked at a arge S con Va ey company conf rmed that t rece ved ega requests from the federa government for stored passwords. Compan es “rea y heav y scrut n ze” these requests, the person sa d. “There s a ot of over my dead body. ” Some of the government orders demand not on y a user s password but a so the encrypt on a gor thm and the so-ca ed sa t, accord ng to a person fam ar w th the requests. A sa t s a random str ng of etters or numbers used to make t more d ff cu t to reverse the encrypt on process and determ ne the or g na password. Other orders demand the secret quest on codes often assoc ated w th user accounts. “Th s s one of those unanswered ega quest ons: Is there any c rcumstance under wh ch they cou d get password nformat on?” –Jenn fer Gran ck, Stanford Un vers ty A M crosoft spokesperson wou d not say whether the company has rece ved such requests from the government. But when asked whether M crosoft wou d d vu ge passwords, sa ts, or a gor thms, the spokesperson rep ed: “No, we don t, and we can t see a c rcumstance n wh ch we wou d prov de t.” Goog e a so dec ned to d sc ose whether t had rece ved requests for those types of data. But a spokesperson sa d the company has “never” turned over a user s encrypted password, and that t has a ega team that frequent y pushes back aga nst requests that are f sh ng exped t ons or are otherw se prob emat c. “We take the pr vacy and secur ty of our users very ser ous y,” the spokesperson sa d. App e, Yahoo, Facebook, AOL, Ver zon, AT&T, T me Warner Cab e, and Comcast d d not respond to quer es about whether they have rece ved requests for users passwords and how they wou d respond to them. R chard Love oy, a d rector of the Opera Software subs d ary that operates FastMa , sa d he doesn t reca rece v ng any such requests but that the company st has a re at ve y sma number of users compared w th ts arger r va s. Because of that, he sa d, “we don t get a h gh vo ume” of U.S. government demands. The FBI dec ned to comment. Some deta s rema n unc ear, nc ud ng when the requests began and whether the government demands are a ways targeted at nd v dua s or seek ent re password database dumps. The Patr ot Act has been used to demand ent re database dumps of phone ca ogs, and cr t cs have suggested ts use s broader. “The author ty of the government s essent a y m t ess” under that aw, Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who serves on the Senate Inte gence comm ttee, sa d at a Wash ngton event th s week. Large Internet compan es have res sted the government s requests by argu ng that “you don t have the r ght to operate the account as a person,” accord ng to a person fam ar w th the ssue. “I don t know what happens when the government goes to sma er prov ders and demands user passwords,” the person sa d. An attorney who represents Internet compan es sa d he has not f e ded government password requests, but “we ve certa n y had reset requests — f you have the dev ce n your possess on, than a password reset s the eas er way.” Cracking the codes Even f the Nat ona Secur ty Agency or the FBI successfu y obta ns an encrypted password, sa t, and deta s about the a gor thm used, unearth ng a user s or g na password s hard y guaranteed. The odds of success depend n arge part on two factors: the type of a gor thm and the comp ex ty of the password. A gor thms, known as hash funct ons, that are v ewed as su tab e for scramb ng stored passwords are des gned to be d ff cu t to reverse. One popu ar hash funct on ca ed MD5, for nstance, transforms the phrase “Nat ona Secur ty Agency” nto th s str ng of seem ng y random characters: 84bd1c27b26f7be85b2742817bb8d43b. Computer sc ent sts be eve that, f a hash funct on s we -des gned, the or g na phrase cannot be der ved from the output. But modern computers, espec a y ones equ pped w th h gh-performance v deo cards, can test passwords scramb ed w th MD5 and other we -known hash a gor thms at the rate of b ons a second. One system us ng 25 Radeon-powered GPUs that was demonstrated at a conference ast December tested 348 b on hashes per second, mean ng t wou d crack a 14-character W ndows XP password n s x m nutes. The best pract ce among S con Va ey compan es s to adopt far s ower hash a gor thms — des gned to take a arge fract on of a second to scramb e a password — that have been ntent ona y crafted to make t more d ff cu t and expens ve for the NSA and other attackers to test every poss b e comb nat on. One popu ar a gor thm, used by Tw tter and L nkedIn, s ca ed bcrypt. A 2009 paper (PDF) by computer sc ent st Co n Perc va est mated that t wou d cost a mere $4 to crack, n an average of one year, an 8-character bcrypt password composed on y of etters. To do t n an average of one day, the hardware cost wou d ump to approx mate y $1,500. But f a password of the same ength nc uded numbers, aster sks, punctuat on marks, and other spec a characters, the cost-per-year eaps to $130,000. Increas ng the ength to any 10 characters, Perc va est mated n 2009, br ngs the est mated crack ng cost to a stagger ng $1.2 b on. As computers have become more powerfu , the cost of crack ng bcrypt passwords has decreased. “I d say as a rough ba park, the current cost wou d be around 1/20th of the numbers I have n my paper,” sa d Perc va , who founded a company ca ed Tarsnap Backup, wh ch offers “on ne backups for the tru y parano d.” Perc va added that a government agency wou d ke y use ASICs — app cat on-spec f c ntegrated c rcu ts — for password crack ng because t s “the most cost-eff c ent — at arge sca e — approach.” Wh e deve op ng Tarsnap, Perc va dev sed an a gor thm ca ed scrypt, wh ch he est mates can make the “cost of a hardware brute-force attack” aga nst a hashed password as much as 4,000 t mes greater than bcrypt. Bcrypt was ntroduced (PDF) at a 1999 Usen x conference by N e s Provos, current y a d st ngu shed eng neer n Goog e s nfrastructure group, and Dav d Maz ères, an assoc ate professor of computer sc ence at Stanford Un vers ty. W th the computers ava ab e today, “bcrypt won t p pe ne very we n hardware,” Maz ères sa d, so t wou d “st be very expens ve to do w despread crack ng.” Even f “the NSA s ask ng for access to hashed bcrypt passwords,” Maz ères sa d, “that doesn t necessar y mean they are crack ng them.” Eas er approaches, he sa d, nc ude an order to extract them from the server or network when the user ogs n — wh ch has been done before — or nsta ng a key ogger at the c ent. Questions of law Whether the Nat ona Secur ty Agency or FBI has the ega author ty to demand that an Internet company d vu ge a hashed password, sa t, and a gor thm rema ns murky. “Th s s one of those unanswered ega quest ons: Is there any c rcumstance under wh ch they cou d get password nformat on?” sa d Jenn fer Gran ck, d rector of c v bert es at Stanford Un vers ty s Center for Internet and Soc ety. “I don t know.” Gran ck sa d she s not aware of any precedent for an Internet company “to prov de passwords, encrypted or otherw se, or password a gor thms to the government — for the government to crack passwords and use them unsuperv sed.” If the password w be used to og n to the account, she sa d, that s “prospect ve surve ance,” wh ch wou d requ re a w retap order or Fore gn Inte gence Surve ance Act order. If the government can subsequent y determ ne the password, “there s a concern that the prov der s enab ng unauthor zed access to the user s account f they do that,” Gran ck sa d. That cou d, she sa d, ra se ega ssues under the Stored Commun cat ons Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Just ce Department has argued n court proceed ngs before that t has broad ega author ty to obta n passwords. In 2011, for nstance, federa prosecutors sent a grand ury subpoena demand ng the password that wou d un ock f es encrypted w th the TrueCrypt ut ty. The F or da man who rece ved the subpoena c a med the F fth Amendment, wh ch protects h s r ght to avo d se f- ncr m nat on, a owed h m to refuse the prosecutors demand. In February 2012, the U.S. Court of Appea s for the E eventh C rcu t agreed, say ng that because prosecutors cou d br ng a cr m na prosecut on aga nst h m based on the contents of the decrypted f es, the man “cou d not be compe ed to decrypt the dr ves.” In January 2012, a federa d str ct udge n Co orado reached the oppos te conc us on, ru ng that a cr m na defendant cou d be compe ed under the A Wr ts Act to type n the password that wou d un ock a Tosh ba Sate te aptop. Both of those cases, however, dea w th cr m na proceed ngs when the password ho der s the target of an nvest gat on — and don t address when a hashed password s stored on the servers of a company that s an nnocent th rd party. “If you can f gure out someone s password, you have the ab ty to reuse the account,” wh ch ra ses s gn f cant pr vacy concerns, sa d Seth Schoen, a sen or staff techno og st at the E ectron c Front er Foundat on. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57595529-38/feds-te -web-f rms-to-turn-over-user-account-passwords/ Six Ways Congress May Reform NSA Snooping A measure to end one NSA program was ust defeated n the House by a surpr s ng y narrow marg n. Here are other proposa s on the tab e. by Kara Brande sky A though the House defeated a measure that wou d have defunded the bu k phone metadata co ect on program [1], the narrow 205-217 vote [2] showed that there s s gn f cant support n Congress to reform NSA surve ance programs. Here are s x other eg s at ve proposa s on the tab e. 1) Raise the standard for what records are considered “relevant” The Fore gn Inte gence Surve ance Court has reported y adopted a broad nterpretat on of the Patr ot Act [3], ru ng that a the records n a company s database cou d be cons dered “re evant to an author zed nvest gat on.” The eaked court order compe ng a Ver zon subs d ary to turn over a ts phone records s ust one examp e of how the Fore gn Inte gence Surve ance Court has nterpreted the statute. Both Rep. John Conyers [4], D-M ch., and Sen. Bern e Sanders, I-Vt. [5], have ntroduced b s requ r ng the government to show “spec f c and art cu ab e facts” demonstrat ng how records are re evant. S m ar y, eg s at on ntroduced by Sen. Mark Uda , D-Co o., wou d requ re any app cat ons to nc ude an exp anat on [6] of how any records sought are re evant to an author zed nvest gat on. 2) Require NSA analysts to obtain court approval before searching metadata Once the NSA has phone records n ts possess on, Sen. D anne Fe nste n has exp a ned that NSA ana ysts may query the data w thout nd v dua zed court approva s [7], as ong as they have a “reasonab e susp c on, based on spec f c facts [8]” that the data s re ated to a fore gn terror st organ zat on. A b from Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., wou d requ re the government to pet t on the Fore gn Inte gence Surve ance Court every t me an ana yst wants to search te ephone metadata [9]. From there, a surve ance court udge wou d need to f nd “reasonab e, art cu ab e susp c on” that the search s “spec f ca y re evant to an author zed nvest gat on” before approv ng the app cat on. The eg s at on wou d a so requ re the FBI to report month y to congress ona nte gence comm ttees a the searches the ana ysts made. 3) Declassify Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions R ght now, court op n ons author z ng the NSA surve ance programs rema n secret. Advocacy groups have brought severa Freedom of Informat on Act su ts [10] seek ng the re ease of Fore gn Inte gence Surve ance Court documents, but the Just ce Department cont nues to f ght them. Severa b s wou d compe the secret court to re ease some op n ons. The End ng Secret Law Act — both the House [11] and Senate [12] vers ons — wou d requ re the court to dec ass fy a ts op n ons that nc ude “s gn f cant construct on or nterpretat on” of the Fore gn Inte gence Surve ance Act. Under current aw, the court a ready subm ts these “s gn f cant” op n ons to congress ona nte gence comm ttees, so the b wou d ust requ re the court to share those documents w th the pub c. The b s do nc ude an except on f the attorney genera dec des that dec ass fy ng an op n on wou d threaten nat ona secur ty. In that case, the court wou d re ease an unc ass f ed summary of the op n on, or — f even offer ng a summary of the op n on wou d pose a nat ona secur ty threat — at east g ve a report on the dec ass f cat on process w th an “est mate” of how many op n ons must rema n c ass f ed. Keep n m nd, before Edward Snowden s d sc osures, the Just ce Department argued that a “s gn f cant ega nterpretat ons” needed to rema n c ass f ed [13] for nat ona secur ty reasons. S nce the eaks, the government has sa d t s now rev ew ng what, f any, documents can be dec ass f ed, but they sa d they need more t me [14]. 4) Change the way Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges are appointed Current aw does not g ve Congress any power to conf rm Fore gn Inte gence Surve ance Court udges. Instead, the ch ef ust ce of the Un ted States appo nts the udges, who a a ready serve on the federa bench. The udges serve seven-year terms. Ch ef Just ce John Roberts appo nted a 11 udges [15] current y serv ng on the court – ten of whom were nom nated [16] to federa courts by Repub can pres dents. A b ntroduced by Rep. Adam Sch ff, D-Ca f., wou d g ve the pres dent the power to appo nt surve ance court udges [17] and g ve the Senate power to conf rm. The pres dent wou d a so choose the pres d ng udge of the surve ance court, w th Senate approva . A ternat ve y, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., has offered a b [18] that wou d et the ch ef ust ce appo nt three udges and et the House Speaker, the House m nor ty eader, the Senate ma or ty eader, and the Senate m nor ty eader each appo nt two udges. 5) Appoint a public advocate to argue before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Current y, the government off c a s pet t on ng the Fore gn Inte gence Surve ance Court do not face an adversar a process. Surve ance targets do not have representat on before the court, and they are not not f ed f a court order s ssued for the r data. In 33 years, the surve ance court on y re ected 11 of an est mated 33,900 government requests [19], though t the government has a so mod f ed 40 of the 1,856 app cat ons n 2012. Two former Fore gn Inte gence Surve ance Court udges – Judge James Robertson [20] and Judge James Carr [21] – have argued that Congress shou d appo nt a pub c advocate to counter the government s arguments. Carr wrote n the New York T mes, “Dur ng my s x years on the court, there were severa occas ons when I and other udges faced ssues none of us had encountered before. […]Hav ng awyers cha enge nove ega assert ons n these secret proceed ngs wou d resu t n better ud c a outcomes.” Sen. R chard B umentha , D-Conn., has prom sed to ntroduce a b [22] that wou d prov de a “spec a advocate” to argue on beha f of pr vacy r ghts and g ve “c v soc ety organ zat ons” a chance to respond before the surve ance court ssues s gn f cant ru ngs. The surve ance court can actua y nv te advocates to argue before the court, as the Supreme Court d d when the Obama adm n strat on refused to defend the Defense of Marr age Act. “There s noth ng n aw that wou d prevent the FISA court from h r ng an advocate as an add t ona adv sor to the court, except the need to obta n secur ty c earances for that advocate, wh ch wou d have to be granted by the execut ve branch,” exp a ned Steven Bradbury, who served as the head of the Off ce of Lega Counse n the Department of Just ce from 2005 to 2009. Bradbury has argued that the surve ance court may not need a permanent pub c advocate because ts ega adv sers [23] a ready fu f that ro e. 6) End phone metadata collection on constitutional grounds The Just ce Department has ma nta ned that mass phone metadata co ect on s “fu y cons stent w th the Fourth Amendment [24].” That reason ng s based on the 1979 Supreme Court dec s on Sm th v. Mary and [25], where the Court found that the government does not need a warrant based on probab e cause to co ect phone records. The Court reasoned that whenever you d a a phone number, you vo untar y share that phone number w th a te ecom, and you can t reasonab y expect a r ght to pr vacy for nformat on shared w th th rd part es. As a resu t, the Court ru ed that the co ect on of phone records s not a “search” and does not mer t protect on under the Fourth Amendment. Sen. Rand Pau , R-Ky., has ntroduced a b [26] dec ar ng that the Fourth Amendment “sha not be construed to a ow any agency of the Un ted States Government to search the phone records of Amer cans w thout a warrant based on probab e cause” — effect ve y shutt ng down the NSA s phone metadata co ect on program. http://www.propub ca.org/art c e/s x-ways-congress-may-reform-nsa-snoop ng The NSA’s New Spy Facilities are 7 Times Bigger Than the Pentagon He works at one of the three- etter nte gence agenc es and oversees construct on of a $1.2 b on surve ance data center n Utah that s 15 t mes the s ze of MetL fe Stad um, home to the New York G ants and Jets. Long Is and nat ve Harvey Dav s, a top Nat ona Secur ty Agency off c a , needs that command ng presence. H s ro e s to superv se nfrastructure construct on wor dw de for NSA, wh ch s part of the Defense Department. That nvo ves tend ng to og st cs, m tary nsta at ons, as we as power, space and coo ng for a NSA data centers. In May, crews broke ground on a $792 m on comput ng center at the agency s headquarters near Ba t more that w comp ement the Utah s te. Together the Utah center and Mary and s 28-acre computer farm span 228 acres—more than seven t mes the s ze of the Pentagon. Dur ng an nterv ew w th Government Execut ve n June, am d the uproar over eaked deta s of NSA s domest c esp onage act v t es, Dav s descr bes the 200-acre Utah fac ty as very transparent: “On y br ck and mortar.” A data center ust prov des energy and ch s mach nes, he says. About 6,500 contractors, a ong w th more than 150 Army Corps of Eng neers and NSA workers, nc ud ng some w th spec a needs, are ass gned to the pro ect. Dav s perks up when he ta ks about the hundreds of nd v dua s w th d sab t es he has steered nto NSA. But ask h m why the fac ty s so b g and what s ns de, and he s ess forthcom ng. “I th nk we re cross ng nto content. It s b g because t s requ red to be b g,” says Dav s, a 30-year veteran of the spy agency. & t;a href=”http://ad.doub ec ck.net/N617/ ump/defenseone.com/sect on_techno ogy;pos=contextua - arge-rectang e-tab et;sz=700×350;” t t e=””> & t; mg src=”http://ad.doub ec ck.net/N617/ad/defenseone.com/sect on_techno ogy;pos=contextua - arge-rectang e-tab et;sz=700×350;t e=3;” a t=”” /> & t;a href=”http://ad.doub ec ck.net/N617/ ump/defenseone.com/sect on_techno ogy;pos=contextua - arge-rectang e-mob e;sz=300×150;” t t e=””> & t; mg src=”http://ad.doub ec ck.net/N617/ad/defenseone.com/sect on_techno ogy;pos=contextua - arge-rectang e-mob e;sz=300×150;t e=4;” a t=”” /> At NSA, secrecy s not exc us ve to nte gence ana ysts. Every c v servant n the Insta at ons and Log st cs D rectorate Dav s eads has a secur ty c earance. He earned h s n the ear y 1980s, enter ng the agency w th a master s degree n bus ness adm n strat on, exper ence manag ng nventory for a women s appare cha n, and a yearn ng for a h gher ca ng than reta . For secur ty reasons, some of the contractors erect ng the data center don t even know ts purpose, other than the equ pment needed—noth ng about snoop ng. The 2010 pub c work so c tat on ca ed for a 65-megawatt center w th a ch er p ant, f re suppress on systems, e ectr ca generators and an un nterrupt b e power supp y backup capac ty. Dav s ets out that ns de there w be supercomputers, or what NSA abe s “h gh performance computers.” These need “d fferent coo ng and d fferent power d str but ons as opposed to someth ng you bought from Best Buy,” he says. The mach nes, a ong w th whatever other techno ogy s tucked n the fac ty, are s ated to power on by Oct. 1. Four years ago, the stated purpose of the megap ex near Sa t Lake C ty was to amass fore gn nte gence and warn ngs about hackers. Off c a s descr bed t as an extens on of Pres dent George W. Bush s 2008 Comprehens ve Nat ona Cybersecur ty In t at ve, a arge y c ass f ed, cross-agency program to protect U.S. computer networks aga nst adversar es. Today, t s ev dent the data p antat on w not be nked to any one program. Instead, the systems ns de w warehouse counterterror sm nformat on co ected n aggregate, nc ud ng m ons of Amer cans phone ogs for f ve years and certa n fore gners on ne messages, NSA off c a s conf rm. Sp es at other ocat ons w dec pher what s accumu ated to thwart terror st attacks, cyber assau ts, and weapons of mass destruct on. The Utah effort s the argest ongo ng Defense construct on pro ect n the Un ted States. St , t s on y three-quarters the s ze of the department s argest n the wor d—the Med ca Center Rep acement Pro ect at Rh ne Ordnance Barracks, Germany. Harvey Dav s, D rector of Log st cs, NSA, at the agency s Fort Meade construct on s te. Photo by Me ssa Go den His Posse Dav s s re uctant to d scuss the rat o of contractors to c v serv ce emp oyees n Utah—a week after The Guard an and The Wash ngton Post have reported an NSA contractor eaked Top Secret documents. Prosecutors are pursu ng former Booz A en Ham ton emp oyee Edward Snowden for expos ng f es about PRISM, the agency s fore gn Internet surve ance program, and domest c ca data-mon tor ng wh e he was adm n ster ng NSA data systems n Hawa . Compared w th the 6,500 contract emp oyees, “there s a sma er number of peop e on my core pro ect management team,” Dav s says. An agency off c a n the room adds: “We can ta k n tota numbers here . . . We can t get nto how many are ours, how many are the rs.” A few days after the nterv ew, when asked why NSA s re ance on contractors s hush-hush, agency off c a s re eased some f gures. Ten peop e are on Dav s core team. About 150 emp oyees from the Army Corps of Eng neers, a ong w th an und sc osed number of emp oyees from the 1,000-member Insta at ons and Log st cs D rectorate, are nvo ved w th the Utah pro ect. NSA cons ders the tota sum of agency personne staffed to certa n construct on pro ects operat ona deta s and wou d not prov de that stat st c. A sma workforce of up to 200 government and contract emp oyees—bu d ng eng neers, systems adm n strators and ma ntenance workers—w stay permanent y to keep the fac ty runn ng. Dav s s more eager to d scuss the qua ty than quant ty of h s emp oyees. Rough y 10 years ago, wh e work ng as an NSA human resources d rector, he encountered an untapped ta ent poo that he now draws from regu ar y. “The d sab ed popu at on s ust so thankfu to have a ob. They wou d ust come n here and you d have to actua y force them to go home,” Dav s says. “I have eng neers that are hard of hear ng, and our workforce a took s gn anguage so they cou d actua y commun cate w th one another.” Nobody waters down secur ty c earance exerc ses to fac tate spec a needs app cants, he adds. “Somebody who was deaf, we wou d do po ygraph n s gn anguage,” Dav s says. “What we ook for s qua f cat ons f rst. We have someone deve op ng software—work ng on the computers—that s b nd. There s rea y no m tat on that we have found as ong we can f nd the sk match.” At east a dozen eng neers who have d sab t es work n h s d rectorate. Grounds ma ntenance and snow remova contractors n Utah w be h red through SourceAmer ca (former y NISH), a nonprof t organ zat on that f ts agency needs w th the sk s of ob seekers w th d sab t es. “He has ntegrated th s nto the fabr c of the company,” says Joyce A. Bender, past cha r of the board of the Amer can Assoc at on of Peop e w th D sab t es, who met Dav s when he dec ded NSA needed more d vers ty. “What makes th s work at any company s a pass onate eader, someone n eadersh p, whether t s n the pr vate sector or a federa agency,” says Bender, a P ttsburgh-based consu tant who recru ts peop e w th d sab t es for work n government and ndustry. Her f rm refers to NSA about 200 nd v dua s annua y for pos t ons n f nance, ngu st cs, math and other spec a t es. S nce 2010, about 550 cand dates have been h red. “If he says, I m go ng to do someth ng, you can count on t that he s go ng to do t,” Bender says of Dav s. “He doesn t sugarcoat anyth ng. He s very d rect and to the po nt.” A Leak During Construction No matter the r background or how they came to NSA, c v servants and contract emp oyees a ke a serve n s ence. “That s rea y the cu ture of th s agency, and we re rea y not ook ng for b g acco ades,” Dav s says. “What rea y makes the peop e sat sf ed here s that they d d the ob and they d d t r ght and they re do ng th ngs w th n the appropr ate manner.” The menta ty s that NSA operates n the dark for the safety of Amer cans. Some c t zens, however, argue t shou d operate n the sunsh ne a tt e more for the safety of democracy. The secrecy d spute s “a d stract on and a weakness that has been presented by th s guy,” Snowden, who shou d not have seen such sens t ve nformat on n the f rst p ace, says one former NSA off c a . “They ve got to do some nterna homework about how to keep that data separate,” the ex-off c a says, add ng that techn ca contro s are not very d ff cu t to conf gure. “How the heck d d th s guy n Hawa ga n access to a that?” Some human r ghts advocates are gratefu for the exposure of the agency s surve ance methods. “Commun cat ons about m ons of nnocent Amer cans are be ng stored for f ve years n a government database—whether or not there s any reason to search our ca records, and I don t th nk our Const tut on a ows that,” says A ex Abdo, staff attorney for the Amer can C v L bert es Un on s Nat ona Secur ty Pro ect.

Even some former Pentagon off c a s say c t zens shou d know NSA s ntent ons for the Utah data center. “When you have th s much centra zat on of capab t es, wh ch n government terms can trans ate nto rea power—that and resources— t s mportant that the pub c be ab e to ook at these th ngs and f gure out what they are do ng,” says a cyber off c a who recent y eft Defense and now works as a pr vate contractor. The off c a s not nvo ved n the pro ect and was not author zed to speak on beha f of the department. A 2012 art c e n W red reported that NSA needs the megap ex part a y because the Pentagon wants to expand the m tary g oba commun cat ons network to manage yottabytes of data. “A yottabyte s a sept on bytes—so arge that no one has yet co ned a term for the next h gher magn tude,” the art c e sa d. “Shou d the agency ever f the Utah center w th a yottabyte of nformat on, t wou d be equa to about 500 qu nt on (500,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages of text.” NSA off c a s to d Government Execut ve, however, they do not d scuss such operat ona deta s. An Open House The contents of the NSA computer fortress m ght be a mystery to the pub c, but Dav s says h s pro ect has been open to congress ona and ndustry scrut ny. “The m tary construct on process by des gn s a very, very transparent process. We work through the Corps of Eng neers,” he says. “It s a pub c d scourse. When we g ve out our request for proposa , that s through FedB zOpps.gov.” But on the webs te, many of the work descr pt ons for that pro ect are ocked beh nd a f rewa . NSA spokeswoman Vanee V nes says the documents are restr cted because “they must be accounted for and are on y for c eared defense contractors.” Dav s acknow edges the controversy over h s pro ect has taken an emot ona to . “We ve been pressured to d sc ose what s been go ng n the Utah Data Center for qu te a wh e ndependent of the current events,” he says. “My workforce and the workforce that I work w th here [ n Utah] take our obs and our respons b ty very, very ser ous y, and for somebody to say that we re do ng someth ng untoward s a pretty b g h t on the mora e here.” No matter the outcome of the debate, the Utah computers are expected to go on ne w th n two months. Th s s where the MBA comes n. From choos ng a s te, to conv nc ng Congress to agree w th b uepr nts to surmount ng a ate- n-the-game budget chop, ba anc ng the books s key. “Utah s a wonderfu p ace w th abundant and nexpens ve power,” Dav s says. “P enty of sources of water for coo ng.” NSA app ed a mathemat ca mode to se ect the ocat on. The surround ng env ronment s mp f ed construct on. “Utah, because of the fac ty and the ut t es, ust came out far and ahead of everywhere e se,” he says. “Lots of good roads. We cou d get the stee n. We cou d get the concrete n. We have ots of sand p ts nearby,” he says. “We bu t our own cement s abs n that area. It s pretty we offset from the road for the secur ty that we need for the data center.” The pr ce tag for the pro ect s n ne w th ndustry standards, accord ng to NSA. “It s actua y re at ve y cheap and I came n under cost,” Dav s says, referr ng to $100 m on n sav ngs ga ned part y by refus ng to et contractors ad ust the p an. Penny-p nch ng became mandatory when governmentw de spend ng cuts, known as sequestrat on, k cked n th s year. “One of the b ggest cost dr vers on a pro ect th s s ze s someth ng ca ed an eng neer ng change proposa . They rea y number n the tens to hundreds n a pro ect of th s s ze,” but one cou d “count on a coup e of hands the numbers of change orders that we a owed to happen,” he says. “We spent a ot of t me hon ng the requ rements t ght y up front, mak ng sure we knew what we were bu d ng, bu d ng t, and not go ng back and chang ng t ater.” That s the New York strong arm ta k ng. http://www.defenseone.com/techno ogy/2013/07/nsas-b g-d g/67406/

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades James Bamford — The National Security Agency (NSA) — Videos Enemy Of The State: Life Imitating Art –National Security Agency Targets American People — Videos Big Brother Barack Targets All The American People As Enemies of The State and Democratic Party — National Security Agency’s PRISM Is The Secret Security Surveillance State (S4) Means of Invading Privacy and Limiting Liberty — Outrageous Overreach–Videos No Such Agency — NSA — National Security Agency — Threat To The Liberty and Privacy of The American People — None Of Their Damn Business — Still Trust The Federal Government? — Videos National Security Agency (NSA) and Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) Secret Security Surveillance State (S4) Uses Stellar Wind and PRISM To Create Secret Dossiers On All American Citizen Targets Similar To East Germany Stasi Files–Videos NSA’s PRISM Political Payoff: 40 Million Plus Foreigners Are In USA As Illegal Aliens! — 75% Plus Lean Towards Democratic Party — Pathway To One Party Rule By 2025 If Senate Bill Becomes Law Giving Illegal Aliens Legal Status — 25 Million American Citizens Looking For Full Time Jobs! — Videos Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Electronic Lynching of George Zimmerman By President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, NAACP and Mainstream Media — Shame On Them — Videos Pos ed on Ju y 20 2013 F ed under Amer can H s ory B ogro Co ege Commun ca ons Cr me Educa on Federa Governmen h s ory Hom c de Law ber y L e L nks med a Peop e Ph osophy Po cs Rad o Raves Ta k Rad o V deo W sdom Tags A Sharp on A an Dershow z Ange a Corey A orney Genera Ho der Drug Use Drugs Frank Marsha Dav s George Z mmerman Jesse Jackson ean Ma ns ream Med a Mark Lev n M chae Savage NAACP Pau Kengor Pres den Obama The Commun s Trayvon Mar n

AFTERBURNER w/ BILL WHITTLE: The Lynching

American Violence: The Future of a Catastrophe

Glenn Beck Weighs in on What You May Have Missed in Obama’s Race Speech ‘IT’S HIS LIFELONG PASSION’

Glenn Beck: Barack Obama Is A Modern Day Jefferson Davis Who Is Tearing This Country Apart

Beck: Obama Is ‘An Expert On The Most Divisive Form Of Politics In Existence Today’

President Obama: ‘Trayvon Martin could have been me’

President Obama Speaks on Trayvon Martin

President Obama Trayvon Martin FULL SPEECH. 7/19/2013. White House Briefing

Eric Holder Speaks At NAACP – Trayvon Martin Speech – 7/16/13

Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson discuss Trayvon Martin during NAACP panel discussion

Al Sharpton announces Trayvon Martin Day

http://www.fb .gov/about-us/c s/ucr/cr me- n-the-u.s/2011/cr me- n-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to- aw-enforcement/cr me-c ock

Trayvon Martin Hit George Zimmerman Repeatedly — Deadly Force was justified — that is why the jury acquitted Zimmerman of all charges

Alan Dershowitz Slams Special Prosecutor Angela Corey

Zimmerman Post-Trial – Harvard Law Big Shot: Angela Corey Should Be Prosecuted; Fired; Disbarred

Zimmerman / Martin – Alan Dershowitz On NewsMax: Angela Corey, Other Legal Insights

Zimmerman / Martin – Alan Dershowitz “Prosecutor Better Get A Lawyer” – Fox News Interview

Zimmerman / Martin – Alan Dershowitz Commenting MSNBC News About Angela Corey-Nifong

Fox Analyst Blasts Media’s Race Obsession: ‘Wants To Pretend U.S. Is Still Mississippi In 1950s’

Watch Prosecutor Corey Announce Charges Against Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin Death

Obama’s Influences – Frank Marshall Davis

Michael Savage on Obama’s REAL Father; Dreams From My Real Father DVD; Savage Nation

Obama’s Mentor: Frank Marshall Davis—The Communist—Book: Mark Levin

Frank Marshall Davis Interview

Dreams from My Real Father: Director Joel Gilbert at National Press Club, Washington DC

Paul Kengor & Glenn Beck “The Communist” on GBTV Frank Marshall Davis Barack Obama’s Mentor

The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor

Paul Kengor on Frank Marshall Davis

Jurors to learn about Martin’s alleged drug use

Truth: Why Little Wayne Has Seizures (May 2013)

sippin on that lean

Preliminary 2012 Crime Statistics Violent Crime Up, Property Crime Down 06/03/13 UCR 2012 graph c

