Sexual Harrasment

The Pronk Pops Show 1152, October 5, 2018, Breaking Story 1: A Profile in Courage: Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine Makes Outstanding Historic Speech in Support of Judge Brett Kavanuagh — Democrat Senator of West Virginia Will Vote Yes — Kavanugh Confirmation Vote Saturday — Associate Justice Kavanaugh — Videos — Story 2: 3.7% U-3 Unemployment Rate Lowest  Since December 1969 — Labor Participation Rate of 62,7% Well Below Normal 66-67% Range in Clinton and Bush Years — Only 134,000 Non farm Payroll Jobs Created in September With Upward Revision of August to 270,000 Jobs Created — Videos — Story 3: The Coming Construction Boom in The United States? — Videos

Posted on October 8, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribes, Cartoons, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Legal Immigration, Lying, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Senate, Sexual Harrasment, Social Networking, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Fraud, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, United States of America, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1152 October 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1151 October 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1150 October 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1149, October 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1148, September 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1147, September 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1146, September 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1145, September 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1144, September 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1143, September 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1142, September 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1141, September 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1140, September 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1139, September 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1138, September 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1137, September 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1136, September 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1135, September 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1134, September 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1133, August 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1132, August 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1131, August 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1130, August 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1129, August 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1128, August 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1127, August 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1126, August 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1125, August 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1124, August 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1123, August 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1117, July 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1116, July 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1115, July 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1114, July 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1113, July 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1112, July 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1111, July 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1110, July 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1109, July 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1108, July 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1107, July 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1106, July 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1105, July 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1104, July 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1103, July 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1102, JUly 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1101, July 2, 2018

Republican Senator Susan Collins will vote ‘yes’ for Brett Kavanaugh

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

 

 Breaking Story 1: A Profile in Courage: Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine Makes Outstanding Historic Speech in Support of Judge Brett Kavanuagh — Democrat Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia Will Vote Yes — Kavanugh Confirmation Vote Saturday — Associate Justice Kavanaugh of Supreme Court of United States — Videos —

Sen. Susan Collins Will Vote to Confirm Judge Kavanaugh

Senator Susan Collins: ‘I Will Vote To Confim Judge Brett Kavanaugh’ | NBC News

Susan Collins EXPLOSIVE Speech on Senate Vote to Confirm Kavanaugh Announces FINAL Decision

Lindsey Graham: Susan Collins saved the Senate

Hannity: Collins bravely restored common sense to Senate

Only Senators Murkowski & Collins Can Stop Kavanaugh

WSJ: Friend of Ford felt pressured to revisit statement

 

Ingraham: The Democrats’ phony victim play

Juanita Broaddrick on Chelsea Clinton’s Kavanaugh comments

‘Never Been So Disgusted’ With DC Politics: Boothe Rips Dems for ‘Weaponizing’ Kavanaugh Allegations

Senator Susan Collins Faces Massive Opposition If She Votes To Confirm Kavanaugh | AM Joy | MSNBC

Senator Susan Collins Says Brett Kavanaugh Sees Roe V. Wade As ‘Settled Law’ | NBC News

Senator Joe Manchin to vote ‘yes’ on Kavanaugh

Protesters shout down Democrat voting for Kavanaugh

Manchin Meets with Kavanaugh

WATCH: Protester Confronts Dem Sen. Manchin Over Possible Kavanaugh Support

How did reporters get Dr. Christine Ford’s story?

Ingraham: The Democrats’ desperate salvage operation

Sen. Lindsey Graham: FBI report very good for Kavanaugh

Diamond and Silk: Kavanaugh needs to be confirmed

RACHEL MITCHELL BOMBSHELL REPORT ON DR. FORD

Retired agent who gave Ford polygraph test shares insight

Christine Blasey Ford, Brett Kavanaugh: Most memorable moments from their testimonies

Christine Blasey Ford’s opening remarks at Kavanaugh hearing: ‘I believed he was going to rape me’

Watch Rachel Mitchell’s complete questioning of Christine Blasey Ford, without interruptions

Sens. Susan Collins and Joe Manchin will vote for Brett Kavanaugh, effectively ensuring his Supreme Court confirmation

  • Republican Sen. Susan Collins on Friday says she will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, ending months of speculation from the crucial swing senator.
  • Minutes after Collins’ speech concluded, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said that he, too, would vote for Kavanaugh.
  • Collins revealed her decision Friday afternoon, hours after a key procedural vote in the confirmation process.

Republican Senator Susan Collins will vote ‘yes’ for Brett Kavanaugh

Republican Senator Susan Collins will vote ‘yes’ on Brett Kavanaugh  

Republican Sen. Susan Collins on Friday said she would vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, ending months of speculation from the crucial swing senator.

“Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh,” Collins said at the very end of a nearly 45-minute long speech on the Senate floor.

Minutes after Collins’ speech concluded, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said that he, too, would vote for Kavanaugh.

“Based on all of the information I have available to me, including the recently completed FBI report, I have found Judge Kavanaugh to be a qualified jurist who will follow the Constitution and determine cases based on the legal findings before him,” Manchin said in a statement.

“I had to deal with the facts I had in front of me,” Manchin told reporters over shouts of “Shame!” from protesters in the hallway.

Collins revealed her decision Friday afternoon, hours after a key procedural vote in the confirmation process.

Collins voted to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination in the 51-49 vote, which saw divisions largely along party lines. The only exceptions were Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who voted no, and Manchin, who voted yes.

“I believe he is a good man,” Murkowski said afterward. “It just may be that, in my view, he’s not the right man for the court at this time.”

Collins’ remarks on the Senate floor Friday afternoon, scheduled for 3:05 p.m. ET, were initially delayed after protesters began shouting in the Senate gallery, chanting “Vote No! Show up for Maine women!”

She began her lengthy speech by tearing into the hyper-politicized nomination process, calling it a “caricature of a gutter-level political campaign.”

She also distanced herself in the speech from the partisan cloud hanging over Kavanaugh.

“I’ve never considered the president’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations,” she said, noting that she had voted for nominees appointed by presidents of both major parties.

Collins has held her decision on Kavanaugh’s candidacy close to the vest throughout the nomination process. But she has not always kept silent on her opinion of the judge and the other political leaders involved in the process.

How Brett Kavanaugh could be helping Florida Gov. Rick Scott in the 2018 elections

How Brett Kavanaugh could be helping Florida Gov. Rick Scott in the 2018 elections  

Her view of Kavanaugh appeared to lean in his favor in August after her one-on-one meeting with the appellate judge. The moderate senator from Maine, who is pro-choice, told reporters that Kavanaugh assured that he viewed Roe v. Wade — the perennially controversial abortion ruling — as “settled law.”

But after Kavanaugh was accused of past sexual misconduct by multiple women in mid-September, Collins was circumspect. “I don’t know enough to make a judgment at this point,” she told reporters at the time.

And she criticized President Donald Trump after he mocked one of Kavanaugh’s accusers, Christine Blasey Ford, at a rally following her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Trump’s derisive imitation of the testimony was “just plain wrong,” Collins said.

Kavanaugh has categorically denied the allegations against him.

In her Senate speech Friday, Collins also devoted significant time to discussing the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, including an in-depth evaluation of the evidence and the witnesses who came forward to testify for and against the judge.

“Every person, man or woman, who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect,” she said. “The #MeToo movement is real. It matters. It is needed, and long overdue.”

She concluded, however, that the allegations failed to meet the proper standard of evidence, and “therefore I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court.”

Collins was careful to frame her argument respectfully regarding Ford. But she rejected another accusation by Julie Swetnick, who alleged in a bombshell declaration that Kavanaugh and others were involved in spiking girls’ drinks in the early 1980s to make it easier for them to be raped.

“That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained” in U.S. institutions, Collins said.

Swetnick’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, excoriated Collins in a phone call with CNBC.

“I have no idea what she is talking about and evidently neither does she,” Avenatti said. “My client submitted a sworn declaration, we submitted a second written declaration from a corroborating witness, we had additionally five other witness to provide to the FBI, we repeatedly asked to meet with the FBI, to no avail. How the hell did Susan Collins make a credibility determination related to my client’s allegations when she never did any investigation whatsoever?”

Avenatti said he and his client are “exploring our options.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/gop-swing-vote-sen-susan-collins-will-vote-for-brett-kavanaugh.html

Read Susan Collins’s Historic Floor Speech on Brett Kavanaugh

 

The Fear Driving Conservative Support for Kavanaugh
PETER BEINART

Since that time we have seen special-interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial record. Over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimonies at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines, which although debunked hours later, continued to live on and be spread through social media. Interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination. Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years. One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom.

Susan Collins’s standard of proof on sexual assault

Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual senator to decide what the Constitution’s advice-and-consent duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the president has brought discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought. I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I’ve never considered the president’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan nominated by President Obama. And Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Trump. So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. 19 attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge’s extensive record. I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. I listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearings. I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others. And I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions. I also have met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents regarding Judge Kavanaugh.

Trump played the long game on Kavanaugh.

One concern that I frequently heard was that the judge would be likely to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s vital protections for people with preexisting conditions. I disagree with this contention. In a dissent in 7 Sky v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the ACA on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full. Many experts have said that his dissent informed Justice Roberts’ opinion upholding the ACA at the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh’s approach toward the doctrine of severability is narrow when a part of a statute is challenged on constitutional ground, he has argued for severing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain in tact. This was his approach and his dissent in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued for, quote, “severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact,” end quote. Given the current challenges to the ACA, proponents, including myself of protections for people with preexisting conditions should want a justice who would take just this kind of approach.

Another assertion that I’ve heard often is that Judge Kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the president were to come before the court. The basis for this argument seems to be two-fold. First, Judge Kavanaugh has written that he believes Congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. Mr. President, I believe opponents missed the mark on this issue. The fact that Judge Kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes that the president does not have such protection currently. Second, there are some who argue that given the current special counsel investigation, President Trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice. That argument ignores our recent history. President Clinton in 1993 nominated Justice Ginsburg after the Whitewater investigation was already underway, and she was confirmed 96-3. The next year, just three months after independent counsel Robert Fisk was named to lead the Whitewater investigation, President Clinton nominated Justice Breyer. He was confirmed 87-9.

Supreme Court Justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them. Perhaps most notably in the United States v. Nixon, three Nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him. Judge Kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. He has stated that Marbury v. Madison, Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer, and the United States v. Nixon are three of the four greatest Supreme Court cases in history. What do they have in common? Each of them is a case where Congress served as a check on presidential power. And I would note that the fourth case that Judge Kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was Brown v. The Board of Education. One Kavanaugh decision illustrates the point about the check on presidential power directly. He wrote the opinion in Hamdan v. The United States, a case that challenges the Bush administration’s military commission prosecution of an associate of Osama Bin Laden. This conviction was very important to the Bush administration, but Judge Kavanaugh, who had been appointed to the DC circuit by President Bush and had worked in President Bush’s White House, ruled that the conviction was unlawful. As he explained during the hearing, quote, “We don’t make decisions based on who people are or their policy preferences or the moment. We base decisions on the law,” end quote.

Others I’ve met with have expressed concerns that Justice Kennedy’s retirement threatens the right of same-sex couples to marry, yet Judge Kavanaugh described the Obergefell decision, which legalized same-gender marriages, as an important landmark precedent. He also cited Justice Kennedy’s recent Masterpiece Cake Shop opinion for the Court’s majority stating that, quote, “the days of treating gay and lesbian americans or gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens who are inferior in dignity and worth are over in the Supreme Court,” end quote. Others have suggested that the judge holds extreme views on birth control. In one case Judge Kavanaugh incurred the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections. Although his critics frequently overlook this point, Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception. In fact, he wrote that the Supreme Court precedent strongly suggested that there was a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control.

There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me. To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition but rooted in Article 3 of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. In other words, precedent isn’t a goal or an aspiration, it is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness.

Does ‘settled law’ mean Kavanaugh will uphold Roe v. Wade?

There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown v. The Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, correcting a grievously wrong decision, to use the judge’s term, allowing racial inequality. But someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long established precedent, except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply inconsistent with the law. Those are Judge Kavanaugh’s phrases. As the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight such that the precedent can’t be trimmed or narrowed simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly. Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 35 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence.

Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that struck down the law banning the use and sale of contraceptives. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to Roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as settled law, Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two cases from the 1920s, Myers and Pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. Finally, in his testimony he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, describing it as precedent on precedent. When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said no. Opponents frequently cite then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe. The republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. During this time Republican presidents have appointed Justices O’Connor, Souter and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. These are the very three justices, Republican president-appointed justices, who authored the Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe. Furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously opposed each of these justices nominations. Incredibly they even circulated buttons with the slogan “Stop Souter or Women Will Die.” Just two years later, Justice Souter co-authored the Casey opinion reaffirming a woman’s right to choose. Suffice it to say prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong.

Bribery, crowdfunding, and the strange case of Senator Susan Collins

These same interest groups have speculated that Judge Kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative ideologues despite his record of judicial independence. I asked the judge point blank whether he had made any commitments or pledges to anyone at the White House, to Federalist Society or any outside group on how he would decide cases. He unequivocally assured me he had not. Judge Kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12-year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament. The American Bar Association gave him its highest possible rating. Its standing committee on the federal judiciary conducted an extraordinarily thorough assessment, soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues. The ABA concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament and professional confidence met the highest standards.

Lisa Blatt, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman in history testified, quote, “By any objective measure, Judge Kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. His opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair.” Ms. Blatt, who clerked for him, is an ardent admirer of Justice Ginsburg, and who is an unapologetic defender of a woman’s right to choose, says that Judge Kavanaugh fits within the main stream of legal thought. She also observed that Judge Kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession. That Judge Kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and Chief Judge Merrick Garland voted the same way in 93 percent of the cases that they heard together. Indeed Chief Judge Garland joined in more than 96 percent of the majority opinions authored by Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting only once.

Despite all this, Kavanaugh’s record, and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the Senate’s advice and consent role was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by Professor Christine Blasey Ford. The confirmation process now involves evaluating whether or not Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault and lied about it to the Judiciary Committee. Some argue that, because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest courts, public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as abiding to our longest tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.

Did the Democrats mishandle the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh?

Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence and fairness do bear on my thinking and I cannot abandon them. In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.

Mitch McConnell’s legacy is riding on Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I found her testimony to be sincere, painful and compelling. I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life. Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred. None of the individuals Professor Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night. Judge Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury. Mark Judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. PJ Smyth, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony. Professor Ford’s lifelong friend, Leland Keyser, indicated that under penalty of felony she does not remember that party. And Ms. Keyser went further. She indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know Brett Kavanaugh.

The FBI investigation didn’t go very far by design.

In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raised more questions. For instance, since these allegations have become public, Professor Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say I was at the party that night. Furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance she would have needed a ride, yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one who drove her home or were in the car with her that night. And Professor Ford also indicated that, even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying good-bye, and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left, is she okay, not even her closest friend Ms. Keyser. Mr. President, the Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. It leaves that decision up to each senator. This is not a criminal trial, and I do not believe that the claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of more likely than not as our standard. The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the more likely than not standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court.

The most striking thing about Trump’s mockery of Christine Blasey Ford

Let me emphasize that my approach to this question should not be misconstrued as suggesting that unwanted sexual contact of any nature is not a serious problem in this country. To the contrary, if any good at all has come from this ugly confirmation process, it has been to create an awareness that we have underestimated the pervasiveness of this terrible problem. I have been alarmed and disturbed, however, by some who have suggested that unless Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is rejected, the Senate is somehow condoning sexual assault. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every person, man or woman, who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect. The MeToo movement is real. It matters. It is needed and it is long overdue. We know that rape and sexual assault are less likely to be reported to the police than other forms of assault. On average, an estimated 211,000 rapes and sexual assaults go unreported every year. We must listen to survivors, and every day we must seek to stop the criminal behavior that has hurt so many. We owe this to ourselves, our children and generations to come.

Since the hearing I have listened to many survivors of sexual assault. Many were total strangers who told me their heart-wrenching stories for the first time in their lives. Some were friends that I had known for decades, yet with the exception of one woman who had confided in me years ago, I had no idea that they had been the victims of sexual attacks. I am grateful for their courage and their willingness to come forward, and I hope that in heightening public awareness, they have also lightened the burden that they have been quietly bearing for so many years. To them I pledge to do all that I can to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters never share their experiences. Over the past few weeks I have been emphatic that the Senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault. I called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. I also pushed for and supported the FBI’s supplemental background investigation. This was the right thing to do.

Christine Ford never sought the spotlight. She indicated that she was terrified to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and she has shunned attention since then. She seemed completely unaware of Chairman Grassley’s offer to allow her to testify confidentially in California. Watching her, Mr. President, I could not help but feel that some people who wanted to engineer the defeat of this nomination cared little, if at all, for her well-being. Professor Ford testified that a very limited number of people had access to her letter, yet that letter found its way into the public domain. She testified that she never gave permission for that very private letter to be released and yet here we are. We are in the middle of a fight that she never sought, arguing about claims that she wanted to raise confidentially.

Now, one theory I’ve heard espoused repeatedly is that our colleague, Senator Feinstein leaked Professor Ford’s letter at the 11th hour to derail this process. I want to state this very clearly. I know Senator Dianne Feinstein extremely well and I believe that she would never do that. I knew that to be the case before she ever stated that at the hearing. She is a person of integrity and I stand by her. I have also heard some argue that the chairman of the committee somehow treated Professor Ford unfairly. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chairman Grassley, along with his excellent staff, treated Professor Ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process. And that is the way the Senator from Iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service.

But the fact remains, Mr. President, someone leaked this letter against Professor Ford’s express wishes. I suspect, regrettably, that we will never know for certain who did it. To that leaker who I hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable. You have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect but also trusted you to protect her and you have sacrificed her well being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting. My only hope is that your callous act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the Senate and indeed all Americans to reconsider how we evaluate Supreme Court nominees. If that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded Professor Ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences.

Mr. President, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination has reached a fever pitch, even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction. We live in a time of such great disunity, as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the Senate and among the public clearly demonstrates. It is not merely a case of differing groups having different opinions. It is a case of people bearing extreme ill will toward those who disagree with them. In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans. When some of our best minds are seeking to develop even more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only reinforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify. This would have alarmed the drafters of our Constitution, who were acutely aware that different values and interests could prevent Americans from becoming and remaining a single people. Indeed, of the six objectives they invoked in the preamble to the Constitution the one that they put first was the formation of a more perfect union. Their vision of a more perfect union does not exist today. And if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from it. It is particularly worrisome that the Supreme Court, the institution that most Americans see as the principle guardian of our shared Constitutional heritage is viewed as part of the problem through a political lens.

Mr. President, we’ve heard a lot of charges and counter-charges about Judge Kavanaugh. But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband and father. Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court is restored. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Thank you, Mr. President.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/why-susan-collins-voting-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court/572341/

Story 2: 3.7% U-3 Unemployment Rate Lowest  Since December 1969 — Labor Participation Rate of 62,7% Well Below Normal 66-67% Range in Clinton and Bush Years — Only 134,000 Non farm Payroll Jobs Created in September With Upward Revision of August to 270,000 Jobs Created — Videos

Still a skills gap in US job market?

Santelli Exchange: Lazear on the jobs report and rising interest rates

Larry Kudlow: It’s a very good jobs picture

Fed’s Williams on Jobs Report, Neutral Rate, Inflation

Jobs Report: Unemployment At 3.7%, Lowest Since 1969 | Morning Joe | MSNBC

 

 

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until	                              USDL-18-1586
8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, October 5, 2018

Technical information: 
 Household data:	(202) 691-6378  *  cpsinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data:	(202) 691-6555  *  cesinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:	        (202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov


                        THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- SEPTEMBER 2018


The unemployment rate declined to 3.7 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment increased 
by 134,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in professional and 
business services, in health care, and in transportation and warehousing.


