Story 1: Jeb Bush (Low Energy) vs. Donald Trump (High Energy) and — Media Calls Trump Arrogant, Blowhard, Clown, Idiot, and Businessman — The Vast Majority of The American People Support Trump On Illegal Immigration — Trump Wins in A Landslide — Trump The Macho Man — Videos
Story 1: Presidential Candidates Styles and Speeches Compared To Talk Radio Show Hosts — Telling Stories and Stream of Consciousness — Univision Activist Univision’s Jorge Ramos Aids and Abets The Criminal Alien Invasion of United States Gets The Trump Treatment — Threes Cheers For Trump — Videos
Donald Trump throws Fusion anchor Jorge Ramos out of his press conference
Donald Trump: Univision’s Jorge Ramos Was ‘Totally Out of Line’ | TODAY
“If you love Jorge Ramos you won’t vote for Donald Trump” – CNN Panel
Jorge Ramos Ejected from Donald Trump Press Conference • 8/25/15 •
Ann Coulter: ‘If you don’t want to be killed by ISIS, don’t go to Syria.’
Hannity Grills Jorge Ramos On Mexico’s Immigration Double Standard
Trump’s Immigration Plan – Laura Ingraham & Geraldo Weigh In On Hannity
‘You’re Served by Immigrants’: Jorge Ramos Faces Off with Hannity
Donald Trump vs Jorge Ramos – The O’Reilly Factor FULL EPISODE – 8/26/2015
FNN: FULL Donald Trump Press Conference Before Dubuque, Iowa Rally
This afternoon on FOX10 News Now: Donald Trump holds a press conference to answer questions from reporters before his rally. During this press conference, Univision’s Jorge Ramos was escorted out by security after asking a question without being called on. Trump holds a Make America Great Again Rally
Donald Trump IOWA FULL SPEECH in IOWA, Dubuque – August 25, 2015 CNN FOX News
Donald Trump New Hampshire Campaign Rally FULL Speech – August 14, 2015
FULL SPEECH Donald Trump Mobile, AL (AUGUST 21, 2015)
Story 1: Why Do Many of The Fox News Talking Heads Attack Trump? Sucking Up To Roger Ailes’ Boss Rupert Murdock Who Favors Open Borders And Does Not Want Immigration To Be A Wedge Issue and Support Bloomberg! — Trump Is Right — The Only Reason Fox Was Talking About Immigration Was Trump — Results Count — 24 Million Plus Viewers — Trump Should Attack Rupert Murdock’s Open Borders Position — American People Demand Enforcement of Existing Immigration Laws and Not Immigration Reform — Videos
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 1.
Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.
On October 3, 2007, a press conference and panel discussion was hosted by Californians for Population Stabilization (http://www.CAPSweb.org) and The Social Contract (http://www.TheSocialContract.com) to discuss alternative methodologies for estimating the true numbers of illegal aliens residing in the United States.
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010
Trump Outlines Immigration Plan
Immigration Gumballs Short Version
Rupert Murdoch On Why He Supports Immigration Reform
News Corporation Chairman, CEO and Founder, Rupert Murdoch, explains why immigration reform is needed to keep America the most creative and economically competitive nation in the world.
Fox News Owner Rupert Murdoch Calls For Immigration Reform
Partnership for a New American Economy Launches on Fox & Friends
Mayor Bloomberg on the Partnership for a New American Economy
Trump trolls Megyn Kelly on Twitter
Krauthammer: Trump had a “bad night” at GOP Debate.
Donald Trump: Charles Krauthammer is a jerk
George Will: Do We Really Want to Give Nuclear Weapons to Donald Trump? – Fox News Sunday – 8-16-15
George Will on Donald Trump Run
George Will: Trump Is a One-Man Todd Akin fox news sunday
Unions Muscle Big Business on Immigration Reform – WSJ Opinion
Sen Ted Cruz Amendments to increase immigration 2x, Worker Visas 5x, legalize illegals.
Ted Cruz would Double Immigration, add 500% worker Visas and legalize illegals.
Sen. Ted Cruz at Hearing on the Administration’s Immigration Enforcement
Rand Paul: More Immigrants, More Tax Revenue
Rand Paul sounds off on fallout over immigration plan
Scott Walker talks immigration, presidential debate
Jeb Bush Discusses Immigration Reform
Roger Ailes Nukes Trump: New Attack on Megyn Kelly Is ‘Disturbing’
The Donald renewed his verbal assault on Megyn Kelly last night, and the head of Fox News struck back for the first time in public, demanding an apology.
Donald Trump—self-avowed “ratings machine” though he might be—has finally gone too far for Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes.The Republican presidential front-runner, who has spent the past day tweeting and re-tweeting nasty insults about Fox News star Megyn Kelly, owes her an apology, Ailes demanded in an extraordinary broadside against the reality-show billionaire, issued on Tuesday afternoon.“Donald Trump’s surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing,” Ailes said about Trump, who has been a frequent interview guest on Fox & Friends, The O’Reilly Factor,Hannity, and other Fox News programs since the Republican presidential debate that Fox News broadcast on August 6 at which Kelly asked him a tough question about his history of calling women “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.”Trump immediately fired back in a statement.“I totally disagree with the FOX statement. I do not think Megyn Kelly is a quality journalist. I think her questioning of me, despite all of the polls saying I won the debate, was very unfair. Hopefully in the future I will be proven wrong and she will be able to elevate her standards to a level of professionalism that a network such as FOX deserves.”
“Donald Trump’s surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing.”
Ailes issued his statement a little more than 12 hours after Trump’s angry tweet storm.
“Megyn Kelly represents the very best of American journalism and all of us at FOX News Channel reject the crude and irresponsible attempts to suggest otherwise,” Ailes continued, referring to a raging series of Trump tweets in which the candidate claimed Kelly was “off her game” on her first show after a 10-day vacation, and retweeted a crass assertion that the former Washington litigator is a “bimbo.”
Ailes, who scheduled The Kelly File at the all-important 9 p.m. prime-time slot, went on:
“I could not be more proud of Megyn for her professionalism and class in the face of all of Mr. Trump’s verbal assaults. Her questioning of Mr. Trump at the debate was tough but fair, and I fully support her as she continues to ask the probing and challenging questions that all presidential candidates may find difficult to answer.
“Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should. We have never been deterred by politicians or anyone else attacking us for doing our job, much less allowed ourselves to be bullied by anyone and we’re certainly not going to start now. All of our journalists will continue to report in the fair and balanced way that has made FOX News Channel the number one news network in the industry.”
Ailes’s verbal howitzer against the front-running Republican—a highly unusual deployment for any news organization, let alone one that has been the GOP establishment and home of conservative viewers—comes after what seemed a coordinated defense of Kelly by at least 10 other Fox News personalities today on Twitter and on air.
According to CNN’s Brian Stelter, the pro-Kelly comments included Fox & Friendsco-host Brian Kilmeade opining on Tuesday’s show that Trump is “totally out of control”; The Five co-host Dana Perino tweeting, “The intelligence, class & grace of Megyn Kelly shined last night after her week’s vacation with her family”; anchor Bret Baier, Kelly’s co-moderator at the debate, tweeting that Trump “has made his feelings clear. But THIS needs to stop;” and Sean Hannity tweeting to Trump, “Leave @Megynkelly Alone.”
So far, there has been no word on whether Trump will be welcome on Fox News if he continues his attacks and refuses to apologize.
EXCLUSIVE — ANN COULTER TO INTRODUCE DONALD TRUMP IN IOWA
Eleven-time New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter will introduce 2016 GOP frontrunner Donald Trump at a rally in Iowa on Tuesday, Breitbart News has learned exclusively.
“This is the first time I’ve thought there was hope for our country again since Nov. 7, 2012,” Coulter said in an email to Breitbart News when asked why she is introducing Trump.
Coulter, the author of the bestselling ¡Adios America! about immigration, is extraordinarily pleased by Trump’s immigration reform plan. On Breitbart News Sunday this weekend on Sirius XM Patriot, Coulter walked through how happy she was.
Coulter will be signing copies of her book at a Trump campaign rally in Dubuque, Iowa, at 4:30 p.m. CT and will be speaking before Trump in front of an expected crowd of 1,600.
Trump’s immigration reform plan aims to put Americans ahead of foreigners and special interests and has several aspects in it designed to do that. He wants to build a wall on the border, make Mexico pay for it, end birthright citizenship for anchor babies, and put restrictions on legal immigration designed to ensure Americans have first access to jobs instead of illegal immigrants or future foreigners.
When I learned that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor had lost his Republican primary, my heart sank. Not simply because I think he is an intelligent and talented member of Congress, or because I worry about the future of the Republican Party.
Like others who want comprehensive immigration reform, I worried that Mr. Cantor’s loss would be misconstrued and make Congress reluctant to tackle this urgent need. That would be the wrong lesson and an undesirable national consequence of this single, local election result.
People are looking for leadership—those who stand for something and offer a vision for how to take America forward and keep our nation economically competitive. One of the most immediate ways to revitalize our economy is by passing immigration reform.
ENLARGE
Newly naturalized U.S. citizens celebrate after taking the oath of citizenship in Washington, D.C., June 17. GETTY IMAGES
I chose to come to America and become a citizen because America was—and remains—the most free and entrepreneurial nation in the world. Our history is defined by people whose character and culture have been shaped by ambition, imagination and hard work, bound together by a dream of a better life.
Is the idea of immigration reform complicated by the fact that some immigrants went outside the legal system to be here? Yes. It is complicated even more by the fear some Americans have, quite naturally, of how changing populations might also change our culture, communities and economic circumstances.
Well, of course immigration means change. Immigrants enrich our culture and add to our economic prosperity.
You don’t have to take one immigrant’s word for it. The Partnership for a New American Economy, a bipartisan group of political and business leaders, reports that people who moved here from abroad or their children founded more than 40% of America’s Fortune 500 companies—businesses that collectively employ millions of people.
Do Americans really wish Google,eBay,Pfizer or Home Depot were headquartered in Eastern Europe or China instead of America? Whether it’s a high-profile tech company or a small business employing just 10 people, 28% of all new American businesses started in 2011 were founded by immigrants. Those are entrepreneurial people we want to continue to attract to our economy.
I don’t believe that people come to America to sit on their hands. The vast majority of America’s immigrants are hardworking, family-minded individuals with strong values. They are drawn here from many different places by a common belief that this is still the land of opportunity for those willing to work hard.
We need to give those individuals who are already here—after they have passed checks to ensure they are not dangerous criminals—a path to citizenship so they can pay their full taxes, be counted, and become more productive members of our community.
Next, we need to do away with the cap on H-1B visas, which is arbitrary and results in U.S. companies struggling to find the high-skill workers they need to continue growing. We already know that most of the applications for these visas are for computer programmers and engineers, where there is a shortage of qualified American candidates. But we are held back by the objections of the richly funded labor unions that mistakenly believe that if we keep innovation out of America, somehow nothing will change. They are wrong, and frankly as much to blame for our stalemate on this issue as nativists who scream about amnesty.
If we are serious about advancing our economic future and about creating job growth here in America, then we must realize that it is suicidal to suggest closing our doors to the world’s entrepreneurs, or worse, to continue with large-scale deportations.
That is not to suggest we don’t need to do a far better job securing our border. Border security should be an integral part of a comprehensive solution, and we should not dismiss the concerns of states that are struggling to deal with the consequences of ongoing illegal immigration.
Some politicians and pundits will argue that this is not the time to bring immigration reform to the congressional floor—that it will frighten an already anxious workforce and encourage more extreme candidates, especially on the right. They may be right about the short-term politics, but they are dead wrong about the long-term interests of our country.
Maybe, as someone who came here as an immigrant, I have more faith in the compassion and fortitude of the American people, and in their ability to reject extreme views on either side of the political spectrum. Or maybe, as a businessman, I have learned that there is rarely a good time to do the hard things.
That is why I was pleased to see Sen. Rand Paul and Grover Norquist,president of Americans for Tax Reform, step up their efforts to lobby for immigration reform.
President Obama has shown wise restraint despite pressure from the left to act, recognizing that a bipartisan approach on such an immense issue would be best. Remember ObamaCare?
However, if Congress fails to even try to have this important debate, the president might feel tempted to act via executive order. I hope it doesn’t get to that point, given the furious political firestorm that would result.
All the more reason, then, to recognize that the facts are on the side of reform, and democratic societies don’t advance when our elected officials act like seat-warmers.
Mr. Murdoch is executive chairman of News Corp, which owns The Wall Street Journal.
Story 1: Biden/Warren Democratic Ticket? — World Stock Markets Crash! — Trump Breaks New Ceiling in Polls — Trump A Leader — Political Elitist Establishment Panic — American People Want To Maker America Great Again — Vidoes
Rudyard Kipling “If” Poem animation
(‘Brother Square-Toes’—Rewards and Fairies)
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
Peter Schiff Economic Collapse Headed for U S in 2015
Will Wall Street’s rough week prove an overdue correction?
Keiser Report: $32 trillion in pointless trading (E799)
Gordon Chang on the China Problem
Gordon Chang – A Lot Of People Are Losing Substantial Amounts In China – 20 Aug 15 | Gazunda
Keiser Report: Planet Ponzi dwarfing world’s economy (E795)
Keiser Report: China Mainland MSM Myths (E704)
Is China’s Economy On The Verge Of Collapse?
Alex Jones & Max Keiser – American Economic Crisis! Dollar Collapse Imminent!
Why China is Panicking About the Stock Market Crash | China Uncensored
China Reality Check: Has the Hard Landing in China Already Started?