The new pre m nary Un form Cr me Report ng (UCR) stat st cs for 2012 nd cate that when compared to data for 2011, the number of v o ent cr mes reported by aw enforcement agenc es around the country ncreased 1.2 percent dur ng 2012, wh e the number of property cr mes decreased 0.8 percent. The f na UCR stat st cs—subm tted by approx mate y 18,000 oca , state, campus, tr ba , and federa aw enforcement agenc es from around the nat on—w be re eased ater th s year n the Cr me n the Un ted States, 2012 report. Among the highlights of the preliminary report: Overa , when compared to 2011 f gures, the West exper enced the argest ncrease n reported v o ent cr me (up 3.3 percent), and the Northeast exper enced the on y decrease (down 0.6 percent). The Northeast was the on y part of the country where the four v o ent cr me categor es saw decreases across the board—murder (down 4.4 percent), forc b e rapes (down 0.2 percent), robber es (down 1.4 percent), and aggravated assau ts (down 0.1 percent). The argest r se n reported v o ent cr me (up 3.7 percent) was n c t es w th popu at ons of 500,000-999,999. The West exper enced the on y ncrease n reported property cr me (up 5.2 percent), wh e the number of property cr mes dropped 1.6 percent n the Northeast, 2.1 percent n the M dwest, and 3.5 percent n the South. The number of reported motor veh c e thefts grew by 10.6 percent n the West wh e show ng dec nes n the Northeast (down 7.9 percent), the M dwest (down 3.1 percent), and the South (down 2.9 percent). The number of arson nc dents—ta ed separate y from other property cr mes because of var ous eve s of part c pat on by report ng agenc es—fe 1.2 percent. The UCR Crime in the United States Program is a The FBI compiles the volume and rate of violent and property crime offenses for the nation and by state in an annual report. Below are stories and final reports from previous years. nationwide 2011: Story | Report cooperative statistical 2010: Story | Report effort of law 2009: Story | Report 2008: Story | Report 2007: Story | Report enforcement agencies voluntarily reporting data on crimes brought to their attention. The dea for the program began n the 1920s, when the Internat ona Assoc at on of Ch efs of Po ce—recogn z ng a need for nat ona cr me stat st cs—formed the Comm ttee on Un form Cr me Records to deve op a system. After study ng state cr m na codes and eva uat ng the recordkeep ng pract ces n use, the comm ttee comp eted a p an for cr me report ng that became the foundat on of the UCR Program n 1929. In January 1930, 400 c t es n 43 states began part c pat ng n the program. That same year, Congress author zed the attorney genera to gather cr me data; the FBI was des gnated to serve as the nat ona c ear nghouse for the co ected nformat on. The UCR Program s pr mary ob ect ve s to generate re ab e stat st cs for use n aw enforcement adm n strat on, operat on, and management. Over the years, however, these stat st cs have become one of the country s ead ng soc a nd cators and are used by cr m no og sts, soc o og sts, eg s ators, mun c pa p anners, the med a, and other students of cr m na ust ce for research and p ann ng purposes. A word of warn ng, though—don t draw conc us ons from the data by mak ng d rect compar sons between c t es or nd v dua agenc es. Va d assessments are on y poss b e w th carefu study and ana ys s of the un que cond t ons that affect each aw enforcement ur sd ct on. Once again, the final Crime in the United States, 2012 report will be available later this year. http://www.fb .gov/news/stor es/2013/ une/pre m nary-2012-cr me-stat st cs KUHNER: The media lynching of George Zimmerman A tragic death was spun to fit a racial narrative George Z mmerman s nnocent. The ev dence c ear y shows th s. Yet the bera med a have a ready conv cted h m n the court of pub c op n on. The resu t s not on y that a man s fe — regard ess of the verd ct — has been shattered. Race re at ons have been po soned, pav ng the way for poss b e dead y r ots f Mr. Z mmerman s acqu tted. From the outset, bera med a out ets — CNN, MSNBC, NPR, CBS, ABC, NBC, the Huff ngton Post, The New York T mes and The Wash ngton Post — put forth one sem na narrat ve: The shoot ng of 17year-o d Trayvon Mart n was a f agrant examp e of wh te rac sm aga nst b acks. Modern-day Sanford, F a., was transformed nto 1960s Se ma, A a. Mr. Z mmerman has been turned nto the poster ch d of a more subt e and po shed, but rev ved Ku K ux K an. For examp e, the aud otape of Mr. Z mmerman s ca to a 911 d spatcher on the n ght of the shoot ng was de berate y ed ted by NBC n a pathet c attempt to portray h m as a v e rac st bent on v o ence. The ent re ma nstream med a narrat ve, however, s based on es. Trayvon was not k ed because he was b ack. He was shot n se f-defense because he repeated y punched and smashed Mr. Z mmerman s head on the pavement. The ne ghborhood-watch capta n was tra ned by po ce to not ce nonres dents, espec a y those who ooked out of p ace and behaved susp c ous y. The Sanford commun ty had suffered a rash of burg ar es and other cr mes. Accord ng to res dents (both wh te and b ack), the town-house comp ex has become ncreas ng y unsafe. Hence, the reason — and need — for a ne ghborhoodwatch team. After spott ng Trayvon, who d d not ve n the ne ghborhood, Mr. Z mmerman d d what any good c t zen shou d do: He ca ed the po ce. The d spatcher asked for the ocat on of Trayvon s whereabouts. Mr. Z mmerman fo owed the teenager, gave the approx mate address and street, and attempted to return to h s car — unt confronted by Trayvon. He then began to savage y beat Mr. Z mmerman, who suffered two b ack eyes, a broken nose and acerat ons n the back of h s head. If he had not used h s gun, Mr. Z mmerman wou d ke y be dead today. A of these facts have been corroborated dur ng the tr a . A key w tness, John Hood, saw Trayvon on top of Mr. Z mmerman h tt ng h m “m xed mart a arts-sty e.” A so, tox co ogy reports prove that Trayvon had mar uana n h s b ood and ur ne that n ght. Mr. Z mmerman to d the d spatcher that the suspect acted ke he was “on drugs.” Mr. Z mmerman s wounds — and the grass sta ns on h s back — were cons stent w th h s story of be ng on the ground and repeated y punched by Trayvon. In other words, rather than the constant med a mage and p cture of an ange c 12-year-o d baby-faced boy, Trayvon was the oppos te. He was a 6-foot-3 man-ch d w th a h story of drug use, who had been suspended severa t mes from schoo . He even had mages of h mse f on h s ce phone smok ng mar uana and w e d ng a gun. He was a wannabe thug, who tr ggered a dead y a tercat on. Had Trayvon gone stra ght back to the home of h s father s g r fr end, he d be a ve today. Instead, he chose to confront and attack Mr. Z mmerman. U t mate y, Trayvon — not Mr. Z mmerman — s to b ame for the fata shoot ng. Yet, for the eft, none of th s matters. L bera s have turned Trayvon nto a sa nt and ce ebr ty cause. He s the a eged v ct m of rac st wh te Amer ca. Here s another gross e: Mr. Z mmerman s not even wh te. He s c ear y a H span c — h s sk n s brown. He comes from a mu t rac a — nc ud ng part-b ack — fam y. Hence, to tw st rea ty to conform to the r wh tes-are-rac st narrat ve, the ma nstream med a manufactured a new rac a category: wh te H span c. On y the tw sted bera m nd cou d b ame wh tes for a brown guy fata y shoot ng a b ack teen. Iron ca y, t s Mr. Z mmerman who s the v ct m of a rac st w tch hunt. He never wou d have been charged w th a cr me had t not been for v e race-ba ters, such as A Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. A ded and abetted by Pres dent Obama, Attorney Genera Er c H. Ho der Jr. and the Congress ona B ack Caucus, these race-arson sts have fue ed the f ames of rac a hatred. Encouraged by med a coverage that has p ayed to the most pr m t ve rac a sens b t es, many b acks have become pass onate y conv nced Mr. Z mmerman s gu ty — not on y of murder, but of hat ng young b ack men. Law enforcement author t es n Sanford are prepar ng for b oody race r ots shou d he be acqu tted. Pro-Trayvon supporters on soc a med a have a ready ca ed for mass c v unrest n the wake of a not-gu ty verd ct. If — and I stress f — there are race r ots fo ow ng the Z mmerman tr a , then Mr. Obama and h s med a a es w have b ood on the r hands. They have smeared an nnocent man, fanned the dangerous f res of rac a d v s on and h acked a po ce nvest gat on n order to pursue a po t ca agenda of b ack v ct mo ogy. Th s represents the om nous corrupt on of our ust ce system. Trayvon s dead, but h s ghost may haunt us for years to come. Jeffrey T. Kuhner s a rad o commentator on WRKO AM-680 n Boston Read more: http://www.wash ngtont mes.com/news/2013/ u /12/the-med a- ynch ng-of-george-z mmerman/# xzz2ZcG 2N1r Should Black People Tolerate This? By Walter E. Williams Each year, rough y 7,000 b acks are murdered. N nety-four percent of the t me, the murderer s another b ack person.Accord ng to the Bureau of Just ce Stat st cs, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 b ack murder v ct ms. Us ng the 94 percent f gure means that 262,621 were murdered by other b acks. Though b acks are 13 percent of the nat on s popu at on, they account for more than 50 percent of hom c de v ct ms. Nat ona y, b ack hom c de v ct m zat on rate s s x t mes that of wh tes, and n some c t es, t s 22 t mes that of wh tes. Coup ed w th be ng most of the nat on s hom c de v ct ms, b acks are most of the v ct ms of v o ent persona cr mes, such as assau t and robbery.The magn tude of th s trag c mayhem can be v ewed n another ght. Accord ng to a Tuskegee Inst tute study, between the years 1882 and 1968, 3,446 b acks were ynched at the hands of wh tes. B ack fata t es dur ng the Korean War (3,075), V etnam War (7,243) and a wars s nce 1980 (8,197) come to 18,515, a number that pa es n compar son w th b ack oss of fe at home.It s a trag c commentary to be ab e to say that young b ack ma es have a greater chance of reach ng matur ty on the batt ef e ds of Iraq and Afghan stan than on the streets of Ph ade ph a, Ch cago, Detro t, Oak and, Newark and other c t es.A much arger ssue s how m ght we nterpret the deafen ng s ence about the day-to-day murder n b ack commun t es compared w th the nat ona uproar over the k ng of Trayvon Mart n. Such a response by po t c ans, c v r ghts organ zat ons and the ma nstream news med a cou d eas y be nterpreted as “b acks k ng other b acks s of tt e concern, but t s unacceptab e for a wh te to k a b ack person.”There are a few c v r ghts eaders w th a d fferent v s on. When Pres dent Barack Obama commented about the Trayvon Mart n case, T. W ard Fa r, pres dent of the Urban League of Greater M am , to d The Da y Ca er that “the outrage shou d be about us k ng each other, about b ack-on-b ack cr me.” He asked rhetor ca y, “Wou dn t you th nk to have 41 peop e shot ( n Ch cago) between Fr day morn ng and Monday morn ng wou d be much more newsworthy and deserve much more outrage?” Former NAACP eader Pastor C.L. Bryant sa d the ra es organ zed by A Sharpton and Jesse Jackson suggest there s an ep dem c of “wh te men k ng b ack young men,” add ng: “The ep dem c s tru y b ack-on-b ack cr me. The greatest danger to the ves of young b ack men are young b ack men.” Not on y s there s ence about b ack-on-b ack cr me; there s s ence and concea ment about b ack rac st attacks on wh tes — for examp e, the recent attacks on two V rg n an-P ot newspaper reporters set upon and beaten by a mob of young b acks. The story wasn t even covered by the r own newspaper. In March, a b ack mob assau ted, knocked unconsc ous, d srobed and robbed a wh te tour st n downtown Ba t more. B ack mobs have roamed the streets of Denver, Ch cago, Ph ade ph a, New York, C eve and, Wash ngton, Los Ange es and other c t es, mak ng unprovoked attacks on wh tes and runn ng off w th the r be ong ngs. Rac st attacks have been aga nst not on y wh tes but a so As ans. Such attacks nc ude the San Franc sco beat ng death of an 83-year-o d Ch nese man, the push ng of a 57-year-o d woman off a tra n p atform and the knock ng of a 59-year-o d Ch nese man to the ground, wh ch k ed h m. For years, As an schoo students n New York and Ph ade ph a have been beaten up by the r b ack c assmates and ca ed rac st ep thets — for examp e, “Hey, Ch nese!” and “Yo, dragon ba !” But that k nd of bu y ng, un ke the bu y ng of homosexua s, goes unreported and unpun shed. Rac a demagoguery from the pres dent on down s not n our nat on s best nterests, p us t s dangerous. As my co eague Thomas Sowe recent y put t, “ f there s anyth ng worse than a one-s ded race war, t s a two-s ded race war, espec a y when one of the races outnumbers the other severa t mes over.” – See more at: http://cnsnews.com/b og/wa ter-e-w ams/shou d-b ack-peop e-to erate What the Media Choose Not to Know about Trayvon By Jack Cashill Unnerved by an unspoken m x of po t ca b as and rac a queas ness, the ma or med a have chosen to know as tt e about Trayvon Mart n as they know about Barack Obama. As a case n po nt, cons der th s boy vs. man fab e spun by the New York T mes Char es B ow: A boy s b ood had been sp ed on a ra n-soaked patch of grass beh nd a row of mustard-co ored condom n ums by a man who had pursued h m aga nst the adv ce of 911 d spatchers. That man carr ed a 9m meter handgun. The boy carr ed a bag of candy. B ow was wr t ng seven weeks after Trayvon s death. He had no excuse for m ss ng the actua story. Worse, s nce he s a wr ter for the T mes, h s report ng has he ped set the med a tone wor dw de The med a s w fu gnorance was on d sp ay aga n th s past week. In report ng th s news of George Z mmerman s return to a , more than a few med a out ets showed the dangerous y decept ve mage of Trayvon as 11-year-o d cherub. They d d so n the assumpt on that the narrat ve was st the rs to contro . It s not. The b ogs, wh ch have been do ng the rea detect ve work on th s case, have ong s nce taken contro away from them.

The s tes I have found most usefu are the Da y Ca er and theconservat vetreehouse.com. What fo ows s arge y cu ed from those s tes and the r ndependent contr butors. By prob ng Trayon s background and pars ng h s soc a med a chatter, they have put together a p cture of a d sturbed young man that beg ns to makes sense of the events that unfo ded on that fatefu ra ny n ght of February 26. 6:21 Trayvon Mart n s seen on the secur ty v deo through the 7-11 w ndow approach ng the store from the d rect on of the Retreat at Tw n Lakes. He had been stay ng there at the townhouse of h s father s g r fr end, Brandy Green. In ma or med a accounts, the he pfu Trayvon ventured out n the ra n n a m e-p us round tr p to buy Brandy s 14-year-o d son, Chad, some Sk tt es and Ar zona Iced Tea. Not ke y. 6:22 Trayvon, w th h s hood e up, grabs two tems from the she ves of 7-11. One s the Sk tt es. The other s Ar zona Waterme on Fru t Ju ce Cockta . The med a avo d the name of the rea dr nk — poss b y because of the rac a mp cat ons of the word “waterme on,” but poss b y to avo d prob ng the rea reason for Trayon s tr p. Trayvon, n fact, had become a devotee of the druggy concoct on known as “Lean,” a so known n southern h p-hop cu ture as “S zzurp” and “Purp e Drank.” Lean cons sts of three bas c ngred ents — code ne, a soft dr nk, and candy. If h s Facebook post ngs are to be be eved, Trayvon had been us ng Lean s nce at east June 2011. On June 27, 2011, Trayvon asks a fr end on ne, “unow a connect for cod en?” He te s the fr end that “rob tuss n nd soda” cou d make “some f re ass ean.” He says, “I had t before” and that he wants “to make some more.” On the n ght of February 26, f Brandy had some Rob tuss n at home, Trayvon had ust bought the m x ngs for one “f re ass ean” cockta . 6:23 Trayvon pays for h s purchases. He then appears to po nt to an tem beh nd the counter, but the c erk seems to re ect that opt on. Trayvon turns from the counter w th a coup e of do ar b s st n h s hand. 6:24 Trayvon eaves the 7-11, but we do not see h m wa k n front of the store w ndow back towards Brandy s home. 6:25 Three squ rre y young men enter the 7-11, a of them w th the r faces concea ed n part or n fu . The c erk had to have been nervous. One of the three (Cur y) takes off h s hat and shakes out h s ong, cur y dark ha r. He s ke y e ther wh te or H span c, or, ke Z mmerman, a “wh te H span c.” 6:27 Cur y appears to be ho d ng the two b s Trayvon wa ked out w th. He approaches the c erk and buys two cheap c gars from beh nd the counter and then a th rd one as an afterthought. 6:28 Cur y s the f rst of three to ex t. The others w fo ow n a m nute. 6:29 Trayvon, turn ng as he wa ks, can be seen through the w ndow head ng back towards the Retreat at Tw n Lakes and Brandy s house. 7:09 Z mmerman ca s po ce wh e watch ng Trayvon near the gated commun ty s c ubhouse, ess than a ha f-m e from the 7-11. Accord ng to “Dee-Dee,” the g r Trayvon was per od ca y ta k ng to on h s ce phone, he was duck ng n out of the ra n. She a so sa d he put h s hood e up for the same reason. In fact, though, Trayvon had h s hood e up ns de the 7-11, and he was wa k ng n the ra n when Z mmerman spotted h m. The wa k to th s po nt shou d have taken 10 m nutes. It took 40 m nutes. Some background may he p exp a n why. Ear er that same month, Trayvon had been caught at schoo ho d ng a bag w th mar uana res due and a mar uana p pe. He was suspended for the th rd t me that schoo year, th s t me for ten days. Trayvon may have been dea ng as we . As one on ne fr end had commun cated ear er, “Damn were u at a n gger need a p ant.” Trayvon was part a to “b unts,” street s ang for cannab s ro ed w th the tobacco- eaf wrapper from an nexpens ve c gar ca ed a “b unt.” As a tr bute after h s death, one fr end posted on ne a photo of a homemade badge honor ng Trayvon pos t oned next to a b unt. It seems a together poss b e that Cur y bought at east one of those c gars for the under-aged Trayvon and took those v s b e do ar b s as payment. Trayvon wa ted f ve m nutes outs de the 7-11 and d d not eave unt after Cur y came out. In the 40 m nutes before Z mmerman spotted h m, Trayvon cou d have scraped the tobacco out of the c gar, rep aced t w th mar uana, and smoked h s b unt. “Th s guy ooks ke he s up to no good,” Z mmerman te s the po ce. “Or he s on drugs or someth ng. It s ra n ng and he s ust wa k ng around, ook ng about.” Trayvon was on drugs or had been recent y. H s autopsy showed the presence of THC, the psychoact ve ngred ent n mar uana, n both h s b ood and h s ur ne. It s poss b e too that Trayvon was up to no good. “He s ust star ng, ook ng at a the houses,” says Z mmerman. Trayvon had a h story. On October 21, 2011, he rece ved h s second suspens on that schoo year. A secur ty guard at h s schoo saw Trayvon wr t ng “WTF” on a ha way ocker. In ook ng through h s bag for the marker, the guard found 12 p eces of ewe ry, a watch, and a “burg ary too .” Z mmerman d d the prudent th ng by report ng Trayvon to the po ce. Ever s nce the F or da rea estate bust, the Retreat at Tw n Lakes had been troub ed by vacanc es, forec osures, and renters of dub ous repute. The commun ty had suffered numerous break- ns and home nvas ons, the perpetrators of wh ch were a young men, most of them b ack. “We report a susp c ous persons & act v t es to the Sanford Po ce Department,” reads the standard ne ghborhood watch s gn at the commun ty s gated entrance. If Trayvon d d not f t the b , no one d d. 7:10 “He s com ng towards me,” Z mmerman te s the po ce about Trayvon, who s now wa k ng towards h s truck. He makes h s f rst f rm dent f cat on of Trayvon as “a b ack ma e.” Adds Z mmerman, “He s com ng to check me out. He s got someth ng n h s hands.” Z mmerman sounds a tt e anx ous: “P ease, get an off cer over here.” 7:11 After Trayvon passes h s truck, Z mmerman says, “Sh t, he s runn ng.” He s head ng towards “the back entrance,” says Z mmerman. That entrance s n the same genera d rect on as Brandy s townhouse. A quest on that goes unasked s why Trayvon was runn ng. 7:12 When asked by the d spatcher, Z mmerman agrees not to fo ow Trayvon, and h s heavy breath ng ends. “He ran,” says Z mmerman. Even f runn ng s ow y, Trayvon cou d have made t to Brandy s house n a ha f a m nute. It was on y 100 yards from the truck. 7:13 Z mmerman s hes tant to g ve out h s address. “I don t know where th s k d s.” He ooks around to see where Trayvon has gone, fa s to spot h m, term nates h s ca , and heads back to the truck. 7:14 – 7:16

These are the m ss ng two m nutes. After rece v ng a ca from Dee-Dee, Trayvon has come back to confront Z mmerman. The r f na confrontat on takes p ace 70 yards from Brandy s townhouse and on y 30 yards from Z mmerman s truck. No one hunted Trayvon down. A though he has kept the dr nk and candy on h s person, Trayvon does not have a b unt w th h m. Accord ng to the autopsy report, Trayvon was 5 11” ta and we ghed 158 pounds, the “ dea hea thy we ght” at that he ght be ng 160 pounds. He was not the sk nny tt e boy w th the Sk tt es that ha f of Amer ca st be eves h m to be. He was at east three nches ta er than Z mmerman and on y about 20 pounds ghter. H s home fe a wreck, h s schoo fe n d sarray, Trayvon had fa en v ct m to urban Amer ca s ost boy cu ture. Th s cu ture, wh ch the med a a so choose not to see, has been shock ng y destruct ve. C t ng Bureau of Just ce stat st cs, b ack econom st Wa ter W ams n a recent co umn notes that “between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 b ack murder v ct ms.” Of these, W ams est mates that rough y “262,621 were murdered by other b acks.” Trayvon had “stat st c” wr tten a over h m. In the past year or so, h s soc a med a s tes showed a grow ng nterest n drugs, n m xed mart a arts-sty e street f ght ng, n a profound y vu gar exp o tat on of “b tches.” Trayvon posed for one photo w th ra sed m dd e f ngers, another w th wads of cash he d n an out-stretched arm. One YouTube v deo shows h m referee ng a f ght c ub-sty e street f ght. A cous n had recent y tweeted h m, “Yu a n t te me yu swung on a bus dr ver,” mean ng, f true, that Trayvon had punched out a bus dr ver. Z mmerman never saw the cute tt e boy that the TV aud ence d d. He saw a fu -grown man, a druggy, a wannabe street f ghter, the tattooed, go d-gr ed, se f-dubbed “No_L m t_N gga.” Med a obfuscat on may st work n the court of pub c op n on — t got Obama e ected n 2008 — but t w not work n a court of aw. The truth w out. When t does, the ma or med a w ose a good chunk of whatever cred b ty they have eft, and our nat on may ose a good chunk of ts urban rea estate. Read more: http://www.amer canth nker.com/2012/06/what_the_med a_choose_not_to_know_about_trayvon.htm # xzz2ZcamdGD4 Trayvon Martin and Lean/Purple Lean/Purple Drank Th s s a very nterest ng part of the TRAYVON MARTIN story that s not gett ng a ot of press. But t was w de y reported that the young ad was s mp y buy ng “Ar zona Ice Tea and Sk tt es” from the 7E even store. Turns out that we parents are unaware that there s a drug dr nk made from Ar zona Waterme on dr nk and Sk tt es candy and then m xed w th OVER THE COUNTER cough med c ne (Rob tussen and s m ar brands) that makes a very potent drug. Not on y s there now a sorts of ev dence popp ng up that Trayvon Mart n was abus ng drugs, but t a so s a warn ng to parents a over Amer ca that s mp e comb nat ons of common y ava ab e goods can be some ser ous drugs n the hands of our k ds. The drug s ca ed LEAN or PURPLE LEAN or PURPLE DRANK. It s very ke y that Trayvon Mart n was on h s way to make some more LEAN the n ght he was shot, the coroner s report shows that h s ver was damaged n a way that s cons stent w th the use of LEAN/PURPLE LEAN. Mart n a so may have bought a b unt at the conven ence store, they empty the tobacco out of the c gar and f t w th mar uana, and he may have smoked t before h s encounter w th Z mmerman. Mar uana and Purp e Lean are a popu ar comb nat on w th rappers and thugs. Keep an eye on your k ds and grandk ds. Those seem ng y nnocent tems such as Ar zona waterme on dr nk and Sk tt es the young peop e are tot ng around or buy ng at the store may be a ot more dangerous to them than you th nk. You shou d have to be over 18 years o d, and you shou d have to show ID, to be ab e to buy cough syrup, to prevent our k ds from mak ng Lean/Purp e Lean/Purp e Drank. You cannot prevent the k ds from buy ng Ar zona waterme on dr nk and Sk tt es. We w see f t comes out dur ng the tr a about Trayvon and Purp e Lean, th s nformat on needs to get out there. The peop e who do drugs have known th s nformat on a a ong, now a of the good peop e need to earn about t, th s must not be kept secret, parents need to know. http://www.top x.com/forum/c ty/rochester-ny/TLL0M4JC4TMF3VSEQ

Purple Drank Purple drank s a s ang term for a recreat ona drug popu ar n the h p hop commun ty n the southern Un ted States, or g nat ng n Houston, Texas. Its ma n ngred ent s prescr pt on-strength cough syrup conta n ng code ne and promethaz ne. [1] Cough syrup s typ ca y m xed w th ngred ents such as Spr te soft dr nk or Mounta n Dew and p eces of Jo y Rancher candy. The purp sh hue of purp e drank comes from dyes n the cough syrup. There are numerous s ang terms for purp e drank, nc ud ng sizzurp, [2][3][4][5][6] lean, [1][3][4][7] syrup, [3][5][8] drank, [5][9] barre, [5] purple jelly, [4][5] Texas tea, [9] and Tsikuni. [10]

History Houston, Texas producer DJ Screw popu ar zed the concoct on, wh ch s w de y attr buted as a source of nsp rat on for the “chopped and screwed” sty e of h p hop mus c. [3][11] Or g na y, the act ve ngred ent of “syrup” was cough syrup conta n ng promethaz ne and code ne. The concoct on f rst ga ned popu ar ty n the underground rap scene n Houston, [11] where mus c an B g Hawk sa d t was consumed as ear y as the 1960s and 1970s, becom ng more w despread n the ear y 1990s. [12] Its use ater spread to other southern states. [3] Because of usage by rap art sts n Houston, t became more popu ar n the 1990s. [13]

In June 2000, Three 6 Maf a s s ng e “S pp n on Some Syrup,” featur ng UGK, brought the term “purp e drank” to a nat onw de aud ence. [2] Three 6 Maf a s s ng e “Ra nbow Co ors” featur ng L F p perta ns to the consumpt on of purp e drank; the add t on of a Jo y Rancher candy to a cup of purp e drank creates a spectrum of co ors, hence the name. In 2004, the Un vers ty of Texas found that 8.3% of secondary schoo students n Texas had taken code ne syrup to get h gh. [3] The Drug Enforcement Adm n strat on reports “busts” nvo v ng syrup across the southern Un ted States, part cu ar y n Texas and F or da. [3] As of 2011, the pr ce of purp e drank n Houston s tw ce the pr ce n Los Ange es. [13]

Notable deaths from use Purp e drank s conf rmed or suspected to have caused the deaths of severa prom nent users. Resp ratory depress on s a potent a y ser ous or fata adverse drug react on assoc ated w th the use of code ne, but ma n y the danger es n the much more potent and CNS-depress ng phenoth az ne-re ated ant h stam ne promethaz ne. Th s depress on s dose-re ated and s the mechan sm for the potent a y fata consequences of overdose: resp ratory or card ac arrest. As w th most CNS depressants, m x ng w th a coho great y ncreases the r sk of resp ratory fa ure and other comp cat ons. [14] DJ Screw, who popu ar zed the code ne-based dr nk, d ed of a code ne-promethaz ne-a coho overdose on November 16, 2000, severa months after the v deo to Three 6 Maf a s s ng e debuted. [8] B g Moe, a DJ Screw protégé whose a bums C ty of Syrup and Purp e Wor d were based on the dr nk and who has been descr bed as hav ng “rapped obsess ve y about the drug,”[15] d ed at age 33 on October 14, 2007, after suffer ng a heart attack one week ear er that eft h m n a coma. [16] There was specu at on that purp e drank may have contr buted to h s death. [17][18] P mp C, w de y nf uent a Port Arthur, Texas rapper and a member of rap duo UGK, was found dead on December 4, 2007, at the Mondr an Hote n West Ho ywood, Ca forn a. The Los Ange es County Coroner s Off ce reported that the rapper s death was “due to promethaz ne/code ne effects and other unestab shed factors.” Ed W nter, ass stant ch ef of the Coroner s Off ce, sa d the eve s of the med cat on were e evated, but not enough to deem the death an overdose. However, P mp C had a h story of s eep apnea, a cond t on that causes one to stop breath ng for short per ods dur ng s eep. A spokesman for the coroner s off ce sa d that the comb nat on of s eep apnea and cough med cat on probab y suppressed P mp C s breath ng ong enough to br ng on h s death. [4][15]

Other notable incidents In September 2006, Terrence K e , a San D ego Chargers p ayer, was arrested dur ng pract ce for the possess on w th ntent to se prescr pt on cough syrup for use n mak ng the dr nk. [3] K e was caught try ng to sh p a case of syrup to a fr end v a FedEx. K e was charged w th two fe ony counts of transport ng a contro ed substance and three counts of possess on for sa e of a contro ed substance. [19] On Ju y 8, 2008, Johnny Jo y, a Green Bay Packers p ayer, was pu ed over n h s car for excess ve mus c. The off cers found a Dr Pepper bott e n a ho der next to two Styrofoam cups conta n ng soda and ce. The off cers sa d the cups and the bott e a em tted “strong odors of code ne.”[20] The case was d sm ssed at f rst, [21] but charges were ref ed n December 2009 after the Houston Po ce Department s acqu red new equ pment that a owed the po ce to test the ev dence aga n. Jo y faced a poss b e max mum sentence of up to 20 years n a , but as a f rst t me offender he wou d be e g b e for probat on. [22] On Ju y 5, 2010, former Oak and Ra ders quarterback JaMarcus Russe was arrested at h s home n Mob e, A abama, for possess on of code ne syrup w thout a prescr pt on. He was arrested as part of an undercover narcot cs nvest gat on. Russe was booked nto c ty a and re eased soon afterwards after mak ng h s ba . [23] On June 11, 2013, ust days after be ng robbed at gunpo nt n San Franc sco, rapper 2 Cha nz was arrested at Los Ange es nternat ona a rport on charges of possess ng mar uana and promethaz ne and code ne, the pr mary ngred ents of purp e drank. [24]

Ingredients The most popu ar type of code ne syrup s promethaz ne-code ne, a prescr pt on cough syrup. The act ve ngred ents are code ne, a narcot c, and promethaz ne, an ant h stam ne. When taken n arge quant t es, both med cat ons can ead to sedat on and a tered eve s of consc ousness. [1] The nc us on of the ant h stam ne s ntended to deter abuse, as doses h gher-than-recommended can produce extreme somno ence, c n ca weakness, and u t mate y, fata hypovent at on ( nadequate breath ng to susta n fe). In ower doses, the ant h stam ne targets co d symptoms through reduc ng both swe ng and vasod at on; t a so acts to potent ate the op ate code ne. Prescr pt on cough syrups conta n ng hydrocodone are a so used to make the dr nk, though they are ess popu ar. [25] Songs ke “S pp n on Some Syrup” by Three 6 Maf a refer to Tuss onex, a ye ow cough syrup conta n ng extended-re ease hydrocodone and ch orphen ram ne (another ant h stam ne). [26] Other hydrocodone-conta n ng syrups such as H st nex HC, Hycotuss, and Hycodan may a so be used, but Hycodan has added homatrop ne to deter abuse. [27] Syrup a so s made w th over-the-counter cough syrups such as Rob tuss n DM, wh ch conta n dextromethorphan as the cough suppressant. A though dextromethorphan s used recreat ona y, t has d ssoc at ve effects as opposed to narcot c. Dextromethorphan s a synthet c morph ne ana og[28] that has been on the market n the Un ted States s nce the 1950s. [29] It s a cough suppressant n sma doses, but n arge doses t can resu t n a d sassoc at ve state, w th ha uc nat ons, s m ar to that produced by PCP or ketam ne. [25] Promethaz ne-code ne conta ns 10 mg of code ne and 6.25 mg of promethaz ne per 5 mL. [30] Some users report that the arge amount of sugar n drank causes them to exper ence we ght ga n, tooth decay, and other med ca symptoms. [17]

