Story 1: Republican Donor Base Says So long it’s been good to know you and Voter Base Says — Hit The Road Jack — Mitt Romney — American Pie — Videos
Woody Guthrie – So long it’s been good to know you
Romney Says He Won’t Run for President in 2016
FULL AUDIO: Mitt Romney explains decision not to run in 2016
Mitt Romney will not run for President
Mitt Romney Vs. Jeb Bush. Who Will Be On The Republican Ticket In 2016?
Laura Ingraham: Rand Paul is almost as bad as Jeb Bush on amnesty
Laura Ingraham “super disappointed” in Rand Paul for opposing mass deportation
Laura Ingraham: Rand Paul ISIS flip-flop a mistake
Laura Ingraham goofs on Rand Paul’s newfound neoconservatism
Rand Paul vs. Charles Krauthammer on Iran
Charles Krauthammer: Rand Paul “has a lot of political genius”
Rand Paul says He Would Give a Legalized Status to Illegal Immigrants
RAND PAUL Explains LIBERTARIANISM
Why is Rand Paul the right choice for America? Rand Paul 2016.
Rand Paul: Voters ready for Libertarian Republican in 2016
Libertarians need to get over Rand Paul
Ray Charles – Hit The Road Jack
Don McLean – American Pie
A long, long time ago
I can still remember how that music used to make me smile
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And maybe they’d be happy for a whileBut February made me shiver
With every paper I’d deliver
Bad news on the doorstep
I couldn’t take one more stepI can’t remember if I cried
When I read about his widowed bride
But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died[Chorus]
So bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
And them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
Singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die
This’ll be the day that I die”[Verse 1]
Did you write the book of love
And do you have faith in God above
If the Bible tells you so?
Now do you believe in rock and roll?
Can music save your mortal soul?
And can you teach me how to dance real slow?Well, I know that you’re in love with him
‘Cause I saw you dancin’ in the gym
You both kicked off your shoes
Man, I dig those rhythm and bluesI was a lonely teenage broncin’ buck
With a pink carnation and a pickup truck
But I knew I was out of luck
The day the music died[Chorus]
I started singin’ bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
Singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die
This’ll be the day that I die”[Verse 2]
Now for ten years we’ve been on our own
And moss grows fat on a rollin’ stone
But that’s not how it used to be
When the jester sang for the king and queen
In a coat he borrowed from James Dean
And a voice that came from you and meOh, and while the king was looking down
The jester stole his thorny crown
The courtroom was adjourned
No verdict was returnedAnd while Lenin read a book on Marx
The quartet practiced in the park
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day the music died
We were singin’ bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
Singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die
This’ll be the day that I die”
Helter skelter in a summer swelter
The birds flew off with a fallout shelter
Eight miles high and falling fast
It landed foul on the grass
The players tried for a forward pass
With the jester on the sidelines in a cast
Now the halftime air was sweet perfume
While the sergeants played a marching tune
We all got up to dance
Oh, but we never got the chance
‘Cause the players tried to take the field
The marching band refused to yield
Do you recall what was revealed
The day the music died?
We started singin’ bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
And singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die
This’ll be the day that I die”
Oh, and there we were all in one place
A generation lost in space
With no time left to start again
So come on, Jack be nimble, Jack be quick
Jack Flash sat on a candlestick
‘Cause fire is the devil’s only friend
Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage
No angel born in Hell
Could break that Satan’s spell
And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite
I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the music died
He was singin’ bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
And singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die
This’ll be the day that I die”
I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news
But she just smiled and turned away
I went down to the sacred store
Where I’d heard the music years before
But the man there said the music wouldn’t play
And in the streets, the children screamed
The lovers cried and the poets dreamed
But not a word was spoken
The church bells all were broken
And the three men I admire most
The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died
And they were singin’ bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
And them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
Singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die
This’ll be the day that I die”
They were singin’ bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
And singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die”
Mitt Romney will NOT run for President again: Former Massachusetts governor says he will not mount a third campaign
‘I’m not organizing a PAC or taking donations; I’m not hiring a campaign team,’ he told donors during a Friday morning conference call
Jeb Bush boxed him out of access to big donors by getting in the race early with an exploratory committee
Romney and his wife had told reporters time and time again that he wasn’t running in 2016 but few believed them
CNN aired part of the private call live as Romney thanked his inner circle and said he thought another leader would have the best chance
Romney will have dinner with Chris Christie on Friday night, raising new eyebrows about the aftermath of his bowing out
White House paid him a backhanded compliment for messages about poverty, saying Republicans had used it as ‘a talking point’
By DAVID MARTOSKO, US POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 10:56 EST, 30 January 2015 | UPDATED: 14:38 EST, 30 January 2015
Mitt Romney, who stumbled his way to a lackluster finish in the 2012 presidential election as the Republican nominee, will not make a third run at the political world’s ultimate prize.
The former Massachusetts governor told top donors Friday morning that ‘after putting considerable thought into making another run for president, I’ve decided it is best to give other leaders in the Party the opportunity to become our next nominee.’
‘I’ve been asked, and will certainly be asked again,’ he said, ‘if there are any circumstances whatsoever that might develop that could change my mind. That seems unlikely.’
‘Accordingly, I’m not organizing a PAC or taking donations; I’m not hiring a campaign team.’
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (left) campaigned with Romney in 2012, but he’s the main beneficiary of Mitt’s decidion to drop out of the next race early
That giant noise you hear this morning in suburban New York is the sound of opposition-research binders being shredded in the offices of Hillary Clinton, who was looking forward to taking on Romney in 2016
Mitt Romney will NOT run for president in 2016
Daily Mail Online obtained Romney’s prepared remarks from a consultant close to the former governor.
The White House reacted Friday by paying him a backhanded compliment.
Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said at the beginning of his press briefing that he hadn’t spoken to the president about Romney’ss decision, but offered his own observations.
Romney, he said, is ‘a man of great faith and a man who has tremendous loyalty and commitment to his country’ and ‘is worthy of our respect.’
‘He did say in recent days that he hoped that we can have a more robust debate in this country about what we could do to put in place policies that benefit middle class families,’ Earnest noted, before dismissing Republicans whom he said ‘have used the middle class as a talking point.’
JEB BUSH’S FACEBOOK FAREWELL TO MITT
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush posted this message on Facebook shortly after Romney’s inner-circle conference call ended:
‘Mitt Romney has been a leader in our party for many years. There are few people who have worked harder to elect Republicans across the country than he has. Though I’m sure today’s decision was not easy, I know that Mitt Romney will never stop advocating for renewing America’s promise through upward mobility, encouraging free enterprise and strengthening our national defense.
‘Mitt is a patriot and I join many in hoping his days of serving our nation and our party are not over. I look forward to working with him to ensure all Americans have a chance to rise up.
‘Columba and I wish Mitt, Ann and their entire family the very best.’
‘We are seeing more rhetoric from Republicans indicating what was a previously unstated concern for people who aren’t at the top,’ Earnest said.
‘All of a sudden … some Republicans seem to be changing their tune.’
Two weeks ago Earnest seemed to mock reports that Romney would be seeking the White House in 2016, addressing ‘reports that Governor Romney is considering gettng the band back together again.’
Obama drew jeers from Democratic lawmakers on Thursday night in Philadelphia when he said that ‘a former presidential candidate on the other side’ was ‘suddenly … just deeply concerned about poverty.’
‘That’s great. Let’s go. Come on. Let’s do something about it,’ he said.
Earnest dismissed the nation’s momentary fascination with a third Romney run.
‘I’m confident that Governor Romney will be someone whose endorsement will be, um, sought,’ he said Friday.
He also said Obama is ‘not disappointed’ that Romney won’t be part of the 2016 race.
Romney’s decision to end his much-discusion flirtation with another White House run comes just hours after a Fox News poll put Romney at the top of the pack, leading former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and others by a considerable margin
His 21 per cent support among Republican voters was nearly double that of a second-place cluster that included Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, with 11 per cent each, and Bush, with 10 per cent.
Romney’s infamous ‘47%’ comment and his reaction
Bush posted a statement on Facebook shortly after Romney made his announcement.
‘Though I’m sure today’s decision was not easy, I know that Mitt Romney will never stop advocating for renewing America’s promise through upward mobility, encouraging free enterprise and strengthening our national defense,’ he wrote.
‘Mitt is a patriot and I join many in hoping his days of serving our nation and our party are not over. I look forward to working with him to ensure all Americans have a chance to rise up.’
Jeb poached a key member of Romney’s poltical organization on Thursday.
David Kochel, an Iowa-based consultant who worked on ROmney’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns, went to work for Right to Rise, Bush’s new political action committee.
Romney’s first shot at the presidency came in 2008, when he lost the GOP nomination to Arizona Sen. John McCain.
He risked losing a third time to any of nearly two dozen other potential candidates, although Bush’s entry into the picture last month has caused the most concern – at least from a fundraising perspective.
‘Mitt Romney 3.0 was worried about Jeb Bush 1.0 freezing him out of the big money,’ a GOP campaign consultant in the early primary state of New Hampshire warned Daily Mail Online on Friday morning. ‘That’s why he’s sitting out.’
‘Let’s face it: Jeb has a month-long head start. Mitt was already running out of billionaires who haden’t already made commitments.’
SIX DAYS AGO: Broadcaster Larry King tweeted on Jan. 24 that Romney told him a decision would be forthcoming within two weeks
He seemed to recognize that reality on Friday, but framed his decision in terms of what some in the party had begun to call ‘Romney fatigue.’
‘I feel that it is critical that America elect a conservative leader to become our next president,’ he said. ‘You know that I have wanted to be that president.’
‘But I do not want to make it more difficult for someone else to emerge who may have a better chance of becoming that president.’
At the same time, Romney clung to the idea that his financing and organization would have been adequate to the task.
‘Our finance calls made it clear we would have enough funding to be more than competitive and with few exceptions our field political leadership is ready and enthusiastic about a new race.,’ he told supporters.
‘The reaction of Republican voters across the country was both surprising and heartening.’
CNN made waves Friday morning by airing part of the Romney conference call, which was a private conversation and not meant for the press.
Romney would have faced considerable challenges if he had run.
In addition to his complaint in 2012 that ’47 per cent’ of Americans who depend on government benefits to make ends meet would never vote for him, he has said over and over in the past two years that he’s no longer interested in the White House.
‘Oh, no, no, no,’ he told the New York Times twelve months ago. ‘No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. I’m not running again.’
WINNER? New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie could benefit from Romney’s disappearance in presidential polls as much of his support among self-described ‘moderates’ had swung to Romney – and Romney himself will dine with Christie on Friday night
‘In February 2014, he said on Meet the Press: ‘You know, I’m not Ronald Reagan. And I’m not running for president. We’ve got some very good people who are considering the race. And I’m looking forward to supporting someone who I think will have the best shot of defeating whoever it is the Democrats put up.’
In June 2014 he told another NBC News interviewer that ‘I’m not running for president.’
‘I’m not running, I’m not planning on running, and I’ve got nothing new on that story,’ he told Bloomberg in October.
Ann Romney, the once upon a time would-be first lady, piled on too.
‘Done, completely,’ she said then. ‘Not only Mitt and I are done, but the kids are done. Done. Done. Done.’
Romney jumped back into the presidential discussion on Jan. 10, when he told a small group of former donors in New York that he was eyeing another White House run.
But it’s over for him as of Friday morning, as it became apparent that many of his past supporters and major fundraisers had defected to the Bush camp.
One told the Associated Press this week, ‘I have turned the page.’
Several called other candidates and their campaign consultants, pledgign support to presidential hopefuls including Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
Christie got a boost from news that he will have dinner with Romney on Friday night.
That could indicate the Utah Republican’s desire to box Jeb Bush out and help a different moderate alternative rise to take his place.
MITT ROMNEY’S PREPARED STATEMENT TO DONORS
‘Let me begin by letting you know who else is on this call, besides Ann and me. There are a large number of people who signed on to be leaders of our 2016 finance effort. In addition, state political leadership from several of the early primary states are on the line. And here in New York City, and on the phone, are people who have been helping me think through how to build a new team, as well as supporters from the past who have all been kind enough to volunteer their time during this deliberation stage. Welcome, and thank you. Your loyalty and friendship, and your desire to see the country with new, competent and conservative leadership warms my heart.
‘After putting considerable thought into making another run for president, I’ve decided it is best to give other leaders in the Party the opportunity to become our next nominee.
‘Let me give you some of my thinking. First, I am convinced that with the help of the people on this call, we could win the nomination. Our finance calls made it clear that we would have enough funding to be more than competitive. With few exceptions, our field political leadership is ready and enthusiastic about a new race. And the reaction of Republican voters across the country was both surprising and heartening. I know that early poll numbers move up and down a great deal during a campaign, but we would have no doubt started in a strong position. One poll out just today shows me gaining support and leading the next closest contender by nearly two to one. I also am leading in all of the four early states. So I am convinced that we could win the nomination, but fully realize it would have been difficult test and a hard fight.
‘I also believe with the message of making the world safer, providing opportunity to every American regardless of the neighborhood they live in, and working to break the grip of poverty, I would have the best chance of beating the eventual Democrat nominee, but that is before the other contenders have had the opportunity to take their message to the voters.
‘I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started, may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee. In fact, I expect and hope that to be the case.
‘I feel that it is critical that America elect a conservative leader to become our next president. You know that I have wanted to be that president. But I do not want to make it more difficult for someone else to emerge who may have a better chance of becoming that president. You can’t imagine how hard it is for Ann and me to step aside, especially knowing of your support and the support of so many people across the country. But we believe it is for the best of the Party and the nation.
‘I’ve been asked, and will certainly be asked again if there are any circumstances whatsoever that might develop that could change my mind. That seems unlikely. Accordingly, I’m not organizing a PAC or taking donations; I’m not hiring a campaign team.
‘I encourage all of you on this call to stay engaged in the critical process of selecting a Republican nominee for President. Please feel free to sign up on a campaign for a person who you believe may become our best nominee.
‘I believe a Republican winning back the White House is essential for our country, and I will do whatever I can to make that happen.
‘To all my supporters, friends and family who worked both tirelessly and loyally to support my campaigns in the past, I will always be deeply appreciative. What you have already done is a tribute to your patriotism. We are overwhelmed and humbled by your loyalty to us, by your generosity of spirit, and by your friendship. God bless you all.
Story 1: Obama’s House Organ The Shrinking Readership New York Times Reveals Obama Angry With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — No News Here — Obama’s Failed Foreign Policy Requires U.S. To — Bomb Bomb Bomb Islamic State and Iran — A Twofer — Bombs Away — Beach Boys — Videos
Dr. Strangelove: Major Kong Rides The Bomb 1080p
Beach Boys Good Vibrations
The Beach Boys – Help Me Rhonda
Beach Boys ” I Get Around ” Live 1964
US Senate committee approves bill for further sanctions on Iran
White House says fresh Iran sanctions “unconstructive”
Boehner Invite of Netanyahu Debated by Fox News Sunday Panel
White House furious over Netanyahu and Boehner meeting
Krauthammer On How Israel Tension Raises Questions On Iran
Obama And Netanyahu Are In Awkward New Territory
GOP Leadership’s Invitation to Netanyahu a Provocation Aimed at War with Iran
White House: Obama will not sit down with Netanyahu
Israeli PM Netanyahu: U.S. is Number 1 Target to ISIS
John Bolton: Iranian President Rouhani is playing Obama like a “violin”
FLASHBACK : Obama rejects Netanyahu snubs meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister (Sept 11, 2012)
The Obama administration is angry with Israel. Here’s the administration’s house organ, the New York Times, this morning:
The Obama administration, after days of mounting tension, signaled on Wednesday how angry it is with Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted Republican leaders’ invitation to address Congress on Iran without consulting the White House.
The outrage the episode has incited within President Obama’s inner circle became clear in unusually sharp criticism by a senior administration official who said that the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, who helped orchestrate the invitation, had repeatedly placed Mr. Netanyahu’s political fortunes above the relationship between Israel and the United States.
The official who made the comments to The New York Times would not be named…
Of course, the official who last summer called Prime Minister Netanyahu a “coward” and a “chickens–t” would not be named either. But there is no reason to think those unnamed angry officials do not speak for an angry president.
The Obama White House usually prides itself on not getting angry. Its self-image is that it’s cool, calm, and collected. And it doesn’t get angry at, for example, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Obama White House understands and appreciates the complexities of the Islamic Republic’s politics and history. It is only with respect to the Jewish state that the Obama White House is impatient, peremptory, and angry.
Why has Obama been lashing out? Because he had a dream. He was to be the American president who would preside at, and take credit for, the founding of a Palestinian state. Obama would be to Palestine what Harry Truman was to Israel. Now it’s clear that’s not going to happen during his presidency. Obama’s frustrated that it’s not going to happen. So he lashes out.
But Obama is still pursuing another dream: to be the American president who goes to Tehran, who achieves with Iran what Richard Nixon achieved with China. And he thinks Israel, and Israel’s friends in the United States, stand in the way of achieving that dream. So he has another reason to be angry.
Of course, it’s not Israel but reality that stands in the way of Obama’s dreams. His Cairo speech, and the policies that followed from it, have crashed on the shoals of reality. Obama said in Cairo in June 2009, that he hoped that his administration would end the “cycle of suspicion and discord” between the United States and much of the Muslim world:
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. …
There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.”
But the truth is that Obama’s policies haven’t ameliorated the crisis in Islam or lessened the discord between Islam and the West. They have worsened the discord and exacerbated the crisis. Obama’s policies of retreat have strengthened radical Islam, and undermined those in the Muslim world who do believe in “justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
It is Obama’s failures that explain his anger—his failures, and his hopes that a breakthrough with Iran could erase the memories of failure and appear to vindicate his foreign policy. Israel stands in the way, he thinks, of this breakthrough. Prime Minister Netanyahu stands in the way. And so Obama lashes out.
It’s of course unseemly. But it’s also dangerous. Neville Chamberlain and the British establishment were far angrier with Winston Churchill, and much harsher in their attempts to discredit him, in the late 1930s when the dreams of appeasement were failing, than earlier, when hope for the success of appeasement was alive. When you think your policies are going to be vindicated, you ignore or dismiss critics. It’s when you suspect and fear imminent failure that you lash out.
So we have an angry president, increasingly desperate for vindication of his failed foreign policy, accelerating both his appeasement of Iran and his attacks on Israel. The good news is that the Republican party and the conservative movement—and most of the American people—stand with Israel and against President Obama. Of major parts of the American Jewish community, on the other hand, one can say no such thing.
For months, the issue of imposing sanctions on Iran split many Democrats from the president, as they feared his posture was emboldening the government in Tehran to further develop itsnuclear program. But Mr. Netanyahu’s planned speech, a provocation of the president that many Democrats found distasteful and undiplomatic, has helped shift the political dynamic.
“For the prime minister to accept made it extremely political, knowing how the invitation played out,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia and a frequent critic of the White House. Mr. Manchin was one of 10 Democrats who signed a letter agreeing not to vote on a sanctions bill until after the March 24 deadline to have a framework of an agreement in place with the Iranians.
Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, found the invitation to Benjamin Netanyahu off-putting.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
Speaker John A. Boehner’s decision to invite Mr. Netanyahu, and the prime minister’s decision to accept without consulting the Obama administration, Mr. Manchin added, struck some Democrats, like him, as off-putting.
“It didn’t show a lot of class,” Mr. Manchin said. “If it had been George W. Bush or Reagan or Clinton or whoever, protocol is protocol.”
The invitation proved to be opportune for Mr. Obama, who had been making steady progress in persuading Democrats to delay a vote on sanctions to give him some diplomatic breathing room.
The president had been “changing minds,” said Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut.
“I don’t think the invitation has been helpful to the debate in Congress,” Mr. Murphy added, saying he believed Mr. Netanyahu’s speech would only further politicize an issue that should be above partisanship. “My worry all along has been that Republicans are going to oppose this deal simply because it’s President Obama’s deal, and the invitation to Netanyahu confirms that there are some Republicans who simply put politics ahead of what’s best for the country.”
Other Democrats were also quickly lining up behind the president. A group of House Democrats will formally ask Mr. Boehner to delay his invitation to the prime minister until after the March deadline passes. Three Democratic representatives were circulating a letter to the speaker among their colleagues on Wednesday. It was already picking up additional signatures.
The letter accuses the speaker of harming American foreign policy and undermining Mr. Obama. “As members of Congress who support Israel, it appears that you are using a foreign leader as a political tool against the president,” said the letter, which was signed by Representatives Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Steve Cohen of Tennessee and Maxine Waters of California. “When the Israeli prime minister visits us outside the specter of partisan politics,” the letter continued, “we will be delighted and honored to greet him or her on the floor of the House.”
Getting lawmakers to go on the record criticizing the prime minister will be complicated, however, because many Democrats fear antagonizing Mr. Netanyahu, the powerful pro-Israeli interests aligned with him, and Jewish voters in their districts.
Timeline on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Whether Iran is racing toward nuclear weapon capabilities is one of the most contentious foreign-policy issues challenging the West.
“There’s a lot of people who agree with this letter,” Mr. Ellison said. “Some will put their name on it. Some won’t. But the bottom line is, I haven’t run into anyone on our side who thinks this is a good idea.”
The issue is delicate. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee and an ardent defender of sanctions against Iran, insisted Wednesday that Mr. Netanyahu’s speech was not a factor in his decision not to press for an immediate vote.
“It had absolutely no effect,” he said.
Mr. Menendez made the surprising announcement on Tuesday that he and a group of nine other Democrats had written to the president to inform him that they would not vote for a sanctions bill before the March 24 deadline. It was a striking step back for a senator who last week likened the administration’s statements on the negotiations to “talking points that come straight out of Tehran.”
Democrats said they saw two political issues in play. Domestically, Mr. Boehner and Republicans want to press their point that Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is weak. And in Israel, which holds its elections March 17, Mr. Netanyahu has political incentive to present himself as a man of steely resolve.
The perception that Republicans and Mr. Netanyahu are approaching the debate over sanctions in an overtly political way has helped those who are opposed to further sanctions make their case, Democrats said.
“It’s been building for days,” said Greg Rosenbaum, the chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, speaking about efforts to persuade Democrats to offer the president more flexibility. “But it really let loose this week.”
Typically, policy on Israel has been one area where both political parties agree. And some observers said they feared the Netanyahu-Boehner episode was eroding that.
“When that sense of mutual values and interest starts to be driven apart by partisan politics,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, an Israeli advocacy group, “it works to the long-term harm of the state of Israel.”
Story 1: Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch Says Illegal Aliens Have A Right To Work in America — No They Do Not — They Should Be Deported — It Is The Law — Vote Against Nominee — Who Broke The Immigration System By Not Enforcing The Law — Presidents Bush and Obama — Videos
AG Nominee: ‘Right To Work Is Shared By Everyone In This Country Regardless’ Of Immigration Status
Senator Sessions, Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, questioned Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch at today’s Judiciary hearing to consider her nomination. Sessions asked Lynch about the President’s decision to bypass Congress to order an amnesty, and how this action undermined the rights of disadvantaged American workers.
In addition to suspending enforcement for nearly all of the 12 million individuals unlawfully present in the United States, President Obama issue an executive decree on November 20th, 2014, extending work permits, Social Security, Medicare, tax credits, and government identification to 5 million illegal immigrants and illegal visa violators. This would allow illegal immigrants to take any job in America, regardless of chronic high unemployment for Americans—including a 10.4 percent unemployment rate for African-American workers. Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, explained—contra AG Holder’s “breathtaking” contention that amnesty was a civil right—that unlawful amnesty for illegal immigrants violated the rights of U.S. citizens to the full protection of their laws, including those laws passed by Congress to protect their jobs and wages from illegal competition. The President’s executive edict (an edict he said previously only an Emperor would deign to issue) voids Americans’ legal protections in law, supplanting them with a new executive policy that Congress and voters have rejected, a policy which forces unemployed Americans to compete against a large and growing illegal workforce.