China’s economic growth rate fell to 7.4% in 2014, and many believe the official figure is actually more generous than the reality. Most forecasts expect growth to come in well under 7.0% in 2015. What are we to make of these trends? Are we at the beginning of a hard landing where the long history of structural inefficiencies are finally and inescapably being revealed and the possibilities of a financial crisis more ever looming? Or are we in a gradual shift toward a “new normal” of healthier and still relatively robust growth as a result of foresighted policy adjustments? Or is something else going on altogether? Anne Stevenson-Yang, co-founder of J Capital Research, is a veteran analyst of the China’s economy and economic policy process. She travels widely in China in order to compare official data with actual behavior and performance. Bob Davis of the Wall Street Journal is a leading expert on macroeconomic policy and recently completed an extended posting in Beijing, where he wrote regularly about China’s economy.
Why 99% of trading is pointless
Published: Aug 1, 2015
An astonishing $32 trillion in securities changes hands every year with no net positive impact for investors, charges Vanguard Group Founder John Bogle.
Meanwhile, corporate finance — the reason Wall Street exists — is just a tiny slice of the total business. The nation’s big investment banks probably could work for less than a week and take the rest of the year off with no real effect on the economy.
“The job of finance is to provide capital to companies. We do it to the tune of $250 billion a year in IPOs and secondary offerings,” Bogle told Time in an interview.
“What else do we do? We encourage investors to trade about $32 trillion a year. So the way I calculate it, 99% of what we do in this industry is people trading with one another, with a gain only to the middleman. It’s a waste of resources.”
Rent seekers
It’s a lot of money, $32 trillion. Nearly double the entire U.S. economy moving from one pocket to another, with a toll-taker in the middle. Most people refer to them as “stock brokers,” but let’s call them what they are — toll-takers and rent-seekers.
Rent-seeking as an occupation is as old as the hills. In exchange for working to build up credentials and relative fluency in the arcane rules of an industry, one gets to stand back from actual work and just collect money.
Ostensibly, the job of a financial adviser is to provide advice. Do you actually get that from your broker? It is worth anything?
Research shows, over and over, that stock brokers can’t do much of anything demonstrably valuable. They don’t know which stocks will go up or down and when. They don’t know which asset classes will outperform this year or next.
Nobody knows. That’s the point. If you’re among that small cadre of extremely high-level traders who can throw loads of cash at a short-term fluke, fantastic. If you have a mind for numbers like Warren Buffett that allows you to buy companies on the cheap and hold them forever, excellent.
If you’re a normal retirement investor trying to get from A to B and retire on time, well, you have a really big problem to face: The toll-taker wants your money.
Dead weight
So he needs you to trade — a lot. Because that’s how stock brokers make money. Not by doling out retirement advice, but by ensuring that your account is active and churning commissions on behalf of them and their employers.
What’s a highway with no traffic on it? If you’re a toll-taker, it’s a money loser. So Wall Street’s rent-seekers need traffic in the form of regular trading. An account that sits invested for months at a time with no trades is dead weight to them.
Nevertheless, as Bogle maintains, doing nothing is the key. “Don’t do something, just stand there!” he has often said.
A portfolio indexing approach to investing codifies Bogle’s time-tested and effective way of investing for retirement — without lining the pockets of toll-taking stock brokers along the way.
Trump widens lead over U.S. Republican presidential field: Reuters poll
By Emily Stephenson
Republican Donald Trump is pulling away from the pack in the race for the party’s U.S. presidential nomination, widening his lead over his closest rivals in the past week, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Friday.
Republican voters show no signs they are growing weary of the brash real estate mogul, who has dominated political headlines and the 17-strong Republican presidential field with his tough talk about immigration and insults directed at his political rivals. The candidates are vying to be nominated to represent their party in the November 2016 general election.
Nearly 32 percent of Republicans surveyed online said they backed Trump, up from 24 percent a week earlier, the opinion poll found. Trump had nearly double the support of his closest competitor, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who got 16 percent. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was third at 8 percent.
Even when Trump was pitted directly in the poll against just his top two competitors, 44 percent backed him. Bush won about 29 percent of respondents, and Carson 25 percent.
“He’s not taking any guff from anybody,” Dewey Stedman, 70, a Republican from East Wenatchee, Washington, said of the publicity-loving billionaire. “If you don’t have something in your brains, you’re not going to have billions of dollars.”
View gallery
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gives a thumbs up to supporters as he is driven …
Trump has driven the debate on the campaign trail with a hard-line immigration plan that calls for the deportation of undocumented immigrants, amendment of the Constitution to end automatic citizenship for all people born in the United States, and construction of a wall along the border with Mexico.
He also has feuded with Bush and other rivals while boasting he could easily beat Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Trump’s campaign momentum has paid off with bigger crowds on the campaign trail. On Friday night, he moved a planned rally in Mobile, Alabama, to a football stadium seating more than 40,000.
“It is an appeal to people that are just aggravated about what’s going on,” Republican strategist Rich Galen said, adding that Trump is a “novelty act” that voters will tire of.
Friday’s results in the online rolling opinion poll are based on a survey of 501 Republicans and have a credibility interval of plus or minus 5 percent.
Separate results found Clinton leading among Democrats, though support for her dipped below 50 percent to 48.5 percent.
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont came in second in the poll of 625 Democrats, followed by Vice President Joe Biden, who has not entered the race. That survey had a credibility interval of plus or minus 4.5 percent.
Story 1: President Trump — The Political Elitist Establishment (PEEs) of The Democratic and Republican Parties and Mainstream Media Worst Nightmare — American People Want Immigration Law Enforcement and Ending Birthright Citizenship aka Anchor Babies — American People Including Trump Democrats, Trump Republicans and Trump Independents Will Elect Trump — PEES are Panicing — Videos
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
…
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Article I describes the design of the legislative branch of US Government — the Congress. Important ideas include the separation of powers between branches of government (checks and balances), the election of Senators and Representatives, the process by which laws are made, and the powers that Congress has. See more…
Section 8.
Clause 4
…To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Bill O’Reilly Donald Trump Battle over Immigration Plan and 14th Amendment
Trump tackles problem of what he calls ‘anchor babies’
Donald Trump: I’ll keep saying “anchor baby” even if it’s not PC.
Trump’s Right: Anchor Babies Are Big Business
Trump on Immigration — the Good, the Bad & the Ugly
Should U.S. Citizenship Be Guaranteed at Birth?
Mark Levin Weighs In On 14th Amendment & Donald Trump’s Immigration Plan – Hannity
How the 14th Amendment Undermines Citizenship
Why Donald Trump rallies are becoming massive events
Donald Trump Still the Top Republican in New Poll –
Donald Trump Leads GOP Field By Wide Margin In New Fox Poll – Rove On Trump Immigration – Lou Dobbs
Donald Trump Leading In Latest GOP Poll As Candidates Descend On Iowa State Fair – Bulls & Bears
Donald Trump Still leading In Polls And GOP Not Happy
Donald Trump is trolling the Republican Party
Donald Trump: ‘Leaders of the party take me seriously…
Ann Coulter defends Donald Trump from “idiot” Rick Perry
Watch Ann Coulter Destroy an Anti-Trump Chump on Hannity
Rush Limbaugh: Donald Trump “is showing everybody how it’s done
FULL: Donald Trump Gives Rousing Speech in Hampton, NH (8-14-15)
Are Trump’s immigration views out of the mainstream?
By BYRON YORK
Donald Trump set off yet another wave of anguish and frustration among Republican political elites Sunday with more provocative statements about immigration, along with the release of a Trump immigration plan influenced by the Senate’s leading immigration hawk. But there are indications Trump’s positions on immigration are more in line with the views of the public — not just GOP voters, but the public at large — than those of his critics.
“Donald Trump: Undocumented Immigrants ‘Have to Go,'” read the headline at NBC News, where Trump appeared on “Meet the Press.” “They have to go,” Trump told moderator Chuck Todd, referring to immigrants in the U.S. illegally. “We either have a country or we don’t have a country.” At the same time, Trump unveiled a brief immigration position paper, created in consultation with Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, calling for, among other things, an end to the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship.
Some of Trump’s presidential rivals, and no doubt many in the GOP establishment, were appalled. “Our leading Republican is embracing self-deportation, that all of the 11 million have to walk back where they came from, and maybe we’ll let some of them come back,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS. “I just hope we don’t go down that road as a party. So our leading contender, Mr. Trump, is going backward on immigration. And I think he’s going to take all of us with him if we don’t watch it.”
But are Trump’s views on immigration as far out of the mainstream as Graham suggests? Are they out of the mainstream at all? A recent academic paper, by Stanford professor David Broockman and Berkeley Ph.D candidate Douglas Ahler, suggests a majority of the public’s views on immigration are closer to Trump’s than to the advocates of comprehensive immigration reform.
The Broockman/Ahler paper, published in July, is about more than just immigration; it examines the range of public opinion on several issues. On each, the authors gave a scientifically-selected group of respondents a broad range of policy options. On immigration, they listed seven possibilities, ranging from open borders to shutting down all immigration. These are the options Broockman and Ahler presented to respondents:
1. The United States should have open borders and allow further immigration on an unlimited basis.
2. Legal immigration to the United States should greatly increase among all immigrant groups, regardless of their skills. Immigrants already in the United States should be put on the path to citizenship.
3. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase. Immigration by those without such skills should continue at its current pace, although this immigration should be legalized.
4. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase, and immigration among those without such skills should be limited in time and/or magnitude, e.g., through a guest worker program.
5. The United States should admit more highly skilled immigrants and secure the border with increased physical barriers to stem the flow of other immigrants.
6. Only a small number of highly skilled immigrants should be allowed into the United States until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported.
7. Further immigration to the United States should be banned until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported immediately.
Here are the results Broockman and Ahler got: 4.7 percent supported Option One; 17.4 percent supported Option Two; 10.8 percent supported Option Three; 12.0 percent supported Option Four; 17.0 percent supported Option Five; 13.8 percent supported Option Six; and 24.4 percent supported Option Seven.
The largest single group, 24.4 percent, supported the most draconian option — closed borders and mass deportation — that is dismissed by every candidate in the race, including Trump. Add in the next group that supported Option Six, which would allow only a “small number” of highly skilled immigrants to enter the U.S. and also involve mass deportations, and the number increased to 38.2 percent. Then add Option Five, which would allow only highly skilled immigrants while physically blocking the border, and the number increased to 55.2 percent.
“Many citizens support policies that seem to fall outside of the range of policy options considered in elite discourse,” Broockman and Ahler conclude.
Trump’s immigration stance appears to fall somewhere between Option Five and Option Six, perhaps a little closer to the latter. It’s probably fair to say that, if Broockman and Ahler are correct, a majority of Americans — not just Republican voters, but all Americans — hold views that are consistent with Trump’s position, or are even more restrictive. Opponents like Graham portray Trump’s immigration position as far out of the mainstream, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Donald Trump is making immigration a nightmare for Republicans
By Francis WilkinsonBloomberg
Donnald Trump has an immigration policy. It’s based on dubious assertions and would be fabulously expensive, but as a statement of goals it’s largely coherent. And it may mark a very, very dangerous turning point in the Republican presidential primary.f
There are two main facets of illegal immigration: border security, encompassing both the nation’s geographic border and its ports and airports, and the fate of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. All Republican candidates support varying degrees of increased border enforcement, repeating “secure the border” as a charm to ward off the evil eye of the right wing.
The party is otherwise fractured. Legal immigration is a sticky point, pitting Republican donors against the party’s sizable wing of immigration restrictionists. And the question of what to do about the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., most of whom have been here for a decade or more, is even stickier. Polls show that a majority of Americans support some kind of path to legalization. But Republicans are more opposed — and opponents are particularly vocal.
Among the top presidential contenders, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Ohio Gov. John Kasich seem squarely in the legalization camp. But many of their competitors oppose such “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants. They have plenty of support. Earlier this year, Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to rescind President Barack Obama’s executive actions easing deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants.
If a path to legalization or citizenship is foreclosed, two options remain: continuing the status quo, leaving 11 million people residing illegally in the U.S. Or deporting them. Even the most virulently restrictionist Republicans have avoided explicitly calling for the latter. Instead, they typically suggest that the fate of the 11 million is an issue to be addressed only once “a secure border” is in place. “A secure border” being largely a matter of conjecture, there is no way to know how or when the second phase — dealing with the 11 million — might ever be attempted, let alone resolved. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio each have offered muddy views on the issue.
The dodge works so long as Republicans are allowed to remain vague. But Trump just broke the party compact: He got specific.
Trump’s plan is an assault on legal and illegal immigration across multiple fronts. He wants to shut off employment to illegal immigrants by expanding the e-verify system, which checks the legal status of job applicants (and job holders), nationwide. He wants to “impound” remittance payments from illegal wages, undermining a key rationale of illegal employment. He calls for an end to birthright citizenship, but also a limit on issuing new green cards and new restrictions on hiring high-skills immigrants. He wants to triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents working to root out undocumented immigrants.
If your goal is to drive millions of undocumented immigrants south across the border, Trump’s plan looks like a winner. In effect, Trump would significantly increase deportations while enacting enforcement policies intended to bring about Mitt Romney’s vision of mass “self-deportation.” It’s an easy set of concepts for voters to grasp and for debate moderators to probe. Which of the other candidates will sign on? Which side are they on: mass deportation or mass law-breaking? Walker said Tuesday that Trump’s blueprint is “very similar” to his own plan.
Amusingly, Bush and Kasich may be the chief beneficiaries of Trump’s astringent effect. They’ve already defined the soft side of the party on immigration. But now the hardliners must come clean: Do they ratify what establishmentarian Bush has been saying all along? Endorse Trump’s new standard? A hypocrite’s dodge threatens to become a Hobson’s choice.