Mentions in hip hop Th s sect on needs additional citations for verification. P ease he p mprove th s art c e by add ng c tat ons to re ab e sources. Unsourced mater a may be cha enged and removed. (January 2010) In add t on to ts popu ar zat on n the mus c of DJ Screw and Three 6 Maf a, the m xture has been referenced n yr cs of other rappers. It s the sub ect of UGK s “S pp n and Sp nn n” and “Purp e Drank”, as we as tracks by D12, Em nem, L Wyte, B g Moe, [31][32] L Boos e, Far East Movement, Pau Wa , Esham, M ke Jones, Kanye West, T.I., R ck Ross, B rdman, Future, L F p, L Wayne, Ludacr s, 2 Cha nz, P ayaz C rc e, Fat Joe, Bean e S ge , [25] Pro ect Pat, Cham ona re, Lou Bega, French Montana, K rko Bangz, J m Jones, The Game, S m Thug, Fat Pat, Frayser Boy, Gor a Zoe, YC (rapper), ZRO, Youngb oodz, 8Ba , Papoose, Drake, Jae M z, Meek M , Mack Ma ne, Ace Hood, Ju cy J, Gucc Mane, [33] P es, ASAP Rocky, Tech N9ne, Trae, Young Buck, E-40, Ye awo f, Schoo boy Q, Mac M er and Ab-Sou , the atter of whom has crafted an ode to ean t t ed, “M xed Emot ons”. [34] New Or eans rapper L Wayne has pub c y acknow edged h s use of purp e drank, and h s yr cs frequent y ment ons dr nk ng purp e drank. [9] In the Duff e Bag Boy mus c v deo he can be seen ho d ng a Styrofoam cup w th “RIP DJ Screw” wr tten on t. In h s freesty e to “Throw Some D s” on h s m xtape Da Drought 3 he c a ms “I m not a rook e, I m a pro..methaz ne f end” as we as stat ng “You know what s n my Styrofoam…what? S-Y-R-UP.” He a so ment ons the substance n the track “Barry Bonds” from Kanye West s Graduat on a bum, say ng “My dr nk s st p nker than the Easter Rabb t,” an overt reference to the co or of the beverage. Wayne makes a s m ar reference n DJ Kha ed s song “We Tak n Over.”[9] On March 15, 2013, t was reported that Wayne had been adm tted to the Intens ve Care Un t at Cedars-S na Med ca Center n Los Ange es after be ng d scovered “shak ng uncontro ab y” and “unconsc ous”. Doctors found a h gh amount of code ne n h s system and h s stomach had to be pumped three t mes. He was sa d to be n cr t ca cond t on. [35] The rapper s assoc ates were qu ck to deny rumors that he was near death, and he was re eased on March 18. [36]

Commercial products

Advert s ng for one commerc a product based on purp e drank. Severa ega commerc a products oose y based on “purp e drank” are marketed n the Un ted States. In June 2008 Innovat ve Beverage Group, a Houston, Texas-based company, re eased a beverage ca ed “Drank.” The commerc a product conta ns no code ne or promethaz ne, but c a ms to “S ow Your Ro ” w th a comb nat on of herba ngred ents such as va er an root and rose h ps as we as the hormone me aton n. [37][38] S m ar “re axat on” or “ant -energy” dr nks on the commerc a market use the names “Purp e Stuff”, “S pp n Syrup”, and “Lean”. [39][40][41]

Criticism These commerc a products have been cr t c zed for the r potent a to serve as gateways to the dangerous ega concoct on. [40][41][42] At a menta hea th conference n February 2010, Dr. Rona d Peters, Jr., of the Un vers ty of Texas Hea th Sc ence Center sa d of “Drank”: “They re tak ng the name, and they re try ng to market t to young peop e.” He descr bed the beverage as “the worst th ng I ve ever seen on the street s nce the mak ng of candy c garettes.”[42]

References Houston porta H p hop porta 1. ^ a b c Peters Rona d J. Jr.; Steven H. Ke der, Chr st ne M. Markham, George S. Yacoub an, Jr., Lecresha A. Peters and Art st E s (2003). “Be efs and soc a norms about code ne and promethaz ne hydroch or de cough syrup (CPHCS) onset and perce ved add ct on among urban Houston an ado escents: an add ct on trend n the c ty of ean.”. Journa of drug educat on 33 (4): 415–25. do :10.2190/NXJ6-U60J-XTY0-09MP. PMID 15237866. 2. ^ a b Wa ker, Yo anda (2006-10-20). “Drug- aced cough syrup tempts Texas teens”. WFAA. Arch ved from the or g na on 2007-01-25. Retr eved 2006-10-28. 3. ^ a b c d e f g h Le nwand, Donna (2006-10-18). “DEA warns of soft dr nk-cough syrup m x”. USA Today. Retr eved 2006-10-23. 4. ^ a b c d “Cough syrup c ted n rapper P mp C s death”. LAT mes.com. 2008-02-05. Retr eved 2008-03-15. 5. ^ a b c d e Bryan Rob nson, Cough Syrup Abuse n Texas Takes Center Stage, ABC News, August 17, 2005 6. ^ The Da y F x The Wa Street Journa , Dav d Roth. Ju y 9, 2010 7. ^ R chard K emme, USE OF PROMETHAZINE WITH CODEINE SYRUP: COUGH/COLD EPIDEMIC OR SIGNIFICANT ABUSE?, Texas State Board of Pharmacy News etter, Vo ume XXV , Number 2, Spr ng 2001. The name “ ean” refers to “abusers propens ty of hav ng d ff cu ty n stand ng up stra ght.” 8. ^ a b Demby, Er c (2001-01-11). “Code ne Overdose K ed DJ Screw, Med ca Exam ner Says”. MTV.com. Retr eved 2006-10-28. 9. ^ a b c d Shaheem Re d, L Wayne On Syrup: Everybody Wants Me To Stop … It A n t That Easy , MTV.com, February 28, 2008

10. ^ Ar zona Off cer Safety Bu et n, [1], Pub c Inte gence, June 24, 2011

11. ^ a b [2]Corcoran, M chae Joseph (2005). “The Geto Boys and DJ Screw: Where the D rty South Began”. A Over the Map: True Heroes of Texas Mus c (1st ed.). Aust n: Un vers ty of Texas Press. pp. 23–26. ISBN 0-292-70976-5.

12. ^ Joseph Pate , Chopped & Screwed: A H story, page 2, MTV.com. Accessed January 7, 2010.

13. ^ a b Sch er, Dane. “Purp e Drank scheme a eged y made m ons for smugg ng r ng.” Houston Chron c e. Wednesday October 19, 2011. Retr eved on October 23, 2011.

14. ^ “A coho Interact ons w th Other Drugs”. A coho and Other Drugs Program Pub c Hea th D v s on, Hea th Department of Western Austra a. 1999.

15. ^ a b Kr st e R eken, Cough syrup found n P mp C s hote had no abe , Assoc ated Press, February 5, 2008

16. ^ DJs – Rapper B g Moe D es, contactmus c.com, 15/10/2007

17. ^ a b Les e Cas m r, Rapper s death eads teens to re-eva uate festy e; Fans and fr ends wonder whether drug was a factor n h s heart attack, Houston Chron c e, Oct. 20, 2007

18. ^ Houston rappers remember B g Moe, by Eyder Pera ta, Houston Chron c e, Oct. 16, 2007

19. ^ Chargers safety K e arrested on drug charges, USA Today, September 28, 2006

20. ^ Jo y faces unc ear future – Tr a on fe ony charge of drug possess on awa ts Packers defens ve neman, M waukee Journa Sent ne , Ju y 11, 2009. The cred b ty of th s statement s quest onab e. Code ne s odor ess, accord ng to Code ne Product Data Sheet, Chemkoo.com, accessed December 12, 2011.

21. ^ Case aga nst Jo y d sm ssed, “M waukee Journa Sent ne ”, Ju y 16, 2009

22. ^ “540 ESPN M waukee”. Espnm waukee.com. Retr eved 2010-01-04.

23. ^ http://sports ustrated.cnn.com/2010/footba /nf /07/05/russe .arrest.ap/ ndex.htm ?eref=s hp 2010-07-05

24. ^ http://news.rad o.com/2013/06/11/2-cha nz-arrested-for-mar uana-possess on-at- os-ange es-a rport/ 2013-11-06

25. ^ a b c Max m W. Furek, “Lean” Abuse Creates Strange Mus ca Genre, Counse or: The Magaz ne for Add ct on Profess ona s, 20 November 2008

26. ^ “Tuss onex (Hydrocodone and Ch orphen ram ne) drug descr pt on – FDA approved abe ng for prescr pt on drugs and med cat ons at RxL st”. Rx st.com. Retr eved 2010-01-04.

27. ^ Pap ch, Mark G. (2010-11-03). Saunders Handbook of Veter nary Drugs: Sma and Large An ma . Ph ade ph a, PA: E sev er Hea th Sc ences. ISBN 9781437701920. Retr eved 2013-04-04.

28. ^ Mason, Robert J.; V. Courtney Broaddus, Thomas Mart n, Ta madge K ng Jr, Dean Schraufnage , John F. Murray, Jay A. Nade (2010-06-09). Murray and Nade s Textbook of Resp ratory Med c ne. E sev er Hea th Sc ences. ISBN 9781437735536.

29. ^ M er, R chard Lawrence (2002). “Dextromethorphan”. The encyc oped a of add ct ve drugs. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. pp. 110113. ISBN 0313318077.

30. ^ “Phenergan w th Code ne med ca facts from Drugs.com”. Drugs.com

31. ^ Soren Baker, DJ Screw Protege B g Moe Sp s Purp e Stuff , MTV.com, Apr 19, 2002

32. ^ Jason B rchme er, B g Moe B ography, Yahoo! Mus c, accessed January 8, 2010. “The [t t e of] the b g man s debut a bum, C ty of Syrup (2000), … nodd ng to Houston s reputat on for dr nk ng code neaced syrup, wh ch Moe pours from a Styrofoam cup on the a bum s cover.”

33. ^ Lyr cs for “Wasted” by Gucc Mane. The yr cs say “S pp n on purp e stuff ro ng up stanked” and “Purp e code ne spr te pa nt don t wasted, M x t up grandma drank t than tasted, Now grandma s pp n syrup ean n wasted…”

34. ^ http://rapgen us.com/Ab-sou -m xed-emot ons- yr cs

35. ^ http://www.tmz.com/2013/03/15/ -wayne-se zures-hosp ta zed-drugs-s zzurp-cr t ca -cond t on- cu

36. ^ Duke, A an (March 19, 2013). “L Wayne eaves hosp ta ”. CNN. Retr eved March 20, 2013.

37. ^ “ S ow Your Ro W th DRANK From Innovat ve Beverage Group – the Wor d s F rst Extreme L festy e Re axat on Beverage”. Yahoo. 2008-06-10. Retr eved 2008-09-16. [dead nk]

38. ^ Adventures n Press Re eases: The Ant -Energy Dr nk By Sarah D Gregor o n Ed b e News, June 4, 2008

39. ^ S pp n Syrup be ng so d n stores creates controversy, theGr o webs te, 09/25/2009. Retr eved November 27, 2009.

40. ^ a b Jem mah Noonoo, Ant -Energy Dr nk Fue s Concerns Over Market ng, Houston Chron c e, November 28, 2008; retr eved from commerc a a ert.org webs te on November 27, 2009

41. ^ a b Boyce Watk ns, Company Makes Money from Dead y Urban Trend: “S pp ng Syrup”, AOL B ack Vo ces, September 29, 2009

42. ^ a b K m Horner, Ant -energy dr nk hard for some menta hea th experts to swa ow, Da as Morn ng News, February 18, 2010 http://en.w k ped a.org/w k /Purp e_drank Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

ProPublica — IRS Scandal — Targeted Enemies List Includes Tea Party, Patriots, Religious and Conservative Groups — Obama’s Tyranny –Videos Pos ed on May 14 2013 F ed under Amer can H s ory B ogro Bus ness Commun ca ons Cons u on Cr me Econom cs Educa on Emp oymen governmen spend ng h s ory n a on RS Language Law ber y L e L nks med a Peop e Ph osophy Po cs Rad o Ran s Raves Regu a ons Taxes V deo Wea h W sdom Tags Barack Obama B as Conserva ve Groups Targe ed conserva ves Cr me Depar men o Treasury -- n erna Revenue Serv ce George Soros ncompe en n erna Revenue Serv ce RS Scanda Mark Lev n Pau S e ger Pho os Pres den Obama Pro Pub ca Progress ves Scanda Targe ng Conserva ve Groups Tea Par y Tea Par y Targe ed V deos

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration http://on ne.ws .com/pub c/resources/documents/TIGTA-201310053fr-rev sed-redacted-1.pdf Glenn Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals ‘Fundamental Transformation’

Glenn Beck – IRS targeted conservatives

IRS Admits Targeting Conservatives – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.05.10

Lou Dobbs Rips ‘Nixonian’ Obama For Lying ‘Through His Teeth’ About IRS ‘President Who Has Lost His

Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story ProPub ca founder and CEO, Pau Ste ger, on the creat on of th s foundat on-funded nvest gat ve newsroom, the cha enges they faced and the r p ans for the future. ProPub ca s the f rst on ne-on y organ zat on to w n a Pu tzer Pr ze.

Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story part 2

Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story part 3

Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story part 4 Q&A

Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story part 5 Q&A

Jon Stewart Totally DESTROYS Obama Administration Over IRS Scandal | A MUST WATCH

IRS scandal widens

Ex-commissioner on tea party scandal: IRS did “the wrong thing”

Tea Party IRS Investigations Not Politically Motivated? ‘How Stupid Do They Think We Are’

IRS in the spotlight: What’s a 501(c)(4)? By Martina Stewart, CNN

Deceptive Dollars Tied To 501(c)(4) Groups

Mark Levin Dissects Obama, The IRS & The Republican Party in Scandal – Sean Hannity – 5-13-13

Mark Levin Attacks Obama & ‘Impotent’ House GOP Over IRS Scandal ‘Absolutely Unacceptable’

Glenn Beck: Failure to Impeach Over IRS Scandal Means America ‘Already Operating Under Tyranny’

CU President David Bossie on Fox News (02/19/2013)

President Obama Calls IRS Targeting of Conservative, Tea Party Groups ‘Outrageous’

Obama Administration – The I.R.S. Targets Teaparty and Patriot Groups for Review

IRS Gave Higher Scruity to Tea Party, Conservatives According to Document Draft

Political Firestorm Erupts in IRS ‘Tea Party’ Scandal

Tea Party Patriots Jenny Beth Martin Talks ‘IRS Scandal’ with Lou Dobbs – 5-13-13

IRS Caught in the Act – Jenny Beth Martin CBS This Morning 051113

Senator Rand Paul Discusses IRS Scandal & Enemies List with Sean Hannity – 5-13-13

IRS Issues Apology For Targeting Tea Party & PATRIOT Groups! “Definitely 1st Amendment Concerns Here

IRS Targets Tea Party Groups During 2012 Election

Rep. Issa Rips Obama Over IRS Scandal: ‘How Dare The Admin Imply’ They’ll ‘Get To The Bottom Of It’

Progressive Group: IRS Gave Us Conservative Groups’ Confidential Docs by Wynton Ha The progress ve- ean ng nvest gat ve ourna sm group ProPub ca says the Interna Revenue Serv ce (IRS) off ce that targeted and harassed conservat ve tax-exempt groups dur ng the 2012 e ect on cyc e gave the progress ve group n ne conf dent a app cat ons of conservat ve groups whose tax-exempt status was pend ng. The commendab e adm ss on ends further ev dence to the engths the IRS went dur ng an e ect on cyc e to s ence tea party and m ted government vo ces. ProPub ca says the documents the IRS gave them were “not supposed to be made pub c”: The same IRS off ce that de berate y targeted conservat ve groups app y ng for tax-exempt status n the run-up to the 2012 e ect on re eased n ne pend ng conf dent a app cat ons of conservat ve groups to ProPub ca ate ast year… In response to a request for the app cat ons for 67 d fferent nonprof ts ast November, the C nc nnat off ce of the IRS sent ProPub ca app cat ons or documentat on for 31 groups. N ne of those app cat ons had not yet been approved—mean ng they were not supposed to be made pub c. (We made s x of those pub c, after redact ng the r f nanc a nformat on, deem ng that they were newsworthy.) The group says that “no unapproved app cat ons from bera groups were sent to ProPub ca.” Accord ng to Med a Research Center V ce Pres dent for Bus ness and Cu ture Dan Ga nor, ProPub ca s f nanc a backers nc ude top progress ve donors: ProPub ca, wh ch recent y won ts second Pu tzer Pr ze, n t a y was g ven m ons of do ars from the Sand er Foundat on to “strengthen the progress ve nfrastructure”–“progress ve” be ng the code word for very bera . In 2010, t a so rece ved a two-year contr but on of $125,000 each year from the Open Soc ety Foundat ons. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF webs te s http://www.soros.org. It s a network of more than 30 nternat ona foundat ons, most y funded by Soros, who has contr buted more than $8 b on to those efforts. On Fr day, the House Ways and Means Comm ttee s schedu ed to ho d a forma hear ng on the IRS conservat ve target ng scanda . IRS Comm ss oner Steve M er and Treasury Inspector Genera for Tax Adm n strat on J. Russe George are s ated to test fy. http://www.bre tbart.com/B g-Government/2013/05/14/Progress ve-Group-Says-IRS-Gave-Them-Conf dent a -Docs-On-Conservat ve-Groups IRS Also Leaked Info About Conservative Groups Targeting scandal widens By Evann Gastaldo, Newser Staff More troub e for the IRS: The same off ce that s ng ed out conservat ve groups app y ng for tax-exempt status a so eaked conf dent a nformat on about conservat ve groups ast year, ProPub ca reports. How does ProPub ca know? We , because the n ne pend ng app cat ons were eaked to ProPub ca n the f rst p ace. The nvest gat ve s te had asked to see the app cat ons for 67 nonprof ts and the IRS C nc nnat off ce sent over 31, n ne of wh ch had not been approved yet, mean ng they were supposed to be conf dent a . ProPub ca was nterested n the app cat ons because t was revea ng how soc a -we fare nonprof ts, wh ch don t have to dent fy the r donors and can spend money on e ect ons as ong as soc a we fare s the r pr mary goa , m s ed the IRS when app y ng for tax-exempt status. Among the app cat ons re eased to ProPub ca: Kar Rove s Crossroads group, wh ch had prom sed to spend on y “ m ted” money on 2012 e ect ons and ended up spend ng more than $70 m on. A so nc uded were f ve other groups that a c a med they wou d not spend any money to sway the e ect ons and spent more than $5 m on. ProPub ca reported on a s x (here and here). Interest ng y, the New York T mes reported today that Crossroads and other arger groups were not sub ected to the same ntense scrut ny the IRS app ed to sma Tea Party groups; c ck for more on that. http://www.newser.com/story/167882/ rs-a so- eaked- nfo-about-conservat ve-groups.htm ProPublica ProPublica s a non-prof t corporat on based n New York C ty. It descr bes tse f as an ndependent non-prof t newsroom that produces nvest gat ve ourna sm n the pub c nterest. [2] In 2010 t became the f rst on ne news source to w n a Pu tzer Pr ze, for a p ece[3] wr tten by one of ts ourna sts [4][5] and pub shed n The New York T mes Magaz ne[6] as we as on ProPub ca.org. [7] ProPub ca s nvest gat ons are conducted by ts staff of fu -t me nvest gat ve reporters and the resu t ng stor es are g ven away to news partners for pub cat on or broadcast. In some cases, reporters from both ProPub ca and the news partners work together on a story. ProPub ca has partnered w th more than 90 d fferent news organ zat ons, nc ud ng 60 M nutes, ABC Wor d News, Bus ness Week, CNN, Front ne, Los Ange es T mes, The New York T mes, Newsweek, USA Today, The Wash ngton Post, Huff ngton Post, MSN Money, MSNBC.com, Po t co, Reader s D gest, Sa on.com, S ate, Th s Amer can L fe, and NPR, among many others. History ProPub ca s the bra nch d of Herbert and Mar on Sand er, the former ch ef execut ves of the Go den West F nanc a Corporat on, who have comm tted $10 m on a year to the pro ect. [8] The Sand ers h red Pau Ste ger, former manag ng ed tor of the Wa Street Journa , to create and run the organ zat on as ed tor n ch ef. At the t me ProPub ca was set up, Ste ger responded to concerns about the ro e of the Sand ers po t ca v ews, say ng on The Newshour w th J m Lehrer: Com ng nto th s, when I ta ked to Herb and Mar on Sand er, one of my concerns was prec se y th s quest on of ndependence and nonpart sansh p… My h story has been do ng down the m dd e report ng. And so when I ta ked to Herb and Mar on I sa d are you comfortab e w th that? They sa d abso ute y . I sa d we suppose we d d an expose of some of the eft ean ng organ zat ons that you have supported or that are fr end y to what you ve supported n the past . They sa d no prob em . And when we set up our organ zat ona structure, the board of d rectors, on wh ch I s t and wh ch Herb s the cha rman, does not know n advance what we re go ng to report on. [9] ProPub ca had an n t a news staff of 28 reporters and ed tors, nc ud ng Pu tzer Pr ze w nners, Char es Ornste n, Tracy Weber, Jeff Gerth, and Marcus Stern, but has s nce grown to 34 fu -t me work ng ourna sts. Ste ger c a med that he rece ved as many as 850 app cat ons upon ProPub ca s start. The organ zat on a so appo nted a 12-member ourna sm adv sory board cons st ng of profess ona ourna sts. The newsgroup shares ts work under the Creat ve Commons no-der vat ve, non-commerc a cense. Funding Wh e the Sand er Foundat on prov ded ProPub ca w th s gn f cant f nanc a support, t has a so rece ved fund ng from the Kn ght Foundat on, MacArthur Foundat on, Pew Char tab e Trusts, Ford Foundat on, the Carneg e Corporat on and others. ProPub ca and the Kn ght Foundat on have var ous connect ons. For examp e, Pau Ste ger, Pres dent of ProPub ca, s a trustee of the Kn ght Foundat on. [10] In ke manner, A berto Ibarguen, the Pres dent and CEO of the Kn ght Foundat on s on the board of ProPub ca. [11] In 2010, t rece ved a two-year contr but on of $125,000 each year from George Soros Open Soc ety Foundat ons. ProPub ca has attracted attent on for the sa ar es t pays ts top execut ves. [12][13] The head of ProPub ca, Pau Ste ger, was pa d $571,687 n 2008, accord ng to the company s tax f ngs. [14] The manag ng ed tor, Stephen Enge berg, was pa d $343,463. [15][16] The arge sa ar es have been w de y cr t c zed by other ourna sts and even some n the non-prof t wor d as excess ve. [17][17][18] Ste ger s the former manag ng ed tor at the Wa Street Journa . Enge berg s a former New York T mes ed tor who co-wrote the non-f ct on book Germs: B o og ca Weapons and Amer ca s Secret War, w th T mes reporter Jud th M er. He was recent y e ected to the Pu tzer Pr ze Board. Awards In 2010, ProPub ca o nt y won the Pu tzer Pr ze for Invest gat ve Report ng ( t was a so awarded to another new organ zat on for a d fferent story), for “a story that chron c es the urgent fe-and-death dec s ons made by one hosp ta s exhausted doctors when they were cut off by the f oodwaters of Hurr cane Katr na.”[19] It was wr tten by ProPub ca s Sher F nk and pub shed n the New York T mes Magaz ne[6] as we as on ProPub ca.org. [7] Th s was the f rst Pu tzer awarded to an on ne news source. [4][5] That nvest gat on a so won a Nat ona Magaz ne Award for report ng. In 2011, ProPub ca won ts second Pu tzer Pr ze. [20] Reporters Jesse E s nger and Jake Bernste n won the Pu tzer for Nat ona Report ng for the r ser es, The Wa Street Money Mach ne. Th s was the f rst t me a Pu tzer was awarded to a group of stor es not pub shed n pr nt. ProPub ca s reporters have a so rece ved the Se den R ng, George Po k, Nat ona Magaz ne, Soc ety of Profess ona Journa sts, James Aronson, ABA S ver Gave , Overseas Press C ub, On ne Journa sm, Invest gat ve Ed tors and Reporters, Soc ety of News Des gn, Soc ety of Amer can Bus ness Ed tors and Wr ters, and Dart Center awards (among others) for the r work. Reception Praise ProPub ca s a so renowned for conduct ng a arge-sca e, c rcumscr bed nvest gat on on Psych atr c So ut ons, a company based n Tennessee that buys fa ng hosp ta s, cuts staff, and accumu ates prof t. [21] The report covered pat ent deaths at numerous Psych atr c So ut ons fac t es, the fa ng phys ca p ant at many of the r fac t es, and covered the State of F or da s f rst c osure of Manatee Pa ms Youth

Serv ces, wh ch has s nce been shut down[22] by F or da off c a s once aga n. [23] The r report was pub shed n con unct on w th The Los Ange es T mes. Criticism Dave Kope , a po cy ana yst for the bertar an Cato Inst tute and a former co umn st for the now-defunct Rocky Mounta n News, cr t c zed a ProPub ca report on hydrau c fractur ng as a “one-s ded ser es of facts arrayed to support a po nt of v ew”. He argued that a common theme n ProPub ca s work s that “the government s not do ng a good enough ob n contro ng th ngs, part cu ar y th ngs nvo v ng b g bus ness”. [24] ProPub ca ater responded to h s art c e, counter ng those c a ms and say ng quote, “us ng carefu y cu ed quotat ons and se ected stat st cs, Kope asserts nd sputab y fa se facts n ProPub ca s report ng.” [25] After fa out from the IRS pub c y adm tt ng to target ng conservat ve tax exempt groups for added scrut ny, ProPub ca broke the news that t had requested and rece ved conf dent a pend ng app cat ons for groups request ng tax exempt status. Board members Herbert Sand er Pau Ste ger Henry Lou s Gates, Jr. Mary Graham A berto Ibargüen Investigations Lost n Trans at on: A hurra—Amer ca s Troub ed Effort to W n M dd e East Hearts and M nds by Dafna L nzer w th report ng by Robert Lew s of ProPub ca. Partnered w th 60 M nutes (v deo). New York s Gas Rush Poses Env ronmenta Threat by Abrahm Lustgarten w th report ng by Jonathan S dhu and A son Battey of ProPub ca. Partnered w th WNYC (transcr pt | aud o) and A bany T mesUn on. Fractured Re at ons — New York C ty Sees Dr ng as Threat to Its Water Supp y by Abrahm Lustgarten w th WNYC, A bany T mes-Un on, and New York Sun. In the Eye of the Storm by Sher F nk w th Sa on.com. U.S. Targets Overseas Br bery; KBR Exec s P ea W dens Probe by T. Chr st an M er w th report ng by Mar ena Te v ck, Or ana Z de Granados, Lowe Bergman, and Jake Bernste n. Partnered w th MSN Money and Front ne. Act ng Tough: When Cameras Leave, OSHA Pena t es W ther by Robert Lew s w th Sa on.com. Pa n Adm n strat on Oversaw $26 m on ROAD to Nowhere by Pau K e w th research by L sa Schwartz. Partnered w th Newsweek. Pa n Defended Br dge to Nowhere to Sp nme sters by Marcus Stern w th report ng by Pau K e and L sa Schwartz. Partnered w th Po t co. Anatomy of a Bank Fa ure by Jake Bernste n w th MSN Money. Cr m na Past Is No Bar to Nurs ng n Ca forn a by Char es Ornste n and Tracy Weber w th Los Ange es T mes Ca forn a Takes Steps to Probe Nurses Cr m na Backgrounds by Char es Ornste n and Tracy Weber w th Los Ange es T mes Why CDC Responded w th Lack of Urgency to Forma dehyde Warn ngs by Joaqu n Sap en w th the At anta Journa -Const tut on Government Study on Ch dren L v ng n Katr na Tra ers Mudd ed By De ays, Confus on by Joaqu n Sap en w th the At anta Journa -Const tut on GOP offers scant proof of voter fraud by Ch sun Lee w th report ng by Kr st n Jones. Partnered w th Po t co. As Rape V ct ms Wa t, Money for DNA Test ng Goes Unused by Ben Protess w th Joe Rub n of the Los Ange es T mes Go dman Sachs urged bets aga nst Ca forn a bonds t he ped se by Sharona Coutts w th Marc L fsher and M chae A. H tz k of the Los Ange es T mes. Cr mes by A r Marsha s Ra se Quest ons About H r ng by M chae Grabe w th Jam e W son. Pub shed n USA Today. References Th s art c e uses bare URLs for citations. P ease cons der add ng fu c tat ons so that the art c e rema ns ver f ab e. Severa temp ates and the Ref nks too are ava ab e to ass st n formatt ng. (Ref nks documentat on) (December 2011) 1. ^ “ProPub caS te Info”. A exa Internet. Retr eved 2012-09-01. 2. ^ “About Us”. Retr eved 2009-01-11. ProPub ca s a Dog Lat n term tera y mean ng “for the pub c woman”; cf. pub ca. 3. ^ “a story that chron c es the urgent fe-and-death dec s ons made by one hosp ta s exhausted doctors when they were cut off by the f oodwaters of Hurr cane Katr na.” – Pu tzer.org The 2010 Pu tzer Pr ze W nners: Invest gat ve Report ng, accessed 13 Apr 2010 4. ^ a b The Guard an, 13 Apr 2010, Pu tzer progress for non-prof t news 5. ^ a b ProPub ca, Pu tzer Pr ze n Invest gat ve Report ng: Dead y Cho ces at Memor a 6. ^ a b Sher F nk, New York T mes Magaz ne, 25 August 2009, THE DEADLY CHOICES AT MEMORIAL 7. ^ a b ProPub ca, 27 August 2009, The Dead y Cho ces at Memor a 8. ^ Pérez-Peña, R chard (2007-10-15). “Group P ans to Prov de Invest gat ve Journa sm”. New York T mes. Retr eved 2007-10-15. 9. ^ PBS Newshour, 24 June 2008, “F nanc ng Independent Journa sm”

10. ^ Board of Trustees, Kn ght Foundat on

11. ^ A berto Ibargüen, Pres dent and CEO, Kn ght Foundat on

12. ^ Turner, Zeke. “She ng Out the B g Bucks at ProPub ca | The New York Observer”. Observer.com. Retr eved 2012-02-23.

13. ^ Tay or, M ke (2010-08-10). “ProPub ca s Top-Pa d Emp oyees A Made S x F gures n 2009 – F shbow NY”. Med ab stro.com. Retr eved 2012-02-23.

14. ^ Sa mon, Fe x Ph anthrocrat of the day, ProPub ca ed t on, Reuters B ogs, Sept. 30, 2009

15. ^ Turner, Zeke. “She ng Out the B g Bucks at ProPub ca”. Observer. Retr eved 2013-01-04.

16. ^ “ProPub ca s Top-Pa d Emp oyees A Made S x F gures n 2009 – F shbow NY”. Med ab stro.com. 2010-08-10. Retr eved 2013-01-04.

17. ^ a b “Ph anthrocrat of the day, ProPub ca ed t on”. Reuters. 30 September 2009.

18. ^ “D amonds n the Rough”. CJR. Retr eved 2012-02-23.

19. ^ Pu tzer.org The 2010 Pu tzer Pr ze W nners: Invest gat ve Report ng, accessed 13 Apr 2010

20. ^ “A Note on ProPub ca s Second Pu tzer Pr ze”. ProPub ca. 2011-04-18. Retr eved 2012-02-23.

21. ^ LA T mes – November 2008- Psych atr c care s per s and prof ts

22. ^ Bradenton Hera d – May 2010 – Manatee Pa ms hosp ta S ammed

23. ^ “MANATEE PALMS YOUTH SERVICES Fac ty Prof e”. F or daHea thF nder.gov. Retr eved 2012-02-23.