Senator Sessions Attorney General Comfirmation Hearing jan 28 2015
Sen. Ted Cruz Second Q&A with Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch
Sen. Ted Cruz Third Q&A with Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch
AG Nominee Lynch: Obama’s Executive Action Did Not Provide Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants
Loretta Lynch, attorney general nominee, defends migrant policy
Loretta Lynch on Waterboarding: “It Is Torture And Illegal”
Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch on Obama’s comments about marijuana
Lee questions Loretta Lynch on Prosecutorial Discretion, Operation Chokepoint, and Asset Forfeiture
Graham Questions U.S. Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch During Confirmation Hearing
Obama’s New Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch Hearing, Day 1, Part 1
AG Nominee Loretta Lynch Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Committee
Sen. Sessions Blasts President Obama’s Executive Immigration Order
The Problems with Loretta Lynch
Obama’s New Placeholder: Loretta Lynch
Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch Picked As Attorney General Nominee
Megyn Kelly: Loretta Lynch Should Be ‘Most Acceptable’ AG Choice for GOP
Opening Statement from Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch (C-SPAN)
Speaker John Boehner on Executive Action on Immigration (C-SPAN)
24+ States File Lawsuit Against Obama’s Executive Amnesty
Up to December 10 a total of 24 States have Filed a Lawsuit Against Obama’s Executive Amnesty. Expect the number of states joining this lawsuit to rise over the next weeks. Originally 18 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas challenging President Obama’s executive action on immigration. The suit claims that the White House overstepped its authority by granting amnesty and work permits for 5 million illegal aliens.
After filing the federal suit, Texas Attorney General and Governor-elect Greg Abbott wrote in a statement that President Obama’s executive amnesty “tramples the U.S. Constitution’s Take Care Clause and federal law.”
Also included in Attorney General Abbott’s statement were the states’ legal challenges to President Obama’s executive action:
• The executive action on immigration conflicts with the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The Take Care Clause limits the scope of presidential power and ensures that the chief executive will uphold and enforce Congress’s laws – not unilaterally rewrite them under the cover of “prosecutorial discretion.”
• The DHS Directive failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act’s required notice and comment rulemaking process before providing that legal benefits like federal work permits, Medicare, and Social Security be awarded to individuals who are openly violating immigration laws.
• The executive action to dispense with federal immigration law will exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education.
The other states involved in the suit include: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
UPDATE: Arizona has joined the lawsuit. In a statement, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said, “Obama has exceeded his power as clearly defined in the United States Constitution and federal law and deliberately ignored the will of the American people. Such federal overreach cannot stand.”
Florida has joined the lawsuit. In a statement, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said, “The President repeatedly said he would not violate the law, then decided to do just that. The powers granted to the President are expressly laid out in the United States Constitution, yet President Obama has decided to ignore those parameters.”
As of December 10, Arkansas, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma have also joined the lawsuit.
The governors’ claim is in a 75-page document filed in a Texas federal district court that states “This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law, presidential power and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution.” President Obama’s unilateral immigration action, which was presented November 20, would allow for work permits and tentative status to nearly five million illegal immigrants, and would protect many others from deportation. However, those not included would not have the same legal standing as the five million officially granted the amnesty.
The governors have said that their reasoning for suing is due to the cost and responsibility that comes with allowing five million people to stay. Their state taxpayers would be required to pay for the expenses entailed with schooling, health care, and police to handle a sudden influx of illegal border crossings. Texas is joined in the lawsuit by the states Alabama, Georgia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, Maine, Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, Utah, Wisconsin and South Dakota. Attorney General Greg Abbot of Texas leads the charge of spurring lawsuits against immigration amnesty by President Obama. Mr. Abbot has challenged the Obama administration 31 times and this will be his 34th against the federal government. This current lawsuit is being utilized by Republicans as a temporary method to stall President Obama’s amnesty action through the courts.
Jay Sekulow on Fox News: Resetting Obama’s Executive Power
Graham Questions U.S. Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch During Confirmation Hearing
Will Loretta Lynch Be Confirmed As Attorney General?
December 17th, 2014 • A Federal Judge has ruled that President Obama’s executive actions on immigration are unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers clause. Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley examines the ruling with Fox News host Sean Hannity.
Rep. Gowdy’s Floor Speech on Stopping Executive Action on Immigration
Cornyn: Executive Action on Immigration an Unconstitutional Abuse of Power
Is Obama’s executive action on immigration legal?
Gowdy: ‘President Obama is wrong’ on immigration executive action
Brooks and Marcus on immigration executive action precedent
Obama Immigration Reform 2014 Speech: Announcing Executive Action [FULL] Today on November 20th
[FULL] Stewart Jabs Obama for Going All ‘Emperor’ on Immigration Action
26 states suing Obama over immigration executive action as Boehner plans his own legal action
By Morgan Chalfant
It appears the majority of states believe President Obama’s executive action on immigration to be illegal.
A grand total of 26 states have joined a lawsuit led by Texas against Obama for the executive action he announced last November, according to the Huffington Post.
The suit was filed in December and, as of Monday, has gained the support of more half the states in the country.
“The momentum against the president’s lawlessness continues to build with Tennessee and Nevada joining the effort to protect our states from the economic and public safety implications of illegal amnesty,” explained Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Monday. “As President Obama himself has said numerous times, he lacks the authority to impose amnesty. His actions represent a blatant case of overreach and clear abuse of power.”
Some states — 12 in addition to Washington, D.C., to be precise — have alternatively expressed their support of Obama’s executive action by filing an amicus brief. A group of 30 mayors have done the same.
However, the president certainly does not have the support of the Republican-led Congress on the issue. In fact, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told GOP members of the House Tuesday that the government body will also pursue a lawsuit against Obama over his immigration action, as reports CNN.
“We are finalizing a plan to authorize litigation on this issue — one we believe gives us the best chance of success,” he reportedly said, according to a source.
This comes just months after the House filed a suit against the president over his executive action on Obamacare, which was itself seen by many as the House GOP’s response to Obama’s immigration announcement in November.
The 26 states that have joined in the immigration lawsuit are as follows: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Challenged by Republicans, Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch on Wednesday defended President Barack Obama’s decision to shelter millions of immigrants from deportation though they live in the country illegally.
She said that under the administration’s policy, the Department of Homeland Security is focusing its efforts on the removal of “the most dangerous of the undocumented immigrants among us.”
“It seems to be a reasonable way to marshal limited resources to deal with the problem” of illegal immigration, she said.
Lynch made her remarks in the opening moments of a hearing into her appointment as the nation’s first black female attorney general. It is the first confirmation proceeding since Republicans took control of the Senate this month.
Lynch, a daughter of the segregated South, was accompanied at the hearing by about 30 family members and friends. Among them were her father, who is a retired minister, her husband and several members of her college sorority, Delta Sigma Theta, wearing their trademark red.Settling into the witness chair for what promised to be a long day of questioning, Lynch promised a fresh relationship with law enforcement and with Congress.
“I pledge to all of you and to the American people that I will fulfill my responsibilities with integrity and independence,” she said in remarks prepared for the panel led by Republicans who say Attorney General Eric Holder has been too willing to follow President Barack Obama’s political agenda.
Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican and committee chairman, said as much in the opening moments of the hearing. He said the department is “deeply politicized. But that’s what happens when the attorney general of the United States views himself, in his own words, as the president’s ‘wingman.'”
Grassley did not press further after Lynch offered her defense of Obama’s immigration policies, even though he said they amount to rewriting the law rather than enforcing it.
Lynch, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, is widely expected to win confirmation easily, if only because Republicans are so eager for Holder’s tenure to end. He has been a lightning rod for conservative criticism, clashing with Republicans and becoming the first sitting attorney general held in contempt of Congress.In testimony delivered before she was questioned, Lynch said that if confirmed she would focus on combatting terrorism and cybercrime and would protect the vulnerable from criminal predators.
And she was at pains to promise what Republican critics demanded in advance.
“I look forward to fostering a new and improved relationship with this committee, the United States Senate and the entire United States Congress, a relationship based on mutual respect and constitutional balance,” she said.
Holder also battled the perception from critics that he aligned himself more with protesters of police violence than with members of law enforcement, a charge he and the Justice Department have strongly denied — but one that resonated in the aftermath of high-profile deaths of black men at the hands of white police officers.
In her prepared testimony, Lynch promised a fresh start in that relationship, too.“Few things have pained me more than the recent reports of tension and division between law enforcement and the communities we serve,” Lynch said, pledging to “work to strengthen the vital relationships” if confirmed.
Lynch already has earned praise from several GOP senators for her impressive credentials and accomplishments. But she faced tough questions from Republicans who now control the Senate.
“She certainly has the credentials. We don’t want a repeat of what we had,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a senior committee member. “I look upon her as a pretty good appointment, but I have to listen along with everybody else.”
In answer to a question from Hatch, she said Wednesday, “Every lawyer has to be independent, the attorney general even more so, and I pledge to you that I take that independence seriously.”
The Judiciary Committee includes some of the Senate’s most outspoken Republicans, among them Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a potential presidential candidate who promised to quiz Lynch on Obama’s executive actions on immigration that granted reprieves from deportation to millions.
“We need an attorney general who will stop being a partisan attack dog and instead get back to the traditions of upholding the Constitution and the law in a fair and impartial manner,” Cruz said.
Lynch’s hearing comes amid a nationwide spotlight on police tactics in the wake of deaths of black men at the hands of white police officers, as well as the slaying last month of two officers in New York City. It’s an issue Lynch, 55, is deeply familiar with.
Lynch helped prosecute the New York City police officers who severely beat and sexually assaulted Haitian immigrant Abner Louima in 1997. Her office in New York is currently leading a civil rights investigation into the police chokehold death of Eric Garner in Staten Island last summer.
Lynch has been the top prosecutor since 2010 for a district that includes Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and Long Island, a role she also held from 1999 to 2001.
Lynch grew up with humble beginnings in North Carolina, the daughter of a school librarian and a Baptist minister. She received undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University. testimony.
Govt tells agents to ID which immigrants not to deport
By ALICIA A. CALDWELL
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration has ordered immigration agents to ask immigrants they encounter living in the country illegally whether they might qualify under President Barack Obama’s plans to avoid deporting them, according to internal training materials obtained by The Associated Press.
Agents also have been told to review government files to identify any jailed immigrants they might be able to release under the program.
The directives from the Homeland Security Department mark an unusual change for U.S. immigration enforcement, placing the obligation on the government for identifying immigrants who might qualify for lenient treatment. Previously, it was the responsibility of immigrants or their lawyers to assert that they might qualify under rules that could keep them out of jail and inside the United States.
It’s akin to the Internal Revenue Service calling taxpayers to recommend they should have used certain exemptions or deductions.
The training materials apply to agents for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They instruct agents “to immediately begin identifying persons in their custody, as well as newly encountered persons” who may be eligible for protection from deportation.One training document includes scenarios describing encounters between agents and immigrants with guidance about how agents should proceed, with a checklist of questions to determine whether immigrants might qualify under the president’s plans. ICE officials earlier began releasing immigrants who qualified for leniency from federal immigration jails.
Obama in November announced a program to allow roughly 4 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to apply for permission to stay in the country for up to three years and get a work permit. The program mirrors one announced in 2012 that provides protection from deportation for young immigrants brought to the country as children.
A spokesman for Customs and Border Protection, Carlos Diaz, said immigrants caught crossing the border illegally remain a top priority for the agency. The training documents for border agents, he said, “provide clear guidance on immigration enforcement operations so that both time and resources are allocated appropriately.”
Crystal Williams, executive director for the American Immigration Lawyers Association in Washington, said the training will help filter people the government said should not be a priority anyway. She said the training marked the first she has heard of officers being directed to screen immigrants for potential leniency before they were arrested.
“Just because it’s a change doesn’t mean it’s anything particularly radical,” Williams said.Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat and vocal supporter of Obama’s immigration plans, said having CBP officers screen immigrants out of the deportation line lets the government “move criminals and recent arrivals to the front of the deportation line. The emphasis now is on who should be deported first, not just who can be deported.”
A former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department, John Malcolm, said the new instructions limit immigration agents.
“Agents are being discouraged away from anything other than a cursory view” of an immigrant’s status and qualification for leniency, said Malcolm, who works as a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington.
Under Obama’s plans, the government is focused on deporting immigrants with serious criminal records or who otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety. For the most part, under the new policy, immigrants whose only offense is being in the country without permission aren’t supposed to be a priority for immigration officers.
While the administration has estimated that as many as 4 million people will be eligible for protection from deportation, the Congressional Budget Office estimated about 2 million to 2.5 million immigrants are expected to be approved for the program by 2017. As many as 1.7 million young immigrants were estimated to be eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but since its 2012 creation only about 610,000 people have successfully signed up.
Three things that are illegal about Obama’s immigration plan
It’s official. By executive fiat, President Obama will grant amnesty to up to 5 million immigrants living illegally in the United States.
How did we get here? Didn’t the president say, even last year, that he couldn’t, and wouldn’t take executive action on immigration?
If Obama ever finds himself in a court of law, he would surely be advised to invoke the Fifth Amendment. He is prone to contradiction and tends to be a good witness against himself.
President Obama’s favorite justification for his executive action is that “Congress failed to act.” No, Mr. President, Congress did not fail to act, it chose not to act in granting amnesty.
Consider his self-incriminating statements on immigration and executive powers. A year ago, when asked if he had the authority to end deportations of illegal aliens he said, “Actually, I don’t.” Three years earlier, when pressed as to why he could not act on his own on immigration he said, “The notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.”
Well, now the president says it is true — he can alter the laws unilaterally. Why the metamorphosis? What changed? The law and the Constitution are still the same. Which leaves Obama. When it comes to the truth, inconvenient or otherwise, he is a chameleon like no other politician. He never hesitates to contradict himself, conjuring a new breadth of hypocrisy.
President Obama’s favorite justification for his executive action is that “Congress failed to act.” No, Mr. President, Congress did not fail to act, it chose not to act in granting amnesty.
There is a difference. A determination not to act is, by itself, a deliberate act. This is how the framers constructed our system of government. Congress considers and debates a great many bills. Not all of them pass. This is not “failure” in the conventional sense, but decision by declination. It constitutes a prudent and calculated process.
But the president uses this contrived “failure” as a pretext to arrogate the authority of another branch of government. He wields his pen to legislate by executive decree. He well knows he is exceeding his power. In 2011, he said, “I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the (immigration) on my own. But that‘s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.” He was right. It was a rare moment of clarity for a man who fancies himself a constitutional scholar.
Now, however, by granting legal status to roughly half the nation’s population of illegal immigrants, Obama is twisting the law, ignoring the Constitution, and forsaking his primary responsibility as chief executive. For years, he argued publicly it would be unconstitutional for him to take such action because he said, “I’m president, I’m not king.” Apparently, he now favors a crown on his noggin. In truth, he is king of self-confutation, negating himself with his own words.
Recently, when asked why he disagreed with himself, the president insisted, “Well, actually, my position hasn’t changed”. After the laughter died down, the Washington Post Fact Checker gave Obama an upside-down Pinocchio for his tortured denial of a blatant flip-flop.
The president’s executive action to legalize illegals by nullifying existing law, constitutes a stunning abuse of office: usurping the power of Congress, while abdicating his duty to uphold and enforce the laws. Here are three ways this is happening:
1. Distorting Prosecutorial Discretion
President Obama claims he is entitled to overhaul immigration laws in the name of “prosecutorial discretion.” It is one of those wonderfully fungible phrases in the law. Elastic because it is vague and ambiguous. Useful because it can be easily abused. Mr. Obama has appropriated this doctrine to argue he has near boundless discretion to amend, revise, waive or suspend the execution of immigration laws. As chief executive, he is empowering himself to decide what laws may be enforced or ignored and what persons may come or go across our southern border irrespective of what the law actually states.
In past decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has cautioned the executive branch that its prosecutorial discretion, while broad, is not “unfettered.” It is subject to restrictions. The doctrine may not be used to adopt a sweeping policy of non-enforcement of the law. It applies only to decisions not to prosecute or expelspecificindividuals or smallgroups of people, typically for exigent reasons like war, civil unrest or political persecution.
By contrast, President Obama is bestowing a wholesale, blanket amnesty for an entire class of nearly 5 million people. He is doing so not for the reasons allowed by law, but for purposes that appear to be purely political. This is a flagrant abuse of prosecutorial discretion. His expansive action exceeds his authority in ways that none of his predecessors ever envisioned. And it is a radical departure from any of the executive actions issued by previous presidents.
It is true that President Ronald Reagan utilized executive action in 1987 to grant a limited deportation reprieve to certain spouses and young children of immigrants. But his action was a logical and direct extension of, not a departure from, an existing amnesty law Congress had already passed. His exemption and a subsequent extension by his successor, President George H. W. Bush, were later incorporated into a new law passed by Congress. The point is instructive. The actions by Reagan and Bush are not a supporting precedent for Mr. Obama, but an important limiting principle of presidential authority.
However, President Obama has commandeered this elastic doctrine of prosecutorial discretion and stretched or manipulated it beyond all recognition and reason. It has become his political Gumby toy with which he exerts his will whenever he fails to get his way with Congress. He contorts the word “discretion” to adopt a capacious policy — his own policy — to ban full enforcement of a duly enacted immigration statute. He treats the doctrine as a magical incantation shielding his arbitrariness.
2. Usurping Legislative Authority
Our Constitution clearly delineates a separation of powers. Congress is vested with writing laws and the President is charged with executing those laws. This is especially true when it comes to immigration.
At the end of the 19th century, the Supreme Court declared that Congress had “plenary power” (meaning full and complete) to regulate immigration. Derived from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the doctrine is based on the concept that immigration is a question of national sovereignty, relating to a nation’s right to define its own borders and restrict entrance therein. As the high court observed, “Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.”
Yet President Obama has decided to usurp this power by unilateral directive, unconstrained by established checks and balances. In so doing, he is granting himself extra-constitutional authority and upsetting the carefully balanced separation of powers. He is also subverting the nucleus of our constitutional design: the rule of law.
3. Breaching His Sworn Duty
President Obama’s decision that existing laws shall not be enforced against some 5 million illegal immigrants violates his sworn constitutional duty. Article II, Section 3 requires that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Nowhere is it written that the chief executive is granted the latitude to pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce. He cannot ignore or nullify laws he does not like because the constitution gives him no power not to execute laws. To infer such latitude would invite an authoritarian rule anathema to our founding fathers’ vision. President Obama admitted as much when he said, “The fact of the matter is, there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.” He was specifically talking about immigration laws.
In 1996, Congress passed a law which requires federal immigration agents to deport illegal immigrants, with few exceptions. The statutory language is mandatory. Thus, whatever prosecutorial discretion which may have existed previously, was specifically eliminated by that legislative act. Yet, the President is now, in effect, ordering those agents to break the law. He cannot, on his own, engage in a de facto repeal of this law by executive action. To do so would be, quite simply, lawlessness and a dereliction of his duty.
If President Obama can refuse to enforce a valid federal law affecting millions of people, are there any limits to his powers? After all, he has frequently threatened, “Where Congress won’t act, I will.” What is to stop him from rewriting other laws with which he disagrees? Or to act where Congress has declined or refused to act? Can he abolish certain tax laws because Congress chooses to keep them? Can he banish all sources of energy except renewables to advance his agenda on climate change? If so, why even have a legislative branch of government? What’s the point of a Constitution which enumerates and circumscribes powers and duties?
Men like Madison, Jefferson and Adams were keenly aware of the tyranny and corruption of authority concentrated in too few hands. They knew the thirst for power posed an existential danger to those who cherish freedom. Their genius was in crafting a sustaining document that would end the arrogance of one man rule and protect the inherent rights of all men. They knew that absolute power corrupts.
And they feared future presidents like Mr. Obama.
In the history of our republic, no president has dared turn his high office into an instrument of unrestrained power. They held too much respect for their fellow citizens than to abuse or misuse the principles of our democracy. Even Lincoln’s actions to preserve the nation during the Civil War were grounded in the Constitution and the rule of law.
But, like the title of his autobiography, Mr. Obama’s measure of himself seems defined by the word “audacity.” It is no more evident than now.
The President’s Immigration Accountability Executive Actions will help secure the border, hold nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants accountable, and ensure that everyone plays by the same rules. Acting within his legal authority, the President is taking an important step to fix our broken immigration system.
These executive actions crack down on illegal immigration at the border, prioritize deporting felons not families, and require certain undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal background check and pay their fair share of taxes as they register to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.
These are common sense steps, but only Congress can finish the job. As the President acts, he’ll continue to work with Congress on a comprehensive, bipartisan bill—like the one passed by the Senate more than a year ago—that can replace these actions and fix the whole system.
Three critical elements of the President’s executive actions are:
Cracking Down on Illegal Immigration at the Border: The President’s actions increase the chances that anyone attempting to cross the border illegally will be caught and sent back. Continuing the surge of resources that effectively reduced the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border illegally this summer, the President’s actions will also centralize border security command-and-control to continue to crack down on illegal immigration.
Deporting Felons, Not Families: The President’s actions focus on the deportation of people who threaten national security and public safety. He has directed immigration enforcement to place anyone suspected of terrorism, violent criminals, gang members, and recent border crossers at the top of the deportation priority list.
Accountability – Criminal Background Checks and Taxes: The President is also acting to hold accountable those undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for more than five years and are parents of U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. By registering and passing criminal and national security background checks, millions of undocumented immigrants will start paying their fair share of taxes and temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation for three years at a time.
The President’s actions will also streamline legal immigration to boost our economy and will promote naturalization for those who qualify.
For more than a half century, every president—Democratic or Republican—has used his legal authority to act on immigration. President Obama is now taking another commonsense step. As the Administration implements these executive actions, Congress should finish the job by passing a bill like the bipartisan Senate bill that: continues to strengthen border security by adding 20,000 more Border Patrol agents; cracks down on companies who hire undocumented workers; creates an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who pay a fine and taxes, pass a background check, learn English and go to the back of the line; and boosts our economy and keeps families together by cutting red tape to simplify our legal immigration process.
CRACKING DOWN ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AT THE BORDER
Under the Obama Administration, the resources that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) dedicates to security at the Southwest border are at an all-time high. Today, there are 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents along the Southwest Border and our border fencing, unmanned aircraft surveillance systems, and ground surveillance systems have more than doubled since 2008. Taken as a whole, the additional boots on the ground, technology, and resources provided in the last six years represent the most serious and sustained effort to secure our border in our Nation’s history, cutting illegal border crossings by more than half.
And this effort is producing results. From 1990 to 2007, the population of undocumented individuals in the United States grew from 3.5 million to 11 million people. Since then, the size of the undocumented population has stopped growing for the first time in decades. Border apprehensions—a key indicator of border security— are at their lowest level since the 1970s. This past summer, the President and the entire Administration responded to the influx of unaccompanied children with an aggressive, coordinated Federal response focused on heightened deterrence, enhanced enforcement, stronger foreign cooperation, and greater capacity for Federal agencies to ensure that our border remains secure. As a result, the number of unaccompanied children attempting to cross the Southwest border has declined precipitously, and the Administration continues to focus its resources to prevent a similar situation from developing in the future.
To build on these efforts and to ensure that our limited enforcement resources are used effectively, the President has announced the following actions:
Shifting resources to the border and recent border crossers. Over the summer, DHS sent hundreds of Border Patrol agents and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel to the Southwest border, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) reordered dockets in immigration courts to prioritize removal cases of recent border crossers. This continued focus will help keep our borders safe and secure. In addition, Secretary Johnson is announcing a new Southern Border and Approaches Campaign Plan which will strengthen the efforts of the agencies who work to keep our border secure. And by establishing clearer priorities for interior enforcement, DHS is increasing the likelihood that people attempting to cross the border illegally will be apprehended and sent back.
Streamlining the immigration court process. DOJ is announcing a package of immigration court reforms that will address the backlog of pending cases by working with DHS to more quickly adjudicate cases of individuals who meet new DHS-wide enforcement priorities and close cases of individuals who are low priorities. DOJ will also pursue regulations that adopt best practices for court systems to use limited court hearing time as efficiently as possible.
Protecting victims of crime and human trafficking as well as workers. The Department of Labor (DOL) is expanding and strengthening immigration options for victims of crimes (U visas) and trafficking (T visas) who cooperate in government investigations. An interagency working group will also explore ways to ensure that workers can avail themselves of their labor and employment rights without fear of retaliation.