    _________________________________________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                                                 |
   |                                   Hurricane Florence                                            |
   |                                                                                                 |
   |   Hurricane Florence affected parts of the East Coast during the September reference periods    |
   |   for the establishment and household surveys. Response rates for the two surveys were within   |
   |   normal ranges. For information on how severe weather can affect employment and hours data,    |
   |   see Question 8 in the Frequently Asked Questions section of this news release.                |
   |                                                                                                 |
   |   BLS will release the state estimates of employment and unemployment on October 19, 2018, at   |
   |   10:00 a.m. (EDT).                                                                             |
   |_________________________________________________________________________________________________|


Household Survey Data

The unemployment rate declined by 0.2 percentage point to 3.7 percent in September, and the number of 
unemployed persons decreased by 270,000 to 6.0 million. Over the year, the unemployment rate and the 
number of unemployed persons declined by 0.5 percentage point and 795,000, respectively. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult women (3.3 percent) and Whites (3.3 
percent) declined in September. The jobless rates for adult men (3.4 percent), teenagers (12.8 percent), 
Blacks (6.0 percent), Asians (3.5 percent), and Hispanics (4.5 percent) showed little or no change over 
the month. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 1.4 million
over the month; these individuals accounted for 22.9 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

In September, the labor force participation rate remained at 62.7 percent, and the employment-population 
ratio, at 60.4 percent, was little changed. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-
time workers) increased by 263,000 to 4.6 million in September. These individuals, who would have 
preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were 
unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)

In September, 1.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from 
a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted 
and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not 
counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See 
table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 383,000 discouraged workers in September, about unchanged from a 
year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking 
for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.2 million persons marginally 
attached to the labor force in September had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance 
or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 134,000 in September, compared with an average monthly gain of 
201,000 over the prior 12 months. In September, job gains occurred in professional and business services, 
in health care, and in transportation and warehousing. (See table B-1.) 

Employment in professional and business services increased by 54,000 in September and has risen by 560,000 
over the year. 

Health care employment rose by 26,000 in September. Hospitals added 12,000 jobs, and employment in 
ambulatory health care services continued to trend up (+10,000). Over the year, health care employment has 
increased by 302,000. 

In September, employment in transportation and warehousing rose by 24,000. Job gains occurred in 
warehousing and storage (+8,000) and in couriers and messengers (+5,000). Over the year, employment in 
transportation and warehousing has increased by 174,000. 

Construction employment continued to trend up in September (+23,000). The industry has added 315,000 jobs 
over the past 12 months.

Employment in manufacturing continued to trend up in September (+18,000), reflecting a gain in durable 
goods industries. Over the year, manufacturing has added 278,000 jobs, with about four-fifths of the gain 
in the durable goods component. 

Within mining, employment in support activities for mining rose by 6,000 over the month and by 53,000 over 
the year. 

Employment in leisure and hospitality was little changed over the month (-17,000). Prior to September, 
employment in the industry had been on a modest upward trend. Some of the weakness in this industry in 
September may reflect the impact of Hurricane Florence. 

Employment showed little or no change over the month in other major industries, including wholesale trade, 
retail trade, information, financial activities, and government. 

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls remained unchanged at 34.5 hours in 
September. In manufacturing, the workweek edged down by 0.1 hour to 40.8 hours, and overtime edged down by 
0.1 hour to 3.4 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm 
payrolls was unchanged at 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In September, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 8 cents to 
$27.24. Over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 73 cents, or 2.8 percent. Average hourly 
earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 6 cents to $22.81 in 
September. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised up from +147,000 to +165,000, and the 
change for August was revised up from +201,000 to +270,000. With these revisions, employment gains in July 
and August combined were 87,000 more than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional 
reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the 
recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions, job gains have averaged 190,000 per month over the 
last 3 months.

_____________
The Employment Situation for October is scheduled to be released on Friday, November 2, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. 
(EDT).



The PDF version of the news release

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Category Sept.
2017
July
2018
Aug.
2018
Sept.
2018
Change from:
Aug.
2018-
Sept.
2018

Employment status

Civilian noninstitutional population

255,562 257,843 258,066 258,290 224

Civilian labor force

161,082 162,245 161,776 161,926 150

Participation rate

63.0 62.9 62.7 62.7 0.0

Employed

154,324 155,965 155,542 155,962 420

Employment-population ratio

60.4 60.5 60.3 60.4 0.1

Unemployed

6,759 6,280 6,234 5,964 -270

Unemployment rate

4.2 3.9 3.9 3.7 -0.2

Not in labor force

94,480 95,598 96,290 96,364 74

Unemployment rates

Total, 16 years and over

4.2 3.9 3.9 3.7 -0.2

Adult men (20 years and over)

3.8 3.4 3.5 3.4 -0.1

Adult women (20 years and over)

3.9 3.7 3.6 3.3 -0.3

Teenagers (16 to 19 years)

13.0 13.1 12.8 12.8 0.0

White

3.7 3.4 3.4 3.3 -0.1

Black or African American

7.0 6.6 6.3 6.0 -0.3

Asian

3.6 3.1 3.0 3.5 0.5

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

5.1 4.5 4.7 4.5 -0.2

Total, 25 years and over

3.5 3.2 3.2 3.0 -0.2

Less than a high school diploma

6.7 5.1 5.7 5.5 -0.2

High school graduates, no college

4.3 4.0 3.9 3.7 -0.2

Some college or associate degree

3.6 3.2 3.5 3.2 -0.3

Bachelor’s degree and higher

2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 -0.1

Reason for unemployment

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs

3,316 3,017 2,875 2,796 -79

Job leavers

737 844 862 730 -132

Reentrants

2,068 1,799 1,846 1,877 31

New entrants

663 591 584 586 2

Duration of unemployment

Less than 5 weeks

2,223 2,091 2,208 2,065 -143

5 to 14 weeks

1,879 1,820 1,720 1,720 0

15 to 26 weeks

962 971 923 861 -62

27 weeks and over

1,733 1,435 1,332 1,384 52

Employed persons at work part time

Part time for economic reasons

5,148 4,567 4,379 4,642 263

Slack work or business conditions

3,098 2,877 2,551 2,782 231

Could only find part-time work

1,725 1,431 1,365 1,447 82

Part time for noneconomic reasons

20,951 21,532 21,781 21,464 -317

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)

Marginally attached to the labor force

1,569 1,498 1,443 1,577

Discouraged workers

421 512 434 383

– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Sept.
2017
July
2018
Aug.
2018(P)
Sept.
2018(P)

EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

14 165 270 134

Total private

16 137 254 121

Goods-producing

15 41 37 46

Mining and logging

0 0 6 5

Construction

9 19 26 23

Manufacturing

6 22 5 18

Durable goods(1)

5 21 5 17

Motor vehicles and parts

-2.4 -1.0 1.6 -0.4

Nondurable goods

1 1 0 1

Private service-providing

1 96 217 75

Wholesale trade

7.6 10.3 21.3 4.4

Retail trade

1.8 2.0 11.5 -20.0

Transportation and warehousing

25.4 8.2 21.3 23.8

Utilities

0.4 -3.0 0.6 0.1

Information

-8 1 -3 0

Financial activities

8 3 12 13

Professional and business services(1)

27 39 65 54

Temporary help services

10.5 10.3 12.4 10.6

Education and health services(1)

14 36 58 18

Health care and social assistance

10.2 33.0 42.4 29.8

Leisure and hospitality

-75 13 21 -17

Other services

0 -13 9 -1

Government

-2 28 16 13

(3-month average change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

142 214 214 190

Total private

137 196 194 171

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES(2)

Total nonfarm women employees

49.5 49.7 49.7 49.7

Total private women employees

48.1 48.3 48.3 48.3

Total private production and nonsupervisory employees

82.4 82.4 82.4 82.4

HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES

Total private

Average weekly hours

34.3 34.5 34.5 34.5

Average hourly earnings

$26.51 $27.07 $27.16 $27.24

Average weekly earnings

$909.29 $933.92 $937.02 $939.78

Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)

107.3 109.7 110.0 110.1

Over-the-month percent change

-0.3 -0.2 0.3 0.1

Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)

136.0 142.0 142.8 143.3

Over-the-month percent change

0.2 0.1 0.6 0.4

DIFFUSION INDEX
(Over 1-month span)(5)

Total private (258 industries)

57.0 59.7 63.6 60.9

Manufacturing (76 industries)

54.6 59.9 61.8 62.5

Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(P) Preliminary

NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2017 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm

Story 3: The Coming Construction Boom — Videos

Rebuilding America’s pool of construction workers

Construction industry is struggling to fill high-paying jobs

Challenges Builders Face With New Construction – Matthew Gardner

There’s a construction worker shortage across the country

Texas schools focus on training students to fill a construction worker shortage

Looking for a JOB in Construction ? NYC ? OSHA 10, Flagman . Young People watch this video

Looking for a job in construction ? Part 2 . Young people watch this video. OSHA 10

Learning Construction

Future construction workers at Folsom Women’s Facility

10 Surprisingly High Paying Jobs

Construction hiring is booming — and there still are plenty of available jobs

he U.S. shed 2.3 million construction jobs as the housing bubble burst, and has only regained about 1.85 million

By DREARIQUIER

Getty Images
An employee welds pipe at Pioneer Pipe in Marietta, Ohio

One of the brightest spots in recent employment reports has been construction hiring.

Employers added a net new 23,000 construction jobs in September, the Labor Department said Friday, and the number of people working in the industry was 315,000 higher compared to a year earlier.

But there are still construction jobs open – and the pay and perks aren’t bad. At the end of July, there were 273,000 open construction jobs, according to a separate Labor Department report.

“The construction industry added workers and increased pay in the past year at rates higher than the overall economy,” said Ken Simonson, the chief economist for the Associated General Contractors of America, a trade group. “However, the pool of unemployed workers with construction experience has nearly evaporated.”

In September, average hourly earnings for construction workers was $30.18, higher than the $27.24 earned by all workers.

The construction hiring spree of the last five years marks the second-strongest such stretch on record, economist Ed Zarenski wrote on Twitter Friday.

Ed Zarenski@EdZarenski

Construction jobs up 214k year-to-date, up more than 300k compared to Sep2017. We are in the midst of the 2nd strongest 5yr growth period for constr jobs ever recorded. added 1.4mil jobs Sep’13-Sep’18 vs 1.5mil for 5yrs 1996-2000.https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag23.htm 

The numbers for residential construction are smaller – but that trajectory is roughly the same. Still, industry groups continue to say it’s hard to find help, and qualified workers can name their price.

At the School of Concrete and Construction Management at Nashville-based Middle Tennessee State University, there were nearly six jobs open for each graduate of the program, and the average starting salary for graduates was $52,000. For all workers at all stages of professional life, the average pay in the area is $58,000 in the Nashville metro area, according to government data. While most graduates of the program take jobs in large construction firms, many choose to start their own companies, according to a spokesperson.

The Nashville housing market is one of the hottest in the country – but it’s not the only place where there’s a great need for workers – and residential construction is just one piece of the industry.

What’s more, despite the recent hiring boom, the industry still hasn’t gotten back to pre-recession levels, Zarenski noted. Only 1.85 million construction jobs have been gained since 2011 – but 2.3 million were lost as the bubble burst.

Where Are All the Builders?

Construction costs are climbing and production is lagging, in part because there aren’t enough workers to go around.

By Andrew Soergel Senior ReporterJune 15, 2018, at 6:00 a.m.
U.S. News & World Report

Where Are All the Builders?

Through the first quarter of 2018, employers have been looking to fill an average of nearly 225,000 construction jobs each month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (MICHAEL S. WILLIAMSON/THE WASHINGTON POST/GETTY IMAGES)

THE UNITED STATES HAS A building problem.

The country that paved one of the most expansive highway and transportation systems on the planet, that festooned a riverside between Maryland and Virginia with ornate marble and sandstone statues, columns and monuments in the creation of the nation’s capital, that introduced architectural marvels to the world ranging from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Empire State Building to the Space Needle, is now dogged by an ailing construction industry.

A common thread has waylaid the building of a much-anticipated senior community in Oro Valley, Arizona, forced Exxon Mobil to retool the construction of what would be the world’s largest ethylene plant in San Patricio County, Texas, and spurred Home Depot into investing $50 million into skills training programs over the next 10 years: there simply aren’t enough construction workers to keep up with demand.

“For better or worse, business is good for us. They’re beating down the door,” says Tyson Conrad, the president and founder of Tampa-based Goliath Construction Consulting, which serves as a national recruiting and consultation outfit geared specifically toward the construction sector. “We’re in a place now where you have a booming economy and booming construction industry and lack of manpower. So people have gotten creative and desperate, essentially.”

Conrad works with clients across the country, many of whom seem to be telling the same story. With the economy chugging along through what is now its second-longest recovery to date and with demand for more affordable housing options as high as it’s been in years, Americans’ desire for new homes, buildings and facilities is through the roof.

But there simply aren’t enough skilled builders around to complete the work. Through the first quarter of 2018, employers have been looking to fill an average of nearly 225,000 construction jobs each month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That average was eclipsed in only one year going back to 2000, when the BLS first began tracking the data – and that year was 2007, at the tail end of the U.S. housing boom.

The labor shortage is so acute that 91 percent of more than 2,700 contractors, construction managers, builders and trade contractors surveyed in the latest Commercial Construction Indexreported having a difficult or moderately difficult time finding skilled workers.

“Among the contractors expressing concern about worker skill levels, more than one-third (37 percent) believe the problem has worsened in the last six months, and almost half (47 percent) believe it will continue to worsen in the next six months,” according to the report.

That shortage hasn’t been a terrible thing for those already in the industry, as their pay has skyrocketed in tandem with their demand. Wages of production and nonsupervisory construction employees – which excludes managers, sales personnel and accounting staff associated with the industry – climbed 3.6 percent between May 2017 and May 2018. That’s comfortably larger than the 2.8 percent wage gain production and nonsupervisory employees across the economy enjoyed over the same window.

A recent blog post from Aaron Terrazas, an economic research director at Zillow, identified even more drastic gains among residential construction workers, in particular. Such employees closed out April with a 5 percent annual wage gain, nearly double the 2.9 percent uptick for all of the economy’s private-sector workers.

“These days they’re making a killing,” Conrad says, telling the story of a client’s son who at 23 years old is making around $75,000 annually as a foreman. “For so long, it was seen that if you worked with a hard hat, you didn’t make a lot of money and you were a dummy. I can tell you that is contrary to everything that is reality.”

Construction wage growth isn’t necessarily expected to be exponential – the BLS last year estimated the top 10 percent of construction workers earned an annual wage of roughly $63,000, with top-tier construction managers bringing in nearly $160,000. But Conrad says demand for workers has created attractive options in the industry, particularly for young workers as the more established individuals phase out of the workforce.

Those in the construction industry are, on average, slightly older than workers in the rest of the economy, with a median age of 42.6. Only 1.8 percent of the industry’s workers are between 16 and 19 years old, while fewer than 9.4 percent are younger than 25. Both percentages are shy of national averages for all industries, suggesting a larger-than-normal share of construction workers are on the older side.

Conrad says he’s concerned by the fact that young people don’t seem to be embracing the industry in the same way that they used to. He partly blames budget cuts to shop and skills development opportunities in high schools while also pointing out the negative stigma he believes trade professions developed over time.

“There was a huge push in the ’90s and even in the early 2000s that if you were going to be successful, you needed to go to college. And that was the only way. And you add to that the Baby Boomers all migrating out of the workforce now – you’ve got a trifecta of major issues,” he says. “You have few people going in, a lot of people going out.”

He also points to a downtick in immigration as a driving factor in the skilled construction worker shortage. A recent industry analysis spearheaded by Natalia Siniavskaia, the assistant vice president of housing policy research at the National Association of Home Builders, found that immigrants constitute roughly 30 percent of the construction industry. In states such as California and Texas, that share sits north of 40 percent.

“Over the last two administrations, the last one and this one, we’ve seen significant drops in undocumented workers coming into the country,” Conrad says, noting that this trend has in some cases left construction employers in a bind.

In order to solve the construction shortage with domestic workers, officials and educators throughout the country have made efforts to get students more excited and more involved in working with their hands, hoping to foster a new generation of builders to help address today’s shortfall.

“I think there was a mentality here for awhile that we had to send our kids to college,” says David Curry, director of career and technical education at the Milton Hershey School in Hershey, Pennsylvania. “We want our students to find success. For certain students, that doesn’t mean sitting in a classroom for four more years.”

At the Milton Hershey School, Curry stresses a “learning by doing” approach that allows students to get hands-on experience in their field of choice. The institution – founded in 1909 as the Hershey Industrial School by chocolatier Milton Hershey and his wife, Catherine – functions as a boarding school catering specifically to low-income students. It offers traditional academic coursework as well as specialized training in one of 11 career pathways for more senior students.

For students in the school’s construction and carpentry pathway, that means personally building houses in the nearby community from the ground up.

“At the start of their junior year, the house was nonexistent. It was a patch of dirt. They have been involved in every phase of the building of this house,” Curry says, noting that this year’s crop of seniors just finished the 52nd home Milton Hershey students have constructed in the area. “In their junior class, they came out and built the rafters and walled it and roofed it. They’ve spent most of their senior year working on the interior of the house. They work alongside our instructional trade professionals we have here at the school.”

Curry says the school has experienced staff members on hand to help guide the students, though it will occasionally reach out to trade workers in the community to fill gaps in their expertise. He says the school doesn’t have a painter on hand, for example, so that work will be subcontracted.

“The entire goal of this is not for our staff to build this house. At the end of the day, it’s the kids who are building the house,” Curry says. “Obviously, kids make mistakes at times, and it becomes a learning experience. But we’re not going to hand a house to a family and not have it be what it’s supposed to be.”

Four graduating seniors plan to enroll in a local technical school to continue their skills development, though Curry says interest in the construction and carpentry program is rising. Two freshmen signed up for the concentration last year, he said, while 17 jumped into it this year.

The school is relatively unique in the fact that it is supported in part by a significant endowment that was left behind after Milton Hershey’s death – so it can afford the equipment and tools necessary for students to gain such hands-on experience. But Curry says he hopes other schools are able to increase awareness of and support for trade and construction programs going forward. The jobs, he says, are certainly available.

“There’s a huge growth in opportunities nationally in trade areas,” Curry says. “Oftentimes these are kids that know they want to do that and they want to go directly into that field, either to a two-year school or directly to work. … This is designed to make sure they’re prepared for what they’ll see in the real world.”

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2018-06-15/the-us-construction-industry-is-booming-but-where-are-the-builders

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1152

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

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

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

The Pronk Pops Show 1143, September 19, 2918, Story 1: Unintended Consequences — Republican Voter Base and Republicans In Congress Will Unite Behind Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh — Monday Monday — California Dreamin’ — Videos — Story 2. Senator Cruz Should Win Second Term — Build The Wall — Stop The 30-60 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of United States — Videos — Story 3: Chinese Communist Island Building in South China Sea Will Backfire and Unite Countries In The Region Against Them — From Japanese Imperialism to American Imperialism to Chinese Imperialism — Not Learning The Lessons of History — Oil and Natural Gas Is The Prize — Videos —

Posted on September 20, 2018. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Cruise Missiles, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drones, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Energy, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Law, Legal Immigration, Media, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, President Trump, Public Corruption, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Senate, Sexual Harrasment, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Ted Cruz, Terror, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1143, September 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1142, September 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1141, September 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1140, September 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1139, September 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1138, September 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1137, September 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1136, September 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1135, September 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1134, September 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1133, August 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1132, August 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1131, August 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1130, August 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1129, August 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1128, August 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1127, August 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1126, August 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1125, August 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1124, August 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1123, August 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1117, July 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1116, July 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1115, July 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1114, July 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1113, July 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1112, July 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1111, July 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1110, July 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1109, July 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1108, July 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1107, July 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1106, July 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1105, July 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1104, July 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1103, July 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1102, JUly 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1101, July 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1100, June 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1099, June 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1098, June 25, 2018 

Pronk Pops Show 1097, June 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1096, June 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1095, June 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1094, June 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1093, June 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1092, June 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1091, June 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1090, June 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1089, June 7, 2018

Dirty Diane FeinsteinImage result for tex cruz will win second termSee the source imageKavanaugh Sexual AssaultSee the source image

 

Story 1: Unintended Consequences — Republican Voter Base and Republicans In Congress Will Unite Behind Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh — Videos —

See the source image

The Mamas & The Papas – Monday Monday

Sekulow: No hearing needed if Kavanaugh accuser won’t appear

Dershowitz: Kavanaugh accuser needs to testify under oath

Hannity: Dems don’t want real investigation of Kavanaugh

Republicans warn that Ted Cruz could lose

Ted Cruz Does Not Denounce Killing Of Botham Jean, Says It May Have Been Misundersting

Beto O’Rourke CRUSHES Ted Cruz on Botham Jean Case

Democrats denounce Kavanaugh, Ford hearing date

Kavanaugh accuser’s lawyer issues ‘terms’ for testimony

Politics of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation fight

10 Fascinating Examples of Unintended Consequences

The Mamas & The Papas: California Dreamin’

The drive to sink Kavanaugh is liberal totalitarianism

If Senate Democrats and their media allies manage to destroy Brett Kavanaugh, they will bring America one step closer to a new, liberal style of totalitarianism.

