The Pronk Pops Show 693, June 6, 2016, Story 1: Trump Goes Off Message and Attacks Hispanic Judge — What About The Clinton Problems With Laureate Education, and International Youth Foundation (IYF)? — Bill Clinton Received $16.46 Million from For-Profit College (Laureate Education) as State Dept. Funneled $55 Million Back To International Youth Foundation (IYF) Through USAID Grants? — Videos

Posted on June 6, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Books, Breaking News, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, College, Communications, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Gangs, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Investments, Law, Legal Immigration, Media, News, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Republican Candidates For President 2016, Scandals, Senate, Social Networking, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, United States Constitution, United States of America, Wall Street Journal, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 635: March 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 634: March 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 633: March 1, 2016

 

Story 1: Trump Goes Off Message and Attacks Hispanic Judge — What About The Clinton Problems With Laureate Education, and International Youth Foundation (IYF)? — Bill Clinton Received $16.46 Million from For-Profit College (Laureate Education) as State Dept. Funneled $55 Million Back To International Youth Foundation (IYF) Through USAID Grants? — Videos

Trump launches into 12 minute tirade against Gonzalo Curiel

Donald trump “Face The Nation” Full Interview with John Dickerson June 5 2016

Morning Joe goes off on ‘completely racist’ Trump for remarks about judge

The Five 6/6/16 Full: Trump Mexican Judge, Clinton Anti 2nd Amendment

Trump opens up about Trump University lawsuit, federal judge

Trump says Muslim judges might not treat him fairly either

Bill O’Reilly – Trump University Judge Should Recuse Himself But Not Because He Did Anything Wrong

The Kelly File 6/6/16 – Megyn Kelly goes hard against Donald Trump on Trump University Controversy

BRUTAL: Newt Gingrich blasts Donald Trump for attack on Judge Curiel

Andrea Mitchell: Trump’s Attacks on Judge Are ‘Blatantly Racist’

Halperin Trump’s Attacks on Judge ‘Not Racial’ Because ‘Mexican Is Not a Race’

Jeffery Lord defends Trump and his attacks on Judge Curiel

Alberto Gonzales defends Donald Trump right to attack Judge Gonzalo Curiel

“Textbook Racist Comment”: Paul Ryan Rebukes Trump’s Attack on Judge’s Mexican Heritage

Justice 6/4/16 – Donald Trump FULL interview with Judge Jeanine Pirro on Hillary & Trump University

Trump go too far, make unforced error in attacks on judge?

Trump Attacks Judge Presiding Over Trump University Fraud Case

Judge Orders Release Of Trump University Documents


A Progressive’s Guide to Political Correctness

Is America Racist?

Who’s More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?

The Most Important Question About Abortion

war_against_the_weak

PJTV: ZoNation: Liberals and Democrats Are Racist, Not Republicans!

Black Genocide: The Democrats Institutionalized Racism

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

THE MOTHER OF BLACK GENOCIDE..MARGARET SANGER..FOUNDER OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Planned Parenthood Exposed

MAAFA 21 THE BLACK HOLOCAUST

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

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

Eugenics: Science In History

War on the Weak: Eugenics in America

Eugenics from USA to Germany

Eugenics in America: Then & Now

Endgame: Clip— The Use of Eugenics by the Ruling Elite

End Game – Blueprint For Global Enslavement – With Extras


Hillary Clinton For-profit Education Scandal Dwarfs Donald Trump University

Clinton Cash: New Book’s Bombshell Allegations

A controversial new book is creating a campaign firestorm for Hillary Clinton. It questions millions in foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state.

Former first couple Bill and Hillary Clinton say that when they left the White House 15 years ago, they had no money, owed millions, and didn’t know how they’d pay for their daughter Chelsea’s college education.

“We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Hillary Clinton said in a 2014 interview with ABC News.

Since then, the Clintons have earned more than $130 million.

Most people assume they’ve amassed their wealth through lucrative speaking engagements, with fees as high as $750,000. But who paid these fees – and why?

Author Peter Schweizer says many times foreign businessmen and governments made the enormous payments, believing the Clintons would help advance their interests.

clinton-cash-cover

Doug Becker, Founder, Chairman and CEO, Laureate Education, Inc.

Doug Becker, Founder, Chairman & CEO of Laureate Education, Inc. on the company’s history with the Clinton Global Initiative. Mr. Becker also describes the Food University Initiative, a partnership aimed towards developing talent infrastructure in Africa for sustainable food production.

UE – A conversation with President Bill Clinton

Trump Says Judge’s Mexican Heritage Presents ‘Absolute Conflict’

Republican’s charge that Judge Gonzalo Curiel has a conflict of interest draws criticism from some legal observers

By BRENT KENDALL
Updated June 3, 2016 10:03 a.m. ET
Donald Trump on Thursday escalated his attacks on the federal judge presiding over civil fraud lawsuits against Trump University, amid criticism from legal observers who say the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s comments are an unusual affront on an independent judiciary.

In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.

The New York businessman also alleged the judge was a former colleague and friend of one of the Trump University plaintiffs’ lawyers. The judge and the lawyer once worked together as federal prosecutors, but the lawyer, Jason Forge, in an interview said he had never seen the judge socially.
“Neither Judge Curiel’s ethnicity nor the fact that we crossed paths as prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office well over a decade ago is to blame” for Mr. Trump’s actions, said Mr. Forge, who is with the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

An assistant in Judge Curiel’s chambers said he wasn’t commenting on the matter. An aide to the judge has previously said the judicial code of conduct prevents him from responding to Mr. Trump. Judge Curiel is an Obama nominee who has served on the district court in San Diego since the Senate confirmed him in 2012.

Judge Curiel’s older brother, Raul Curiel, a 67-year-old in Hammond, Ind., said his brother wasn’t fazed by Mr. Trump’s comments. “He’s taking it pretty much in stride,” the elder Mr. Curiel said.
For judges, being criticized for rulings comes with the territory, but court watchers say it is a degree far different when the critic could win the nation’s highest office, is involved in a pending case and references the judge’s ethnicity.

University of Pennsylvania law professor Stephen Burbank said it was “absolute nonsense” that the judge shouldn’t be able to preside over the case because of his ethnicity.

“If this continues, I would hope that some prominent federal judges would set Mr. Trump straight on what’s appropriate and what’s not in our democracy,” Mr. Burbank said.

Mr. Trump in the interview said that he may do so. Other judges, he said, would have thrown out the plaintiffs’ case against the school, he said.

The GOP candidate’s comments follow a San Diego speech last week in which he called the judge “a hater of Donald Trump” and “a total disgrace,” while referencing the judge’s ethnicity.

Mr. Trump also criticized the judge Thursday on Twitter, saying he would win the litigation and reopen the now-defunct Trump University when the cases were done.

While Mr. Trump’s comments prompted criticism, he said he believed the bigger threat is to be treated unfairly by the courts. “It’s called freedom of speech,” he said of the criticisms.

Legal experts agreed that defendants have the First Amendment freedom to express opinions about a judge hearing their case—as long as they aren’t disruptive in the courtroom.

“It is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions,” Justice Hugo Black wrote in a 1941 Supreme Court decision that threw out contempt convictions of a newspaper publisher and a labor leader for speaking out on pending litigation.

Judge Curiel is presiding over a pair of cases in which the plaintiffs alleged Trump University duped them into paying tens of thousands of dollars on the belief they would be trained to learn Mr. Trump’s real-estate strategies. Mr. Trump denies the allegations, saying the students got their money’s worth, with many offering positive evaluations of the program.

The judge has issued pre-trial rulings against Mr. Trump and has unsealed documents in the case offering a detailed look at the business’s operations and scathing assessments from some former workers. One case is set to go to trial in November, after the election. No trial date has been set in the other case, with the next pretrial hearing set for July.

Such criticism is a closer call if the critic is a lawyer in the case, because attorneys are bound by professional conduct rules.

Lawyers in some instances have faced sanctions for controversial criticisms of judges, while in other cases they have avoided punishment.

Mr. Trump is being represented by a prominent national law firm, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, whose alumni include federal appeals court Judge Sri Srinivasan, who was on President Barack Obama’s recent short list for the Supreme Court.

Firm representatives didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The code of conduct for federal judges restricts them from “mak[ing] public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court” and bars them from publicly endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office. But in at least one rare instance, judges came to the defense of a colleague they believed was being unfairly targeted with political attacks.

During the 1996 presidential campaign, both President Bill Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole, the Republican nominee, criticized a Clinton-appointed New York federal judge, Harold Baer, who excluded prosecutors’ evidence in a high-profile narcotics case. In response, four judges on the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a statement in defense of Judge Baer, saying the officials’ remarks had gone “too far” and could intimidate other judges.

Judge Baer later reversed his ruling, though he said it wasn’t because of political pressure. He eventually took himself off the case.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442

Alberto R. Gonzales: Trump has a right to ask if Judge Gonzalo Curiel is fair

If judges aren’t seen as impartial, the public will lose faith in the rule of law.

By Alberto R. Gonzales

Donald Trump suggested this week that U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel can’t give him a fair hearing. Curiel, who is presiding over a class-action suit against Trump over his former for-profit educational company, Trump University, is a U.S. citizen, born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants. “I’m building a wall” on the U.S.-Mexico border if elected, the presumptive Republican nominee for president told the Wall Street Journal on Thursday. “It’s an inherent conflict of interest.” Earlier in the week, he told a crowd at a rally in San Diego that Curiel was “a hater of Donald Trump, a hater.”

As a private citizen, Trump has a right to his opinions, regardless of whether others agree with them, or whether others consider them wise, foolish or even dangerous. Trump, of course, is more than a private citizen; as the likely nominee for president of a major political party, he speaks with a voice that carries much weight and, if successful in November, will influence millions of people. Because of this, some commentators have condemned Trump’s suggestion that Curiel step down from the case. These voices have, quite rightly, emphasized the importance of upholding our independent judiciary from baseless attacks by high-level persons from other branches of government.

An independent judiciary is extremely important. But that value is not the only one in play here. Equally important, if not more important from my perspective as a former judge and U.S. attorney general, is a litigant’s right to a fair trial. The protection of that right is a primary reason why our Constitution provides for an independent judiciary. If judges and the trials over which they preside are not perceived as being impartial, the public will quickly lose confidence in the rule of law upon which our nation is based. For this reason, ethics codes for judges — including the federal code of conduct governing Curiel — require not only that judges actually be impartial, but that they avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.”  That appearance typically is measured from the standpoint of a reasonable litigant.

It is crucial to understand the real issue in this matter. I am not judging whether Curiel is actually biased against Trump. Only he knows the answer to that question. I am not saying that I would be concerned about him presiding over a case in which I was a litigant. And if I were a litigant who was concerned about the judge’s impartiality, I certainly would not deal with it in a public manner as Trump has, because it demeans the integrity of the judicial office and thus potentially undermines the independence of the judiciary, especially coming from a man who could be president by this time next year. But none of these issues is the test. The test is whether there is an “appearance of impropriety” under the facts as they reasonably appear to a litigant in Trump’s position.

Certainly, Curiel’s Mexican heritage alone would not be enough to raise a question of bias (for all we know, the judge supports Trump’s pledge to better secure our borders and enforce the rule of law). As someone whose own ancestors came to the United States from Mexico, I know ethnicity alone cannot pose a conflict of interest.

But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable. Curiel is, reportedly, a member of a group called La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. Trump’s aides, meanwhile, have indicated that they believe Curiel is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a vocal advocacy organization that has vigorously condemned Trump and his views on immigration. The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers’ association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization. Coupled with that question is the fact that in 2014, when he certified the class-action lawsuit against Trump, Curiel appointed the Robbins Geller law firm to represent plaintiffs. Robbins Geller has paid $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009 to Trump’s likely opponent, Hillary Clinton, and to her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Curiel appointed the firm in the case before Trump entered the presidential race, but again, it might not be unreasonable for a defendant in Trump’s position to wonder who Curiel favors in the presidential election. These circumstances, while not necessarily conclusive, at least raise a legitimate question to be considered. Regardless of the way Trump has gone about raising his concerns over whether he’s getting a fair trial, none of us should dismiss those concerns out of hand without carefully examining how a defendant in his position might perceive them — and we certainly should not dismiss them for partisan political reasons.

Finally, some have said that Trump’s criticism of the judge reflects on his qualifications to be president. If the criticism is solely based on Curiel’s race, that is something voters will take into account in deciding whether he is fit to be president. If, however, Trump is acting from a sincere motivation to protect his constitutional right to a fair trial, his willingness to exercise his rights as an American citizen and raising the issue even in the face of severe criticism is surely also something for voters to consider.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/04/alberto-r-gonzales-trump-has-a-right-to-question-whether-hes-getting-a-fair-trial/

Hillary University: Bill Clinton Bagged $16.46 Million from For-Profit College as State Dept. Funneled $55 Million Back

With her campaign sinking in the polls, Hillary Clinton has launched a desperate attack against Trump University to deflect attention away from her deep involvement with a controversial for-profit college that made the Clintons millions, even as the school faced serious legal scrutiny and criminal investigations.

In April 2015, Bill Clinton was forced to abruptly resign from his lucrative perch as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. The reason for Clinton’s immediate departure: Clinton Cash revealed, and Bloomberg confirmed, that Laureate funneled Bill Clinton $16.46 million over five years while Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. pumped at least $55 million to a group run by Laureate’s founder and chairman, Douglas Becker, a man with strong ties to the Clinton Global Initiative. Laureate has donated between $1 million and $5 million (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton Foundation. Progressive billionaire George Soros is also a Laureate financial backer.

As the Washington Post reports, “Laureate has stirred controversy throughout Latin America, where it derives two-thirds of its revenue.” During Bill Clinton’s tenure as Laureate’s chancellor, the school spent over $200 million a year on aggressive telemarketing, flashy Internet banner ads, and billboards designed to lure often unprepared students from impoverished countries to enroll in its for-profit classes. The goal: get as many students, regardless of skill level, signed up and paying tuition.

“I meet people all the time who transfer here when they flunk out elsewhere,” agronomy student Arturo Bisono, 25, told the Post. “This has become the place you go when no one else will accept you.”

Others, like Rio state legislator Robson Leite who led a probe into Bill Clinton’s embattled for-profit education scheme, say the company is all about extracting cash, not educating students. “They have turned education into a commodity that focuses more on profit than knowledge,” said Leite.

Progressives have long excoriated for-profit education companies for placing profits over quality pedagogy. Still, for five years, Bill Clinton allowed his face and name to be plastered all over Laureate’s marketing materials. As Clinton Cash reported, pictures of Bill Clinton even lined the walkways at campuses like Laureate’s Bilgi University in Istanbul, Turkey. That Laureate has campuses in Turkey is odd, given that for-profit colleges are illegal there, as well as in Mexico and Chile where Laureate also operates.

Shortly after Bill Clinton’s lucrative 2010 Laureate appointment, Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. began pumping millions of its USAID dollars to a sister nonprofit, International Youth Foundation (IYF), which is run by Laureate’s founder and chairman, Douglas Becker. Indeed, State Dept. funding skyrocketed once Bill Clinton got on the Laureate payroll, according to Bloomberg:

A Bloomberg examination of IYF’s public filings show that in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.

Throughout ten Democratic Party debates, Establishment Media have not asked Hillary Clinton a single question about she and her husband’s for-profit education scam.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-university-bill-clinton-bagged-16-46-million-from-for-profit-college-as-state-dept-funneled-55-million-back/

JUDGE, LAW FIRM BRINGING TRUMP U CASE BOTH TIED TO LA RAZA

Curiel awarded scholarship to illegal immigrant

The federal judge presiding over the Trump University class action lawsuit is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a group that while not a branch of the National Council of La Raza, has ties to the controversial organization, which translates literally “The Race.”
U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who has been criticized by Donald Trump as a “hater” appointed by President Obama who should be recused from the case, listed his membership in the “La Raza Lawyers of San Diego” on a judicial questionnaire he filled out when he was selected to be a federal judge. He was named in a brochure as a member of the selection committee for the organization’s 2014 Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala. Meanwhile, the San-Diego based law firm representing the plaintiffs in the Trump University case, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, was listed as a sponsor of the event.
WND reported the San Diego firm paid $675,000 to the Clintons for speeches, and the firm’s founder is a wealthy San Diego lawyer who served a two-year sentence in federal prison for his role in a kickback scheme to mobilize plaintiffs for class-action lawsuits.While critics of Trump have argued that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers’ association is not affiliated with the National Council of La Raza, consider the following:

Further, while the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the National Council of La Raza are legally separate incorporated entities, the two groups appear to have an affiliation that traces back to the emergence of MEChA, the Moviemento Estudiantil Chicanos de Atzlán.

MEChA is a 1960s radical separatist student movement in California that espoused the mythical Aztec idea of a “nation of Aztlán,” comprising much of the southwestern United States, including California.

As David Horowitz points out on his website Discover the Networks that La Raza, Spanish for “the race,” also has roots in the early 1960s with a “united front” organization, the National Organization for Mexican American Services, NOMAS. The group initially was funded by the Ford Foundation, and subsequently by George Soros’ Open Society Institute and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

In 1968, the Southwest Council of La Raza was organized with Ford Foundation funding. In 1972, the group changed its name to the National Council of La Raza and opened an office in Washington, D.C.

Award to illegal alien

At the 2014 San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association event at which Curiel served as a panel member, one of the recipients of a $1,500 scholarship, Ricardo Elorza, boast about being an illegal immigrant.

“Mr. Elorza wishes to someday tell any student struggling with higher education, ‘Look, a boy from Oaxaca, who did not know English, and is undocumented has now graduated from law school and is an attorney,” the San Diego La Raza Lawyers’ Association brochure for the 2014 Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala said.

The “Pro Bono & Community Service” page on the Robbins Geller website lists the La Raza Scholarship Fund as one of the causes the firm’s attorney and staff have supported for more than a decade.

In 2014, the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Scholarship Fund named past president and then-current endorsement committee chair George Aguilar, a Robbins Geller attorney, as the groups 2014 Attorney of the Year.

On May 26, the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association held a reception for Curiel, honoring him “for his leadership and support to the community and to our association.”

Hillary Clinton’s ties to La Raza

In 2007, Hillary Clinton named Raul Yzaguirre, the former president of the National Council of La Raza, to co-chair her presidential campaign and to lead its outreach to Hispanic voters.

In the announcement, the Clinton campaign noted that under Yzaguirre’s leadership, the National Council of La Raza became the largest Hispanic advocacy organization in the nation, with 41 state affiliates and revenues exceeding $3 million, including corporate contributions, philanthropic foundation grants, federal taxpayer support and private member donations.

Yzaguirre was a member of the 2007 Council on Foreign Relations task force that published a report titled “Building a North American Community,” which some critics regard as the blueprint for the creation of a regional North American Union modeled after the European Union.

In the speech, Hillary attacked Trump, characterizing him as engaging in hate speech toward Latinos.

“It was appalling to hear Donald Trump describe immigrants as drug dealers, rapists, and criminals,” Clinton said. “He’s talking about people you and I know, isn’t he? He’s talking about people who love this country, work hard, and want nothing more than a chance to build a better life for themselves and their children.”

She then attacked Trump for not apologizing to Hispanics.

“And when people and businesses everywhere rejected his hateful comments, did he apologize? No. He doubled down,” Clinton continued. “It’s shameful. And no one should stand for it.

“So I have just one word for Mr. Trump: BASTA! Enough!” she concluded, receiving an enthusiastic response from her audience.

La Raza named in anti-Trump violent protests

While the National Council on La Raza has made clear the organization does not endorse anti-Trump protesters engaging in violent acts, demonstrators in California were marked by the presence of Mexican flags, which resonates with the separatist ideology of radical La Raza Hispanic activists in California since the 1960s.

Commentators such as talk-host Tammy Bruce and former Republican Rep. Allen West have identified anti-Trump protesters in California as La Raza activists.

On May 27, an estimated 1,000 anti-Trump protesters waved Mexican flags and burned Trump “Make America Great Again” baseball caps outside the San Diego Convention Center while chanting slogans protesting Trump’s candidacy and his vow to build a wall to control illegal immigration.

On June 3, Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, wrote in an April 3 column for Breitbart that the recent increase in violent Hispanic demonstrations suggests the influence of La Raza activists, with the group’s history of identifying with the Mexican Reconquista movement.

“The Mexican Reconquista movement is a rejection of American sovereignty over lands that, according to mythology, were formerly held by the Aztecs throughout the southwestern United States,” Manning noted. “And it is telling that many of the anti-Trump protesters reject his notion to ‘make America great again’ instead waving Mexican flags while burning the Stars and Stripes.”

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-judges-group-tied-to-national-council-of-laraza/#9Qspj15ZZyYOWdXu.99

Author Alleges Bill Clinton Just Quit Education Company Because of ‘Clinton Cash’

The ex-president called it quits to avoid a wave of negative publicity, Peter Schweizer says.

Author Alleges Bill Clinton Just Quit Education Company Because of ‘Clinton Cash’

The ex-president called it quits to avoid a wave of negative publicity, Peter Schweizer says.

Judicial disqualification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons ofethics may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or presiding officer must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned.

Recusal in the United States

In the United States, the term “recusal” is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned “Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge,” provides that a federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The section also provides that a judge is disqualified “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding”; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.

28 U.S.C. Section 144, captioned “Bias or prejudice of judge,” provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a “timely and sufficient Motion that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party,” the case shall be transferred to another judge.

The general rule is that, to warrant recusal, a judge’s expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the “extra-judicial source rule” and was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky v. United States.

At times justices or judges will recuse themselves sua sponte (on their own motion), recognizing that facts leading to their disqualification are present. However, where such facts exist, a party to the case may suggest recusal. Generally, each judge is the arbiter of a motion for the judge’s recusal, which is addressed to the judge’s conscience and discretion. However, where lower courts are concerned, an erroneous refusal to recuse in a clear case can be reviewed on appeal or, under extreme circumstances, by a petition for awrit of prohibition.

In certain special situations, circumstances that would otherwise call for recusal of a judge or group of judges may be disregarded, when otherwise no judge would be available to hear the case. For example, if a case concerns a salary increase payable to a judge, that judge would ordinarily be disqualified from hearing the case. However, if the pay increase is applicable to all of the judges in the court system, the judge will keep the case, because the grounds for recusal would be equally applicable to any other judge. The principle that a judge will not be disqualified when the effect would be that no judge could hear the case is sometimes referred to as the “rule of necessity”.[1]

Supreme Court cases

In the Supreme Court of the United States, the Justices typically recuse themselves from participating in cases in which they have financial interests. For example, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor generally did not participate in cases involving telecommunications firms because she owned stock in these firms, and Justice Stephen Breyer has disqualified himself in some cases involving insurance companies because of his participation in a Lloyd’s of London syndicate. Justices also have declined to participate in cases in which close relatives, such as their children, are lawyers for one of the parties. Even if the family member is connected to one of the parties but is not directly involved in the case, justices may recuse themselves – for instance Clarence Thomas recused himself in United States v. Virginia because his son was attending Virginia Military Institute, whose policies were the subject of the case. On occasion, recusal occurs under more unusual circumstances; for example, in two cases, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist stepped down from the bench when cases were argued by Arizona attorney James Brosnahan, who had testified against Rehnquist at his confirmation hearing in 1986. Whatever the reason for recusal, the United States Reports will record that the named justice “took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.”

Historically, standards for recusal in the Supreme Court and lower courts were less rigorous than they have become in more recent years. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall participated in the decision and authored the opinion of the Court even though Marshall’s actions as Secretary of State two years prior could be seen as the subject of the proceeding. On the other hand, Marshall did recuse himself in both the 1813 and 1816 hearings of Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, despite its equally significant constitutional implications, as he and his brother had contracted with Martin to buy the land in dispute. Moreover, during the 19th century, the U.S. federal court system was structured so that an appeal from a judge’s decision was often heard by an appellate panel containing the same judge, who was expected to sit in impartial review of his own earlier ruling. This situation is no longer permissible, and 28 U.S.C. § 47 provides that “No judge shall hear or determine an appeal from the decision of a case or issue tried by him.”

A notable dispute over recusal in U.S. Supreme Court history took place in 1946, when Justice Hugo Black participated in deciding the Jewell Ridge Coal case, although a former law partner of Black argued for the prevailing side. The losing party in the 5–4 decision sought reargument on the ground that Black should have been disqualified; Black declined to recuse himself and the decision stood, but Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote a short opinion suggesting that the decision that Black should sit in the case was Black’s alone and the Court did not endorse it. The dispute aggravated infighting between Black and Jackson, and it has been suggested that this was one of the reasons that, when Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone died, President Harry S. Truman appointed Fred M. Vinson to succeed Stone rather than promote a sitting Associate Justice to Chief Justice.

In 1973, then-Associate Justice Rehnquist wrote a lengthy in-chambers opinion declining to recuse himself in Laird v. Tatum, a case challenging the validity of certain arrests, even though Rehnquist had previously served as a White House lawyer and opined that the arrest program was valid.[2] In 2004, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an opinion declining to recuse himself in a case to which Vice President Dick Cheney was a party in his official capacity, despite the contention of several environmental groups that Scalia’s participation created an appearance of impropriety because Scalia had recently participated in a widely publicized hunting trip with the Vice President.[3] The same year, however, Scalia recused himself without explanation in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a First Amendment case challenging inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, after giving a public speech in which Scalia stated his view that Newdow’s claims were meritless.

Other federal cases

In 1974, Federal Judge Leon Higginbotham issued his decision in Comm. of Pa. v. Local 542, Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, explaining why he as an African American judge with a history of active involvement in the civil rights struggle was not obligated to recuse himself from presiding over litigation concerning claims of racial discrimination.[4] He held, in an opinion that was followed by later judges, including a series of black judges who faced recusal requests, that a judge should not be forced to recuse solely because of their membership in a minority group.[5] Jewish federal Judge Paul Borman relied on the Higginbotham opinion in part in his 2014 decision not to recuse himself from the trial of Palestinian-American Rasmea Odeh.[6] Similarly, in 1994, Jewish then-federal-Judge Michael Mukasey refused to recuse himself in a case concerning the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, warning that his recusal would “disqualify not only an obscure district judge such as the author of this opinion, but also Justices Brandeis andFrankfurter … each having been both a Jew and a Zionist.”[7]

Administrative agency and other matters

Outside the judicial system, the concept of recusal is also applied in administrative agencies. When a member of a multi-member administrative body is recused, the remaining members typically determine the outcome. When the sole occupant of an official position is recused, the matter may be delegated to the official’s deputy or to a temporarily designated official; for example, when the Solicitor General of the United States is recused from a case, the Deputy Solicitor General will handle the matter in his or her place.

Concepts analogous to recusal also exist in the legislative branch. The rules of the United States Senate and House of Representatives provide that a Member should not vote on a measure as to which he or she has a personal financial interest. In such cases, the Senator or Representative may record a vote of “present” rather than “yea” or “nay”.

Applicable to most countries

Laws or court rules provide the recusal of judges. Although the details vary, the following are nearly universal grounds for recusal.

  • The judge is related to a party, attorney, or spouse of either party (usually) within three degrees of kinship.
  • The judge is a party.
  • The judge is a material witness unless pleading purporting to make the Judge a party is false (determined by presiding judge, but see substitution).
  • The judge has previously acted in the case in question as an attorney for a party, or participated in some other capacity.
  • The judge prepared any legal instrument (such as a contract or will) whose validity or construction is at issue.
  • Appellate judge previously handled case as a trial judge.
  • The judge has personal or financial interest in the outcome. This particular ground varies by jurisdiction. Some require recusal if there is any interest at all in the outcome, while others only require recusal if there is interest beyond a certain value.
  • The judge determines he or she cannot act impartially.

Responsibility and consequences

A judge who has grounds to recuse himself is expected to do so. If a judge does not know that grounds exist to recuse themselves the error is harmless. If a judge does not recuse themselves when they should have known to do so, they may be subject to sanctions, which vary by jurisdiction. Depending on the jurisdiction, if an appellate court finds a judgment to have been made when the judge in question should have been recused, it may set aside the judgment and return the case for retrial.

Waiver and substitution

The recusal rule may be avoided or ignored if all parties and the judge agree, although in practice this rarely occurs. If recusal is avoided in this manner, a full and complete record of the facts that qualify as grounds, above, must be made for the appellate court.

If a judge fails to recuse themselves sua sponte and a party believes the judge has a bias the party may motion for substitution. In some jurisdictions litigants may have the right to substitute a judge, even if no bias is demonstrated.

See also

References

  • Wis. Stat. sec. 757.19(2)
  • Wis. SCR 60.04(4)
  • State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis.2d 411, 436 (1977).
  1. Jump up^ See United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).
  2. Jump up^ Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 824 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers).
  3. Jump up^ Cheney v. United States District Court, 541 U.S. 913 (2004) (Scalia, J., in chambers).
  4. Jump up^ http://www.leagle.com/decision/1974543388FSupp155_1516.xml/COMMONWEALTH%20OF%20PA.%20v.%20LOCAL%20U.%20542,%20INT.%20U.%20OF%20OP.%20ENG.
  5. Jump up^ [1]
  6. Jump up^ [2]
  7. Jump up^ [3]

External links

AJH Lawyers Pty Ltd v Careri and Others (2013) 34 VR 236

Further reading

Gonzalo P. Curiel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the United States District Judge. For the film composer, see Gonzalo Curiel.
Gonzalo Curiel
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel.jpg
Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Assumed office
October 1, 2012
Appointed by Barack Obama
Preceded by Thomas Whelan
Personal details
Born Gonzalo Paul Curiel
1953 (age 62–63)
East Chicago, Indiana, U.S.
Alma mater Indiana University, Bloomington

Gonzalo Paul Curiel (born 1953) is a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.[1]

Early life and education

Curiel was born in East Chicago, Indiana, the youngest of four children. Their parents, Salvador and Francisca, had emigrated from Mascota, which is a small Mexican town near Puerto Vallarta in the state of Jalisco. Salvador worked as a laborer in Arizona before moving to Indiana where he worked in the steel mills.[nb 1] Curiel’s parents married in 1946 and later became American citizens.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Curiel graduated from high school at the Bishop Noll Institute.[2] He received his Bachelor of Arts Degree from Indiana University in 1976 and his Juris Doctor from the Indiana University School of Law in 1979.[3][4][7]

Legal career

He served in private practice, first at James, James & Manning from 1979 to 1986 and then at Barbosa & Vera from 1986 to 1989.[4][7]

He was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of California from 1989 to 2002.[3][4][7] While in the Southern District, he served as Deputy Chief (1996-1999) and then Chief (1999-2002) of the Narcotics Enforcement Division.[3][4][7] During his tenure with the Narcotics Enforcement Division, Curiel prosecuted the Arellano Felix cartel in Tijuana, Mexico,[5][6] and was targeted for assassination by the drug cartel.[1][8][9] He was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California from 2002 to 2006.[3][4][7]

Superior Court

In 2006, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Curiel to the San Diego County Superior Court,[10][11] the position he held until his appointment to the federal bench.[7]

Federal judicial service

On November 10, 2011, President Obama nominated Curiel to serve as a judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.[7] He replaced Judge Thomas J. Whelan, who had taken senior status. Curiel received a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 28, 2012, which reported his nomination to the Senate on April 26, 2012, by voice vote. In the early hours of September 22, 2012, on what was officially still the legislative day of September 21, the Senate confirmed Curiel by voice vote. He received his commission on October 1, 2012.[3]

Trump University lawsuits

Main article: Trump University

In February 2014, Curiel certified Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University as a class action and accepted residents of three states as members of that class.[12] In October 2014, Curiel certified Cohen v. Trump as a national class action.[13] Trump’s lawyer said that Trump would be asking Curiel to recuse himself from Cohen because Curiel had “animosity toward Mr. Trump and his views.”[14]

In April 2015, after Trump lost his defamation suit against Makaeff, she asked for $1.3 million in compensation for her legal expenses, and Curiel ordered Trump University to pay $798,000. The Trump Organization said that it would appeal the award.[15] In March 2016, Curiel allowed Makaeff to withdraw her name from the lawsuit that she had filed in 2010, and the case was retitled Low v. Trump University.[16][17] On May 27, 2016, Curiel granted a request by The Washington Post for public release of certain Trump University documents and depositions that had been filed in the case.[17][18]

Curiel is the presiding judge in the Low case and has scheduled a trial to begin November 28, 2016, in San Diego.[19] Curiel had planned to start the trial in summer 2016, but postponed it until after the election because of concerns that jurors would be affected by a “media frenzy” if the trial took place during the presidential campaign.[19] Trump is scheduled to attend the trial and testify.[19]

Trump has repeatedly criticized Curiel in campaign speeches and interviews, calling him a “hater” and claiming that Curiel is “we believe, Mexican.”[1][17][19][20][21]Trump also ordered his campaign surrogates and allies to attack Curiel’s credibility.[22] Trump has said Curiel should recuse himself from the case because of an “inherent conflict of interest” based on Trump’s proposal to construct a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.[17][21] Furthermore, Trump claimed that Curiel is a friend of a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, which the lawyer denied.[23] Legal experts have stated that ethnicity should not disqualify a judge from presiding over any case, and have noted that Trump’s lawyers have not filed a motion to request a different judge.[1][17][23]

In an order releasing Trump University documents, Curiel wrote that Trump has “placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue.”[1][17][18][23] Other than that Curiel has not commented on the issue; an aide said Curiel would not be commenting because of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges,[23][24] which states in part that federal judges “should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.”[25]

During the trial, conservative media reported that Curiel was a member of the La Raza. The Washington Post pointed out that Curiel was not a member of theNational Council of La Raza, but the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. Furthermore, Luis O. Osuna, the president of the Lawyers Association, responded by explaining that the name translates to “the people and the power of people banding together for justice.”[26][27] Regardless, the National Council of La Raza was associated with the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association in its endorsements page.[28][29]

Notes

  1. Jump up^ It has been reported that Salvador came to the U.S. through the Bracero program which was established in 1942; Gonzalo’s brother Raul says their father became a legal resident prior to the arrival of their mother Francisca in 1946.[2] Raul has aso reportedly said that Salvador arrived in the U.S. in the 1920s.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalo_P._Curiel

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-693

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: