Archive for June, 2016

The Pronk Pops Show 710, June 30, 2016, Part 2: Story 1: Trump Gives Outstanding Economic Policy Speech Using Teleprompter and Before Clinton and Big Lie Media Crushed Trash As Backdrop –How To Make America Wealthy Again — The American Worker vs. Global Elitists — Free Fair Trade and Fair Tax Less — Landslide Victory For Trump in November — Videos

Posted on June 30, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, British Pound, Budgetary Policy, College, Communications, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Disasters, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Euro, European History, European Union, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, France, Free Trade, Gangs, Germany, Government, Government Spending, Great Britain, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Investments, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Mexico, Mike Huckabee, Monetary Policy, Netherlands, News, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Senate, Social Networking, Socials Security, Syria, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Ted Cruz, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Transportation, Turkey, U.S. Dollar, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 710: June 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

Part 2: Story 1:  Trump Gives Outstanding Economic Policy Speech Using Teleprompter and Before Clinton and Big Lie Media Crushed Trash As Backdrop –How To Make America Wealthy Again — The American Worker vs. Global Elitists —  Free Fair Trade and Fair Tax Less — Landslide Victory For Trump in November — Videos

trump-garbage

us tariff ratesTradeNov2014
world-commodities-map
SR-fed-spending-numbers-2012-p4-chart-4

Donald Trump Monessen Pennsylvania Alumisource Policy Speech Economy FULL STREAM HD [AMAZING]

FULL Donald Trump Delivers Economy Policy Speech! June 28th 2016 Part 1

Published on Jun 28, 2016

Tuesday, June 28, 2016: Live streaming coverage of Donald J. Trump’s policy speech in Monessen, PA at Alumisource. Coverage begins at 2:30 PM EDT.

– TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2016 –

MONESSEN, PA
Alumisource
2:30 PM

Donald J. Trump for President Policy Speech
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, author, and politician. He is chairman of The Trump Organization, which is the principal holding company for his real estate ventures and other business interests. He is also the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. Having worked in his father Fred Trump’s real estate and construction firm while attending college, he assumed control of that family business in 1973, later renaming it The Trump Organization. During his career, Trump has built hotels, casinos, golf courses, the Manhattan neighborhood Riverside South and numerous other developments, many of which bear his name, including Trump Entertainment Resorts (now owned by Carl Icahn). He has made the Trump name a valuable and distinct brand, licensing it to numerous enterprises in which he has minimal or no stake. He briefly sought the Reform Party’s nomination in the 2000 presidential election, withdrawing prior to any primary contests, although he won two primaries after his withdrawal. Listed by Forbes among the wealthiest 400 of The World’s Billionaires, Trump and his businesses, as well as his three marriages, have for decades received prominent media exposure. He hosted The Apprentice, a popular reality television show on NBC, from 2004 to 2015.

On June 16, 2015, Trump announced his candidacy for president as a Republican, and quickly emerged as the front-runner for his party’s nomination. His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to many free-trade agreements that he regards as unfair, often non-interventionist views on foreign policy, and a proposal to temporarily ban immigration to the United States from countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States, until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots.

FULL Donald Trump Delivers Economy Policy Speech! June 28th 2016 Part 2

FULL Donald Trump Delivers Economy Policy Speech! June 28th 2016 Part 3

Donald Trump’s 7-point trade plan: No TPP, renegotiate NAFTA

Conversation: The Strategy Behind China’s Currency Devaluation

The Bears Talk China’s Manipulated Currency

US trade deficit with China

Marc Faber On Yuan Devaluation, Fed Rate, Indian Economy & More

China’s Currency Manipulation is Harming America. Fair Trade Would Restore US Jobs and Prosperity

How Does China Manipulate Its Currency?

Keiser Report: Trump-Addicted America (E889)

fair tax

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

The FairTax: It’s Time

What is the FairTax legislation?

What is the impact of the FairTax on business?

How is the FairTax different from a Value Added Tax (VAT)?

Congressman Woodall Discusses the FairTax

Dave Ramsey Supports the Fair Tax

Neal Boortz responds to White House re FAIRtax

Mike Huckabee – What is the “Fair Tax?”

FairTax explained – a 2 minute introduction

The Case for the Fair Tax

How will Social Security payments be calculated under the FairTax?

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

Is NAFTA a success story or damaging policy?

Obama calls out Trump trade rhetoric

Obama On Trump’s Anti-Mexican Rhetoric

Gorka: Trump’s Populism ‘Is A Direct Response To Obama’s Divisive Presidency’

Milton Friedman – Deficits and Government Spending

Milton Friedman – A Limit On Spending

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Milton Friedman – Imports, Exports & Exchange Rates

Trump vs Friedman – Trade Policy Debate

Milton Friedman on Free Trade

Milton Friedman – Free Trade Vs Protectionism

Milton Friedman debates a protectionist

Milton Friedman on the Dangers of Protectionism (Obama’s recent tariff on Chinese imports

Gerald Celente 2016 Currency War, Trade War, Oil Prices & Bankism

The Legacy of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

Lessons from the Great Depression

Lincoln’s Tariff War | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

An In Depth Look at Southern Secession and American Principles part 4

An In Depth Look at Southern Secession and American Principles part 5

Tariffs: The Road to Civil War Part 1

Published on Jul 12, 2015

The South was 25% of the population and they were paying 80% of the taxes in the US which were being used to subsidize Northern industries. There is no way around that.

The declaration of secession included language from every faction including minority factions like slave owners who had a lot of money. Slavery wasn’t originally part of it. They pissed and moaned until they got everything included in it. These people were not the driving force of secession as secession and nullification movements started 30 years before the Civil War when slavery wasn’t even on the table. Furthermore slavery WASN’T on the table in the Civil War either. The North via New York and Ohio introduced a constitutional amendment, the Corwin Amendment which forbid the interference in slavery. Congress passed it too. It read : “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” It was not ratified because the South seceded anyway the two largest states did so AFTER Lincoln put a naval blockade on his own country to collect the import and export taxes.

The CSA constitution changed things that we accept today a) it gave term limits b)it gave a line item veto and c) section 8 (I) was changed to

“The Congress shall have power – To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States”

. I will remind you that 5 Northern states also had slaves, actually they all allowed slaves just not as to scale as the south. Other Northern States forbid foreign blacks from even entering the state such as Lincolns home state and the black code laws. And the 13th amendment which freed the slaves was rejected by 3 northern states and only 1 southern state. Let’s think they just lost 400,000 people to free the slaves then vote against freeing the slaves? It was never about slavery. It was about as Lincoln said “preserving the union” Lincoln didn’t even bring up the issue of slaves until the middle of the war.

Lincoln said “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …”

He also said “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

And he said “Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

And pay attention to this Lincoln said ” I HAVE NO PURPOSE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO INTERFERE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY IN THE STATES WHERE IT EXIST. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

And “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” -Abe Lincoln your white separatist hero.

Tariffs: The Road to Civil War Part 2

Real Causes of “The Civil War”– Morrill tariff

 

Donald J. Trump Address: Declaring American Economic Independence

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Today, Donald J. Trump spoke at the Alumisource Factory in Monessen, Pennsylvania. Mr. Trump’s speech focused on how to rebuild the American economy by fighting for fair trade. The middle class has collapsed because of the failed policies from Washington, D.C. that benefit the politicians, but not the American people. The all talk, no action politicians have promoted globalization at the expense of American workers. Mr. Trump will fight to put the country and its workers first in order to Make America Great Again. A transcript of the remarks can be viewed via the link below:

Declaring American Economic Independence
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/DJT_DeclaringAmericanEconomicIndependence.pdf

———————————————————————————

Trump Campaign Announces Expansion of Team

Today, Donald J. Trump announced the expansion of his campaign team making several appointments as he continues to build his operations in advance of the general elections.

Jason Miller will serve as Senior Communications Advisor, where he will work with the existing team to build out a full Communications Department to deliver victory this November. Mr. Miller will work with several areas of the campaign to ensure messaging coordination and implementation. Mr. Miller has managed campaigns and shaped messages for successful House, Senate and gubernatorial races in addition to serving on the senior staffs of two presidential campaigns.

Trumppenn

Michael Abboud is joining the Trump Campaign as a Communications Coordinator. Formerly with the RNC Communications Department, Mr. Abboud will work to execute the campaign’s rapid response and daily messaging, as well as providing candidate briefings on daily news and breaking stories.

Alan Cobb will serve as the Director of Coalitions for the campaign, organizing and managing the numerous coalition groups that currently support, and will support, Mr. Trump for president. Previously, Mr. Cobb served in several roles for the Trump Campaign including as a Senior Advisor. Mr. Cobb managed statewide, political and issue campaigns, served as the Deputy State Director for U.S. Senators Bob Dole and U.S. Senator Sheila Frahm and served as a Campaign Advisor to the 2014 campaigns of Congressman Mike Pompeo and Senator Pat Roberts.

On the appointments, Mr. Trump stated, “As we continue to work to defeat Hillary Clinton this November, I am constantly building a superior political team. After winning the most votes in the history of a Republican primary contest, we are taking our messages to the people so that we can Make American Great Again.”

Donald Trump starts a trade war — with the Republican Party

June 30 

The unusual battle between Donald Trump and much of the Republican establishment on international trade is rapidly escalating, as the presumptive GOP nominee rails against business groups and members of his own party while defenders of sweeping free-trade pacts rebuke him.The rift deepened on Thursday when Trump called out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by name for the second straight day and pilloried the North American Free Trade Agreement and the ­Trans-Pacific Partnership, two landmark trade agreements broadly supported by Republicans.“I’m messing with bad deals that we could make good,” Trump said in his speech at a shuttered manufacturing plant in Manchester, N.H. “I could make good deals. Why would somebody fight that? I mean, the U.S. Chamber fights. They said, ‘Oh, Trump wants to stop free trade.’ I don’t want to stop free trade. I love free trade, but I want to make great deals.”

The mogul’s comments followed a flurry of insults throughout the week aimed at advocates of broad trade accords, which have been championed by Republican leaders for decades as crucial engines of capitalism. Trump accused TPP backers, for example, of wanting to “rape” the United States.

For Trump, feuding with powerful business interests makes him an attractive candidate for many disaffected working-class voters, including some who have supported Democrats in the past.

But the loud dispute also risks alienating many of the Republican Party’s wealthy benefactors at a time when he is struggling to kick his long-dormant fundraising operation into gear. A stridently protectionist message could also push some moderate Main Street Republicans to support Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, in much the same way that many Republicans in the foreign policy world have done.

Many business groups, which generally favor looser trade restrictions and are traditional Republican allies, have taken sharp issue with Trump’s latest comments and appear determined to rebut them.

“While we never endorse in the presidential race, we do plan to be aggressive in presidential policy with both major party nominees,” said Scott Reed, the senior political strategist at the Chamber of Commerce. The group repudiated Trump in real time on Tuesday in a series of tweets as he delivered an address threatening to tear up trade accords and impose tariffs.

Trump has long blamed broad trade agreements for harming U.S. workers. But this week has marked a rhetorical shift as he aggressively casts members of both parties who have supported trade deals as anti-American and in league with “special interests.” For many Republicans in particular, the rhetoric amounts to an assault on core ideological beliefs that have undergirded conservative economic policy for generations.

The candidate’s arguments have also left an opening for sharp attacks by Clinton and other Democrats accusing him of hypocrisy. Trump in the past has talked favorably about outsourcing jobs overseas, and much of his Trump-branded apparel line and other products are manufactured in low-cost Asian countries.

“Donald Trump is running as an anti-Republican Republican in many ways,” said David French, senior vice president of government relations at the National Retail Federation, which like the Chamber of Commerce is not taking sides in the presidential contest. French said Trump’s commentary on trade has been disappointing.

Some business leaders are privately pessimistic that publicly fighting Trump hard on trade will be a winning proposition. His access to free media coverage through television and radio interviews presents a big obstacle to anyone standing in his way.

It also remains to be seen how and if these groups will escalate their fight beyond social media and chastising in the news media. The Chamber of Commerce, for example, is focused heavily on down-ballot contests and, given that the group primarily supports Republicans, could end up helping Trump regardless.

As Trump spoke Thursday, he stood in front of a manufacturing facility that closed in 2014, causing more than 130 workers to lose their jobs. He continued to tout his protectionist economic policies, which he has underscored since the day he launched his campaign more than a year ago and which stand at odds with many pro-free-trade statements in his past.

Trump’s repeated needling of the Chamber of Commerce, which is the nation’s largest business lobby, signaled that he has found a new favorite target. During a rally in Maine on Wednesday, Trump accused the organization of being “totally controlled by the special-interest groups.”

The mogul continued his assault on social media a few hours later, tweeting, “For reasons only they can explain, the @USChamber wants to continue our bad trade deals rather than renegotiating and making them better.”

Trump has repeatedly blamed outsourcing and big trade agreements for domestic economic decline. He has vowed to renegotiate NAFTA as president and withdraw the United States from TPP — promises many experts in both parties call unrealistic and highly risky.

But such talk has won Trump legions of fans in the economically depressed Rust Belt and other areas suffering from the effects of globalization. His allies hope it will help him compete in Ohio and Pennsylvania, two key swing states.

Trump’s repeated talk about trade is aimed in large part at undermining Clinton, whose husband signed NAFTA as president. Trump also accuses Clinton of waffling on TPP, which she praised as secretary of state but then opposed during her hard-fought primary contest with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

“The trade policies of Hillary Clinton, global financiers — and they’re all controlling her, they have 100 percent, they might as well stamp Hillary Clinton on their forehead,” he said Thursday.

Clinton and other Democrats have pushed back by pointing to the ways that Trump has benefited from the policies he now condemns. On Thursday, Clinton issued a tweet listing the countries, from Mexico to Bangladesh, where Trump-branded ties and shirts were made.

While Trump insists he is not trying to challenge free-trade principles, he has repeatedly argued that it is more important for the United States to have “fair trade” agreements. He has said that he would prefer to negotiate deals one-on-one with countries rather than enter into multi-national settlements.

Trump has repeatedly vowed to impose high tariffs — or the threat of high tariffs — to bully American companies into keeping jobs in the United States. His favorite example is Ford Motor Co., which plans to build a massive plant in Mexico. Trump has said that before he takes office he will persuade Ford to change course by threatening to charge the company a 35 percent tax on cars imported back into the United States.

Trump took a handful of questions from the audience Thursday, including one from a man who used to work at a factory that made police badges but lost that business when departments started ordering from overseas.

“What are you going to do for us?” the man asked, as the small crowd applauded.

“First of all, your story is common to thousands and thousands of companies throughout this country,” Trump said, before promising to fight currency ma­nipu­la­tion, which he says makes it impossible for U.S. companies to compete with those based in China and elsewhere.

Trump repeatedly said that while making products within the United States might be a bit more expensive, it’s worth the cost to have more jobs based here.

Another man asked Trump how he will respond to the corporate backlash to his trade policies.

“Corporations? I’m not worried about it,” Trump said, pointing out that his tax plan is “cutting business taxes way down” and that he will make it less expensive for companies to temporarily bring their money back from overseas.

“We will do things that are going to be so miraculous — and it’ll be fast. It won’t take a long period of time,” Trump said.

Jose A. DelReal contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-starts-a-trade-war–with-the-republican-party/2016/06/30/25eec89a-3eda-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html

 

Morrill Tariff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased import tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was the twelfth of seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party, which had not yet been inaugurated, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth.[1]

It was named for its sponsor, Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, who drafted it with the advice of Pennsylvania economist Henry Charles Carey. The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession. The Morrill Tariff raised rates to encourage industry and to foster high wages for industrial workers.[2] It replaced the low Tariff of 1857, which was written to benefit the South. Two additional tariffs sponsored by Morrill, each one higher, were passed during Abraham Lincoln‘s administration to raise urgently needed revenue during the Civil War.

The Morrill tariff inaugurated a period of continuous trade protection in the United States, a policy that remained until the adoption of the Revenue Act of 1913 (the Underwood tariff). The schedule of the Morrill Tariff and its two successor bills were retained long after the end of the Civil War.

History

Origins

A high tariff to encourage the development of domestic industry had been advocated for many years, especially by the Whig Party and its long-time leader Henry Clay. They enacted such a tariff in 1842, but in 1846 the Democrats enacted the Walker Tariff, cutting tariff rates substantially. The Democrats cut rates even further in the Tariff of 1857, which was highly favorable to the South.

Meanwhile, the Whig Party broke up, and this element of the Whig program was taken up by the new Republican Party, which ran its first national ticket in 1856. Some former Whigs from the Border States and upper South remained in Congress as “Opposition”, “Unionist”, or “American” (Know Nothing) members; they also supported higher tariffs.

The Panic of 1857 led to calls for protectionist tariff revision. Well-known economist Henry C. Carey blamed the Panic on the Tariff of 1857. His opinion was widely circulated in the high tariff (or “protectionist”) media.

Efforts to revise the tariff schedules upward began in earnest in the 35th Congress of 1857–1859. Two proposals were submitted in the House. House Ways and Means Committee chairman John S. Phelps (D-Missouri wrote the Democrats’ plan, which retained most of the low rates of the 1857 Tariff, with minor revisions to stimulate revenue.

Minority Ways and Means members Morrill and Henry Winter Davis (a Maryland “American”) produced the Republican proposal, an upward revision of the tariff schedule. It replaced the existing ad valorem tariff schedule with specific duties and drastically increased tariff rates on goods produced by popular “protected” industries, such as iron, textiles, and other manufactured goods. Economic historian Frank Taussig argued that in many cases, the substitution of specific duties was used to disguise the extent of the rate increases.[3] Supporters of the specific rates argued that they were necessary, though, because European exporters were routinely providing their American customers with phony invoices showing lower prices for goods than were actually paid. Specific rates made such subterfuge pointless.

However, the House took no action on either tariff bill during the 35th Congress.

House actions

When the 36th Congress met in 1859, action remained blocked by a wrangle over the Speaker of the House until 1860, when Republican William Pennington of New Jersey was elected. A pro-tariff Republican majority was appointed to Ways and Means, and John Sherman of Ohio became chairman.

The Morrill bill was passed out of committee and brought up for a floor vote near the end of first session of the Congress (December 1859 – June 1860).

The vote was on May 10, 1860; the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64.[4]

The vote was largely but not entirely sectional. Republicans, all from the northern states, voted 89–2 for the bill. They were joined by 7 northern Democrats from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Five of these were “anti-Lecompton Democrats” (dissident Democrats who opposed the pro-slavery Lecompton constitution for Kansas).

14 northern Democrats voted against the bill.

In the Border States, 4 “Opposition” Representatives from Kentucky voted for it, as did its co-sponsor Winter of Maryland, a Maryland “Unionist”, and a Democrat from Delaware. 8 Border state Democrats and an “American” from Missouri voted no.

35 southern Democrats and 3 Oppositionists voted against it; one Oppositionist from Tennessee voted for it.

Thus the sectional breakdown was 96–15 in the north, 7–9 in the Border, and 1–39 in the south.

There were 55 abstentions, including 13 Republicans, 12 northern Democrats, 13 southern Democrats, and 8 southern “Oppositionists” and “Americans”. (The remaining Representatives were mostly “paired” with opposing Representatives who could not be present.[5]

Senate action

The Morrill bill was sent on to the Senate. However, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and so the bill was bottled up in the Finance Committee, chaired by Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia.

This insured that the Senate vote would be put off till the second session in December. It also meant that the tariff would be a prominent issue in the 1860 election.[6]

1860 election

The Republican party included a strong pro-tariff plank in its 1860 platform. They also sent prominent tariff advocates such as Morrill and Sherman to campaign in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where the tariff was popular, by touting the Morrill bill. Both Democratic candidates, John C. Breckinridge and Stephen Douglas, opposed all high tariffs and protectionism in general.[7]

Historian Reinhard H. Luthin documents the importance of the Morrill Tariff to the Republicans in the 1860 presidential election.[8] Abraham Lincoln’s record as a protectionist and support for the Morrill Tariff bill, he notes, helped him to secure support in the important electoral college state of Pennsylvania, as well as neighboring New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.

On February 14, 1861, President-elect Lincoln told an audience in Pittsburgh that he would make a new tariff his priority in the next session if the bill did not pass by inauguration day on March 4.

Renewed Senate action

The second session of the 36th Congress began in December 1860. At first it appeared that Hunter would keep the Morrill bill tabled until the end of the term in March.

However, in December 1860 and January 1861, seven southern states declared secession, and their low-tariff Senators withdrew. Republicans took control of the Senate in February, and Hunter lost his hold on the Finance Committee.

Meanwhile, the Treasury was in financial crisis, with less than $500,000 on hand and millions in unpaid bills. The Union urgently needed new revenue. A recent historian concludes, “the impetus for revising the tariff arose as an attempt to augment revenue, stave off ‘ruin,’ and address the accumulating debt.”[9]

The Morrill bill was brought to the Senate floor for a vote on February 20, and passed 25 to 14. The vote was split almost completely down party lines. It was supported by 24 Republicans and Democrat William Bigler of Pennsylvania. It was opposed by 10 Southern Democrats, 2 Northern Democrats, and 2 Far West Democrats. 12 Senators abstained, including 3 Northern Democrats, 1 California Democrat, 5 Southern Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 1 Unionist from Maryland.[10]

There were some minor amendments related to the tariffs on tea and coffee, which required a conference committee with the House, but these were resolved and the final bill was approved by unanimous consent on March 2.

Though a Democrat himself, outgoing President James Buchanan favored the bill because of the interests of his home state, Pennsylvania. He signed the bill into law as one of his last acts in office.

Adoption and amendments

The Morrill Tariff took effect one month after it was signed into law. Besides setting tariff rates, the bill altered and restricted the Warehousing Act of 1846.

The Morrill Tariff was drafted and passed the House before the Civil War began or was even expected, and was passed by the Senate almost unchanged. Thus it should not be considered “Civil War” legislation.[11]

In fact, the Tariff proved to be too low for the revenue needs of the Civil War, and was quickly supplanted by the Second Morrill Tariff, or Revenue Act of 1861, later that fall.[12]

Impact

In its first year of operation, the Morrill Tariff increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%. In 1860 American tariff rates were among the lowest in the world and also at historical lows by 19th century standards, the average rate for 1857 through 1860 being around 17% overall (ad valorem), or 21% on dutiable items only. The Morrill Tariff immediately raised these averages to about 26% overall or 36% on dutiable items, and further increases by 1865 left the comparable rates at 38% and 48%. Although higher than in the immediate antebellum period, these rates were still significantly lower than between 1825 and 1830, when rates had sometimes been over 50%.[13]

The United States needed $3 billion to pay for the immense armies and fleets raised to fight the Civil War — over $400 million just in 1862. The chief source of Federal revenue had been the tariff revenues. Therefore, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, though a long-time free-trader, worked with Morrill to pass a second tariff bill in summer 1861, raising rates another 10 points in order to generate more revenues.[14] These subsequent bills were primarily revenue driven to meet the war’s needs, though they enjoyed the support of protectionists such as Carey, who again assisted Morrill in the bill’s drafting.

However, the tariff played only a modest role in financing the war. It was far less important than other measures, such as $2.8 billion in bond sales and some printing of Greenbacks. Customs revenue from tariffs totaled $345 million from 1861 through 1865, or 43% of all federal tax revenue, while military spending totalled $3,065 million.[15]

Reception abroad

The Morrill Tariff was met with intense hostility in Britain, where the free trade movement dominated public opinion. Southern diplomats and agents sought to use British ire towards the Morrill Tariff in order to garner sympathy, with the aim of obtaining British recognition for the Confederacy.[16] The new tariff schedule heavily penalized British iron, clothing, and manufactured exports with new taxes and sparked public outcry from many British politicians. The expectation of high tax rates probably caused British shippers to hasten their deliveries before the new rates took effect in the early summer of 1861. When complaints were heard from London, Congress counterattacked. The Senate Finance Committee chairman snapped, “What right has a foreign country to make any question about what we choose to do?”[17]

When the American Civil War broke out in 1861, British public opinion was sympathetic to the Confederacy, in part because of lingering agitation over the tariff. As one diplomatic historian has explained, the Morrill Tariff:[18]

“Not unnaturally gave great displeasure to England. It greatly lessened the profits of the American markets to English manufacturers and merchants, to a degree which caused serious mercantile distress in that country. Moreover, the British nation was then in the first flush of enthusiasm over free trade, and, under the lead of extremists like Cobden and Gladstone, was inclined to regard a protective tariff as essentially and intrinsically immoral, scarcely less so than larceny or murder. Indeed, the tariff was seriously regarded as comparable in offensiveness with slavery itself, and Englishmen were inclined to condemn the North for the one as much as the South for the other. “We do not like slavery,” said Palmerston to Adams, “but we want cotton, and we dislike very much your Morrill tariff.”