DEPORTING FELONS, NOT FAMILIES
By setting priorities and focusing its enforcement resources, the Obama Administration has already increased the removal of criminals by more than 80%. These actions build on that strong record by:
Focusing on the removal of national security, border security, and public safety threats. To better focus on the priorities that matter, Secretary Johnson is issuing a new DHS-wide memorandum that makes clear that the government’s enforcement activity should be focused on national security threats, serious criminals, and recent border crossers. DHS will direct all of its enforcement resources at pursuing these highest priorities for removal.
Implementing a new Priority Enforcement Program. Effectively identifying and removing criminals in state and local jails is a critical goal but it must be done in a way that sustains the community’s trust. To address concerns from Governors, Mayors, law enforcement and community leaders which have undermined cooperation with DHS, Secretary Johnson is replacing the existing Secure Communities program with a new Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) to remove those convicted of criminal offenses. DHS will continue to rely on biometric data to verify individuals who are enforcement priorities, and they will also work with DOJ’s Bureau of Prisons to identify and remove federal criminals serving time as soon as possible.
ACCOUNTABILITY – CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS AND TAXES
Every Democratic and Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower has taken executive action on immigration. Consistent with this long history, DHS will expand the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to include more immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. DHS will also create a new deferred action program for people who are parents of U.S. Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) and have lived in the United States for five years or longer if they register, pass a background check and pay taxes.
The President is taking the following actions to hold accountable certain undocumented immigrants:
Creating a mechanism that requires certain undocumented immigrants to pass a backgroundcheck to make sure that they start paying their fair share in taxes. In order to promote public safety, DHS is establishing a new deferred action program for parents of U.S. Citizens or LPRs who are not enforcement priorities and have been in the country for more than 5 years. Individuals will have the opportunity to request temporary relief from deportation and work authorization for three years at a time if they come forward and register, submit biometric data, pass background checks, pay fees, and show that their child was born before the date of this announcement. By providing individuals with an opportunity to come out of the shadows and work legally, we will also help crack down on companies who hired undocumented workers, which undermines the wages of all workers, and ensure that individuals are playing by the rules and paying their fair share of taxes.
Expanding DACA to cover additional DREAMers. Under the initial DACA program, young people who had been in the U.S. for at least five years, came as children, and met specific education and public safety criteria were eligible for temporary relief from deportation so long as they were born after 1981 and entered the country before June 15, 2007. DHS is expanding DACA so that individuals who were brought to this country as children can apply if they entered before January 1, 2010, regardless of how old they are today. Going forward, DACA relief will also be granted for three years.
The President’s actions will also streamline legal immigration to boost our economy and promote naturalization by:
Providing portable work authorization for high-skilled workers awaiting LPR status and theirspouses. Under the current system, employees with approved LPR applications often wait many years for their visa to become available. DHS will make regulatory changes to allow these workers to move or change jobs more easily. DHS is finalizing new rules to give certain H-1B spouses employment authorization as long as the H-1B spouse has an approved LPR application.
Enhancing options for foreign entrepreneurs.DHS will expand immigration options for foreign entrepreneurs who meet certain criteria for creating jobs, attracting investment, and generating revenue in the U.S., to ensure that our system encourages them to grow our economy. The criteria will include income thresholds so that these individuals are not eligible for certain public benefits like welfare or tax credits under the Affordable Care Act.
Strengthening and extending on-the-job training for STEM graduates of U.S universities. In order to strengthen educational experiences of foreign students studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) at U.S. universities, DHS will propose changes to expand and extend the use of the existing Optional Practical Training (OPT) program and require stronger ties between OPT students and their colleges and universities following graduation.
Streamlining the process for foreign workers and their employers, while protecting Americanworkers. DHS will clarify its guidance on temporary L-1 visas for foreign workers who transfer from a company’s foreign office to its U.S. office. DOL will take regulatory action to modernize the labor market test that is required of employers that sponsor foreign workers for immigrant visas while ensuring that American workers are protected.
Reducing family separation for those waiting to obtain LPR status. Due to barriers in our system, U.S. citizens and LPRs are often separated for years from their immediate relatives, while they wait to obtain their LPR status. To reduce the time these individuals are separated, DHS will expand an existing program that allows certain individuals to apply for a provisional waiver for certain violations before departing the United States to attend visa interviews.
Ensuring that individuals with lawful status can travel to their countries of origin. DHS will clarify its guidance to provide greater assurance to individuals with a pending LPR application or certain temporary status permission to travel abroad with advance permission (“parole”).
Issuing a Presidential Memorandum on visa modernization. There are many ways in which our legal immigration system can be modernized to reduce government costs, eliminate redundant systems, reduce burdens on employers and families, and eliminate fraud. The President is issuing a Memorandum directing an interagency group to recommend areas for improvement.
Creating a White House Task Force on New Americans. The President is creating a White House Task Force on New Americans to create a federal strategy on immigrant integration.
Promoting Citizenship Public Awareness: DHS will launch a comprehensive citizenship awareness media campaign in the 10 states that are home to 75 percent of the overall LPR population. USCIS will also expand options for paying naturalization fees and explore additional measures to expand accessibility, including studying potential partial fee waiver for qualified individuals.
Ensuring U.S. Citizens Can Serve: To further our military’s needs and support recruitment efforts, DHS will expand an existing policy to provide relief to spouses and children of U.S. citizens seeking to enlist in the military, consistent with a request made by the Department of Defense.
Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens:
(1)Inadmissible at time of entry or of adjustment of status or violates status
Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable.
(B)Present in violation of law
Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 1201(i) of this title, is deportable.
(C)Violated nonimmigrant status or condition of entry
(i)Nonimmigrant status violators Any alien who was admitted as a nonimmigrant and who has failed to maintain the nonimmigrant status in which the alien was admitted or to which it was changed under section 1258 of this title, or to comply with the conditions of any such status, is deportable.
(ii)Violators of conditions of entry Any alien whom the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies has failed to comply with terms, conditions, and controls that were imposed under section 1182(g) of this title is deportable.
(D)Termination of conditional permanent residence
(i)In general Any alien with permanent resident status on a conditional basis under section 1186a of this title (relating to conditional permanent resident status for certain alien spouses and sons and daughters) or under section 1186b of this title (relating to conditional permanent resident status for certain alien entrepreneurs, spouses, and children) who has had such status terminated under such respective section is deportable.
(ii)Exception Clause (i) shall not apply in the cases described in section 1186a(c)(4) of this title (relating to certain hardship waivers).
(i)In general Any alien who (prior to the date of entry, at the time of any entry, or within 5 years of the date of any entry) knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law is deportable.
(ii)Special rule in the case of family reunification Clause (i) shall not apply in the case of alien who is an eligible immigrant (as defined in section 301(b)(1) of the Immigration Act of 1990), was physically present in the United States on May 5, 1988, and is seeking admission as an immediate relative or under section 1153(a)(2) of this title (including under section 112 of the Immigration Act of 1990) or benefits under section 301(a) of the Immigration Act of 1990 if the alien, before May 5, 1988, has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided only the alien’s spouse, parent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United States in violation of law.
(iii)Waiver authorized The Attorney General may, in his discretion for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest, waive application of clause (i) in the case of any alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided only an individual who at the time of the offense was the alien’s spouse, parent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United States in violation of law.
(F)Repealed. Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, § 671(d)(1)(C),Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–723
An alien shall be considered to be deportable as having procured a visa or other documentation by fraud (within the meaning of section 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) of this title) and to be in the United States in violation of this chapter (within the meaning of subparagraph (B)) if—
(i)the alien obtains any admission into the United States with an immigrant visa or other documentation procured on the basis of a marriage entered into less than 2 years prior to such admission of the alien and which, within 2 years subsequent to any admission of the alien in the United States, shall be judicially annulled or terminated, unless the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such marriage was not contracted for the purpose of evading any provisions of the immigration laws, or
(ii)it appears to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the alien has failed or refused to fulfill the alien’s marital agreement which in the opinion of the Attorney General was made for the purpose of procuring the alien’s admission as an immigrant.
(H)Waiver authorized for certain misrepresentations
The provisions of this paragraph relating to the removal of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were inadmissible at the time of admission as aliens described in section 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) of this title, whether willful or innocent, may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, be waived for any alien (other than an alien described in paragraph (4)(D)) who—
(I)is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; and
(II)was in possession of an immigrant visa or equivalent document and was otherwise admissible to the United States at the time of such admission except for those grounds of inadmissibility specified under paragraphs (5)(A) and (7)(A) of section 1182(a) of this title which were a direct result of that fraud or misrepresentation.
(ii)is a VAWA self-petitioner.
A waiver of removal for fraud or misrepresentation granted under this subparagraph shall also operate to waive removal based on the grounds of inadmissibility directly resulting from such fraud or misrepresentation.
(i)Crimes of moral turpitude Any alien who—
(I)is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years (or 10 years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident status under section 1255(j) of this title) after the date of admission, and
(II)is convicted of a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed,
(ii)Multiple criminal convictions Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, regardless of whether confined therefor and regardless of whether the convictions were in a single trial, is deportable.
(iii)Aggravated felony Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.
(iv)High speed flight Any alien who is convicted of a violation of section 758 of title 18 (relating to high speed flight from an immigration checkpoint) is deportable.
(v)Failure to register as a sex offender Any alien who is convicted under section 2250 of title 18 is deportable.
(vi)Waiver authorized Clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) shall not apply in the case of an alien with respect to a criminal conviction if the alien subsequent to the criminal conviction has been granted a full and unconditional pardon by the President of the United States or by the Governor of any of the several States.
(i)Conviction Any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable.
(ii)Drug abusers and addicts Any alien who is, or at any time after admission has been, a drug abuser or addict is deportable.
(C)Certain firearm offenses
Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted under any law of purchasing, selling, offering for sale, exchanging, using, owning, possessing, or carrying, or of attempting or conspiring to purchase, sell, offer for sale, exchange, use, own, possess, or carry, any weapon, part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive device (as defined in section 921(a) of title 18) in violation of any law is deportable.
Any alien who at any time has been convicted (the judgment on such conviction becoming final) of, or has been so convicted of a conspiracy or attempt to violate—
(i)any offense under chapter 37 (relating to espionage), chapter 105 (relating to sabotage), or chapter 115 (relating to treason and sedition) of title 18 for which a term of imprisonment of five or more years may be imposed;
(ii)any offense under section 871 or 960 of title 18;
(iii)a violation of any provision of the Military Selective Service Act (50 App. U.S.C. 451 et seq.) or the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 App. U.S.C. 1 et seq.); or
(iv)a violation of section 1185 or 1328 of this title,
(E)Crimes of domestic violence, stalking, or violation of protection order, crimes against children and
(i)Domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of a crime of domestic violence, a crime of stalking, or a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment is deportable. For purposes of this clause, the term “crime of domestic violence” means any crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18) against a person committed by a current or former spouse of the person, by an individual with whom the person shares a child in common, by an individual who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the person as a spouse, by an individual similarly situated to a spouse of the person under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction where the offense occurs, or by any other individual against a person who is protected from that individual’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the United States or any State, Indian tribal government, or unit of local government.
(ii)Violators of protection orders Any alien who at any time after admission is enjoined under a protection order issued by a court and whom the court determines has engaged in conduct that violates the portion of a protection order that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury to the person or persons for whom the protection order was issued is deportable. For purposes of this clause, the term “protection order” means any injunction issued for the purpose of preventing violent or threatening acts of domestic violence, including temporary or final orders issued by civil or criminal courts (other than support or child custody orders or provisions) whether obtained by filing an independent action or as a pendente lite order in another proceeding.
Any alien described in section 1182(a)(2)(H) of this title is deportable.
(3)Failure to register and falsification of documents
(A)Change of address
An alien who has failed to comply with the provisions of section 1305 of this title is deportable, unless the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.
(B)Failure to register or falsification of documents
Any alien who at any time has been convicted—
(i)under section 1306(c) of this title or under section 36(c) of the Alien Registration Act, 1940,
(ii)of a violation of, or an attempt or a conspiracy to violate, any provision of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.), or
(iii)of a violation of, or an attempt or a conspiracy to violate, section 1546 of title 18 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other entry documents),
(i)In general An alien who is the subject of a final order for violation of section 1324c of this title is deportable.
(ii)Waiver authorized The Attorney General may waive clause (i) in the case of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if no previous civil money penalty was imposed against the alien under section1324c of this title and the offense was incurred solely to assist, aid, or support the alien’s spouse or child (and no other individual). No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Attorney General to grant or deny a waiver under this clause.
(D)Falsely claiming citizenship
(i)In general Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any Federal or State law is deportable.
(ii)Exception In the case of an alien making a representation described in clause (i), if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of making such representation that he or she was a citizen, the alien shall not be considered to be deportable under any provision of this subsection based on such representation.
(4)Security and related grounds
Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after admission engages in—
(i)any activity to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
(ii)any other criminal activity which endangers public safety or national security, or
(iii)any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,
Any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable.
(i)In general An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.
(ii)Exceptions The exceptions described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 1182(a)(3)(C) of this title shall apply to deportability under clause (i) in the same manner as they apply to inadmissibility under section1182(a)(3)(C)(i) of this title.
(D)Participated in Nazi persecution, genocide, or the commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing
Any alien described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 1182(a)(3)(E) of this title is deportable.
(E)Participated in the commission of severe violations of religious freedom
Any alien described in section 1182(a)(2)(G) of this title is deportable.
(F)Recruitment or use of child soldiers
Any alien who has engaged in the recruitment or use of child soldiers in violation of section 2442 of title 18is deportable.
Any alien who, within five years after the date of entry, has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable.
Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is deportable.
In the case of an alien who voted in a Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum) in violation of a lawful restriction of voting to citizens, if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of such violation that he or she was a citizen, the alien shall not be considered to be deportable under any provision of this subsection based on such violation.
(7)Waiver for victims of domestic violence
The Attorney General is not limited by the criminal court record and may waive the application of paragraph (2)(E)(i) (with respect to crimes of domestic violence and crimes of stalking) and (ii) in the case of an alien who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty and who is not and was not the primary perpetrator of violence in the relationship—
(II)the alien was found to have violated a protection order intended to protect the alien; or
(III)the alien committed, was arrested for, was convicted of, or pled guilty to committing a crime—
(aa)that did not result in serious bodily injury; and
(bb)where there was a connection between the crime and the alien’s having been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.
(B)Credible evidence considered
In acting on applications under this paragraph, the Attorney General shall consider any credible evidence relevant to the application. The determination of what evidence is credible and the weight to be given that evidence shall be within the sole discretion of the Attorney General.
(b)Deportation of certain nonimmigrants
An alien, admitted as a nonimmigrant under the provisions of either section 1101(a)(15)(A)(i) or 1101(a)(15)(G)(i) of this title, and who fails to maintain a status under either of those provisions, shall not be required to depart from the United States without the approval of the Secretary of State, unless such alien is subject to deportation under paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of this section.
(c)Waiver of grounds for deportation
Paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(B), (1)(C), (1)(D), and (3)(A) of subsection (a) of this section (other than so much of paragraph (1) as relates to a ground of inadmissibility described in paragraph (2) or (3) of section 1182(a) of this title) shall not apply to a special immigrant described in section 1101(a)(27)(J) of this title based upon circumstances that existed before the date the alien was provided such special immigrant status.
(1)If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that an application for nonimmigrant status under subparagraph (T) or (U) of section 1101(a)(15) of this title filed for an alien in the United States sets forth a prima facie case for approval, the Secretary may grant the alien an administrative stay of a final order of removal under section 1231(c)(2) of this title until—
(A)the application for nonimmigrant status under such subparagraph (T) or (U) is approved; or
(B)there is a final administrative denial of the application for such nonimmigrant status after the exhaustion of administrative appeals.
(2)The denial of a request for an administrative stay of removal under this subsection shall not preclude the alien from applying for a stay of removal, deferred action, or a continuance or abeyance of removal proceedings under any other provision of the immigration laws of the United States.
(3)During any period in which the administrative stay of removal is in effect, the alien shall not be removed.
(4)Nothing in this subsection may be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General to grant a stay of removal or deportation in any case not described in this subsection.
Lynch’s first legal job was as a litigation associate for Cahill Gordon & Reindel. She joined the Eastern District as a drug and violent-crime prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s office in 1990. From 1994 to 1998, she served as the chief of the Long Island office and worked on several political corruption cases involving the government of Brookhaven, New York. From 1998 to 1999, she was the chief assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District and headed the Brooklyn office. In 1999, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. During her term as U.S. Attorney, Lynch oversaw prosecution of New York City police officers in the Abner Louima case.
In 2001, Lynch left the U.S. Attorney’s office to become a partner at Hogan & Hartson (later Hogan Lovells). She remained there until January 20, 2010, when President Barack Obama nominated Lynch to again serve as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. From 2003 to 2005, she was a member of the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Following the July 2014 death of Eric Garner, an unarmed man who died of a heart attack after resisting arrest and being held in a department-prohibited chokehold by a New York City police officer, Lynch agreed to meet with Garner’s family to discuss possible federal prosecution of the officer believed to be responsible in his death.
On November 8, 2014, President Barack Obama nominated Lynch for the position of U.S. Attorney General, succeeding Eric Holder, who had previously announced his resignation pending confirmation of his replacement. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, she would be the first African-American woman; the second African-American, after Holder; and the second woman, after Janet Reno; to hold this office.
Lynch and her husband, Stephen Hargrove, married in 2007. In her personal life she uses her married name, Loretta Lynch Hargrove. Her husband has two children from a previous marriage.
Story 1: Historic Progressive Politicians and Media Snow Job — Man-Made Computer Model Consensus Weather Forecast Busted — Never Mind — Dallas Hits 75 Degrees — Blame It On Global Warming — Give Me A Break — It Is Called Winter, Stupid — Both Weather and Climates Change — Videos
Gilda Radner Miss Emily Litella
The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies
ManBearPig, Climategate and Watermelons: A conversation with author James Delingpole
The World Weather Forecast
National Weather Service apologizes for blizzard forecast miss
Brenda Lee – I’m Sorry
I’m sorry, so sorry
That I was such a fool
I didn’t know
Love could be so cruel
Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-yesYou tell me mistakes
Are part of being young
But that don’t right
The wrong that’s been done(I’m sorry) I’m sorry
(So sorry) So sorry
Please accept my apology
But love is blind
And I was too blind toseeOh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-yesYou tell me mistakes
Are part of being young
But that don’t right
The wrong that’s been done
Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-yesI’m sorry, so sorry
Please accept my apology
But love was blind
And I was too blind to see(Sorry)
Winter Storm Juno How US reported blizzard
New York snow: Winter Storm Juno downgraded as ‘one of the largest snowstorms
Winter Storm JUNO 2015 : Blizzard for Historic New York City – RAW VIDEO Compilation
New York blizzard: Winter snow storm ‘Juno’ hits US East Coast, in pictures
A huge snowstorm has slammed into northeastern US, shutting down public transport, cancelling thousands of flights and leaving roads and streets deserted as snow blanketed an area that’s home to tens of millions of people. Authorities ordered drivers off the streets in New York and other cities like Boston in the face of a storm that forecasters warned could reach historic proportions, dumping up to three feet (up to a metre) of snow in some areas
Winter storm looms with record level snow threat; 7,700 flights canceled
Seven states on the Northeast are in watch mode as a potentially record-setting storm is churning up the coast, threatening to dump up to 3 feet of snow in parts and paralyze the region from Philadelphia to Maine.
More than 7,700 flights for Monday and Tuesday have been canceled as of Monday evening, with Boston’s Logan Airport and Providence’s T.F. Green Airport closed outright. Delays and the knock-on effects of stranded planes and lost connections will start hitting the entire nation’s air-travel system Tuesday.
Winter Storm Juno: Blizzard Warnings for New York City, Boston, Parts of 7 States; Potentially Historic Northeast Snowstorm Ahead
Millions of people in the Northeast are bracing for Winter Storm Juno, which threatens to become a major snowstorm Monday through Wednesday with the potential for blizzard conditions and more than 2 feet of snow.
The high confidence in forecast wind and snowfall led the National Weather Service to issue blizzard warnings well in advance of the storm. As of late Sunday evening, those warnings were posted from the New Jersey shore all the way to Downeast Maine, including the cities of New York City, Boston, Providence, Hartford and Portland. The warnings were scheduled to go into full force as early as noon Monday along the Jersey Shore. The aforementioned stretch of Northeast coast will be fully under blizzard warnings by sunrise Tuesday, unless some are downgraded before then. Most of the warnings are set to run through late Tuesday night.
Winter Storm Juno: A Pummeling for the History Books
The East Coast already looks like a snow globe thanks to winter storm Juno, but the worst is yet to come.
NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio said at a press conference Sunday, “This could be the biggest snowstorm in the history of this city.” The National Weather Service (NWS) and Weather Channel meteorologist Chris Dolce have both said the impending storm is “potentially historic.” So, what does historic mean, and how strong is this “potentially”? It depends on your definition, but this storm could be one for the record books, and not just in the highest-3 point-shooting-percentage-in-the-third-quarter-with-two-bench-players-on-the-court-on-a-Tuesday type of statistic.
Based on a new experimental forecast from the NWS, as of Monday morning there is an 80 percent chance that NYC will receive at least 12” of snow. Since record keeping in Central Park began in 1869, there have been 35 events exceeding a foot of snow, so 12″ wouldn’t be a big record. But there is a 62 percent chance for at least 18” of snow, and there have only been 11 events reaching that marker. Despite the seeming endlessness of last year’s winter, only one event (on February 13th and 14th) made the 12”+ snow event list for New York City. New York has only seen snowfall totals above two feet twice, first in December 1947 and more recently in February 2006.
To be recorded in official weather history, what matters most for NYC is the official snowfall in Central Park. This is where the longest period of record is for the city, so it’s what is used for most of the statistics on weather events. While the NWS is calling for 20-30″ in most areas around NYC, local bands of snow will likely cause several more inches in some places. Scientists have difficulty predicting where these bands will occur, but whether such a band forms over Central Park could be the difference between a nuisance-maker and a history-making nuisance.
Blizzard 2015 New York City, Brooklyn, Historic Northeast Blizzard
CNN’s Anderson Cooper looks at some of the biggest nor’easters to hit the East Coast.
Tens of millions of people in the Northeast hunkered down on Monday for a historic blizzard that was expected to drop more than 2 feet of snow, whipped around by winds approaching hurricane..
Blizzard 2015 Airports Begin to Close as Historic Northeast Blizzard NearsBLIZZARD ’15: THE LATEST Nearly 7000 flights have been cancelled. Amtrak has suspended Tuesday service between New.
Tens of millions of people in the Northeast hunkered down on Monday for a historic blizzard that was expected to drop more than 2 feet of snow, whipped around by winds approaching hurricane.
Meteorology 101 – UniversalClass Online Course
Jamie Cullum – What A Difference A Day Made
Dinah Washington ‘Difference-complete TV segment
Dinah Washington singing here with the Louis Jordan Band. This is the complete TV Show segment with Dinah singing ‘What A Difference A Day Made’ and ‘Making Whopee’. Louis and Ronald Reagan make the announcements and I love the way Louis calls him ‘Ronnie’! The show was dated March 8th 1960.
Gilda Radner – LIVE FROM NEW YORK!
Storm Fails To Live Up To Predictions In Some Areas As National Weather Service Meteorologist Apologizes
A howling blizzard with wind gusts over 70 mph heaped snow on Boston along with other stretches of lower New England and Long Island on Tuesday but failed to live up to the hype in Philadelphia and New York City, where buses and subways started rolling again in the morning.
Gary Szatkowski, meteorologist-in-charge at the National Weather Service in Mt. Holly, New Jersey, apologized on Twitter for the snow totals being cut back.
“My deepest apologies to many key decision makers and so many members of the general public,” Szatkowski tweeted. “You made a lot of tough decisions expecting us to get it right, and we didn’t. Once again, I’m sorry.”
Jim Bunker at the agency’s Mount Holly office said forecasters will take a closer look at how they handled the storm and “see what we can do better next time.”
In New England, the storm that arrived Monday evening was a bitter, paralyzing blast, while in the New York metro area, it was a bust that left forecasters apologizing and politicians defending their near-total shutdown on travel. Some residents grumbled, but others sounded a better-safe-than-sorry note and even expressed sympathy for the weatherman.