Trump has been leading the Republican pack in polls, with about a quarter of the vote. Now, with his first real policy proposal, he has almost certainly solidified his hold on the party’s most virulently anti-immigrant voters. Only 9 percent of Republicans in a July CNN/ORC poll said illegal immigration would be their top issue in voting for a president. But drawing hard, punitive lines against people on the margins never seems to lose its appeal to the Republican base.
It will be difficult for an eventual Republican nominee to navigate Trump’s challenge without alienating either the anti-immigrant cohort that he is energizing or mainstream voters. And it could get worse. What if Trump gets specific on other policies? Taxes. Health care. Retirement security. Climate change. Bombing Iran.
My Bloomberg View colleague Jonathan Bernstein calls Republicans a “post-policy” party for their reliable reluctance to fashion policies that are structurally sound and politically viable. The key is maintaining a perpetual fog. (Repeal and replace Obamacare! With something. Pass Paul Ryan’s budget! As long as it doesn’t become law.)
In the greatest irony, Trump has the capacity to exploit the void, forcing vaguer Republican candidates to respond to his specific proposals. He is making immigration a nightmare for Republicans. Other bad dreams could follow.
Bloomberg
Francis Wilkinson writes on politics and domestic policy for Bloomberg View.
Touting constitutional amendments on the campaign trail is more likely to rally voters than to produce changes in the law.
MATT FORD AUG 19, 2015
Birthright citizenship has been a bedrock principle of American civic society since Reconstruction. But it is steadily gaining opponents among the 2016 GOP contenders. Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, and Bobby Jindal have called for an end to automatic citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants; Chris Christie and Scott Walker have voiced their own doubts; and it’s a central element of Donald Trump’s new immigration plan.
The Fourteenth Amendment, for its part, is clear on the scope of birthright citizenship: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Redefining the Citizenship Clause, either by legislation or by constitutional amendment, seems all but impossible today. “The only thing a politician could promise that would be harder would be, say, promising to build a giant, hundreds-of-miles-long wall and getting another country to pay for it,” The Washington Post’s Philip Bump drily notes. But like the proposed Great Wall of Mexico, feasibility may not be the point. It’s all about getting votes.
Donald Trump’s Immigration Principles Would’ve Barred His Own Grandfather
The last constitutional amendment used to resolve a political controversy was the Twenty-First Amendment in 1933, which reversed prohibition. Constitutional amendments since then have reformed either presidential election and succession procedures (the Twenty-second, Twenty-third, and Twenty-fifth) or elections themselves (the Twenty-fourth and Twenty- sixth). The Twenty-seventh and most-recently ratified amendment, which addresses congressional pay, lay dormant for over 200 years before a college student revived interest in it.
Indeed, since the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982, no major social or political movement has seriously attempted to amend the Constitution to accomplish its goals. The anti-abortion movement, for example, generally focuses on limiting abortion’s scope through legislation and on supporting presidential candidates who will appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. Opponents of capital punishment universally argue that the death penalty already violates the Eighth Amendment; advocating a separate constitutional amendment would undermine that argument. The gay-rights movement made the case that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause protects their rights, a position adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges in June.
But recent history shows the electoral value of proposing constitutional amendments. In 2003, the gay-rights movement scored two major legal victories: the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws nationwide in Lawrence v. Texas and Massachusetts’s highest court legalized same-sex marriage under that state’s constitution. For conservatives at the time, the Supreme Court’s trajectory seemed obvious—and so did the solution. As the 2004 election loomed, the conservative National Review forecasted that the spectacle of same-sex marriage would hurt Democratic candidate John Kerry. At the time, the American electorate was still broadly hostile to marriage equality.
To hammer home this connection, the National Review pointed to the Federal Marriage Amendment. First proposed in 2002, the FMA would constitutionally define marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. A path to ratification would be arduous, the magazine argued, but the struggle would bring its own benefits. “Constitutional amendments must be approved by a two-thirds vote of Congress and three quarters of the state legislatures,” it eagerly noted. “That means every political candidate, from the state level up, will be asked to take a stand.” In essence, the 2004 election would become “a national referendum on gay marriage.”
If John Kerry is elected, gay marriage will surely be nationalized by the end of his term. A Bush defeat would take the wind out of the sails of the campaign for the Federal Marriage Amendment, assure liberal judges that no serious consequences will arise from nationalization, and bring more Goodridge-style liberals onto the courts. A Bush victory, on the other hand, would keep the FMA alive, would help signal the courts that they’ve gone too far, and would stop the proliferation of activist judges on our courts.
Evangelicals took credit when Bush trounced Kerry that fall, although some dispute their impact. But their perceived role went unrewarded when Congress didn’t pass the FMA after Bush’s reelection; Democrats then retook both houses in 2006, forestalling future attempts. As public acceptance of same-sex couples grew in the Obama years, most GOP candidates abandoned the amendment. (Texas senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz said last year that he still supports it, however.)
Republicans aren’t alone in using constitutional amendments to stir up their base, although they do it particularly effectively. After Al Gore was defeated in the 2000 presidential election despite winning the popular vote, some congressional Democrats proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Those efforts lost steam after Barack Obama trounced John McCain and Mitt Romney with significant margins of electoral votes. A similar movement emerged after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FECthat struck down limits on corporate and union election spending. Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposed one of several amendments in 2011; Hillary Clinton said she would only appoint justices who pledged to overturn the ruling.
Could birthright citizenship still be undone? There’s a strain of legal thought that argues that a constitutional amendment wouldn’t be necessary. In 1985, Yale law professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith proposed that congressional legislation could clarify that the right does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants. It’s not a completely heretical idea—Richard Posner, a prominent federal judge in the Seventh Circuit, endorsed it in 2010—but it’s not a mainstream one, either. When Congress considered similar legislation in 1995, Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger told members that a bill “that would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to certain classes of alien parents is unconstitutional on its face.” Although a constitutional amendment to achieve the same goal could not itself be unconstitutional, Dellinger also argued it “would flatly contradict the Nation’s constitutional history and constitutional traditions.”
Would the Supreme Court uphold a narrower view of birthright citizenship today? Curtailing the Citizenship Clause’s scope would be a seismic shift in constitutional law, beyond even Citizens United or Obergefell. The justices may also be reluctant to weaken a constitutional amendment explicitly designed to override a previous Supreme Court ruling—especially if that ruling was Dred Scott. But recent history shows that the easiest way to change the Constitution is not to amend it, but rather, to change the composition of the Court that interprets it. With three justices of the current Court turning 80 years old before the 2016 election, the next president might be able to do just that.
Anchor baby is a pejorative[1][2] term for a child born in the United States to a foreign national mother who was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.[3]There is a popular misconception that the child’s U.S. citizenship status (acquired by jus soli) legally helps the child’s parents and siblings to quickly reclassify their visa status (or lack thereof) and to place them on a fast pathway to acquire lawful permanent residence and eventually United States citizenship.[4][5] This is a myth.[6] Current U.S. federal law prevents anyone under the age of 21 from being able to petition for their non-citizen parent to be lawfully admitted into the United States for permanent residence. So at best, the child’s family would need to wait for 21 years before being able to use their child’s US citizenship to modify their immigration status.[7]
The term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen and can later act as a sponsor for other family members.[8][9] The term is also often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States to refer to children of illegal immigrants, but may be used for the child of any immigrant.[10] A similar term, “passport baby”, has been used in Canada for children born through so-called “maternity” or “birth tourism“.[11][12]
History and usage
A related term, “anchor child”, referring in this case to “very young immigrants who will later sponsor immigration for family members who are still abroad”, was used in reference to Vietnameseboat people from about 1987.[10][13][14][15][16] “Anchor baby” appeared in print in 1996, but remained relatively obscure until 2006, when it found new prominence amid the increased focus on the immigration debate in the United States.[8][10][16][17] Lexicographer Grant Barrett nominated the term for theAmerican Dialect Society‘s 2006 Word of the Year.[16]
It is generally considered pejorative. In 2011 the American Heritage Dictionary added an entry for the term in the dictionary’s new edition, which did not indicate that the term was disparaging. Following a critical blog piece by Mary Giovagnoli, the director of the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigration research group in Washington, the dictionary updated its online definition to indicate that the term is “offensive”, similar to its entries on ethnic slurs.[17][18] As of 2012, the definition reads:
n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child’s birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother’s or other relatives’ chances of securing eventual citizenship.
The decision to revise the definition led to some criticism from illegal immigration opponents.[19]Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that advocates tighter restrictions on immigration,[20] argues that defining the term as offensive is inaccurate and is done for purposes of political rhetoric; according to Krikorian, “‘[An anchor baby] is a child born to an illegal immigrant,'” and the revision of the definition to state that the term is offensive was done to make a political statement.[19] According to Fox News:
Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based organization that seeks to end illegal immigration, said the revised definition panders to a small but vocal group of critics who are “manipulating the political, cultural and now linguistic landscape” of the United States. “Publishing word definitions to fit politically correct molds surrenders the language to drive an agenda,” Dane told FoxNews.com. “This dictionary becomes a textbook for the open borders lobby.”[19]
Professor of Law at the University of Florida, Pedro A. Malavet,[21] said that the dictionary’s reclassification of the term “anchor baby” to a term that is considered offensive was “right”.[22]
According to the Double-Tongued Dictionary, written by American lexicographerGrant Barrett, the term “anchor baby” means “a child born of an immigrant in the United States, said to be a device by which a family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose United States citizenship.” In response to a reader comment, Barrett claimed that the term is used to refer to a child of any immigrant, not just children of illegal immigrants.[23]
In 2012, UtahAttorney GeneralMark Shurtleff, in a meeting designed to promote the 2010 Utah Compact declaration as a model for a federal government approach to immigration, said that “The use of the word ‘anchor baby’ when we’re talking about a child of God is offensive.”[24]
Maternity tourism industry
As of 2015, Los Angeles is considered the center of the maternity tourism industry; authorities in the city there closed 14 maternity tourism “hotels” in 2013.[25] The industry is difficult to close down since it is perfectly legal for a pregnant woman to travel to the U.S.[25]
On March 3, 2015 Federal Agents in Los Angeles conducted a series of raids on 3 “multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses” expected to produce the “biggest federal criminal case ever against the booming ‘anchor baby’ industry”, according to the Wall Street Journal.[25][26]
Immigration status
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents’ citizenship or immigration status.[27][28][29][30][31][32] However, some, like Edward Erler argue that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, there is no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants: “Even if the logic is that Wong Kim Ark became a citizen by birth with the permission of the United States when it admitted his parents to the country, no such permission has been given to those who enter illegally.”[33]
Statistics show that a significant, and rising, number of illegal aliens are having children in the United States, but there is mixed evidence that acquiring citizenship for the parents is their goal.[28] According to PolitFact of the St. Petersburg Times, the immigration benefits of having a child born in the United States are limited. Citizen children cannot sponsor parents for entry into the country until they are 21 years of age, and if the parent had ever been in the country illegally, they would have to show they had left and not returned for at least ten years; however, pregnant and nursing mothers could receive free food vouchers through the federalWIC (Women, Infants and Children) program and enroll the children in Medicaid.[28]
Parents of citizen children who have been in the country for ten years or more can also apply for relief from deportation, though only 4,000 persons a year can receive relief status; as such, according to PolitFact, having a child in order to gain citizenship for the parents is “an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process.”[28]Approximately 88,000 legal-resident parents of US citizen children were deported in the 2000s, most for minor criminal convictions.[34]
Incidence
Some critics of illegal immigration claim the United States’ “birthright citizenship” is an incentive for illegal immigration, and that immigrants come to the country to give birth specifically so that their child will be an American citizen. The majority of children of illegal immigrants in the United States are citizens, and the number has risen. According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, an estimated 73% of children of illegal immigrants were citizens in 2008, up from 63% in 2003. A total of 3.8 million unauthorized immigrants had at least one child who is an American citizen. In investigating a claim by U.S. SenatorLindsey Graham, PolitiFact found mixed evidence to support the idea that citizenship was the motivating factor.[28] PolitiFact concludes that “[t]he data suggests that the motivator for illegal immigrants is the search for work and a better economic standing over the long term, not quickie citizenship for U.S.-born babies.”[28]
There has been a growing trend, especially amongst Chinese visitors to the United States, to make use of “Birth Hotels” to secure US citizenship for their child and leave open the possibility of future immigration by the parents to the United States.[35][36] The U.S. government estimates that there were 7,462 births to foreign residents in 2008[37] while the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that 40,000 births are born to “birth tourists” annually.[37] Pregnant women typically spend around $20,000 to stay in the facilities during their final months of pregnancy and an additional month to recuperate and await their new baby’s U.S. passport.[38] In some cases, the birth of a Canadian[39] or American[40] child to mainland Chinese parents is a means to circumvent the one-child policy in China;[41]Hong Kong[42]and the Northern Mariana Islands[43] were also popular destinations before more restrictive local regulation impeded traffic. Some prospective mothers misrepresent their intentions of coming to the United States, a violation of U.S. immigration law; however, it is not illegal for a woman to come to the U.S. to give birth.[44]
Controversies
On August 17, 2006, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn used the term “anchor baby” in reference to Saul Arellano, in a column critical of his mother, who had been given sanctuary at a Chicago church after evading a deportation order.[45] After receiving two complaints, the next day Eric Zorn stated in his defense in his Chicago Tribune blog that the term had appeared in newspaper stories since 1997, “usually softened by quotations as in my column”, and stated that he regretted having used the term in his column and promised not to use it again in the future.