I don’t use the “T”-word lightly. I’ve spent years pushing back against those who fling it about in free societies like ours. But totalitarianism doesn’t require cartoonish, 1984-style secret police and Big Brother. The classical definition is a society where everything — ethical norms and moral principles and truth itself — is subjugated to political ends.

By that measure, the Democratic campaign to block Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, based on a hazy, uncorroborated, decades-old assault allegation, tends toward the totalitarian. Certainly, it has many of the elements of abusive politics that Americans normally associate with foreign lands untouched by the light of liberty and reason:

An (initially) anonymous accusation, surfaced at the 11th hour, seemingly calculated to strike terror into the hearts of Kavanaugh and his family members and supporters? Check! That came in the form of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s cryptic statement last week, confirming that she had “received information from an individual concerning the nomination” of Kavanaugh but declining to offer any details.

An accusation that’s impossible to rebut? Check! Senate Democrats are demanding that the FBI look into the allegations first before the Judiciary Committee holds a hearing. But Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, can’t remember the time or location of the alleged incident. An FBI probe is impracticable, not to mention improper given the lack of a federal crime.

Kavanaugh’s integrity is thus besmirched, and the path to the only forum where he could clear his name is obstructed.

A media mob that treats the mere existence of an accusation as proof of its veracity? Check! The examples of this are legion. My favorite came courtesy of the Atlantic writer who claimed that her own run-in with a pervert meant that Kavanaugh is also guilty. This, just a couple of years after Rolling Stone’s University of Virginia fiasco was supposed to have taught reporters a lesson about the importance of listening to the accused as well as the accusers.

It didn’t have to be this way.

Feinstein didn’t have to leak the anonymous accusation to the press, contrary to Ford’s wishes. Or she could have urged Ford to go public early, giving both parties enough time to be heard.

Even now, Feinstein and her colleagues could back a committee hearing, without which Kavan­augh has no realistic opportunity for mounting a defense. Kavan­augh is a judge and a political operator. But he ‘s also a father and husband.

But no. Senate Dems have settled on the ugliest means available, even by the standards of the body that added the verb “Borking” to our political vocabulary. The question is: Why have Republican high-court nominations brought out the worst from the left, going back to the Ronald Reagan era?

The short answer is that liberals fear their major cultural victories of the past half-century are democratically illegitimate. Not a single one was won at the ballot box, going back to the Supreme Court’s 1965 Griswold decision, which recognized a constitutional right to contraceptives. From abortion to gay marriage, plus a host of less titillating issues, modern liberalism has lived by the Court. And liberals fear their cause will die by the Court.

Unless, that is, they block conservative encroachments into the judiciary by all means necessary. Hence, Borking and Clarence Thomas-ing. And hence, too, the naked slandering of Mitt Romney in the course of the 2012 presidential campaign, to forestall his shifting the Court to the right.

I wish I could say that the way out of this impasse is for the right to double down on the gentle conservatism represented by Romney, the Bush dynasty, and the late John McCain. Perhaps that is the right course in the long term. But for now, it is imperative for the health of American democracy to resist the liberal ruthlessness that is on display in the halls of the Senate.

The verb “to Kavanaugh” must not be permitted to enter our lexicon, lest the step to unfreedom become irrevocable.

Sohrab Ahmari is senior writer at Commentary and author of the forthcoming memoir of Catholic conversion, “From Fire, By Water.”

https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/the-drive-to-sink-kavanaugh-is-liberal-totalitarianism/

 

Republicans Reject Kavanaugh Accuser’s Request To Delay Hearing For FBI Investigation

Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing Sept. 6.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Updated at 11 p.m. ET

The Senate Judiciary Committee will move forward with a hearing scheduled for Monday on sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, despite a request for further investigation from his accuser.

The decision follows the release of a letter sent to Senate Judiciary Commitee Chairman Chuck Grassley from attorneys representing Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago when they were teenagers. In the letter, Ford’s attorneys said an FBI investigation should be “the first step in addressing her allegations.”

Ford’s attorneys argue that an investigation is necessary so that “the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions.” Ford’s attorneys also say that since she went public with her allegations “she has been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats.” They also complained that the committee scheduled Ford to “testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh in front of two dozen U.S. Senators on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident.”

Grassley declined Tuesday night to delay the hearing.

“The invitation for Monday still stands,” Grassley said in a statement. “Nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay.”

Grassley’s decision echoed the sentiment of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The FBI does not do investigations like this. The responsibility falls to us,” Hatch tweeted, adding “We should proceed as planned.”

And retiring Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., suggested that if Ford did not appear at Monday’s hearing, Senate Republicans should proceed to move forward considering Kavanaugh’s nomination. ” If we don’t hear from both sides on Monday, let’s vote,” Corker posted on Twitter late Tuesday night.

The letter from Ford’s attorneys and Grassley’s response capped a day of uncertainty about the next step in the Kavanaugh confirmation process, which has spiraled into turmoil in recent days.

Ford’s attorneys stopped short of saying Ford will refuse to appear before the committee while objecting to the rushed timeline and comments from Republican senators who seemed to question her accusations.

“The hearing was scheduled for six short days from today and would include interrogation by Senators who appear to have made up their minds that she is ‘mistaken’ and ‘mixed up,’ ” the letter reads. “While no sexual assault survivor should be subjected to such an ordeal, Dr. Ford wants to cooperate with the Committee and with law enforcement officials.”

Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, issued statements supporting Ford’s concerns about the hearing.

“I strongly support Dr. Ford’s call for an FBI investigation before a hearing is held,” Schumer said. “Dr. Ford’s call for the FBI to investigate also demonstrates her confidence that when all the facts are examined by an impartial investigation, her account will be further corroborated and confirmed.”

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, also weighed in to support Ford.

“We should honor Dr. Blasey Ford’s wishes and delay this hearing,” Feinstein said in a statment. “A proper investigation must be completed, witnesses interviewed, evidence reviewed and all sides spoken to. Only then should the chairman set a hearing date.”

Earlier in the day, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Senate Judiciary Committee would offer Ford the opportunity to testify in either an open public session or behind closed doors about her allegation.

“She could do it privately if she prefers, or publicly if she prefers,” McConnell said, adding, “Monday is her opportunity.” He stressed that Kavanaugh is eager to provide his testimony.

Democratic aides have privately floated the possibility of boycotting the hearing if Republicans choose to proceed without Ford present.

Grassley’s committee staff has already begun conducting preliminary interviews by phone with alleged witnesses related to the incident that Ford described to the Washington Post as having happened in the early 1980s when she and Kavanaugh were teenagers living in the Washington, D.C., suburbs. Aides plan follow-up sessions as needed to obtain additional information ahead of Monday’s planned public hearing.

Ford named Mark Judge, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s, as a witness to the incident at the high school party, but Judge told the Weekly Standard earlier this week he doesn’t recall the episode.

Grassley’s office released a letter from Judge’s attorney on Tuesday with a statement from him saying he has “no memory” of the incident. He also says, “I have no more information to offer the Committee and I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford’s letter.”

Democrats have rejected the GOP process and are refusing to participate in any committee phone interviews. They are insisting that the hearing be delayed to further explore the allegations. They want additional witnesses beyond Kavanaugh and Ford to be added to the planned hearing Monday.

But their primary demand is one that Ford asked for her in her letter Tuesday night — that the FBI conduct a full evaluation before any hearing is held.

That’s a proposal President Trump himself rejected earlier Tuesday prior to the release of the letter from Ford’s attorneys.

“That’s not what they do,” Trump said. “They have done now, supposedly, six background checks as Judge Kavanaugh has gone beautifully up a ladder.”

On Monday a spokesperson for the Justice Department indicated that the FBI does not get involved in matters unless a federal crime is alleged and that it had completed its work related to Kavanaugh’s background check.

Speaking at a joint news conference with Polish President Andrzej Sebastian Duda, Trump said Tuesday he feels “so badly” that Kavanaugh is going through the ordeal of the accusations.

“I feel terribly for him, for his wife and for his beautiful young daughters,” Trump said. “I feel terribly for them.”

Washington state Sen. Patty Murray, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, told reporters that an FBI investigation is necessary to ensure a full and impartial assessment of the accusations.

“Scheduling a hearing for Monday, a week from when Dr. Ford made her accusations public, is a shameful attempt to jam this through without giving anyone the time they need to investigate and put together the questions that need to be asked,” Murray said. “This is a test for the United States Senate on how we handle accusations of sexual harassment and assault.”

Murray and other Democrats are drawing a direct parallel between the claims against Kavanaugh and those raised in 1991 when Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court. At the time an all-male Senate Judiciary Committee aggressively questioned Hill in televised hearings, cast doubt on her accusations and ultimately voted to move Thomas’ nomination to the full Senate which confirmed him to the court.

That incident inspired a record number of women to run for federal office that cycle, including Murray, who was elected the following year. Murray told reporters America — and women in particular — will be closely watching how Ford’s case is handled.

“If Republicans attack Dr. Ford and this turns into anything like what we saw in 1991, women across the country are going to rise up and make their voice heard and Republicans will pay a very huge price,” Murray said. “I am here today to say, once again, women are watching, we are not going allow that to happen again.”

Before Ford asked for an FBI investigation, McConnell and other leaders said they wanted to hear directly from Ford but were standing firm on their expectation that she appear before the committee on Monday, blaming Democrats for creating a disorderly examination of Kavanaugh’s record.

“Next week Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh will testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath,” McConnell said Tuesday. “We should not have gotten to this point. That this process has played out with so little order and so little sensitivity lies solely at the feet of Senate Democrats.”

Republicans have accused Feinstein of concealing details of Ford’s accusation for several months after it was sent to her office in July.

Feinstein referred the information to the FBI but did not discuss it until Ford went public over the weekend. She defended her decision to keep the letter private Tuesday, saying she was respecting Ford’s own request for anonymity and following procedure for working with federal investigators.

“What we were trying to do was get an investigation,” Feinstein said. “We were going through all of that process.”

Some Republicans are warning that the Judiciary Committee has to tread lightly and handle the accusations with respect, regardless of their timing. Retiring Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., told reporters that there is a risk in being too aggressive or appearing to bully Ford. McConnell and other top GOP leaders repeatedly stressed that Ford deserved to be heard and they hoped she would agree to testify.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who is one of just a handful of Republicans who have not said whether they plan to support Kavanaugh, proposed calling both Kavanaugh and Ford to testify and allowing their attorneys to question them both as witnesses. “I believe that would elicit the most information,” Collins said.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/649209595/hearing-with-kavanaugh-and-accuser-alleging-sexual-assault-in-turmoil

 

Whip list: Where senators stand on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh meets with Pence and GOP leaders 01:40

Washington (CNN)Brett Kavanaugh is facing the confirmation of a lifetime. President Donald Trump announced in July that he is nominating the DC Appeals Court judge to the Supreme Court bench.

Whether Kavanaugh is successfully confirmed has become a question of Senate math. Republicans hold a slim 51-49 majority in the chamber.
And ahead of the midterms, all eyes are on the 10 Democrats running for re-election in states Trump carried in 2016. Three of them — North Dakota’s Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, Indiana’s Sen. Joe Donnelly and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin — voted for Trump’s last Supreme Court nominee, Justice Neil Gorsuch, last year and face re-election in 2018.
Democrats are also watching Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, who have expressed concerns, among other issues, about any action to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion ruling.
For those who have already weighed in, here’s the latest look at what senators have said about Kavanaugh’s nomination and how they will vote:

What undecided red-state Democrats are saying

Bill Nelson of Florida on July 9 — “I look forward to meeting with the President’s nominee in the coming weeks to discuss his views on several important issues such as protecting women’s rights, guaranteeing access to health care for those with pre-existing conditions and protecting the right to vote, just to name a few. I will make my decision after that.”
Jon Tester of Montana on September 12 — “We’re going to be reviewing the transcript of the judiciary hearing pretty hard over the next couple of days to see how he answered the questions, if he answered the questions. And then also I want to add the in-person meeting. I’m going to be visiting with him about issues on security and campaign finance and choice and other things.”
Joe Donnelly of Indiana on September 12 — I’m still reviewing everything at this point.”
Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota on September 12 — “I’m still reviewing the record.”

More undecided Democrats

Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada on July 9 — “I plan to meet with Judge Kavanaugh in the coming months and will review his qualifications thoroughly.”
Chris Coons of Delaware on September 12 — “I sent Judge Kavanaugh a substantial list of questions for the record yesterday, maybe Monday. I’m giving him a week to respond. I’ll make up my mind and make a public announcement after that. As should have been clear from my questioning in the confirmation hearing, I have grave concerns about his judicial philosophy around presidential power and a number of settled and important individual liberty rights.”

Democrats opposing

Chuck Schumer of New York on July 9 — “I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less.”
Kamala Harris of California on July 9 — “Judge Brett Kavanaugh represents a direct and fundamental threat to that promise of equality and so I will oppose his nomination to the Supreme Court.”
Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut on July 9 — “I will be a ‘no’ vote on this nominee. Judge Kavanaugh’s record and writings — which I have reviewed — signal an extreme hostility to the precious rights and liberties that make our nation great.”
Bob Casey of Pennsylvania on July 9 –– “I will oppose the nomination the President will make tonight because it represents a corrupt bargain with the far right, big corporations and Washington special interests.”
Patty Murray of Washington state on July 10 — “I voted against Judge Kavanaugh when he was nominated for the circuit court and I strongly oppose this nomination now. I will be urging my colleagues to stand with me in rejecting him, and in calling on President Trump to send us someone who would stand with women, workers and families, and who would truly commit to respecting settled law and the rights and freedoms we hold so dear. And I will be urging people across the country to stand up, speak out and make their voices heard.”
Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on July 12 — “After reviewing this nominee’s record, I know why powerful special interests in Washington selected Judge Brett Kavanaugh to work on the Supreme Court for them, not the people of Wisconsin,” she said in a statement. “The people of Wisconsin need a fair, impartial and independent Supreme Court Justice who will stand up for them, not for powerful special interests. I don’t have confidence that Judge Kavanaugh would be that justice.”
Tammy Duckworth of Illinois on July 19 — Based on his own words and writing, I fear that Judge Kavanaugh would be the deciding vote in critical cases that restrict a woman’s freedom to make health care decisions with her doctor, tear away protections that guarantee Americans with pre-existing conditions may obtain health insurance and empower a president of the United States to act as though he is above the law. Judge Kavanaugh should not be confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice, and he will not have my vote.”
Brian Schatz of Hawaii on September 4 — “I’ve seen enough. As long as the Republicans refuse to release 96% of the Kavanaugh records, this process is illegitimate. Every other Supreme Court nominee has turned over nearly everything, and I am now convinced they are hiding something. I will vote no.”
Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire on September 10 “Judge Kavanaugh’s past rulings on abortion demonstrate that he is willing to infringe on a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own reproductive decisions, and his failure to answer questions about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s protections for pre-existing conditions puts the health and well-being of millions of Americans at risk. After careful consideration of his record and reviewing the limited documents made available to the US Senate, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot support Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to serve on the US Supreme Court.”
Mark Warner of Virginia on September 11:“I would have liked to meet with Judge Kavanaugh personally before deciding how I’d vote. Even attempted to set up a meeting with him, though unfortunately the White House never responded. So I’m just going to say it. I’ll be voting no on Judge Kavanaugh.”
Claire McCaskill of Missouri in a statement on September 19: “While I am also uncomfortable about his view on Presidential power as it relates to the rule of law, and his position that corporations are people, it is his allegiance to the position that unlimited donations and dark anonymous money, from even foreign interests, should be allowed to swamp the voices of individuals that has been the determining factor in my decision to vote no on his nomination.”

Democrats appearing to lean opposing

Dianne Feinstein of California on July 9 — “His views are far outside the legal mainstream when it comes to access to health care, executive power, gun safety, worker protections, women’s reproductive freedom and the government’s ability to ensure clean air and water, to name a few. … We need a nominee who understands that the court is there to protect the rights of all Americans, not just political interest groups and the powerful.”
Patrick Leahy of Vermont on July 9 — “Based on an initial review of Judge Kavanaugh’s record, we are right to be concerned. … He must not evade fundamental questions that judicial nominees have answered for decades until recently. He needs to explain why we should believe he would be a justice for all Americans, independent of the President and the ideologically driven interest groups that selected him.”

Independents opposing (both caucus with Democrats)

Bernie Sanders of Vermont on July 10 — “I do not believe a person with those views should be given a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. We must mobilize the American people to defeat Trump’s right-wing, reactionary nominee.”
Angus King of Maine on September 12: — “Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination is one of the most important votes I will take in the Senate — and after carefully studying his record (at least the part that is available) and judicial philosophy, I have decided that I will vote no on his confirmation.”

Undecided Republicans to watch

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska on July 9 — “While I have not met Judge Kavanaugh, I look forward to sitting down for a personal meeting with him. I intend to review Judge Kavanaugh’s decisions on the bench and writings off the bench, and pay careful attention to his responses to questions posed by my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee.”
Jeff Flake of Arizona on July 9 — “As I have said before, approving a nominee who will interpret the Constitution rather than legislate from the bench should be our top priority. I look forward to meeting with Judge Kavanaugh and reviewing his record throughout the confirmation process.”
Susan Collins of Maine on September 12 — “I am still completing my due diligence. I spent an hour today going through the committee’s sensitive documents at the Judiciary Committee that have not yet been released. I would note, however, that every document Democrats asked to have cleared and released was released by the order of the Justice Department and President Bush. So what I’m finding is that a lot of the information has not necessarily been accurately presented, and that’s why I think it’s really important I continue my review. I am also going to be talking to the judge later this week with a few more questions that I have.”