At least 2 feet of snow was expected in most of Massachusetts, potentially making it one of the top snowstorms of all time. The National Weather Service said a 78 mph gust was reported on Nantucket, and a 72 mph one on Martha’s Vineyard.
“It felt like sand hitting you in the face,” Bob Paglia said after walking his dog four times overnight in Whitman, a small town about 20 miles south of Boston.
Maureen Keller, who works at Gurney’s, an oceanfront resort in Montauk, New York, on the tip of Long Island, said: “It feels like a hurricane with snow.”
As of midmorning, the Boston area had 1½ feet of snow, while the far eastern tip of Long Island had more than 2 feet. Snowplows around New England struggled to keep up.
“At 4 o’clock this morning, it was the worst I’ve ever seen it,” said Larry Messier, a snowplow operator in Columbia, Connecticut. “You could plow, and then five minutes later you’d have to plow again.”
In Boston, police drove several dozen doctors and nurses to work at hospitals. Snow blanketed Boston Common, and drifts piled up against historic Faneuil Hall, where Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty stoked the fires of rebellion. Adjacent Quincy Market, usually bustling with tourists, was populated only by a few city workers clearing snow from the cobblestones.
As the storm pushed into the Northeast on Monday, the region came to a near standstill, alarmed by forecasters’ dire predictions. More than 7,700 flights were canceled, and schools, businesses and government offices closed.
But as the storm pushed northward, it tracked farther east than forecasters had been expecting, and conditions improved quickly in its wake. By midmorning Tuesday, New Jersey and New York City lifted driving bans, and subways and trains started rolling again, with a return to a full schedule expected Wednesday.
While Philadelphia, New York and New Jersey had braced for a foot or two of snow from what forecasters warned could be a storm of potentially historic proportions, they got far less than that. New York City received about 8 inches, Philadelphia a mere inch or so. New Jersey got up to 8 inches.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie defended his statewide ban on travel as “absolutely the right decision to make” in light of the dire forecast.
And New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who drew criticism last fall after suggesting meteorologists hadn’t foreseen the severity of an epic snowstorm in Buffalo, said this time: “Weather forecasters do the best they can, and we respond based to the best information that we have.”
In New York City, Susanne Payot, a cabaret singer whose rehearsal Tuesday was canceled, said the meager snowfall left her bemused: “This is nothing. I don’t understand why the whole city shut down because of this.”
Brandon Bhajan, a security guard at a New York City building, said he didn’t think officials had overreacted.
“I think it’s like the situation with Ebola … if you over-cover, people are ready and prepared, rather than not giving it the attention it needs,” he said
National Weather Service to evaluate work after missed call
A National Weather Service official says the agency will evaluate its storm modeling after a storm that was predicted to dump a foot or more of snow on many parts of New Jersey and the Philadelphia region delivered far less than that.
“You made a lot of tough decisions expecting us to get it right, and we didn’t. Once again, I’m sorry,” said meteorologist Gary Szatkowski of the NWS.
Jim Bunker, who leads the weather service’s observing program in the Mount Holly office, says the storm tracked a bit to the east of what forecasting models predicted.
Parts of Long Island and New England are getting slammed. But many parts of New Jersey received less than 4 inches.
Bunker says the agency will evaluate what happened to see how it can do better in the future.
Blame De Blasio and Cuomo and Christie for the Blizzard Snow Job
As politicians rushed to out-serious each other, New Yorkers were whipped into a fear frenzy.
Every modern event has a hashtag and this morning, as New York City takes stock of the #snowmageddon2015 that wasn’t, it’s turning to #snowperbole.
On Monday, as Governor Cuomo, Governor Christie, and Mayor de Blasio rushed to out-serious each other, New Yorkers were whipped into a fear frenzy. Supermarket shelves were stripped bare, photos of Whole Foods depleted of kale circulated, and people stocked up for what would likely be days (maybe weeks!) indoors.
Even as we were doing it, we acknowledged it didn’t make much sense. After all, we’re in New York City. Bodegas never close. Delivery guys on bicycles have been a constant through all previous winter storms. All New Yorkers have their stories. That time we ordered Chinese Food during the snowstorm of 1994. Swimming on Brighton Beach during Hurricane Gloria. Buying Poptarts at the corner bodega during Sandy. Driving from Manhattan to Brooklyn and back again during the blackout of 2003. Yes, those are all mine.
BLIZZARD 2015: HOW NEW YORKERS AND NEW ENGLANDERS SHARED PHOTOS
As we waited for the storm deemed “historic,” the only real history was made when the subway shut down for the first time ever in preparation for snow. The real insult came when it was reported later that the trains were indeed still running, empty, as trains needed to keep moving to clear the tracks. Citibike was shut down. Cars were banned from the roads and anyone who didn’t take heed risked being fined.
These are all symptoms of our infantilizing “do something!” culture. Everyone understands the pressure politicians feel to be seen as proactive. But this time they went way too far in the name of protecting us. It’s one thing to warn drivers that conditions are dangerous and that they go out at their own risk. It’s another to shut down all roads in the city that allegedly never sleeps.
The 11 p.m. curfew resulted in lost wages for delivery people who count on larger-than-usual tips during inclement weather. Why couldn’t they make their own decisions about working during the snow? Not everyone makes a salary the way our mayor and governor do. Many workers count on their hourly wage, and their tips, to make their rent each month.
The storm was a dud, but even if had been as severe as predicted, bringing a city like New York to a preemptive standstill makes little sense. The people who keep New York humming take the subway after 11pm and can decide for themselves whether to keep their businesses open. Preparedness doesn’t have to mean panic.
Story 1: Historic Winter Blizzard Snow Storm Named Juno Hits Northeast — What is New? — Progressive Global Warming Alarmists Panicking! — Shrinking Balls — So What? — Memory — The Coming Ice Age — Videos
NYC braces for “historic” snowstorm
Massive blizzard hits the United States’ East Coast on Monday
Potentially crippling snowstorm begins to hit Northeast
Snow Emergency In New York City
NYC mayor: Snowstorm could be worst ever | Northeast Braces for ‘Catastrophic,’ ‘Historic’ Storm
NEW YORK BLIZZARD 2015 – Drone Footage Biggest Snow storm Hit NYC [RAW FOOTAGE]
Weather History: The Great Blizzard of 1888
Patriots Press Conference Cold Open – Saturday Night Live
Grumpy Old Men Having a Heat Wave
grumpy old men fence stand off / the great Ice war.
Dean Martin – Baby It’s Cold Outside
The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies
Man Made Climate Change in 7 Minutes
Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case
MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY 4 /14- Intelligence Squared U.S.
Co-Founder of The Weather Channel: GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE HOAX
Professor Bob Carter torpedoes the “scientific consensus” on the climate HOAX
Professor Bob Carter on Global Warming Science
Global Warming or a New Ice Age: Documentary Film
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.
Concerns about nuclear winter arose in the early 1980s from several reports. Similar speculations have appeared over effects due to catastrophes such as asteroid impacts and massive volcanic eruptions. A prediction that massive oil well fires in Kuwait would cause significant effects on climate was quite incorrect.
The idea of a global cooling as the result of global warming was already proposed in the 1990s. In 2003, the Office of Net Assessment at the United States Department of Defense was commissioned to produce a study on the likely and potential effects of a modern climate change, especially of a shutdown of thermohaline circulation. The study, conducted under ONA head Andrew Marshall, modelled its prospective climate change on the 8.2 kiloyear event, precisely because it was the middle alternative between the Younger Dryas and the Little Ice Age. The study caused controversy in the media when it was made public in 2004. However, scientists acknowledge that “abrupt climate change initiated by Greenland ice sheet melting is not a realistic scenario for the 21st century”.
Currently, the concern that cooler temperatures would continue, and perhaps at a faster rate, has been observed to be incorrect by the IPCC. More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown that the cooling concerns of 1975 have not been borne out.
As for the prospects of the end of the current interglacial (again, valid only in the absence of human perturbations): it isn’t true that interglacials have previously only lasted about 10,000 years; and Milankovitch-type calculations indicate that the present interglacial would probably continue for tens of thousands of years naturally. Other estimates (Loutre and Berger, based on orbital calculations) put the unperturbed length of the present interglacial at 50,000 years. Berger (EGU 2005 presentation) believes that the present CO2 perturbation will last long enough to suppress the next glacial cycle entirely.
As the NAS report indicates, scientific knowledge regarding climate change was more uncertain than it is today. At the time that Rasool and Schneider wrote their 1971 paper, climatologists had not yet recognized the significance of greenhouse gases other than water vapor and carbon dioxide, such as methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons. Early in that decade, carbon dioxide was the only widely studied human-influenced greenhouse gas. The attention drawn to atmospheric gases in the 1970s stimulated many discoveries in future decades. As the temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by 1979
The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie
Milankovitch Cycles Precession and Obliquity
How Milankovicth cycles can theoretically change Earth’s current orbit and result in cycles of glaciation and warmer periods.
ManBearPig, Climategate and Watermelons: A conversation with author James Delingpole
James Delingpole is a bestselling British author and blogger who helped expose the Climategate scandal back in 2009. Reason.tv caught up with Delingpole in Los Angeles recently to learn more about his entertaining and provocative new book Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. In other words, it’s green on the outside and red on the inside. At the end of the day, according to Delingpole, the “watermelons” of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.
George Carlin on Global Warming
Rush Limbaugh Podcast January 26 2015 Full Podcast
RUSH: We all here at the EIB Network are experiencing a huge void in all of our hearts here today because of a death, one of our staff members, the very first staff member to join me 27 years ago in New York. Christopher Carson, “Kit,” my trusted chief of staff, aide-de-camp, passed away today at 8 a.m. at his home in New Jersey after what really was a four-year battle, really valiant, never-seen-anything-like-it battle with essentially brain cancer.
Barbra Streisand – HD STEREO – Memory – CC for lyrics
Not a sound from the pavement
Has the moon lost her memory
She is smiling alone
In the lamplight
The withered leaves collect at my feet
And the wind begins to moan
Memory, all alone in the moonlight
I can dream of the old days
Life was beautiful then
I remember the time I knew what happiness was
Let the memory live again
Every street lamp seems to beat
A fatalistic warning
Someone mutters and the street lamp sputters
Soon it will be morning
I must wait for the sunrise
I must think of a new life and
I mustn’t give in
When the dawn comes
Tonight will be a memory too
And a new day will begin
Burnt out ends of smoky days
The stale court smell of morning
A street lamp dies
Another night is over
Another day is dawning
It is so easy to leave me
All alone with the memory
Of my days in the sun
If you’ll touch me,
You’ll understand what happiness is
Look, a new day has begun…
Cuomo On Blizzard 2015: Subways To Shut Down At 11 P.M., Travel Ban On Local, State Roads
De Blasio Warns: Non-Essential Drivers Caught On Streets Could Face Arrest, Stiff Fines
As a potentially historic blizzard swept through the Tri-State Area on Monday night, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that the entire New York City subway system and other Metropolitan Transportation Authority transportation would shut down at 11 p.m.
In addition, local, state and city roads would be shut down to all but emergency vehicles.
New estimates indicate that wind speeds will gust up to 70 mph, and thus, the state decided to shut down all MTA and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey facilities.
“Getting the subways and the railroad cars in a safe position is key, so that when the weather does leave, we’re in a position for the system to start back up,” Cuomo said.
The shutdown of the system began rolling into effect at around 5 p.m., and was to be completed by 11 p.m.
“A lot of people think of the subways as being completely underground. In fact, a huge proportion of it, probably about 40 percent, of the subway is above ground and is prone to getting icing and snow,” MTA Spokesman Aaron Donovan told WCBS 880.
“We’re going to be spending the whole night monitoring the conditions throughout our service area, monitoring the area. It really depends on what we see the conditions are but we can’t guarantee there will be service tomorrow morning,” he added.
Travel will also be restricted on all roads – whether interstate, state, county, city or town – in 13 counties from Ulster and Sullivan in the northern suburbs to New York City and Long Island, Cuomo said. Only emergency vehicles would be allowed on the roads, and those caught not complying would face penalties, he said.
“This is a serious situation,” Cuomo said. “If you violate this state order, it’s a possible misdemeanor, with fines up to $300, and that will go into effect at 11 o’clock also,” Cuomo said.
A blizzard warning is in effect for the metropolitan area through midnight Wednesday morning. CBS2’s Lonnie Quinn expects snow to fall at a rate of 2 to 4 inches an hour between late Monday night and midday Tuesday, with winds gusting 40 to 60 mph.
The storm could bury some communities in 4 or more feet of snow. Coastal flooding and erosion is also a major threat.
One forecasting model anticipates a grand total of 34.4 inches of snow falling in New York City. More modest models anticipate 17.1 inches.
Northeast Residents Preparing For ‘Crippling’ Blizzard That Could Dump Up To 2 Feet Of Snow Over 250-Mile Stretch
The Philadelphia-to-Boston corridor of more than 35 million people began shutting down and bundling up Monday against a potentially history-making storm that could unload a paralyzing 1 to 3 feet of snow.
More than 5,000 flights in and out of the Northeast were canceled, and many of them may not take off again until Wednesday. Schools and businesses let out early. And cities mobilized snowplows and salt spreaders to deal with a dangerously windy blast that could instantly make up for what has been a largely snow-free winter in the urban Northeast.
Snow was already falling during the morning commute in several cities, including Philadelphia and New York, with Boston up next in the afternoon. Forecasters said the brunt of the storm would hit Monday evening and into Tuesday.
The Weather Channel reports that 28 million people are under blizzard warnings and an additional 11 million are under winter storm warnings.
All too aware that big snowstorms can make or break politicians, governors and mayors moved quickly to declare emergencies and order the shutdown of highways, streets and mass transit systems to prevent travelers from getting stranded and to enable plows and emergency vehicles to get through.
“You cannot underestimate this storm. It is not a regular storm,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio warned in ordering city streets closed to all but emergency vehicles beginning at 11 p.m. “What you are going to see in a few hours is something that hits very hard and very fast.”
Boston is expected to get 2 to 3 feet, New York 1½ to 2 feet, and Philadelphia more than a foot. The National Weather Service issued a blizzard warning for a 250-mile swath of the region, meaning heavy, blowing snow and potential whiteout conditions.
In Hartford, Connecticut, Frank Kurzatkowski stopped for gas and said he also filled several five-gallon buckets of water at his home in case the power went out and his well pump failed.
“I’ve got gas cans filled for my snowblowers,” he said. “I have four-wheel-drive.”
Supermarkets and hardware stores did a brisk trade as light snow fell in New Jersey.
Nicole Coelho, 29, a nanny from Lyndhurst, New Jersey, was preparing to pick up her charges early from school and stocking up on macaroni and cheese, frozen pizzas and milk at a supermarket. She also was ready in case of a power outage.
“I’m going to make sure to charge up my cellphone, and I have a good book I haven’t gotten around to reading yet,” she said.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie issued a state of emergency and asked commuters to stay off the roads.
“From the reports I’ve seen, you’ve all been to the supermarket. I don’t know why the rush on bread, but what the heck,” Christie joked.
About half of all flights out of New York’s LaGuardia Airport were called off Monday, and about 60 percent of flights heading into the airport were scratched. Boston’s Logan Airport said there would be no flights after 7 p.m. Monday.
The storm posed one of the biggest tests yet for Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, who has been in office for less than three weeks. He warned residents to prepare for power outages and roads that are “very hard, if not impossible, to navigate.”
Wind gusts of 75 mph or more were possible for coastal areas of Massachusetts, and up to 50 mph farther inland, forecasters said.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo declared a state of emergency and urged commuters to stay home on Monday, warning that roads could be closed before the evening rush hour, even major highways such as the New York Thruway and the Long Island Expressway.
Similarly, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy ordered a travel ban on his state’s highways, while officials in other states asked residents to avoid going anywhere unless it is necessary.
The Washington area was expecting only a couple of inches of snow. But the House postponed votes scheduled for Monday night because lawmakers were having difficulty flying back to the nation’s capital after the weekend.
On Wall Street, the New York Stock Exchange said it will stay open and operate normally on Monday and Tuesday.
A tractor-trailer jackknifed, and a beer truck crashed into the median on Interstate 81 near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, during the morning commute. No injuries were reported.
Some schools were planning to close early or not open at all Monday in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.
The Super Bowl-bound New England Patriots expected to be out of town by the time the storm arrived in Boston. The team planned to leave Logan Airport at 12:30 p.m. Monday for Phoenix, where the temperature will reach the high 60s.
This has been an “active” winter, climatologists say, but snowfall totals haven’t set a record for Long Island yet.
Here are monthly snowfall totals recorded by Brookhaven National Laboratory since the winter of 1947-48. The chart shows amount of snowfall for December through February. For 2014, the February total is as of Feb. 20.
A History of New York City Snowstorms (1970 – 2014)
Since 1970 New York has experienced fifteen snowstorms of one-foot or more (more than half of them in the past ten winters). An additional seven storms have dumped between 10 and 12 inches. The summary of storms that follows lists not only these big ones but others in the five to ten-inch range, since even these can be debilitating, especially in Manhattan (these smaller storms often produced greater accumulations in the suburbs). The storms, 56 in total, are arranged by calendar date. If you’d like to see a list arranged by each winter, double click here.
Jan. 1, 1971 – Old Man Winter waited until New Year’s Eve revelers returned home before dumping the largest snowfall of the winter. 6.4″ of snow accumulated between 4AM-4PM, with much of it falling in the storm’s initial three hours. This was the century’s largest New Year’s Day snowfall (and second all-time after a nine-inch snowstorm way back in 1869).
Jan. 2-3, 2014 – A sprawling winter storm moved into the area during the evening with snow beginning in NYC at 6:30 and continuing into the overnight hours. In total 6.4″ fell. Besides snow and gusty winds, there was Arctic cold to contend with as the mercury fell from the upper 20s when the snow started to 18 degrees by midnight and down to 11 by daybreak.
Jan. 4, 1988 – The City woke up to 5.8″ of snow that fell overnight. It was the winter’s biggest snowfall. Four days later a steady light snow fell throughout the day, accumulating an additional5.4″.
Jan. 7-8, 1996 – A crippling blizzard began Sunday afternoon and continued until early afternoon thenext day. It immobilized an area from West Virgina through Massachusetts and dumped 20.2″ on Central Park, the third greatest snow total in NYC history (13.6″ fell on Jan. 7 and 6.6″ on Jan. 8, records for the dates). At one point five inches of snow fell between 5-7PM. Wind gusts of 40-50 mph whipped the snow into three and four-foot drifts on many side streets.
Areas west of NYC reported considerably more snow than Central Park: 32″ in Staten Island; 28″ in Newark; 26″ in Allentown, PA; and 31″ in Philadelphia. Temperatures were also very cold with a high/low of just 22/12 on the 7th and 23/16 on the 8th.
Looking west on Greenwich Ave.
Jan. 11, 1991 – 5.7″ of snow accumulated during the afternoon and evening before changing to rain overnight as temps rose into the mid-30s (close to one inch of rain fell). Despite the changeover it was a record amount of snow for the date.
Jan. 11-12, 2011 – Snow began the night of the 11th (three inches fell by midnight) and was over by daybreak, totaling 9.1″. The 6.1″ that fell during the morning of the 12th was a record for the date.
Photo was napped shortly after midnight in Greenwich Village on 7th Ave. South near Sheridan Square.
Jan. 13, 1982 – A late afternoon/nighttime snowstorm that dumped 5.8″ on NYC was the same winter system that affected Washington, DC earlier in the afternoon when an Air Florida jet crashedinto the Potomac River minutes after takeoff, killing 78. The following day an additional 3.5″ of snow fell from an “Alberta clipper” that moved through in the evening hours.
Jan. 20, 1978 – Snow that began yesterday evening fell at a rate of an inch per hour between 2-7AM, and by 2PM 13.6″ had fallen. This was NYC’s biggest snowfall since the “Lindsay snowstorm” of February 1969. (However, in less than three weeks this storm would be largely forgotten, overshadowed by the great blizzard of February 1978.)
Jan. 20, 2000 – The largest snowfall of the winter, 5.5″, caught forecasters by surprise. The accumulation was held down when sleet and freezing rain mixed in. The same storm buried Raleigh, NC with 20.3″ of snow, the largest snowfall in that city’s history.
Jan. 21, 2001 – A quick-moving snowstorm dumped six inches of snow on Sunday morning, a record for the date. The flakes stopped flying by 8AM.
Jan. 21, 2014 – A wind-driven snow began at around 9AM and fell throughout the day and evening, with 11″ on the ground by midnight – a record for the date (an additional 0.5″ fell after midnight). Besides wind and snow, the storm was made more fierce by Arctic cold, with temperatures in the teens all day. The storm extended from DC to Boston. Its timing couldn’t have been worse for commuters, who had to contend with getting home in the teeth of the storm. Accumulations were even greater on Long Island.
Jan. 22, 1987 – A daytime snowstorm dumped 8.1″ of snow on the City while much of Long Island picked up a foot or more. (Virginia, DC, Maryland, Delaware and South Jersey bore the brunt of the storm.) The City’s accumulation was held down when sleet mixed in. This was NYC’s biggest snowfall in four years and would be the biggest until the March 1993 Superstorm.
Jan. 22-23, 2005 – A weekend snowstorm began early Saturday afternoon and by daybreak Sunday13.8″ had fallen (8.5″ fell on Saturday, 5.3″ on Sunday). After a very cold a.m. low of 9 degrees on the 22nd, the high of 25 was reached at midnight. This was the biggest January snowstorm since the blizzard of 1996.
Jan. 26-27, 2011 – Snow began falling heavily by late afternoon and blizzard conditions developed after nightfall. By midnight close to 13 inches had fallen, and by the time the snow wound down at daybreak on the 27th 19 inches had piled up. (This was just one month after the post-Christmas blizzard socked NYC with 20 inches.) Shortly after midnight I ventured outside to snap photos and found traffic mostly at a standstill on the streets of the West Village, with taxis on Seventh Ave. pointed every which way. The quiet usually associated with a snowfall was broken by the sound of spinning tires. This furious spinning produced an odor of burning rubber that pervaded the air.
The 6.7″ of snow that fell before daybreak on the 27th was a record for the date and brought the month’s snow total to 36.0″ – the most ever in January. (Just one year earlier 36.9″ of snow fell in February.) In the past thirty-three days, beginning with the Christmas blizzard, an incredible 52″ of snow fell. And for the first time NYC had two snowstorms of 19″ or more in one winter.
Jan. 27-28, 2004 – Snow moved in after 8PM and by the time it ended early the next morning 10.3″inches of powdery snow had accumulated (six inches of it fell tonight). January 27 was the fifth day in a row in which high temperatures were colder than 25 degrees.
Feb. 3, 1996 – 7.5″ of snow, which was over by daybreak, fell in advance of the coldest air of the winter. This was the the third snowfall of six+ inches this winter (with one more of that magnitude two weeks later). I had flown down to Key West for vacation the day before thinking I had escaped, but a few days later the Arctic cold penetrated all the way down to the Keys and it felt like more like fall.
Feb. 3, 2014 – One day after the high temperature was 56 degrees, eight inches of heavy, wet snow fell during the morning and afternoon as the temperature hovered around the freezing mark. Today’s snowfall was a record for the date and was the third accumulation of six inches or more this winter (just the eighth winter since 1960 in which this has occurred). Snow began falling less than nine hours after the Super Bowl, played in northern NJ, had ended.
Feb. 4, 1995 – Only 11.8″ of snow fell during the winter of 1994-95 and almost all of it fell today as10.8″ of heavy, wet snow fell furiously on a Saturday morning (close to three inches fell between 6-7AM) before changing over to rain at around 9AM. Then the coldest air of the winter moved in overnight.
Feb. 6-7, 1978 – Less than three weeks after 13.6″ of snow buried the City, an even bigger snowstorm struck. Snow began before dawn and by midnight 15.5″ had fallen in Central Park. An additional 2.2″ fell the next morning. Snow, drifted by wind gusts of 30-40 mph, fell heaviest between 7PM-1AM, when it fell at a rate of more than an inch per hour.
The storm’s 17.7″ accumulation made this NYC’s biggest snowstorm since December 26-27, 1947, when 26.4″ buried the City (later broken in February 2006). This was the first winter in 17 years to have two snowstorms of one foot or more. Snow would be on the ground in Central Park for the next five weeks.
