Archive for March, 2018

The Pronk Pops Show 1054, March 29, 2018, Story 1: Attorney General Sessions Reveals U.S. Attorney John Huber To Investigate Criminal Activity of FBI, Department of Justice, and Obama Administration Employees — May Appoint Special Counsel Latter If Warranted — Story 2: Clinton Obama Democrat Conspiracy — Videos — Story 3: Trump Has 30 Months To Complete 2,000 Mile Wall — No Wall and Trump Voters and Supporters Will Abandon and Dump Trump —  Stop and Rollback and Deport All 30-60 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of United States Over the Last 26 Years — Videos —

Posted on March 29, 2018. Filed under: American History, Applications, Blogroll, Breaking News, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Communications, Computers, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Elections, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Government, Freedom of Speech, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hardware, Health, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, James Comey, Killing, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, National Interest, National Security Agency, Networking, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Public Corruption, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Robert S. Mueller III, Scandals, Security, Senate, Servers, Software, Spying on American People, Treason, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1054, March 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1053, March 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

Story 1: Attorney General Sessions Reveals U.S. Attorney John Huber To Investigate Criminal Activity of FBI, Department of Justice, and Obama Administration Employees — May Appoint Special Counsel Latter If Warranted — Videos

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

Goodlatte on Huber’s ability to investigate the DOJ, FBI

Mark Meadows: Obama White House Was Leading Spying on Trump Campaign

Reps. Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows: McCabe lied four times

Sessions won’t hire special counsel to probe anti-Trump FBI bias

AG Sessions declines to appoint second special counsel to review FBI

Sessions names prosecutor investigating FBI misconduct

Andrew McCabe lied to James Comey four times: Report

Inspector general opens probe of alleged bias in FBI, DOJ

Jeff Sessions reacts to calls for a second special counsel

Sessions declines to appoint special counsel to investigate alleged FBI misconduct

Sean Hannity Mar 29, 2018 – Sean hannity FOX News – Breaking News

Sara Carter Jason Chaffetz Gregg Jarrett on the Investigations on Hannity March 28 2018

 

Explosive: Two Of Roger Stone’s Closest Associates Say He’s Lying | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC

Judge Nap: Mueller Just Dropped ‘Biggest Hint’ Yet of Trump-Russia Collusion

Devin Nunes: Obama Officials Were Being Briefed on the Trump Campaign by FBI in the White House

Sessions names prosecutor investigating FBI misconduct

Trumps New Lawyer Joe DiGenova Exposes The FBI, NSA, CIA, DOJ’s plot To Frame Trump & Cover Hillary

Lindsey Graham and Judge Nap on Very Strange Susan Rice E-mail!

Debate: Susan Rice’s email and what did Obama know about Russia probe?

Former US attorney: FBI officials will likely face charges

Inspector General report will determine if Comey or McCabe lied: Grassley

Rep. Jordan: FBI texts about Obama raise lots of concerns

Laugh With Delight at the #DeepState Mental Breakdown: We Are Destroying Our Republic’s Enemies

Insane New Obama Conspiracy Theory From Fox News Host

Levin Show 3/29/18 – Mark Levin Show March 29,2018 Full Podcast

Ingraham: The lawlessness of the Democratic Party

Sessions: Federal prosecutor evaluating alleged FBI, DOJ wrongdoing, no second special counsel for now

By Brooke Singman | Fox News

Attorney General Jeff Sessions revealed Thursday a federal prosecutor was evaluating certain issues involving the FBI, the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One, but said he would not appoint a second special counsel at this point.

In a letter directed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, Sessions revealed that he asked U.S. Attorney John Huber to lead the evaluation into issues raised by the committees in recent months.

“I write in response to recent letters requesting the appointment of a Special Counsel to review certain prosecutorial and investigative determinations made by the Department of Justice in 2016 and 2017. I take the concerns you raise seriously,” Sessions wrote, noting how important it was that the American people and Congress had “confidence” in the Justice Department.

Congressmen Gowdy and Goodlatte have called for a second special counsel to investigate possible FISA abuses; the attorney general weighs in on 'Fox News @ Night.'

Sessions referenced a November 2017 letter sent by Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, first reported by Fox News, directing senior federal prosecutors to evaluate “certain issues” requested by congressional Republicans, involving the sale of Uranium One and alleged unlawful dealings related to the Clinton Foundation.

On Nov. 13, 2017, Boyd wrote: “These senior prosecutors will report directly to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General [Rod Rosenstein], as appropriate, and will make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.”

Sessions revealed Thursday in the letter to top Republican lawmakers in both chambers of Congress that Huber was the senior federal prosecutor leading that effort.

“Mr. Huber is conducting his work from outside the Washington D.C. area and in cooperation with the Inspector General,” Sessions said, noting that Huber’s review would “include a full, complete, and objective evaluation of these matters in a manner that is consistent with the law and facts.”

Sessions revealed that he asked U.S. Attorney John Huber, seen here, to look into the accusations.

Huber is a federal prosecutor, twice confirmed, unanimously, by the Senate as U.S. attorney for the District of Utah in 2015 and again in 2017. Huber previously served in leadership roles within the U.S. Attorney’s Office as national security section chief and executive assistant U.S. attorney.

“I receive regular updates from Mr. Huber and upon the conclusion of his review, will receive his recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel,” Sessions said.

Huber ultimately would be the prosecutor to decide whether issues raised by Republicans in Congress warrant the appointment of a second special counsel, Sessions said.

The attorney general cited U.S. Code, noting that the appointment of a special counsel was “reserved for use in only the most ‘extraordinary circumstances,'” and that any special counsel must be “selected from outside the United States Government.”

“To justify such an appointment, the Attorney General would need to conclude that ‘the public interest would be served by removing a large degree of responsibility for the matter from the Department of Justice,” the letter read.

Insight from Daniel Halper, contributing editor with the Washington Free Beacon and author of 'Clinton Inc.'

Sessions added, “The Department has successfully investigated and prosecuted many high-profile resource-intensive matters since the regulations were promulgated in 1999, but the regulations’ standard has been found to be satisfied on only two occasions,” and said it was “more common” to appoint “accountable prosecutors” to conduct investigations within the department.

On March 6, Gowdy, R-S.C., and Goodlatte, R-Va., penned a joint letter to Sessions demanding the appointment of a special counsel to investigate “conflicts of interest” and decisions “made and not made” by current and former Justice Department officials in 2016 and 2017, noting that “the public interest requires” the action.

The letter cited potential Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses, which Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced Wednesday would be investigated by his team. 

“The Office of Inspector General will initiate a review that will examine the Justice Department’s and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s compliance with legal requirements, and with applicable DOJ and FBI policies and procedures, in applications filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) relating to a certain U.S. person,” the Horowitz statement obtained by Fox News read. “As part of this examination, the OIG also will review information that was known to the DOJ and the FBI at the time the applications were filed from or about an alleged FBI confidential source.”

Sessions told lawmakers in his Thursday letter that he understood the Justice Department was “not above criticism,” and noted that if anyone “falls short” of the “highest level of integrity, ethics and professionalism,” he would act.

“I will fulfill my responsibility to take necessary action to protect the integrity of our work,” Sessions wrote, thanking the lawmakers for their “leadership” on the matters, and stating that he would  make their letters available to both Huber and Horowitz.

Fox News’ Bill Mears contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/29/sessions-federal-prosecutor-evaluating-alleged-fbi-doj-wrongdoing-no-second-special-counsel-for-now.html

 

Who is John Huber, the Utah US attorney investigating claims of FBI misconduct?

U.S. Attorney John W. Huber speaks outside the federal courthouse Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2017, in Salt Lake City. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

(CNN)Utah US attorney John Huber was revealed Thursday as the person Attorney General Jeff Sessions tasked with looking into Republican claims of FBI misconduct and whether more should have been done to investigate Hillary Clinton’s ties to a Russian nuclear agency.

Huber, who has served in both Democratic and Republican administrations as a career prosecutor, nearly had his tenure as US attorney cut short last year. In March 2017, shortly after he took charge of the Justice Department, Sessions asked for the resignations of 46 US attorneys who were previous administration holdovers.
Originally appointed by President Barack Obama in 2015, Huber offered his resignation, leaving his fate in the hands of the DOJ.
But President Donald Trump re-nominated Huber in June 2017, and two months later Huber was back at his former post, confirmed by the US Senate for an additional four years.
Last year, former DOJ officials raised concerns over Huber’s appearance at a White House press briefing to tout aspects of Trump’s immigration agenda — something that critics argued blurred the lines of the DOJ’s independence from the White House, NPR reported at the time.
During a June 28, 2017, press briefing alongside the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Huber spoke on the behalf of the DOJ in support of two bills that sought to enforce harsher penalties for illegal immigrants — “Kate’s Law” and the “No Sanctuaries Act,” both of which were passed in the House.
“The reason why we are in support of these is that it adds tools to the toolbox of prosecutors in the Department of Justice to work on the violent crime problem that we have in our country and beat back this blip so it does not become a trend,” he told reporters at the White House.
“The tools that were given in these two proposed acts allow us to fight back against drug traffickers and transnational gangs,” he said.
Since then, Huber has taken on a leadership role on Sessions’ advisory committee of US attorneys that provide counsel to him and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Before becoming Utah’s top federal prosecutor, Huber clocked in 13 years as an assistant US attorney with experience handling violent crime and national security cases, according to his official biography.
During his first swearing-in ceremony as a US attorney, Huber was described as a “jock with the soul of a geek,” a protector for others against bullies, and a man who lived by the motto: “Be the hammer, not the nail,” according to The Deseret News.
A Utah native, Huber graduated with honors from the University of Utah in 1989, where he played football, The Deseret News reported, and later went to earn his law degree from the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law in 1995.

John W. Huber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John W. Huber
John W. Huber official photo.jpg
United States Attorney for the District of Utah
Assumed office
June 2015
President Barack Obama
Donald Trump
Preceded by David B. Barlow
Personal details
Born 1967 (age 50–51)
Salt Lake CityUtahU.S.
Education University of Utah
University of Utah College of Law

John W. Huber (born 1967) is an American lawyer who has served as the United States Attorney for the District of Utah since June 2015. He was first nominated for the position by President Barack Obama in February 2015.[1] Huber offered his resignation in March 2017 at the request of the Trump administration.[2] However, United States Attorney GeneralJeff Sessions subsequently appointed Huber as interim U.S. Attorney under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.[3] Huber was renominated by President Donald Trump in June 2017.[4] On August 3, 2017, he was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to an additional four-year term as a U.S. Attorney.[5]

Education and legal career

Huber graduated with honors from the University of Utah in 1989. He received his J.D. from the University of Utah College of Law in 1995. Huber began his career in the Weber County, Utah Attorney’s Office, later serving as the chief prosecutor for West Valley City, Utah. In 2002, he joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and in 2005 he became an Assistant United States Attorney.[4][6] He has prosecuted firearms crimes, including the case of four people involved with firearms used in the 2007 Trolley Square shooting.[1] Huber was appointed by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page and connections between the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One, starting in November 2017.[7]

References

  1. Jump up to:a b Romboy, Dennis (February 5, 2015). “Obama nominates John W. Huber as next U.S. attorney for Utah”. Deseret News. Retrieved 23 June 2017.
  2. Jump up^ “John Huber, US Attorney for Utah, Offers Resignation”. U.S. News & World Report. Associated Press. March 13, 2017. Retrieved 23 June2017.
  3. Jump up^ Romboy, Dennis (June 12, 2017). “Trump nominates Utah U.S. Attorney John Huber to keep job”. Deseret News. Retrieved 23 June 2017.
  4. Jump up to:a b “President Donald J. Trump Announces United States Attorney Candidate Nominations”. The White House. June 12, 2017. Retrieved 21 June 2017.
  5. Jump up^ Burr, Thomas (August 3, 2017). “Senate confirms Huber as U.S. attorney for Utah, returning him to old job”. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 4 August 2017.
  6. Jump up^ Manson, Pamela (March 15, 2017). “Huber to stay as Utah’s U.S. attorney during transition period”. Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 23 June2017.
  7. Jump up^ Burr, Thomas; Manson, Pamela. “U.S. Attorney for Utah is investigating GOP-raised concerns about the FBI surveilling Trump aide and ignoring Clinton uranium ties”The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved March 30, 2018.

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Huber

Story 2: Clinton Obama Democratic Conspiracy — Videos

COLLUSION DELUSION: New Documents Show OBAMA Officials, FBI COORDINATED in Anti-Trump Probe

Former Sen. Harry Reid asked James Comey to investigate Trump

Sara Carter

Documents obtained by congressional investigators suggest possible coordination by Obama White House officials, the CIA and the FBI into the investigation into President Donald Trump’s campaign. Those senior Obama officials used unsubstantiated evidence to launch allegations in the media that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia during the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, according to newly discovered documents and communications obtained by Congress.

The documents also reveal that former Senate majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, sent a letter on Aug. 29, 2016, asking former FBI Director James Comey to investigate the allegations, which were presented to him by then CIA Director John Brennan. Brennan had briefed Reid privately days earlier on the counterintelligence investigation and documents suggest Reid was also staying in close touch with Comey over the issues.

The documents, which include text messages from embattled FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page, also reveal that former Obama White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough was involved in the initial investigation into Trump’s campaign. Comey, Brennan, and McDonough were the “highest-ranking officials at the FBI, CIA and White House” and were working in concert to ensure an investigation was initiated, congressional members told this reporter.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was deeply troubled by the findings.

“We’ve been asking for documents with little cooperation of the DOJ and FBI — we’re having to find these unredacted documents on our own,” said Meadows, who’s also chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. “It appears there was a coordination between the White House, CIA, and FBI at the onset of this investigation and it’s troubling.”

President Obama Names Denis McDonough To Be White House Chief Of Staff
President Obama Names Denis McDonough To Be White House Chief Of Staff

Meadows said John Moffa, who was part of the counterintelligence division at the FBI, met with Denis McDonough on August 10, (2016), Meadows added. “What we’re finding is the more we dig the more we realize that there appeared to be a willful coordination between multiple groups outside the Department of Justice and FBI. Moffa was also the FBI agent who helped draft Comey’s July 5, 2016 exoneration letter to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Meadows said the documents suggest Reid’s briefing from Brennan “was used in Michael Isikoff’s Yahoo News story.”

Isikoff’s article was also used as evidence for the FBI’s FISA warrant being granted against Carter Page. Page was a short-term volunteer advisor on the Trump campaign, who was spied on by the FBI. Congress and the Department of Justice are investigating the FBI’s conduct in obtaining a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant in October 2016 to spy on Page. Page was a central figure in an unverified dossier put together by former British Spy Christopher Steele alleging the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

In April 2017, The New York Times published the first story about Brennan’s counterintelligence briefing to Reid regarding Trump. The briefings to Gang of Eight congressional members suggested Russia might be helping Trump win the election. Brennan alluded to the unverified allegation that members of the Trump campaign may be colluding with the Russians. The information briefed to the lawmakers expanded the number of people who were aware of the unverified allegations, and played a significant role in the increase of leaks to the media, according to the information obtained by the committee.

“A chain of events suggest the FBI encouraged Reid to write this letter to legitimize its surveillance of Carter Page”

A congressional investigator told this reporter that they believe the FBI was involved in the briefing to Reid but are still waiting for confirmation.

In the letter from Reid to Comey, Reid cites information Brennan shared with him that Trump advisor, referencing Carter Page, and other “high ranking sanctioned individuals” in Moscow were meeting. Reid asks Comey to launch an investigation by the FBI into the Trump Campaign and the Kremlin.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

The letter, which was obtained by this reporter, refers to reports briefed by Brennan but gives “almost no evidence” regarding the Trump campaign and Russia, according to congressional investigators.

READ: HARRY REID’S LETTER TO JAMES COMEY

For example, the letter only states that “questions have been raised about whether a Trump advisor who has been highly critical of U.S. and European economic sanctions on Russia, and who has conflicts of interests due to his investments in Russian energy conglomerate Gazprom, met with high-ranking sanctioned individuals in Moscow in July of 2016.”

Congressional investigators also note that newly revealed text messages between Strzok and Page also show possible coordination between the FBI, CIA and the Democrats.

RELATED: New Text Msgs Reveal FBI Agent was Friends with Judge in Flynn Case

Shortly after Reid’s letter was revealed in a New York Times article on August 30, 2016, Strzok texts Page saying, “here we go.” He included a link to the story in the text message.

Congressional investigators suggest that the pair were creating inferences “that they knew it would create public calls for an investigation into Russian interference.”

Sept. 23, 2016, Isikoff article, which cites Reid’s letter, is also another example of possible coordination, congressional investigators state. The FBI used the Yahoo news article as part of the evidence in their application to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.

“This sequence of events strongly suggests the FBI encouraged Reid to write this letter to legitimize its surveillance of Carter Page,” congressional investigators stated.

Congressional Findings:

  • What began as an investigation into allegations of Russian cyber hacking of the DNC was eventually broadened into an investigation of the Trump campaign.
  • By sending high-ranking officials and led to brief members of Congress on the possibility of Russian interference in the 2016 election, the DNC hack, and the possibility Trump campaign associates were in contact with Russia, the FBI was given cover for the investigation they had recently opened on Trump with questionable legal justification.
  • The intelligence community has admitted Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election were only the most “recent expression” of their longstanding desire to undermine US elections.
  • It appears based on the information “insurance policy” in case Trump won, these briefings by the intelligence community to Congress, which led to several members calling for investigations into Russian interference and Trump, were perfectly timed to plant seeds of doubt in the outcome of the 2016 election.
  • By utilizing the FBI’s cyber division to look into the DNC hack, the agents exhibiting improper political biases from the FBI’s counterintelligence division, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok, were offered cover.

https://saraacarter.com/new-documents-suggest-coordination-by-obama-white-house-cia-and-fbi-in-trump-investigation/

 

Story 3: Trump Has 30 Months To Complete 2,000 Mile Wall — No Wall and Trump Voters and Supporters Will Abandon and Dumb Trump —  Stop and Rollback and Deport All 30-60 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of United States Over the Last 26 Years — Videos

Hundreds of sheriffs demand Congress make the wall happen

9 Things That COULD Happen if Trump Builds “The Wall”!

US Special Forces Unable To Scale Trump’s US Mexico Border Wall

Trump pitches solar-paneled border wall to GOP leaders

Trump to consider solar panels to pay for border wall: report

Can Trump get the Pentagon to pay for his border wall?

Trump considers using US military to fund the wall

Rep. Russell on using military funding to pay for a border wall

Trump tweets that border wall is needed for national defense

Why Ann Coulter Thinks President Trump Is ‘Failing’ | NYT – Opinion

Coulter: Border security is a bigger national defense issue

Underreported: How Building a Border Wall Changed San Diego | The Daily Signal

New California policy: Illegal immigrants voting?

Border Patrol Union on Trump’s border wall

Countries around the world finding success with border walls

The World’s Biggest and Most Famous Walls

Israel extends its high-tech barriers I FT World

Mexico-US Border Wall Will Crush Illegal Immigration (Full Compilation)

The No Man’s Land Beneath the Border Wall

Arizona Border Ranchers Torn in Support for Trump’s Wall

US & the Wall: Deportees in Mexico unwanted by either side after decades in the US (RT Documentary)

Mexico border wall

What Trump’s border wall could look like

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1054

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

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 Shows 151-157

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 1053, March 28, 2018, Story 1: Survival of The Fittest: President Trump (Old School: Real Estate and Brands) vs. Amazons’s Bezos (New School: Internet/Price/Voice and Retailer Monopoly) — Rank and Yank — Consumer Sovereignty vs. Government Intervention — Democrats — Republicans — Independents — Entrepreneurs — Hustle — Videos — Story 2: Will The Economy Grow At Above 3% Rate in 2018? — Video

Posted on March 28, 2018. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, College, Communications, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Health, History, House of Representatives, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Monetary Policy, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Senate, Social Security, Spying on American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1053, March 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Story 1: Survival of The Fittest: President Trump (Old School: Real Estate and Brands) vs. Amazons’s Bezos (New School: Price/Voice and Retailer) — Rank and Yank — Consumer Sovereignty vs. Government Interevention with Antitrust Laws — Videos —

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

The Libertarian Angle: Consumer Sovereignty and the Free Market

Monopoly, Competition, and Antitrust | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Monopoly and Competition (by Murray N. Rothbard)

Entrepreneurship, Austrian Economics, and the Cryptorevolution | Patrick Byrne

Overstock.com’s CEO Wants To Undermine Wall Street With The Tech Behind Bitcoin (HBO)

Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne on Gary Johnson, Trump vs. Clinton, and Blockchain for the Stock Market

Overstock’s Patrick Byrne on Bitcoin, Net Neutrality, and Mixed Martial Arts

Classical Liberalism: The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 2) – Learn Liberty

Milton Friedman – Monopoly

Milton Friedman – Solutions to Market Failures

Milton Friedman – The Proper Role of Government

Milton Friedman explains how to deal with monopolies

Milton Friedman – Morality & Capitalism

Why I’m Against Antitrust Laws

Chicago School vs. Austrian School: Four Types of Libertarianism

How Does Amazon Make Money?

Scott Galloway – How Amazon is Dismantling Retail

50 Alexa Voice Commands (Amazon Echo)

Alexa, are you connected to the CIA? Can the CIA hear me now?

Amazon Echo & Alexa 10 Everyday Uses

Google Home vs Amazon Alexa

Introducing Echo Plus

What Brands Should Do in 2018

LEAKED: CIA $600 Million Amazon Contract – Trump/Bezos

How The Washington Post’s New Owner Aided the CIA, Blocked WikiLeaks & Decimated Book Industry 2/2

Amazon’s Bezos buys Washington Post: Is NYT next?

Jeff Bezos, The Post and the Future of Print

MUST SEE: Trump Calls Out Media and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Says He LOVES PROTESTERS at Ft. Worth Rally

People Don’t Really Want To Be Entrepreneurs | New York City Vlog

Why I REALLY Became a Millionaire

How To Be A Successful Entrepreneur

How To Go From Zero to $10 Million on Amazon

How To Build A $10,000,000 Online Brand On Amazon | Ryan Moran

How to Build a $10 Million Business You Can Sell (The 8-Figure Pyramid)

How To Create A Million Dollar Business

How to Find Products That Sell

The Amazon Product Launch – Ryan Daniel Moran at Amazing Selling Machine 2014

How To Sell On Amazon FBA For Beginners (A Complete, Step-By-Step Tutorial)

5 Mistakes I Made on Amazon when I First Started Selling (that cost me $10k in lost sales!)

Amazon FBA For Beginners: What they don’t want you to know | Complete Step by Step Tutorial

Is Amazon FBA Dead?! (WATCH THIS before starting your business)

The Day I Became an Entrepreneur for Life

YOUNG (or new) Entrepreneurs Need These Tips to Avoid Failing

$36,000 in ONE Day! (This KILLS Cyber Monday) Amazon Seller Meetup

My Blueprint to 7 Figure Product Selection | Matt Loberstein – LA AMAZON MEETUP

HOW I Sold Over $400,000 in 30 DAYS! (Best Amazon FBA Tips & Strategy)

From $0 to $2.5 MILLION IN SALES (at 24 yrs old)

Top 5 Amazon FBA Tips & Tricks (from a 7 Figure Private Label Seller)

My Amazon FAILURES! (that you can avoid…)

Amazon Cancelled my $35,000 Black Friday Deal

PAYING $101K TO MY SUPPLIER IN CHINA (Amazon FBA and Alibaba)

CRAZIEST THING IN 3 YEARS OF AMAZON SELLING!

10 Reason You WILL Fail On Amazon FBA (MUST WATCH Before Selling On Amazon)

President Donald Trump Takes Aim At Amazon And Jeff Bezos | CNBC

Donald Trump Attacks Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos

Bezos shoots back at Trump

Trump vs Bezos

Jeff Bezos: Donald Trump Comments Erode Our Democracy | Power Lunch | CNBC

Donald Trump Vs. Jeff Bezos: President Targets Amazon In Latest Tweets | CNBC

Jeff Bezos in 90 Seconds

Amazon’s “Transformation”: How the online retailer is disrupting Hollywood

What Is Amazon Prime and Is It Worth It?

About Donald Trump | Jeff Bezos, CEO Amazon | Code Conference 2016

Ex-Amazon workers talk of ‘horrendous’ conditions

Behind the Alarming Expose on Amazon’s Workplace Culture | NBC Nightly News

Exposé reveals Amazon’s punishing workplace culture

The ‘Enormous Pressue’ Of Working At Amazon

Amazon: How Bruising a Workplace Is It?

Amazon fires back after scathing workplace critique

New York Times: Amazon A ‘Bruising Workplace’ | Tech Bet | CNBC

Amazon’s tips to create a workplace from hell I The Feed

Behind the scenes of an Amazon warehouse

Bezos defends working conditions at Amazon

The Power of Jeff Bezos – Interview Oct 2016

Amazon employee work-life balance | Jeff Bezos, CEO Amazon | Code Conference 2016

“I’ve MADE billions of dollars of FAILURES” – Jeff Bezos’s (@JeffBezos) Top 10 Rules Volume 2

Jeff Bezos’ Fortune Crosses $113 Billion | Forbes

Jeff Bezos: The $100 Billion Dollar Man | CNBC

Jeff Bezos’ wife blasts book on Amazon founder

Interview: Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos

Amazing Amazon Story – Jeff Bezos Full Speech

Jeff Bezos interview on Starting Amazon (2001)

Trump hates Amazon, not Facebook

Photos: Mark Wilson / Getty Images; The Washington Post

Capitol Hill wants Facebook’s blood, but President Trump isn’t interested. Instead, the tech behemoth Trump wants to go after is Amazon, according to five sources who’ve discussed it with him. “He’s obsessed with Amazon,” a source said. “Obsessed.”

What we’re hearing: Trump has talked about changing Amazon’s tax treatment because he’s worried about mom-and-pop retailers being put out of business.

Show less
  • A source who’s spoken to POTUS: “He’s wondered aloud if there may be any way to go after Amazon with antitrust or competition law.”
  • Trump’s deep-seated antipathy toward Amazon surfaces when discussing tax policy and antitrust cases. The president would love to clip CEO Jeff Bezos’ wings. But he doesn’t have a plan to make that happen.

Behind the president’s thinking: Trump’s wealthy friends tell him Amazon is destroying their businesses. His real estate buddies tell him — and he agrees — that Amazon is killing shopping malls and brick-and-mortar retailers.

  • Trump tells people Amazon has gotten a free ride from taxpayers and cushy treatment from the U.S. Postal Service.
  • “The whole post office thing, that’s very much a perception he has,” another source said. “It’s been explained to him in multiple meetings that his perception is inaccurate and that the post office actually makes a ton of money from Amazon.”
  • Axios’ Ina Fried notes: The Postal Service actually added delivery on Sunday in some cities because Amazon made it worthwhile.
  • Trump also pays close attention to the Amazon founder’s ownership of The Washington Post, which the president views as Bezos’ political weapon.

Trump never talks about Mark Zuckerberg or Facebook: He isn’t tuned in to the debate over how they handle people’s data, and thinks the Russia story is a hoax, sources say.

  • Axios’ Kim Hart points out: “Trump told Axios last year he doesn’t mind Facebook because it helps him reach his audience. He’s an old-school businessman who sees the world in terms of tangible assets: real estate, physical mail delivery, Main Street, grocery stores. It reminds me of the story Jim wrote a while back about Trump’s fixation with 1950s life. Amazon takes direct aim at some of the core components of mid-century business.”

One warning sign for Facebook: Vice President Mike Pence is concerned about Facebook and Google, according to a source with direct knowledge.

  • Though Pence isn’t yet pushing internally for any specific regulations, he argues these companies are dangerously powerful.
  • The source said the V.P. worries about their influence on media coverage, as well as their control of the advertising industry and users’ personal info.
  • When private discussions have turned to the idea of busting Facebook and Google, Pence has listened with keen interest and is open to the suggestion that these two companies need shaking up.

Get more stories like this by signing up for Jonathan Swan’s weekly political lookahead newsletter, Axios Sneak Peek. 

The Antitrust Case Against Facebook, Google and Amazon

A few technology giants dominate their worlds just as Standard Oil and AT&T once did. Should they be broken up?

Logos for Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, otherwise known as GAFA.
Logos for Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, otherwise known as GAFA. PHOTO: DAMIEN MEYER/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Standard Oil Co. and American Telephone and Telegraph Co. were the technological titans of their day, commanding more than 80% of their markets.