24. ^ Kope , Dave (2008-12-27). “Op n on pays ts own way”. Rocky Mounta n News. Unknown parameter |curly= gnored (he p)

25. ^ response

Claim: Obama Campaign Co-Chair Attacked Romney With Leaked IRS Docs

One of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign co-chairmen used a leaked document from the IRS to attack GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the 2012 election, according to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM, a pro-trad t ona marr age organ zat on, c a ms the IRS eaked the r 2008 conf dent a f nanc a documents to the r va Human R ghts Campa gn. Those NOM documents were pub shed on the Huff ngton Post on March 30, 2012. At that t me, Joe So monese, a eft-w ng act v st and Huff ngton Post contr butor, was the pres dent of the Human R ghts Campa gn (HRC). So monese was a so a 2012 Obama campa gn co-cha rman. Both the Huff ngton Post s Sam Ste n and HRC descr bed the eak as com ng from a “wh st eb ower.” The Huff ngton Post used the document to wr te a story quest on ng former Massachusetts Governor M tt Romney s support for trad t ona marr age. The document showed Romney donated $10,000 to NOM. HRC went a step further than the Huff ngton Post n ts cr t c sm of Romney and accused h m of us ng “rac a y d v s ve tact cs” n a press re ease. So monese, then st the HRC s pres dent, sa d n the re ease he fe t Romney s “fund ng of a hate-f ed campa gn des gned to dr ve a wedge between Amer cans s beyond desp cab e.” “Not on y has Romney s gned NOM s rad ca marr age p edge, now we know he s one of the donors that NOM has been so desperate to keep secret a these years,” So monese added. So monese res gned h s pos t on at HRC the next day and took up a pos t on as an Obama campa gn co-cha r. He had announced the then-pend ng res gnat on from HRC the prev ous autumn. NOM announced Tuesday that t w sue the IRS for th s a eged eak. Under mmense po t ca pressure, Attorney Genera Er c Ho der aunched a cr m na nvest gat on nto the IRS s act ons. Congress w conduct ts own nvest gat on. In ear y Apr 2012, NOM pub shed documents wh ch t sa d showed th s eaked conf dent a nformat on d d not come from a “wh st eb ower” but “came d rect y from the Interna Revenue Serv ce and was prov ded to NOM s po t ca opponents, the Human R ghts Campa gn (HRC).” NOM d scovered that when HRC pub shed ts conf dent a f nanc a documents, t fa ed to concea the source of the documents. “After software removed the ayers obscur ng the document, t s shown that the document came from the Interna Revenue Serv ce,” NOM asserted n ts Apr 2012 re ease. “The top of each page says, THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY, ” the statement cont nues. “On each page of the return s stamped a document ID of 100560209. On y the IRS wou d have the Form 990 w th Off c a Use nformat on.” NOM pres dent Br an Brown argued n that Apr 2012 re ease that the eak was made to benef t Pres dent Obama s re-e ect on campa gn aga nst Romney, h s GOP cha enger. “The Amer can peop e are ent t ed to know how a conf dent a tax return conta n ng pr vate donor nformat on f ed exc us ve y w th the Interna Revenue Serv ce has been g ven to our po t ca opponents whose eader a so happens to be co-cha r ng Pres dent Obama s ree ect on comm ttee,” Brown sa d. “It s shock ng that a po t ca a y of Pres dent Obama s wou d come to possess and then pub c y re ease a conf dent a tax return that came d rect y from the Interna Revenue Serv ce,” he dec ared. “We demand to know who s respons b e for th s cr m na act and what the Adm n strat on s go ng to do to get to the bottom of t.” http://www.bre tbart.com/B g-Government/2013/05/14/Obama-campa gn-co-cha r-attacked-Romney-conservat ve-group- n-2012-w th- eaked-IRS-scanda -documents Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Dereliction of Duty By President and Commander-In-Chief Obama–Sleeping While Americans Died–The Big Coverup and Scandal–The President Lied–Videos Pos ed on February 7 2013 F ed under B ogro Commun ca ons Cr me D as ers Federa Governmen governmen governmen spend ng Law ber y L e L nks med a Peop e Ph osophy P s o s Po cs Raves Resources R es Secur y S ra egy Ta k Rad o V deo War Weapons W sdom Tags Benghaz Benghaz A ack Bre Ba er Bud McFar ane Cover Up Dea h and Dece n Benghaz Dere ec on o Du y G enn Beck Jo n Ch e s Cha rman Gen Mar n Dempsey L bya Mark Lev n Pane a s Benghaz Tes mony Pres den Obama Rush L mbaugh Secre ary Leon Pane a Secre ary o De ense Secre ary Pane a Sen John McCa n Sen L ndsey Graham Sena or Chamb ss Sena or Graham spec a overs gh comm ee U S Ambassador Chr s S evens

Former National Security Adiviser Bud McFarlane: For Obama to Do Nothing is Dereliction of Duty

Know The TRUTH ~ Step By Step ~ Bret Baier’s ~ ‘Death and Deceit in Benghazi’

Obama Confronted on Benghazi – Stutters Through Response!

Mark Levin – Obama’s “Dereliction of Duty”

Rush military caller says that Obama ordered no response to Benghazi attack

BREAKING OBAMA MAY GO TO PRISON AND BE IMPEACHED KILLING OUR OWN

Father Of Murdered Navy Seal in Benghazi, Recounts Days After Attack – Judge Jeanine

Graham Questions Military Leaders on Response to Benghazi Attack

Part II: Graham Questions Military Leaders on Benghazi

Sen. Chambliss at Benghazi SASC Hearing

Panetta: Benghazi was a ‘problem of distance and time’.

No Word from Hillary During Benghazi Attack Panetta, Dempsey did not speak to Clinton

Panetta Defends Pentagon’s Benghazi Response

Senator Blunt Questions Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey About Benghazi Attacks

Rand Paul’s Reaction To Defense Secretary Panetta’s Benghazi Testimony – Fox News

Obama vs Panetta on Attacks in Benghazi – Obama Could have saved American Lives

Senators challenge military leaders on Benghazi attack response “…The top two Defense Department off c a s were sharp y cha enged by awmakers Thursday on the r ns stent c a ms that noth ng more cou d have been done to save the four Amer cans who were k ed n the Sept. 11 terror attack n Benghaz . Secretary Leon Panetta and Jo nt Ch efs Cha rman Gen. Mart n Dempsey were peppered w th quest ons from Repub can senators dur ng a hear ng before the Senate Armed Serv ces Comm ttee. The off c a s c a med m tary a rcraft and other assets were too far away to get to the scene n t me, and suggested armed a rcraft ke F16s cou d have done more harm than good n a chaot c s tuat on. The senators, though, pressed the off c a s for a fu er exp anat on on why m tary assets were not dep oyed to rescue Amer cans under attack that n ght — n what w ke y be the r ast chance to quest on the outgo ng Defense secretary. Sen. John McCa n, R-Ar z., d sputed test mony that the d ff cu ty n d spatch ng assets to the scene was “a prob em of d stance and t me.” He suggested the “ ght footpr nt” n the reg on and a fa ure to respond to threats eft the m tary -prepared. “For you to test fy that our posture wou d not a ow a rap d response — our posture was not there because we d dn t take nto account the threats to that consu ate, and that s why four Amer cans d ed,” he sa d. “We cou d have p aced forces there. We cou d have had a rcraft and other capac ty a short d stance away.” He cont nued: “No forces arr ved there unt we after these murders took p ace.” Dempsey acknow edged hav ng gotten word of a warn ng from the U.S. consu ate about be ng unab e to w thstand a susta ned attack, but sa d the m tary never got a request for support from the State Department. “So t s the State Department s fau t?” McCa n asked, curt y. “I m not b am ng the State Department,” Dempsey sa d. McCa n responded: “Who wou d you b ame?” Dempsey went on to c a m that severa U.S. posts were fac ng s gn f cant threats, though McCa n sa d none so much as Benghaz . Short y afterward, Sen. L ndsey Graham, R-S.C., pressed Panetta aga n on why no forces were dep oyed unt after the attack was over. Dempsey and Panetta sa d they ta ked to Pres dent Obama one t me that n ght, but Graham quest oned why there weren t subsequent fo ow-up conversat ons. “It asted a most e ght hours … d d the pres dent show any cur os ty?” Graham asked. Panetta sa d there was “no quest on” Obama “was concerned about Amer can ves.” “W th a due respect,” Graham responded, “I don t be eve that s a cred b e statement f he never ca ed and asked you, are we he p ng these peop e? ” The secretary s test mony on Benghaz was ong-sought by Repub can awmakers. After then-Secretary of State H ary C nton test f ed ast month, Graham had demanded that Panetta be brought before the Senate — threaten ng to ho d up the nom nat on of h s prospect ve rep acement Chuck Hage over the ssue. Comm ttee Cha rman Car Lev n, D-M ch., announced ast week that Panetta wou d test fy. Respond ng to ong-runn ng quest ons about whether more m tary assets cou d have been d spatched to protect those under f re n L bya on Sept. 11, Panetta n h s open ng statement c a med there s mp y wasn t enough t me to do more. “There was not enough t me g ven the speed of the attack for armed m tary assets to respond,” he sa d before the Senate Armed Serv ces Comm ttee. “We were not dea ng w th a pro onged or cont nuous assau t wh ch cou d have been brought to an end by a U.S. m tary response. … T me, d stance, the ack of an adequate warn ng, events that moved very qu ck y on the ground prevented a more mmed ate response.” St , he sa d the Pentagon “spared no effort … to save Amer can ves.” Panetta was test fy ng n what may be h s f na pub c appearance on Cap to H as he prepares to eave the department. Panetta, n h s test mony, deta ed the m tary response on the day and n ght of the attack. As Fox News has prev ous y reported, he sa d an unarmed, unmanned drone was pos t oned overhead the Benghaz compound. But he sa d armed a rcraft ke AC-130 gunsh ps wou d have taken too ong to get there — “at east n ne to 12 hours f not more to dep oy.” “Th s was, pure and s mp e … a prob em of d stance and t me,” he sa d. Panetta sa d he a so d rected that a Mar ne F eet Ant terror sm Secur ty Team stat oned n Spa n prepare to dep oy n add t on to a second FAST p atoon; a spec a operat ons force n Centra Europe prepare to dep oy to a stag ng base n Southern Europe; and a spec a ops force n the U.S. s m ar y prepare to dep oy to Southern Europe. As for what was happen ng n L bya, he c a med the “qu ckest response” was the Tr po -based team of s x peop e wh ch was sent to Benghaz . “Members of th s team, a ong w th others at the annex fac ty, prov ded emergency med ca ass stance and supported the evacuat on of a personne . On y 12 hours after the attacks had begun, a rema n ng U.S. government personne had been safe y evacuated from Benghaz ,” he sa d. S nce the September assau t, some have quest oned whether enough was done to protect those at the consu ate and CIA annex n Benghaz . Four Amer cans, nc ud ng U.S. Ambassador Chr s Stevens, were k ed that n ght. There have been quest ons about the perce ved de ays CIA off c a s — stat oned n Benghaz — encountered that n ght and the r frustrat on that a r support was not sent from nearby S gone a a r base. In recent weeks, Fox News has earned that the rescue un t that eft Tr po was to d that a r support wou d be above when they anded n Benghaz , but t wasn t. …” Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/po t cs/2013/02/07/panetta-defends-m tary-response-to-benghaz -attack-at-senate-hear ng/# xzz2KGmLO0Iu Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut: School Shooting–20 Children and 8 Adults Killed–Videos Pos ed on December 14 2012 F ed under Bab es B ogro Commun ca ons Cr me Cu ure D as ers Educa on Law ber y L e L nks med a Peop e Ph osophy Po cs Psycho ogy Rad o Ran s Raves Ta k Rad o V deo W sdom Tags Adam Lanza Assau Weapons B C n on Bu sh --Gun Con ro Connec cu Cr me depress on Drugs E emen ary Schoo Er c Ho der Fa her gun con ro Gun Free Guns Guns am Adam Lanza s Mo her John Lo John S osse L za Long Mark Lev n Mass Shoo ngs Men a ness M chae Savage Mo her New own Penn & Te er Ryan Lanza Sandy Hook E emen ary Schoo Schoo Shoo ng

Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown CT Tribute

ALLISON N. WYATT, 6 BENJAMIN WHEELER, 6 VICTORIA SOTO, 27, teacher MARY SHERLACH, 56, schoo psycho og st LAUREN GABRIELLE ROUSSEAU, 30, teacher AVIELLE RICHMAN, 6 JESSICA REKOS, 6 CAROLINE PREVIDI, 6 NOAH POZNER, 6 JACK PINTO, 6 EMILIE PARKER, 6 ANNE MARIE MURPHY, 52, teacher GRACE AUDREY McDONNELL, 7 JAMES MATTIOLI, 6 ANA MARQUEZ-GREENE, 6 JESSE LEWIS, 6 NANCY LANZA, 52, gunman s mother CHASE KOWALSKI, 7 CATHERINE HUBBARD, 6 MADELEINE HSU, 6 DYLAN HOCKLEY, 6 DAWN HOCHSPRUNG, 47, pr nc pa JOSEPHINE GAY, 7 OLIVIA ENGEL, 6 RACHEL D AVINO, 29 DANIEL BARDEN, 7 CHARLOTTE BACON, 6 New Details of Gunman Adam Lanza’s Movement Inside School

Newtown, Connecticut School Shooting: Adam Lanza – Who Was Shooter?

Connecticut School Shooting: President Barack Obama speaks at Sandy Hook Victims Vigil

Weekly Address: Nation Grieves for Those Killed in Tragic Shooting in Newtown, CT

Tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School: What Happened During Newtown, Connecticut Shooting?

Reflecting on Newtown, Connecticut Shooting, Gun Control in America ‘This Week’

Media Rush to Identify Shooter, Get it Wrong

Connecticut Shooter Developmentally Disabled Killed Parents Girlfriend Adam

Adam Lanza: What set him off?

History of Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooter in Newtown

Why Did NewTown Shooter Adam Lanza The SandyHook Killer Snap?

Newtown, Connecticut Shooting: Motivations Behind Mass Shootings – ABC News

Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting – Newtown, Connecticut Administrators, Students Among Victims

Many Dead In Newtown, Connecticut, US School Shooting

Mass Shooting Suspect Kills Own Mother Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown CT.

School Shooting In Newtown, Connecticut

Sandy Hook Elementary School Newtown Ct 18 children dead in Conn. school shooting

27 Dead, Including 18 Children, At Sandy Hook School Shooting In Newtown

Mass Shooting Suspect Kills Own Mother Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown

Massacre 29 Dead Including 20 Children Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown, Ct. 12-14-12

School Shooting Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown Connecticut – School Shooting News Coverage

27 Killed Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Connecticut 18 Children 9 Adults Dead

Obama Breaks Down In Tears As He Speaks About “Children” Killed In Newtown, CT

Mass Shooting in Newtown, Connecticut – Gun Control At Last?

THE SAVAGE NATION (HOUR 1) 12-14-2012 [Shooting in Newtown, Connecticut]

Piers Morgan gun control debate, re Connecticut massacre

Mark Levin-On Gun Control with Author John Lott

Guns versus Crime | John R. Lott, Jr.

JOHN LOTT: MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME – Gun Control Myths

Eric Holder: ‘We Have to Ask Ourselves Some Hard Questions About Gun Rights’

In ’95, Holder called for anti-gun info campaign: ‘Brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way’

NRA: “Assault Weapons”, the Clinton Gun Ban Story

Obama’s Assault Weapons Ban

Obama’s Bizarre Anti Gun Rant At The Presidential Debates (FULL) Gun Control

Gun Control explained

John Stossel – Gun Laws That Kill

OBAMA Pushes to ban guns

TOTAL Gun Ban

Penn & Teller: Bullshit! – Gun Control

I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother It’s time to talk about mental illness “…Fr day s horr f c nat ona tragedy—the murder of 20 ch dren and s x adu ts at Sandy Hook E ementary Schoo n New Town, Connect cut—has gn ted a new d scuss on on v o ence n Amer ca. In k tchens and coffee shops across the country, we tearfu y debate the many faces of v o ence n Amer ca: gun cu ture, med a v o ence, ack of menta hea th serv ces, overt and covert wars abroad, re g on, po t cs and the way we ra se our ch dren. L za Long, a wr ter based n Bo se, says t s easy to ta k about guns. But t s t me to ta k about menta ness. Three days before 20 year-o d Adam Lanza k ed h s mother, then opened f re on a c assroom fu of Connect cut k ndergartners, my 13-year o d son M chae (name changed) m ssed h s bus because he was wear ng the wrong co or pants. “I can wear these pants,” he sa d, h s tone ncreas ng y be gerent, the b ack-ho e pup s of h s eyes swa ow ng the b ue r ses. “They are navy b ue,” I to d h m. “Your schoo s dress code says b ack or khak pants on y.” “They to d me I cou d wear these,” he ns sted. “You re a stup d b tch. I can wear whatever pants I want to. Th s s Amer ca. I have r ghts!” “You can t wear whatever pants you want to,” I sa d, my tone affab e, reasonab e. “And you def n te y cannot ca me a stup d b tch. You re grounded from e ectron cs for the rest of the day. Now get n the car, and I w take you to schoo .” I ve w th a son who s menta y . I ove my son. But he terr f es me. A few weeks ago, M chae pu ed a kn fe and threatened to k me and then h mse f after I asked h m to return h s overdue brary books. H s 7 and 9 year o d s b ngs knew the safety p an—they ran to the car and ocked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the kn fe from M chae , then method ca y co ected a the sharp ob ects n the house nto a s ng e Tupperware conta ner that now trave s w th me. Through t a , he cont nued to scream nsu ts at me and threaten to k or hurt me. That conf ct ended w th three bur y po ce off cers and a paramed c wrest ng my son onto a gurney for an expens ve ambu ance r de to the oca emergency room. The menta hosp ta d dn t have any beds that day, and M chae ca med down n ce y n the ER, so they sent us home w th a prescr pt on for Zyprexa and a fo ow-up v s t w th a oca ped atr c psych atr st. We st don t know what s wrong w th M chae . Aut sm spectrum, ADHD, Oppos t ona Def ant or Interm ttent Exp os ve D sorder have a been tossed around at var ous meet ngs w th probat on off cers and soc a workers and counse ors and teachers and schoo adm n strators. He s been on a s ew of ant psychot c and mood a ter ng pharmaceut ca s, a Russ an nove of behav ora p ans. Noth ng seems to work. At the start of seventh grade, M chae was accepted to an acce erated program for h gh y g fted math and sc ence students. H s IQ s off the charts. When he s n a good mood, he w g ad y bend your ear on sub ects rang ng from Greek mytho ogy to the d fferences between E nste n an and Newton an phys cs to Doctor Who. He s n a good mood most of the t me. But when he s not, watch out. And t s mposs b e to pred ct what w set h m off. Severa weeks nto h s new un or h gh schoo , M chae began exh b t ng ncreas ng y odd and threaten ng behav ors at schoo . We dec ded to transfer h m to the d str ct s most restr ct ve behav ora program, a conta ned schoo env ronment where ch dren who can t funct on n norma c assrooms can access the r r ght to free pub c babys tt ng from 7:30-1:50 Monday through Fr day unt they turn 18. The morn ng of the pants nc dent, M chae cont nued to argue w th me on the dr ve. He wou d occas ona y apo og ze and seem remorsefu . R ght before we turned nto h s schoo park ng ot, he sa d, “Look, Mom, I m rea y sorry. Can I have v deo games back today?” “No way,” I to d h m. “You cannot act the way you acted th s morn ng and th nk you can get your e ectron c pr v eges back that qu ck y.” H s face turned co d, and h s eyes were fu of ca cu ated rage. “Then I m go ng to k myse f,” he sa d. “I m go ng to ump out of th s car r ght now and k myse f.” That was t. After the kn fe nc dent, I to d h m that f he ever sa d those words aga n, I wou d take h m stra ght to the menta hosp ta , no fs, ands, or buts. I d d not respond, except to pu the car nto the oppos te ane, turn ng eft nstead of r ght. “Where are you tak ng me?” he sa d, sudden y worr ed. “Where are we go ng?” “You know where we are go ng,” I rep ed. “No! You can t do that to me! You re send ng me to he ! You re send ng me stra ght to he !” I pu ed up n front of the hosp ta , frant ca y wa v ng for one of the c n c ans who happened to be stand ng outs de. “Ca the po ce,” I sa d. “Hurry.” M chae was n a fu -b own f t by then, scream ng and h tt ng. I hugged h m c ose so he cou dn t escape from the car. He b t me severa t mes and repeated y abbed h s e bows nto my r b cage. I m st stronger than he s, but I won t be for much onger. The po ce came qu ck y and carr ed my son scream ng and k ck ng nto the bowe s of the hosp ta . I started to shake, and tears f ed my eyes as I f ed out the paperwork—“Were there any d ff cu t es w th… at what age d d your ch d… were there any prob ems w th.. has your ch d ever exper enced.. does your ch d have…” At east we have hea th nsurance now. I recent y accepted a pos t on w th a oca co ege, g v ng up my free ance career because when you have a k d ke th s, you need benef ts. You do anyth ng for benef ts. No nd v dua nsurance p an w cover th s k nd of th ng. For days, my son ns sted that I was y ng—that I made the who e th ng up so that I cou d get r d of h m. The f rst day, when I ca ed to check up on h m, he sa d, “I hate you. And I m go ng to get my revenge as soon as I get out of here.” By day three, he was my ca m, sweet boy aga n, a apo og es and prom ses to get better. I ve heard those prom ses for years. I don t be eve them anymore. On the ntake form, under the quest on, “What are your expectat ons for treatment?” I wrote, “I need he p.” And I do. Th s prob em s too b g for me to hand e on my own. Somet mes there are no good opt ons. So you ust pray for grace and trust that n h nds ght, t w a make sense. I am shar ng th s story because I am Adam Lanza s mother. I am Dy an K ebo d s and Er c Harr s s mother. I am James Ho mes s mother. I am Jared Loughner s mother. I am Seung-Hu Cho s mother. And these boys—and the r mothers—need he p. In the wake of another horr f c nat ona tragedy, t s easy to ta k about guns. But t s t me to ta k about menta ness. Accord ng to Mother Jones, s nce 1982, 61 mass murders nvo v ng f rearms have occurred throughout the country. Of these, 43 of the k ers were wh te ma es, and on y one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the k ers obta ned the r guns ega y (most d d). But th s h gh y v s b e s gn of menta ness shou d ead us to cons der how many peop e n the U.S. ve n fear, ke I do. When I asked my son s soc a worker about my opt ons, he sa d that the on y th ng I cou d do was to get M chae charged w th a cr me. “If he s back n the system, they create a paper tra ,” he sa d. “That s the on y way you re ever go ng to get anyth ng done. No one w pay attent on to you un ess you ve got charges.” I don t be eve my son be ongs n a . The chaot c env ronment exacerbates M chae s sens t v ty to sensory st mu and doesn t dea w th the under y ng patho ogy. But t seems ke the Un ted States s us ng pr son as the so ut on of cho ce for menta y peop e. Accord ng to Human R ghts Watch, the number of menta y nmates n U.S. pr sons quadrup ed from 2000 to 2006, and t cont nues to r se— n fact, the rate of nmate menta ness s f ve t mes greater (56 percent) than n the non- ncarcerated popu at on. W th state-run treatment centers and hosp ta s shuttered, pr son s now the ast resort for the menta y —R kers Is and, the LA County Ja and Cook County Ja n I no s housed the nat on s argest treatment centers n 2011. No one wants to send a 13-year o d gen us who oves Harry Potter and h s snugg e an ma co ect on to a . But our soc ety, w th ts st gma on menta ness and ts broken hea thcare system, does not prov de us w th other opt ons. Then another tortured sou shoots up a fast food restaurant. A ma . A k ndergarten c assroom. And we wr ng our hands and say, “Someth ng must be done.” I agree that someth ng must be done. It s t me for a mean ngfu , nat on-w de conversat on about menta hea th. That s the on y way our nat on can ever tru y hea . God he p me. God he p M chae . God he p us a . (Or g na y pub shed at The Anarch st Soccer Mom.) L za Long s an author, mus c an, and erstwh e c ass c st. She s a so a s ng e mother of four br ght, oved ch dren, one of whom has spec a needs. http://theb uerev ew.org/ -am-adam- anzas-mother/ Newtown tragedy could put mental health in spotlight Liz Szabo Could the nation’s mental health services be improved in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting? “…Fam es and doctors who treat the menta y say they hope that Fr day s tragedy n Newtown, Conn., w refocus the nat on s attent on on mprov ng menta hea th serv ces. Po ce have not yet re eased deta s about the mot ves or menta state of shooter Adam Lanza. But the perpetrators of s m ar mass murders — at V rg n a Tech, Northern I no s Un vers ty and a Tucson gather ng for Rep. Gabby G ffords, for examp e — a suffered from ser ous menta hea th cond t ons. “We wa t for th ngs ke th s to happen and then everyone ta ks about menta hea th,” says Pr sc a Dass-Bra sford, an assoc ate professor of psycho ogy n the psych atry department at Georgetown Un vers ty Med ca Center. “But they qu ck y forget.” There are hundreds of mu t p e-casua ty shoot ngs every year, says forens c psycho og st Dewey Corne , d rector of the V rg n a Youth V o ence Pro ect. Peop e have become so desens t zed to the horror, however, that “It s gotten to the po nt where on y the ones w th h gh body counts make the news,” he says. “It takes a record number, or someth ng extraord nary, to get our attent on.” Yet menta ness destroys count ess ves everyday, he says, contr but ng to domest c v o ence and ch d abuse, drug add ct on, home essness and ncarcerat on. Invest ng n menta hea th care and reduc ng ts st gma cou d he p prevent future traged es, he says. “Menta hea th has shrunk down to the eve of short-term cr s s management,” Corne says. “If we are go ng to focus on prevent on, we can t th nk about the gunman n the park ng ot and what to do w th h m. We have to get nvo ved a ot ear er.” Schoo s and commun t es “have cut the r menta hea th serv ces to the bone,” says Corne . “We re pay ng a pr ce for t as a soc ety.” …” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat on/2012/12/16/newtown-menta -hea th/1773479/ Gun prosecutions under Obama down over 40 percent “…Desp te h s ca s for greater gun contro , nc ud ng a new assau t weapons ban that extends to handguns, Pres dent Obama s adm n strat on has turned away from enforc ng gun aws, cutt ng weapons prosecut ons some 40 percent s nce a h gh of about 11,000 under former Pres dent Bush. “If you are not go ng to enforce the aws on the books, then don t start ta k ng about a who e new wave of new aws,” sa d a gun r ghts advocate. In the wake of the horr f c mass k ng at Sandy Hook E ementary Schoo n Newtown, Conn., Democrat c awmakers have begun prepar ng a new co ect on of ant -gun aws, nc ud ng renew ng the assau t weapons ban, bann ng the purchase of h gh-capac ty c ps that spr ng bu ets nto guns, and t ghten ng ru es on who can buy weapons. Lawmakers are bank ng that the pub c w push for new gun contro s. But as w th other mass shoot ngs, po s f nd the pub c sp t, and b am ng the shooter, not the gun. Pew Research Center for the Peop e & the Press on Monday found that pub c s even y d v ded over whether the Newtown shoot ngs ref ect broader prob ems n Amer can soc ety, 47 percent, or are ust the acts of troub ed nd v dua s, 44 percent. F gures co ected by Syracuse Un vers ty s TRAC pro ect, the author ty on prosecut ons from the Bureau of A coho , Tobacco and F rearms, shows that the adm n strat on has reduced the focus on gun cr mes and nstead steered prosecutors and nvest gators to drug cr mes. Gun prosecut ons peaked at 10,937 under Bush n 2004. A current TRAC report shows that the Obama adm n strat on s prosecut ng about 6,000 weapons cases. Accord ng to an October 2011 TRAC report, “There a so has been a sh ft ng emphas s towards drug-re ated nvest gat ons. S nce ATF-referred prosecut ons peaked n FY 2005, the number of weapons prosecut ons actua y has fa en by 32 percent, a much h gher rate than for ATF prosecut ons overa . Mak ng up the d fference has been the grow ng number of drug cases, up by 26 percent dur ng the same per od.” In 2011, the Obama gun prosecut ons h t a ow for the decade, but there has been a s ght upt ck n prosecut ons th s year, sa d another TRAC report. Second Amendment advocates sa d on background that they expect Obama to press ATF to boost prosecut ons and use the Sandy Hook case, and other mass shoot ngs, to move gun contro to the top of h s second term agenda. “It s n h s DNA to push th s ssue,” sa d one gun-r ghts off c a , speak ng on background. “Th s wou d be h s crown ng ach evement, f he can ban guns,” added the off c a . 28 Killed in Connecticut School Shooting “…A gunman opened f re at a Connect cut e ementary schoo where h s mother worked, k ng 26 peop e, nc ud ng 20 ch dren, aw-enforcement off c a s sa d, n what cou d be the worst mass shoot ng at a U.S. e ementary or h gh schoo . The shooter was found dead ns de Sandy Hook E ementary Schoo n Newtown, ocated about 65 m es northeast of New York C ty. State po ce sa d another v ct m was found dead e sewhere n Newtown, putt ng the tota to at 28. Law-enforcement off c a s dent f ed the suspected shooter as Adam Lanza. Off c a s sa d the a eged shooter s mother was a teacher at the schoo , and she was be eved to be among the v ct ms. Ear er, a aw-enforcement off c a ncorrect y dent f ed the suspect as Mr. Lanza s brother, Ryan. Author t es d dn t dent fy a mot ve. The attack at Sandy Hook, a h stor c v age ned w th co on a homes n Newtown, began at about 9:40 a.m. and was concentrated around a s ng e c assroom, a schoo bathroom and a ha way, an off c a sa d. D ane Day, a therap st at the schoo , was s tt ng w th the pr nc pa , other staff members and a parent n a rout ne meet ng around 9:30 a.m. when she heard gunshots. “We were there for about f ve m nutes chatt ng and we heard, pop pop pop, ” she sa d. “I went under the tab e.” The pr nc pa and schoo psycho og st eaped out of the r seats and ran out of the room, Ms. Day sa d. “They d dn t th nk tw ce about confront ng or see ng what was go ng on,” she sa d. W thout a ock on the door, the schoo s ead teacher pressed her body aga nst the door to ho d t shut, Ms. Day sa d. That teacher was shot through the door n the eg and arm. “She was our hero,” Ms. Day sa d. Lt. J. Pau Vance, a spokesman for the Connect cut State Po ce, sa d that mu t p e aw-enforcement agenc es were engaged n “search-warrant act v ty.” Lt. Vance sa d nvest gators were ook ng “both n and out of state” for nformat on on the gunman but assured the pub c that they weren t at r sk. A federa aw-enforcement off c a sa d a .223 Bushmaster r f e was found n the back of a veh c e at the scene. Two f rearms were recovered near the a eged gunman s body: a G ock and a S g Sauer, both handguns. The scene was chaot c as n t a reports of a shoot ng grew stead y worse. Joe Was k, whose daughter, A ex s, s n the th rd grade at the schoo , sa d h s w fe ca ed h m a tt e after 10 a.m. after rece v ng a text from the town s automated a ert system on her phone. Check ng h s aptop, Mr. Was k saw the reports of a shoot ng and raced to the scene. “There were cars everywhere,” he sa d, descr b ng a crush of parents at a nearby f rehouse where parents were sent to ook for the r ch dren among those evacuated from the schoo . A ex s, who was stand ng n the crowd, cry ng, was “a nervous wreck,” he sa d. Mr. Was k sa d h s daughter had she tered n a c oset dur ng the shoot ng, and he wasn t sure f she had heard the shots. Mr. Was k s w fe took the r daughter to a cous n s house to p ay n an attempt to take her m nd off the shoot ng. He rema ned n the f rehouse to wa t for a fr end, who was sequestered n another room at the f rehouse—an area for parents whose ch dren were st m ss ng. Mr. Was k s vo ce was st shak ng, hours after the massacre. “Pretty much everyone has d spersed, except for parents w th m ss ng ch dren,” he sa d. Pres dent Barack Obama was not f ed of the attack around 10:30 a.m. by h s counterterror sm and home and secur ty adv ser, John Brennan, Wh te House press secretary Jay Carney sa d. Mr. Obama spoke on the phone w th Federa Bureau of Invest gat on D rector Robert Mue er and Connect cut Gov. Dan Ma oy to rece ve an update on the s tuat on and express h s condo ences, Mr. Carney sa d. Mr. Ma oy, n a news conference Fr day afternoon, sa d “you can never be prepared for th s k nd of nc dent,” add ng that what happened “w eave a mark on th s commun ty and every fam y mpacted.” Mr. Obama de vered an emot ona statement from the Wh te House Fr day afternoon, tear ng up severa t mes as he spoke of the ch dren who were k ed. “They had the r ent re ves ahead of them— b rthday, wedd ngs, k ds of the r own,” Mr. Obama sa d paus ng to w pe tears from h s eyes. Say ng he was react ng as a parent of two daughters, he ca ed the shoot ng a “he nous cr me” and vowed to press for mean ngfu act on, regard ess of the po t cs, to prevent more such nc dents n the future. “We ve endured too many of these tragedy n the ast few years,” he sa d. The death to at Sandy Hook E ementary, wh ch has near y 600 students n k ndergarten through 4th grade and 42 teachers, exceeds the death at Co umb ne H gh Schoo n 1999, wh ch eft 12 students and one teacher dead at the hands of two fe ow students, who a so took the r own ves. In 2007, 33 peop e nc ud ng the gunmen were shot and k ed on the campus of V rg n a Tech n B acksburg, Va. Schoo s nat onw de have ncreased secur ty measures s nce the fata shoot ng at Co umb ne. Many nsta ed meta detectors, deve oped deta ed cr s s p ans, mp emented po c es to keep schoo doors ocked and access b e on y by buzzer, and put teachers and staff through tra n ng sess on on how to recogn ze and dea w th threats. M chae Dorn, execut ve d rector of Safe Havens Internat ona , a nonprof t that works w th thousands of U.S. schoo s to deve op safety p ans, sa d there has been a dramat c mprovement n schoo safety “but so much more” cou d be done. A etter sent to Sandy Hook parents ear er th s year descr bed a new secur ty protoco put n p ace at the schoo . The protoco requ res dent f cat on for most v s tors who must r ng a doorbe to ga n entry to the schoo s front entrance, wh ch s ocked after 9:30 a.m. “If our off ce staff does not recogn ze you, you w be requ red to show dent f cat on w th a p cture ID,” the etter sa d. Le gh L bero s daughter, Joey, wou d have been n a second-grade c assroom Fr day morn ng, but she had a dent st appo ntment. As Ms. L bero pu ed up to the schoo , she saw ust-erected barr cades and rece ved an urgent text message from her s ster, who works at a te ev s on news stat on n Hartford. Ch dren were ed out the schoo s dr veway, d rect y to the f rehouse, where parents streamed n “en masse” to ocate the r ch dren, Ms. L bero sa d. “Th s s the perfect New Eng and town,” Ms. L bero sa d. “You wou dn t th nk of th s.” Ms. L bero sa d parents were try ng to determ ne how the gunman entered the schoo . The schoo uses a doub e-secured door dur ng the day, she sa d. V s tors approach ng the schoo must press a button to be buzzed n through the outer set of schoo doors to enter the bu d ng. Carr e Usher, a fourth-grade teacher at Sandy Hook, was hav ng a team meet ng w th three other teachers wh e her c ass worked n the brary. They heard gunf re and then the oudspeaker came on w th “f ght ng and cry ng and maybe some scream ng,” sounds of chaos that she sa d were be ng broadcast throughout the bu d ng. “The gunf re was ust unbe evab e t fe t ke t asted for f ve m nutes. It wou dn t stop,” she sa d. Three of the teachers umped out the w ndow of the r meet ng room, Ms. Usher sa d, wh e the fourth rema ned beh nd and h d beh nd bags and boxes. The door opened and someone came n but that person d dn t see the h d ng teacher. Ms. Usher s st uncerta n what was broadcast over the oudspeaker. “I th nk t was f ght ng,” she sa d n a phone nterv ew. “I th nk t was the pr nc pa before she was k ed put that out there to warn the teachers what was happen ng. I be eve so. We don t know.” …” http://wash ngtonexam ner.com/gun-prosecut ons-under-obama-down-over-40-percent-percent/art c e/2516175#.UM-JbEbCz8B 20 Children Among 28 Dead In Newtown Elementary School Massacre Gunman Opens Fire Inside Sandy Hook Elementary School Early Friday “…Twenty ch dren are among 28 peop e who were k ed Fr day morn ng after a gunman opened f re at Sandy Hook E ementary Schoo n Newtown, Conn. State Po ce Lt. Pau Vance sa d 18 ch dren and 6 adu ts were pronounced dead at that scene. Two other ch dren ater d ed at the hosp ta . One other person was n ured, Vance sa d. A 28th v ct m was found dead at a secondary cr me scene, Lance sa d. He wou d not e aborate on the deta s. Among those dead s the gunman. A source fam ar w th the nvest gat on dent f ed h m as 20-year-o d Adam Lanza, CBS News reported. He was found dead ns de the bu d ng from an apparent se f- nf cted gunshot wound, sources to d CBS 2. Law enforcement sources had ear er to d CBS News that the gunman was 24-year-o d Ryan Lanza, Adam Lanza s o der brother. Ryan Lanza, of Hoboken, New Jersey, s now be ng quest oned by po ce. Accord ng to an Assoc ated Press report, the confus on over the a eged gunman s dent ty occurred when a aw enforcement off c a s, speak ng on the cond t on of anonym ty, “m staken y transposed the brothers f rst names.” A second off c a who spoke w th the AP sa d Adam Lanza drove to the scene of the shoot ngs n h s mother s car. That off c a a so to d the w re serv ce Lanza s g r fr end and another fr end are m ss ng n New Jersey. The AP a so reported that a former Jersey Journa staff wr ter sa d he spoke w th Ryan Lanza, who to d the wr ter h s brother may have had h s dent f cat on. The shoot ng has become the second-dead est schoo shoot ng n the nat on s h story, exceeded on y by the 2007 massacre at V rg n a Tech that eft 33 peop e dead. Lance sa d the shoot ng occurred n two d fferent c assrooms n one sect on of the schoo . One of the adu t v ct ms s Lanza s mother, Nancy Lanza, a teacher at the schoo , sources to d CBS 2. A aw enforcement source to d CBS News two p sto s, a G ock and a S g Sauer, were found n the schoo and a .223-ca ber r f e was found n a car. An emot ona Pres dent Barack Obama spoke about the massacre at the Wh te House Fr day. F ght ng back tears, he sa d he reacted to the news not ust as the pres dent, but as a parent. “The ma or ty of those who d ed today are ch dren. Beaut fu tt e k ds between the ages of 5 and 10-years-o d,” he sa d. “They had the r ent re ves ahead of them. B rthdays, graduat ons, wedd ngs, k ds of the r own.” At t mes, Obama w ped away tears from the corner of h s eyes, add ng ”Our hearts are broken.” “As a country, we have been through th s too many t mes,” he sa d. “These ch dren are our ch dren and we are go ng to come together to take mean ngfu act on to prevent more traged es ke th s regard ess of the po t cs.” The pres dent ordered that U.S. f ags be f own at ha f-staff through Tuesday. Conn. Gov. Dan Ma oy has a so ordered a U.S. and state f ags be f own at ha f-staff. Ma oy arr ved n Newtown Fr day afternoon. H s off ce sa d severa state agenc es are work ng together to coord nate the state s response. Speak ng a news conference, Ma oy ca ed the shoot ng “a tragedy of unspeakab e terms.” Gunf re erupted ns de the schoo around 9:40 a.m. Parents sa d they rece ved an automat c message that there had been a shoot ng nc dent n the d str ct and that schoo s were be ng p aced on ockdown. An 8-year-o d student sa d he was on h s way to the schoo s off ce when he saw the gunman. “I saw some of the bu ets go ng down the ha and then a teacher pu ed me nto her c assroom,” the boy to d CBS 2¢s Lou Young. Vance sa d severa agenc es, nc ud ng oca and state po ce, responded to the scene and mmed ate y began a search of the bu d ng. “The ent re schoo was searched and a stag ng area was set up,” he sa d. tudents and staff were then evacuated from the schoo . As they were wa k ng out of the bu d ng, some of the ch dren were to d to c ose the r eyes and wa k fast, WCBS 880¢s Sean Adams reported. Students were then taken to a nearby f rehouse to be reun ted w th the r parents. Schoo s n surround ng areas were a so p aced on ockdown. Danbury Hosp ta spokesperson D ane Burke to d CBS 2 that the hosp ta was a so put on ockdown as a precaut onary measure. L sa Ba ey, a Newtown res dent w th three ch dren n Newtown schoo s, to d CBSNewYork.com, “Newtown s a qu et town. I d never expect th s to happen here. It s so scary. Your k ds are not safe anywhere.” …” http://newyork.cbs oca .com/2012/12/14/po ce-respond-to-report-of-schoo -shoot ng- n-conn/ Gunman kills 20 children, 6 adults at Connecticut elementary school “…Twenty-seven peop e, nc ud ng 20 ch dren, were k ed Fr day when a gunman c ad n b ack m tary gear opened f re ns de h s mother s k ndergarten c ass at a Connect cut e ementary schoo . The shooter, who sources dent f ed as Adam Lanza, 20, shot h s mother n the face at the r home n Newtown, Conn., then went to nearby Sandy Hook E ementary Schoo where she taught and gunned down her ent re c ass, accord ng to sources. Lanza was found dead ns de the schoo , accord ng to off c a s. E ghteen of the ch dren and s x more adu ts were dead at the schoo and two more ch dren d ed ater, accord ng to Connect cut State Po ce Lt. Pau Vance. Vance wou d not conf rm the shooter s name, and ear er n the day there were conf ct ng reports over the gunman s dent ty. Law enforcement sources to d FoxNews.com the shooter was Adam Lanza. H s brother, Ryan Lanza, 24, was be ng quest oned n Hoboken, N.J., but t was not sure f he faced charges. “It s not a s mp st c scene,” Vance to d reporters. An off c a w th know edge of the s tuat on sa d the shooter was armed w th a .223-ca ber r f e. Four weapons n tota were recovered from the scene. The mot ve s not yet known. Vance sa d dur ng an afternoon news conference that po ce arr ved at the scene “w th n m nutes” of a 911 ca p aced short y after 9:30 a.m. “Every door, every crack, every crev ce of that schoo ” was checked, Vance sa d. “The ent re schoo was searched.” He sa d the shoot ng occurred ns de two rooms n “one sect on of the schoo .” Vance d d not g ve deta s about the number of v ct ms other than to say they nc uded students and staff, pend ng not f cat on of the fam es. He sa d more nformat on wou d be re eased, poss b y ater Fr day. Vance a so sa d that a “deceased adu t” was found at a “secondary cr me scene,” though he dec ned to e aborate. A federa aw enforcement off c a to d Fox News that Lanza s mother, Nancy, was k ed at her home n Connect cut. The veh c e the suspect used n the shoot ng was reg stered to h s mother. A source c ose to the nvest gat on sa d the shooter s father, who ves n Stamford, Conn., s meet ng w th FBI agents. Robert L cata sa d h s 6-year-o d son was n c ass when the gunman burst n and shot the teacher. “That s when my son grabbed a bunch of h s fr ends and ran out the door,” he sa d. “He was very brave. He wa ted for h s fr ends.” He sa d the shooter d dn t utter a word. Stephen De g ad ce sa d h s 8-year-o d daughter was n the schoo and heard two b g bangs. Teachers to d her to get n a corner, he sa d. “It s a arm ng, espec a y n Newtown, Connect cut, wh ch we a ways thought was the safest p ace n Amer ca,” he sa d. H s daughter was f ne. Merg m Ba ra u, 17, heard the gunshots echo from h s home and ran to check on h s 9-year-o d s ster at the schoo . He sa d h s s ster, who was f ne, heard a scream come over the ntercom at one po nt. He sa d teachers were shak ng and cry ng as they came out of the bu d ng. “Everyone was ust traumat zed,” he sa d. Pres dent Obama was not f ed of the shoot ng around 10:30 am ET, Wh te House off c a s sa d. “Our hearts are broken today,” Obama sa d n a br ef address to the nat on on Fr day. “We ve endured too many of these traged es n these past few years, and each t me I rece ve the news I react not as a pres dent, but as a parent.” “Most v ct ms were ch dren, between f ve and 10 years o d…They had the r ent re ves ahead of them, b rthdays, graduat ons wedd ngs, k ds of the r own,” he sa d, paus ng before w p ng tears from h s eyes. Sandy Hook E ementary Schoo has c ose to 700 students. Newtown s n Fa rf e d County, about 45 m es southwest of Hartford and 60 m es northeast of New York C ty. …” Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/14/po ce-respond-to-shoot ng-at-connect cut-e ementary-schoo /# xzz2F4TZJLRq Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/14/po ce-respond-to-shoot ng-at-connect cut-e ementary-schoo /# xzz2F4TPVcZt Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Big Government Budgets Boehner Purges Limited Government Tea Party Conservatives From Congressional Committees–Videos Pos ed on December 8 2012 F ed under Amer can H s ory B ogro Bus ness Co ege Commun ca ons Econom cs Educa on Emp oymen Federa Governmen Federa Governmen Budge F sca Po cy Fore gn Po cy governmen governmen spend ng Hea h Care h s ory nves men s Language Law ber y L e L nks Macroeconom cs med a Peop e Ph osophy Po cs Ran s Raves S ra egy Ta k Rad o Tax Po cy Unemp oymen V deo War Wea h W sdom Tags B g Governmen Progress ves Dav d Schwe ker Jack Hun er John Boehner Jus n Amash Mark Lev n Neoconserva ves Par y Purge Progress ve Repub can Par y Rush L mbaugh Speaker

Team Wreckers: Speaker Boehner Tells ‘Tea-Party’ Republicans To Fall in Line!

Tea Party Backlash: Far Right-Wing ‘Num-Nuts’ Lash Out at GOP Leadership on

Speaker Boehner’s Looming War With The Hard Right Tea-Party Extremists

Boehner punishes conservative David Schweikert – Mark Levin

Rush Limbaugh: John Boehner is purging the GOP of Tea Party conservatives

Boehner Starts War With Tea Party By Removing 4 Members From Key Positions

Justin Amash: GOP leadership is out of step with America

The Tea Party vs. John Boehner

SA@TAC – The State of the Right

What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise.

What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism

What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation

What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law

What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights

What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration

What We Believe, Part 7: American Exceptionalism

EAT THE RICH!

Rand Paul Warns Boehner, Cantor: Hope You’re Not Aspiring for Higher Office

PJTV: Will the GOP Allow Obama to Raise Taxes on the Rich?

Background Articles And Videos Debt Ceiling Crisis: Boehner vs. Tea Party

Tea Party Leaders Cite Member “Concern” about Speaker Boehner’s Leadership

Democrats—Republicans—Tea Party Conservatives Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

“I Will Be Held Accountable” –Obama’s Economic Policies Result In Longest Period of Unemployment Since The Great Depression–End The Loafing–Videos Pos ed on February 17 2012 F ed under Amer can H s ory B ogro Bus ness Commun ca ons Econom cs Emp oymen Federa Governmen Budge F sca Po cy governmen governmen spend ng h s ory Homes Law ber y L e L nks med a Peop e Ph osophy Po cs Pub c Sec or Raves Tax Po cy Unemp oymen Un ons V deo War Wea h W sdom Tags CBO Mark Lev n Pres den Barack Obama Ron Pau The Grea Depress on The Grea Recess on U-3 U-6 Unemp oymen Leve Unemp oymen Ra e

Obama One Term Proposition: “I Will Be Held Accountable”

Abbot & Costello Explain Obama’s Stimulus Plan For Workers

3 Years is Up, Mr. President. We Can’t Afford Another 4

Unemployment and Obama’s re-election

Preview: Trapped in Unemployment

Great Depression key figures

Rick Santelli: Here’s What’s Wrong With the Jobs Number

The Unemployment Game Show: Are You *Really* Unemployed?

Unemployment Rate Primer

Mark Levin Talks About Obama Cooking The Books On The Unemployment Rate

ShadowStats’ John Williams Explains Why It’s All Been Downhill Since 1973

Bureau Of Labor Statistics Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey http://data.b s.gov

Unemployment Level In Thousands

Unemployment Rate Percent U-3

Total Unemployment Rate Percent U-6 Ser es Id: LNS13327709 Seasona y Ad usted Ser es t t e: (seas) Tota unemp oyed, p us a marg na y attached workers p us tota emp oyed part t me for econom c reasons, as a percent of a c v an abor force p us a marg na y attached workers Labor force status: Aggregated tota s unemp oyed Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over Percent/rates: Unemp oyed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of abor force p us marg attached

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1994 11.8 11.4 11.4 11.2 10.8 10.9 10.7 10.5 10.4 10.3 10.1 10.0 1995 10.2 9.9 9.9 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.1 9.9 10.0 10.0 1996 9.8 10.0 9.8 9.9 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.5 1997 9.4 9.4 9.1 9.2 8.8 8.8 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.4 8.3 8.4 1998 8.4 8.4 8.4 7.9 7.9 8.0 8.1 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.6 7.6 1999 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.1 2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9 2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6 2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8 2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2 2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6 2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9 2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8 2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.1 11.8 12.7 13.5 2009 14.2 15.1 15.7 15.8 16.4 16.5 16.5 16.7 16.8 17.2 17.1 17.1 2010 16.7 16.9 16.9 17.0 16.6 16.5 16.5 16.6 16.9 16.8 16.9 16.6 2011 16.1 15.9 15.7 15.9 15.8 16.2 16.1 16.2 16.4 16.0 15.6 15.2 2012 15.1 High Unemployment No Future Employment

Price discusses CBO Annual Report on CNBC’s The Kudlow Report

Pres dent Obama shou d be he d accountab e for econom c po c es not work ng. The pr ce for fa ure to de ver on h s prom ses of hope and change shou d be defeat n the next e ect on. Vote for Ron Pau . Stop the Budget Band ts Ending Spending: Budget Bandits

Ron Paul Ad – Believe

Ron Paul Ad – Secure

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”

Background Articles And Videos The United States is Experiencing the Longest Stretch of High Unemployment Since the Great Depression “…The rate of unemp oyment n the Un ted States has exceeded 8 percent s nce February 2009, mak ng the past three years the ongest stretch of h gh unemp oyment n th s country s nce the Great Depress on. CBO pro ects that the unemp oyment rate w rema n above 8 percent unt 2014. The share of unemp oyed peop e who have been ook ng for work for more than s x months—referred to as the ong-term unemp oyed—topped 40 percent n December 2009 and has rema ned above that eve ever s nce. …” “…What Are the Consequences of Unemployment? Househo ds w th unemp oyed workers are adverse y affected by ob essness n many ways. For workers who have been d sp aced through no fau t of the r own—for examp e, those who ost or eft a ob because the r p ant or company c osed or moved—the drop n earn ngs assoc ated w th os ng a ob dur ng a recess on may pers st for many years, even when these workers eventua y f nd a new ob. O der workers and those w th ong tenure n the r prev ous ob are espec a y vu nerab e because new obs for those workers typ ca y pay ess and offer ess potent a for earn ngs growth.

Other types of unemp oyed workers—for examp e, peop e enter ng the abor market for the f rst t me (typ ca y after comp et ng schoo )—are a so adverse y affected by a weak economy. Peop e who start the r career n t mes of h gh unemp oyment tend to have pers stent y ower earn ngs than the r counterparts who beg n seek ng work under better econom c c rcumstances. In add t on to ts mmed ate and ast ng effects on earn ngs and fam y f nances, unemp oyment s a so corre ated w th deter orat ng menta and phys ca hea th and w th ncreased morta ty. ….” http://cbob og.cbo.gov/?p=3333 CBO: Longest Period of High Unemployment Since Great Depression CBO: U.S. enduring the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression By Alex M. Parker “…After three years w th unemp oyment topp ng 8 percent, the U.S. has seen the ongest per od of h gh unemp oyment s nce the Great Depress on, the Congress ona Budget Off ce noted n a report ssued today. And, desp te some recent good news on the econom c front, the CBO s st pred ct ng that unemp oyment w rema n above 8 percent unt 2014. The report a so notes that, nc ud ng those who haven t sought work n the past four weeks and those who are work ng part-t me but seek ng fu -t me emp oyment, the unemp oyment rate wou d be 15 percent. The CBO made ts comments n a report exam n ng the ong-term effects of ob essness, and poss b e po cy opt ons to boost emp oyment, nc ud ng unemp oyment nsurance reforms and ob tra n ng programs. The report came at the request of Democrat c M ch gan Rep. Sander Lev n, but Repub cans qu ck y umped on the chance to bash Pres dent Obama s st mu us program, wh ch s a so reach ng ts three-year ann versary today. “The st mu us s a stark rem nder of how the pres dent got the po c es he wanted, and how those po c es have fa ed the Amer can peop e and are mak ng th ngs worse,” sa d Texas Repub can Rep. Jeb Hensar ng. …” http://www.usnews.com/news/art c es/2012/02/16/cbo- ongest-per od-of-h gh-unemp oyment-s nce-great-depress on Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul Hater Mark Levin–a.k.a. Marco Unleaven–Closet Neoconservative Comes Out Of The Closet or Bunker To Hug Marco Rubio–Neoconservative Poster Boy For Neoconservative Progressive Romney’s Vice-President–Video Pos ed on January 10 2012 F ed under Amer can H s ory B ogro Bus ness Co ege Commun ca ons Econom cs Educa on Emp oymen Federa Governmen F sca Po cy Fore gn Po cy governmen governmen spend ng h s ory mm gra on Language Law ber y L e L nks med a Raves V deo War Wea h W sdom Tags Democra c Par y Fore gn Po cy Marco Rub o Mark Lev n Marko Un eaven Neoconserva ves Non- n even on s Fore gn Po cy Progress ves Repub can Par y Ron Pau

Mark Levin A.k.a Marco Unleaven

“If you want to abo sh war, you must e m nate ts causes. What s needed s to restr ct government act v t es to the preservat on of fe, hea th, and pr vate property, and thereby to safeguard the work ng of the market. Sovere gnty must not be used for nf ct ng harm on anyone, whether c t zen or fore gner.” ~Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, The Rise of The Total State and Total War, page 139 Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

Ron Paul: What if the People Wake Up?

SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Conservative Foreign Policy

Mark Levin To Marco Rubio- It’s Time To Run For President!

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

Mark Levin Interviews Jeffery Lord On Ron Paul Supporters Using Neo Con As An Anti-Semitic Slur

SA@TheDC – Does Attacking Neoconservatism Reflect Racism or Reality?

Mark Levin Compares Ron Paul To A Little Weasel

Mark Levin Avoids the “Empire” Question

Mark Levin – Ron Paul Is A Crackpot And His Supporters Are Crackpots

SA@The DC – Ron Paul’s Reaganesque Foreign Policy

Mark Levin – Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters In The 1990’s They’re Full Of Racist Statements

Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul

Ron Paul Ad – Life

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

“Intervent on sm generates econom c nat ona sm, and econom c nat ona sm generates be cos ty. If men and commod t es are prevented from cross ng the border nes, why shou d not the arm es try to pave the way for them?” ~Ludwig von Mise, Human Action, pages 828 and 832. Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos Pos ed on January 5 2012 F ed under Amer can H s ory B ogro Co ege Commun ca ons Econom cs Educa on Federa Governmen F sca Po cy Fore gn Po cy governmen governmen spend ng h s ory Language ber y L e L nks med a Mone ary Po cy V deo Wea h W sdom Tags B Buck ey B acks Fore gn A d ran srae srae Lobby James K rch ck Je rey Lord Jews John McManus L ber ar ans Mark Lev n Neoconserva ve Neoconserva ve Progress ves News e ers Progress ves Rac sm Ron Pau Sau A nsky Smear Campa gn Soc a sm The John B rch Soc e y V deos Wa er B ock Wa er W ams War On Drugs War On Terror sm

Expanded, Revised and Updated January 20 and 24, 2012

James Kirchick

James K rch ck ed about Ron Pau four years ago as the fo ow ng report c ear y shows. Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look

Ron Paul- Full Truth About Newsletter FOLLOW-UP Day 2

Author Of Ron Pau Rac st News etters Revea ed http://truthsquad.tv/?p=1053 Ron Paul’s “Racist Writings” DEBUNKED. Real Author: James B. Powell exposed by Ben Swann & TMOT “…Rea ty Check has done t aga n!!! Ben Swann does some REAL nvest gat ve report ng!!! It turns out that the “most rac st” news etter ssued under Ron Pau s name has a by ne that has someone e se s name on t… JAMES B. POWELL The New Repub c magaz ne that ssued the or g na attack aga nst Pau has apparent y kept th s fact h dden and s refus ng to ta k to other med a out ets about who exact y penned the news etter. When they or g na y re eased PDF scans of the news etter n quest on, they eft off ha f of the ast page wh ch conta ned the by ne of another author. They attr buted the art c e to Pau , know ng fu we that he d dn t wr te t. Out of the 240 art c es n quest on, on y about 9 conta n ob ect onab e mater a . Of those 9, they appeared n sequence, wh ch ends credence to the c a m that the rac st commentary d d ndeed come from an ed tor other than Pau and that Pau d dn t keep that author around for any great dea of t me. …”

Ron Paul revealed

Jamie Kirchick interview on NPR. (see Tucker vid for update)

New Republic Author Exposes Ron Paul’s Past Writings!

CNN asks Ron Paul about racist writings he didn’t author (2008)

Ron Paul quits CNN interview after being asked about racist newsletters

CNN and Fox Both Gunning for Ron Paul: Conspiracy or Reality?

Ron Paul: Damn It, Don’t Ask Bout My Racist Writings

The Bogus Scandal of the Ron Paul Newsletters

K rch ck wants the v ewer to th nk that for twenty years the news etter was f ed w th “rac st” content when n fact more than 230 of the 240 p us ssues of the month y news etter conta n abso ute y no such content and the one spec a ed t on of the news etter that had the most offens ve content was wr tten by someone e se under a by ne wh ch K rch ck fa s to d sc ose. The wr ter of the spec a ed t on was James B. Powe . K rch ck a so fa s to d sc ose that he supports an ntervent on st neoconservat ve fore gn po cy that Pau has repeat y been cr t ca of. Pau takes fu mora respons b ty for the news etter under whose name t was pub shed, as he shou d. Pau repeated y den ed he wrote the offens ve passages n the news etter. He dep ored the offens ve rac st passages that appeared n n ne ssues of the more than 240 month y news etters pub shed from 1976 to 1996. He on y became aware of these passages ten years atter when he was runn ng for pres dent. A Rankled Ron Paul Grapples With Radio Caller’s Newsletter Questions

K rch ck cont nues h s smear attack on Pau on the Foundat on for Defense of Democrac es webs te n a Jan. 7 art c e from The New Repub c ent t ed: What Are Ron Pau s L bera Fans Th nk ng? “For anyone moderate y fam ar w th Ron Pau s record, t shou dn t come as a surpr se that a tany of rac sts, ant -Sem tes, consp racy-theor sts, and m t a members back h s pres dent a campa gn. Pau , after a , has spent decades cu t vat ng the support of the far-r ght, not east by pub sh ng for years a news etter steeped n b gotry. (Read my 2008 art c e “Angry Wh te Man,” for amp e ev dence.) Much more d sconcert ng s the fact that so many prom nent bera s have been eager y n ng up beh nd Pau s cand dacy. Unfortunate y, th s sn t an aberrat on, but a te ng nd cat on of the skewed po t ca pr or t es of many on the eft. …” http://www.defenddemocracy.org/med a-h t/what-are-ron-pau s- bera -fans-th nk ng/ K rch ck s now attack ng Pau for g v ng speeches at John B rch Soc ety meet ngs n an attempt to marg na ze h m as a member of the rad ca r ght. “…And he cont nues to speak regu ar y before the John B rch Soc ety, an organ zat on so react onary that W am F. Buck ey Jr. wrote t out of the nascent conservat ve movement that he was bu d ng — n 1962. …” The John B rch Soc ety s not a react onary organ zat on but an ant -commun st study group. It s mp y favors a const tut ona repub c w th a non- ntervent on st fore gn po cy, opposes fore gn a d to a countr es, wants a wars to be dec ared accord ng to the Const tut on and wants to get the Un ted Nat ons out of the Un ted States and the Un ted States out of the Un ted Nat ons. Pau agrees and supports the John B rch Soc ety. http://www. bs.org On y progress ve neoconservat ves of the Foundat on for Defense of Democrac es such as K rch ck wou d cons der the John B rch Soc ety react onary nstead of a patr ot c organ zat on. Why does K rch ck now ment on Pau s ong assoc at on w th the John B rch Soc ety? The John B rch Soc ety s expos ng the neoconservat ves for what they rea y are n the r betraya of the Const tut on: Betrayal of the Constitution An Exposé of the Neoconservative Agenda A speech by John McManus of The John B rch Soc ety Monday May 2, 2011 at the Marr ott Hote A bany, NH.

What is The John Birch Society? Robert We ch, Founder of The John B rch Soc ety

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America “…Robert We ch, Founder of The John B rch Soc ety, pred cted today s prob ems w th uncanny accuracy back n 1958 and prescr bed so ut ons n 1974 that are very s m ar to Ron Pau s pos t ons today. …”

A Hard Look at the United Nations

Ron Paul Endorses The John Birch Society “Dr. Ron Pau , Texas congressman and 2008 Repub can pres dent a cand date, was the featured speaker Saturday even ng, October 4 on the f na day of the John B rch Soc ety s 50th Ann versary Ce ebrat on. The top c of h s keynote address was “Restor ng the Repub c: Lessons From a Pres dent a Campa gn,” n wh ch he ectured the aud ence on how our repub c can be restored w th groups such as the John B rch Soc ety (JBS) and h s own Campa gn for L berty ead ng the way.

Stand up for Freedom Part 5 – Ezra Taft Benson “Stand up for Freedom – an address by the honorab e Ezra Taft Benson short y after the assass nat on of Pres dent Kennedy.”

Stand up for Freedom – Part 6 – Ezra Taft Benson “Stand up for Freedom – an address by the honorab e Ezra Taft Benson short y after the assass nat on of Pres dent Kennedy.”

Stand up for Freedom – Part 7 – Ezra Taft Benson “Stand up for Freedom – an address by the honorab e Ezra Taft Benson short y after the assass nat on of Pres dent Kennedy.”

The History of NAFTA and the Council on Foreign Relations “John McManus of the John B rch Soc ety g ves you a fasc nat ng br ef ng on the h story of the Counc on Fore gn Re at ons (CFR) and NAFTA. You may never ook at wor d events the same after you earn some of these facts.”

Council on Foreign Relations Calls for Bombing Iran “In th s week y news update for January 16-22, 2012, JBS CEO Art Thompson d scusses why the Counc on Fore gn Re at ons (CFR) wants the U.S. to bomb Iran and how M tt Romney surrounds h mse f w th CFR members wh e Newt G ngr ch h mse f s a CFR member.”

B Buck ey was duped by the commun sts when he attacked the John B rch Soc ety. Buck ey s Nat ona Rev ew s no onger a bertar an conservat ve or trad t ona conservat ve magaz ne but arge y a progress ve neoconservat ve magaz ne. Buck ey was bu d ng a progress ve neoconservat ve movement that bertar an conservat ves and trad t ona conservat ve now dep ore and want no part of. The neoconservat ves nc ud ng James K rch ck and Jeffrey Lord and many so-ca ed “conservat ve” ta k rad o show hosts, commentators, ourna sts and reporters recent y cont nued the smear attack on Pau by aga n br ng ng up the so-ca ed “rac st” news etter ssue and mp y ng that Pau s a rac st and ant -Sem te ust before the Iowa caucus and New Hampsh re pr mary. The neoconservat ves are r ght-w ng progress ves that advocate an aggress ve fore gn po cy of ntervent on abroad. Neoconservat ves want the Un ted States to have an aggress ve ntervent on st fore gn po cy that nc udes the U.S be ng the wor d s po ceman, engag ng n emp re or nat on bu d ng abroad, prov d ng fore gn and m tary a d to Israe , and start ng undec ared preempt ve wars. Ron Pau advocates a strong nat ona defense and a non- ntervent on st fore gn po cy that nc udes the e m nat on of a fore gn a d, br ng ng the troops home and a wars be ng dec ared by Congress as set forth n the Const tut on. Ron Paul 2012 – “We now promote preemptive war.”

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

Troops say – If Everyone is saying; Support the troops, why is no one listening..

Pau has been one of the ead ng cr t cs of the neoconservat ve ntervent on st fore gn po cy of both Pres dents Bush and Obama. CIA Chief Endorses Ron Paul

Ron Paul on foreign policy – Tea Party Debate – Analysis by Michael Scheuer

The Neocon Agenda

Bill Moyers on the rise of NeoCons

Pat Buchanan vs Neo-Cons

Neo-cons: Invasion of the Party Snatchers Part 1

Neo-cons: Invasion of the Party Snatchers Part 2

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

The neoconservat ves and the r fr ends n the ma nstream med a and ta k rad o are attempt ng to smear Ron Pau by try ng to abe h m a rac st, ant -Sem te and so at on st nstead of address ng the costs and benef ts of an ntervent on st fore gn po cy n compar son w th a non- ntervent on st fore gn po cy. Mark Levin – Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters In The 1990’s They’re Full Of Racist Statements

Mark Levin On “Crackpot” Ron Paul

Mark Levin Interviews Jeffrey Lord On Ron Paul And His Supporters Being Neoliberal

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 1

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 2

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 3

Ron Paul Newsletter Controversy

Doug Wead Responds to Last-Minute Smear Attacks on Ron Paul

SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Conservative Foreign Policy

Pro-Israel Lobby the Media I um nat ng d scuss on of how Israe s portrayed n the med a as sparks f y between T me Magaz ne po t ca co umn st Joe K e n and Ass stant Ed tor of The New Repub c James K rch ck. W th Jenn fer Laz o M zrah and Or N r.

Israel and GOP join forces to oust Obama and Marginalize Paul

A favor te tact c of both r ght-w ng Repub can progress ves and eft-w ng Democrat progress ves s to p ay the race card and f that fa s ca the person an ant -Sem te. Th s s r ght out of Sau A nsky s Ru es for Rad ca s p aybook. A nsky advocated us ng a persona attack by dent fy ng a prob em, target ng a person, dent fy ng the prob em w th the person and attack ng the targeted person. The Repub can progress ve neoconservat ves prob em s a non- ntervent on st fore gn po cy. The Repub can progress ve neoconservat ves target s Ron Pau . The Repub can progress ve neoconservat ves have dent f ed Ron Pau as an so at on st w th a non- ntervent on st fore gn po cy. The Repub can progress ve neoconservat ves are attack ng Ron Pau . From Al Capone to Saul Alinsky to Barack Obama -Methods of Organizing

Rules for Radicals – Rule #10

Rules for Radicals – Rule #13

Mark Levin Compares Ron Paul To A Little Weasel

SA@TAC – The End of Right-Wing Progressivism?

Propaganda & Mind Control Report

Mind Control Hate Propaganda, Hate Speech & Crime, Black PR

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

The fact that Ron Pau s not a rac st, ant -Sem te or so at on st s bes des the po nt to these Repub can progress ve neoconservat ves. B g government progress ve neoconservat ve Repub can cand dates nc ude M tt Romney, Newt G ngr ch, R ck Santor um and R ck Perry. A of the Repub can progress ve neoconservat ve cand dates support an b g government aggress ve ntervent on st fore gn po cy abroad. Wh e some of the progress ve neoconservat ves ke to “ta k” conservat ve n the r rhetor c, they very much “wa k” progress ve n the r act ons for they favor b g government budgets at the Federa and state eve to support government ntervent on at home and abroad.

Limited Government Libertarian Conservative Ron Paul vs. Big Government Progressive Neoconservatives Romney, Gingrich, Santorum–Videos None of the progress ve neoconservat ve Repub can cand dates for Pres dent are for m ted government n terms ts s ze, scope and power that bertar an conservat ves such as Pau advocate. Neocons Shamelessly Attack Ron Paul for Being ‘Anti-Semitic’

SA@TheDC – Does Attacking Neoconservatism Reflect Racism or Reality?

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

Mark Levin Interviews Jeffrey Lord On Ron Paul And His Supporters Being Neoliberal

Mark Levin Interviews Jeffery Lord On Ron Paul Supporters Using Neo Con As An Anti-Semitic Slur

Experts detail the danger of Israeli lobby in US politics

Mark Levin, Ron Paul Hater, Put in His Place

Mark Levin Avoids the “Empire” Question

SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Conservative Foreign Policy

TrueLeaks – David Horowitz calls Ron Paul “A little Satan”

Ron Paul Is A Sick Racist? = AIPAC Spin Machine Tactics

Ron Paul On Iran And Israel

Ron Paul: Foreign Policy & Israel

Jews for Ron Paul, by Walter Block of Loyola University, New Orleans MIRROR “Professor Wa ter B ock s proud to be Jew sh and proud to be a c ose fr end of Ron Pau .”

Jews for Ron Paul

American Jew for Ron Paul

Ron Paul Supports Israel vs. Ronald Reagan? “Jews for Ron Paul”

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul James W ams of Matagorda County, Texas recounts a touch ng true story. L v ng n a st pre ud ced Texas In 1972, h s w fe had a comp cat on w th her pregnancy. No doctors wou d care for her or de ver the r b -rac a ch d. In fact one of the hosp ta nurses ca ed the po ce on James. Dr. Ron Pau was not f ed and took her n, de ver ng the r st born baby. Because of the compass on of Dr. Ron Pau , the W ams never rece ved a hosp ta b for the de very. Ron Pau v ews every human be ng as a un que nd v dua , afforded the r ghts endowed by our creator and cod f ed n the B of R ghts.

Ron Paul Ad “Disarms” MSM’s Racist Campaign of Lies: Gary Franchi Reports

12-29-11 Ron Paul reacts to new ad

Do Black Americans Believe Ron Paul Is Racist?

Ron Paul is NOT a Racist Walter Williams defends Dr Paul on Rush Limbaugh Show

Chris Rock supports Ron Paul 2012??

BLACKS FOR RON PAUL 2012!!!

Seems that James K rch ck, progress ve neoconservat ve, was smear ng Ron Pau four years ago and s now warn ng bera s that Pau supports the John B rch Soc ety by speak ng at some of ts meet ngs. Wh e not a member of the John B rch Soc ety, I w defend Pau s good udgement n support ng such an organ zat on. Looks ke the med a shou d check out James K rch ck and h s assoc at on w th the Foundat on for Defense of Democrac es. When are the so ca ed ob ect ve ourna sts and reporters go ng to do the r obs and connect some of the dots and te the truth? When he freezes over. NY Times, MSM Attacks Ron Paul & Alex Jones For Living in the Real World 3/3 “…G ngr ch- nked smear spec a st James K rch ck s presumab y nonp ussed that h s attempt to regurg tate the 15-year-o d debunked non-story of Ron Pau s rac st news etters has had abso ute y no effect on the po s, but he s forg ng ahead anyway w th further attacks, th s t me n the form of a New York T mes ed tor a that abe s Pau a “parano d consp racy theor st” for d scuss ng man fest y provab e ssues. As we prev ous y documented n our response to K rch ck s regurg tat on of a story he or g na y pushed four years ago, the New Repub c wr ter s an apo og st for Newt G ngr ch and other neo-cons of h s k. K rch ck s a proud neo-con who serves as a fe ow w th the Foundat on for Defense of Democrac es n Wash ngton, an nf uent a neo-conservat ve co ect ve funded by numerous noted b ona res. The group s st of “d st ngu shed adv sors” nc udes former CIA and FBI heads. The group s v rtua y a obby ng front for the state of Israe , wh ch exp a ns perfect y why K rch ck s so upset w th Pau , who has prom sed to put a stop to the b ons n fore gn a d the Un ted States sends to Israe every year. S tt ng on the group s Leadersh p Counc s none other than Newt G ngr ch, one of Ron Pau s ma n r va s n the Repub can pr mary. G ven that assoc at on, t s unsurpr s ng that K rch ck has chosen to dredge up a ser es of debunked smears at th s key t me n the e ect on cyc e, w th G ngr ch s campa gn now mp od ng and Ron Pau s popu ar ty surg ng. …”

The neoconservat ves at the Week y Standard pub shed K rch ck s art c e. I wonder why? K rch ck s a neoconservat ve! He s a so a fe ow at the Foundat on for Defense of Democrac es, where the neoconservat ves gather (see background nformat on be ow). The K rch ck and Lord smear attack on Ron Pau was amp f ed and repeated by severa so-ca ed “conservat ve” rad o ta k show hosts and/or the r f - n hosts pr or to and over the Chr stmas ho days. Th s nc uded Bennett, Hew tt, Lev n, G bson, Medved and L mbaugh ust to name a few. A favored one of the rema n ng Repub can b g government progress ve neoconservat ve cand dates–Romney, G ngr ch, Santor um and Perry. They repeated K rch ck s charges n the two to three weeks pr or to the Iowa caucus. At the t me Ron Pau was ead ng n the Iowa po s and t ooked ke he wou d be f rst n Iowa. The concerted and organ zed smear attack of Pau on “conservat ve” ta k rad o was successfu n that Pau came n th rd beh nd Santor um and Romney by ess than 3,900 votes. M ss on accomp shed by the progress ve neoconservat ves, the Israe obby and the L kud party. Not a s ng e one of these so-ca ed “conservat ve” ta k rad o show hosts support the conservat ve bertar an advocate of m ted government, Ron Pau . SA@TAC – The Biggest Earmark is Empire

SA@TheDC – ‘Fixing’ Big Government is Not Conservative

SA@TheDC – Russell Kirk and 9/11

SA@TAC – Identity vs. Philosophy

I have been a conservat ve or trad t ona bertar an s nce Barry Go dwater ran for Pres dent n 1964. The on y tru y conservat ve pres dent that the U.S. has had s nce then s Rona d Reagan. Many trad t ona bertar ans that were expect ng f sca respons b ty under Reagan w th ba anced budgets and a sma er Federa government, became very d sappo nted when Reagan fa ed to de very on these prom ses. Reagan def n te y ta ked conservat ve but the econom c resu ts were dec ded y progress ve w th grow ng def c ts and ncreases n the nat ona debt. Under Reagan the s ze and scope of the Federa government s gn f cant y ncreased. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/H stor ca Tab es%5B1%5D.pdf Th s s why Ron Pau , an ear y supporter of Rona d Reagan, eft the Repub can Party and ran for Pres dent n 1988 as the L bertar an Party s cand date. In 1988 the Repub can Party successfu e ected a Repub can b g government progress ve George H.W. Bush that now endorses another Repub can b g government progress ve neoconservat ve, M tt Romney. I v ew Romney, G ngr ch, Santor um and Perry as Repub can b g government progress ve neoconservat ves. I w not vote for any progress ve of e ther po t ca party and espec a y those who dent fy themse ves as neoconservat ve. The progress ve neoconservat ves n the Repub can Party smeared Ron Pau by p ay ng both the race card and ant -Sem te card. Unfortunate y, the progress ve neoconservat ves were part a y successfu for many of the steners of ta k rad o s mp y do not know the h story of the conservat ve nte ectua movement n Amer ca s nce 1945 and the ro e the progress ve neoconservat ves p ayed n smear ng Pau . SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

If I tru y thought Ron Pau was e ther a rac st or ant -Sem te, I wou d not support h m. I w support and vote for Ron Pau . I w not vote for any Repub can b g government progress ve neoconservat ve. If you ana yze t I be eve the very heart and sou of conservat sm s bertar an sm. I th nk conservat sm s rea y a m snomer ust as bera sm s a m snomer for the bera s — f we were back n the days of the Revo ut on, so-ca ed conservat ves today wou d be the L bera s and the bera s wou d be the Tor es. The bas s of conservat sm s a des re for ess government nterference or ess centra zed author ty or more nd v dua freedom and th s s a pretty genera descr pt on a so of what bertar an sm s. RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975

Background Articles And Videos Foundation for Defense of Democracies

James Kirchick ast updated: December 27, 2011 Please note: IPS R ght Web ne ther represents nor endorses any of the nd v dua s or groups prof ed on th s s te. “…James (“Jam e”) K rch ck s a Prague-based fe ow at the neoconservat ve Foundat on for Defense of Democrac es (FDD) and a contr but ng ed tor at the New Repub c. A former wr ter-at- arge for Rad o Free Europe/Rad o L berty, K rch ck has a so contr buted to var ous r ght st out ets ke the Week y Standard and Commentary magaz ne s Content ons b og, as we as numerous ma nstream pub cat ons, nc ud ng the Los Ange es T mes and Po t co.[ ] Among K rch ck s more w de y noted art c es s h s January 2008 New Repub c p ece about bertar an eader Rep. Ron Pau (R-TX). T t ed “Angry Wh te Man,” the art c e sought to throw ght on Pau s track record as he ga ned nat ona attent on as a Repub can Party pres dent a cand date who opposed the war n Iraq. Rev ew ng the var ous news etters that Pau pub shed over the years, K rch ck wrote that they revea “decades worth of obsess on w th consp rac es, sympathy for the r ght-w ng m t a movement, and deep y he d b gotry aga nst b acks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Pau s not the p a n-speak ng ant war act v st h s supporters be eve they are back ng—but rather a member n good stand ng of some of the o dest and ug est trad t ons n Amer can po t cs.”[2]

In ate 2011, as Pau s campa gn to be the Repub can Party s 2012 pres dent a nom nee began to ga n momentum as a resu t of surg ng po numbers n some pr mary states, K rch ck pub shed a fo ow up p ece to h s 2008 New Repub c art c e. K rchc k amented that desp te Pau s “vo um nous record of b gotry and consp racy theor es,” h s star rema ns “und mmed.” He added: “Not on y do the atest po s p ace h m as the frontrunner n the Iowa Caucuses, but he st en oys the support of a certa n coter e of profess ona po t ca commentators who, ke Pau h mse f, dent fy as bertar ans.” K rch ck h gh ghted support from the kes of b ogger Andrew Su van as we as numerous other wr ters. He conc uded: “If Pau s respons b e for con ur ng the apoca ypt c atmosphere of a prophet, t s h s supporters who have to answer for subm tt ng to t. Sure y, those who agree w th Pau wou d be ab e to f nd a better vesse for the r deas than a man who once enterta ned the not on that AIDS was nvented n a government aboratory or who, ust ast January, a eged that there had been a CIA coup aga nst the Amer can government and that the Agency s n drug bus nesses. ”[3] Pau responded to the cr t c sm surround ng h s assoc at on w th the news etter by c a m ng that at the t me he d d not read the offend ng mater a and that he does not endorse the v ews espoused there n. H s Repub can pr mary opponents attempted to cap ta ze on the ssue. Newt G ngr ch sa d: “These th ngs are rea y nasty, and he d dn t know about t, wasn t aware of t. But he s suff c ent y ready to be pres dent? It str kes me t ra ses some fundamenta quest ons about h m.”[4] Track Record K rch ck o ned the Foundat on for the Defense of Democrac es (FDD) n November 2011, wh ch was announced—together w th the h r ng of the abras ve “pro-Israe ” wr ter Lee Sm th— n a November 2011 press re ease. Sa d FDD execut ve d rector C ff May, “Lee and Jam e are two of the most prob ng, nc s ve and ns ghtfu ourna sts cover ng the nternat ona scene today. They w add mportant d mens ons to FDD s nat ona secur ty and fore gn po cy ana ys s.”[5] …” “…K rch ck s an erstwh e bera who apparent y had veered to the r ght by the t me he arr ved at Ya e, where he graduated n 2006. In a 2007 art c e for the Boston G obe about dat ng d ff cu t es as a conservat ve gay man, K rch ck descr bed h mse f as a “gay recover ng eft st,” add ng that “there s noth ng about my homosexua ty that d ctates a be ef about ra s ng the m n mum wage, w thdraw ng mmed ate y from Iraq, and back ng teachers un ons: a bera causes that I strong y oppose.”[6] In 2006, as a contr butor to the Ya e Da y News, K rch ck was named Student Journa st of the Year by the Nat ona Lesb an and Gay Journa sts Assoc at on; n 2007, the assoc at on named h m Journa st of the Year.[v7] On fore gn po cy, K rch ck has proved a steadfast cr t c of the Barack Obama adm n strat on as we as of those who oppose one-s ded U.S. support for Israe or other m tar st M dd e East po ces. In November 2011, for examp e, K rch ck nked hawk shness toward Iran w th cr t c sm of the Obama adm n strat on s “reset” of re at ons w th Russ a. When Moscow cr t c zed a 2011 Internat ona Atom c Energy Agency report about apparent progress n the Iran an nuc ear program, K rch ck took to theWa Street Journa to ca t “the atest and most devastat ng b ow to Mr. Obama s reset po cy,” wh ch he c a med was promoted as a mechan sm to br ng Russ a nto the U.S. fo d w th respect to Iran. K rch ck a so cr t c zed the reset n t at ve more genera y, d sapprov ng of the New START agreement on nuc ear d sarmament, the Obama adm n strat on s dec s on to cance p anned m ss e defense bases n Czech Repub c and Po and (a though he neg ected to ment on that the s tes were moved to Turkey), Wash ngton s apse n arms sa es to Georg a, and Russ a s adm ttance to the Wor d Trade Organ zat on.[8] …” http://www.r ghtweb. rc-on ne.org/prof e/k rch ck_ ames Ron Paul addresses charges of racism on CNN

Ron Paul – I Am The ANTI Racist – Wolf Blitzer Interview 2008

Ron Paul: ‘Human Flaw’ on Newsletter Oversight

Ron Paul Is NOT A Racist! Disgruntled Former Ron Paul Staffer Eric Dondero

Ron Paul On Racism

Ron Paul’s view on Racism

Ron Paul – Back When He Was Proud of the Newsletter, He Now Disavows (1995)

NAACP Nelson Linder speaks on Ron Paul and racism

Ron Paul is a Racist?

Why Don’t Libertarians Care About Ron Paul’s Bigoted Newsletters? James Kirchick “…Near y four years ago, on the eve of the New Hampsh re Repub can pres dent a pr mary, The New Repub c pub shed my expose of news etters pub shed by Texas Congressman Ron Pau . The contents of these news etters can best be descr bed as appa ng. B acks were referred to as “an ma s.” Gays were to d to go “back” nto the “c oset.” The “X-Rated Mart n Luther K ng” was a b sexua pedoph e who “seduced underage g r s and boys.” Three months before the Ok ahoma C ty bomb ng, Pau pra sed r ght-w ng, ant -government m t a movements as “one of the most encourag ng deve opments n Amer ca.” The vo um nous record of b gotry and consp racy theor es speaks for tse f. And yet, four years on, Ron Pau s star s und mmed. Not on y do the atest po s p ace h m as the frontrunner n the Iowa Caucuses, but he st en oys the support of a certa n coter e of profess ona po t ca commentators who, ke Pau h mse f, dent fy as bertar ans. Most prom nent among them s Da y Beast b ogger Andrew Su van, who gave Pau h s endorsement n the GOP pr mary ast week, as he d d n 2008. But he s not a one: T m Carney of The Wash ngton Exam ner recent y bemoaned the fact that “the pr nc p ed, ant war, Const tut on-obey ng, Fed-hat ng, bertar an Repub can from Texas stands f rm y outs de the bounds of perm ss b e d ssent as drawn by e ther the Repub can estab shment or the ma nstream med a,” wh e Conor Fr edersdorf of The At ant c argues that Pau s deas cannot be gnored, and that, for Tea Party Repub cans, “A vote aga nst Pau requ res e ther cogn t ve d ssonance—never n short supp y n po t cs—or a fundamenta reth nk ng of the who e theory of po t cs that so recent y drove the Tea Party movement.” “…K rch ck s an erstwh e bera who apparent y had veered to the r ght by the t me he arr ved at Ya e, where he graduated n 2006. In a 2007 art c e for the Boston G obe about dat ng d ff cu t es as a conservat ve gay man, K rch ck descr bed h mse f as a “gay recover ng eft st,” add ng that “there s noth ng about my homosexua ty that d ctates a be ef about ra s ng the m n mum wage, w thdraw ng mmed ate y from Iraq, and back ng teachers un ons: a bera causes that I strong y oppose.”[6] In 2006, as a contr butor to the Ya e Da y News, K rch ck was named Student Journa st of the Year by the Nat ona Lesb an and Gay Journa sts Assoc at on; n 2007, the assoc at on named h m Journa st of the Year.[v7] …” http://www.tnr.com/art c e/po t cs/98811/ron-pau - bertar an-b gotry

The Company Ron Paul Keeps Dec 26, 2011, Vo . 17, No. 15 • By JAMES KIRCHICK “…The Repub can Jew sh Coa t on announced th s month that congressman Ron Pau wou d not be among the s x guests nv ted to part c pate n ts Repub can Pres dent a Cand dates Forum. “He s ust so far outs de of the ma nstream of the Repub can party and th s organ zat on,” sa d Matt Brooks, execut ve d rector of the RJC, add ng that the group “re ects h s m sgu ded and extreme v ews.” Pau s exc us on caused an uproar, w th cr t cs a eg ng that h s stand on Israe had earned the RJC s re; an abso ut st bertar an, Pau opposes fore gn a d to a countr es, nc ud ng the Jew sh state. “Th s seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundar es around acceptab e po cy d scourse than any act ve concern that Pres dent Dr. Ron Pau wou d be act ve y ant -Israe or ant -Sem t c,” wrote Reason ed tor Matt We ch. Chr s McGrea of the Guard an reported that Pau “was barred because of h s v ews on Israe .” Even Seth L psky, ed tor of the New York Sun and a va ant defender of Israe (and fr end and mentor of th s wr ter), op ned, “The who e dea of an organ zat on of Jew sh Repub cans worry ng about the ma nstream str kes me as a b t contrad ctory.” Wh e Pau s v ews on Israe certa n y p ace h m outs de the Amer can, never m nd Repub can, ma nstream, there s an even more e ementary reason the RJC was r ght to exc ude h m from ts event. It s Pau s ucrat ve and decades- ong promot on of b gotry and consp racy theor es, for wh ch he has yet to account fu y, and h s cont nu ng espousa of extrem st v ews, that shou d make h m unwe come at any respectab e forum, not on y those hosted by Jew sh organ zat ons. …” http://www.week ystandard.com/author/ ames-k rch ck James Kirchick “…James Kirchick (pronounced /krtk/; born 1983) s a reporter, fore gn correspondent and co umn st. Hav ng attended Ya e Un vers ty, K rch ck a so wrote for the student newspaper on the campus, the Ya e Da y News. [1] He s a fe ow w th the Foundat on for Defense of Democrac es n Wash ngton; [2] pr or to th s he was wr ter-at- arge for Rad o Free Europe/Rad o L berty. [3] For over three years, K rch ck worked at The New Repub c, cover ng domest c po t cs, nte gence, and Amer can fore gn po cy. In 2008, he exposed rac st and consp rator a news etters pub shed by Texas Congressman and Repub can pres dent a cand date Ron Pau , a story that ga ned new prom nence n the 2012 pres dent a e ect on. [4][5] Wh e he rema ns a contr but ng ed tor for TNR, K rch ck s reportage has appeared n The Week y Standard, [4] The Amer can Interest, The V rg n a Quarter y Rev ew, The Co umb a Journa sm Rev ew, Prospect, Commentary and Wor d Affa rs Journa . He wr tes frequent y for newspapers nc ud ng The Wash ngton Post, The Wa Street Journa , [6] The Los Ange es T mes, [7] and Ha aretz. K rch ck has worked as a reporter for The New York Sun, the New York Da y News, and The H , and has been a co umn st for the New York Da y News and the Wash ngton Exam ner. K rch ck s a regu ar book cr t c and rev ews frequent y for Azure, [8] Commentary, the C aremont Rev ew of Books, Po cy Rev ew, and Wor d Affa rs, among others. A ead ng vo ce on gay po t cs, he s a contr but ng wr ter to the Advocate, the nat on s argest gay pub cat on, [9] and a rec p ent of the Nat ona Lesb an and Gay Journa sts Assoc at on Exce ence n Student Journa sm Award and the Journa st of the Year Award. [10][11] …” http://en.w k ped a.org/w k /James_K rch ck Foundation for Defense of Democracies “…The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) descr bes tse f as a non-prof t, non-part san po cy nst tute “work ng to defend free nat ons aga nst the r enem es”. It was founded short y after the September 11, 2001, attacks to address what t regards as the “threat fac ng Amer ca, Israe and the West”. Its stated ob ect ves are promot ng human r ghts, defend ng “free and democrat c nat ons”, and oppos ng terror sm wh ch t def nes as “the de berate use of v o ence aga nst c v ans to ach eve po t ca ob ect ves”. [1] Overview It conducts “research and educat on on nternat ona terror sm—the most ser ous secur ty threat to the Un ted States and other free, democrat c nat ons. It advocates Un ted States m tary ntervent on n var ous mus m ma or ty nat ons such as Afghan stan, Iraq, Iran, L bya, Pak stan, and Pa est ne. Board of Directors, advisors and fellows FDD s cha rman s James Woo sey. FDD s pres dent s C fford D. May and ts execut ve d rector s Mark Dubow tz. Its Leadersh p Counc s composed of prom nent th nkers and eaders from the defense, nte gence, and po cy commun t es nc ud ng Pau a Dobr ansky, Steve Forbes, B Kr sto , Lou s J. Freeh, Joseph L eberman, Newt G ngr ch, Max Kampe man, and Robert McFar ane. Its Board of Adv sors nc ude Gary Bauer, Rep. Er c Cantor, Gene Gate y, Genera P.X. Ke ey, Char es Krauthammer, Kath een Tro a “KT” McFar and, R chard Per e, Steven Pomerantz, O ver “Buck” Reve , Bret Stephens, and Franc s J. “B ng” West. [2] Foundat on fe ows and sen or staff are Jonathan Schanzer, V ce Pres dent of Research, Kha r Abaza, Sen or Fe ow, Tony Badran, Research Fe ow, Levant, Daveed Gartenste n-Ross, D rector, Center for Study of Terror st Rad ca zat on, Reue Marc Gerecht, Sen or Fe ow. Dr. Sebast an Gorka, M tary Affa rs Fe ow, Thomas Josce yn, Sen or Fe ow and Co-Cha r, Center for Law and Counterterror sm, Jonathan Kay, V s t ng Fe ow, Dr. M chae Ledeen, Freedom Scho ar, Andrew C. McCarthy, Co-Cha r, Center for Law and Counterterror sm, Dr. Emanue e Otto engh , Sen or Fe ow, Dr. J. Peter Pham, NonRes dent Sen or Fe ow, Dav d B. R vk n, Jr., Sen or Fe ow and Co-Cha r, Center for Law and Counterterror sm[3] Initiatives The foundat on has n t ated the fo ow ng centers, coa t ons, comm ttees and ongo ng pro ects: The Iran Energy Pro ect The Center for The Study of Terror st Rad ca zat on The Center for Law & Counterterror sm The Coa t on Aga nst Terror st Med a The Comm ttee on the Present Danger It engages n nvest gat ve report ng.

The Iran Energy Project The foundat on has promoted the ut ty of energy sanct ons as part of a comprehens ve econom c warfare strategy aga nst the Iran an reg me. To th s end, t prov des ead ng research and ana ys s n support of strong, broad-based energy sanct ons, nc ud ng gaso ne, natura gas, and o sanct ons, as part of a comprehens ve strategy to end the Iran an reg me s pursu t of nuc ear weapons, support for terror sm, and abuse of human r ghts. The foundat on a so ana yzes the prom nent ro e of the Is am c Revo ut onary Guard Corps (IRGC) n Iran s energy ndustry. It w cont nue to mon tor the Iran an energy sector for new entrants nto the Iran an energy trade and any s gns that compan es wh ch have reported y eft the market have resumed the r trade. The focus on energy sanct ons has changed the debate n Wash ngton. No onger a d scuss on over how to ach eve a “grand barga n” w th the Iran an reg me, the debate now focuses on how to use sanct ons to deter an aggress ve reg me ded cated to pursu ng nuc ear weapons, support ng terror sm, and repress ng ts own peop e. [4] As the foundat on s Mark Dubow tz noted, “the push for broad-based sanct ons target ng Iran s energy sector, nc ud ng steps taken to make t more d ff cu t for Iran to mport gaso ne, acqu re key energy techno ogy, and attract nvestment for ts energy sector, has a ready had a ma or mpact. Not on y are Iran s gaso ne supp ers ex t ng the market, but energy nvestors, banks, techno ogy prov ders, and nsurers now face grow ng pressure to dec de between do ng bus ness w th the Iran an reg me and cont nu ng the r bus ness re at onsh ps n the ucrat ve U.S. market … Pres dent Obama needs to enforce U.S. aw and put these compan es to a cho ce.”[5] http://en.w k ped a.org/w k /Foundat on_for_Defense_of_Democrac es Preemptive War Debate (Part 1)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 2)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 3)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 4)

‘Racist newsletter’ timeline: What Ron Paul has said Ron Paul has had to explain racially charged statements and other controversial comments in newsletters published in his name in the 1980s and 1990s. Here’s what he’s said over the years.

By Mark Trumbull, Staff writer / December 29, 2011 “…It s the b ggest setback to h t Ron Pau s cand dacy for pres dent: pub c ty about rac a y charged statements and other controvers a comments n news etters pub shed n Mr. Pau s name n the 1980s and 1990s. On Thursday he responded at some ength to the concerns dur ng an Iowa rad o nterv ew, ca ng the news etter statements “terr b e” but ns st ng that he wasn t the one who wrote them. He added that the offens ve comments tota ed about “about e ght or 10 sentences.” Some ourna sts who have researched the news etters say t was a ot more than 10 sentences, and that the Texas congressman s response on the ssue has changed over the years. Here, n t me ne format, are some prom nent Pau statements t ed to the ssue drawn from transcr pts, v deo c ps, and news reports. …” http://www.csmon tor.com/USA/E ect ons/Pres dent/2011/1229/Rac st-news etter-t me ne-What-Ron-Pau -has-sa d Newsletters Fallout – Hardball (see Tucker vid for update)

James Kirchick interview, part 1 “… nterv ew w th James K rch ck, ass stant ed tor at the New Repub c, who wrote a p ece n the Advocate, cr t c z ng act v sts and reporters who exposed Congressman Mark Fo ey, and cr t c zed me for wr t ng about and focus ng on the fact that John McCa n s ch ef of staff, Mark Buse, s gay.”

James Kirchick interview, part 2

Another boyfriend of Mark Buse, McCain’s top gay

The New Republic “…The New Republic (TNR) s an Amer can magaz ne of po t cs and the arts pub shed cont nuous y s nce 1914. A week y for most of ts h story, t s pub shed twenty t mes per year as of 2011, at a c rcu at on of approx mate y 50,000. The ed tor as of 2011 s R chard Just. Political views Domest ca y, the TNR as of 2011 supports a arge y neo- bera stance on f sca and soc a ssues, accord ng to former ed tor Frank n Foer, who stated that t “ nvented the modern usage of the term bera , and t s one of our h stor ca egac es and ob gat ons to be nvo ved n the ongo ng debate over what exact y bera sm means and stands for.”[2] As of 2004, however, some, ke Anne Kossedd and Steven Randa , contend that t s not as bera as t was before 1974. [3] The magaz ne s out ook s assoc ated w th the Democrat c Leadersh p Counc and “New Democrats” such as former Pres dent B C nton and Connect cut Senator Joseph L eberman, who rece ved the magaz ne s endorsement n the 2004 Democrat c pr mary; so d d Barack Obama over H ary C nton n 2008. [4] Wh st defend ng federa programs, ke Med care and the EPA, t has advocated some po c es that, wh e seek ng to ach eve the ends of trad t ona soc a we fare programs, often use market so ut ons as the r means, and so are often ca ed “bus ness-fr end y.” Typ ca of some of the po c es supported by both TNR and the DLC dur ng the 1990s were ncreased fund ng for the Earned Income Tax Cred t program and reform of the Federa we fare system. Supp y s de econom cs, espec a y the dea of reduc ng h gher marg na ncome tax rates, rece ved heavy cr t c sm from sen or ed tor Jonathan Cha t. [5] Moreover, TNR s strong y n favor of un versa hea th care. On certa n h gh-prof e soc a ssues, such as ts support of same-sex marr age, TNR cou d be cons dered more progress ve than the ma nstream of the Democrat c Party estab shment. In ts March 2007 ssue, TNR ran an art c e by Pau Starr (co-founder of the magaz ne s ma n r va , The Amer can Prospect) where he def ned the type of modern Amer can bera sm n h s art c e War and L bera sm: L bera sm wagers that a state… can be strong but constra ned – strong because constra ned… R ghts to educat on and other requ rements for human deve opment and secur ty a m to advance equa opportun ty and persona d gn ty and to promote a creat ve and product ve soc ety. To guarantee those r ghts, bera s have supported a w der soc a and econom c ro e for the state, counterba anced by more robust guarantees of c v bert es and a w der soc a system of checks and ba ances anchored n an ndependent press and p ura st c soc ety. – Pau Starr, vo ume 236, p. 21-24 Support for Israe has been another strong theme n The New Repub c. Accord ng to Mart n Peretz, owner of TNR, “Support for Israe s deep down an express on of Amer ca s best v ew of tse f.”[6] Accord ng to CUNY ourna sm professor, Er c A terman, “Noth ng has been as cons stent about the past 34 years of TNR as the magaz ne s devot on to Peretz s own understand ng of what s good for Israe …It s rea y not too much to say that a most a of Peretz s po t ca be efs are subord nate to h s comm tment to Israe s best nterests, and these nterests as Peretz def nes them a most a ways nvo ve more war.”[6] Uns gned ed tor a s pr or to the 2003 nvas on of Iraq expressed strong support for m tary act on, c t ng the threat of WMD as we as human tar an concerns. S nce the end of ma or m tary operat ons, uns gned ed tor a s, wh e cr t ca of the hand ng of the war, have cont nued to ust fy the nvas on on human tar an grounds, but no onger ma nta n that Iraq s WMD fac t es posed any threat to the Un ted States. In the November 27, 2006 ssue, the ed tors wrote: At th s po nt, t seems a most bes de the po nt to say th s: The New Repub c deep y regrets ts ear y support for th s war. The past three years have comp cated our dea sm and rem nded us of the m ts of Amer can power and our own w sdom. [7] ”

“

On June 23, 2006 Mart n Peretz, n response to cr t c sm of the magaz ne from the b og Da y Kos, wrote the fo ow ng as a summary of TNR s stances on recent ssues The New Repub c s very much aga nst the Bush tax programs, aga nst Bush Soc a Secur ty reform, aga nst cutt ng the nher tance tax, for rad ca hea th care changes, pass onate about Gore-type env ronmenta sm, for a woman s ent t ement to an abort on, for gay marr age, for an ncrease n the m n mum wage, for pursu ng aggress ve y a ternat ves to our present re ance on o and our present tax preferences for gas-guzz ng automob es. We were aga nst the conf rmat on of Just ce A to. [8] ”

“

The magaz ne has a so pub shed two art c es concern ng ncome nequa ty, arge y cr t c z ng conservat ve econom sts for the r attempts to deny the ex stence or negat ve effect ncreas ng ncome nequa ty s hav ng on the Un ted States. In ts May 2007 ssue the magaz ne ran an ed tor a po nt ng to the human tar an be efs of bera s as be ng respons b e for the recent p ght of the Amer can eft. In another art c e TNR favorab y c ted the examp e of Denmark as ev dence that an expans ve we fare state and h gh tax burden can be cons stent w th, and n some ways contr bute to, a strong economy. [9] Such ed tor a s and art c es exemp fy the bera po t ca or entat on of TNR. History Early years The New Repub c was founded by Herbert Cro y and Wa ter L ppmann through the f nanc a back ng of he ress Dorothy Payne Wh tney and her husband, W ard Stra ght, who ma nta ned ma or ty ownersh p. The magaz ne s f rst ssue was pub shed on November 7, 1914. The magaz ne s po t cs were bera and progress ve, and as such concerned w th cop ng w th the great changes brought about by Amer ca s ate-19th century ndustr a zat on. The magaz ne s w de y cons dered mportant n chang ng the character of bera sm n the d rect on of governmenta ntervent on sm, both fore gn and domest c. Among the most mportant of these was the emergence of the U.S. as a Great Power on the nternat ona scene, and n 1917 TNR urged Amer ca s entry nto Wor d War I on the s de of the A es. One consequence of Wor d War I was the Russ an Revo ut on of 1917, and dur ng the nter-war years the magaz ne was genera y pos t ve n ts assessment of the Sov et Un on and ts commun st government. Th s changed w th the start of the Co d War and the 1948 departure of eft st ed tor Henry A. Wa ace to run for pres dent on the Progress ve t cket. After Wa ace, TNR moved towards pos t ons more typ ca of ma nstream Amer can bera sm. Dur ng the 1950s t was cr t ca of both Sov et fore gn po cy and domest c ant -commun sm, part cu ar y McCarthy sm. That sa d, the magaz ne was gu ty of pub sh ng a 1947 art c e ent t ed “The Strange Case of W he m Re ch” apparent y f ed w th d stort ons and nnuendos. Dur ng the 1960s the magaz ne opposed the V etnam War, but was a so often cr t ca of the New Left. Up unt the ate 1960s, the magaz ne had a certa n “cachet as the vo ce of re- nv gorated bera sm”, n the op n on of Er c A terman, a commentator who has cr t c zed the magaz ne s po t cs from the eft. That cachet, A terman wrote, “was perhaps best ustrated when the dash ng, young Pres dent Kennedy had been photographed board ng A r Force One ho d ng a copy”. [6] Peretz ownership and eventual editorship, 1974–1979 In March 1974, the magaz ne was purchased for $380,000[6] by Harvard Un vers ty ecturer Mart n Peretz, [10] from G bert Harr son. [6] Peretz was a veteran of the New Left who had broken w th that movement over ts support of var ous Th rd Wor d berat on st movements, part cu ar y the Pa est ne L berat on Organ zat on. Peretz transformed TNR nto ts current form. Under h s ownersh p, TNR has advocated both strong U.S. support for the Israe government and a hawk sh U.S. fore gn po cy. [6] On domest c po cy, t has advocated a se f-cr t ca brand of bera sm, tak ng pos t ons that range from trad t ona y bera to neo bera sm. It has genera y supported Democrat c cand dates for pres dent, a though n 1980 t endorsed the moderate Repub can John B. Anderson, runn ng as an ndependent, rather than the Democrat c ncumbent J mmy Carter. Harr son cont nued ed t ng the magaz ne, expect ng Peretz to et h m cont nue runn ng the magaz ne for three years. But by 1975, when Peretz became annoyed at hav ng h s own art c es re ected for pub cat on wh e he was pour ng money nto the magaz ne to cover ts osses, he f red Harr son. Much of the staff, nc ud ng Wa ter P ncus, Stan ey Karnow, and Dor s Grumbach, was e ther f red or qu t, be ng rep aced arge y by recent Harvard graduates ack ng n ourna st c exper ence. Peretz h mse f became the ed tor and stayed n that post unt 1979. As other ed tors have been appo nted, Peretz has rema ned ed tor- n-ch ef. [6] Kinsley and Hertzberg editorships, 1979–1991

M chae K ns ey, a neo bera ( n the Amer can sense of the term), was ed tor (1979–1981; 1985–1989), a ternat ng tw ce w th Hendr k Hertzberg (1981–1985; 1989–1991), who has been ca ed “an o d-fash oned soc a democrat”. K ns ey was on y 28 years o d when he f rst became ed tor and was st study ng aw[6] at George Wash ngton Un vers ty. Wr ters for the magaz ne dur ng th s era nc uded neo bera s M ckey Kaus and Jacob We sberg a ong w th Char es Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Morton Kondracke, S dney B umentha , Robert Kuttner, Rona d Stee , M chae Wa zer, and Irv ng Howe. [6] Dur ng the 1980s the magaz ne genera y supported Pres dent Rona d Reagan s ant -Commun st fore gn po cy, nc ud ng prov s on of a d to the N caraguan Contras. It has a so supported both Gu f Wars and, ref ect ng ts be ef n the mora eff cacy of Amer can power, ntervent on n “human tar an” cr ses, such as those n Bosn a and Herzegov na and Kosovo dur ng the Yugos av wars. The magaz ne a so became known for ts or g na ty and unpred ctab ty n the 1980s. It was w de y cons dered a “must read” across the po t ca spectrum. An art c e n Van ty Fa r udged TNR “the smartest, most mpudent week y n the country,” and the “most enterta n ng and nte ectua y ag e magaz ne n the country.” Accord ng to A terman, the magaz ne s prose cou d spark e and the contrast ng v ews w th n ts pages were “genu ne y exc t ng”. He added, “The magaz ne unarguab y set the terms of debate for ns der po t ca e tes dur ng the Reagan era.”[6] W th the ess pred ctab e op n ons, more of them ean ng conservat ve than before, the magaz ne won the respect of many conservat ve op n on eaders and 20 cop es were messengered to the Reagan Wh te House each Thursday afternoon. Norman Podhoretz ca ed the magaz ne “ nd spensab e”, and George W sa d t was “current y the nat on s most nterest ng and most mportant po t ca ourna .” Nat ona Rev ew descr bed t as “one of the most nterest ng magaz nes n the Un ted States.”[6] Cred t for ts qua ty and popu ar ty was often ass gned to K ns ey, whose w t and cr t ca sens b ty were seen as en ven ng a magaz ne that had for many years been more convent ona n ts po t cs, and Hertzberg, a wr ter for The New Yorker and speechwr ter for J mmy Carter. Hertzberg and K ns ey not on y a ternated as ed tor but a so a ternated as the author of the magaz ne s ead co umn, “TRB from Wash ngton”. Its perspect ve was descr bed as eft-of-center n 1988. [11] A f na ngred ent that ed to the magaz ne s ncreased stature n the 1980s was ts “back of the book” or terary, cu tura and arts pages, wh ch were ed ted by Leon W ese t er. Peretz d scovered W ese t er, then work ng at Harvard s Soc ety of Fe ows, and put h m n charge of the sect on. W ese t er re nvented the sect on a ong the nes of The New York Rev ew of Books, a ow ng h s cr t cs, many of them academ cs, to wr te onger, cr t ca essays nstead of mere book rev ews. A terman ca s the h re “probab y […] Peretz s s ng e most s gn f cant pos t ve ach evement” n runn ng the magaz ne. Dur ng other changes of ed tors, W ese t er has rema ned as cu tura ed tor. Under h m the sect on has been “s mu taneous y erud te and zestfu ”, accord ng to A terman, who adds, “Amaz ng y, a fu generat on ater, t st s ngs.”[6] Sullivan editorship, 1991–1996 In 1991, Andrew Su van, a 28-year-o d gay Catho c from Br ta n, became ed tor and took the magaz ne n a somewhat more conservat ve d rect on, though the ma or ty of wr ters rema ned bera or neo bera . Hertzberg soon eft the magaz ne to return to The New Yorker. K ns ey eft the magaz ne n 1996 to found the on ne magaz ne S ate. [6] Su van nv ted Char es Murray to contr bute a controvers a 10,000-word art c e that contended b acks may be, as a who e, ess nte gent than wh tes due to genet cs. The magaz ne a so pub shed a very cr t ca art c e about H ary C nton s hea th care p an by E zabeth McCaughey, an art c e that A terman ca ed “the s ng e most nf uent a art c e pub shed n the magaz ne dur ng the ent re C nton pres dency”. However, th s art c e was ater shown to be naccurate and the magaz ne wou d ater apo og ze for the story. Su van a so pub shed a number of p eces by Cam e Pag a. [6] Ruth Sha t, a young wr ter for the magaz ne n the Su van years, was repeated y cr t c zed for p ag ar sm. After the Sha t scanda s, the magaz ne began us ng fact-checkers dur ng Su van s t me as ed tor. One was Stephen G ass, who wou d be found to have made up quotes, anecdotes and facts n h s own art c es, wh e he served as a reporter years ater. [6]

Kelly, Lane, Beinart, Foer, Just editorships, 1996–present After Su van stepped down n 1996, Dav d Greenberg and Peter Be nart served o nt y as Act ng Ed tors. After the 1996 e ect on, M chae Ke y served as ed tor for a year. Dur ng h s tenure as ed tor and afterward, Ke y, who a so wrote the TRB co umn, was ntense y cr t ca of Pres dent C nton. [6] Wr ter Stephen G ass had been a ma or contr butor under Ke y s ed torsh p; G ass was ater shown to have fa s f ed and fabr cated numerous stor es, wh ch was adm tted by The New Repub c after an nvest gat on by Ke y s successor, Char es Lane. Ke y had cons stent y supported G ass dur ng h s tenure, nc ud ng send ng scath ng etters to those cha eng ng the verac ty of G ass s stor es. [12] Chuck Lane he d the pos t on between 1997 and 1999. Dur ng Lane s tenure, the Stephen G ass scanda occurred. Peretz has wr tten that Lane u t mate y “put the sh p back on ts course,” for wh ch Peretz sa d he was “ mmense y gratefu .” But Peretz ater f red Lane, who on y got the news when a Wash ngton Post reporter ca ed h m for a comment. [6] Peter Be nart, a th rd ed tor who took over when he was 28 years o d, [6] fo owed Lane and served as ed tor from 1999 to 2006. Frank n Foer took over from Be nart n March 2006. In the magaz ne s f rst ed tor a under Foer, t sa d “We ve become more bera … We ve been encourag ng Democrats to dream b g aga n on the env ronment and econom cs […]”. [6] Foer s the brother of nove st Jonathan Safran Foer, author of Everyth ng Is I um nated (2002). R chard Just took over as ed tor of the magaz ne on December 8, 2010. Other prom nent wr ters who ed ted or wrote for the magaz ne n these years nc ude sen or ed tor and TRB co umn st Jonathan Cha t, Lawrence F. Kap an, John Jud s and Spencer Ackerman. [6] In 2005, TNR created ts b og, ca ed The P ank, wh ch s wr tten by M chae Crow ey, Frank n Foer, Jason Zenger e, and other TNR staff. The P ank s meant to be TNR s pr mary b og, rep ac ng the magaz ne s f rst three b ogs, &c., Iraq d, and Easterb ogg. The Stump, TNR s b og on the 2008 Pres dent a E ect on was created n October 2007. The magaz ne rema ns we known, w th references to t occas ona y popp ng up n popu ar cu ture. L sa S mpson was once portrayed as a subscr ber to The New Repub c for K ds. Matt Groen ng, The S mpsons creator, once drew a cover for TNR. [c tat on needed] In the p ot ep sode of the HBO ser es Entourage, wh ch f rst a red on Ju y 18, 2004, Ar Go d asks Er c Murphy: “Do you read The New Repub c? We , I do, and t says that you don t know what the fuck you re ta k ng about.” …” http://en.w k ped a.org/w k /The_New_Repub c Likud “…Likud (Hebrew: HaL kud, t. The Conso dat on) s the ma or center-r ght po t ca party n Israe . [3][4][5][6] It was founded n 1973 by Menachem Beg n n an a ance w th severa r ght-w ng and bera part es. L kud s v ctory n the 1977 e ect ons was a ma or turn ng po nt n the country s po t ca h story, mark ng the f rst t me the eft had ost power. However, after ru ng the country for most of the 1980s, the party ost the Knesset e ect on n 1992. Neverthe ess, L kud s cand date Ben am n Netanyahu d d w n the vote for Pr me M n ster n 1996 and was g ven the task to form a government after the 2009 e ect ons. After a conv nc ng w n n the 2003 e ect ons, L kud saw a ma or sp t n 2005, when L kud eader Ar e Sharon eft the party to form the new Kad ma party. Th s resu ted n L kud s ump ng to fourth p ace n 2006 e ect ons. Fo ow ng the 2009 e ect ons, the party appears to have most y recovered from ts oss, and now eads the Israe government under Pr me M n ster Netanyahu. ). [7]

A member of the party s often ca ed a L kudn k (Hebrew: Formation and Begin years

The L kud was formed by an a ance of severa r ght w ng part es pr or to the 1973 e ect ons; Herut and the L bera Party had been a ed s nce 1965, and were o ned by the Free Centre, the Nat ona L st and the Movement for Greater Israe . It was g ven the name L kud, mean ng “Conso dat on”, as t represented the conso dat on of the r ght-w ng n Israe . [8] It worked as a coa t on of ts fact ons ed by Menachem Beg n s Herut unt 1988 when the fact ons forma y d sso ved and L kud became a un tary po t ca party. From ts estab shment n 1973, L kud en oyed great support from b ue-co ar Sephard m who fe t d scr m nated aga nst by the ru ng A gnment. The f rst L kud pr me m n ster was Menachem Beg n, who had ed the party to v ctory n the 1977 e ect ons, the f rst t me the eft-w ng had ost power n Israe s po t ca h story. A former eader of the hard- ne param tary Irgun, Beg n he ped n t ate the peace process w th Egypt, wh ch resu ted n the Camp Dav d Accords and the 1979 Israe -Egypt Peace Treaty. Shamir, Netanyahu first term, and Sharon The second prem er was Y tzhak Sham r, who f rst became PM n October 1983 fo ow ng Beg n s res gnat on. Sham r, a former commander of the Leh underground, was w de y seen as a hard- ner w th an deo og ca comm tment both to the sett ements n the West Bank and Gaza Str p, the growth of wh ch he encouraged, and to the dea of a yah, fac tat ng the mass mm grat on of Jews to Israe from Eth op a and the former Sov et Un on. The th rd L kud prem er was Ben am n Netanyahu, e ected n May 1996, fo ow ng the assass nat on of Y tzhak Rab n. Netanyahu proved to be ess hard- ne n pract ce than he made h mse f out to be rhetor ca y, and fe t pressured by the Un ted States and others to enter negot at ons w th the Pa est ne L berat on Organ zat on and Yasser Arafat, desp te h s harsh cr t c sm of the Os o accords and hawk sh stance n compar son to Labour. In 1998, Netanyahu re uctant y agreed to cede terr tory n the Wye R ver Memorandum. Wh e accepted by many n the L kud, some L kud MKs, ed by Benny Beg n (Menachem Beg n s son), M chae K e ner and Dav d Re em, broke away and formed a new party, named Herut – The Nat ona Movement, n protest. Y tzhak Sham r (who had expressed harsh d sappo ntment n Netanyahu s eadersh p), gave the new party h s support. Less than a year afterward, Netanyahu s coa t on co apsed, resu t ng n the 1999 e ect on and Labour s Ehud Barak w nn ng the prem ersh p on a p atform of mmed ate sett ement of f na status ssues. L kud spent 1999-2001 on the oppos t on benches. Barak s “a -or-noth ng” strategy fa ed, however, and new e ect ons were ca ed for March 2001. Surpr s ng y, Netanyahu dec ned to be the L kud cand date for Pr me M n ster, mean ng that the fourth L kud prem er wou d be Ar e Sharon. Sharon, un ke past L kud eaders, had been ra sed n a Labour Z on st env ronment and had ong been seen as someth ng of a maver ck. In the face of the Second Int fada, Sharon pursued a var ed set of po c es, many of wh ch were controvers a even w th n the L kud. The f na sp t came when Sharon announced h s po cy of un atera d sengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank; the dea proved so d v s ve both on the L kud and the oppos t on Labour benches that Sharon announced the format on of a new party, Kad ma, from the ranks of both L kud and Labour supporters of un atera d sengagement. Kadima split Ar e Sharon s perce ved eftward sh ft to the po t ca center, espec a y n h s execut on of the D sengagement P an, a enated h m from some L kud supporters and fragmented the party. He faced severa ser ous cha enges to h s author ty short y before h s departure. The f rst was n March 2005, when he and Netanyahu proposed a budget p an wh ch met f erce oppos t on, though t was eventua y approved. The second was n September 2005, when Sharon s cr t cs n L kud forced a vote on a proposa for an ear y eadersh p e ect on, wh ch was defeated by 52% to 48%. In October, Sharon s opponents w th n the L kud Knesset fact on o ned w th the oppos t on to prevent the appo ntment of two of h s assoc ates to the Cab net, demonstrat ng that Sharon had effect ve y ost contro of the Knesset and that the 2006 budget was un ke y to pass. The next month, Labor announced ts w thdrawa from Sharon s govern ng coa t on fo ow ng ts e ect on of the eft w ng Am r Peretz as eader. On 21 November 2005, Sharon announced he wou d be eav ng L kud and form ng a new centr st party, Kad ma, and that e ect ons wou d take p ace n ear y 2006. As of 21 November seven cand dates had dec ared themse ves as contenders to rep ace Sharon as eader: Netanyahu, Uz Landau, Shau Mofaz, Y srae Katz, S van Sha om and Moshe Fe g n. Landau and Mofaz ater w thdrew, the former n favour of Netanyahu and the atter to o n Kad ma. Netanyahu second term Netanyahu went on to w n the L kud Party Cha rman e ect ons n December, obta n ng 44.4% of the vote. Sha om came n a second w th 33%, ead ng Netanyahu to guarantee h m second p ace on the party s st of Knesset cand dates. Sha om s perce ved moderat on on soc a and fore gn-po cy ssues were cons dered to be an e ectora asset. Observers noted that voter turnout n the e ect ons was part cu ar y ow n compar son w th past pr mar es, w th ess than 40 percent of the 128,000 party members cast ng ba ots. There was much med a focus on “far-r ght” cand date Moshe Fe g n ach ev ng 12.4% of votes, who s the on y cand date who a ms to see L kud actua y pursue the po c es presented n ts own off c a charter. The found ng of Kad ma was a ma or cha enge to the L kud s generat on- ong status as one of Israe s two ma or part es. Sharon s perce ved centr st po c es have drawn cons derab e popu ar support as ref ected by pub c op n on po s. The L kud s now ed by f gures who oppose further un atera evacuat ons, and ts stand ng n the po s has suffered. After the found ng of Kad ma, L kud came to be seen as hav ng more of a r ght-w ng tendency than a moderate centre-r ght one. However there ex st severa part es n the knesset wh ch are more r ght w ng than the post-Ar e Sharon L kud. Pr or to the 2006 e ect on the party s Centra Comm ttee re nqu shed contro of se ect ng the Knesset st to the rank and f e members at Netanyahu s behest. [9] The a m was to mprove the party s reputat on, as the centra comm ttee had ga ned a reputat on for corrupt on. [10] In the e ect on, the L kud vote co apsed n the face of the Kad ma sp t. Other r ght-w ng nat ona st part es such as Y srae Be te nu ga ned votes, w th L kud com ng on y fourth p ace n the popu ar vote, edg ng out Y srae Be te nu by on y 116 votes. W th on y twe ve seats, L kud was t ed w th the Shas for the status of th rd- argest party. In the 2009 Israe eg s at ve e ect on, L kud won 27 seats, a c ose second p ace f n sh to Kad ma s 28 seats, and ead ng the other part es. After more than a month of coa t on negot at ons, Ben am n Netanyahu was ab e to form a government and become Pr me M n ster. A eadersh p e ect on w be he d on 31 January 2012 between Ben am n Netanyahu, Moshe Fe g n, and V ad m r Herczberg. …” http://en.w k ped a.org/w k /L kud

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades The Warmongering Progressive Neoconservative Republican Establishment Launches Racist, Anti-Semite and Extremist Smear Attack On Ron Paul With Republican Talk Show Hosts–Videos Who is Jeffrey Lord? Why Is He Attacking Ron Paul on Talk Radio Shows Including: Levin, Medved and Bennett? Big Government Interventionist Neoconservative Republican Establishment Hit Man! Ron Paul Must Once Again Make A Definitive Statement and Condemnation About 20 Year Old Newsletters–The Neoconservatives and Progressives Are Using Them As A Race Card Smear Attack On Paul–Videos Ron Paul Hater Mark Levin–a.k.a. Marco Unleaven–Closet Neoconservative Comes Out Of The Closet or Bunker To Hug Marco Rubio–Neoconservative Poster Boy For Neoconservative Progressive Romney’s Vice-President–Video Judge Andrew Napolitano: What If “They” Are LYING To You About Ron Paul?–Videos Limited Government Libertarian Conservative Ron Paul vs. Big Government Progressive Neoconservatives Romney, Gingrich, Santorum–Videos Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

Who is Jeffrey Lord? Why Is He Attacking Ron Paul on Talk Radio Shows Including: Levin, Medved and Bennett? Big Government Interventionist Neoconservative Republican Establishment Hit Man! Pos ed on December 30 2011 F ed under Amer can H s ory B ogro Co ege Commun ca ons Econom cs Educa on Federa Governmen F sca Po cy Fore gn Po cy governmen governmen spend ng h s ory nves men s Language Law ber y L e L nks med a Peop e Ph osophy Po cs Ran s Raves Regu a ons Secur y Ta k Rad o Taxes War Wea h W sdom Tags Benne B g Governmen B Benne Co ec v s s Conserva ve Movemen Democra c Par y Fa h Fam y Fr ends Freedom F rs reedom George Nash Hugh Hewe nd v dua s n erven on s srae srae Lobby Jack Hun er Je rey Lord L ber ar ans ber y L m ed Governmen Ludw g von M ses Mark Lev n Medved M chae Medved neocons Neoconserva ves New Wor d Order Omn po en Governmen Peace and Prosper y Progresss ves Repub can Par y Ron Pau Sou hern Avenger S a sm Tom Woods War are and We are

The 1% Are Afraid of Ron Paul 2012 Revolt – NWO Corporate Minions (MSM Whores) Getting Desperate!

How Ron Paul Would Defend America

Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord Precious Delicate Utopian Neocons

Mark Levin Interviews Jeffrey Lord On Ron Paul And His Supporters Being Neoliberal

Michael Medved, Jeffery Lord On Ron Paul’s Neoliberal Reeducation

Mark Levin, Ron Paul Hater, Put in His Place

American Spectator Dead Wrong on Ron Paul

SA@TheDC – “I Like Ron Paul Except on Foreign Policy”

SA@The DC – Ron Paul’s Reaganesque Foreign Policy

SA@TAC – A Conservative Foreign Policy Comeback?

SA@TheDC – Conservatism for What?

SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Pledge to America

Jack Hunter on FOX News 12-29-11

Establishment Media Crucifies Ron Paul On Every Front

“As ong as nat ons c ng to protect ve tar ffs, m grat on barr ers, compu sory educat on, ntervent on sm and etat sm, new conf cts capab e of break ng out at any t me nto open warfare w cont nua y ar se to p ague mank nd.” ~Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, pages 150-151 Jeffrey Lord has been attack ng Ron Pau s non- ntervent on st fore gn po cy on var ous so-ca ed “conservat ve” ta k rad o shows and accuses Ron Pau of not be ng a conservat ve. Rea y, he must be k dd ng or s mp y does not know the h story of the conservat ve movement. Suggest he read George H. Nash s book, The Conservat ve Inte ectua Movement n Amer ca S nce 1945.

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

If Lord means that Ron Pau s not a neoconservat ve, then Lord s correct. Ron Pau s def n te y not a neoconservat ve. Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

Neoconservat ves are r ght-w ng progress ves Democrats that became “boat peop e” and sw tched to the Repub can Party n the 1970s when the Democrat c Party nom nated George McGovern as the r Pres dent a cand date. SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

SA@TAC – Who’s a Republican?

SA@TAC – Is Ron Paul Weird?

Most conservat ves and bertar ans do not cons der neoconservat ves as e ther new or conservat ve. They are rea y progress ves that want the Un ted States to have an aggress ve ntervent on st fore gn po cy that supports nat on or emp re bu d ng, the U.S. as po ceman of the wor d and Israe w th fore gn a d. Both the progress ves and/or neoconservat ves that are n the Repub can Party estab shment are n pan c mode that Pau may w n the pres dent a nom nat on. I suggest neoconservat ve Repub cans get back n the r boats and go back to the Democrat c Party, where most of them came from n the f rst p ace. P ease take your h tman, Jeffrey Lord, w th you. B g government ntervent on sts pervade the Democrat c and Repub can party estab shments and eadersh ps. The Democrat c Party s the party of eft-w ng progress ves that favor the expans on of we fare dependency. The Repub can Party s the party of r ght-w ng progress ves that favor the expans on of warfare dependency. Both favor b g government ntervent on sm at home and abroad. Mak ng government omn potent w th a mass ve bureaucracy advocat ng and support ng the warfare and we fare state s the goa of the progress ve ntervent on sts of the Democrat c and Repub can Party estab shments. SA@TheDC – ‘Fixing’ Big Government is Not Conservative

Ron Pau favors m ted government and opposes government ntervent on at home and abroad. Ron Pau s a conservat ve trad t ona st bertar an that puts fa th, fam y, fr ends and freedom f rst. Pau wants to rep ace the b g government warfare and we fare economy w th a m ted government peace and prosper ty economy. Th s s the reason more and more Amer can peop e are com ng to the conc us on that Ron Pau shou d be Pres dent of the Un ted States. SA@TAC – Constant Conservative Ron Paul

Th s s the reason Ron Pau s ead ng n Iowa. Th s s the reason Ron Pau w be e ected Pres dent of the Un ted States. The Repub can Party estab shment m ght ta k conservat ve, but they wa k and spend ke b g government progress ves and neocons, wh ch most of them are. Just ook at the Repub can Party budget passed n the House of Representat ves. The F sca Year 2012 def c t w exceed $1 tr on each year. Th s s not m ted government. Th s s not f sca y respons b e. Th s s not conservat ve or bertar an. The neoconservat ves want a war w th Iran. Start ng Wor d War III w th Iran s the progress ve answer to the Un ted States econom c prob ems. The war on poverty, the war of drugs and the war on terror are a progress ve wars of b g government ntervent on sts. The U.S. government ed by progress ves of both the Democrat c and Repub can party estab shments have ost a three wars that never end. Those who support b g government ntervent on sm at home and abroad are progress ve stat st st and neoconservat ves. Progress ves are co ect v sts that oppose nd v dua sts w th a conservat ve and bertar an po t ca ph osophy. These progress ves are not conservat ves. Do not fa for the neoconservat ve con men of ta k rad o that say Ron Pau s not conservat ve and nv te Jeffrey Lord on the r shows to smear and d scred t Pau . Most of them are c oset neoconservat ve b g government ntervent on sts. Th s nc udes ta k rad o show hosts Lev n, Medved, Hew tt and Bennett, ust to name a few. Ron Paul: Iran Sanctions = Act of War

“Intervent on sm begets econom c nat ona sm. It thus k nd es the antagon sm resu t ng n war. An abandonment of econom c nat ona sm s not feas b e f nat ons c ng to nterference w th bus ness. Free trade n nternat ona re at ons requ res domest c free trade.” ~Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, page 66. SA@TAC – The End of Right-Wing Progressivism?

Th s s a mass ve y huge and ntervent on st government that favors the warfare and we fare dependency of the Amer can peop e. Gingrich Gone Wild – Might Vote For Obama

SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative

Ron Paul Interview w/ Jack Hunter on Foreign Policy & Israel

Jeffrey Lord Doesn’t Know The Founders or Ron Paul

Background Articles And Videos Ron Paul – The Power of Nightmares

Mark Levin Avoids the “Empire” Question

SA@TAC – Joe Sobran’s Conservative Foreign Policy

SA@TAC – Obama Kept Us Safe

Poo Blobs & Jeffrey Lord Try to Say that DropDobbs.com is About Killing Debate, NOT Racist Diatribe

RON PAUL on RUSH LIMBAUGH

Jack Hunter Versus Mark Levin

Richard Perle PNAC and AIPAC hawk on why Ron Paul will not win the 2012 election

Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign By Jeffrey Lord “…Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons: When t comes to fore gn po cy, Ron Pau and h s supporters are not conservat ves. Th s s mportant to understand when one rea zes that Pau s v ews are, se f-descr bed, “non- ntervent on st.” The fact that he has been a owed to get away w th pretend ng to conservat sm on th s score s mere y ref ect ve of ourna sts who, for whatever reason, are s mp y unfam ar w th Amer can h story. Iron ca y, t s prec se y because the Pau campa gn has not been thorough y covered that no one pays attent on to the h stor ca patern ty of what the cand date s say ng. There s no great s n n Pau s non- ntervent on st stance (or “ so at on st” stance as h s cr t cs wou d have t). There have been Amer can po t c ans ap enty throughout Amer can h story, part cu ar y n the 20th century, who be eved prec se y as Pau and h s enthus asts do r ght now. (Pau touts h s adm rat on for the Found ng Fathers, but even that s very se ect ve. James Monroe of Monroe Doctr ne fame was a cons derab e ntervent on st, Wash ngton as a genera nvaded Canada, and A exander Ham ton gave r se to Pau s dea of ev spawn — the Federa Reserve. Intervent on sts of a types have been w th us r ght from the start.) The decept on — and t s a cons derab e decept on — s that a most to a person those prom nent pre-Ron Pau non- ntervent on st “Pau st” po t c ans of the 20th century were overwhe m ng y not conservat ves at a . They were men of the eft. The far eft.

From three-t me Democrat c pres dent a nom nee and Woodrow W son Secretary of State W am Jenn ngs Bryan to powerfu Montana Democrat c Senator Burton K. Whee er to FDR s ex-v ce pres dent a nom nee Henry Wa ace to the 1968 ant -war pres dent a cand dacy of M nnesota Democrat c Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democrat c pres dent a nom nee (and Henry Wa ace de egate n 1948) George McGovern, non- ntervent on sts have he d prom nent pos t ons n the Amer can Left that was and s the Democrat c Party. But of part cu ar nterest, and here s where the decept on by Pau sts s so cons derab e, the Ron Pau v ew of fore gn po cy has been the cornerstone of Repub can bera s and progress ves. Those who, us ng current po t ca term no ogy, wou d be ca ed the RINOs (Repub can In Name On y) of the r day. …” http://spectator.org/arch ves/2011/08/23/ron-pau -and-the-neo bera -re/1 “…Jeffrey Lord s a former member of the Rona d Reagan adm n strat on, ourna st, author, and po t ca strateg st n Pennsy van a.

Lord earned a degree from Frank n and Marsha Co ege. [1] He f rst worked as a press a de n the Pennsy van a State Senate. [1] He worked for Pennsy van a Congressman Bud Shuster as Leg s at ve D rector and Press Secretary and for U.S. Senator H. John He nz III as Execut ve Ass stant. [1] Later Lord worked as Ch ef of Staff to Drew Lew s, who was a Co-cha r of the Rona d Reagan pres dent a campa gn. [1] He a so served n the Reagan Wh te House as an assoc ate po t ca d rector. [1] In that pos t on he ass sted n the ud c a nom nat on process for severa nom nees, nc ud ng Robert Bork. [2] He a so worked for Jack Kemp dur ng the Pres dency of George H. W. Bush. [1] Lord now works as a ourna st, contr but ng mater a to The Week y Standard, The Amer can Spectator, Nat ona Rev ew On ne, the Wa Street Journa , the Wash ngton T mes, the Los Ange es T mes, the Ph ade ph a Inqu rer, the P ttsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Harr sburg Patr ot-News. He has appeared as a guest on numerous te ev s ons and rad o programs. [1] He a so works as a po t ca consu tant for Quantum Commun cat ons, a Harr sburg-based po t ca strategy f rm. [1] He s the author of The Bork ng Rebe on, about the conf rmat on of Federa Judge D. Brooks Sm th. [1] It rece ved a genera y pos t ve rev ew n the Wa Street Journa . [3] In Ju y 2010, Jeffrey Lord c a med that the “ ynch ng” of a re at ve of Sh r ey Sherrod s fa ac ous. [4] In August 2011, Jeffrey Lord wrote an art c e n The Amer can Spectator wh ch was cr t ca of Congressman Ron Pau (R-TX), and the v ews of some of Ron Pau s supporters. [5] It sparked cons derab e debate w th n the conservat ve movement. [6] …” Jeffrey Lord: When Attacks on Ron Paul Fail, then Attack his Voters “… Get th s. The reason Ron Pau s po ng we n Iowa s because t s Iowa. Jeffrey Lord s a spec a k nd of dense. He s so dense he doesn t know he s dense. He keeps repeat ng the same untruths (that non- ntervent on sm s nherent y eft-w ng) over and over aga n desp te be ng corrected repeated y. My rep y s be ow: I get t. When your attacks on Ron Pau aren t work ng, then attack the peop e who vote for h m. F rst, you cont nue w th the e that non- ntervent on sm s nherent y eft-w ng. You have been corrected on th s so many t mes, and I know you read these responses s nce you rep y, that you have no excuse. You are engag ng n demagoguery. Second, you are mak ng the case aga nst yourse f and don t even know t. It s not a co nc dence that non- ntervent on sm was the preferred po cy of heart and Amer cans n f yover country. And t s not a co nc dence that support for war came from e te nternat ona sts on the East Coast. So f you want to throw your hat n w th e t st nternat ona sts then be my guest. I throw m ne n w th paroch a Amer cans n the Heart and. Lord, you are a sh and you don t even rea ze you are a sh . …” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T57yvB4RDHs Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Warmongering Progressive Neoconservative Republican Establishment Launches Racist, Anti-Semite and Extremist Smear Attack On Ron Paul With Republican Talk Show Hosts–Videos Pos ed on December 28 2011 F ed under Amer can H s ory B ogro Co ege Commun ca ons Econom cs Educa on Emp oymen F sca Po cy governmen governmen spend ng h s ory Language Law ber y L e L nks med a Mone ary Po cy V deo War Wea h W sdom Tags An --Sem e B Benne Ex rem s Hugh Hewe Jack Hun er Mark Lev n Neoconserva ces Progress ves rac s s Ron Pau Rush L mbaugh Sean Hann y Smear A ack soc a s s Sou hern Avenger The B g Smear

Jason Lewis Bashes Gop Establishment for smear campaign against Ron Paul pt 1

Jason Lewis Bashes Gop Establishment for smear campaign against Ron Paul pt 2

Jason Lewis Bashes Gop Establishment for smear campaign against Ron Paul pt 3

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

SA@TheDC – “I Like Ron Paul Except on Foreign Policy”

SA@TAC – Ronald Reagan: Isolationist

SA@TheDC – Conservatism’s Future: Young Americans for Liberty

SA@TAC – Who’s a Republican?

Israel and GOP join forces to oust Obama

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned Conservat ves and bertar ans have been sten ng to the smear attacks on ta k rad o by severa so-ca ed “conservat ves”, most y neoconservat ves and progress ves Repub cans that favor b g government ntervent on at home and/or abroad. They are try ng to pa nt Pau as a rac st, ant -Sem te, and extrem st. N ce try, but the character and record of Ron Pau speaks for tse f. What s extrem st s runn ng def c ts, where spend ng exceeds tax revenues, more than $1 tr on for four years n a row and not ba anc ng the budget for another ten years. Th s s f sca rrespons b ty and madness. Yet th s s exact y what both po t ca part es are propos ng. Pr nc p ed conservat ves and bertar ans are not buy ng th s smear attack by the Repub can estab shment and the r sh s on ta k rad o. The Repub can Party estab shment s cutt ng the r own throats as are those ta k rad o hosts who e and m s ead the Amer can peop e about Ron Pau . The neoconservat ves and the progress ve Repub can Party estab shment have become the party of warmongers, not peacemakers. The Repub can Party s the party of government ntervent on abroad to make the Amer can peop e dependent upon warfare. The Democrat c Party s the party of government ntervent on at home to make the Amer can peop e dependent upon we fare. Both the Democrat c and Repub can part es have been captured by progress ve b g government ntervent on sts w th the Democrat c Party estab shment arge y soc a st and the Repub can Party estab shment arge y neoconserservat ves. Both part es have been runn ng mass ve government def c ts and runn ng up the nat ona debt to pay for the r excess ve we fare and warfare programs. Just keep t up and you w destroy the Repub can Party. If the estab shment does keeps t up, I wou d urge Ron Pau to run as an ndependent cand date. I much prefer Ron Pau to w n as a Repub can, but the progress ve and neoconservat ves are revea ng themse ves as be ng ne ther conservat ve or bertar an, but b g government ntervent on sts. As a conservat ve and bertar an, I w not vote for another progress ve and/or neoconservat ve Repub can nc ud ng Romney, G ngr ch,Perry and Santor um. Suggest conservat ves and bertar ans do the r own homework and research on the cand dates. Stop sten ng to Bennett, L mbaugh, Hann ty, Lev n and Hew tt, ust to ment on a few of the so-ca ed “conservat ves”. They are rea y sh s for the Repub can Party, Repub cans f rst, and not conservat ves and/or bertar ans f rst. Bennett, Hew tt and Lev n n part cu ar are m s ead ng you about Ron Pau . Wh e d sappo nted, I was not surpr sed. Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Mark Levin’s Nemesis–Jack Hunter–The Southern Avenger–Ron Paul–Libertarians vs. Neoconservatives–Videos Pos ed on Augus 26 2011 F ed under Amer can H s ory Bab es Bank ng B ogro Books Bus ness Commun ca ons Cr me Econom cs Federa Governmen F sca Po cy Fore gn Po cy governmen governmen spend ng h s ory Language Law ber y L e L nks med a M croeconom cs Mone ary Po cy Money Peop e Ph osophy Po cs Ran s Raves Re g on Ta k Rad o Taxes Techno ogy Unemp oymen V deo War Wea h W sdom Tags conserva ves Econom cs Fredr c Bas a Jack Hun er Jacob H Hueber Je rey Lord Joe Sobran ber ar an L ber ar ans Mark Lev n Neoconserva ves Neo bera Peace and Prosper y Economy Po cs Progress ves Ron Pau Rona d Reagan Russe K rk War are We are S a e W am F Buck ey

“… If you ana yze t I be eve the very heart and sou of conservat sm s bertar an sm. I th nk conservat sm s rea y a m snomer ust as bera sm s a m snomer for the bera s– f we were back n the days of the Revo ut on, so-ca ed conservat ves today wou d be the L bera s and the bera s wou d be the Tor es. The bas s of conservat sm s a des re for ess government nterference or ess centra zed author ty or more nd v dua freedom and th s s a pretty genera descr pt on a so of what bertar an sm s. …” ~ Ronald Reagan Inside Ronald Reagan, A Reason Interview, Manuel Klausner from the July 1975 issue Woods, Gutzman and Church correct TAS co umn st Jeffrey Lord s many m sstatements of truth a med at Ron Pau and The Founders.

The Southern Avenger – Mark Levin Doesn’t Like the Southern Avenger

SA@Takimag – Why Mark Levin Hates Glenn Beck

Jeffrey Lord Doesn’t Know The Founders or Ron Paul American Spectator Dead Wrong on Ron Paul

SA@TAC – Mark Levin’s Constitution

SA@TAC – Was Reagan the Ultimate Hawk?

The Legacy of Ronald Reagan by the Southern Avenger

A Tale of Two Rights by the Southern Avenger

SA@TAC – Joe Sobran’s Conservative Foreign Policy

SA@TAC – Is Ron Paul Weird?

SA@TAC – Constant Conservative Ron Paul

SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Pledge to America

SA@TAC – Just Kidding Conservatism

SA@TAC – Wither the Neocons?

SA@TAC – Government Intervention, Left and Right

WI-CFL 2011 Annual Conference – Jack Hunter

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 1

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 2

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 3

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 1 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 2 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 3 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 4 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 5 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 6 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 7 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 8 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 9 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 10 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 11 of 11

Wh e I sten to and ke Mark Lev n s rad o show, I thought he made a foo of h mse f by re y ng on the Jeffrey Lord art c e to attack Ron Pau and h s supporters. P ease do your homework Lev n, you are on y embarrass ng yourse f. I have been a conservat ve s nce Barry Go dwater ran for Pres dent aga nst Lyndon B. Johnson n 1964. I have been n both the trad t ona st w ng of the conservat ve movement as exemp f ed by Russe K rk and the c ass ca bera or bertar an w ng of the conservat ve movement as exemp f ed by Ludw g von M ses, Fredr ch A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard and M ton Fr edman. I wou d descr be my own po t ca ph osophy as a trad t ona c ass ca bera or trad t ona bertar an. I am current y part of the tea party movement and support those who want to rep ace the progress ve rad ca soc a sts of the Repub can estab shment who ta k ke conservat ves but wa k ke progress ves– moderate Repub cans or RINOs (Repub cans In Name On y) or n the past Rockefe er Repub cans. I have a so on occas on been ca ed a neoconservat ve by progress ve rad ca soc a sts. I cons der the abe neoconservat ve as nsu t ng for I do not cons der neoconservat ves to be e ther new or conservat ve. They are co ect v sts or to use Lev n s abe , stat sts, w th an ntervent on st fore gn po cy. The neoconservat ves are the “boat peop e” of the Democrat c Party that sought a new home when George McGovern and the progress ve rad ca soc a st took over the Democrat c Party. The neoconservat ves shou d get back n the r boats and f nd another home for they are arge y respons b e for the dec ne of the Repub can Party. My prob em w th many of the former Reagan adm n strat on c v servants that are now rad o ta k show hosts nc ud ng B Bennett and Mark Lev n s that they se f- dent fy themse ves as conservat ve and/or c ass ca bera , but when t comes to fore gn po cy they are c oset neoconservat ves that support an act ve or energet c ntervent on st fore gn po cy w th t never-end ng war on terror sm s m ar to the neverend ng wars on poverty and drugs. Under Pres dents Woodrow W son, Frank n D. Rooseve t, Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson, the Democrat c Party become the warfare and we fare party w th ts wars n Korea and V etnam to stop commun sm abroad and the war on poverty at home. Under George W. Bush the Repub can party assumed the mant e of the warfare party arge y under the nf uence of the neoconservat ves that ead to the war n Iraq. L ke Ron Pau , I be eve n a strong nat ona defense but oppose an ntervent on st fore gn po cy that nc udes nat on bu d ng, po c ng the wor d, and preempt ve war. When the Un ted States s attacked, Congress shou d dec are war and f ght the attackers unt they are utter y and comp ete y defeated. Instead Congress repeated y a ows the Pres dent, whether Repub can or Democrat, to take the Un ted States nto undec ared wars that cost tens of thousands of Amer can ves and wounded and 1,000s of b ons of do ars. It never ceases to amaze me that wh e rad o show hosts ke Bennett, L mbaugh, and Lev n w go on a rant about government ntervent on n the economy at home, wh ch I a so a ways agree w th, and then they w usua y w support a government ntervent on st fore gn po cy when a Repub can s n the Wh te House and oppose t when a Democrat s n the Wh te House. Wh e many n the r aud ence w fa for the r hypocr sy and fa ure to connect the dots, I do not. More and more Amer cans are wak ng up to the fact that most wars are a racket and want our troops to be brought home. The Amer can peop e want to rep ace the current warfare and we fare economy and a co ect v st state w th a peace and prosper ty economy w th a const tut ona st repub c. The Amer can peop e want Federa government spend ng to be dramat ca y reduced–to ve w th n our means. The Amer can peop e want ba anced and surp us budgets to be common p ace and def c t budgets to be a rar ty and not a recurr ng hab t of the b g spend ng Democrat c and Repub can po t ca estab shments n Wash ngton D.C. The Un ted States s f nanc a y bankrupt w th a nat ona debt approach ng over $15,000 b on and unfunded ab t es for Soc a Secur ty, Med care and Med ca d of over $100,000 b on and tota pub c and pr vate assets of about $60,000 b on–th s s nso vency! The Un ted States can no onger afford the warfare and we fare economy. The Un ted States needs to return to ts conservat ve and bertar an pr nc p es of a f sca respons b e Federa government w th ba anced or surp us budgets and a Federa government that s m ted n s ze and scope. For decades Ron Pau has been the one cons stent and pr nc p ed conservat ve/ bertar an n the House of Representat ves who has been the defender of a const tut ona repub c. Once I too sa d “I ke Ron Pau except for h s fore gn po cy.”, now I fu y supportRon Pau espec a y h s non- ntervent on st fore gn po cy. War, Ron Paul, and Conservatism

Wh e I w cont nue to sten, en oy and even adm re the Bennett, L mbaugh, and Lev n ta k rad o shows, I mag ne some day they too w eventua y see the w sdom of Ron Pau s non- ntervent on st fore gn po cy. Ron Paul – Imagine – Kinetic Typography

May I suggest they start by read ng or reread ng Jacob Huebert s L bertar an sm Today, Bast at s The Law, and Russe K rk s The Conservat ve M nd,

Is There Hope for Liberty in Our Lifetime? | Jacob Huebert

David Hart on Frederic Bastiat

Read Bastiat’s ‘The Law’ in PDF for FREE! Compliments of the Foundation for Economic Education. http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf

Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles

Ten Conservative Principles By Russe K rk F rst, the conservat ve be eves that there ex sts an endur ng mora order. Second, the conservat ve adheres to custom, convent on, and cont nu ty. Th rd, conservat ves be eve n what may be ca ed the pr nc p e of prescr pt on. Fourth, conservat ves are gu ded by the r pr nc p e of prudence. F fth, conservat ves pay attent on to the pr nc p e of var ety. S xth, conservat ves are chastened by the r pr nc p e of mperfectab ty Seventh, conservat ves are persuaded that freedom and property are c ose y nked. E ghth, conservat ves upho d vo untary commun ty, qu te as they oppose nvo untary co ect v sm. N nth, the conservat ve perce ves the need for prudent restra nts upon power and upon human pass ons. Tenth, the th nk ng conservat ve understands that permanence and change must be recogn zed and reconc ed n a v gorous soc ety. http://www.k rkcenter.org/ ndex.php/deta /ten-conservat ve-pr nc p es/

“One must bear n m nd that the expans on of federa act v ty s a form of eat ng for po t c ans.” ~William F. Buckley, Jr.

Background Articles And Videos

Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 1 of 4

Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 2 of 4

Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 3 of 4

Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 4 of 4

Jack Hunter responds to American Spectator smears: Ron Paul and Conservatism “…In a recent co umn, Jeffrey Lord warned that Ron Pau s pres dent a b d was secret y a “Neo bera Reeducat on Campa gn.” Wr tes Lord: “the Pau campa gn s not ust a campa gn for pres dent. Th s s a campa gn — a ser ous campa gn — to re-educate the Amer can peop e…” For Lord, Pau s a eged reeducat on m ss on means pass ng off bera deas as conservat ve. Th s s amus ng — because th s s prec se y what se f-descr bed conservat ves of Lord s k have been do ng for years. Imag ne that there never was a Pres dent George W. Bush, and when B C nton eft the Wh te House he was mmed ate y rep aced w th Barack Obama. Now mag ne Obama carr ed out the exact same agenda as Bush — Med care P an D, No Ch d Left Beh nd, the Iraq and Afghan stan wars — the who e works. Wou d conservat ves have genera y supported Obama as they d d Bush — or wou d they have r ght y cr t c zed the most b g government pres dent n our h story at that t me? Desp te h s g ar ng y stat st record, d d Lord ever cons der Bush a “neo- bera ”? …” http://www.da ypau .com/176098/ ack-hunters-responds-to-amer can-spectator-smears-ron-pau -and-conservat sm-an-exchange

Ron Paul and Conservatism: An Exchange “…Arguab y the oudest conservat ve cr t c of Bush was Ron Pau , and th s was certa n y true dur ng the 2008 e ect on. Yet, as we head toward 2012, many pres dent a cand dates are sound ng a ot ke Pau . Wou d R ck Perry and Newt G ngr ch be attack ng the Federa Reserve f runn ng n 2008? Wou d M che e Bachmann be quest on ng the L byan ntervent on f carr ed out by Bush? Wou d M tt Romney now be say ng t s not the Un ted States m tary s ro e to f ght for the ndependence of other nat ons — the exact oppos te of what he sa d about our ro e n Iraq n 2008? Wh ch br ngs us to Lord s ma n beef w th Pau : fore gn po cy. Woodrow W son s the pres dent most assoc ated w th ear y 20th century bera sm, second on y to Frank n Rooseve t. Dur ng the Bush years, every se f-descr bed conservat ve who be eved, as W son d d, that t was Amer ca s m ss on to “make the wor d safe for democracy” spoke the anguage, however unknow ng y, of an ear er eft-w ng bera sm. W am F. Buck ey and George W exp a ned n a 2005 nterv ew: WILL: Today, we have a very d fferent k nd of fore gn po cy. It s ca ed W son an. And the prem se of the Bush doctr ne s that Amer ca must spread democracy, because our nat ona secur ty depends upon t. And Amer ca can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage n nat ona bu d ng. Th s s conservat ve or not? BUCKLEY: It s not at a conservat ve. It s anyth ng but conservat ve… In 2006, The Amer can Spectator s Nea Freeman a so descr bed the Bush adm n strat on s post 9/11 bera sm: “the Bush adm n strat on began to rumb e about reg me change and go ng t a one, and bu d ng a democrat c Iraq. Ca th s 9/12 approach whatever you w — utop an, neoconservat ve, W son an — t cou d not fa r y be character zed as conservat ve.”

Ref ect ng a more convent ona Repub can v ew ke y n ne w th Lord s, ta k host Sean Hann ty sa d n 2009: “You can t deny that George Bush was conservat ve on nat ona secur ty ssues.” We , at vary ng t mes, B Buck ey, George W , Robert Novak, Jack Kemp, Pat Buchanan, Pau Weyr ch and many other conservat ves d d ndeed deny that Bush s fore gn po cy was conservat ve. So d d Ron Pau .

So d d some of the most prom nent f gures n the h story of Amer can conservat sm — and that s even eav ng out the bertar ans. Trad t ona sts such as Russe K rk, R chard Weaver and Robert N sbet were some of the heav est nte ectua h tters at ear y Nat ona Rev ew and each he d fore gn po cy v ews far c oser to what Pau be eves than what today s Repub can hawks try to portray as conservat sm. Rona d Reagan even won the Co d War w th a fore gn po cy marg na y c oser to Pau s caut ous approach than what Bush represented, or as former cha rman of the Amer can Conservat ve Un on Dav d Keene notes: “Reagan resorted to m tary force far ess often than many of those who came before h m or who have s nce occup ed the Ova Off ce. . . . After the (1983) assau t on the Mar ne barracks n Lebanon, t was quest on ng the w sdom of U.S. nvo vement that ed Reagan to w thdraw our troops rather than d g n. He found no good strateg c reason to g ve our reg ona enem es nv t ng U.S. targets. Can one mag ne one of today s neoconservat ve abso ut sts back ng away from any f ght anywhere?” No, one can t mag ne t. In fact, f us ng the def n t on of 2008 Repub can pres dent a nom nee and hard ne neoconservat ve John McCa n — Reagan wou d be cons dered an “ so at on st.” Ah, but Lord th nks anyone who uses the term “neoconservat ve” must be ant -Sem t c. Is Dav d Keene ant -Sem t c? When Ann Cou ter asks “D dn t bera s warn us that neoconservat ves want permanent war” s she be ng ant -Sem t c? Is George W ant -Sem t c for wr t ng that the “most magn f cent y m snamed neoconservat ves are the most rad ca peop e n th s town.”…” http://spectator.org/arch ves/2011/08/24/ron-pau -and-conservat ve-reed#

Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign By Jeffrey Lord on 8.23.11 @ 6:09AM “…Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons: When t comes to fore gn po cy, Ron Pau and h s supporters are not conservat ves. Th s s mportant to understand when one rea zes that Pau s v ews are, se f-descr bed, “non- ntervent on st.” The fact that he has been a owed to get away w th pretend ng to conservat sm on th s score s mere y ref ect ve of ourna sts who, for whatever reason, are s mp y unfam ar w th Amer can h story. Iron ca y, t s prec se y because the Pau campa gn has not been thorough y covered that no one pays attent on to the h stor ca patern ty of what the cand date s say ng. There s no great s n n Pau s non- ntervent on st stance (or “ so at on st” stance as h s cr t cs wou d have t). There have been Amer can po t c ans ap enty throughout Amer can h story, part cu ar y n the 20th century, who be eved prec se y as Pau and h s enthus asts do r ght now. (Pau touts h s adm rat on for the Found ng Fathers, but even that s very se ect ve. James Monroe of Monroe Doctr ne fame was a cons derab e ntervent on st, Wash ngton as a genera nvaded Canada, and A exander Ham ton gave r se to Pau s dea of ev spawn — the Federa Reserve. Intervent on sts of a types have been w th us r ght from the start.) The decept on — and t s a cons derab e decept on — s that a most to a person those prom nent pre-Ron Pau non- ntervent on st “Pau st” po t c ans of the 20th century were overwhe m ng y not conservat ves at a . They were men of the eft. The far eft.

From three-t me Democrat c pres dent a nom nee and Woodrow W son Secretary of State W am Jenn ngs Bryan to powerfu Montana Democrat c Senator Burton K. Whee er to FDR s ex-v ce pres dent a nom nee Henry Wa ace to the 1968 ant -war pres dent a cand dacy of M nnesota Democrat c Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democrat c pres dent a nom nee (and Henry Wa ace de egate n 1948) George McGovern, non- ntervent on sts have he d prom nent pos t ons n the Amer can Left that was and s the Democrat c Party. But of part cu ar nterest, and here s where the decept on by Pau sts s so cons derab e, the Ron Pau v ew of fore gn po cy has been the cornerstone of Repub can bera s and progress ves. Those who, us ng current po t ca term no ogy, wou d be ca ed the RINOs (Repub can In Name On y) of the r day. Spec f ca y th s nc uded the fo ow ng prom nent eaders of the non- ntervent on st/ so at on st camp: • L bera Repub • L bera Repub • L bera Repub • L bera Repub • L bera Repub

can W am Borah, the Senator from Idaho can George Norr s, the Congressman and Senator from Nebraska can Gera d Nye, the Senator from North Dakota can Robert LaFo ette Sr., the Senator from W scons n can Robert LaFo ette Jr., the Senator from W scons n

To go back and re-read the arguments of these prom nent GOP bera s as to why Amer ca shou d not ntervene n Wor d War I or Wor d War II, str k ng dated references, and one wou d th nk one were read ng the atest Ron Pau press re ease. George Norr s and LaFo ette Sr. were both voca opponents of Wor d War I, for nstance, b am ng “greed” (LaFo ette) and “mun t on” makers, the ear y 20th century vers on of Pau s attacks on “neoconservat ves” or the m tary- ndustr a comp ex. …” http://spectator.org/arch ves/2011/08/23/ron-pau -and-the-neo bera -re Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American People Send A Message To President Obama: Take The $2,400 Billion Increase In National Debt Ceiling By Supporting H.R. 2560 The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011–Or Start Furloughing Non-essential Government Employees–No More Increases To The National Debt Ceiling Or Unbalanced Budgets–Videos

Pos ed on Ju y 26 2011 F ed under Amer can H s ory Bank ng B ogro Bus ness Commun ca ons Demograph cs Econom cs Educa on Emp oymen En vornmen Federa Governmen F sca Po cy Fore gn Po cy governmen governmen spend ng h s ory nves men s Language Law ber y L e L nks med a M croeconom cs Mone ary Po cy Money Peop e Ph osophy Po cs Pub c Sec or Ran s Raves Regu a ons S ra egy Ta k Rad o Taxes Unemp oymen Un ons V deo War Wea h W sdom Tags Ba anced Budge s Cu Cap Ba ance J m Jordan Mark Lev n M ke Lee Na ona Deb Ce ng Pa Toomey Pres den Barack Obama Rand Pau Ron Pau

U.S. National Debt Clock http://www.usdebtc ock.org/ Public Pulse: What Do Americans Really Think about the Debt Ceiling and Government Spending?

Americans Still Stuck on Economy as Top Problem in the U.S.

Editor-in-Chief Insights: Americans Assess the Debt Debate

Is Washington creating our jobs crisis?

H.R. 2560 The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 http://po t cs.nyt mes.com/congress/b s/112/hr2560 Bill Text Versions 112th Congress (2011-2012) H.R.2560 http://thomas. oc.gov/cg -b n/query/z?c112:H.R.2560: http://thomas. oc.gov/cg -b n/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112pRR36I:: Cut, Cap & Balance! Senators Paul, Lee and Vitter want a Constitutional Amendment

Sen. Toomey holds press conference on bill to protect seniors and active military

Sen. Toomey on Fox and Friends discussing the debt debate

Mark Levin Interviews Congressman Jim Jordan Who Supports Cut,Cap And Balance

The Lee-Toomey-Paul Cut, Cap and Balance Act Press Conference

Sen. Rand Paul Supports Cut-Cap-Balance Pledge

Lee Says Debt Plan Must Have Balanced Budget Amendment

7-21-11 – Ron Paul on the Debt Negotiations & Cut, Cap and Balance

Sen. Rand Paul on Fox Business w/ Lou Dobbs – 07/20/11

Ron Paul on The Lou Dobbs Show: Explains Why he didn’t vote for the Cut, Cap and Balance Bill

Ron Paul on WMAL Morning Majority: Talks about Dept Limit & Cut, Cap, and Balance

Ron Paul Ad – Conviction

Bachmann: “I can not vote to raise the debt ceiling”

Thomas Sowell Debt-Ceiling Chicken “…The nat ona debt-ce ng aw shou d be udged by what t actua y does, not by how good an dea t seems to be. The one th ng that the nat ona debt-ce ng has never done s to put a ce ng on the r s ng nat ona debt. T me and t me aga n, for years on end, the nat ona debt-ce ng has been ra sed whenever the nat ona debt gets near whatever the current ce ng m ght be. Regard ess of what t s supposed to do, what the nat ona debt-ce ng actua y does s enab e any adm n strat on to get a the po t ca benef ts of runaway spend ng for the benef t of the r favor te const tuenc es — and then nv te the oppos t on party to share the b ame, by e ther ra s ng the nat ona debt ce ng, or by vot ng for unpopu ar cutbacks n spend ng or ncreases n taxes. The Obama adm n strat on s a c ass c examp e. When a ts skyrocket ng spend ng b s were be ng rushed through Congress w thout even be ng read, the Democrats had such overwhe m ng ma or t es n both the Senate and the House of Representat ves that Repub cans had a they cou d do to get a word n edgew se — even though the r words had no chance of stopp ng, or even s ow ng down, the spend ng of tr ons of do ars. Now that the b s com ng due for a that spend ng and borrow ng, Repub cans are sudden y be ng nv ted n to share the b ame for e ther ra s ng the nat ona debt ce ng or for whatever other unpopu ar measures w be eg s ated. Many years ago, someone sa d, “If you d dn t nv te me to the b g take-off, don t nv te me to the crash and ng.” Th s was Obama s b g spend ng spree, but “b part sansh p” requ res Repub cans to e ther sp t the b or be b amed f the government shuts down or defau ts. What wou d happen f there were no nat ona debt-ce ng aw? Those who got the po t ca benef ts from hand ng out tr ons of do ars of the taxpayers money (p us borrowed money) wou d a so get the c ear and so e b ame for the resu t ng skyrocket ng nat ona debt and a the unpopu ar consequences. Those peop e who want ser ous and substant a spend ng cuts are abso ute y r ght n what they want. There are not on y government programs that need to be cut but who e government agenc es, nc ud ng Cab net- eve Departments, that are not mere y use ess but pos t ve y harmfu on net ba ance.

There are a ot of th ngs that cou d be cut, and shou d be cut, nstead of defau t ng on the nat on s debts. But that s not ke y to happen, f Obama and h s med a chorus can nstead b ame the Repub cans for forc ng a government shutdown or a cred t defau t. …” http://townha .com/co umn sts/thomassowe /2011/07/26/debt-ce ng_ch cken/page/fu / How to Freeze the Debt Ceiling Without Risking Default Next year, the government will have 10 times more income than it needs to honor its interest obligations. By Pat Toomey “…As members of Congress debate whether to ra se the U.S. debt ce ng—the m t on our government s debt—we shou d a agree on at east one th ng: Under no c rcumstances s t acceptab e for the U.S. to defau t on ts debt. Not on y are we mora y ob gated to honor our debts, but we benef t great y from the near y un versa conv ct on that those who end to us w a ways be repa d, on t me and n fu . We shou d never underm ne that conv ct on. Fortunate y, even f Congress doesn t ra se the debt ce ng, a defau t on our debt need not fo ow when our borrow ngs reach the r m t n the next few months. I ntend to ntroduce eg s at on to make sure of th s. For months, some po t ca eaders and commentators have argued that fa ure to ra se the debt ce ng wou d necessar y cause the U.S. to defau t on ts debt. Pres dent Obama s Counc of Econom c Adv sors cha rman, Austan Goo sbee, recent y warned, “If we get to the po nt where you ve damaged the fu fa th and cred t of the Un ted States, that wou d be the f rst defau t n h story caused pure y by nsan ty. I don t see why anybody s ta k ng about p ay ng ch cken w th the debt ce ng.” In fact, f Congress refuses to ra se the debt ce ng, the federa government w st have far more than enough money to fu y serv ce our debt. Next year, for nstance, about 6.5% of a pro ected federa government expend tures w go to nterest on our debt, and tax revenue s pro ected to cover about 67% of a government expend tures. W th rough y 10 t mes more ncome than needed to honor our debt ob gat ons, why wou d we ever defau t? To make abso ute y sure, I ntend to ntroduce eg s at on that wou d requ re the Treasury to make nterest payments on our debt ts f rst pr or ty n the event that the debt ce ng s not ra sed. Th s wou d not on y ensure the cont nued conf dence of nvestors at home and abroad, but wou d enab e us to have an honest debate about the consequences of our eventua dec s on about the debt ce ng. …” http://on ne.ws .com/art c e/SB10001424052748703954004576089963912388314.htm ?mod=goog enews_ws Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far ) « Prev ous Entr es

Mark Levin | Pronk Palisades

National Security Agency Is Spying On All American Who Use The Internet and Telephone System and They Collect and Store All Your Communications — Incl...

Download PDF

20MB Sizes 5 Downloads 7 Views

Mark Levin | Pronk Palisades

Mark Levin | Pronk Palisades

Recommend Documents