Feb. 8-9, 2013 – An intense winter storm developed off the Delmarva peninsula during the day and by nightfall near-blizzard conditions were common in NYC and points north and east. An icy mix of light snow and wind blown sleet began at daybreak and fell throughout the day, becoming steadier and heavier after dark. By midnight, 6.3″ had fallen in Central Park; by the time the snow ended shortly before daybreak on Feb. 9, 11.4″ had piled up. This was the City’s 15th biggest snowfall since 1970. However, this amount was manageable compared to Suffolk County and New England, where accumulations of two to three feet were common.
Feb. 8-9, 1994 – After January saw a large amount of sleet and freezing rain NYC finally got a storm that brought snow as nine inches fell. It came down especially heavy between 9AM-1PM, but the snow predicted for the rest of the day didn’t materialize as it came down as sleet. Snow resumed after midnight and an additional 1.8″ fell.
Feb. 10, 2010 – Four days after a monster snowstorm stopped short of NYC’s doorstep, another one made its presence known today and dumped 10″ of heavy, wet snow. Because the daytime temperature was just above freezing (the high was 34) it prevented main streets from getting much in the way of accumulation.
Feb. 11, 1983 – A monster snowstorm moved in Friday afternoon and continued until the wee hours of the morning on Saturday. The storm really cranked up between 8-11PM when six inches of snow came down. When the last flakes had fallen 17.6″ had piled up. It was the biggest snowfall in NYC since 1978 (when 17.7″ fell on Feb. 5-7) and at the time was the sixth biggest snowstorm in NYC history (it’s now ranked twelfth).
Feb. 11, 1994 – 12.8″ of snow fell during a snowstorm that began shortly before daybreak and continued into Friday evening. This was just three days after a nine-inch snowstorm and was NYC’s biggest snowfall since 1983, which happened to occur on this date as well.
A nearly deserted 5th Ave. near St. Patrick’s Cathedral on the afternoon of Feb. 11, 1994.
Feb. 11-12, 2006 – New York was the bulls-eye for a record-setting amount of snow over the weekend. Beginning the night of the 11th as light snow (2.8″ fell by midnight), it turned heavier after midnight and between 4-10AM Sunday morning the snow was falling at a rate of two inches/hour (between 8:25-9:25 nearly four inches piled up).
When it was over 26.9″ had fallen, a half-inch more than the City’s previous record on Dec. 26-27, 1947. Snowfall totals outside of NYC were also impressive but not nearly as much as what Central Park picked up. This storm accounted for two-thirds of the winter’s total snowfall. Only 1.3″ of snow fell for the rest of the winter.
Snow-buried benches in Washington Square Park.
Feb. 12, 1975 – A quick-moving winter storm delivered the biggest snowfall of the winter, with 7.8″piling up between 8AM-3PM. Snow fell at the rate of one-inch per hour for five consecutive hours. This was the biggest snowfall of the eight winters from 1970 thru 1977.
Feb. 13-14, 2014 – An intense storm system moved up the East Coast and brought with it high winds, heavy snow in the morning (9.5″), rain in the evening (accompanied by thunder & lightning) and more snow after midnight (3.0″). This was the winter’s fourth snowfall of 6 inches or more, something that’s happened in just one other winter since 1950 (in 1958). This snowstorm brought the season’s snowfall to 54.0″, moving it up to 7th on the all-time list.
Feb. 16-17, 1996 – Snow fell throughout the day and by the time it came to and end shortly after 1AM 10.7″ had piled up (9.9″ of it fell on the 16th; the rest after midnight), the third snowstorm this winter of eight-inches or more. It was a fluffy snow with just 0.52″ of water content.
Feb. 16-17, 2003 – After beginning Sunday night (when 3.5″ fell), the brunt of the Presidents’ Day blizzard kicked in and dumped an additional 16.3″ on Monday, making this NYC’s fourth biggest snowfall on record. (Since then three snowstorms during the winters of 2005/06, 2009/10 and 2010/11 have surpassed it.) Ferocious winds gusting over 40 mph created snow drifts of 3-5 feet. And although Monday’s temperatures were quite cold (high/low of 26/14), they were a warm-up from Sunday’s frigid 15/8.
Feb. 19, 1972– A nor’easter packing 40 mph winds brought the biggest snowfall of the winter, 5.7″, but it was part of a sloppy mix of snow, sleet and rain so there was never more than two to three inches of snow on the ground at any given time. Temperatures didn’t go below freezing until evening. In total 1.64″ of precipitation was measured.
Feb. 19, 1979 – A fast-moving snowstorm buried the City on Presidents’ Day with 12.7″ of snow between 4:00AM-noon. However, the storm’s deepest snows, of 18-24″, fell in Virginia, DC, Maryland and Delaware. The storm came in the midst of a deep freeze that saw fifteen of the past nineteen days with high temperatures at the freezing mark or below, averaging 14 degrees below average. Including today’s snowfall, 20.1″ of snow fell during these nineteen days. Another President’s Day storm with even more snow would strike NYC 24 years later.
February 22, 2008 – Six inches of slushy snow fell during the morning into the early afternoon, the biggest snowfall of the winter – and the largest accumulation since NYC’s all-time snowstorm two Februarys ago. Today’s snow was also a record for the date.
February 24, 2005 – Snow moved in during the evening and by 3AM six inches had accumulated.
February 25-26 2010 – After beginning in the morning as steady rain a changeover to snow occurred in the afternoon and developed into NYC’s third major snowstorm of the winter. 9.4″ fell by midnight and an additional 11.5″ of snow fell on the 26th, ending in the early afternoon, bringing the storm’s two-day total to 20.9″. This was the fourth largest accumulation in NYC history – and just 0.1″ shy of the total from the great blizzard of March 1888.
With this storm February’s total snowfall reached 36.9″, the most ever measured in any month. (And this was without getting any snow from the big Mid-Atlantic blizzard of Feb. 4-5 that stopped at our doorstep.) This turned out to be the last snowfall of the winter.
February 26, 1991 – A surprise snowstorm dumped 8.9″ of wet snow, the biggest accumulation in eight years (since 17.6″ buried the City in on Feb. 11-12, 1983 ). Because the temperature was just above freezing for much of the day the snow didn’t accumulate much on the streets or sidewalks. This was the winter’s third snowfall of five inches or more.
February 28-March 1, 2005 – March came in a like a lion camouflaged as a lamb by all of the snow covering him. 7.7″ of snow fell from a storm that began the afternoon of Feb. 28 and ended at daybreak on March 1. It wasn’t a cold storm as the temperature rose into the low 40s after the snow ended. This was the third accumulation of five inches+ in the past ten days. Combined, 18.7″ fell from these snow events.
March 1-2, 2009 – 8.3″ of snow fell from a quick-moving storm that began the night of the 1st (when 1.8″ fell), making this the largest accumulation of the winter (and the most to fall in three years). 12-15″ fell out on Long Island.
March 5, 1981 – A heavy, wet snowfall of 8.6″ was the biggest snow of the winter and a record amount for the date. It also has the distinction of being the second largest accumulation in the month of March in the 1970-2014 period.
March 5-6, 2001 – Call this the storm that couldn’t. The City was put on high alert after 15-24″ of snow was predicted during the weekend. City schools and some businesses were closed on Monday and we waited, but it was in vain as the storm never lived up to its billing. The storm strengthened later and further north than predicted. New York received 3.5″ as a consolation prize. However, Long Island received significant accumulations.
March 8-9, 1984 – Snow moved in the night of the 8th and by daybreak 6.9″ had accumulated (5.1″ of it on the 9th), making this the biggest snow of the winter. It was a powdery snow with just 0.38″ of water content.
March 13, 1993 – The great March Superstorm (also called “Storm of the Century”) paralyzed the Eastern third of the nation and dumped 10.6″ of snow on NYC. The heavy snow changed to sleet and rain later in the afternoon, a Saturday, reducing the predicted snow total by about six inches. The sound of the sleet lashing against my windows, propelled by 40-60 mph wind gusts, was deafening. All told, 2.37″ of precipitation fell. To read a first-person account of the storm double click here.
Plowing down 7th Ave. South, approaching Bleecker St.
March 16, 2007 – An all-day onslaught of sleet and snow dumped 5.5″ of icy precipitation, the biggest snow of the winter. This storm somewhat resembled last month’s severe sleet storm onValentine’s Day, but this one had considerably more snow. The total amount of precipitation was 2.07″, a record for the date. This was the last snowfall of the winter, a winter in which just 12.4″ fell, quite a contrast from the previous four winters, all of which had at least forty inches of snow.
March 19, 1992 – The biggest snowfall of the winter occurred today, a sloppy 6.2″. This tripled the winter’s relatively snowless snow total to 9.4″. Just two degrees separated the day’s high and low (33/31).
April 6, 1982 – Just 1.1″ of snow had fallen in February and March when a blizzard dumped 9.6″ of snow on the City today, less than a week before Easter. More than a foot fell in New Jersey and Westchester County. The storm started as rain in the pre-dawn hours and changed over to snow mid-morning and lasted through late afternoon. By midnight the temperature had fallen to a record low 21 degrees. This was the most snow to fall so late in the season since ten inches fell on April 3, 1915. To read a first-person account click here.
April 7, 2003 – Four inches of snow fell, the biggest April snowfall in twenty-one years. This brought the season’s snowfall close to 50 inches.
October 29, 2011 – An intense nor’easter lashed the area with high winds and outrageously early snowfall. The 2.9″ of heavy, wet snow that was measured in Central Park was the most ever to fall in October (5.2″ fell in Newark and over a foot buried northern NJ, parts of NY state, Connecticut, western Massachusetts and New Hampshire).
Since the temperature never fell below freezing there was no serious accumulation on City streets (except for slush). However, the day’s low of 33, which occurred in the early afternoon, was the coldest reading in October since 1988. Total liquid precipitation from the storm was two inches. Remarkably, twelve weeks would pass before the next measurable snow (4.3″ on Jan. 21, 2012).
November 7, 2012 – Just nine days after the region was raked by hurricane Sandy’s high winds and record storm surge, a nor’easter lashed the area. It moved far enough off the coast to pull cold air into the area, changing the rain to snow by 2PM. This was just the fifth snowfall of one-inch+ to occur in November in the past 40 years – and the first since 1997. 4.7″ fell (4.3″ of it today), making it the earliest 4-inch snowfall on record (the previous record was in 1989 when 4.7″ fell on Nov. 22-23). It was also the largest accumulation of the calendar year, topping the 4.3″ that fell on Jan 21.
November 22-23, 1989 – A Thanksgiving Day snowstorm along the Mid-Atlantic (which began late the previous night) dumped 4.7″ of snow on NYC; however, it was over by the time the Macy’sparade began. Although this wasn’t officially a wintertime snowfall it was larger than any accumulation during the 1989/90 season. The day’s high topped out at just 31, twenty degrees below average.
December 5, 2002 – One year after record warmth occurred on this date (high of 70 degrees) six inches of snow fell, the biggest snow so early in the season since 1938.
December 5-6, 2003 – Snow fell during the afternoon and lasted into early evening, accumulatingeight inches (more than was predicted). This snowfall came one year to the date after six inches fell. It was part of a two-stage storm that brought more significant snowfall the following day. That day, a Saturday, the City was under a blizzard warning for much of the day and an additional six inches of snow fell. The high temperature rose to only 28 after a morning low of 23. Just a week into the month and this was already the snowiest December since 1960, when 19.8 inches fell.
Waverly Place, on the North side of Washington Square Park.
December 9, 2005 – 9.3″ of snow fell in the past six days. The 5.8″ of wet snow that fell on this Friday morning was a record for the date.
December 19-20, 1995 – Beginning today and continuing into tomorrow NYC experienced its biggest December snowstorm since 1960 as 7.7″ fell (10-12″ had been predicted). Less than 10 miles away, La Guardia Airport was buried by 15″.
December 19-20, 2009 – This first snow of the winter was a snowstorm that moved in late in the afternoon on a Saturday. By the time it ended at around 4AM on Sunday 10.9″ had fallen. Long Island received considerably more with parts of Suffolk County buried by more than 20″.
December 26-27, 2010 – Snow began falling during the afternoon and by evening blizzard conditions had developed. When the flakes stopped flying the following morning 20 inches had piled up. The City was largely unprepared for a storm of such intensity (and mayor Bloomberg was on vacation at an undisclosed location).
This was the sixth biggest snowstorm in NYC’s history (and it shared its dates with New York’s landmark 1947 snowstorm that dumped 26.4″). It was the second 20-inch accumulation of the year – the only year to have two storms of such magnitude (the first was on Feb. 25-26 when 20.9″ fell). The blizzard’s bulls-eye was west of NYC where most towns in New Jersey were buried by more than two feet of snow (e.g., Newark measured 24.2 inches).
December 28, 1990 – Today’s 7.2″ snowfall (which began late last night) was the largest accumulation in nearly four years (since January 1987) and the biggest December snowfall since 1960. Snow ended shortly before 11AM.
December 30, 2000 – A foot of snow fell as the year was winding down. It was a record for the date, the most snow since the blizzard of January ’96 and the biggest December snowstorm since 1960. This Saturday snowstorm was a fast mover, lasting just eight hours (5AM-1PM).
Is Mitt Romney becoming a climate change crusader?
During his 2012 presidential bid, Romney was dismissive about Democratic efforts to combat the effects of climate change, and he pushed for an expanded commitment to fossil fuels. But in a speech in California on Monday, Romney, who is considering a third run for president in 2016, signaled a shift on the issue. According to the Palm Springs Desert Sun, the former Massachusetts governor “said that while he hopes the skeptics about global climate change are right, he believes it’s real and a major problem,” and he lamented that Washington had done “almost nothing” to stop it.
For Romney, this is his second about-face on climate change. In his 2010 book, No Apology, he called human activity a “contributing factor” to melting ice caps. And in the run-up to the 2012 Republican primaries, Romney backed a reduction in emissions to curb anthropogenic global warming. “I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer,” he told the Manchester Union-Leader in 2011. “And…I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past, but I believe that we contribute to that. So I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.”
But as the 2012 campaign evolved, Romney reversed course. He said that heopposed curbing carbon dioxide emissions. He declared, “We don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.” Instead, he pledged to increase coal production and ramp up oil exploration. At the Republican convention in Tampa, he turned climate change into a punch line. “I’m not in this race to slow the rise of the oceans or to heal the planet,” he remarked during his nomination speech—a jab at President Obama’s 2008 campaign promise that his victory would mark “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
A Romney spokesman says the former governor’s remarks on Monday are”consistent with what he said on the trail in 2012 about climate change.” Perhaps. It just depends which 2012 comments he’s referring to.
‘I never once doubted his instincts. I had total trust’
An emotional Rush Limbaugh remembers his chief of staff, Kit Carson, who died of brain cancer Monday, Jan. 26. 2015.
Christopher “Kit” Carson, the chief of staff for America’s top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh, died Monday morning in New Jersey after a four-year battle with brain cancer. He was 58.
“It’s such a void because he loved this job,” Limbaugh said Monday with a heavy heart as he paid tribute for nearly an hour to Carson, who was the first staffer he hired for his show 27 years ago. “He’s just going to be really missed … Even though we knew this was coming for a while … It’s a huge void in everybody’s heart.”
“You knew you were talking to somebody who actively loved being alive and had active respect for being alive,” he continued. “It’s the one bad thing about getting old, because your friends start [getting] old, too.”
“He was such an integral part of this program every day, even though you never heard him. …
“He was irreplaceable and it’s just a very, very, sad, unfortunate thing that happens to everybody, and the way he dealt with it is a lesson in and of itself.”
Kit Carson (courtesy RushLimbaugh.com)
Carson was originally from the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, area, and his initial career goals led toward Hollywood, Limbaugh explained.
“He wanted to be an actor, and he ended up enjoying what he did here so much, he became 100-percent totally devoted to the program.”
Limbaugh said Kit “became the resident expert on me and the program. He became its number-one champion, defender, evangelist.”
Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!
As far as his presence around the broadcast office, “Kit Carson honest to God never ever had a bad word to say about anybody,” Limbaugh said. “He did not engage in backstabbing.”
Rush recalled the first time Carson showed up for work, saying, “He walked in the room wearing those cargo shorts and the short white socks and the black Keds. He didn’t care if you were laughing at him. It didn’t matter. And everyone laughed.”
Limbaugh noted he had complete trust in Carson.
“He is the one guy … I never once doubted his instincts. I had total trust. … The only thing he cared about was doing whatever to make sure I looked the best I could be.
“He had this innocent exuberance about everybody. … You really had to earn his distrust.”
Limbaugh even admitted, “I stole his opinions sometimes. Sometimes I gave him credit.”
Listen to Rush Limbaugh remembering Kit Carson:
“He did not allow me to be pessimistic or negative. He didn’t allow me to get down in the dumps about anything. And if he sensed that I was, he would do anything that he could that enabled me to get the best out of myself.”
Limbaugh recalled the happiest he ever saw Carson was when Kit first met his future spouse.
“When he met his soon-to-be wife Theresa, he was like a kid in a candy store forever.”
Once married, “He could not believe that he actually convinced this woman to marry him,” Limbaugh said. “It was exactly like a fairy tale.”
“I grabbed his hand and held his hand and said, ‘There’s nobody who can replace you. There’s no one who can do what you do.’”
Limbaugh says Carson had a head that was full of red hair, and even after undergoing cancer treatments, he still retained much of it.
“He loved to go walking down 6th Avenue and Japanese tourists thought he was Conan O’Brien,” Limbaugh said.
Carson had many friends among the news media.
WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah was among them.
“I’ve known Kit Carson for more than 20 years,” Farah said. “I worked with him on the development of a daily column for Rush at the Sacramento Union. I worked with him again during my collaboration with Rush on his mega-bestselling ‘See I Told You So.’ And, over the years, he has always been a gracious help to me – a real gentleman. He will be greatly missed by all – especially Rush, whom he served as chief of staff for so long.”
James Grisham, producer of Sean Hannity’s radio program, told WND: “Kit Carson always took time from a very busy schedule to kid around with us or help if needed. He was a man of faith lived, never talked about much, the kind that I think matter most.”
Carson leaves behind his wife, Theresa, and two sons, Jack and Jesse.
Limbaugh says his own wife, Kathryn, has been spending time with Carson’s family in recent days.
“She thinks we ought to put a chair in [the Palm Beach, Florida, studio] and up in New York, called the Kit Chair, the honorary Kit Chair,” Limbaugh said. “It’s always gonna be there. That chair is always gonna be where he sat. So we’re gonna do that.” http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/rush-limbaughs-right-hand-man-dies/
New England Patriots Cialis Commercial Parody ‘Deflate gate’ NFL Investigating Patriots
‘Deflate-gate’: NFL Investigating Patriots
The NFL is investigating whether the New England Patriots deflated footballs that were used in their AFC championship game victory over the Indianapolis Colts. (Jan. 20)
Patriots’ QB Tom Brady Says He Didn’t Deflate the Footballs
CBS Evening News 22 January 2015
Former NFL QB Explains Deflated Footballs
The NFL is investigating whether the New England Patriots used under-inflated footballs in the AFC championship game. Former NFL quarterback Hugh Millen says the footballs give quarterbacks a better grip and faster throws. (Jan. 23)
SportsCenter | Science behind New England Patriots deflated footballs
The Declining Influence Of TV News
Ken Auletta: Writer Liberation and the Decline of Broadcast
Pew study finds Americans more polarized than ever
A major study by the Pew Research Center finds the increasing polarization in the U.S. is not just in our politics. American adults are less likely to compromise and often decide where to live, who to marry and who their friends should be based on what they already believe. Michael Dimock of the Pew Research Center and Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report join Gwen Ifill to assess the data.
Major TV Networks’ News Viewership Declining
Mainstream media blends the lines of news and entertainment
“Apparently” This Kid is Awesome, Steals the Show During Interview
It’s the Individual that’s finished.
Network (1976) (Trailer)
The NFL Doesn’t Want to Know How Deflate-gate Happened
By Andrew C. McCarthy
As Brendan’s post reports, at this afternoon’s press conference, Tom Brady flatly denied altering the footballs “in any way,” which I presume includes causing anyone else associated with the Patriots to alter them. Let me add a few points.
The major takeaway of the press conference is that, according to Brady, no one from the NFL has interviewed him. This is simply mind-boggling. Because of the way footballs are handled pregame, the quarterback would be the most essential source of information in the event irregularities occur. Brady is thus the first person the NFL should have spoken with if the league really wanted to get to the bottom of what happened.
One now has to be suspicious that the league would rather not know at this point. Why? Because we are just ten days from the Super Bowl and there is very strong evidence of cheating. If the league quickly learns who is responsible, it would have to suspend the cheater(s) from the big game or be mercilessly ridiculed for turning a blind eye. The NFL obviously does not want to suspend star players or coaches from its showcase event.
But now, the league will be mercilessly ridiculed anyway. There are very few people who handle the balls or might influence how they are handled between the time they are chosen and the time they are used in a game: the starting QB, the equipment manager, the ball boy(s), the referees, and the coaches. That means a competent investigation to get to the bottom of this growing controversy could be completed in a few hours – meaning, it should have been done by now. Plus, if you need to talk to the QB, you do it before he has to start ramping up his prep for the Super Bowl – meaning, between Monday and Wednesday of this week. You don’t wait until now, when he is turning his focus to the game.
If the NFL wanted to interview Tom Brady, it would have been done already. Football turns out to be a lot like politics: Officials avoid information because if they learn something bad has been done, they are expected to do something about it.
This is an extraordinarily foolish way to handle things. The NFL has run out of feet to shoot itself in this year, and this controversy is worse because it actually affects the integrity of the game. Tom Brady and Coach Bill Belichick claim they simply don’t know what happened, but almost everyone who knows football says that is impossible. Either way, because no explanation has been forthcoming from the Pats, there is a media feeding frenzy at the worst time: when over 5,000 international media figures are descending to cover the Super Bowl, which is as much a cultural phenomenon as a sporting event. Deflate-gate will now surely overwhelm coverage of the game, and the league’s incompetent (at best) handling of the investigation will invite endless reminders of its earlier black eyes this season.
A lot of this seems so unnecessary. Before we rehearse the really damaging facts, let’s cover one that is not well understood and that should have undercut the significance of the ball deflation.
Everyone agrees that, after the Colts raised concerns about the balls just before halftime, the balls were reexamined at halftime, and new balls were substituted for the under-inflated ones. That is, the second half was unquestionably played on the up and up . . . and in it the Patriots outscored the Colts 35-0 28-0. So whatever happened with the balls did not affect the outcome of the game – the right team made it to the Super Bowl.
Other than that, though, the story is bad. The refs examined the balls before the game – 12 from the Pats and 12 from the Colts – and found them to fit the specifications, weighing between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds [of air per square inch].
Right before halftime, a member of the Colts intercepted a Brady pass and noticed the ball was soft – something the Colts already had suspicions about based on (a) a prior game with the Pats in which they intercepted a couple of passes and detected under-inflated balls, and (b) similar suspicions about the Pats harbored by the Baltimore Ravens, who apparently shared those suspicions with the Colts after losing a tight playoff game to the Pats two weeks ago.
After the interception before halftime, the Colts’ sideline informed their general manager, who informed league officials. Based on the complaint, the refs re-examined all 24 balls at halftime. The Colts’ balls were all still within the specs, but 11 of the 12 Pats’ balls were under-inflated by up to two pounds per square inch – i.e., about 10.5 pounds. It was unseasonably mild for Foxboro, Mass., in January – about 51 degrees. Between that and the fact that the Colts’ footballs were unchanged, there seems to be no weather-related explanation for a drop in air pressure in the Pats’ footballs.
There are thus only two apparent possibilities, neither of which is good for the Pats: Either (a) the Pats supplied under-inflated balls and the refs did not competently examine them prior to the game; or (b) the Pats, who had control of their chosen footballs after the pregame examination by the refs, deflated the balls before or during the first-half.