On August 23, 2007, the San Diego, California-area North County Times came under criticism from one of its former columnists, Raoul Lowery Contreras, in a column titled “‘Anchor babies’ is hate speech”, for allowing the term “anchor baby” to be printed in letters and opinion pieces.[46]
On April 15, 2014, during a televised immigration debate between San Antonio, Texas Mayor Julian Castro and Texas Senator Dan Patrick, Dan Patrick came under criticism when he used the term “anchor babies” while describing his own view of some of the immigration issues the state of Texas faced.[47][48]
On November 14, 2014, CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo used the term on New Day: “Breaking overnight, President Obama has a plan to overhaul the immigration system on his own — an executive order on anchor babies entitling millions to stay in the U.S. Republicans say this would be war. Is the word “shutdown” actually being used already?” Chris Cuomo later apologized for the comment, ” OK, now, do they? Because let’s think through what this issue actually is on the other side of it. This issue is called the “anchor babies.” I used that term this morning. I shouldn’t have. It’s ugly and it’s offensive to what it is. What it really goes to is the root of the most destructive part of our current immigration policy, you’re splitting up families. They come here, here illegally, they have a baby, and the family gets split up. Maybe the kid stays. We don’t have a workable formation. This goes to the heart of the Latino vote because it shows a real lack of sympathy. You have to come up with some kind of fix. So why avoid this one? Don’t you have to take it on?”[49]
Birthright citizenship in the United States refers to a person’s acquisition of United States citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of his or her birth. It contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization later in life. Birthright citizenship may be conferred by jus soli or jus sanguinis. UnderUnited States law, U.S. citizenship is automatically granted to any person born within and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. This includes the territories of Puerto Rico, the Marianas (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands) and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and also applies to children born elsewhere in the world to U.S. citizens (with certain exceptions).[1][2]
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by itsCitizenship Clause, which states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”[3]
Statute, by birth within U.S.
As of 2011, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C.§ 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. The following are among those listed there as persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
“a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” or
“a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe” (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
“a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States”
“a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person”
U.S. territories
The 14th amendment applies to incorporated territories, so people born in incorporated territories of the U.S. (currently, only the Palmyra Atoll) are automatically U.S. citizens at birth.[4]
There are special provisions governing children born in some current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, theVirgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C.§ 1402 states that “[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth”.[5]
Outlying possessions
According to 8 U.S.C.§ 1408 persons born (or found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying possession of the U.S. (which is defined by 8 U.S.C.§ 1101 as American Samoa and Swains Island) are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department publication titled Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions explains the complexities of this topic.[6]
Statute, by parentage
Under certain circumstances, children may acquire U.S. citizenship from their parents. From 1940 until 1978, a child born abroad who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth but had only one U.S. citizen parent had to fulfill a “retention requirement” of residing, or being physically present, in the United States or its outlying possessions for a certain number of years before reaching a specified age. Otherwise the child would not retain the U.S. citizenship (hence the name “retention requirement”). The retention requirement was changed several times, eliminated in 1978, and subsequently eliminated with retroactive effect in 1994.[7]
Children born overseas to married parents
The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see below):[8]
If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever had a residence in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child’s birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
the U.S. citizen parent has been “physically present”[9] in the U.S. before the child’s birth for a total period of at least five years, and
at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent’s fourteenth birthday.[10]
Children born overseas out of wedlock
There is an asymmetry in the way citizenship status of children born overseas to unmarried parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, is handled.
Title 8 U.S.C.§ 1409 paragraph (c) provides that children born abroad after December 24, 1952 to unmarried American mothers are U.S. citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year at any time prior to the birth.
8 U.S.C.§ 1409 paragraph (a) provides that children born to American fathers unmarried to the children’s non-American mothers are considered U.S. citizens only if the father meets the “physical presence” conditions described above, and the father takes several actions:
Unless deceased, has agreed to provide financial support to the child until he reaches 18,
Establish paternity by clear and convincing evidence and, while the person is under the age of 18 years
the person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile,
the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
8 U.S.C.§ 1409 paragraph (a) provides that acknowledgment of paternity can be shown by acknowledging paternity under oath and in writing; having the issue adjudicated by a court; or having the child otherwise “legitimated” by law.
Because of this rule, unusual cases have arisen whereby children have been fathered by American men overseas from non-American women, brought back to the United States as babies without the mother, raised by the American father in the United States, and later held to be deportable as non-citizens in their 20s.[11][12]The final element has taken an especially significant importance in these circumstances, as once the child has reached 18, the father is forever unable to establish paternity to deem his child a citizen.[13]
This distinction between unwed American fathers and American mothers was constructed and reaffirmed by Congress out of concern that a flood of illegitimate Korean and Vietnamese children would later claim American citizenship as a result of their parentage by American servicemen overseas fighting wars in their countries.[14] In many cases, American servicemen passing through in wartime may not have even learned they had fathered a child.[14] In 2001, the Supreme Court, by 5–4 majority in Nguyen v. INS, first established the constitutionality of this gender distinction.[11][12]
According to the Constitution of the United States only natural born citizens are eligible to serve as President of the United States or as Vice President. The text of the Constitution does not define what is meant by natural born: in particular it does not specify whether there is any distinction to be made between persons whose citizenship is based on jus sanguinis (parentage) and those whose citizenship is based on jus soli (birthplace). As a result, controversies have arisen over the eligibility of a number of candidates for the office.
Legal history
Throughout much of the history of the United States, the fundamental legal principle governing citizenship has been that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers United States citizenship, although slaves and the children of slave mothers, under the principle of partus sequitur ventrem, were excluded.[15] The United States did not grant citizenship after the American Civil War to all former slaves until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was subsequently confirmed by the Fourteenth Amendment. American Indian tribal members are not covered specifically by the constitutional guarantee. Those living in tribes on reservations were generally not considered citizens until passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, although by that time nearly two-thirds of American Indians were already citizens.
English common law
Birthright citizenship, as with much United States law, has its roots in English common law.[16]Calvin’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608),[18] was particularly important as it established that, under English common law, “a person’s status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth—a person born within the king’s dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king’s protection.”[19] This same principle was adopted by the newly formed United States, as stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England…since as before the Revolution.[20]” United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866). However, Calvin’s Case is distinguishable, as a Scotsman was granted title to English land as his King and England’s King (James) were one and the same.[21] Calvin was not born in England.[21] Moreover, inCalvin’s Case, Lord Coke cited examples in which the native-born children of parents, either invading the country or who were enemies of the country, were not natural-born subjects because the birth lacked allegiance and obedience to the sovereign.[22]
Justice Roger B. Taney in the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (How. 19) 393 (1857) held that African Americans, whether slave or free, had never been and could never become citizens of the United States, as they were excluded by the Constitution. The political scientist Stuart Streichler writes that Taney’s decision was based on “a skewed reading of history.”.[24] Justice Benjamin R. Curtis in his dissent showed that under the Articles of Confederation, free blacks had already been considered citizens in five states and carried that citizenship forward when the Constitution was ratified.[25]
He wrote:
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States … The Constitution has left to the States the determination what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth citizenship of the United States…[26]
1862 opinion of the Attorney General of the United States
In 1862, Secretary of the TreasurySalmon P. Chase sent a question to Attorney GeneralEdward Bates asking whether or not “colored men” can be citizens of the United States. Attorney General Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, “I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, …[27][italics in original]” In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,
… our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in a country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the natural born right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.[28][italics in original]
Civil Rights Act of 1866
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared: “…all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”[29] (“Indians not taxed” referred to tribal members living on reservations.)
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”[3]
This act, a companion piece to the Fourteenth Amendment, was approved on 27 July 1868.[30]
The Expatriation Act of 1868 led President Ulysses S. Grant to write in 1873, that the United States had “led the way in the overthrow of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance”.[31]
“The word ‘jurisdiction’ must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.”[35]
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924[36] provided “That all noncitizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States”. This same provision (slightly reworded) is contained in present-day law as section 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (8 USC 1401(b)).
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth..”
The Slaughter-House Cases
In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S.36 (1873) — a civil rights case not dealing specifically with birthright citizenship — a majority of the Supreme Courtmentioned in passing that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”.[38]
Elk v. Wilkins
In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S.94 (1884), the Supreme Court denied the birthright citizenship claim of an American Indian. The court ruled that being born in the territory of the United States is not sufficient for citizenship; those who wish to claim citizenship by birth must be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The court’s majority held that the children of Native Americans were
“no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”[39]
Thus, Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes would not automatically become U.S. citizens.[40] Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress half a century later in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which rendered the Elk decision obsolete.
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Canadians transferred to U.S. hospitals
Since the majority of Canadians live in the relatively thin strip of land close to the long border with the United States, Canadians in need of urgent medical care are occasionally transferred to nearby American medical centers. In some circumstances, Canadian mothers facing high-risk births have given birth in Americanhospitals. Such children are American citizens by birthright.[41]
In these circumstances, Canadian laws are similar to those of the United States. Babies born in Canada of American parents are also Canadian citizens by birthright.[42]
In both of these situations, the birthright citizenship is passed on to their children, born decades later. In some cases, births in American hospital (sometimes called “border babies“) have resulted in persons who lived for much of their lives in Canada, but not knowing that they had never had official Canadian citizenship. This group of people is sometimes called Lost Canadians.[43]
Another problem arises where a Canadian child, born to Canadian parents in a US border hospital, is treated as a dual citizen and added to the United States tax base on this basis despite having never lived, worked nor studied in that nation. While Canadian income tax is only payable by those who reside or earn income in Canada, the US Internal Revenue Service taxes its citizens worldwide. Campobello Island is particularly problematic as, while legally part of New Brunswick, the only year-round fixed link off the island leads not to Canada but to Lubec, Maine — leading to many Canadians whose families have lived on Campobello for generations not being able to claim to be born in Canada.[44]
Current controversy
Original meaning
During the original debate over the 14th Amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes American Indians who maintain their tribal ties and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”[45] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[46][47] However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee ChairmanLyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well asPresidentAndrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion.[48][49][50]
Most of the debate on this section of the Amendment centered on whether the wording in the Civil Rights Act or Howard’s proposal more effectively excluded Aboriginal Americans on reservations and in U.S. territories from citizenship. Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin asserted that all Native Americans are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that the phrase “Indians not taxed” would be preferable,[51] but Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the U.S. government did not have full jurisdiction over Native American tribes, which govern themselves and make treaties with the United States.[52][53]
Edward Erler argues that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, there is no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants: “Even if the logic is that Wong Kim Ark became a citizen by birth with the permission of the United States when it admitted his parents to the country, no such permission has been given to those who enter illegally.”[54] Angelo Ancheta, by contrast, criticizes the “consent-based theory of citizenship”, saying that “The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to ensure citizenship for ‘all persons’ born in the United States, particularly in response to ambiguities in legal status that attached to being the descendants of an outsider class, namely slaves.”[55]
Modern dispute
In the late 1990s opposition arose over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship on a jus soli basis[56] as fears grew in some circles that the existing law encouraged parents-to-be to come to the United States to have children in order to improve the parents’ chances of attaining legal residency themselves.[57][58] Some media correspondents[59][60] and public leaders, including former congressman Virgil Goode, have controversially dubbed this the “anchor baby” situation,[61][62] and politicians have proposed legislation on this basis that might alter how birthright citizenship is awarded.[63]
The Pew Hispanic Center determined that according to an analysis of Census Bureau data about 8 percent of children born in the United States in 2008 — about 340,000 — were offspring of illegal immigrants. In total, about four million American-born children of illegal immigrant parents resided in this country in 2009, along with about 1.1 million foreign-born children of illegal immigrant parents.[64] The Center for Immigration Studies—a think tank which favors stricter controls on immigration—claims that between 300,000 and 400,000 children are born each year to illegal immigrants in the U.S.[65][66]
Bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have sought to declare American-born children of foreign nationals not to be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, and thus not entitled to citizenship via the 14th Amendment, unless at least one parent was an American citizen or a lawfulpermanent resident.
Both Democrats and Republicans have introduced legislation aimed at narrowing the application of the Citizenship Clause. In 1993, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced legislation that would limit birthright citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and legally resident aliens, and similar bills have been introduced by other legislators in every Congress since.[66] For example, U.S. RepresentativeNathan Deal, a Republican from the State of Georgia, introduced the “Citizenship Reform Act of 2005” (H.R. 698) in the 109th Congress,[67] the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007” (H.R. 1940)[68] in the 110th Congress, and the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009” (H.R. 1868)[69] in the 111th Congress. However, neither these nor any similar bill has ever been passed by Congress.
Some legislators, unsure whether such Acts of Congress would survive court challenges, have proposed that the Citizenship Clause be changed through aconstitutional amendment.[70] Senate Joint Resolution 6, introduced on January 16, 2009 in the 111th Congress, proposes such an amendment;[71] however, neither this, nor any other proposed amendment, has yet been approved by Congress for ratification by the states.