Republicans voting yes

Ted Cruz of Texas on July 9 — “By any measure, Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most respected federal judges in the country and I look forward to supporting his nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Dan Sullivan of Alaska on July 9 — “I think he meets all the qualifications of what we as a Senate should be looking for in terms of the confirmation process and I plan on supporting Judge Kavanaugh as a next associate justice of the Supreme Court.”
Orrin Hatch of Utah on July 11 — “I was very pleased to meet with Judge Kavanaugh this morning. He’s handled himself very well and comes with a lot of experience, coming from the second-greatest court in the land. I expect his confirmation to go well. I very much enjoyed talking with him for a few minutes.”
Rob Portman of Ohio on July 11 — “I can’t think of anybody better qualified to be on the United States Supreme Court. He obviously has had a distinguished record.”
Ben Sasse of Nebraska on July 12 — “The judge I met today doesn’t sound anything like the imaginary bogeyman that Democrats are railing against. I think Nebraskans are going to like this humble judge who is clearly most proud of his two daughters. Judge Kavanaugh is a serious thinker and a careful jurist who understands that our system of checks and balances and our First Amendment freedoms make America great.”
John Cornyn of Texas on July 12 — “I have known the judge for a long time. I’ve followed his record. I think he is the type of judge that we need on the Supreme Court, not one who is going to be making policy or legislating from the bench. I think he very much shares the same judicial philosophy as Justice Gorsuch so I look forward to supporting his confirmation.”
Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia on July 12 — “After meeting with Judge Kavanaugh today, I’m even more certain that he is a man of integrity and that he understands and respects the responsibilities of a Supreme Court justice, which is why I plan to support his nomination. Judge Kavanaugh and I had a wide-ranging discussion about our separation-of-powers system, the court’s responsibility to properly apply laws passed by Congress to guard against overreach by federal agencies, and the importance of respecting precedent to promote stability in the law. I know Judge Kavanaugh will be an excellent addition to the court and will honor and strengthen this important branch of our democracy.”
Thom Tillis of North Carolina on July 18 –– “As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I look forward to strongly supporting his nomination and will work to ensure the Senate moves swiftly to confirm him.”
Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi on July 25 — “I firmly believe the President made a great decision in nominating Judge Kavanaugh. I’m excited about his nomination, and look forward to supporting him and being an advocate for his confirmation.”
Richard Shelby of Alabama on July 30 — “Confirming Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most important things we will do during this Congress. I look forward to supporting his nomination to serve on our nation’s highest court, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.”
Rand Paul of Kentucky on July 30 — “After meeting Judge Kavanaugh and reviewing his record, I have decided to support his nomination. No one will ever completely agree with a nominee (unless of course, you are the nominee). Each nominee however, must be judged on the totality of their views character and opinions,” Paul wrote in a series of tweets.
Marco Rubio of Florida on August 1 — His answers reflected what the American people voted for when they elected the president and a Republican-controlled Senate less than two years ago. I intend to support his nomination because of his stated commitment to interpreting and defending the Constitution as written.”
John Thune of South Dakota on August 1 — “I will support his nomination to the Supreme Court this fall, and I hope my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, reach the same conclusion about this well-qualified, mainstream jurist.”
John Boozman of Arkansas on August 1 — The first thing that stood out when Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination was announced was his exceptional record on the bench and the high level of respect his peers hold for him. After having an opportunity to visit with him, I find Judge Kavanaugh to be even more impressive than his resume and reputation alone suggest. I am confident that he is a fair and thoughtful jurist who will respect the Constitution and refrain from legislating from the bench. He is the exact type of judge we need on the Supreme Court.”
John Hoeven of North Dakota on August 1 — “I appreciated the opportunity to meet with Judge Kavanaugh today to discuss his judicial philosophy. Having served for more than a decade on the federal appeals court, he is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanuagh has a strong record of upholding the law rather than legislating from the bench and his approach to the law shows a deep respect for the Constitution. Given his years of experience on the bench and his commitment to upholding the law, I believe that Judge Kavanaugh is a solid choice for the Supreme Court and I look forward to supporting his confirmation to serve on the Supreme Court.”
Ron Johnson of Wisconsin on August 15 — Judge Kavanaugh’s impressive legal background combined with his compelling personal history makes his nomination an easy one to support. Most importantly, as I have reviewed his judicial record I am confident of his intent to apply the law as a judge, not alter it as a super-legislator. I look forward to voting to confirm his nomination to the Supreme Court once the Senate has thoroughly but expeditiously completed the confirmation process.”
Johnny Isakson of Georgia on August 16 —He’s a regular guy. He’s a brilliant man. He cares about his country deeply. He believes in his country and feels a responsibility he wants to assume at this time in life. I can’t think of any better reason to vote for him. I’m going to vote for him with pride, and I encourage my fellow senators… to join me as well.”
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina on September 4 — The antidote to our problems in this country when it comes to judges and politics is not to deny you (Kavanaugh) a place on the Supreme Court. This is exactly where you need to be. This is exactly the time you need to be there.”
Todd Young of Indiana on September 6 “Earlier this week, I spoke with @WSBT about Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing. Judge Kavanaugh will be an excellent addition to our nation’s highest court, and the Republican-led Senate will continue to move through regular order to confirm him.”

Republicans appearing to lean yes

Richard Burr of North Carolina on July 9 — “In nominating Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, President Trump has put forth a highly qualified and respected candidate committed to the rule of law. Judge Kavanaugh’s credentials are impeccable, and as a judge for the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit he has considered many of the most pressing legal questions of our time.”
Ted Cruz of Texas on July 9 — “By any measure, Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most respected federal judges in the country and I look forward to supporting his nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Mike Enzi of Wyoming on July 19 — “It was great to talk with Judge Kavanaugh about his years of experience and dedication to the judicial system. He is an extremely well qualified nominee whose prior rulings and writings demonstrate his commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. I appreciated his thoughtful answers to my questions and look forward to the Senate’s consideration of his nomination this fall.”
This story will be updated with additional developments.

 

Story 2. Senator Cruz Should Win Second Term — Build The Wall Will Win in Texas — Videos

Ted Cruz Thinks He’s Going To Beat Beto O’Rourke (HBO)

Beto O’Rourke pulls ahead of Ted Cruz in new Texas poll

Ted Cruz Whines About Being Ugly

Trump to hold major rally for Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz Supporters Expressing ‘Alarm’ As Beto O’Rourke Fever Spreads In Texas | Deadline | MSNBC

Beto O’Rourke’s Fight To Take Down Ted Cruz (HBO)

What a campaign ad mocking Beto O’Rourke says about Ted Cruz

Cruz seeks Trump’s help in tightening Texas Senate race

Illegal Immigration Has Black Americans “Struggling for Our Very Lives”

Black Americans Fight the Illegal Alien Invasion!

 

During a town hall event on Wednesday night, Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) — running against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for the Senate seat — told a black American who questioned his support of illegal immigration that illegal aliens from Central America and Mexico are today’s cotton pickers.

O’Rourke’s remarks were made after a black American asked the congressman if he supported illegal aliens being given U.S. citizenship despite breaking the country’s immigration laws. O’Rourke responded by saying that it is illegal aliens who are working at cotton gins today.

The exchange went as follows:

BLACK AMERICAN: My question is, do you support granting citizenship and American-paid benefits to illegal aliens who violated our country to come here, who fly their foreign flags here, who have citizenship in their countries and whose families did absolutely not build this country, while black people are subject to things that you explained before? You can answer yes or no, please. [Emphasis added]

BETO O’ROURKEMany, many people built this country, first of all. And we are a country of many people … and I’m paraphrasing Congressman Lewis at this point, but he said something to the effect that each of us came to this country in a different ship. Some of us came here against our will, some of us immigrated here lawfully … some of us are showing up right now as we speak. They’re fleeing the deadliest countries in the planet today. The northern triangle countries of Central America … imagine how bad things have to be for you to scoop up that six-month-old daughter of yours and to walk 2,000 miles … to refuge in a country that is comprised of people from the world over. And yes, there are some people who did not follow our laws when they came here to be with their families or to work jobs and, in some cases, no one was willing to work in their communities. [Emphasis added]

I mentioned going to the high school in Roscoe, I also went to the cotton gin in Roscoe. And at that cotton gin, there are 24 jobs and the manager of that gin says it does not matter the wages that I pay or the number of hours that we set … no one born in Roscoe … or Texas or this country who is willing to work. But there are immigrants who are coming from Central America or Mexico or other parts of the world to Roscoe to work these jobs and to help build our economy. [Emphasis added]

O’Rourke recently said in an interview on CBS The Late Show, that he supported an amnesty for more than three million illegal aliens who were eligible and enrolled for President Obama’s DACA program.

“We can free DREAMers from the fear of deportation by making them U.S. citizens today, so they can contribute to their maximum capacity, to their full potential,” O’Rourke said.

New Policy Has Drivers Stunned in Texas
Finance Daily

Mass low-skilled illegal and legal immigration has come at the expense of America’s black working and middle-class communities and workers.

Data reported by Breitbart News reveals how studies by economists and researchers find that it is, specifically, underprivileged black American men who suffer the most from the importation of more than 1.5 million low-skilled immigrants every year to the U.S.

In the mid-1990s, Civil Rights icon and Texas Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan issued the findings of her immigration commission, where she revealed that mass immigration to the U.S. hurt poor, working-class and lower-tier middle-class Americans the most, as it unfairly put them in competition with a never-ending flow of cheaper, foreign workers.

Most impacted, the Jordan Commission discovered, were black Americans.

Portraying foreign nationals as the only willing blue-collar workers in the U.S. is a talking point often used by the open borders lobby, the Business Roundtable, and both political establishments.

O’Rourke’s suggestion that Americans are unwilling to do blue-collar jobs is not backed up by data collected and analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies.

Researcher Steven Camarota has found that of the more than 460 American occupations he analyzed, only four were dominated by foreign-born workers. Those four occupations accounted for less than one percent of the total U.S. workforce.

Many American blue-collar workers pick cotton, often in very high temperatures, using American-made machinery, such as this cotton harvesting machine used in north Alabama:

For blue-collar American workers, mass immigration has not only kept wages down but in many cases, decreased wages, as Breitbart News reported. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues importing more foreign nationals against whom working-class Americans are forced to compete. In 2016, the U.S. brought in about 1.8 million mostly low-skilled immigrants.

Black Americans are often the most supportive of reducing immigration levels. A Harvard/Harris Poll conducted this year found that 48 percent of black Americans said they would like to see between only one and 250,000 legal immigrants brought to the U.S. a year, a near immigration moratorium when compared to current levels.

A CBS News/YouGov Poll conducted a few months ago revealed that a plurality of black Americans in swing districts who say immigration has changed their neighborhoods concede that immigration is making life in America “worse” for them.

About 36 percent of black Americans said immigration has changed their communities, and roughly 45 percent of those black Americans say the mass importation of mostly immigrants from Central America is making their lives worse off.

Story 3: Chinese Communist Island Building in South China Sea Will Backfire and Unite Countries In The Region Against Them — Videos —

Who owns the South China Sea? | CNBC Explains

Why China is building islands in the South China Sea

Chinese navy carries out live-fire drills in South China Sea

Tensions Grow in Philippines as Duterte Turns Against China in South China Sea

HIGH ALERT – Tensions Rise in South China Sea Philippines President Duterte WARNS China for CONFLICT

China denounces U.S. warships’ entry into South China Sea as ‘provocation’

Pentagon: China likely training for strikes against the US

UK warship sails near South China Sea islands | Money Talks

Pentagon warns against military buildup in South China Sea

South China Sea | China warships tried to stop UK assault vessel HMS Albion as it headed for Vietnam

War of words over islands in South China Sea

Trump rejects militarization of South China Sea

Australia’s Foreign Minister warns China against militarising the South China Sea

Trump, China and the South China Sea: Will Tensions Grow?

US destroyer in South China Sea

Why is the Trump administration hesitant on South China Sea dispute?

South China Sea: ‘Leave immediately and keep far off’ – BBC News

Why China is building islands in the South China Sea

“CBSN: On Assignment” gets rare look inside Andersen Air Force Base in Guam

What you need to know about Guam, the tiny island home to U.S. base

Guam: Why America’s Most Isolated Territory Exists

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

China’s Sea Control Is a Done Deal, ‘Short of War With the U.S.’

Posted 4:03 p.m. today

A view of Subi Reef and an array of vessels, seen from a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance plane during a mission to observe China's militarization of islands in the South China Sea, in International Airspace, Sept. 5, 2018. The flight brings harsh Chinese challenges in officially international space. In congressional testimony by one officer, China is said to be capable of control over the South China Sea "in all scenarios short of war with the United States.” (Adam Dean/The New York Times)

NEAR MISCHIEF REEF, South China Sea — As the United States Navy reconnaissance plane banked low near Mischief Reef in the South China Sea early this month, a Chinese warning crackled on the radio.

“U.S. military aircraft,” came the challenge, delivered in English in a harsh staccato. “You have violated our China sovereignty and infringed on our security and our rights. You need to leave immediately and keep far out.”

Aboard the P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, flying in what is widely considered to be international airspace, Lt. Dyanna Coughlin scanned a live camera feed showing the dramatic evolution of Mischief Reef.

Five years ago, this was mostly an arc of underwater atoll populated by tropical fish and turtles. Now Mischief Reef, which is off the Philippine coast but controlled by China, has been filled out and turned into a Chinese military base, complete with radar domes, shelters for surface-to-air missiles and a runway long enough for fighter jets. Six other nearby shoals have been similarly transformed by Chinese dredging.

“I mean, this is insane,” Coughlin said. “Look at all that crazy construction.”

A rare visit on board a U.S. Navy surveillance flight over the South China Sea pointed out how profoundly China has reshaped the security landscape across the region.

The country’s aggressive territorial claims and island militarization have put neighboring countries and the United States on the defensive, even as President Donald Trump’s administration is stepping up efforts to highlight China’s controversial island-building campaign.

In congressional testimony before assuming his new post as head of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command in May, Adm. Philip Davidson sounded a stark warning about Beijing’s power play in a sea through which roughly one-third of global maritime trade flows.

“In short, China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States,” Davidson said, an assessment that caused some consternation in the Pentagon.

How Beijing relates to its neighbors in the South China Sea could be a harbinger of its interactions elsewhere in the world. President Xi Jinping of China has held up the island-building effort as a prime example of “China moving closer to center stage” and standing “tall and firm in the East.”

In a June meeting with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Xi vowed that China “cannot lose even one inch of the territory” in the South China Sea, even though an international tribunal has dismissed Beijing’s expansive claims to the waterway.

The reality is that governments with overlapping territorial claims — representing Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei — lack the firepower to challenge China. The U.S. has long fashioned itself as a keeper of peace in the Western Pacific. But it’s a risky proposition to provoke conflict over a scattering of rocks in the South China Sea, analysts say.

“As China’s military power grows relative to the United States, and it will, questions will also grow regarding America’s ability to deter Beijing’s use of force in settling its unresolved territorial issues,” said Rear Adm. Michael McDevitt, a senior fellow in strategic studies at the Center for Naval Analyses.

An unexpected encounter in the South China Sea could also set off an international incident. A 1.4-million-square-mile sea presents a kaleidoscope of shifting variables: hundreds of disputed shoals, thousands of fishing boats, coast guard vessels and warships and, increasingly, a collection of Chinese fortresses.

In late August, one of the Philippines’ largest warships, a cast-off cutter from the U.S. Coast Guard, ran aground on Half Moon Shoal, an unoccupied maritime feature not far from Mischief Reef.

The Chinese, who also claim the shoal, sent vessels from nearby artificial islands, but the Philippines refused any help. After all, in 2012, the Chinese coast guard had muscled the Philippines off Scarborough Shoal, a reef just 120 nautical miles from the main Philippine island of Luzon. Another incident in 1995 brought a Chinese flag to Mischief Reef, also well within what international maritime law considers a zone where the Philippines has sovereign rights.

Could somewhere like Half Moon Shoal be the next flash point in the South China Sea?

“A crisis at Half Moon was averted, but it has always been the risk with the South China Sea that a small incident in remote waters escalates into a much-larger crisis through miscommunication or mishandling,” said Ian Storey, a senior fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore. “That’s why this is all so dangerous. It’s not just a pile of rocks that can be ignored.”

‘Leave immediately!’

On the scratchy radio channel, the Chinese challenges kept on coming. Eight separate times during the mission this month, Chinese dispatchers queried the P-8A Poseidon. Twice, the Chinese accused the American military aircraft not just of veering close to what Beijing considered its airspace but also of violating its sovereignty.

“Leave immediately!” the Chinese warned over and over.

Cmdr. Chris Purcell, the executive officer of the surveillance plane, said such challenges have been routine during the four months he has flown missions over the South China Sea.

“What they want is for us to leave, and then they can say that we left because this is their sovereign territory,” he said. “It’s kind of their way to try to legitimize their claims, but we are clear that we are operating in international airspace and are not doing anything different from what we’ve done for decades.”

In 2015, Xi stood in the Rose Garden at the White House and promised that “there is no intention to militarize” a collection of disputed reefs in the South China Sea known as the Spratlys.

But since then, Chinese dredgers have poured mountains of sand onto Mischief Reef and six other Chinese-controlled features in the Spratlys. China has added at least 3,200 acres of new land in the area, according to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative run by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Descending as low as 5,000 feet, the surveillance flight this month gave a bird’s-eye view of the Chinese construction.

On Subi Reef, a construction crane swung into action next to a shelter designed for surface-to-air missiles. There were barracks, bunkers and open hangars. At least 70 vessels, some warships, surrounded the island.

On Fiery Cross Reef, a complex of buildings with Chinese eaves was arrayed at the center of the reclaimed island, including an exhibition-style hall with an undulating roof. It looked like a typical newly built town in interior China — except for the radar domes that protruded like giant golf balls across the reef. A military-grade runway ran the length of the island, and army vehicles trundled across the tarmac. Antenna farms bristled.

“It’s impressive to see the Chinese building, given that this is the middle of the South China Sea and far away from anywhere, but the idea that this isn’t militarized, that’s clearly not the case,” Purcell said. “It’s not hidden or anything. The intention, it’s there plain to see.” In other spots, reclamation could also be seen on Vietnamese-controlled features, such as West London Reef, where workers dragged equipment past piles of sand. But dredging by Southeast Asian nations is scant compared with the Chinese effort.

In April, China for the first time deployed antiship and antiaircraft missiles on Mischief, Subi and Fiery Cross, U.S. military officials said. The following month, a long-range bomber landed on Woody Island, another contested South China Sea islet.

A Pentagon report released in August said that with forward-operating bases on artificial islands in the South China Sea, the People’s Liberation Army was honing its “capability to strike U.S. and allied forces and military bases in the western Pacific Ocean, including Guam.”

In response to the intensifying militarization of the South China Sea, the U.S. in May disinvited China from joining the biannual Rim of the Pacific naval exercise, the world’s largest maritime warfare training, involving more than 20 navies.

“We are prepared to support China’s choices, if they promote long-term peace and prosperity,” Mattis said, explaining the snub. “Yet China’s policy in the South China Sea stands in stark contrast to the openness of our strategy.”

Projecting Power

For its part, Beijing claims the U.S. is the one militarizing the South China Sea. In addition to the routine surveillance flyovers, Trump has sent U.S. warships more frequently to waters near China’s man-made islands. These so-called freedom of navigation patrols, which occur worldwide, are meant to show the United States’ commitment to maritime free passage, Pentagon officials say.

The last such operation by the U.S. was in May, when two American warships sailed near the Paracels, another contested South China Sea archipelago. Beijing was irate.

“Certain people in the U.S. are staging a farce of a thief crying, ‘Stop, thief!’ ” said Hua Chunying, a Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman. “It is self-evident to a keener eye who is militarizing the South China Sea.”

The U.S. says that it does not take any side in territorial disputes in the South China Sea. On its maps, China uses a so-called nine-dash line to scoop out most of the waterway’s turf as its own. But international legal precedent is not on China’s side when it comes to the dashed demarcation, a version of which was first used in the 1940s.

In 2016, an international tribunal dismissed Beijing’s nine-dash claim, judging that China has no historical rights to the South China Sea. The case was brought by the Philippines after Scarborough Shoal was commandeered by China in 2012, following a tense blockade.

The landmark ruling, however, has had no practical effect. That’s in large part because Rodrigo Duterte, who became president of the Philippines less than a month before the tribunal reached its decision, chose not to press the matter with Beijing. He declared China his new best friend and dismissed the U.S. as a has-been power. But last month, Duterte took Beijing to task when a recording aired on the BBC from another P-8A Poseidon mission over the South China Sea demonstrated that Chinese dispatchers were taking a far more aggressive tone with Philippine aircraft than with American ones.

“I hope China would temper its behavior,” Duterte said. “You cannot create an island and say the air above it is yours.”

Missed Opportunities

Perceptions of power — and Chinese reactions to these projections — have led some analysts to criticize President Barack Obama as having been too timid in countering China over what Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., the former head of theU.S. Pacific Command, memorably called a “great wall of sand” in the South China Sea.

Critics, for instance, have faulted the previous administration for not conducting more frequent freedom of navigation patrols.

“China’s militarization of the South China Sea has been a gradual process, with several phases where alternative actions by the U.S., as well as other countries, could have changed the course of history,” said Alexander Vuving, a professor at the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu.

Chief among these moments, Vuving said, was China’s takeover of Scarborough Shoal. The U.S. declined to back up the Philippines, a defense treaty ally, by sending Coast Guard vessels or warships to an area that international law has designated as within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.

“Seeing U.S. commitment to its ally, Beijing might not have been as confident as it was with its island-building program,” Vuving said. “The U.S. failure to support its ally in the Scarborough standoff also demonstrated to people like Duterte that he had no other option than to kowtow to China.” With most of the Spratly military bases nearing completion by the end of the year, according to Pentagon assessments, the next question is whether — or more likely when — China will begin building on Scarborough. A Chinese base there would put the People’s Liberation Army in easy striking distance of the Philippine capital, Manila.

From the American reconnaissance plane, Scarborough looked like a perfect diving retreat, a lazy triangle of reef sheltering turquoise waters. But Chinese coast guard vessels could be seen circling the shoal, and Philippine fishermen have complained about being prevented from accessing their traditional waters.

“Do you see any construction vessels around there?” Coughlin asked.

“Negative, ma’am,” replied Lt. Joshua Grant, as he used a control stick to position the plane’s camera over Scarborough Shoal. “We’ll see if it changes next time.”

https://www.wral.com/china-s-sea-control-is-a-done-deal-short-of-war-with-the-u-s-/17861457/

US warns of ability to take down Chinese artificial islands

China is not even pretending anymore in the South China Sea — it put 400 buildings on one of the disputed islands

Subi Reef South China Sea small
A satellite photo of Subi Reef on March 20.
 Planet Labs/Handout via REUTERS
  • Satellite imagery shows that China has put nearly 400 buildings on Subi Reef in the South China Sea.
  • Data shows that the number of buildings on Subi Reef is about double that on China’s other large outposts in the hotly contested region, known as the Spratly Islands.
  • Experts are concerned about China’s increasing militarization of the South China Sea, and they say it may plan to host a large number of troops on Subi Reef.

Satellite imagery shows nearly 400 buildings on a reef occupied by China in the South China Sea, and experts say it indicates Beijing might eventually deploy troops there.

Using images from DigitalGlobe satellites, the nonprofit Earthrise Media analyzed photos of Subi Reef, which is closer to Vietnam and the Philippines than mainland China, and discovered that a large number of buildings, parade grounds, radar equipment, and even basketball courts had been built since 2014.

There were nearly 400 permanent, free-standing buildings, Earthrise’s founder, Dan Hammer, told Reuters. Subi has seen the most construction by any country on an island in the South China Sea, the news outlet reported.

Subi is China’s largest man-made island within the Spratly archipelago, parts of which are claimed by several countries. Citing Earthrise data, Reuters reported that Subi has about double the number of buildings on each of China’s next two largest islands in the region.

The increase in buildings indicates Subi may one day host a large contingent of People’s Liberation Army marines, experts say.

Last week, China released footage of H-6K nuclear-capable bombers landing on another island in the South China Sea. Runways and hangars built on Subi could accommodate such bombers.

And on Wednesday, the US uninvited China from a military exercise, citing “China’s continued militarization of disputed features in the South China Sea.”

Adm. Philip Davidson, the incoming US Pacific Command chief,told a congressional panel last month that “in short, China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States.”

The South China Sea is a highly contentious area with many natural resources that is also one of the world’s main shipping corridors. China, Brunei, Taiwan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines have competing claims to areas of the sea and its islands.

Data from Earthrise shows that China has more buildings in the South China Sea — 1,652 — than all other claimants put together,Reuters reported.

Davidson said last month that China’s growing presence in the South China Sea presented a substantial challenge to regional US military operations, adding that China’s military was “executing deliberate and thoughtful force posture initiatives.”

“China claims that these reclaimed features … will not be used for military means, but their words do not match their actions,” Davidson said.

He added: “Once occupied, China will be able to extend its influence thousands of miles to the south and project power deep into Oceania. The PLA will be able to use these bases to challenge US presence in the region, and any forces deployed to the islands would easily overwhelm the military forces of any other South China Sea claimants.”

https://www.businessinsider.com/china-400-buildings-subi-reef-south-china-sea-2018-5

Exclusive economic zone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Sea areas in international rights

An exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a sea zone prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over which a state has special rights regarding the exploration and use of marine resources, including energy production from water and wind.[1] It stretches from the baseline out to 200 nautical miles (nmi) from its coast. In colloquial usage, the term may include the continental shelf. The term does not include either the territorial sea or the continental shelf beyond the 200 nmi limit. The difference between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone is that the first confers full sovereignty over the waters, whereas the second is merely a “sovereign right” which refers to the coastal state’s rights below the surface of the sea. The surface waters, as can be seen in the map, are international waters.[2]

Definition

The World’s exclusive economic zones, shown in dark blue

EEC’s in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean

EEC’s in the Pacific Ocean

Generally, a state’s exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, extending seaward to a distance of no more than 200 nmi (370 km) out from its coastal baseline. The exception to this rule occurs when exclusive economic zones would overlap; that is, state coastal baselines are less than 400 nmi (740 km) apart. When an overlap occurs, it is up to the states to delineate the actual maritime boundary.[3] Generally, any point within an overlapping area defaults to the nearest state.[4]

A state’s exclusive economic zone starts at the seaward edge of its territorial sea and extends outward to a distance of 200 nmi (370 km) from the baseline. The exclusive economic zone stretches much further into sea than the territorial waters, which end at 12 nmi (22 km) from the coastal baseline (if following the rules set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).[5] Thus, the exclusive economic zones includes the contiguous zone. States also have rights to the seabed of what is called the continental shelf up to 350 nmi (650 km) from the coastal baseline, beyond the exclusive economic zones, but such areas are not part of their exclusive economic zones. The legal definition of the continental shelf does not directly correspond to the geological meaning of the term, as it also includes the continental rise and slope, and the entire seabed within the exclusive economic zone.

Origin

The idea of allotting nations EEZs to give them more control of maritime affairs outside territorial limits gained acceptance in the late 20th century.

Initially, a country’s sovereign territorial waters extended 3 nmi or 5.6 km (range of cannon shot) beyond the shore. In modern times, a country’s sovereign territorial waters extend to 12 nmi (22 km) beyond the shore. One of the first assertions of exclusive jurisdiction beyond the traditional territorial seas was made by the United States in the Truman Proclamation of September 28, 1945. However, it was Chile and Peru respectively that first claimed maritime zones of 200 nautical miles with the Presidential Declaration Concerning Continental Shelf of 23 June 1947 (El Mercurio, Santiago de Chile, 29 June 1947) and Presidential Decree No. 781 of 1 August 1947 (El Peruano: Diario Oficial. Vol. 107, No. 1983, 11 August 1947).[6]

It was not until 1982 with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone was formally adopted.

Disputes

The exact extent of exclusive economic zones is a common source of conflicts between states over marine waters.

Potential disputes

Regions where a permanent ice shelf extends beyond the coastline are also a source of potential dispute.[11]

Resolved disputes

Transboundary stocks

Fisheries management, usually adhering to guidelines set by the FAO, provides significant practical mechanisms for the control of EEZs. Transboundary fish stocks are an important concept in this control.[15] Transboundary stocks are fish stocks that range in the EEZs of at least two countries. Straddling stocks, on the other hand, range both within an EEZ as well as in the high seas, outside any EEZ. A stock can be both transboundary and straddling.[16]

By country

Argentina

Argentina‘s exclusive economic zone including territorial claims. Considering the maritime areas claimed, the total area of the Argentine reaches 3,849,756 km²

Australia

Australia‘s exclusive economic zones including Antarctic claim

Australia‘s Exclusive Economic Zone was declared on 1 August 1994, and extends from 12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the coastline of Australia and its external territories, except where a maritime delimitation agreement exists with another state.[17][18] To the 12 nautical miles boundary is Australia’s territorial waters. Australia has the third largest exclusive economic zone, behind France and the United States, but ahead of Russia, with the total area of 8,148,250 square kilometres, which actually exceeds its land territory.

The United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf confirmed, in April 2008, Australia’s rights over an additional 2.5 million square kilometres of seabed beyond the limits of Australia’s EEZ.[19][20]Australia also claimed, in its submission to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, additional Continental Shelf past its EEZ from the Australian Antarctic Territory,[21] but these claims were deferred on Australia’s request. However, Australia’s EEZ from its Antarctic Territory is approximately 2 million square kilometres.[20]

EEZ Area (km2)[20]
Heard and McDonald Islands 410,722
 Christmas Island 463,371
 Cocos Islands 325,021
 Norfolk Island 428,618
Macquarie Island 471,837
Mainland Australia, Tasmania and minor islands 6,048,681
Australian Antarctic Territory 2,000,000[status 1]
Total 10,148,250

Brazil

Brazil‘s exclusive economic zones

Brazil’s EEZ includes areas around the Fernando de Noronha Islands, St Paul and St. Peter Archipelago and the Trindade and Martim Islands.

EEZ Area (km2)[22]
 Brazil 2 400 917
Bandeira de Fernando de Noronha.png Fernando de Noronha 363 362
St Paul and St. Peter Archipelago 413 636
Trindade & Martim Vaz Isl. 468 599
Total 3 646 514

In 2004, the country submitted its claims to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) to extend its maritime continental margin.[23]

Canada

Canada‘s exclusive economic zone and territorial waters

Canada is unusual in that its exclusive economic zone, covering 5,599,077 km2 (2,161,816 sq mi), is slightly smaller than its territorial waters.[24] The latter generally extend only 12 nautical miles from the shore, but also include inland marine waters such as Hudson Bay (about 300 nautical miles (560 km; 350 mi) across), the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and the internal waters of the Arctic archipelago.

Chile

Chile‘s exclusive economic zones, including Antarctic claim

Chile’s EEZ includes areas around the Desventuradas IslandsEaster Island and the Juan Fernández Islands.

Region EEZ Area (km2)[25] Land area Total
Mainland 1 975 760 755 757 2 731 517
Desventuradas 449 836
Easter 720 412 164 720 576
Juan Fernandez 502 524
Total 3 648 532 755 921 4 404 453

There is a dispute with Peru over the extent of Chile’s EEZ: Chilean–Peruvian maritime dispute

China

People’s Republic of China‘s exclusive economic zone:

  China’s EEZ

877,019 km2

  EEZ claimed by China, disputed by Taiwan
  EEZ claimed by China, disputed by others

3,000,000 km2 Total:3,877,019

The first figure excludes all disputed waters, while the last figure indicates China’s claimed boundaries, and does not take into account neighboring powers’ claims.

Cyprus

Exclusive economic zone between Israel and Cyprus as signed in Nicosia. (Labels in Hebrew.)

The Exclusive Economic Zone of Cyprus covers more than 70,000 km2 and is divided between 13 exploration blocks. The process of the establishment of Cyprus, Israel and Lebanon Exclusive Economic Zones was held in Nicosiain 2010 with separate meetings between each country.[26] Cyprus and Israel as part of their wider cooperation have agreed to start their gas explorations with a common American company, specifically Noble Energy. Cypriot and Israeli governments are discussing to export their natural gas through the shipping of compressed Natural Gas to Greece and then to the rest of Europe or through a subsea Pipelines starting from Israel and then leading to Greece via Cyprus.[27][28]

Denmark

The exclusive economic zones and territorial waters of the Kingdom of Denmark

The Kingdom of Denmark includes the constituent country (selvstyre) of Greenland and the constituent country (hjemmestyre) of the Faroe Islands.

Region EEZ & TW Area (km2)[29] Land area Total
 Denmark 105 989 42 506 149 083
 Faroe Islands 260 995 1 399 262 394
 Greenland 2 184 254 2 166 086 4 350 340
Total 2 551 238 2 210 579 4 761 817

France

Exclusive economic zones of France, including Antarctic territorial claim

Due to its numerous overseas departments and territories scattered on all oceans of the planet, France possesses the largest EEZ in the world, covering 11,691,000 km2 (4,514,000 mi2), the EEZ of the United States is the second largest (11,351,000 km2 / 4,382,000 mi2). The EEZ of France covers approximately 8% of the total surface of all the EEZs of the world, whereas the land area of the French Republic is only 0.45% of the total land area of the Earth.

Region EEZ & TW Area (km2)[20] Land area Total
 Metropolitan France 334,604 551,695 886,299
 French Guiana 133,949 83,846 217,795
 Guadeloupe 95,978 1,628 97,606
 Martinique 47,640 1,128 48,768
 Réunion 315,058 2,512 317,570
 French Polynesia 4,767,242 4,167 4,771,409
 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 12,334 242 12,576
 Mayotte 63,078 376 63,454
 Wallis and Futuna 258,269 264 258,533
 Saint-Martin 1,000 53 1,053
 Saint-Barthélemy 4,000 21 4,021
 New Caledonia 1,422,543 18,575 1,441,118
 Clipperton Island 431,263 6 431,269
Crozet Islands 574,558 352 574,910
Kerguelen Islands 567,732 7,215 574,947
Saint Paul and Amsterdam Islands 509,015 66 509,081
Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean 352,117 44 352,161
Tromelin Island 270,455 1 270,456
Total 10,160,835 675,417 12,366,417

Greece

Greece has claimed an exclusive economic zone, as it is entitled to do so, as per UNCLOS 1982 as well as customary international law.[30]

According to published maps, the Israel government has recognized the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of Greece and Cyprus. They describe the course of the gas pipeline which will transfer gas produced by American Νoble Εnergy Ltd. from the Leviathan reservoir to Europe, through an undersea pipeline crossing Greece. The gas pipeline should traverse the sea area, which according to international law, is part of the Greek EEZ. By this proposal, Israel recognizes the Greek EEZ in the area and offers an advantage that Greece can use during negotiation procedures to support its claims on the area. In practice, this cooperation will set up a powerful energy coalition between Greece, Cyprus and Israel. The mining and operating part will be undertaken by an American company.[31] “The substance of the issue is that in an effort to protect and secure vital Israeli interests in the Mediterranean Sea, Israel has been left with no choice other than to officially delimit its maritime borders”.[32]

India

India‘s exclusive economic zones

India is currently seeking to extend its EEZ to 350 miles.[33]

Israel

In 2010, an agreement was signed with Cyprus concerning the limit of territorial waters between Israel and Cyprus at the maritime halfway point, a clarification essential for safeguarding Israel’s rights to oil and underwater gas reservoirs. The agreement was signed in Nicosia by Israeli Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau and the Cypriot Foreign Minister Markos Kyprianou. The two countries agreed to cooperate in the development of any cross border resources discovered, and to negotiate an agreement on dividing joint resources.

Japan

Japan‘s exclusive economic zones:

  Japan’s EEZ
  Joint regime with Republic of Korea
  EEZ claimed by Japan, disputed by others

Japan has disputes over its EEZ boundaries with all its Asian neighbors (Russia, Republic of KoreaChina and Taiwan). The above, and relevant maps at the Sea Around Us Project[34][35] both indicate Japan’s claimed boundaries, and do not take into account neighboring powers’ claims.

Japan also refers to various categories of “shipping area” – Smooth Water Area, Coasting Area, Major or Greater Coasting Area, Ocean Going Area – but it is unclear whether these are intended to have any territorial or economic implications.

Mexico

Exclusive economic zone of Mexico

Mexico‘s exclusive economic zones comprise a total surface area of 3,144,295 km2, and places Mexico among the countries with the largest areas in the world.[36] This puts Mexico’s total territory as 5,153,735 km2.

New Zealand

Exclusive economic zones of the Realm of New Zealand, including the Ross Dependency (shaded)

New Zealand‘s EEZ covers 4,083,744 km2 (1,576,742 sq mi),[37][38] which is approximately fifteen times the land area of the country. Sources vary significantly on the size of New Zealand’s EEZ; for example, a recent government publication gave the area as roughly 4,300,000 km2.[39] These figures are for the EEZ of New Zealand proper, and do not include the EEZs of other territories in the Realm of New Zealand (Tokelau, Niue, the Cook Islands and the Ross Dependency).

Norway

Norway‘s exclusive economic zones, including dependent territory Bouvet Island

Norway has a large exclusive economic zone of 819 620 km2 around its coast. The country has a fishing zone of 1,878,953 km2, including fishing zones around Svalbard and Jan Mayen.[40]

In April 2009, the United Nations Commission for the Limits of the Continental Shelf approved Norway’s claim to an additional 235,000 square kilometres of continental shelf. The commission found that Norway and Russia both had valid claims over a portion of shelf in the Barents Sea.[41]

Region EEZ & TW Area (km2) Land area Total
Mainland 1 273 482 323 802 1 597 284
Svalbard 402 574 61 002 463 576
Jan Mayen 273 118 373 273 491
Bouvet Island 436 004 49 436 053
Total 2 385 178 385 226 2 770 404

Philippines

The exclusive economic zone of the Philippines shown in the lighter blue shade, with Archepelagic Waters in the darkest blue

The Philippines‘ EEZ covers 2,263,816 km2[42]

Poland

The Polish EEZ covers the area of 30,533 km2 (11,789 sq mi) within the Baltic Sea.[43]

Portugal

Portugal‘s Exclusive Economic Zones plus submitted Extended Continental Shelf to the UN[44]

Portugal has the 20th largest EEZ in the world. Presently, it is divided in three non-contiguous sub-zones:

Portugal submitted a claim to extend its jurisdiction over additional 2.15 million square kilometers of the neighboring continental shelf in May 2009,[45] resulting in an area with a total of more than 3,877,408 km2. The submission, as well as a detailed map, can be found in the Task Group for the extension of the Continental Shelf website.

Spain disputes the EEZ’s southern border, maintaining that it should be drawn halfway between Madeira and the Canary Islands. But Portugal exercises sovereignty over the Savage Islands, a small archipelago north of the Canaries, claiming an EEZ border further south. Spain objects, arguing that the Savage Islands do not have a separate continental shelf,[46] citing article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[47]

Russia

Russia‘s exclusive economic zone

  • Kaliningrad (Baltic Sea) – 11,634
  • St. Petersburg (Baltic Sea) – 12,759
  • Barents Sea – 1,308,140
  • Black Sea (without the Crimean EEZ) – 66,854
  • Pacific – 3,419,202
  • Siberia – 3,277,292
  • Total – 8,095,881 km2[48]

Somalia

Somalia‘s exclusive economic zone

  • 825,052 km2

South Africa

South Africa‘s maritime zones, including the exclusive economic zone

South Africa‘s EEZ includes both that next to the African mainland and that around the Prince Edward Islands, totalling 1,535,538 km2.[49]

  • Mainland – 1,068,659 km2
  • Prince Edward islands – 466,879 km2

South Korea

South Korean exclusive economic zone:

  Korean EEZ
  EEZ claimed by Republic of Korea, disputed by Japan
  Joint regime with Japan

Area: 300,851 (225,214) km2

United Kingdom

The exclusive economic zones of the United Kingdom in blue, including the British Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies. The British claim in Antarctica is shown in shaded blue.[50]

The United Kingdom’s exclusive economic zone is the fifth largest in the world at 6,805,586 square km. It comprises the exclusive economic zones surrounding the United Kingdom,[51] the Crown Dependencies, and the British Overseas Territories. The figure does not include the EEZ of the British Antarctic Territory. The exclusive economic zones associated with the Falkland Islands and South Georgia are disputed by Argentina. The EEZ of the Chagos archipelago also known as the British Indian Ocean Territory is also disputed with Mauritius which considers the EEZ as part of its territory.

Only the United Kingdom and Gibraltar are part of the EU. The Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the remaining overseas territories (that is, all except Gibraltar) are not part of the EU. The United Kingdom has not as yet claimed its rights with regards to Gibraltar or the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus.

Areas of EEZs of the UK, crown dependencies and overseas territories[49]
Territory km2 sq mi Notes
United Kingdom 773,676 298,718 includes Rockall and the Isle of Man
Anguilla 92,178 35,590
Ascension Island 441,658 170,525
Bermuda 450,370 173,890
British Indian Ocean Territory 638,568 246,552 disputed with Mauritius
British Virgin Islands 80,117 30,933
Cayman Islands 119,137 45,999
Channel Islands 11,658 4,501
Falkland Islands 550,872 212,693 disputed with Argentina
Gibraltar 426 164 disputed with Spain
Montserrat 7,582 2,927
Pitcairn Island 836,108 322,823
Saint Helena 444,916 171,783
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands 1,449,532 559,667 disputed with Argentina
Tristan da Cunha archipelago† 754,720 291,400
Turks and Caicos Islands 154,068 59,486
Total 6,805,586 2,627,651

†Part of the overseas territory of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, which together has an EEZ of 1,641,294 square km.

United States

Exclusive economic zones of the United States, including insular areas

The United States’ exclusive economic zone is the second largest in the world, covering 11,351,000 km2. Areas of its EEZ are located in three oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea.

The sizes of the components of the US EEZ/territorial seas are (in decreasing size):[52]

Total: 11,351,000 km2 (4,383,000 sq mi)

Rankings by area

This list includes dependent territories within their sovereign states (including uninhabited territories), but does not include claims on Antarctica. EEZ+TIA is exclusive economic zone (EEZ) plus total internal area (TIA) which includes land and internal waters.

Rank Country EEZ km2[49] Shelf km2 EEZ+TIA km2
1  France 11,691,000 389,422 12,366,417
2  United States 11,351,000 2,193,526 21,814,306
3  Australia 8,505,348 2,194,008 16,197,464
4  Russia 7,566,673 3,817,843 24,664,915
5  United Kingdom 6,805,586 722,891 7,048,486
6  Indonesia 6,159,032 2,039,381 8,063,601
7  Canada 5,599,077 2,644,795 15,607,077
8  Japan 4,479,388 454,976 4,857,318
9  New Zealand 4,083,744 277,610 4,352,424
10  Chile 3,681,989 252,947 4,431,381
11  Brazil 3,660,955 774,563 12,175,832
12  Kiribati 3,441,810 7,523 3,442,536
13  Mexico 3,269,386 419,102 5,141,968
14  Federated States of Micronesia 2,996,419 19,403 2,997,121
15  Denmark 2,551,238 495,657 4,761,811
16  Papua New Guinea 2,402,288 191,256 2,865,128
17  Norway 2,385,178 434,020 2,770,404
18  India 2,305,143 402,996 5,592,406
19  Marshall Islands 1,990,530 18,411 1,990,711
20  Portugal 1,727,408 28,000 1,819,498
21  Philippines 1,590,780 272,921 1,890,780
22  Solomon Islands 1,589,477 36,282 1,618,373
23  South Africa 1,535,538 156,337 2,756,575
24  Seychelles 1,336,559 39,063 1,337,014
25  Mauritius 1,284,997 29,061 1,287,037
26  Fiji 1,282,978 47,705 1,301,250
27  Madagascar 1,225,259 101,505 1,812,300
28  Argentina 1,159,063 856,346 3,939,463[53]
29  Ecuador 1,077,231 41,034 1,333,600
30  Spain 1,039,233 77,920 1,545,225
31  Maldives 923,322 34,538 923,622
32  Peru 906,454 82,000 2,191,670
33  China 877,019 231,340 10,473,980
34  Somalia 825,052 55,895 1,462,709
35  Colombia 808,158 53,691 1,949,906
36  Cape Verde 800,561 5,591 804,594
37  Iceland 751,345 108,015 854,345
38  Tuvalu 749,790 3,575 749,816
39  Vanuatu 663,251 11,483 675,440
40  Tonga 659,558 8,517 660,305
41  Bahamas 654,715 106,323 668,658
42  Palau 603,978 2,837 604,437
43  Mozambique 578,986 94,212 1,380,576
44  Morocco 575,230 115,157 1,287,780
45  Costa Rica 574,725 19,585 625,825
46  Namibia 564,748 86,698 1,388,864
47  Yemen 552,669 59,229 1,080,637
48  Italy 541,915 116,834 843,251
49  Oman 533,180 59,071 842,680
50  Myanmar 532,775 220,332 1,209,353
51  Sri Lanka 532,619 32,453 598,229
52  Angola 518,433 48,092 1,765,133
53  Greece 505,572 81,451 637,529
54  South Korea 475,469 292,522 575,469
55  Venezuela 471,507 98,500 1,387,950
56  Vietnam 417,663 365,198 748,875
57  Ireland 410,310 139,935 480,583
58  Libya 351,589 64,763 2,111,129
59  Cuba 350,751 61,525 460,637
60  Panama 335,646 53,404 411,163
61  Malaysia 334,671 323,412 665,474
62  Nauru 308,480 41 308,501
63  Equatorial Guinea 303,509 7,820 331,560
64  Thailand 299,397 230,063 812,517
65  Pakistan 290,000 51,383 1,117,911
66  Egypt 263,451 61,591 1,265,451
67  Turkey 261,654 56,093 1,045,216
68  Jamaica 258,137 9,802 269,128
69  Dominican Republic 255,898 10,738 304,569
70  Liberia 249,734 17,715 361,103
71  Honduras 249,542 68,718 362,034
72  Tanzania 241,888 25,611 1,186,975
73  Ghana 235,349 22,502 473,888
74  Saudi Arabia 228,633 107,249 2,378,323
75  Nigeria 217,313 42,285 1,141,081
76  Sierra Leone 215,611 28,625 287,351
77  Gabon 202,790 35,020 470,458
78  Barbados 186,898 426 187,328
79  Côte d’Ivoire 176,254 10,175 498,717
80  Iran 168,718 118,693 1,797,468
81  Mauritania 165,338 31,662 1,190,858
82  Comoros 163,752 1,526 165,987
83  Sweden 160,885 154,604 602,255
84  Senegal 158,861 23,092 355,583
85  Netherlands 154,011 77,246 192,345
85  Ukraine 147,318 79,142 750,818
86  Uruguay 142,166 75,327 318,381
87  Guyana 137,765 50,578 352,734
88  North Korea 132,826 54,566 253,364
89  São Tomé and Príncipe 131,397 1,902 132,361
90  Samoa 127,950 2,087 130,781
91  Suriname 127,772 53,631 291,592
92  Haiti 126,760 6,683 154,510
93  Algeria 126,353 9,985 2,508,094
94  Nicaragua 123,881 70,874 254,254
95  Guinea-Bissau 123,725 39,339 159,850
96  Kenya 116,942 11,073 697,309
97  Guatemala 114,170 14,422 223,059
98  Antigua and Barbuda 110,089 4,128 110,531
99  Tunisia 101,857 67,126 265,467
100  Cyprus 98,707 4,042 107,958
101  El Salvador 90,962 16,852 112,003
102  Finland 87,171 85,109 425,590
103  Bangladesh 86,392 66,438 230,390
104  Taiwan 83,231 43,016 119,419
105  Eritrea 77,728 61,817 195,328
106  Trinidad and Tobago 74,199 25,284 79,329
107  East Timor 70,326 25,648 85,200
108  Sudan 68,148 19,827 1,954,216
109  Cambodia 62,515 62,515 243,550
110  Guinea 59,426 44,755 305,283
111  Croatia 59,032 50,277 115,626
112  United Arab Emirates 58,218 57,474 141,818
113  Germany 57,485 57,485 414,599
114  Malta 54,823 5,301 55,139
115  Estonia 36,992 36,992 82,219
116  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 36,302 1,561 36,691
117  Belize 35,351 13,178 58,317
118  Bulgaria 34,307 10,426 145,186
119  Benin 33,221 2,721 145,843
120  Qatar 31,590 31,590 43,176
121  Congo, Republic of the 31,017 7,982 373,017
122  Poland 29,797 29,797 342,482
123  Dominica 28,985 659 29,736
124  Latvia 28,452 27,772 93,011
125  Grenada 27,426 2,237 27,770
126  Israel 26,352 3,745 48,424
127  Romania 23,627 19,303 262,018
128  Gambia 23,112 5,581 34,407
129  Georgia 21,946 3,243 91,646
130  Lebanon 19,516 1,067 29,968
131  Cameroon 16,547 11,420 491,989
132  Saint Lucia 15,617 544 16,156
133  Albania 13,691 6,979 42,439
134  Togo 12,045 1,265 68,830
135  Kuwait 11,026 11,026 28,844
136  Syria 10,503 1,085 195,683
137  Bahrain 10,225 10,225 10,975
138  Brunei 10,090 8,509 15,855
139  Saint Kitts and Nevis 9,974 653 10,235
140  Montenegro 7,745 3,896 21,557
141  Djibouti 7,459 3,187 30,659
142  Lithuania 7,031 7,031 72,331
143  Belgium 3,447 3,447 33,975
144  Democratic Republic of the Congo 1,606 1,593 2,346,464
145  Singapore 1,067 1,067 1,772
146  Iraq 771 771 439,088
147  Monaco 288 2 290
148  Palestine 256 256 6,276
149  Slovenia 220 220 20,493
150  Jordan 166 59 89,508
151  Bosnia and Herzegovina 50 50 51,259
152  Kazakhstan 2,724,900
153  Mongolia 1,564,100
154  Chad 1,284,000
155  Niger 1,267,000
156  Mali 1,240,192
157  Ethiopia 1,104,300
158  Bolivia 1,098,581
159  Zambia 752,612
160  Afghanistan 652,090
161  Central African Republic 622,984
162  South Sudan 619,745
163  Botswana 582,000
164  Turkmenistan 488,100
165  Uzbekistan 447,400
166  Paraguay 406,752
167  Zimbabwe 390,757
168  Burkina Faso 274,222
169  Uganda 241,038
170  Laos 236,800
171  Belarus 207,600
172  Kyrgyzstan 199,951
173    Nepal 147,181
174  Tajikistan 143,100
175  Malawi 118,484
176  Hungary 93,028
177  Azerbaijan 86,600
178  Austria 83,871
179  Czech Republic 78,867
180  Serbia 77,474
181  Slovakia 49,035
182   Switzerland 41,284
183  Bhutan 38,394
184  Moldova 33,846
185  Lesotho 30,355
186  Armenia 29,743
187  Burundi 27,834
188  Rwanda 26,338
189  Macedonia 25,713
190  Swaziland 17,364
191  Kosovo[a] 10,887
192  Luxembourg 2,586
193  Andorra 468
194  Liechtenstein 160
195  San Marino 61
196   Vatican City 0.44
Total  United Nations 137,159,222 25,103,204 274,004,586

See also

Notes and references

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1143

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

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 1142, September 18, 2018, — Breaking — Story 1: President Trump Joint Press Conference With Poland’s President Andrzej Duda — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Orders Declassification and Release of All Documents Pertaining To FISA Court Application for Surveillance Warrant for Carter Page and Text Messages of Ohr, Strzok, Lisa Page, former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Without Redaction — Videos — Story 3: Trump Slaps 10% Tariffs On $200 Billion Communist China Exports to United States Rising To 25% in January 2019 — Videos — Story 4: Even The Court of Public Opinion Has A Statue of Limitations — Dr. Ford Has A Choice — Testify In An Open Public Televised Hearing And Answer All Questions About What Happened Over 35 or 36 Years Ago or Refuse To Testify — Either Way Judge Brett Kavanaugh Will Be Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice — What’s Next? — Who’s Your Daddy? JFK Love Child Accuses Altar Boy of Unnatural Acts 55 Years Ago — Hit Me With Your Best Shot — We Will Rock You — Raise Your Glass — Videos

Posted on September 19, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, Addiction, American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Cartoons, Communications, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government Dependency, Health, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Independence, James Comey, Killing, Language, Law, Life, Lying, Media, Mental Illness, National Interest, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Security, Senate, Sexual Harrasment, Spying, Surveillance/Spying, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1142, September 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1141, September 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1140, September 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1139, September 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1138, September 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1137, September 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1136, September 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1135, September 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1134, September 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1133, August 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1132, August 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1131, August 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1130, August 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1129, August 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1128, August 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1127, August 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1126, August 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1125, August 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1124, August 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1123, August 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1117, July 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1116, July 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1115, July 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1114, July 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1113, July 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1112, July 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1111, July 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1110, July 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1109, July 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1108, July 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1107, July 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1106, July 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1105, July 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1104, July 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1103, July 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1102, JUly 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1101, July 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1100, June 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1099, June 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1098, June 25, 2018 

Pronk Pops Show 1097, June 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1096, June 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1095, June 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1094, June 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1093, June 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1092, June 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1091, June 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1090, June 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1089, June 7, 2018

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

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 imageSee the source imageSee the source image

 

 

Breaking — Story 1: President Trump Joint Press Conference With Poland’s President Andrzej Duda — Videos

Watch Live: Donald Trump hosts a joint press conference with the President of Poland, Andrzej Duda

Story 2: President Trump Orders Declassification and Release of All Documents Pertaining To Trump/Russian Collusion and FISA Court Application for Surveillance Warrant for Carter Page and Text Messages of Ohr, Strzok, Lisa Page, former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Without Redactions — Videos —

Sean Hannity Sep 17, 2018 | Sean Hannity Fox News Today

Lou Dobbs Tonight 9/17/18 | Fox News September 17, 2018

Trump orders feds to declassify key FISA documents, text messages in FBI Russia probe

 

Story 3: Trump Slaps 10% Tariffs On $200 Billion Communist China Exports to United States Rising To 25% in January 2019 — Videos

Trump’s $200 billion tariffs on Chinese goods is ‘done deal’

Lou Dobbs Tonight 9/17/18 | Fox News September 17, 2018

Trump tells aides he wants to move ahead with $200 billion in China tariffs: report

Is the trade war about to kill the bull market?

Trump tells aides he wants to move ahead with $200 billion in China tariffs: report

of China, for whom I have great respect and affection.”

Read Trump’s full statement announcing the new tariffs below:

Today, following seven weeks of public notice, hearings, and extensive opportunities for comment, I directed the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to proceed with placing additional tariffs on roughly $200 billion of imports from China. The tariffs will take effect on September 24, 2018, and be set at a level of 10 percent until the end of the year. On January 1, the tariffs will rise to 25 percent. Further, if China takes retaliatory action against our farmers or other industries, we will immediately pursue phase three, which is tariffs on approximately $267 billion of additional imports.

We are taking this action today as a result of the Section 301 process that the USTR has been leading for more than 12 months. After a thorough study, the USTR concluded that China is engaged in numerous unfair policies and practices relating to United States technology and intellectual property – such as forcing United States companies to transfer technology to Chinese counterparts. These practices plainly constitute a grave threat to the long-term health and prosperity of the United States economy.

For months, we have urged China to change these unfair practices, and give fair and reciprocal treatment to American companies. We have been very clear about the type of changes that need to be made, and we have given China every opportunity to treat us more fairly. But, so far, China has been unwilling to change its practices. To counter China’s unfair practices, on June 15, I announced that the United States would impose tariffs of 25 percent on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports. China, however, still refuses to change its practices – and indeed recently imposed new tariffs in an effort to hurt the United States economy.

As President, it is my duty to protect the interests of working men and women, farmers, ranchers, businesses, and our country itself. My Administration will not remain idle when those interests are under attack.

China has had many opportunities to fully address our concerns. Once again, I urge China’s leaders to take swift action to end their country’s unfair trade practices. Hopefully, this trade situation will be resolved, in the end, by myself and President Xi of China, for whom I have great respect and affection.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/trump-puts-new-tariffs-on-china-as-trade-war-escalates.html

 

Story 4: Even The Court of Public Opinion Has A Statue of Limitations — Dr. Ford Has A Choice — Testify In An Open Public Televised Hearing And Answer All Questions About What Happened Over 35 or 36 Years Ago or Refuse To Testify — Either Way Judge Brett Kavanaugh Will Be Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice — What’s Next? — Who’s Your Daddy? JFK Love Child Accuses Altar Boy of Unnatural Acts 55 Years Ago — Hit Me With Your Best Shot — We Will Rock You — Raise Your Glass — Videos

TrumpTV Tucker claims Kavanaugh abt #AbortionNot #RapeAllegations Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

Hannity: Dems Not Interested In Full Truth About Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI probe before she testifies

Mitch McConnell & Senate Republicans Press Conference 9/18/18 Kavanaugh Accuser & Monday Hearing

Ingraham Says Dems Have Been ‘Salivating’ for Another Thomas-Hill ‘Spectacle’

What Pisses Me Off About The Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Accusations

Kavanaugh Accuser Has Not Agreed To Appear At Public Hearing Next Monday

Sen. Kamala Harris says she believes Kavanaugh accuser: “She has nothing to gain”

Ex-clerk: Allegations not the Kavanaugh I knew

Brett Kavanaugh Allegation Echoes Anita Hill Bombshell | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC

Jordan Peterson & Bryan Callen – Sexual Misconduct, the Unforgivable Sin

Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia on rape

Professor Jordan B. Peterson On Modern Sexual Relationships & The Legality Of Abortion

Jordan Peterson: How to Heal from PTSD/Trauma

[youtub=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snke9v4S2rU]

Jordan Peterson on fixing your past

Jordan Peterson “There are different forms of memory”

Jordan Peterson on the daycare scandals of the 80’s

Jordan Peterson: Repression & other defense mechanisms

Jordan Peterson on the #Metoo Moment

Ben Shapiro – #METOO Movement Going Wildly Wrong | The Aziz Ansari Case

Is #MeToo Falling Apart? | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 454

Repressed and Suppressed Memories – Teal Swan –

False Memory – Teal Swan –

Defamation

Tort Law – Defamation

What is Defamation, Slander, & Libel – Quick Lessons – Episode # 3

JFK’s Intern

Marilyn Monroe thought JFK would marry her, book claims

JFK’s Women: Scandals Revealed | CBC

Pretender to Throne of Camelot – JFK’s Love Child

Woman Claims She Is Love Child Of Marilyn Monroe

Seymour Hersh interview (1997)

The Dark Side of JFK: How Kennedy’s Reckless Personal Behavior Imperiled His Presidency (1997)

Dangerous World: The Kennedy Years

President John F. Kennedy Speech on Secret Society

Pat Benatar – Hit Me With Your Best Shot lyrics

Pat Benatar – Hit Me With Your Best Shot (Live)

Pat Benatar – Hit Me With Your Best Shot – Live 2001

Hit Me With Your Best Shot

Well you’re a real tough cookie with a long history
Of breaking little hearts like the one in me
That’s okay, let’s see how you do it
Put up you dukes, let’s get down to it
Hit me with your best shot
Why don’t you hit me with your best shot
Hit me with your best shot
Fire away
You come on with it, come on
You don’t fight fair
That’s okay, see if I care
Knock me down, it’s all in vain
I get right back on my feet again
Hit me with your best shot
Why don’t you hit me with your best shot
Hit me with your best shot
Fire away
Well you’re a real tough cookie with a long history
Of breaking little hearts like the one in me
Before I put another notch in my lipstick case
You better make sure you put me in my place
Hit me with your best shot
C’mon, hit me with your best shot
Hit me with your best shot
Fire away
Hit me with your best shot
Why don’t you hit me with your best shot
Hit me with your best shot
Fire away
Songwriters: Edward Schwartz
Hit Me With Your Best Shot lyrics © Round Hill Music Big Loud Songs

Pepsi Commercial – We Will Rock You (Britney Spears, Pink, Beyonce) – HQ Full Version

Queen – We Will Rock You (Official Video)

P!nk – Raise Your Glass

P!nk – Please Don’t Leave Me (Main Version)

Read the letter Christine Blasey Ford sent accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct

Washington (CNN)The following is the text of the letter Christine Blasey Ford wrote to Sen. Dianne Feinstein detailing an event in which she accuses Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. CNN was not provided a copy of the letter sent to Feinstein, but a source who had the letter read the contents of a redacted version to CNN.

July 30 2018

CONFIDENTIAL
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Senator Feinstein;
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.
Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980’s. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.
Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.
The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.
Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.
From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from “go for it” to “stop.”
At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.
I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.
I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information . It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.
I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.
In confidence, REDACTED.

 

The #MeToo Kavanaugh Ambush

A story this old and unprovable can’t be allowed to delay a Supreme Court confirmation vote.

The woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of a drunken assault when both were teenagers has now come forward publicly, and on Monday it caused Republicans to delay a confirmation vote and schedule another public hearing. Yet there is no way to confirm her story after 36 years, and to let it stop Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation would ratify what has all the earmarks of a calculated political ambush.

This is not to say Christine Blasey Ford isn’t sincere in what she remembers. In an interview published in the Washington Post on Sunday, Ms. Ford offered a few more details of the story she told anonymously starting in July. She says she was 15 when Mr. Kavanaugh, who would have been 17, and a male friend pushed her into a bedroom at a drinking party, held her down, and pawed her until the male friend jumped on them both and she escaped to a bathroom until the two boys left the room.

Potomac Watch Podcast

Brett Kavanaugh’s Nomination
Mr. Kavanaugh denies all this “categorically and unequivocally,” and there is simply no way to prove it. The only witness to the event is Mr. Kavanaugh’s high school male friend, Mark Judge, who also says he recalls no such event. Ms. Ford concedes she told no one about it—not even a high school girl friend or family member—until 2012 when she told the story as part of couples therapy with her husband.

The vagaries of memory are well known, all the more so when they emerge in the cauldron of a therapy session to rescue a marriage. Experts know that human beings can come to believe firmly over the years that something happened when it never did or is based on partial truth. Mistaken identity is also possible.

The Post reports that the therapist’s notes from 2012 say there were four male assailants, but Ms. Ford says that was a mistake. Ms. Ford also can’t recall in whose home the alleged assault took place, how she got there, or how she got home that evening.

This is simply too distant and uncorroborated a story to warrant a new hearing or to delay a vote. We’ve heard from all three principals, and there are no other witnesses to call. Democrats will use Monday’s hearing as a political spectacle to coax Mr. Kavanaugh into looking defensive or angry, and to portray Republicans as anti-women. Odds are it will be a circus.

***

The timing and details of how Ms. Ford came forward, and how her name was coaxed into public view, should also raise red flags about the partisan motives at play. The Post says Ms. Ford contacted the paper via a tip line in July but wanted to remain anonymous. She then brought her story to a Democratic official while still hoping to stay anonymous.

Yet she also then retained a lawyer, Debra Katz, who has a history of Democratic activism and spoke in public defense of Bill Clinton against the accusations by Paula Jones. Ms. Katz urged Ms. Ford to take a polygraph test. The Post says she passed the polygraph, though a polygraph merely shows that she believes the story she is telling.

The more relevant question is why go to such lengths if Ms. Ford really wanted her name to stay a secret? Even this weekend she could have chosen to remain anonymous. These are the actions of someone who was prepared to go public from the beginning if she had to.

The role of Senator Dianne Feinstein is also highly irregular and transparently political. The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee knew about Ms. Ford’s accusations in late July or early August yet kept quiet. If she took it seriously, she had multiple opportunities to ask Judge Kavanaugh or have committee staff interview the principals. But in that event the details would have been vetted and Senators would have had time to assess their credibility.

Instead Ms. Feinstein waited until the day before a committee markup on the nomination to release a statement that she had “information” about the accusation and had sent it to the FBI. Her statement was a political stunt.

She was seeking to insulate herself from liberal charges that she sat on the letter. Or—and this seems increasingly likely given the course of events—Senator Feinstein was holding the story to spring at the last minute in the hope that events would play out as they have. Surely she knew that once word of the accusation was public, the press would pursue the story and Ms. Ford would be identified by name one way or another.

***

Democrats waited until Ms. Ford went public to make public statements. But clearly some were feeding the names of Ms. Ford and her lawyer to the press, and now they are piling on what they hope will be an election-eve #MeToo conflagration.

“Senator [and Judiciary Chairman] Grassley must postpone the vote until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated,” declared Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday. “For too long, when women have made serious allegations of abuse, they have been ignored. That cannot happen in this case.”

His obvious political goal is to delay the confirmation vote past the election, fan the #MeToo political furies until then, and hope that at least two GOP Senators wilt under political pressure. If Republican Senators Jeff Flake and Bob Corker think a hearing will satisfy Mr. Schumer, they are right to retire from politics.

GOP Senators should understand that the political cost of defeating Mr. Kavanaugh will likely include the loss of the Senate. Democrats are already motivated to vote against Donald Trump, and if Republicans panic now their own voters will rightly be furious. They would be letting Democrats get away with the same dirty trick they tried and failed to pull off against Clarence Thomas.

It would also be a serious injustice to a man who has by all accounts other than Ms. Ford’s led a life of respect for women and the law. Every #MeToo miscreant is a repeat offender. The accusation against Mr. Kavanaugh is behavior manifested nowhere else in his life.

No one, including Donald Trump, needs to attack Ms. Ford. She believes what she believes. This is not he said-she said. This is a case of an alleged teenage encounter, partially recalled 30 years later without corroboration, and brought forward to ruin Mr. Kavanaugh’s reputation for partisan purposes.

Letting an accusation that is this old, this unsubstantiated and this procedurally irregular defeat Mr. Kavanaugh would also mean weaponizing every sexual assault allegation no matter the evidence. It will tarnish the #MeToo cause with the smear of partisanship, and it will unleash even greater polarizing furies.

Appeared in the September 18, 2018, print edition.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-metoo-kavanaugh-ambush-1537197395

Doubts arise over whether Trump court nominee’s accuser will testify

2 pages, 0.73 MB

“Dr. Ford’s testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events,” he said in a statement. “Nothing the F.B.I. or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay.”

Mr. Trump joined other Republicans in rejecting an F.B.I. investigation of the long-ago episode even before Dr. Blasey’s letter was sent on Tuesday evening. The bureau “said that they really don’t do that, that’s not what they do,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference. “And now they have done supposedly six background checks over the years as Judge Kavanaugh has gone beautifully up the ladder.”

In the letter to the Judiciary Committee, Dr. Blasey’s lawyers said that she has been the target of “vicious harassment and even death threats” since her name was made public on Sunday in an interview published in The Washington Post. Her email has been hacked, she has been impersonated online and she and her family have been forced to relocate out of their home, according to the lawyers, Ms. Banks and her partner, Debra S. Katz.

“While Dr. Ford’s life was being turned upside down, you and your staff scheduled a public hearing for her to testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh in front of two dozen U.S. Senators on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident,” the lawyers wrote to Mr. Grassley. The hearing “would include interrogation by senators who appear to have made up their minds that she is ‘mistaken’ and ‘mixed up.’”

Dr. Blasey, who is sometimes referred to by her married name, Ford, “wants to cooperate with the committee and with law enforcement officials” but believes that a “full investigation” by the F.B.I. would be necessary to form a nonpartisan assessment before any hearing, the lawyers wrote.

Both Dr. Blasey, 51, and Judge Kavanaugh, 53, had said on Monday morning that they were willing to come before the committee. In response, Mr. Grassley postponed a vote on the judge’s confirmation and scheduled the hearing for next week. An aide to Mr. Grassley said that the committee never intended to seat the two witnesses together at one table or even on one panel.

Democrats and Republicans spent much of Tuesday arguing over the scope and shape of what such a hearing would entail. Mr. Grassley told the radio host Hugh Hewitt that Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey would be the only witnesses, prompting pushback from top Democrats.

Another potential witness, Mark Judge, a friend of Judge Kavanaugh’s who Dr. Blasey said was in the room when the assault occurred, told the Judiciary Committee he does not remember it. “I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes,” he said in a statement sent by his lawyers, adding that “I do not wish to speak publicly” about the matter.

As senators in both parties grappled with how to move forward, Mr. Trump’s advisers and Judge Kavanaugh’s allies appeared to be settling on a strategy of defending him by suggesting that this must be a case of mistaken identity. Under the emerging strategy, Judge Kavanaugh’s defenders would accept that Dr. Blasey was in fact assaulted but would insist that it must have been by someone other than Judge Kavanaugh because he denied it.

The approach reflects the shifting reality of the #MeToo movement when it has become politically perilous to directly attack the credibility of women who come forward to tell their stories. By suggesting that perhaps there was confusion after more than 30 years, White House allies said that they could offer wavering Republicans whose votes are critical for his confirmation another explanation for the he-said-she-said conflict without tearing down Dr. Blasey.

Image
Senator Charles E. Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, had failed so far to respond to his requests to testify in front of the panel.CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times

The line of defense seemed to be previewed on Monday when Judge Kavanaugh called Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and a member of the Judiciary Committee, to discuss the allegations. Mr. Hatch told reporters afterward that he believed Judge Kavanaugh. “I think she’s mistaken something” or is “mixed up,” he said.

Two people familiar with the call, who did not want to be identified discussing it, said the judge insisted to Mr. Hatch that he did not do what he was accused of and then, in response to a question, agreed it was possible Dr. Blasey was thinking of somebody else.

Judge Kavanaugh has told associates that he did not know who his accuser was until she identified herself in The Post and that, once he saw her name, he vaguely recalled her being part of the social circle associated with his all-boys high school in suburban Maryland at the time.

A person close to Dr. Blasey, who asked not to be identified to discuss the situation in detail, said Dr. Blasey knew the future Judge Kavanaugh in passing before the gathering where she says the attack took place, which could make it harder for his defenders to make a case that she had confused him for someone else.

The conflicting stories generated political fireworks in Washington on Tuesday. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, posted on Twitter a video clip of Judge Kavanaugh speaking at his alma mater, Georgetown Preparatory School, in 2015. “What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep,” he said to laughter. “That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.”

Ms. Warren added: “I can’t imagine any parent accepting this view. Is this really what America wants in its next Supreme Court Justice?”

For their part, the White House and other Republicans seized on comments Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, made to Fox News. “I can’t say everything’s truthful,” she said of Dr. Blasey’s account. “I don’t know.”

The White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, cited that and added, “Now clear why top Democrat on Senate Judiciary Committee did nothing with allegation for months or even ask Judge Kavanaugh about it.”

Ms. Feinstein later clarified on Twitter: “During every step of this process, I’ve found every single piece of information from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford eminently credible, sincere and believable.”

Before the sexual assault accusation against President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Mr. Trump weighed in on allegations against several well-known men, including himself. His past statements reveal a man quick to defend other men.Published On

Dr. Blasey’s allegations are inevitably evoking comparisons to 1991 confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment by the law professor Anita F. Hill. The sight of Professor Hill being grilled on national television by an all-white, all-male Judiciary Committee enraged women, contributing to the so-called Year of the Woman in 1992, when scores of women ran for public office.

Republicans, clearly hoping to avoid a repeat of the Hill-Thomas scenario, were considering employing a special counsel or staff member to question Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh. Democrats accused Republicans of trying to rush through a hearing without a proper investigation of serious charges.

“She is under no obligation to participate in the Republican efforts to sweep the whole thing under the rug, to continue this nomination on a fast track,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, who won her Senate seat in 1992. “It’s basically a railroad job. This is what they did to Anita Hill.”

But while Republicans hoped to avoid appearing to aggressively attack Dr. Blasey’s credibility, they made clear on Tuesday that they will vigorously defend Judge Kavanaugh, who until last week seemed on a glide path to confirmation. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the chamber’s No. 2 Republican, called Dr. Blasey’s accusations “a drive-by attack on the character of this judge,” and referred to them as “false allegations,” in remarks on the Senate floor.

Uncharacteristically, the combative Mr. Trump on Tuesday stuck to the strategy of not attacking the accuser directly as well, instead expressing sympathy and faith in Judge Kavanaugh while assailing Democrats for trying to torpedo his nominee.

“I feel so badly for him that he’s going through this, to be honest with you,” Mr. Trump said of the judge. “I feel so badly for him. This is not a man that deserves this.”

The president repeated the attack on Ms. Feinstein for not raising the issue earlier in the confirmation process, given that Dr. Blasey first contacted her in July. “Why didn’t the Democrats bring it up then?” he said. “Because they obstruct and because they resist. That’s the name of their campaign against me.”

For some liberals, the charge of obstructionism rang hollow given that Republicans refused to even meet with President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick B. Garland in 2016. In this case, Ms. Feinstein said she did not raise the issue earlier because Dr. Blasey requested confidentiality. Only after word of the accusations leaked out last week did Dr. Blasey shift gears and agree to be named publicly.

Professor Hill, in an opinion article published Tuesday in The New York Times, warned senators against repeating her experience in 1991.

“That the Senate Judiciary Committee still lacks a protocol for vetting sexual harassment and assault claims that surface during a confirmation hearing,” she wrote, “suggests that the committee has learned little from the Thomas hearing, much less the more recent #MeToo movement.”

Correction: 

An earlier version of this article misstated what Mark Judge told the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said that he does not remember the episode, not that he does.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/christine-blasey-ford-kavanaugh-senate-hearing.html

JFK may have been a worse philanderer than Trump. Does it matter?

JFK may have been a worse philanderer than Trump. Does it matter?
John F. Kennedy and first lady Jacqueline Kennedy at a ball in Washington on Jan. 20, 1961. (Associated Press)

As Americans get ready to hear Stormy Daniels spill the story of her alleged 2006 affair with President Trump, we might want to acknowledge that she isn’t the first adult entertainer to reportedly hook up with a future president. In 1955, the politician was Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kennedy and the other woman was a stripper named Tempest Storm. The different manner in which Americans have digested these parallel tales reveals a lot about how our nation has evolved — and not — over the past half century.

Tempest Storm, born Annie Blanche Banks in Eastman, Ga., was an internationally famous burlesque star by her mid-20s and headlined feature films such as “French Peep Show” and “Striptease Girl.” She first encountered Kennedy after a performance at the Casino Royale in Washington, D.C.

She later wrote in her memoir that she had no idea who Kennedy was and had little interest in talking with him initially. But she was taken by the senator’s “stunning good looks,” and said their sexual relationship began the next evening. She said their occasional trysts, which ended well before he became president, typically took place at the Mayflower Hotel. According to Storm, who is now 90, Kennedy confided “that he was not happily married, that Jackie was cold toward him.”

The largely male Washington press corps looked the other way then and likewise kept Kennedy insulated from sexual scandal during his presidency. Not until 1975, when the name of his mistress Judith Campbell popped up during a congressional hearing, did most Americans realize Kennedy had been unfaithful to his wife. Still, when Campbell wrote her well-documented 1977 memoir about the multi-year affair, Kennedy loyalists did their best to discredit and degrade her.

Tempest Storm’s 1987 memoir got similar dismissive treatment. The mainstream press ignored it as undignified gossip. The tide turned only when several academic Kennedy biographers acknowledged that her story meshed with their research. For instance, in 1955, Kennedy indeed was temporarily living in a suite at the Mayflower Hotel where he also spent intimate evenings with other lovers, including actresses Lee Remick and Audrey Hepburn.

Kennedy’s track record as a playboy and philanderer may well have been even worse than Trump’s is. Remarkably, this information still remains largely buried by the work of countless apologists over the decades — including journalists and biographers who continue to minimize Kennedy’s extramarital sexual adventures. Take the fawning 2011 bestseller “Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero” by the MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who has been reprimanded by his network for sexual harassment. According to the TV pundit, after marrying Jackie in 1953, Kennedy simply decided not “to forgo his bachelor pleasures.”

But the details are considerably more disturbing. During his presidency, Kennedy engaged in casual sex with dozens of women, including strangers whom aides would procure for him. And while Trump presumably confined his grabbing of women’s genitals to his pre-presidential days, Kennedy continued to do so while living in the people’s house. As described by biographer Geoffrey Perret, Kennedy “brazenly put his hand up their skirts, propositioned them within minutes of meeting and groped their breasts and buttocks even as he danced with them.”

Sometimes a porn star is just a porn star. But for JFK, as for Trump, his inability to resist her allure indicates a much deeper character issue. And yet a romanticized image of Kennedy still survives intact. Even as Americans debate what to make of Trump’s reported lover with the weather-themed name, our nostalgia endures for the “Mad Men” era, when lecherous behavior was viewed not as a potential violation of the civil rights of women, but as the right of powerful men.

JFK (decidedly unlike Trump) did have some shining moments as a leader. One was his famous and eloquent speech on civil rights in June 1963. “We are confronted primarily with a moral issue,” he said. “It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution. The heart of the question is… whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated.”

That is still the heart of the question, as the #MeToo movement reminds us.

Joshua Kendall is the author of “First Dads: Parenting and Politics from George Washington to Barack Obama.” He is writing a book about how the #MeToo movement will affect our view of presidential history.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kendall-tempest-storm-presidential-affairs-20180324-story.html

How JFK Turned The White House Into The Playboy Mansion

Published January 22, 2018
Updated January 26, 2018

According to the interviews with Secret Service agents and White House insiders, JFK’s women were often prostitutes supplied by organized crime figures.

John F. Kennedy

U.S. Embassy New Delhi/FlickrJohn F. Kennedy

John F. Kennedy remains one of America’s most respected and admired presidents more than forty years after his assassination. But for all his charisma and ability to navigate through some of the worst crises in U.S. history, there are many rumors that suggest that JFK may have some dark secrets yet to be uncovered.

The book describes in detail Kennedy’s womanizing. Hersh relays how Kennedy frequently used the Secret Service to help him smuggle women — it was often more than one — into the White House for daily trysts. According to the interviews Hersh collected from Secret Service agents and White House insiders, these women were often prostitutes supplied by organized crime figures.

According to one of the Secret Service agents Hersh interviewed, Kennedy liked to keep records of his activities in the form of photographs which he sent the agents to have framed. Sidney Mickelson, who ran an art gallery in D.C. with close ties to the White House, went into more detail about these photographs in an interview with Hersh.

“Over a number of years, we framed a number of photographs of people — naked and often lying on beds — in the Lincoln Room,” Mickelson said, “The women were always beautiful.” Some of these photos also included the President himself according to Mickelson, though he pointed out that the figures were usually wearing masks. So although the Secret Service agents told him it was Kennedy in the photos, it’s hard to say for certain.

Many historians have described Kennedy as a compulsive womanizer. And while he wasn’t the only President to stray outside the bounds of marriage in office, he probably took it to the farthest extremes.

Kennedy famously complained that if he didn’t have sex at least once a day, he would start getting headaches. He seems to have taken that very seriously, with a long string of extra-marital affairs that spanned over the three years he was in office. The women JFK was involved with ranged from movie stars like Marilyn Monroe to young White House interns and even to women who may have been closely linked to the Mafia.

Marilyn Monroe in Niagara

Wikimedia CommonsMarilyn Monroe in the 1953 film Niagara.

During the 1960 Presidential Campaign, JFK began an affair with a woman named Judith Campbell Exner. Exner was a Los Angeles socialite who was romantically involved with figures like Frank Sinatra and notorious mobster Sam Giancana. According to Exner, she served as a courier between Giancana and JFK as the two worked on plans to assassinate Fidel Castro.

According to Hersh, Giancana may even have helped rig the 1960 election in Kennedy’s favor in a few states where Kennedy’s lead was particularly narrow. But ultimately, we will probably never know if that accusation is true or not. Just like we can’t be sure just how Kennedy conducted his affairs while he was in office.

But they’re a good reminder that people should never worship heroes blindly. Even the best of them can have skeletons in the closet.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/jfk-homemade-pornography

Statute of limitations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Statutes of limitations are laws passed by legislative bodies in common law systems to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated.[1]

When the period of time specified in a statute of limitations passes, a claim might no longer be filed, or, if filed, may be liable to be struck out if the defense against that claim is, or includes, that the claim is time-barred as having been filed after the statutory limitations period. When a statute of limitations expires in a criminal case, the courts no longer have jurisdiction. Most crimes that have statutes of limitations are distinguished from serious crimes as these may be brought at any time.

In civil law systems, similar provisions are typically part of their civil or criminal codes and known collectively as periods of prescription. The cause of action dictates the statute of limitations, which can be reduced (or extended) to ensure a fair trial.[2] The intention of these laws is to facilitate resolution within a “reasonable” length of time.[3] What period of time is considered “reasonable” varies from country to country, and within countries such as the United States from state to state.[4][5] Within countries and states, the statute of limitations may vary from one civil or criminal action to another. Some nations have no statute of limitations whatsoever.

Analysis of a statute of limitations also requires the examination of any associated statute of repose, tolling provisions, and exclusions.

Applications

Common law legal systems can include a statute specifying the length of time within which a claimant or prosecutor must file a case. In some civil jurisdictions (e.g., California),[1] a case cannot begin after the period specified, and courts have no jurisdiction over cases filed after the statute of limitations has expired. In some other jurisdictions (e.g., New South WalesAustralia), a claim can be filed which may prove to have been brought outside the limitations period, but the court will retain jurisdiction in order to determine that issue, and the onus is on the defendant to plead it as part of their defence, or else the claim will not be statute barred.

Once filed, cases do not need to be resolved within the period specified in the statute of limitations.

Purpose

The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:[6]

  • A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.
  • By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.
  • Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.

In Classical Athens, a five-year statute of limitations was established for all cases except homicide and the prosecution of non-constitutional laws (which had no limitation). Demosthenes wrote that these statutes of limitations were adopted to control “sycophants” (professional accusers).[7]

The limitation period generally begins when the plaintiff’s cause of action accrues, meaning the date upon which the plaintiff is first able to maintain the cause of action in court, or when the plaintiff first becomes aware of a previous injury (for example, occupational lung diseases such as asbestosis).

Statute of repose

statute of repose limits the time within which an action may be brought based upon when a particular event occurred (such as the completion of construction of a building or the date of purchase of manufactured goods), and does not permit extensions. A statute of limitations is similar to a statute of repose, but may be extended for a variety of reasons (such as the minority of the victim).

For example, most U.S. jurisdictions have passed statutes of repose for construction defects.[8][9][10][11] If a person receives an electric shock due to a wiring defect that resulted from the builder’s negligence during construction of a building, the builder is potentially liable for damages if the suit is brought within the time period defined by the statute, normally starting with the date that construction is substantially completed. After the statutory time period has passed, without regard to the nature or degree of the builder’s negligence or misconduct, the statute of repose presents an absolute defense to the claim.

Statutes of repose are sometimes controversial; manufacturers contend that they are necessary to avoid unfair litigation and encourage consumers to maintain their property. Alternatively, consumer advocates argue that they reduce incentives to manufacture durable products and disproportionately affect the poor, because manufacturers will have less incentive to ensure low-cost or “bargain” products are manufactured to exacting safety standards.

Tolling and the discovery rule

Many jurisdictions suspend, or toll, the limitation period under certain circumstances such as if the aggrieved party (plaintiff) was a minor or filed a bankruptcy proceeding. In those instances, the running of limitations is tolled, or paused, until the condition ends. Equitable tolling may also be applied if an individual may intimidate a plaintiff into not reporting or has been promised a suspended period.

The statute of limitations may begin when the harmful event, such as fraud or injury, occurs or when it is discovered. The US Supreme Court has described the “standard rule” of when the time begins as “when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action.” The rule has existed since the 1830s.[12] A “discovery rule” applies in other cases (including medical malpractice), or a similar effect may be applied by tolling.

As discussed in Wolk v. Olson, the discovery rule does not apply to mass media such as newspapers and the Internet; the statute of limitations begins to run at the date of publication. In 2013, the US Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled in Gabelli v. SEC that the discovery rule does not apply to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission‘s investment-advisor-fraud lawsuits since one of the purposes of the agency is to root out fraud.[13]

In private civil matters, the limitations period may generally be shortened or lengthened by agreement of the parties. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the parties to a contract for sale of goods may reduce the limitations period to one year but not extend it.

Limitation periods that are known as laches may apply in situations of equity; a judge will not issue an injunction if the requesting party waited too long to ask for it. Such periods are subject to broad judicial discretion.

For US military cases, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) states that all charges except those facing court-martial on a capital charge have a five-year statute of limitations. If the charges are dropped in all UCMJ proceedings except those headed for general court-martial, they may be reinstated for six months after which the statute of limitations has run out.

Prescription

In civil law countries, almost all lawsuits must be brought within a legally-determined period known as prescription. Under Italian[14] and Romanian law,[15] criminal trials must be ended within a time limit.

In criminal cases, the public prosecutor must lay charges within a time limit which varies by jurisdiction and varies based on the nature of the charge; in many jurisdictions, there is no statute of limitations for murder.[citation needed] Over the last decade of the 20th century, many United States jurisdictions significantly lengthened the statute of limitations for sex offenses, particularly against children, as a response to research and popular belief that a variety of causes can delay the recognition and reporting of crimes of this nature.[citation needed]

Common triggers for suspending the prescription include a defendant’s fugitive status or the commission of a new crime. A criminal may be convicted in absentia.[16] Prescription should not be confused with the need to prosecute within “a reasonable delay” as obligated by the European Court of Human Rights.

Laws by region

International crimes

Under international lawgenocidecrimes against humanity and war crimes are usually not subject to the statute of limitations as codified in a number of multilateral treaties. States ratifying the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity agree to disallow limitations claims for these crimes. In Article 29 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes “shall not be subject to any statute of limitations”.

Australia

The Limitations Act of 1958 allows 12 years for child survivors and the disabled to make a claim, with age 37 the latest at which a claim can be made. The police submitted evidence[17][not in citation given] to a commission, the Victorian Inquiry into Church and Institutional Child Abuse (in existence since 2012) indicating that it takes an average of 24 years for a survivor of child sexual abuse to go to the police.[18] According to Attorney General Robert Clark, the government will remove statutes of limitations on criminal child abuse; survivors of violent crime should be given additional time, as adults, to deal with the legal system.[19] Offenders of minors and the disabled have used the statute of limitations to avoid detection and prosecution, moving from state to state and country to country; an example presented to the Victorian Inquiry was the Christian Brothers.[20]

An argument for abolishing statutes of limitations for civil claims by minors and people under guardianship is ensuring that abuse of vulnerable people would be acknowledged by lawyers, police, organisations and governments, with enforceable penalties for organisations which have turned a blind eye in the past. Support groups such as SNAP Australia,[21] Care Leavers Australia Network[22] and Broken Rites have submitted evidence to the Victoria inquiry,[23] and the Law Institute of Victoria[24] has advocated changes to the statute of limitations.

Canada

For crimes other than summary conviction offences, there is no statute of limitations in Canadian criminal law. For indictable (serious) offences such as major theft, murder, kidnapping or sexual assault, a defendant may be charged at any future date;[25] in some cases, warrants have remained outstanding for more than 20 years.[26]

Civil law limitations vary by province,[27] with Ontario introducing the Limitations Act, 2002 on January 1, 2004.[28]

Germany

In Germany, the statute of limitations on crimes varies by type of crime, with the highest being 30 years for second-degree murder (Totschlag). First-degree murder, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crime of aggression have no statute of limitations.

First-degree murder used to have 20 years’ statute of limitations, which was then extended to 30 years in 1969. The limitations were abolished altogether in 1979, to prevent Nazi criminals from avoiding criminal liability.

For most other criminal offences, the statute of limitations is set by Section 78(3) of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) as follows:

  • 30 years for offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment for life;
  • 20 years for offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of over 10 years but not by imprisonment for life;
  • 10 years for offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of over 5 years but no more than 10 years;
  • 5 years for offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of over 1 year but no more than 5 years;
  • 3 years for all other offences.[29]

In the civil code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), the regular statute of limitations is three years (plus the time until the end of the calendar year). However, different terms between two and thirty years may apply in specific situations. For example, the term is only two years for claims for alleged defects of purchased goods, but 30 years for claims resulting from a court judgement (such as awarded damages).

India

The statute of limitations in India is defined by the Limitations Act, 1963.[30]

The statute of limitations for criminal offences is governed by Sec. 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Norway

The statute of limitations on murder was abolished by a change in law on 1 July 2014, causing any murders committed after 1 July 1989 to have no statute of limitations. This led to the national police force implementing a new investigation group for old cases called the “Cold Case” group. The law was also changed to let cases involving domestic violence, forced marriage, human trafficking and genital mutilation to count from the day the defendant turns 18 years old. Cases where the statute of limitations has already passed can not be extended due to the constitution preventing it.[31]

South Korea

In July 2015, the National Assembly abolished a 25-year-old statute on first degree murder; it had previously been extended from 15 to 25 years in December 2007.

United Kingdom

Unlike other European countries, the United Kingdom has no statute of limitations for any criminal offence. Following a number of acquittals and wrongful convictions of people charged with serious sexual crimes alleged to have been committed several decades prior, there has been some debate as to whether there should be a statute of limitations for historical rape and sexual assault cases, as prosecutions rely solely on personal testimonies and have no physical or scientific evidence due to the passage of time.[32]

United States

In the United States, statutes of limitations may apply to both civil lawsuits and to criminal prosecutions. Statutes of limitations vary significantly between U.S. jurisdictions.

Civil statutes

A civil statute of limitations applies to a non-criminal legal action, including a tort or contract case.[4] If the statute of limitations expires before a lawsuit is filed, the defendant may raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense to seek dismissal of the charge.

Criminal statutes

A criminal statute of limitations defines a time period during which charges must be initiated for a criminal offense.[33] If a charge is filed after the statute of limitations expires, the defendant may obtain dismissal of the charge.[34]

Initiation of charges

The statute of limitations in a criminal case only runs until a criminal charge is filed and a warrant is issued, even if the defendant is a fugitive.[35]

When the identity of a defendant is not known, some jurisdictions provide mechanisms to initiate charges and thus stop the statute of limitations from running. For example, some states allow an indictment of a “John Doe” defendant based upon a DNA profile derived from evidence obtained through a criminal investigation.[36] Although rare, a grand jury can issue an indictment in absentia for high-profile crimes to get around an upcoming statute of limitations deadline. One example is the skyjacking of Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 305 by D.B. Cooper in 1971. The identity of D. B. Cooper remains unknown to this day, and he was indicted under the name “John Doe, aka Dan Cooper.” [37]

Heinous crimes

Crimes considered heinous by society have no statute of limitations. Although there is usually no statute of limitations for murder (particularly first-degree murder), judges have been known to dismiss murder charges in cold cases if they feel the delay violates the defendant’s right to a speedy trial.[38] For example, waiting many years for an alibi witness to die before commencing a murder trial would be unconstitutional. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court in Stogner v. California ruled that the retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law.[39]

Military law

Under the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), desertion has no statute of limitations.[40]

Maritime Injury Law

Under 46 U.S. Code § 30106, “Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of a maritime tort must be brought within 3 years after the cause of action arose.” There are some exceptions to this, primarily with regard to Jones Act cases filed against the government, in which case the statute of limitations can be less than 2 years. [41]

State laws
State Misdemeanor Felony Notes
Wyoming No No No statute of limitations

Exceptions

U.S. jurisdictions recognize exceptions to statutes of limitation that may allow for the prosecution of a crime or civil lawsuit even after the statute of limitations would otherwise have expired. Some states stop the clock for a suspect who is not residing within the state or is purposely hiding. Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina have no statutes of limitation for felonies, while Wyoming includes misdemeanors as well. However, the right to speedy trial may derail any prosecution after many years have passed.[42]

Fraud upon the court

When an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to impair the court’s impartial performance of its legal task, the act (known as fraud upon the court) is not subject to a statute of limitation. Officers of the court include lawyers, judges, referees, legal guardians, parenting-time expeditors, mediators, evaluators, administrators, special appointees and any others whose influence is part of the judicial mechanism. Fraud upon the court has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication”.[43] In Bulloch v. United States, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled: “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or function—thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”[44]

Continuing-violations doctrine

In tort law, if a defendant commits a series of illegal acts against another person (or in criminal law if someone commits a continuing crime) the limitation period may begin to run from the last act in the series. In the 8th Circuit case of Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications, Inc., the court explained that the continuing-violations doctrine “tolls [freezes] the statute of limitations in situations where a continuing pattern forms due to [illegal] acts occurring over a period of time, as long as at least one incident … occurred within the limitations period.”[45] Whether the continuing-violations doctrine applies to a particular violation is subject to judicial discretion; it was ruled to apply to copyright infringement in Taylor v. Meirick (712 F.2d 1112, 1119; 7th Cir. 1983) but not in Stone v. Williams (970 F.2d 1043, 1049–50; 2d Cir. 1992).[46]

See also

References

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

 

United States defamation law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The origins of the United States‘ defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that “The Truth” is an absolute defense against charges of libel. (Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional “Common Law” of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”. Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbid libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be patently false. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

The First Amendment guarantees of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press provide defendants in the United States significantly more protection than the countries of the Commonwealth and Europe.[citation needed] Some variation exists among the several states to the extent the state’s legislature has passed statutes or its courts have handed down decisions affecting the contours inherited from the common law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws.

Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states, and is constitutionally permitted in circumstances essentially identical to those where civil libel liability is constitutional. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being “fair comment and criticism”, though neither of these are imperatives on the US constitution. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the United States,[1] meaning true statements cannot be defamatory.[2]

Most states recognize that some categories of false statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. (See section Defamation per se.)

 

Development

Laws regulating slander and libel in the United States began to develop even before the American Revolution. In one of the most famous cases, New York City publisher John Peter Zenger was imprisoned for 8 months in 1734 for printing attacks on the governor of the colony. Zenger won his case and was acquitted by jury in 1735 under the counsel of Andrew Hamilton. The case established some precedent that the truth should be an absolute defense against libel charges. Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee. Gouverneur Morris, a major contributor in the framing of the U.S. Constitution said, “The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America“.[3]

Zenger’s case also established that libel cases, though they were civil rather than criminal cases, could be heard by a jury, which would have the authority to rule on the allegations and to set the amount of monetary damages awarded.[4]

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed specifically to protect freedom of the press. However, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states.

In 1964, however, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan376 U.S. 254 (1964) dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate “actual malice” on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case, “actual malice” was defined as “knowledge that the information was false” or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”. This decision was later extended to cover “public figures”, although the standard is still considerably lower in the case of private individuals.

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.418 U.S. 323 (1974), the Supreme Court suggested that a plaintiff could not win a defamation suit when the statements in question were expressions of opinion rather than fact. In the words of the court, “under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea”. However, the Court subsequently rejected the notion of a First Amendment opinion privilege, in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.474 U.S. 953 (1985). In Gertz, the Supreme Court also established a mens rea or culpability requirement for defamation; states cannot impose strict liability because that would run afoul of the First Amendment. This holding differs significantly from most other common law jurisdictions, which still have strict liability for defamation.

In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell485 U.S. 46 (1988), the Supreme Court ruled that a parody advertisement claiming Jerry Falwell had engaged in an incestuous act with his mother in an outhouse, while false, could not allow Falwell to win damages for emotional distress because the statement was so obviously ridiculous that it was clearly not true; an allegation believed by nobody, it was ruled, brought no liability upon the author. The court thus overturned a lower court’s upholding of an award where the jury had decided against the claim of libel but had awarded damages for emotional distress.

After Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), applied the standard publisher/distributor test to find an online bulletin board liable for post by a third party, Congress specifically enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230(1996) to reverse the Prodigy findings and to provide for private blocking and screening of offensive material. § 230(c) states “that no provider or user of an interactive computer shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”, thereby providing forums immunity for statements provided by third parties. Thereafter, cases such as Zeran v. America Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), and Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998), have demonstrated that although courts are expressly uneasy with applying § 230, they are bound to find providers like AOL immune from defamatory postings. This immunity applies even if the providers are notified of defamatory material and neglect to remove it, because provider liability upon notice would likely cause a flood of complaints to providers, would be a large burden on providers, and would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech on the Internet.

In Barrett v. Rosenthal, 146 P.3d 510 (Cal. 2006), the California Supreme Court ruled that 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) does not permit web sites to be sued for libel that was written by other parties.

To solve the problem of libel tourism, the SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts, unless those judgments are compliant with the U.S. First Amendment. The act was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.[5]

In 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court ruled[6] that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages.[7] Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they are negligent i.e., the plaintiff must prove the defendant’s negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued.[8] The Court held that in defamation cases not the identity of the speaker, but rather the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue provide the First Amendment foundation.[9]

Defamation law in modern practice

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.

In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted. Washington State has held its criminal libel statute unconstitutional applying the state and federal constitutions to the question.[10]

Most defendants in defamation lawsuits are newspapers or publishers, which are involved in about twice as many lawsuits as are television stations. Most plaintiffs are corporations, businesspeople, entertainers and other public figures, and people involved in criminal cases, usually defendants or convicts but sometimes victims as well. In no state can a defamation claim be successfully maintained if the allegedly defamed person is deceased.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 generally immunizes from liability parties that create forums on the Internet in which defamation occurs from liability for statements published by third parties. This has the effect of precluding all liability for statements made by persons on the Internet whose identity cannot be determined.

In the various states, whether by case law or legislation, there are generally several “privileges” that can get a defamation case dismissed without proceeding to trial. These include the litigation privilege, which makes statements made in the context of litigation non-actionable, and the allegedly defamatory statement being “fair comment and criticism”, as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest. The United States Supreme Court, however, has declined to hold that the “fair comment” privilege is a constitutional imperative.[citation needed]

One defense is reporting or passing through information as a general information or warning of dangerous or emergent conditions, and intent to defame must be proven. Also, the truth of the allegedly defamatory statement will always negate the claim (whether because the plaintiff fails to meet his/her burden of proving falsity or because the defendant proves the statement to be true).[11]

Defamation per se

All states except ArizonaMissouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven.

Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:[2]

  • Allegations or imputations “injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession”
  • Allegations or imputations of “loathsome disease” (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
  • Allegations or imputations of “unchastity” (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
  • Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)[12][13]

Criminal defamation

On the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States. However, as of 2005,[clarification needed] seventeen states and two territories had criminal defamation laws on the books:

Between 1992 and August 2004, 41 criminal defamation cases were brought to court in the United States, among which six defendants were convicted. From 1965 to 2004, 16 cases ended in final conviction, among which nine resulted in jail sentences (average sentence, 173 days). Other criminal cases resulted in fines (average fine, $1,700), probation (average of 547 days), community service (on average 120 hours), or writing a letter of apology.[17]

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ “Substantial Truth”Digital Media Law Project. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  2. Jump up to:a b “What is a Defamatory Statement”Digital Media Law Project. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  3. Jump up^ attributed to Gouverneur Morris by John Francis, Edinburgh Encyclopedia, American Edition, page 400
  4. Jump up^ Pressman, Steven (1994). “Libel Law in the United States”An Unfettered Press. United States Information Agency. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  5. Jump up^ “Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (2010; 111th Congress H.R. 2765) – GovTrack.us”GovTrack.us.
  6. Jump up^ Arthur L. AlarcónMilan D. Smith, Jr., and Andrew D. Hurwitz(17 January 2014). “United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (12-35238)” (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit caseUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
  7. Jump up^ Levine, Dan (17 January 2014). “Blogger gets same speech protections as traditional press: U.S. court”Reuters. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
  8. Jump up^ Paulson, Ken (24 January 2014). “Bloggers enjoy First Amendment protection against libel suits”. First Amendment Center. Retrieved 2 February 2014.

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

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 1101, July 2, 2018, Story 1: Oldest American, Cigar Smoker, Whisky Drinker and World War II Veteran, Richard Overton, Robbed of Savings and Identity in Austin, Texas — Videos — Story 2: American People vs. Hate America Democrats (HAD) Who Want To Abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) = Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers + Big Lie Media + Progressives + Socialists + Communists Should Move To Mexico — With The 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens In The United States –Videos — Story 3: President Trump Rising In Polls — Videos

Posted on July 2, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Computer, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Extortion, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Gangs, Government, Government Dependency, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Labor Economics, Language, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Mexico, Monetary Policy, Networking, People, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, Presidential Appointments, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rifles, Scandals, Science, Senate, Senator Jeff Sessions, Sexual Harrasment, Spying, Spying on American People, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Trump Surveillance/Spying, U.S. Space Program, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1101, July 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1100, June 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1099, June 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1098, June 25, 2018 

Pronk Pops Show 1097, June 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1096, June 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1095, June 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1094, June 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1093, June 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1092, June 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1091, June 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1090, June 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1089, June 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1088, June 6, 2018 

Pronk Pops Show 1087, June 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1086, May 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1085, May 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1084, May 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1083, May 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1082, May 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1081, May 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1080, May 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1079, May 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1078, May 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1077, May 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1076, May 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1075, May 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1073, May 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1072, May 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1071, May 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1070, May 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1069, May 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1068, April 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1067, April 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1066, April 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1065, April 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1064, April 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1063, April 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1062, April 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1061, April 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1060, April 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1059, April 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1058, April 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1057, April 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1056, April 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1055, April 2, 2018

 

See the source image

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

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

 

 

Story 1: Oldest American, Cigar Smoker, Whisky Drinker and World War II Veteran, Richard Overton, Robbed of Savings and Identity in Austin, Texas — Videos

Thieves drain Richard Overton’s personal bank account

Oldest veteran in US, 112, robbed of savings, identity, family says

Austinite Richard Overton, ‘Nation’s Oldest Veteran’ needs help | 12/2016

Richard Overton, oldest living veteran, turns 112

Street Renamed for Oldest Living WWII Veteran on His 111th Birthday

“Mr. Overton” A documentary about Richard Overton (ORIGINAL)

109-Year-Old Veteran and His Secrets to Life Will Make You Smile | Short Film Showcase

Richard Overton, 111, ‘just keeps living’

Oldest WWII vet relishes cigars, celeb status

 

12-year-old Austin resident, our oldest living veteran, robbed of savings, identity