Because the league has not done much of an investigation or released much information, we do not know how thorough the refs’ examination process is. I am also not in a position to say how noticeable the difference between 10.5 and 12.5 pounds is. The refs – football lifers – handle the balls on every play, and they obviously did not notice during the first-half. I saw Hall of Fame QB Dan Marino interviewed on Fox News earlier this week, and upon being presented with two footballs, one fully and one under-inflated, he indicated it was hard to tell the difference. But he also said, after squeezing and throwing them a few times, that the under-inflated one was somewhat easier to grip.
I still think the best case scenario for the Pats is that, based on years of experience, the equipment managers know Brady prefers a ball at the very bottom of the 12.5 to 13.5 pound range (as he said today at his press conference). It would not surprise me if, without there needing to be any discussion, the process is for equipment managers to bring Brady only balls that are at or slightly under 12.5 pounds. Those balls no doubt deflate a bit in the four or five days he breaks them in at practice, so by the time he selects a dozen for the game, they are likely to be under 12.5 pounds – perhaps markedly under, but maybe not enough that you could tell unless you examined very closely.
I’m sure Brady and the equipment manager do not measure the air pressure at that point; Brady just picks the ones he wants. Then, as he said at the press conference, he is done with the process and doesn’t deal with the balls again until game-time. That’s what allows him to say both that he doesn’t know what happened after he chose game balls and that he did not deflate those balls.
The equipment manager brings the balls to the refs for pregame inspection a couple of hours before game-time. So it would be important to know how thorough the refs’ inspection is. If the balls were not up to spec because of the Pats’ routine manner of handling them, and then the refs failed to do a careful enough examination to make sure they were up to spec, that could explain why they were under-inflated when checked at halftime. That is, it is not necessarily true that someone deflated them after the refs’ examination.
Of course, if the refs did do a competent pregame examination, then someone on the Pats has to have deflated the footballs.
One more interesting tidbit that could be relevant. Turns out that it is largely because of Tom Brady that the NFL changed its protocols in order to allow each team to supply game balls for its own use. It used to be that the home teams were responsible for supplying all the game balls. But nine years ago, Brady and Broncos star QB Peyton Manning successfully petitioned the competition committee to change the rules. The rationale was that every QB likes the ball to be broken in differently, and since there is some leeway in the rules about inflation (i.e., the 12.5 to 13.5 range), the league should accommodate the slightly different size and contour preferences of different QBs.
Personally, I would have thought the range allowing a pound of difference simply reflected that air pressure can change depending on climate conditions and how the ball is handled – just like it does with your car’s tires. I seriously doubt the rule was written with the thought that players on opposing teams would not be using the same ball. That would be inconceivable in, say, baseball, in which players for both teams pitch and hit balls that are exactly the same.
Tom Brady indicated at today’s press conference that he did not think the balls used made much difference – he did not, he said, notice any difference between the first-half balls that were under-inflated and the second-half balls that were inflated to league specifications. Maybe . . . but sounds remarkably blasé coming from a guy who previously pushed the league to change its rules so he could always have footballs that conformed to his unique preferences.
In many ways, 2013 and early 2014 brought a level of energy to the news industry not seen for a long time. Even as challenges of the past several years continue and new ones emerge, the activities this year have created a new sense of optimism – or perhaps hope – for the future of American journalism.
Digital players have exploded onto the news scene, bringing technological knowhow and new money and luring top talent. BuzzFeed, once scoffed at for content viewed as “click bait,” now has a news staff of 170, including top names like Pulitzer Prize-winner Mark Schoofs, and is the kind of place that ProPublica’s Paul Steiger says he would want to work at if he were young again. Mashable now has a news staff of 70 and enticed former New York Times assistant managing editor Jim Roberts to become its chief content officer. And in January of this year, Ezra Klein left the Washington Post for Vox media, which will become the new home for his explanatory journalism concept. Many of these companies are already successful digital brands – built around an innate understanding of technology – and are using revenues from other parts of the operation to get the news operations off the ground.
Other kinds of new revenue are flowing into news operations as well. A new breed of entrepreneurs – like Jeff Bezos, John Henry and Pierre Omidyar — are investing their own money in the industry, in some cases creating wholly new entities and in others looking to bring new life to long-standing ones. Among their best credentials – beyond deep pockets – is that they are tech industry insiders and news media outsiders. Philanthropic money has grown as well, in many cases focused on smaller outlets seeking to fill the gap in news coverage left by legacy cutbacks. As recently as March 2014, the Jerome L. Greene Foundation announced a $10 million grant to New York Public Radio to help build its digital capabilities, an expressed need among nonprofits.
The year also brought more evidence than ever that news is a part of the explosion of social media and mobile devices, and in a way that could offer opportunity to reach more people with news than ever before. Half of Facebook users get news there even though they did not go there looking for it. And the Facebook users who get news at the highest rates are 18-to-29-year-olds. The same is true for the growth area of online video. Half of those who watch some kind of online video watch news videos. Again, young people constitute the greatest portion of these viewers.
Accompanying this momentum is the question of what it adds up to within the full scope of news that consumers receive. Here the events of the last year get put in some perspective. Our first-ever accounting found roughly 5,000 full-time professional jobs at nearly 500 digital news outlets, most of which were created in the past half dozen years. But the vast majority of bodies producing original reporting still comes from the newspaper industry. But those newspaper jobs are far from secure. Full-time professional newsroom employment declined another 6.4% in 2012 with more losses expected for 2013. Gannett alone is estimated to have cut 400 newspaper jobs while the Tribune Co. announced 700 (not all of them in the newsroom).
The new money from philanthropists, venture capitalists and other individuals and non-media businesses, while promising, amounts to only a sliver of the money supporting professional journalism. Traditional advertising from print and television still accounts for more than half of the total revenue supporting news, even though print ad revenues are in rapid decline. While seeing some small gains in new revenue streams like digital subscriptions and conferences, total newspaper advertising revenue in 2013 was down 49% from 2003. (That 2013 number also includes some niche and non-daily publications.) Television ad revenue, while stable for now, faces an uncertain future as video becomes more accessible online. What’s more, most of the new revenue streams driving the momentum are not earned from the news product itself.
There were a number of other events over the last year for which the impact on citizens is mixed or unclear. Local television, which remains the primary place American adults turn to for news, saw its audience increase for the first time in five years. At the same time, though, there were fewer stations producing original news compared with 2012, primarily the result of television acquisitions that left fewer companies in control of more stations. At this point, fully a quarter of the 952 U.S. television stations that air newscasts do not produce their news programs. Additional stations have sharing arrangements where much of their content is produced outside their own newsroom. The impact on the consumer seems to vary from market to market, with some markets increasing potential reach by airing news on stations that never had it – even if that newscast is the same one that airs on another local station. In other markets the news has contracted, as news organizations have reduced staff or content production for cost efficiency.
In digital news, the overlap between public relations and news noted in last year’s State of the News Media report became even more pronounced. One of the greatest areas of revenue experimentation now involves website content that is paid for by commercial advertisers – but often written by journalists on staff – and placed on a news publishers’ page in a way that sometimes makes it indistinguishable from a news story. Following the lead of early adapters like The Atlantic and Mashable, native advertising, as it is called by the industry, caught on rapidly in 2013. The New York Times, The Washington Post and most recently The Wall Street Journal have now begun or announced plans to begin devoting staff to this kind of advertising, often as a part of a new “custom content division.” eMarketer predicts that native ads spending will reach $2.85 billion by 2014.
Many of these publishers initially expressed caution over such ads, with Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Gerard Baker even describing it as a “Faustian pact.” In the end, though, many publishers eventually came down with a conclusion similar to Baker’s, who said that he was “confident that our readers will appreciate what is sponsor-generated content and what is content from our global staff,” according to a statement released by The Journal. That may be the case, and it could also be the case that stories created for and paid for by advertisers do not bother consumers as long as they are a good read. At this point, though, there is little if any public data that speak to consumer response one way or the other.
And despite evidence of news consumption by Facebook users—half of whom report getting news across at least six topic areas—recent Pew Research data finds these consumers to have rather low levels of engagement with news sites. Another question looming over developments in social media is whether the self-selective process combined with algorithmic feeds are narrowing the kinds of information Americans are exposed to.
One of the biggest stories of the year, the NSA documents leaked by Edward Snowden, shined light on yet another area of challenge for journalism in the digital age: easy access to web-based content. It threatens the security of journalists’ communications and their ability to get sources to share information with them, the ultimate impact of which could be the stories that don’t get reported on and delivered to consumers.
A year ago, the State of the News Media report struck a somber note, citing evidence of continued declines in the mainstream media that were impacting both content and audience satisfaction. As indicated above and throughout this report, many of these issues still exist, some have deepened and new ones have emerged. Still, the level of new activity this past year is creating a perception that something important, perhaps even game-changing, is going on. If the developments in 2013 are at this point only a drop in the bucket, it feels like a heavier drop than most. The momentum behind them is real, if the full impact on citizens and our news system remains unclear.
This year’s Annual Report, our 11th edition, set out to examine these shifts—in revenue, in jobs, in technology, in content, in consumer behavior. It is structured a bit differently than in the past – to account for the widening of the industry, the growing influence of technology and new ways of sharing of our data. This year’s report includes four original research reports and two graphical presentations, along with key findings and a searchable database of all the statistics gathered in past years. From these reports, six major trends emerge:
1) Thirty of the largest digital-only news organizations account for about 3,000 jobs and one area of investment is global coverage. Vice Media has 35 overseas bureaus; The Huffington Post hopes to grow to 15 countries from 11 this year; BuzzFeed hired a foreign editor to oversee its expansion into places like Mumbai, Mexico City, Berlin and Tokyo. The two-year-old business-oriented Quartz has reporters in London, Bangkok and Hong Kong, and its editorial staff speaks 19 languages. This comes amid pullbacks in global coverage form mainstream media. The amount of airtime network evening newscasts devoted to overseas reporting in 2013 was less than half of what it was in the late 1980s. International reporters working for U.S. newspaper have declined 24% from 2003 to 2010. As the new digital native outlets continue to add staff, the country may be seeing the first real build-up of international reporting in decades – save for a few start- ups like Global Post.
2) So far, the impact of new money flowing into the industry may be more about fostering new ways of reporting and reaching audience than about building a new, sustainable revenue structure. The news industry in the U.S. brings in a little over $60 billion of revenue annually, according to estimates in our report. Advertising, at least for now, accounts for roughly two-thirds of this pie, most of which remains tied to legacy forms. Audience revenue accounts for about a quarter and is growing both in total dollars and in share. But this revenue may also be coming from a smaller—or at least flat—pool of contributors. New kinds of earned revenue streams like event hosting and web consulting account for about 7%, while investment from sources such as venture capital and philanthropy amount to only about 1% of the total. One part of the equation worth exploring is what kind of savings occurs at digital news startups free of the legacy infrastructure, but taking on the newer costs of technology development and maintenance.
3) Social and mobile developments are doing more than bringing consumers into the process – they are also changing the dynamics of the process itself. New survey data released here find that half (50%) of social network users share or repost news stories, images or videos while nearly as many (46%) discuss news issues or events on social network sites. And with broader mobile adoption, citizens are playing important eyewitness roles around news events such as the Boston bombing and the Ukrainian uprising. Roughly one-in-ten social network users have posted news videos they took themselves, according to the data. And 11% of all online news consumers have submitted their own content (including videos, photos, articles or opinion pieces) to news websites or blogs. Just as powerful, though, are the shifts in how news functions in these spaces. On social sites and even many of the new digital-only sites, news is mixed in with all other kinds of content – people bump into it when they are there doing other things. This bumping into means there may be opportunity for news to reach people who might otherwise have missed it, but less of that may be in the hands of news organizations. Only about a third of people who get news on Facebook follow a news organization or individual journalist. Instead, stories get shared from friends in their networks. And few Facebook visitors, according to a separate Pew Research study of traffic to top news sites, end up also coming to a site directly. For news providers, this means that a single digital strategy – both in terms of capturing audience and building a viable revenue base – will not be enough.
4) New ways of storytelling bring both promise and challenge. One area of expansion in 2013 was online news video. Ad revenue tied to digital videos over all (no firm calculates a figure specifically for news videos) grew 44% from 2012 to 2013 and is expected to continue to increase. For now, though, its scale is still small, accounting for just 10% of all digital ad revenue in the U.S. YouTube alone already accounts for 20% of these revenues and Facebook has now entered the digital video ad market and, based on its rapid growth in display ad revenue, is expected to quickly account for a significant portion of these dollars. In terms of audience appeal, one-third of U.S. adults watch online news videos, but that growth has slowed considerably. After a 27% increase from 2007 to 2009, the next four years saw just 9% growth. Again, large distributors of video content like YouTube and Facebook already account for a hefty portion of video watching on the web. Nonetheless, some news providers are making significant investments in digital video. The Huffington Post celebrated the one year anniversary of HuffPost Live, Texas Tribune held a successful Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for the purchase of equipment to stream live video coverage of the 2014 Texas governor’s race, and the multimedia company Vice in early 2014 launched a new multimedia portal just for news stories.
5) Local television, which reaches about nine in ten U.S. adults, experienced massive change in 2013, change that stayed under the radar of most. Nearly 300 full-power local TV stations changed hands in 2013 at a price of more than $8 billion. The number of stations sold was up 205% over 2012 and the value up 367%, with big owners getting even bigger. If all the pending sales go through, Sinclair Broadcasting alone will own or provide service to 167 stations in 77 markets, reaching almost 40% of the U.S. population. Sinclair’s CEO, David Smith, at the UBS conference in December 2013 expressed an interest in growing even more: “I’d like to have 80% of the country if I could get it. I’d like to have 90%.” Much of what is driving these purchases is the growth in fees that local stations are able to charge cable companies for re-airing their content – known by the industry as retransmissions fees. Both Meredith (which owns 13 stations) and Scripps (which owns 19) said they saw their retransmission revenues roughly triple in the last three years. In terms of programming, a clear result is more stations in the same market being operated jointly and sharing more content. As of early 2014, joint service agreements exist in almost half of the 210 local TV markets nationwide, up from 55 in 2011. And fewer stations are producing their own newscasts. The ultimate impact on the consumer is complicated to assess, but the economics benefit to the owner is indisputable.
6) Dramatic changes under way in the makeup of the American population will undoubtedly have an impact on news in the U.S, and in one of the fastest growing demographic groups – Hispanics – we are already seeing shifts. The Hispanic population in the U.S. has grown 50% from 2000 to 2012–to 53 million people. Most of that growth has come from births in the U.S. rather than the arrival of new immigrants, reversing a trend from previous decades. As a result, a growing share of the Hispanic population is American-born and a growing number speak English proficiently. In response to these trends, more general-market media companies—like ABC, NBC, Fox and The Huffington Post—have started Hispanic news operations. Since 2010, six national Hispanic outlets have been launched, all of which are either owned in full or in partnership by a general-market media company. Not all of them have been successes, however. Earlier this year, NBC Latino—a website-only outlet—closed, after only 16 months, and CNN Latino, which had both a web and on-air presence, was shut down just a year after its launch. At the same time, Fusion, a joint effort by ABC and Univision, initially described the channel as aimed at Hispanic millennials but later switched to aiming it at millennials more broadly—currently the largest and most diverse generational group in the U.S. As demographic shifts within the U.S. continue, so too will their impact on the news ecosystem.
In 2013, the cable news audience, by nearly all measures, declined. The combined median prime-time viewership of the three major news channels—CNN, Fox News and MSNBC—dropped 11% to about 3 million, the smallest it has been since 2007. The Nielsen Media Research data show that the biggest decline came at MSNBC, which lost nearly a quarter (24%) of its prime-time audience. CNN, under new management, ended its fourth year in third place, with a 13% decline in prime time. Fox, while down 6%, still drew more viewers (1.75 million) than its two competitors combined (619,500 at MSNBC and 543,000 at CNN).
The daytime audience for cable news was more stable, holding flat at about 2 million viewers across the three news channels. CNN (up 12%) and Fox (up 2%) actually experienced growth here. That was counterbalanced by more deep loses at MSNBC (down 15.5%).
After years in decline, local television news showed new signs of life in 2013. Viewership increased in every key time slot. Local morning news (5 to 7 a.m. Eastern Time or equivalent) gained 6.3%, early evening newscasts followed with a 3.3% increase and late night news programs were flat (up 0.1%). This follows declines every year across all time slots from 2008 to 2012, with the exception of a small uptick in 2011. The jump in viewership in the key timeslots was due largely to significant increases in the November sweeps period when morning news was up 12%, early evening grew by 8% and late night increased by 6%.
The 2013 picture was more mixed for Fox broadcast affiliates. Morning newscasts gained 9% more audience on average, continuing the steady growth of previous years. However, late-night viewership continued to decline, although the loss in 2013 was small, just 1.2%. Over the past six years, these programs have lost more than 25% of their viewers, while one of the worst performing traditional time slots, the 11 p.m. newscasts, have lost 17.3% since 2007.
Local news in nontraditional time slots are expanding their audience. The nontraditional early-morning news slots continued to grow. At 4:30 a.m., viewership increased 13% to 2.9 million. Viewership at 4 a.m. increased by 21% on average, to 257,000, following a 19% increase in 2012. Newscasts at midday and following the network news at 7 p.m. added viewers after having lost audience the year before. Midday newscasts saw a 5% increase of their audience and viewership also grew 2% for 7 p.m. newscasts. Though audiences in these time slots are growing, the programs attract far fewer viewers than some of the most popular hours for local TV. Late-night news programs, for instance, averaged 24.3 million viewers in 2013.
In the evening, an average of 22.6 million viewers tuned into one of the three commercial broadcast news programs on ABC, CBS or NBC, a 2.3% increase over the average viewership for 2012, according to Pew Research analysis of Nielsen Media Research data. The ABC World News increased 2.2% to 7.7 million viewers on average and CBS Evening News increased 6.5% to 6.5 million viewers. NBC Nightly News, the ratings leader, was the only evening news program to decrease, dipping 0.7% to 8.4 million viewers on average.
Morning news saw a 6.7% increase in average viewership compared with 2012, to 13.4 million. For years, NBC’s Today show led in viewership and ratings, but ABC’s Good Morning America took the throne in 2012 and grew its margin of victory in 2013. ABC’s Good Morning America increased 11% to 5.5 million viewers on average, CBS This Morning increased 17.9% to 3.2 million viewers and NBC’s Today show decreased 3.7% to 4.7 million.
Newspapers increased their total circulation by 3% daily and 1.6% Sunday, according to an analysis by the Newspaper Association of America’s John Murray. But that result is influenced by liberalized reporting rules by the Association for Audited Media and includes both paying visitors to digital platforms and distribution of Sunday insert packages to nonsubscribers.
Print now accounts for only 71.2% of daily circulation and 74.9% of Sunday, according to Murray. And Murray’s analysis of 15 of the largest newspapers shows that those papers now have just 54.9% of their total circulation in print.
According to the Alliance for Audited Media, sales of newsstand copies for news magazines, the measure most accepted by the industry, fell 2% on average, following years of declining numbers. In 2013, though, the decrease was smaller than the total industry decline in newsstand sales (10%). The Economist was the hardest hit, losing 16% of its newsstand sales, after a 17% decline in 2012. The Atlantic and The Week were also hit (down 12% and 7% respectively). The New Yorker enjoyed a 16% increase, one of the highest reported in past years. Time posted some significant gains too, up 6% from the year before. Since 2008, when Pew Research started tracking these figures, the news magazines have lost 43% of their single-copy sales on average.
Subscriptions were flat, as they have been in years past. But these are normally kept from declining through discounts or special offers.
Traditional radio continues to reach the vast majority of Americans 12 and older, 91% in 2013 (roughly unchanged from 2012), but online listening is where the growth is. According to Edison Media research, fully 33% of Americans reported listening to online radio “in the last week” in 2013, up from 29% in 2013. In addition, online radio listening in cars (long a stronghold of AM/FM radio) rose to 21%, from 17% in 2012.
Another form of nontraditional radio, podcasting, has largely leveled off. The number of Americans who have “ever” listened to an audio podcast was down slightly from 29% in 2012 to 27% in 2013.
The other main non-AM/FM audio platform, satellite radio, saw moderate growth in subscribers in 2013. By the end of 2013, Sirius XM had 25.6 million subscribers in the U.S., up from 23.9 million at year end 2012.
Circulation for the top 20 alternative weekly newspapers declined again in 2013, but at a slower pace than in previous years: 6% in 2013, compared to 8% in 2012.
The vast majority of Americans now get news in some digital format. In 2013, 82% of Americans said they got news on a desktop or laptop and 54% said they got news on a mobile device. Beyond that, 35% reported that they get news in this way “frequently” on their desktop or laptop, and 21% on a mobile device (cellphone or tablet).
While commercial digital native sites remain a relatively small part of the economics of the news industry, their digital audience figures compete with those of much larger legacy news organizations. In April, May, and June of 2013, for example The Huffington Post averaged 45 million unique monthly visitors, putting it second only to Yahoo among the top news sites. Buzzfeed.com also fared well with 17 million monthly unique visitors, putting it at roughly the same as The Washington Post with 19 million monthly unique visitors.
Audiences of noncommercial digital native news organizations vary widely and can be hard to determine because of syndication and partnership arrangements with other news outlets. On the national level, for example, ProPublica, an investigative journalism nonprofit site founded in 2007, had 544,799 unique visitors to its site in October 2012, according to a Knight Foundation report. While that is a 176% increase over October 2010, it probably misses a fair amount as the organization syndicates its content to various news organizations.
There are also regionally oriented outlets like the New England Center for Investigative Reporting with far fewer visitors per month: 2,362 unique visitors in October 2012, according to self-reported data in the Knight report. Still, that was up 87% from October 2010.
At the local level, MinnPost attracted 268,955 unique visitors in October 2012, according to the report, while The Lens, which focuses on New Orleans and Gulf Coast news, reported just 20,177 unique visitors in October 2012 (though again a huge increase – 375% – over October 2010). The variation in these data speaks to both the diversity in the scope of noncommercial digital start-ups as well as the degree to which collaboration and syndicated content may mean that site visits is not the best way to assess total audience.
The year 2013 was a relatively weak one for economic growth among the cable news outlets. Fox News was projected to increase its total revenue, according to research firm SNL Kagan, by 5% to $1.89 billion. CNN was projected to increase just 2% to $1.11 billion, and MSNBC was projected to decline by 2% to $475 million. Both CNN and MSNBC experienced advertising revenue losses year over year.
Revenue from license fees, which cable channels charge to providers in exchange for the right to carry their programming, continued to grow in 2013, according to projections, becoming a larger part of the revenue pie for the news channels. For CNN, license fee revenue now accounts for 64% of its total intake. For Fox, it is 58%. And for MSNBC, it makes up 51% of total revenue.
Local TV stations make the vast majority of their revenue from on-air advertising, which typically follows a cyclical pattern of increases in election years and decrease in non-election years. In 2013, total local TV ad revenue was expected to decline 2.5% from election-year 2012, according to BIA/Kelsey, amounting to $19.7 billion. But this is less of a decline than in 2011, when advertising revenues dropped by about 8% from the year before, and in 2009, when the decline was 22%.
To calculate ad revenue going just to news-producing stations (i.e. stations that include news programming,) we have to go back one year to 2012, the most recent year that BIA has final station-level data. For that year, news-producing stations took in $17.3 billion in total ad revenue, compared with $20.2 billion in the industry over all.
This year, Pew Research also estimated what portion of the $17.3 billion in ad revenues at these news-producing stations is connected to the news programming. Local TV news directors, in an annual survey by Bob Papper, attributed 48.6% of 2012 stations’ revenues to news. That would amount to $8.4 billion in all. Other sources of revenues for the local TV industry have been growing. Retransmission payments have been increasing rapidly in the past decade, according to data from the investment firm Veronis Suhler Stevenson. In 2011, the last year for which there were final data, retransmission revenues equaled almost $1.5 billion, more than 70 times higher than they had been in 2003 ($20 million). And VSS projects that revenue will more than double—to about $3.7 billion—by 2016. In 2013 alone, 21st Century Fox— created after the split-up of News Corp. — doubled its retransmission revenues. And Nexstar, which owns 108 local stations, reported a 66% increase in its retransmission fee revenues for the fourth quarter 2013, which now account for about 23% of its total revenues.
Digital revenues for the local TV market were forecast to grow 23% in 2013, following 17% growth the previous year, according to Borrell Associates. But, the typical local TV station makes only about 4% of its total revenue from online and mobile ads, according to Borrell Associates.
Newspapers (updated April 22, 2014)
The Newspaper Association of America has stopped compiling quarterly reports on advertising revenue. According to its annual numbers, which were released in April 2014, overall revenue for newspapers in 2013 was $37.6 billion, a decrease of 2.6% from 2012. Within that total, combined print and digital ad revenue decreased by 7%—to $20.7 billion. While daily and Sunday print ad revenue dropped 8.6%, digital advertising edged up by 1.5%. That is a slowdown from the 3.7% digital ad growth rate in 2012.
The news was better with circulation revenue which was up 3.7% in 2013, slightly lower than the growth rate in 2012, 4.6%. Many companies continue to add digital subscriptions and raise rates for a combination of print and digital access. The biggest paywall gains tend to come in the first year with revenues flattening in following years. Many companies are also building other revenue sources like digital marketing services for local businesses, contract printing or events and newsletters. Direct marketing revenue increased by 2.4% in 2013 while new and other revenue increased 5%, in 2013, according to the NAA, but both only constituted a fraction of the total revenue picture.
For a third year in a row, news magazines faced a difficult print advertising environment. Combined ad pages (considered a better measure than ad revenue) for the five magazines studied in this report were down 13% in 2013, following a decline of 12.5% in 2012, and about three times the rate of decline in 2011, according to the Publishers Information Bureau. Again, hardest hit was The Week, which suffered a 20% drop in ad pages. The Atlantic fell 17%, The Economist 16%, and Time about 11%, while The New Yorker managed to keep its ad pages losses in single digits (7%). For print magazines, the number of ad pages sold across the industry over all was down in 2013 (4.1%), after a steep decline in 2012 (8.2%).
According to Kantar Media, ad revenue for network television evening news programs increased 2% in the first three quarters of 2013 to $401 million. ABC’s World News decreased 3% to $130 million, the CBS Evening News saw an 11% increase to $116 million and NBC Nightly News remained steady at $155 million. Revenue for network television morning shows increased 7% in the first three quarters of 2013. At ABC’s Good Morning America revenues increased 12% to $260 million and CBS This Morning fell 2% to $108 million. At NBC’s Today show, revenue increased 6% to $504 million.
Total digital ad spending rose to $42.6 billion in 2013, a 15.7% increase over 2012. But the bigger news was that display made up almost as much of that total as search (which is not a source of revenue for news organizations.) In 2013 display ads accounted for about 42% of the total, or $17.7 billion, according to eMarketer, and are projected to outpace search by 2015.
While the ascent of display is a good thing for news organizations, the dominance of large tech companies remains an issue. In 2012 the top five display advertising companies made 47% of all display ad revenue on the web; in 2013 that proportion increased to 51%. And while Google had been on top, Facebook overtook the search giant in 2013, taking in 17.9% of all display ad revenue to Google’s 16.9%.
Much of the for-profit digital news landscape is occupied by private or unincorporated concerns that do not disclose detailed financial figures. But based on publicly available estimates and reports, Pew Research analysts identified a minimum of roughly $500 million in annual ad revenue from a range of digital news sites. Even that estimate does not include outlets that had been identified, but for whom no revenue estimates were found. That $500 million figure would account for roughly 1% of all known news ad revenue across U.S. media sectors. While the actual figure is almost certainly higher, even if it were doubled, it would still account for a small fraction of all news revenue in the U.S.
About one-fifth of nonprofits (21%) surveyed by the Pew Research Center in 2012 said they generated $50,000 or less in annual revenue in 2011, the latest year for which data were available, and 26% took in between $50,001 and $250,000. Foundations have been prominent sources of funding, particularly in the form of start-up grants. For many outlets, this initial funding has been difficult to replace. Nearly two-thirds of the survey respondents (61%) began with a start-up grant that accounted for at least one-third of their original funding, and a majority of those grants were for $100,000 or more. Yet less than a third of those outlets had the funding renewed. As with the audience for digital native noncommercial sites, discussed above, the economics for these sites also vary, but a 2013 report by the Pew Research Center finds on average total income is quite small and heavily reliant on foundations.
Traditional AM/FM radio remains heavily reliant on “spot” advertising (ads aired during radio broadcasts) for its revenue, which saw virtually no year-over-year change in the third quarter of 2013 (the most current data available) compared with the third quarter of 2012. Digital and off-air advertising saw increases of 15% and 3% respectively, but is just a drop in the network advertising bucket.
Sirius XM, the only satellite radio provider in the U.S., grew its revenue in 2013 as well. In 2013, Sirius XM had $3.8 billion in revenue, up from $3.4 billion in 2012, an 11.7% increase. This follows several years of growth in subscriber revenue after the merger of the two companies (Sirius and XM) in 2007.
Staffing levels in the local TV sector were expected to be stable in 2013, according to the yearly Hofstra University survey. A majority of news directors expected no change in staff size in 2013, while just a third said they anticipated adding more staff, about the same as the year before. And only 2.5% said they expected to have to cut staff, fewer than the year before.
The average amount of weekday local TV news programming declined by six minutes in 2012, the last year for which data exist, to five hours and 24 minutes, according to the same survey. This follows four straight years of increases in the hours of news, but still puts the average hours at 5.4 in 2012, up 46% from what is was in 2003 (3.7 hours). And weekend programming continued to add time: up 11% on Saturday and 6% on Sunday on average.
One area seeing more news is in the very early 4:30 a.m. time slot. The number of stations airing news at 4:30 a.m. increased 159% in 2013 to 634, up from 245 in 2012, according to Nielsen data. Those stations cut across 207 markets, up from 113 in 2012.
Under Jeff Zucker, CNN, already a sizable global news operation, was projected to increase its spending more than either Fox or MSNBC in 2013. SNL Kagan estimated that CNN would grow its news investment by 11% to $757 million in 2013, compared to Fox’s increase of 4% (to $848.5 million) and MSNBC’s scale-back by 4% (to $272 million).
CNN still maintains by far the largest bureau system among the three major news channels with 33 around the world, though the organization laid off at least 40 journalists in late 2013 and lists one fewer domestic bureau than it had the previous year. (Fox lists two fewer bureaus than it did a year earlier, and no updated information was available from NBC News.)
During 2012, the most recent year for which figures are available, full-time professional newsroom employment at newspaper organizations fell by 2,600 jobs, or 6.4%. The total of 38,000 jobs is down 33.2% from its 1989 peak of 56,900, according to the annual census of the American Society of News Editors. Most of that loss was in the last six years. When the organization’s census for 2013 is released, more job losses are likely.
According to various sources, including media accounts, several major companies eliminated hundreds of newspaper jobs in 2013—including two companies that began investing more heavily in local television stations. Gannett is estimated to have cut about 400 newspaper jobs while the Tribune Co. announced about 700 cuts, not all of them in the newsroom. Media reports put newsroom layoffs at The Plain Dealer in Cleveland at about 50 and at The Oregonian in Portland at about 35 in 2013.
In one eye-catching cutback, The Chicago Sun-Times laid off its entire 28-person photography department in 2013, but hired back four photographers in December. Even Aaron Kushner, a California publisher who attracted considerable attention for hiring scores of journalists and investing heavily in print journalism, implemented about 70 layoffs at The Orange County Register and The Press-Enterprise in Riverside early in 2014.
One of the noteworthy developments in 2013 (and early 2014) was the growth of editorial jobs in the expanding world of big commercial digital native news outlets. Rapidly growing Buzzfeed added approximately 170 editorial jobs last year, Gawker’s editorial staff grew to 132, almost double what it was two years earlier. Mashable lured former New York Times editor Jim Roberts to oversee its robust investment in news coverage while Yahoo News hired several high profile Times journalists to build up its original content. Henry Blodget’s Business Insider hired 15 new people to grow its editorial staff to 70. The founder of eBay, Pierre Omidyar, is building its growing staff at the fledgling First Look Media around Glenn Greenwald, while Ezra Klein’s Project X at Vox Media is signing up former Washington Post staffers at a brisk clip. Vice Media, which has expanded from a Montreal punk magazine to a worldwide news operation, now has more than 1,100 total global employees (that includes all staff positions), and as of the deadline for this report, had hired nearly 50 U.S. new employees in 2014 alone.
Not all of the news was good.AOL’s network of Patch hyperlocal sites at one time employed about 1,000 reporters and editors but that had been cut back to fewer than 100 by early 2014, signaling the failure of the most ambitious effort to create a universe of digital community news sites under one roof.
In January 2013, Time magazine cut six positions as part of broader wave of layoffs (500 jobs) at Time Inc., the publishing division that houses Time magazine. Those cuts were part of a mandate from Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes to shave $100 million from the publishing division’s annual costs. In late 2013, soon after Nancy Gibbs replaced Rick Stengel as Time’s managing editor (becoming the first women to hold that position), Time announced 11 new hires and three promotions. However, in February 2014 Time Inc. proceeded with another round of reductions, reportedly 500 jobs, as part of a restructuring plan to spin off from its parent company, Time Warner.
News in traditional radio is a hard category to define, one measure being the number of stations that carry news content only. While the number of all-news radio stations in the U.S. remains small, 37 in 2012, according to the latest data available, that number was unchanged from 2011.
Local TV station sales exploded in 2013. Nearly 300 TV stations were sold, up 205% from 2012, according to BIA/Kelsey. Likewise, the total value of these transactions was up, a 367% increase in 2013 from 2012, reaching $8.8 billion.
Sinclair, which already owned more local stations than any other company, purchased 63 more in 2013, the most notable of which were seven stations from Allbritton Communications and 22 from Fisher Communications. Sinclair now operates 167 television stations in 77 markets. The Tribune Co. acquired Local TV Holdings for $2.73 billion (a total of 19 stations) and Gannett purchased Belo, adding 17 stations, in a $2.2 billion transaction. BIA/Kelsey attributes this growth to strong political advertising revenues from the previous year, retransmission consent revenues and continued historically low interest rates.
The only major development in the ownership and executive level positions at the three network news divisions in 2013 was the joint venture between Disney/ABC with Univision to create a new cable channel, Fusion. They each own 50% of the channel.
A process that began in 2012 was completed in mid-2013 when News Corp.—parent of Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network—formally spit in two. The movie and TV division containing the news channels was renamed Twenty-First Century Fox Inc. with Rupert Murdoch continuing as chief executive.
In August of 2013, Qatar-based Al Jazeera Media Network launched a new channel aimed squarely at U.S. audiences—Al Jazeera America. It occupies the same space on the dial held by Current TV.
Within days in August of 2013, two venerable newspapers changed hands. Multi-millionaire and Red Sox owner John Henry bought The Boston Globe and another Massachusetts newspaper, The Worchester Telegram & Gazette, from The New York Times for $70 million. And, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos acquired The Washington Post for $250 million. In other transactions, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway acquired several more newspapers, The News & Record in Greensboro, N.C., and Tulsa World, among them. A. H. Belo sold one its four newspapers – The Press-Enterprise in Riverside, Calif., and plans to sell The Providence Journal in Rhode Island. That will leave just its flagship Dallas Morning News and the nearby Denton Record-Chronicle. Tribune Co., on the other hand, pulled eight of its papers off the market in 2013, after failing to fetch an attractive offer. Tribune now plans to spin them off into a separate company.
Commercial Digital Natives
Unlike other sectors studied here most commercial digital native sites are privately held companies and in 2013 saw little movement. One notable development, though, was AOL’s dropping of the hyperlocal news network Patch. Patch was founded by AOL CEO Tim Armstrong in 2007, at first independent of AOL but then acquired by it in 2009.
In 2009 and 2010, AOL hired 900 employees, Armstrong said, with half of them going to Patch. By early 2011, Patch sites were up and running in about 800 cities and towns across the U.S. Despite this aggressive growth, and plans being made to hire for 1,000 Patch sites by the end of 2011, Armstrong drew back, saying in early 2012, “We don’t have a massive number of Patches on a run-rate profitability, and some of them have bounced in and bounced out.”
Despite the early growth at Patch and investment by AOL the company’s business model quickly came under criticism. In May, 2012 Starboard Value (an investment firm that owned 5.3% of Patch at the time) released a report calling Patch’s business model unsustainable. The report offered some rare estimates of Patch’s finances, which showed that the company had lost $147 million in 2011 and only brought in $13 million in advertising revenue.
Over the course of 2013, Patch suffered more losses. In August 2013 AOL announced the closing of 400 of the 900 Patch sites that existed at the time. Finally, in early 2014, AOL dropped Patch entirely and sold majority ownership of the remaining sites to Hale Global.
In March 2013, Time Warner announced that it would spin off Time Inc. into a separate publicly traded company. In March of 2014, these plans seem to be in full effect as Time Inc. prepares to separate from Time Warner. In the meantime, Time Inc. has been integrating American Express Publishing, which it bought last year.
Even at a time of fragmenting media use, television remains the dominant way that Americans get news at home, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of Nielsen data. And while the largest audiences tune into local and network broadcast news, it is national cable news that commands the most attention from its viewers.
Almost three out of four U.S. adults (71%) watch local television news and 65% view network newscastsover the course of a month, according to Nielsen data from February 2013. While 38% of adults watch some cable news during the month, cable viewers—particularly the most engaged viewers—spend far more time with that platform than broadcast viewers do with local or network news.1
On average, the cable news audience devotes twice as much time to that news source as local and network news viewers spend on those platforms. And the heaviest cable users are far more immersed in that coverage—watching for more than an hour a day—than the most loyal viewers of broadcast television news. Even those adults who are the heaviest viewers of local and network news spend more time watching cable than those broadcast outlets.
The data in this study was prepared specifically for the Pew Research Center by Nielsen, the primary source of ratings and viewership information for the television industry. This comparison of in-home network and local television, cable and internet news consumption offers a unique look at how people get news across different platforms in a rapidly changing media environment. It is based on Nielsen’s national panel of metered homes and reflects viewership in the month of February 2013, which largely coincides with the first television “sweeps” period of the year. (See Methodology)
The numbers in this report dovetail with other data about television news viewership. A 2012 Pew Research Center survey of news consumption habits shows that local television remains the most popular way of accessing news. And Pew Research’s annual State of the News Media reportshows that the nightly network newscasts draw far larger audiences than the prime-time cable news shows.
But the deeper level of viewer engagement with cable news may help to explain why cable television—despite a more limited audience—seems to have an outsized ability to influence the national debate and news agenda. Previous Pew Research Center data have shown that in prime time—when the audience is the largest—cable talk shows tend to hammer away at a somewhat narrow news agenda that magnifies the day’s more polarizing and ideological issues. The Nielsen data make it clear that cable’s audience is staying for a healthy helping of that content.
In one finding that may seem counterintuitive in an era of profound political polarization, significant portions of the Fox News and MSNBC audiences spend time watching both channels. More than a third (34%) of those who watch the liberal MSNBC in their homes also tune in to the conservative Fox News Channel. The reverse is true for roughly a quarter (28%) of Fox News viewers. Even larger proportions of Fox News and MSNBC viewers, roughly half, also spend time watching CNN, which tends to be more ideologically balanced in prime time. (The channel’s new version of Crossfire, which debuted on Sept. 9, follows its formula of delivering opinion from both the left and right.)
Some of the key findings from this initial analysis include:
While the largest portion of Americans watch local and network TV news at home, those who tune into cable news do so for an average of 25 minutes a day. That is more than twice as much time as local and network TV viewers spend getting news on those platforms.
Even heavy viewers of local TV news and network news spend more time watching cable news than they do watching these respective platforms. The heaviest local news viewers spend, on average, 11 more minutes watching cable news than local news. The heaviest network news viewers spend about one more minute watching cable news than they do network news.
Across all three platforms, there is a very large gap between the heaviest news consumers and everyone else. The top third of network news viewers in terms of time spent, for example, average almost 32 minutes a day watching network news. The next third spends about one-sixth as much time, or five minutes, watching network news.
There is no news junkie like a cable junkie. The most dedicated cable news viewers average 72 minutes, more than an hour, of home viewing a day. That compares with about 32 minutes for the heaviest network news viewers and 22 minutes for the most engaged local news audience. There is, however, a precipitous drop—to only three minutes a day—for the second most dedicated group of cable watchers.
There is widespread news consumption across different platforms, particularly with broadcast news. Fully 90% of network news viewers also watch local news and 82% of local news viewers also tune in to network news. The result is that more than half (58%) of U.S. adults watch both network and local news.
How Many Watch TV News and When
Emerging digital technology has changed news consumption choices and habits, and in a report released last fall, Pew Research Center found that local television has experienced viewership declines in the last several years, most acutely among young people. Additionally, Pew Research has documented significant declines in Americans’ reliance on newspaper and radio over time.
At the same time, the Nielsen data provide a reminder of the central role television still plays in news consumption in the comfort of home. Almost three-quarters of Americans, (71%) watch local TV news and almost two-thirds, (65%) watch network news over the course of a month. And more than one-third (38%) of Americans watch news on cable television.
Although broadcast television may have a wider reach, cable news handily wins the competition for the time and attention of news consumers at home. People who watch cable news do so for an average of about 25 minutes a day, compared with the slightly more than 12 minutes a day local television and network news viewers spend on those platforms. Some of this is no doubt due to cable news’ role as an around-the-clock, news-on-demand operation.
On every television platform, viewership is largest in the evening and nighttime hours. The number of viewers watching cable news is quite stable between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., begins to grow modestly in the late afternoon and then peaks between 8-11 p.m.
The local news audience is highest during the late 11 p.m. newscast, with about 15% more viewers than the slots from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. The early morning newscasts, from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m., generate about 60% of the viewership that the late night program does.
Heavy vs. Light TV News Viewers
A deeper analysis of television news watchers reveals major differences in the amount of time they spend on that activity. To illustrate this, the audience data were sliced into thirds based on the time spent watching each platform, and Nielsen averaged the viewing time for each of the three groups of viewers.
Overall, people in the top category for each platform—the heaviest users in terms of time spent—are far more engaged than those in tiers two and three. That is particularly true for cable. The heaviest users of cable news devote, on average, one hour and 12 minutes (72 minutes) a day to that platform. Viewing time drops off dramatically for the bottom two-thirds of cable news viewers. Those in the middle tier average slightly more than three minutes of viewing time and those at the bottom catch a glimpse for less than a minute.
Similarly, for local TV news, the top tier of viewers averages almost 22 minutes a day, compared with six and a half minutes a day for those in the middle tier and one minute for those on the bottom rung. At the network news level, the most engaged viewers watch for almost 32 minutes day. But that drops off to slightly more than five minutes for the next tier and less than one minute for the lightest viewers.
News Viewing is Dominated by the Very Engaged
According to the numbers, people who are heavy users of any type of television news tend to be heavy viewers of other platforms. But the heaviest viewers of cable news far outpace heavy viewers of local and network news, racking up almost 50 more minutes a day, on average, than the most dedicated local news viewers and approximately 40 more minutes than the top tier of network news viewers.
Even the heavy viewers of local and network news spend more time watching cable news than they do watching network and local news.
The most devoted local news viewers spend an average of about 22 minutes a day on local news compared with about 32 on cable. (They also spend almost 24 minutes a day watching network news.) The heaviest network news users spend about a half minute more (32 minutes) watching cable than network.
The heaviest cable news users also spend more time watching local news (almost 14 minutes) and network news (almost 17 minutes) than the average viewerdoes (around 12 minutes). But that time is low compared with the 72 minutes they spend watching cable news in the home.
Crossing Over: Many People Get News from More Than One Source
The Nielsen data clearly indicate that those who watch television news on one platform are likely to watch it on another—particularly when it comes to broadcast news. The greatest overlap occurs between local and network newscasts, which often are on the same channel. Fully 90% of network news viewers also watch local news and 82% of local news viewers also tune in to network news.
The crossover is not as great from broadcast news (network and local) to cable. Slightly less than half—about 44%—of both network and of local news viewers also watch cable news.
Similarly, cable news viewers, while a smaller group overall, are heavy consumers of local and network news. Indeed, cable viewers exhibit the heaviest news consumption habits of any group measured here. Three out of four cable viewers (76%) also watch some network news and even more (82%) watch some local news.
Overall, more than half of adult Americans watch more than one form of television news. The biggest cross platform viewing involves the broadcast platforms, with 58% of the adult population watching both local and network news. Slightly more than half as many, 31%, watch local television and cable news, followed by the 29% of the population that watches both network and cable television news.
Hand Me the Remote: Viewers Flip Among Cable News Channels
The three major cable news competitors differ somewhat in their viewership levels, with CNN reaching 20% of U.S. adults, Fox News reaching 18% and MSNBC reaching 14%. CNN’s viewership lead is supported by years of datashowing it has a wider reach than its competitors, but weaker “appointment” viewership, meaning it is less successful in getting viewers to tune in regularly for scheduled programs, especially in prime time. That helps explain why CNN consistently trails Fox News Channel in the rating wars since Fox News has a clear lead over competitors in its prime-time programming.
One of the most striking findings in this analysis is the degree to which viewers of one of the three cable news channels also view the competition. While the formats of the three major cable news channels are quite similar, there are significant ideological differences, most pronounced in prime time.
In the evening, Fox News boasts a lineup of conservative talk show hosts while MSNBC features a team of liberal ones. CNN, the original cable news outlet, has built its brand around national and global reporting of breaking news events. It also airs opinion in prime time, but includes commentators from both the right and the left.
The perception is that because of their distinct identities—and particularly because of the divergent ideological leanings of Fox News and MSNBC—the cable news channels appeal to different, politically segmented audiences. However the data show something different.
More than one-quarter (28%) of the people who watch Fox News also tune in to MSNBC. An even higher number (34%) of MSNBC viewers turn on Fox News.
There is even more crossover viewing when it comes to CNN. Slightly more than half (54%) of MSNBC viewers watch CNN, while 44% of Fox News viewers tune in to CNN. Healthy segments of the CNN audience also watch Fox News (39%) and MSNBC (38%).
Overall, 5% of the adult American population watches both MSNBC and Fox News. That is slightly lower than the percentage who watches both CNN and Fox (8%) or CNN and MSNBC (also 8%).
Despite some crossover, there are also viewers who watch only one of the three cable channels. Here, Fox News Channel narrowly has the largest singularly dedicated audience. About one- quarter of American adults, (24%) watch only Fox News, 23% watch only CNN and 15% watch only MSNBC.
Online News Consumption at Home
According to the February 2013 data used in this study, about 38% of Americans access news online at home via a desktop or laptop computer. Nielsen’s online numbers—based on those who access news websites—do not measure those getting news at home from a smartphone or tablet device. This data also reflect the fact that those getting online news at home generally spend very small amounts of time on that task. On average, that amounts to 90 seconds per day getting news online.
Looking at the data by intensity of use, the heaviest online news users spent only about four minutes a day on that activity. Medium online news searchers spent about 18 seconds per day at that task, while light users spent less than six seconds.
Overlap Among Cable News Sites
Some of the most popular news websites are affiliated with the three major cable news channels. Though all three are consistently among the top 10 most trafficked news websites, their audiences are fairly small as a percentage of U.S. adults.
Nbcnews.com (formerly MSNBC.com) is one of the most trafficked news sites on the web, but it still only reaches about 9% of adults in America, according to Nielsen. About 6% of the public gets news on cnn.com each day. In addition, 5% of Americans get news from foxnews.com.
When it comes to news consumers visiting multiple sites, 37% of those who visit foxnews.com also go to nbcnews.com, while 22% of those who visit nbcnews.com view foxnews.com. In addition, 28% of those who visited foxnews.com and 21% of those who visited nbcnews.com also go to cnn.com. Among cnn.com users, 26% also went to foxnews.com and 33% also went to nbcnews.com.
For the most part, there is more crossover news consumption on the television side of the three competitive cable news outlets than there is on their digital properties.
Story 1: Obama Moves On Down The Road To Serfdom And “Middle Class Economics” aka Marxian Class Warfare — Cradle To Grave Government Dependency on Government Welfare Programs — Working Americans Paying Taxes To Subsidize Those Who Do Not Work — Skyrocketing Government Deficits and National Debt — Who Pays For The Welfare State? — American Workers Because of Pick Pocket Presidents and Two Party Tyranny! — Videos
the Jeffersons intro theme song
(Movin on Up)
Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 1 of 2
Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 2 of 2
Friedrich Hayek: Why Intellectuals Drift Towards Socialism
Glenn Beck -6/8/2010- The Road to Serfdom
The New Road to Serfdom
Milton Friedman – Other People’s Money
The 4 Ways to Spend Money by Milton Friedman (HD)
Milton Friedman – Welfare State Dynamics
Professor Friedman explains basic fallacies on which the welfare state has been built.