The most recent judge to weigh in on the issue as to whether a constitutional amendment would be necessary to change the policy is Judge Richard Posner who remarked in a 2003 case that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.” He explained, “A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it.” Posner also wrote, that automatic birthright citizenship is a policy that “Congress should rethink” and that the United States “should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children.”[72]
Professor Edward J. Erler of the California State University has argued that “Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe by tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen. This citizenship was based on reciprocal consent: an offer on the part of the U.S. and acceptance on the part of an individual. Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more required now than it was in 1923.”[73] Some others have disagreed with this interpretation, contending that while Congress can define territories (such as an Indian Reservation) as US jurisdiction, it has no power to define people as under US jurisdiction aside from where they were born.[74]
Republicans in the State of Arizona have indicated an intention to introduce state legislation which would seek to deny American citizenship to Arizona-born children of illegal immigrant parents by prohibiting the issuance of a birth certificate unless at least one parent has legal status.[75][76] However, critics argue that the child or parents could immediately sue the state for discrimination and that the federal courts would immediately force the state to issue the birth certificate.[74]
A report by an organization called the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) in 2012 asserted that revoking birthright citizenship would be bureaucratic, expensive, would result in a national ID card, and would not slow illegal immigration.[74] Under current law, if a citizen parent gives birth in a foreign country, they must prove their own citizenship in order for their baby to have citizenship. The NFAP estimated this to cost $600 per baby, not including legal fees. The report alleged that if birthright citizenship were eliminated, every baby in the United States would be subject to this cost. For the four million babies born each year in the U.S., this would total $24 billion per year. In addition, currently the US government does not keep any record of births, instead using the records of individual states to issue passports. The report alleged that the end of birthright citizenship would leave the states unable to verify whether a new baby should be granted citizenship, requiring the federal government instead to issue birth certificates, and likely a national ID card. Finally, the report claimed that eliminating birthright citizenship would not reduce illegal immigration. The report said that immigrants come to the United States for economic reasons, and illegal immigrants cannot use a citizen child to be granted citizenship. The report also said that all proposals to end birthright citizenship, aside from a constitutional amendment, would be unconstitutional and quickly be overturned in court.[74] The Center for Immigration Studies disputed these conclusions, asserting in its own 2012 report that the NFAP’s claims were “unsupported”, that a bureaucratic overhaul would not be necessary, and that ending automatic birthright citizenship would not cost parents money, result in a caste system, or create stateless children.[77]
Story 1: Obama’s Betrayal of His Oath of Office — Traitorous Terrorist Treaty — Iranians Inspect Their Own Military Installations Building Nuclear Weapons –Obama Legacy Is A Sellout of The American People And Unconditional Surrender To Iran’s Demands — Not A Joke — Treason! — Not Trust, Not Verification — Obama Lied And Americans Will Die — Videos
The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2
“International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period.”
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce
“Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement.”
~John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator
“President Obama boasts his deal includes ‘unprecedented verification.’ He claims it’s not built on trust. But the administration’s briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient – and it still isn’t clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents.”
~House Speaker John Boehner
Iran Secret Deal “Self Inspection”
Krauthammer: Iran Self-Inspecting Nuclear Facility Is ‘Scandalous, Farcical’
Megyn Kelly – Amb. Ron Dermer responds to Donald Trump’s Iran strategy
Side Deal Allows Iran To Conduct Its Own Nuclear Inspections
Iran Nuclear Side Deal – Iran Can Conduct Its Own Nuclear Inspections
IAEA: Iran has to allow inspection of country’s military sites
The Iran nuclear deal. Good deal or bad deal?
The Iran Nuclear Deal
MM160 – Iran Side-Deal Exposed
CBN NewsWatch: August 20, 2015
CNBC: Inspections program for Iran nuclear activity ‘a whole lot of bunk’
White House ‘Confident’ IAEA Can Investigate Iran
President Obama: Iran deal not built on trust, but verification
2015 – CNN World News – Obama On Iran Nuclear Deal – Full Speech
Larry Elder Interviews Michael Ledeen
Top three consequences of the Iran nuclear deal
Malzberg | Patrick J. Buchanan weighs in on the Iran Deal
FDD Freedom Scholar Michael Ledeen comments on Iran and radical Islamist ideology.
NETANYAHU on IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL – “One of the Darkest Days in World History”
Malzberg | Dr. Michael Ledeen: “Obama is on Iran’s side”
Michael Ledeen: Bring Down the Iranian Regime
Federal Prosecutor: Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal Clearly Treason
In a interview with Frank Gaffney, Former Federal Prosecutor Andy McCarthy lays out why the Iran nuclear deal put forth by the Obama administration is clearly a act of treason against the United States.
General: Obama’s Iran Deal Is ‘A Treasonous Act Under The Constitution’
Major General Paul Vallely (Ret.) blasted Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran while being interviewed by Alan Colmes on Fox News. The General stated that Obama, Kerry and the State Department are ‘aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States’ and is ‘a treasonous act under the constitution’ in his opinion.
Secret Side Deal “Iran, IAEA Deal” ?
Iran’s parliament upholds ban for IAEA to access military sites, scientists ‘at will’
Iran’s Supreme Leader refuses access to military sites and scientists
Iran’s Guardian Council ratifies bill banning inspection of military sites
Top commander: Iran never to allow foreigners to inspect military sites
Amid nuke talks, Ayatollah says ‘death to America’
IAEA: Iran has to allow inspection of country’s military sites
McConnell Calls for Senate Passage of Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act
US Republican-led Senate passes Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act
Mark Levin: “Obama Has Now Planted The Seeds Of World War III” With Iran Deal
Mark Levin: Senate passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act 98 to 1 (audio from 05-07-2015)
Incredible! New George S Patton speech! Iran & modern warfare
AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site
The day after a devastating take-down of the Iran deal from Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the Associated Press reports:
Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
The revelation is sure to roil American and Israeli critics of the main Iran deal signed by the U.S., Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the deal is built on trust of the Iranians, a claim the U.S. has denied.
It surely will. “This establishes the exact precedent that Iran always sought and repeatedly claimed: IAEA weapons inspectors will never get physical access into any military sites,” says sanctions expert Mark Dubowitz in an email. “That the Obama administration agreed to Iranian self-inspections tells you everything you need to know about how far it caved on the essential elements of a verifiable and enforceable nuclear agreement.”
The inspection regime and dispute resolution system was already riddled with loopholes that Iran will exploit. But with this there is not even the pretense that there is a viable inspection process. With self-inspection comes the open door for Iran to cheat with impunity. The AP report continues:
The Parchin deal is a separate, side agreement worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers that signed the Iran nuclear deal were not party to this agreement but were briefed on it by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package. Without divulging its contents, the Obama administration has described the document as nothing more than a routine technical arrangement between Iran and the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency on the particulars of inspecting the site.
Ironically, Menendez’s speech is more true in the wake of the AP report than it was when he delivered it:
For well over a decade, the world has been concerned about the secret weaponization efforts Iran conducted at the military base called Parchin. The goal that we have long sought, along with the international community, is to know what Iran accomplished at Parchin — not necessarily to get Iran to declare culpability — but to determine how far along they were in their nuclear weaponization program so that we know what signatures to look for in the future. . . .
With so much at stake, the IAEA — after waiting over ten years to inspect Parchin, speak to Iranian nuclear scientists, and review additional materials and documents — are now told they will not have direct access to Parchin. The list of scientists the P5+1 wanted the IAEA to interview were rejected outright by Iran, and they are now given three months to do all of their review and analysis before they must deliver a report in December of this year. How the inspections and soil and other samples are to be collected are outlined in two secret agreements that the U.S. Congress is not privy to. The answer as to why we cannot see those documents, is because they have a confidentiality agreement between the IAEA and Iran, which they say ‘is customary,’ but this issue is anything but customary.
“If Iran can violate its obligations for more than a decade, it can’t then be allowed to avail themselves of the same provisions and protections they violated in the first place. We have to ask: Why would our negotiators decide to negotiate access to other IAEA documents, but not these documents? Maybe the reason, as some members of Congress and public reports have raised, is because it will be the Iranians and not the IAEA performing the tests and providing the samples to be analyzed, which would be the equivalent of having an athlete accused of using performance enhancing drugs submit an unsupervised urine sample to the appropriate authority. Chain of custody doesn’t matter when the evidence given to you is prepared by the perpetrator.
Maybe this is why we did not get a look at the side deal. If Iran is going to inspect itself anyway it hardly matters if we know about PMD’s or how many days inspectors must wait.
Tellingly, according to Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein, the White House put out a weak-kneed statement saying it was “confident in the agency’s technical plans” and insisted if the IAEA was happy, it was happy. According to the Washington Free Beacon, Iran threatened an IAEA official if he revealed the nature of the side deals. No wonder.
It is hard to argue that the contents of the deal amount to anything approaching the stated aim of preventing Iran from going nuclear. Obama frankly wanted a document so badly he literally did not care what was in it, or at least what was in the critical side deal. The deal is an utter farce. Democrats who have not declared their intentions to date will be hard-pressed to justify supporting it.
UPDATE: Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, tells me, “This type of unorthodox agreement has never been done before by the IAEA and speaks to the great lengths our negotiators took to accommodate the Ayatollah despite repeated assurances from the administration that this deal is not based on trust.” House Speaker John Boehner put out a statement, which reads, “The Obama administration has a lot of explaining to do. Why haven’t these secret side agreements been provided to Congress and the American people for review? Why should Iran be trusted to carry out its own nuclear inspections at a military site it tried to hide from the world? How does this not set a precedent for future inspections at suspicious military sites in Iran?” He continued, “President Obama boasts his deal includes ‘unprecedented verification.’ He claims it’s not built on trust. But the administration’s briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient – and it still isn’t clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents. The American people and their representatives in Congress have serious questions about whether this nuclear agreement will keep our country safe, and it’s time for this administration to provide honest answers.”
Story 1: Stupid Is As Stupid Does — Clinton Cavalier Control of Classified Documents Caused National Security Breach — Federal Bureau of Investigation Working With National Security Agency’s Complete Collection of Clinton Emails in Target Clinton’s Dossier! — Clinton Playing Dumb or Just Plain Dumb — Time For Criminal Investigation Leading To Indictment — Corrupt Criminal Clinton Conspiracy — –Videos
STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES – FORREST GUMP
Clinton Shrugs Off Question About Wiping Server Clean
Aug 19 — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke to the press after a town hall meeting today in Las Vegas on Tuesday. No surprise, the topic on everyone’s mind was the controversy surrounding her e-mails. When pressed by Fox’s Ed Henry as to whether she wiped the server clean, Clinton replied, “What, like with a cloth or something?” She went on to admit, “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”
Hillary Clinton Caught In A lie? – Hillary Email Scandal – Judge Andrew Napolitano – Stuart Varney
Watch the Full Clinton-Paul Exchange from the Benghazi Hearing
Trusted Surveillance Part 4/8 – Enemy of The State
NSA Whistleblower: Everyone in US under virtual surveillance, all info stored, no matter the post
Bill Binney: ‘21 recommendations on fixing NSA sent to US president last year’
NSA Whistleblower William Binney: The Future of FREEDOM
MM157 – Backup Server for Clinton Emails?
Donald Trump Interview: Hillary Clinton emails ‘devastating’
Trump Surges As Clinton Begins Political Descent
Hillary Clinton E-mail Scandal Getting Worse Amid New Details
Clinton Confirms She Wiped Her Email Server
How Will E-Mail Developments Impact Hillary’s Campaign?
Trey Gowdy Fox News Sunday On Clinton Email Scandal
Giuliani: Hillary Should Be the Subject of a Criminal Investigation
FBI Investigating Hillary Clinton Server – Judge Andrew Napolitano – Hannity
More Classified Documents Found On Clinton’s Private Server
Inspector Finds Top Secret Emails Were On Hillary Clinton’s Server – Trey Gowdy – Benghazi Gate
Hillary Clinton Surrenders Email Server For National Security Investigation – The Real Story
Hillary Clinton’s Deleted Emails May Not Be Gone After All
Trump Hits Clinton on Emails, Bush on Iraq
Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton: emails ‘devastating’ 8/19/15
Pirates of the Carribean 3 (Scene at the Gallows)
Yo, Ho haul together, hoist the colours high
Heave ho, thieves and beggars, never shall we die
Yo, Ho haul together, hoist the colours high
Heave ho, thieves and beggars, never shall we die
The King and his men stole the queen from her bed
and bound her in her bones
The seas be ours and by the powers
Where we will…we’ll roam
Yo, Ho haul together, hoist the colours high
Heave ho, thieves and beggars, never say we die
Some men have died and some are alive
And others sail on the sea
With the keys to the cage
And the devil to pay
We lay to Fiddler’s Green!
Yo, Ho haul together, hoist the colours high
Heave ho, thieves and beggars, never shall we die
The bell has been raised from its watery grave
Do you hear its sepulchral tone?
A Call to all, pay heed to the squall
And turn your sail towards home!
Yo, Ho haul together, hoist the colours high
Heave ho, thieves and beggars, never shall we die
The contagious toxicity of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal
EdwardMorrissey
Until this summer, Democrats mostly figured that Hillary Clinton’s email scandal was one big nothingburger. This nonsense is nothing more than an unjustified conservative attack on a highly accomplished individual who is all but assured of being elected America’s first female president, they insisted. The whole thing will soon fade from the headlines, they blindly assured themselves.
Oops.
For too long, Democrats bought Clinton’s repeated defenses of her exclusive use of a private server while she ran the State Department. They believed that this potential security violation really was for her convenience, that she had copied other State Department addresses to preserve “90 percent” of her communications, and that no classified material was transmitted through the unauthorized and unsecured system. And if that had indeed all been true, Democrats might well have been right that the storm would pass, as has happened with other scandals involving the Clintons.
But one by one, those excuses have fallen by the wayside. The convenience argument fell apart almost immediately. Clinton claimed in a March press conference that she used the private server to limit her mobile devices to a single smartphone when traveling. That excuse made little sense, since any secretary of state travels with staff, who handle communications devices for their boss. Just a few weeks prior to that, Clinton had bragged about all of the high-tech communications devices she carried around. “I’m like two steps short of a hoarder. So I have an iPad, a mini iPad, an iPhone, and a BlackBerry.”
As for copying the State Department on her communications, the State Department itself couldn’t find any evidence for this claim. It turns out that their archival processes were mostly failing during this period of time anyway, a point that Team Hillary tried to use in her favor last week. That, however, ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton was the secretary of state when these State Department systems were failing, and apparently did nothing about it.