Many prominent British writers condemned the Morrill Tariff in the strongest terms. Economist William Stanley Jevons denounced it as a “retrograde” law. The well known novelist Charles Dickens used his magazine, All the Year Round, to attack the new tariff. On December 28, 1861 Dickens published a lengthy article, believed to be written by Henry Morley,[19] which blamed the American Civil War on the Morrill Tariff:

If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils… [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

Communist philosopher Karl Marx was among the few writers in Britain who saw slavery as the major cause of the war. Marx wrote extensively in the British press and served as a London correspondent for several North American newspapers including Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune. Marx reacted to those who blamed the war on Morrill’s bill, arguing instead that slavery had induced secession and that the tariff was just a pretext. Marx wrote, in October 1861:

Naturally, in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place.[20]

Legacy

According to historian Heather Cox Richardson, Morrill intended to offer protection to both the usual manufacturing recipients and a broad group of agricultural interests. The purpose was to appease interests beyond the northeast, which traditionally supported protection. For the first time protection was extended to every major farm product.

Planning to distribute the benefits of a tariff to all sectors of the economy, and also hoping to broaden support for his party, Morrill rejected the traditional system of protection by proposing tariff duties on agricultural, mining, and fishing products, as well as on manufactures. Sugar, wool, flaxseed, hides, beef, pork, corn, grain, hemp, wool, and minerals would all be protected by the Morrill Tariff. The duty on sugar might well be expected to appease Southerners opposed to tariffs, and, notably, wool and flaxseed production were growing industries in the West. The new tariff bill also would protect coal, lead, copper, zinc, and other minerals, all of which the new northwestern states were beginning to produce. The Eastern fishing industry would receive a duty on dried, pickled, and salted fish. “In adjusting the details of a tariff,” Morrill explained with a rhetorical flourish in his introduction of the bill, “I would treat agriculture, manufactures, mining, and commerce, as I would our whole people—as members of one family, all entitled to equal favor, and no one to be made the beast of burden to carry the packs of others.”[21]

According to Taussig, “Morrill and the other supporters of the act of 1861 declared that their intention was simply to restore the rates of 1846.” However, he also gives reason to suspect that the bill’s motives were intended to put high rates of protection on iron and wool to attract states in the West and in Pennsylvania:

“The important change which they (the sponsors) proposed to make from the provisions of the tariff of 1846 was to substitute specific for ad-valorem duties. Such a change from ad-valorem to specific duties is in itself by no means objectionable; but it has usually been made a pretext on the part of protectionists for a considerable increase in the actual duties paid. When protectionists make a change of this kind, they almost invariably make the specific duties higher than the ad-valorem duties for which they are supposed to be an equivalent…The Morrill tariff formed no exception to the usual course of things in this respect. The specific duties which it established were in many cases considerably above the ad-valorem duties of 1846. The most important direct changes made by the act of 1861 were in the increased duties on iron and on wool, by which it was hoped to attach to the Republican party Pennsylvania and some of the Western States”[22]

Henry Carey, who assisted Morrill while drafting the bill and was one of its most vocal supporters, strongly emphasized its importance to the Republican Party in his January 2, 1861 letter to Lincoln. Carey told the President-Elect “the success of your administration is wholly dependent upon the passage of the Morrill bill at the present session.” According to Carey:

“With it, the people will be relieved — your term will commence with a rising wave of prosperity — the Treasury will be filled and the party that elected you will be increased and strengthened. Without it, there will be much suffering among the people — much dissatisfaction with their duties — much borrowing on the part of the Government — & very much trouble among the Republican Party when the people shall come to vote two years hence. There is but one way to make the Party a permanent one, & that is, by the prompt repudiation to the free trade system.”

Congressman John Sherman later wrote:

The Morrill tariff bill came nearer than any other to meeting the double requirement of providing ample revenue for the support of the government and of rendering the proper protection to home industries. No national taxes, except duties on imported goods, were imposed at the time of its passage. The Civil War changed all this, reducing importations and adding tenfold to the revenue required. The government was justified in increasing existing rates of duty, and in adding to the dutiable list all articles imported, thus including articles of prime necessity and of universal use. In addition to these duties, it was compelled to add taxes on all articles of home production, on incomes not required for the supply of actual wants, and, especially, on articles of doubtful necessity, such as spirits, tobacco and beer. These taxes were absolutely required to meet expenditures for the army and navy, for the interest on the war debts and just pensions to those who were disabled by the war, and to their widows and orphans.[23]

Secession and tariffs

The Morrill Tariff and the secession movement

The Morrill tariff was adopted against the backdrop of the secession movement, and provided an issue for secessionist agitation in some southern states. The law’s critics compared it to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations that sparked the Nullification Crisis, although its average rate was significantly lower.

Slavery dominated the secession debate in the southern states,[24] but the Morrill Tariff was addressed in the conventions of Georgia and South Carolina.

Robert Barnwell Rhett similarly railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention. Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding State19s, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.[25]

The Morrill Tariff played less prominently elsewhere in the South. In some portions of Virginia, secessionists promised a new protective tariff to assist the state’s fledgling industries.[26]

In the North, enforcement of the Morrill Tariff contributed to support for the Union cause among industrialists and merchant interests. Speaking of this class, the abolitionist Orestes Brownson derisively remarked that “the Morrill Tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter.”[27] In one such example the New York Times, which had previously opposed Morrill’s bill on free trade grounds, editorialized that the tariff imbalance would bring commercial ruin to the North and urged its suspension until the secession crisis passed. “We have imposed high duties on our commerce at the very moment the seceding states are inviting commerce to their ports by low duties.”[28] As secession became more evident and the fledgling Confederacy adopted a much lower tariff of its own, the paper urged military action to enforce the Morrill Tariff in the Southern states.[29]

Historiography

Historians, James Huston notes, have been baffled by the role of high tariffs in general and have offered multiple conflicting interpretations over the years. (Low tariffs, all historians agree, were noncontroversial and were needed to fund the federal government.) One school of thought says the Republicans were the willing tools of would-be monopolists. A second schools says the Republicans truly believed tariffs would promote nationalism and prosperity for everyone along with balanced growth in every region (as opposed to growth only in the cotton South). A third school emphasizes the undeniable importance of the tariff in cementing party loyalty, especially in industrial states. Another approach emphasizes that factory workers were eager for high tariffs because it protected their high wages from European competition.[30]

Charles A. Beard argued in the 1920s that very long-term economic issues were critical, with the pro-tariff industrial Northeast forming a coalition with the anti-tariff agrarian Midwest against the plantation South. According to Luthin in the 1940s, “Historians are not unanimous as to the relative importance which Southern fear and hatred of a high tariff had in causing the secession of the slave states.”[31] However, none of the statesmen seeking a compromise in 1860-61 that would avert the war ever suggested the tariff might be the key to a solution, or might be a cause of the secession.[32] Beginning in the 1950s, historians moved away from the Beard thesis of economic causality. In its place, historians led by Richard Hofstadter began to emphasize the social causes of the war, centered around the issue of slavery. The Beard thesis has enjoyed a recent revival among economists, pro-Confederate historians, and neo-Beardian scholars. A 2002 study by economists Robert McGuire and T. Norman Van Cott concluded:

A de facto constitutional mandate that tariffs lie on the lower end of the Laffer relationship means that the Confederacy went beyond simply observing that a given tax revenue is obtainable with a “high” and “low” tax rate, a la Alexander Hamilton and others. Indeed, the constitutional action suggests that the tariff issue may in fact have been even more important in the North–South tensions that led to the Civil War than many economists and historians currently believe.”

Rather than contributing to secession, Marc-William Palen notes how the tariff was only able to pass through Congress following the secession of Southern states. Thus, secession itself allowed for the bill’s passage, rather than the other way around.[33]Allan Nevinsand James M. McPherson downplay the significance of the tariff, arguing that it was peripheral to the issue of slavery. They note that slavery dominated the secessionist declarations, speeches, and pamphlets. Nevins also points to the argument of Alexander Stephens, who disputed Toombs’ claims about the severity of the Morrill tariff. Though initially a unionist, Stephens would later cite slavery as the “cornerstone” reason behind his support of the secessionist cause.[34]

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

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-710

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

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

The Pronk Pops Show 709, June 29, 2016, Part 1: Story 1: Trump Gives Outstanding Economic Policy Speech Using Teleprompter and Before Clinton and Big Lie Media Crushed Trash As Backdrop –How To Make America Wealthy Again — The American Worker vs. Global Elitists — Free Fair Trade and Fair Tax Less — Landslide Victory For Trump in November — Videos

Posted on June 29, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Benghazi, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Fast and Furious, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Gangs, Government, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Monetary Policy, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Networking, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, U.S. Dollar, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

The Pronk Pops Show 709, June 29, 2016, Part 1: Story 1:  Trump Gives Outstanding Economic Policy Speech Using Teleprompter and Before Clinton and Big Lie Media Crushed Trash As Backdrop –How To Make America Wealthy Again — The American Worker vs. Global Elitists —  Free Fair Trade and Fair Tax Less — Landslide Victory For Trump in November — Videos

trump-garbage

us tariff rates

Donald Trump Monessen Pennsylvania Alumisource Policy Speech Economy FULL STREAM HD [AMAZING]

FULL Donald Trump Delivers Economy Policy Speech! June 28th 2016 Part 1

Published on Jun 28, 2016

Tuesday, June 28, 2016: Live streaming coverage of Donald J. Trump’s policy speech in Monessen, PA at Alumisource. Coverage begins at 2:30 PM EDT.

– TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2016 –

MONESSEN, PA
Alumisource
2:30 PM

Donald J. Trump for President Policy Speech
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, author, and politician. He is chairman of The Trump Organization, which is the principal holding company for his real estate ventures and other business interests. He is also the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. Having worked in his father Fred Trump’s real estate and construction firm while attending college, he assumed control of that family business in 1973, later renaming it The Trump Organization. During his career, Trump has built hotels, casinos, golf courses, the Manhattan neighborhood Riverside South and numerous other developments, many of which bear his name, including Trump Entertainment Resorts (now owned by Carl Icahn). He has made the Trump name a valuable and distinct brand, licensing it to numerous enterprises in which he has minimal or no stake. He briefly sought the Reform Party’s nomination in the 2000 presidential election, withdrawing prior to any primary contests, although he won two primaries after his withdrawal. Listed by Forbes among the wealthiest 400 of The World’s Billionaires, Trump and his businesses, as well as his three marriages, have for decades received prominent media exposure. He hosted The Apprentice, a popular reality television show on NBC, from 2004 to 2015.

On June 16, 2015, Trump announced his candidacy for president as a Republican, and quickly emerged as the front-runner for his party’s nomination. His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to many free-trade agreements that he regards as unfair, often non-interventionist views on foreign policy, and a proposal to temporarily ban immigration to the United States from countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States, until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots.

FULL Donald Trump Delivers Economy Policy Speech! June 28th 2016 Part 2

FULL Donald Trump Delivers Economy Policy Speech! June 28th 2016 Part 3

Donald Trump’s 7-point trade plan: No TPP, renegotiate NAFTA

Is NAFTA a success story or damaging policy?

Obama calls out Trump trade rhetoric

Obama On Trump’s Anti-Mexican Rhetoric

Gorka: Trump’s Populism ‘Is A Direct Response To Obama’s Divisive Presidency’

2016 North American Leaders’ Summit – Trilateral News Conference

Trump vs Friedman – Trade Policy Debate

Milton Friedman on Free Trade

Milton Friedman – Free Trade Vs Protectionism

Milton Friedman debates a protectionist

Milton Friedman on the Dangers of Protectionism (Obama’s recent tariff on Chinese imports

The Legacy of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

Lessons from the Great Depression

Lincoln’s Tariff War | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

An In Depth Look at Southern Secession and American Principles part 4

An In Depth Look at Southern Secession and American Principles part 5

Tariffs: The Road to Civil War Part 1

Published on Jul 12, 2015

The South was 25% of the population and they were paying 80% of the taxes in the US which were being used to subsidize Northern industries. There is no way around that.

The declaration of secession included language from every faction including minority factions like slave owners who had a lot of money. Slavery wasn’t originally part of it. They pissed and moaned until they got everything included in it. These people were not the driving force of secession as secession and nullification movements started 30 years before the Civil War when slavery wasn’t even on the table. Furthermore slavery WASN’T on the table in the Civil War either. The North via New York and Ohio introduced a constitutional amendment, the Corwin Amendment which forbid the interference in slavery. Congress passed it too. It read : “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” It was not ratified because the South seceded anyway the two largest states did so AFTER Lincoln put a naval blockade on his own country to collect the import and export taxes.

The CSA constitution changed things that we accept today a) it gave term limits b)it gave a line item veto and c) section 8 (I) was changed to

“The Congress shall have power – To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States”

. I will remind you that 5 Northern states also had slaves, actually they all allowed slaves just not as to scale as the south. Other Northern States forbid foreign blacks from even entering the state such as Lincolns home state and the black code laws. And the 13th amendment which freed the slaves was rejected by 3 northern states and only 1 southern state. Let’s think they just lost 400,000 people to free the slaves then vote against freeing the slaves? It was never about slavery. It was about as Lincoln said “preserving the union” Lincoln didn’t even bring up the issue of slaves until the middle of the war.

Lincoln said “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …”

He also said “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

And he said “Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

And pay attention to this Lincoln said ” I HAVE NO PURPOSE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO INTERFERE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY IN THE STATES WHERE IT EXIST. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

And “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” -Abe Lincoln your white separatist hero.

Tariffs: The Road to Civil War Part 2

Real Causes of “The Civil War”– Morrill tariff

 

Donald J. Trump Address: Declaring American Economic Independence

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Today, Donald J. Trump spoke at the Alumisource Factory in Monessen, Pennsylvania. Mr. Trump’s speech focused on how to rebuild the American economy by fighting for fair trade. The middle class has collapsed because of the failed policies from Washington, D.C. that benefit the politicians, but not the American people. The all talk, no action politicians have promoted globalization at the expense of American workers. Mr. Trump will fight to put the country and its workers first in order to Make America Great Again. A transcript of the remarks can be viewed via the link below:

Declaring American Economic Independence
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/DJT_DeclaringAmericanEconomicIndependence.pdf

———————————————————————————

Trump Campaign Announces Expansion of Team

Today, Donald J. Trump announced the expansion of his campaign team making several appointments as he continues to build his operations in advance of the general elections.

Jason Miller will serve as Senior Communications Advisor, where he will work with the existing team to build out a full Communications Department to deliver victory this November. Mr. Miller will work with several areas of the campaign to ensure messaging coordination and implementation. Mr. Miller has managed campaigns and shaped messages for successful House, Senate and gubernatorial races in addition to serving on the senior staffs of two presidential campaigns.

Trumppenn

Michael Abboud is joining the Trump Campaign as a Communications Coordinator. Formerly with the RNC Communications Department, Mr. Abboud will work to execute the campaign’s rapid response and daily messaging, as well as providing candidate briefings on daily news and breaking stories.

Alan Cobb will serve as the Director of Coalitions for the campaign, organizing and managing the numerous coalition groups that currently support, and will support, Mr. Trump for president. Previously, Mr. Cobb served in several roles for the Trump Campaign including as a Senior Advisor. Mr. Cobb managed statewide, political and issue campaigns, served as the Deputy State Director for U.S. Senators Bob Dole and U.S. Senator Sheila Frahm and served as a Campaign Advisor to the 2014 campaigns of Congressman Mike Pompeo and Senator Pat Roberts.

On the appointments, Mr. Trump stated, “As we continue to work to defeat Hillary Clinton this November, I am constantly building a superior political team. After winning the most votes in the history of a Republican primary contest, we are taking our messages to the people so that we can Make American Great Again.”

 

Morrill Tariff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased import tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was the twelfth of seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party, which had not yet been inaugurated, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth.[1]

It was named for its sponsor, Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, who drafted it with the advice of Pennsylvania economist Henry Charles Carey. The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession. The Morrill Tariff raised rates to encourage industry and to foster high wages for industrial workers.[2] It replaced the low Tariff of 1857, which was written to benefit the South. Two additional tariffs sponsored by Morrill, each one higher, were passed during Abraham Lincoln‘s administration to raise urgently needed revenue during the Civil War.

The Morrill tariff inaugurated a period of continuous trade protection in the United States, a policy that remained until the adoption of the Revenue Act of 1913 (the Underwood tariff). The schedule of the Morrill Tariff and its two successor bills were retained long after the end of the Civil War.

History

Origins

A high tariff to encourage the development of domestic industry had been advocated for many years, especially by the Whig Party and its long-time leader Henry Clay. They enacted such a tariff in 1842, but in 1846 the Democrats enacted the Walker Tariff, cutting tariff rates substantially. The Democrats cut rates even further in the Tariff of 1857, which was highly favorable to the South.

Meanwhile, the Whig Party broke up, and this element of the Whig program was taken up by the new Republican Party, which ran its first national ticket in 1856. Some former Whigs from the Border States and upper South remained in Congress as “Opposition”, “Unionist”, or “American” (Know Nothing) members; they also supported higher tariffs.

The Panic of 1857 led to calls for protectionist tariff revision. Well-known economist Henry C. Carey blamed the Panic on the Tariff of 1857. His opinion was widely circulated in the high tariff (or “protectionist”) media.

Efforts to revise the tariff schedules upward began in earnest in the 35th Congress of 1857–1859. Two proposals were submitted in the House. House Ways and Means Committee chairman John S. Phelps (D-Missouri wrote the Democrats’ plan, which retained most of the low rates of the 1857 Tariff, with minor revisions to stimulate revenue.

Minority Ways and Means members Morrill and Henry Winter Davis (a Maryland “American”) produced the Republican proposal, an upward revision of the tariff schedule. It replaced the existing ad valorem tariff schedule with specific duties and drastically increased tariff rates on goods produced by popular “protected” industries, such as iron, textiles, and other manufactured goods. Economic historian Frank Taussig argued that in many cases, the substitution of specific duties was used to disguise the extent of the rate increases.[3] Supporters of the specific rates argued that they were necessary, though, because European exporters were routinely providing their American customers with phony invoices showing lower prices for goods than were actually paid. Specific rates made such subterfuge pointless.

However, the House took no action on either tariff bill during the 35th Congress.

House actions

When the 36th Congress met in 1859, action remained blocked by a wrangle over the Speaker of the House until 1860, when Republican William Pennington of New Jersey was elected. A pro-tariff Republican majority was appointed to Ways and Means, and John Sherman of Ohio became chairman.

The Morrill bill was passed out of committee and brought up for a floor vote near the end of first session of the Congress (December 1859 – June 1860).

The vote was on May 10, 1860; the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64.[4]

The vote was largely but not entirely sectional. Republicans, all from the northern states, voted 89–2 for the bill. They were joined by 7 northern Democrats from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Five of these were “anti-Lecompton Democrats” (dissident Democrats who opposed the pro-slavery Lecompton constitution for Kansas).

14 northern Democrats voted against the bill.

In the Border States, 4 “Opposition” Representatives from Kentucky voted for it, as did its co-sponsor Winter of Maryland, a Maryland “Unionist”, and a Democrat from Delaware. 8 Border state Democrats and an “American” from Missouri voted no.

35 southern Democrats and 3 Oppositionists voted against it; one Oppositionist from Tennessee voted for it.

Thus the sectional breakdown was 96–15 in the north, 7–9 in the Border, and 1–39 in the south.

There were 55 abstentions, including 13 Republicans, 12 northern Democrats, 13 southern Democrats, and 8 southern “Oppositionists” and “Americans”. (The remaining Representatives were mostly “paired” with opposing Representatives who could not be present.[5]

Senate action

The Morrill bill was sent on to the Senate. However, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and so the bill was bottled up in the Finance Committee, chaired by Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia.

This insured that the Senate vote would be put off till the second session in December. It also meant that the tariff would be a prominent issue in the 1860 election.[6]

1860 election

The Republican party included a strong pro-tariff plank in its 1860 platform. They also sent prominent tariff advocates such as Morrill and Sherman to campaign in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where the tariff was popular, by touting the Morrill bill. Both Democratic candidates, John C. Breckinridge and Stephen Douglas, opposed all high tariffs and protectionism in general.[7]

Historian Reinhard H. Luthin documents the importance of the Morrill Tariff to the Republicans in the 1860 presidential election.[8] Abraham Lincoln’s record as a protectionist and support for the Morrill Tariff bill, he notes, helped him to secure support in the important electoral college state of Pennsylvania, as well as neighboring New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.

On February 14, 1861, President-elect Lincoln told an audience in Pittsburgh that he would make a new tariff his priority in the next session if the bill did not pass by inauguration day on March 4.

Renewed Senate action

The second session of the 36th Congress began in December 1860. At first it appeared that Hunter would keep the Morrill bill tabled until the end of the term in March.

However, in December 1860 and January 1861, seven southern states declared secession, and their low-tariff Senators withdrew. Republicans took control of the Senate in February, and Hunter lost his hold on the Finance Committee.

Meanwhile, the Treasury was in financial crisis, with less than $500,000 on hand and millions in unpaid bills. The Union urgently needed new revenue. A recent historian concludes, “the impetus for revising the tariff arose as an attempt to augment revenue, stave off ‘ruin,’ and address the accumulating debt.”[9]

The Morrill bill was brought to the Senate floor for a vote on February 20, and passed 25 to 14. The vote was split almost completely down party lines. It was supported by 24 Republicans and Democrat William Bigler of Pennsylvania. It was opposed by 10 Southern Democrats, 2 Northern Democrats, and 2 Far West Democrats. 12 Senators abstained, including 3 Northern Democrats, 1 California Democrat, 5 Southern Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 1 Unionist from Maryland.[10]

There were some minor amendments related to the tariffs on tea and coffee, which required a conference committee with the House, but these were resolved and the final bill was approved by unanimous consent on March 2.

Though a Democrat himself, outgoing President James Buchanan favored the bill because of the interests of his home state, Pennsylvania. He signed the bill into law as one of his last acts in office.

Adoption and amendments

The Morrill Tariff took effect one month after it was signed into law. Besides setting tariff rates, the bill altered and restricted the Warehousing Act of 1846.

The Morrill Tariff was drafted and passed the House before the Civil War began or was even expected, and was passed by the Senate almost unchanged. Thus it should not be considered “Civil War” legislation.[11]

In fact, the Tariff proved to be too low for the revenue needs of the Civil War, and was quickly supplanted by the Second Morrill Tariff, or Revenue Act of 1861, later that fall.[12]

Impact

In its first year of operation, the Morrill Tariff increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%. In 1860 American tariff rates were among the lowest in the world and also at historical lows by 19th century standards, the average rate for 1857 through 1860 being around 17% overall (ad valorem), or 21% on dutiable items only. The Morrill Tariff immediately raised these averages to about 26% overall or 36% on dutiable items, and further increases by 1865 left the comparable rates at 38% and 48%. Although higher than in the immediate antebellum period, these rates were still significantly lower than between 1825 and 1830, when rates had sometimes been over 50%.[13]

The United States needed $3 billion to pay for the immense armies and fleets raised to fight the Civil War — over $400 million just in 1862. The chief source of Federal revenue had been the tariff revenues. Therefore, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, though a long-time free-trader, worked with Morrill to pass a second tariff bill in summer 1861, raising rates another 10 points in order to generate more revenues.[14] These subsequent bills were primarily revenue driven to meet the war’s needs, though they enjoyed the support of protectionists such as Carey, who again assisted Morrill in the bill’s drafting.

However, the tariff played only a modest role in financing the war. It was far less important than other measures, such as $2.8 billion in bond sales and some printing of Greenbacks. Customs revenue from tariffs totaled $345 million from 1861 through 1865, or 43% of all federal tax revenue, while military spending totalled $3,065 million.[15]

Reception abroad

The Morrill Tariff was met with intense hostility in Britain, where the free trade movement dominated public opinion. Southern diplomats and agents sought to use British ire towards the Morrill Tariff in order to garner sympathy, with the aim of obtaining British recognition for the Confederacy.[16] The new tariff schedule heavily penalized British iron, clothing, and manufactured exports with new taxes and sparked public outcry from many British politicians. The expectation of high tax rates probably caused British shippers to hasten their deliveries before the new rates took effect in the early summer of 1861. When complaints were heard from London, Congress counterattacked. The Senate Finance Committee chairman snapped, “What right has a foreign country to make any question about what we choose to do?”[17]

When the American Civil War broke out in 1861, British public opinion was sympathetic to the Confederacy, in part because of lingering agitation over the tariff. As one diplomatic historian has explained, the Morrill Tariff:[18]

“Not unnaturally gave great displeasure to England. It greatly lessened the profits of the American markets to English manufacturers and merchants, to a degree which caused serious mercantile distress in that country. Moreover, the British nation was then in the first flush of enthusiasm over free trade, and, under the lead of extremists like Cobden and Gladstone, was inclined to regard a protective tariff as essentially and intrinsically immoral, scarcely less so than larceny or murder. Indeed, the tariff was seriously regarded as comparable in offensiveness with slavery itself, and Englishmen were inclined to condemn the North for the one as much as the South for the other. “We do not like slavery,” said Palmerston to Adams, “but we want cotton, and we dislike very much your Morrill tariff.”