MILTON FRIEDMAN-what alinsky never told obama…
Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [1/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [2/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [3/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Hello, Boise State! (Applause.) Oh, it’s good to be back! (Applause.) Can everybody please give Camille a big round of applause for that introduction? (Applause.) I love young people who are doing science. And I especially love seeing young women in sciences. And so, a great job that Camille is doing. (Applause.)
A couple other people I want to mention. Your Mayor, Mayor Bieter, is here. (Applause.) Where is he? Where is he? There he is. Flew back with me on Air Force One. (Applause.) And he didn’t break anything. (Laughter.) It was amazing, though. When we were coming back he was telling me the story about his grandfather, an immigrant from the Basque Region, coming here and how he would herd sheep. And for five years, he would be up in the mountains and the hills, and then come down to town for like two months a year, and the rest of the time he was up there. And I figured his dad was a pretty tough guy, because I’ll bet it gets kind of cold up in the hills. (Laughter.)
Another person I want to mention — this is somebody who I actually have known for a really long time. He was the lieutenant governor in Illinois, now is your outstanding president here at Boise State — President Kustra. Give him a big round of applause. (Applause.) There he is. It’s good to see Illinoisans do something with their lives. (Laughter.) We’re proud of them.
Thanks to all the Broncos for having me. (Applause.) And thanks for the balmy weather. I thought it was going to be a little colder around here. (Laughter.)
So, last night, I gave my State of the Union address. (Applause.) Today, I’m going to be shorter. I won’t be too short, just a little shorter. (Laughter.) And I focused last night on what we can do, together, to make sure middle-class economics helps more Americans get ahead in the new economy. And I said that I’d take these ideas across the country. And I wanted my first stop to be right here in Boise, Idaho. (Applause.)
Now, there are a couple reasons for this. The first is because, last year, Michelle and I got a very polite letter from a young girl named Bella Williams — who is here today. Where’s Bella? There she is right there. Wave, Bella. (Applause.) Bella is 13 now, but she was 12 at the time. So she wrote me a letter and she said, “I know what you’re thinking — Wow, what’s it like in Boise, Idaho?” (Laughter.) So she invited me to come visit. And she also invited me to learn how to ski or snowboard with her. (Applause.) Now, as somebody who was born in Hawaii, where there’s not a lot of snow — let me put it this way — you do not want to see me ski. (Laughter.) Or at least the Secret Service does not want to see me ski. (Laughter.)
But what I do know about Boise is that it’s beautiful. I know that because I’ve been here before. I campaigned here in 2008. (Applause.) It was really fun. And the truth is, because of the incredible work that was done here in Idaho, it helped us win the primary. And I might not be President if it weren’t for the good people of Idaho. (Applause.) Of course, in the general election I got whupped. (Laughter.) I got whupped twice, in fact. But that’s okay — I’ve got no hard feelings. (Laughter.)
In fact, that’s exactly why I’ve come back. Because I ended my speech last night with something that I talked about in Boston just over a decade ago, and that is there is not a liberal America or a conservative America, but a United States of America. (Applause.)
And today, I know it can seem like our politics are more divided than ever. And in places like Idaho, the only “blue” turf is on your field. (Applause.) And the pundits in Washington hold up these divisions in our existing politics and they show, well, this is proof that any kind of hopeful politics, that’s just naïve. But as I told you last night, I still believe what I said back then. I still believe that, as Americans, we have more in common than not. (Applause.)
I mean, we have an entire industry that’s designed to sort us out. Our media is all segmented now so that instead of just watching three stations, we got 600. And everything is market-segmented, and you got the conservative station and the liberal stations. So everybody is only listening to what they already agree with. And then you’ve got political gerrymandering that sorts things out so that every district is either one thing or the other. And so there are a lot of institutional forces that make it seem like we have nothing in common.
But one of the great things about being President is you travel all across the country and I’ve seen too much of the good and generous and big-hearted optimism of people, young and old — folks like Bella. I’ve seen how deep down there’s just a core decency and desire to make progress together among the American people. (Applause.) That’s what I believe.
So I’ve got two years left and I am not going to stop trying — trying to make our politics work better. That’s what you deserve. That’s how we move the country forward. (Applause.) And, Idaho, we’ve got big things to do together. I may be in the fourth quarter of my presidency, but here, at the home of the team with the most famous “Statue of Liberty” play in history — (applause) — I don’t need to remind you that big things happen late in the fourth quarter. (Applause.)
So here’s where we’re starting in 2015. Our economy is growing. Our businesses are creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999. Our deficits have been cut by two-thirds. Our energy production is booming. Our troops are coming home. (Applause.) We have risen from recession better positioned, freer to write our own future than any other country on Earth.
But as I said last night, now we’ve got to choose what future we want. Are we going to accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well?
THE PRESIDENT: Or can we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and opportunities for everybody who’s willing to try hard? (Applause.)
For six years, we’ve been working to rebuild our economy on a new foundation. And what I want people to know is, thanks to your hard work and your resilience, America is coming back. And you’ll recall, when we were in the midst of the recession, right after I came into office, there was some arguments about the steps we were taking. There were questions about whether we were doing the right thing. But we believed we could reverse the tide of outsourcing, and draw new jobs back to America. And over the past five years, our businesses have created more than 11 million new jobs. (Applause.)
We believed that with smart energy policies, we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect our planet. Today, America is number one in oil production and gas production and wind production. (Applause.) And every three weeks, we bring online as much solar power as we did in all of 2008. (Applause.) And meanwhile, thanks to lower gas prices and higher fuel standards, the average family this year should save about 750 bucks at the pump. (Applause.)
We believed we could do better when it came to educating our kids for a competitive world. And today, our younger students have earned the highest math and reading scores on record. Our high school graduation rate has hit an all-time high. More young people like folks right here at Boise State are finishing college than ever before. (Applause.)
We figured sensible regulations could encourage fair competition and shield families from ruin, and prevent the kind of crises that we saw in 2007, 2008. And today, we have new tools to stop taxpayer-funded bailouts. And in the past year alone, about 10 million uninsured Americans finally gained the security of health coverage, including right here in Idaho. (Applause.)
Now, sometimes you’d think folks have short memories, because at every step of the way, we were told that these goals were too misguided, or they were too ambitious, or they’d crush jobs, or they’d explode deficits, or they’d destroy the economy. You remember those, right? Every step we took, this is going to be terrible. And instead, we’ve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade. And we’ve seen the deficits, as I said, go down by two-thirds. And people’s 401[k]s are stronger now because the stock market has doubled. And health care inflation is at the lowest rate in 50 years. (Applause.) Lowest rate in 50 years.
Here in Boise, your unemployment rate has fallen below 4 percent — and that’s almost two-thirds from its peak five years ago. (Applause.)
So the verdict is clear. The ruling on the field stands. (Laughter.) Middle-class economics works. Expanding opportunity works. These policies will keep on working, as long as politics in Washington doesn’t get in the way of our progress. (Applause.) We can’t suddenly put the security of families back at risk by taking away their health insurance. We can’t risk another meltdown on Wall Street by unraveling the new rules on Wall Street. I’m going to stand between working families and any attempt to roll back that progress. (Applause.)
Because today, thanks to a growing economy, the recovery is touching more and more lives. Wages are finally starting to go up. More small business owners plan to raise their employees’ pay than at any time since 2007. So we need to keep on going. Let’s do more to restore the link between hard work and opportunity for every single American. (Applause.) That’s our job. That’s our job. Let’s make sure all our people have the tools and the support that they need to go as far as their dreams and their effort will take them.
That’s what middle-class economics is — the idea that this country does best when everybody gets a fair shot, and everybody is doing their fair share, and everybody is playing by the same set of rules. We don’t want to just make sure that everybody shares in America’s success — we actually think that everybody can contribute to America’s success. (Applause.) And when everybody is participating and given a shot, there’s nothing we cannot do. (Applause.)
So here’s what middle-class economics requires in this new economy. Number one, it means helping working families feel more secure in a constantly changing economy. It means helping folks afford child care, and college, and paid leave at work, and health care, and retirement. (Applause.) And I’m sending Congress a plan that’s going to help families with all of these issues — lowering the taxes of working families, putting thousands of dollars back into your pockets each year. (Applause.) Giving you some help.
Number two, middle-class economics means that we’re going to make sure that folks keep earning higher wages down the road, and that means we’ve got to do more to help Americans upgrade their skills. And that’s what all of you are doing right here at Boise State. You heard Camille’s story — she’s a Mechanical Engineering major. She’s a great example of why we’re encouraging more women and more minorities to study in high-paying fields that traditionally they haven’t always participated in — in math and science and engineering and technology. (Applause.) Camille has done research for NASA. She’s gotten real job experience with industry partners. She’s the leader of your Microgravity Team. And, by the way, she’s a sophomore. (Applause.) So by the time she’s done — she might invent time travel by the time she’s done here at Boise. (Laughter.)
But the point is, I want every American to have the kinds of chances that Camille has. Because when we’ve got everybody on the field, that’s when you win games. I mean, think about if we had as many young girls focused and aspiring to be scientists and astronauts and engineers. That’s a whole slew of talent that we want to make sure is on the field. (Applause.)
So we’ve been working to help more young people have access to and afford college, with grants and loans that go farther than before. And when I came into office, we took action to help millions of students cap payments on their loans at 10 percent of their income — (applause) — so that they could afford to, let’s say, take a research job after graduation and not be overburdened by debt. That’s why I want to work with Congress to make sure every student already burdened with loans can reduce your monthly payments by refinancing. (Applause.)
But there are a lot of Americans who don’t always have the opportunity to study someplace like Boise State. They need something that’s local; they need something that’s more flexible. You’ve got older workers looking for a better job. Or you got veterans coming back and trying to figure out how they can get into the civilian workforce. You got parents who are trying to transition back into the job market, but they’ve got to work and pay the rent and look after their kids, but they still want to make something of themselves. So they can’t always go full-time at a four-year institution. And that’s why I’m sending Congress a bold, new plan to lower the cost of community college to zero. (Applause.) To zero.
The idea is, in the new economy, we need to make two years of college as free and as universal in America as high school is today. Because that was part of our huge advantage back in the 20th century. We were the first out of the gate to democratize education and put in place public high schools. And so our workforce was better educated than any other country in the world. The thing is, other countries caught up. They figured it out. They looked at America and said, why is America being so successful? Their workers are better educated. We were on the cutting-edge then; now we’ve got to be pushing the boundaries for the 21st century.
And just like we pick up a tool to build something new, we can pick up a skill to do something new. And that’s something that you’re doing right here at Boise. Every year, you sponsor HackFort — (applause) — which is, for those of you who are not aware, this is a tech festival that brings the community together to share knowledge and new skills with one another. And I know we’ve got some folks from some of Boise’s dozen or so tech “meetups” here today.
Here at Boise State innovation is a culture that you’re building. And you’re also partnering with companies to do two things — you help students graduate with skills that employers are looking for, and you help employees pick up the skills they need to advance on the job. So you’re working together. And you’re seeing progress, and it’s contributing to the economic development of the city and the state, as well as being good for the students.
And that’s why my administration is connecting community colleges with local employers to train workers to fill high-paying jobs like coding, or robotics, as well as traditional fields like nursing. And today, we’re partnering with business across the country to “Upskill America” — to help workers of all ages earn a shot at better, higher-paying jobs, even if they don’t have a higher education. We want to recruit more companies to help provide apprenticeships and other pathways so that people can upgrade their skills. We’re all going to have to do that in this new economy. But it’s hard to do it on your own, especially if you’re already working and supporting a family.
Now, as we better train our workers, we need the new economy to keep churning out high-wage jobs for those workers to fill. And that’s why the third part of middle-class economics is about building the most competitive economy in the world. We want good jobs being created right here in the United States of America, not someplace else. (Applause.)
And we’ve got everything it takes to do it. Just to go back to Bella’s question — “Wow, what’s it like in Boise, Idaho” — well, one of the answers is, you’re the cutting-edge of innovation.
I had a chance to tour your New Product Development lab, and I’ve got to say this was not the stuff I was doing in college. (Laughter.) So one group was showing me how they 3D-printed a custom handle that a local student with developmental disabilities could access his locker independently, without anybody’s help. (Applause.) But this whole 3D-printing concept was creating prototypes, so that if you have a good idea you don’t have to have a huge amount of money. You can come and students and faculty are going to work with you to develop a prototype that you may then be able to sell as a product at much lower cost.
Another group is working with a local company, Rekluse, to manufacture parts for high-performance motorcycles. Now, that excites Vice President Biden. (Laughter. I might bring him with me the next time I come to Boise. (Applause.) Some of your faculty and students are working with next-generation materials like graphene, which is a material that’s thinner than paper and stronger than steel. It’s amazing.
And the work you do here is one of the reasons why Boise is one of our top cities for tech startups. (Applause.) And that means we shouldn’t just be celebrating your work, we should be investing in it. We should make sure our businesses have everything they need to innovate, expand in this 21st century economy.
The research dollars that leads to new inventions. The manufacturers who can make those inventions here in America. The best infrastructure to ship products, and the chance to sell those products in growing markets overseas. A free and open Internet that reaches every classroom, and every community — (applause) — so this young generation of innovators and entrepreneurs can keep on remaking our world.
Now, those of you who were watching last night know that I made these arguments before Congress. Most of these are ideas that traditionally were bipartisan. I was talking to Bob. Bob was a Republican lieutenant governor, but I’m not sure he’d survive now in a primary. (Laughter.) But the ideas I just talked about, those are things that traditionally all of us could agree to. I mean, after all, the state we come from, Illinois, that’s the “land of Lincoln,” and Lincoln was the first Republican President. And he started land-grant colleges, and he built railroads and invested in the National Science Foundation. And he understood that this is what it takes for us to grow together.
But watching last night, some of you may have noticed, Republicans were not applauding for many of these ideas. (Laughter.) They were kind of quiet. But when it comes to issues like infrastructure and research, I think when you talk to them privately, when they’re not on camera — (laughter) — they generally agree that it’s important. Educating our young people, creating good jobs, being competitive, those things shouldn’t be controversial. But where too often we run onto the rocks, where the debate starts getting difficult, is how do we pay for these investments. Because it requires dollars. The labs here and the infrastructure that we need, those things don’t just pop up for free.
And the private sector, which is the heartbeat of our economy, it doesn’t build roads; it doesn’t create ports; it doesn’t lay down all the Internet lines — or the broadband lines that are required to reach remote communities. So we have to make some investments; we’ve got to figure out how to pay for it.
And as Americans, we don’t mind paying our fair share of taxes, as long as everybody else does. (Applause.) Where we get frustrated is when we know that lobbyists have rigged the tax code with loopholes, so you’ve got some corporations paying nothing while others are paying full freight. You’ve got the super rich getting giveaways they don’t need, and middle-class families not getting the breaks that they do need. (Applause.)
So what I said last night to Congress is we need to make these investments, we need to help families, we need to build middle-class economics. And here’s how we can pay for it. Let’s close those loopholes. Let’s stop rewarding companies that keep profits abroad; let’s reward companies that are investing here in America. (Applause.)
Let’s close the loopholes that let the top 1 or .1 or .01 percent avoid paying certain taxes, and use that money to help more Americans pay for college and child care. The idea is, let’s have a tax code that truly helps working Americans, the vast majority of Americans, get a leg up in the new economy. (Applause.)
That’s what I believe in. That’s what I believe in. I believe in helping hardworking families make ends meet. And I believe in giving all of us the tools we need so that if we work hard we can get good-paying jobs in this new economy. And I believe in making sure that our businesses are strong and competitive and making the investments that are required.
That’s where America needs to go. And I believe that’s where Americans want America to go. (Applause.) And if we do these things, it will make our economy stronger — not just a year from now, or 10 years from now, but deep into the next century.
Now, I know there are Republicans who disagree with my approach. I could see that from their body language yesterday. (Laughter.) And if they do disagree with me, then I look forward to hearing from them how they want to pay for things like R&D and infrastructure that we need to grow. (Applause.) They should put forward some alternative proposals.
I want to hear specifically from them how they intend to help kids pay for college. (Applause.) It is perfectly fair for them to say, we’ve got a better way of meeting these national priorities. But if they do, then they’ve got to show us what those ideas are. (Applause.) And what you can’t do is just pretend that things like child care or student debt or infrastructure or basic research are not important. And you can’t pretend there’s nothing we can do to help middle-class families get ahead. There’s a lot we can do. (Applause.)
Some of the commentators last night said, well, that was a pretty good speech, but none of this can pass this Congress. But my job is to put forward what I think is best for America. The job of Congress, then, is to put forward alternative ideas, but they’ve got to be specific. They can’t just be, no. (Laughter and applause.) I’m happy to start a conversation. Tell me how we’re going to do the things that need to be done. Tell me how we get to yes. (Applause.)
I want to get to yes on more young people being able to afford college. I want to get to yes on more research and development funding. I want to get to yes for first-class infrastructure to help our businesses succeed. I want to get to yes! (Applause.) But you’ve got to tell me, work with me here. (Applause.) Work with me! Come on! Don’t just say no! (Applause.) You can’t just say no.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Si, se puede!
THE PRESIDENT: Si, se puede! Yes, we can! (Applause.)
Look, we may disagree on politics sometimes. Not “may” — often. All the time disagree. That’s the nature of a democracy But we don’t have to be divided as a people. We’re on the same team. (Applause.) When the football team divides up into offense and defense, they probably go at it pretty hard during practice, but they understand, well, we’re part of the same team. We’re supposed to be rooting for each other. If a quarterback controversy arises and there’s a competition, I’m going to be fighting real hard to get that starting spot. But if I don’t get it, I’m going to be rooting for the team. (Applause.)
Whoever we are — whether we are Republican, or Democrat, or independent, or young or old, or black, white, gay, straight — we all share a common vision for our future. (Applause.) We want a better country for your generation, and for your kids’ generation. And I want this country to be one that shows the world what we still know to be true — that we are not just a collection of red states and blue states; we are still the United States of America. (Applause.) That’s what we’re fighting for. That’s what we’re pushing for.
And if you agree with me, then join me, and let’s get to work. We’ve got a lot of stuff to do in this new century.
Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
Story 3: Obama’s Tax Hike On Middle Class Parents College Savings Account — Videos
CollegeChoice 529 – Happy College Savings Month!
Benefits of a 529 College Savings Plan
529 College Savings Plan : What are the Pros & Cons?
Rep. Jason Chaffetz: Obama’s Tax-Hike Plan A ‘Non-Starter’
Obama’s New State Of The Union Tax Hike On Middle Class 529 College Savers
Comment Now Follow Comments
Hoping to dominate the narrative on a holiday weekend and on the eve of the annual “State of the Union” speech, the Obama White House late Saturday night leaked some of the new tax ideas in their upcoming budget.
Thankfully, those of us with several kids and no life were home at the time, so I penned Americans for Tax Reform’s analysis of the major tax hikes in the leak before the stroke of midnight. If the intention was to have an unchallenged narrative, mission not accomplished.
One tax hike in particular was very odd, since it’s aimed almost exclusively at middle class families with kids–the exact demographic the goodies in the tax plan is targeting.
The levy in question would increase taxes on college savings accounts known as “529 plans” (after their section in the Internal Revenue Code). By definition, these accounts are really only used by middle class families. Poorer households don’t have the extra income to save (and even if they have a little, there are much higher priorities like retirement or saving for a home). Very wealthy families might use 529 plans, but it’s far more likely that they have complex trust arrangements set up for their children.
According to the Investment Company Institute (the trade association for the mutual fund industry), there was $245 billion accumulated in 529 plans in 2014. With just south of 12 million accounts open, that means there’s an average balance of about $21,000 in these plans. This is not a mechanism for rich Democrats like the Kennedys or the Gates to shelter wealth.
The Forbes eBook On Paying For College
Getting into college is hard enough. Paying for it shouldn’t be. Find out how to save thousands on higher ed.
529 plans tend to be opened up by aspirational parents who are on the “mass affluent” side of the middle class earnings spectrum. They are an odd target for a tax increase.
But there it is buried on page 9 of the leaked document: “The President’s plan will roll back expanded tax cuts for 529 education savings plans that were enacted in 2001 for new contributions…” Note that this is right before they also announce the repeal of Coverdell Education Savings Accounts (Coverdell ESAs), another similar move against the same middle class savings targets.
One could read that too quickly and miss what the document is referring to. Prior to 2001′s enactment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA, a.k.a. phase one of the “Bush tax cuts”), 529 plans were far less advantageous than they are now. Money went in after-tax, and grew tax deferred, until college. Upon withdrawal, earnings were taxed at ordinary income tax rates, which can go as high as 39.6 percent.
On Saturday night the White House leaked the major tax hike details of the president’s upcoming budget. The common theme is higher taxes on savings and investment, totaling $320 billion over the next ten years.
“Democrats are demanding, yet again, tax increases on America. This never ends. When it comes to tax hikes Democrats are like a teenage boy on a prom date: they keep asking the same question different ways but always to the same point,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
Here are the major tax increases in the President’s upcoming budget:
1. Capital Gains Rate Hike: raises capital gains and dividends tax rate from 23.8% today (20% plus 3.8% Obamacare surtax) to 28% (including the Obamacare surtax).
The capital gains tax has not been that high since President Clinton signed a rate cut in 1997.
It would represent a massive hike in the rate since Obama took office. When he was sworn in, the rate was 15%. He proposes to nearly double it to 28% in the twilight of his administration.
2. Stealth increase in the death tax rate from 40% to nearly 60%.
Under current law, when you inherit an asset your basis in the asset is the higher of the fair market value at the time of death or the decedent’s original basis. Almost always, the fair market value is higher.
Under the Obama proposal, when you inherit an asset your basis will simply be the decedent’s original basis.
Example: Dad buys a house for $10,000. He dies and leaves it to you. The fair market value on the date of death is $100,000. You sell it for $120,000. Under current law, you have a capital gain of $20,000 (sales price of $120,000 less step up in basis of $100,000). Under the Obama plan, you have a capital gain of $110,000 (sales price of $120,000 less original basis of $10,000).
There are exemptions for most households, but this misses the larger point: the whole reason we have step up in basis is because we have a death tax. If you are going to hold an estate liable for tax, you can’t then hold the estate liable for tax again when the inheritor sells it. This adds yet another redundant layer of tax on savings and investment. It’s a huge tax hike on family farms and small businesses.
It’s like a second death tax (the first one has a top tax rate of 40% and a standard deduction of $5.3 million/$10.6 million for surviving spouses). Conceivably, an accumulated capital gain could face a 40% death tax levy and then a 28% capital gains tax on what is left. Do the math, and that’s an integrated federal tax of just under 60% on inherited capital gains.
3. “Bank Tax”
A new 7 basis point (0.07%) tax on the liabilities (not assets) of the 100 or so U.S. firms with assets over $50 billion. This will obviously be passed along to these firms’ customers and employees, since businesses don’t pay taxes–people do.
4. Tax Increase on Families Saving for College
Under current law, 529 plans work like Roth IRAs: you put money in, and the money grows tax-free for college. Distributions are tax-free provided they are to pay for college.
Under the Obama plan, earnings growth in a 529 plan would no longer be tax-free. Instead, earnings would face taxation upon withdrawal, even if the withdrawal is to pay for college. This was the law prior to 2001.
5. Tax Increases in Retirement Plans and a New Employer Mandate
There would be a new cap in the amount one could accumulate in the aggregate in all IRA and 401(k) type accounts of $3.4 million. After that, you can’t save any more new dollars. The idea is that this is enough to secure a $210,000 annual distribution in retirement, which the government apparently deems “enough” for a retiree.
In addition, all employers with more than 10 workers and who do not have a 401(k) type plan would be mandated to set up payroll deduction Traditional IRAs for their employees. Also, part-time workers would have to be covered under retirement plans if they have been working someplace long enough. These two things are a new kind of employer mandate from Obama.