That leaves Democrats with the no-classified-material pledge from March’s presser — and that defense has already been walked back more than once. Clinton insisted at the time that she had never sent or received classified material through the system, but when classified material emerged from four emails out of 40 inspected, the defense shifted. Suddenly, Clinton claimed that any material transmitted through the system hadn’t been marked as classified at the time, even though two inspectors general made it clear that the material they found — including top secret intelligence — was “classified when they were sent and are classified now.” The Washington Times and other media outlets now report that intelligence community inspectors general have found an additional 300 emails in the system that likely contain classified materials, after inspecting 20 percent of the communications turned over by Clinton. That’s one in every 20 emails.
This should be hugely worrying to Democrats.
The FBI has taken a serious interest in Platte River Services, where the Clintons sent their server after her time at the State Department. ABC News quotes a company official as saying it’s “highly likely” they have a back-up of the server that includes the emails deleted by Clinton’s legal team. If any of those turn out to be work-related, contain classified material, or are responsive to FOIA and Congressional demands for documentation, it’s not unreasonable to wonder whether the former secretary of state may be in too much legal trouble to continue her campaign.
How Hillary Clinton squandered a savvy campaign
But even in a nightmare scenario where Clinton has to bow out of the race, Democrats could at least rest easy that the email scandal was isolated to Hillary Clinton. Except maybe they can’t.
Indeed, a new reversal by the State Department in a FOIA case risks painting the entire Democratic establishment with the same scandal-red brush. And it may be that an internet scandal sheet will be the prime mover.
In 2013, Gawker filed a FOIA demand to access the emails between Philippe Reines, deputy assistant secretary of state and a longtime Hillary Clinton aide, and various news media outlets and reporters. At the time, the State Department answered in court that they could find no documents responsive to the FOIA demand. Gawker spent significant amounts of time and resources suing the State Department for the data, which should have been publicly available through the Federal Records Act. Last week, the State Department finally admitted to the court that they had found more than 81,000 of Reines’ emails, and that over 17,800 of them were “likely responsive” to the FOIA demand.
These emails did not come from the private Clinton email server, from which Reines produced 20 cartons of printed emails for State to archive and inspect. The 17,800-plus emails identified by State in its court filing came from its own systems, which State had in its possession all along. Any explanation for the sudden discovery of so many emails after a blanket denial, other than willful obstruction, would beggar belief.
This is a really big deal. Until now, the transparency and honesty issue has focused solely on Hillary Clinton. However, by early 2013, Clinton had left the State Department. John Kerry had taken over as secretary of state. If the lack of transparency was limited to the State Department under Hillary Clinton’s direction, then why did it continue under Kerry — and in such an obviously clumsy way?
It is entirely possible, and frankly likely, that the lack of transparency didn’t start and end with Hillary Clinton, although she may have pushed it to the point of damaging national security. Though liberals are loathe to admit it, the Obama administration has too often suppressed transparency, be it the Department of Justice in the Operation Fast and Furious scandal or the IRS or now the State Department.
And because of that, Clinton’s scandal could stick to the two men getting the most mention as possible emergency replacements for her in the Democratic primary. John Kerry’s State Department seemed perfectly willing to hide Clinton’s potential issues from public oversight. How could he take the 2016 mantle from her? And if Joe Biden ran for president, the argument for his candidacy would explicitly rest on continuity from the Obama years — years in which those in power tried to manipulate courts and avoid legitimate oversight.
If this scandal gets any worse, Democrats may have no one left to rescue them from a disaster of their own making.
A restive crowd waited for an hour in a packed and warm gymnasium at a community center in North Las Vegas, one of the poorer neighborhoods of the glitzy city, for the chance to ask Hillary Clinton some questions.When she arrived Tuesday afternoon, a dozen supporters — many waving both hands in the air to get her attention in the circular town hall setup — got their opportunity. They asked her about gun laws, stand your ground laws, and what she would do to support LGBT rights. The crowd was excited, cheering for both the questions and the answers. One woman simply asked for a hug (Clinton promised she would give her one when she finished her Q&A); a child’s voice piped up to ask if Clinton would earn as much as a man if she becomes president. Throughout the hourlong town hall, Clinton appeared relaxed and loose.
Close to an hour later, the Democratic front-runner faced another group who had waited patiently to ask her questions: the press. This time, in an empty and quiet gymnasium, Clinton grew testy as the back-and-forth with reporters became more heated and focused pointedly on her emails and her use of a private server while she served as secretary of state.
“What was supposed to be convenient has turned out to be anything but convenient,” she said, reiterating that she “wants Americans to understand” that when it comes to whether or not she sent or received any classified emails, the process would be the same whether or not she had used a government account. “It has nothing to do with me and it has nothing to do with the fact that my account was personal,” she said of inspectors general investigations into whether or not classified material was discovered.
“Isn’t leadership about taking responsibility?” she was asked.
“I take responsibility … in retrospect this didn’t turn out to be convenient at all,” she said. “And I regret that this had to become such a cause celebre,” reiterating that what she did was legal and she has tried to be helpful to law enforcement agencies.
“No matter what anyone tries to say, the facts are stubborn,” Clinton said. “What I did was legally permitted, first and foremost. No. 2, I turned over an abundance of [emails in] an attempt to be helpful, over anything that I thought was vaguely related [to work]… and I said make them public.” She acknowledged “anxiety” about it, but stated: “The facts are the facts.”
The Justice Department is now investigating whether there was any improper handling of sensitive material. Clinton’s campaign has said she is not the target of the probe.
But when pressed multiple times about whether she had tried to wipe her entire email server clean, Clinton was not able to answer the question.
“I don’t know, I have no idea,” she said. “Like with cloth or something? I don’t know how it works digitally at all. I know you want to make a point, I will just repeat what I have said: in order to be cooperative as possible, we have turned over the server … we turned over everything that was work-related. Every single thing.”
As she exited the gymnasium, a reporter asked her if the questions were an indication that the email controversy isn’t going away, and will dog her campaign into next year.
Clinton turned around, her hands raised in the air in a shrug. “Nobody talked to me about it — other than you guys,” she said, and then exited with her top aides around her.
The dichotomy between the discussion at Clinton’s town hall and the one that followed with the press has existed for months, as controversies surrounding the Clinton Foundation and her email use as secretary of state have swirled around her campaign. Campaign operatives and surrogates maintain that it shows that voters don’t care about what’s in Clinton’s email — they care about policy proposals that affect their lives.
In that vein, Clinton on Tuesday was again eager to draw a contrast with Republicans on issues that will motivate voters in a general election.
“I don’t know how many of you watched that debate,” she said, “Seventeen candidates. … not one word about college affordability, not one word about equal pay for equal work, not one word about dealing with criminal justice and mass incarceration and that black lives matter.” The crowd cheered.
The campaign sent out a news release after the event touting that “Hillary Clinton Drives Core Economic Contrast at Town Hall in Las Vegas.”
But it’s not that the supportive crowd here on Tuesday and others like it that come out to see Clinton do not care about the email controversy, or are not paying attention. Some admitted that even though they like her, they worry it makes her too vulnerable in a general election.
“I’m concerned about that because Republicans could take that and make her look really, really bad,” admitted Otistine Brown, a retired school teacher from Las Vegas, who attended the town hall on Tuesday and said she had an opportunity to speak with Clinton. “I’m concerned about the emails. She said she thought the attention around it was “like a ploy to get her out of this election.”
Even with the controversy swirling in the background, she said she still supports Clinton. “It’s important that she stay in this election,” she said. “I told her to stay in there, and hang in there.”
The investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email is being run out of FBI headquarters — and that’s unusual
Natasha Bertrand
The FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton’s private email server out of its headquarters in Washington, D.C., in an “unusual move,” The New York Times reported.
“Nearly all [FBI] investigations are assigned to one of the bureau’s 56 field offices,” according to The Times.
“But given this inquiry’s importance, senior F.B.I. officials have opted to keep it closely held in Washington in the agency’s counterintelligence section, which investigates how national security secrets are handled.”
Though Clinton’s use of a private email address was not illegal and was permitted by State Department rules, the federal government has standards for how servers are built, how they are secured, and how their data is stored.
The FBI is looking into the configuration of the server that Clinton handed over to authorities.
Clinton has insisted that she never sent or received classified information at the time that it was classified, and there has been no evidence that she broke the law.
However, the intelligence community’s inspector general, Charles McCullough III, told Congress last week that he discovered two emails sent to Clinton that contained information classified as “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information,” which is the government’s highest levels of classification.
‘They’re worried about it’
Those two emails were drawn out of a batch of 40 emails randomly selected from about 30,000 “work-related” emails Clinton turned over to the State Department.
Some of the information — such as communications intercepted via satellite or drone — is protected under the law 18USC798, which means that they have even tighter rules and higher penalties.
Massimo Calabresi of Time notes that the law “makes it a crime not just to knowingly mishandle such secrets, but also to use them ‘in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.'”
Consequently, a senior intelligence official familiar with the case told Time, the FBI’s investigation “will go way beyond what the intelligence community’s Inspector General ever would do.”
The FBI is seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information to Clinton’s account in 2009 and 2011. Given the FBI involvement, the Clinton campaign is getting nervous as the investigation intensifies.
“They’re worried about it,” a longtime Clinton adviser and confidant told The Washington Post. “They don’t know where it goes. That’s the problem.”
REUTERS/Jim YoungDemocratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton listens among the attendees at the Iowa Democratic Wing Ding dinner in Clear Lake, Iowa, August 14, 2015.
‘How did they secure it?’
Clinton’s unusual email system was originally set up by a staffer during Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, replacing a server used by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
The new server was run by Bryan Pagliano, who had worked as the IT director on Hillary Clinton’s campaign before joining the State Department in May 2009. In 2013 — the same year she left the State Department — Clinton hired the Denver-based company Platte River Networks to oversee the system.
Facing criticism earlier this year for exclusively using a private server during her time as secretary of state, Clinton handed over 30,000 work-related emails for the State Department to make public. She also deleted 31,000 emails that she says were personal.
It’s unclear if any sensitive information was stored on the server while under Platte River’s oversight. Platte River “is not cleared” to have access to classified material, Cindy McGovern, chief public affairs officer for the Defense Security Service, told The Daily Caller.
In any case, the decision to hire Platte River to secure the system is facing scrutiny.
“My big issue here is do you want a small firm with little/no government experience or contracting (according to what’s being reported) and no stated security expertise to be in charge of the email system for our [former] secretary of state?” Cybersecurity expert Alex McGeorge of Immunity, Inc. told Business Insider over email.
“That is fundamentally ridiculous.”
Among the questions McGeorge has, and that will likely be investigated by the FBI, are: “How did they secure it? Were they monitoring it for intrusion? If so, how? Were there backups? If so, what kind and how often, and where are those backups now? What kind of security testing did they do, if any? Was the system subject to a penetration test by a third party? Is that report available?”
The Times notes that the FBI “is also trying to determine whether foreign powers, especially China or Russia, gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s private server, although at this point, any security breaches are speculation.”
Hillary Clinton Campaign Says Classified Emails Were on Server
Democrat’s campaign says material was made secret retroactively
By
BYRON TAU and ROBERT MCMILLAN
Hillary Clinton’s campaign said Wednesday that emails on the private server she used when she was secretary of state contained material that is now classified, the clearest explanation thus far of an issue that has roiled her bid for the presidency.
At the same time, the campaign sought to play down the disclosure by saying the material had been retroactively classified out of an abundance of caution by U.S. intelligence agencies.
“She was at worst a passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became deemed as classified,” said Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.
Mrs. Clinton has been criticized for using a private email server when she was in office. Since 2013, the server was maintained by a small Denver company and stored at a secure data center in New Jersey until it was turned over to the FBI last week. Her use of the server has prompted an FBI counterintelligence investigation.
READ MORE ON CAPITAL JOURNAL
Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s home for politics, policy and national security news.
Republicans portrayed the Clinton campaign’s disclosure as a tacit admission that her previous statements about the partisan direction of the investigation were in error. Earlier this year, Mrs. Clinton said “there is no classified material,” before shifting her emphasis to say she didn’t receive any materials marked as classified.
“Secretary Clinton has repeatedly made false claims about her email records, and her charge that these investigations are partisan have been widely ridiculed. If she and her campaign are having a change of heart, she should personally admit the truth and retract her false statements,” saidKevin Smith, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.
The campaign’s latest statements add to the emerging picture of how Mrs. Clinton handled email stored on the private server between 2009 and 2013.
The firm hired to handle the server in June 2013 after Mrs. Clinton left office was a 40-person company in Denver more accustomed to handling tech chores such as network monitoring and cybersecurity for banks, law firms and construction companies. The company’s Facebook page features photos of its sales team dressed as nurses and patients inspired by the 1975 film “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”
Platte River Networks didn’t know about any classified material on the server, a spokesman, Andy Boian, said Wednesday.
Mr. Boian said the Clinton server was picked up at the Clintons’ home in New York and moved to a “secure data center in New Jersey,” where it operated until last week. He said the computer was operational when Platte River took possession of it. “It was an email server,” he said, “That’s what they used it for.”
Pointing to two emails that helped spark the FBI probe, the Clinton campaign said State Department officials considered the material unclassified at the time it was sent. The controversy, said Mr. Fallon, amounts to a dispute between different agencies within the Obama administration about what constitutes classified material and what should be released publicly.
CLASSIFIED EMAILS
Here are two emails sent to Hillary Clinton that helped spark the FBI probe, as reported by Fox News.
“When it comes to classified information, the standards are not at all black and white,” said Mr. Fallon on a conference call with reporters.
The two emails in question were written by lower-ranking State Department officials and forwarded to Mrs. Clinton by top aides Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin, who both now work for her Democratic presidential campaign.
An inspector general for the intelligence community said earlier this year he found four emails containing material that were classified at the time they were written.