Today’s tech giants are just as dominant: In the U.S., Alphabet Inc.’s Google drives 89% of internet search; 95% of young adults on the internet use a Facebook Inc. product; andAmazon.com Inc. now accounts for 75% of electronic book sales. Those firms that aren’t monopolists are duopolists: Google and Facebook absorbed 63% of online ad spending last year; Google and Apple Inc. provide 99% of mobile phone operating systems; while Apple and Microsoft Corp. supply 95% of desktop operating systems.

A growing number of critics think these tech giants need to be broken up or regulated as Standard Oil and AT&T once were. Their alleged sins run the gamut from disseminating fake news and fostering addiction to laying waste to small towns’ shopping districts. But antitrust regulators have a narrow test: Does their size leave consumers worse off?

By that standard, there isn’t a clear case for going after big tech—at least for now. They are driving down prices and rolling out new and often improved products and services every week.

That may not be true in the future: If market dominance means fewer competitors and less innovation, consumers will be worse off than if those companies had been restrained. “The impact on innovation can be the most important competitive effect” in an antitrust case, says Fiona Scott Morton, a Yale University economist who served in the Justice Department’s antitrust division under Barack Obama.

Google which has spent the past eight years in the sights of European and American antitrust authorities, is hardly a price gouger. Most of its products are free to consumers and the price advertisers pay Google per click has fallen by a third the past three years. The company remains an innovation powerhouse, investing in new products such as its voice-activated assistant Google Home.

Google’s booth at the 2018 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
Google’s booth at the 2018 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. PHOTO: DAVID PAUL MORRIS/BLOOMBERG NEWS

Yet Google’s monopoly means some features and prices that competitors offered never made it in front of customers. Yelp Inc., which in 2004 began aggregating detailed information and user reviews of local services, such as restaurants and stores, claims Google altered its search results to hurt Yelp and help its own competing service. While Yelp survived, it has retreated from Europe, and several similar local search services have faded.

“Forty percent of Google search is local,” says Luther Lowe, the company’s head of public policy. “There should be hundreds of Yelps. There’s not. No one is pitching investors to build a service that relies on discovery through Facebook or Google to grow, because venture capitalists think it’s a poor bet.”

There are key differences between today’s tech giants and monopolists of previous eras. Standard Oil and AT&T used trusts, regulations and patents to keep out or co-opt competitors. They were respected but unloved. By contrast, Google and Facebook give away their main product, while Amazon undercuts traditional retailers so aggressively it may be holding down inflation. None enjoys a government-sanctioned monopoly; all invest prodigiously in new products. Alphabet plows 16% of revenue back into research and development; for Facebook it’s 21%—ratios far higher than other companies. All are among the public’s most loved brands, according to polls by Morning Consult.

Yet there are also important parallels. The monopolies of old and of today were built on proprietary technology and physical networks that drove down costs while locking in customers, erecting formidable barriers to entry. Just as Standard Oil and AT&T were once critical to the nation’s economic infrastructure, today’s tech giants are gatekeepers to the internet economy. If they’re imposing a cost, it may not be what customers pay but the products they never see.

In its youth Standard Oil was as revered for its technological and commercial brilliance as any big tech company today. John D. Rockefeller began with a single refinery in Cleveland in 1863 and over the next few decades acquired other, weaker refineries. Those that wouldn’t sell, he underpriced and drove out of business. By 1904, companies controlled by Standard Oil produced 87% of refined oil output, according to Mike Scherer, a retired Harvard economist who has written extensively on antitrust.

This wasn’t superficially bad for consumers. The price of kerosene, the principal refined product from oil, fell steadily as Standard Oil’s market share expanded, thanks to falling crude oil prices and Standard Oil’s economies of scale, bargaining power with suppliers such as railroads, and innovation, such as the Frasch-Burton process for deriving kerosene from high-sulfur oil in Ohio.

Standard Oil's refinery in Richmond, Calif., in 1911.
Standard Oil’s refinery in Richmond, Calif., in 1911. PHOTO: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS/CORBIS/VCG/GETTY IMAGES

When the federal government sued to break up Standard Oil, the Supreme Court acknowledged business acumen was important to the company’s early success, but concluded that was eventually supplanted by a single-minded determination to drive others out of the market.

In a 2005 paper, Mr. Scherer found that Standard Oil was indeed a prolific generator of patents in its early years, but that slowed once it achieved dominance. Around 1909 Standard’s Indiana unit invented “thermal cracking” to improve gasoline refining to meet nascent demand from automobiles, but the company’s head office thought the technology too dangerous and refused to commercialize it. After the Indiana unit was spun off when the company was broken up in 1911, it commercialized the technology to enormous success, Mr. Scherer wrote.

The story of AT&T is similar. It owed its early growth and dominant market position to Alexander Graham Bell’s 1876 patent for the telephone. After the related patents expired in the 1890s, new exchanges sprung up in countless cities to compete.

Competition was a powerful prod to innovation: Independent companies, by installing twisted copper lines and automatic switching, forced AT&T to do the same. But AT&T, like today’s tech giants, had “network effects” on its side.

“Just like people joined Facebook because everyone else was on Facebook, the biggest competitive advantage AT&T had was that it was interconnected,” says Milton Mueller, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology who has studied the history of technology policy.

Early in the 20th century, AT&T began buying up local competitors and refusing to connect independent exchanges to its long-distance lines, arousing antitrust complaints. By the 1920s, it was allowed to become a monopoly in exchange for universal service in the communities it served. By 1939, the company carried more than 90% of calls.

Though AT&T’s research unit, Bell Labs, became synonymous with groundbreaking discoveries, in telephone innovation AT&T was a laggard. To protect its own lucrative equipment business it prohibited innovative devices such as the Hush-a-Phone, which kept others from overhearing calls, and the Carterphone, which patched calls over radio airwaves, from connecting to its network.

After AT&T was broken up into separate local and long-distance companies in 1982, telecommunication innovation blossomed, spreading to digital switching, fiber optics, cellphones—and the internet.

Just as AT&T decided what equipment could be used on the nation’s telephone systems, Google’s search algorithms determine who can be found on the internet. If you searched for a toaster online in the mid 2000s, Google would probably have taken you to comparison shopping sites such as Nextag. They pioneered features such as showing consumer ratings in search results, how popular a product was and how prices had changed over time, recalls Gary Reback, an antitrust lawyer who represented several competitors against Google.

Google’s Eric Schmidt testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee antitrust hearing in September 2011.
Google’s Eric Schmidt testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee antitrust hearing in September 2011. PHOTO:CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES

But when Google launched its own comparison business, Google Shopping, those sites found themselves dropping deeper into Google’s search results. They accused Google of changing its algorithm to favor its own results. The company responded that its algorithm was designed to give customers the results they want. “If consumers don’t like the answer that Google Search provides, they can switch to another search engine with just one click,” Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt told Congress in 2011.

At that same hearing Jeffrey Katz, then the chief executive of Nextag, responded, “That is like saying move to Panama if you don’t like the tax rate in America. It’s a fake choice because no one has Google’s scope or capabilities and consumers won’t, don’t, and in fact can’t jump.”

In 2013 the U.S. Federal Trade Commission concluded that even if Google had hurt competitors, it was to serve consumers better, and declined to bring a case. Since then, comparison sites such as Nextag have largely faded.

Last year the European Commission went in the other direction and fined the company $2.9 billion and ordered it to change its search results.

The different outcomes hinge in part on different approaches. European regulators are more likely to see a shrinking pool of competitors as inherently bad for both competition and consumers. American regulators are more open to the possibility that it could be natural and benign.

In new industries, smaller players are frequently bought up or vanquished by deeper-pocketed, more-innovative rivals. Google’s general counsel, Kent Walker, wrote in response to the European Commission decision that even as smaller sites have retreated, Amazon has grown to become a huge player in comparison shopping.

Internet platforms have high fixed and minimal operating costs, which favors consolidation into a few deep-pocketed competitors. And the more customers a platform has, the more useful it is to each individual customer—the “network effect.”

But a platform that confers monopoly in one market can be leveraged to dominate another. Facebook’s existing user base enabled it to become the world’s largest photo-sharing site through its purchase of Instagram in 2012 and the largest instant-messaging provider through its purchase of WhatsApp in 2014. It is also muscling into virtual reality through its acquisition of Oculus VR in 2014 and anonymous polling with its purchase of TBH last year.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg speaks at a developers conference last year in San Jose, Calif.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg speaks at a developers conference last year in San Jose, Calif. PHOTO:STEPHEN LAM/REUTERS

What Facebook doesn’t acquire, it copies. Snap Inc.’s Snapchat, a fast-disappearing photo and video sharing app hugely popular with teenagers, was widely seen as a challenger to Facebook. But in 2016, Facebook introduced its own Snapchat-like feature, Stories, on Instagram, which now has more users and advertisers than Snapchat. That has undercut Snap’s growth and profits by reducing the number of new users “interested in trying Snap for the first time,” says Peter Stabler, an analyst at Wells Fargo.

There’s nothing wrong with copying, especially if the copy is better than the original. Snapchat’s app was originally difficult to use, says Mr. Stabler, and “you can’t discount [Facebook’s] quality of execution.” Moreover, even as Facebook copies its competitors, it continues to expand and enhance its own services such as Pages, which 70 million businesses world-wide have used to design their own webpages on Facebook.

Snap’s shares have sunk below the price at which the company went public last March as losses have mounted, which won’t encourage new entrants. Once a company like Google or Facebook has critical mass, “the venture capital looks elsewhere,” says Roger McNamee of Elevation Partners, a technology-focused private-equity firm. “There’s no point taking on someone with a three or four years head start.”

Amazon hasn’t yet reached the same market share as Google or Facebook but its position is arguably even more impregnable because it enjoys both physical and technological barriers to entry. Its roughly 75 fulfillment centers and state-of-the art logistics (including robots) put it closer, in time and space, to customers than any other online retailer.

The company says size makes it possible to deliver millions of items free of shipping charges to isolated communities with little retail presence. Amazon makes that network available to third-party merchants who pay a 15% commission and, typically, a $3 pick-pack-and ship-fee, says Greg Mercer, founder of Jungle Scout Inc. which advises third-party merchants how to sell on Amazon. “We have tons of examples of small entrepreneurial-type people who are really good at creating new inventions but have no idea how to distribute to the masses,” he says. “They create products and Amazon can take care of the rest.”

An Amazon warehouse in Britain.
An Amazon warehouse in Britain. PHOTO: JANE BARLOW/PA IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES

As the dominant platform for third-party online sales, Amazon also has access to data it can use to decide what products to sell itself. In 2016 Capitol Forum, a news service that investigates anticompetitive behavior, reported that when a shopper views an Amazon private-label clothing brand, the accompanying list of items labeled “Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought,” is also dominated by Amazon’s private-label brands. This, it says, restricts competing sellers’ access to a prime marketing space

Mr. Mercer says he doesn’t see Amazon favoring its own products, and indeed his own firm helps merchants target profitable niches on Amazon. Nonetheless, he says many would prefer to sell through their own sites, but with so many shoppers searching first on Amazon, they feel they have little choice.

In the face of such accusations, the probability of regulatory action—for now—looks low, largely because U.S. regulators have a relatively high bar to clear: Do consumers suffer?

“We think consumer welfare is the right standard,” Bruce Hoffman, the FTC’s acting director of the bureau of competition, recently told a panel on antitrust law and innovation. “We have tried other standards. They were dismal failures.”

Still, Ms. Scott Morton notes, “the consumer welfare standard covers today and tomorrow,” and the potential loss of innovation is something both the law and the courts can and have weighed in an antitrust case. The Justice Department sued Microsoft to ensure that an innovation, the internet browser, remained a potential competitor to Microsoft’s monopoly over the user’s interface with the personal computer.

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates appeared at an antitrust hearing in Washington federal court in 2002.
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates appeared at an antitrust hearing in Washington federal court in 2002. PHOTO:STEPHEN JAFFE/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

What would remedies look like? Since Big Tech owes its network effects to data, one often-proposed fix is to give users ownership of their own data: the “social graph” of connections on Facebook, or their search history on Google and Amazon. They could then take it to a competitor.

A more drastic remedy would be to block acquisitions of companies that might one day be a competing platform. British regulators let Facebook buy Instagram in part because Instagram didn’t sell ads, which they argued made them different businesses. In fact, Facebook used Instagram to engage users longer and thus sell more ads, Ben Thompson, wrote in his technology newsletter Stratechery. Building a network is “extremely difficult, but, once built, nearly impregnable. The only possible antidote is another network that draws away the one scarce resource: attention.” Thus, maintaining competition on the internet requires keeping “social networks in separate competitive companies.”

How sound are these premises? Google’s and Facebook’s access to that data and network effects might seem like an impregnable barrier, but the same appeared to be true of America Online’s membership, Yahoo ’s search engine and Apple’s iTunes store, note two economists, David Evans and Richard Schmalensee, in a recent paper. All saw their dominance recede in the face of disruptive competition. If someone launched a clearly superior search engine, social network or online store, consumers could switch more easily than they could telephone or oil companies a century ago. Microsoft has long dominated desktop operating systems but has failed to extend that dominance to internet search or to mobile operating systems.

It’s possible Microsoft might have become the dominant company in search and mobile without the scrutiny the federal antitrust case brought. Throughout history, entrepreneurs have often needed the government’s help to dislodge a monopolist—and may one day need it again.

Write to Greg Ip at greg.ip@wsj.com

Corrections & Amplifications 
Facebook’s share of online advertising revenue is 21%. An earlier version of the graphic titled ‘A Century of Techopoly’ incorrectly represented this value. An updated version has been published to correct the mistake.

Appeared in the January 17, 2018, print edition as ‘The Antitrust Case Against America’s Technology Behemoths.’

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-antitrust-case-against-facebook-google-amazon-and-apple-1516121561

Story 2: Will The Economy Grow At Above 3% Rate in 2018? — Video

See the source image

See the source image

Market is the best predictor of future GDP growth: Ed Lazear

Consumer Spending Helped U.S. Economy Grow

U.S. Economic Growth Revised Higher to 2.9% in 4Q

Top 10 Biggest Economies in the world of 2018

Ten Fastest Economic Growth Countries In The World 2018

US economy grew at a faster pace in fourth quarter 2017

Douglas Gillison

,

AFP

Washington (AFP) – The US economy grew significantly faster at the end of 2017 than previously reported, as consumer spending hit an three-year high and business investment rose, the government reported Wednesday.

The rosier revised estimate for the October-December period was a modest shot in the arm for President Donald Trump, whose trade policies face stiff opposition at home and abroad and has sent shudders through stock markets.

GDP grew 2.9 percent in the final three months of last year, 0.4 points higher than the prior estimate, the Commerce Department said. And that rate was significantly faster growth than analysts were expecting.

The third and final quarterly estimate, based on a fuller set of data, marked the third quarter in a row at or around President Donald Trump’s target of three percent annual growth.

And the new estimate does not account for December’s sweeping $1.5 trillion tax cuts, which economists say should boost growth in the near term at least for a short time.

“Consumer spending appears to have had its strongest quarter in three years,” Oxford Economics said in a research note, adding that tax cuts and stronger government spending should fuel GDP in 2018.

But for all of 2017 the growth rate was unchanged at a modest 2.3 percent, faster than the 1.5 percent posted in 2016, but still well below Trump’s goal and the 2.9 percent expansion seen in 2015.

The Trump administration is counting on an acceleration of growth to pay for the December tax cuts, which are expected to swell the budget deficit and add to the mounting US sovereign debt.

However, economists point to stagnating US productivity and a possible trade war as a drag on growth, and warn the tax cuts will drive the Treasury deeper into the red.

– Corporate profits slide –

The upward bump to the fourth-quarter growth estimate came from higher consumer spending, higher wholesale business inventories and updated statistical adjustments to account for seasonal factors, according to the Commerce Department.

Consumption hit the highest pace in three years, as consumer spending on goods saw its biggest quarterly bounce in nearly 12 years after an upward revision of three tenths to 7.8 percent.

Consumer spending on transportation pushed US services growth to 2.3 percent in the quarter, up two tenths from the prior estimate.

Those results helped offset the economic drag from rising imports, after the US trade deficit hit a nine-year high in 2017.

Despite the accelerating economic growth, corporate profits stagnated in the quarter, falling 0.1 percent after the prior quarter’s $90.2 billion increase.

The financial sector saw a $14.6 percent decrease but the non-financial sector experienced a $19.4 billion increase for the quarter.

Profits for 2017 were up $91.2 billion after the $44 billion decline in the prior year.

The December tax cuts imposed a one-time repatriation tax on foreign earnings, recorded as a $250 billion quarterly capital transfer from businesses to the federal government, according to the Commerce Department.

“We judge the economy by nonfinancial domestic profits, capital spending, and employment and these metrics look solid in 2017,” RDQ Economics said in a research note.

And companies were expected to reap the benefits of lower taxes in the coming year.

Current forecasts point to growth of below two percent in the first quarter of 2018, although first quarters typically are slower than annual growth.

ttps://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=consumer+sovereignty+and+amazon

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1053

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

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 Shows 151-157

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 1052, March 24, 2018, Story 1: Counting The Uncountable: Number of Illegal Aliens in United States: 2020 Census Will Include Citizenship Question — Videos — Story 2: The Forgotten American Missing Males Not In Labor Forces — Lack of Well Paying Jobs Due to Automation, Competition, Globalization and Illegal Alien Invasion of United States — Videos

Posted on March 27, 2018. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Elections, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Gangs, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Housing, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Medicare, Monetary Policy, National Interest, News, People, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Security, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, United States of America, Welfare Spending | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

Story 1: Counting The Uncountable: Number of Illegal Aliens in United States: 2020 Census Will Include Citizenship Question — Videos

Kobach: Why the 2020 U.S. Census needs citizenship question

Is it legal to ask citizenship question on 2020 Census?

DOJ wants to add citizenship question to 2020 census

California AG suing Trump administration over Census citizen

2020 Census Citizenship Question Raises Eyebrows

2020 Census to Include Citizenship Question

California Created Single-Party General Elections And Now They’re More Competitive Than Ever

U.S. to add citizenship question to the 2020 Census – Daily Mail

What If Republican and Democrat States Were Separate Countries?

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1

Published on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 1

Published on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 2

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Philip Romero

2015-08-10 Mark Levin on illegal immigrants statistics stealing the jobs Americans want

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – NumbersUSA.com

Tucker: Illegal immigration is literally costing US big-time

Study says illegal immigration costs US $135 billion a year

 

Decision to add citizenship question to census draws protest

Wilbur RossThe Associated Press
FILE – In this Oct. 12, 2017, file photo, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appears before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to discuss preparing for the 2020 Census, on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Commerce Department says the 2020 U.S. Census will include a question about citizenship status. Commerce says in a press release issued Monday night that the citizenship data will help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights. But opponents say the question will discourage immigrants from responding to the census. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

The 2020 U.S. Census will add a question about citizenship status, a move that brought swift condemnation from Democrats who said it would intimidate immigrants and discourage them from participating.

The population count taken every 10 years is more than an academic exercise. It’s required by the Constitution and used to determine the number of seats each state has in the House as well as how federal money is distributed to local communities. It helps communities determine where to build schools, hospitals, grocery stores and more.

Congress delegates to the commerce secretary the authority to determine census questions. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had until the end of March to submit the list of questions to Congress. The department said the citizenship information would help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights and helps prevent the unlawful dilution of the vote on the basis of race.

“Secretary Ross determined that obtaining complete and accurate information to meet this legitimate government purpose outweighed the limited potential adverse impacts,” the department said in its announcement.

A coalition of state attorneys general urged the department last month to not add such a question, saying it could lower participation among immigrants and cause a population undercount.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the state will sue the Trump administration over its decision.

“We’re prepared to do what we must to protect California from a deficient Census,” he said.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, a Democrat, told AP on Tuesday that he expected his state would also join in a lawsuit. He called the move by Ross an attempt to suppress the count in states such as Massachusetts that have large immigrant populations.

“The Constitution requires us to count every person living in the United States, not every citizen,” Galvin said.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that adding such a question “will inject fear and distrust into vulnerable communities and cause traditionally undercounted communities to be even further under-represented, financially excluded and left behind.”

Democratic lawmakers had been bracing for the decision in recent months. They’ve held press conferences and made it a point to question Ross about his thinking during appearance at congressional hearings. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., introduced legislation last week that would prohibit the commerce secretary from enacting any major operational design that had not been researched and tested for less than three years prior to the opening day of the census. The bill has nine Democratic co-sponsors, but no Republicans have signed on, demonstrating the bill’s dim prospects in the GOP-led Congress.

Some Republican lawmakers hailed the decision on Tuesday. GOP Sens. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Ted Cruz of Texas had sent a letter to the Commerce Department asking Ross to add the question.

“It is imperative that the data gathered in the census is reliable, given the wide ranging impacts it will have on U.S. policy,” Cruz said in a press release issued by the three lawmakers. “A question on citizenship is a reasonable, commonsense addition to the census.”

The Commerce Department said that between 1820 and 1950, almost every decennial census asked a question on citizenship in some form. The Census Bureau now asks about place of birth, citizenship and year of entry on a separate survey conducted every year called the American Community Survey, sampling only a portion of the population. The citizenship data help agencies and policymakers evaluate immigration policy and understand how different immigrant groups are assimilated.

The Justice Department said in a statement it was important to restore the use of a citizenship question in the 10-year census because it’s used for redistricting purposes and the yearly survey is not the most appropriate data to use for that purpose.

“The Justice Department is committed to free and fair elections for all Americans and has sought reinstatement of the citizenship question on the Census to fulfill that commitment,” the department statement read.

Census counts are taken by mail and by workers walking neighborhoods. The Census Bureau says that the 2010 census drew a massive response, with about 74 percent of the households mailing in forms and the remaining households counted by workers in neighborhoods.

Information is only released publicly in the aggregate, although the government has the details. Whether the information would be used for immigration enforcement is an open question. In 2010, the Obama administration offered assurances that the census data would not be used for immigration purposes.

———

Associated Press writer Hope Yen contributed to this report.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/2020-census-add-question-citizenship-status-54030706

U.S. Census – in move which brings fury from Democrats

  • Commerce Dept said that it will ask for citizenship status in the 2020 Census, the first time it has been a question since 1950 
  • The decennial census helps determine political representation in Congress, federal funding of programs and other matters 
  • But Democrats say question will stop ‘undercounted communities’ to fear taking part 
  • California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the state will sue the Trump Administration over its decision 

The Commerce Department says the 2020 U.S. Census will include a question about citizenship status, a move that brought a swift response by the California attorney general to oppose it.

Commerce says in a press release issued Monday night that the citizenship data will help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights.

But opponents say the question will discourage immigrants from responding to the census.

A coalition of state attorneys general urged the Commerce Department last month to not add such a question, saying it could lower participation among immigrants and cause a population undercount.

Trump move: The 2020 Census will include a question on citizenship, his administration has decided - to the fury of Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi
Trump move: The 2020 Census will include a question on citizenship, his administration has decided - to the fury of Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi

Trump move: The 2020 Census will include a question on citizenship, his administration has decided – to the fury of Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi

The decennial census helps determine political representation in Congress, federal funding of programs and other matters.

Commerce says that between 1820 and 1950, almost every decennial census asked a question on citizenship in some form.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the state will sue the Trump Administration over its decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

‘We’re prepared to do what we must to protect California from a deficient Census,’ he said. ‘Including a citizenship question on the 2020 census is not just a bad idea – it is illegal.’

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi also blasted the idea.

Pelosi said in a statement that it will terrify already vulnerable people and ’cause traditionally undercounted communities to be even further under-represented, financially excluded and left behind.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5547749/2020-census-add-question-citizenship-status.html#ixzz5AzBClFrO

Illegal Aliens: Counting the Uncountable

By James H. Walsh 
Volume 17, Number 4 (Summer 2007)
Issue theme: “How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.?”

 

 

Summary:
No exact head count exists for the ghost population of illegal aliens residing in the United States. Data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) and by national surveys, governmental agencies, nongovernment statistics-keeping agencies, philanthropic organizations, religious charities, and immigrant advocates are used in estimates ranging from 7 million to 20 million. This article demonstrates that this number is closer to 2 times 20 million.

 

Qui vult decipi, decipiatur.
(Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.)

– Latin proverb

 

No exact head count exists for the ghost population of illegal aliens residing in the United States. Data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) and by national surveys, governmental agencies, nongovernment statistics-keeping agencies, philanthropic organizations, religious charities, and immigrant advocates are used in estimates ranging from 7 million to 20 million. I believe that number is closer to 2 times 20, and here is why.

Guessing the number of illegal aliens in the United States is like playing the lottery––more than a million to one that you will be right on. Government agencies each have their own methodology and thus their own estimate. Leading the list are the Census Bureau and the post-9/11 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—an amalgamation of 22 federal agencies, including the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) transferred from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the former Customs Service (USC) transferred from the U.S. Treasury Department. The INS and USC had the distinction of being among the most dysfunctional agencies in the U.S. Government. Added to these are other public and private prestidigitators (listed here in alphabetical order): academics, demographers, economists, environmentalists, geographers, historians, immigration advocates, journalists, labor specialists, political scientists, religious charities, sociologists, statisticians, and welfare administrators.

Not one of these “experts” has a clue as to the exact number of illegal aliens, but this does not keep them from crafting estimates to fit their own agenda. Few have ever been to the U.S.–Mexican border, where the majority of illegal aliens cross into the United States. My high-ball estimate, at least, is based on first-hand data compiled on site. During eleven years as a renegade INS Associate General Counsel, I regularly traveled the Southern Border, as it meanders 2,000 miles from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. My duties took me as well to the then even less secure Northern Border with Canada, which extends through often heavily wooded wilderness.

The INS, in its stormy heyday, had a chronic problem with numbers, be it the number of illegal aliens crossing U.S. borders each year, the number of visa overstays, the number of actual, in-the-flesh deportations, or the number of criminal illegal aliens (those convicted of crimes committed in the United States, after their illegal entry).

In 1994, the INS Statistics Division published a seminal statistical work on illegal aliens. Emphasizing that the figures were estimates, the report acknowledged the assistance of the Urban Institute, the Center for Social Demographic Analysis, the State University of New York, Albany, and the New York City Planning Department. The Urban Institute contributor also worked as an INS consultant, and now is with the Pew Foundation. The major players in immigration statistics do tend to quote each other. Although the report cited the INS Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS), it failed to mention that the 1990 NIIS records were lost during a processing error. Nevertheless, the report concluded that the actual illegal alien population residing in the United States in October 1992 was “not likely to have been higher than the estimated total of 3.4 million, because the assumption used to construct the estimates was selected deliberately to avoid underestimating the population.”

At the same time, an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General found INS statistics suspect and cited deliberate deception by senior INS officials tampering with immigration statistics. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one, false in all).

The DOJ investigation agreed with audits by the Government Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office, GAO) that an “aura of incompetence and incestuous mismanagement” permeated the INS. Over the years, GAO auditors voiced their concerns to the INS Office of the General Counsel, which was plagued by a swinging door of political appointee General Counsels. Those who pushed for accurate counts were stilled by bureaucratic estoppel, dead-end rewrites, and persistently convoluted and distorted statistics.

U.S. Border Patrol agents confided that they were told to cap apprehensions and deportations to conform to the desires of various Administrations to create at least a public perception of border control. One method was to move deportation cases from the Border States to inland districts with fewer alien cases; thus deportations would better match depressed apprehension figures. Another method was to send illegal aliens back across the border without recording the apprehensions. That strategy failed on occasions when Mexican officials refused to accept non-Mexican deportees. Not all illegal aliens crossing the Southern Border are Mexican. These “others” have their own acronym, OTM (other than Mexican), and it is among the OTMs, that the risk of terrorism is greatest. For instance, Arabs are said to be training in South America to pass as Hispanics at the Southern Border.

Unfortunately, under DHS, things have not greatly changed, other than to rename former INS and USC units and positions. The same bureaucrats, at the behest of political appointees, still supply Congress and the White House with illegal alien numbers. Just as with the old INS, the new DHS bureaucrats are adept at rationalizing their methodology and head counts.

In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau routinely undercounts and then adjusts upward total census numbers of Hispanics and other foreign nationals residing in the United States––counting only, of course, those willing to be counted. For the year 2000, the Census Bureau reported a total U.S. population count of “about 275 million” men, women, and children. When the states and local governments challenged that number as an undercount, the total was corrected upward to 281.4 million, with no clear count of illegal aliens. The Hispanic 2000 census count was 32.8 million, but on re-count the Census Bureau adjusted this number upward to 35.3 million, a 13 percent increase.

In 2001, Northeastern University, in an independent study, estimated a total of about 13 million illegal aliens in the United States, at the same time that the INS was estimating 4 million to 6 million illegal aliens. Unquestionably, the INS had a policy of underestimating the illegal alien count in keeping with its agenda traceable back to the Immigration Act of 1965, which opened the doors to Third World immigrants.

The average number of recorded apprehensions of illegal aliens in the United States now hovers at 1.2 million a year. A DHS report, Border Apprehensions: 2005, documented 1.3 million apprehensions in 2005. For the 10-year period (1996–2005), the highest number of apprehensions, 1.8 million, occurred in 2000, and the lowest, 1 million, in 2003. These DHS statistics contradict persistent statements by other government agencies that only 400,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens enter the country each year.

Journeymen Border Patrol agents (on the job five years or more) estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven. That informed estimate would raise the total number of illegal aliens entering the United States in 2003 to 8 million men, women, and children.

Immigrant apologists argue that the number of illegal aliens in the United States fluctuates: many die; many return to their homeland part of each year or after many years of work; others are granted amnesty or refugee status; and others become (LPRs) and then citizens. Logic questions some of these arguments. Why would those who pay $1,500 to $15,000 to be smuggled into the United States, risking their life, return in a matter of months or years? Why would they suffer long trips confined to over-crowded boats, trucks, or other containers to stay for a few months or years? Why would people suffer possible assaults, rape, or murder to stay a few months or years? Why would Chinese illegal aliens suffer decades of indentured servitude for a few years in the United States? Most of those illegal aliens who risk their lives sneaking into the United States are here to stay.

My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports. Taking the DHS average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year; then multiplying that number by 10 for the 1996–2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the United States. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the United States.

In contrast to my estimate, the head of the U.S. Border Patrol Union Local in Tucson was quoted in a May 16, 2006, Christian Science Monitor article, as estimating the total number of “illegal immigrants” (illegal aliens) in the United States, as of that date, at between 12 million and 15 million. At the same time, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in DHS put the number at 7 million; the Census Bureau estimated 8.7 million; and The Pew Hispanic Center estimate was 11.5 million to 12 million “unauthorized migrants” (illegal aliens) living in the United States. Depending on the source, the Christian Science Monitor concluded, illegal aliens in the United States in May 2006 numbered from “about 7 million up to 20 million or more.” At least the reporter was on the right track.

The current confusion of laws, regulations, DHS operating procedures, judicial decisions, and political agenda wreaks havoc on border enforcement. It is hardly reassuring that DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, on February 16, 2007, stated that immigration reform would let U.S. law enforcement focus on catching criminals instead of “future housekeepers and landscapers.” The Secretary opined that security alone is not enough to permanently stop “illegal border jumpers” (illegal aliens). With internecine fighting reported on the rise between and among alien and drug smuggling Hispanic gangs, the Secretary noted that alien smugglers are in disarray, but he expects “flows to go up again as smugglers regroup.”

A Closer Look at the Numbers

Thus far in 2007, the U.S. population has passed 301 million. DHS statistics indicate that illegal aliens are the fastest growing segment, followed by their anchor babies. In addition, the number of Mexican illegal aliens apprehended is nine times the combined numbers of all other illegal aliens.

Still the number of illegal aliens is downplayed by the immigration lobby, which is a coalition of liberal-radical academics, liberal politicians, federal and state bureaucrats, labor unions, La Raza (“The Race,” the leading immigrant activist group), other immigrant activists, and religious organizations.

Aiding and abetting the immigrant coalition is the news media, which is committed to not identifying persons as illegal aliens, especially those who commit crimes. Only when forced to do so does the news media refer to illegal aliens, and then only as “undocumented persons” or “unauthorized immigrants.” The latest newspeak introduced the term “migrants” with the blessing of the New York Times, when the coalition realized that U.S. citizens were beginning to catch on that “undocumented immigrant” actually meant illegal alien. Finally U.S. taxpayers are becoming alarmed by the numbers of illegal aliens in their states, cities, and communities. Finally they are sensing that the actual numbers exceed the official estimates.

Illegal alien apologists must downplay the numbers because the actual costs to federal and state taxpayers are rising drastically each year. By undercounting illegal aliens, the costs to taxpayers for increased school enrollment and hospital treatment are never fully explained. Texas school officials are recruiting in Mexico for bilingual persons to teach in Texas public schools. The 2005–06 Texas school data showed at least 711,237 students had “limited” English-speaking skills. U.S. school districts are recruiting foreign nationals to come and teach in U.S. schools to accommodate illegal aliens.

Arizona will spend $1.2 billion to educate non-English-speaking children in 2007. The pro-immigrant rights Pew Hispanic Center estimates that one in nine Arizona students is an “illegal immigrant or the child of an illegal immigrant.” Others in Arizona suggest the number is more like one in four.

tsc_17_4_walsh_chart1.png

 

On Capitol Hill, Congressional staffers are quick to rely on governmental studies as accurate; the acceptance of flawed data is routine in immigration circles. The Pew Hispanic Center published a report on June 14, 2005, entitled,Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics by Jeffrey S. Passel, formerly with the Urban Institute and a former INS consultant. His report, illustrated with charts and diagrams, included a footnote in which he stated his preference for the term “unauthorized migrants”:

Various labels have been applied to this group of unauthorized migrants, including “undocumented immigrants,” “illegals,” “illegal aliens,” and “illegal immigrants.” The term “unauthorized migrant” best encompasses the population in our data, because many migrants now enter the country or work using counterfeit documents, and thus are not really “undocumented,” in the sense that they have documents, but not completely legal documents.

Perhaps in place of “illegal aliens,” Passel would prefer “not completely legal aliens.” His report, largely advo-babble (immigrant advocate babble) under the guise of research and statistical analysis, rehashes disingenuous data in an attempt to cloud illegal alien numbers and their impact. In a chapter on “Methods: Residual Estimates of Unauthorized Migrants,” he states that the “residual method has been used for several decades to measure unauthorized migration to the U.S.” and that “some of the first sound empirical estimates came from residual methodology applied to the 1980 Census. Variants of the method were used or discussed by the Census Bureau, the Panel on Immigration Statistics, the Bi-National (U.S.-Mexico) Study, and the Commission on Immigration Reform, INS, and a number of other organizations and researchers.” If incest is a crime, then these researchers are guilty––at least of quoting themselves and cross-referencing their colleagues.

A GAO report (May 9, 2005) on criminal illegal aliens compared a 2000 INS estimate of the total “unauthorized immigrant” (illegal alien) population residing in the United States at 7 million to a 2005 estimate of “about 10 million illegal aliens living in the United States.” Of the 55,322 criminal illegal aliens studied by the GAO, each averaged eight arrests––without deportation.

The new DHS has yet to correct the multitude of problems inherited from the INS and Customs. A GAO report (May 27, 2005) described the memorandum of understanding on respective duties and intelligence sharing signed by the newly formed Immigration and Customs Enforcement component (ICE) and the Customs and Border Protection component (CBP). As of May 2005, however, no mechanism was in place to track numbers and results of referrals between the two. Little has changed.

Recently experts at liberal think-tanks, such as the Brookings Institution, are commenting on the extraordinary explosion across the United States of diversity and immigration. These experts are just learning that “immigrants” (illegal aliens) are showing up in many more communities than the experts ever believed, such as Loudoun County, Virginia (an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C.), Palm Beach County, Florida; and Plainfield, Illinois. They had accepted as fact the under-reporting of illegal aliens by immigrant special interest groups, including Democrats in Congress and federal agencies. Finally the ghost population of illegal aliens is becoming visible, through its sheer numbers at the state and local level. Not only are U.S. citizens beginning to see the reality of unfettered illegal immigration in their own communities; they are beginning to feel the pinch.

Countable Snapshots

Although no exact numbers exist on illegal aliens residing in the United States, the following snapshots support my contention that the actual numbers far exceed the “official” estimates of the federal government.

On an inspection tour of the El Paso Border Patrol Sector, while interviewing an agent, I observed in the distance twelve illegal aliens dash through a split in a fence, and three Border Patrol agents give chase. The aliens spread out like a fireworks starburst; the agents apprehended three of them; and thus nine illegal aliens were on their way to mingle in El Paso or parts unknown. This snapshot, remember, was a 20-foot stretch of a 2,000-mile border.

In an immigration/civil rights case, a federal judge asked attorneys, “Do we really know how many undocumented immigrants we are talking about, in the United States?” School Board attorneys hemmed and hawed; finally one replied, “One expert told me 1,300 “undocumented students” were in the school district, and another said 7,000.” When the judge later asked the question again, attorneys answered that privacy laws and federal laws prohibited questions about citizenship.

The Hispanic population is skyrocketing in such diverse areas as Fort Myers, Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina; Indianapolis, Indiana; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Seattle, Washington. Illegal aliens make up an estimated 80 percent of the new population. In Nebraska, the number of illegal aliens is estimated at more than 50,000. Nationally, Hispanics, now the largest minority, have a higher fertility rate than other ethnic groups.

In early 2007, more than 1.6 million Hispanics were reported living in the greater Chicago area, the majority of them Mexicans and 80 percent of them illegal aliens. One of them, Elvira Arellaño, is being granted “sanctuary” in a Chicago store-front church. DHS officers have not breached this “sanctuary” to deport Arellaño once again. Having lived in Chicago for nine years, she can still not speak English. As one of the few people actually deported by the U.S. Government, she re-entered the United States without inspection and thus is subject to felony charges. The radical immigration advocates who support her “sanctuary” mean to make a mockery of U.S. laws.

In January 2007, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokeswoman estimated that 600,000 “illegal immigrants” (illegal aliens) are currently ignoring deportation orders. Illegal aliens call the written notice of a deportation order a “run letter,” and that is what they do.

Southern states have the fastest growing populations in the country. Brookings Institution demographer William Frey opined in 2006, “Immigrants are finally catching up to the fact that the South is a magnet for jobs and quality of life. They are rag-tag migrants, taking jobs created by people who come from other parts of the U.S.” Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina are among the ten most popular states with illegal aliens.

In 2005, a total of 11,400 migrants on their way to the United States took refuge in the Jesuit shelter, Casa del Migrante, in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas; this figure was up from 4,647 in 1999.

In Palm Beach County, Florida, in 2006, according to an immigration advocate, the Hispanic population was undercounted by 3–4 to 1, with 90 percent of them illegal aliens. Thus when the 2005 Census recorded 50,000 Hispanic residents among the population of 1.2 million, the actual count was closer to 200,000, most of them illegal.

Among illegal aliens in the United States, most are of child-bearing age. The fertility rate of immigrants, legal and illegal, compared to that of U.S. citizens is 3–4:1.

In January 2007, U.S. Treasurer Anna Escobedo Cabral stated that remittances to Mexico from the United States are a driving force of Mexico’s economic growth. In 2006, these remittances were US$23 billion, an increase of 15 percent from remittances in 2005. Some of these remittances are coming from the estimated 5,000 to 30,000 Mexicans working in New Orleans to rebuild the city.

Illegal Aliens and “Comprehensive” Immigration Reform

A history of legislative chicanery and out-right misrepresentation has fed the illegal alien crisis now being felt at federal, state, and local levels in the United States. To Congress must go the majority of blame for the some 38 million illegal aliens now residing in the United States––threatening public safety and public health, stressing school and hospital budgets, damaging the environment, and draining taxpayer pocketbooks.

The new Democrat-controlled Congress is poised to repeat past legislative mistakes. The Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act), as part of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, served as an open invitation to those wishing to flee Third World countries; and the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), which promised amnesty and employer sanctions, delivered little of either. Only an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens took advantage of the IRCA (Reagan) amnesty. This low participation rate can be traced to the reluctance of illegal aliens to believe any country would be so naive as to wave in persons who had committed a crime in crossing the border. At that time, the total illegal alien population in the United States was estimated at 4 million to 6 million. The tsunami of “border jumpers” began once word spread around the world that the United States, with the passage of IRCA, was opening its borders.

In a 2005 Pew Hispanic Center report, Jeffrey Passel did make a coherent summation: “The unauthorized population [illegal aliens] has been steadily increasing in size (and possibly by large increments since the last half of the 1990s).”

Amnesty and employer sanction provisions failed to curb the flow of illegal aliens; IRCA proved to be a legislative mistake, and the present Democrat-controlled Congress is falling into the same trap, with the support of the President. As illegal alien counts rise daily, employer sanction provisions in any 2007 immigration legislation promise to be as unenforceable as those in IRCA. Just as the Reagan amnesty was followed by a new wave of emboldened illegal aliens, the same aftermath awaits “comprehensive” immigration legislation in 2007.

U.S. citizens (for the most part, we presume) elected the current Congress to pass legislation to “form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, 1789).

Immigration is not the problem; the burgeoning ghost population of illegal aliens now becoming visible across the United States is. Conflicting counts of illegal aliens reflect muddled immigration policies––purposeful or not. Such policies render the nation less capable of apprehending and deporting illegal aliens (among them violent criminals and terrorists) than ever before. ■

About the author

James H. Walsh, formerly an Associate General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the United States Department of Justice, writes immigration commentary. During his INS tenure, Walsh was selected as a German Marshall Fund Scholar, traveled through Europe interviewing immigration officials, and published articles based on his findings. At INS, he worked with other federal agencies and with congressional committees on immigration matters. His assignments included consultations with foreign governments and international business concerns. He chaired a task force on Transit without Visa (TWOV), whose report identified weaknesses in pre-9/11 airport security.

Walsh has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (Middle District of Florida) and as a Special Trial Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime Section. He chaired the Constitutional Rights Committee, General Law Section, of the American Bar Association, and served on the Editorial Board of TheFlorida Bar Journal. His articles on immigration have appeared inMigrationWorld, Social Contract, The Florida Bar Journal, and Newsmax.com.
Walsh has a B.A. in history from Spring Hill College and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

United States Census

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Census
Seal of the United States Census Bureau.svg

Location(s) 4600 Silver Hill Rd.
SuitlandMaryland 20746
Country United States
Inaugurated August 2, 1790; 227 years ago
Most recent April 1, 2010
Next event 2020
Website
census.gov

The United States Census is a decennialcensus mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which states: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective Numbers … . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years.”[1][2] The United States Census Bureau (officially the Bureau of the Census, as defined in Title 13 U.S.C. § 11) is responsible for the United States Census.

The first census after the American Revolution was taken in 1790, under Secretary of StateThomas Jefferson; there have been 22 federal censuses since that time.[2] The current national census was held in 2010; the next census is scheduled for 2020 and will be largely conducted using the Internet.[3] For years between the decennial censuses, the Census Bureau issues estimates made using surveys and statistical models, in particular, the American Community Survey.

Title 13 of the United States Code governs how the Census is conducted and how its data are handled. Information is confidential as per 13 U.S.C.§ 9. Refusing or neglecting to answer the census is punishable by fines of $100, for a property or business agent to fail to provide correct names for the census is punishable by fines of $500, and for a business agent to provide false answers for the census is punishable by fines of $10,000, pursuant to 13 U.S.C.§ 221-224.

The United States Census is a population census, which is distinct from the U.S. Census of Agriculture, which is no longer the responsibility of the Census Bureau. It is also distinct from local censuses conducted by some states or local jurisdictions.

Procedure

A woman with a Hollerith pantograph punch, the keyboard is for the 1920 US Census population card

This 1940 Census publicity photo shows a census worker in Fairbanks, Alaska. The dog musher remains out of earshot to maintain confidentiality.

Decennial U.S. Census figures are based on actual counts of persons dwelling in U.S. residential structures. They include citizens, non-citizen legal residents, non-citizen long-term visitors and undocumented immigrants. The Census Bureau bases its decision about whom to count on the concept of usual residence. Usual residence, a principle established by the Census Act of 1790, is defined as the place a person lives and sleeps most of the time. The Census Bureau uses special procedures to ensure that those without conventional housing are counted; however, data from these operations are not considered as accurate as data obtained from traditional procedures.[4]

The Census also uses hot deck imputation to assign data to housing units where occupation status is unknown. This practice has effects across many areas, but is seen by some as controversial.[5] However, the practice was ruled constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Utah v. Evans.

Certain American citizens living overseas are specifically excluded from being counted in the census even though they may vote. Only Americans living abroad who are “Federal employees (military and civilian) and their dependents living overseas with them” are counted. “Private U.S. citizens living abroad who are not affiliated with the Federal government (either as employees or their dependents) will not be included in the overseas counts. These overseas counts are used solely for reapportioning seats in the U. S. House of Representatives.”[6]

In the United States’ recent censuses, Census Day has been April 1.[7] However, it was previously in August, as per these instructions given to U.S. Marshals: “All the questions refer to the day when the enumeration is to commence, the first Monday in August next. Your assistants will thereby understand that they are to insert in their returns all the persons belonging to the family on the first Monday in August, even those who may be deceased at the time when they take the account; and, on the other hand, that they will not include in it infants born after that day.”[8]

Controversy

Disadvantaged minorities are statistically more likely to be undercounted. For example, the Census Bureau estimates that in 1970 over six percent of blacks went uncounted, whereas only around two percent of whites went uncounted. Democrats often argue that modern sampling techniques should be used so that more accurate and complete data can be inferred. Republicans often argue against such sampling techniques, stating the U.S. Constitution requires an “actual enumeration” for apportionment of House seats, and that political appointees would be tempted to manipulate the sampling formulas.[9]

Groups like the Prison Policy Initiative assert that the census practice of counting prisoners as residents of prisons, not their pre-incarceration addresses, leads to misleading information about racial demographics and population numbers.[10]

In 2010 Jaime Grant, then director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force‘s Policy Institute, thought of the idea of a bright pink sticker for people to stick on their census envelope which had a form for them to check a box for either “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or straight ally,” which her group called “queering the census.”[11] Although the sticker was unofficial and the results were not added to the census, she and others hope the 2020 census will include such statistics.[11]

In 2015 Laverne Cox called for transgender people to be counted in the census.[12]

In March 2018 the Trump administration announced plans to include a citizenship question in the 2020 census questionnaire. The state of California is suing the Trump administration arguing that the proposed citizenship question is unconstitutional and will intimidate immigrants resulting in inaccurate data on minority communities.[13]

History

Censuses had been taken prior to the Constitution’s ratification; in the early 17th century, a census was taken in Virginia, and people were counted in nearly all of the British colonies that became the United States.

Throughout the years, the country’s needs and interests became more complex. This meant that statistics were needed to help people understand what was happening and have a basis for planning. The content of the decennial census changed accordingly. In 1810, the first inquiry on manufactures, quantity and value of products occurred; in 1840, inquiries on fisheries were added; and in 1850, the census included inquiries on social issues, such as taxation, churches, pauperism, and crime. The censuses also spread geographically, to new states and territories added to the Union, as well as to other areas under U.S. sovereignty or jurisdiction. There were so many more inquiries of all kinds in the census of 1880 that almost a full decade was needed to publish all the results. In response to this, the census was mechanized in 1890, with tabulating machines made by Herman Hollerith. This reduced the processing time to two and a half years.[14]

For the first six censuses (1790–1840), enumerators recorded only the names of the heads of household and a general demographic accounting of the remaining members of the household. Beginning in 1850, all members of the household were named on the census. The first slave schedules were also completed in 1850, with the second (and last) in 1860. Censuses of the late 19th century also included agricultural and industrial schedules to gauge the productivity of the nation’s economy. Mortality schedules (taken between 1850 and 1880) captured a snapshot of life spans and causes of death throughout the country.

The first nine censuses (1790–1870) were conducted by U.S. Marshals before the Census Bureau was created.[15] Appointed US Marshals of each judicial district hired assistant marshals to conduct the actual enumeration. The census enumerators were typically from the village or neighbourhood and often knew the residents. Before enabling self-identification on the censuses, the US Census Bureau relied on local people to have some knowledge of residents. Racial classification was made by the census enumerator in these decades, rather than by the individual.

Num Year Date Taken Population Notes
1 1790 August 2, 1790 3,929,326
2 1800 August 4, 1800 5,308,483
3 1810 August 6, 1810 7,239,881
4 1820 August 7, 1820 9,638,453
5 1830 June 1, 1830 12,866,020
6 1840 June 1, 1840 17,069,453 The census estimated the population of the United States at 17,100,000. The results were tabulated by 28 clerks in the Bureau of the Census.
7 1850 June 1, 1850 23,191,876 The 1850 census was a landmark year in American census-taking. It was the first year in which the census bureau attempted to record every member of every household, including women, children and slaves. Accordingly, the first slave schedules were produced in 1850. Prior to 1850, census records had only recorded the name of the head of the household and tabulated the other household members within given age groups.
8 1860 June 1, 1860 31,443,321 The results were tabulated by 184 clerks in the Bureau of the Census.
This was the first census where the American Indians officially were counted, but only those who had ‘renounced tribal rules’. The figure for the nation was 40,000.
9 1870 June 1, 1870 39,818,449
10 1880 June 1, 1880 50,189,209 This was the first census that permitted women to be enumerators.
11 1890 June 2, 1890
[n 1]
62,947,714 Because it was believed that the frontier region of the United States no longer existed, the tracking of westward migration was not tabulated in the 1890 census.[16] This trend prompted Frederick Jackson Turner to develop his milestone Frontier Thesis.
The 1890 census was the first to be compiled using the new tabulating machines invented by Herman Hollerith. The net effect of the many changes from the 1880 census (the larger population, the number of data items to be collected, the Census Bureau headcount, the volume of scheduled publications, and the use of Hollerith’s electromechanical tabulators) was to reduce the time required to fully process the census from eight years for the 1880 census to six years for the 1890 census.[17] The total population, of 62,947,714, was announced after only six weeks of processing (punched cards were not used for this family, or rough, count).[18][19] The public reaction to this tabulation was disbelief, as it was widely believed that the “right answer” was at least 75,000,000.[20]
This census is also notable for the fact it is one of only three for which the original data are no longer available. Almost all the population schedules were destroyed following a fire in 1921.
12 1900 June 1, 1900 76,212,168
13 1910 April 15, 1910 92,228,496
14 1920 January 1, 1920 106,021,537 This was the first census that recorded a population exceeding 100 million.
15 1930 April 1, 1930
[n 2]
122,775,046
16 1940 April 1, 1940 132,164,569 This is the most recent Census where individuals’ data have now been released to the public (by the 72-year rule.).
17 1950 April 1, 1950 150,697,361 Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2022.
18 1960 April 1, 1960 179,323,175 Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2032.
19 1970 April 1, 1970 203,302,031 This was the first census that recorded a population exceeding 200 million. Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2042.
20 1980 April 1, 1980 226,545,805 Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2052.
21 1990 April 1, 1990 248,709,873 Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2062.
22 2000 April 1, 2000 281,421,906 Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2072.
23 2010 April 1, 2010 308,745,538 For the first time since 1940, the 2010 Census is a short-form-only census, as the decennial long form has been replaced by the American Community Survey.
This was the first census that recorded a population exceeding 300 million. Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2082.
  1. Jump up^ Taken one day late because June 1 was a Sunday.
  2. Jump up^ In the Alaska Territory, census-taking began on October 1, 1929.

Census regional marketing logo in Minnesota.

Respondent confidentiality

The principal purpose of the census is to divide the house seats by population. In addition, collected data are used in aggregate for statistical purposes.[21] Replies are obtained from individuals and establishments only to enable the compilation of such general statistics. The confidentiality of these replies is very important. By law, no one—neither the census takers nor any other Census Bureau employee—is permitted to reveal identifiable information about any person, household, or business. Without such protections, those living without documentation in the United States would be deterred from submitting census data.

By law (Pub.L. 95–416, 92 Stat.915, enacted October 5, 1978), individual census records are sealed for 72 years,[22] a number chosen in 1952[23] as slightly higher than the average female life expectancy, 71.6.[24] The individual census data most recently released to the public is the 1940 census, released on April 2, 2012. Aggregate census data are released when available.

Historical FBI use of data

Under the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), using primarily census records, compiled (1939–1941) the Custodial Detention Index (“CDI”) on citizensenemy aliens, and foreign nationals, who might be dangerous. The Second War Powers Act of 1941 repealed the legal protection of confidential census data, which was not restored until 1947. This information facilitated the internment of Japanese-Americans, following the Japaneseattack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and the internment of Italian- and German-Americans following the United States’ entry into World War II.[25][26]

In 1980, four FBI agents went to the Census Bureau’s Colorado Springs office with warrants to seize Census documents, but were forced to leave with nothing. Courts upheld that no agency, including the FBI, has access to Census data.[27]

Data analysis

The census records and data specific to individual respondents are not available to the public until 72 years after a given census was taken, but aggregate statistical data derived from the census are released as soon as they are available. Every census up to and including 1940 is currently available to the public and can be viewed on microfilm released by the National Archives and Records Administration, the official keeper of archived federal census records. Complete online census records can be accessed for no cost from National Archives facilities and many libraries,[28] and a growing portion of the census is freely available from non-commercial online sources.[29][30][31]

Census microdata for research purposes are available for censuses from 1850 forward through the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), and scanned copies of each of the decennial census questionnaires are available online from many websites. Computerized aggregate data describing the characteristics of small geographic areas for the entire period from 1790 to 2010 are available from the National Historical Geographic Information System.

Regions and divisions

US Census Bureau Population Regions

The bureau recognizes four census regions within the United States and further organizes them into nine divisions. These regions are groupings of states that subdivide the United States for the presentation of data. They should not be construed as necessarily being thus grouped owing to any geographical, historical, or cultural bonds.

US Census Regions
Region 1: Northeast Region 2: Midwest Region 3: South Region 4: West

See also

Notes

  1. Jump up^ Constitution of the United States
  2. Jump up to:a b “Decennial Census – History – U.S. Census Bureau”. Census.gov. Retrieved 2015-03-19.
  3. Jump up^ Morello, Carol (March 28, 2013). “2020 Census will be done by Internet”. Washington Post. Retrieved 1 April 2013.
  4. Jump up^ Smith, Annetta; Smith, Denise (2001). U.S Census Bureau Census Special Reports Series CENSR/01-2. US GPO.
  5. Jump up^ Meng, Xiao-Li (1994). “Multiple-Imputation Inferences with Uncongenial Sources of Input”. Statistical Science9 (4): 538–558. doi:10.1214/ss/1177010269JSTOR 2246252.
  6. Jump up^ “Census Help”ask.census.govUnited States Census BureauArchived from the original on 17 June 2017. Retrieved 17 June 2017.
  7. Jump up^ Arendt, Britta (April 3, 2010). “Census Day has passed – still time to be counted”. Grand Rapids Herald-Review.
  8. Jump up^ “Instructions for the 1820 US census”. The Upper St. John River Valley.
  9. Jump up^ Michael Teitelbaum; Jay Winter (30 August 1998). “Why People Fight So Much About the Census”Washington Post. Retrieved 29 April 2014.
  10. Jump up^ “The Problem”. Prisoners of the Census. September 26, 2005. Retrieved 2010-03-24.
  11. Jump up to:a b “‘Queering the census’ movement aims to get single gays counted”. NY Daily News. Retrieved 2015-03-19.
  12. Jump up^ Mic. “Laverne Cox Calls for Transgender People to Be Counted Differently in Census Reporting”. Mic. Retrieved 2015-09-29.
  13. Jump up^ Gomez, Alan (March 27, 2018). “California sues Trump administration over Census citizenship question”USA Today. Retrieved March 27, 2018.
  14. Jump up^ Martin Campbell-Kelly and William Aspray, “Computer a History of the Information Machine – Second Edition”, Westview Press, pages 14-19 2004
  15. Jump up^ https://www.usmarshals.gov/history/broad_range.htm
  16. Jump up^ Porter, Robert; Gannett, Henry; Hunt, William (1895). “Progress of the Nation”, in “Report on Population of the United States at the Eleventh Census: 1890, Part 1”. Bureau of the Census. pp. xviii–xxxiv.
  17. Jump up^ Report of the Commissioner of Labor In Charge of The Eleventh Census to the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1895. Washington, DC: United States Government Publishing Office. July 29, 1895. OCLC 867910652. Retrieved November 13, 2015. Page 9: “You may confidently look for the rapid reduction of the force of this office after the 1st of October, and the entire cessation of clerical work during the present calendar year. … The condition of the work of the Census Division and the condition of the final reports show clearly that the work of the Eleventh Census will be completed at least two years earlier than was the work of the Tenth Census.” — Carroll D. Wright, Commissioner of Labor in Charge
  18. Jump up^ “Population and Area (Historical Censuses)” (PDF). United States Census Bureau.
  19. Jump up^ Truesdell, Leon E. (1965) The Development of Punch Card Tabulation in the Bureau of the Census 1890-1940, US GPO, p.61
  20. Jump up^ Austrian, Geoffrey D. (1982) Herman Hollerith – Forgotten Giant of Information Processing, Columbia, pp.85-86
  21. Jump up^ “What is the purpose of the Census? What is the data used for?”.
  22. Jump up^ “The “72-Year Rule””. U.S. Census Bureau.
  23. Jump up^ “The 1940 Census: 72-Year-Old Secrets Revealed”.
  24. Jump up^ “Life expectancy in the USA, 1900-98”.
  25. Jump up^ Minkel, JR (2007-03-30). “Confirmed: The U.S. Census Bureau Gave Up Names of Japanese-Americans in WW II”. Scientific American. Retrieved 2009-11-02.
  26. Jump up^ El Nasser, Haya (2007-03-30). “Papers show Census role in WWII camps”USA Today. Retrieved 2009-11-02.
  27. Jump up^ Boyle, Mary (March 24, 2000). “Springs once tested Census’ confidentiality”The Gazette (Colorado Springs). Archived from the original on June 5, 2010.
  28. Jump up^ National Archives and Records Administration. “How can I search the Census Records?”. Retrieved December 13, 2008.
  29. Jump up^ “Discover your Ancestors”. Archived from the original on 2008-12-26.
  30. Jump up^ “The USGenWeb Free Census Project”. Retrieved 2010-03-24.
  31. Jump up^ “The USGenWeb Census Project”. Retrieved 2010-03-24.

Further reading

External links

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

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 for the United States.

Year Name of legislation or 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
1802 Naturalization Law of 1802
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 the Naturalization 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”
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]
1882 Immigration Act of 1882
  • First comprehensive immigration law for the US.
  • Imposed a 50 cent head tax to fund immigration officials.
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 sixteen 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-Reed 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. A quota of 105 new Chinese immigrants were allowed into America per year.
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 of Communist sympathies.
1953 Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding344U.S.590 (1953) 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 while 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 Operation Wetback Immigration and Naturalization Service roundup and deportation of undocumented immigrants in selected areas of CaliforniaArizona, and Texas along the border. The U.S. Border Patrol later reported that more than 1.3 million people (a number viewed by many to be inflated and not accurate) were deported or left the U.S. voluntarily under the threat of deportation in 1954.[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.
1980s
  • About 1.3 million illegal immigrants entered the US.
1982 Plyler v. Doe,[11]457U.S.202(1982) The court also stated that illegal immigrants are “within the jurisdiction” of the states in which they reside and, therefore, are under the equal protection laws of the fourteenth amendment, 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.[12]
  • 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.[13] Mexico rose to the head of the list of sending countries, followed by the Philippines, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and China.[14]
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][15]
1990 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez[16] 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 while 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[17]
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 the Fifth 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.[15]
  • 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).[18]
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.[19]
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.
2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals(DACADream Act
  • On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status.[20]

See also

References

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

Story 2: The Forgotten American Missing Males Not In Labor Forces — Lack of Well Paying Jobs Due to Automation, Competition, Globalization and Illegal Alien Invasion of United States — Videos

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

 

Tucker: Something ominous is happening to men in America

This is why MEN are choosing to QUIT WORK!? Is it true? Tucker Carlson tells it all

Mike Rowe: Men feel emasculated by unemployment

Left’s ‘toxic masculinity’ label to blame for male crisis?

Tucker: Washington not worried about male wage crisis

Illegal immigrants, robots ganging up on men?

Activist: Illegal immigration hurts black men most

“You DESTROYED Her!” Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson REACTS to interview with Cathy Newman

Jordan Peterson: The Left’s new public enemy No. 1

Jordan Peterson- His Finest Moment

Tucker: Trace the decline of men to disappearance of fathers

Why men need marriage, fathers at home

Labor Force Participation

Defining the Unemployment Rate

ALL MEN MUST WATCH THIS VIDEO! Jordan Peterson and Tucker on What’s Happening to Men!

One of the main indicators affecting the Federal Reserve’s decision of whether or not to raise interest rates is the unemployment rate. With unemployment rising significantly following the global financial crisis, the Fed has been holding its benchmark interest rate close to zero. But as the unemployment rate has since declined to pre-crisis levels, the Fed is looking to tighten its rather lax monetary policy.

Yet, unemployed persons finding new jobs is not the only way in which the unemployment rate can fall; it can also fall because the unemployed are no longer looking for work and dropping out of the labor force altogether. If this is the case, then a falling unemployment rate is not necessarily an indicator of renewed economic strength, but could indicate a structural weakness within the job market.

Understanding Unemployment Statistics

In order to understand how the unemployment rate is affected, it is important to know how it is calculated. First, a number of definitions are in order.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) classifies all persons over the age of 16 as “unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.” The labor force is defined by the BLS as “all persons classified as employed or unemployed.” The unemployment rate is then calculated by dividing the total number of unemployed by the total labor force. (See also: How Is Unemployment Defined?).

From this we can see that there are a number of ways in which the unemployment rate could fall. First, the most obvious way is that unemployed persons find a job and become employed. Labor force participation remains the same, while the number of unemployed decreases and the number of employed increases.

The second way is that people not currently counted in the labor force become employed. It is always possible for someone not actively looking for work to accept a job offer. As this would cause an increase in the total labor force while the number of unemployed remains unaffected, the unemployment rate would fall.

Finally, the unemployment rate could fall because those who were once considered unemployed stop looking for work, and leave the labor force altogether. These people may want work and are available to work but have given up looking. As both the number of unemployed and total labor force decrease in such a situation, it may not be obvious that the unemployment rate actually goes down. But considering the most extreme example of all those currently unemployed leaving the labor force, no matter how low the total labor force falls, the unemployment rate falls to zero.

While the first two ways in which the unemployment rate could decline are positive signs of economic strength, the final way is actually more indicative of weakness. Let’s look at the U.S. situation in order to determine whether the falling unemployment rate is a sign of strength or a sign of weakness.

The U.S. Employment Situation

Ten years ago the U.S. unemployment rate was sitting at 5%. Over the next couple of years it dipped below 5%, reaching a low of 4.4%, before beginning to rise in 2008 as a result of the global financial crisis. After reaching a high of 10% in October 2009, the unemployment rate has steadily fallen and is currently sitting at 5.1%.

With the Federal Open Market Committee estimating the median value of the normal rate of unemployment at 4.9% in their September 2015 meeting, the actual unemployment rate of 5.1% is closing in on the Fed’s target of full employment. This closing in on the employment target is part of the reason for the Fed’s indications of an interest rate hike to occur sometime this year.

Yet, the above discussion on how the unemployment rate is calculated, and factors that could affect its fall, should be reason to be somewhat skeptical of the unemployment numbers. In fact, there is another trend that makes the unemployment rate numbers look a lot less rosy.

Since about the middle of the 1960s until around the year 2000, the labor force participation rate—labor force divided by the population—has risen dramatically from just under 59% to a high of 67.3%. One of the main contributors to this rise was the increasing rate at which women were joining the labor force.

But, since 2000 the rate has been trending downward. From 2004 to 2008, the downward trend did level off with the labor force participation rate hovering around 66%, but in the aftermath of the global financial crisis the downward trend sped up significantly, with the current rate sitting at 62.4%.

While many economists argue that this decrease is partly due to many of the baby boom generation starting to retire and leaving the labor force, the prime working age (25 to 54 years) labor force participation rate has also been on the decline since the year 2000 when the rate was about 84%. Following a similar trajectory as the total labor force participation rate, albeit not as steep, the prime working age labor force participation rate is currently sitting around 80.6%. Thus, retiring baby boomers cannot be the sole reason for the decline in the overall labor force participation rate.

The fact that people in their prime working age are also leaving the labor force is more of a likely indication of a weakness in the U.S. labor market. Despite the fact that a record number of employment opportunities opened up last May with 5.4 million job vacancies across the U.S., hiring remained weak. One of the best explanations is that there is a skills-to-qualifications mismatch. Thus, despite the number of people who might want a job and are available for work, if they don’t have the skills that employers are looking for, they won’t get hired. (See also: The True Unemployment Rate: U6 Vs. U3).

The Bottom Line

While it may be tempting to think that a drop in the unemployment rate is a positive sign, the very narrow definition of the officially unemployed is evidence that the interpretation of unemployment rate trends is not unambiguous. One also needs to consider the labor force participation rate. If the unemployment rate is falling because people have given up on trying to find a job rather than actually finding a job, it is hard to see how this is evidence of a strengthening economy and reason for an interest rate hike.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/103015/how-labor-force-participation-rate-affects-us-unemployment.asp

Alongside the economic growth rate and the inflation rate, the unemployment rate is one of the most widely reported and discussed economic indicators. It makes regular appearances on newspaper front pages and nightly news broadcasts because it provides a simple snapshot of the condition of the economy. Many assume that the unemployment rate is a straightforward measure of people who are out of work, but the reality is more complicated.

A Little Background

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is responsible for measuring the nation’s unemployment rate by carrying out a monthly survey, known as the Current Population Survey. Each month, the BLS contacts 60,000 randomly selected households across the country and records the employment status of each person 16 years old or older. The collected data is then used to extrapolate a variety of national labor force statistics, including six different technical measures of the unemployment rate.

These six unemployment rates are labelled U-1 through U-6, respectively. For the Current Population Survey, an unemployed person is not currently working but is available to work and has actively looked for work at some point during the prior four weeks. The civilian labor force is the sum of all employed and unemployed people. A person who has no job and has not looked for a job in the last four weeks is not technically an unemployed person and is not included in the labor force.

The Technical Measures of the Unemployment Rate

The first two BLS measures of the unemployment rate, U-1 and U-2, are very narrow. The U-3 unemployment rate is the officially recognized rate of unemployment, measuring the number of unemployed people as a percentage of the labor force. Unless otherwise stated, all generic references to the employment rate in government communications and in the media refer to U-3 unemployment.

The U-4 unemployment rate is similar to the U-3 rate, but it adds in a category of people who are technically outside the labor force, known as discouraged workers. Discouraged workers desire work and have actively looked for work in the past 12 months, but they have not looked in the last four weeks because they don’t believe there is work available for them due to economic conditions or other reasons.

The U-5 unemployment rate includes everyone in the U-4 rate, in addition to any people who are available to work, willing to work and not discouraged from looking for work, but who have not looked for work in the prior four weeks for some other reason. The U-6 unemployment rate includes everyone in the U-5 rate plus any people who work part time because full-time work is not available due to economic conditions.

The True Unemployment Rate

The U-3 unemployment rate is a comparatively narrow technical measure that leaves out a whole swath of out-of-work people who are willing and able to take a job but who don’t fit the narrow BLS definition of “unemployed.” For example, a stonemason who wants to work but who has become discouraged by a lack of opportunity in the midst of a deep economic recession would not be included in U-3 unemployment. A marketing executive who is laid off at age 57 and stops scheduling new job interviews due to her experience of age discrimination would not be included in U-3 unemployment. A person who only works one six-hour shift per week because no full-time jobs are available in his area would not be included in U-3 unemployment.

In contrast to the U-3 rate, the U-6 unemployment rate includes all of these cases. Consequently, the U-6 rate is much truer to a natural, non-technical understanding of what it means to be unemployed. By capturing discouraged workers, underemployed workers and other folks who exist on the margins of the labor market, the U-6 rate provides a broad picture of the underutilization of labor in the country. In this sense, the U-6 rate is the true unemployment rate.

The True Unemployment Rate: U6 Vs. U3 | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080415/true-unemployment-rate-u6-vs-u3.asp#ixzz5BfFclXgV

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1052

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

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 Shows 151-157

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 1051, March 26, 2018, Story 1: Trump’s Top Secret Plan To Use $25 Billion of Defense Appropriations To Build 1,954 Mile Mexican/United States Border Wall or Big Beautiful Barrier To Stop and Rollback the 30-60 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of United States — Trump Has 30 Months To Complete Wall by Election Day 2020  — No Completed 1,954 Mile Wall — Voters Will Dump Trump Or Completed Wall Trump Wins In A Landslide — Build The Wall — Videos

Posted on March 26, 2018. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Communications, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Empires, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Fourth Amendment, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Investments, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Mental Illness, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Senate, Social Networking, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Transportation, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

 

U.S. Constitution – Article 4 Section 4

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.

ILLEGAL INVASION of America – immigration destroying the USA

The End of America in 2016: Immigration Crisis & Socialism, Death of Middle Class

Story 1: Trump’s Top Secret Plan To Use $25 Billion of Defense Appropriations To Build 1,954 Mile Mexican/United States Border Wall or Big Beautiful Barrier To Stop and Rollback the 30-60 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of United States — Trump Has 3o Months To Complete Wall by Election Day 2020  — No Completed 1,954 Mile Wall — Voters Will Dump Trump — Videos

Because of the $700 & $716 Billion Dollars gotten to rebuild our Military, many jobs are created and our Military is again rich. Building a great Border Wall, with drugs (poison) and enemy combatants pouring into our Country, is all about National Defense. Build WALL through M!

Trump suggests using military funds to build border wall

Report: Trump wants military funds used on wall

Trump tweets that border wall is needed for national defense

Fund THE WALL From Defense Budget

Is a wall along the US-Mexico border realistic?

How we can build Trump’s border wall

The Wall: A Nation Divided

Ingraham: When Trump wins on principle

Roberts County: A Year in the Most Pro-Trump Town

Should the military help build the border wall?

Trump tweets that border wall is needed for national defense

 

Laura Ingraham: Trump and “The Expert Class”

Rancher: Mexican border isn’t secure

Arizona Border Ranchers Torn in Support for Trump’s Wall

Obama on Trump Wall: ‘Good luck with that’

Omnibus spending bill: A score for the swamp?

Mark Levin on the backstory of Trump signing the omnibus spending bill 3.23.2018

Rush Limbaugh Said Trump PULLED A FAST ONE Signing the Omnibus Bill

Rush Limbaugh Reveals, Donald Trump’s LOOPHOLE in The Omnibus Budget

Rush Limbaugh’s FULL UPSET REACTION to Trump Signing the Omnibus Spending Bill

Trump’s Great Wall Will Actually Be A Tiny Fence

Senator on Trump veto threat: ‘he’s one of the worst negotiators I’ve ever seen’

Laura Ingraham: Congress and the Wall

Omnibus spending bill: A score for the swamp?

Border Patrol officials react to getting funds for ‘fencing’

Ingraham: Illegal immigration and the jobs we can’t do

Tucker: Congress forgets voters in spending bill

Tucker Carlson: Border wall a threat to Democrats’ power

Ann Coulter Responds to Omnibus Spending Bill

The Ugly Truth About DACA

The Truth About Immigration and Welfare

Why Donald Why? President Trump Betrayal, Signs Disastrous Spending Bill!

Where’s the Promised Wall? Trump Acolytes Ready to Jump the #MAGA Ship Over Omnibus Spending Bill

Anti-War Trump Voters Desperately Trying to Grasp the Schizoid Selection of Neocon Hawk John Bolton

The CFR Tearfully Admits: The NWO Is Dead Thanks to President Trump, Hero of Our Proud Republic

Trump Daily: Right on Omnibus Veto, Wrong on Bolton

New California policy: Illegal immigrants voting?

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1

Published on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 1

Published on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 2

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Philip Romero

2015-08-10 Mark Levin on illegal immigrants statistics stealing the jobs Americans want

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – NumbersUSA.com

Tucker: Illegal immigration is literally costing US big-time

Study says illegal immigration costs US $135 billion a year

 

Trump privately presses for military to pay for border wall

Josh Dawsey and Mike DeBonisWashington Post

President Donald Trump, who repeatedly insisted during the 2016 campaign that Mexico would pay for a wall along the southern border, is privately pushing the U.S. military to fund construction of his signature project.

Trump has told advisers that he was spurned in a large spending bill last week when lawmakers appropriated only $1.6 billion for the border wall. He has suggested to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and congressional leaders that the Pentagon could fund the sprawling project, citing a “national security” risk.

After floating the notion to several advisers last week, Trump told House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., that the military should pay for the wall, according to three people familiar with the meeting last Wednesday in the White House residence. Ryan offered little reaction to the idea, these people said, but senior Capitol Hill officials later said it was an unlikely prospect.

Trump’s pursuit of defense dollars to finance the U.S.-Mexico border wall underscores his determination to fulfill a campaign promise and build the barrier despite resistance in the Republican-led Congress. The administration’s last-minute negotiations with lawmakers to secure billions more for the wall failed, and Trump grudgingly signed the spending bill Friday after a short-lived veto threat.

Four days later, Trump continued to express regret over signing the $1.3 trillion package, which funded the government and averted a shutdown, saying it was a mistake and he should have followed his instincts.

In another interaction with senior aides last week, Trump noted that the Defense Department was getting so much money as part of the spending bill that the Pentagon could surely afford the border wall, two White House officials said. The Pentagon received about $700 billion in the spending package, which Trump repeatedly lauded as “historic.”

Meanwhile, the $1.6 billion in the bill for some fencing and levees on the border not only fell far short of the $25 billion that Trump was seeking, but it came with tight restrictions on how the money could be spent.

The individuals and officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely about private discussions.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders deflected a question Tuesday about money dedicated to the military being used to fund construction of the wall. “I can’t get into the specifics of that at this point, but I can tell you that the continuation of building the wall is ongoing, and we’re going to continue moving forward in that process,” Sanders told reporters.

“Build WALL through M!” Trump recently wrote on Twitter. He retweeted those words Tuesday, noting that “our Military is again rich.” Two advisers said “M” stood for “military.”

The president has suggested to Mattis that his department, instead of the Department of Homeland Security, could fund the construction, two Trump advisers said. But the military is not likely to fund the wall, according to White House and Defense Department officials.

The Pentagon has plenty of money, but reprogramming it for a wall would require votes in Congress that the president does not seem to have. Taking money from the current 2018 budget for the wall would require an act of Congress, said a senior Pentagon official.

To find the money in the 2019 defense budget, Trump would have to submit a budget amendment that would require 60 votes in the Senate, the official said.

Democrats in Congress would probably chafe at military spending going to the construction of a border wall, and military officials may also blanch, White House advisers said.

Defense hawks in the Republican ranks would balk at taking money now dedicated to the Pentagon for aircraft, weapons and improvements to the armed forces’ readiness and instead steering it toward construction of the wall.

“First Mexico was supposed to pay for it, then U.S. taxpayers, and now our men and women in uniform? This would be a blatant misuse of military funds and tied up in court for years. Secretary Mattis ought not bother and instead use the money to help our troops, rather than advance the president’s political fantasies,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement to The Washington Post.

Trump has grown frustrated watching constant TV criticism of the spending package and is determined to find a new way to fund the wall, several advisers said, privately grousing that his political supporters could become disenchanted without progress. After a recent trip to see prototypes of the wall in California, Trump has grown more animated by the issue, advisers said.

The president’s comments raising the possibility of using Pentagon funds to build the wall came after the collapse of negotiations with Democrats to secure $25 billion in long-term wall funding in exchange for protections for young immigrants at risk for deportation because of Trump’s cancellation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The White House offered three years of protections for DACA recipients, according to multiple congressional aides, but Democrats demanded protections for a larger group of “dreamers,” including those who never applied or are ineligible for DACA. The negotiations fell apart before the spending bill was drafted and passed last week.

The urgency to strike a deal reflected the growing sense that the spending bill represented the last chance for the Trump administration to secure substantial wall funding, at least in the president’s first term. Top Republicans believe it is all but certain that Democrats will gain House seats in November’s midterm elections — and perhaps take the majority — greatly enhancing their bargaining position in future spending negotiations.

Only $641 million is earmarked for new primary fencing in areas that currently have no barriers, and most of the money can be spent only on “operationally effective designs” that were already deployed as of last May. That means the prototype designs the Trump administration is exploring cannot be built, except along a stretch of the border near San Diego where a barrier is already in place.

The Washington Post’s Greg Jaffe contributed to this report.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-military-pay-border-wall-20180327-story.html

 

 

Trump proposes making his border wall a military project because the Pentagon has a lot of money

March 25, 2018

Just hours after threatening a veto, President Trump said Friday afternoon that he had signed a “ridiculous” $1.3 trillion spending bill passed by Congress early Friday, averting a government shutdown.

In a morning tweet, Trump said he might veto the omnibus bill because it did nothing to address the fate of young undocumented immigrants known as “dreamers” and did not fully fund his border wall.

But speaking to reporters at the White House about four hours later, Trump said he had decided to sign the bill despite his reservations, arguing that it provides much-needed funding for the military, including a pay increase for troops and new equipment.

“My highest duty is to keep America safe,” Trump said. “We need to take care of our military.”

Still, he voiced disdain for the hasty way the bill was passed.

“I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again,” Trump said, also calling on Congress to give him a line-item veto, a tool that the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional for a president.

“There are a lot of things that I’m unhappy about in this bill,” he said later in his 20-minute remarks, telling reporters that he had “very seriously” considered a veto.

The announcement, which Trump teased in a separate tweet an hour before, capped off a wild morning in the White House and on Capitol Hill. Several aides scrambled to persuade the president not to follow through with his veto threat.

In his tweet Friday morning, Trump said that those protected from deportation by the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program have been “totally abandoned” by Congress, and he blamed the Democrats.

Trump, who decided last fall to end the DACA program, was seeking a deal that would give Democrats protections they sought for the program’s recipients in exchange for additional funding of $25 billion for his long-promised U.S.-Mexico border wall. The bill includes $1.6 billion for fencing and other border security measures.

I am considering a VETO of the Omnibus Spending Bill based on the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded.

“I am considering a VETO of the Omnibus Spending Bill based on the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded,” Trump said in his tweet.

In his remarks at the White House, Trump said he was disappointed in the level of border-security funding but pledged to do as much as possible with it and to seek more money from Congress.

Saying he was addressing Hispanics, Trump argued that his party is more interested in the fate of dreamers than Democrats are.

“Republicans are much more on your side than the Democrats, who are using you for their own purposes,” the president said. His aides have argued Democrats are trying to use DACA as an election issue.

People familiar with Trump’s thinking said the president was frustrated with the bill and the coverage it was receiving, particularly on Fox News, where critics took aim at the level of spending in the bill.

“He doesn’t care as much about the spending levels, but he knows all of his conservative friends do,” said a senior White House official who requested anonymity to speak more candidly.

Lawmakers have left town on a two-week recess, some of them on overseas trips and with no plans to return to Washington. The House passed the bill midday Thursday, and the Senate cleared the measure early Friday, shortly after midnight.

Trump had until midnight Friday to sign a bill, or a government shutdown would have ensued.

 

Negotiators in Congress on March 21 reached an agreement on a $1.3 trillion spending bill, keeping government agencies operating through September.

The legislation funds the federal government for the remainder of the 2018 budget year, through Sept. 30, directing $700 billion toward the military and $591 billion to domestic agencies. The military spending is a $66 billion increase over the 2017 level, and the nondefense spending is $52 billion more than last year.

The spending bill is widely expected to be the last major legislation that Congress will pass before the November midterm elections, increasing pressure to jam the bill full of odds and ends, with provisions addressing areas as varied as guns and invasive carp.

The lack of an immigration deal in the spending bill had set already set off a round of recriminations, with the White House aggressively trying to deflect responsibility.

Trump’s veto threat only intensified the blame game Friday morning.

“Let’s not forget that you ended DACA and torpedoed every possible bipartisan fix. This is on you,” Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) said on Twitter.

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) accused Trump of making a “loser’s bluff.”

“Go ahead and veto the omnibus over DACA. We dare you,” Pocan said on Twitter. “Everyone knows you’re the reason DACA recipients are abandoned.”

Meanwhile, lawmakers who opposed the spending bill on other grounds used the occasion to urge Trump to follow through with his threat.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), head of the hard-right Freedom Caucus, urged Trump to veto the bill: “The@freedomcaucus would fully support you in this move, Mr. President. Let’s pass a short term [continuing resolution] while you negotiate a better deal for the forgotten men and women of America.”

Also urging Trump to veto the bill was Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who in a tweet Friday morning said: “Please do, Mr. President. I am just down the street and will bring you a pen. The spending levels without any offsets are grotesque, throwing all of our children under the bus. Totally irresponsible.”

Before the Senate’s early-morning vote Friday, Corker had complained about the process of rushing the bill through Congress.

Several other conservative lawmakers egged Trump on Friday morning, complaining about the amount of spending and the rushed process. But there was no indication that Trump shared those concerns.

Instead, in his veto threat Friday, Trump proposed something that conservative hard-liners have largely rejected in recent months — trading dreamer protections for border-wall money. Conservatives, emboldened by a White House proposal released in January, have insisted that any immigration deal go further, cutting several programs that allow foreign nationals to live in the United States legally.

Other senior Republicans made Twitter pleas urging Trump to sign the bill. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) rattled off several policy wins in a Friday tweet directed at the president, including a gun-related measure long championed by the Texas Republican that was included in the 2,232-page spending measure.

“While Ds obstructed normal appropriations process, forcing an Omnibus, the benefits of Omnibus to national security, border security, opioid crisis, infrastructure, school safety and fixing gun background check system are important and will save lives. @realDonaldTrump,” Cornyn tweeted Friday.

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said of Trump’s threat: “I hope he doesn’t do it. That’s my reaction.”

“I don’t think what we did was the best thing we could have done,” Isakson added. “But it was the only thing we could have done, so to veto it wouldn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) sized up the president’s veto threat Friday morning this way: “Art of the Deal-Wrecker!” He urged the president to sign the bill.

“One day after his own [Office of Management and Budget] director said he would sign it … he’s now saying he’s thinking about vetoing it,” Kaine told reporters. “What, does he just want to create more confusion and chaos? I don’t get it.”

Kaine said Trump’s professed concern about DACA recipients is not sincere, saying he walked away from an offer from Democrats weeks ago to protect them in exchange for more border-security funding.

“He was the one who poured cold water on it and killed it among the Republicans just a month ago,” Kaine said.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said: “This is classic Trump. He says one thing and then he does something completely different.”

Van Hollen added, “He’s actually one of the worst negotiators I’ve ever seen.”

Although Trump aides declared Thursday that Trump intended to sign the bill, there were signs of his displeasure with various aspects of it.

On Wednesday, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) rushed to the White House to reassure Trump.

The president was upset with the lack of money for his border wall, and he griped about a proposed tunnel between New York and New Jersey — a project beloved by Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) — that Trump tried to block as part of the negotiations.

Veto threats were made then, too, but after conversations with Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the White House issued a statement saying Trump supported the bill.

“Is the president going to sign the bill? The answer is yes,” Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters at the White House on Thursday afternoon.

On Thursday, the White House also issued a lengthy release titled “The American People Win as President Donald J. Trump’s Priorities are Funded,” with a long list of specific items in the massive legislation.

Asked about the president’s tweet Friday, White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said in a statement, “The tweet stands for itself.”

 Josh Dawsey, Erica Werner, Sean Sullivan and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/03/23/trump-threatens-to-veto-omnibus-bill-because-it-does-not-address-daca-recipients/?utm_term=.d2280d385792

 

Building a Wall in the Dark

Congress is using budget shenanigans to funnel Pentagon money to President Trump’s border wall.

By Ryan Alexander Opinion Contributor July 19, 2017, at 7:00 a.m.

Enough.(RODRIGO ABD/AP PHOTO)

FAIR WARNING: THIS week’s column is a deep dive into the inner workings of the House of Representatives. When you kick that rock over, goodness knows what will skitter out. In this case, it reveals some unsavory shenanigans to funnel money to President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall.

If you’re for the wall, you’re thinking, “Good! We should be spending taxpayer dollars to keep illegal immigrants out of the country.” But, if I told you the money was going to come from the Pentagon budget, would that still make sense to you?

Federal military troops are forbidden to engage in law enforcement actions – such as enforcing immigration law – by the long-standing posse comitatus prohibitions. (The National Guard is a different case, since its members are under the partial control of their state governors.) The federal agencies charged with protecting U.S. borders and enforcing immigration laws, like the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol, are in the Department of Homeland Security. And the president’s budget request for fiscal year 2018 includes just over $44 billion for the department.

So, again, I ask, why should the Pentagon be asked to pay for a border wall? It seems to be a testament to the famous reason Willie Sutton gave for robbing banks: “Because that’s where the money is.” The Pentagon, with a total proposed budget of $639 billion ($574 in base budget and $65 billion in special “war” accounts), is where lawmakers can find the money for just about anything.

But the House Armed Services Committee version of the annual Pentagon policy bill included a common-sense provision to make sure the Pentagon isn’t tasked with paying for the wall:Section 1039. Rule of construction regarding use of Department of Defense funding of a border wall. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this act or otherwise made available for the fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense may be used to plan, develop or construct any barriers, including walls or fences, along the international border of the United States.”

A careful reading of this language (and that’s what we do at Taxpayers for Common Sense) points out this is a fairly broad prohibition. The armed services committees don’t ultimately control how federal dollars are spent. The Constitution preserves that role for the appropriations committees. But by saying “or otherwise made available … for the Department of Defense,” the House Armed Services Committee was foreclosing the possibility of spending any Pentagon money on this wall in a more comprehensive way.

That was the plan. And at Taxpayers for Common Sense, we supported the idea.

Enter the House Rules Committee. A little known congressional powerhouse, the Rules Committee is also called the speaker’s committee. It’s called that because the speaker of the House simultaneously served as the chairman of the committee until 1910 and, as the committee website says, “because it is the mechanism that the speaker uses to maintain control of the House floor.”

The Pentagon policy bill, HR 2810, needed a “rule” to allow for its consideration on the House floor. The committee meets to consider the hundreds of amendments offered by House members, decide which will be allowed during House debate and determine how long that debate may last. And this is where we’re going to step off the cliff into the inner workings of the House, as I promised above.

An amendment was offered by Republican Reps. Steven Palazzo and Trent Kelly from Mississippi (which has coastline but no land border) to strike Section 1039. That means Pentagon money could be spent to construct a border wall. In the normal process of things, this amendment would have been accepted by the Rules Committee and then debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives. But nothing about this amendment can be called normal.

The Rules Committee took this one amendment and labeled it, “proposed to be adopted.” In the arcana of House rules, this means that voting for the rule governing consideration of the bill was also voting for this amendment. This is known as a “self-executing rule.” The ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, offered an amendment to strike the self-executing portion of the rule and was defeated in committee on a party-line vote of 4-8.

On the House floor, the vote on the full rule passed. And at the end of a long and exhausting day (and story), that means Pentagon money can be used to construct a border wall. Talk about governing under the cover of darkness.

This is wrong. The Department of Homeland Security, and its budget, exists to cover these and other expenses. If we keep putting non-defense requirements into the Pentagon budget, we are defeating the purpose of individual federal departments and budgets.

Enough. If this is a high priority for the president and Congress, they should request and appropriate the funds to the right federal department. And the debate on that spending should be in the open, not hidden in a so-called self-executing rule.

 

 

Trump’s border wall prototypes pass tests by military special forces

Trump's border wall prototypes pass tests by military special forces
Eight prototypes of border walls were built in the fall in San Diego. (Border Patrol)

 

Recent assaults by tactical teams on prototypes of President Trump’s proposed wall with Mexico indicate their imposing heights should stop border crossers, a U.S. official with direct knowledge of the rigorous assessment told the Associated Press.

Military special forces based in Florida and U.S. Customs and Border Protection special units spent three weeks trying to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information was not authorized for public release.

A Customs and Border Protection report on the tests identifies strengths and flaws of each design but does not pick an overall winner or rank them, though it does point to see-through steel barriers topped by concrete as the best overall design, the official said.

The report recommends combining elements of each, depending on the terrain. The official likened it to a Lego design, pulling pieces from different prototypes.

Carlos Diaz, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection, said that the agency is still in “the testing phase” and that results are being evaluated. He said combining elements of different prototypes instead of picking a winner is consistent with previous statements by officials. He noted that the agency said in its bidding guidelines that a minimum height of 18 feet would be a key characteristic. He said he did not have additional details on test results.

Contractors were awarded between $300,000 and $500,000 for each prototype. Prototypes were built in the fall to guide future construction of one of Trump’s signature campaign pledges. Four were concrete and four were made of other materials.

Ronald Vitiello, the agency’s acting deputy commissioner, said after visiting the prototypes in October that he was struck most by the 30-foot heights, which are significantly higher than the existing barriers. Taller barriers are undoubtedly more effective, but whether the cost is justified will be up for debate.

The highly trained testers scaled 16 to 20 feet unassisted but needed help after that, said the official who described the assaults on the wall prototypes to the AP. Testers also expressed safety concerns about getting down from 30 feet.

Only once did a tester manage to land a hook on top of the wall without help, the official said. Tubes atop some models repelled climbing devices but wouldn’t work in more mountainous areas because the terrain is too jagged.

The report favors steel at ground level because agents can see what is happening on the other side and holes can more easily be patched, the official said. With concrete, large slabs have to be replaced for even small breaches, which is time-consuming and expensive. Topping the steel with smooth concrete surfaces helps prevent climbing.

Customs and Border Protection leaders were scheduled to be briefed on the findings this week amid intensifying discussions between the White House and Congress on immigration legislation to avert a government shutdown and renew protection for about 800,000 young immigrants who were temporarily shielded from deportation under an Obama-era program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which is scheduled to end in March.

The administration has insisted wall funding be part of any immigration deal, but Trump has been unclear about how long the wall would be and how it should be designed. The administration has asked for $1.6 billion this year to build or replace 74 miles of barriers in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley and San Diego and plans to request another $1.6 billion next year.

A proposal by Customs and Border Protection calls for spending $18 billion over 10 years to extend barriers to cover nearly half the border, though it is unclear whether Trump supports that plan. The agency proposes 316 miles of additional barrier by September 2027, bringing total coverage to 970 miles. It also seeks 407 miles of replacement or secondary fencing.

Mexico has steadfastly rejected Trump’s demand that it pay for the wall.

Contracts to do work on that scale would be hugely lucrative, and the prototypes, spaced tightly together in a remote part of San Diego, have captured widespread attention, including from architecture critics. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co. of Philadelphia, Miss., and Caddell Construction Co. of Montgomery, Ala., built one concrete model and one of other materials.

Texas Sterling Construction Co., a unit of Sterling Construction Co., and Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. of Tempe, Ariz., did concrete designs. ELTA North America Inc., part of state-run Israel Aerospace Industries, and KWR Construction Inc. of Sierra Vista, Ariz., built models from other materials.

Vitiello said in October that the testing could last up to two months and lead officials to conclude that elements of several designs should be merged to create effective walls, raising the possibility of no winner.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+many+illegal+in+united+states+counting+the+uncountable

Illegal Aliens: Counting the Uncountable

By James H. Walsh 
Volume 17, Number 4 (Summer 2007)
Issue theme: “How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.?”

 

 

Summary:
No exact head count exists for the ghost population of illegal aliens residing in the United States. Data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) and by national surveys, governmental agencies, nongovernment statistics-keeping agencies, philanthropic organizations, religious charities, and immigrant advocates are used in estimates ranging from 7 million to 20 million. This article demonstrates that this number is closer to 2 times 20 million.

 

Qui vult decipi, decipiatur.
(Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.)

– Latin proverb

 

No exact head count exists for the ghost population of illegal aliens residing in the United States. Data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) and by national surveys, governmental agencies, nongovernment statistics-keeping agencies, philanthropic organizations, religious charities, and immigrant advocates are used in estimates ranging from 7 million to 20 million. I believe that number is closer to 2 times 20, and here is why.

Guessing the number of illegal aliens in the United States is like playing the lottery––more than a million to one that you will be right on. Government agencies each have their own methodology and thus their own estimate. Leading the list are the Census Bureau and the post-9/11 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—an amalgamation of 22 federal agencies, including the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) transferred from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the former Customs Service (USC) transferred from the U.S. Treasury Department. The INS and USC had the distinction of being among the most dysfunctional agencies in the U.S. Government. Added to these are other public and private prestidigitators (listed here in alphabetical order): academics, demographers, economists, environmentalists, geographers, historians, immigration advocates, journalists, labor specialists, political scientists, religious charities, sociologists, statisticians, and welfare administrators.

Not one of these “experts” has a clue as to the exact number of illegal aliens, but this does not keep them from crafting estimates to fit their own agenda. Few have ever been to the U.S.–Mexican border, where the majority of illegal aliens cross into the United States. My high-ball estimate, at least, is based on first-hand data compiled on site. During eleven years as a renegade INS Associate General Counsel, I regularly traveled the Southern Border, as it meanders 2,000 miles from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. My duties took me as well to the then even less secure Northern Border with Canada, which extends through often heavily wooded wilderness.

The INS, in its stormy heyday, had a chronic problem with numbers, be it the number of illegal aliens crossing U.S. borders each year, the number of visa overstays, the number of actual, in-the-flesh deportations, or the number of criminal illegal aliens (those convicted of crimes committed in the United States, after their illegal entry).

In 1994, the INS Statistics Division published a seminal statistical work on illegal aliens. Emphasizing that the figures were estimates, the report acknowledged the assistance of the Urban Institute, the Center for Social Demographic Analysis, the State University of New York, Albany, and the New York City Planning Department. The Urban Institute contributor also worked as an INS consultant, and now is with the Pew Foundation. The major players in immigration statistics do tend to quote each other. Although the report cited the INS Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS), it failed to mention that the 1990 NIIS records were lost during a processing error. Nevertheless, the report concluded that the actual illegal alien population residing in the United States in October 1992 was “not likely to have been higher than the estimated total of 3.4 million, because the assumption used to construct the estimates was selected deliberately to avoid underestimating the population.”

At the same time, an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General found INS statistics suspect and cited deliberate deception by senior INS officials tampering with immigration statistics. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one, false in all).

The DOJ investigation agreed with audits by the Government Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office, GAO) that an “aura of incompetence and incestuous mismanagement” permeated the INS. Over the years, GAO auditors voiced their concerns to the INS Office of the General Counsel, which was plagued by a swinging door of political appointee General Counsels. Those who pushed for accurate counts were stilled by bureaucratic estoppel, dead-end rewrites, and persistently convoluted and distorted statistics.

U.S. Border Patrol agents confided that they were told to cap apprehensions and deportations to conform to the desires of various Administrations to create at least a public perception of border control. One method was to move deportation cases from the Border States to inland districts with fewer alien cases; thus deportations would better match depressed apprehension figures. Another method was to send illegal aliens back across the border without recording the apprehensions. That strategy failed on occasions when Mexican officials refused to accept non-Mexican deportees. Not all illegal aliens crossing the Southern Border are Mexican. These “others” have their own acronym, OTM (other than Mexican), and it is among the OTMs, that the risk of terrorism is greatest. For instance, Arabs are said to be training in South America to pass as Hispanics at the Southern Border.

Unfortunately, under DHS, things have not greatly changed, other than to rename former INS and USC units and positions. The same bureaucrats, at the behest of political appointees, still supply Congress and the White House with illegal alien numbers. Just as with the old INS, the new DHS bureaucrats are adept at rationalizing their methodology and head counts.

In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau routinely undercounts and then adjusts upward total census numbers of Hispanics and other foreign nationals residing in the United States––counting only, of course, those willing to be counted. For the year 2000, the Census Bureau reported a total U.S. population count of “about 275 million” men, women, and children. When the states and local governments challenged that number as an undercount, the total was corrected upward to 281.4 million, with no clear count of illegal aliens. The Hispanic 2000 census count was 32.8 million, but on re-count the Census Bureau adjusted this number upward to 35.3 million, a 13 percent increase.

In 2001, Northeastern University, in an independent study, estimated a total of about 13 million illegal aliens in the United States, at the same time that the INS was estimating 4 million to 6 million illegal aliens. Unquestionably, the INS had a policy of underestimating the illegal alien count in keeping with its agenda traceable back to the Immigration Act of 1965, which opened the doors to Third World immigrants.

The average number of recorded apprehensions of illegal aliens in the United States now hovers at 1.2 million a year. A DHS report, Border Apprehensions: 2005, documented 1.3 million apprehensions in 2005. For the 10-year period (1996–2005), the highest number of apprehensions, 1.8 million, occurred in 2000, and the lowest, 1 million, in 2003. These DHS statistics contradict persistent statements by other government agencies that only 400,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens enter the country each year.

Journeymen Border Patrol agents (on the job five years or more) estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven. That informed estimate would raise the total number of illegal aliens entering the United States in 2003 to 8 million men, women, and children.

Immigrant apologists argue that the number of illegal aliens in the United States fluctuates: many die; many return to their homeland part of each year or after many years of work; others are granted amnesty or refugee status; and others become (LPRs) and then citizens. Logic questions some of these arguments. Why would those who pay $1,500 to $15,000 to be smuggled into the United States, risking their life, return in a matter of months or years? Why would they suffer long trips confined to over-crowded boats, trucks, or other containers to stay for a few months or years? Why would people suffer possible assaults, rape, or murder to stay a few months or years? Why would Chinese illegal aliens suffer decades of indentured servitude for a few years in the United States? Most of those illegal aliens who risk their lives sneaking into the United States are here to stay.

My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports. Taking the DHS average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year; then multiplying that number by 10 for the 1996–2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the United States. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the United States.

In contrast to my estimate, the head of the U.S. Border Patrol Union Local in Tucson was quoted in a May 16, 2006, Christian Science Monitor article, as estimating the total number of “illegal immigrants” (illegal aliens) in the United States, as of that date, at between 12 million and 15 million. At the same time, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in DHS put the number at 7 million; the Census Bureau estimated 8.7 million; and The Pew Hispanic Center estimate was 11.5 million to 12 million “unauthorized migrants” (illegal aliens) living in the United States. Depending on the source, the Christian Science Monitor concluded, illegal aliens in the United States in May 2006 numbered from “about 7 million up to 20 million or more.” At least the reporter was on the right track.

The current confusion of laws, regulations, DHS operating procedures, judicial decisions, and political agenda wreaks havoc on border enforcement. It is hardly reassuring that DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, on February 16, 2007, stated that immigration reform would let U.S. law enforcement focus on catching criminals instead of “future housekeepers and landscapers.” The Secretary opined that security alone is not enough to permanently stop “illegal border jumpers” (illegal aliens). With internecine fighting reported on the rise between and among alien and drug smuggling Hispanic gangs, the Secretary noted that alien smugglers are in disarray, but he expects “flows to go up again as smugglers regroup.”

A Closer Look at the Numbers

Thus far in 2007, the U.S. population has passed 301 million. DHS statistics indicate that illegal aliens are the fastest growing segment, followed by their anchor babies. In addition, the number of Mexican illegal aliens apprehended is nine times the combined numbers of all other illegal aliens.

Still the number of illegal aliens is downplayed by the immigration lobby, which is a coalition of liberal-radical academics, liberal politicians, federal and state bureaucrats, labor unions, La Raza (“The Race,” the leading immigrant activist group), other immigrant activists, and religious organizations.

Aiding and abetting the immigrant coalition is the news media, which is committed to not identifying persons as illegal aliens, especially those who commit crimes. Only when forced to do so does the news media refer to illegal aliens, and then only as “undocumented persons” or “unauthorized immigrants.” The latest newspeak introduced the term “migrants” with the blessing of the New York Times, when the coalition realized that U.S. citizens were beginning to catch on that “undocumented immigrant” actually meant illegal alien. Finally U.S. taxpayers are becoming alarmed by the numbers of illegal aliens in their states, cities, and communities. Finally they are sensing that the actual numbers exceed the official estimates.

Illegal alien apologists must downplay the numbers because the actual costs to federal and state taxpayers are rising drastically each year. By undercounting illegal aliens, the costs to taxpayers for increased school enrollment and hospital treatment are never fully explained. Texas school officials are recruiting in Mexico for bilingual persons to teach in Texas public schools. The 2005–06 Texas school data showed at least 711,237 students had “limited” English-speaking skills. U.S. school districts are recruiting foreign nationals to come and teach in U.S. schools to accommodate illegal aliens.

Arizona will spend $1.2 billion to educate non-English-speaking children in 2007. The pro-immigrant rights Pew Hispanic Center estimates that one in nine Arizona students is an “illegal immigrant or the child of an illegal immigrant.” Others in Arizona suggest the number is more like one in four.

tsc_17_4_walsh_chart1.png

 

On Capitol Hill, Congressional staffers are quick to rely on governmental studies as accurate; the acceptance of flawed data is routine in immigration circles. The Pew Hispanic Center published a report on June 14, 2005, entitled,Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics by Jeffrey S. Passel, formerly with the Urban Institute and a former INS consultant. His report, illustrated with charts and diagrams, included a footnote in which he stated his preference for the term “unauthorized migrants”:

Various labels have been applied to this group of unauthorized migrants, including “undocumented immigrants,” “illegals,” “illegal aliens,” and “illegal immigrants.” The term “unauthorized migrant” best encompasses the population in our data, because many migrants now enter the country or work using counterfeit documents, and thus are not really “undocumented,” in the sense that they have documents, but not completely legal documents.

Perhaps in place of “illegal aliens,” Passel would prefer “not completely legal aliens.” His report, largely advo-babble (immigrant advocate babble) under the guise of research and statistical analysis, rehashes disingenuous data in an attempt to cloud illegal alien numbers and their impact. In a chapter on “Methods: Residual Estimates of Unauthorized Migrants,” he states that the “residual method has been used for several decades to measure unauthorized migration to the U.S.” and that “some of the first sound empirical estimates came from residual methodology applied to the 1980 Census. Variants of the method were used or discussed by the Census Bureau, the Panel on Immigration Statistics, the Bi-National (U.S.-Mexico) Study, and the Commission on Immigration Reform, INS, and a number of other organizations and researchers.” If incest is a crime, then these researchers are guilty––at least of quoting themselves and cross-referencing their colleagues.

A GAO report (May 9, 2005) on criminal illegal aliens compared a 2000 INS estimate of the total “unauthorized immigrant” (illegal alien) population residing in the United States at 7 million to a 2005 estimate of “about 10 million illegal aliens living in the United States.” Of the 55,322 criminal illegal aliens studied by the GAO, each averaged eight arrests––without deportation.

The new DHS has yet to correct the multitude of problems inherited from the INS and Customs. A GAO report (May 27, 2005) described the memorandum of understanding on respective duties and intelligence sharing signed by the newly formed Immigration and Customs Enforcement component (ICE) and the Customs and Border Protection component (CBP). As of May 2005, however, no mechanism was in place to track numbers and results of referrals between the two. Little has changed.

Recently experts at liberal think-tanks, such as the Brookings Institution, are commenting on the extraordinary explosion across the United States of diversity and immigration. These experts are just learning that “immigrants” (illegal aliens) are showing up in many more communities than the experts ever believed, such as Loudoun County, Virginia (an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C.), Palm Beach County, Florida; and Plainfield, Illinois. They had accepted as fact the under-reporting of illegal aliens by immigrant special interest groups, including Democrats in Congress and federal agencies. Finally the ghost population of illegal aliens is becoming visible, through its sheer numbers at the state and local level. Not only are U.S. citizens beginning to see the reality of unfettered illegal immigration in their own communities; they are beginning to feel the pinch.

Countable Snapshots

Although no exact numbers exist on illegal aliens residing in the United States, the following snapshots support my contention that the actual numbers far exceed the “official” estimates of the federal government.

On an inspection tour of the El Paso Border Patrol Sector, while interviewing an agent, I observed in the distance twelve illegal aliens dash through a split in a fence, and three Border Patrol agents give chase. The aliens spread out like a fireworks starburst; the agents apprehended three of them; and thus nine illegal aliens were on their way to mingle in El Paso or parts unknown. This snapshot, remember, was a 20-foot stretch of a 2,000-mile border.

In an immigration/civil rights case, a federal judge asked attorneys, “Do we really know how many undocumented immigrants we are talking about, in the United States?” School Board attorneys hemmed and hawed; finally one replied, “One expert told me 1,300 “undocumented students” were in the school district, and another said 7,000.” When the judge later asked the question again, attorneys answered that privacy laws and federal laws prohibited questions about citizenship.

The Hispanic population is skyrocketing in such diverse areas as Fort Myers, Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina; Indianapolis, Indiana; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Seattle, Washington. Illegal aliens make up an estimated 80 percent of the new population. In Nebraska, the number of illegal aliens is estimated at more than 50,000. Nationally, Hispanics, now the largest minority, have a higher fertility rate than other ethnic groups.

In early 2007, more than 1.6 million Hispanics were reported living in the greater Chicago area, the majority of them Mexicans and 80 percent of them illegal aliens. One of them, Elvira Arellaño, is being granted “sanctuary” in a Chicago store-front church. DHS officers have not breached this “sanctuary” to deport Arellaño once again. Having lived in Chicago for nine years, she can still not speak English. As one of the few people actually deported by the U.S. Government, she re-entered the United States without inspection and thus is subject to felony charges. The radical immigration advocates who support her “sanctuary” mean to make a mockery of U.S. laws.

In January 2007, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokeswoman estimated that 600,000 “illegal immigrants” (illegal aliens) are currently ignoring deportation orders. Illegal aliens call the written notice of a deportation order a “run letter,” and that is what they do.

Southern states have the fastest growing populations in the country. Brookings Institution demographer William Frey opined in 2006, “Immigrants are finally catching up to the fact that the South is a magnet for jobs and quality of life. They are rag-tag migrants, taking jobs created by people who come from other parts of the U.S.” Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina are among the ten most popular states with illegal aliens.

In 2005, a total of 11,400 migrants on their way to the United States took refuge in the Jesuit shelter, Casa del Migrante, in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas; this figure was up from 4,647 in 1999.

In Palm Beach County, Florida, in 2006, according to an immigration advocate, the Hispanic population was undercounted by 3–4 to 1, with 90 percent of them illegal aliens. Thus when the 2005 Census recorded 50,000 Hispanic residents among the population of 1.2 million, the actual count was closer to 200,000, most of them illegal.

Among illegal aliens in the United States, most are of child-bearing age. The fertility rate of immigrants, legal and illegal, compared to that of U.S. citizens is 3–4:1.

In January 2007, U.S. Treasurer Anna Escobedo Cabral stated that remittances to Mexico from the United States are a driving force of Mexico’s economic growth. In 2006, these remittances were US$23 billion, an increase of 15 percent from remittances in 2005. Some of these remittances are coming from the estimated 5,000 to 30,000 Mexicans working in New Orleans to rebuild the city.

Illegal Aliens and “Comprehensive” Immigration Reform

A history of legislative chicanery and out-right misrepresentation has fed the illegal alien crisis now being felt at federal, state, and local levels in the United States. To Congress must go the majority of blame for the some 38 million illegal aliens now residing in the United States––threatening public safety and public health, stressing school and hospital budgets, damaging the environment, and draining taxpayer pocketbooks.

The new Democrat-controlled Congress is poised to repeat past legislative mistakes. The Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act), as part of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, served as an open invitation to those wishing to flee Third World countries; and the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), which promised amnesty and employer sanctions, delivered little of either. Only an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens took advantage of the IRCA (Reagan) amnesty. This low participation rate can be traced to the reluctance of illegal aliens to believe any country would be so naive as to wave in persons who had committed a crime in crossing the border. At that time, the total illegal alien population in the United States was estimated at 4 million to 6 million. The tsunami of “border jumpers” began once word spread around the world that the United States, with the passage of IRCA, was opening its borders.

In a 2005 Pew Hispanic Center report, Jeffrey Passel did make a coherent summation: “The unauthorized population [illegal aliens] has been steadily increasing in size (and possibly by large increments since the last half of the 1990s).”

Amnesty and employer sanction provisions failed to curb the flow of illegal aliens; IRCA proved to be a legislative mistake, and the present Democrat-controlled Congress is falling into the same trap, with the support of the President. As illegal alien counts rise daily, employer sanction provisions in any 2007 immigration legislation promise to be as unenforceable as those in IRCA. Just as the Reagan amnesty was followed by a new wave of emboldened illegal aliens, the same aftermath awaits “comprehensive” immigration legislation in 2007.

U.S. citizens (for the most part, we presume) elected the current Congress to pass legislation to “form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, 1789).

Immigration is not the problem; the burgeoning ghost population of illegal aliens now becoming visible across the United States is. Conflicting counts of illegal aliens reflect muddled immigration policies––purposeful or not. Such policies render the nation less capable of apprehending and deporting illegal aliens (among them violent criminals and terrorists) than ever before. ■

About the author

James H. Walsh, formerly an Associate General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the United States Department of Justice, writes immigration commentary. During his INS tenure, Walsh was selected as a German Marshall Fund Scholar, traveled through Europe interviewing immigration officials, and published articles based on his findings. At INS, he worked with other federal agencies and with congressional committees on immigration matters. His assignments included consultations with foreign governments and international business concerns. He chaired a task force on Transit without Visa (TWOV), whose report identified weaknesses in pre-9/11 airport security.

Walsh has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (Middle District of Florida) and as a Special Trial Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime Section. He chaired the Constitutional Rights Committee, General Law Section, of the American Bar Association, and served on the Editorial Board of TheFlorida Bar Journal. His articles on immigration have appeared inMigrationWorld, Social Contract, The Florida Bar Journal, and Newsmax.com.
Walsh has a B.A. in history from Spring Hill College and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

Omnibus spending bill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An omnibus spending bill is a type of bill in the United States that packages many of the smaller regular appropriations bills into one larger single bill that could be passed with only one vote in each house. There are twelve different regular appropriations bills that need to be passed each year to fund the federal government and avoid a government shutdown; an omnibus spending bill combines one or more of those bills into a single bill.

Appropriations process

Every year, Congress must pass bills that appropriatemoney for all discretionary government spending. Generally, one bill is passed for each sub-committee of the twelve subcommittees in the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations and the matching 12 subcommittees in the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations.

When Congress does not or cannot produce separate bills in a timely fashion, it will roll many of the separate appropriations bills into one omnibus spending bill.[1]:61 The deadline could be the start of the next fiscal year, October 1, or it could be some other deadline when appropriations would otherwise run out (such as a deadline set by a continuing resolution). The fiscal year of the United States is the 12-month period beginning on October 1 and ending on September 30 of the next calendar year.[2]

Some of the reasons that Congress might not complete all the separate bills include partisan disagreement, disagreement amongst members of the same political party, and too much work on other bills. According to Walter J. Oleszek, a political science professor and “senior specialist in American national government at the Congressional Research Service“,[3] omnibus bills have become more popular since the 1980s because “party and committee leaders can package or bury controversial provisions in one massive bill to be voted up or down.”[1]:14

Omnibus bills can also be used to “veto-proof” items, by including measures that the president is expected to veto if they were submitted for signature on their own, but who is willing or pressured into signing an omnibus bill that includes those measures.[1]:318

Criticism

In Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process Oleszek described omnibus measures,[4]

“Packaging all or a number of appropriation bills together creates what are called omnibus or minibus measures. These bills appropriate money to operate the federal government and make national policy in scores of areas. These omnibus bills grant large powers to a small number of people who put these packages together – party and committee leaders and top executive officials. Omnibus measures usually arouse the irk of the rank-and-file members of Congress because typically little time is available in the final days of a session to debate these massive measures or to know what is in them. Absent enactment of annual appropriation bills or a CR, federal agencies must shut down, furloughing their employees. Moreover, “uncertainty about final appropriations leads many [federal] managers to hoard funds; in some cases, hiring and purchasing stops.”

— Walter J. Oleszek. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. 2010:14

Often, omnibus spending bills are criticized for being full of pork (unnecessary/wasteful spending that pleases constituents or special interest groups).[5] The bills regularly stretch to more than 1,000 pages. Nevertheless, such bills have grown more common in recent years.[1]:14

In December 2004, the 3,016-page $388 billion Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 became known for its size, its earmarks inserted in the final stages that represented 4% of the $388, its unrelated provisions, and controversial content and for being rushed through at the last minute; it was drafted by the House in less than 24 hours then pushed through the Senate.[6][7] It contained “complex and controversial matters” which included nine bills, only two of which had been debated in the Senate and a conference report with 32 unrelated provisions that the Senate had never considered.[8]:25267

In 2009, a $410 billion omnibus bill, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105), became a point of controversy due to its $8 billion in earmarks.[9] On March 11, the bill was signed by U.S. PresidentBarack Obama into law as Pub.L. 111–8.[10]

Examples

See also

Notes

  1. Jump up to:a b c d Oleszek, Walter J. (2007). Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. ISBN 978-0-87289-303-0.
  2. Jump up^ Heniff Jr., Bill (26 November 2012). “Basic Federal Budgeting Terminology” (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 9 January 2014.
  3. Jump up^ “Profile of Walter Oleszek”. American University. Retrieved 13 January 2014.
  4. Jump up^ Walter J. Oleszek (September 22, 2015). Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process (10 ed.). CQ. p. 504. ISBN 978-1506304304. New co-authors Mark J. Oleszek, Elizabeth Rybicki, Bill Heniff Jr.
  5. Jump up^ Omnibus Spending Bill Busts the Budget to Pay for Pork
  6. Jump up^ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
  7. Jump up^ Rosenbaum, David E. (November 21, 2004). “Call it Pork or Necessity, but Alaska Comes Out Far Above the Rest in Spending”New York Times. Retrieved January 8, 2017.
  8. Jump up^ Congressional Record Proceedings and Debates of the 108th Congress Second Session150 (19), pp. 25035–25951November 20, 2004 to December 20, 2004
  9. Jump up^ Senators Parse ‘Earmark Overload’.
  10. Jump up^ HR 1105.

References

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

Q – What does Article IV, Section 4 really mean?

Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly called the Guarantee Clause. It reads, “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.” This clause guarantees that the federal government will assure and provide these three protections to all State governments:

1. Republican Form of Government;
2. Protection Against Invasion; and
3. Protection of Legislatures and Executive from domestic Violence.

The first assurance is more complicated because the term “Republican Form of Government” is not defined in the Constitution and was not widely written on during the Ratification Debates. However, they did establish seven basic principles necessary to constitute a Republican form of government:

1. There is a strict separation of powers, horizontally and vertically.
2. The government is run by officers governing for a term and only during good behavior.
3. Offices are selected by our election, and not by the appointment of the government itself.
4. The government recognizes that power resides originally in the People (immediately from God).
5. There is a deliberativeness in action and that it is, by the checks and balances, not subject to the whimsical fancy of a few.
6. The government acknowledges the final right of the People to alter or abolish it whenever it usurps the rights for which it was instituted by the People to administer God’s Law.
7. The government does not grant entitlements.

 

These principles must be maintained so that the form of government does not “wander” into another type of government – like monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, democracy or worse, totalitarian. For a detailed analysis of what the Guarantee Clause means regarding Republican Form of Government, please read the article “What is a Republic Anyway?” by Scott Whiteman, Esq. which is included below.

Protection against invasion was a continuation of an established centralized foreign policy and defense under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Framers understood that protection of the borders was essential to both the security of the people and the viability of the economy. The clause assures that a president cannot refuse to defend certain parts of the nation from foreign attack. Sadly today, this understanding has been lost on our national government officials who want to “sell out” the citizens by granting “amnesty” to those who illegally enter the States of the union.

The final assurance is protection of legislatures and the executive from domestic Violence which again is a vague term used without being properly defined in the document. It has commonly accepted that this protection is against local uprisings or insurrections. However, as noted in the essay by Mr. Whiteman, most State Constitutions include articles in the Declaration of Rights which reserve to the people the right to establish a new government whenever the government oppresses the people. The Maryland Declaration of Rights in Article 6 states, “That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1051

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

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 Shows 151-157

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 1050, March 23, 2018, Story 1: Gutting Death of A Con Man — The Political Elitist Establishment Won Over Trump But Lost The American People Including Trump Supporters — No 1,954 Mile Wall To Stop and Reverse The 30-60 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of United States — No Wall Then Dump Trump Now — Tea Party Time — March On Washington on April 15, 2018 — Vote Out of Office Any Democratic and Republican Who Voted For and Signed On To The Budget Busting Borrowing Bill — aka 2018 Omnibus Spending Bill — Tea Party Should Establish American Independence Party To Defeat Both Democrats and Republicans Including Trump — Videos

Posted on March 23, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Business, Cartoons, College, Comedy, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, Extortion, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Law, Legal Drugs, Lying, Media, Medicare, Movies, National Interest, National Security Agency, Networking, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Radio, Rand Paul, Rule of Law, Security, Senate, Social Networking, Social Security, Spying, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Ted Cruz, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

See the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

 

See the source image

See the source image

Story 1: Gutting Death of A Con Man — The Political Elitist Establishment Won Over Trump But Lost The American People Including Trump Supporters — No 1,954 Mile Wall To Stop and Reverse The 30-60 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of United States — No Wall Then Dump Trump Now — Tea Party Time — March On Washington on April 15, 2018 — Vote Out of Office Any Democratic and Republican Who Voted For and Signed On To The Budget Busting Borrowing Bill — aka 2018 Omnibus Spending Bill — Tea Party Should Establish American Independence Party To Defeat Both Democrats and Republicans Including Trump — Videos

See the source imageSee the source image

The Band – The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

Virgil Caine is the name, and I served on the Danville train
‘Till Stoneman’s cavalry came and tore up the tracks again
In the winter of ’65, we were hungry, just barely alive
By May the tenth, Richmond had fell, it’s a time I remember, oh so well
The night they drove old Dixie down, and the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down, and the people were singin’ they went
La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la
Back with my wife in Tennessee, when one day she called to me
“Virgil, quick, come see, there goes Robert E Lee”
Now I don’t mind choppin’ wood, and I don’t care if the money’s no good
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest,
But they should never have taken the very best
The night they drove old Dixie down, and the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down, and the people were singin’ they went
La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la,
Like my father before me, I will work the land
Like my brother above me, who took a rebel stand
He was just eighteen, proud and brave, but a Yankee laid him in his grave
I swear by the mud below my feet,
You can’t raise a Caine back up when he’s in defeat
The night they drove old Dixie down, and the bells were ringing,
The night they drove old Dixie down, and all the people were singin’, they went
Na, la, na, la, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na,
The night they drove old Dixie down, and all the bells were ringing,
The night they drove old Dixie down, and the people were singin’, they went
Na, la, na, la, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na
Songwriters: Robbie Robertson
The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down lyrics © Warner/Chappell Music, Inc

“This is a BETRAYAL of Our Country!!” Tucker is PISSED About the New GOP Spending Bill

Tucker: Congress forgets voters in spending bill

Omnibus spending bill: A score for the swamp?

Hannity Goes Off on GOP Over Spending Bill: ‘I Personally Wish the President Vetoed’ It

Mark Levin on the backstory of Trump signing the omnibus spending bill 3.23.2018

Mark Levin: Trump signed the $1.3 trillion budget. This is the point of no return… (March 23 2018)

Why Donald Why? President Trump Betrayal, Signs Disastrous Spending Bill!

Why Democrats support the spending bill

Trump to sign spending bill into law, despite veto threat

“I Signed The Omnibus Bill” President Trump Pisses Off His Entire Base

Rush Limbaugh REACTION to Trump Signing Trillion Dollar Omnibus Bill

Fox & friends 03/23/18 – The fox & friends Fox News March,23,2018 – Ingraham Angle 03/23/18

Where’s the Promised Wall? Trump Acolytes Ready to Jump the #MAGA Ship Over Omnibus Spending Bill

President Trump signs $1.3 trillion spending bill, despite threat to veto – Ben Shapiro REACTS

Sean Hannity 03/23/18 – Fox News Sean Hannity March,23,2018 – Tucker Carlson 3/23/18

Why Donald Why? President Trump Betrayal, Signs Disastrous Spending Bill!

Live Stream: You and I in a Little Toy Shop Buy a Bag of Balloons With the Money We Got

Ann Coulter Responds to Omnibus Spending Bill

Ann Coulter Slams Trump for Signing the Omnibus

Laura: The WALL is NEVER Going to Happen!!

Alex Jones: I’m Off The Trump Train!

Trump: US Needs World’s ‘Strongest Military’

Trump: I’ll never sign a bill like this again

Trump’s Base Demands Impeachment For Signing Omnibus Spending Bill

Donald Should Veto Congress’ $1.3T Omnibus Bill For Banning His Signature Goal

Budget bill includes $1.57B for border wall, background checks

Tucker Carlson’s awkward interview with John Bolton

Republican Spending Bill Could Fund Planned Parenthood and Gun Control

Will The Deep State Eliminate Trump?

Tucker Carlson: Border wall a threat to Democrats’ power

Anti-War Trump Voters Desperately Trying to Grasp the Schizoid Selection of Neocon Hawk John Bolton

Ron Paul On Neoconservatism

Ron Paul – Neo-CONNED!

Big Spender

The minute you walked in the joint
I could see you were a man of distinction
A real big spender
Good lookin’ so refined
Say, wouldn’t you like to know what’s goin’ on in my mind?
So let me get right to the point
I don’t pop my cork for every man I see
Hey big spender,
Spend a little time with me
Wouldn’t you like to have fun, fun, fun
How’s about a few laughs, laughs
I could show you a good time
Let me show you a good time!
The minute you walked in the joint
I could see you were a man of distinction
A real big spender
Good lookin’ so refined
Say, wouldn’t you like to know what’s goin’ on in my mind?
So let me get right to the point,
I don’t pop my cork for every guy I see
Hey big spender
Hey big spender
Hey big spender
Spend, a little time with me
Yes
Songwriters: Cy Coleman / Dorothy Fields
Big Spender lyrics © Downtown Music Publishing

Rand Paul blasts omnibus: Maybe holding hands with Dems isn’t a great idea

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blasted Republicans for “holding hands” with Democrats over a massive funding bill signed into effect this week that he criticizes for skyrocketing the national debt and failing to deliver on key Republican agenda items.

“The debt is up over a trillion the Dow is down…Maybe the GOP holding hands Democrats isn’t such a great idea,” the libertarian-leaning senator complained on Twitter Saturday.

Paul live-tweeted his attempt to read through the behemoth 2,232 page omnibus spending package on Friday. Congress only had a few hours between the release of the bill and its passage before a Friday night government funding deadline.

He criticized the recent bill as so large that many lawmakers didn’t even know all the provisions within. But Paul said it has “never been my goal to shut down government,” when asked by Fox News host Tucker Carlson if he would pull a similar stunt on Friday.

President Trump reluctantly gave signed the bill into law on Friday, after threatening to use a veto hours before he was slated to approve it.

The bill included millions of dollars for additional domestic spending and projects considered a boon to Democrats, as well as funding for border security that came in well under Trump’s original request.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/380082-rand-paul-blasts-omnibus-maybe-holding-hands-with-dems-isnt-a-great-idea

Trump signs $1.3 trillion budget after threatening veto

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump signed a $1.3 trillion spending measure Friday, averting a midnight government shutdown just hours after declaring he was considering a veto.

Trump said he was “very disappointed” in the package, in part because it did not fully fund his plans for a border wall with Mexico and did not address some 700,000 “Dreamer” immigrants who are now protected from deportation under a program that he has moved to eliminate.

But Trump praised the increases the bill provides for military spending and said he had “no choice but to fund our military”

 

“My highest duty is to keep America safe,” he said.

The bill signing came a few hours after Trump created last-minute drama by saying in a tweet that he was “considering” a veto.

With Congress already on recess, and a government shutdown looming, he said that young immigrants now protected in the U.S. under Barack Obama’s Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals “have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded.”

Trump’s veto threat was at odds with top members of his administration and House Speaker Paul Ryan, who had said Thursday that he was supportive of the measure. The White House also issued a formal statement of administration policy indicating Trump would sign the bill. Several advisers inside and outside the White House said earlier Friday that they suspected the tweet was just Trump blowing off steam.

Finally, in made-for-TV scheduling, Trump took to twitter again to announce he’d be holding a news conference to talk about the bill. The drama was short-lived: An aide told reporters the signing was on. And telegraphing the outcome, an internal television feed advertised its next program: “President Trump Participates in a Bill Signing.”

Asked why he’d made the threat, Trump said he’d “looked very seriously at the veto,” but “because of the incredible gains that we’ve been able to make for the military that overrode any of our thinking.”

Trump also warned Congress: “I will never sign another bill like this again.”

The will-he, won’t he episode came hours after the Senate early Friday morning passed the $1.3 trillion spending package aimed at keeping the government open past midnight.

Trump has been increasingly frustrated with media coverage of the bill, spurred on by conservative Republican lawmakers and other critics who had spent recent days calling the president, inciting him, and making their cases loudly on cable news shows Trump is known to watch.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus and a friend of the president, said in a tweet that the group would “fully support” a veto, adding that Congress should pass a short-term budget resolution while Trump and congressional leaders “negotiate a better deal for the forgotten men and women of America.”

Sen. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., also egged Trump on. “Please do, Mr. President,” he tweeted. “I am just down the street and will bring you a pen. The spending levels without any offsets are grotesque, throwing all of our children under the bus. Totally irresponsible.”

“Make my day, Mr. President,” taunted Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore.

Senate passage of the bill averted a third federal shutdown this year, an outcome both parties wanted to avoid.

While Trump has repeatedly criticized Democrats over DACA, he canceled the program last fall, ending the issuance of new DACA permits. A judge has forced the administration to continue issuing renewals.

The spending package includes $1.6 billion for Trump’s long-promised border wall with Mexico. But less than half of the nearly 95 miles (153 kilometers) of border construction that have been approved can be spent on new barriers. The rest can only be used to repair existing segments.

The money was far less than the $25 billion over 10 years Trump had asked for as part of a last-ditch deal that would have included providing a temporary extension of the DACA program. White House budget officials have nonetheless tried to spin the funding as a win.

“We ended up asking for 74 miles worth of wall, we get 110. Not exactly what we wanted where we wanted,” budget director Mick Mulvaney said Thursday. “But generally speaking, we think this is a really, really good immigration package.”

The House easily approved the spending package Thursday, 256-167, a bipartisan tally that underscored the popularity of the compromise, which funds the government through September. It beefs up military and domestic programs, delivering federal funds to every corner of the country.

But action stalled in the Senate, as conservatives ran the clock in protest. Once the opponents relented, the Senate began voting, clearing the package by a 65-32 vote.

“Shame, shame. A pox on both Houses – and parties,” tweeted Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who spent the afternoon tweeting details found in the 2,200-page bill that was released the night before. “No one has read it. Congress is broken.”

The omnibus spending bill was supposed to be an antidote to the stopgap measures Congress has been forced to pass — five in this fiscal year alone — to keep government temporarily running amid partisan fiscal disputes.

But the overall result was unimaginable to many Republicans after campaigning on spending restraints and balanced budgets. Along with the recent GOP tax cuts law, the bill that stood a foot tall at some lawmakers’ desks ushers in the return of $1 trillion deficits.

Trying to smooth over differences, Republican leaders focused on military increases that were once core to the party’s brand as guardians of national security.

But even that remained a hard sell — a sign of the entrenched GOP divisions that have made the leadership’s job controlling the majority difficult. They will likely repeat in the next budget battle in the fall.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Daly, Zeke Miller and Jonathan Lemire contributed to this report.

https://apnews.com/0b31d47019564c738f440a6e307729aa/Trump-signs-$1.3-trillion-budget-after-threatening-veto

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1050

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

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 Shows 151-157

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 1049, March 22, 2018, Story 1: American People and Trump Supporters Demand Trump Veto of Washington Political Elitist Establishment Budget Busting Borrowing Bill Corrupt Congressional Confidence Crisis — Otherwise Restart Tea Party Movement With Aim of Forming American Independence Party to Defeat Democratic and Republican Two Party Tyranny — Trump’s Trillion Dollar Deficits For Fiscal Year 2018 and 2019! — Repeal Senate Racket Rule Requiring 60 Votes Now — Videos

Posted on March 23, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Congress, Corruption, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Energy, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Killing, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Medicare, Mexico, Monetary Policy, National Security Agency, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Senate, Social Networking, Social Security, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Ted Cruz, Terror, Terrorism, Treason, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

See the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

Story 1: American People and Trump Supporters Demand Trump Veto of Washington Political Elitist Establishment Budget Busting Borrowing Bill Corrupt Congressional Confidence Crisis — Otherwise Restart Tea Party Movement With Aim of Forming American Independence Party to Defeat Democratic and Republican Two Party Tyranny — Trump’s Trillion Dollar Deficits For Fiscal Year 2018 and 2019! — Repeal Senate Racket Rule Requiring 60 Votes Now — Videos

U.S. Debt Clock

Big Spender

Shirley Bassey

The minute you walked in the joint
I could see you were a man of distinction
A real big spender
Good lookin’ so refined
Say, wouldn’t you like to know what’s goin’ on in my mind?
So let me get right to the point
I don’t pop my cork for every man I see
Hey big spender,
Spend a little time with me
Wouldn’t you like to have fun, fun, fun
How’s about a few laughs, laughs
I could show you a good time
Let me show you a good time!
The minute you walked in the joint
I could see you were a man of distinction
A real big spender
Good lookin’ so refined
Say, wouldn’t you like to know what’s goin’ on in my mind?
So let me get right to the point,
I don’t pop my cork for every guy I see
Hey big spender
Hey big spender
Hey big spender
Spend, a little time with me
Yes
Songwriters: Cy Coleman / Dorothy Fields
Big Spender lyrics © Downtown Music Publishing

WATCH: White House holds news briefing on omnibus spending bill

WATCH: Sen. Schumer, Rep. Pelosi discuss omnibus spending bill

Rush Limbaugh Thinks Trump Should Veto The Omnibus Spending Bill

Omnibus Bill: The Democrats Have Won

What This Is: The Spending Bill Omnibus

Why is a simple majority not enough to pass legislation in the Senate?

Going ‘Nuclear’: Watch the Senate Change its Rules for Supreme Court Nominees

Shields and Brooks look at impact of Senate’s rule change

‘Nuclear option’ for federal nominations inflames debate

Raw: Senate Votes to Change Filibuster Rules

The Rush Limbaugh Show Video 3/22/18 | Omnibus Bill Could Make Trump Voters Go Wobbly

Crashing The Tea Party (Political Documentary) – Real Stories

Laura Ingraham : Congressional Omnibus Spending Bill : 03/21/2018

Rep. Meadows: Not many conservative wins in budget deal

Days behind schedule, can Congress pass its huge spending bill before the next shutdown?

House passes $1.3 trillion spending bill in effort to avoid shutdown

Rep. Louis Gohmert on Congress’ omnibus spending bill

Speaker Ryan Defends Omnibus Spending Bill

Rep. Scalise: Trump’s priorities are in spending bill

Mark Meadows on ‘troubling’ new poll for GOP ahead of midterms

US House of Representatives approves $1.3 trillion spending bill

WATCH Jim Jordan Slams Paul Ryan Over Spending Bill, Drops 5 Word Truth Bomb

Tucker: Left believes anybody can come, never have to leave

Rep. Hill: I voted yes on $1.3 trillion spending bill

David Horowitz – Listen And Decide If The Tea Party Gave Us President Trump

US Tea Party Movement Rallies in Washington

All eyes on Paul with shutdown looming

As the Senate barrels toward the third government funding deadline of the year, Republicans appear in the dark about one key question: What will Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) do?

The libertarian-minded senator caused an hours-long shutdown in February. He’s yet to say if he’ll give a repeat performance going into the midnight Friday deadline to avoid a partial closure.

“Shame, shame. A pox on both Houses — and parties. $1.3 trillion. Busts budget caps. 2200 pages, with just hours to try to read it,” he tweeted on Thursday.

Republican leadership wants to pass the omnibus funding bill Thursday, but senators acknowledged that timeline all comes down to Paul, and they appear to have no idea what he is going to do.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) noted he has not spoken to Paul but predicted with a smile: “He’ll speak up.”

“I think people realize the handwriting is on the wall,” he said. “I just figured I would let him speak up if he wants to speak, and if he doesn’t we’ll vote.”Asked about the chamber’s timeline for voting, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) added, “Whenever Sen. Paul decides we can.”

Under the Senate’s rules the earliest the Senate could hold an initial vote would be early Saturday morning — roughly an hour after the midnight deadline to avoid a partial government closure.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) signaled earlier Thursday that he was undecided on whether he would let the chamber speed up votes. He said after a closed-door caucus lunch that he wouldn’t delay the bill.

“I’m not going to try to delay it out of respect for my colleagues,” he said.

Republican senators said Paul’s plan did not come up during the lunch, which was largely a tribute to retiring Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.).

“There are a lot of people who are going to put pressure on him,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.).

Asked if there was an effort to “prevail” on Paul, he added: “There always is. I’m not being cute. I think there always is an effort. … There’s no benefit to waiting at this point.”

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), asked if the Senate would be able to vote on Thursday, pointed to the Kentucky senator.

“Have y’all spoken to Sen. Paul?” he asked reporters. “Felt his pulse?”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/379797-all-eyes-on-paul-with-shutdown-looming

Spending Bill Goes to Senate Ahead of Shutdown Deadline

 Updated on 
  • Legislation would boost domestic and military spending
  • Conservatives object to increased spending in legislation

The House passed a $1.3 trillion spending bill that would avert a government shutdown and increase funding for the military, border security and other domestic programs, though a GOP senator who opposes the measure hasn’t said whether he’ll force a delay past a Friday funding deadline and cause a closure.

In 256-167 vote on Thursday, the House sent the compromise measure to the Senate, which could vote by the end of the day or Friday. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney told reporters that President Donald Trump will sign the bill, saying it funds his priorities. 

The spending bill for this fiscal year has rankled conservative lawmakers who object to increased funds and having to vote without more time to review the 2,232-page text that was made public Wednesday night. Any senator could force a government shutdown by refusing to grant the unanimous consent needed for quick action, and GOP Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky left open the possibility he may do so.

“It sucks,” Kennedy said of the spending measure. “This is a Great-Dane-sized whiz down the leg of every taxpayer in this country. No thought whatsoever to adding over a trillion dollars in debt.”

John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said he anticipates there ultimately will be no objections to a vote Thursday or Friday.

“People realize that the handwriting is on the wall,” Cornyn said. “This has been a long time coming” ever since a February agreement to raise limits on spending, he said.

The measure would increase spending on the military by $80 billion and on domestic programs by $63 billion over previous budget limits set out in the bipartisan budget agreement that ended a February shutdown.

“Vote yes for the safety and security of this country,” House Speaker Paul Ryan urged his colleagues on the floor, adding that the bill provides the biggest boost in military spending in 15 years.

‘Phenomenal Job’

Earlier, Ryan of Wisconsin was barely able to persuade House GOP members to support a procedural vote setting up debate on the bill. Asked about the rushed process to consider the legislation, Ryan told reporters, “By and large we’ve done a phenomenal job” in following House rules.

The proposal includes $1.6 billion for border security, including money for fencing and levees, though that’s only a fraction of the $25 billion that Trump wanted to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

The compromise spending proposal, unveiled after repeated delays and all-night bargaining sessions, has a provision creating incentives to bolster reporting by federal agencies to the database for gun-buyer background checks, as well as $21 billion for infrastructure projects and an additional $4 billion to combat opioid addiction.

New York’s Nita Lowey, the top spending panel Democrat, said on the House floor that the measure “repudiates the abysmal Trump budget,” which sought $54 billion in cuts to domestic spending.

Ryan delivered a summary of the spending legislation to Trump at the White House Wednesday afternoon. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined the meeting, which included Vice President Mike Pence, by telephone.

Hudson River Tunnel

One of the biggest obstacles to reaching the agreement was the status of funding for a Hudson River tunnel between New York and New Jersey. Advocates, mainly Democrats and Republicans representing the two states, argued it is one of the most important infrastructure projects in the U.S. But Trump has insisted on removing money for the project, known as Gateway, from the spending plan.

The legislation includes several provisions in response to mass shootings. It includes incentives for reporting to a database for gun-buyer background checks and permits the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes of gun violence, after more than 20 years of restrictions that prevented the agency from doing so.

Also included is $75 million this year to train teachers and school officials to respond to attacks, pay for metal detectors and other equipment, and create anonymous systems for reporting possible threats to schools. Between 2019 and 2028, $100 million a year would be provided.

The bill would contain funding to combat Russian interference in this year’s elections, and it would provide more than $600 million to build a new rural broadband network.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-22/spending-bill-passes-house-as-senators-mull-government-shutdown

Here’s what Congress is stuffing into its $1.3 trillion spending bill

 March 22 at 1:33 AM 

Negotiators in Congress on March 21 reached an agreement on a $1.3 trillion spending bill, keeping government agencies operating through September.

Congressional negotiators reached a tentative agreement Wednesday night on a $1.3 trillion federal spending bill, releasing it to the public just 52 hours before a government shutdown deadline. The draft billruns 2,232 pages, and we’re going through it so you don’t have to. Here are key highlights:

Overall spending: The “omnibus” appropriations bill doles out funding for the remainder of fiscal 2018 — that is, until Sept. 30 — to virtually every federal department and agency pursuant to the two-year budget agreement Congress reached in February. Under that agreement, defense spending generally favored by Republicans is set to jump $80 billion over previously authorized spending levels, while domestic spending favored by Democrats rises by $63 billion. The defense funding includes a 2.4 percent pay raise for military personnel and $144 billion for Pentagon hardware. The domestic spending is scattered across the rest of the federal government, but lawmakers are highlighting increases in funding for infrastructure, medical research, veterans programs and efforts to combat the opioid epidemic. Civilian federal employees get a 1.9 percent pay raise, breaking parity with the military for the first time in several years.

Border wall: The bill provides $1.6 billion for barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border but with serious strings attached. Of the total, $251 million is earmarked specifically for “secondary fencing” near San Diego, where fencing is already in place; $445 million is for no more than 25 miles of “levee fencing”; $196 million is for “primary pedestrian fencing” in the Rio Grande Valley; $445 million is for the replacement of existing fencing in that area; and the rest is for planning, design and technology — not for wall construction. The biggest catch is this: The barriers authorized to be built under the act must be “operationally effective designs” already deployed as of last March, meaning none of President Trump’s big, beautiful wall prototypes can be built.

ADVERTISING

Immigration enforcement: The bill bumps up funding for both U.S. Customs and Border Protection and for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — delivering increases sought by the Trump administration. But there are significant restrictions on how that new money can be spent. Democrats pushed for, and won, limitations on hiring new ICE interior enforcement agents and on the number of undocumented immigrants the agency can detain. Under provisions written into the bill, ICE can have no more than 40,354 immigrants in detention by the time the fiscal year ends in September. But there is a catch: The Homeland Security secretary is granted discretion to transfer funds from other accounts “as necessary to ensure the detention of aliens prioritized for removal.”

Infrastructure: Numerous transportation programs get funding increases in the bill, but the debate leading up to its release focused on one megaproject: The Gateway program, aimed at improving rail access to and from Manhattan on Amtrak and New Jersey Transit. Trump made it a signature fight, largely to punish Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democratic backers of the project who have held up other Trump initiatives, and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao told Congress this month that the project simply wasn’t ready for prime time. The project is not mentioned in the bill, and Republican aides say that they turned back efforts to essentially earmark federal funding for the project. But Democrats say that the project is still eligible for as much as $541 million in funding this fiscal year through accounts that Chao does not control. The project might also still qualify for other pools of money, though it will have to compete with other projects on an equal playing field.

Health care: Left out of the bill was a health-care measure sought by GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) that would have allowed states to establish high-risk pools to help cover costly insurance claims while restoring certain payments to insurers under the Affordable Care Act. Trump, who ended the “cost-sharing reduction” payments in the fall, supported the Collins-Alexander language. But Democrats opposed it, because they said it included language expanding the existing prohibition on federal funding for abortions.

Guns: The bill includes the Fix NICS Act, bipartisan legislation aimed at improving the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that is used to screen U.S. gun buyers. It provides for incentives and penalties to encourage federal agencies and states to send records to the federal database in an effort to prevent the type of oversight that preceded last year’s church massacre in Sutherland Springs, Tex. Democrats pushed for more aggressive gun laws, including universal background checks, but won only a minor concession: Language in the report accompanying the bill clarifying that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can, in fact, conduct research into gun violence. A long-standing rider known as the Dickey Amendment, which states that no CDC funds “may be used to advocate or promote gun control,” has been interpreted in the past to bar such research. The amendment itself remains.

Taxes: The “grain glitch,” a provision in the new GOP tax law that favored farmer-owned cooperatives over traditional agriculture corporations by providing a significantly larger tax benefit for sales to cooperatives, is undone in the bill. Farm-state lawmakers and farming groups said that without a fix, the tax law could disrupt the farm economy and even put some companies out of business. The spending bill tweaks the tax law to level the playing field between sales to coops and corporations. Democrats in exchange got a 12.5 percent increase in annual allocations for a low-income housing tax credit for four years.

Internal Revenue Service: Despite the administration’s attempts to slash its budget, lawmakers grant $11.431 billion to the nation’s tax collectors, a $196 million year-to-year increase and $456 million more than Trump requested. The figure includes $320 million to implement changes enacted as part of the GOP tax overhaul plan.

Opioids: The bill increases funding to tackle the opioid epidemic, a boost that lawmakers from both parties hailed as a win. The legislation allocates more than $4.65 billion across agencies to help states and local governments on efforts toward prevention, treatment and law enforcement initiatives. That represents a $3 billion increase over 2017 spending levels.

Foreign policy: Included in the spending bill is the Taylor Force Act. Named after an American who was killed by a Palestinian in 2016, the measure curtails certain economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority until it stops financially supporting convicted terrorists and their families. It unanimously passed the House last year.

Baseball: Should the bill pass, some minor-league ballplayers could see a raise this year — but only barely. The Save America’s Pastime Act exempts pro baseball players from federal labor laws and has been a major lobbying priority for Major League Baseball ever since minor-league players began suing the league in recent years for paying them illegally low wages. The version in the bill exempts only players working under a contract that pays minimum wage, but there are major loopholes: The contract has to pay minimum wage for a only 40-hour workweek during the season, not spring training or the offseason — and it includes no guarantee of overtime even though baseball prospects routinely work long hours. Thus, under the bill, a player is guaranteed a minimum salary of $1,160 a month. The current minor-league minimum is $1,100 a month.

Election security: The bill provides $380 million to the federal Election Assistance Commission to make payments to states to improve election security and technology, and the FBI is set to receive $300 million in counterintelligence funding to combat Russian hacking.

Congressional misconduct: The House appears to have gone further than the Senate to address concerns about how allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct are handled on Capitol Hill. The House set aside $4 million to pay for mandatory workplace rights training and plans to create a new Office of Employee Advocacy to assist employees in proceedings before the Office of Compliance or House Ethics Committees. House leaders also made a point of highlighting plans to expand the House Day Care Center. But senators failed to reach agreement on making changes to how allegations of wrongdoing are handled, so they won’t be included in the bill.

Congressional Research Service: The bill mandates that reports published by Congress’s in-house researchers be published online for public consumption. Historically, such reports have not been easy to access online, and a House Appropriations subcommittee took the lead last year in finally forcing transparency.

District of Columbia: The nation’s capital will see a slight dip in its federal funding. Lawmakers provide $721 million in direct federal funding to the District, a $35 million drop from last year — mostly because of a $22 million cut in emergency planning money that was used to prepare for the 2017 presidential inauguration. Lawmakers also kept out GOP attempts to block the District’s budget autonomy act and its assisted suicide law.

Religion and politics: The federal ban on tax-exempt churches engaging in political activity, known as the Johnson Amendment, will continue, despite attempts by Trump and GOP lawmakers to rescind it.

Jury duty: If you serve on a federal jury, your daily pay rate will increase to $50 per day — a bipartisan win sought in part after two dozen federal grand jurors in Washington petitioned House and Senate judiciary committee members last fall, saying the current pay rate is “abysmal,” below the minimum wage and a hardship.

Secret Service: The agency responsible for protecting the president and his family gets $2.007 billion, including $9.9 million for overtime worked without pay in 2017 and $14 million to construct a taller and stronger fence around the White House. In a win for congressional Democrats concerned about Secret Service agents protecting Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump on overseas business trips, the bill includes language requiring an annual report on travel costs for people protected by the service — including the adult children of presidents.

Restaurant tips: In December, the Labor Department proposed a rule that would allow employers such as restaurant owners to “pool” their employees’ tips and redistribute them as they saw fit — including, potentially, to themselves. That generated a bipartisan outcry, and the bill spells out explicitly in law that tip pooling is not permitted: “An employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes, including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees’ tips, regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip credit.”

Yucca Mountain: The legislation blocks attempts by the Energy Department to restart a moribund nuclear storage program at the mountain in the Silver State. Former Senate majority leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) was a fierce opponent of the measure. Sens. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) — the most embattled GOP incumbent up for reelection this year — and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) proved that they, too, can stop a federal program that is widely unpopular in their state from starting again.

FBI: The spending bill grants the agency $9.03 billion for salaries and expenses, a $263 million jump over the last fiscal year and $307 million more than the Trump administration requested. The bill does not include any funding for the construction of a new FBI headquarters, a win for Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. According to aides familiar with the move, the senator sought to block new construction funding in response to the administration’s plans to keep the FBI headquarters in downtown Washington instead of moving it to suburban Virginia or Maryland.

Asian carp: The invasive species has wreaked havoc on the Great Lakes, and lawmakers from states bordering the lakes touted language that forces the Army Corps of Engineers to keep working on ensuring that vessels in the Illinois River don’t carry the carp across an electric field erected to keep them out of the lakes.

Apprenticeships: Federal money for apprenticeship programs will increase by $50 million, and there’s a $75 million increase for career and technical education programs. The office of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) noted that other job training and “workforce development” programs also stand to benefit, including “more money for child care and early head start programs to help make it easier for job seekers to enter or return to the workforce.” This has been an area of concern for former “Apprentice” star Ivanka Trump.

Arts: Federal funding for the arts goes up, despite GOP attempts to slash it. The National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities will see funding climb to $152.8 million each, a $3 million increase over the last fiscal year. Trump proposed eliminating the endowments. The National Gallery of Art gets $165.9 million, a $1.04 million jump in funding. The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts will receive $40.5 million, which is $4 million more than the last fiscal year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/22/heres-what-congress-is-stuffing-into-its-1-3-trillion-spending-bill/?utm_term=.cd95b9bc69e6

 

 

State and Local Income, Sales and Property Taxes All Hit Records in 2017

By Terence P. Jeffrey | March 22, 2018 | 12:54 PM EDT

(Screen Capture)

(CNSNews.com) – Real state and local income, sales and property taxes all hit records in 2017, according to data released this week by the Census Bureau.

State and local governments collected a record $404,509,000,000 in individual income taxes in 2017, according to the Census Bureau. Before 2017, the greatest level of individual income tax revenues collected by state and local governments occurred in 2015, when those governments collected $399,933,270,000 in individual income taxes (in constant 2017 dollars converted using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator).

State and local governments also collected a record $386,153,000,000 in general sales and gross receipts taxes in 2017. Prior to that, the largest state and local general sales and gross receipt tax collections took place in 2015, when state and local governments collected $385,904,260,000 in those taxes (in constant 2017 dollars).

At the same time, state and local governments collected a record $573,064,000,000 in property taxes in 2017. Before 2017, the largest property tax collections took place in 2016, when state and local governments collected $551,936,350,000 in property taxes (in constant 2017 dollars).

Property taxes also hit a record in 2017 on a per capita basis. During the year, the record $573,064,000,000 in property taxes that state and local governments collected from property owners equaled $1,759 per each of the 325,719,178 men, women and children in the United States.

Per capita state and local income taxes peaked in 2015 at approximately $1,246 and per capita state and local general sales and gross receipts taxes peaked in 2006 at approximately $1,214.

The Census Bureau defines “general sales and gross receipts taxes” as taxes that “are applicable with only specified exceptions to all types of goods and services, or all gross income.” Taxes that are targeted at specific items such as alcoholic beverages, amusements, insurance, motor fuels, amounts bet at race tracks, public utilities and tobacco are not counted.

Property taxes, according to the Census Bureau, are taxes “conditioned on ownership of property and measured to its valued.” They include taxes on real and personal property, including motor vehicles.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/state-and-local-income-sales-and-property-taxes-hit-records-2017

It’s all Congress’s fault! White House says it can only build 33 miles of new border barriers because Democrats refuse to give them money for the whole wall Trump promised

  • Congressional budget appropriation for the next six months sets aside $1.6 billion for immigration and border security
  • Only $600 million of that covers construction of small parts of Donald Trump’s promised border wall
  • White House budget chief says GOP got 110 miles of border barriers funded, but only 33 miles cover stretches of open border with no existing walls or fencing
  • President promised last year to build his wall in his first term and said it would require 700 to 900 miles of new sections
  • At that rate is would take at least 10-1/2 years to complete, and maybe longer 

White House officials said Thursday that President Donald Trump will sign a hotly contested budget bill when lawmakers send it to him, despite the fact that it provides for only 33 miles of new barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Trump vowed in April 2017 that his long-promised border wall would be finished by the end of his first term in office.

‘It’s certainly going to – yeah,’ he told reporters then, answering a specific question about a four-year timeline and adding that ‘we have plenty of time.’

But at the rate the White House has agreed to, the project could stretch through more than two administrations.

President Donald Trump promised to build a border wall in his first term to separate the U.S. from Mexico, but the latest congressional budget sets a pace that would take more than a decade to complete it

President Donald Trump promised to build a border wall in his first term to separate the U.S. from Mexico, but the latest congressional budget sets a pace that would take more than a decade to complete it

White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney said Thursday that the six-month budget includes money for 110 miles of walls and fencing but just 33 miles of that will go up in places that don't already have them

White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney said Thursday that the six-month budget includes money for 110 miles of walls and fencing but just 33 miles of that will go up in places that don’t already have them

More than half of the 110 funded miles – 63 in all – will look like this section, with replacement 'bollard walls' going up so weaker fencing can be torn down

More than half of the 110 funded miles – 63 in all – will look like this section, with replacement ‘bollard walls’ going up so weaker fencing can be torn down

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said Thursday in a hastily assembled briefing that Capitol Hill inertia is to blame.

‘If Congress would give us the money to do this, we would do it now,’ he told DailyMail.com.

His team and that of Legislative Director Marc Short have secured funding for 110 miles of border barriers costing a sliver of the $1.3 trillion spending bill set to finish its path through Congress later in the day.

Including new roads, Air Force and U.S. Marine Corps assets, technological improvements, facilities, border patrol vehicles, boats, weapons and new personnel, he total package will consumer $1.6 billion in taxpayer dollars.

Some estimates put funding for border barriers in Thursday’s spending bill at just $600 million of that

Video playing bottom right…
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
Pause
Unmute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time0:29
Fullscreen

Trump has said he would only need to build between 700 and 900 miles of walls to secure the border; more than half of the 1,954 miles is lined by 'natural barriers' like mountains and rivers

Trump has said he would only need to build between 700 and 900 miles of walls to secure the border; more than half of the 1,954 miles is lined by ‘natural barriers’ like mountains and rivers

The president made a show last week of visiting border wall prototypes in San Diego last week, but it's unclear if or when they'll ever be included in actual construction

The president made a show last week of visiting border wall prototypes in San Diego last week, but it’s unclear if or when they’ll ever be included in actual construction

Hundreds of miles of U.S.-Mexico border, like this area in southern Arizona, are completely unprotected

Hundreds of miles of U.S.-Mexico border, like this area in southern Arizona, are completely unprotected

 President Trump inspects prototypes of border wall in California

The president agreed during his campaign that the entire 1,954 miles of U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t need physical protection from illegal immigration and the drug trade.

He said last year aboard Air Force One on his way to Paris for a Bastille Day celebration that between 700 and 900 miles would be sufficient because the rest is blocked by ‘natural barriers’ including mountains and ‘rivers that are violent and vicious.’

Ordinary fencing already stretches along 650 miles of the border. An administration official said this week that a stronger wall ‘would have to be replacing all of that.’

The appropriations bill that Mulvaney said will get a presidential signature only covers about six months – until the end of the government’s fiscal year on September 30.

This fencing is all that separates Mexico from 'El Norte' in some parts of Arizona

This fencing is all that separates Mexico from ‘El Norte’ in some parts of Arizona

White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short (left) told reporters Thursday that his office is already pressing for more wall funding in 2019

White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short (left) told reporters Thursday that his office is already pressing for more wall funding in 2019

At the rate of 33 miles per half-year, it would take the federal government between 10-1/2 and 13-1/2 years to complete the project, depending on the exact mileage targeted.

‘Did we get everything we wanted when it comes to immigration? Absolutely not,’ Mulvaney said.

Short emphasized that the administration is already preparing to go to battle over next year’s budget, suggesting that Thursday’s six-month deal is only a taste of what’s to come.

‘We’re already halfway through this fiscal year,’ he told DailyMail.com, adding that the White House has ‘already submitted budgets for 2019.’

‘We certainly continue to ask for additional funding to continue the wall throughout this year,’ he said. ‘This is for six months because Congress has been unable to complete the appropriations process.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5532871/White-House-Congress-paid-33-miles-new-border-barriers.html#ixzz5AVoxpOqt

Filibuster in the United States Senate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

filibuster in the United States Senate is a dilatory or obstructive tactic used in the United States Senate to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. The most common form of filibuster occurs when one or more senators attempts to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on the measure. The Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish, and on any topic they choose, unless “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn”[1] (usually 60 out of 100) bring the debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

The ability to block a measure through extended debate was an inadvertent side effect of an 1806 rule change, and was infrequently used during much of the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1970, the Senate adopted a “two-track” procedure to prevent filibusters from stopping all other Senate business. The minority then felt politically safer in threatening filibusters more regularly, which became normalized over time to the point that 60 votes are now required to end debate on nearly every controversial legislative item. As a result, the modern “filibuster” rarely manifests as an extended floor debate. Instead, “the contemporary Senate has morphed into a 60-vote institution — the new normal for approving measures or matters — a fundamental transformation from earlier years.”[2] This effective supermajority requirement has had very significant policy and political impacts on Congress and the other branches of government.

Beginning in 1917 with the cloture rule and especially since the 1970s, there have been efforts to limit the practice. These include laws that explicitly limit Senate debate, notably the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that created the budget reconciliation process. More recently, changes in 2013 and 2017 now require only a simple majority to invoke cloture on nominations, although legislation still requires 60 votes.

One or more senators may still occasionally hold the floor for an extended period, sometimes without the advance knowledge of the Senate leadership. However, these “filibusters” usually result only in brief delays and are not outcome-determinative, since the Senate’s ability to act ultimately depends upon whether there are sufficient votes to invoke cloture and proceed to a final vote on passage. However, such brief delays can be politically relevant when exercised shortly before a major deadline (such as avoiding a government shutdown) or before a Senate recess.

History

Constitutional design: simple majority voting

Although not explicitly mandated, the Constitution and its framers clearly envisioned that simple majority voting would be used to conduct business. The Constitution provides, for example, that a majority of each House constitutes a quorum to do business.[3] Meanwhile, a small number of super-majority requirements were explicitly included in the original document, including conviction on impeachment charges (2/3 of Senate),[4] expelling a member of Congress (2/3 of the chamber in question),[5] overriding presidential vetoes (2/3 of both Houses),[6] ratifying treaties (2/3 of Senate)[7] and proposing constitutional amendments (2/3 of both Houses).[8] Through negative textual implication, the Constitution also gives a simple majority the power to set procedural rules: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”[5]

Commentaries in The Federalist Papers confirm this understanding. In Federalist No. 58, the Constitution’s primary drafter James Madison defended the document against routine super-majority requirements, either for a quorum or a “decision”:

“It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale.
“In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.”[9]

In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton described super-majority requirements as being one of the main problems with the previous Articles of Confederation, and identified several evils which would result from such a requirement:

“To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. … The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.[10]

Accidental creation and early use of the filibuster

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing senators to move the previous question (by simple majority vote), which meant ending debate and proceeding to a vote. But in 1806, the Senate’s presiding officer, Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous-question motion was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[11] The Senate agreed and modified its rules.[11] Because it created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, filibusters became theoretically possible.

Nevertheless, in the early 19th century the principle of simple-majority voting in the Senate was well established, and particularly valued by Southern slave-holding states. New states were admitted to the Union in pairs to preserve the sectional balance in the Senate, most notably in the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

Until the late 1830s, however, the filibuster remained a solely theoretical option, never actually exercised. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837.[12] In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end the debate via majority vote, and Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay “may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter.” Other senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.[11]

At the time, both the Senate and the House of Representatives allowed filibusters as a way to prevent a vote from taking place. Subsequent revisions to House rules limited filibuster privileges in that chamber, but the Senate continued to allow the tactic.[13]

In practice, narrow majorities could enact legislation by changing the Senate rules, but only on the first day of the session in January or March.[14]

The emergence of cloture (1917–1969)

In 1917, during World War I, a rule allowing cloture of a debate was adopted by the Senate on a 76-3 roll call vote[15] at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson,[16] after a group of 12 anti-war senators managed to kill a bill that would have allowed Wilson to arm merchant vessels in the face of unrestricted German submarine warfare.[17]

From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of senators voting.[18] Despite that formal requirement, however, political scientist David Mayhew has argued that in practice, it was unclear whether a filibuster could be sustained against majority opposition.[19] During the 1930s, Senator Huey Long of Louisiana used the filibuster to promote his populist policies. He recited Shakespeare and read out recipes for “pot-likkers” during his filibusters, which occupied 15 hours of debate.[16] In 1946, five Southern Democrats — senators John H. Overton (La.), Richard B. Russell (Ga.), Senator Millard E. Tydings (Md.), Clyde R. Hoey (N.C.), and Kenneth McKellar (Tenn.) — blocked a vote on a bill (S. 101)[20] proposed by Democrat Dennis Chávez of New Mexico that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the workplace. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chávez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote, even though he had enough votes to pass the bill.

In 1949, the Senate made invoking cloture more difficult by requiring two-thirds of the entire Senate membership to vote in favor of a cloture motion.[21] Moreover, future proposals to change the Senate rules were themselves specifically exempted from being subject to cloture.[22]:191 In 1953, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon set a record by filibustering for 22 hours and 26 minutes while protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation. Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina broke this record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957for 24 hours and 18 minutes,[23] although the bill ultimately passed.

In 1959, anticipating more civil rights legislation, the Senate under the leadership of Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson restored the cloture threshold to two-thirds of those voting.[21] Although the 1949 rule had eliminated cloture on rules changes themselves, Johnson acted at the very beginning of the new Congress on January 5, 1959, and the resolution was adopted by a 72-22 vote with the support of three top Democrats and three of the four top Republicans. The presiding officer, Vice President Richard Nixon, supported the move and stated his opinion that the Senate “has a constitutional right at the beginning of each new Congress to determine rules it desires to follow.”[24] The 1959 change also eliminated the 1949 exemption for rules changes, allowing cloture to once again be invoked on future changes.[22]:193

One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when Southern Democrats attempted to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for 75 hours, including a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The filibuster failed when the Senate invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927.[25]

The two-track system, 60-vote rule and rise of the routine filibuster (1970 onward)

After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a “two-track system” into place in 1970 under the leadership of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Majority Whip Robert Byrd. Before this system was introduced, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the majority leader—with unanimous consent or the agreement of the minority leader—to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the two-track system, the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each one will be considered.[26][27]

Number of cloture motions filed, voted on, and invoked by the U.S. Senate since 1917.

Cloture voting in the United States Senate since 1917.[28]

The notable side effect of this change was that by no longer bringing Senate business to a complete halt, filibusters on particular legislation became politically easier for the minority to sustain.[29][30][31][32] As a result, the number of filibusters began increasing rapidly, eventually leading to the modern era in which an effective supermajority requirement exists to pass legislation, with no practical requirement that the minority party actually hold the floor or extend debate.

In 1975, the Senate revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of sworn senators (60 votes out of 100) could limit debate, except for changing Senate rules which still requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to invoke cloture.[33][34] However, by returning to an absolute number of all Senators (60) rather than a proportion of those present and voting, the change also made any filibusters easier to sustain on the floor by a small number of senators from the minority party without requiring the presence of their minority colleagues. This further reduced the majority’s leverage to force an issue through extended debate.

The Senate also experimented with a rule that removed the need to speak on the floor in order to filibuster (a “talking filibuster”), thus allowing for “virtual filibusters”.[35] Another tactic, the post-cloture filibuster—which used points of order to delay legislation because they were not counted as part of the limited time allowed for debate—was rendered ineffective by a rule change in 1979.[36][37][38]

As the filibuster has evolved from a rare practice that required holding the floor for extended periods into a routine 60-vote supermajority requirement, Senate leaders have increasingly used cloture motions as a regular tool to manage the flow of business, often even in the absence of a threatened filibuster. Thus, the presence or absence of cloture attempts is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the presence or absence of a threatened filibuster. Because filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.[39]

Recent efforts to limit filibusters

In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed having the presiding officer, Vice President Dick Cheney, rule that a filibuster on judicial nominees was unconstitutional, as it was inconsistent with the President’s power to name judges with the advice and consent of a simple majority of senators.[40][41] This was a response to the Democrats’ threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush. Senator Trent Lott, the junior senator from Mississippi, used the word “nuclear” to describe the plan, and so it became known as the “nuclear option“.[42]

With Republicans effectively controlling the Senate 55-45, a group of 14 senators—seven Democrats and seven Republicans, collectively dubbed the “Gang of 14“—reached an agreement to defuse the conflict. The seven Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush’s nominees except under “extraordinary circumstances”, while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the “nuclear option” unless they thought a nominee was being filibustered under non-extraordinary circumstances. Thus, there would be 62 votes to invoke cloture in most cases, and 52 votes to oppose the nuclear option.[43][44][45] This agreement was successful in the short term, but it expired in January 2007, at the end of the second session of the 109th United States Congress.[46]

From April to June 2010, under Democratic control, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held a series of monthly public hearings on the history and use of the filibuster in the Senate.[47] In response to the use of the filibuster in the 111th Congress, all Democratic senators returning to the 112th Congress signed a petition to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) requesting that the filibuster be reformed, including abolishing secret holds and reducing the amount of time allotted for post-cloture debate.

Minor 2013 changes

During the 113th Congress, two packages of amendments were adopted on January 25, 2013.[48] Changes to standing orders affecting just the 2013–14 Congress (Senate Resolution 15) were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, allowing Reid, the majority leader, to prohibit a filibuster on a motion to begin consideration of a bill.[48] Changes to the permanent Senate rules (Senate Resolution 16) were passed by a vote of 86 to 9.[48][49]

The changes removed the 60-vote requirement to begin debate on legislation, and allowed the minority two amendments to measures that reached the Senate floor. This change was implemented as a standing order that expired at the end of the term in which it was passed.[50][51] The new rules also reduced the amount of time allowed for debate after a motion to proceed from 30 hours to four hours. Additionally, they stated that a filibuster on a motion to proceed could be blocked with a petition signed by eight members of the minority, including the minority leader.[51] For district court nominations, the new rules reduced the maximum time between cloture and a confirmation vote from 30 hours to two hours.[51] Finally, if senators wished to block a bill or nominee after the motion to proceed, they had to be present in the Senate and debate.[52][50]

Despite these changes, 60 votes were still required to overcome a filibuster, and the “silent filibuster”—in which a senator can delay a bill even if they leave the floor—remained in place.[52][50]

Abolition for nominations: 2013 and 2017

On November 21, 2013, the Senate used the so-called “nuclear option,” voting 52–48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats opposed — to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court. At the time of the vote, there were 59 executive branch nominees and 17 judicial nominees awaiting confirmation.[53]

The Democrats’ stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[54][55] Republicans had asserted that the D.C. Circuit was underworked[53] and cited a need to cut costs by reducing the number of judges.[56] Democrats responded that Republicans had not raised these concerns earlier, when President Bush had made nominations to the court, and argued that the size of the court needed to be maintained because of the complexity of the cases it hears.[57][58] Senate Democrats who supported the “nuclear option” also did so out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[54]

In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[59] Finally, on April 6, 2017, the Senate eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the “nuclear option” for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.[60]

Exceptions

The only bills that are not currently subject to effective 60-vote requirements are those considered under provisions of law that limit time for debating them.[61] These limits on debate allow the Senate to hold a simple-majority vote on final passage without obtaining the 60 votes normally needed to close debate. As a result, many major legislative actions in recent decades have been adopted through one of these methods.

Reconciliation is a procedure created in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process. In brief, the annual budget process begins with adoption of a budget resolution (passed by simple majority in each house, not signed by President, does not carry force of law) that sets overall funding levels for the government. The Senate may then consider a budget reconciliation bill, not subject to filibuster, that reconciles funding amounts in any annual appropriations bills with the amounts specified in the budget resolution. However, under the Byrd rule no non-budgetary “extraneous matter” may be considered in a reconciliation bill. The presiding officer, relying always (as of 2017) on the opinion of the Senate parliamentarian, determines whether an item is extraneous, and a 60-vote majority is required to include such material in a reconciliation bill.

The Congressional Review Act, adopted in 1995, allows Congress to review and repeal administrative regulations adopted by the Executive Branch within 60 legislative days. This procedure will most typically be used successfully shortly after a party change in the presidency. It was used once in 2001 to repeal an ergonomics rule promulgated under Bill Clinton), was not used in 2009, and was used 14 times in 2017 to repeal various regulations adopted in the final year of the Barack Obama presidency.

Policy and political effects

The modern-era filibuster — and the effective 60-vote supermajority requirement it has led to — have had very major policy and political effects, both institutionally and on specific major policy initiatives from Presidents of both parties.

Institutional effects

Congress. The supermajority rule has made it very difficult, often impossible, for Congress to pass any but the most non-controversial legislation in recent decades. During times of unified party control, majorities have attempted (with varying levels of success) to enact their major policy priorities through the budget reconciliation process, resulting in legislation constrained by budget rules. Meanwhile, public approval for Congress as an institution has fallen to its lowest levels ever, with large segments of the public seeing the institution as ineffective.[citation needed] Shifting majorities of both parties — and their supporters — have often been frustrated as major policy priorities articulated in political campaigns are unable to obtain passage following an election.

The Presidency. Presidents of both parties have increasingly filled the policymaking vacuum with expanded use of executive power, including executive orders in areas that had traditionally been handled through legislation. For example, Barack Obama effected major changes in immigration policy by issuing work permits to some undocumented workers,[citation needed] while Donald Trump has issued several significant executive orders since taking office in 2017 along with undoing many of Obama’s initiatives.[citation needed] As a result, policy in these areas is increasingly determined by executive preference, and is more easily changed after elections, rather than through more permanent legislative policy.

Judiciary. The Supreme Court’s caseload has declined significantly, with various commenters suggesting that the decline in major legislation has been a major cause.[62] Meanwhile, more policy issues are resolved judicially without action by Congress — despite the existence of potential simple majority support in the Senate — on topics such as the legalization of same-sex marriage.[citation needed]

Major presidential policy initiatives

The implied threat of a filibuster — and the resulting 60-vote requirement in the modern era — have had major impacts on the ability of recent Presidents to enact their top legislative priorities into law. The effects of the 60-vote requirement are most apparent in periods where the President and both Houses of Congress are controlled by the same political party, typically early in a presidential term.

Bill Clinton

In 1993-94, President Bill Clinton enjoyed Democratic majorities in both chambers of the 103rd Congress, including a 57-43 advantage in the Senate. Yet the Clinton health care plan of 1993, formulated by a task force led by First Lady Hillary Clinton, was unable to pass in part due to the filibuster. As early as April 1993, a memo to the task force noted that “While the substance is obviously controversial, there is apparently great disquiet in the Capitol over whether we understand the interactivity between reconciliation and health, procedurally, and in terms of timing and counting votes for both measures….”[63]

George W. Bush

In 2001, President George W. Bush was unable to obtain any Democratic support for his tax cut proposals. As a result, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were each passed using reconciliation, which required that the tax cuts expire within the 10-year budget window to avoid violating the Byrd rule in the Senate. The status of the tax cuts would remain unresolved until the late 2012 ” fiscal cliff,” with a significant portion of the cuts being made permanent by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.

Barack Obama

In 2009-10, President Barack Obama briefly enjoyed an effective 60-vote Democratic majority (including independents) in the Senate during the 111th Congress. During that time period, the Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as the ACA or “Obamacare,” on Dec. 24, 2009 by a vote of 60-39 (after invoking cloture by the same 60-39 margin). However, Obama’s proposal to create a public health insurance option was removed from the health care legislation because it could not command 60-vote support.

House Democrats did not approve of all aspects of the Senate bill, but after 60-vote Senate control was permanently lost in February 2010 due to the election of Scott Brown to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy, House Democrats decided to pass the Senate bill intact and it became law. Several House-desired modifications to the Senate bill — those sufficient to pass scrutiny under the Byrd rule — were then made under reconciliation via the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which was enacted days later following a 56-43 vote in the Senate.

The near-60-vote Senate majority that Democrats held throughout the 111th Congress was also critical to passage of other major Obama initiatives, including the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (passed 60-38, two Republicans voting yes)[citation needed]and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (passed 60-39, three Republicans voting yes, one Democrat voting no).[citation needed] However, the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would have created a cap-and-trade system and established a national renewable electricity standard to combat climate change, never received a Senate floor vote with Majority Leader Harry Reid saying “it’s easy to count to 60.”[64]

Donald Trump

In 2017, President Donald Trump and the 115th Congress pursued a strategy to use an FY17 reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare, followed by an FY18 reconciliation bill to pass tax reform. A budget reconciliation strategy was pursued since nearly all Democrats were expected to oppose these policies, making a filibuster threat insurmountable due to the 60-vote requirement.

An FY17 budget resolution that included reconciliation instructions for health care reform was passed by the Senate by a 51-48 vote on January 12, 2017,[65] and by the House on a 227-198 vote the following day.[66] The House later passed the American Health Care Act of 2017 as the FY17 budget reconciliation bill by a vote of 217-213 on May 4, 2017. In July, the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that certain provisions of the House bill must be stricken (as “extraneous” non-budgetary matter) under the Byrd rule before proceeding under reconciliation.[67] The Parliamentarian later ruled that an FY17 reconciliation bill must be adopted by end of FY17, establishing a September 30th deadline.[68] Senate Republicans were unable to obtain 51 votes for any health care reconciliation bill before the deadline, and the FY17 budget resolution expired.

An FY18 budget resolution that included reconciliation instructions for tax reform was passed by the Senate by a 51-49 vote on October 19, 2017,[69] and by the House on a 216-212 vote on October 26, 2017.[70] It permitted raising the deficit by $1.5 trillion over ten years and opening drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the latter to help secure the eventual vote of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski who voted against FY17 health care reconciliation legislation. The Senate later passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (unofficial title) as the FY18 reconciliation bill by a 51-48 vote on December 20, 2017,[71] with final passage by the House on a 224-201 vote later that day.[72] Due to the budget resolution’s cap of $1.5 trillion in additional deficits over 10 years, plus Byrd rule limits on adding deficits beyond 10 years, the corporate tax cut provisions were made permanent while many of the individual tax cuts expire after 2025.

Process for limiting or eliminating the filibuster

According to the Supreme Court‘s ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change could itself be filibustered, requiring two-thirds of senators who are present and voting to end debate. (This differs from the usual requirement for three-fifths of sworn senators.)[1]

However, despite this two-thirds requirement being written into the Senate rules, any Senator may attempt to nullify a Senate rule by making a point of order that the rule is unconstitutional or just that the meaning of the rule should not be followed. The presiding officer is generally expected to rule in favor of the rules of the Senate, but any ruling from the chair may be appealed and overturned by a simple majority of Senators. This happened in 2013, when Harry Reid of the Democratic Party made a point of order that “the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote.” Although there is no simple majority vote provision in the text of rule XXII,[73] Reid’s point of order was sustained by a 52-48 vote, and that ruling established a Senate precedent that cloture on nominations other than those for the Supreme Court requires only a simple majority.[1] On April 6, 2017, that precedent was further changed by Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority to include Supreme Court nominations.[74][75]

Other forms of filibuster

While talking out a measure is the most common form of filibuster in the Senate, other means of delaying and killing legislation are available. Because the Senate routinely conducts business by unanimous consent, one member can create at least some delay by objecting to the request. In some cases, such as considering a bill or resolution on the day it is introduced or brought from the House, the delay can be as long as a day.[76] However, because this is a legislative day, not a calendar day, the majority can mitigate it by briefly adjourning.[77]

In many cases, an objection to a request for unanimous consent will compel a vote. While forcing a single vote may not be an effective delaying tool, the cumulative effect of several votes, which take at least 15 minutes apiece, can be substantial. In addition to objecting to routine requests, senators can force votes through motions to adjourn and through quorum calls. Quorum calls are meant to establish the presence or absence of a constitutional quorum, but senators routinely use them to waste time while waiting for the next speaker to come to the floor or for leaders to negotiate off the floor. In those cases, a senator asks for unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. If another senator objects, the clerk must continue to call the roll of senators, just as they would with a vote. If a call shows no quorum, the minority can force another vote by moving to request or compel the attendance of absent senators. Finally, senators can force votes by moving to adjourn, or by raising specious points of order and appealing the ruling of the chair.

The most effective methods of delay are those that force the majority to invoke cloture multiple times on the same measure. The most common example is to filibuster the motion to proceed to a bill, then filibuster the bill itself. This forces the majority to go through the entire cloture process twice in a row. If, as is common, the majority seeks to pass a substitute amendment to the bill, a further cloture procedure is needed for the amendment.

The Senate is particularly vulnerable to serial cloture votes when it and the House have passed different versions of the same bill and want to go to conference (i.e., appoint a special committee of both chambers to merge the bills). Normally, the majority asks for unanimous consent to:

  • Insist on its amendment(s), or disagree with the House’s amendments
  • Request, or agree to, a conference
  • Authorize the presiding officer to appoint members of the special committee

If the minority objects, those motions are debatable (and therefore subject to a filibuster) and divisible (meaning the minority can force them to be debated, and filibustered, separately).[76] Additionally, after the first two motions pass, but before the third does, senators can offer an unlimited number of motions to give the special committee members non-binding instructions, which are themselves debatable, amendable, and divisible.[78] As a result, a determined minority can cause a great deal of delay before a conference.

Longest filibusters

Below is a table of the ten longest filibusters to take place in the United States Senate since 1900.

Longest filibusters in the U.S. Senate since 1900[79][80]
Senator Date (began) Measure Hours & minutes
1 Strom Thurmond (DSC) August 28, 1957 Civil Rights Act of 1957 24:18
2 Alfonse D’Amato (RNY) October 17, 1986 Defense Authorization Act (1987), amendment 23:30
3 Wayne Morse (IOR) April 24, 1953 Submerged Lands Act (1953) 22:26
4 Ted Cruz (RTX) September 24, 2013 Continuing Appropriations Act (2014) 21:18
5 Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (RWI) May 29, 1908 Aldrich–Vreeland Act (1908) 18:23
6 William Proxmire (DWI) September 28, 1981 Debt ceiling increase (1981) 16:12
7 Huey Long (DLA) June 12, 1935 National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), amendment 15:30
8 Jeff Merkley (DOR) April 4, 2017 Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court confirmation 15:28
9 Alfonse D’Amato (RNY) October 5, 1992 Revenue Act (1992), amendment 15:14
10 Chris Murphy (DCT) June 15, 2016 Nominally H.R. 2578; supporting gun control measures 14:50

See also

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

In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an independent?
Trend since 2004
Republicans Independents Democrats
% % %
2018 Feb 1-10 28 42 27
2018 Jan 2-7 22 44 32
2017 Dec 4-11 25 46 27
2017 Nov 2-8 25 42 30
2017 Oct 5-11 24 42 31
2017 Sep 6-10 29 40 30
2017 Aug 2-6 28 41 28
2017 Jul 5-9 25 45 28
2017 Jun 7-11 26 42 30
2017 May 3-7 29 40 28
2017 Apr 5-9 25 44 28
2017 Mar 1-5 26 42 30
2017 Feb 1-5 31 37 31
2017 Jan 4-8 28 44 25
2016 Dec 7-11 28 39 29
2016 Nov 9-13 27 40 30
2016 Nov 1-6 27 36 31
2016 Oct 5-9 27 36 32
2016 Sep 14-18 27 40 32
2016 Sep 7-11 29 38 31
2016 Aug 3-7 27 38 31
2016 Jul 13-17 28 42 28
2016 Jun 14-23 28 39 31
2016 Jun 1-5 27 41 30
2016 May 18-22 27 45 28
2016 May 4-8 31 37 30
2016 Apr 6-10 25 44 31
2016 Mar 2-6 26 38 32
2016 Feb 3-7 30 37 30
2016 Jan 21-25 29 39 31
2016 Jan 6-10 26 44 29
2015 Dec 2-6 27 40 30
2015 Nov 4-8 28 39 30
2015 Oct 7-11 25 42 29
2015 Sep 9-13 27 43 27
2015 Aug 5-9 27 41 31
2015 Jul 8-12 23 46 28
2015 Jun 2-7 25 41 31
2015 May 6-10 26 41 30
2015 Apr 9-12 24 42 31
2015 Mar 6-9 27 44 28
2015 Feb 8-11 25 43 29
2015 Jan 5-8 29 42 28
2014 Dec 8-11 27 40 31
2014 Nov 6-9 28 41 28
2014 Oct 29-Nov 2 26 39 32
2014 Oct 12-15 33 35 29
2014 Sep 25-30 26 42 30
2014 Sep 4-7 25 47 26
2014 Aug 7-10 26 40 31
2014 Jul 7-10 23 45 29
2014 Jun 5-8 24 46 28
2014 May 8-11 24 43 31
2014 Apr 24-30 23 43 32
2014 Apr 3-6 25 42 29
2014 Mar 6-9 25 42 30
2014 Feb 6-9 23 45 30
2014 Jan 5-8 24 45 29
2013 Dec 5-8 24 44 30
2013 Nov 7-10 23 46 28
2013 Oct 3-6 20 47 30
2013 Sep 5-8 22 45 31
2013 Aug 7-11 24 43 31
2013 Jul 10-14 25 42 31
2013 Jun 20-24 26 41 31
2013 Jun 1-4 26 41 31
2013 May 2-7 28 39 32
2013 Apr 4-14 26 40 33
2013 Mar 7-10 27 36 35
2013 Feb 7-10 28 38 32
2013 Jan 7-10 27 38 33
2012 Dec 27-30 27 36 34
2012 Dec 19-22 25 35 38
2012 Dec 14-17 25 39 34
2012 Nov 26-29 29 37 31
2012 Nov 15-18 27 38 32
2012 Nov 9-12 28 38 33
2012 Nov 1-4 30 33 35
2012 Sep 24-27 28 38 32
2012 Sep 6-9 27 36 35
2012 Aug 20-22 28 41 31
2012 Aug 9-12 26 42 29
2012 Jul 19-22 28 41 30
2012 Jul 9-12 27 41 30
2012 Jun 7-10 30 39 30
2012 May 10-13 27 44 29
2012 May 3-5 28 38 32
2012 Apr 9-12 29 41 29
2012 Mar 8-11 27 42 30
2012 Feb 16-19 27 43 29
2012 Feb 2-5 27 43 29
2012 Jan 5-8 27 42 30
2011 Dec 15-18 30 42 27
2011 Nov 28-Dec 1 25 45 28
2011 Nov 3-6 27 35 36
2011 Oct 6-9 26 41 31
2011 Sep 15-18 21 46 32
2011 Sep 8-11 25 44 30
2011 Aug 11-14 28 44 26
2011 Aug 4-7 24 42 34
2011 Jul 12-15 25 42 30
2011 Jul 7-10 29 39 30
2011 Jun 9-12 30 38 29
2011 May 5-8 29 37 32
2011 Apr 20-23 31 36 32
2011 Apr 7-11 26 42 30
2011 Mar 25-27 25 40 32
2011 Mar 3-6 29 39 29
2011 Feb 2-5 28 40 31
2011 Jan 14-16 28 42 28
2011 Jan 7-9 29 37 31
2010 Dec 10-12 33 34 32
2010 Nov 19-21 29 40 29
2010 Nov 4-7 26 41 31
2010 Oct 28-31 29 36 32
2010 Oct 21-24 29 34 33
2010 Oct 14-17 30 36 30
2010 Oct 7-10 30 34 33
2010 Sep 30-Oct 3 29 37 30
2010 Sep 23-26 30 34 32
2010 Sep 13-16 30 41 28
2010 Aug 27-30 28 41 30
2010 Aug 5-8 29 40 30
2010 Jul 27-Aug 1 30 37 31
2010 Jul 8-11 26 40 30
2010 Jun 11-13 28 33 36
2010 May 24-25 28 40 30
2010 May 3-6 30 36 32
2010 Apr 8-11 26 42 29
2010 Mar 26-28 28 40 31
2010 Mar 4-7 29 39 30
2010 Feb 1-3 27 40 33
2010 Jan 8-10 28 36 34
2009 Dec 11-13 29 36 33
2009 Oct 16-19 25 41 32
2009 Oct 1-4 27 38 33
2009 Sep 11-13 26 40 33
2009 Aug 31-Sep 2 28 36 35
2009 Aug 6-9 28 35 35
2009 Jul 17-19 26 39 33
2009 Jul 10-12 29 33 37
2009 Jun 14-17 29 37 32
2009 May 29-31 26 37 35
2009 May 7-10 32 34 32
2009 Apr 20-21 27 36 36
2009 Apr 6-9 24 40 35
2009 Mar 27-29 28 35 35
2009 Mar 5-8 25 35 38
2009 Feb 20-22 27 36 34
2009 Feb 9-12 29 36 33
2009 Jan 30-Feb 1 27 35 36
2009 Jan 9-11 30 33 36
2008 Dec 12-14 26 35 37
2008 Dec 4-7 27 33 37
2008 Nov 13-16 26 35 39
2008 Nov 7-9 28 37 33
2008 Oct 23-26 33 32 34
2008 Oct 10-12 30 33 35
2008 Oct 3-5 27 38 33
2008 Sep 26-27 28 35 35
2008 Sep 8-11 32 31 35
2008 Sep 5-7 30 34 35
2008 Aug 21-23 27 37 36
2008 Aug 7-10 31 32 35
2008 Jul 25-27 29 33 36
2008 Jul 10-13 27 35 35
2008 Jun 15-19 30 35 34
2008 Jun 9-12 29 36 33
2008 May 30-Jun1 26 36 37
2008 May 8-11 27 35 37
2008 May 1-3 27 37 36
2008 Apr 18-20 25 38 36
2008 Apr 6-9 26 35 37
2008 Mar 14-16 29 33 38
2008 Mar 6-9 28 37 34
2008 Feb 21-24 29 34 36
2008 Feb 11-14 26 34 40
2008 Feb 8-10 28 34 37
2008 Jan 30-Feb 2 29 36 35
2008 Jan 10-13 28 38 34
2008 Jan 4-6 30 35 34
2007 Dec 14-16 27 39 33
2007 Dec 6-9 30 36 32
2007 Nov 30-Dec 2 28 41 31
2007 Nov 11-14 27 38 33
2007 Nov 2-4 25 41 34
2007 Oct 12-14 24 43 31
2007 Oct 4-7 28 38 32
2007 Sep 14-16 28 38 33
2007 Sep 7-8 26 41 32
2007 Aug 13-16 28 40 30
2007 Aug 3-5 27 43 30
2007 Jul 12-15 29 37 32
2007 Jul 6-8 25 43 31
2007 Jun 11-14 27 38 34
2007 Jun 1-3 31 36 31
2007 May 10-13 27 38 34
2007 May 4-6 27 40 33
2007 Apr 13-15 29 36 34
2007 Apr 2-5 30 36 34
2007 Mar 23-25 29 36 33
2007 Mar 11-14 31 35 32
2007 Mar 2-4 27 37 35
2007 Feb 9-11 26 41 32
2007 Feb 1-4 26 37 35
2007 Jan 15-18 30 32 36
2007 Jan 12-14 28 40 32
2007 Jan 5-7 27 42 31
2006 Dec 11-14 30 34 35
2006 Dec 8-10 29 36 34
2006 Nov 9-12 24 40 35
2006 Nov 2-5 31 32 34
2006 Oct 20-22 29 34 35
2006 Oct 9-12 28 35 34
2006 Oct 6-8 29 31 38
2006 Sep 15-17 31 34 34
2006 Sep 7-10 30 33 35
2006 Aug 18-20 33 32 34
2006 Aug 7-10 31 31 36
2006 Jul 28-30 32 29 38
2006 Jul 21-23 29 37 33
2006 Jul 6-9 31 33 34
2006 Jun 23-26 26 36 37
2006 Jun 9-11 35 27 37
2006 Jun 1-4 30 35 34
2006 May 12-13 30 36 34
2006 May 8-11 29 35 34
2006 May 5-7 29 37 32
2006 Apr 28-30 30 35 34
2006 Apr 10-13 31 33 35
2006 Apr 7-9 31 33 35
2006 Mar 13-16 28 36 33
2006 Mar 10-12 32 33 34
2006 Feb 28-Mar 1 32 31 35
2006 Feb 9-12 30 39 31
2006 Feb 6-9 33 34 30
2006 Jan 20-22 32 32 34
2006 Jan 9-12 34 34 31
2006 Jan 6-8 34 33 32
2005 Dec 19-22 29 36 32
2005 Dec 16-18 31 36 32
2005 Dec 9-11 30 38 31
2005 Dec 5-8 36 31 31
2005 Nov 17-20 33 30 34
2005 Nov 11-13 31 34 34
2005 Nov 7-10 32 33 33
2005 Oct 28-30 32 37 30
2005 Oct 24-26 33 30 35
2005 Oct 21-23 34 33 33
2005 Oct 13-16 30 33 36
2005 Sep 26-28 32 34 33
2005 Sep 16-18 30 33 36
2005 Sep 12-15 30 37 31
2005 Sep 8-11 33 34 32
2005 Aug 28-30 32 32 35
2005 Aug 22-25 29 34 35
2005 Aug 8-11 33 30 35
2005 Aug 5-7 33 35 31
2005 Jul 25-28 28 37 33
2005 Jul 22-24 32 31 36
2005 Jul 7-10 30 33 35
2005 Jun 29-30 29 31 38
2005 Jun 24-26 33 32 34
2005 Jun 16-19 33 31 34
2005 Jun 6-8 33 34 31
2005 May 23-26 33 34 31
2005 May 20-22 29 33 36
2005 May 2-5 35 30 34
2005 Apr 29-May 1 34 34 31
2005 Apr 18-21 35 29 35
2005 Apr 1-2 35 33 31
2005 Mar 21-23 32 29 37
2005 Mar 18-20 35 31 32
2005 Mar 7-10 35 31 32
2005 Feb 25-27 38 27 34
2005 Feb 21-24 37 31 29
2005 Feb 7-10 34 30 35
2005 Feb 4-6 37 35 28
2005 Jan 14-16 33 36 30
2005 Jan 7-9 35 29 36
2005 Jan 3-5 37 27 35
2004 Dec 17-19 33 30 35
2004 Dec 5-8 37 29 32
2004 Nov 19-21 38 31 30
2004 Nov 7-10 38 27 35
2004 Oct 29-31 34 27 37
2004 Oct 22-24 35 29 36
2004 Oct 14-16 38 29 33
2004 Oct 11-14 33 32 35
2004 Oct 9-10 35 30 34
2004 Oct 1-3 36 27 37
2004 Sep 24-26 39 28 31
2004 Sep 13-15 37 29 33
2004 Sep 3-5 37 29 34
2004 Aug 23-25 35 32 32
2004 Aug 9-11 36 29 34
2004 Jul 30-Aug 1 35 28 36
2004 Jul 19-21 37 28 34
2004 Jul 8-11 35 27 36
2004 Jun 21-23 32 33 34
2004 Jun 3-6 33 31 35
2004 May 21-23 33 31 34
2004 May 7-9 32 32 33
2004 May 2-4 32 31 36
2004 Apr 16-18 32 32 34
2004 Apr 5-8 34 30 34
2004 Mar 26-28 36 30 32
2004 Mar 8-11 31 35 33
2004 Mar 5-7 33 31 35
2004 Feb 16-17 30 39 31
2004 Feb 9-12 32 35 32
2004 Feb 6-8 33 36 30
2004 Jan 29-Feb 1 31 35 33
2004 Jan 12-15 32 33 34
2004 Jan 9-11 33 35 31
2004 Jan 2-5 32 40 28
GALLUP
(Asked of independents) As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?
Figures are combined party identifiers + leaners
Republicans + Republican leaners Democrats + Democratic leaners
% %
2018 Feb 1-10 46 44
2018 Jan 2-7 35 50
2017 Dec 4-11 41 45
2017 Nov 2-8 39 46
2017 Oct 5-11 39 46
2017 Sep 6-10 45 47
2017 Aug 2-6 43 46
2017 Jul 5-9 40 48
2017 Jun 7-11 43 49
2017 May 3-7 45 44
2017 Apr 5-9 41 48
2017 Mar 9-29 38 47
2017 Mar 1-5 41 49
2017 Feb 1-5 43 48
2017 Jan 4-8 44 43
2016 Dec 7-11 41 42
2016 Nov 9-13 43 48
2016 Nov 1-6 43 46
2016 Oct 5-9 40 44
2016 Sep 14-18 44 49
2016 Sep 7-11 44 45
2016 Aug 3-7 41 48
2016 Jul 13-17 43 43
2016 Jun 14-23 42 48
2016 Jun 1-5 41 48
2016 May 18-22 47 46
2016 May 4-8 43 47
2016 Apr 6-10 41 49
2016 Mar 2-6 40 48
2016 Feb 3-7 43 46
2016 Jan 21-25 42 48
2016 Jan 6-10 44 45
2015 Dec 2-6 41 46
2015 Nov 4-8 42 44
2015 Oct 7-11 43 44
2015 Sep 9-13 45 44
2015 Aug 5-9 43 45
2015 Jul 8-12 41 47
2015 Jun 2-7 43 45
2015 May 6-10 42 45
2015 Apr 9-12 38 47
2015 Mar 6-9 44 42
2015 Feb 8-11 43 44
2015 Jan 5-8 44 43
2014 Dec 8-11 41 45
2014 Nov 6-9 47 41
2014 Oct 29-Nov 2 41 46
2014 Oct 12-15 47 41
2014 Sep 25-30 44 48
2014 Sep 4-7 47 42
2014 Aug 7-10 42 46
2014 Jul 7-10 40 42
2014 Jun 5-8 44 44
2014 May 8-11 40 47
2014 Apr 24-30 41 48
2014 Apr 3-6 41 43
2014 Mar 6-9 42 47
2014 Feb 6-9 40 47
2014 Jan 5-8 40 45
2013 Dec 5-8 42 44
2013 Nov 7-10 39 45
2013 Oct 3-6 38 48
2013 Sep 5-8 41 47
2013 Aug 7-11 41 44
2013 Jul 10-14 40 46
2013 Jun 20-24 43 46
2013 Jun 1-4 43 46
2013 May 2-7 41 48
2013 Apr 4-14 40 49
2013 Mar 7-10 41 48
2013 Feb 7-10 42 48
2013 Jan 7-10 40 49
2012 Dec 27-30 39 47
2012 Dec 19-22 36 53
2012 Dec 14-17 41 49
2012 Nov 26-29 44 46
2012 Nov 15-18 39 50
2012 Nov 9-12 40 50
2012 Nov 1-4 42 50
2012 Sep 24-27 43 50
2012 Sep 6-9 42 51
2012 Aug 20-22 46 49
2012 Aug 9-12 41 44
2012 Jul 19-22 47 45
2012 Jul 9-12 41 46
2012 Jun 7-10 42 44
2012 May 10-13 45 46
2012 May 3-5 41 47
2012 Apr 9-12 43 47
2012 Mar 8-11 41 46
2012 Feb 16-19 45 45
2012 Feb 2-5 44 45
2012 Jan 5-8 44 47
2011 Dec 15-18 45 45
2011 Nov 28-Dec 1 43 43
2011 Nov 3-6 41 50
2011 Oct 6-9 45 43
2011 Sep 15-18 40 49
2011 Sep 8-11 48 44
2011 Aug 11-14 47 40
2011 Aug 4-7 44 50
2011 Jul 12-15 42 47
2011 Jul 7-10 47 44
2011 Jun 9-12 47 42
2011 May 5-8 43 46
2011 Apr 20-23 46 46
2011 Apr 7-11 46 43
2011 Mar 25-27 42 46
2011 Mar 3-6 45 43
2011 Feb 2-5 44 49
2011 Jan 14-16 47 43
2011 Jan 7-9 45 44
2010 Dec 10-12 48 44
2010 Nov 19-21 49 42
2010 Nov 4-7 44 47
2010 Oct 28-31 43 44
2010 Oct 21-24 43 45
2010 Oct 14-17 45 43
2010 Oct 7-10 43 44
2010 Sep 30-Oct 3 43 44
2010 Sep 23-26 44 43
2010 Sep 13-16 48 42
2010 Aug 27-30 47 45
2010 Aug 5-8 43 44
2010 Jul 27-Aug 1 44 42
2010 Jul 8-11 41 46
2010 Jun 11-13 42 47
2010 May 24-25 43 48
2010 May 3-6 45 44
2010 Apr 8-11 42 46
2010 Mar 26-28 46 46
2010 Mar 4-7 44 45
2010 Feb 1-3 45 46
2010 Jan 8-10 43 48
2009 Dec 11-13 43 49
2009 Oct 16-19 41 47
2009 Oct 1-4 43 46
2009 Sep 11-13 43 47
2009 Aug 31-Sep 2 43 49
2009 Aug 6-9 43 47
2009 Jul 17-19 41 48
2009 Jul 10-12 42 50
2009 Jun 14-17 41 48
2009 May 29-31 39 48
2009 May 7-10 45 45
2009 Apr 20-21 39 50
2009 Apr 6-9 34 53
2009 Mar 27-29 40 51
2009 Mar 5-8 35 53
2009 Feb 20-22 39 51
2009 Feb 9-12 39 51
2009 Jan 30-Feb 1 38 53
2009 Jan 9-11 41 51
2008 Dec 12-14 35 52
2008 Dec 4-7 39 51
2008 Nov 13-16 37 55
2008 Nov 7-9 40 51
2008 Oct 23-26 45 48
2008 Oct 10-12 41 52
2008 Oct 3-5 40 50
2008 Sep 26-27 40 50
2008 Sep 8-11 43 50
2008 Sep 5-7 47 48
2008 Aug 21-23 40 53
2008 Aug 7-10 40 50
2008 Jul 25-27 41 48
2008 Jul 10-13 37 47
2008 Jun 15-19 40 51
2008 Jun 9-12 41 49
2008 May 30-Jun1 39 53
2008 May 8-11 40 52
2008 May 1-3 42 53
2008 Apr 18-20 39 56
2008 Apr 6-9 36 55
2008 Mar 14-16 41 53
2008 Mar 6-9 38 53
2008 Feb 21-24 38 53
2008 Feb 11-14 38 54
2008 Feb 8-10 39 54
2008 Jan 30-Feb 2 40 51
2008 Jan 10-13 39 52
2008 Jan 4-6 39 51
2007 Dec 14-16 38 52
2007 Dec 6-9 41 44
2007 Nov 30-Dec 2 42 48
2007 Nov 11-14 35 49
2007 Nov 2-4 38 54
2007 Oct 12-14 39 52
2007 Oct 4-7 40 48
2007 Sep 14-16 39 54
2007 Sep 7-8 38 52
2007 Aug 13-16 41 47
2007 Aug 3-5 40 48
2007 Jul 12-15 40 49
2007 Jul 6-8 37 53
2007 Jun 11-14 37 53
2007 Jun 1-3 42 48
2007 May 10-13 39 52
2007 May 4-6 41 49
2007 Apr 13-15 42 52
2007 Apr 2-5 42 49
2007 Mar 23-25 41 51
2007 Mar 11-14 41 48
2007 Mar 2-4 39 52
2007 Feb 9-11 40 52
2007 Feb 1-4 37 54
2007 Jan 15-18 38 52
2007 Jan 12-14 41 53
2007 Jan 5-7 40 53
2006 Dec 11-14 40 53
2006 Dec 8-10 40 50
2006 Nov 9-12 34 56
2006 Nov 2-5 39 49
2006 Oct 20-22 39 54
2006 Oct 9-12 38 48
2006 Oct 6-8 37 56
2006 Sep 15-17 42 50
2006 Sep 7-10 40 51
2006 Aug 18-20 43 48
2006 Aug 7-10 39 51
2006 Jul 28-30 40 52
2006 Jul 21-23 39 49
2006 Jul 6-9 40 49
2006 Jun 23-26 38 55
2006 Jun 9-11 42 50
2006 Jun 1-4 43 50
2006 May 12-13 39 48
2006 May 8-11 40 48
2006 May 5-7 38 49
2006 Apr 28-30 40 54
2006 Apr 10-13 39 50
2006 Apr 7-9 41 53
2006 Mar 13-16 38 48
2006 Mar 10-12 41 52
2006 Feb 28-Mar 1 41 50
2006 Feb 9-12 42 49
2006 Feb 6-9 44 45
2006 Jan 20-22 42 51
2006 Jan 9-12 44 46
2006 Jan 6-8 45 48
2005 Dec 19-22 39 47
2005 Dec 16-18 43 48
2005 Dec 9-11 43 48
2005 Dec 5-8 44 46
2005 Nov 17-20 41 48
2005 Nov 11-13 41 52
2005 Nov 7-10 44 46
2005 Oct 28-30 42 47
2005 Oct 24-26 41 50