Many prominent British writers condemned the Morrill Tariff in the strongest terms. Economist William Stanley Jevons denounced it as a “retrograde” law. The well known novelist Charles Dickens used his magazine, All the Year Round, to attack the new tariff. On December 28, 1861 Dickens published a lengthy article, believed to be written by Henry Morley,[19] which blamed the American Civil War on the Morrill Tariff:

If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils… [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

Communist philosopher Karl Marx was among the few writers in Britain who saw slavery as the major cause of the war. Marx wrote extensively in the British press and served as a London correspondent for several North American newspapers including Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune. Marx reacted to those who blamed the war on Morrill’s bill, arguing instead that slavery had induced secession and that the tariff was just a pretext. Marx wrote, in October 1861:

Naturally, in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place.[20]

Legacy

According to historian Heather Cox Richardson, Morrill intended to offer protection to both the usual manufacturing recipients and a broad group of agricultural interests. The purpose was to appease interests beyond the northeast, which traditionally supported protection. For the first time protection was extended to every major farm product.

Planning to distribute the benefits of a tariff to all sectors of the economy, and also hoping to broaden support for his party, Morrill rejected the traditional system of protection by proposing tariff duties on agricultural, mining, and fishing products, as well as on manufactures. Sugar, wool, flaxseed, hides, beef, pork, corn, grain, hemp, wool, and minerals would all be protected by the Morrill Tariff. The duty on sugar might well be expected to appease Southerners opposed to tariffs, and, notably, wool and flaxseed production were growing industries in the West. The new tariff bill also would protect coal, lead, copper, zinc, and other minerals, all of which the new northwestern states were beginning to produce. The Eastern fishing industry would receive a duty on dried, pickled, and salted fish. “In adjusting the details of a tariff,” Morrill explained with a rhetorical flourish in his introduction of the bill, “I would treat agriculture, manufactures, mining, and commerce, as I would our whole people—as members of one family, all entitled to equal favor, and no one to be made the beast of burden to carry the packs of others.”[21]

According to Taussig, “Morrill and the other supporters of the act of 1861 declared that their intention was simply to restore the rates of 1846.” However, he also gives reason to suspect that the bill’s motives were intended to put high rates of protection on iron and wool to attract states in the West and in Pennsylvania:

“The important change which they (the sponsors) proposed to make from the provisions of the tariff of 1846 was to substitute specific for ad-valorem duties. Such a change from ad-valorem to specific duties is in itself by no means objectionable; but it has usually been made a pretext on the part of protectionists for a considerable increase in the actual duties paid. When protectionists make a change of this kind, they almost invariably make the specific duties higher than the ad-valorem duties for which they are supposed to be an equivalent…The Morrill tariff formed no exception to the usual course of things in this respect. The specific duties which it established were in many cases considerably above the ad-valorem duties of 1846. The most important direct changes made by the act of 1861 were in the increased duties on iron and on wool, by which it was hoped to attach to the Republican party Pennsylvania and some of the Western States”[22]

Henry Carey, who assisted Morrill while drafting the bill and was one of its most vocal supporters, strongly emphasized its importance to the Republican Party in his January 2, 1861 letter to Lincoln. Carey told the President-Elect “the success of your administration is wholly dependent upon the passage of the Morrill bill at the present session.” According to Carey:

“With it, the people will be relieved — your term will commence with a rising wave of prosperity — the Treasury will be filled and the party that elected you will be increased and strengthened. Without it, there will be much suffering among the people — much dissatisfaction with their duties — much borrowing on the part of the Government — & very much trouble among the Republican Party when the people shall come to vote two years hence. There is but one way to make the Party a permanent one, & that is, by the prompt repudiation to the free trade system.”

Congressman John Sherman later wrote:

The Morrill tariff bill came nearer than any other to meeting the double requirement of providing ample revenue for the support of the government and of rendering the proper protection to home industries. No national taxes, except duties on imported goods, were imposed at the time of its passage. The Civil War changed all this, reducing importations and adding tenfold to the revenue required. The government was justified in increasing existing rates of duty, and in adding to the dutiable list all articles imported, thus including articles of prime necessity and of universal use. In addition to these duties, it was compelled to add taxes on all articles of home production, on incomes not required for the supply of actual wants, and, especially, on articles of doubtful necessity, such as spirits, tobacco and beer. These taxes were absolutely required to meet expenditures for the army and navy, for the interest on the war debts and just pensions to those who were disabled by the war, and to their widows and orphans.[23]

Secession and tariffs

The Morrill Tariff and the secession movement

The Morrill tariff was adopted against the backdrop of the secession movement, and provided an issue for secessionist agitation in some southern states. The law’s critics compared it to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations that sparked the Nullification Crisis, although its average rate was significantly lower.

Slavery dominated the secession debate in the southern states,[24] but the Morrill Tariff was addressed in the conventions of Georgia and South Carolina.

Robert Barnwell Rhett similarly railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention. Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding State19s, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.[25]

The Morrill Tariff played less prominently elsewhere in the South. In some portions of Virginia, secessionists promised a new protective tariff to assist the state’s fledgling industries.[26]

In the North, enforcement of the Morrill Tariff contributed to support for the Union cause among industrialists and merchant interests. Speaking of this class, the abolitionist Orestes Brownson derisively remarked that “the Morrill Tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter.”[27] In one such example the New York Times, which had previously opposed Morrill’s bill on free trade grounds, editorialized that the tariff imbalance would bring commercial ruin to the North and urged its suspension until the secession crisis passed. “We have imposed high duties on our commerce at the very moment the seceding states are inviting commerce to their ports by low duties.”[28] As secession became more evident and the fledgling Confederacy adopted a much lower tariff of its own, the paper urged military action to enforce the Morrill Tariff in the Southern states.[29]

Historiography

Historians, James Huston notes, have been baffled by the role of high tariffs in general and have offered multiple conflicting interpretations over the years. (Low tariffs, all historians agree, were noncontroversial and were needed to fund the federal government.) One school of thought says the Republicans were the willing tools of would-be monopolists. A second schools says the Republicans truly believed tariffs would promote nationalism and prosperity for everyone along with balanced growth in every region (as opposed to growth only in the cotton South). A third school emphasizes the undeniable importance of the tariff in cementing party loyalty, especially in industrial states. Another approach emphasizes that factory workers were eager for high tariffs because it protected their high wages from European competition.[30]

Charles A. Beard argued in the 1920s that very long-term economic issues were critical, with the pro-tariff industrial Northeast forming a coalition with the anti-tariff agrarian Midwest against the plantation South. According to Luthin in the 1940s, “Historians are not unanimous as to the relative importance which Southern fear and hatred of a high tariff had in causing the secession of the slave states.”[31] However, none of the statesmen seeking a compromise in 1860-61 that would avert the war ever suggested the tariff might be the key to a solution, or might be a cause of the secession.[32] Beginning in the 1950s, historians moved away from the Beard thesis of economic causality. In its place, historians led by Richard Hofstadter began to emphasize the social causes of the war, centered around the issue of slavery. The Beard thesis has enjoyed a recent revival among economists, pro-Confederate historians, and neo-Beardian scholars. A 2002 study by economists Robert McGuire and T. Norman Van Cott concluded:

A de facto constitutional mandate that tariffs lie on the lower end of the Laffer relationship means that the Confederacy went beyond simply observing that a given tax revenue is obtainable with a “high” and “low” tax rate, a la Alexander Hamilton and others. Indeed, the constitutional action suggests that the tariff issue may in fact have been even more important in the North–South tensions that led to the Civil War than many economists and historians currently believe.”

Rather than contributing to secession, Marc-William Palen notes how the tariff was only able to pass through Congress following the secession of Southern states. Thus, secession itself allowed for the bill’s passage, rather than the other way around.[33]Allan Nevinsand James M. McPherson downplay the significance of the tariff, arguing that it was peripheral to the issue of slavery. They note that slavery dominated the secessionist declarations, speeches, and pamphlets. Nevins also points to the argument of Alexander Stephens, who disputed Toombs’ claims about the severity of the Morrill tariff. Though initially a unionist, Stephens would later cite slavery as the “cornerstone” reason behind his support of the secessionist cause.[34]

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

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-708

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

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

The Pronk Pops Show 708, June 28, 2016, Story 1: Breaking News! Terrorist Attack At Turkish Ataturk airport in Istanbul — 41Dead+ and 239+ Wounded — Story 2: The Big Lies And Cover-up About A State Department Foreign Policy And CIA Covert Action Failures in Libya and Benghazi Elects Barack Obama and Destroys Hillary Clinton Credibility And Reveals Total Incompetence and Blind Ambition of Obama and Clinton — Missing In Action President Obama and Secretary of Defense Not In Situation Room, No Followup and Leading From Behind — Arrogance of Power and The Decline and Fall Of American Empire By The Two Party Tyranny of The Democratic and Republican Parties — Throw The Political Elitist Establishment Out of Office — Both Political Parties Authorized A Undeclared War In Libya Contrary To United States Constitution — An Imperial President and Congress — American People Will Overthrow These Tyrants Come Election Day — Videos

Posted on June 28, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Benghazi, Blogroll, Breaking News, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, France, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Great Britain, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Law, Libya, Media, Middle East, National Security Agency, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Security, Senate, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

Story 1:  Breaking News! Terrorist Attack At Turkish Ataturk airport in Istanbul — 50 Dead+ and 60 Wounded — 3 Suicide Bombers From Islamic State — Videos

turkey_physio-2006Istanbul-Ataturk-Airport.10istanbul-city-metro-and-ataturk-airport-mapataturk-airport-istanbul-turkey-2turkey airlinesanother attack istanbul-airportrtr_turkish_airport_attack_02terrorist attack airportistanbul-ataturk-airport

TURKEY AIRPORT Terror 41 Dead 239 Inj USA High Alert

Istanbul Terror Attack: 41 Dead and More than 230 Hurt

2016 – BBC World News – 41 Dead in Triple Suicide Bombings @ Istanbul Airport – 29/6/16

Terrorist Attack At Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport Kills Dozens

Istanbul Ataturk airport attack Two Blast At least 40 reported dead

Two blasts rock Istanbul airport , TERRORIST ATTACK IN ISTANBUL AIRPORT (NEWS VIDEO) 6-28-2016

Raw: Rising Death Toll in Turkey Airport Attack

GRAPHIC VIDEO: Chaos, Ataturk Airport Attack Victims Transported to Hospitals in Istanbul

Terrorist attack Istanbul Ataturk Airport

Istanbul Airport Attack | Video of People Running From Suicide Bomber

Brussels Terrorist Attack RAW Footage Just After Explosion at Airport

// // // <![CDATA[
(function(_){var Em=function(){this.Fi=[];this.hq={}};Em.prototype.report=function(){for(var a=[],b=0;b<this.Fi.length;++b)a.push(Fm(this.Fi[b]));return a};var Fm=function(a){var b=[a.key,a.value];_.t(a.nn)&&b.push(a.nn);return b},Gm={};var Hm={1:0,2:1,4:8,5:6,8:11,9:2,6:9,34:25,26:15,3:7,20:12,24:26,33:11,25:0,40:9},Im=function(a,b,c,d){var e=Hm[b];4==b&&(b=(d=d.currentTarget)?d.getAttribute(“data-absm”):c.getAttribute(b,”data-absm”),”e”==b?e=12:”db”==b?e=29:”dd”==b&&(e=30));(0,window.ja)(a,e)},Jm=function(a){return function(){a()}},Km=function(a){return a.report()};_.u(“registerAd”,function(a,b){_.t(Gm[b])||(Gm[b]=new Em);a.registerClickUrlModifier(_.ga(Km,Gm[b]));for(var c=[1,2,4,8,6,9,5,3,20,34,26,24,33,25,40],d=0;d//

// <![CDATA[
(function(){var h,k=this,l=function(a,b){var c=a.split(“.”),d=k;c[0]in d||!d.execScript||d.execScript(“var “+c[0]);for(var e;c.length&&(e=c.shift());)c.length||void 0===b?d=d[e]?d[e]:d[e]={}:d[e]=b},m=function(a){var b=typeof a;if(“object”==b)if(a){if(a instanceof Array)return”array”;if(a instanceof Object)return b;var c=Object.prototype.toString.call(a);if(“[object Window]”==c)return”object”;if(“[object Array]”==c||”number”==typeof a.length&&”undefined”!=typeof a.splice&&”undefined”!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable(“splice”))return”array”;if(“[object Function]”==c||”undefined”!=typeof a.call&&”undefined”!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable(“call”))return”function”}else return”null”;else if(“function”==b&&”undefined”==typeof a.call)return”object”;return b},aa=function(a){var b=m(a);return”array”==b||”object”==b&&”number”==typeof a.length},p=function(a){return”string”==typeof a},q=function(a){var b=typeof a;return”object”==b&&null!=a||”function”==b},ba=function(a,b,c){return a.call.apply(a.bind,arguments)},ca=function(a,b,c){if(!a)throw Error();if(2<arguments.length){var d=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,2);return function(){var c=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);Array.prototype.unshift.apply(c,d);return a.apply(b,c)}}return function(){return a.apply(b,arguments)}},t=function(a,b,c){t=Function.prototype.bind&&-1!=Function.prototype.bind.toString().indexOf(“native code”)?ba:ca;return t.apply(null,arguments)};var u=function(a,b){var c=parseInt(a,10);return isNaN(c)?b:c};var x;var y=String.prototype.trim?function(a){return a.trim()}:function(a){return a.replace(/^[\s\xa0]+|[\s\xa0]+$/g,””)},z=function(a,b){return ab?1:0};var da=Array.prototype.indexOf?function(a,b,c){return Array.prototype.indexOf.call(a,b,c)}:function(a,b,c){c=null==c?0:0>c?Math.max(0,a.length+c):c;if(p(a))return p(b)&&1==b.length?a.indexOf(b,c):-1;for(;c<a.length;c++)if(c in a&&a[c]===b)return c;return-1},ea=Array.prototype.forEach?function(a,b,c){Array.prototype.forEach.call(a,b,c)}:function(a,b,c){for(var d=a.length,e=p(a)?a.split(“”):a,f=0;f<d;f++)f in e&&b.call(c,e[f],f,a)},fa=function(a){var b=a.length;if(0<b){for(var c=Array(b),d=0;dparseFloat(L)){K=String(N);break a}}K=L}var O=K,P={},Q=function(a){var b;if(!(b=P[a])){b=0;for(var c=y(String(O)).split(“.”),d=y(String(a)).split(“.”),e=Math.max(c.length,d.length),f=0;0==b&&f<e;f++){var g=c[f]||””,n=d[f]||””,v=RegExp(“(\\d*)(\\D*)”,”g”),va=RegExp(“(\\d*)(\\D*)”,”g”);do{var r=v.exec(g)||[“”,””,””],w=va.exec(n)||[“”,””,””];if(0==r[0].length&&0==w[0].length)break;b=z(0==r[1].length?0:parseInt(r[1],10),0==w[1].length?0:parseInt(w[1],10))||z(0==r[2].length,0==w[2].length)||z(r[2],w[2])}while(0==b)}b=P[a]=0<=b}return b},R=k.document,ka=R&&H?J()||(“CSS1Compat”==R.compatMode?parseInt(O,10):5):void 0;var S;if(!(S=!I&&!H)){var T;if(T=H)T=9<=Number(ka);S=T}S||I&&Q(“1.9.1”);var la=H&&!Q(“9”);var ma=function(a){var b=document;return p(a)?b.getElementById(a):a},oa=function(a,b){var c=b||document;return c.querySelectorAll&&c.querySelector?c.querySelectorAll(“.”+a):na(a,b)},na=function(a,b){var c,d,e,f;c=document;c=b||c;if(c.querySelectorAll&&c.querySelector&&a)return c.querySelectorAll(“”+(a?”.”+a:””));if(a&&c.getElementsByClassName){var g=c.getElementsByClassName(a);return g}g=c.getElementsByTagName(“*”);if(a){f={};for(d=e=0;c=g[d];d++){var n=c.className,v;if(v=”function”==typeof n.split)v=0<=da(n.split(/\s+/),a);v&&(f[e++]=c)}f.length=e;return f}return g},qa=function(a,b,c){function d(c){c&&b.appendChild(p(c)?a.createTextNode(c):c)}for(var e=1;e<c.length;e++){var f=c[e];!aa(f)||q(f)&&0<f.nodeType?d(f):ea(pa(f)?fa(f):f,d)}},ra={SCRIPT:1,STYLE:1,HEAD:1,IFRAME:1,OBJECT:1},sa={IMG:” “,BR:”\n”},ua=function(){var a=document.getElementById(“feedback-closing-template”);if(la&&null!==a&&”innerText”in a)a=a.innerText.replace(/(\r\n|\r|\n)/g,”\n”);else{var b=[];ta(a,b,!0);a=b.join(“”)}a=a.replace(/ \xAD /g,” “).replace(/\xAD/g,””);a=a.replace(/\u200B/g,””);la||(a=a.replace(/ +/g,” “));” “!=a&&(a=a.replace(/^\s*/,””));return a},ta=function(a,b,c){if(!(a.nodeName in ra))if(3==a.nodeType)c?b.push(String(a.nodeValue).replace(/(\r\n|\r|\n)/g,””)):b.push(a.nodeValue);else if(a.nodeName in sa)b.push(sa[a.nodeName]);else for(a=a.firstChild;a;)ta(a,b,c),a=a.nextSibling},pa=function(a){if(a&&”number”==typeof a.length){if(q(a))return”function”==typeof a.item||”string”==typeof a.item;if(“function”==m(a))return”function”==typeof a.item}return!1},wa=function(a){this.v=a||k.document||document},xa=function(a,b){return oa(“feedback_description”,b||a.v)};h=wa.prototype;h.createElement=function(a){return this.v.createElement(String(a))};h.createTextNode=function(a){return this.v.createTextNode(String(a))};h.appendChild=function(a,b){a.appendChild(b)};h.append=function(a,b){qa(9==a.nodeType?a:a.ownerDocument||a.document,a,arguments)};h.canHaveChildren=function(a){if(1!=a.nodeType)return!1;switch(a.tagName){case “APPLET”:case “AREA”:case “BASE”:case “BR”:case “COL”:case “COMMAND”:case “EMBED”:case “FRAME”:case “HR”:case “IMG”:case “INPUT”:case “IFRAME”:case “ISINDEX”:case “KEYGEN”:case “LINK”:case “NOFRAMES”:case “NOSCRIPT”:case “META”:case “OBJECT”:case “PARAM”:case “SCRIPT”:case “SOURCE”:case “STYLE”:case “TRACK”:case “WBR”:return!1}return!0};h.removeNode=function(a){return a&&a.parentNode?a.parentNode.removeChild(a):null};h.contains=function(a,b){if(!a||!b)return!1;if(a.contains&&1==b.nodeType)return a==b||a.contains(b);if(“undefined”!=typeof a.compareDocumentPosition)return a==b||!!(a.compareDocumentPosition(b)&16);for(;b&&a!=b;)b=b.parentNode;return b==a};var ya=function(a){a=String(a);if(/^\s*$/.test(a)?0:/^[\],:{}\s\u2028\u2029]*$/.test(a.replace(/\\[“\\\/bfnrtu]/g,”@”).replace(/(?:”[^”\\\n\r\u2028\u2029\x00-\x08\x0a-\x1f]*”|true|false|null|-?\d+(?:\.\d*)?(?:[eE][+\-]?\d+)?)[\s\u2028\u2029]*(?=:|,|]|}|$)/g,”]”).replace(/(?:^|:|,)(?:[\s\u2028\u2029]*\[)+/g,””)))try{return eval(“(“+a+”)”)}catch(b){}throw Error(“Invalid JSON string: “+a);},Aa=function(a){var b=[];U(new za,a,b);return b.join(“”)},za=function(){this.m=void 0},U=function(a,b,c){if(null==b)c.push(“null”);else{if(“object”==typeof b){if(“array”==m(b)){var d=b;b=d.length;c.push(“[“);for(var e=””,f=0;f<b;f++)c.push(e),e=d[f],U(a,a.m?a.m.call(d,String(f),e):e,c),e=”,”;c.push(“]”);return}if(b instanceof String||b instanceof Number||b instanceof Boolean)b=b.valueOf();else{c.push(“{“);f=””;for(d in b)Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(b,d)&&(e=b[d],”function”!=typeof e&&(c.push(f),Ba(d,c),c.push(“:”),U(a,a.m?a.m.call(b,d,e):e,c),f=”,”));c.push(“}”);return}}switch(typeof b){case “string”:Ba(b,c);break;case “number”:c.push(isFinite(b)&&!isNaN(b)?String(b):”null”);break;case “boolean”:c.push(String(b));break;case “function”:c.push(“null”);break;default:throw Error(“Unknown type: “+typeof b);}}},Ca={‘”‘:’\\”‘,”\\”:”\\\\”,”/”:”\\/”,”\b”:”\\b”,”\f”:”\\f”,”\n”:”\\n”,”\r”:”\\r”,”\t”:”\\t”,”\x0B”:”\\u000b”},Da=/\uffff/.test(“\uffff”)?/[\\\”\x00-\x1f\x7f-\uffff]/g:/[\\\”\x00-\x1f\x7f-\xff]/g,Ba=function(a,b){b.push(‘”‘,a.replace(Da,function(a){var b=Ca[a];b||(b=”\\u”+(a.charCodeAt(0)|65536).toString(16).substr(1),Ca[a]=b);return b}),'”‘)};var Ea=function(a){var b={};if(a&&a.key_value){a=a.key_value;for(var c=0;c=this.boundingClientRect.bottom&&this.boundingClientRect.left>=this.boundingClientRect.right)},Ga=function(){var a=new Fa;return a.N&&(!a.Y||a.O>=a.X)};var V=function(a,b){this.F=a;this.l=0;this.j=document.getElementById(“mtadmas”);this.L=document.getElementById(“mtadmaundo”);this.B=document.getElementById(“mtadmac”);this.C=document.getElementById(“mtadmback”);this.I=document.getElementById(“mtadmpc”);this.M=document.getElementById(“mtadmpundo”);this.w=document.getElementById(“mtadmpunclose”);this.K=this.s=this.G=this.D=null;this.u=0;this.h=null;this.i=!1;this.o=null;this.T=b?b.getAdsLength():1;(this.g=b)&&this.g.registerWidget(this,0);this.H=0},Ha=function(a){for(var b=document.getElementsByName(“surveyOptions”),c=0;c<b.length;c++)F(b[c],t(a.U,a,b[c].value));a.L&&F(a.L,t(a.A,a,”1″));a.M&&F(a.M,t(a.A,a,”3″));a.w&&F(a.w,t(a.V,a));a.C&&F(a.C,t(a.back,a));a.g&&(a.g.listenOnObject(“mute_option_selected”,t(a.J,a)),a.g.forEachAd(t(function(a){a.listenOnObject(“multislot_mute_collapse”,t(this.S,this));a.listenOnObject(“multislot_mute_collapse_undo”,t(this.R,this))},a)))};V.prototype.J=function(a){this.D=a.close_button_token;this.G=a.creative_conversion_url;this.s=a.ablation_config;this.K=a.undo_callback;this.u=a.creative_index||0;this.g&&(this.o=this.g.getAd(this.u));if(1===a.type){a=oa(“survey”);for(var b=”survey_”+this.u,c=0;c<a.length;c++)a[c].style.display=a[c].id==b?”block”:”none”;a=document.getElementsByName(“surveyOptions”);for(b=0;b<a.length;b++)a[b].checked=!1;this.j.style.display=”block”;W(this);X(this)}else 0===a.type&&(this.I.style.display=”block”,this.j.style.display=”none”,W(this),Ia(this,document.getElementById(“pub-feedback-closing”),this.s))};var Y=function(a){a.h&&(window.clearInterval(a.h),a.h=null,a.i=!1);ma(“pub-feedback-closing”).style.display=”none”;ma(“ad-feedback-closing”).style.display=”none”};V.prototype.A=function(a){this.i||(Y(this),G(Z(this,”user_feedback_undo”,a)),this.K())};V.prototype.V=function(){var a={msg_type:”resize-me”};a.key_value=[{key:”r_nh”,value:String(this.H)},{key:”r_str”,value:”animate”}];a=Aa(a);window.top.postMessage(a,”*”);this.i=!1;this.A(“3″)};V.prototype.back=function(){this.i||(Y(this),this.j.style.display=”block”,W(this),X(this))};V.prototype.U=function(a){this.B.style.display=”block”;this.j.style.display=”none”;X(this);G(Z(this,”mute_survey_option”,a));a=document.getElementById(“ad-feedback-closing”);this.le||e>g||a.h)){var n=ua();c=t(function(){var a=””;g<=d&&0=g&&Y(this);g–},a);c();0<=g&&(a.h=window.setInterval(c,1E3))}},Ia=function(a,b,c){if(c&&window.top&&window.top.postMessage){var d=ya(c),e=Ea(d),f=”resize-me”==d.msg_type&&”animate”==e.r_str;if(“ablate-me”==d.msg_type&&e[“collapse-after-close”]||f&&!Ga())a.w&&(a.H=window.innerHeight,f=document.getElementById(“cbtf”),f=xa(x||(x=new wa),f)[1],f=La(a.P,f),c=Ma(d,f)),Ka(a,b,u(e[“secs-to-countdown”],1),u(e.countdown,0),u(e[“message-tick”],1),function(){window.top.postMessage(c,”*”)})}},Ma=function(a,b){if(!isNaN(b)&&isFinite(b)){var c=!1;if(a.key_value){for(var d=a.key_value,e=0;e<d.length;e++){var f=d[e];if(“key”in f&&”value”in f&&”r_nh”==f.key){c=!0;f.value=b.toString();break}}c||d.push({key:”r_nh”,value:b.toString()})}}return Aa(a)};V.prototype.P=function(a){var b=E(a);a=E(a.parentNode.parentNode);return parseInt(b.height,10)+parseInt(b.marginTop,10)+parseInt(a.marginTop,10)};var La=function(a,b){for(var c=[],d=b;d&&”BODY”!=d.tagName;d=d.parentNode)d.style&&”block”!=d.style.display&&(c.push({el:d,val:d.style.display}),d.style.display=”block”);for(var d=a(b),e;e=c.pop();)void 0!==e.W&&(e.Z.style.display=e.W);return d},Ja=function(a,b){Ka(a,b,1,0,0,t(function(){var a={creative_index:this.o.getIndex(),undo_pingback_url:Z(this,”user_feedback_undo”,”1″)};this.o.fireOnObject(“multislot_mute_collapse”,a)},a))};h=V.prototype;h.S=function(){this.l++;this.g.resetAll()};h.R=function(){0

SUSPECTED IS ATTACK KILLS DOZENS AT ISTANBUL’S AIRPORT

Suspected Islamic State group extremists have hit the international terminal of Istanbul’s Ataturk airport, killing dozens of people and wounding many others, Turkish officials said Tuesday.

Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag said 31 people were killed in the attack while another senior government official told The Associated Press it could climb much higher.

The senior official at first said close to 50 people had already died, but later said that the figure was expected to rise to close to 50.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with government protocol, said as many as four militants may have been involved in the attack.

Turkey’s NTV television earlier quoted Istanbul Governor Vasip Sahin as saying some 60 people were wounded.

Roads around the airport were sealed off for regular traffic after the attack and several ambulances could be seen driving back and forth. Hundreds of passengers were flooding out of the airport and others were sitting on the grass, their bodies lit by the flashing lights of the emergency vehicles.

Twelve-year-old Hevin Zini had just arrived from Dusseldorf with her family and was in tears from the shock.

She told The Associated Press that there was blood on the ground and everything was blown up to bits.

South African Judy Favish, who spent two days in Istanbul as a layover on her way home from Dublin, had just checked in when she heard an explosion followed by gunfire and a loud bang.

She says she hid under the counter for some time.

Favish says passengers were ushered to a cafeteria at the basement level where they were kept for more than an hour before being allowed outside.

Another Turkish official said attackers detonated explosives at the entrance of the international terminal after police fired at them.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with government protocol, said the attackers blew themselves up before entering the x-ray security check at the airport entrance.

Turkish airports have security checks at both the entrance of terminal buildings and then later before entry to departure gates.

Two South African tourists, Paul and Susie Roos from Cape Town, were at the airport and due to fly home at the time of the explosions and were shaken by what they witnessed.

“We came up from the arrivals to the departures, up the escalator when we heard these shots going off,” Paul Roos said. “There was this guy going roaming around, he was dressed in black and he had a hand gun.”

The private DHA news agency said the wounded, among them police officers, were being transferred to Bakirkoy State Hospital.

Turkey has suffered several bombings in recent months linked to Kurdish or Islamic State group militants.

The bombings include two in Istanbul targeting tourists – which the authorities have blamed on the Islamic State group.

The attacks have increased in scale and frequency, scaring off tourists and hurting the economy, which relies heavily on tourism revenues.

Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport was the 11th busiest airport in the world last year, with 61.8 million passengers, according to Airports Council International. It is also one of the fastest-growing airports in the world, seeing 9.2 percent more passengers last year than in 2014.

The largest carrier at the airport is Turkish Airlines, which operates a major hub there. Low-cost Turkish carrier Onur Air is the second-largest airline there.

Soguel reported from Sanliurfa, Turkey. Bram Janssen in Istanbul and Scott Mayerowitz in New York also contributed to this report.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_TURKEY_AIRPORT_BLASTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-06-28-16-36-10

 

Suicide bombers kill at least 10 and wound 40 when they blow themselves up as police shot at them in Brussels-style attack on Istanbul airport

  • Twin explosions rocked Istanbul’s Ataturk airport in what officials say was a suicide attack
  • Gunfire also reported to have broken out from the direction of its car park
  • Witnesses say four men were seen running away from terminal building
  • Initial reports claim around 40 people have been injured in the explosions 
  • At least 10 people have died, with taxi drivers ferrying injured to hospital 

It is understood that a ‘terrorist’ first opened fire with a Kalashnikov, before blowing himself up.

It is not yet clear how many attackers were involved as witnesses reported twin blasts that struck at the International Arrivals Terminal at 7.50pm GMT – 9.50pm local time.

The first photographs to emerge from the airport show a scene of devastation, with debris and what appear to be ceiling tiles scattered over the taxi ranks outside the airport.

A man carries a wounded boy away from the devastated airport tonight after the twin explosions, in what is believed to have been a suicide attack

Ceiling tiles are scattered over the ground outside the international arrivals terminal, which was hit by what is believed to have been a suicide blast tonight

Ambulances rush to the airport after the blasts this evening, to help the at least 40 wounded in the blast

An AK-47 can be seen lying abandoned on the floor, after two suicide bombers set of blasts at the airport as police opened fire

An AK-47 can be seen lying abandoned on the floor, after two suicide bombers set of blasts at the airport as police opened fire

Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag confirmed 10 people were killed in the attack at the international arrival terminal.

He said: ‘A terrorist at the international terminal entrance first opened fire with a Kalashnikov and then blew himself up.’

They then opened fire and became locked in a shootout with security and police officers.

Some of the wounded are said to be police officers involved in the melee.

Turkish airports have security checks at both at the entrance of terminal buildings and then later before entry to departure gates.

The private DHA news agency said the wounded were being transferred to Bakirkoy State Hospital.

One photograph from the scene shows an AK-47 lying abandoned on the floor of the airport following the attack.

Police officers and ambulance crews outside the international arrivals terminal, which was struck in what officials say was a terror attack

Police officers and ambulance crews outside the international arrivals terminal, which was struck in what officials say was a terror attack

Ambulance crews ferry the wounded away from the terminal. The wounded are believed to include a number of police officers and security personnel

The first images to emerge from the scene show debris, including what appear to be ceiling tiles, scattered over taxis

An abandoned office at Turkey's largest airport, the Ataturk airport in Istanbul, where reports say explosions and gunfire have broken out. A window pane to the right of the image appears to have been shattered

Ambulance crews and emergency services have descended on the stricken airport, as the number of wounded is expected to increase.

A witness told broadcaster CNN Turk that gunfire was heard from the direction of the car park at the airport, which is the largest in Turkey.

Four armed men were reportedly seen running away from the terminal building after the explosions, according to Turkey’s NTV channel.

All flight operation from the airport has been suspended.

Initial reports put the number of wounded at around 40 people. Taxis are ferrying the wounded away from the airport, which officials suspect was hit by a suicide bomber

A witness told broadcaster CNN Turk that gunfire was heard from the direction of the car park at the airport, which is the largest in Turkey. Pictured, emergency services at the airport

Paramedics at the scene help the 40 wounded at the airport, with at least 10 people reported to have died

A photograph of the entrance to the international airport shows scattered debris as onlookers gather around to help the wounded - initially estimated to number around 40 people

Crowds gather outside the airport after tonight's explosions, as emergency crews rush to help the wounded

Crowds gather outside the airport after tonight’s explosions, as emergency crews rush to help the wounded

Holidaymakers drag their suitcases outside the airport, as all flights were grounded following the attack

Two explosions and gunfire have been heard at Istanbul’s Ataturk airport (pictured), according to reports in Turkish media

A file image of the Ataturk International Airport in Istanbul, which is the country's largest airport. Explosions and gunfire have hit the airport, although it is not yet clear whether it was a terror attack or suicide blast, according to officials

A Turkish official confirmed to Reuters that two explosions had hit the airport.

Turkey has suffered several bombings in recent months linked to Kurdish or ISIS militants.

The bombings included two in Istanbul targeting tourists – which the authorities have blamed on the Islamic State group.

The attacks have increased in scale and frequency, scaring off tourists and hurting the economy, which relies heavily on tourism revenues.

The U.S. State Department published a travel warning in March, encouraging citizens to ‘exercise heightened vigilance and caution when visiting public access areas, especially those heavily frequented by tourists’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3664710/Two-explosions-gunfire-Istanbul-s-Ataturk-airport-cause-multiple-injuries.html#ixzz4CuNnSUWh

Story 2: The Big Lies And Cover-up About A State Department Foreign Policy And CIA Covert Action Failures in Libya and Benghazi Elects Barack Obama and Destroys Hillary Clinton Credibility And Reveals Total Incompetence and Blind Ambition of Obama and Clinton — Missing In Action President Obama and Secretary of Defense Not In Situation Room, No Followup and Leading From Behind — Arrogance of Power and The Decline and Fall Of American Empire By The Two Party Tyranny of The Democratic and Republican Parties — Throw The Political Elitist Establishment Out of Office — Both Political Parties Authorized A Undeclared War In Libya Contrary To United States Constitution  — An Imperial President and Congress — American People Will Overthrow These Tyrants Come Election Day — Story 2:  Breaking News! Terrorist Attack At Turkish Ataturk airport in Istanbul — 10 Dead+ and 40 Wounded –Videos

obama_hillary_liars_benghazi_treason

4 dead americans

muslim_brotherhood1muslim-brotherhood-white-house

muslim-brotherhood

Muslim-Brotherhood-Map2

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) explains what happened in Benghazi

In a press conference on June 28, 2016, Rep. Jim Jordan, OH-04, explains his view of what happened leading up to, during and after the night of September 11, 2012 when four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi, Libya from a terrorist attack. Follow the link to read Rep. Jordan’s joint report with Rep. Mike Pompeo about the events: http://jordan.house.gov/uploadedfiles…

TREY GOWDY: EMOTIONALLY REVIEWS FINAL BENGHAZI REPORT FINDINGS

Benghazi Report Leaves Weapon Trafficking A Question Mark

SHOCK REPORT: CIA operatives at Benghazi Attack! DEALING WEAPONS?

Benghazi Bombshell: Insiders Confirm CIA Sent Missiles to FSA Rebels

Benghazi Illegal CIA Arms Transfer Hidden From Public No Longer

The Release of the Benghazi Report

The Hard Line | Michael Brown discusses the Benghazi committee report findings

Clinton’s Contradiction – White House Knew A Video Didn’t Cause Benghazi Attack – Napolitano – F&F

GOP Benghazi Report Faults Military Response

Benghazi Report Out Today – House GOP To Reveal Findings This Morning – Fox & Friends

Trey Gowdy Benghazi Report FULL Press Conference 6/28/16 – House Select Committee

Benghazi Press Conference Senator Trey Gowdy GOP Members of Congress on Select Committee Report

State Department Reacts to Benghazi Report 6/28/16

Clinton fights back against new House Benghazi report

Muslim Brotherhood’s plan & Obama connection exposed

CLARE LOPEZ EXPOSES BENGHAZI – OBAMA DISASTER (pt. 1 of 3)

CLARE LOPEZ EXPOSES BENGHAZI – OBAMA DISASTER (pt. 2 of 3)

CLARE LOPEZ EXPOSES BENGHAZI – OBAMA DISASTER (pt. 3 of 3)

Uncovered Muslim Brotherhood Documents Could Put Obama in Prison

Benghazi Attack Cover Up! Obama Armed Al Qaeda?

Court Docs: U.S. Supported Secret Supply Of Weapons To Libyan Rebels – Benghazi – America’s Newsroom

CIA Libya to Syria Arms Pipeline – US Armed Jihadi Crazies – New US DIA Docs

French forces ‘leading war against IS in Libya’

Benghazi timeline: “We are under attack”

13 Hours in Benghazi – Fox News

CNN: CIA Takes Unprecedented Steps To Keep Agents in Benghazi Silent

CIA role in Benghazi was underreported

Ron Paul to War Mongers – Leave Syria Alone!

END WAR: Dictator Obama Declares War On Libya’s Dictator Without Congressional Authorization

END WAR: Obama Sells War Via No-Fly-Zone Using the Pretext-Excuse of Protecting Civilians–Hypocrisy

NEW WAR! U.N. AUTHORIZES BOMBING OF LIBYA

Reality Check: Did President Obama Call Benghazi Attack “An Act Of Terror” The Day After?

Death and Deceit In Benghazi Libya – What Really Happened

BENGHAZI ATTACK: What Really Happened

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

AMERICA IS GONE!! Listen to this… It is over! WAKE UP PLEASE!!!.

Get Out of Libya, Get Out of NATO

The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya EXPOSED

Putin: Who gave NATO right to kill Gaddafi?

Ex-CIA officer: Obama fools himself, Muslims see US bombing Libya

YouTube Video Maker Blamed for Benghazi Attacks Breaks Silence on CNN

Innocence of Muslims, the video Hillary Clinton claimed caused Benghazi

Secret war’ in Libya: Western covert operations against Islamic State group (part 2)

Obama authorized CIA covert operation in Libya – FoxNews 110331

US special forces already on ground in Libya – FoxNews 110324

CNBC: Benghazi is not about Libya! “It’s An NSC Operation Moving Arms & Fighters Into Syria”

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

CIA Covert Action in the Cold War: Iran, Jamaica, Chile, Cuba, Afghanistan, Libya, Latin America

Operation Ajax: Iran and the CIA Coup in 1953 Pt. 1/2

Operation Ajax: Iran and the CIA Coup in 1953 Pt. 2/2

OBAMA’s END GAME REVEALED BY KGB – Communist Obama Socialist / Marxist / Leninist

Yuri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job (Complete)

Undeclared Total War on the USA

Yuri Bezmenov: Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society (Complete)

Obama’s Unprecedented War Powers Claims

President Ignoring Constitution, War Powers Act in Libya

Ron Paul- Obama commits unconstitutional act of WAR !!

 

Benghazi Report SHOCKERS: Rescue Delayed by Wardrobe Worries, Cover-up Preceded Victims’ Deaths

Declare War

It is well accepted that the conduct of war is an “executive Power,” vested by Article II in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Both at the time of the Framing of the Constitution and afterward, there has been agreement that the President has the power to repel invasions. Intimately familiar with the treatises on international law, the Framers were undoubtedly aware of the general rule that, as Hugo Grotius had put it, “By the law of nature, no declaration is required when one is repelling an invasion.” The Law of War and Peace (1646). The debate, instead, has centered on the location of the power to initiate war.

Advocates of congressional power contend that the President cannot initiate hostilities because the Constitution expressly vests the power to “declare War” in Congress. In support of that view, they note that, according to his notes from the Constitutional Convention, James Madison successfully advocated that Congress be given the power, not to “make” war but to “declare” war, to “leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.” In 1862, the Supreme Court opined that the President “has no power to initiate or declare a war,” but if there were an invasion, “the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force…without waiting for any special legislative authority.” Prize Cases (1863).

On the other hand, the Constitution distinguishes between “declaring” war and “engaging in” (see Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) or “levying” war (see Article III, Section 3, Clause 1). Moreover, there is no express requirement of legislative consent in other sections of the Constitution or in earlier documents before the President may commence hostilities.

Accordingly, much of the debate over the power to initiate hostilities focuses on understanding the meaning of the words, “declare War.” Supporters of presidential authority contend that the Founders were well aware of the long British practice of undeclared wars. They assert that the Constitution likewise does not require formal war declarations for the President to authorize hostilities as a matter of domestic constitutional power.

Under this view, Congress’s power to declare war was established for an altogether different purpose. Declarations of war alter legal relationships between subjects of warring nations and trigger certain rights, privileges, and protections under the laws of war. According to Grotius, declarations gave notice of the legal grounds for the war and the opportunity for enemy nations to make amends and thereby avoid the scourge of war. It served notice on the enemy’s allies that they would be regarded as cobelligerents and their shipping subject to capture. Under a declaration of war, one’s own navy and privateers could not be treated as pirates by the enemy, but on the other hand one’s own citizens were subject to prosecution if they dealt with the enemy.

Furthermore, under previous practice, declarations of war triggered other legal actions, such as the internment or expulsion of enemy aliens, the breaking of diplomatic relations, and the confiscation of the enemy’s property. In short, the power to declare war was designed as a power to affect legal rights and duties in times of hostilities. It is not a check on executive power to engage in such hostilities in the first place.

Congressional power supporters respond that the Declaration of War Clause must be given a broader interpretation, particularly in light of contemporaneous statements by prominent Founding era figures. They contend that the clause was intended to include the power not only to issue formal declarations, but also to confer authority to decide upon any engagement of hostilities, whether declared or otherwise. Therefore, they argue, the Declaration of War Clause must be construed to deprive the President of power to initiate hostilities absent congressional consent.

There have been only five congressionally declared wars in the history of the United States. Of those, only the first, the War of 1812, constituted an affirmative declaration of war. The remaining four, the Mexican-American War of 1846, the Spanish-American War of 1898, World War I, and World War II, merely declared the prior existence of a state of war. Notably, those declarations were accompanied by express authorizations of use of force, suggesting a distinction between declarations of war and authorizations of force.

Numerous other hostilities have been specifically authorized by Congress through instruments other than formal declarations. For example, offensive actions taken by the United States during its first real “war”—against Tripoli in 1802—were statutorily authorized but not accompanied by a formal declaration. Congress also expressly authorized the use of force in the Quasi War with France in 1798, against Iraq in 1991 and 2002, and against the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001, attacks, all without issuing a formal declaration of war.

Early in American history, in an era of limited peacetime budgets for military resources, Presidents tended to defer to Congress. In modern times, the debate over the allocation of war powers between Congress and the President is dramatically affected by the institution of a large United States peacetime military force following World War II. Starting with the Korean War, modern Presidents have been more aggressive in asserting unilateral authority to engage in war without declaration or other congressional authorization. In 1973, Congress attempted to affirm its control over war through passage, over President Richard M. Nixon’s veto, of the War Powers Resolution. Presidents have generally refused to recognize the constitutional operation of the War Powers Resolution, although Presidents have often taken actions “consistent” with the War Powers Resolution to avoid unnecessary conflict with Congress.

The Supreme Court has never intervened to stop a war that a President has started without congressional authorization. Some federal courts of appeals have held that at least some level of congressional authorization is constitutionally required before the President may conduct military hostilities. See, e.g., Orlando v. Laird (1971). Other courts have found the issue nonjusticiable. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Laird (1973).

Whatever the domestic constitutional implications for presidential power to initiate hostilities, the Declaration of War Clause gives to Congress certain powers under international and domestic statutory law. Nonetheless, with the growth of international law, the significance of formal declarations has declined. For example, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which guarantee various enumerated rights to lawful combatants, prisoners of war, and civilians, explicitly apply to all armed conflicts between contracting nations and not just to declared wars. Congress’s power to declare war continues to have important statutory ramifications, nonetheless. A particularly dramatic example is the Alien Enemy Act (1 Stat. 577 (1798), codified in 50 U.S.C. § 21 (2003)), which authorizes the President to detain and deport citizens of enemy nations, but only following either a declaration of war or an attack upon the United States.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/49/declare-war

 

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-708

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

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

The Pronk Pops Show 707, June 27, 2016, Story 1: The People’s Freedom vs. The Elite’s Ruling New World Order Racket — British People Choose Freedom — American People Choose Freedom In November Outing President Obama and House Speaker Paul Ryan — Get The United Nations Out of United States and The United States Out of United Nations — Breakup The Rackets of The European Union and United Nations! — Dump House Speaker Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton — Elect Trump — Three Cheers For The British People Who Voted For Brexit — Videos

Posted on June 25, 2016. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, British Pound, Business, College, Communications, Congress, Countries, Currencies, Euro, European Union, France, Germany, Great Britain, House of Representatives, Italy, Netherlands, Senate, U.S. Dollar | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

Story 1: The People’s Freedom vs. The Elite’s Ruling New World Order Racket — British People Choose Freedom — American People Choose Freedom In November Outing President Obama and House Speaker Paul Ryan — Get The United Nations Out of United States and The United States Out of United Nations — Breakup The Rackets of The European Union and United Nations! — Dump House Speaker Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton — Elect Trump — Three Cheers For The British People Who Voted For Brexit — Videos

Does the Brexit help Donald Trump?

Brexit Global Reaction: World markets and governments dismayed by anti-EU result

BREXIT THE MOVIE FULL FILM

BREXIT THE MOVIE is a feature-length documentary film to inspire as many people as possible to vote to LEAVE the EU in the June 23rd referendum.

Event Speech: Nigel Lawson Making the Case for Brexit

The Truth About Brexit | UK’s EU Referendum

“Why we must leave the EU” | UK economist and entrepreneur, Jim Mellon, backs Brexit

Economic Lessons from the European Union

The Great Intelligence Squared Brexit Debate

The Great European Refugees and Migrants Debate

Better off together? A conservative case for the European Union

Roger Bootle, Capital Economics, 28 January 2015 – Corporate Wisdom Lecture Series

Bruges Revisited

Roger Bootle Full Interview: Europe is a complete disaster – Britain must leave

What is wrong with Europe? Roger Bootle, Executive Chairman of Capital Economics discusses

Q&A with the audience at Capital Economic’s Annual Conference 2015

BREXIT – Vicky Redwood, Chief UK Economist at Capital Economics discusses.

Economic implications of ‘Brexit’ On-set interview Prof. Yang Jun-sok

Euro area is “dismal failure” and Brexit would be a concern, economist Joseph Stiglitz

Brexit: Liberty Reigns!

Peter SCHIFF – Brexit Is Not The Reason; It’s The Catalyst (after BREXIT)- Episode 176 – JUNE 2016

Jim Rickards weighs in on Brexit

Brexit: Aftermath | Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molyneux

Double Victory: Brexit Win And Free Speech Restored At RNC

Marc Faber Brexit Would be the Best That Could Happen to Britain

An Introduction to Trading Away Your Freedom

Bad Deal for America

What is Free Trade?

Trading Away Your Freedom by Foreign Entanglements

Emerging Ties Between Backers of Trade Mergers & Con-Cons

Will We Be Fooled Again? Stop the TPP!

What We Can Expect If Congress Passes TPP

How Obama’s New Trade Pacts Threaten Our Bill of Rights

Negotiations Launched for US-EU Free Trade Agreement

Stepping Stone to World Government: The FTAA

Nile Gardiner: Great Britain outside of EU will be far more competitive

David Malpass talks Brexit’s impact

Impact of Brexit on U.S. economy, trade

“The Economic Debate Leading into 2016” – Art Laffer

Dr. Arthur Laffer’s 2015 West Virginia Business Summit Presentation

John Birch Society Predicted 10 Steps To America’s Destruction 55 Years Ago

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America

United Nations: One-world tyranny, step by step

UNITED NATIONS is Bringing the NWO 2016 – EBOLA, ISIS, WW3, Martial Law, Police State, Agenda 21…

Changing Our Society to Merge U.S Into New World Order

Trump Insider: Paul Ryan Working For Hillary, Trying To Steal RNC Money

Sarah Palin endorses Paul Ryan’s challenger

COMPLETE INTERVIEW: Chuck Todd Interviewes Paul Ryan On “Meet The Press” (6/19/2016)

Paul Ryan Wants More Moslem Immigrants; 6-14-2016

Wisconsin Congressional Candidate Paul Nehlen on Unseating Rep. Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan’s Betrayal – Michelle Malkin at Paul Nehlen Rally

Paul Nehlen Says Ryan Betrayed Us on TPA/TPP

Paul Ryan’s Betrayal – Paul Nehlen Rally

Paul Nehlen to challenge Speaker of the House for seat in Congress

Paul Nehlen: Paul Ryan ‘Sold His Vote! I Absolutely Believe That’

Our Enemy, The State

Our Enemy the State!

Our Enemy, The State – Albert Jay Nock

George Orwell – A Final Warning

European SUPERSTATE to be unveiled: EU nations ‘to be morphed into one’ post-Brexit

EUROPEAN political chiefs are to take advantage of Brexit by unveiling their long-held plan to morph the continent’s countries into one GIANT SUPERSTATE, it has emerged today.

PUBLISHED: 11:01, Mon, Jun 27, 2016 | UPDATED: 17:20, Mon, Jun 27, 2016

Frank-Walter SteinmeierGETTY

German Angela Merkel met with European heads today at the EU summit

The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.
Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.The plot has sparked fury and panic in Poland – a traditional ally of Britain in the fight against federalism – after being leaked to Polish news channel TVP Info.

The European Central Bank in FrankfurtGETTY

Polish politicians say the plans include loss of control of a number of key policy areas

Witold WaszczykowskiGETTY

Polish foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski has blasted the plan

The public broadcaster reports that the bombshell proposal will be presented to a meeting of the Visegrad group of countries – made up of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia – by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier later today.Excerpts of the nine-page report were published today as the leaders of Germany, France and Italy met in Berlin for Brexit crisis talks.In the preamble to the text the two ministers write: “Our countries share a common destiny and a common set of values ??that give rise to an even closer union between our citizens. We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture.”The revelations come just days after Britain shook the Brussels establishment by voting to leave the European Union in a move some have predicted could leave to the break-up of the EU.