Fox News on Wednesday identified two of them as being emails that already have been released publicly as part of an investigation into the death of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, Libya. Both the State Department and the Clinton campaign say neither was classified at the time they were sent to Mrs. Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton has long said her use of a personal email server for government business was legal. She also has said she didn’t send anything deemed classified. State Department rules discouraged private email use for unclassified email but didn’t forbid it.
Critics say her server may have been vulnerable to hacking and that her arrangement gave her and her attorneys the power to determine what material was turned over to the government and what was destroyed. She has said the use of a private server was unwise in hindsight and that she should have used government email. “I take responsibility,” she said Tuesday at a news conference in Las Vegas. “In retrospect, this didn’t turn out to be convenient at all, and I regret that this has become such a cause célèbre.”
It still isn’t clear why Mrs. Clinton chose Platte River to manage the server. Mr. Boian said Platte River had submitted a proposal for the work and won the contract.
Before service providers are authorized to handle classified material, they must undergo a “long formal procedure” to ensure that they have the security measures in place to prevent unauthorized access to the data, said John Pescatore, a former National Security Agency employee who is now a director at the SANS Institute, a computer-security training organization.
Former employees described Platte River as a tightknit company, but an unlikely home for the correspondence of a former secretary of state. The company was formed in 2002 by Treve Suazo, Brent Allshouse and Tom Welch, who had met at another Denver technology firm. Mr. Welch is no longer with the firm.
“Platte River Networks is not under investigation,” Mr. Boian said.
Platte River specializes in handling information-technology services for Denver-area companies. Until they were removed from the company’s website, the company listed a local construction company, bank and law firm as reference customers.
Platte River handled computer services for Denver Transit Partners LLC, the organization building a 35-mile commuter-rail line in Denver, according to Denver Transit Partners spokeswoman Laura Rinker.
Until this week, the Web page listing the company’s top executives featured photos of their vehicles instead of the standard corporate headshot. Mr. Suazo, the CEO, sported a 2014 BMW 535; Mr. Allshouse, the chief financial officer, the Sierra 2500HD pickup.
Now that they have possession of the server, federal investigators may be in a position to examine even contents that were deleted. Even deleted messages can be recovered from the server’s hard drive, using forensic technology, unless someone took deliberate steps to overwrite free space on the computer’s hard drive.
Mrs. Clinton’s personal attorney said in a letter to Congress that as of March no work emails were left on the server.
In addition to the FBI probe, Mrs. Clinton’s use of a personal email server has prompted a number of lawsuits.
On Thursday, a federal judge will hear from lawyers in one such case, filed by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which contends the U.S. government hasn’t made a good-faith effort to find correspondence involving Mrs. Clinton and her senior staff.
As part of that suit, the State Department told the court Wednesday it couldn’t locate BlackBerry smartphones or other electronic devices for Mrs. Clinton’s former aides. The devices were likely “destroyed or excessed” in accordance with Department procedures, said State Executive Secretary Joseph Macmanus in a court declaration.
Story 1: Mainstream Media Hysteria and Crackup of The Political Elitist Establishment (PEEs) Over Trump’s Positions on The Issues — Stopping And Rolling Back The 30-50 Million Criminal Illegal Alien Invasion of The United States — Videos
George Will: Do We Really Want to Give Nuclear Weapons to Donald Trump?
(High Quality) Famous “Daisy” Attack Ad from 1964 Presidential Election
Krauthammer: Trump had a “bad night” at GOP Debate.
Donald Trump Calls Journalist Charles Krauthammer In A Wheelchair A ‘Jerk’ Who ‘Just Sits There’
Ohio Governor John Kasich weighs in on illegal immigration – LoneWolf Sager
John Kasich Spars with Laura Ingraham On Illegal Immigrants, Calls Them “Americans”
Post-debate, Trump pulls clear of competition
By Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director
Donald Trump has won his party’s trust on top issues more than any other Republican presidential candidate, and now stands as the clear leader in the race for the GOP nomination, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.
Trump is the biggest gainer in the poll, up 6 points since July according to the first nationwide CNN/ORC poll since the top candidates debated in Cleveland on Aug. 6. Carson gained 5 points and Fiorina 4 points. Trump has also boosted his favorability numbers among Republicans and Republican-leaning voters, 58% have a favorable view of Trump now, that figure stood at 50% in the July survey.
These nationwide findings follow recent polling in Iowa and New Hampshire showing Trump also leads the Republican field in those two key early states.
Bush, who held the top spot in the field in most CNN/ORC polls on the race between last fall and Trump’s entry into the race in June, has seen his favorability ratings drop alongside his standing in the contest. Overall, 56% hold an unfavorable view of the former Florida governor and 42% of Republican voters have a negative impression. That’s an increase in negative views among all adults (up from 43% since July) and among Republican voters (up from 34% unfavorable).
While Kasich and Fiorina remain largely unknown nationally, those Republicans who do have an opinion of these two — both widely seen as debate standouts — tend to tilt positive. Fiorina has a 45% favorable to 11% unfavorable rating among Republican voters, with 43% unable to rate her, while Kasich’s is 32% favorable to 20% unfavorable, with 49% unable to rate him.
The poll suggests those behind Trump love him: He holds a 98% favorability rating among his supporters. But those Republican voters who aren’t supporting Trump are skeptical that he would help the party. Most Republicans (58%) say the party would have a better chance to win in 2016 with someone else at the top of the ticket, including 72% of those who don’t currently back the businessman.
Still, Trump has quickly won the trust of Republican voters on several top issues. According to the poll, 45% say they trust Trump more than any other Republican candidate on the economy — up 25 points since June, 44% say they trust Trump over the others on illegal immigration — up 30 points since June — and 32% trust him most to handle ISIS, no other candidate comes close on any of these issues.
Trump campaign defends immigration plan05:40
On the economy and illegal immigration, Trump is far and away the top choice even among those Republicans who support someone else for the nomination (33% who say they will most likely vote for someone else say Trump is their most trusted on the economy, 29% say so on illegal immigration). Trump is also most trusted on social issues, 19% say he’s their top choice to handle that. Bush follows at 15%.
On two of these issues, Trump is more trusted among conservative Republicans than among moderate Republicans: When it comes to both the economy and illegal immigration, 50% of conservatives say they trust Trump, compared with 35% among moderates on each of those issues.
The poll finds evidence of a slight gender gap in support for Trump, who has faced public questions recently about his treatment of women, though he does lead the field among both men and women. Trump stands at 27% among Republican men and at 20% among Republican women, a gap just outside the margin of error for each group.
Bush is second among both men and women, standing just a hair behind Trump at 17% among women but well behind among men (10% of GOP men back Bush, no other candidate reaches double digits).
Trump is less trusted by women to handle the economy (50% of male GOP voters say they trust Trump most, 40% of women voters do) and slightly less so on social issues (21% among men, 15% among women).
But there is no gender gap among Republicans on favorable views of Trump: 60% of Republican women voters have a positive impression as do 57% of GOP men. Outside the Republican Party, women are less apt to hold a favorable view of Trump, just 17% of women voters who are independents or Democratic leaners see him favorably, compared with 29% of non-Republican male voters.
New poll: Trump takes lead in Iowa, Walker drops02:00
There is also an education divide in Trump’s support, with those Republican voters who lack college degrees more apt to back Trump than college graduates: 28% among the non-college graduate group vs. 16% among those who have graduated from college.
Few other demographic divides emerge in Republican preferences, according to the poll. Rand Paul fares best among voters under age 50, 10% among the younger group vs. 1% among the older one, and supporters of the Tea Party movement are more likely to favor Ted Cruz, 10% vs. 2% among those Republicans who do not support the tea party.
Among the most enthusiastic Republican voters, the mix of candidates at the top of the field changes. While Trump holds the top slot across the board with the support of roughly a quarter of Republican voters regardless of their level of enthusiasm, the group of candidates following Trump shifts among those who say they are “extremely enthusiastic” about the election. In that group, Carson has 13%, Rubio 11%, boosting both ahead of Bush, who holds 9% and ties with Cruz for 4th, Kasich holds 8% support and Fiorina and Walker tie at 7%.
Bush has his best showing among those who are least enthusiastic. Among the group that says they are somewhat enthusiastic or less, 23% back Trump, 16% Bush, 10% Walker, with all others at 6% or less.
The CNN/ORC Poll was conducted by telephone Aug. 13-16 among a random national sample of 1,001 adults. The sample included 466 registered voters who are Republicans or independents who lean toward the Republican Party. For results among those Republican voters, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. For results among the full sample, it is 3 points.
Story 1: Part 3 of 3, Testing Trump on The Issues of Concern To The American People: Abortion, Immigration, Obamacare Replacement, Taxation, Balanced Budgets, Paying Down The National Debt — Is Trump A Contender, Loser, Spoiler or Winner? — Videos
Donal Trump GOP FOX News Republican DEBATE Highlights(FULL VIDEO)!!!
ABORTION
Trump On Abortion in 1999
Trump in 1999: ‘I am Very Pro-Choice’
Donald Trump: I’m pro-life, with exceptions
Trump: I am Pro-Life, Pro-Gun and Anti-Obamacare
Donald Trump: I’m Christian, Pro-life, Against Gay Marriage & So For The Death Penalty!
The Laura Ingraham Show – Donald Trump on abortion and cutting spending
Published on Feb 9, 2011
On Laura Ingraham’s radio show, Donald Trump weighed in on the issue of abortion and implied he’d eliminate the Department of Education if elected president.
Donald Trump on Abortion: I’m Pro-Life
IMMIGRATION
Donald Trump, Meet the Press, 8-16-2015
Donald Trump: Undocumented Immigrants ‘Have to Go’
Donald Trump On Immigration, Hillary Clinton (Full Interview) | Meet The Press | NBC News
IMMIGRATION REFORM THAT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
The three core principles of Donald J. Trump’s immigration plan
When politicians talk about “immigration reform” they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties.
Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:
1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.
2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.
3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.
Make Mexico Pay For The Wall
For many years, Mexico’s leaders have been taking advantage of the United States by using illegal immigration to export the crime and poverty in their own country (as well as in other Latin American countries). They have even published pamphletson how to illegally immigrate to the United States. The costs for the United States have been extraordinary: U.S. taxpayers have been asked to pick up hundreds of billions in healthcare costs, housing costs, education costs, welfare costs, etc. Indeed, the annual cost of free tax credits alone paid to illegal immigrants quadrupled to $4.2 billion in 2011. The effects on jobseekers have also been disastrous, and black Americans have been particularly harmed.
The impact in terms of crime has been tragic. In recent weeks, the headlines have been covered with cases of criminals who crossed our border illegally only to go on to commit horrific crimes against Americans. Most recently, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, with a long arrest record, is charged with breaking into a 64 year-old women’s home, crushing her skull and eye sockets with a hammer, raping her, and murdering her. The Police Chief in Santa Maria says the “blood trail” leads straight to Washington.
In 2011, the Government Accountability Office found that there were a shocking 3 million arrests attached to the incarcerated alien population, including tens of thousands of violent beatings, rapes and murders.
Meanwhile, Mexico continues to make billions on not only our bad trade deals but also relies heavily on the billions of dollars in remittances sent from illegal immigrants in the United States back to Mexico ($22 billion in 2013 alone).
In short, the Mexican government has taken the United States to the cleaners. They are responsible for this problem, and they must help pay to clean it up.
The cost of building a permanent border wall pales mightily in comparison to what American taxpayers spend every single year on dealing with the fallout of illegal immigration on their communities, schools and unemployment offices.
Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.
Defend The Laws And Constitution Of The United States
America will only be great as long as America remains a nation of laws that lives according to the Constitution. No one is above the law. The following steps will return to the American people the safety of their laws, which politicians have stolen from them:
Triple the number of ICE officers. As the President of the ICE Officers’ Council explained in Congressional testimony: “Only approximately 5,000 officers and agents within ICE perform the lion’s share of ICE’s immigration mission…Compare that to the Los Angeles Police Department at approximately 10,000 officers. Approximately 5,000 officers in ICE cover 50 states, Puerto Rico and Guam, and are attempting to enforce immigration law against 11 million illegal aliens already in the interior of the United States. Since 9-11, the U.S. Border Patrol has tripled in size, while ICE’s immigration enforcement arm, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), has remained at relatively the same size.” This will be funded by accepting the recommendation of the Inspector General for Tax Administration and eliminating tax credit payments to illegal immigrants.
Nationwide e-verify. This simple measure will protect jobs for unemployed Americans.
Mandatory return of all criminal aliens. The Obama Administration has released 76,000 aliens from its custody with criminal convictions since 2013 alone. All criminal aliens must be returned to their home countries, a process which can be aided by canceling any visas to foreign countries which will not accept their own criminals, and making it a separate and additional crime to commit an offense while here illegally.
Detention—not catch-and-release. Illegal aliens apprehended crossing the border must be detained until they are sent home, no more catch-and-release.
Defund sanctuary cities. Cut-off federal grants to any city which refuses to cooperate with federal law enforcement.
Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa. Millions of people come to the United States on temporary visas but refuse to leave, without consequence. This is a threat to national security. Individuals who refuse to leave at the time their visa expires should be subject to criminal penalties; this will also help give local jurisdictions the power to hold visa overstays until federal authorities arrive. Completion of a visa tracking system – required by law but blocked by lobbyists – will be necessary as well.
Cooperate with local gang task forces. ICE officers should accompany local police departments conducting raids of violent street gangs like MS-13 and the 18th street gang, which have terrorized the country. All illegal aliens in gangs should be apprehended and deported. Again, quoting Chris Crane: “ICE Officers and Agents are forced to apply the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Directive, not to children in schools, but to adult inmates in jails. If an illegal-alien inmate simply claims eligibility, ICE is forced to release the alien back into the community. This includes serious criminals who have committed felonies, who have assaulted officers, and who prey on children…ICE officers should be required to place detainers on every illegal alien they encounter in jails and prisons, since these aliens not only violated immigration laws, but then went on to engage in activities that led to their arrest by police; ICE officers should be required to issue Notices to Appear to all illegal aliens with criminal convictions, DUI convictions, or a gang affiliation; ICE should be working with any state or local drug or gang task force that asks for such assistance.”