A number of member states are deeply unhappy about the creeping federalism of the European project with anti-EU sentiments running high in eastern Europe, Scandinavia and France.

David Cameron in front of a map of EuropeGETTY

Opponents of the EU have warned of its ambitions to create a superstate

A British umbrella in front of Big BenGETTY

Britain voted to leave the European Union in an historic referendum last Thursday

Responding to the plot Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski raged: “This is not a good solution, of course, because from the time the EU was invented a lot has changed.“The mood in European societies is different. Europe and our voters do not want to give the Union over into the hands of technocrats.“Therefore, I want to talk about this, whether this really is the right recipe right now in the context of a Brexit.”There are deep divides at the heart of the EU at the moment over how to proceed with the project in light of the Brexit vote.

Some figures have cautioned against trying to force through further political integration, warning that to do so against the wishes of the European people will only fuel further Eurosceptic feeling.

This is not a good solution

Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski

A few weeks before the Brexit vote European Council president Donald Tusk warned that European citizens did not share the enthusiasm of some of their leaders for “a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world, a utopia of Euro-Asian unity”.He added: “Increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe. The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn’t seem to me to be the best answer to it.”His view was backed up by the leader of the eurozone countries, Dutch politician Jerome Dijsselbloem, who added: “In the eurozone some are pushing for a completion of the monetary union by creating a full political union, a euro area economic government or even a euro budget… to me it is obvious.“We need to strengthen what we have and finish it, but let’s not build more extensions to the European house while it is so unstable.”

Meanwhile Lorenzo Condign, the former director general of Italy’s treasury, has said it is nearly impossible to see Europe opting for more integration at such a time of upheaval.He said: “It seems difficult to imagine that the rest of the EU will close ranks and move in the direction of greater integration quickly. Simply, there is no political will.“Indeed, the risk is exactly the opposite – namely that centrifugal forces will prevail and make integration even more difficult.”But others see the Brexit vote as an opportunity to push ahead with the European elite’s long-cherished dream of creating a United States of Europe.

Spain’s foreign minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo has called for “more Europe” whilst Italy’s finance minister, Carlo Padoan, is advocating a common budget for the eurozone states.

And Emmanuel Macron, France’s economy minister, wants to go even further and set up a common eurozone treasury which would oversee the permanent transfer of funds from wealthier northern Europe to shore up Mediterranean economies

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit

Brexit 2.0: Populist Revolt Worldwide Catches Fire as Donald Trump Takes Aim at Globalist Hillary Clinton

The globalist movement is on the run as the British people on Thursday voted to “Leave” the European Union.

The vote to Brexit—a hard-fought campaign by nationalist populists in the United Kingdom—puts the world elite on their heels, as a similar but bigger and stronger such movement is brewing right here in the United States.

Donald J. Trump, the presumptive 2016 GOP presidential nominee, has run a campaign so far—and since winning the nomination—focused squarely on the exact same issues that the Leave campaigners ran on in the United Kingdom. Uncontrolled migration, out-of-whack trade deals, national sovereignty, popular control of government, and rejection of world elites are what propelled Leave campaigners to a stunning victory in the United Kingdom. Those same issues are what has propelled Trump to a similarly shocking victory over 16 other Republican presidential candidates in the primaries, where he—as Breitbart News has documented—received millions more votes than anyone else who has ever won the GOP nomination has.

They also set the stage for the 2016 general election. Trump has not shown a sign of backing down at all, on any of this, and in his speech earlier in the week laying out the case against Hillary Rodham Clinton—the presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, his opponent in November—he set the stage for this battle.

“Everywhere I look, I see the possibilities of what our country could be. But we can’t solve any of these problems by relying on the politicians who created them,” Trump said in his Tuesday address. “We will never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the same people who rigged it in the first place. The insiders wrote the rules of the game to keep themselves in power and in the money.”

Throughout the speech, Trump excoriated Clinton for her ties to the world’s international elite—citing Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash to detail how she and her husband, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, “used the State Department to enrich their family at America’s expense.”

“She gets rich making you poor,” Trump said of Hillary Clinton, talking directly to the voters.

The matching themes of Trump’s campaign, and the successful Brexit campaign in the United Kingdom, are in large part why Trump’s well-timed trip to Scotland—purportedly for opening a golf course with his children, but seemingly because of the Leave success—makes him the captain of an international populist rejection of the world’s elite.

Trump seized the mantle of the movement on Friday morning in Scotland, embracing the populism that has propelled him this far and sustained him even as the most sinister and brutal of attacks come his way from inside his own party and from the other side.

“This is an amazing honor,” Trump said on Friday, almost taking credit for Brexit. After noting Brexit won, and by a bigger margin than pundits, analysts, and prognosticators could have ever predicted, Trump noted that the will of the public is all powerful.

“It’s always the will of the people ultimately that wins out,” Trump said.

As Trump soars back into the United States riding the populist wave on high, he will over the next several months seek to define his general election opponent—Hillary Clinton—correctly as the face of the global elite that the British voters just defeated. The lies, smears, and false alarms that Remain campaigners pushed out as part of a giant misinformation campaign designed to deceive the public into choosing against Leave all failed.

Those same misinformation campaign tactics are coming into focus here in the United States against Trump. High dollar donors are spending millions on attack ads. The mainstream media is inaccurately calling him a racist, a xenophobe, a sexist, and painting a grossly unfair and wrong picture of Trump as a buffoon who has no idea what he’s doing and would be a disaster for the economy and world security. That is the George Soros playbook, the exact same type of campaign the Remain folks in the United Kingdom ran against Leave campaigners.

Perhaps, despite serious concerns over his competence, Leave campaign’s Boris Johnson summed it up best during the BBC debate earlier this week:

At the end of this campaign, I think you’ll agree: There is a very clear choice between those on their side who speak of nothing but fear of the consequences of leaving the EU, and we on our side who offer hope. Between those who have been endlessly rubbishing our country and running it down, and those of us who believe in Britain. They say we can’t do it. We say we can. They say we have no choice but to bow down to Brussels. We say they are woefully underestimating this country and what it can do. If we vote Leave, we can take back control of our borders and huge sums of money—10 billion pounds a year net—of our tax raising powers, of our trade policies, and of our whole lawmaking system. The democracy that is the foundation of our prosperity and if we stand up for democracy we will be speaking up for hundreds of millions of people around Europe who agree with us but who currently have no voice. And if we vote Leave and take back control, I believe that this Thursday could be our country’s Independence Day.

Johnson lifted the Independence Day line from Nigel Farage of the U.K. Independence Party—also a Leave campaigner—and an actual leader of the populist movement who has been banging the drum on the issue for 25 years.

Trump struck a similar note in his New York City speech exposing Clinton:

Come November, the American people will have a chance to issue a verdict on the politicians that have sacrificed their security, betrayed their prosperity, and sold out their country. They will have a chance to vote for a new agenda with big dreams, bold ideas and enormous possibilities for the American people. Hillary Clinton’s message is old and tired. Her message is that things can’t change. My message is that things have to change – and this is our one chance, and maybe our only chance, to do that change. If we don’t do it now, folks, I don’t know that we’ll ever, ever have another chance. We have to have change, but real change—not Obama change.

What the Leave campaigners did in the United Kingdom—and what Trump is doing here—is taking the moral high ground away from the global elitists. Trump is turning Hillary Clinton into the “no you can’t” candidate, just as Leave campaigners framed the Remain campaigners as those holding Britain back.

The next several months leading up to the United States’ own presidential election are going to be some of the most brutal in U.S. political history. Hillary Clinton and her globalist allies are going to pull out every trick in the book—and more—to protect the face of the world elite. Clinton is their icon, their last hope to maintain control. The mud they will sling at Trump—from the Democratic Party, from Clinton’s campaign itself, and from outside allies like Super PACs and from the media—will be the worst anyone of us on the right has ever seen. But, if Trump can continue framing the election in this light and ride this wave, he could just soar right on through it and above it into the White House.

Populist nationalism has won U.S. House campaigns, U.S. Senate campaigns, and various other smaller ball political battles around the country and around the world. It can even win, as it helped Trump do when he roundly defeated some of the most talented governors and Senators in the primaries — a U.S. presidential primary. What Brexit shows is that populist nationalism can win national general elections, as it just did in the United Kingdom. That has the world elite fearing, and rallying around Clinton as we speak. Now that populist nationalism can win, and has won national general elections, is it only logical that Brexit 2.0 pumps Trump up into the White House? We shall see, come November.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/24/brexit-2-0-populist-movement-worldwide-catches-fire-donald-trump-takes-aim-globalist-hillary-clinton/

It wasn’t me! Obama shrugs off his humiliating failure to stop Britain quitting Europe by claiming ‘globalization’ was to blame for shock result

  • White House attempted to calm choppy global waters on Friday brought on by Britain’s spectacular decision to leave the European Union
  • The president, on the West Coast for a summit and fundraising events, said in a speech he talked Prime Minister David Cameron 
  • He also spoke to German Chancellor Angela Merkel – they agreed the US and the EU will ‘work closely together in the weeks and months ahead.’ 
  • Obama had publicly aligned himself with Prime Minister David Cameron – who is resigning – in the fight to keep the EU intact
  • In the race for the White House, Hillary Clinton joined Obama on the side of the ‘remain’ campaign and Donald Trump urged Britain to ‘leave’ 
  • Vice President Joe Biden was in Ireland, receiving an honorary doctorate; he said in his speech, ‘I must say we had looked for a different outcome’ 

President Barack Obama says he spoke to British Prime Minister David Cameron on the phone today, and he is ‘confident’ after their discussion that the United Kingdom ‘is committed to an orderly transition’ out of the European Union.

Obama said that the United States will remain in close contact with Britain, and their economic and financial teams will ‘stay focused on ensuring economic growth and financial stability.’

He also spoke to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he said, and they agreed the US and the EU will also ‘work closely together in the weeks and months ahead.’

‘I do think that yesterday’s vote speaks to the ongoing changes and challenges that are raised by globalization,’ Obama said in his opening remarks at Stanford University’s annual Global Entrepreneurship Summit.

Obama had publicly aligned himself with Cameron in the fight to keep the EU intact, an unusual intervention in another country’s politics at the invitation of its leader of the moment.

He attempted to calm choppy global waters on Friday afternoon brought on by Britain’s spectacular decision to leave the EU by promising that the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States would remain the same.

President Barack Obama says he spoke to British Prime Minister David Cameron on the phone today, and he is 'confident' after their discussion that the United Kingdom 'is committed to an orderly transition' out of the European Union

President Barack Obama says he spoke to British Prime Minister David Cameron on the phone today, and he is ‘confident’ after their discussion that the United Kingdom ‘is committed to an orderly transition’ out of the European Union

As a result of the vote, Britain’s relationship with the EU will change, Obama assessed at Stanford. ‘One thing that will not change is the special relationship that exists between our two nations.’

The president said in a statement that both the UK and the EU would continue to be ‘indispensable partners’ and touted the former’s involvement in NATO as an example of Western stability in face of tumbling worldwide markets.

‘The people of the United Kingdom have spoken, and we respect their decision,’ he said in a statement.

On the West Coast for a summit and fundraising events, Obama did not immediately speak to Cameron on Friday. In the interim, the White House offered no formal declaration of policy as the pound plunged and the stock market crashed abroad.

At Stanford, Obama had little to say about how the vote will affect the United States’ trade partnership with Britain, now that it will soon exit the EU.

It will need to ink a new deal with the United States, he warned in April, and that could take months, and even years.

The referendum result was as much a smack down of the U.S. president as it was the British prime minister, who said this morning that he would resign in October.

‘David has been an outstanding friend and partner on the global stage,’ Obama said today of Cameron, whom he closer with than any other world leader.

Obama said that the United States will remain in close contact with Britain, and their economic and financial teams will 'stay focused on ensuring economic growth and financial stability' 

Obama said that the United States will remain in close contact with Britain, and their economic and financial teams will ‘stay focused on ensuring economic growth and financial stability’

The U.S. president had publicly aligned himself with Cameron in the fight to keep the EU intact, an unusual intervention in another country's politics at the invitation of its leader of the moment

The U.S. president had publicly aligned himself with Cameron in the fight to keep the EU intact, an unusual intervention in another country’s politics at the invitation of its leader of the moment

Vice President Joe Biden was in Ireland on Friday, receiving an honorary doctorate from Trinity College Dublin. 'I must say we had looked for a different outcome,' Biden said of Brexit

Officially in California for the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, with two Democratic fundraising events lined up later in the day, the U.S. president waited until the event at Stanford – a speech and discussion with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg – to offer a televised comment on the shocking world event.

Hours after the vote totals poured in the White House issued a statement on Obama’s behalf that asserted, ‘The special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is enduring, and the United Kingdom’s membership in NATO remains a vital cornerstone of U.S. foreign, security, and economic policy.

‘So too is our relationship with the European Union, which has done so much to promote stability, stimulate economic growth, and foster the spread of democratic values and ideals across the continent and beyond.’

The chief executive of the United States promised that both parties ‘will remain indispensable partners of the United States even as they begin negotiating their ongoing relationship to ensure continued stability, security, and prosperity for Europe, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the world.’

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) following news that the United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union. The Dow Jones industrial average quickly fell nearly 500 points on the news with markets around the globe plunging

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) following news that the United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union. The Dow Jones industrial average quickly fell nearly 500 points on the news with markets around the globe plunging

How Brexit could affect Americans right now

Britain voted 52 percent to 48 percent to leave the EU on Thursday, shocking the world and electrocuting the financial markets 

Britain voted 52 percent to 48 percent to leave the EU on Thursday, shocking the world and electrocuting the financial markets

WHITE HOUSE ON CAMERON CALL

President Obama spoke by phone today with Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom to discuss the outcome of yesterday’s referendum on membership in the European Union, in which a majority of British voters expressed their desire to leave the EU. 

The President assured Prime Minister Cameron that, in spite of the outcome, the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom, along with the United Kingdom’s membership in NATO, remain vital cornerstones of U.S. foreign, security, and economic policy. 

The President also expressed his regret at the Prime Minister’s decision to step aside following a leadership transition and noted that the Prime Minister has been a trusted partner and friend, whose counsel and shared dedication to democratic values, the special relationship, and the Transatlantic community are highly valued. 

The President also observed that the EU, which has done so much to promote stability, stimulate economic growth, and foster the spread of democratic values and ideals across the continent and beyond, will remain an indispensable partner of the United States. 

The President and Prime Minister concurred that they are confident that the United Kingdom and the EU will negotiate a productive way forward to ensure financial stability, continued trade and investment, and the mutual prosperity they bring.

Britain voted 52 percent to 48 percent to leave the EU on Thursday, shocking the world and electrocuting the financial markets.

Vice President Joe Biden was in Ireland on Friday, receiving an honorary doctorate from Trinity College Dublin.

‘I must say we had looked for a different outcome. We would have preferred a different outcome,’ he said in his speech, ‘but the United States has a long-standing friendship with the United Kingdom and that very special bond will endure.’

Biden added, ‘We fully respect the decision they have made.’

Obama warned at at a joint news conference with Cameron in April that the UK would be sent to ‘the back of the queue’ if it voted to leave the 28-nation arrangement and go its own way.

‘Maybe some point down the line, there might be a UK-U.S. trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon,’ Obama said, ‘because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done.’

The US president added, ‘The UK is going to be in the back of the queue — not because we don’t have a special relationship — but because, given the heavy lift on any trade agreement, us having access to a big market with a lot of countries rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements is hugely inefficient.

Obama justified his toiling with the EU by casting the possible Brexit as a US security matter.

‘What happens in Europe is going to have an impact here,’ he said at the news conference at No. 10. ‘And what happens in Europe is going to have an impact in the United States.’

Like Obama, Hillary Clinton, the next Democratic nominee, had urged Britain to 'remain' in the EU. She echoed again echoed Obama in a statement - released after the White House had finally spoken - that said, 'We respect the choice the people of the United Kingdom have made'

Like Obama, Hillary Clinton, the next Democratic nominee, had urged Britain to ‘remain’ in the EU. She echoed again echoed Obama in a statement – released after the White House had finally spoken – that said, ‘We respect the choice the people of the United Kingdom have made’

Obama warned at at a joint news conference with Cameron in April that the UK would be sent to 'the back of the queue' if it voted to leave the 28-nation arrangement and go its own way

Obama warned at at a joint news conference with Cameron in April that the UK would be sent to ‘the back of the queue’ if it voted to leave the 28-nation arrangement and go its own way

Obama telling BBC Britain should stay in EU back in 2015

GOP leaders and presumptive Republican Donald Trump blasted Obama’s meddling as ‘inappropriate.’

‘He came in and really tried to convince people to stay, and I thought it was inappropriate,’ said Trump, who threw his lot in with the ‘leave’ faction. ‘And I actually think that his recommendation perhaps caused it to fail.’

At a press conference that officially marked the reopening of his Turnberry golf course in Scotland, Trump said Obama is ‘constantly dictating to the world what they should do.

WHITE HOUSE ON MERKEL CALL

The President spoke today by phone with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany regarding the British people’s decision to leave the European Union. 

Both said they regretted the decision but respected the will of the British people. 

The two leaders agreed that the economic and financial teams of the G-7 partners will coordinate closely to ensure all are focused on financial stability and economic growth. 

The President and the Chancellor affirmed that Germany and the EU will remain indispensable partners of the United States. 

The leaders also noted that they looked forward to the opportunity to underscore the strength and enduring bond of transatlantic ties at the NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland, July 8-9.

‘The world doesn’t listen to him, obviously. You can see that from the vote.’

Trump promised the country’s closest ally that if he succeeds Obama, he’ll quickly negotiate a new trade deal with Britain.

‘That wouldn’t happen with me. They’ll always be at the front of the line,’ he said in reference to Obama’s ‘back of the queue’ comment in April.

Trump said, ‘They’ve been great allies. I was very surprised when I heard President Obama say that.’

The U.S. presidential election is in November. The sitting president does not leave office until two and a half months later.

Like Obama, Hillary Clinton, the next Democratic nominee, had urged Britain to ‘remain’ in the EU.

She again echoed Obama in a statement today – released after the White House had finally spoken – that said, ‘We respect the choice the people of the United Kingdom have made.’

‘Our first task has to be to make sure that the economic uncertainty created by these events does not hurt working families here in America. We also have to make clear America’s steadfast commitment to the special relationship with Britain and the transatlantic alliance with Europe.

Clinton said in the written statement: ‘This time of uncertainty only underscores the need for calm, steady, experienced leadership in the White House to protect Americans’ pocketbooks and livelihoods, to support our friends and allies, to stand up to our adversaries, and to defend our interests. It also underscores the need for us to pull together to solve our challenges as a country, not tear each other down.’

FULL WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT ON BREXIT

The people of the United Kingdom have spoken, and we respect their decision. The special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is enduring, and the United Kingdom’s membership in NATO remains a vital cornerstone of U.S. foreign, security, and economic policy. 

So too is our relationship with the European Union, which has done so much to promote stability, stimulate economic growth, and foster the spread of democratic values and ideals across the continent and beyond. 

The United Kingdom and the European Union will remain indispensable partners of the United States even as they begin negotiating their ongoing relationship to ensure continued stability, security, and prosperity for Europe, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the world.

Trump blasted Obama today: 'He came in and really tried to convince people to stay, and I thought it was inappropriate,' said Trump, who threw his lot in with the 'leave' faction. 'And I actually think that his recommendation perhaps caused it to fail'

Trump blasted Obama today: ‘He came in and really tried to convince people to stay, and I thought it was inappropriate,’ said Trump, who threw his lot in with the ‘leave’ faction. ‘And I actually think that his recommendation perhaps caused it to fail’

Previously, Jake Sullivan, her senior policy adviser, said she supported Cameron and Obama’s position.

‘Hillary Clinton believes that transatlantic cooperation is essential, and that cooperation is strongest when Europe is united. She has always valued a strong United Kingdom in a strong EU. And she values a strong British voice in the EU,’ he told the Observer in April, a day after the Obama-Cameron presser.

Trump used it as a cudgel against her on Friday. He said, ‘She’s always misread everything…She’s misread this.’

‘The only reason she did it is because Obama wanted it,’ he said. Clinton ‘doubled down’ on what Obama said ‘and she did the same thing.’

‘And obviously, for the 219th time, they were wrong. They’re always wrong. And that’s the problem with them.’

House Speaker Paul Ryan refused on Thursday to get involved in the Brexit debate UK voters made their decision.

‘I’m going to do exactly what the president did not do and not weigh in on this, and send the signal to our great friends and allies in Britain that we stand with them regardless of what decision they make,’ Ryan said.

The GOP leader said today in a statement, ‘I respect the decision made by the people of the United Kingdom. The UK is an indispensable ally of the United States, and that special relationship is unaffected by this vote.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3658258/White-House-crisis-talks-Britain-DEFIES-Obama-quit-European-Union-

They Got It Wrong: Swarms of Global Chatterers Misread Brexit

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-707

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

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

The Pronk Pops Show 706, June 23, 2016, Story 1: American People Want Immigration Law Enforcement and Bill of Rights vs. Tyrant Obama Breaking Immigration Laws and Betraying His Oath of Office — Democrats Gun Grabbers Want To Repeal The Second and Fifth Amendments — Tiny Tyrants Temper Tantrum — Publicity Stunt To Raise Money — Criminals and Terrorists Target Gun Free Zones With Unarmed Americans — Fire All Democrat Tyrants in November — The Best Protection Against Criminals, Terrorists, and Tyrants Is Well Armed American Citizens — Videos

Posted on June 24, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Assault, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, European History, Fast and Furious, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Middle East, National Security Agency, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Scandals, Senate, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

 

Story 1: American People Want Immigration Law Enforcement and Bill of Rights vs. Tyrant Obama Breaking Immigration Laws and Betraying His Oath of Office — Democrats Gun Grabbers Want To Repeal The Second and Fifth Amendments — Tiny Tyrants Temper Tantrum — Publicity Stunt To Raise Money — Criminals and Terrorists Target Gun Free Zones With Unarmed Americans — Fire All Democrat Tyrants in November — The Best Protection Against Criminals, Terrorists, and Tyrants Is Well Armed American Citizens — Videos

Presidential Oath of Office

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,and

will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;

and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Law

Article II, Section 3 of U. S. Constitution

 “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

 

gun_control_works

 gunsitin lewis sitin tiny tryants sit in

Gun-control-dictators

2ndAmendment

if-more-people-were-armed

1st-american-rev-gun-rights

guncontroljapaneseamericans

crusades

2million2

to-conquer-a-nation-first-disarm-its-citizens

Real_Man's_Workstation

an_armed_man_is_a_citizen_an_unarmed_man_is_a_bumper_sticke

usa israel

gun free zones 2

gun-free-zone-clrgn free zones 4bomb free zones

no call 911

weapons

Medias-Guide

gun free zones

gun-free-zone

gun_free_zones_kill_people_tshirtsself-preservation

Paul Ryan: Gun sit-in a publicity stunt

House Democrats shout Paul Ryan down as he tries to stop #NoBreakNoBill sit-in

GOP Representatives Attemptig To Thwart Democratic Gun Control Sit-In

Penn & Teller Explain The Second Amendment

Reality Check: The True Intent Of The Second Amendment

YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT

The Judge on no-fly list gun ban push

Is a no-fly list gun ban legal?

Tom McClintock Trashes Leftist No Fly List Gun Control

Trey Gowdy questions DHS official, No Fly List

No Fly List, No Guns?

Federal Judge Rules No-Fly List is Unconstitutional

No Fly But You Can Buy Called ‘Insane’ By Obama

U.S. to Tell Americans Why They’re on No-Fly List

An “Assault” Weapons Ban Will Do Nothing to Prevent Murders & Simply Allows the Terrorists a Victory

Analyzing Obama’s response to the Supreme Court immigration ruling

Trump Endorses No Fly List Gun Ban

John Lott, Sheriff David Clarke, Bo Dittle on Hannity to discuss new push for gun control

John Lott on One America News Network to discuss Senate votes on gun control after Orlando

CPRC on the Glenn Beck TV Show to discuss debate over banning AR-15s

How’s It Goin’, Eh? With guests comedian Ian Bagg and gun expert John Lott

John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime

John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime

John Lott: At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge?

John Lott: “When Countries Impose Gun Bans Murder Rates Go Up”

John Lott: Myths of gun crime

Napolitano on constitutionality of Obama immigration actions

President Obama slams GOP for blocking Supreme Court nominee

Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama’s Immigration Plan

Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama Immigration Plan

Obama Expresses Disapointment In Supreme Court’s Immigration Ruling

Supreme Court Upholds Lower Court Ruling on Affirmative Action – LoneWolf Sager(◑_◑)

President Obama on Supreme Court Immigration Executive Actions Ruling (C-SPAN)

President Obama Delivers a Statement on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immigration

WATCH: Paul Ryan Says Democrats #NoBillNoBreak Sit-In Was Publicity Stunt to Raise Money

Rep. John Lewis Leads Sit-In on House Floor

House Democrats shout Paul Ryan down as he tries to stop #NoBreakNoBill sit-in

U. S. Supreme Court immigration decision: what you need to know

Significant blow to president’s immigration policies enacted after Congress did nothing.

The Supreme Court split 4-4 over whether the Obama administration could implement two immigration programs offering deportation halts to up to 4 million unauthorized immigrants.

The main initiative would have protected the foreign-born parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents. The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, known as DAPA, included renewable work permits.

The Obama administration also extended a 2012 executive action to cover more unauthorized immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children. The initiatives were the most sweeping immigration actions taken by President Obama in his two terms — and executed without a vote from Congress.

This is what you need to know after Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Texas.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20160623-u.-s.-supreme-court-immigration-decision-what-you-need-to-know.ece

 

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) againstdomestic Violence.”

Unfortunately, efforts of states to recoup costs resulting from the current invasion of illegal aliens have so far failed. An Arizona case on this matter was rejected in 1997. The Arizona Republic article Justices reject state bid to recoup costs of illegals, Oct. 7, 1997 states:

Arizona officials filed the lawsuit in 1994 to recover more than $121 million that they said the state was owed for illegal immigrants serving time in prison…

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider arguments that the U.S. government must pay up because it has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to protect states from an “invasion” of illegal border crossers…

“Although the federal government may have the luxury of abdicating its constitutional duty to protect Arizona’s borders, Arizona cannot solve the problems that this abdication causes by following the federal government’s example and abdicating its duty to prosecute and incarcerate illegal aliens who commit felonies within Arizona’s unprotected borders,” Arizona argued in its high court appeal.

An October 7, 1997 LA Times article Court Rejects Claim That U.S. Is Liable for Immigrant Costs states:

The lawsuit cited Article 4 of the Constitution, which says that the United States “shall protect each of [the states] against invasion.” But U.S. District Judge Judith Keep in San Diego and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out the lawsuit on grounds that California and Arizona are not being “invaded” by a hostile, foreign power.

The issue of who pays… is a political issue, not a legal one, they said.

 

It is abundantly clear that our politicans lack the will to honor our Constitution. We encourage you to ask your public officials, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution:

  • if they support this provision;
  • what they plan to do to ensure implementation of this provision;
  • and then hold them to their commitment.

http://www.immivasion.us/art4sect4/art4sect4.html

 

7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List

  • Nick Wing Senior Viral Editor, The Huffington Post
  • Earlier this week, The Intercept published a 166-page document outlining the government’s guidelines for placing people on an expansive network of terror watch lists, including the no-fly list. In their report, Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux highlighted the extremely vague and loosely defined criteria developed by 19 federal agencies, supposedly to fight terrorism.

    Using these criteria, government officials have secretly characterized an unknown number of individuals as threats or potential threats to national security. In 2013 alone, 468,749 watch-list nominations were submitted to the National Counterterrorism Center. It rejected only 1 percent of the recommendations.

    Critics say the system is bloated and imprecise, needlessly sweeping up thousands of people while simultaneously failing to catch legitimate threats, like Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

    While some individuals are surely placed on these watch lists for valid reasons, the murky language of the guidelines suggests that innocent people can get caught up in this web, too, and be subjected to the same possible restrictions on travel and other forms of monitoring. Here are several ways you could find yourself on a terror watch list, even if you aren’t a terrorist:

    1. You could raise “reasonable suspicion” that you’re involved in terrorism. “Irrefutable evidence or concrete facts” are not required.

    This guidance addresses how to place people in the broader Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), of which the no-fly list and the selectee lists — which cover those selected for enhanced screenings before boarding flights — are both subsections.

    In determining whether a suspicion about you is “reasonable,” a “nominator” must “rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,” can link you to possible terrorism. As Scahill and Devereaux noted, words like “reasonable,” “articulable” and “rational” are not expressly defined. While the document outlines the need for an “objective factual basis,” the next section clarifies that “irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary” to make a final determination as to whether a suspicion is “reasonable.” So how could intelligence officials be led to put you on the watch list?

    2. You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.”

    According to the document, “postings on social media sites … should not be discounted merely because of the manner in which it was received.” Instead, those investigating the individual should “evaluate the credibility of the source” and, if they judge the content to pose a “reasonable suspicion” of a link to terrorism, nominate the person to the watch list, even if that source is “uncorroborated.” If this sounds disturbing, don’t worry: There’s a sentence that explicitly prohibits listing an individual “for engaging solely in constitutionally protected activities.” So as long as your free speech isn’t accompanied by any other “suspicious” behavior, you should be fine, maybe.

    3. Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.

    The guidelines also consider the use of “walk-in” or “write-in” information about potential candidates for the watch list. Nominators are encouraged not to dismiss such tips and, after evaluating “the credibility of the source,” could opt to nominate you to the watch list.

    4. You could be a little terrorist-ish, at least according to someone.

    The document explains that you could be put on a suspected-terrorist watch list if you are determined to be a “representative” of a terrorist group, even if you have “neither membership in nor association with the organization.” Individuals accused of being involved with a terrorist organization, but who later are acquitted in a court of law or saw their charges dropped, are still potential nominees for watch-listing, so long as “reasonable suspicion” is established.

    5. Or you could just know someone terrorist-y, maybe.

    Scahill and Devereaux reported that the immediate family of a suspected terrorist — including spouse, children, parents and siblings — may be added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), a broad terror database that feeds into the TSDB, “without any suspicion that they themselves are engaged in terrorist activity.” According to the document, “associates or affiliates” of known or suspected terrorists, or just those somehow “linked to” them, can also be nominated to the TSDB watchlist, so long as the relationship is defined and constitutes a “reasonable suspicion” of a connection to terrorist activity. The document states that “individuals who merely ‘may be’ members, associates or affiliates of a terrorist organization” may not be put into the latter database, unless that suspicion can be backed by “derogatory information.”

    But there’s also a more nebulous connection that could prompt your placement in the TIDE database. The document specifically provides for nominating “individuals with a possible nexus to terrorism … but for whom additional derogatory information is needed to meet the reasonable suspicion standard.”

    6. And if you’re in a “category” of people determined to be a threat, your threat status could be “upgraded” at the snap of a finger.

    The watch-list guidelines explain a process by which the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism can move an entire “category of individuals” to an elevated threat status. It’s unclear exactly how these categories are defined, but according to the document, there must be “current and credible intelligence information” suggesting that the group is a particular threat to conduct a terrorist act. Such determinations can be implemented and remain in place for up to 72 hours before a committee convenes to decide whether the watch-list upgrade should be extended.

    7. Finally, you could just be unlucky.

    The process of adding people to the terror watch lists is as imperfect as the intelligence officials tasked with doing so. There have been reports of “false positives,” or instances in which an innocent passenger has been subject to treatment under a no-fly or selectee list because his or her name was similar to that of another individual. In one highly publicized incident in 2005, a 4-year-old boy was nearly barred from boarding a plane to visit his grandmother.

    The watch-list guidance was supposedly revised in part to prevent incidents like these, but with more than 1.5 million people added to the lists in the last five years, mistakes are always inevitable. Just ask Rahinah Ibrahim, a Stanford University student who ended up on a no-fly list in 2004 after an FBI agent accidentally checked the wrong box on a form.

    But then if you were to be mistakenly added to a list, you probably wouldn’t know — unless it stopped you from flying. The government has been extremely secretive about the names on the various watch lists. If you were to learn that you were wrongly placed on a watch list, good luck getting off it. As Scahill and Devereaux reported, you can file a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, which begins a review “that is not subject to oversight by any court or entity outside the counterterrorism community.”

    And if you were to get your name removed from the watch list, the intelligence agencies aren’t even obligated to inform you of your updated status. Helpful.

    The secretive nature of the terror watch lists has come under court scrutiny recently. A federal judge ruled in June that the government must develop a new process under which individuals can challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list. The judge found the current process “wholly ineffective.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

     

    No Fly List

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The No Fly List is a list, created and maintained by the United States government‘s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), of people who are prohibited from boarding a commercial aircraft for travel in or out of theUnited States. The list has also been used to divert aircraft away from U.S. airspace that is not flying to or from the U.S. The number of people on the list rises and falls according to threat and intelligence reporting.[citation needed] There were 10,000 names on the list in 2011, 21,000 in 2012, and 47,000 in 2013.

    The list—along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection—was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in May 2010: “The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense.”[1] However, the list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, orracial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. It has also been criticized as costly, prone to false positives, and easily defeated.

    The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. As of June 2016 the Terrorist Watch List is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities.[2][3]

    History

    Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. federal government had a list of 16 people deemed “no transport” because they “presented a specific known or suspected threat to aviation.”[4][5] The list grew in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, reaching more than 400 names by November 2001, when responsibility for keeping it was transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).[5] In mid-December 2001, two lists were created: the “No Fly List” of 594 people to be denied air transport, and the “Selectee” list of 365 people who were to be more carefully searched at airports.[4][5] By 2002, the two lists combined contained over a thousand names, and by April 2005 contained about 70,000 names.[4] For the first two and a half years of the program, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) denied that the program existed.[4]

    The No Fly List program came to public light “when prominent antiwar activists, such as Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordan, and political opponents of the Bush administration, such as Senator Edward Kennedy and the civil rights attorney David Cole, found themselves included.”[4] In October 2006, CBS News‘s 60 Minutes reported on the program after it obtained a March 2006 copy of the list containing 44,000 names.[6]

    Many individuals were “caught in the system” as a result of sharing the exact or similar name of another person on the list;[7] TSA officials said that, as of November 2005, 30,000 people in 2005 had complained that their names were matched to a name on the list via the name matching software used by airlines.[8] In January 2006, the FBI and ACLU settled a federal lawsuit, Gordon v. FBI, brought by Gordon and Adams under the Freedom of Information Act in order to obtain information about how names were added to the list.[8] Under the settlement, the government paid $200,000 in the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.[9] A separate suit was brought as a class action “filed by people caught in the name game.”[7] In response, “TSA created an ombudsperson process, whereby individuals now can download and print out a Passenger Identity Verification Form and mail it, along with certain notarized documents, to the TSA “so the agency can differentiate the individual from others who may be on the list.”[7]

    In April 2007, the United States government “terrorist watch list” administered by the Terrorist Screening Center, which is managed principally by the FBI,[10] contained 700,000 records.[11] A year later, the ACLUestimated the list to have grown to over 1,000,000 names and to be continually expanding.[12][13][14] However, according to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, in October 2008 the No Fly list contained only 2,500 names, with an additional 16,000 “selectees” who “represent a less specific security threat and receive extra scrutiny, but are allowed to fly.”[15]

    As of 2011, the list contained about 10,000 names.[16][17] In 2012, the list more than doubled in size, to about 21,000 names.[18] In August 2013, a leak revealed that more than 47,000 people were on the list.[19][20]

    Weapons purchases by listed persons

    In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that “Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law,” and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns.[21] According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).[22]

    Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, a Democrat, repeatedly introduced legislation to bar individuals on the terror watch lists (such as the No Fly List) from buying firearms or explosives, but these efforts did not succeed.[21][22][23] Dianne Feinstein of California, also a Democrat, revived the legislation after the November 2015 Paris attacks, and President Barack Obama has called for such legislation to be approved.[21]

    Republicans in Congress, such as Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, oppose this measure, citing due process concerns and efficacy, respectively.[21] Republicans have blocked attempts by Democrats to attach these provisions to Republican-backed measures.[24]

    The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced opposition to barring weapons sales to individuals listed on the current form of the No-Fly List, stating that: “There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform.”[25] Specifically, the ACLU’s position is that the government’s current redress process—the procedure by which listed individuals can petition for removal from the list—does not meet the requirements of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause because the process does not “provide meaningful notice of the reasons our clients are blacklisted, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.”[25]

    In December 2015, Feinstein’s amendment to bar individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms failed in the Senate on a 45-54 vote.[26] Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, put forth a competing proposal to “give the attorney general the power to impose a 72-hour delay for individuals on the terror watch list seeking to purchase a gun and it could become a permanent ban if a judge determines there is probable cause during that time window.”[26] The measure, too, failed, on a 55-45 vote (60 votes were required to proceed).[26] The votes on both the Feinstein measure and the Coryn measure were largely along party lines.[26]

    Vulnerabilitie

    False positives

    A “false positive” occurs when a passenger who is not on the No Fly List has a name that matches or is similar to a name on the list. False positive passengers will not be allowed to board a flight unless they can differentiate themselves from the actual person on the list, usually by presenting ID showing their middle name or date of birth. In some cases, false positive passengers have been denied boarding or have missed flights because they could not easily prove that they were not the person on the No Fly List.[citation needed]

    When an airline ticket is purchased, the reservation system uses software to compare the passenger’s name against the No Fly List. If the name matches, or is similar to a name on the No Fly List, a restriction is placed in the reservation that prevents the passenger from being issued a boarding pass until the airline has determined whether or not he or she is the actual person whose name is on the No Fly List. Passengers are not told when a restriction has been placed on their reservation, and they normally do not find out that anything is unusual until they attempt to check in. “False positive” passengers cannot use Internet check-in or the automatic check-in kiosks in airports. Any attempt to use either check-in method will normally result in a message that the check-in cannot be completed and that the passenger needs to see a live check-in agent.[citation needed]

    In order to be issued a boarding pass, “false positive” passengers must present identification that sufficiently differentiates them from the person on the No Fly List. This can include, but is not limited to, date and place of birth, middle name, citizenship, passport number, etc. Depending on the airline, this clearance can be done either electronically, with the check-in agent keying the information into the system, or a manual procedure where the agent telephones a centralized security office to obtain clearance. Once a “false positive” passenger has been cleared for a flight, the clearance will usually, but not always, apply to the remaining flights on that reservation, including the return. However, the next time this passenger purchases an airline ticket, he or she will have to be cleared all over again. If a passenger’s identification is insufficient to differentiate that passenger from a name on the No-Fly List, the airline will refuse to issue a boarding pass and tell the passenger to contact the TSA.[citation needed]

    Policies vary from airline to airline as to whether a check-in agent will tell passengers why they must always have additional steps performed when they check in, or why they are unable to check in via Internet, kiosk, or at curbside. In some cases, check-in agents will incorrectly tell passengers that they must be cleared because they are “on the No Fly List”, when in fact they are simply a “false positive” (having the same name as someone on the No Fly List). False positive passengers who are ultimately issued boarding passes are not on the No Fly List. In the majority of instances, passengers are not told anything, and it is only through the repeated experience of needing to be cleared or being unable to use curbside, Internet or automatic check-in that they come to suspect that they are “false positives”.[citation needed]

    In an effort to reduce the number of false positives, DHS announced on April 28, 2008 that each airline will be permitted to create a system to verify and store a passenger’s date of birth, to clear up watch list misidentifications. Passengers can voluntarily provide this information to the airline, which would have to be verified by presenting acceptable ID at the ticket counter. Once this data has been stored, travelers that were previously inconvenienced on every trip would be able to check in online or at remote kiosks.[27] It will be up to each individual airline to choose whether they wish to implement such a system.[citation needed]

    Notable cases

    False positives and abuses that have been in the news include:

    • Numerous children (including many under the age of five, and some under the age of one) have generated false positives.[28][29][30]
    • Daniel Brown, a United States Marine returning from Iraq, was prevented from boarding a flight home in April 2006 because his name matched one on the No Fly List.[31]
    • David Fathi, an attorney for the ACLU of Iranian descent and a plaintiff in an ACLU lawsuit, has been arrested and detained because his name was on the No Fly List.[32]
    • Asif Iqbal, a management consultant and legal resident of the United States born in Pakistan, plans to sue the U.S. government because he is regularly detained when he tries to fly. He has the same name as a former Guantanamo detainee.[33][34] Iqbal’s work requires a lot of travel, and, even though the Guantanamo detainee has been released, his name remains on the No Fly List, and Iqbal the software consultant experiences frequent, unpredictable delays and missed flights.[35] He is pushing for a photo ID and birthdate matching system, in addition to the current system of checking names.[36]
    • Robert J. Johnson, a surgeon and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was told in 2006 that he was on the list, although he had had no problem in flying the month before. Johnson was running as aDemocrat against U.S. Representative John McHugh, a Republican. Johnson wondered whether he was on the list because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He stated, “This could just be a government screw-up, but I don’t know, and they won’t tell me.”[37] Later, a 60 Minutes report brought together 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom had experienced problems in airports with being pulled aside and interrogated. The report suggested that the individual whose name was intended to be on the list was most likely the Robert Johnson who had been convicted of plotting to bomb a movie theater and a Hindu temple in Toronto.[6]
    • In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name “T Kennedy” was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to “T Kennedy”. (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom “Ted” was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of “ordinary citizens”: “How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?”[38] Former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani pointed to this incident as an example for the necessity to “rethink aviation security” in an essay on homeland security published while he was seeking the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential election.[39]
    • U.S. Representative, former Freedom Rider, and Chairman of SNCC John Lewis (politician) (D-GA) has been stopped many times.[40]
    • Canadian journalist Patrick Martin has been frequently interrogated while traveling, because of a suspicious individual, believed to be a former Provisional Irish Republican Army bomb-maker, with the same name.[41][42]
    • Walter F. Murphy, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, reported that the following exchange took place at Newark on 1 March 2007, where he was denied a boarding pass “because I [Murphy] was on the Terrorist Watch list.” The airline employee asked, “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” Replied Murphy, “I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution.” To which the airline employee responded, “That’ll do it.”[43]
    • David Nelson, the actor best known for his role on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, is among various persons named David Nelson who have been stopped at airports because their name apparently appears on the list.[44][45]
    • Jesselyn Radack, a former United States Department of Justice ethics adviser who argued that John Walker Lindh was entitled to an attorney, was placed on the No Fly List as part of what she [46] believes to be a reprisal for her whistle-blowing.
    • In September 2004, former pop singer Cat Stevens (who converted to Islam and changed his name to “Yusuf Islam” in 1978) was denied entry into the U.S. after his name was found on the list.[47]
    • In February 2006, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) stated in a committee hearing that his wife Catherine had been subjected to questioning at an airport as to whether she was Cat Stevens due to the similarity of their names.[44][48]
    • U.S. Representative Don Young (R-AK), the third-most senior Republican in the House, was flagged in 2004 after he was mistaken for a “Donald Lee Young”.[49]
    • Some members of the Federal Air Marshal Service have been denied boarding on flights that they were assigned to protect because their names matched those of persons on the no-fly list.[50]
    • In August 2008, CNN reported that an airline captain and retired brigadier general for the United States Air Force has had numerous encounters with security officials when attempting to pilot his own plane.[51]
    • After frequent harassment at airport terminals, a Canadian businessman changed his name to avoid being delayed every time he took a flight.[52]
    • In October 2008, the Washington Post reported that Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent political activists as terrorists, and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases, with labels indicating that they were terror suspects. The protest groups were also entered as terrorist organizations. During a hearing, it was revealed that these individuals and organizations had been placed in the databases because of a surveillance operation that targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war.[53]
    • In April 2009, TSA refused to allow an Air France flight from Paris to Mexico to cross U.S. airspace because it was carrying Colombian journalist Hernando Calvo Ospina. Air France did not send the passenger manifest to the US authorities; they did however send it to Mexico who forwarded it to the US.[54]
    • On 19 August 2009, Air France flight AF-438 was not allowed to cross into US airspace because of the presence on board of one Paul-Emile Dupret, a civil servant at the European Parliament for 18 years, who had written some articles criticizing the EU’s policies toward Latin America because they are aligned too closely with those of the United States.[55] Even though AF-438 did not cross into US airspace, Paul-Emile Dupret was not allowed to fly to Montreal, where he was to take part in an official delegation of the European Parliament in Ottawa and Montreal. On 20 March 2016 at Charles DeGaulle Airport, Air France prevented Mssr. Dupret from boarding and suggested that he speak with a US security agent in the airport.
    • Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan was held for extensive questioning by US Immigration and Customs officials in August 2009 because, as he reported, “his name came up on a computer alert list.” Customs officials claimed that he “was questioned as part of a routine process that took 66 minutes.” Khan was visiting the United States to promote his film My Name Is Khan, which concerns racial profiling of Muslims in the United States.[56]
    • In June 2010, The New York Times reported that Yahya Wehelie, a 26-year-old Muslim-American man, was being prevented from returning to the United States, and was stranded in Cairo. Despite Wehelie’s offer to FBI agents to allow them to accompany him on the plane, while shackled, he was not permitted to fly. The ACLU has argued that this constitutes banishment.[57] In July 2010, Wehelie was permitted to fly to New York under a federal waiver.[58]
    • A U.S. citizen, stranded in Colombia after being placed on the no-fly list as a result of having studied in Yemen, sought to re-enter the U.S. through Mexico but was returned to Colombia by Mexican authorities.[57]
    • Michael Migliore, a 23-year-old Muslim convert and dual citizen of the United States and Italy, was detained in the United Kingdom after traveling there from the U.S. by train and then cruise ship because he was not permitted to fly. He said that he believes he was placed on the no-fly list because he refused to answer questions about a 2010 Portland car bomb plot without his lawyer present.[59] He was released eight or ten hours later, but authorities confiscated his electronic media items, including a cell phone and media player.[60]
    • Abe Mashal, a 31-year-old Muslim and United States Marine Veteran, found himself on the No Fly List in April 2010 while attempting to board a plane out of Midway Airport. He was questioned by the TSA, FBI and Chicago Police at the airport and was told they had no clue why he was on the No Fly List. Once he arrived at home that day two other FBI agents came to his home and used a Do Not Fly question-and-answer sheet to question him. They informed him they had no idea why he was on the No Fly List. In June 2010 those same two FBI agents summoned Mashal to a local hotel and invited him to a private room. They told him that he was in no trouble and the reason he ended up on the No Fly List was because of possibly sending emails to an American imam they may have been monitoring. They then informed him that if he would go undercover at various local mosques, they could get him off the No Fly List immediately and he would be compensated for such actions. Mashal refused to answer any additional questions without a lawyer present and was told to leave the hotel. Mashal then contacted the ACLU and is now being represented in a class-action lawsuit filed against the TSA, FBI and DHS concerning the legality of the No Fly List and how people end up on it. Mashal feels as if he was blackmailed into becoming an informant by being placed on the No Fly List. Mashal has since appeared on ABC, NBC, PBS and Al Jazeera concerning his inclusion on the No Fly List. He has also written a book about his experience titled “No Spy No Fly.” [61]
    • In November 2002 Salon reported that the No-Fly program seemed “to be netting mostly priests, elderly nuns, Green Party campaign operatives, left-wing journalists, right-wing activists and people affiliated with Arab or Arab-American groups.” Art dealer Doug Stuber, who ran Ralph Nader’s Green Party presidential campaign in North Carolina in 2000, was prevented from flying to Europe on business in October 2002. He was repeatedly pulled out of line, held for questioning until his flight left, then told falsely he could take a later flight or depart from a different airport. Barbara Olshansky, then Assistant Legal Director for theCenter for Constitutional Rights, noted that she and several of her colleagues received special attention on numerous occasions. On at least one occasion, she was ordered to pull her trousers down in view of other passengers.[62]

    DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program

    The DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) is a procedure for travelers who are delayed or denied boarding of an aircraft, consistently receive excess scrutiny at security checkpoints, or are denied entry to the U.S. because they are believed to be or are told that they are on a government watch list. The traveler must complete an online application at the Department of Homeland Security website, print and sign the application, and then submit it with copies of several identifying documents. After reviewing their records, DHS notifies the traveler that if any corrections of data about them were warranted, they will be made.

    Travelers who apply for redress through TRIP are assigned a record identifier called a “Redress Control Number”. Airline reservations systems allow passengers who have a Redress Control Number to enter it when making their reservation.

    DHS TRIP may make it easier for an airline to confirm a traveler’s identity. False-positive travelers, whose names match or are similar to the names of persons on the No Fly List, will continue to match that name even after using DHS TRIP, so it will not restore a traveler’s ability to use Internet or curbside check-in or to use an automated kiosk.[citation needed] It does usually help the airline identify the traveler as not being the actual person on the No Fly List, after an airline agent has reviewed their identity documents at check-in.

    However, DHS TRIP has not been very helpful to travelers who accidentally end up on the No Fly List, as their efforts to clear their names are often futile to the extent that they are not told why they are on the list.[63]

    Lawsuits

    On April 6, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union “filed a nationwide class-action challenge to the government’s No Fly List”, in which they charge that “many innocent travelers who pose no security risk whatsoever are discovering that their government considers them terrorists – and find that they have no way to find out why they are on the list, and no way to clear their names.”[64] The case was settled in 2006, when “the federal government agreed to pay $200,000 in attorneys’ fees to the ACLU of Northern California” and to “[make] public, for the first time, hundreds of records about the government’s secret ‘no fly’ list used to screen airline passengers after September 11, 2001.”[8] On August 5, 2010, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 plaintiffs challenging their placement on the No Fly List.[65] and on June 24, 2014, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown ruled in favor of the plaintiffs saying that air travel is a “sacred” liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution[66] and ordered the government to change its system for challenging inclusion.[65]

    A Malaysian academic has been the first to successfully bring a suit involving the No Fly List to trial. On August 18, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a ruling on behalf of Rahinah Ibrahim, overturning a lower court decision and allowing her case against inclusion in the No Fly List to proceed through the court system.[67] A public trial began on December 2, 2013 in San Francisco in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge William Alsup.[68] The judge frequently cleared the courtroom following the requests of government lawyers (even though the judge himself once declared that the reasons “don’t make much sense sometimes.”)[69][not in citation given] After the government revealed that Ibrahim had ended up on the list because of human error by the FBI,[70] Alsup ruled on January 14, 2014 “that Ibrahim did have the right to sue and ordered the government to tell Ibrahim whether she is still on the list.”[71]

    Gulet Mohamed, a U.S. citizen from Virginia, was placed on the no-fly list as a teenager in 2011 while he was visiting family in Kuwait. Because he was on the no-fly list, he was unable to return to the U.S. before his visa expired.[72] He was taken into custody in Kuwait for overstaying his visa, where he alleges that he “was repeatedly beaten and tortured by his interrogators,” one of whom spoke “perfect American English.”[73]Kuwaiti authorities tried to deport him to the U.S., but the airline denied him boarding, presumably because he was on the U.S. no-fly list, and he was returned to prison. While he was imprisoned in Kuwait, a lawsuit was filed on his behalf in the Eastern District of Virginia by the Council on American Islamic Relations. After the lawsuit was filed, he was allowed to return to the U.S.; the U.S. government then moved to dismiss the lawsuit as moot.[74] On May 28, 2013, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s motion to dismiss Mohamed’s lawsuit.[75] On January 22, 2014, Judge Anthony J. Trenga denied most of another government motion to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed toward trial.[76]

    Controversy and criticism

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long criticized the No Fly List and similar list because of the lack of notification to persons included on such lists. The ACLU’s stance is that the government has not provided a constitutionally adequate means of allowing individuals to challenge their inclusion on the list[77] and that “constitutional rights are at stake when the government stigmatizes Americans as suspected terrorists and bans them from international travel.”[78]

    Among the complaints about the No Fly List is the use of credit reports in calculating the risk score. In response to the controversy, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials said in 2005 that they would not use credit scores to determine passengers’ risk score and that they would comply with all rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments.[79]

    The European Union and other non-U.S. government entities have expressed concern about allowing the CAPPS II proposal to be implemented within their borders. During the early testing of the No Fly List and CAPPS II, the TSA privately asked airlines to disclose massive amounts of personal information about their passengers. This action has been said[by whom?] to be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, which forbids the government to compile secret databases on U.S. citizens.

    The No Fly List has been variously described as Orwellian and Kafkaesque. Individuals usually do not know they have been put on the list until they attempt to board a plane. Efforts to discover the reasons for being barred from flying meet with indeterminate responses from the authorities, which would neither confirm nor deny that a name is on the List.[69]

    In the midst of this controversy, the Government Accountability Office of the U.S. Congress produced a report critical of the CAPPS II system. It characterized the proposal as incomplete and seriously behind schedule, and noted that the TSA had failed to address “developmental, operational, and privacy issues identified by Congress”. On July 14, 2004, TSA officials announced that CAPPS II was being pulled from consideration without proceeding to full testing. Critics have alleged that the TSA has merely chosen to start with a less controversial entry point that they are calling the “Registered Traveler” program.[80] TSA has also begun testing of another program called “Secure Flight“, which is supposed to solve some of the problems of CAPPS I while avoiding the privacy issues of CAPPS II.

    In January 2009, Marcus Holmes[81] conservatively estimated the total cost of the program to be $536 million since 9/11, with a reasonable estimation range that approaches $1 billion, and he questioned whether the benefits of the list outweigh the costs.[82]

    No fly lists in other countries

    The government of Canada has created its own no fly list as part of a program called Passenger Protect.[83] The Canadian list incorporates data from domestic and foreign intelligence sources, including the U.S. No Fly List.[84] It contains between 500 and 2,000 names.[85]

    See also

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

    Is It an Invasion? — Constitution’s Invasion Clause Won’t Work

    By Barnaby Zall
    Volume 11, Number 1 (Fall 2000)

    In the recent movie Mars Attacks, President Jack Nicholson calls out the American military to battle aliens invading from Mars. The earthlings can’t do anything about the invasion for most of the movie. All their advanced technology is ineffective until a donut maker discovers that ancient recordings of yodeling literally explode the aliens. It may feel like the middle of that movie in some communities on our southern border.

    Residents of southern border areas certainly feel that they are being invaded. At a July 24, 2000, meeting of the Cochise County (Arizona) Board of Supervisors, Chairman Mike Palmer estimated that 60 percent of the sheriff’s patrol division resources are spent responding to problems related to illegal immigration. Murphy, “Supes award grant funds to ease local border woes,” Sierra Vista [Arizona] News, Aug. 10, 2000, p.1, col. 2-3. The direct costs to the sheriff’s department were $2,900,798. Id. There were other costs in health care, legal defense for indigents, and additional firearms needed to deal with high-powered arsenals used by smugglers. Id.,p.3. With unreim-bursed health care costs driving her hospital into bankruptcy, one administrator reported that the costs to Copper Queen Community Hospital have tripled in less than a year. The federal government generously reimbursed the County only one-fifth of its costs a measly $778,000. Id.,p.1.

    Perhaps Arizona ranchers beset by hordes of illegal immigrants crossing their lands could ask for federal assistance to set up huge speaker systems playing yodels or modern rock music? Music aside, it isn’t likely that the afflicted ranchers and counties can easily make a federal case of it. The courts have repeatedly held that immigration and border protection decisions are “political,” and they won’t interfere.

    At first blush, it seems clear that the U.S. Constitution should protect the ranchers, health care workers, and county governments against this heavily-armed invasion. After all, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution known as the “Invasion Clause” says: “The United States … shall protect [the States] against Invasion.” So why doesn’t the Invasion Clause protect border areas from this invasion?

    There are three highly-technical legal reasons:

    1. It’s not the right kind of invasion;

    2. The federal government can choose not to act; and

    3. It’s a “political question” which the courts won’t touch.

    INVASION

    The Invasion Clause in the U.S. Constitution says “invasion,” but it doesn’t say what an invasion is. In a way this is odd, since, among the Founders, the topic of protection against invasion was one of the most important reasons to discard the old Articles of Confederation in favor of the new Constitution with a federal government. See, e.g., “Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention, 24 July 1788,” Elliot 4:15-26 (Statement of Mr. Davie: “The general objects of the union are, 1st, to protect us against foreign invasion; 2d, to defend us against internal commotions and insurrections; 3d, to promote the commerce, agriculture, and manufacturers, of America. These objects are requisite to make us a safe and happy people, and they cannot be attained without a firm and efficient system of union.”); Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Boston, 1833, � 481.

    But the lack of a definition may have been because all the Founders knew, in the wake of the Revolutionary War and the predatory antics of States under the Articles of Confederation, what “invasion” meant. One of the few statements by the Founders about the Invasion Clause was by James Madison, in The Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788. Madison said:

    “A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article.”

    Thus, Madison included both invasions from foreign powers and from other States. This view was reiterated by Founder William Rawle, who used the example of a State which refused to “refer its controversies with another state to the judicial power of the Union.” Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1829.

    Later the new Congress enacted a law providing for a militia, to be called up in the event of an invasion. Act of February 28, 1795, c. 101. That Act provided

    “that whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion.” Id.

    This description of invasion was more narrow, dealing only with foreign nations and Indian tribes.

    The Supreme Court interpreted this Act, following the War of 1812, in Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19 (1827), a case brought by a man who refused to enter the militia as required, but the actual issues involved the declarations by the governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut that they had the power to judge for themselves whether the militia should be called out. The Supreme Court held unanimously that

    “the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the president, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons. . . . The power itself is to be exercised upon sudden emergencies, upon great occasions of state, and under circumstances which may be vital to the existence of the Union.” Id.

    The Supreme Court noted that any abuse of the President’s power would be corrected by elections or Congress’s “watchfulness.” Id. Thus, the definition of invasion was left to the President alone, and the Supreme Court said that any errors in judgment would have to be corrected by the political process.

    Of course, not everyone is enamored of the views of the Founders. Some people believe that invasion includes pollution and “greed.” (See, e.g. http://www.article4.com, citing Diamond, “If You Can Keep It: A Constitutional Roadmap to Environmental Security,” Brass Ring Press, 1996.) Others believe that right now there is an “ongoing clandestine invasion” by space aliens who abduct and assault Arizonans. Citizens Against UFO Secrecy v. United States, U.S. District Court for Arizona, filed Sept. 1, 1999.

    Courts, on the other hand, take a much more narrow view of the term “invasion,” usually referring to Madison’s Federalist No. 43. See, e.g., Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23 [2d Cir. 1996] (rejecting claim by New York for federal reimbursement for costs of illegal immigration: “In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state’s government.”); New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463, (3d Cir. 1996)(rejecting same claim by New Jersey: Invasion Clause “offers no support whatsoever for application of the Invasion Clause to this case or for its reading of the term �invasion’ to mean anything other than a military invasion.”); California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1997)(rejecting same claim by California: “there are no manageable standards to ascertain whether or when an influx of illegal immigrants should be said to constitute an invasion.”).

    Thus, except as described below, it would be unlikely that the afflicted areas in Arizona could get courts to consider the tremendous influx of illegal immigrants as an “invasion.”

    FEDERAL DECISION

    As noted above, it is the President’s decision to call something an invasion. The Founders considered calling federal protection into a State to be such an important decision that it was to be left to the President alone. Martin v. Mott. Oversight was to be by Congress and the people (through an election) Id.

    The President does have the power to stop the influx of illegal immigration. Although Congress has “plenary” (complete) power over immigration, Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977), it has delegated the administration of immigration policy to the President and the Attorney General, in the form of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. �� 1101 et seq. The Attorney General is principally charged with enforcing the immigration laws, with some duties undertaken by the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 8 U.S.C. � 1103. Under Section 212(f) of that Act, the President may “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he “finds that the entry of any aliens … would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” 8 U.S.C. � 1182(f).

    In 1997, Attorney General Reno announced a new policy to block illegal immigration by shifting more resources to border enforcement in “traditional illegal crossing and drug smuggling traffic patterns along the southern border.” U.S. Dept. of Justice, “Strategic Plan, 1997-2002,” September 1997, 17. The new policy was successful in blocking many traditional illegal entry patterns, but the policy did not provide enough resources to block nontraditional entry points. The results were that illegal migration shifted heavily to the ranches and deserts of southern Arizona.

    But it’s not as if the federal government is doing nothing, or is doing the wrong thing in stopping illegal immigration. The budget for the Immigration and Naturalization Service is over three billion dollars a year, with much of that money going to the Border Patrol. And the new border control policy has reduced illegal immigration (though by how much is still a matter of some contention).

    So it’s not likely that the border communities will be able to claim that the federal government is not doing anything to help them.

    POLITICAL ISSUE

    But the most important roadblock to using the Invasion Clause to force more federal assistance to border communities is the “political question” doctrine. Courts will not get involved in matters that are too political. And every court which has reviewed Invasion Clause claims has refused to intervene because the questions are too political.

    At heart, the courts won’t consider political questions because of the constitutional structure separating the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative and judicial. Where the Constitution commits a policy area to the political branches of government, the courts won’t step in, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962).

    As noted above, immigration is committed to the political branches, Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. at 792. Every court to have considered whether immigration comes within the Invasion Clause has declared the question to be political and refused to step in. See, e.g., Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1199 (9th Cir. 1994)(rejecting claim that federal government permit-ted “economic invasion” of Hawaii by Japanese); Chiles v. U.S., 69 F.3d 1094, 1097 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1674 (1996)(rejecting Florida’s attempt at same claim for reimbursement for costs of illegal immigration as other states mentioned above).

    IS THERE A WAY TO PROCEED?

    So are the border communities simply out of luck? Can they ever get any relief from the federal government for the massive influx of illegal immigrants suddenly streaming across their property?

    It would be a difficult road, but the way is not entirely blocked. There are two possible avenues available to them. The first, and most obvious, is political pressure. If, as the courts have decreed, this is a political question, then the solution is also political. There is no active constituency for illegal immigration in Washington (as opposed to those who either ignore or like illegal immigration or those who promote legal immigration), and a well-organized attempt to increase border resources might return some semblance of peace to the border communities.

    The second method is to find a sympathetic judge who will let the border communities tell their tale and allow them some relief. This was the method used by the Haitian community in past years; the immigration laws blocked attempts by Haitian refugees themselves to get judicial review of federal policies requiring their deportation. But federal Judge James Lawrence King ignored the ban on judicial review on the basis of a fiction that he was really hearing the claims of American citizens whose constitutional rights were violated by low-level officials. Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846 (1985), aff’g, 727 F.2d 957 (11th Cir.1984). Perhaps the border communities could convince another judge that their claims for violations are just as great as the Haitian communities’.

    There are also legal grounds for this review which do not rely on the Invasion Clause. For example, the border communities might challenge the new enforcement policy as an illegal taking of their property, or as having failed a required procedural or environmental review. These constitutional or statutory rights will be mixed up with the political and policy questions which courts refuse to consider, but they might also entice an appropriate federal judge to take a chance on reviewing them. And a little-known secret of American constitutional law is that the choice of the original judge is critically important to establishing or contesting constitutional doctrines; federal judges’ decisions are usually sustained on appeal. Thus, if the border communities can craft an appropriate and appealing legal case and find a sympathetic judge, they may well find some relief in the courts.

    But as for using the Invasion Clause itself, it’s not likely to be a fruitful exercise.

    Finally, our trade policies do not discourage American employers from following a low-skill, low-wage strategy. We should imbed labor standards in all our trade rules, requiring nations that export to us to respect the freedom to organize and bargain collectively, to maintain a safe and healthful work place, to prohibit forced labor and the exploitation of children. These labor standards would put a floor under international wage competition and help US managers to manage better rather than trying to compete by reducing labor standards. We have inserted these standards in every US trade bill passed in the 1980s, but to be effective, we need to make them a part of the GATT system. ?

    http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1101/article_123.shtml

    KEY POINTS

    1. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
    2. Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, which is essential to a functioning democracy.
    3. Presidents must not be allowed to treat the entire United States Code as mere guidelines and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore
    4. When the President fails to faithfully execute the laws, the Congress has appropriations and other powers over the President, but both houses of Congress must act together.
    5. Congress may also hold the President accountable by asking the courts to call the fouls when the lines of constitutional authority have been breached.
    6. The House of Representatives will bring a lawsuit challenging the President’s failure to enforce key provisions of Obamacare.
    7. This lawsuit seeks to reaffirm constitutional principles, including the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws.

    The President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Law

    A‌braham Lincoln is often paraphrased as saying, “The best way ‌to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” While that paraphrase summarizes the gist of what Lincoln was saying, the full text of his remark is worth repeating.

    In 1838, early in his career, Abraham Lincoln delivered an address to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. It was entitled “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.” In it, he said:

    Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;—let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;—let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.

    He went on to say:

    When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws.… But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.

    When Lincoln refers to religiously observing the law “for the sake of example,” he is referring also to the example of the American Republic itself as an example to the world. Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, and political accountability is essential to a functioning democracy.

    We in the House of Representatives, who face reelection every two years under the Constitution, are perhaps reminded of that more often than others. And while there is at least one political branch willing to enforce the law, we will not fail to act through whatever means we can successfully avail ourselves of.

    The President and the Take Care Clause

    Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This clause, known as the Take Care Clause, requires the President to enforce all constitutionally valid Acts of Congress, regardless of his own Administration’s view of their wisdom or policy. The clause imposes a duty on the President; it does not confer a discretionary power. The Take Care Clause is a limit on the Vesting Clause’s grant to the President of “the executive power.”

    The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in an opinion handed down just last year striking down the President’s assertion of authority to disregard a federal statute, provided a succinct description of the President’s obligations under the Take Care Clause, as follows:

    Under Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute. So, too, the President must abide by statutory prohibitions unless the President has a constitutional objection to the prohibition. If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise. But the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. Of course, if Congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the Executive obviously cannot move forward. But absent a lack of funds or a claim of unconstitutionality that has not been rejected by final Court order, the Executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions.[1]

    When the President fails to perform his constitutional duty that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the Congress has appropriations and other powers over the President, but none of those powers can be exercised unless both houses of Congress work together. Nor would the exercise of those powers solve the problem at hand, because they would not actually require the President to faithfully execute the laws.

    Of course, the most powerful and always available means of solving the problem at hand is the electoral process. In the meantime, however, the need to pursue the establishment of clear principles of political accountability is of the essence.

    As Lincoln said, “Let reverence for the laws be … enforced in courts of justice.” It is the courts’ duty, too, to uphold reverence for the law, and it is the specific duty of the courts to call fouls when the lines of constitutional authority under the separation of powers established by the Constitution have been breached.

    A lawsuit by the House of Representatives would grant no additional powers to the judicial branch over legislation. Indeed, what a statute says or doesn’t say would remain unaffected. But it would be the appropriate task of the federal courts to determine whether or not, whatever a statute says, a President can ignore it under the Constitution. Whatever the result of such a lawsuit, this President and, in all likelihood, future Presidents will continue to nullify Congress’s legislative power in the absence of our seeking now the establishment, in court, of a clear principle to the contrary.

    Challenging the President’s Failure to Faithfully Execute the Laws

    The stakes for inaction are high. The lawsuit will challenge the President’s failure to enforce key provisions of the law that has come to bear his name in the popular mind and was largely drafted in the White House.

    Unlike any other piece of major federal legislation enacted in at least 100 years—including the Federal Reserve Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Tax Reform Act, and all other major federal legislation over the last century—the Obamacare law did not garner significant bipartisan support. Indeed, and uniquely, it had none. There was no bipartisan political compromise.

    What provisions of Obamacare have been enforced have not proved popular, and what provisions the President has refused to enforce have been delayed until at least after the next federal elections: How convenient for the President, yet how devastating to accountability in our Republic.

    Imagine the future if this new, unconstitutional power of the President is left to stand. Presidents today and in the future would be able to treat the entire United States Code as mere guidelines and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore. The current President has even created entirely new categories of businesses to which his unilaterally imposed exemptions would apply.

    In that future, if a bill the President signed into law was later considered to be bad policy and potentially harmful to the President’s political party if enforced, accountability for signing that policy into law could be avoided by simply delaying enforcement until a more politically opportune time, if at all. No longer would presidential candidates running for reelection have to stand on their records, because their records could be edited at will.

    Sign one bill into law; enforce another version of it in practice. Rinse and repeat—until the accumulation of power in the presidency is complete. Whatever the odds of preventing that nightmarish future through the reaffirming of constitutional principles in court, it would be our duty to pursue it.

    Earlier this year, I joined with Representative Trey Gowdy (R–SC) to introduce H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE the Law Act, to put a procedure in place, including expedited court procedures, for Congress to initiate litigation against the executive branch for its failure to faithfully execute the laws. But while that legislation passed the House with bipartisan support, the Senate has failed to consider it. The House then considered and passed a resolution to authorize litigation by the House to restore political accountability and enforce the rule of law.

    The Supreme Court and Presidential Power

    The Supreme Court has squarely rejected the authority of the President to refuse to enforce constitutional laws. As early as the Court’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, the Court recognized Congress’s authority to impose specific duties upon executive branch officials by law, as well as the official’s corresponding obligation to execute the congressional directive.

    The Supreme Court articulated this principle again in an 1838 case, Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, involving the President’s refusal to comply with an act of Congress, observing that “[t]o contend that the obligations imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed, implies a power to forbid their execution; is a novel construction of the constitution, and entirely inadmissible.”[2] The Court further noted that permitting executive branch noncompliance with the statute “would be vesting in the President a dispensing power, which has no countenance for its support in any part of the constitution; and is asserting a principle, which, if carried out in its results, to all cases falling within it, would be clothing the President with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.”[3]

    A century later, in what has become the seminal case on executive power, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Court reasoned as follows:

    In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute…. The Constitution did not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential … supervision or control.… The Founders of this Nation entrusted the law making power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times.[4]

    And as the Court stated just this past term in the case of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, “The power of executing the laws … does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.”[5]

    While the constitutional case law regarding standing to bring a case can be murky, one thing is absolutely clear: The Supreme Court has never closed the door to the standing of the House of Representatives as an institution. It has had the opportunity to do so many times in the past, and each time it has refused.

    Individual Members of Congress often have difficulty establishing standing to allege an injury, butRaines v. Byrd, the leading Supreme Court case on legislator standing, “does not stand for the proposition that Congress can never assert its institutional interests in court,” as it has been described by one federal district court judge.[6] Indeed, as another federal district court judge recently pointed out, “the Supreme Court’s decision in Raines was premised in part on the fact that the legislators in that case did not initiate their lawsuit on behalf of their respective legislative bodies.”[7]

    In fact, the Supreme Court noted in Raines itself that it “attach[ed] some importance to the fact that [plaintiffs] have not been authorized to represent their respective Houses of Congress in this action, and indeed both Houses actively oppose their suits.”[8] In other words, the Supreme Court’s decision in Raines was premised in part on the fact that the Members in that case did not initiate the lawsuit on behalf of their respective house of Congress.

    Further, the courts routinely hear lawsuits involving the enforcement of subpoenas approved by federal legislative bodies. They do so because the subpoena power of each house of Congress derives from its legislative powers under Article I of the Constitution, and if Congress is to have the power to legislate, it must have the power to collect the information necessary to inform that legislative power. When the executive branch refuses to give a congressional body the information it requests, it impedes the legislative power, and the federal courts hear those cases.

    But today, the President is not only impeding the legislative power; he is negating it by failing to enforce clear, central provisions of major domestic legislation. And if the federal courts can hear cases in which Congress’s legislative power is hampered by the failure to comply with a subpoena, surely they should be able to hear cases in which its legislative power is completely nullified.

    Finally, there is nothing unusual or inappropriate about federal courts’ weighing in on separation of powers disputes. As the Supreme Court has stated:

    Our system of government requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the Constitution in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch. The alleged conflict that such an adjudication may cause cannot justify the courts’ avoiding their constitutional responsibility.[9]

    The Court has also stated that:

    Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.[10]

    The federal courts have a long history of resolving cases involving the allocation of power between the political branches and addressing important separation of powers concerns. Those cases include Bowsher v. Synar, regarding the execution of the laws; INS v. Chadha, regarding the legislative veto; Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, Morrison v. Olson, and Myers v. United States, regarding the removal of appointed officials; and NLRB v. Noel Canning, in which the Supreme Court just last term unanimously rejected the President’s recess appointments that occurred when the Senate had announced it was in session.[11]

    Conclusion

    The House of Representatives—the branch of our federal government closest to the people—has voted many times to repeal Obamacare, which remains as unpopular as ever, but the Senate and the President have ignored Americans’ dislike for the law. They have gotten away with ignoring it so far because the obverse of the paraphrase of Lincoln that “the best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly” is true as well and aptly summarizes the current danger to democratic government posed by the current Administration: The best way to keep a bad law on the books is to allow its selective enforcement. The House of Representatives will do everything it can to get bad laws off the books.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2014/the-presidents-duty-to-faithfully-execute-the-law

    BREAKING: Supreme Court Splits On Immigration, Voiding Obama Protection For Millions [VIDEO]

    Significant blow to president’s immigration policies enacted after Congress did nothing.

    List of United States immigration laws

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A number of major laws and court decisions relating to immigration procedures and enforcement have been enacted in the United States.

    Year Name of Legislation/Case Major Highlights
    1790 Naturalization Act of 1790 Established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but placed no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship was limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.
    1795 Naturalization Act of 1795 Lengthened required residency to become citizen.
    1798 Naturalization Act (officially An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization; ch. 54, 1 Stat. 566)

    Alien Friends Act (officially An Act Concerning Aliens; ch. 58, 1 Stat. 570)

    Alien Enemies Act (officially An Act Respecting Alien Enemies; ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577)

    • Extended the duration of residence required for immigrants to become citizens to 14 years. Enacted June 18, 1798, with no expiration date, it was repealed in 1802.
    • Authorized the president to deport any resident immigrant considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” It was activated June 25, 1798, with a two-year expiration date.
    • Authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America. Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. § 21
    1870 Naturalization Act of 1870
    • Extended the naturalization process to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.”
    • Other non-whites were not included in this act and remained excluded from naturalization, per theNaturalization Act of 1790
    1875 Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 1873-March 1875)
    • The first federal immigration law and prohibited the entry of immigrants considered as “undesirable”
    • The law classified as “undesirable” any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer
    • strengthen the ban against “coolie” laborers, by imposing a fine of up to $2,000 and maximum jail sentence of one year upon anyone who tried to bring a person from China, Japan, or any oriental country to the United States “without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service”
    • Imposed a 50 cent head tax to fund immigration officials.
    1882 Chinese Exclusion Act
    • Restricted immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years.
    • Prohibited Chinese naturalization.
    • Provided deportation procedures for illegal Chinese.
    • Marked the birth of illegal immigration (in America).[1]
    • The Act was “a response to racism [in America] and to anxiety about threats from cheap labor [from China].” [2]
    1885 Alien Contract Labor Law (Sess. II Chap. 164; 23 Stat. 332) Prohibited the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States
    1891 Immigration Act of 1891
    • First comprehensive immigration laws for the US.
    • Bureau of Immigration set up in the Treasury Dept.[3]
    • Immigration Bureau directed to deport unlawful aliens.
    • Empowered “the superintendent of immigration to enforce immigration laws”.[4]
    1892 Geary Act Extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act.
    1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark[5] The Supreme Court ruled that a child of Chinese descent born in the United States – whose parents at the time of his birth are subjects of the Emperor of China but who are domiciled in the United States as permanent residents; are carrying on business there; and are not employed in any diplomatic or other official capacity under the Emperor of China – is a citizen of the United States by virtue of having been born “in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” per the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Several years later, in the wake of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, a number of Chinese immigrants who were otherwise subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act were nonetheless able to claim American citizenship by alleging they were born in San Francisco, and that their birth certificates had been destroyed along with those of everyone else who had been born in San Francisco. “Papers for fictitious children were sold in China, allowing Chinese to immigrate despite the laws.” [1]
    1903 Immigration Act of 1903 (Anarchist Exclusion Act) Added four inadmissible classes: anarchists, people with epilepsy, beggars, and importers of prostitutes
    1906 Naturalization Act of 1906
    • Standardized naturalization procedures
    • made some knowledge of English a requirement for citizenship
    • established the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization
    1907 Immigration Act of 1907 Restricted immigration for certain classes of disabled and diseased people
    1917 Immigration Act of 1917 (Barred Zone Act) Restricted immigration from Asia by creating an “Asiatic Barred Zone” and introduced a reading test for all immigrants over fourteen years of age, with certain exceptions for children, wives, and elderly family members.
    1918 Immigration Act of 1918 Expanded on the provisions of the Anarchist Exclusion Act.
    1921 Emergency Quota Act
    • Limited the number of immigrants from any country to 3% of those already in the US from that country as per the 1910 census.

    “An unintended consequence of the 1920s legislation was an increase in illegal immigration. Many Europeans who did not fall under the quotas migrated to Canada or Mexico, which [as Western Hemisphere nations] were not subject to national-origin quotas; [and] subsequently they slipped into the United States illegally.” [6]

    1922 The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, “Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act”) Reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage, also known as the Married Women’s Citizenship Act or the Women’s Citizenship Act. Previously, a woman lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.
    1924 Immigration Act(Johnson Act)
    • Imposed first permanent numerical limit on immigration.
    • Began a national-origin quota system.
    1924 National Origins Formula
    • Established with the Immigration Act of 1924.
    • Total annual immigration was capped at 150,000. Immigrants fit into two categories: those from quota-nations and those from non-quota nations.
    • Immigrant visas from quota-nations were restricted to the same ratio of residents from the country of origin out of 150,000 as the ratio of foreign-born nationals in the United States. The percentage out of 150,000 was the relative number of visas a particular nation received.
    • Non-quota nations, notably those contiguous to the United States only had to prove an immigrant’s residence in that country of origin for at least two years prior to emigration to the United States.
    • Laborers from Asiatic nations were excluded but exceptions existed for professionals, clergy, and students to obtain visas.
    1934 Equal Nationality Act of 1934
    • Allowed foreign-born children of American mothers and alien fathers who had entered America before age 18 and lived in America for five years to apply for American citizenship for the first time.
    • Made the naturalization process quicker for American women’s alien husbands.
    1930s Federal officials deported “Tens of thousands, and possibly more than 400,000, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans… Many, mostly children, were U.S. citizens.” [7] “Applications for legal admission into the United States increased following World War II — and so did illegal immigration.” [8] Some used fraudulent marriages as their method of illegal entry in the U.S. “Japanese immigration became disproportionately female, as more women left Japan as “picture brides”, betrothed to emigrant men into the U.S. whom they had never met.” [9]
    1940 Nationality Act of 1940 Pertains chiefly to “Nationality at Birth,” Nationality through Naturalization,” and “Loss of Nationality”
    1943 Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943 (Magnuson Act) Repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and permitted Chinese nationals already in the country to become naturalized citizens.
    1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran-Walter Act)
    • Set a quota for aliens with skills needed in the US.
    • Increased the power of the government to deport illegal immigrants suspected ofCommunist sympathies.
    1953 Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding Template:344 U.S. 590, 596 The Supreme Court found, “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”.
    1954 A wave of illegal immigration came from Mexico in the early 1950s, but it was dampened by President Eisenhower.[10]
    1965 INA Amendments (Hart-Celler Act)
    • Repealed the national-origin quotas.
    • Initiated a visa system for family reunification and skills.
    • Set a quota for Western Hemisphere immigration.
    • Set a 20k country limit for Eastern Hemisphere aliens.
    1966 Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act Cuban nationals who enter, or were already present in the United States, legal status.
    1970s The United States saw a total number of illegal immigrants estimated at 1.1 million, or half of one percent of the United States population.[11]
    1980s
    • About 1.3 million illegal immigrants entered the US.[12]
    1982 Plyler v. Doe,[13] 457 U.S. 202 (1982)The court also stated that illegal immigrants are “within the jurisdiction” of the states in which they reside and, therefore, receive 14th amendment protections and stated, “We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [457 U.S. 202, 212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.”
    1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act
    • Started sanctions for knowingly hiring illegal aliens.
    • Provided amnesty to illegal aliens already in the US.[14]
    • Increased border enforcement.
    • Made it a crime to hire an illegal immigrant
    1990s Over 5.8 million illegal immigrants entered the US in the 1990s.[15] Mexico rose to the head of the list of sending countries, followed by the Philippines, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and China.[16]
    1990 Immigration Act
    • Increased legal immigration ceilings.
    • Created a diversity admissions category.
    • Tripled the number of visas for priority workers and professionals with U.S. job offers[citation needed] [17]
    1990 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez[18] the court reiterated the finding of Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953), “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”.Stated, “those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 .”
    1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRaIRA)
    • Phone verification for worker authentication by employers.
    • Access to welfare benefits more difficult for legal aliens.
    • Increased border enforcement.
    • Reed Amendment attempted to deny visas to former U.S. citizens, but was never enforced[19]
    1999 Rodriguez v. United States, 169 F.3d 1342, (11th Cir. 1999) Held that statutes which discriminate within the class of aliens comport with the Due Process Clause of theFifth Amendment (and the equal protection principles it incorporates) so long as they satisfy rational basis scrutiny.
    Post 9/11/2001
    • An estimated 3.1 million immigrants entered the United States illegally between 2000 and 2005.[17]
    • From 1998 to 2001, Mexicans accounted for 68% of immigrants who entered the United States illegally. That percentage jumped to 78% for the years between 2001 and 2005, mostly due to stricter security measures that followed the September 11, 2001 Attacks upon the United States (which more efficiently prevented illegal entry from nations that did not share a land or maritime boundary with the United States).[20]
    2002 Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act
    • Provided for more Border Patrol agents.
    • Requires that schools report foreign students attending classes.
    • Stipulates that foreign nationals in the US will be required to carry IDs with biometric technology.[21]
    2005 REAL ID Act
    • Required use of IDs meeting certain security standards to enter government buildings, board planes, open bank accounts.
    • Created more restrictions on political asylum
    • Severely curtailed habeas corpus relief for immigrants
    • Increased immigration enforcement mechanisms
    • Altered judicial review
    • Established national standards for state driver licenses.
    • Cleared the way for the building of border barriers.

     

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-706

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

     

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

    The Pronk Pops Show 705, June 23, 2016, Story 1: Part 2 of 2, Trump Destroys The CLIPPER — Crooked Lying Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist Hillary Clinton — Sink — The CLIPPER, Sink The CLIPPER, Sink The CLIPPER –Sink Hillary Clinton — Elect Donald J. Trump — Videos

    Posted on June 23, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, Abortion, American History, Assault, Benghazi, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Cartoons, Coal, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Desertion, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Fast and Furious, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, Iraq, IRS, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic State, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Libya, Life, National Security Agency, Natural Gas, News, Obama, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Republican Candidates For President 2016, Resources, Scandals, Senate, Servers, Social Science, Taxation, Taxes, Ted Cruz, Terror, Terrorism, Transportation, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

    Project_1

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

    Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

     

    Story 1: Part 2 of 2,  Trump Destroys The CLIPPER — Crooked Lying Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist Hillary Clinton — Sink — The CLIPPER, Sink The CLIPPER, Sink The CLIPPER –Sink Hillary Clinton — Elect Donald J. Trump —  Videos

    HillaryClinton-Scandals-vs-DonaldTrumphillary-underwaterHillary-Clinton-and-racist-Margaret-Sanger

     

     

    Full Speech : Donald Trump Delivers Anti Hillary Clinton Speech in New York City 6/22/16

    FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Destroys Hillary Clinton In New York City Speech – 6/22/2016 Part 1!

    FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Destroys Hillary Clinton In New York City Speech – 6/22/2016 Part 2!

    FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Destroys Hillary Clinton In New York City Speech – 6/22/2016 Part 3!

    FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Destroys Hillary Clinton In New York City Speech – 6/22/2016 Part 4!

    Gutfeld: Meet the anti-Romney

    Donald Trump seeking to destroy Hillary Clinton

    The Real Story: June 22, 2016- Chris Wallace: Trump’s case has got to be against Clinton

    Anonymous – Hillary Clinton: The Hillary Files Full Documentary

    “Hillary’s America” Trailer | Official Teaser Trailer HD

    clinton cash

    Peter Schweizer talks Clinton Cash on CNN

    Clinton Cash The Movie Official Trailer

    Peter Schweizer

    “Money and Politics” – Peter Schweizer

    Peter Schweizer reacts to State Department IG report on Clinton Emails

    • The Tangled Clinton Web • Clinton Cash • 4/24/15 •

    Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.

    YouTube Debate: Hillary – Are You a Liberal?

    Hillary Clinton honors Margaret Sanger

    Hillary Clinton admires Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood

    – JUNE 22, 2016 –

    DONALD J. TRUMP ON THE STAKES OF THE ELECTION

    Today I‘d like to share my thoughts about the stakes in this election.

    People have asked me why I am running for President.

    I have built an amazing business that I love and I get to work side-by-side with my children every day.

    We come to work together and turn visions into reality.

    We think big, and then we make it happen.

    I love what I do, and I am grateful beyond words to the nation that has allowed me to do it.

    So when people ask me why I am running, I quickly answer: I am running to give back to this country which has been so good to me.

    When I see the crumbling roads and bridges, or the dilapidated airports, or the factories moving overseas to Mexico, or to other countries, I know these problems can all be fixed, but not by Hillary Clinton – only by me.

    The fact is, we can come back bigger and better and stronger than ever before –Jobs, jobs, jobs!

    Everywhere I look, I see the possibilities of what our country could be. But we can’t solve any of these problems by relying on the politicians who created them.

    We will never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the same people who rigged it in the first place.

    The insiders wrote the rules of the game to keep themselves in power and in the money.

    That’s why we’re asking Bernie Sanders’ voters to join our movement: so together we can fix the system for ALL Americans. Importantly, this includes fixing all of our many disastrous trade deals.

    Because it’s not just the political system that’s rigged. It’s the whole economy.

    It’s rigged by big donors who want to keep down wages.

    It’s rigged by big businesses who want to leave our country, fire our workers, and sell their products back into the U.S. with absolutely no consequences for them.

    It’s rigged by bureaucrats who are trapping kids in failing schools.

    It’s rigged against you, the American people.

    Hillary Clinton who, as most people know, is a world class liar –

    just look at her pathetic email and server statements, or her phony landing in Bosnia where she said she was under attack but the attack turned out to be young girls handing her flowers, a total self-serving lie.

    Brian Williams’ career was destroyed for saying far less.

    Yesterday, she even tried to attack me and my many businesses. But here is the bottom line: I started off in Brooklyn New York, not so long ago, with a small loan and built a business worth over 10 billion dollars. I have always had a talent for building businesses and, importantly, creating jobs. That is a talent our country desperately needs.

    I am running for President to end the unfairness and to put you, the American worker, first.

    We are going to put America First, and we are going to Make America Great again.

     

    This election will decide whether we are ruled by the people, or by the politicians.

    Here is my promise to the American voter:

    If I am elected President, I will end the special interest monopoly in Washington, D.C.

    The other candidate in this race has spent her entire life making money for special interests – and taking money from special interests.

    Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft.

    She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund – doing favors for oppressive regimes, and many others, in exchange for cash.

    Then, when she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests – in less than 2 years – secret speeches that she does not want to reveal to the public.

    Together, she and Bill made $153 million giving speeches to lobbyists, CEOs, and foreign governments in the years since 2001.

    They totally own her, and that will never change.

    The choice in this election is a choice between taking our government back from the special interests, or surrendering our last scrap of independence to their total and complete control.

    Those are the stakes.

    Hillary Clinton wants to be President. But she doesn’t have the temperament, or, as Bernie Sanders’ said, the judgement, to be president.

    She believes she is entitled to the office.

    Her campaign slogan is “I’m with her.”

    You know what my response to that is? I’m with you: the American people.

    She thinks it’s all about her.

    I know it’s all about you – I know it’s all about making America Great Again for All Americans.

     

    Our country lost its way when we stopped putting the American people first.

    We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy.

    We reward companies for offshoring, and we punish companies for doing business in America and keeping our workers employed.

    This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats.

    This is a wave of globalization that wipes out our middle class and our jobs.

    We need to reform our economic system so that, once again, we can all succeed together, and America can become rich again.

    That’s what we mean by America First.

    Our country will be better off when we start making our own products again, bringing our once great manufacturing capabilities back to our shores.

    Our Founders understood this.

    One of the first major bills signed by George Washington called for “the encouragement and protection of manufactur[ing]” in America.

    Our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned us by saying:

    “The abandonment of the protective policy by the American government will produce want and ruin among our people.”

    I have visited the cities and towns across America and seen the devastation caused by the trade policies of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    Hillary Clinton supported Bill Clinton’s disastrous NAFTA, just like she supported China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization.

    We’ve lost nearly one-third of our manufacturing jobs since these two Hillary-backed agreements were signed.

    Our trade deficit with China soared 40% during Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State — a disgraceful performance for which she should not be congratulated, but rather scorned.

    Then she let China steal hundreds of billions of dollars in our intellectual property – a crime which is continuing to this day.

    Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs, and effectively let China completely rebuild itself.

    In return, Hillary Clinton got rich!

    The book Clinton Cash, by Peter Schweitzer, documents how Bill and Hillary used the State Department to enrich their family at America’s expense.

    She gets rich making you poor.

    Here is a quote from the book: “At the center of US policy toward China was Hillary Clinton…at this critical time for US-china relations, Bill Clinton gave a number of speeches that were underwritten by the Chinese government and its supporters.”

    These funds were paid to the Clinton bank account while Hillary was negotiating with China on behalf of the United States.

    She sold out our workers, and our country, for Beijing.

    Hillary Clinton has also been the biggest promoter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will ship millions more of our jobs overseas – and give up Congressional power to an international foreign commission.

    Now, because I have pointed out why it would be such a disastrous deal, she is pretending that she is against it. She has even deleted this record of total support from her book – deletion is something she is very good at — (at least 30,000 emails are missing.)

    But this latest Clinton cover-up doesn’t change anything: if she is elected president, she will adopt the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and we will lose millions of jobs and our economic independence for good. She will do this, just as she has betrayed the American worker on trade at every single stage of her career – and it will be even worse than the Clintons’ NAFTA deal.

    I want trade deals, but they have to be great for the United States and our workers.

    We don’t make great deals anymore, but we will once I become president.

     

    It’s not just our economy that’s been corrupted, but our foreign policy too.

    The Hillary Clinton foreign policy has cost America thousands of lives and trillions of dollars – and unleashed ISIS across the world.

    No Secretary of State has been more wrong, more often, and in more places than Hillary Clinton.

    Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched.

    Among the victims is our late Ambassador, Chris Stevens. He was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed — that’s right, when the phone rang at

    3 o’clock in the morning, she was sleeping.

    Ambassador Stevens and his staff in Libya made hundreds of requests for security.

    Hillary Clinton’s State Department refused them all.

    She started the war that put him in Libya, denied him the security he asked for, then left him there to die.

    To cover her tracks, Hillary lied about a video being the cause of his death.

    Here is what one of the victim’s mothers had to say:

    “I want the whole world to know it: she lied to my face, and you don’t want this person to be president.”

    In 2009, before Hillary Clinton was sworn in, it was a different world.

    Libya was cooperating.

    Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence.

    Syria was under control.

    Iran was being choked by sanctions.

    Egypt was governed by a friendly regime that honored its peace treaty with Israel.

    ISIS wasn’t even on the map.

    Fast forward to 2013: In just four years, Secretary Clinton managed

    to almost single-handedly destabilize the entire Middle East.

    Her invasion of Libya handed the country over to the ISIS barbarians.

    Thanks to Hillary Clinton, Iran is now the dominant Islamic power in the Middle East, and on the road to nuclear weapons.

    Hillary Clinton’s support for violent regime change in Syria has thrown the country into one of the bloodiest civil wars anyone has ever seen – while giving ISIS a launching pad for terrorism against the West.

    She helped force out a friendly regime in Egypt and replace it with the radical Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian military has retaken control, but Clinton has opened the Pandora’s box of radical Islam.

    Then, there was the disastrous strategy of announcing our departure date from Iraq, handing large parts of the country over to ISIS killers.

    ISIS threatens us today because of the decisions Hillary Clinton has made.

    ISIS also threatens peaceful Muslims across the Middle East, and peaceful Muslims across the world, who have been terribly victimized by horrible brutality – and who only want to raise their kids in peace and safety.

    In short, Hillary Clinton’s tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another.

    It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place.

    Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize

    the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.

    But Hillary Clinton learned nothing from Iraq, because when she got into power,

    she couldn’t wait to rush us off to war in Libya.

    She lacks the temperament, the judgment and the competence to lead.

    In the words of a Secret Service agent posted outside the Oval Office:

    “She simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve

    in the office…from the bottom of my soul, I know this to be true…Her leadership style – volcanic, impulsive…disdainful of the rules set for everyone else – hasn’t changed a bit.”

    Perhaps the most terrifying thing about Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is that she refuses to acknowledge the threat posed by Radical Islam.

    In fact, Hillary Clinton supports a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees coming into the United States, and that’s an increase over President Obama’s already very high number.

    Under her plan, we would admit hundreds of thousands of refugees from the most dangerous countries on Earth – with no way to screen who they are or what they believe.

    Already, hundreds of recent immigrants and their children have been convicted of terrorist activity inside the U.S.

    The father of the Orlando shooter was a Taliban supporter from Afghanistan, one of the

    most repressive anti-gay and anti-women regimes on Earth.

    I only want to admit people who share our values and love our people.

    Hillary Clinton wants to bring in people who believe women should be enslaved

    and gays put to death.

    Maybe her motivation lies among the more than 1,000 foreign donations Hillary failed to disclose while at the State Department.

    Hillary Clinton may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.

    Here is some more of what we learned from the book,

    Clinton Cash:

    • A foreign telecom giant faced possible State Department sanctions for providing technology to Iran, and other oppressive regimes. So what did this company do? For the first time ever, they decided to pay Bill Clinton $750,000 for a single speech. The Clintons got their cash, the telecom company escaped sanctions.
    • Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while 9 investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
    • Hillary Clinton appointed a top donor to a national security board with top secret access – even though he had no national security credentials.
    • Hillary Clinton accepted $58,000 in jewelry from the government of Brunei when she was Secretary of State – plus millions more for her foundation. The Sultan of Brunei has pushed oppressive Sharia law, including the punishment of death by stoning for being gay. The government of Brunei also stands to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of Hillary’s Trans-Pacific Partnership, which she would absolutely approve if given the chance.
    • Hillary Clinton took up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia, where being gay is also punishable by death.
    • Hillary took millions from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and many other countries that horribly abuse women and LGBT citizens.

    To cover-up her corrupt dealings, Hillary Clinton illegally stashed her State Department emails on a private server.

    Her server was easily hacked by foreign governments – perhaps even by her financial backers in Communist China – putting all of America in danger.

    Then there are the 33,000 emails she deleted.

    While we may not know what is in those deleted emails, our enemies probably do.

    So they probably now have a blackmail file over someone who wants to be President of the United States.

    This fact alone disqualifies her from the Presidency.

    We can’t hand over our government to someone whose deepest, darkest secrets may be in the hands of our enemies.

     

    National security is also immigration security –

    and Hillary wants neither.

    Hillary Clinton has put forward the most radical immigration platform in the history of the United States.

    She has pledged to grant mass amnesty and in her first 100 days, end virtually all immigration enforcement, and thus create totally open borders in the United States

    The first victims of her radical policies will be poor African-American and Hispanic workers who need jobs. They are the ones she will hurt the most.

    Let me share with you a letter our campaign received from Mary Ann Mendoza.

    She lost her amazing son, Police Sergeant Brandon Mendoza, after he was killed by an illegal immigrant because of the open borders policies supported by Hillary Clinton.

    Sadly, the Mendoza family is just one of thousands who have suffered the same fate.

    Here is an excerpt from Mrs. Mendoza’s letter:

    “Hillary Clinton, who already has the blood of so many on her hands, is now announcing that she is willing to put each and every one of our lives in harms’ way – an open door policy to criminals and terrorists to enter our country. Hillary is not concerned about you or I, she is only concerned about the power the presidency would bring to her. She needs to go to prison to pay for the crimes she has already committed against this country.”

    Hillary also wants to spend hundreds of billions to resettle Middle Eastern refugees in the United States, on top of the current record level of immigration.

    For the amount of money Hillary Clinton would like to spend on refugees, we could rebuild every inner city in America.

    Hillary’s Wall Street immigration agenda will keep immigrant communities poor, and unemployed Americans out of work. She can’t claim to care about African-American and Hispanic workers when she wants to bring in millions of new low-wage workers

    to compete against them.

     

    Here are a few things a Trump Administration will do for America in the first 100 days:

    •  Appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution. Hillary Clinton’s radical judges will virtually abolish the 2nd amendment.
    • Change immigration rules to give unemployed Americans an opportunity to fill good-paying jobs
    • Stand up to countries that cheat on trade, of which there are many
    • Cancel rules and regulations that send jobs overseas
    • Lift restrictions on energy production
    • Repeal and replace job-killing Obamacare — it is a disaster.
    • Pass massive tax reform to create millions of new jobs.
    • Impose tough new ethics rules to restore dignity to the Office of Secretary of State.

    There is one common theme in all of these reforms.

    It’s going to be America First.

     

    This is why the stakes in November are so great.

    On election day, the politicians stand trial before the people.

    The voters are the jury. Their ballots are the verdict. We don’t need or want another Clinton or Obama.

    Come November, the American people will have a chance to issue a verdict on the politicians that have sacrificed their security, betrayed their prosperity, and sold out

    their country.

    They will have a chance to vote for a new agenda with big dreams, bold ideas and enormous possibilities for the American people.

    Hillary Clinton’s message is old and tired. Her message is that can’t change.

    My message is that things have to change – and this is our one chance do it. This is our last chance to do it.

    Americans are the people that tamed the West, that dug out the Panama Canal, that sent satellites across the solar system, that built the great dams, and so much more.

    Then we started thinking small.

    We stopped believing in what America could do, and became reliant on other countries, other people, and other institutions.

    We lost our sense of purpose, and daring.

    But that’s not who we are.

    Come this November, we can bring America back – bigger and better, and stronger than ever.

    We will build the greatest infrastructure on the planet earth – the roads and railways and airports of tomorrow.

    Our military will have the best technology and finest equipment – we will bring it back all the way.

    Massive new factories will come roaring into our country – breathing life and hope into our communities.

    Inner cities, which have been horribly abused by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party, will finally be rebuilt.

    Construction is what I know — nobody knows it better.

    The real wages for our workers have not been raised for 18 years — but these wages will start going up, along with the new jobs. Hillary’s massive taxation, regulation and open borders will destroy jobs and drive down wages for everyone.

    We are also going to be supporting our police and law enforcement — we can never forget the great job they do.

    I am also going to appoint great Supreme Court Justices.

    Our country is going to start working again.

    People are going to start working again.

    Parents are going to start dreaming big for their children again – including parents in our inner cities.

    Americans are going to start believing in the future or our country.

    We are going to make America rich again.

    We are going to make America safe again.

    We are going to make America Great Again – and Great Again For EVERYONE.

    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-on-the-stakes-of-the-election

    “You can’t change Donald” – Longtime Trump…

    Donald J. Trump: The Long Road to the White House (1980 – 2015)

    Full Event: Donald Trump Rally in Dallas, TX (6-16-16)

     

    Clinton ‘gets rich making you poor,’ Trump charges

     

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

     

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

    The Pronk Pops Show 704, June 22, 2016, Story 1: Part 1 of 2, Trump Destroys The CLIPPER — Crooked Lying Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist Hillary Clinton — Sink — The CLIPPER, Sink The CLIPPER, Sink The CLIPPER –Sink Hillary Clinton — Elect Donald J. Trump — Videos

    Posted on June 22, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Banking System, Benghazi, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Employment, Eugenics, Fast and Furious, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, Islam, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Medicare, Monetary Policy, National Security Agency, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Religion, Republican Candidates For President 2016, Resources, Rifles, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Servers, Social Science, Social Security, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Ted Cruz, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Transportation, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,