End birthright citizenship. This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration. By a 2:1 margin, voters say it’s the wrong policy, including Harry Reid who said “no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
Put American Workers First
Decades of disastrous trade deals and immigration policies have destroyed our middle class. Today, nearly 40% of black teenagers are unemployed. Nearly 30% of Hispanic teenagers are unemployed. For black Americans without high school diplomas, the bottom has fallen out: more than 70% were employed in 1960, compared to less than 40% in 2000. Across the economy, the percentage of adults in the labor force has collapsed to a level not experienced in generations. As CBS news wrote in a piece entitled “America’s incredible shrinking middle class”: “If the middle-class is the economic backbone of America, then the country is developing osteoporosis.”
The influx of foreign workers holds down salaries, keeps unemployment high, and makes it difficult for poor and working class Americans – including immigrants themselves and their children – to earn a middle class wage. Nearly half of all immigrants and their US-born children currently live in or near poverty, including more than 60 percent of Hispanic immigrants. Every year, we voluntarily admit another 2 million new immigrants, guest workers, refugees, and dependents, growing our existing all-time historic record population of 42 million immigrants. We need to control the admission of new low-earning workers in order to: help wages grow, get teenagers back to work, aid minorities’ rise into the middle class, help schools and communities falling behind, and to ensure our immigrant members of the national family become part of the American dream.
Additionally, we need to stop giving legal immigrant visas to people bent on causing us harm. From the 9/11 hijackers, to the Boston Bombers, and many others, our immigration system is being used to attack us. The President of the immigration caseworkers union declared in a statement on ISIS: “We’ve become the visa clearinghouse for the world.”
Here are some additional specific policy proposals for long-term reform:
Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs. We graduate two times more Americans with STEM degrees each year than find STEM jobs, yet as much as two-thirds of entry-level hiring for IT jobs is accomplished through the H-1B program. More than half of H-1B visas are issued for the program’s lowest allowable wage level, and more than eighty percent for its bottom two. Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas. This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.
Requirement to hire American workers first. Too many visas, like the H-1B, have no such requirement. In the year 2015, with 92 million Americans outside the workforce and incomes collapsing, we need to companies to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed. Petitions for workers should be mailed to the unemployment office, not USCIS.
End welfare abuse. Applicants for entry to the United States should be required to certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs before coming to the U.S.
Jobs program for inner city youth. The J-1 visa jobs program for foreign youth will be terminated and replaced with a resume bank for inner city youth provided to all corporate subscribers to the J-1 visa program.
Refugee program for American children. Increase standards for the admission of refugees and asylum-seekers to crack down on abuses. Use the monies saved on expensive refugee programs to help place American children without parents in safer homes and communities, and to improve community safety in high crime neighborhoods in the United States.
Immigration moderation. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers. This will help reverse women’s plummeting workplace participation rate, grow wages, and allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages.
Are Trump’s immigration views out of the mainstream?
Donald Trump set off yet another wave of anguish and frustration among Republican political elites Sunday with more provocative statements about immigration, along with the release of a Trump immigration plan influenced by the Senate’s leading immigration hawk. But there are indications Trump’s positions on immigration are more in line with the views of the public — not just GOP voters, but the public at large — than those of his critics.
“Donald Trump: Undocumented Immigrants ‘Have to Go,'” read the headline at NBC News, where Trump appeared on “Meet the Press.” “They have to go,” Trump told moderator Chuck Todd, referring to immigrants in the U.S. illegally. “We either have a country or we don’t have a country.” At the same time, Trump unveiled a brief immigration position paper, created in consultation with Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, calling for, among other things, an end to the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship.
Some of Trump’s presidential rivals, and no doubt many in the GOP establishment, were appalled. “Our leading Republican is embracing self-deportation, that all of the 11 million have to walk back where they came from, and maybe we’ll let some of them come back,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS. “I just hope we don’t go down that road as a party. So our leading contender, Mr. Trump, is going backward on immigration. And I think he’s going to take all of us with him if we don’t watch it.”
But are Trump’s views on immigration as far out of the mainstream as Graham suggests? Are they out of the mainstream at all? A recent academic paper, by Stanford professor David Broockman and Berkeley Ph.D candidate Douglas Ahler, suggests a majority of the public’s views on immigration are closer to Trump’s than to the advocates of comprehensive immigration reform.
Understanding the National Debt and Budget Deficit
Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending
Warren Buffett on Federal Government Debt, Deficits and Finance: Simpson-Bowles, Capital Gains
The National Debt and Federal Budget Deficit Deconstructed – Tony Robbins
What an Unfunded Liability Looks Like
Senator Tom Coburn on Neil Cavuto: “We added $6 trillion in unfunded liabilities last year”
Getting To Know You – Marni Nixon (Deborah Kerr original version)
Does Polarization Imply Poor Representation? A New Perspective on the “Disconnect” Between Politicians and Voters∗
Douglas J. Ahler† David E. Broockman‡ March 2, 2015
Abstract Many argue that elite polarization generates a “disconnect” between moderate citizens and extreme politicians. We raise questions about two common versions of this claim. First, citizens are often characterized as ideological moderates because they support a mix of liberal and conservative policies. However, we show citizens place little importance on being represented by politicians who are moderate in this sense, being more concerned with seeing politicians represent their personal pattern of issue views. As a result, citizens do not reliably see ideologically moderate politicians as superior to existing consistently liberal or conservative representatives. Second, citizens’ views on individual issues are often characterized as moderate and elites’ as extreme. We show this characterization holds in some areas, but not generally. These findings reveal a more nuanced “disconnect” between politicians and voters than a simple undersupply of moderate politicians and suggest many proposed reforms to address polarization may be counterproductive.
∗The authors are listed in alphabetical order. A previous version of this paper circulated under the title “How Ideological Moderation Conceals Support for Immoderate Policies: A New Perspective on the“Disconnect” in American Politics.” We thank the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley for support and Nick Carnes for sharing data. We thank Joseph Bafumi, Anthony Fowler, Don Green, Andy Hall, Seth Hill, Josh Kalla, Stephen Jessee, Gabe Lenz, Kevin Quinn, Jonathan Rodden, Boris Shor, Gaurav Sood, Walt Stone, Chris Tausanovitch, Rob van Houweling, and seminar participants at Columbia University and the Pew Research Center for helpful comments. David Broockman thanks the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program for support. †Charles and Louise Travers Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley. dahler@berkeley.edu, http://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/person/douglas-ahler. ‡Charles and Louise Travers Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley. broockman@berkeley.edu, http://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/person/david-broockman.
1 What are the consequences of polarization for representation? Elite political polarization is one of the most significant developments in contemporary American politics (Lee 2009; Noel 2014). Almost universally, scholars argue that its consequences for representation are dour. Perhaps the most lamented consequence of elite polarization is the chasm it is said to create between the policy positions of American political elites, which are described as increasingly extreme, and the policy preferences American voters, which are characterized as reliably moderate. Fiorina and Levendusky (2006) define this perceived “disconnect” ably: “The political class is increasingly polarized” but “the majority of Americans remain largely centrist. … The result is a disconnect between the American people and those who purport to represent them.” Echoing many, Poole (2004) calls the existence of this disconnect “the central puzzle of modern American politics.”
This widespread perspective on the consequences of polarization implies that voters would overwhelmingly feel better represented if politicians were to take more moderate positions. This notion of how to improve representation appears throughout contemporary research on representation, institutions, and behavior in American politics. For example, Bafumi and Herron’s (2010) influential analysis suggested that over 90% of voters would like their Members of Congress to take more moderate positions. Consistent with this view, many scholars operationalize “responsiveness to constituents” as the degree to which legislators’ positions are moderate (e.g., Hall 2014; Snyder and Stromberg 2010). And a cottage industry has proposed political reforms meant to em- ¨ power voters, taking for granted that this would lead politicians to take more moderate stances and thus improve representation (e.g, Brownstein 2007; Bullock and Clinton 2011; Gerber and Morton 1998; Mann and Ornstein 2013)
Story 1: Part 2 of 3, Testing Trump on The Issues of Concern To The American People: Abortion, Immigration, Obamacare Replacement, Taxation, Balanced Budgets, Paying Down The National Debt — Is Trump A Contender, Loser, Spoiler or Winner? — Videos
Donald Trump: I’m Christian, Pro-life, Against Gay Marriage & So For The Death Penalty!
The Laura Ingraham Show – Donald Trump on abortion and cutting spending
Published on Feb 9, 2011
On Laura Ingraham’s radio show, Donald Trump weighed in on the issue of abortion and implied he’d eliminate the Department of Education if elected president.
Donald Trump on Abortion: I’m Pro-Life
IMMIGRATION
Donald Trump rails against immigrants in presidential campaign launch
Donald Trump: ‘We need to keep illegals out’ | Fox News Republican Debate
Igniting The Immigration Debate
RNC Chairman Asks Donald Trump To Rein In Illegal Immigrant Comments – America’s Newsroom
Trump on Illegal Immigration: ‘If You Talk About It, You’re a Racist’
Bill O’Reilly Talks About The Vilification of Donald Trump Over Illegal Immigrants
Illegal Immigrants, Crime And The Media Laura Ingraham O’Reilly Talking Point Wake Up America!
Laura Ingraham Batters Bill O’Reilly Over Immigration Reform • 11/12/14 •
Trump on Immigration Comments: ‘I Can Never Apologize for the Truth’
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 1.
Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.
Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented
Ann Coulter Weighs In On Trump & LEGAL Immigration
Donald Trump to Laura Ingraham: I want you to say more positive things about me
Laura Ingraham: “Trump Isn’t the Problem With Republican Brand”
The Trump Factor in the First GOP Debate
Obamacare Replacement
Donald Trump: “We have a Disaster Called the ‘Big Lie’ – ObamaCare”
Newsmax Prime | Donald Trump On Obamacare
Trump: ObamaCare ‘disaster’ has to be repealed and replaced
Donald Trump w/ Gretchen Carlson: Obamacare Worse Than Gov’t Shutdown, Will ‘Shut Down the Country’
Donald Trump on Obamacare & His Previous Donations to Politicians (Republican Primary Debate)
Donald Trump Won’t Give Specific Policy Proposals Because He Likes Being ‘Flexible’
Watch A CNN Host Pressed Trump To Reveal Specifics Of His Platform, And Here’s What He Got
Donald Trump on Sean Hannity – FULL INTERVIEW – July 9, 2015 – Fox News
Stephanopoulos Confronts Trump: ‘How Can Conservatives Trust You’?
Getting To Know You – Marni Nixon (Deborah Kerr original version)
The Pronk Pops blog is the broadcasting and mass communication of ideas about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, prosperity, truth, virtue and wisdom.
Pronk Pops 
The Pronk Pops Show 523, August 27, 2015, Story 1: Jeb Bush (Low Energy) vs. Donald Trump (High Energy) and — Media Calls Trump Arrogant, Blowhard, Clown, Idiot, and Businessman — The Vast Majority of The American People Support Trump On Illegal Immigration — Trump Wins in A Landslide — Trump The Macho Man — Videos
Posted on August 27, 2015. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Blogroll, Communications, Consitutional Law, Elections, Government, Government Spending, History, Independence, Investments, Language, Law, Media, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Security, Videos, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: 27 August 2015, America, Arrogant, Articles, Audio, Blowhard, Breaking News, Broadcasting, Businessman, Capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Clown, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Donald Trump, Economic Growth, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, First, Fiscal Policy, Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hope, Idiot, Individualism, Jeb Bush, Knowledge, Liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Media, Monetary Policy, MPEG3, News, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, Prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Show Notes, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 523, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 474; May 29, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 473: May 28, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 472: May 27, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 471: May 26, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 470: May 22, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 469: May 21, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 468: May 20, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 467: May 19, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 466: May 18, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 465: May 15, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 464; May 14, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 463; May 13, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 462: May 8, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 461: May 7, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 460; May 6, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 459: May 4, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 458: May 1, 2015
Story 1: Jeb Bush (Low Energy) vs. Donald Trump (High Energy) and — Media Calls Trump Arrogant, Blowhard, Clown, Idiot, and Businessman — The Vast Majority of The American People Support Trump On Illegal Immigration — Trump Wins in A Landslide — Trump The Macho Man — Videos
Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton
Thursday, August 27
Village People – Macho Man OFFICIAL Music Video (short version) 1978
Trump Throws Univision Anchor Jorge Ramos out press conference Trump Q&A Jorge Ramos kicked out
FNN: FULL Donald Trump Press Conference Before Dubuque, Iowa Rally
Megyn Kelly and Jorge Ramos On Getting Kicked Out Of Trump Press Conference
‘Why Are You Dividing Americans?’ Ingraham and Geraldo Clash over Trump, Immigration
Bill O’Reilly, Jorge Ramos Spar over Immigration, White Privilege, Religon
Ann Coulter on Fusion TV (Fusion TV won’t release this)
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 1
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 2
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
Donald Trump: Macho Man of 2016
The best of Donald Trump vs. Jeb Bush
War of words between Jeb Bush and Donald Trump
Jeb Bush And Donald Trump Scuffle Over ‘Anchor Babies’
Watch Donald Trump Hilariously Tear Jeb Bush to Shreds
The Young Donald Trump
Village People – YMCA OFFICIAL Music Video 1978
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-523
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )